G
GEddie
Guest
That’s because the contradiction arose in 1517, not in 1775.
The Founders were from a Protestant, not Catholic background. They had not been taught if an infallible Church.
ICXC NIKA
- Status
The Founders were from a Protestant, not Catholic background. They had not been taught if an infallible Church.
ICXC NIKA
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Certainly Jefferson was not always consistent. He opposed slavery and yet owned slaves.
When he made out his will he did not even provide for the freedom of his slaves, whereas at least George Washington did.
G
GEddie
Guest
Supposedly, he could not free them because like the rest of his property – for legally, they were that – the slaves were mortgaged, following some financial reverses.
ICXC NIKA
O
oldcelt
Guest
And I know a lot of non-Christians, in the attached to particular sect way, myself included, who think that the teachings of Christ are wonderful. In fact, I think that very few rational people could poke many holes in what Christ said. It is when we begin discussing deity that the gaps begin.
John
G
GEddie
Guest
Well, it’s exactly that issue that Judaism stumbled on long ago.
It IS a leap of faith that someone in a human soma could be Divine!
And not everybody gets the gift of faith.
So governance has to operate on the premise of people lacking it.
ICXC NIKA
P
polytropos
Guest
My comment was about the inconsistency of two propositions:
(1) he is against institutional Christianity
(2) he is not at all against the teachings of Christ
If institutional Christianity is entailed by some teaching of Christ (as Catholics believe, and as has historically been the case–though, certainly, it is a disputed question), then Jefferson’s position was inconsistent. This is to say nothing against people who appreciate the teachings of Christ.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Yet I seem to remember that some of his slaves, particularly the house slaves and their children (I believe also any children he had by Sally Hemmings) were provided their freedom.
Not sure about all of that. Will have to look it up.
O
oldcelt
Guest
I don’t see it as inconsistency. Jefferson admired Christ the teacher, but was revolted by what man had created with them. Two separate notions are at work here, at least in my view.
Another thought, even if we assume the divinity of Christ to be absolutely true, along with the pronouncement of Peter as the leader of the new church, it is still entirely possible that humans could make a mess of memorializing his teachings. While I certainly cannot speak for Jefferson, this may be what he was seeing. Something very positive being turned and used in a less than admirable way, at least at times…
O
oldcelt
Guest
Jefferson was a notorious over spender and was in dire financial straits at his death. He also had feet of clay when it came to the slavery issue. The problem of potential financial ruin if slaves were freed was quite common among the landed gentry. Jefferson believed in freedom for all so long as he could afford it.
I admire Jefferson in a great many ways, but this aspect of his character is troubling.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Agreed.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
But the Founding Fathers were not setting up a democracy, they were setting up a constitutional republic, there is a difference.The USA is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. Your laws are governed by a written constitution, not the democratic will of the people.
O
oldcelt
Guest
The US may have been intended to be a constitutional republic, but has long functioned as a representative democracy with some constitutional restraints. Why? Because, when our constitution is compared to most others around the world and in our own states it is short and has been accused of being rather vague in some places.
One could make the argument that the establishment clause is intentionally vague to allow future generations to drive all vestiges of organized religion out of the halls of power and back into the churches. It certainly does nothing to increase the power of religion. Just look at the school prayer issue as an example.
G
GEddie
Guest
That vagueness was arguably deliberate, to allow successive generations wiggle room to get around specific historical needs.
It has worked rather well (despite its failure to avert near-meltdown in 1861), considering it survived that crisis and two world wars, a Cold War, economic catastrophe and increasing security concerns without radical change or extralegal changes of government.
I doubt a desire of anybody to eliminate religion was a driving factor in its formation.
If anything, irreligion in the USA is a natural result of our embrace of equality and diversity. You can’t have a society that embodies numerous cultures and religions while maintaining one set of beliefs everybody does not share.
But democracy has nothing to do with it. The CCCP, China, and the European countries are or were just as irreligious as we, or more, despite having less of (or in some cases no) democratic principles.
“Democracy” whether direct or representational is not a religious system. It is a political one. The missions are not the same. But they are not per se inimical, either.
