I. Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment 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 his Almighty power to do . .
The irony, of course is delicious: Jefferson's 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, so often trumpeted as a triumph of secularism, roots religious liberty in natural rights endowed by the Creator, and claims as its authority none other than the "Lord" Jesus Christ, while normatively identifying Virginians themselves as Christians ["the Holy author of our religion"].
Note also that the 'holy author of our religion' is called "Almighty," which would make him divine, in other words, God, not just a mere prophet or moral philosopher. This is no "deist" formulation. Few think Jefferson believed Jesus to be divine, but Virginians as a whole clearly did--which makes all the talk of Jefferson's personal and private beliefs rather a great waste of time and ink.
So much that they took for granted we don't even see.
20 comments:
-- The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination. --
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions45.html
What is the Christian principle enacted? Is it separation of civil governance from religion (delineation of “civil as well as ecclesiastical” worldly spheres with different purposes)? Is it the acknowledgement of man’s often repeated abuses of civil power to coerce religious beliefs; the tendency to zealously seek “dominion over the faith of others”? Is it the acknowledgement that all religious opinion has equal standing in the eyes of the temporal legislature?
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, 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, 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 opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
I’m guessing that this was/is quite startling within some Christian circles – perhaps even blasphemous and heretical. Not even a hint of the Great Commission. Certainly today, if even read aloud by the POTUS, especially this POTUS, this would be the cause of great alarm and gnashing and rending and wailing and predictions of doom, God’s withdrawal of His protection from a sinning nation, and quite likely a signal for the second coming, at least in some circles.
Would Ted Cruz or David Barton approve of this message? Would the Trumpster promise to tear this Act to shreds the day he is inaugurated (yes, I know that the POTUS has no jurisdiction here but we’re talking the Trumpenleader)? Or, maybe more importantly, would Jesus* recognize the Act as an extension of His mission?
*Assuming, of course, that by Christian you mean something approaching the work and words of the Christ.
an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;"
I've read that, but it also cannot be denied the "Holy author of our religion" can only be Jesus. That explicit mention of Jesus was
"rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination"
still does not change that. "Our" religion is Christianity, and further, it calls him "Almighty." Any other interpretation is disingenuous.
As for why freedom of religious conscience is a natural right, and is thus a God-given right should not need explanation to anyone who has read Jefferson's other notable document.
Your thesis is based on fallacious reasoning from a small sample of a source document that is insufficiently representative. In the first paragraph of the religious statute Jefferson, consistent with his argument in the Declaration of Independence concerning “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” proclaimed that one of those natural rights is freedom of thought.
All AC readers know the historical context for the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. It passed in Virginia (by a margin of 60 to 27) because anti-Anglican dissenting sects (particularly Baptists and other evangelicals, along with some Presbyterians and Methodists) petitioned strongly for full religious liberty (i.e., rejecting Patrick Henry’s “General Assessment” compromise bill for an annual tax to support the Christian religion or “some Christian church, denomination or worship”), and separation of church and state.
Baptist minister John Leland aligned with Jefferson and Madison’s position that churches must be protected from any interference of or connection with the state, and therefore opposed any form of state support of religion (even Henry’s “modest proposal”). In A Chronicle of His Time in Virginia, Leland wrote: "The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever. ... Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians."
As Jon Ragosta noted, “Jefferson and the Virginia legislature intended to end any tax support for religion and make clear that religious opinion had no effect on ‘civil capacities’ while endorsing a vibrant free market for religious opinion.”
http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781444330151_chunk_g97814443301519
"I've read that, but it also cannot be denied the "Holy author of our religion" can only be Jesus." This is, of course, bullpucky. Wishful thinking of the highest order. Why do fundamentalists work so hard to misrepresent the Founders? Jefferson could not have been clearer, he did not think that Jesus was divine. Nor was Jefferson a Christian. When Jefferson referred to "god" he was doing so in the broadest sense, of a creator. Not a Christian god. This silly "aha moment" is pure fiction. For sources, check out the Virginia Historical Society or Monticello.org. Here's one link http://www.vahistorical.org/collections-and-resources/virginia-history-explorer/thomas-jefferson
Shame you spent all that effort ignoring what I actually wrote, where I explicitly said
Few think Jefferson believed Jesus to be divine, but Virginians as a whole clearly did
You anti-religious left-wingers are such boors sometimes, mindlessly repeating your own mindless narrative. (And I'm no fundamentalist, which makes you doubly ignorant.)
