by Tristan Russell
Member since:
January 9, 2008

'Wonder What Thomas Jefferson Really Meant', A Challenge

February 27, 2008 10:27 PM UTC (Updated: June 29, 2008 01:20 AM UTC)
views: 0 | comments: 65
Ms. Marilyn "Merry Sunshine" Mackenzie recently posted an article in which she wondered "what Thomas Jefferson really meant" about founding America for Christianity.  I take issue with her post, not because I do not share Ms. Mackenzie's faith, but because she is simply incorrect with certain points and assumptions she makes in her post.
 

First, I'd like to point out that I am not attacking Ms. Mackenzie or her faith outright.  This is a rebuttal to her arguments as well as some other common arguments about the founding of America on Christianity/the Bible/religion, Jefferson's faith, and what HRES 888 means for the future of all Americans, not just Christians.

 

Documenting Our Freedoms
Ms. Mackenzie writes: "Many people are under the mistaken notion that our founding documents use the phrase, 'separation of church and state.'  They don't."

I must agree with her on that. 

But the words "Bill of Rights", "fair trial", "right to privacy", "freedom of association", and "religious liberty"—other phrases familiar and defended by most modern Americans—also don't appear anywhere in Constitution. 

The Constitution and its amendments only mention religion three times, and only as prohibitions against government doing things religious. Article Six of our Constitution says that their will be no religious test for office or public trust.  Our First Amendment guarantees, essentially, freedom of thought; you can believe whatever you want.  The Establishment Clause forbids legal establishment and preference of religions by the State.

Ms. Mackenzie also correctly shows where those important words—separation of church and state—appear: in Jefferson's reply to the Danbury Baptist Association, stating his reason for denying their request for a national day of fasting.  Jefferson was denying them their plea to impose their religious practices on others.

But I suppose all this "he said this" and "he said that" isn't exactly what Ms. Mackenzie's post is referring to.  Even though the founders of this country deliberately set up a secular system, Ms. Mackenzie wants to know what Thomas Jefferson really meant for America's religious future.

The important thing is, though, that he understood that Americans wanted a "wall of separation". What his religious convictions were over the matter is irrelevant. Thomas Jefferson didn't set up the country all by himself. 

 

America Founded In Jesus's Name?
The Founding Fathers weren't all on the same page when it came to religion, but America was not founded as a Christian nation.  True, some were Christian (Protestant, Episcopalian, Catholic, Puritan, etc.), but others were Deists, who believed in a non-personal creator god.  America's founders were highly influenced by German free-thinking, and they understood not only A) the dangers of religion itself, but also B) the true nature of religious freedom, probably more so than the former.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -Benjamin Franklin

 "What has been [Christianity's] fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison

 "There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness." -George Washington

In a letter in 1785, James Monroe was asked to introduce a bill into Congress to set aside public funds to support churches.  Monroe (one of the authors of the First Amendment) replied, "How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment.  The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."
 
Need more convincing that we were not founded on Christianity?  The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli was negotiated under George Washington and signed into law by President John Adams. This treaty of peace and friendship toward a foreign nation was debated and unanimously voted into law by the U.S. Senate. Article 11 states clearly, "…the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…"

In 1786—before the Constitution was written—Patrick Henry, a highly devout Christian, submitted a proposal to the state of Virginia to publicly finance the teaching of Christianity in schools.  Know what happened?  Virginians rejected it, and instead passed the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, an act that prohibited tax support for religious institutions and barred religious tests for public office.  The language of this Act made the foundation for the Establishment Clause and Article Six of the Constitution.

The evangelicals at the time embraced this Act, because they were a minority in an Episcopalian state and they feared government intrusion upon their rights to practice their beliefs.  I find it sad—now that they're the majority, most evangelical Christians want to remove such acts from our law books.  You no longer need religious protection if you're in the majority.

Or do you?

 

Neutrality = True Religious Freedom
The Christian clergy of the Revolutionary period tried again and again to have some mention of Christianity directly inserted into our founding documents, only to be unanimously voted down.  Can you guess the reason why the U.S. Founders wanted a secular—instead of a religious—nation?

I fear many believers don't really understand what religious freedom is.

The First Amendment protects everyone, including Christians of all kinds.  Think about it for a second: what if Jefferson's version of Christianity were made law?  What if, instead of it saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", it gave specific instructions on how to practice the Religion of the State?  Would you be comfortable practicing someone else's religion…someone else's Christianity?  There are over 33,000 different versions of Christianity according to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version).  Would you be comfortable worshiping as per version #672, as required by law?  Scared of that what would mean?  Think about all the other people in this country, at all levels of government and citizenry.  Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and people all different faiths and non-faiths live in this country.  Our constitution is secular for the protection of all people. 

It couldn't work any other way.

There must be a neutral arbiter to protect the rights of one religion from being infringed upon by another.  We can't do that if America becomes a theocracy!

