Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Crow · 12-15-2002, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
From the other thread:

Jefferson, to wit:

I have little doubt that the whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator, and I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also. (Library of American Literature Vol III pp 283-284).

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

I'm curious, Rad...does Jefferson mention how this unity would occur? Do you believe that it was his desire and intent that government should be a vehicle to bring about the unity described?

Daggah · 12-15-2002, 03:44 PM

Quote:

And of course the "wall" did not prevent Jefferson from facilitating nor attending church services in public buildings.

Almost forgot. Jefferson couldn't have been against it if he wanted to be. The 14th amendment wasn't in place yet. Without the 14th, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government, as opposed to all public and government-owned property.

Toto · 12-15-2002, 04:20 PM

Rad - you are missing a fundamental point. Jefferson was a Deist. The Deists appropriated Jesus, but they did not worship him or think that he was a god. They thought that his teachings were wise, but not divine. Deists generally thought that the Christian church had misunderstood and misapplied Jesus.

There's a lot of coded language in Jefferson. Any reference to "Nature's God" implies that the Bible God is a false god - in other words, the person who uses that phrase is generally not a Christian. When Jefferson talks about the "true" teachings of Jesus, he means that part of the gospels that he accepts, in direct contrast to the accretion of church doctrine.

The "Jefferson Bible" is decidedly NOT a Christian Bible.

You may see some parallels between Protestants who tried to purify the church of allegedly pagan-inpsired Roman Catholic doctrine and find the true Jesus, but that may be because a lot of Deistic notions have crept into the modern Protestant churches. Christians in the 18th century all believed in the divinity of Jesus, not that he was some kind of wise teacher. Deists did not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

So all that aside, you have some evidence that the founders tolerated a certain amount of what is now called "ceremonial Deism" - non-specific references to "God", etc. They also may have tolerated what we now call "accomodation" of religion - they allowed religious services to be held in public buildings, just as churches today are allowed to use or rent space in public buildings along with other groups. They hired chaplains, supposedly as a benefit for the legislators, not as an endorsement of their religious views.

So what exactly would you like to argue for here? Name the specific policies that you think should be allowed under your interpretation of the founder's intent, that your secular opponents would not allow, and tell us why you think that is good public policy.

lpetrich · 12-15-2002, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
I let the enigmatic Washington speak for himself here:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. ...

In effect, he viewed organized religion as desirable as the Opium of the People. This view is at least as old as Plato's advocating that his Republic have an official religion that is a "royal lie". Plato even went so far as to argue that his society's religion was unsuitable for that purpose, because it featured heroes lamenting and gods laughing (seriously!).

That viewpoint was fairly common in the Greco-Roman world; fast-forwarding to the Italian Renaissance, we find Niccolo Machiavelli advocating a similar view.

But nowadays, where are those honest enough to advocate telling Royal Lies?

I wonder what Richard Carrier knows about this subject.

Buffman · 12-15-2002, 06:13 PM

Posted by Radorth:

The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them.(Writings, Vol XIV, P149)

Compared with:

I am just returned from one of my long absences, having been at my other home for five weeks past. Having more leisure there than here for reading, I amused myself with reading seriously Plato's Republic. I am wrong, however, in calling it amusement, for it was the heaviest task-work I ever went through. I had occasionally before taken up some of his other works, but scarcely ever had patience to go through a whole dialogue. While wading through the whimsies, the puerilities, and unintelligible jargon of this work, I laid it down often to ask myself how it could have been that the world should have so long consented to give reputation to such nonsense as this.... In truth, he is one of the race of genuine sophists, who has escaped the oblivion of his brethren, first by the elegance of his diction, but chiefly by the adoption and incorporation of his whimsies into the body of artificial Christianity. His foggy mind is forever presenting the semblances of objects which, half seen through a mist, can be defined neither in form nor dimensions. Yet this, which should have consigned him to early oblivion, really procured him immortality of fame and reverence. The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ leveled to every understanding, and too plain to need explanation, saw in the mysticism of Plato materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them; and for this obvious reason, that nonsense can never be explained.

(Letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Adams (July 5, 1814). Reprinted in Bernard Mayo, Jefferson Himself, "The whimsies and jargon of Plato," University Press of Virginia, 1942, pp. 300-301)

Posted by Radorth:

No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to that which flowed from his lips, the whole world at this day. Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel. I have little doubt that the whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator, and I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also. (Library of American Literature Vol III pp 283-284).

No one sees with greater pleasure than myself progress of reason in its advances towards rational Christianity. When we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything which has been taught since His day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines He inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily His disciples; and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from His lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. (Attributed to "In God We Trust" by Norman Cousins, 1958)

I was unable to find the last two sentences of the Radorth post and do not have a copy of the Cousins' book. However, it seems apparent that something is amiss in both comparisons. However, neither of mine have been sourced back to the original documents from which they were taken, and why I have not provided URL links. (It takes lots of research and time to locate original sources...if they even exist on the Web. I do not have the desire to research these further. They seem to be in the same creative genre as:

<a href="http://www.monticello.org/resources/interests/memorial.html" target="_blank">http://www.monticello.org/resources/interests/memorial.html</a>

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

Feather · 12-15-2002, 07:30 PM

Now now, Buffman. Using the full and complete quote isn't fair. It destroys their arguments and that's bad.

Buffman · 12-15-2002, 07:32 PM

Radorth

In 1905 the Congress had printed some 9000 "Jefferson Bibles" for use by the Congress, and at public expense.

Would you please provide your source for this statement? Thank you.

