"any quotes that suggest so should be taken with the understanding that he was a Slaveholder that also rejected slavery. No matter what you call it he was a Christian, who certainly saw himself as a christian. Arguing that he wasn't puts you on the losing side of the argument."

Nice rhetoric, but it DOESN'T put me on the losing side of the argument when I have the evidence and you have the rhetoric.

(Actually, that's most secularist vs. religious arguments, really, evidence vs. rhetoric...ah well...and how nice that you say that, of course, any statements to the contrary of your position MUST be false, and yet give no reason and no sustained argument to support that, and no evidence to support that, just "I'm right and if you disagree you're wrong.")

At BEST your argument that he was a slaveholder who rejected slavery being analogous to his religious views could give you Jefferson as, by your logic, a Christian who rejected being Christian and the Christian ideals...

But then, I must ask--if you reject the Christian story (as my quotes above attest he did) and you reject being Christian...in what sense ARE you actually Christian?

He can still be DEIST--his famous "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..." quote would seem fair proof that he probably believed in a celestial power of some kind or nature--

But to claim he was CHRISTIAN requires you to sustain his belief and acceptance of the Christian dogma and identity, BOTH of which he REJECTS in the quotes I gave.

Jefferson believed in a god, he believed in divine moral law (your christian values) and believed to some extent in an afterlife. He believed in the teachings of the bible not the stories of miracles and divine revelation. So in other words he believed the bible was allegory, like many Christians throughout time. He therefore sought to understand god rationally through his own intellect. But he considered himself Christian, would be considered today as Christian, and espoused the Christian values that are at issue here. So what exactly are you debating. What name to give his faith? What does it matter. For our purposes he was certainly a Christian, and indeed, considered himself not a "deist" but practicing an elevated form of Christianity.

Thank you for making the points I would have made obi - the ridiculous resulting to name calling of SC and the fact that he rejected the miracles of jesus something not fitting with the idea of being a christian and christianity (even if he thought of jesus as a good moral leader) - that in itself is a rejction of christianity, I must say obi, I just think SC has his own biases that he feels the need to argue, irrespective of the facts

"The correct way to oppose this is to say that equation is bull shit which it is.

Instead we have people like you who come in, don't say anything about the horse shit equation and instead say "The Founders Weren't Christian!""

1. I agree the equation is horseshit

2. I won't be so presumptuous as to say "We," but I would say that the fight here can be won on either ground, that is, the rational, horeshit-less ground or, if those insisting on a fight there wish one (it's not the liberals you so target that start this, we're not the ones jumping up and down about America being an X Nation, we're content to legislate secularly in the here and now, it's the other side that drags up the "Founders" argument and beats America over the head with it) we can win it there too...

Because the Founders Were NOT, by and large, Christian, they were, again, Deist or Ambivalent or, in the case of Paine and Franklin, starting to approach atheism, if probably stopping short of that due to the social norms of their age.

It's a matter of fact, and we take objection to that matter of our own factual history being skewered.

The same way I would take objection to someone saying "It was 6,000, not 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, the numbers are inflated," I take offense to this--

BOTH are lies about the past, and to allow the lie is an insult, frankly--

NO ONE here would allow Holocaust Denial to go un-chastised and corrected; the past matters, it'd be unthinkable to let such a rank distortion of it slide.

So when the documents clearly show Jefferson to be a Deist and not a Christian...

When the same can be said for Adams, Madison, Franklin, Paine, Washington, and so on...

When, in short, the Founders were NOT Christian--Deist, yes, Christian, no, there IS a difference and a real, distinct, and vital difference in mindset and historical and sociological accuracy--I refuse to let it go that they were when we have the proof they were, largely, not.

Jefferson also believed in having no capable navy at all and Britain made him eat his words for that one twice. Jefferson believed in a smaller centralized government, which is not a problem in that time period, and believed that he had the duty to serve his nation internally. He didn't always do a great job.

In that sense, he did not bring religion into his office, and while his religious beliefs certainly may have influenced his political theory, he did not play the role of a Christian President at all.

Also keep in mind that one of the biggest issues in the nation prior to Jefferson's 1800 election was a clear regional split in party. Notice the similarity? Check in 2000. The 1800 election was a tie; the 2000 election was a perpetual tie as well. In 1804, the entire nation rallied around him, as they seemingly did Bush. In 1808, they elected his political advisor, even after he tanked their economy. I guess the country is smarter than that now, because in 2008, Obama came around. History repeats itself; I really wonder whether or not there will be another Trail of Tears in 20 years.