In particular, Ms. Mackenzie supports House Resolution 888, a proposal that would effectively destroy the wall of separation that guarantees her the very freedom of religion she has.  The resolution sports 31 sponsors in the House of Representatives and 75 "whereas" clauses that threaten to rewrite the history of America (which I have hopefully refreshed you on above) into some kind of Christian revisionist faux-history.  The bill's purpose "to affirm the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding" is completely unsupported by the evidence of history, and the text is compiled mostly from disinformation found on many Christian websites. 

This article by Chris Rodda discusses 14 of the 75 clauses (focusing on the ones relating to the founding era of America), showing the differences between the proposed histories of these clauses and the documented history these clauses deny: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/4/24725/53989.
 
Several of the clauses Ms. Mackenzie cites as historical facts are discussed in this article.

While the bill doesn't immediately establish a national religion, it is taking the first step down that road by using distortions, unsupported assertions, and cleverly disguised lies to manipulate American history and what many believe the Founding Fathers' intentions for what our country was meant to be.  This bill opens the door to other bills supporting national fasting days, recognitions of religious rituals, and further support to religious institutions—perhaps not just of the Christian sort.
 

So, Was Jefferson Religious?
In her article, Ms. Mackenzie quotes Thomas Jefferson to prove that he was a man of faith.  Yes, Jefferson said he was a Christian, in the truest possible sense.  Of course, how many Christians bicker at each other over what exactly makes a "true Christian"?

Indeed, in his 1800 presidential campaign, Jefferson was called "the howling atheist" for such quotes as: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

…and…

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

People change their minds about things.  I did.  I honestly don't know all there is to know about his life.  The fact is it doesn't matter what Thomas Jefferson believed or what any of the other founders believed.  They were largely pro-slavery as well, but our society has progressed since then.  It doesn't matter what they said, it doesn't make it right. The main point is that in order to have religious freedom, you must have freedom from it, and the law must be kept secularly neutral in order to support and protect everyone in this great nation.

 

-STA

 

Suggested Material:

Article discussing different facets of American government and history that are often misconstrued to mean America was founded on Christianity.

Painstakingly researched quotes with documented sources—many taken from government documents, Founding Fathers, and presidents.

Article briefly summarizing HRES 888; has link to a video about HRES 888 by RabidApe.

Episode of Athiest Experience from Austin, TX—discusses the efforts by dominionists/dispensationalists to coopt the US military

Comments: 65

Marilyn M. Feb 28, 2008, 12:09am UTC
Tristan, I think you've misunderstood much of what I wrote and certainly about HRES88.

You said, "In particular, Ms. Mackenzie supports House Resolution 888, a proposal that would effectively destroy the wall of separation that guarantees her the very freedom of religion she has. "

The bill's main purpose is to set aside a week in May as "American Religious History Week."

Here are the purposes listed in the bill:

1) to affirm the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history, including up to the current day;

(2) to recognize that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation's most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America's representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures;

(3) to reject, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's public buildings and educational resources; and

(4) to express support for designation of a `American Religious History Week' every year for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.


I fail to see how having a week that clearly educates us and our children about the rich spiritual and diverse religious history is in any way destroying the "wall of separation of church and state" that many wish to have.

Our history books have already been re-written to take out most mentions of any spiritual or religious history. But the founding documents make little sense if we don't know the religious background of our founding fathers. The Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, and Lincoln Monument all have acknowledgements of God and Bible verses. That also makes no sense unless our history lessons explain that the founding fathers believed the government they were proposing and creating would not be possible without belief in God. (And that does seem to be the case...now.)

I have read the entire bill myself. The "whereas" portions are factual. They are things that happened in our history. I think it is something each one of us should read and then encourage our members of Congress to get behind. We need that one week every year to acknowledge that our country was founded on godly principals. We need that reminder.
Marilyn M. Feb 28, 2008, 12:15am UTC
I also disagree with this:

"Ms. Mackenzie also correctly shows where those important words—separation of church and state—appear: in Jefferson's reply to the Danbury Baptist Association, stating his reason for denying their request for a national day of fasting. Jefferson was denying them their plea to impose their religious practices on others."

From the letters I've read - from the Danbury Baptists and Jefferson's response - the main reason for the letter was not to address their "plea to impost their religious practices on others" but to assure them that the persecution they had received would not continue from a federal standpoint. He wanted to assure them that our federal government would not establish a religion nor would it prohibit free expression of religion.
Marilyn M. Feb 28, 2008, 12:22am UTC
Our founding fathers were trying to secure the rights of every citizen to be able to practice their faith. The problem with that is that faith is not just practiced on Sunday in church. My faith, my beliefs, are seomthing I carry with me all the time, everywhere I go, 24/7. That means if I'm working in an office, I have the right to have a Bible on my bookshelf in plain view for all to see. I have the right to read that Bible at the work place. I have the right to gather with other Christians in the work place for Bible study before or after work or at lunch time. I personally use Bible references in my everyday conversations with everyone. I have that right, according to the First Amendment.

