The more I read of Jefferson on the topic of religious liberty, the more impressed I am with his writings. I say that knowing full well his AWFUL limitations as it relates to civil/personal liberty as it related to the slavery question. He was wrong, wrong, wrong, with no doubt. Awfully so, especially given his apparent well-thought out opinions about human liberty.
His mistaken position on slavery, notwithstanding, consider his wise words on the topic of religious liberty and thought (all emphases are mine)...
Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not 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 to 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 extend it by its influence on reason alone;
that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, 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 our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; ...
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 falacy [sic], which at once destroys all religious liberty ...;
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.
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 burdened in his body or goods, nor 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 capacities...
(Thomas Jefferson, "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia," 1779)
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.
(Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782)
... shake off all the fears of servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first the religion of your own country.
Read the bible then, as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature does not weigh against them. But those facts in the bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces.
Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from god. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong as that it's [sic] falshood [sic] would be more improbable than a change of the laws of nature in the case he relates.... Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of it's [sic] consequences.
If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in it's [sic] exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a god, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement. If that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a god, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love.
In fine, I repeat that you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject any thing because any other person, or description of persons have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision....
(Thomas Jefferson, letter to his young nephew Peter Carr, August 10, 1787)
I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
(Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799)
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.
(Thomas Jefferson, "First Inaugural Address," March 4, 1801)
It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
(Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803)
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Jefferson on Religious Liberty and Thought
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Jefferson was amazing, and we were very fortunate to have a person at that moment in time who could express the value of liberty so well.
Yeah, liberty for rich white men of property. Liberty for po' folks, the one's he always seemed to admire? Not so much? Women? He really didn't say. Folks of color? They were chattel, except for Sally Hemmings, who was his blow-up doll who also took care of his house.
I cannot separate Jefferson's words from his life, anymore than I can Martin Heidegger (Nazi) or Increase Mather (kill all the Indians because they are children of the devil) or even Immanuel Kant (treat every human being as a whole person with integrity, except for the filthy Jews who don't deserve any sympathy or respect) or Martin Luther (the Jews are in league with the Papists who are all subjects of the anti-Christ). Jefferson's ideas on liberty begin by being circumscribed; anything good and noble dredged from them distorts them beyond their original intent.
Among Jefferson's many failings was a blindness when it came to self-reflection. Having achieved something like the late-18th century version of reknown, it went to his head; he was, in our contemporary idiom, a celebrity who believed his own press. Reading his correspondence with John Adams, for example, one gets the distinct feeling that even late in life, he needed someone to remind him that he still had to do things like eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, and other mundane human tasks. Most people who believe in philosopher-kings (by any name) think they are eminently qualified for the part.
No offense, Dan, but you can have Jefferson. Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, even George Washington (who, if you've read his journals, comes across as the biggest, most prudish prig in the colonies; he definitely needed to smoke some of that hemp he was growing).
By your own standards, Geoffrey, you are disqualified as well, and more so, having achieved nothing by comparison with any of the notables you have dismissed.
I agree with this sole sentence of Marshall’s. (I doubt there has been or ever will be a second one.)
Which proves the case against Geoffrey. Anyone can and should write what truth he or she can. If one has to be blameless to lead, to serve, to write, to build, then all we have is anarchy. Who can stand given such an anti-Christian criteria?
All have fallen short of the glory of God. Let’s give thanks that God, in her mercy, gave us the gifts of imperfect minds, encased in imperfect bodies, driven by imperfect wills to stretch ever further toward the truth.
I don’t like Jefferson, either. And Jefferson will be judged even as I am to be. And we, as a society, should critique the fault lines, the hesitations, the lies, the crookedness of Jefferson’s thought.
He should not be thought of as a paragon, beyond correction.
But Geoffrey knows what comes of crooked timber.
And none of us has the right to dismiss what he achieved, comparatively, on the idea of liberty, or what he contributed to its guarantees and protection.
We can, of course, look to the wisdom of folks like Jefferson, where it can be found, as long as we also understand that they're just imperfect human beings.
Unfortunately, the way the radical right would turn the founding fathers into infallible American Popes whose ideas and beliefs are never to be questioned completely ignores their human foibles, not to mention their historical context.
