Revisiting "The proto-Religious Right attacked Thomas Jefferson"

It's Blog Against Theocracy weekend. Please sign the petition on the website of First Freedom First.

Happy Easter to those who observe.

And now . . .

The Christian Right forever claims that our nation was founded on biblical principles to be a Christian nation. If it had been, surely Christians of Thomas Jefferson's and George Washington's day would not have blasted the U.S. Constitution and its creators. But they did.

They recognized that America's founders wanted the nation to be a secular enterprise, and many Christians were dismayed by that. Sadly, falsehoods to the contrary--spread by the Christian Right's leaders and its increasingly influential media and philanthropic machine--persist.

Pat Robertson, a Goliath of the Christian Right, on The 700 Club, December 30, 1981 said:

The Constitution of the United States...is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society.

He and all the Christian Right's leaders still say the same things in 2005 that they did in the 1980's, and are teaching a whole new generation of young Americans to echo their disingenuous arguments.

One of our nation's most important founders, Thomas Jefferson, might be particularly alarmed by this development. He wrote of an American free from "public opinion" infused with the spirit of "inquisition" attempting to subvert the Constitution and the Enlightenment concepts that deists like himself, George Washington, Ben Franklin, and John Adams cherished. He must have thought such concepts secure--ultimately untouchable, self-evident. After all, the governing document of the United States, our Constitution, nowhere mentions or endorses God, Jesus, the bible, or Christianity. In fact, in Article 6 it prohibits religious tests for public office.

But the invincibility of such commonsense is no longer the case. The secular concepts dear to Jefferson are self-evident no longer. They are not embraced by our President, many judges, and perhaps a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court. They are in danger of being forgotten and replaced by something altogether different, something anathema to the rational citizen, something in line with the enemies of the Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution in Jefferson's own day.

Do the below incidents more reflect the spirit of the U.S. Constitution or the anti-Constitutional spirit of Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, James Kennedy, and others of the Christian Right?

+On July 4th, 1798, President of Yale, Rev. Timothy Dwight, preached that Christians dare not support "the philosophers, the atheists and the deists" in the coming election, including Thomas Jefferson, who was running for President. Dwight proclaimed that "our churches may become temples of reason" should Jefferson win the election. (see The Godless Constitution, by Isaac Kramnick & R. Laurance Moore.)

+Rev. David Caldwell on July 30, 1788, stated that the Constitution's abolition of religious tests (religious qualifications, or tests, were common in Europe) was, heaven forbid, "an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us." (See " Original Intent," by Susan Jacoby in Mother Jones magazine. Also see here.)

+Rev. William Linn, a Dutch Reformed minister, authored an anti-Jefferson tract in 1800 complaining about Jefferson's "disbelief of the Holy Scriptures; or...his rejection of the Christian Religion and open profession of Deism." (this and all subsequent quotes, see Against Religious Correctness.)

+Dr. John Mason preached that Jefferson was "a confirmed infidel."

+The New England Palladium wrote: "Should the infidel Jefferson be elected to the Presidency, the seal of death is that moment set on our holy religion...some infamous prostitute, under the title of Reason will preside...."

What did Jefferson say of these attackers? He had harsh words that resonate as strongly today as they did in his own lifetime. He wrote that the religious conservatives of his day were:

"most tyrannical and ambitious.... They pant to re-establish by law, that holy inquisition, which they can now only infuse into public opinion."

But it may be the sentiment of one Maryland representative to the Constitutional Convention (1787), Luther Martin, that is most telling.

He wrote that some delegates at the convention thought it would be "at least decent" for there to be in law a "distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism."

The term Martin used for these beliefs?

"Unfashionable."

But that they still were.

Comments

[K. Green]

I'm not atheist, but I think you have some sound points, though the constitution does allow for freedom of religious expression(As long as it doesn't harm others) it does not force religion down anyone's throat or demand that people conform and believe in God. But the religoius right seem to think that they have the right to do just that as long as it conforms to their views and ideology.If it were a matter of live and let live, it might be different, but to me a theocracy is a danger to this country, and I don't believe we(all of us) can be safe if others are allowed to dictate to us what we will or won't believe in. Theocracies like the one in Iran are an example of how theocracy is a dangerous notion and ideal for this country. People are literally stifled and repressed, if you speak up and disagree with the government you may end up in jail or worse. This is not just a threat to atheists but to other Christians as well, especially to more moderate ones(Have you seen the game they came out with based on the left behind series? Yikes! Yikes! Yikes, not only are atheists targeted but those of other faiths and moderate Christians and homosexuals. (CONVERT! or die seems to be the implicit message behind the game)We are all in danger if the will of the religious right prevails, it is nothing short of religious tyranny.
There is a darned good reason why there is separation of church and state..For the reason that you've quoted from Thomas Jefferson:most tyrannical and ambitious.... They pant to re-establish by law, that holy inquisition, which they can now only infuse into public opinion." Tyranny does not promote religious freedom, but the opposite.

[K. Green]

The only thing the constitution is founded on is democracy, not religion. The founding fathers saw the consequences of church and state not being separated, in England. They did not want this to happen here in America.They knew that tyranny would prevail . The church having too much power would wield that power unreasonably.

[K. Green]

I'd like to add it is not good government to impose it's will on the people, government as defined by the constitution is for the people and by the people. The government is ideally supposed to represent the people, it governs at their discretion. With the religious right's interference in politics, they want the government to force religion down people's throats and of course only the religion they believe is truly representative of God and their own interpretation of the bible.

Their agenda is to overthrow the government and the constitution and remake it in to the image of what they want, and what they decide is best for the rest of us..They don't represent democracy or freedom, they stand for the opposite. It is no understatement that they are trying to force the rest of us into their own mold . They want the rest of us to be compliant and unquestioning of their authority as well. Docile people are easily led and stupid. That anyone should call this arrangement intolerable and stand up against religious extremism seems to be the only way to stop them. Passivity and a blind acceptance of the way things are will only make it easier for them to take complete control.