By the same token, children have the right to write about Jesus or Moses or Paul in essays. And validictorians in public schools have the right to mention that their faith is what sustained them.
Tristan Russell Feb 28, 2008, 1:39am UTC
Yes, the found fathers were securing the rights to all citizens of all faiths. Yes, children can write about Jesus, or even pray at school. You have the right to practice as you wish, until you start stepping on the rights of others. Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose. If you held a public office where you represented many different people, you would not have the right favor one religious ideal over another, nor religion over non-religion.

Imagine we lived in a crazy world where our Constitution read, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of desserts", and then a Congressman wanted to introduce a bill that would force the recognition of a "National Week of Cake". Don't see a problem, do you?
Laura Cushing Feb 28, 2008, 2:07am UTC
I wish someone would put half the energy they put into trying to pass crap like this into fixing the health care system.

I'd like my basic human rights, please. Religion free.
Lori F. Feb 28, 2008, 9:52am UTC
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no gods." he wrote. "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

This is a quote from Thomas Jefferson. He was probably the biggest defender of religious freedom. And one smart cookie.
Joseph H. Feb 28, 2008, 10:49am UTC
"I fail to see how having a week that clearly educates us and our children about the rich spiritual and diverse religious history is in any way destroying the "wall of separation of church and state" that many wish to have."

I don't see a whole lot of diversity in the "educational" posting in our public buildings. I have yet to see any writings from the Koran on a plaque in city hall. I didn't learn any Lakota prayers in high school. In the list of "reminders" in the original article, the Bible was mentioned six times. No literature from any other religion was mentioned. No other religion was mentioned, period.

I appreciate our government's desire to educate me with their bills on religion and their "American Religious History Week". But I have a feeling there's a bit more to it than just "educating" our "children and our grandchildren" about our "rich heritage", since they are keeping the scope of that education of our "rich heritage" limited to one religion.
Tristan Russell Feb 28, 2008, 11:43am UTC
Maryland might have been founded for Christianity, and that's all well and good, but the freedoms that America provides as a whole allows freedom for all. Otherwise we will have states breaking away from the union or new countries being founded to escape OUR religious persecution. This is why government in particular should remain uninvolved with religion.

Like I said before, a National Week for the Appreciation of Cake would be a direct violation to the let's not make laws regarding desserts mandate.
Ian Thorpe Feb 28, 2008, 11:52am UTC
The eminent historian Simon Schama says to understand history we must put our minds back in time and consider how events unfolded from the contemporary point of view.

In this respect it is necessary to understand the Anglican / Episcopalian faith is not protestant but Catholic. King Henry VIII founded the Anglican Catholic Communion as a result of a 1000 year old feud between the Vatican and the English Crown (his wanting a divorce was just a historic red herring.) The English Puritans then were not early Calvinists, that was the Scottish Presbyterians, they were Anglicans who recognised Saints, attended mass and took communion. The Puritan bit came in because they wanted to "purify the English Church of the heresies of Rome." Henry also wanted to get his hands on the wealth of the monastries of course!

At the time the American Constitution was drafted the rising nonconformist religions were Unitarianism and Methodism (aka Wesleyanism). Also the Moravian Church from Germany was very strong. All these were very socialistic and collectivist in their preaching and the Unitarians did not even believe Jesus was the divine son of God.

Though we think of colonial America as being populated by English, Scottish and Irish migrants, other nationalities, mainly German Dutch, Swedish and French were well represented as were their religions.

Thus it would have been impossible for Jefferson to have meant "Christian" in the way it is meant now, the word having been hijacked by extremeists whose creeds have little to do with the core philosophy expressed in the New Testament.

The alleged "teachings of Jesus" were nothing new of course. The same message is expressed hundreds of years earlier by Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius and Zalmoxis as well as by the Hellenic philosophers of Athens, Tyre and Alexandria and also thousands of years earlier in the Hindu Rig Veda.

But I am only preaching to the converted here. Only Christians can know the truth because Christians have "faith" which trumps all wisdom, learning and empirical evidence every time I keep getting told.
Barbara B. Feb 28, 2008, 12:35pm UTC
I need to come back to read this through.
Jonathan S. Feb 28, 2008, 1:09pm UTC
To follow up from Ian's comments:

Well into the 19th Century, at least until the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the Church of England (the Established Church, aka an "establishment of religion") was the /only/ religion that a person intending to pursue a public career - particularly in politics, but exclusively in the armed services and many professions - could belong to in England if he or she wished to reach any prominence. Not being a member of this church was not just an obstacle but an actual barrier. One of the greatest politicians of the Victorian age, Benjamin Disraeli, converted from Judaism largely to ensure his career would not be hampered.

Would the US really have been well-served by the adoption of an "official religion" to which all public figures would have had to adhere? Is it not far better to allow people to keep their religious lives, and their public lives, separate? And by extension, to keep not just one, but all religions out of the mandates of public life?