So yes, I'm sure the founders are turning in their graves, as are the many whose names we don't even know anymore (Roger Sherman, anyone?). They aren't any more perfect than the people now though.

Or in Jefferson's own words,

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. 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; ascribing to himself every human excellence"

Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush (1803)


Oh look I can quote the internet too.

I also read books on the subject and sort of studied the period, but we all know that doesn't stand up to cherry picking quotes from a guy who is quoted on both sides of every issue imaginable.

Jefferson talked out of both sides of his mouth. He is notorious for it. The Slavery issue was just an example. He constantly reversed himself and spoke of some far flung ideals while he actually lived his life and spoke privately according to different beliefs. He was complicated and it is laughable that you believe either you or me could distill his beliefs through your normal method of cherry picking a quote or one scholars (or wikipedia editor's) take on his life

"Jefferson believed in a god, he believed in divine moral law (your christian values)"

1. He believed in a creator, but that's a long way from saying that creator was the Judeo-Christian "God," that's a rather specific creator which we've just seen him reject.

2. Similarly, he believed in divine moral law, but that still does not necessitate WHICH kind of divinity he believed in and thus WHICH divine deist presence he ascribed his morality to, it does NOT necessitate those values being Christian values AT ALL--after all, Muslims and Jews have "divine moral laws" as well, and while I of course don't mean to suggest Jefferson was either of those, we likewise cannot say he was a Christian, merely, again, a deist who believed that some deity somewhere gave some sort of moral basis to some degree--

For all those "somes" to turn to definite "Christian creator/values/divinity/moral law" you need proof he subscribed to that specific God and that specific belief system, which you have not provided and do not have, while I have provided proof he REJECTED such notions and rejected the New Testament rather adamantly and specifically.

Jefferson was not a christian, and neither is anyone that comes to their belief via reason. Religion (excluding Judaism and perhaps some others I do not know about) promotes unquestioning faith, you don't believe something because it is plausible, you just have faith, and if you come to your religion because of reason that is not faith and that is not christianity, and your quote doesn't show him to be a christian, it shows him to view jesus as a moral leader, but not to be a christian, like we said.

I'll take your quote on:

"in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence"

That statement, coupled with mine (since yours by its existence does not refute mine) needs to be taken in the context of someone who DID say that the miracles and actions in the New Testament were fakes and frauds, as were the Disciples.

That leaves Jesus.

Sounds to ME like, at most, Jesus to Jefferson was what Ghandi was to MLK or what great writers are for me--namely, an inspirational guy with inspirational ideas...

But NOT one that was like the NT Jesus and had supernatural powers.

He seems to like Jesus for his IDEAS, not for the actual divinity of the man...probably, since Jefferson came out of the Enlightenment and the age of rationality, because he didn't believe in those superstitions and took the rationalist view of his age:

Nice guy, great ideas, probably wasn't actually divine.

That would reconcile your quote with mine, and that'd make Jefferson and Jesus fan while not making him a Christian in the sense we general mean (ie, believing in the Ressurection and supernatural abilities and Heaven and Hell and Jesus' miracles and the Gospels and so on.)

"Jefferson also believed in having no capable navy at all and Britain made him eat his words for that one twice."

Oh Jesus Christ

Jefferson supported the Navy. He tried to build a Navy Yard in Washington but was voted down by his own party. He sent ships to fight the Barbary Pirates. Him and Adams believed that a Navy was INDISPENSABLE to liberty because it relieved the need of a large standing Army which was deemed dangerous to liberty. He wanted the Navy to take a different strategic outlook, ie. lots of tiny Gunboats instead of large ships but to say he opposed the navy is wrong.

"Because the Founders Were NOT, by and large, Christian, they were, again, Deist or Ambivalent or, in the case of Paine and Franklin, starting to approach atheism, if probably stopping short of that due to the social norms of their age."

This is wrong, saying it over and over does not make it right. Paine was derided in america and branded as a radical due to his comments on religion in "The Age of Reason" Paine was an outcast at the end of his life and Abandoned by his former allies in America lagely because of it. He alienated himself by approaching athiesm and it is ignorant to claim he represents the founders.

Paine was a founder and we are using him as an example of a founder that wasn't christian, you have failed to respond to the points on Jefferson too. And I think it is interesting but the topic of Jefferson and the navy is somewhat parenthetical

At any rate, I think this all sidesteps the relevant issue. If we decide to call Jefferson a Christian, many of his ideas about governance (and other issues) are _not_ the sorts of things that conservatives would probably like to cite as being the foundations for the country -- even if we decide to attribute them to Jefferson's Christianity.

"He believed in the teachings of the bible not the stories of miracles and divine revelation."

