Warning - History and Politics ahead.
Sunday, April 13th, was Thomas Jefferson’s birthday. As one of the principle architects of the the US Constitution Jefferson was truly one of our nations greatest leaders.
He was not a perfect man, he owned slaves, and although he drafted, and tried to enact, several anti-slavery laws he also viewed blacks as inferior to whites.
Among our founding fathers Jefferson was perhaps the leading proponent of the principle of separation of church and state. Thanks to his efforts this principle is in our constitution.
From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson :
Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826)
1) Jefferson was raised in the Church of England at a time when it was the established church in Virginia and only denomination funded by Virginia tax money. Avery Dulles, a leading Catholic theologian reports, “In his college years at William and Mary [Jefferson] came to admire Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Locke as three great paragons of wisdom. Under the influence of several professors he converted to the deist philosophy.” Dulles concludes:
| “ | In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson’s religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day. | ” |
Before the Revolution, Jefferson was a vestryman in his local church, a lay position that was informally tied to political office at the time. He also had friends who were clergy, and he supported some churches financially.
2) Jefferson’s conclusions about the Bible are noteworthy. He considered much of the new testament of the Bible to be lies. He described these as “so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture”. He described the “roguery of others of His disciples”, and called them a “band of dupes and impostors” describing Paul as the “first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus”, and wrote of “palpable interpolations and falsifications”. He also described the Book of Revelation to be “merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams”. While living in the White House, Jefferson began to make his own condensed version of the Gospels, omitting Jesus’ virgin birth, miracles, divinity, and resurrection, primarily leaving only Jesus’ moral philosophy, of which he approved. This compilation was published after his death and became known as the Jefferso n Bible
3) Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he had high esteem for Jesus’ moral teachings, which he viewed as the “principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform [prior Jewish] moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state.” Jefferson did not believe in miracles. Biographer Merrill Peterson summarizes Jefferson’s theology:
| “ | First, that the Christianity of the churches was unreasonable, therefore unbelievable, but that stripped of priestly mystery, ritual, and dogma, reinterpreted in the light of historical evidence and human experience, and substituting the Newtonian cosmology for the discredited Biblical one, Christianity could be conformed to reason. Second, morality required no divine sanction or inspiration, no appeal beyond reason and nature, perhaps not even the hope of heaven or the fear of hell; and so the whole edifice of Christian revelation came tumbling to the ground. |
4) Jefferson sought what he called a “wall of separation between Church and State,” which he believed was a principle expressed by the First Amendment. This phrase has been cited several times by the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause. In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he wrote:
| “ | 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. |
5) From 1784 to 1786, Jefferson and James Madison worked together to oppose Patrick Henry’s attempts to again assess taxes in Virginia to support churches. Instead, in 1786, the Virginia General Assembly passed Jefferson’s Bill for Religious Freedom, which he had first submitted in 1779 and was one of only three accomplishments he put in his own epitaph. The law read:
| “ | No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. |

16 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 15, 2008 at 2:00 am
Mike Harmon
I came across your blog on Technorati. Nice site layout. I will stop by and read more soon.
Mike Harmon
April 15, 2008 at 5:55 am
Robert
I think more Americans need to read more about this man.
I highly recommend:
“American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson” by Joseph J. Ellis
Also if you are into podcasts Clay Jenkinson does an amazing program called “The Thomas Jefferson Hour” where Mr. Jenkinson poses as the ‘Sage of Monticello’ and answers questions from listeners. Clay does a very good job rendering Mr. Jefferson’s views. You can find the podcast here:
http://www.jeffersonhour.org/
Give it a listen!
R.
April 15, 2008 at 11:27 am
mandy
thank you for the warning!!!
April 15, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Indian Lake Papa
I concur with Mandy! That’s the safe route to go! Me, I’ll just hang onto my guns and religion!
April 15, 2008 at 2:44 pm
edfromct
Mandy & Papa - some decisions are best made with what I think of as the emotional side of our brain, with our “hearts”. Love, music and religion are decisions based on our “hearts”. There is no need to analyze evidence, you just go with how you feel. You either love someone or you don’t. You either feel God’s presence or you don’t.
Other decisions I think are best made using the reasoning side of our brain. Decision about finance, politics and technology should be made using our rational, unemotional brain.
When we are looking for a new car and we see that candy apple red, corvette convertible, our eyes light up, out hearts go pit pat. The emotional side of our brain WANTS it. We had better stop, look at our checkbook, think about our children’s education.
If you are troubled by some personal problem. You go to church and pray for God’s guidance. When you believe God’s hand is leading you, you should follow that guidance.
When Thomas Jefferson cheated on his wife with his mistress he was listening to the emotional side of his brain. When he choose to the words that are in our Constitution, he used the reasoning side of his brain.
Which side of our brain we use in making our decisions in life will determine how successful we will be in living, what kind of society we help create.
In politics, creating the rules of society, and science I believe we need to use the reasoning side of our brain.
April 15, 2008 at 2:46 pm
edfromct
Robert, I did see the link on your site to Clay Jenkinson’s podcast. I bookmarked it but haven’t found the time to listen to it. It does sound like something I would enjoy and learn from.
April 15, 2008 at 4:14 pm
edfromct
Thanks for stopping by Mike. I look forward to any of your future comments.