To quote Tony Blair, ex-Prime Minister of Great Britain, on why he kept quiet about his own deep faith during his premiership: "Over here, if you talk about that sort of thing in public, people think you're a bit of a nutter."
Bert B. Feb 28, 2008, 1:20pm UTC
"...affirm the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history..."

Okay, if we need to do that, then we must do it in accord with the Constitution by devoting part of the week to Christianity, part to Islam, part to Buddhism, part to Hinduism...etc.
And those should be EQUAL parts because the First Amendment prohibits Congress (who will make this law recognizing our religious heritage) from making any law respecting the establishment of religion. So the week must be impartial in its affirmation.
Bert B. Feb 28, 2008, 1:21pm UTC
And I assure you that if such a law were proposed, it would be shouted down.
Jerry Kays Feb 28, 2008, 1:34pm UTC
Before I read the comments here, I will post my comment on Marilyn's thread that the above link took me to first:

" I came here from a link on Tristan's article that was linked from elsewhere (or was it ?) ... anyway, here I agree with Will B. and Michael H. ... Maybe others, but especially in something that far too many "Christians" FAIL to realize ... that the rest of the world CAN believe in God and NOT do so through Christian eyes that confuse between the Father and the the Son ... THEY ARE VERY DIFFERENT to most of us ... as they were to most of our Founding Fathers ... NO MATTER what Christian history revisionists INSIST upon ... "
Ian Thorpe Feb 28, 2008, 1:37pm UTC
Chives,
Thank you. Earl of Cockermouth or Mrrquess of Ramsbottom (both real places) would have sufficed
Ian Thorpe Feb 28, 2008, 1:40pm UTC
Jonathan S.
Good points. All on the mark.

And let's not forget when Blair wanted to include his one-on-one relationship with God in a speech (to impress Bushe we guess - "Yo Blair.") his press secretary Alistain Campbell told him bluntly, "We don't do God."
John M. Feb 28, 2008, 2:29pm UTC
" 'We don't do God.' "

Is that because god's a guy and that would make him, like, totally gay and going to hell? I mean the Brits all seem kinda fruity anyway, so, you know, like getting caught with god in a coat room with your pants around your ankles would be, like, really really gay.
paul l. Feb 28, 2008, 4:34pm UTC
Great article and discussion - thanks, all.
Jonathan S. Feb 28, 2008, 4:55pm UTC
Well said Bert B.

I look forward to the establishment of Shiva's Birthday as a national holiday. (I'm assuming it will come sometime after National Porcine Aviation Week...)
Nyota *Star* Feb 28, 2008, 5:30pm UTC
Religious belief and faith can be believed and followed without joining a club and convincing others to do the same.
Tristan Russell Feb 28, 2008, 6:10pm UTC
Yes, people can believe whatever they want to. But for government officials, they should uphold the laws of the nation, and not try to change them to "fit God's laws", as Huckabee wants to.

Top 10 Moments in the Race for "Pastor-in-Chief"
Questioning Katie Feb 28, 2008, 6:25pm UTC
My thoughts while reading the purposes of the bill:

1) to affirm the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history, including up to the current day;

That's a nice idea, I guess. They did say diverse, after all, and are going to follow through to the current day. I guess that means that all the different religions that have had a foothold in America since the 18th century are going to be studied by school children. As long as they don't restrict themselves to, say, the three most popular or give Christianity a week and all the others an hour, should be okay.

(2) to recognize that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation's most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America's representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures;

Wait, what? Inseparable? The Founding Fathers, few of whom believed and/or practiced in the same religion, made sure that religion and government would be separated. That was , like, one of their goals.

(3) to reject, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's public buildings and educational resources; and

So now just the religions of the Founding Fathers? Just Catholics, Puritans, Episcopalians, and maybe the Deists get to be in public buildings and schoolbooks? What happened to the diversity?!

(4) to express support for designation of a `American Religious History Week' every year for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.

Which history was that? The one from #3, or the one from #1? Things seems to have shifted pro-Christianity over the course of this list...I think the nice has gone all out of this idea.


And those were just my thoughts from reading the short list of the bill's four purposes.
James B. Feb 28, 2008, 7:39pm UTC
I agree wholeheartedly with this article! I also enjoyed the further remarks of the author. I also agree with many of the comments, including those by Laura, Lori, Joe T., Bert, Jonathan and the Chive, to name a few.

Finally, appreciate the valuable information added by Sir Ian of Thorpe.

I believe that Congress should keep Church and State separate and spend time on issues that are appropriate: the war, health care, the economy, the war, poverty, education, and, ... the war.
James B. Feb 28, 2008, 7:42pm UTC
p.s. If I left you off my "agree with" list it could be because of the big time lag between starting to comment and posting the comment, which may have caused me to miss what you said. Either that or I don't agree with you. It should be obvious either way.
Bruce B. Feb 28, 2008, 9:06pm UTC
Tristan, I thought this was a fine article and I find myself in agreement with you.

In Marylyn's replay she summarizes the bill to include:
"(2) to recognize that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built..." and "(3) to reject, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's public buildings and educational resources..."

