thecanessacorner

On September 27th, the Denver Post reported that about 100 students at Boulder High School protested the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. They walked out of class reciting their own version of it completely eliminating the phrase “under God.” The first line of their revised pledge read, “I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes.” This statement demonstrates a dangerous shift from the fundamental thinking of our Founding Fathers concerning the origin of man’s rights. They understood clearly that our rights come from God, we are born with them.
The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…” This is not a religious statement; it is a profound political statement. It makes it clear that rights are not something that are granted by kings or political leaders, they are granted by God! The Declaration then makes it clear that governments are instituted to protect our God-given rights. Why is this concept so important? It is of the utmost importance because if the individual’s rights come from God, government has no legal/moral basis to take them away. Eliminating this principle from the American conscience can have devastating consequences. If this trend continues and people begin to reject the founding principle that this is “one nation under God,” it will be assumed that our rights come from government. The danger is this, if citizens believe government is the giver rights, they will begin to believe government has the right to take them away. Those who think it is cute to protest American traditions ought to consider this each time they attack our pledge

There are several ways of looking at this.

First we have to ask what the word "religion" or "religious" means. The word derives from the Latin word religare, which means to look upon all things (re) and bind together (ligare, as in a ligament). In this sense, the religious quest is to bring all things together into a coherent whole. Understood that way, the statement is most distinctly religious.

On the other hand, if we use religion to mean "belief in a supreme being," then we're asking a completely different question. Again, there are at least two ways to look at it.

One is to understand that when Jefferson wrote the word "God," he did not mean the same thing Mr. P means (if Mr. P is who I think he is). He was following the line of a thought of several recent philosophers who held that God was nature itself. That is why you will find the term "nature's God" in some of the writings from that time. If you look at it that way, it's distinctively a religious statement, but not a theistic one because Jefferson was not a theist. He was a deist.

Another way of looking at it is to insist that "God" means "supreme being who created all things." Seen that way, the statement would be both religious and theistic. But that makes no sense, because that's not what Jefferson meant. How do we know? Because he told us what he meant by "God," and that's not what he meant.

Or we can look at it in the light of modern knowledge and understanding. There are no natural rights. There are only rights that governments, cultures, societies, peoples, individuals, etc., either respect or do not respect. It would be marvelous if nature decreed that all human beings have inalienable rights, but the fact is that human beings have been denying the rights of other human beings throughout history. Jefferson was stating a commitment to human rights, and he stated it in the strongest terms he could. However, when it came time for the United States to form a system of laws, the framers of our Constitution did not travel that path. Instead, they adopted a secular Constitution. Mr. P and others may wish it had been otherwise, but most respectfully it is not.

Continuing: What strikes me as dangerous is the notion that independence of mind, on this subject, is thought dangerous. When people think like that, they think they have the right to force beliefs on others.

Mr. P's conclusion does not follow. People will not assume or conclude from what the students have said that their rights come from government. Rather, they recognize that governments either respect and honor people, or they do not.

I believe this can be expressed in many ways. One excellent way of saying it is: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Many people do not know what Jesus is reported to have said next: "This sums up the law and the prophets." In other words, if you follow that one principle, you follow the whole law. I agree. One can believe in a god, or not, and in fact in the early history of our country, our ancestors did not follow the Golden Rule. They took by force the land of one group of peoples (whom they nearly killed off) and enslaved another. Quite often these things were done while quoting the Bible. Many people do not wish to hear that, but it is an historical fact. I do not see how it can be said that believing in the biblical god was of much help.

I propose that if human beings ever live in accordance with a principle of universal respect, such as is stated in the Golden Rule, they will live well and their lives will be good and moral ones. If they do not, and to the extent they do not, human beings will suffer. It is that simple.

Nature’s God?

