Revisiting Some Of Jefferson's Famous Sayings

-

-----------------------------
On this Fourth of July, it's well to recall again some of the most famous sayings of Thomas Jefferson, who - after all- is responsible for the famous "Wall of Separation" between Church and State. While many evangelicals have continued to try and obscure the facts governing this nation's founding, the true fact is that the Founders were chiefly DEISTS and not bible punching Theocrats. (Indeed it would be nearly another 100 years before any evangelicals would emerge).

To Deists, the word "Creator"  meant an impersonal principle providing the putative basis for origin. It did not and never has meant a "personal god". That was a later confection. So long as people keep making believe that the Founders were anything other than Deists, the myth will persist that this is a "Christian nation" when it is emphatically not. Indeed, even Article 11:

"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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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 of Tripoli makes this clear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Now, as to some of Jefferson's most famous quotes:

"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." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME 16:320

"I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816. ME 15:60

"From the dissensions among Sects themselves arise necessarily a right of choosing and necessity of deliberating to which we will conform. But if we choose for ourselves, we must allow others to choose also, and so reciprocally, this establishes religious liberty." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:545

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378

"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428


"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429


"It is... proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425

"I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith." --Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823. ME 15:434

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237


"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78


"Believing... 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." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

Incidentally, Jefferson- on becoming disillusioned with so much in the KJV Bible - undertook to write his own version - divested of the humbug and what he took to be ahistorical additions. That version is available here:

http://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Bible-Thomas/dp/0807077143

Have a happy and safe Fourth!

See Also:

Social Justice and Activism

The Right Wraps Itself in the Flag, but This Year the Left Are the Fourth of July Patriots

Christian Pest Tries to Brain Fart His Way to Explaining Reepos' Loss - To BAJANS!

It's no secret that a certain contingent of Americans inhabits Barbados, and they continually attempt to brainwash the island nation's citizens - mainly concerning things political and religious in the US of A. (Especially the basis or cause of electoral outcomes) One of these gadflies - or pests, as I call them -  is a "Paul Kokoski" who also had a letter featured in today's Barbados Sunday Advocate trying to explain the Republicans' loss last Tuesday.

Kokoski's letter is also instructive because, like many other Reepos, it discloses the level of disinformation that they will resort to in order to twist susceptible minds - especially those not as au fait with American politics. Let's then consider some of Kokoski's claims in his letter, starting with his first paragraph:

"The Republicans did not lose the US election because of constituencies or demographics. Neither is Barack Obama the problem. We are! Abortion is. Public schools are. A rotting pop culture is. Modernism in the Catholic Church is. Divorce and homosexual “marriage” are. Obama has been re-elected simply because America, like any nation, will always only get the leaders she deserves. We told God to go to hell a long time ago, and God is now allowing us to see what life is like without Him."

Now, notice he makes no connection whatsoever to the fact that 99% of Reeps are against abortion, and indeed wish Roe v. Wade to be overturned! In other words, to say the Reeps "did not lose the election because of constituencies or demographics"  is to be too blind by half (see, e.g. the previous blog).  The claim that "Americans get the leaders they deserve" is also a snide implication that Mitt Romney would have been  superior to the one (Obama) we "deserved", although, given Kokoski is Roman Catholic, he may well have preferred Rick Santorum, since in later paragraphs he disses Romney as being as "liberal as JFK". But I get ahead of myself.  Btw, the Vatican's assholes are reportedly moaning and groaning about the results of our election. As reported in today's Denver Post, the Vatican hack "newspaper" L'Osservatore Romano "sought to frame itself as the lone voice of courage in opposing the initiatives" voted on in the U.S. Hey you holier-than-thou fuckers, where was your vaunted courage when children were being raped by your pedophile priests?

The claim that Americans or anyone can "tell God to go to Hell" is simply daft and insane, if one assumes: a) a functional God does exist, and b) is a transcendent entity and immaterial. In fact, in such a case, one can't "tell" God anything! The real question Kokoski avoids, as do so many pseudo-Xtian numbnuts, is why God as they postulate him (or It) fails to act when most called upon. This absence of action is the most devastating evidence for arguing (along Victor Stenger's lines) that either a) this God does not exist, or b) it doesn't exist in the fashion Xtians claim.

Case in point: the 6-month old infant (Julian Adams Lacas) whose short life was detailed in today's Denver Post (p. 1A) covering the deaths of more than 72 foster and other children in Colorado over the past several years. In the case of this particular infant, he was born with a cleft palate and severe brain problems and left one day in the care of his father by mom, Krista - who went out looking for work. When she returned she found the infant barely conscious and only able to make squeaking sounds - as its windpipe had been partially crushed and his head turned into a punctured melon after his father flew into a rage and kicked him like a soccer ball. WHERE was the great all powerful God when this was going on? If people like Kokoski are going to insist he was there, but "looking on" then he's useless! But in the same vein, this uselessness also translates into the colossal stupidity of statements such as those made by Kokoski - to wit, we "told God to go to Hell" a long time ago. How can we if he's not paying attention to anything? 