I admit I need to go read the bill but at this point I would fear that the these "religious foundations" would not meet with everyone's agreement but no one would be able to disregard them. In fact, I can think of some pretty drastic consequences of "strongest possible terms" for trying to remove some religious ideas that you disagree with. To me, a bill is part of the law of the land. So it would become a law that I should be penalized in some "strong" yet undefined way for removing some yet unstated religious foundation?
Questioning Katie Feb 28, 2008, 10:43pm UTC
Yes, Bruce, exactly!
Jerry Kays Feb 29, 2008, 2:42am UTC
To look back at the writings of Thomas Paine who the founding fathers read and understood, would give a better idea of their positions regarding religions of that day and age ...
Bert B. Feb 29, 2008, 3:35am UTC
Right, Jerry. Paine was very clear on his distaste for mixing of religion with government.
Here are some examples:
"[T]he successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalian & Congregationalist. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me;"

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. what have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

And finally, the one I like the best:
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy. … I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

If anyone would like to read more quotes by our founders on this subject, I wrote an article about two years ago for Gather on this subject.
/A>
Bert B. Feb 29, 2008, 3:36am UTC
I screwed up the link at the end, but it still works.
M O. Feb 29, 2008, 10:57am UTC
Excellent article, Tristan. Well-researched and structured.

I find it very entertaining that Americans (well, mostly those of the fundamentalist persuasion) highlight the small group of Puritans that landed on the shores of Cape Cod as the first Americans, thus implying that religious motivations and beliefs are at the heart of the American experience going forward. I grew up not far from those shores, in a small New England town which has just about every religion you can think of represented by a congregation, including one of the oldest Quaker societies in America. It is the sight of one of the major turns in the French and Indian War. And this is what I know, based on my education based on the original sources and sites of the area:

1) The Puritans who came over searching for religious freedom were a highly intolerant group, running their original settlements as theocracies that would put the Sharia law of the strictest Muslim societies seem like a socialist nirvana. They maimed and killed many dissenters, including the Quakers, who often had their tongues cut out before being thrown out of the community. If these are the people you hold up as the founders of our nation, Marilyn, then you may as well worship sociopaths.

2) Most of the original colonies were purely founded for capitalistic reasons (i.e., Jamestown) - the pursuit of money and riches to be gained from the abundant resources of this land. They had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and often included members from a variety of religious beliefs, as well as people of no particular belief.

So, Marilyn - if you REALLY want to support the historical study of our early times in America, then we should actually propose a "Glorify Commerce" week, rather than anything to do with religion. And perhaps make sure that our history books actually reflect the violence and intolerance of the majority of original religious folks who came to our shores.
Chris Brockman Feb 29, 2008, 11:33am UTC
Thanks to Tristan for his research, scholarship, and analysis. That's the kind of work that is often necessitated by the attempts of one special interest group or another to hijack the machinery of government to further its particular agenda. That Christians are in this case acting as a special interest group pushing an agenda is made obvious by raising the question of why in the world do they want such a bill passed. Independent of the facts of the genesis and evolution of this country and its Constitution, such a bill adds nothing even vaguely substantive to the functioning of our country or government. So, why would someone conceive it and push it?

As for any important influence of Christianity on the founding of our country and its Constitution, there were already many Christian nations at the time of the Revolution, and there still are. They have always and still do run the gamut from cruel and opressive to relatively benevolent. It is clearly not their basis, real or claimed, in Christianity that determines the enlightenment of the government or the freedom accorded their citizens. It is the grounding of their government in the secular philosophy of freedom and human rights. It was the revolutionary philosophy of people such as J.S. Mill and John Locke that profoundly and meaningfully influenced the Founding Fathers & Mothers. It was this philosophy that proclaimed freedom from all opression, including and in particular the opression of existing Christian governments, that became the particular genius of our nation. It's our committment to freedom that set us apart from all other nations, and it is the extent to which this committment has been kept that has made our country successful. Any attempt to mess with freedom--the real founding principle of our country--to grant special favor to Christianity or any religion--none of which play any significant positive role in the principles underlying our constitution or Constitution--is totally misguided at best and almost surely subversive.
This article is a very temperate discussion of a contentious issue. It features things like a coherent argument with factual support. It's a lot harder to do this than say "You're an idiot." In the long run it's much more satisfying to do it this way.

Thanks, Tristan.

My catch phrase on the subject is:

There is no better guarantee of religious freedom than a secular government.
Tristan Russell Feb 29, 2008, 2:41pm UTC
"It's a lot harder to do this than say 'You're an idiot.' In the long run it's much more satisfying to do it this way."

You have that absolutely right, Nip. It's why I do what I do.
Bert B. Feb 29, 2008, 2:50pm UTC
Tristan,
Were your parents Wagner fans?
Just wondered...
Bert
Tristan Russell Feb 29, 2008, 4:17pm UTC
Ron Paul is now co-sponsoring 888:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. ...Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion."

