I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
and
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Geez, another atheist out-of-context quote posted by a guy who claims to be a Christian. And just like the last one, it turns out that Jefferson was not saying what it sounds like when the context is examined:
This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
What he was discussing was the history of English common law not American law. Nor was he saying this is how things should be.
In fact, notice this statement from later in the letter:
We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is. The truth is that Christianity and Newtonianism being reason and verity itself, in the opinion of all but infidels and Cartesians…
Other things Jefferson said suggest that the original quote is not how he thought things should be:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a confiction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: — from Notes on the State of Virginia
But I am a Christian, Noni. I just don't want my government to have anything to do with my religion.
Thanks for the full quote because when you place it next to other quotes of Jefferson, we can see what he thought the ideal government was for our country.
In his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, he said
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 legitimate 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
Jefferson was a Unitarian with Deist leanings who clashed constantly with orthodox Christians so it's fair to say that he would've clashed with you, correct?
Further, this country was not founded on any particular religion. God isn't mentioned in the Constitution. The Creator is mentioned in the DOI but that doesn't mean that the Creator is necessarily Christian.
We can see this in The Treaty of Tripoli, which states:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The treaty was signed by President Adams and received ratification by a unanimous Senate. Religious freedom, Noni, not the advancement of a state religion. I'm not sure if you are advocating this but if you are, what makes you different from a theocracy?
juris, I'm surprised at you. To begin with, bloviating proclamation doesn't mean shit to me. And aren't you an athiest? I would think you'd be more on my side on this one but I guess the desire to win the argument and prove me wrong is much more alluring.
"The U. S. Constitution's lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God."
No, because Jefferson's letter to Thomas Cooper illustrated his early thoughts on the separation of church and state as he notes in the beginning.
When I was a student of the law, now half a century ago, after getting through Coke Littleton, whose matter cannot be abridged, I was in the habit of abridging and common-placing what I read meriting it, and of sometimes mixing my own reflections on the subject.
We see this at the end of the letter
In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has ever made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are. For instead of being contented with these four surreptitious chapters of Exodus, they have taken the whole leap, and declared at once that the whole Bible and Testament in a lump, make a part of the common law;ante 873: the first judicial declaration of which was by this same Sir Matthew Hale. And thus they incorporate into the English code laws made for the Jews alone, and the precepts of the gospel, intended by their benevolent author as obligatory only in foro concientiæ; and they arm the whole with the coercions of municipal law. In doing this, too, they have not even used the Connecticut caution of declaring, as is done in their blue laws, that the laws of God shall be the laws of their land, except where their own contradict them; but they swallow the yea and nay together.
His reflections on English law carried into his views on how to properly form a new country. That was my point in putting up this post. Read the introduction to the letter here...
I'm very happy to have any sort of discussion on Jefferson and his views on Christianity.
I really couldn't give a rip about what Jefferson thought about Christianity. What he thought about govt and society is rich enough for me. His thoughts there do not support your views - not even a tiny, little bit.
15 comments:
Also from Jefferson...
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
and
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Geez, another atheist out-of-context quote posted by a guy who claims to be a Christian. And just like the last one, it turns out that Jefferson was not saying what it sounds like when the context is examined:
This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
(Transcript of the letter here)
What he was discussing was the history of English common law not American law. Nor was he saying this is how things should be.
In fact, notice this statement from later in the letter:
We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is. The truth is that Christianity and Newtonianism being reason and verity itself, in the opinion of all but infidels and Cartesians…
Other things Jefferson said suggest that the original quote is not how he thought things should be:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a confiction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever:
— from Notes on the State of Virginia
So what have we learned today class? That liberals are idiots and masters of misinterpreting the words of the Founders?
Class dismissed.
So what have we learned today class?
I didn't learn that, I already knew it. And for some odd reason, I doubt Mark learned that today, either…
But I am a Christian, Noni. I just don't want my government to have anything to do with my religion.
Thanks for the full quote because when you place it next to other quotes of Jefferson, we can see what he thought the ideal government was for our country.
In his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, he said
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 legitimate 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
Jefferson was a Unitarian with Deist leanings who clashed constantly with orthodox Christians so it's fair to say that he would've clashed with you, correct?
Further, this country was not founded on any particular religion. God isn't mentioned in the Constitution. The Creator is mentioned in the DOI but that doesn't mean that the Creator is necessarily Christian.
We can see this in The Treaty of Tripoli, which states:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The treaty was signed by President Adams and received ratification by a unanimous Senate. Religious freedom, Noni, not the advancement of a state religion. I'm not sure if you are advocating this but if you are, what makes you different from a theocracy?
juris, I'm surprised at you. To begin with, bloviating proclamation doesn't mean shit to me. And aren't you an athiest? I would think you'd be more on my side on this one but I guess the desire to win the argument and prove me wrong is much more alluring.
I just don't want my government to have anything to do with my religion.
Really?!?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!
As for the Treaty of Tripoli:
Treaty of Tripoli does not contradict that America's heritage is Christian
"The U. S. Constitution's lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God."
And finally, back to the primary point:
Do you acknowledge that the quoted statement (the subject of your post) means something very different when viewed in its original context?
No, because Jefferson's letter to Thomas Cooper illustrated his early thoughts on the separation of church and state as he notes in the beginning.
When I was a student of the law, now half a century ago, after getting through Coke Littleton, whose matter cannot be abridged, I was in the habit of abridging and common-placing what I read meriting it, and of sometimes mixing my own reflections on the subject.
We see this at the end of the letter
In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has ever made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are. For instead of being contented with these four surreptitious chapters of Exodus, they have taken the whole leap, and declared at once that the whole Bible and Testament in a lump, make a part of the common law;ante 873: the first judicial declaration of which was by this same Sir Matthew Hale. And thus they incorporate into the English code laws made for the Jews alone, and the precepts of the gospel, intended by their benevolent author as obligatory only in foro concientiæ; and they arm the whole with the coercions of municipal law. In doing this, too, they have not even used the Connecticut caution of declaring, as is done in their blue laws, that the laws of God shall be the laws of their land, except where their own contradict them; but they swallow the yea and nay together.
His reflections on English law carried into his views on how to properly form a new country. That was my point in putting up this post. Read the introduction to the letter here...
http://www.princeton.edu/~ereading/TJChristianity.pdf
Are you trying to say that Jefferson was an orthodox Christian?
I'm very happy to have any sort of discussion on Jefferson and his views on Christianity. Are you certain you want to go down that path?
I'm very happy to have any sort of discussion on Jefferson and his views on Christianity.
I really couldn't give a rip about what Jefferson thought about Christianity. What he thought about govt and society is rich enough for me. His thoughts there do not support your views - not even a tiny, little bit.
Post a Comment