The prinicipal author of the American Declaration of Independence, whose 230th anniversary the US celebrates today, wrote this:
The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
[snip]
Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects form a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What have been the effects of coercion? To make one half of the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and terror all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. (Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826. Notes on the State of Virginia, pp. 285, 286)
Should any presidential candidate use such language today, it would surely be turned against him by Karl Rove and his McCarthyite acolytes and GOP lapdogs. Just as Jefferson's words were turned against him in 1800, when he ran (successfully) for President. Listen to New York minister John Mason, labeling Jefferson's views as
. . . the morality of devils, which would break in an instant every link in the chain of human friendship, and transform the globe into one scene of desolation and horror, where fiend would prowl with fiend for plunder and blood -- yet atheism "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I will not abuse you by asking, whether the author of such an opinion can be a Christian? (quoted in Freethinkers: A history of American secularism by Susan Jacoby, p. 41)
True, Jefferson wouldn't be considered much of a Christian by today's standards. Not much progress to show for 206 years of electoral politics, is it?
- Log in to post comments
"True, Jefferson wouldn't be considered much of a Christian by today's standards."
This brings to mind a quote attributed to Mark Twain in which he decries the hypocrisy of Christianity. "If Christ were here now, there's one thing he would not be: a Christian."
Jesus wasn't a Christian when he was "here." He was a Jew.
You are right. Not much progress. Going in the wrong direction. The not-too-distant future controlled by fundamentalist Christianity in USA was described in a 1970's book by Margaret Atwood: "The Handmaid's Tale." A real horror story but horrifying because one can see it coming about.
CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin
As an atheist, I always find it interesting that many religious people associate a-religiousity with ammorality. It makes me wonder is it only the fear of eternal punishment and the hope for eternal reward that keeps them from committing atrocities? To hear John Mason tell it, it is only belief in God that keeps him from turning to fiendish looting and murder.
Such people are frightening, and we can only hope they never lose their faith.
One of the things I have learned from this blog is that atheists have a real fear that the political takeover of the US by far-far-right Christians is at hand. I can tell you from personal experience that the "fundies" fear the same thing from the athiests. I'm not worried that either is a real possibility.
Caia:
In order to illustrate a point, please allow me to forward some ideas that I do not believe:
I believe fiendish looting and murder are good things. It is my right to steal and kill because I am strong and it gets me what I want.
How say you?
Steve: yes, there is that fear. But it goes beyond that. It is true that if you admit to being godless you run the risk of being considered un-American or a crank or an un-American crank. At the same time we are assaulted -- and I use that word deliberately -- by the crassest, crudest and most noxious public nostrums that are taken as commensense or generally accepted, while simultaneously doing great harm to the community by raising artificial barriers between people.
It leads to a constant sense of vulnerability and irritation, especially as it is perpetrated by a small minority of the US population.
You make a valid point. They say the same about atheists. The difference is I don't care what they believe as long as they keep it as a private aspiration, nor do I care if they self-identify as a person of faith any more than if they were to say they were a Yankees fan. Yes, I put these two on the same footing.
Atheists are not especially intolerant of the faithful, but the faithful are. Consider this from a recent LA TImes/Bloomberg poll:
In epidemiology, we call that a dose-response relationship.
Revere:
The more committed someone becomes to Evangelical Christianity, the more likely they are to view Mormanism as a non-Christian cult. I suspect that's the cause of the dose-response relationship you observe.
The numbers you cite seem to indicate that Christians would prefer to vote for a Christian candidate. Isn't it also true that atheists would prefer to vote for a non-religious candidate? People vote for people like themselves. If that is intolerant, than we're all guilty of it. It isn't a conspiracy.
You don't mind people being Christians as long as they keep it private - in other words, as long as they don't bring it into the public arena. But what does it mean to be a Christian if you are only a Christian behind closed doors? That sounds like the military's ridiculous don't ask, don't tell policy. Well, sorry. I'm a Christian. I'm out, I'm proud.
That doesn't mean I approve of the far-right "Christian" political machine. I don't.
Tho not a christian, I fear FAR more the left than the right. If the right gets their way, we'll have...gasp...prayer in school. If the left gets their way...well...we've all seen the leftist dream come true in the USSR last century and the Nazi Socialist party.
People that don't believe in god dont believe in nothing...they become true lefty socialists.
I'll stick with those that believe in Christ.
The great success of an America founded as "the home of the free" has served as an inspiration and a beacon to the rest of the world and to the millions still subjugated to the tyranny of "religious" and other institutions. To watch you losing so much ground since 9/11 that a would-be leader is no longer "free" to espouse atheism is indeed worrying. But you came to your senses after the last flirtation with McCarthy and there is reason to hope that you'll do so again.
Happy Independence Day, neighbours!
Fear Atheists: LOL. Go ahead. Fear us. You make me feel powerful. Meanwhile, when the non-atheist Christian/Jewish/Muslim Taliban comes into your house, don't blame us. NB: communists were a special target of the Holocaust. Sounds like you approve.
BTW, I recognize you as the sock puppet who likes to comment on the Freethinker posts with different names. Changing your signature doesn't change the anonymizer you use each time. Don't you have anything better to do? Homework? Chores for mom and dad? Little League? Grammar lessons?
