Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fromtheright · 10-09-2003, 05:04 PM

It doesn't have to relate to C-SS (though I hope this thread remains in this forum as this one seems to attract people with a historical bent and interest in the Founders).

Mine:

In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

From Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Kentucky Resolution.

StrictSeparationist · 10-09-2003, 06:28 PM

"[I]t 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." -Thomas Jefferson, 1782.

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" -James Madison, 1785.

Rational BAC · 10-09-2003, 07:49 PM

From the Right------

You do realize that Jefferson did not in any real way think people should be "bound by the chains of the Constitution."

As I recall Jefferson recommended regular revolutions every 20 years or so --------just to keep things straight---and the Constitution be damned.

Toto · 10-09-2003, 10:24 PM

Jefferson did seem to think that public officials should be bound by the chains of the constitution while they were in office.

I would not interpret that quote as calling for the citizens to be bound in chains, but the politicians.

dangin · 10-10-2003, 06:07 AM

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

fromtheright · 10-10-2003, 06:26 PM

Rational BAC,

Good point, but nonetheless he wrote it and I suspect he meant what he wrote. Unless we are free to choose that he meant only the things that we agree with. I don't think that's what you're saying; I understand that he was writing in the Kentucky Resolution in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, as I recall. Also, I'm not sure that he recommended revolution every 20 years but rather that the Constitution be periodically scrapped (every 19 years, as I recall) and re-written.

I don't think he believed "The Constitution be damned", though. I think that he strongly believed in following the Constitution. As I recall, that is part of the reason he opposed the National Bank (though I am partly imputing Madison's opposition to Jefferson, I'm not 100% on Jefferson's opposition). Also, he greatly agonized over a Constitutional justification for the Louisiana Purchase, though it is certainly arguable that ultimately that may have been a "Constitution be damned" decision.

Toto,

Jefferson did seem to think that public officials should be bound by the chains of the constitution while they were in office.

I would not interpret that quote as calling for the citizens to be bound in chains, but the politicians.

I absolutely agree.

BUT--from a Madisonian perspective, I think that he meant to apply that to what the people would do with a Constitution. Madison believed that the greatest threat to individual liberty in our democratic republic came from the source of power--the people and hence his realization of the need for a Bill of Rights (which I still believe was at least partly motivated by politics given his earlier opposition).

Thanks for the responses.

Javaman · 10-11-2003, 06:53 AM

"I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself."
-- John Adams

Javaman · 10-11-2003, 06:57 AM

"Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none."
-- Benjamin Franklin
I might add a few more friends but I follow this to the best of my ability.

fromtheright · 10-11-2003, 09:16 AM

Toto,

I should correct my last post. Madison believed that the greatest threat to liberty was from a majority of the people. My thanks to Buffman for the earlier Madison letter.

Oresta · 10-11-2003, 06:30 PM

StrictSeparationist:
"[I]t 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." -Thomas Jefferson, 1782.

This is a favorite of mine also, so let me set it in the Jefferson's larger, powerfully expressed context:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/JEFFERSON/ch17.html

Quote:

The present state of our laws on the subject of religion is this. The convention of May 1776, in their declaration of rights, declared it to be a truth, and a natural right, that the exercise of religion should be free; but when they proceeded to form on that declaration the ordinance of government, instead of taking up every principle declared in the bill of rights, and guarding it by legislative sanction, they passed over that which asserted our religious rights, leaving them as they found them. The same convention, however, when they met as a member of the general assembly in October 1776, repealed all _acts of parliament_ which had rendered criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, the forbearing to repair to church, and the exercising any mode of worship; and suspended the laws giving salaries to the clergy, which suspension was made perpetual in October 1779. Statutory oppressions in religion being thus wiped away, we remain at present under those only imposed by the common law, or by our own acts of assembly. At the common law, _heresy_ was a capital offence, punishable by burning. Its definition was left to the ecclesiastical judges, before whom the conviction was, till the statute of the 1 El. c. 1. circumscribed it, by declaring, that nothing should be deemed heresy, but what had been so determined by authority of the canonical scriptures, or by one of the four first general councils, or by some other council having for the grounds of their declaration the express and plain words of the scriptures. Heresy, thus circumscribed, being an offence at the common law, our act of assembly of October 1777, c. 17. gives cognizance of it to the general court, by declaring, that the jurisdiction of that court shall be general in all matters at the common law. The execution is by the writ _De haeretico comburendo_. By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail. A father's right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put, by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom. (*) The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the aera of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. Government is just as infallible too when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere: the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact, the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of 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 has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error 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. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws. It is true, we are as yet secured against them by the spirit of the times. I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution for heresy, or a three years imprisonment for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity. But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.

Edited to add: Rereading Jeff fully in my post, I am as blown away by his vision now as I was 'way back when I first encountered him. <Moment of secular reverence>

10-09-2003, 05:04 PM	#1
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Your favorite quote from the Founders It doesn't have to relate to C-SS (though I hope this thread remains in this forum as this one seems to attract people with a historical bent and interest in the Founders). Mine: In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. From Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Kentucky Resolution.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2003, 06:28 PM	#2
StrictSeparationist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Oberlin, OH Posts: 2,846	"[I]t 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." -Thomas Jefferson, 1782. "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" -James Madison, 1785.

10-09-2003, 07:49 PM	#3
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	From the Right------ You do realize that Jefferson did not in any real way think people should be "bound by the chains of the Constitution." As I recall Jefferson recommended regular revolutions every 20 years or so --------just to keep things straight---and the Constitution be damned.

10-09-2003, 10:24 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Jefferson did seem to think that public officials should be bound by the chains of the constitution while they were in office. I would not interpret that quote as calling for the citizens to be bound in chains, but the politicians.

10-10-2003, 06:07 AM	#5
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

10-10-2003, 06:26 PM	#6
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Rational BAC, Good point, but nonetheless he wrote it and I suspect he meant what he wrote. Unless we are free to choose that he meant only the things that we agree with. I don't think that's what you're saying; I understand that he was writing in the Kentucky Resolution in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, as I recall. Also, I'm not sure that he recommended revolution every 20 years but rather that the Constitution be periodically scrapped (every 19 years, as I recall) and re-written. I don't think he believed "The Constitution be damned", though. I think that he strongly believed in following the Constitution. As I recall, that is part of the reason he opposed the National Bank (though I am partly imputing Madison's opposition to Jefferson, I'm not 100% on Jefferson's opposition). Also, he greatly agonized over a Constitutional justification for the Louisiana Purchase, though it is certainly arguable that ultimately that may have been a "Constitution be damned" decision. Toto, Jefferson did seem to think that public officials should be bound by the chains of the constitution while they were in office. I would not interpret that quote as calling for the citizens to be bound in chains, but the politicians. I absolutely agree. BUT--from a Madisonian perspective, I think that he meant to apply that to what the people would do with a Constitution. Madison believed that the greatest threat to individual liberty in our democratic republic came from the source of power--the people and hence his realization of the need for a Bill of Rights (which I still believe was at least partly motivated by politics given his earlier opposition). Thanks for the responses.

10-11-2003, 06:53 AM	#7
Javaman Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nebraska Posts: 1,708	"I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself." -- John Adams

10-11-2003, 06:57 AM	#8
Javaman Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nebraska Posts: 1,708	"Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none." -- Benjamin Franklin I might add a few more friends but I follow this to the best of my ability.

10-11-2003, 09:16 AM	#9
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Toto, I should correct my last post. Madison believed that the greatest threat to liberty was from a majority of the people. My thanks to Buffman for the earlier Madison letter.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.