So I'll say what I said before on a similar post of Dan's. So what? So Jefferson said it 200 years ago. If you want me to believe it's important for today, you'll have to do better than just find some quotes. First you'd have to convince me that anything a guy who's been dead for 200 years has to say is actually relavant today. It may be, but it isn't a fait accompli as folks on either side of these issues would have us all believe.
Even if, for example, all the founding fathers had absolutely wanted zero separation of church and state, we are, as Americans, supposed to be designers of our own destiny today just as back then. Even if state sponsored religion had been a good idea then, I think it is pretty clear why it would be an awful idea today.
So then, the fact that Jefferson was for a separation of church and state doesn't, to me, make any difference than if he had been against it. I think most modern Americans can use their own ability to think these things through themselves without clutching Jefferson's apron strings.
Because, as it turns out, no one elected Jefferson king.
Apparently, Art's stopped clock was noticed at the exact right moment. Perhaps I was less clear, and a bit more harsh, than I should have been. I have nothing against noble sentiments, nobly expressed. I also think noting Jefferson's less-than-stellar ability to follow on his own ideals is hardly reason to call him in to question.
Rather it is, as legal eagles say, a preponderance of the evidence. Were I one to sit around and praise my own holiness and nobility, all the while fornicating like a greased weasel, stealing the world blind, screaming that we aren't bombing enough countries to make the world safe for Exxon-Mobil, I could see where I could take the criticism levelled at me from Art a bit more seriously. I have never, and will never, claim any moral - or any other - kind of superiority over and against any other human being. I will call out stupid stuff when I see it, but that's about it.
We read Jefferson's noble words through a very different lens than the one through which he was watching as he penned them; attention to that reality should, it seems, put a bit of a block on how much we venerate even the most nobly expressed ideas.
I can grant that the folks I mentioned - and many others - are both far more intelligent, and most likely far more "moral" than I ever will be. I refuse to remain silent, however, and not point out that there are some wee problems in appropriating the views of pretty much anyone.
I mean, after all, Isaac Newton seriously believed in alchemy, spending years studying it and, late in life as a Royal appointee as protector of British coin, dealt with counterfeiters as practicing alchemists. He also wrote a multi-volume commentary on the book of Daniel in which he employs the same kind of odd ideas he set out in the Principia. They don't work as well there.
I should probably add that Einstein was a lousy father and Karl Barth was a worse husband. Oh, and leave us not forget Paul Tillich, who even in to his 70's would enjoy dalliances with teenage undergraduate students. I'm not talking about perfection. I am talking about making clear who is speaking, what they meant, and why it might not mean what we think it means.
Also, too, what Alan said.
With Alan’s historical approach, we’d still be trying to discover fire… every single generation.
And everything Alan said - summed up as the right of a society to remake ourselves anew - would not be so strongly woven into the American fabric, and the ready assumption of it’s citizens - without the contributions of Jefferson.
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s memorial has it’s official opening this weekend.
Do his words matter for us anymore?
Do his infidelities overcome any meaning he still has?
You guys want that claim?
This is precisely where Jefferson matters in our society: the way Alan thinks about freedom. Also the way MLK thought about liberty.
Jefferson is partly responsible for that.
"Jefferson is partly responsible for that."
Didn't say he wasn't.
"You guys want that claim?"
Nope.
"Do his infidelities overcome any meaning he still has?"
Didn't say that either.
What I did write, was "We can, of course, look to the wisdom of folks like Jefferson, where it can be found, as long as we also understand that they're just imperfect human beings."
Knowing history and being enslaved to it are two different things. I think it is crucial that we know and understand our history and learn the lessons it has to teach, but simply capitulating to the opinions of dead people for no other reason than they got their face carved on a mountain is ludicrous.
Just because Jefferson said something, doesn't necessarily mean it's gospel truth today. Might be. Could be. But doesn't have to be, just because it was *insert fanfare here* JEFFERSON!
So, back to the actual post... Dan lists a bunch of quotes from Jefferson on religious liberty. OK. I suppose that's fine. But so what? What about Jefferson's opinions on religious liberty 200 years ago makes his opinions applicable to today? They very well could be very relevant, but they're not automatically so just because it was *insert fanfare here* JEFFERSON!