April 16, 2008 at 6:41 pm
1godsgal
Hi Ed! WOW…what a post! I do want to say that I don’t understand how we don’t use reason for our belief system. To me Christ is the reason, for everything. Everything the atheist comes up with to me just doesn’t make sense. When I reason things in my mind…it always comes back to the Lord. I disagree that walking with the Lord is solely a heartfelt emotion. There is plenty of reasoning going on. It is interesting to me in your examples that the emotional side of the brain, or emotion was used as an example for sleeping with a mistress, (a bad deed) as well as how a Christian thinks, and the reasoning side of the brain, or reason was used for writing the Constitution, (a good deed).
April 16, 2008 at 8:24 pm
edfromct
Hi GG, thanks for dropping by your thoughts.
I think I understand what your are saying. I will try to clarify what I mean by “reason”.
When I use the word reason I mean a decision that is based on examining evidence, a non-emotional judgment. The opposite, to me, of basing a decision on a feeling.
A decision about love is an emotional decision. You either feel love or you don’t. Your connection(?) to God is an emotional one. You feel his presence so you believe in the guidance you feel you are receiving from him. I don’t believe in God because I have never experience this feeling. There is nothing to examine or analyze. You either feel that connection or you don’t.
When we make a financial decision we examine all the factors involved. How much money we have, we look at product reviews, etc. We should not base our decision on just how we feel about the product. The same should be true, to me, regarding who we vote for. We examine the candidates records. We look at their stance on issues important to us. We don’t just vote for someone because we like them.
Law, politics and science should based on unemotional thinking. Applying critical thinking to evidence.
Marriage is an emotional decision. Choosing a church is an emotional decision. Religion is an emotional decision.
April 16, 2008 at 9:00 pm
1godsgal
Hi Ed, thank you for responding. My experiences with God are emotional, but my decision to follow Him follows the guidelines of your “financial decision” analogy. I considered may factors, and really there was little emotion involved, I made my decision based on what I felt was factual, not emotional. Once I reached out to Him, then the emotions and feeling were strong and irrevocable (?), but I truly do separate the making the decision to follow Him, and the feelings and emotions that followed. Does that make sense? I’m not trying to be difficult, just reading your analogies made me realize the difference in how things had happened.
April 16, 2008 at 11:28 pm
edfromct
Hi GG, since I have never experience the presence of God as you have I can’t know what that feeling/experience is like.
For me, an unemotional decision is one based on evidence. An emotional decision is one based on a feeling. I see praying as an emotional experience. What evidence is there when God makes his presence know to you?
My perception is that when you pray the communication is solely between you and God. If I was sitting next to you I would not hear God’s voice. I might feel God’s presence like you do but the communication it’s self is one to one.
Looking at politics. I believe a political decision should be an “unemotional” one. It should be based solely on the evidence found in a politicians record and their stance on issues.
The only thing that matters to me when I vote is where does a candidate stand on the issues. I don’t care if they do, or don’t, believe in God. I don’t care if they are gay, or Muslim or what their belief system is. I make what I consider to be an unemotional evaluation of where they stand on issues.
When you are deciding who to vote for do you seek God’s guidance? Do you pray to God before you vote? Could you vote for an atheist? Could you vote for someone gay?
My perception is that most Christ followers could not vote for someone gay. I am not addressing whether this is right or wrong, just how the decision was reached. It would not make any difference what their record was or where they stood on issues. The fact that they were gay would be enough in it’s self to not vote for them. There would be no examination of evidence, their record.. I see that as an emotional decision. There is no examination of evidence.
That we don’t agree is not important. I am hoping to gain a better understand of where we disagree.
April 17, 2008 at 8:00 am
Indian Lake Papa
Ed, I usually don’t weigh in on these lengthy issue - too hard for me to type anymore! Tremors! Curious, have you ever tried connecting your emotional side to God/Christ? Just a friendly question! I hope we get to meet the next time I come to CT!
April 17, 2008 at 8:53 am
tam
ED - this post is so timely! Kota is doing a report on Jefferson. An Oral Report at that! He is so excited but feels he needs more info. on him. Voila!! Here it is!
Also, i ran across this site this morning and couldn’t remember if this is one you frequented
http://www.livescience.com/
Love, tam
April 17, 2008 at 9:47 am
edfromct
Papa, I was raised to believe in God. I went to a Protestant church while my mother was alive. She died when I was 13. After that I went to the Catholic church of my father. I had emtiional problems and often prayed to God for guidance. I never felt the presence of God, not in church or when I prayed.
I have talked about the last time I prayed to God, just before I tried to kill my self by taking pills. It was after this that I developed a decision making process based on what I call reason and logic. I have not prayed since. I do still go to church, to meditate, or at Christmas. I do feel love during church services, the love of the congregation, not the love of God.
Thanks for asking the question.
April 17, 2008 at 10:00 am
edfromct
Tam, it is great to hear about a young person being excited about history. I was not a very good student, even though I got good grades. I thought history was boring, I thought school was boring. That was my lost. Once I took the time and really try to understand events of the past I saw how interesting, exciting and how much I could learn from history.
Your son is off to a much better start than I was.
I have not seen the live science site. I have book-marked it. Since I have been writing my own blog I have not found the time to research science stories as much as I would like to.
I will be blogging less and spending more time on research, and the beach, during the summer.
April 17, 2008 at 10:18 am
Indian Lake Papa
Thanks Ed - I appreciate your sharing!