Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[Achán hiNidráne]

I guess I am just struggling with WHY anyone would start this type of discussion in the first place, its pretty meaningless.

Don't ask me. Talk to DOC.

 

[kmortis]

The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved, that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the words 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read, 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;' the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.

bolding mine, cite

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Just to add to kmortis' cite of Jefferson's Autobiography, I'd note that a certain protege of his was in the Virginia legislature at the time the statute on religious freedom was adopted - James Madison, aka the "father" of the Constitution. Since there is no record anywhere of him objecting to the lack of inclusion of Christianity into the body of the statute, nor a single mention of Jesus in the Constitution accomodationists are left high and dry with their suggestion that the framers (note, this group is different than the founding fathers for the lurkers) intending for America to be JerUSAlem on the Patomac.

 

[DOC]

I also like Adams, Hamilton and Paine. Of them all, Franklin is my favorite (and he also has a number of anti-religious quotes, mainly due to his deep-seated distrust of organized religion, more than an anti-theitical point of view). I would wager that it is possible to find pro-morality quotes as well as anti-religion quotes from all the FFs. They were products of the times, and the Enlightenment was not favorable to organized relgion.

Yes, a lot of people think Benjamin Franklin was one of the least religious of the FF but the following letter shows that even some of the least religious back then were defenders of religion.

TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]

DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.
But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
B. Franklin

Excerpt from the article "Ben Franklin's Letter to Thomas Paine"

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=93

Wallbuilders website

 

[Ducky]

DOC, did you not read that letter?

Here, let me requote the relevant part as I see it:

You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security.

So most of mankind is so weak and soft-minded they need a ritual to be virtuous in the eyes of a religion. In other words, religion is nothing more than a system of control from condescending clergy to force people to behave in a way they deem virtuous. This is the type of thinking that tries to teach absitinence in Africa instead of handing out condoms to protect from HIV.

Hardly complimentary of religion, or of mankind.

Now, why didn't you link to kmortis' post that you quoted? Considering you have yet to respond to his posts on this very page, I think it relevant to show you are actually responding to a post many pages ago, in an attempt to ignore that the conversation over this thread has progressed since then; showing your academic dishonesty.

 

[DOC]

Now, why didn't you link to kmortis' post that you quoted? Considering you have yet to respond to his posts on this very page, I think it relevant to show you are actually responding to a post many pages ago, in an attempt to ignore that the conversation over this thread has progressed since then; showing your academic dishonesty.

The more red herring nonsense you spew out about a post of mine, the more I know the post was effective. Thank you for helping me realize that post #504 was a good post.

 

[Ducky]

The more red herring nonsense you spew out about a post of mine, the more I know the post was effective. That for helping me realize that post #504 was a good post.

It is not a red herring when it is true. Is that not a post of Kmortis' from several pages ago? Why haven't you responded to anything he posted on this page?


PS:

Effective for WHAT? This thread was supposed to be about Jefferson. What does a tiff between Franklin and Paine have to do with anything, especially the current state of the separation between church and state?

 

[Cleon]

The more red herring nonsense you spew out about a post of mine, the more I know the post was effective. Thank you for helping me realize that post #504 was a good post.

Wow, your disconnect from reality knows no bounds, does it?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Thank you for helping me realize that post #504 was a good post.

It's called "reading comprehension." I suggest you learn it.

 

[fuelair]

The more red herring nonsense you spew out about a post of mine, the more I know the post was effective. Thank you for helping me realize that post #504 was a good post.

He means it is more effective in drawing more people to comment. Think large, green, big club, afraid of Billy Goat Gruffs.

 

[DOC]

Excerpt from Franklin letter: (entire Franklin letter in post 504)

"You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security."

So most of mankind is so weak and soft-minded they need a ritual to be virtuous in the eyes of a religion.

That's not what Franklin said, he said they have needs of the "motives of religion". One motive of religion might be to help people in becoming good solid positive human beings that are happy and fulfilled and make the world a better place.

In other words, religion is nothing more than a system of control from condescending clergy to force people to behave in a way they deem virtuous.

Once again the end is "the motives of religion"; the "practice of it" (as Franklin refers to it) is just one means to the end.

Franklin was not a spirit filled Christian by any means but he certainly sees the benefits of religion. His opinion seems to be 99% logical and 1% spiritual but he still seems to be saying were better off with religion than without it.

 

[Ducky]

 

[kmortis]

Franklin was not a spirit filled Christian by any means but he certainly sees the benefits of religion. His opinion seems to be 99% logical and 1% spiritual but he still seems to be saying were better off with religion than without it.

No, Franklin wasn't a "spirit-filled" Christian. This goes to my point that it doesn't really matter what the FFs religious leanings were, the important part was that they definitely did not want a theocracy. They all agreed that the government should stay out of the religion game. I don't think anyone thinks that it's reasonable to expect that a politician wouldn't bring his religious beliefs to bear when he's voting, but that shouldn't be the only thing he brings to bear. Laws should not be made to enforce religious tenants, not should they be an untenable burden to them either. Your right to practice your religion ends where my life begins.

That was the important lesson that the FFs tried to make evident. Not that they were Deists, or not. Not that there is or is not some wall of separation. That we're a big country, made up of a large number of points of view. To make it all work, we have to be willing to accept that others will not share our beliefs. I don't expect that you, DOC, will suddenly give up being a theist; I just ask that you give me the same consideration. I don't expect Billy Graham to stop preaching (well, here in a few years he'll probably die, I expect him to stop preaching then, but that's a physical limitation, not a legislative one) because I'm an atheist. I do expect that my government would respect my point of view, as well as yours, Billy's and your neighborhood friendly Buddhist monk.