I'm not sure how that's either 1) difficult to understand or 2) the least bit controversial.
Alan: "So what? So Jefferson said it 200 years ago. If you want me to believe it's important for today, you'll have to do better than just find some quotes. First you'd have to convince me that anything a guy who's been dead for 200 years has to say is actually relavant today… So then, the fact that Jefferson was for a separation of church and state doesn't, to me, make any difference than if he had been against it.”
Also Alan: "I think it is crucial that we know and understand our history and learn the lessons it has to teach…”
Alan, the middle ground usually can be found at a place between two points… not in transporting alternately between them.
And to get back to the original post, Dan is pretty careful to carve out the middle ground.
Feodor: "He should not be thought of as a paragon, beyond correction."
I'm glad you agree with me.
I nearly forgot in my time away from here how y'all enjoy the game of disagreeing, even with things you agree with, just to do so.
Anyway, enjoy your playing your games. Carry on.
Perhaps my intent here was less than clear. What I meant by quoting these quotes is that I LIKE these quotes. They express great thoughts and do so poetically and grandly.
That's all.
Well, no, that's not totally all. I agree that we are figuring out things for ourselves regardless of what folk 200 or 2000 years ago said. And so, as we look to the lessons history can teach us, this fella (Jefferson) is saying things in these quotes that I agree with AND for folk who DO place our founders on some higher level, maybe hearing these great ideas from someone like Jefferson might mean more than hearing it stated less grandly from me.
I always liked Thomas Jefferson.
I watched a special on PBS and a few historians were of the opinion that Jefferson didn't really like slavery, but didn't believe it was the right time for the country to do something about it. And it turns out he was right, because a civil war broke out over it and the country nearly fell apart. Imagine what would have happened had that spat occurred immediately following the Revolutionary War. We wouldn't exist today.
As far as his failure to release his own slaves until he died, it was believed that his finances were so bad that he would have suffered greatly if he freed them. A bit ridiculous considering what the slaves suffered.
Either way, I always liked Thomas Jefferson. He was an imperfect man, as we all are.
Feodor,
I hereby acknowledge the graciousness of your agreement and thank you for it. It must be killing you.
Geoffrey,
"Perhaps I was less clear, and a bit more harsh, than I should have been."
Perhaps you're tap-dancing.
"I have never, and will never, claim any moral - or any other - kind of superiority over and against any other human being. I will call out stupid stuff when I see it, but that's about it."
Thereby setting yourself up as superior, morally or otherwise as the case may be. Worse, I don't see anything in any of Dan's Jefferson quotes that denotes he claiming any such moral superiority. One cannot help but be so accused when stating one's positions, especially on matters of behavior, including religious liberty. Indeed, to ever comment, critique or counter the opinions, behaviors or attitudes of another is assuming superiority of at least the preferred alternative, if not one's own self. I prefer to assume the speaker is referring to the opinion rather than himself.
Alan,
I say again, I prefer to assume the speaker is referring to the opinion rather than himself. You, apparently, prefer to cast aspersions on the person doing the speaking, rather than address what was spoken, as evidenced in this:
"Unfortunately, the way the radical right would turn the founding fathers into infallible American Popes whose ideas and beliefs are never to be questioned completely ignores their human foibles, not to mention their historical context."
The "radical right" appreciates the genius of many of the founders on particular matters pertinent to current events and the political process. None regard them as perfect beings in any way, shape or form. It is also false to pretend we demand no one question them, but instead, show how what we're defending is false and can improved upon by our opponents.
Indeed, you insist the founder's words be proven to be relevant, yet you show no effort in proving the not so. Is a penny saved no longer a penny earned? Is a bird in the hand no longer worth two in the bush? (I know Jefferson didn't say these things--besides the point.) Which of the quotes Dan posted have lost their relevance?
Dan,
There is much of Jefferson's stuff that is admirable. I contend that some of the things you've posted in the past you have abused and misused, but regardless, I share your sentiments on the guy. Just sayin'.
History is filled with imperfect men who none the less make great contributions. Take, for example, William Shatner. He apparently has a difficult personality and has not always been a good husband. But if we did not have him, our world would be less Shatnerific.
Would that be a world that any of us would like to live in? No, of course not.
John Farrier,
Excellent point.
Post a Comment