I'd posit that it'd then be an overly-loose and somewhat Apologist view to describe such people as "Christian."

I think a "Christian" would have to believe in those miracles and the NT as fact...

Even if the argument was made that you could somehow take some parts of the Bible literally and others as allegory (which is real nice and handy to allow the theist to switch back and forth depending on which reading is socially and scientifically convenient that day without a hint of accountability, but I digress) I'd still argue--and I think rather reasonably--that for someone to be called a CHRISTIAN...

They'd have to believe the Christ-centered parts were literal truth, ie, that he performed miracles and rose from the dead and so on, as THAT is the great claim of Christianity, after all.

Take that away, and by your logic, I could be an atheist who didn't believe these events happened at all, but liked the teachings of Jesus, and sought to follow them...

And your definition would then qualify me for the title of "Atheist Christian," which is about as absurd an oxymoron as they come.

You clearly cannot be atheistic and Christian; if you told someone you were both, they would certainly say the two were mutually exclusive.

So I submit that your definition does not work to ascribe Christianity to Jefferson, and that Jefferson was a Jesus fan and not a "Christian," drawing a distinction based on the two on the grounds of what is needed to be considered a "Christian,."

I think our agreement Willtor will be the only agreement not implicitly/explicitly stated from the offset

"Religion (excluding Judaism and perhaps some others I do not know about) promotes unquestioning faith, you don't believe something because it is plausible, you just have faith, and if you come to your religion because of reason that is not faith and that is not christianity..."

That may be true for many people, but I don't think I'd state it as a universal. Many great (generally, in good standing) Christian thinkers did not and do not hold that to be so, quite explicitly, and for almost all, the dilemma that you have proposed is not accepted.

"Jefferson was not a christian, and neither is anyone that comes to their belief via reason"

St. Augustine and Peter Abelard are not Christians, got it. I'm arguing with this dipshit?

"religion promotes unquestioning faith"

That is incredibly false. Perhaps evangelical religion but in no way does religion promote unquestioning faith. This idiocy shows me how you can take the stance that you do.

Obi-

He did believe in a devine god and Heaven and Hell. And above all he believed in the teachings of Jesus, ie. Christianity or Christian Values which is what this whole argument is about. You can quibble all you want in your own style, but he was a Christian, saw himself as a christian, and espoused "christian values" of the time. Again, arguing that he wasn't is disingenuous. It doesn't matter what name you give to it, he was a christian. Again, The argument isn't that he didn't espouse christian values the argument is that he sought to create a government that didn't give Christianity any force of law.

"I think our agreement Willtor will be the only agreement not implicitly/explicitly stated from the offset."

Are you rethinking your position on how a politician should decide how to vote on an issue?

Returning to the central issue, though...

AT BEST you can claim, SC, that Jefferson's views are in dispute.

At worst (for you) my claim of his being an admirer of Jesus' teachings and theologically a deist and NOT a Christian under the standard understanding of that term holds.

AND...

We could do this for all the Founders if we so wished.

And likely run up against the same arguments.

The fact then is that, at best, you can claim the Founders' views to be in dispute, and at worst, for you, you must concede that a great many (Paine and Franklin most glaringly, and there's a strong case for Jefferson as well, to say nothing of Madison, Washington, Adams, or the others) were, in fact, deist and not Christian...

And thus the argument holds that they were NOT Christian.

They were not Christian...
The Constitution is not Christian...
The laws of this country are not Christian...
The VALUES of this country are not Christian (they are Western, to be sure, but saying values such as honesty, charity, compassion, liberty, and so on are all "Christian" values implies that they are somehow Christian and only Christian, and that the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and so on that make up a larger and larger swath of this country don't hold those views and values, which is insulting and completely untrue--these are UNIVERSAL values--and if that's not what you mean, and mean only that these are Christian values and that the above groups share them as well, then what need is there to call them "Christian values" at all when they are not specially "Christian," why not "Western" or even just "American" values...even "Human Values" works fine--I think most human beings, West, East, Christian, Muslim, Jew or Atheist will endorse charity, freedom, compassion and all those other values, after all...Christianity has no such monopoly over these...)

As such, to call America a "Christian Nation" on these grounds is absurd.

I agree with you, SC, that to even TRY to call America a Christian Nation on these grounds is a poor argument to begin with, but even in the context of that poor argument, the argument is a failed one, through and through.

