It’s not that I don’t think it’s important that Thomas Jefferson started the Declaration of Independence off by saying that “Nature’s God” entitles us to “equal station” and that our rights have been “endowed” to us by our “Creator.” But it seems a bit overplayed by congressional candidates like Diane Black. The first thing to note is that the term “Nature’s God” is, and was, associated with Deism, not Christianity. And, without getting bogged down in the theological differences between the two religions, we can just focus on one: the Trinity. In Christianity, the Trinity is one of the most important beliefs. The author of the Declaration of Independence displayed an amazingly strong contempt for the concept.
“No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity . . .
Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands of martyrs . . .
The Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that 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. With such person, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.” — Thomas Jefferson: Letter to James Smith, Dec. 8, 1822
In a 1822 letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, Jefferson wrote, “I trust there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.” It’s not that Jefferson didn’t venerate Jesus of Nazareth. But he considered Christianity to be a perversion of his teachings. Now, without taking sides for or against Jefferson’s world view, it’s odd to see Diane Black make the following points:
First and foremost, America’s founders believed that our freedom was a gift from God to all people. This very simple assertion at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence has been the foundation on which everything great about our country was built. As a nation and a culture, we must continue to affirm that primacy of our Creator.
Just a few words later in the Declaration of Independence, the first rights of all people are spelled out: “…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” That first word – “life” – indicates the touchstone right that guarantees all the others. As Middle Tennessee’s representative, I will defend the Right to Life with every fiber of my being. I was proud to be named “Legislator of the Year” in our state by Tennessee Right to Life and I will not ever waiver from my commitment to this most fundamental principal of freedom.
I don’t think it’s parsing to say that Ms. Black is suggesting that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian and that he was against abortion. I don’t know what Jefferson felt about reproductive rights, but he wasn’t a Christian and he wasn’t going around telling people the following:
I will also defend the enumerated rights in U.S. Constitutions’ Bill of Rights – as they are written in the document. The right to religious expression must be protected – which in today’s world usually means protection from government censorship. Freedom of religion does not mean the government-mandated absence of religion and I will fight the left-wing to defend our right to religious expression.
In 1808, Jefferson wrote this in a letter to the Virginia Baptists.
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries
So, Thomas Jefferson emphatically supported the complete separation of Church and State, which logically dictates that no particular religion should be subsidized by the government nor advocated for in federally-funded schools. If there were some religious text justifying opposition to abortion, Jefferson probably would not have supported a law banning it on those grounds alone.
But all of this is part of a larger phenomenon on the political right. They’ve concocted a cockeyed version of history where the Founding Fathers were devout Christians who founded the United States of America on Christian principles. This is flat-out wrong. If you accept the premise that a Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, then Andrew Jackson was our first Christian president. The first six presidents did not take communion and held a unitarian (not trinitarian) point of view. And Andrew Jackson didn’t get baptized until after he served as president, so really the first president who was a Christian while serving in office was Martin Van Buren. That’s almost a fifth of the history of our country before we had a president who was a communion-taking Trinitarian. (I am aware of the dispute about George Washington, but whether he ever took communion or not, he was not a Trinitarian).
Now, none of this stuff would be all that important if it wasn’t for the fact that these members of the New Right are trying to take the beliefs of people like Thomas Jefferson, who fervently hoped that, by now, Trinitarians would not exist in this country, and use them to erode the wall separating Church and State.
The truth is, if the Founding Fathers were to wake up and look around at the politics of the day, they’d never stop throwing up.
I’m not so sure about the throwing up part. The politicians of yore are always elevated in one form or another, and while they might have been far more intelligent than your average politician of today, they weren’t that much different in terms of politics :
I mean, the entire Constitution was written in secret. Sound familiar? In fact, if they had written it in the open, it’s unlikely that it would have been passed in the first place.
About the wall of separation, while I care a lot about a complete wall, I’m not sure Jefferson would have been on the same side as me. I think it’s quite clear that Jefferson opposed an official state religion. However, the “wall of separation” doesn’t really help us understand how we should resolve concrete church-state questions today, or how early Americans would have resolved those questions. For example, would Jefferson allow students to use public schools as a place to gather for religious groups?
