THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION

THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION

Compiled by Jim Walker

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."

-Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782)

It spite of Christian right attempts to rewrite history to make Jefferson into a Christian, little about his philosophy resembles that of Christianity. Although Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence wrote of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there exists nothing in the Declaration about Christianity.

Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.

Distortions of history occur in the minds of many Christians whenever they see the word "God" embossed in statue or memorial concrete . For example, those who visit the Jefferson Memorial in Washington will read Jefferson's words engraved: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man." When they see the word "God" many Christians see this as "proof" of his Christianity without thinking that 'God' can have many definitions ranging from nature to supernatural. Yet how many of them realize that this passage aimed at attacking the tyranny of the Christian clergy of Philadelphia, or that Jefferson's God was not the personal god of Christianity? Those memorial words came from a letter written to Benjamin Rush in 1800 in response to Rush's warning about the Philadelphia clergy attacking Jefferson (Jefferson was seen as an infidel by his enemies during his election for President). The complete statement reads as follows:

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ."

Jefferson aimed at laissez-faire liberalism in the name of individual freedom, He felt that any form of government control, not only of religion, but of individual mercantilism consisted of tyranny. He thought that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.

If anything can clear of the misconceptions of Jeffersonian history, it can come best from the author himself. Although Jefferson had a complex view of religion, too vast for this article, the following quotes provide a glimpse of how Thomas Jefferson viewed the corruptions of Christianity and religion.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

What is it men cannot be made to believe!

-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.

-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

As you say of yourslef, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.

-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.

I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

To: Looking for Diogenes

I wrote

Given that the same Congress which voted on the First Amendment created had bibles printed, authorised chaplains, held weekly services in Congress, and declared a day of Thanksgiving to celebrate the Bill of Rights, I believe that they had a very different intention with the First Amendment than the one enshrined after 1954.

Looking responded
It has certainly been refined, but I think it is the same intention. Our visions of the Fourth and Fifth and Tenth amendments have also been refined. That is what two hundred and ten years of case law and history will do.
1. The Supreme Court has refined the Consitution into meaning what ever current leftist orthodoxy demands. Read origional intent and early decision and then compare these to the novel approaches (read pure revisionism) of current decisions.
2. Teh 10th Ammendment has, until last year, been ignored since FDR bullied teh court into submitting to socialism.
3. CAse law has no Constitutional standing. It is a guild practice that has been illegally grafted onto Constituional studies. There is no requirement for a Supreme Court to acknowlege any previous decision.

And Congress still has chaplains.
The wall of seperateion is damn pourous by intent.

And we have a Thanksgiving Day every year.
Which is entirely different than having a special day to thang God for a specific event. What we hVe to day is a secular holiday commemorating the Puritan colonization.

And we subsidize the printing of Bibles by tax-exempt churches.
Compare taht to Congress authorising funds to purchase bibles and proselytise to the Indians!

It seems to me that the Reynolds case was legitimate and teh 1954 case on religion in schools was not.

Are you saying that the Reynolds Court was correct to use the Danbury Baptist letter as a guide? But that the 1954 court was wrong to use Reynolds as a precedent? And what 1954 case are you referring to?
I am saying that the Court in the Reynolds case did not misuse the Danbury letter, which is but one solitary opinion, to reshape the Consitution to their agenda. In the 1950's teh USSC did so when it banned teacher-led prayer in Public Schools.

I would also note that nowhere in the Constituion is teh Supreme Court called teh final arbirter of the Consitution. In fact, Congress has the explicit right to take issues out of the range of the USSC.

Ever since Marbury Congresses, Presidents, and the rest of the government have all acknowldeged the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. Even inferior courts make constitutional decisions, following USSC precedents.
Given that the Senate came within a few votes of convicting Justice Chase because of this decision, I must disagree.
At any rate, the fairlure of the government to address an assault on the Constitution does not validate it.
The USSC was supposed to be the weakest branch (read teh Federalist Papers) instead the judicial system has become an oligarchy.

141 posted on 09/09/2002 6:37:03 PM PDT by rmlew

To: Looking for Diogenes

You are the one that keeps missing the point. You just don't get it.Maybe you better look again. You don't understand America and why it has succeeded.The settlers wanted the govt.out of religion not religion out of the govt.The reliance on God's law has made this country unique among nations.The United States is the only country I know of that has stated that our rights are from the laws of God.The first words out of the mouth of George Washington was a prayer that God had a hand in the formation of this country.

142 posted on 09/09/2002 7:03:47 PM PDT by moteineye

To: Enemy Of The State

Bookmarked. I have hours of reading to do. Thanks for the link--I think. :)

143 posted on 09/09/2002 7:10:47 PM PDT by Samwise

To: Enemy Of The State

You aren't going to make the rules buddy.If you don't like the way our public institutions are run, if there is too much God around for you then remove yourself.People are not going to keep giving into you just because you find the public display of affection for God vulgar.We don't have to change because there is a MINORITY that wants to shove their opinion on the majority.Now I am sure you are a great supporter of the ACLU. Fine, I know the ACLU has deep pockets and because of this they have shoved a lot of people around.It is a new day. They have challengers now and the ACLU has been losing.Get used to it.