Who else is the "Holy author of our religion?" What other religion could it be than Christianity? If you want to participate, play straight and cut the crap.
You just make stuff up. I'm guessing you do so because you like to feel your worldview is reenforced by actual facts, but it's not. You can claim that Virginians believed Jefferson to be a Christian, but you're just pulling that out of your butt. Jefferson's contemporaries harbored no illusions about Jefferson's "Christianity", because he was quite open about his disbelief in Jesus' divinity. Jefferson's opinions at the time were widely shared. He was not shy. He spent years ripping any mention of Christ's divinity from the bible, the resulting "Jefferson's bible" was widely known.
And I'm sure that in your little "Jesus worshipping" world you like to believe that anyone who cites an "Almighty" of any flavor is automatically equating said almightly with your Christ, but that's only true within your blinkered belief system. Deists did not agree with you. You may think "almighty" means Jesus. Jefferson, and most of the rest of the Founders, did not.
Why cling so desperately to such fantasies? Several of the Founders were, at best, moderately religious, if not atheist. They certainly didn't mean for America to be a Christian nation, the evidence is overwhelming. Just give it up, the desperation is demeaning to your cause...
You've completely missed the argument, tough guy. Who is the 'Lord' here? Who is 'the Holy author of our religion?' What is 'our' religion if not Christianity?
You're not reading carefully enough. The title of the post is not who wrote the statute but who passed it. Jefferson's personal beliefs are immaterial: he hid behind Christian formulations, just as Paine did.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2015/05/tom-paine-common-sense-and-bible.html
For a slightly different analytical view of this statute, I think of this passage by Allan Bloom in "The Closing of the American Mind":
"Hobbes & Locke, and the American Founders following them, intended to palliate extreme beliefs, particularly religious beliefs...In order to make this arrangement work, there was a conscious, if covert effort to weaken religious belief, partly by assigning—as a result of a great epistemological effort—religion to the realm of opinion as opposed to knowledge. But the right to freedom of religion belonged to the realm of knowledge."
http://tinyurl.com/jrrdoq5
Jefferson's VA Statute was a Lockean document. It posits the right to freedom of religion as an objective truth determinable from reason, i.e., as part of "knowledge." Yet, look at how the particular religions in Jefferson's Statute are regarded as men's "opinion."
Liberal democratic theory presumes the majority has to "consent" to the plan in order to implement it into politics. The Christian language in the preface might have been part of that scheme.
Locke, Jefferson & Madison may have been "Christians" in some sense. I think Locke was an Arian. Jefferson was a Socinian. Who knows what Madison was at this time, but it he seemed more in line with Jefferson and Locke than with Leland.
That is Jefferson, Madison, following Locke were engaging in a line of reasoning that deists and freethinkers would sign onto.
However, Leland came from the tradition of Roger Williams who was a fanatically orthodox Christian. Sure he made novel arguments. But he did it from a sincere, open and honest conscience of fanatical orthodoxy. Whereas Locke and company were afraid being open about their heterodoxy would get them in trouble.
Well, Williams still got in trouble (he was banished from Mass. to found Rhode Island).
So I think the prefatory language Tom references was a throat clearer to the Christians. An "ahem" if you will. As in "keep in mind, this is the way the faith is supposed to work." Though that understanding of the Christian faith (one that would understandably appeal to dissidents) was radically controversial in Williams time (it was in fact novel). And still somewhat controversial during the time of Jefferson, Madison and Leland.
More than "throat clearing." The premise of this post remains unmolested. Lord. Author. "Our" religion. Almighty.
We need to appreciate the Protestant Reformation, which in rejecting the theological authority--'magisterium'--of the Catholic Church--created not only nearly countless sects but countless variations in normative doctrine. Every man his own pope. For one thing, enforced religious orthodoxy became impracticable.
Further, secularists, in using Locke as a negation of religious sentiment in favor of "Enlightenment," sorely misuse him, both as a Christian himself and more importantly, as the Christian those in the Founding era perceived him to be.
I like Bloom and Strauss, but they are not expert in theological history, and miss a lot. Locke argued religious persecution is patently unChristlike, and besides, the government can't save your soul.
The Statute is hardly the milestone it's made out to be. We see in Samuel Adams' "Rights of the Colonists" back in 1772 [If not England's own Toleration Act of 1688] saying the same thing--except for leaning on "Mr. Locke" to deny Catholics the same rights as Protestants!