This is why I don’t give a fuck what Jefferson or Hamilton or Adams or Monroe or Madison had to say. Their opinions are irrelevant to the fact that the government and church should remain completely separate. That means Obama’s faith-based initiative continuation is unconstitutional.
Given his disposition towards Christianity, I feel confident in saying that Jefferson would be on the far-leading edge of the issue of religion in public schools.
Absolutely! First he would have barfed at these vest pocket Elmer Gantry’s, then he would have withered them with prose, then he would have joined an armed revolt against them.
Jesus of Nazareth would undoubtedly have whipped them from their churches.
I’m not talking about religion in school, though.
Is it unconstitutional to allow students to gather freely as they may after school is over, using the public school building as their gathering place, to meet for say, a Fellowship of Christian Athletes meeting?
How do you resolve those questions when the First Amendment is contradicting itself? They want to practice their religion as they see fit, no school officials are officiating or leading the event, but they need to use a public facility to do it. Is that unconstitutional? I don’t see how you can say to know Jefferson’s opinion on this just based on a few letters and talk about a “wall of separation.” His opinion doesn’t help us in contemporary society for these more complex questions.
It’s quite clear how he feels about the Jesus Party. It’s not clear how he or any of the other Founders would feel about those more complex questions.
You mean the Supply Side Jesus Party – I’m fairly confident that Jesus would have no parts of the GOP (or, for that matter, any political party).
I can’t say for sure, but I envision a very impatient and frustrated man who has been awoken from his dirt-nap into a nightmare of Palinites trying to cram their Trinitarianism down his throat. I doubt he would have been a moderate on this issue.
With the advancement of science and the theory of evolution and findings in cosmology, I doubt he would have been a deist.
However, aside from the RR, someone like Tom Paine should be thought to be a hero for the left, right? Well, Tom Paine opposed the Constitution because he felt the Federal Government was given too much power. So how would he feel today, with the Federal G. far larger today than anyone back then could have imagined? He was for the poor, and by most measures, a Democratic Socialist. So how can we know where he would stand with these seemingly conflicting views in today’s society when there has to be a need for large Federal Government and weak State Government? We can’t know for sure, and we can speculate as to which he’d favor more. He’d probably be the Noam Chomsky of today: hates all government, but prefers it to free markets.
Though we can speculate, we’ll never know how they’d react in the contemporary. This is why I hate all the adoration the Founders get, and why I frankly do not care what they said or how they felt. Their opinions are outdated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on today’s more complex problems.
Invoking them annoys me to no end, whether it’s the left or the right.
Who would you rather have as your President, Newt Gingrich or Thomas Paine?
You’re entirely missing my point…
I don’t know if it’s on purpose or by accident, but given your sometimes string of dichotomies like these, I have to go with on purpose.
To reiterate, the point is not whose views better represent my own, and who I would rather be president.
The point is that we don’t know how people who died hundreds of years ago would react to the current state of affairs, and that it’s a pointless exercise to try and speculate as to whose side they were on. Who cares whose side they were on? Does it have any bearing in the debate of today? If through speculation of Tom Paine’s views can we suddenly know how he feels about Medicare for all? No, we can’t, and it’s a waste of time.
We can know through other historical figures — such as MLK — but the Founders are a different animal.
Once again, quite frankly, I don’t care where Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson or Hamilton would feel about the issues of today because they’re fucking dead. Wake me up and tell me all about their opinion when you invent a ray-gun that brings dead people back to life.
So you think the Constitution is irrelevant, too? After all, it’s just the opinion of those same dead guys. I think there’s an argument to be made that we’ve reached a point where Constitution-worship is doing more harm than good, but given the total intellectual bankruptcy of current American “thought”, it might be all that stands between us and rule by Scientology or Past Lives or something.
History does have its uses when you’re trying to figure shit out.
Actually, yes, a lot of it is largely irrelevant. In fact, as you pointed out, if I weren’t so afraid of what we’d have if we wrote a new one from scratch, I’d say we need a do-over.
