Founding Father Deists?

[Hessian]

Yes Jimmy, you too get the "A" but also an incomplete because I believe the other book was Watt's Hymnal. (I ought to double check that!)
Ken and Jimmy: Your postings of the letters ...earns the bonus points. Excellent! Now, I noticed something within the Baptist letter that I'm hoping Ken can postulate a bit on:
"that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors."

I note that Jefferson does not contradict this, argue against it, or object in any way...should we take it then that he agreed?
if he agreed.....can you imagine if that portion was quoted as often as "Wall of seperation...?" Suddenly Principals would stop confiscating Bibles, Court rooms could post the 10 commandments without fear, and the "minute of silence" would be welcome everywhere.
Interesting....
Budopo: Your last observation is very pertinent...and as I continue to see political correctness sweep over our culture (to our eternal loss) I have watched "Easter break" become Spring break...and Thanksgiving turned into a myth that the Pilgrims were thanking the Indians (forgive me...um, Native indigenous peoples). It is a sad commentary that Former Soviet Russia has more allowances for religion, observances, and prayer in their schools than we do.
No...It clearly does NOT violate the 1st Amendment! If the government were to ban it; THAT would be a violation because it infriges on "the free exercize thereof."

(Edited by Hessian at 10:32 pm on April 16, 2002)

 

[Hessian]

Sorry Jimmy, I didn't address your assessment of Jefferson's closing comments. If ever there was a short quote to "frame" a Deist approach-that was it!
TJ went through a noticeable religious shift in the mid 1780's and the fear of spreading diesm led to hot words in the College of William & Mary during that time but the result??
There was NO mass deist movement! No pamphletting in favor of deism or even a deist academy-NOTHING.When petitions were circulated against the creeping deism...there were no "hard targets" to confront! Privately expressed comments could convince some Historians that many were "closet" deists but weigh those against public speeches, written prayers, and other confidential papers...and the deist positions are very thin.
Was TJ ahead of his time? Absolutely. We see Universalism and Ecumenical movements and unitarians popping up 20 years after he died....sort of the offspring of those first few deist sentiments.
Would TJ approve of the general state of education and public morality today? Absolutely not! Reference his attendence at a disciplinary hearing at the Univ of Va. in the early 1820's. He was overcome by bitter emotion when he saw the misbehavior, brutality, callousness, and neglect that students at his university were exhibiting. His public sobbing brought a wave of confessions and apologies.
They had neglect the crucial element that must be combined with education: Religion and Morality.

 

[jimmy]

Certainly TJ was a deeply moral man.  And I have never aruged here that religion, let's even go so far as to say Christianity, is not a GREAT basis for morality in making laws and governing.  Christs teachings were extremely important and revered by Jefferson. He just found it difficult, as I do, to believe the "mystical" aspects of the NT.  Not meaning to imply any 'black magic' reference by saying mystical but I think you know what I'm talking about. The miricales, the virgin birth, resurrection etc.   TJ even re-wrote, as I think you mention Hessain, his own version of the gospels excluding mention of such occurences. So it does not surprise me that he would express both support for Christian ideals and religious freedom in speeches, prayers etc.
You bring up another interesting point, Hessian, about the Deist movement of the time not being the "wave" it is sometimes reported as.  I think I might agree. I'm starting to feel that calling the founding father's "Deists" is perhaps putting them in a box, not truly locating where they are. I think, however, that it is well documented that many were what I've heard refered to as Enlightenment Thinkers.  I'm probably more comforable with that because there are so many contradictory statements from all these men, both praising religious ideals and warning of their folly (as we've managed to dig up here in this discussion).  However, I do belive that they were probably not devout Christians and many of the supporting statements and prayers in public speeches were, in my estimation, political moves rather than declarations of faith.
So on to the issue at hand. -- "that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors." -- I think that says it all. The civil government should have no authority to punnish someone for their religious beliefs.  They are to deal simply with the law and, basically, leave religion alone. But you get into a sticky situation when you say that that is not reciprocal (as in religion should stay out of government).  Surely Christian morals played a big part in the lawmaking and "moral tone" (oh god, not THIS again) of the country at the time. But I don't think that that means that this country was founded to be a Christian State.  And if religion is to be left alone by goverment, yet you allow for government SUPPORTED religion, where do you draw the line? Bushie's faith-based initiatives; he's said that Judaism and Islam would be included. But he's expressed reservation about Wicca or the nation of Islam. He says that the "nation" preaches hate and that would be his reasoning. But where would he draw the line? What other groups could be construed as being "hate" groups? Certainly with recent events, a good case could be made for Islam. What about radical judaism?  My point is, that the government would get to pick and choose which religions were supported and which weren't. Which is punnishing those who choose to exerciese their "freedom of religion" which is protected by the first ammendment.
If seperation of church and state isn't implied in the first ammendment, and you can't be convinced of it's intent in Jefferson's letter to the Baptists, I STILL think its importance as a concept becomes clear when you walk the slipery slope of that one-sided interpretation.