What writings of which Founding Fathers is he looking at? Does he think someone just pulled "separation of church and state" out of their ass one day? And, "replete with references to God"? There's no mention of "God" anywhere in the Constitution, except the date--which was simply the standard dating convention of the time. The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document and it didn't set up the laws of this country.

Back when he first started campaigning, I was on board. He claimed want to get the nation back to the Constitution. Then the whole evolution thing and wanting Creationism taught in school, and some other crazy shit....and now this?!
Tristan Russell Feb 29, 2008, 4:24pm UTC
@Bert: what?

In case you're wondering, I wasn't raised as an atheist.
Jerry Kays Feb 29, 2008, 4:45pm UTC
Bert ... I went to your link above (again) and left the following there:

" Bert, due to your comment I read on another current article today where you linked to here, it gave me the opportunity and pleasure to read through all of this one more time ... all so pertinent and well said with great comments ... I have book marked it this time for the next occasion where some "fundamentalists" need instructions ... I am sure the occasion will arise all too soon. "

Thanks again ! ALL HERE SHOULD REVIEW THAT THREAD !
Jerry Kays Feb 29, 2008, 4:51pm UTC
Chris, GREAT comment ! Tristan, good points ! (I did follow your 9 or so videos yesterday ... rather enjoyed the first few ... but "then" ... ya know ... ) :-)
Fish Pierce Feb 29, 2008, 8:28pm UTC
First... Well done, Tristan! Very well done! You put a lot of work into this article and it shows.

What frustrates me is the doe-eyed, innocent look that HRES888 supporters give you when they say "All it does is designate a Religious History Week. What's so horrible about that?" If that's all it did, then I wouldn't have a problem. But it really DOES call christianity the Official State Religion.

Before we look at the resolutions, let's establish that the document is talking about christianity. There are 70+ examples given as declarations that establish the reason for the resolution. And all of them are christian observances. And that means you must be talking about the religious diversity of christianity.

Resolution 1 - Let's see... no real problem with that one. A little uncomfortable with the 'affirm' but not enough to really protest it. It sounds like it's saying "Christianity has been a big part of our country and it still is! Isn't that great?!?"

Resolution 2 - Saving this one for last

Resolution 3 - Hmmm. Again the wording. I'm all for accurate history, so I oppose teaching false history to kids to satisfy political correctness. And that includes the role of religion. But let's make those histories accurate. There are some commonly held beliefs that are wrong. They may make for great historical stories or even inspiring myths, but if they're inaccurate, we should remove them from the schools. However, this resolution seems to protect what is currently taught as history, regardless of its validity.

Nope, don't think I like this one. It looks too much like a way to protect inaccurate myths that attribute too much to christianity and christian beliefs. I expect a few comments on that one.

Resolution 4 - No problem with this one. Recognizing that christianity has had a strong influence in the development and shaping of our country is exactly what designating official weeks is for. Go for it.

Back to resolution 2 - As Sheila Broflowski would say "What, what, what?!?" Let's look at this one in detail:

(2) recognizes that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation's most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America's representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures

This article all but claims that christianity is the state religion. It's basically saying "Christianity is such a part of our government, our laws and our culture that we can't separate the christian religion from the running of our country".

*This* I have problem with as do other non-christians. Recognizing that our nation has its roots in christianity is one thing. Saying that we should use christianity as a basis for our laws is another thing. It's against the spirit of the constitution and tears down that wall of separation.
Stephanie B. Feb 29, 2008, 8:50pm UTC
This is an excellent and reasoned article on the obvious pitfalls of trying to impose religious freedom by inflicting it via legislature. I say obvious more because it should be rather than because it is. An important point today's evangelicals miss is that the religious folks who founded different colonies here (and several, but not all, were founded by religious groups) did so to escape persecution for deigning to believe differently than the established government sanctioned religion. Hence such folks like Penn promoting religious freedom so that they never do the same to others.

People like this remind me too much of the few religious fanatical beginnings that established (generally shortlived) religious governments on this side of the Atlantic that, sadly, led to such things as the Salem witch trials. Let's not.
Fish Pierce Feb 29, 2008, 9:06pm UTC
One of my favorite bumper stickers: "The last time religion and government mixed, people got burned at the stake"
Bert B. Mar 1, 2008, 2:55am UTC
Tristan,
I was feebly trying to make a joke about your name. Tristan is a major character in the operas of Richard Wagner. I certainly meant no offense. To prove that, I will tell you (and everybody else) that my given name is not Bert. It is Rupert, so I am named after a German prince, as you are (possibly) named after a German operatic hero.
Tristan Russell Mar 1, 2008, 12:28pm UTC
lol okay. Thanks, Bert...er, Rupert! My mom has said that she got the name from Tristan Rogers, who played Robert Scorpio on the soap opera "General Hospital". So, I guess I am named after an operatic hero too! Or perhaps I'd be second-order if he was named after Wagner's character.