The following is a list of the words used for or in relation to God by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Some say Jefferson was just reflecting Enlightenment thinking when he penned the Declaration. However, Jefferson himself believed he was just encapsulating American thinking. He wasn’t expressing original thought. He was expressing the opinions of the colonists. The definitions below were taken from America’s first dictionary (Webster’s 1828 dictionary). Jefferson’s usage of terms would have been consistent with this dictionary. Can there be any doubt that Jefferson was referring to the God of the Scriptures?

CREATOR, n. [L.]
1. The being or person that creates.
Remember thy creator in the days of thy youth. Ecclesiastes 12.
2. The thing that creates, produces or causes.

GOD, n.
1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator,and the sovereign of the universe.
God is a spirit; and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4.
2. A false god; a heathen deity; an idol.
Fear not the gods of the Amorites. Judges 6.
3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel. Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

PROVIDENCE, n. [L. providentia.]
1. The act of providing or preparing for future use or application.
Providence for war is the best prevention of it. [Now little used.]
2. Foresight; timely care; particularly, active foresight, or foresight accompanied with the procurement of what is necessary for future use, or with suitable preparation. How many of the troubles and perplexities of life proceed from want of providence!
3. In theology, the care and superintendence which God exercises over his creatures. He that acknowledges a creation and denies a providence, involves himself in a palpable contradiction; for the same power which caused a thing to exist is necessary to continue its existence. Some persons admit a general providence,but deny a particular providence, not considering that a general providence consists of particulars. A belief in divine providence, is a source of great consolation to good men. By divine providence is often understood God himself.
4. Prudence in the management of one's concerns or in private economy.

DIVINE, a. [L., a god.]
1. Pertaining to the true God; as the divine nature; divine perfections.
2. Pertaining to a heathen deity, or to false gods.
3. Partaking of the nature of God.
Half human, half divine.
4. Proceeding from God; as divine judgments.
5. Godlike; heavenly; excellent in the highest degree; extraordinary; apparently above what is human. In this application the word admits of comparison; as a divine invention; a divine genius; the divinest mind.
A divine sentence is in the lips of the king. Proverbs 16.
6. Presageful; foreboding; prescient. [Not used.]
7. Appropriated to God, or celebrating his praise; as divine service; divine songs; divine worship.

NATURE, n. [L. from nature, born, produced,]
1. In a general sense, whatever is made or produced; a word that comprehends all the works of God; the universe. Of a phoenix we say, there is no such thing in nature.
And look through nature up to natures God.
2. By a metonymy of the effect for the cause, nature is used for the agent, creator, author, producer of things, or for the powers that produce them. By the expression, trees and fossils are produced by nature, we mean, they are formed or produced by certain inherent powers in matter, or we mean that they are produced by God, the Creator, the Author of whatever is made or produced. The opinion that things are produced by inherent powers of matter, independent of a supreme intelligent author, is atheism. But generally men mean by nature, thus used, the Author of created things, or the operation of his power.
3. The essence, essential qualities or attributes of a thing, which constitute it what it is; as the nature of the soul; the nature of blood; the nature of a fluid; the nature of plants, or of a metal; the nature of a circle or an angle. When we speak of the nature of man, we understand the peculiar constitution of his body or mind, or the qualities of the species which distinguish him from other animals. When we speak of the nature of a man, or an individual of the race, we mean his particular qualities or constitution; either the peculiar temperament of his body, or the affections of his mind, his natural appetites, passions, disposition or temper. So of irrational animals.
4. The established or regular course of things; as when we say, an event is not according to nature, or it is out of the order of nature.
5. A law or principle of action or motion in a natural body. A stone by nature falls, or inclines to fall.
6. Constitution aggregate powers of a body, especially a living one. We say, nature is strong or weak; nature is almost exhausted.
7. The constitution and appearances of things.
The works, whether of poets, painters, moralists or historians, which are built upon general nature, live forever.
8. Natural affection or reverence.
Have we not seen, the murdering son ascend his parents bed through violated nature force his way?
9. System of created things.
He binding nature fast in fate, Left conscience free and will.
10. Sort; species; kind; particular character.
A dispute of this nature caused mischief to a king and an archbishop.
11. Sentiments r images conformed to nature, or to truth and reality.
Only nature can please those tastes which are unprejudiced and refined.
12. Birth. No man is noble by nature.