 

[BudoPo]

Jimmy pretty much stated more clearly what I was trying to say: where do you draw the line?  Which religions do you include, and which do you not?  It's a very slippery slope.  

That being said, I'm ok with people observing their religions in public schools, or having bible study groups, etc, so long as they do it on their own, without bothering other people.

Hessian, I wasn't talking about banning Christmas or anything like that with my first amendment question.  Christmas, which is a religious holiday, is a Federal holiday (thus you can even consider it a national holiday).  So I was asking for opinions regarding if that contradicts the 1st amendment's prohibition against state religions.  I agree that banning the holiday would be reprehensable.

I also agree about political correctness.  Overall, it's a good thing to express things so as to be sensitive to other groups' views and feelings.  Sometimes, though, people go overboard to the point of absurdity.

 

[Ken King]

Hessian,

To postulate what has been posed I searched a little bit into history and found the bill Jefferson proposed to the Virginia Legislature in 1785 regarding religious freedom.  I think it will answer your question as to his view.  Here it is;

“Section I.
Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to exalt it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislature and ruler, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; and therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him incapacity of being called to offices of trust or emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injudiciously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow-citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminals who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgement, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or suffer from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
Section II.
We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, or shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil liberties.
Section III.
And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for their ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operations, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”

 

[jimmy]

Well that would seem to destroy Dubbaya's arguement for faith-based initiatives since Jefferson plainly states that --"to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical;"-- So tax dollars going to religious organizations would go completely against what Jefferson felt here and, thus, intended from the first ammendment (since it was this very VA bill which was used as the framework for the religious section of the first ammendment).

 

[Ken King]

Jimmy,

I’m not making that connection here and you’re going to have to help me pull it together.  I see the President’s Faith-based and Community Initiatives as being uniquely suited for some of the issues we face today.  It approaches some of the ill’s people suffer by allowing local groups that provide support to the people, where the people know them and trust them, to have more funding to achieve that goal.  This would minimize Social Welfare programs and help more people by decentralizing the process.  Opening it up to secular organizations keeps a level playing field and does not go against the words of the first amendment.  It recognizes that many programs of religious organizations truly help the people the government serves.  As long as it doesn’t endorse any specific religion what makes it wrong?  Mr. Bush is exceedingly sophisticated in this approach and easily within Constitutional bounds, at least, in my opinion.

 

[jimmy]

Well, my thinking was that we're obviously gonna come up against some wall where we're forced (or, rather, the administration is forced) to decide which religions will and won't receive government money. For an example I used the Wiccan religion and the Nation of Islam (along with various other fringe, superstitious religions) which may be excluded unfairly by applying a vague definition of which religons "preach hate" and which don't.  Along with that, I believed the intent of Jefferson's statement to further illustrate his desire to keep church and state seperate. As such, churches receive tax exempt status. But as they do not participate, neither should they benefit directly from, the government. Tax breaks are more of a "hands off" allowance by the government for churches to operate.  However, giving them money would be directly supporting these groups and would, as I've said, go against the idea of keeping the two institutions seperate as it would amount to asking taxpayers with no religious faith to put money in the collection plate of a church.  I DO think many religious organizations do great work but I simply don't see their being state-funded as a good thing. They'd be permitted to discriminate with regard to hiring on the basis of religious faith. I don't think a government-funded institution should be allowed to descriminate in any way. It also carries the very real possiblity of religion being touted to those that are helped by the group.  People in need should not be allowed to be evangelized too simply because they need to eat.  Lastly, there's no reason to belive that relgious groups will offer any better care/help than secular providers. If the government is fired up to throw money at local organizations, then by all means have at it. Just don't threaten the seperation of church and state by doing so.

 

[BudoPo]

No fair, Jimmy!  You took what I was going to say!

While lending a hand to these organizations is all fine, there's a bunch of problems.  Which religions Would some less popular religions be acceptable (Wicca comes to mind)?  What criteria would be used to determine whether or not to accept a particular religion?  Would people going to a particular organization for help have to listen to sermons and/or attempts to be converted?  Contrawise, would people not of the organization's particular faith be turned away?  Would the organization be allowed to not hire people of their faith?  If they accept government funding, then these questions become an issue.

 

[Ken King]

Jimmy and BudoPo,

It isn't lending a hand to those organizations it is letting them do what they do without duplicating the effort via a federal bureaucracy and providing them with funding to do more.  The religion doesn't matter, nor could it as that might violate the First Amendment.  This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with using organizations already doing the job to get it done.

 

[vraiblonde]

Bud and Jimmy, I couldn't agree more.  There's that "Law of Unintended Consequences" again.  I also think that if you're going to give tax-exemption or funding to churches, you'd also have to give it to the Church of Ozzy Osbourne, whose members bite the heads off live bats as a cleansing ritual

Jimmy makes a great point about church employees.  Certainly organizations have a right to not hire employees who don't fit the suit - Catholics can hire only Catholics, Baptists can hire only Baptists - fine with me.  They just can't discriminate on my dime.

(Edited by vraiblonde at 6:02 pm on April 29, 2002)