THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION

nonbeliefs.com ^ | Jim Walker

[RonF]

Interesting link that I intend to read completely. The introductory sentence struck me:

This exhibition demonstrates that many of the colonies that in 1776 became the United States of America were settled by men and women of deep religious convictions who in the seventeenth century crossed the Atlantic Ocean to practice their faith freely.

While this is true, it did not mean that the First Amendment was inevitable. Many of these people came across so that they could practice their religion freely, but they didn't necessarily believe in religious freedom for all. For example, take a look at the early history of the Massachusetts Bay and Plimoth Plantations Colony.

The original Pilgrims came over because a lack of religious freedom forced them to leave England. But they then moved to the Netherlands, not America. In the Netherlands, they were in fact free to practice their version of Christianity. However, because there was religious freedom of a sort in the Netherlands, their children were being exposed to alternate religious beliefs, and were becoming (from the Pilgrim parents' point of view) corrupted in their faith. So the Pilgrims left the Netherlands and came to America to establish a colony where their faith would be the only one, where they would be free to practice their faith, but no one else would.

Congregationalism was established as the state religion. All had to attend services and give money and other support to it, regardless of their personal beliefs. Non-conformance was punishable by fines, imprisonment, tarring and feathering, exile, and ultimately death. Some Quakers paid the full measure of those punishments. It's a long way from that to the First Amendment. I wonder if this web site will talk about that.

[Enemy Of The State]

you dont bother me one bit. You only humor me..

i was really impressed that you could spell xanax properly...lol

[Tired of Taxes]

That was a great read. Of course, don't expect to win anyone over. Most people don't really believe in "freedom".

[andy_card]

What's a mason?

A Rotarian with a pedigree.

[Conservative til I die]

You know what? I'm tired of this stupid discussion. Look, here are the facts:

1) Jefferson and presumably no other FF was an atheist

2) Jefferson and many of the other FF provide many quotes that show that their beliefs seem to sway between deism and traditional Christianity.

3) Jefferson and almost all the FF have a background of traditional English Protestant Christianity. A very few were Catholics.

4) None of the FF were of a background of another religion, such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Judaism (there have been one FF that had a connection to Judaism maybe?)

[andy_card]

Alexander Hamilton was raised Jewish (his mother's first and only legal husband was named Levine), but he had no Jewish blood and in his adulthood became a Christian.

[hoosierskypilot]

I was thinking of prayer in a public setting, e.g., before a football game, etc. This is not the case in all districts. But it is the case in some districts.

The other reference had to do with some teachers in some districts refusing students to bring Bibles on school property. I tried to find the file concerning a teacher in Texas (and, again, I cannot find the file, so don't quote me) who confiscated two Bibles and threw them in the trash.
I will find that article and share it later.

Currently, there is a case in court in our own district where a teacher refused to allow a student in high school to bring a Bible on school grounds. This all in contradistinction to some of these same school districts requiring students to read the Koran (Byron, CA; University of North Carolina).

The public is finding out what Christians have known for decades: if you're white, middle class Christians, especially if you are male, you are an absolute target. They will show no mercy. The forces at work are determined to absolutely silence our voices.

This country has gone absolutely nuts.

[Sam Cree]

Hi, Andy, thanks.

[moteineye]

Good, I will pray for you. Maybe it will help your disposition. You know there still are miracles.(even in your case)

[Enemy Of The State]

"You know what? I'm tired of this stupid discussion. Look, here are the facts:"

Those are not facts..those are your hard set beliefs and you are entitled to them. Facts are solid evidence of which you have provided none to support your statements. I on the other hand can provide enough evidence to place serious doubt as to whether or not TJ was a "Christian".

This was not posted to inflame people who are not capable of intellectually debating and comparing ideas without letting their emotions block reasonable discussion.

Again, see post #7

[RonF]

Currently, there is a case in court in our own district where a teacher refused to allow a student in high school to bring a Bible on school grounds. This all in contradistinction to some of these same school districts requiring students to read the Koran (Byron, CA; University of North Carolina).

Now in my estimation that's dead wrong. I don't favor the teacher leading kids in prayers, but I see absolutely nothing in the Constitution that would ban someone from bringing a Bible to school. In fact, I'd favor the school having a Bible in it's library, along with the holy books of other religions. If someone complained about spending public money on them, I'm sure there'd be no dearth of donations. There's lots of books in a school library that kids don't read out of choice, so I don't see what complaint an atheist would have.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Give the man a cigar!