Thomas Jefferson also referred to God as “the Holy Author of our religion.”

Nature didn’t author “our” religion (the religion of the colonists was Christianity), the God of the Bible did.

The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom written by Thomas Jefferson, 1786 states:
”Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, 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...”

By the way, this statement by Jefferson makes it clear that he believed in the concept of “natural rights” or rights that endowed by the Creator. He stated, “…God hath created the mind free;”.

Jefferson did not come up with the concept of “natural rights” but he believed in it. It permeated his writings. The concept can be traced back to Aristotle and his belief in “one” God who is behind the laws of nature. This concept reached its apex as it was articulated by the great Roman statesman Cicero. Our founding fathers were enamored by the Roman Republic especially the writings of Cicero. The concept of “natural rights” gelled nicely with their belief in the Holy Scriptures. It was perfectly compatible with the teachings of the Bible and it was at the foundation of what they believed to be good government.

The very reason the US has a Bill of Rights is to protect our God-given rights.

The idea that man has no "natural rights" is compatible with communism as well as most other totalitarian systems.

The argument for natural rights is not supported by history or reason. Believing that a supreme being endowed us with rights is no better, and is in many ways worse, than simply respecting and honoring people.

Plenty of nations, large and small, have devised and practiced good systems of government without a foundation in so-called natural rights. In fact, many cultures have been more peaceful and more universally respectful than ours. How does one explain the multitude of indigenous cultures that lived peaceably without this notion; or the many peaceful Buddhist cultures, which do not subscribe to it? If natural rights was a necessary foundation for a just society, that could not have happened.

Widespread belief in Christianity did not keep our ancestors from enslaving one people and nearly annihilating another. If a foundation in natural rights was such a secure foundation for moral behavior, then why did our ancestors do these profoundly evil things? This history demolishes the argument that believing in a god guarantees moral or ethical behavior. There is no evidence that it even helps.

No matter what one claims to believe about moral foundations, the ethical and moral choices we make are our own, as are the decision to believe or not believe in a supreme being and the decision which parts of the Bible to follow literally. We have done a much better job respecting human rights by simply respecting people. Theology, including a concept of god-given natural rights, does not seem to have helped us one bit. One can say it, but history does not support it.

"Widespread belief in Christianity did not keep our ancestors from enslaving one people and nearly annihilating another."

Mr. L., sadly, your above quote is true. Just as no individual Christian is perfect, neither are "Christian" nations. Our nation's history, although glorious, has its dark stains and racial slavery is one of its greatest sins. However, this sin was paid for in the blood of 600,000 Americans who died in the war to end the terrible practice.

Allow me to share a stanza from the theme song of the Union Army. This is the 5th stanza of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic":

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea;

With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me;

As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,

While God is marching on."

Christianity is not to blame for racial slavery in America. The Bible does not condone dehumanizing people. We must also remember that the greatest abolitionists were committed Christians. They include such notables as the evangelists Charles Finney and Theodore Weld as well as Lyman Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe and William Lloyd Garrison.

With regard to abuses concerning the American Indian, it is also true that there were terrible, terrible abuses. However, these abuses can not be blamed on Christianity either.
These abuses are the result of failed government policy and or unscrupulous settlers and their greed for land or Gold. Our History is rich with stories of selfless missionaries and Christian communities who forged lasting relationships with their Indian neighbors.

One of my favorite historical figures who aided the Indians was Samuel Worcester. He was a Moravian Christian Missionary who lived among the Cherokee and taught them Christianity and Engish. As a result of his work, the tribe became close to 100% literate in English and 90% Christian! They established their own churches. courthouses and constitution patterned after the US Constitution. Worcester even sued on behalf of the Cherokee to keep their land and he won before the Supreme Court. Unfortunately President Jackson did not enforce the Court's decision and the Cherokee were removed.

