Remarkable spin on religion

Submitted by Adam Nehr (United States), Jun 20, 2008 at 23:58

Wow that is the most remarkably ill informed thing I have read in a long time! Let me begin:

1) Thomas Jefferson was a dieist, not a Christian. He was extremely dismissive of the Christian religion as it pertains to government.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

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 "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

2) The Federalist papers were written before the Constitution was ratified by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, all episcopals. The quotation you refer to about Christian leaders was the work of John Jay.

3) The federalist papers were superceded when the constitution was ratified and while they were an attempt to sway the continental congress in favor of the Episcopal position held by the authors, THEY LOST! The papers have little significance and no force of law in either construct or interpertation.

4)The treaty of Tripoli signed in 1797 by John Adams and agreed to by our congress states the intent of the founders clearly in Article 11:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This was a treaty with a muslim nation before we became impearialistic toward them and shows exactly the intent of our founders as regards to Christianity. The FICTION that our government has any preference as to the religious beliefs of our leaders flys in the face of the makeup of our founders themselves who were from many religions including Dieism which is completely non-christian.

5) Not that it matters but I personally do not embrace any superstition regarding the universe or our purpose within it. I look to science and reason for my answers and find many wonders within those bounds. The concept of a Narcissistic diety that demands worship, punishes a lack of sycophance and sacrifices his son (to whom?) in a particularly barbaric manner supposedly to redeem us (again from whom?)does not elude to an all powerful God but rather to a pathetic story dreamed up by a demented man and embraced by those who have never examined the story objectively.

In a free society, a lack of objective reasoning on such matters is a private matter and not the concern of government until some ill informed sycophant tries to propose that their religion become in part or in whole the law of the land.

You did just that and got dismissive and insulting in the process. I doubt you have the courage to examine your position objectively, but at least now you have some facts possesing historical accuracy to work with.

Also you cannot or at least should not describe every or even most Muslims with the opprobrium that can only be accurately applied to radical fundamentalists. Your statements sound like most racist statements that always start out with "I have many friends that are.................. and I respect them BUT they are all.................and we have to do something about it"! This type of rationalized bigotry is how holocausts are started and if you think you appear rational because you sharpen your venomous barb with a disclaimer that attemps to make you sound reasoned, you are fooling only yourself!

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".