ICXC NIKA
O
oldcelt
Guest
I agree that the constitution has worked well over the years because of its vagueness. Because of that it truly is a living document that can react to realities within limits…
Great examples of the other extreme are the constitution of the former Soviet Union and the State of Pennsylvania. The first is lengthy, ultra specific and was ignored in practice. Pennsylvania’s is so long, something like 1800 pages, and so amended, that no one really knows what to do with it. It is also ignored.
My statement on the document being meant to undermine religion was just a thought based on the clearly hostile statements by some of the founders. The argument could be made without embarrassment, but given the number of true believers in the group, I doubt that it could be proven.
A Democratic system, in my view, can lead to a reduction in religious belief because it does push the notion of individual thought and resistance to and elimination of ruling classes. None of those ideals are particularly friendly to any religion.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
That is very different from maintaining that the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on Christian values. They didn’t. The Constitution was based on the values of the Enlightenment. The views of the Founding Fathers may not have been quite as extreme as the values of those of the French Enlightenment, but nevertheless Thomas Jefferson was not the equivalent of Jerry Falwell in a powdered wig.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I have to disagree with much of what you say here.
First, the constitution in the 1st Amendment protects the right to worship as one pleases. The founders provided this Amendment to insure that the State could not control the Churches. As you probably know, that is precisely what the State is attempting to do under the present Administration. The Church is in the Courts right now attempting to overturn the attempt of the Administration to discriminate against Catholic teachings.
Yes, a democratic system can be inimical to religion, but only if people allow it to be. We have the Courts to address the abuse of government power used against organized religion. There being no state religion, all religions have an equal chance to survive. The people vote with their feet to attend the church of their choice. Ruling classes have not been eliminated in America, unless you mean inherited aristocracy running the government. But even that is in doubt. The aristocracy today is not one of inheritance, but of money. Money talks, babbles even, and certainly rules.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
The Constitution was based on the values of both the Enlightenment and Christianity. The Constitution would never have been approved by all the 13 States if it had been inherently hostile to Christianity, and if the vast majority of those living during the Constitutional Convention were not practicing Christians.
At the Constitutional Convention, 1787, James Madison recorded the following remarks made by Benjamin Franklin to the president of the Convention:
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.
"I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”
**The Clergy of this City were certainly Christian clergy. **
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
From your quotes in your previous post, I decided to google one at random. This happens to be the one that I googled, since it does not really sound representative of Jefferson’s views.
Lo and behold, it isn’t representative of his views, because it’s way out of context.
Here’s some of the broader context:
monticello.org/site/jefferson/christianity-most-perverted-system-ever-shone-man-quotation
I trust your knowledge of the English language to parse Jefferson’s meaning enough to recognize that these words were not intended merely as a broadside being fired at Christianity as a whole.
It is no surprise really, as Jefferson was no anti-Christian. He was a man of the enlightenment and of science, and highly skeptical of miracles as we understand them, but he was certainly not anti-Christian. I suspect the same is true of many of the other quotations you listed.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
“those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, endeavored to crush your well earnt, & well deserved fame”
That was a direct attack on the Church. Jefferson was a Deist who denied the divinity of Jesus. He admired Jesus as a moral teacher, as a mere mortal man. He admired the ‘philosophy’ of Jesus, but viewed Christianity(as a religion) as being the most perverted system ever created.
He wrote his own ‘Jefferson Bible’ that completely excluded any hint of divinity or any miracles. He viewed Jesus merely as a mortal, moral philosopher. He viewed Christianity as being a perversion of the truth (the truth being that Jesus was merely mortal) and a system designed to crush human endeavour.
The Constitution was not drawn up by Christian men and based on Christian values, it was drawn up by Deists, Unitarians and Freemasons. It tolerated the right of people to be Christians (as it tolerated the right of people to be followers of other religions). The Constitution was based on the values of the Enlightenment, not the values of Christianity. The values of the Enlightenment are secular values, their basis runs contrary to the values of the Church.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Absolutely dead on the mark Brendan.
- Status