:oP
Tristan Russell Mar 1, 2008, 12:33pm UTC
One of my favs as well, Fish. Here are some other irreverent t-shirt and bumper sticker sayings!
aniko    Mar 1, 2008, 2:36pm UTC
Great article, Tristan.
Rico V. Mar 1, 2008, 4:34pm UTC
Good one.
Kate Keeley Mar 2, 2008, 7:01pm UTC
Well written and thought-provoking article.

Through all of this I see no reason why those who wish to celebrate the history of their religion cannot do so without a law that gives them permission, and it would be contrary to many religions to celebrate the faith and beliefs of another religion. The formal doctrines of many religions express in some manner exclusivity --our way or hell. So how could we possibly celebrate the diversity of religion.

There is no law saying anyone who wants to can't spend a week celebrating what is important to them about their faith and/or history. Or not, if they so choose. We shouldn't need a law to tell us this.

Thanks, Tristan, for taking the time to delve into this.
This was my comment on Ms. Meckenzie's article today:

There is a growing Christian Revisionist history movement going on, and this is just more of that trend. We were not established a Christian country, in point of fact, having a generation before escaped from the evils of church/government excesses, the constitution was carefully worded by Madison, in consultation with Jefferson, to make sure such a thing, that was rampant in some of the original colonies, died a swift and ignominious death. I recognize many of your references as the work of Barton, and other revisionist Christian historians as the lies they most certainly are. If you want to really understand that letter to the Danbury Baptists, and why it most certainly meant what it said, go here:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/2/9/15142/95010
As for the claim in itself, I suggest you read either or both of these:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
that pretty much drive the stake in the revisionist historian movement heart.
Tristan Russell Mar 13, 2008, 11:05am UTC
In case you missed it, NPR ran a story on 'Founding Faith'. Listen here.
James C. Mar 15, 2008, 2:34am UTC
Tristan,

Outstanding article which has generated a civil and learned thread of comments!

When I hear of things like the legislation referenced by Marilyn I am tempted to cry! The neutrality toward religion written into the constitution and supported throughout our history is the great protection of all religions and threat to none. That this nations was founded by a majority Christian men including Unitarians, is not questionable, IMHO. That it was founded as a Christian nation is ludicrous if one has read the writings of the various founders.

Marilyn has told me enough about the proposed legislation to totally convince me that it flies in the face of our constitutional protection from governmental involvement in religion and protection of religious freedom!

Great job, Tristan!
Marilyn M. Mar 15, 2008, 11:21am UTC
Tristan, I have not been able to read through all the comments. I will later when I'm feeling less pain (from my fibromyalgia).

Bert B. said, "...affirm the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history...Okay, if we need to do that, then we must do it in accord with the Constitution by devoting part of the week to Christianity, part to Islam, part to Buddhism, part to Hinduism...etc. And those should be EQUAL parts because the First Amendment prohibits Congress (who will make this law recognizing our religious heritage) from making any law respecting the establishment of religion. So the week must be impartial in its affirmation."

The bill is about explaining and educating on the fact that our country was founded on rich and diverse spiritual foundation. Then it also does say...subsequent history. Of course - in explaining our more recent history the fact that there are athiests, agnostics, Buddhism, Hinduism would be a part of that.

I want to know about history, and I want our kids and grandkids to have the entire truth about history. (We didn't always have that growing up either. Not when the history books made the discovery of America a non-violent adventure.)

If our founding fathers were athiest, I would want to know that. First because it would be a part of history. Secondly because knowing someone's faith background does help us fully understand his/her decisions, votes, etc.

It's much like reading the Bible. Only those who keep a concordance and Bible dictionary and commentaries nearby (I have mine as a computer program with dozens of commentaries available) can one really understand some of the words and meanings. It helps to know the background.

For instance, the fact that Jesus appeared to women first was a significant fact, which one would know know or realize unless one studied the times and culture.

So it is with the teaching of our history.

When I was in school - you know, back in the dinosaur days - religion was clearly part of history books - about European and American history. While studying, we were taught about the great architecture as well. In middle school, we took a field trip to a Russian Orthodox church - so we could see the kinds of structures that might have been built in the time period in Europe that we were studying. You'd never find that being done today because people would think the teachers were trying to convert people to Christianity.

I have not ever personally said that all of our founding fathers were Christians. What I have said was that they all believed in God. And that's the message I would hope would be shared in educating our young people about our real history.