History has its uses, yes, but I do not care what the Founders thought about most contemporary issues because their time was totally different; most of it, quite frankly, doesn’t apply. I care what we as a people currently think and how we apply the law. That’s why the law is fluid on a continuum, not some rigid Holy Ark of the Covenant. You want to take some thoughts from TJ? Fine:
Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810
And the point of saying “they’re dead” is basically this:
Can you convince a Republican to go “Oh, that’s what Thomas Paine thought about Medicare-for-all? Ok, well then, now I support it.”
If not, then why even say “This is what the Founders would have wanted”? I mean, I don’t care what they would have wanted; they were people and thinkers just like you and I, and we don’t need to check for their seal of approval on each and every issue.
Scientists don’t invoke “This is what Darwin said!” when new research is discovered. If what he said was wrong, then what he said was wrong.
Invoking the Founders is a weapon of the right to try and de-legitimize Democratic governments. That’s its only purpose, and I have no interest in playing along with their petty game.
Doesn’t his throwing the money changers out of the Temple strongly suggest where he would lie politically?
I think he would eschew some of today’s two main parties but I have a very hard time seeing in the middle, as you say. J on N was clearly political in a leftist way (his concern for the poor, etc.), but it’s hard to place him on the left-right political spectrum.
Why can’t they go to the nearest church to hold their meetings?
I wasn’t taking a side on that question, I was just raising it.
My opinion on it is that their First Amendment rights overshadow any separation of using a public facility to hold their meeting, especially as they’re students, so long as its open for any other group to meet as well.
When it comes to nativity scenes in front of public facilities, I think they should be moved because it is an endorsement of one religion over another on public grounds.
Nativity scenes on public property should be no issue if every other religion is allowed to use the space to celebrate their days as well – that’s the rub.
Allegheny v. ACLU
well, the rub is really two things:
Of course, the states have their own first amendment protections in their constitutions, but that’s a state issue.
What is the point of a public nativity scene? Does it cost any money?
What is the point of a Bible study group? Does it cost any money?
Depending on how you answer those questions, you can settle the matter.
first amendment, do you mean freedom of speech? why do they have to meet at school? isn’t it after school we’re talking about?
Two-fold:
Freedom of Religion, and Freedom to Assemble. Yes, it is after school, and it has the legal right to meet on high school and college campuses across the country where other student led groups meet as well.
So take a college campus. Are students allowed to use their dorm rooms to hold Bible studies? Same deal.
well you can tell I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but isn’t dorm room is different from day school for after school situation. Dorm room, of course, that’s where they live, but day school, isn’t their relationship with the school terminated at end of day – ok I’ll stop because, as I said, I’m neither a Constitutional lawyer nor scholar nor lawyer of any kind.
I don’t know what a dorm room is considered, but just the building in general is public property. There are lounges in the dorms where kids can meet.
The dorms might not fit the bill because some colleges you must not only be a resident to have access to dorms, but you must have access to that specific dormitory (without permission).
And even pulling the dorms aside, there are buildings where people meet all over campus which are accessible to the public 24/7.
I meant dorm room or dorms from the point of view that students reside on campus – vs. public school, daytime. they do not reside there, they go home. obligation- of a school they attend only during the day is different from obligation of a school where they reside. i.e. pov of students, where can they meet? vs. pov of school, what are it’s obligations to permit activities, etc etc. schools obligations must be different if students reside there
It is indeed filled with complexity. Which is why the wall is so necessary. In your example, is there really a way that school officials could stay out it? What if the organizers bring a PA system and broadcast their prayers and diatribes, or just yell loud enough for everybody to hear their “good news”? Do they get to buttonhole students/visitors on school grounds to announce the meeting? Use the school bulletin boards? Can they exclude atheists or Muslims or Scientologists? Can they physically expel hecklers and disruptors, or demand that school officials do it and thus make judgments on who has the right to express themselves?
And then of course there is the question of ideal and de facto reality. Would these Christians allow three goths to use the school to hold a black mass? Or, in the unlikely event that school officials didn’t handle the matter “quietly”, would they find ways to harass the goths that the minority would not have available? We know from ample experience that the odds are on the side of Christian bullying establishing their point.