The government should be agnostic. Not favor any belief over any other.

 

[skeptifem]

DOC, lets assume you are correct. what does that prove?

 

[DOC]

"Bad History"

DOC, lets assume you are correct. what does that prove?

It proves that the current Separation of Church and State "legal concept" that is being used to tear a ten commandment display down that has been up for decades and prevent the Boys Scouts from using public parks in cities like San Diego is based on "bad history" as Former chief Justice Renquist said it was. (Post 380)

If the ACLU and others want to tear down manger scenes that have been used for 85 years or end school prayer that has been around for 180 years do it threw the polls or threw the constitution; don't do it threw bad history. Because guys like me are going to be constantly reminding everyone it was based on bad history.

 

[kmortis]

So, for 500+ posts, you have engaged in a thread to whine about there not being school prayer? You're angry that wholly religious presentations by the governments are being taken down?

Ok, just because something was done in the past, doesn't make it the correct thing to do. As time marches on, we get a better understanding as to what living in a democracy means. Part of that is that the government cannot prefer one religion over another. I don't think that any of us atheists think that the government should ban religious practice from the land, just not have it be endorsed.

What would you think if a governmental body decided to erect a Buddha? Or a statue of Ganesh?

 

[DOC]

So, for 500+ posts, you have engaged in a thread to whine about there not being school prayer? You're angry that wholly religious presentations by the governments are being taken down?

Ok, just because something was done in the past, doesn't make it the correct thing to do. As time marches on, we get a better understanding as to what living in a democracy means. Part of that is that the government cannot prefer one religion over another. I don't think that any of us atheists think that the government should ban religious practice from the land, just not have it be endorsed.

I agree, the government should not prefer one religion over another. If a Muslim Youth group wants to use a public park -- I have no problem with that. If an atheist youth group wants to use a public park, no problem. Why does the ACLU fight to prevent the Boys Scouts of America from using a public park.


A democracy is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

A democracy is not of the non-elected judges, by the non-elected judges, and for the non-elected judges.

 

[Cleon]

I agree, the government should not prefer one religion over another. If a Muslim Youth group wants to use a public park -- I have no problem with that. If an atheist youth group wants to use a public park, no problem. Why does the ACLU fight to prevent the Boys Scouts of America from using a public park.

They don't. This is simply a lie.

 

[DOC]

They don't. This is simply a lie.

Well I was going on my memory of the Boy Scout incident. So I did a little more research. Here is an excerpt of an article entitled "The ACLU vs. the Boy Scouts" by Hans Zeiger

"Now that the City of San Diego has given up on the Boy Scouts of America, a nearly 90-year relationship has come to an end. It began after the 1915 San Diego World's Fair in Balboa Park when the Santa Fe Railroad donated its Pueblo Indian Village to local Boy Scouts with approval by the San Diego Parks Commission. For 25 years, the Scouts used the Indian Village as a headquarters and recreation site free of charge. During World War Two, the military took possession of Balboa Park and the Boy Scouts launched their volunteer campaigns to help the war effort from a makeshift headquarters in a local theater.

At the end of the war, the San Diego City Council passed a resolution authorizing the Boy Scouts to take charge of several acres of land in Balboa Park. Through fundraising and volunteer work, a state-of-the-art swimming pool and a 600-seat outdoor amphitheater were constructed. In 1949, the Boy Scouts Desert Pacific Council headquarters building was completed.

Parts of Balboa Park remained undeveloped by 1957, so the city council agreed to transfer additional property to the Boy Scouts for maintenance and operations. A fifty-year lease was signed with a rental fee of one dollar per year.

Today, Camp Balboa accommodates up to 300 campers at a time, and it offers a variety of year-round programs. Each year, 12,000 Boy Scouts take part in day camps, weekend camps, and merit badge classes.

But the Boy Scouts don't have exclusive access to their own camp. Anyone can use it. Last summer, the two-day San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Festival was held at Balboa Park.

And the Boy Scouts take good care of Balboa Park. The Scouts have spent millions of dollars developing and maintaining the public park over the years, without burden to the city and its taxpayers. In the language of free market think tanks, that's a classic public-private partnership.

The ACLU cares nothing about saving taxpayers money, nor that the Scouts perform millions of dollars and thousands of hours worth of public service for the San Diego community, nor about the fact that the Scouts have been in the park for most of nine decades. The ACLU simply wants to destroy the Boy Scouts of America."

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zeiger/040114

 

[Ducky]

DOC-

The ACLU didn't prevent the Boy Scouts from using a park, they simply do not have the monopoly on that park any more. How is that preventing anything? The Boy Scouts do not own that park. While their work is appreciated, it is not *their* park.

Also, your posts are not proving "that the current Separation of Church and State "legal concept" that is being used to tear a ten commandment display down that has been up for decades and prevent the Boys Scouts from using public parks in cities like San Diego is based on "bad history" as Former chief Justice Renquist said it was. (Post 380)" At best, they show Payne and Franklin had a tiff, and that the Boy Scouts, a religiously themed institution nowadays, cannot have sole propriety on a park to the exclusion of others. I was an Eagle Scout, with Order of the Arrow honors, and I agree with the ACLU, the scouts should not be favored over any other group scheduling events in the park because the Boy Scouts have religious underpinnings and in fact exclude atheists. Can't have preference over religions or lack thereof in public government, right?

Try again.