Toto · 12-15-2002, 08:53 PM

<a href="http://academic.bellevue.edu/~jpatton/jefferson_bible/" target="_blank">Congressional printing of Jefferson Bible</a>

Quote:

In 1819-1820, Thomas Jefferson set out to produce the "pure moral principles" of Christianity. He literally cut out and pasted verses from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John into an 82-page book. He described his compilation as the "most sublime edifice and benevolent code of morals which had ever been offered to man." Jefferson had his work bound but never published for distribution.

The book remained hidden in the Jefferson family until it was "discovered" by Cyrus Adler in 1886. He managed to purchase it for the National Museum (now known as the Smithsonian Institution) in 1895. Representative John Lacey of Iowa then made his own discovery and proceeded to sponsor a resolution to publish 9,000 copies for the use of Congress. Congress approved. The Government Printing Office published it in 1904 and distributed the copies to Congress in early 1905.

Some comments follow on this website, from various clueless Republicans who thought that this was an endorsement of Christianity.

But in any case, the actions of Congress in 1905 are no indication of what was meant in 1782. Jefferson's actions were anti-Christian, and so controversial that he hid his work during his lifetime.

The text of the Jefferson Bible is <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/" target="_blank">here</a>.

Buffman · 12-15-2002, 09:05 PM

Thanks again Toto.

lpetrich · 12-15-2002, 10:03 PM

I wonder if Radorth has ever read the Jefferson Bible.

I suspect that Radorth would have a heart attack if he ever did.

12-15-2002, 06:13 PM	#15
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Posted by Radorth: The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them.(Writings, Vol XIV, P149) Compared with: I am just returned from one of my long absences, having been at my other home for five weeks past. Having more leisure there than here for reading, I amused myself with reading seriously Plato's Republic. I am wrong, however, in calling it amusement, for it was the heaviest task-work I ever went through. I had occasionally before taken up some of his other works, but scarcely ever had patience to go through a whole dialogue. While wading through the whimsies, the puerilities, and unintelligible jargon of this work, I laid it down often to ask myself how it could have been that the world should have so long consented to give reputation to such nonsense as this.... In truth, he is one of the race of genuine sophists, who has escaped the oblivion of his brethren, first by the elegance of his diction, but chiefly by the adoption and incorporation of his whimsies into the body of artificial Christianity. His foggy mind is forever presenting the semblances of objects which, half seen through a mist, can be defined neither in form nor dimensions. Yet this, which should have consigned him to early oblivion, really procured him immortality of fame and reverence. The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ leveled to every understanding, and too plain to need explanation, saw in the mysticism of Plato materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them; and for this obvious reason, that nonsense can never be explained. (Letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Adams (July 5, 1814). Reprinted in Bernard Mayo, Jefferson Himself, "The whimsies and jargon of Plato," University Press of Virginia, 1942, pp. 300-301) Posted by Radorth: No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to that which flowed from his lips, the whole world at this day. Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel. I have little doubt that the whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator, and I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also. (Library of American Literature Vol III pp 283-284). No one sees with greater pleasure than myself progress of reason in its advances towards rational Christianity. When we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything which has been taught since His day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines He inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily His disciples; and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from His lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. (Attributed to "In God We Trust" by Norman Cousins, 1958) I was unable to find the last two sentences of the Radorth post and do not have a copy of the Cousins' book. However, it seems apparent that something is amiss in both comparisons. However, neither of mine have been sourced back to the original documents from which they were taken, and why I have not provided URL links. (It takes lots of research and time to locate original sources...if they even exist on the Web. I do not have the desire to research these further. They seem to be in the same creative genre as: <a href="http://www.monticello.org/resources/interests/memorial.html" target="_blank">http://www.monticello.org/resources/interests/memorial.html</a> [ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

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

12-15-2002, 04:20 PM	#13
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Rad - you are missing a fundamental point. Jefferson was a Deist. The Deists appropriated Jesus, but they did not worship him or think that he was a god. They thought that his teachings were wise, but not divine. Deists generally thought that the Christian church had misunderstood and misapplied Jesus. There's a lot of coded language in Jefferson. Any reference to "Nature's God" implies that the Bible God is a false god - in other words, the person who uses that phrase is generally not a Christian. When Jefferson talks about the "true" teachings of Jesus, he means that part of the gospels that he accepts, in direct contrast to the accretion of church doctrine. The "Jefferson Bible" is decidedly NOT a Christian Bible. You may see some parallels between Protestants who tried to purify the church of allegedly pagan-inpsired Roman Catholic doctrine and find the true Jesus, but that may be because a lot of Deistic notions have crept into the modern Protestant churches. Christians in the 18th century all believed in the divinity of Jesus, not that he was some kind of wise teacher. Deists did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. So all that aside, you have some evidence that the founders tolerated a certain amount of what is now called "ceremonial Deism" - non-specific references to "God", etc. They also may have tolerated what we now call "accomodation" of religion - they allowed religious services to be held in public buildings, just as churches today are allowed to use or rent space in public buildings along with other groups. They hired chaplains, supposedly as a benefit for the legislators, not as an endorsement of their religious views. So what exactly would you like to argue for here? Name the specific policies that you think should be allowed under your interpretation of the founder's intent, that your secular opponents would not allow, and tell us why you think that is good public policy.

12-15-2002, 07:30 PM	#16
Feather Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 1,827	Now now, Buffman. Using the full and complete quote isn't fair. It destroys their arguments and that's bad.

12-15-2002, 07:32 PM	#17
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Radorth In 1905 the Congress had printed some 9000 "Jefferson Bibles" for use by the Congress, and at public expense. Would you please provide your source for this statement? Thank you.

12-15-2002, 09:05 PM	#19
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Thanks again Toto.

12-15-2002, 10:03 PM	#20
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I wonder if Radorth has ever read the Jefferson Bible. I suspect that Radorth would have a heart attack if he ever did.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.