Yes, you are exactly right. Public school prayers were banned by the Supreme Court beginning in 1962 with 'Engel v. Vitale'.

Despite rumors to the contrary, that decision does not quote Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter. It does quote James Madison:

It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties... Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
Engel v. Vitale

[moteineye]

I provided plenty of evidence and you know it.It is obvious to everyone that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian.From your other posts it is obvious you are anti-christian.It is considered ok to make make be-littling remarks about Christians .You never would make such remarks about Jews or blacks.

If you want to discontinue this then quit responding,or get off this political forum.Once again you can always leave.

[Enemy Of The State]

Not a chance! :-P naa naa boo boo....

[jwalsh07]

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?

I dunno. I'm running a couple of debates simultaneously and apparently mixing the two.

By the way, what was our point of departure? It seems we agree too much. I'll have to look elsewhere for heated debate.

[moteineye]

Darn!

[alfvsmrtt]

I disagree that secularism and humanism cannot provide for such goodness. Sympathy is something
inherent in human beings. And so is self interest. You put those two together you get a natural
inclination to civilize. And the principles come from that sympathy and self interest, that gives
you the ability to figure out what hurts others by applying it through imagination to yourself.
And we then make rules that accord to what we feel are rights for ourselves and then others.
We have the sympathy and self interest as reasons to protect those rights. Whether or not God
created them, they are wired into most humans. And if you are an agnostic or atheist, to me, there is as much
reason not to harm anyone or break those rights, because the uncertainty of what comes after life;
and that if there is nothing, we must value our time on earth and try to help everyone lead an
enjoyable life, or in other words, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Of course it
can be argued that the opposite will happen, but as an agnostic, I can say that I feel a strong moral
duty and sympathy for myself and others based on keeping a civilization and promoting happiness
and survival.
As for the french revolution. Bloody, yes. Godless, yes. But an interesting parallel
of civil strife would be the American civil war, where a comparable amount of bodies were laid
out and killed over control and land. Bloody, yes. Godless, no. As so many have noted how
religious our roots are and how everything was peaceful when we all prayed.
And, let's also keep in mind that, Robespierre was crazy about a month into the revolution.

I also disagree that our problems were minor. I think repressed is the proper word.
Women's rights, civil rights for blacks and native Americans, military testing on civilians,
and development of nuclear bombs, fear of being bombed by other countries with those same bombs.
These were problems that were rising and bound to have
consequences. Improved communications and a growing and still young industrial economy, continual immigration, discovery of the
importance of environmentalism all helped to fuel these problems coming into the forefront.
Partially cause we had time to concentrate on domestic problems after the war, and as soon as
we found out what the other guy was thinking, we didn't like him.
The entire dynamic of our country was changing and our population
was growing exponentially. With all this growing and changing, in a capitalist country, certain
limits have to be made, which forces a polarization, and brings new ideas. With 300,000,000 million
people in a country that is in a stage of development that there is no historical predecessor to
use as a reference, is it a surprise that there are so many problems? In a society where science
moves ahead of philosophy? This helps to account
for our countries differences, things weren't so good back then. At a certain point in the peaceful
past, duels were legal, people only lived until 50, and often in what today would be called
squaller. And if you are saying polio was a minor problem, I'd disagree. Disease was very widespread
and far less treatable in general. Take a look at the cause of death for many famous men, is it coincidental that
you don't see a lot of typhoid and diphtheria deaths there days? You only think there is more
disease because communication is so much better and there are so many more total people, living
in this same small space, which incidentally, in and of itself can be a reason for disease development.
More people with less water and more chemicals, etc.

It ought to be taken into account that problems in a society might occur for reasons
other then god. Maybe it has other roots, like how fast our society moves, how hard it works,
how much freedom we have (or don't have), how excessive we are, how we've taken luxury for granted.
And maybe it's none of these, or some of all of them, but they are all viable options, as well as other ideas, and further
ideas that haven't' been thought of yet.

As far as no prayer in school. What about all the prayer at home; does that count for nothing?
Isn't that a parents job to instill principles to their own child? Shouldn't they have a say?
School to me, is for learning reading, writing and arithmetic, there is time at home after school, on weekends
on vacation, and between classes for a child to learn about god, from his parents or from himself.
The law wasn't meant to oppress Christians, But rather to guard against strife from parents who think differently. To them it's comparable to as if your kid was forced praying to Allah. Majority or not, you
cannot trance on others rights. If you eliminate prayer of all types, then you eliminate the
strife that can come from bringing something personal from an individual, to a group who didn't ask
for it. Actually, when I went to high school a few years ago, we had something calling "prayer
at the pole", anyone who wanted to pray could, a few minutes before school started; no one complained.