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/right_col.htm
Who cares that Virginians misinterpreted Jefferson? You're just promulgating the "Christian nation" canard. We were not founded as a Christian nation, despite the fact that many Virginians in the 18th century echoed the balderdash promoted today by the Ted Cruzes and Rick Santorums and Mike Huckabees. There have always been, and (sadly) may always be religious zealots who want to foist their beliefs on the rest of us. Some, like yourself, go to great lengths to dress up religious fanaticism as "philosophy". Nothing changes the intent of Jefferson, et al. He recognized that there would be folks like yourself (prescient, old Thomas) and therefore made clear in his writings that the 1st Amendment established a "wall between church and state". He also was quite clear regarding his own beliefs about Christianity. Your argument that Virginians misunderstood Jefferson, and therefore we can establish Christianity as a state religion, is about the silliest thing I've read today.
John: I'm not sure if that's what Tom means.
I would agree with one thing, whatever the "Christian" element to the VA Statute it absolutely accords with the notion that JMS reproduced from John Leland:
"The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever. ... Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians."
Roger Williams was the one who coined the term "separation of Church & State." It's likely that Jefferson & Madison got it from somewhere else, that they didn't know or care about Williams.
But Leland et al. did (I'm pretty sure) know of Williams and operated in his tradition. And they were devout orthodox Christians of the evangelical variety.
None of this has anything to do with what I wrote.
The premise of this post remains unmolested. Lord. Author. "Our" religion. Almighty.
Who is the 'Lord' here? Who is 'the Holy author of our religion?' What is 'our' religion if not Christianity? The rest of this chatter is, as the gentleman says, bullpucky.
"Who is the Lord?" Ick your favorite imaginary sky being. Thor? Yahweh? Osiris? They're interchangeable. "Who is the Holy author?" A whole bunch of old Jews and Arabs, who scrawled tribal myths on papyrus and sheepskin. "What is '9our' religion if not Christianity?" Islam. Buddhism. Nothing. Judaism. Sufism. Or any of a dozen other equally plausible substitutes.
It's all folderol, even your personal special sauce. You may even know that, deep down. The rest of us do, for sure...
With the exception of Tom, it seems that all of you are forgetting that Virginia had an established church at the time that this statute was introduced. Therefore, the phrase "our religion" appearing in any official government document can only be interpreted as a reference to the religion followed by the established church. This also means that terms such as God, Lord, Almighty, and Holy Author also must all be interpreted in the sense in which these terms were used by the established church. That's part of what was meant by the term "established religion."
By the way, this explains why the very religious Virginians voted down the proposal to include a specific reference to "Jesus Christ" as the author of their religion. The term "Christ" is not a name. It is a title of office just like the terms "Pharaoh" or "President." The office of the Christ has received several definitions from the different sects of Christianity, and it was (and still is) common for one sect of Christians to call those of another sect heretics simply because they differed in some slight degree in their understanding of the office of the Christ. If this statute had referenced Jesus Christ as the specific author of the state's religion, then it could still have been used as a tool of persecution.
Regardless of whether it's considered an authentically "Christian" document, the statute stands for the what I take as laudable principle that natural religious rights equally protect "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."
We can also question whether the following was a valid "Christian" notion.
“It was justice, not cruelty, yea mercy to the Church of God, to take away the life of Servetus, who used such spirituall and diabolick cruelty to many thousand soules, whom he did pervert, and by his Booke, does yet lead into perdition.”
– Samuel Rutherford, “A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience.” (1649).
Rutherford, et al. were good on "resisting" tyrants (especially when they were dissidents) but horrible on religious liberty.
"Regardless of whether it's considered an authentically "Christian" document, the statute stands for the what I take as laudable principle that natural religious rights equally protect "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."
Regardless of what this post is about, you mean? That is not at question.
"If this statute had referenced Jesus Christ as the specific author of the state's religion, then it could still have been used as a tool of persecution."
Very interesting argument, though I'm not sure that "our" refers to a particular church or denomination. However, no one here is able to dispute it refers to Christianity as a whole, or that Jesus is being referred to here.
I don't think that the Anglicans thought of their sect as the religion itself, but rather as the correct sect of the religion of Christianity. Most of the protestant churches recognized the other mainline protestants as sects of the same religion of Christianity as themselves.
Luther and Calvin are a great example of this. They disagreed rather vehemently over the free will of man, and that issue kept them from joining forces, but neither of them viewed the others followers to be of a totally separate religion.
Post a Comment