Please call me Paul.

You’re trying to have it both ways. Your claim is that founding the laws on a conception of “natural rights” gives a moral authority to law that it would not otherwise have. In view of our own country’s history, and history generally, that is not a defensible position.

Another problem with the argument on natural rights is that while you may believe that the Bible does not condone slavery, many Southerners believed that it did, and defended it precisely on those grounds. Because they were obtaining moral justification from an external authority, nothing prevented them from making it up.

So your argument is actually backward. A concept of natural rights makes rights less secure, not more secure, because it departs from the true foundation of rights, which is a universal respect for the human person. We can both cite numerous examples of nations and cultures that committed mass atrocities in the name of one god or another. I bet neither of us could find a single example of a culture that committed such atrocities from a foundation of universal respect for human rights. That is why a sound and universal Humanism is a more secure foundation for a just society than any religion based on an appeal to a supposed external authority. There's no escaping the work that morality and ethics involves. The best system is the one that puts the responsibility squarely on our shoulders by acknowledging that we are the ones who make the choices.

Mr. P. wrote:On September 27th, the Denver Post reported that about 100 students at Boulder High School protested the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. They walked out of class reciting their own version of it completely eliminating the phrase “under God.” The first line of their revised pledge read, “I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes.” This statement demonstrates a dangerous shift from the fundamental thinking of our Founding Fathers concerning the origin of man’s rights.

You mean like Jefferson, the Founding Father who was so disgusted with the mysticism and superstition in the Bible that he wrote his own version that omitted all of the miraculous stuff?

Also, perhaps you are not aware, but a treaty (which is effectively law according to the Constitution) was passed in the late 1700s (unanimously, I might add) which clearly states that "...the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...". Don't believe me? Google it yourself. It's at the very beginning of Article 11.

They understood clearly that our rights come from God, we are born with them.

No, they did not. Read that treaty (which is effectively law, I reiterate) above. They understood that we are to have inherent rights, but this had nothing to do with any deity. The USA is a secular government and always has been. I don't appreciate seeing this lie peddled after being corrected so many times.

The Declaration of Independence states:

The Declaration of Independence is not effective US law, according to the Constitution. The Treaty of Tripoli is.

If this trend continues and people begin to reject the founding principle that this is “one nation under God,” it will be assumed that our rights come from government.

Well, God certainly has no reputation for stepping in to prevent any attempt at a government to take away rights. If rights were God-given, how is it that mere humans have been taking away people's rights for millenia without so much as a slap on the wrist from God? Any decent god would have the ability to give his creations rights that cannot be circumvented by his other creations.

The danger is this, if citizens believe government is the giver rights, they will begin to believe government has the right to take them away.

That does not follow. When the government states that certain rights are inalienable, that means that they are stating that they cannot take them away!

Those who think it is cute to protest American traditions ought to consider this each time they attack our pledge

First of all, what a condescending attitude. You think people are protesting the underhanded sneaking-in of "under God" to the Pledge (which wasn't a part of the pledge until 1951!) because they think it's "cute"? How dare you try to undermine their convictions like that? How would you feel if someone remarked that your belief in God was "cute"?

Secondly, what fear-mongering. Protesting an unconstitutional phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, according to you, ultimately leads to complacency in allowing the government to take away our rights. I have encountered fewer slopes less slippery.

Get real.

Mr. P. wrote:Nature’s God?

The following is a list of the words used for or in relation to God by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Some say Jefferson was just reflecting Enlightenment thinking when he penned the Declaration. However, Jefferson himself believed he was just encapsulating American thinking. He wasn’t expressing original thought. He was expressing the opinions of the colonists. The definitions below were taken from America’s first dictionary (Webster’s 1828 dictionary). Jefferson’s usage of terms would have been consistent with this dictionary. Can there be any doubt that Jefferson was referring to the God of the Scriptures?