Steve, you're missing the point. Agnostics and atheists tend to not care what a candidate's religion is, as long as they're not radical fundamentalists. They're more likely to judge based on deeds, ideas and platforms, as opposed to religious labels, and are therefore just as likely to vote for a Catholic or a Jew, if that individual's got the right stuff in their eyes.
"Fear Atheists", you might want to take a look at the outcomes for students in the world's most "socialist" (and Godless) education systems, like, say Finland's, compared to your own. (...and Hitler was actually a fascist, not a socialist -- you'd probably understand the difference if you'd had a chance to go to school in Finland.)
Religious but not sticky to one particular church, more spiritual if you like, I see China forbidding all kinds of 'belief' (incl. Falun Gong, agricultural protests) that can cause grouping and solidarity between people. In the USSR and other East European countries communism was only used to get maximal social control as spies were among families and betraying others was called heroic action by the government.
I like Jefferson's statements and like to tell my experience when I was on Bali, once upon a time.
The taxi driver explained: some people like to worship god by going to church, others like to build a temple, we like to do it with lots of flowers and nice colours, and the buildings we've made. We don't like to be quarreling about it with other people, just be happy and smile. It's the same god we worship in our own way.
That was an eye-opener to me: you can worship the way you like it: light-hearted and friendly, welcoming guests, or defensive and intolerant. It's just what you choose; probably a mirror of your heart.
Religion is like opium to governments (at least to many of those): use it, sell it, get power from it; but don't get hooked on it yourself because you know you'll be lost.
This manipulation of people is quite another business than experiencing spiritual enlightenment individually or sharing with others. The manipulative form is about ingroup-outgroup phenomena, first making ennemies and thus creating some artefactual feelings of 'we, the goodies against them', and then getting group pressure to keep people obedient to one's home made rules. It's (deliberately) mixing religion with politics, locally and on international level.
Thank you for this Freethinker Sermonette, Revere.
To remember this.
Hey, Fear Atheists! BOO!
So I'm the scary one, huh? The one who has a strong internal ethical code that I try to follow every day is the one who's dangerous, not the one who would turn into a slavering beast if Daddy weren't watching. caia, you sure called that one.
Seriously, though, try to engage your brain for a minute here, FA. Can you read Revere's posts every day about governments' responsibilities to their people (and their failure to fulfill them) and still say that atheists don't believe in anything? There's no fame and fortune involved in writing this blog, so what would spur someone to work so hard at it except for a need to cry out against needless suffering and injustice?
On the other hand, FA, that vaunted ethical code of yours tells you that the "Godly" thing to do is to troll atheists' websites and hurl insults?
While my professional commitment is to Christian theology, my Flu Wiki partners describe themselves variously as atheists, pagans or "just don't care." I don't have a problem with this. They are some of the most exemplary individuals I have ever had the opportunity to know.
Francis of Assisi (probably apocryphally) said, "Preach the Gospel always. Use words when necessary." The reveres don't need words.
The Pope was at his morning devotions, when he was suddenly and unexpectedly interupted by his private secretary.
Your Holiness forgive me for interupting said the secretary, but I thought the news too important to wait.
News said the Pope It had better be good news to warrant interuption to my devotions.
Well said his secretary nervously, its Good News and some not so good news.
The Pope looked up and said Speak!
The Good News said the secretary, is that Jesus has returned to Earth as he promised - He is to set up the Kingdom of Heaven on earth - and He is on the phone to explain your part in His plan to you..
This is more than Good News said the Pope, This is what we have all been waiting for over the centuries - and it is happening now, in my own time. How could anything be less than good news in the light of this, the Second Coming??
'Well' said the secretary, even more nervously,
'its just that He is ringing from Salt Lake City'.
Melanie: Thanks. The sentiments go both ways, but you know that.
Federalist 1 - Hamilton to the People of the State of New York Para 5.
"To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of of their declamations and bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty."
I love Freethinker Sermonettes. As one of those right wing God fearing people that are vilified by Revere I understand his position. I would not say he is out of line for saying what he has put up here. I almost became a priest and the things that have been done in the name of "God" have been horrific. Seems I read somewhere that it was said,"and there will come before you many false prophets." We have a box load of those right now and even as I stand as an Episcopalian, I stand not in judgement of Revere because it isnt on my job description anywhere. I love the discussion but I dont throw the Bible out because I am aware of many incongruities and outright falsehoods. There would be those who would say it was written by man at the direction of God. Okay, then why write the wrong stuff in there in the some 131 versions of the Bible, some of which that dont contain other known Gospels? But its all about faith.
Can anyone here stand and say he is wrong and prove it? I will stand with him as an American on the 4th of July and say to him, "Say it as loudly and as strongly as you want. I will be yelling in the other direction just the opposite.but pal, I got your back on this one!"
Randy: Thanks. Not sure what else to say.
If memory serves, Jefferson couldn't have cared less about being accused of not being Christian for the simple reason he wasn't. He, like many of the founding fathers, were deists... definitely not christian. This group also includes George Washington and others.
This nation was not founded by Christians, nor was it founded to be a Christian nation. That is the simple truth.
This nation was founded by secular liberals to be a secular liberal nation, with tolerance for religion but without deference to it. Let those anti-liberal hate mongers chew on that one for a while.
Great post, as usual.