Do these dopes even comprehend any of this? Doubtful! Meanwhile, the innocents, like little Justin or those two unfortunate Connecticut girls (Hayley and Michaela Petit) raped by intruders in their own home several years ago, then set on fire while tied to their beds - are left without anything to help them in greatest time of need. So, why get "saved" if there's nothing there anyway? Any idiot can make pseudo- threats about unseen bogeys, but if you have no evidence to back it up you really belong on a funny farm, fastened into a straightjacket and on a diet of thorazine. Oh, and interspersed with steady amperes of ECT!

However, as Stenger does note, and all atheists need to take note: not all god concepts are excluded. To quote Stenger :

"Certainly the deist god who does not interfere in the world is difficult to rule out. However, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, whom I identify with an uppercase G, is believed to play such an active role in the universe that his actions should have been detected, thus confirming his existence.”

Here, Stenger is conceding that some God-concepts can’t be ruled out as possible transcendent realties. He names the Deist concept, but one surely can also include any pantheistic, or impersonal variant, say like Bohm’s  “Holomovement” (elevated to God –concept status).

The Deist deity is important, however, because THAT is exactly the one the Founders (Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc.) accepted. To remind people: this deity is responsible for creating the universe, but then it effectively "walks away" - leaving creation to itself. It doesn't personally involve itself in anything. Hence, Kokoski's next claim:

"America is a Christian nation, and our help is in the name of the Lord – not electoral politics."

is total rubbish! Because Deists are NOT Christians! They don't accept a personal God or a personal "savior" a la Jesus Christ.  Hence, Kokoski is trying to feed his readers non-historical BS. To make sure people understand this, and emphasize the distinction, I refer readers to the key passage in the Treaty Of Tripoli, e.g. http://www.nobeliefs.com/document.htm

""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 tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."


Now, there will be those who assert this isn't evidence, but we must categorize them as imbeciles and move on. They aren't worth wasting time on.

Kokoski's next bit of insane hyperbole reads as follows:

"Out of fear and sheer desperation, most Americans threw their hats in the ring for a Mormon, big government-backing, sometimes pro-life, moderately pro-gay rights candidate. Even by John F. Kennedy’s standards, Mitt Romney is a rabid liberal who would not have altered the course for America."

This shows the man has no clue, not one, concerning who John F. Kennedy was, and certainly not Mitt Romney either! In fact, by John F. Kennedy's standards Romney would be the next thing to Attila the Hun! Bear in mind that unlike Romney's promised $5 trillion tax cuts for the wealthiest, JFK actually sought to severely limit ANY tax breaks for the rich. This is why he was widely castigated by the financial press of the time! (E.g. WSJ, 8/6/62 'No Cause for Celebration'; p. 6;  WSJ, 3/26/63 'Too Much Money, Too Little Thought', p. 18; WSJ, 8/15/63 'When Friends Become Foes', p. 8 )

If Kennedy were really a Romney double (or vice versa), why the hell would the Wall Street Journal attack him so often (the preceding was just a sampling) while praising Romney for his tax cut plan? Clearly Kokoski doesn't know jack shit or diddly.  Meanwhile, Henry Hazlitt, contributing editor at Newsweek (The Washington Post's then sister publication, now defunct as a print publication) was airing many of the same complaints against JFK. These polemics, appearing regularly in Hazlitt's 'Business Tides', included taking JFK to task for his tax policies - including the proposed tax on U.S. business earnings abroad. Romney meanwhile has taken advantage of tax loopholes to parlay assets into hundreds of billion of bucks from tax avoidance, stashed in the Caymans and Swiss banks.

As for "big government backing" - well, any halfway intelligent person who ever took a real American History course would know Kennedy followed a genuinely liberal tack, but NOT Mitt Romney. For example, JFK established and promoted the "Alliance for Progress' to enable low-interest loans for Latin American American nations, thereby outraging the 'Street" and the other capitalist bastions of thought. He also (in June, 1963) issued Executive Order 11,110  to challenge Fed control of the money supply. (Which under the Constitution authorizes only Congress to create paper money not a private entity) This EO authorized the creation of some $4.2 billion in U.S. Notes - to replace Federal Reserve Notes. These U.S. Notes were issued by Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon, and bore his signature.

Beyond that, JFK was into deficit spending for the public good, see, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/07/thats-right-now-blame-60s-jfk-for.html  while the Mittster wanted to rein in deficit spending for any public benefit but expand it exponentially for tax cuts and the military ($2 trillion without any offsets).

Also, in regard to the latter, Romney not only wanted to plow another $2 trillion into the Pentagon's already overflowing coffers, but he hired on warmonger advisors like Gen. Tommy Franks and John Bolton - former Bushies with hard ons for a war with Iran. Meanwhile, JFK actually issued a National Security Action Memorandum (263) to PULL OUT of Vietnam by calendar year 1965. (When LBJ ascended to power, he issued NSAM 273 to cancel out JFK's NSAM).

Again, Kokoski plays the role of either an ignorant stooge, or maybe a disinformationist. Who knows? In either case he's a pest, like another rabid bible puncher I know who shall remain nameless, but whose rants can perhaps better be explained by appeal to mental illness.

Fortunately, most clever Bajans appear to be on to those like Paul Kokoski, but we have to expect the Kokoskis of the world will never quit trying to push bollocks and baloney down the throats of those who may not know as much about American history as the rest of us! It is up to those of us who know better to expose them and their game!