144 posted on 09/09/2002 7:18:04 PM PDT by moteineye

To: Enemy Of The State

I don't know, I think I hit your problem right on the head.You have made numerous hostile posts.Hostility is not a matter of the mind but of the spirit.A psychiatrist would have wasted your time.
Have a blessed life!

145 posted on 09/09/2002 7:25:11 PM PDT by moteineye

To: Enemy Of The State

There you go again with your non hostile reply. You know I ought to report you for abuse but I wont.You are the one that posted the article. Why? Since you posted this article should we conclude that you agree with the prominence of the Judeo/Christian influence in America. You have made crack after crack about Christianity. Apparently,you go into a rage when you hear the word Christian. No-one convinces anyone of the reality of Jesus Christ. The holy-spirit does that. Yes thankfully,in spite of everything Jesus loves me.I haven't earned it nor do I deserve it. He loves all of mankind,no matter who they are. Jesus loves you too.

147 posted on 09/09/2002 9:35:03 PM PDT by moteineye

Well Ron, you seem to take the words "public square" quite literally. In fact, you're view of sppech in general is quite narrow and seemingly reserved to oral recitation on a soapbox in a park with pigeons. :-)

But, I'm going to prove to you that a school is the public square.

Students in any public school in America can wear jewlery, t-shirts or any other acceptable clothing advertising their religious convictions. They can pray in the hallway, they can proselytise between class and they can sing hymns under the flag pole if they so desire. All of these are speech Ron and it can be Constitutionally exercised in the public square, ie; schools.

Do you think the state can tell me that I can't wear my crucifx around my neck in federal buildings?

148 posted on 09/09/2002 9:50:09 PM PDT by jwalsh07

Nope. The DOI says what it says.

The Pledge of Allegiance says what it says and whats more the SCOTUS has ruled that nobody can be forced to say it. Therefore, those that do say it do so voluntarily and those that wish to omit the words "under God" may do that as well. I don't have a problem with that, why do you have a problem with those of us who prefer to say it?

149 posted on 09/09/2002 9:54:45 PM PDT by jwalsh07

1. The Supreme Court has refined the Consitution into meaning what ever current leftist orthodoxy demands. Read origional intent and early decision and then compare these to the novel approaches (read pure revisionism) of current decisions.

Sandra O'Connor is a leftist?

The point of citing the Danbury Baptist letter is to try to understand original intent.

There is no requirement for a Supreme Court to acknowlege any previous decision.

A couple of sentences ago you were complaining about novel approaches and revisionism. Now you're saying that's OK. Make up your mind.

In the 1950's teh USSC did so when it banned teacher-led prayer in Public Schools.

Oh yeah? And what case was that? No to be unfriendly, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Given that the Senate came within a few votes of convicting Justice Chase because of this decision, I must disagree.

First, his impeachment had nothing to doing with Marbury v Madison. It had to do with enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Act. Second, he was impeached by the House, but not by the Senate. The Senate has 'almost' done many things. 'Almost' doesn't count for much.

150 posted on 09/09/2002 10:48:06 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes

awww..thanks..now I feel all warm and fuzzy inside :-)

151 posted on 09/10/2002 4:34:05 AM PDT by Enemy Of The State

To: Enemy Of The State

You have such a button. I can't resist Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian
A xanax might help. LOL :)

154 posted on 09/10/2002 6:38:34 AM PDT by moteineye

To: Enemy Of The State

155 posted on 09/10/2002 6:41:02 AM PDT by moteineye

To: Enemy Of The State

156 posted on 09/10/2002 7:04:30 AM PDT by garv

I prefer eagles. But, no, I also think that the press and the airwaves are also part of the public square. When students wear jewelry (such as a crucifix), clothing, etc., denoting their membership in a particular religious community, on their own or their parent's direction, they are expressing their own beliefs in their own way, and one that does not impose or disrupt (despite what any atheist may say). The government is not telling them what type of religion is acceptable or admirable, etc. But when prayers are led by a teacher, or led by a student under the direction of a teacher, then the government is saying, "You should pray, and this is how". That's unacceptable to me, and apparently to the law.

I wouldn't think there's a problem with any of the other activities you mention, except perhaps with proselytizing other students. That last has the potential to be intrusive, depending on the methods, etc., used. Praying in the hallway is O.K. as long as they don't block it, or block access to some kid's locker.

157 posted on 09/10/2002 7:25:42 AM PDT by RonF

To: Looking for Diogenes

Did the Supremes ban school-led prayer in the '50's? I distinctly remember leading my classmates in prayer in the early '60's when I was in grade school. Of course, in my old home town we were very diverse; we had both Catholics and Protestants.

158 posted on 09/10/2002 7:27:47 AM PDT by RonF

To: hoosierskypilot

That's a far cry from what we've got, where children are forbidden from prayer, Bible reading, etc., on school grounds.

I was unaware that children are forbidden from doing any of these things. I do believe that the teachers are forbidden to lead them, or supervise them in being led, in such activities, but that's different from what you've said.

159 posted on 09/10/2002 7:38:47 AM PDT by RonF

I don't recall having discussed this matter here. On what basis do you say that I have a problem with those who prefer to add the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance?

160 posted on 09/10/2002 7:43:36 AM PDT by RonF

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794