The questions and implications can and will go on forever. That’s why public spaces and public officials have to take a hard line when it comes to breaching the wall, even for what seem at first to be benign activities.
I’m not sure I see how the First Amendment contradicts itself here. I see little problem with students gathering after school hours to pray in a public building, provided access to the public building isn’t dependent upon religious activity. As long as an Atheist Study Group can get access just the same as a Fellowship of Christian Athletes, then what’s the problem?
Boy Scouts, with all their religious nonsense, meet in public schools routinely.
That, I think, would be Jefferson’s take. Jefferson, as I read him, wouldn’t give a shit about the Christian athletes. What Jefferson cared about was protecting people from the oppression of religious nuts, and protecting religions from becoming arms of a totalitarian government. The wall of separation is about the power religions and governments have over each other.
Right, and that’s how I see it, too. Some people would argue the opposite, and say that it is unconstitutional, and a violation of the Establishment Clause, to allow religious groups to use public facilities as a meeting place. It’s in clear contradiction if you think about it, just to a lesser degree of a teacher leading in school prayer. A teacher officiating the activities after school has nothing to do with the school endorsing one religion over another, but it’s farther along on the continuum.
Some find the line at a different point than others, and while I believe that to be Jefferson’s general view as well, it still doesn’t help us answer these more complex views about it. That was my point, and has been my point, in every single one of my posts on this topic.
Look at Dave’s post about the separation and compare it with Oscar’s.
Btw, I haven’t seen you around lately and I was missing your thoughts 😉
This is but one example of a vast project to censor and pervert american history to fit the shifting demands of an extreme ideology.
The phrases are:
“to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”
Nature is preeminent here, not god.
although he was NOT a Unitarian. During the time of Jefferson, the Unitarians were the church of the elite and quite at the center of the civic discourse, and the Baptists were the insurgents – a reversal utterly of today. Jefferson shared U-U beliefs about the mythology and crap in the bible, and our disinterest in the Trinity, and our belief that Jesus was important but not more important than many others.
The phrase “Nature’s God” is quite similar to the U-U affirmation of the “interconnected web of all life” which is a principle of U-U belief.
He had a funny way of not being a unitarian.
Even if we take Jefferson as solely authoritative, what you suggest is not what Jefferson himself proposed.
Jefferson opposed a state religion – no more, no less. He did not oppose religious thought guiding legislators’ votes and he did not propose that there should be a worldview test on the distribution of federal dollars. There’s also a world of difference between religion being advocated in federally-funded schools and religion being advocated by federally-funded schools, relating to the question of after-school activities.
he opposed the government spending money on religious matters. In context, the states (including his own) had adopted a favored religion, which is why his letters on the separation of Church and States were addressed to religious minorities in Connecticut and Virginia. He opposed coercion in religion, and favoritism is a form of coercion.
Jefferson was a missionary for the Enlightenment.
That’s Jefferson in the midst of his successful run for the presidency. He wasn’t going to be allocating federal funds for the promotion of Trinitarianism. I have already quoted him as saying in 1822 that he hoped every American alive would die as a Unitarian (i.e., there would be no Christians left in this country).
As for the idea that this country is founded on Christian principles:
Most pertinent to the subject of funding to schools.
It’s true that his main concern was to get get governments to stop using the legislatures and courts to promote one religion over another, but he also saw the other side of it (the taxpayer’s side), as that passage makes clear.
And while we are pointing out gross error / distortion number 11,462 from the right-wing radicals during this election cycle, they have already invented and propagated 18 more. And they haven’t listened to our correction anyway – neither the cynical manipulators nor the pathetically manipulated. Facts are just matters of opinion, doncha know.
Not to get all atheistic or agnostic on you, but Council of Nicaea, anyone?
what are you referring to about Council of Nicaea?
that’s where the Trinity was codified.
yes, just not sure why map106 mentions it in this context – because it’s so much later than Jesus’ time? because it was an emperor mandated clergy vote?
I’m guessing it is to align himself with Jefferson’s views on the matter.