CREATOR, n. [L.]
1. The being or person that creates.
Remember thy creator in the days of thy youth. Ecclesiastes 12.
2. The thing that creates, produces or causes.

GOD, n.
1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator,and the sovereign of the universe.
God is a spirit; and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4.
2. A false god; a heathen deity; an idol.
Fear not the gods of the Amorites. Judges 6.
3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel. Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

PROVIDENCE, n. [L. providentia.]
1. The act of providing or preparing for future use or application.
Providence for war is the best prevention of it. [Now little used.]
2. Foresight; timely care; particularly, active foresight, or foresight accompanied with the procurement of what is necessary for future use, or with suitable preparation. How many of the troubles and perplexities of life proceed from want of providence!
3. In theology, the care and superintendence which God exercises over his creatures. He that acknowledges a creation and denies a providence, involves himself in a palpable contradiction; for the same power which caused a thing to exist is necessary to continue its existence. Some persons admit a general providence,but deny a particular providence, not considering that a general providence consists of particulars. A belief in divine providence, is a source of great consolation to good men. By divine providence is often understood God himself.
4. Prudence in the management of one's concerns or in private economy.

DIVINE, a. [L., a god.]
1. Pertaining to the true God; as the divine nature; divine perfections.
2. Pertaining to a heathen deity, or to false gods.
3. Partaking of the nature of God.
Half human, half divine.
4. Proceeding from God; as divine judgments.
5. Godlike; heavenly; excellent in the highest degree; extraordinary; apparently above what is human. In this application the word admits of comparison; as a divine invention; a divine genius; the divinest mind.
A divine sentence is in the lips of the king. Proverbs 16.
6. Presageful; foreboding; prescient. [Not used.]
7. Appropriated to God, or celebrating his praise; as divine service; divine songs; divine worship.

NATURE, n. [L. from nature, born, produced,]
1. In a general sense, whatever is made or produced; a word that comprehends all the works of God; the universe. Of a phoenix we say, there is no such thing in nature.
And look through nature up to natures God.
2. By a metonymy of the effect for the cause, nature is used for the agent, creator, author, producer of things, or for the powers that produce them. By the expression, trees and fossils are produced by nature, we mean, they are formed or produced by certain inherent powers in matter, or we mean that they are produced by God, the Creator, the Author of whatever is made or produced. The opinion that things are produced by inherent powers of matter, independent of a supreme intelligent author, is atheism. But generally men mean by nature, thus used, the Author of created things, or the operation of his power.
3. The essence, essential qualities or attributes of a thing, which constitute it what it is; as the nature of the soul; the nature of blood; the nature of a fluid; the nature of plants, or of a metal; the nature of a circle or an angle. When we speak of the nature of man, we understand the peculiar constitution of his body or mind, or the qualities of the species which distinguish him from other animals. When we speak of the nature of a man, or an individual of the race, we mean his particular qualities or constitution; either the peculiar temperament of his body, or the affections of his mind, his natural appetites, passions, disposition or temper. So of irrational animals.
4. The established or regular course of things; as when we say, an event is not according to nature, or it is out of the order of nature.
5. A law or principle of action or motion in a natural body. A stone by nature falls, or inclines to fall.
6. Constitution aggregate powers of a body, especially a living one. We say, nature is strong or weak; nature is almost exhausted.
7. The constitution and appearances of things.
The works, whether of poets, painters, moralists or historians, which are built upon general nature, live forever.
8. Natural affection or reverence.
Have we not seen, the murdering son ascend his parents bed through violated nature force his way?
9. System of created things.
He binding nature fast in fate, Left conscience free and will.
10. Sort; species; kind; particular character.
A dispute of this nature caused mischief to a king and an archbishop.
11. Sentiments r images conformed to nature, or to truth and reality.
Only nature can please those tastes which are unprejudiced and refined.
12. Birth. No man is noble by nature.