I also disagree that
god isn't as involved in our society, and considering there are more people now, I would bet that
more people pray now than they did long ago in total.

(it should also be mentioned that our forefathers lived in the context of their times.
Look at how different their views were on slaves for example, then our own. So is it surprising
that we may have different ideas on god. Particularly with all the communication and spread of new ideas, etc)

And, to all the skeptics, again, the holy roman empire was founded on biblical principles, doesn't
mean it was a good or right thing to do. And just as important is that this country was based equally
on checking those biblical principles, principles that are inherent in humans without religion.

If you intend to return America to some semblance of sanity with absolute reliance upon God
through Jesus Christ, your cause is already lost. It cannot be done. To ignore the lessons of
history doom us to repeat it in the future.

[xman]

I know this thread might be considered dead, as the last post was some time ago, but I'm posting to wind anyway.

There is quite a bit of misinformation on the web, as both sides of this argument will agree-the disagreement comes when we pick which tidbits to believe and which to discard.

For example, the Jefferson Bible:

In a letter to John Adams dated October 13, 1813, Jefferson discussed
the moral teachings of Jesus, and described what would need to be
done in order to extract the "pure principles which he taught." He then
goes on to say,

"I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse
by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is
evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a
dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and
unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the
*unlettered* Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Christians of the
first century." ME 13:390

Source of last two paragraphs: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/archives/jefbib04.htm

No mention of making it for the Indians as posted earlier; but it was not an anti-Christian act either.

The trouble is, researching what's being said from reliable sources can take hours, and then what is said is dismissed with a wave of the hand (cursor?). The fact is, Thomas Jefferson, the man who believed all men were endowed with certain rights, owned slaves (Jesus, by the way didn't have a problem with slave ownership either). Jefferson believed in God, but not the organized church (he had a deep mistrust for clergy). Don't ask me to support this, just read what he wrote - not just a quote page - it's out there. He, like all of us, was a complex human being, and sometimes he was contradictory (as we all can be).

Arguing over how many of our forefathers where Christians is not the point - that's the past. The question is: Where do we go from here? Otherwise, I could argue that many of our forefathers owned slaves, including the man who would not be king - George Washington - and that we are a nation founded on slavery, and we should return to that institution (some, of course, do believe this, but usually not out loud).

I know some of you think all liberals ought to be deported to a communist third world country, but that would be truly un-American, as we are supposed to be a nation capable of free-thought and expression. Also, liberals have done some good: human rights in this country has improved greatly because liberals (as well as some conservative Christians!) - in the good Christian south, 50 years ago, to be black was to be non-human by most white thinking (I lived through the civil rights movement - I saw the violence against blacks first hand, my wife was there when the National Guard desegregated her high school - the hate in the air was as think as cream). Intolerance breeds hatred.

Not all liberals take recreational drugs, or believe in communism, or are atheists, just as all Christians aren’t racists, arrogant, or overcome by a sense of persecution. To believe either of those things is prejudice. If you can’t see past the label, you’ll never see the humanity. Let me live my life. Do not try to convert me, and I will let you worship your god(s), as long as that worship doesn’t infringe on other’s rights. We don’t have to have a label of Christian Nation to do that - we simply need to accept each other.

A note on McCarthy: “With little if any proof of his charges, McCarthy relied on accusation, slander and innuendo to tarnish his opponents' reputations (a practice now known as "McCarthyism"). In 1954, televised hearings allowed millions to view McCarthy's methods for the first time, sparking a public backlash and official censure. He died at the age of 49 of complications related to alcoholism.” [http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/bios/31.html]

The American public viewed the television broadcasts of this man’s methods and stopped him from hurting more people. If our country is so great, if our form of government so desirable, why are some of you worried about communism taking over? The people will reject it if democracy is the better choice, just as the people will reject secularism if your religion is the better answer. What I sense is a fear of giving people a choice - and that is un-American.

I choose democracy (this Republic).


As a side note, crime is currently at a 40 year low, and life was never as good as you think it was.

Lastly, creating a Christian nation does not mean we are a good nation. I leave you with this quote (yeah, I know, but I told you, I can be contradictory, too):

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922

Even a religion of love can be corrupted into something evil when interpreted in the wrong mind.

[DrewsMum]

bookmark