If every one of our founding fathrs had been gay and hiding in the closet, no one would question that we now need to tell that. If each one had been a vegetarian, we would want that information provided. They were wise men, obviously, from the words and documents they created. It makes sense that we allow their entire stories to be told. No one has any problem digging up the dirt - or supposed dirt - about them. Why not also allow their faith stories to be told as well?
Tristan Russell Mar 15, 2008, 2:01pm UTC
Marilyn, it matters not what the founding fathers thought (read my article!)...it matters that our government is trying to mandate a WEEK to "learning" about claims, most of which are false! Even if we ignore the fact that they are false, this kind of thing shouldn't be in the government! Hell, have a week, or a month if you want to--in your own family or private local club, just as a couple of examples--to celebrate and learn and share stories about America's founding. But keep it out of the government!
Tristan Russell Mar 15, 2008, 3:30pm UTC
Here's another reason why the government shouldn't mandate faith.
James C. Mar 16, 2008, 3:32pm UTC
Marilyn,

I started first grade in 1944 and in those days we had bible readings in class. No one, absolutely no one, paid any attention to them or learned anything from them. They were brief and wasted a minimum amount of time. To read the bible aloud in school was eventually recognized for what it was, an effort to indoctrinate children into Christianity, not an effort to educate about the role of religion.

It is totally unnecessary for children to be taught such religion specific things as Jesus appearing to women first. Heck, I didn't learn that in Sunday school! If you say it is significant, that's OK but you couldn't prove it by me! What is important is that religion did play some role in bringing people to the new world. Just as crime played a role when persons were given the choice between prison and going to the new world!

Religion did play some role in many of the colonies and their governments as well. But students should also understand that the founders deliberately chose to establish the new nation as a secular nation instead of Christian. In doing that they gave the nation as well as the churches therein, the best chance possible of survival!

The government, based on our constitution, should never mandate anything which advances any religion. I believe you would agree with that in principle. But that is exactly what this legislation would do. We have no need for it!

It has taken many Christians, including myself, many years to get over the idea that since they are in a majority, it is OK to run roughshod over the rights of other believers and non-believers as well. While it was routinely done and never seen as wrong, that did not make it right!
Eric B. Mar 17, 2008, 3:44pm UTC
The U.S. was never intended to be a Christian nation, or for that matter a nation of any specific religion. Congress confirmed it in 1797 in the Treaty of Tripoli:

"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 Musselmen (muslim); and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehometan (muslim) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," May 26, 1797, Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, p. 3093-3094)

Here is the information on the vote:

"Mr. Bloodworth, from the committee to whom was referred the consideration of the Treaty of peace and friendship, between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, Barbary made report, that it be adopted; and the report being amended, On the question to agree to the report as amended, It was determined in the affirmative, Yeas...........23. The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the senators present, Those who voted in the affirmative are -Messers. Bingham, Bloodworth, Blount, Bradford, Brown, Coke, Foster, Goodhue, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Martin, Paine, Read, Rutherford, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tattnall, Tichenor, and Tracy. So it was Resolved, (Two Thirds of the Senators present concurring, therein) That the Senate Do advise and consent to the ratification of the Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary. Ordered, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the President of the United States." (Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America, Volume 1 p. 244)

Christianity has flourished in this nation because of the liberal view toward religion and governments neutrality toward it. The more government becomes involved in and/or endorses specific religions the more trouble this nation will be in. The problems that the countries in the Middle East are dealing with are not religious problems, but state sponsored religion problems. At all costs we should endeavor to keep government and religion separated for the sake of both religion and government.
James C. Mar 17, 2008, 6:03pm UTC
Eric,

You are 100% correct! It is essential to all Christian churches that our government and the religious community have a safe level of separation.
Joe Borza May 2, 2008, 5:10pm UTC
Thank "god" I may have found my new home?
Mike W. Jun 13, 2008, 6:32pm UTC
Hi Tristan -

Thanks for your comments on my article "My Name is a Question: The Role of Faith in Public Life", and for the links to your articles, some of which I've read.

When you "took me to task" on my comment "The Founding Fathers were all men of faith....", I immediately thought: Ah, Jefferson!

Any intimation of faith by TJ was probably more for show, which was a prudent thing given his position and the times in which he lived. I relate to Jefferson more on this topic than I do any of the other Founders.

Not everyone holds the same understanding of God, even those of the same faith. When talking about God one first must define God, which I indicated in my article is impossible and a conundrum.

I do not anthropomorphize God; I think more in terms of spirituality or life-force. But so what and who should care? The same problem of definition exists for me here. It is something I feel rather than something I know.

I expressed my feeling on this subject most accurately in response to a comment:

· There is a significant difference between faith (i.e. religion) and spirituality.
· Religion does sometimes lead to spirituality, but many times it does not.
· One does not require religion to become a spiritual person.
· One does not require religion to become a moral or ethical person.
· Faith is divisive and separates us.
· Spirituality is universal and unites us.
· It is our sense of spirituality, not religion or faith, that compels us to moral and ethical behavior.
Tristan Russell Jun 13, 2008, 7:48pm UTC
Thanks for the comments, Mike. I'm not entirely sure what your definition of "faith" is. I view it as believing in something for which there is no valid reason to do so. Because you stated spirituality is something you feel more than you know, to me that constitutes an invalid reason. Thus I would equate the two. Feel free to elaborate on what you mean by "faith" and "spirituality".

Join the Conversation
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Already a member? Sign in
top
 
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Version 18247, "Zach"; Copyright © 2013 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.