Clearly you are not aware of the [web]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible[/web]

Here are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson. I’ll comment in the next post.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. [Notes on Virginia, 1782.]

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. [Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787.]

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. [Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom.]

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. [Letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802.]

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. [To Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.]

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. [Letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814.]

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. [Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.]

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. [Letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819.]

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. [Letter to William Short, April 13, 1820.]
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is. [Letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820.]

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. [Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823.]

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. [Letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825.]

Multiple conflicting meaning from a dictionary will not tell us what Jefferson meant, but even if we apply that standard of interpretation, the definitions from Webster’s 1828 dictionary do not support the view of Jefferson as a theist, much less a biblical literalist. From these definitions, Jefferson might have believed that the Creator is a thing that creates, but not a supreme being; that God is an idol (which is what Jefferson in fact believed in relation to the biblical god); that providence is foresight and prudence; and that the divine was “excellent in the highest degree.”

To know what Jefferson meant, we must do what historians do, and examine his other writings on the subject. Jefferson was a deist. He did not believe in a personal god. He specifically rejected the idea that Jesus was divine. In his correspondence, he argued repeatedly that anything in the Bible that did not fit with the laws of nature as we experience them should be rejected as the superstitions of ancient and inferior minds. He repeatedly blasted the Christian churches, questioned whether there was any god at all, and called the New Testament gospels “defective.” He called the story of the supposed virgin birth a “fable.” He specifically compared parts of the Bible to dunghills, noting that parts of the Bible were authored by inferior minds. He was the one who first declared that the Constitution builds “a wall of separation between church and state.” Over and over and over again, Jefferson denounced the Bible and institutions of the Christian religion. He did not believe Jesus of Nazareth was capable of offering him or anyone else salvation from anything; he understood literalist Christianity’s claims, and he explicitly rejected them. On these points he was clear and emphatic – not once, but many times.

Especially odd is the use of Jefferson’s name to support the distinctly non-historical view of our legal system under the Constitution as being derived from the tenets of Christian theology. Jefferson cut entire sections from his Bible --- with a pair of scissors! --- including all the supposed miracles, everything of a supernatural character and everything that held Jesus to be divine. He specifically wrote that he was a Christian only in the sense that he believed in Jesus’ moral teachings. He did not believe Jesus was what biblical literalists say he was. He specifically wrote: “I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others.”

So it is clear that when Jefferson wrote the word “Creator,” he was referring to something closer to what I would say than to something you would say. The other person who just posted on this is absolutely right in referring to the Jefferson Bible.

And even if Mr. P’s view of Jefferson had some historical support, which it does not, it would support an interpretation of American law as being founded in Christian theology or a belief in a supreme being. Here again, C.V. is correct. The Declaration is part of our culture and our quasi-legal history, but it is not a part of our laws. The Constitution is our founding legal document, and when the framers debated it, they specifically rejected any notion that they were founding the new government on the doctrines of Christianity. They specifically declined to do so. One can take a contrary position, but there is no historical support for it. The United States Constitution is an entirely secular work; the framers considered making it otherwise, and deliberately declined to do so.

"...The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God..." JFK in his January 20, 1961 inaugural address.

Below is the Preamble and Article 1 section 1 of the NJ Constitution. portions are highlighted in yellow demonstrating a foundation in "Natural Rights" doctrine:

NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION 1947 (UPDATED THROUGH AMENDMENTS ADOPTED IN NOVEMBER, 2007)


A Constitution agreed upon by the delegates of the people of New Jersey, in Convention, begun at Rutgers University, the State University of New Jersey, in New Brunswick, on the twelfth day of June, and continued to the tenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven.

We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution.



ARTICLE I
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES


1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

The State of NJ is not unique, each of the current 50 state constitutions acknowledges God as the source of our natural rights as well.