And with that...time for bed at 8am. Hooray for Saturdays. :)

"At any rate, I think this all sidesteps the relevant issue. If we decide to call Jefferson a Christian, many of his ideas about governance (and other issues) are _not_ the sorts of things that conservatives would probably like to cite as being the foundations for the country -- even if we decide to attribute them to Jefferson's Christianity. "

Sure, so make that argument, don't say he wasn't Christian. If you want to say that all of you religious righties practice a christianity that was created in the 20s and 30s by radio preachers and the 50s by televangelists while Jefferson practiced a different brand go ahead. On one hand this is vastly superior to the false "Jefferson wasn't a Christian nonsense." On the other hand, however the argument is irrelevant. His personal faith does not change the fact that the framers utilized Jefferson's ideals to create a nation where Christianity is not favored and where a religion or religions cannot be established.

"And with that...time for bed at 8am. Hooray for Saturdays. :)"

Lolz!

It gives new meaning to "turning in early."

"If you want to say that all of you religious righties practice a christianity that was created in the 20s and 30s by radio preachers and the 50s by televangelists while Jefferson practiced a different brand go ahead."

All of "we" religious righties? I assume you were addressing me because you quoted me. What makes you think I'm on the religious right?

I like how Willtor states his point maturely, SC results to name calling.
I agree with you (Willtor) that many christian thinkers didn't accept this, I think that is their own revisionist position and doesn't fit with christianity. Let me explain, either you believe in god or you don't. If you do you either believe it because of faith or reason. If you believe it because of faith it's fine. If your belief comes from reason (we shall be ignoring the possible conflation of language games here) then either the reasoning proves it definitively or they don't. If the reasoning proves it definitively (to you) then god's existence is to you tautological and you have complete faith in god - really if you think it is tautological that god exists your reason only illustrates your faith (in my opinion). If reason hasn't proved it then you are like hmm I think God probably exists on balance but I'm not sure. Is that a real christian? Is that someone that is a fully devoted member of Christ's flock? No that's a sheep that's considering joining surely? And really the idea of faith in god is the idea that we can't prove god's existence yet because of faith we believe in him (despite a lack of evidence). Rationally coming to the conclusion of god's existence flies in the face of faith, unless you are certain of gods existence through tautologies that may or not work.

sc - really grow up, you can disagree, even with dipshits like me, without name calling. Ok so you can be a christian and say that the bible is complete bullshit? you can say that god doesn't exist? no you have to have faith in these things. you may have reasons to show god exists but a true follower of most religions is someone that would believe in god regardless of the absence of said reasons - a true follower is someone that would even have reasons showing that it is probable god does not exist and would still believe in god.

I don't think you have proved anything that you just wrote. I also thing you are an unknowing tool of the religious right mainly because of your ignorance. Your argument will be proved wrong by anyone who understands history rather than what they see on MSNBC or HBO's "The Network." Every single one of those men were Christians or at the very least depending on how you want to split hairs in your definition, espoused "Christian Values" suggesting otherwise is wrong. The debate is whether their effort to distance government from that faith and the faith of their countrymen can be ignored merely because they were in fact Christian. That debate is easily winnable unlike the previous debate which is historical wishful thinking.

And no, i maintain my position that you said you understood and agreed with - namely you can vote and act based on your faith (politician or not), but that you shouldn't try and make the country a country of that faith and then use that as leverage for the policy

"really grow up, you can disagree, even with dipshits like me, without name calling. Ok so you can be a christian and say that the bible is complete bullshit? you can say that god doesn't exist? no you have to have faith in these things."

Shit-for-brains:

There is plenty of space between questioning faith and saying the bible is complete bullshit and god did exist (The founders did believe god existed and did not believe the bible was complete bullshit btw). This is especially true when you come to faith through reason, which somehow you say cannot be considered faith yet has been the calling card of great christian thinkers since the fall of Rome. I insult people who talk when they have no fucking clue what they are talking about. Its in the hopes that they stop doing so and a real discussion can follow rather than some idiot translates his biases and pseudo understanding into a forum post with little to no value.

A European aside... Few people in Europe know that the symbol of the European Union is a Christian symbol: the twelve-star circle is the halo of the Virgin Mary in the Book of Revelation. In fact, the flag's designer said he was inspired by the Revelation.

That curiosity aside, the Union always rejects any association with religion. That's a problem, because there needs to be a deep unifying factor, and there's only "European culture", which is too vague. I believe the best foundation would be the Roman Empire, with the added benefit of reaching towards the Arab nations of the Mediterranean, but the "empire" thing wouldn't be politically correct, I suppose.

"All of "we" religious righties? I assume you were addressing me because you quoted me. What makes you think I'm on the religious right? "

Wasn't saying that you were, it was an awkward sentence where I was supposed to be talking as you. apologies.

@Socrates Dissatisfied:

I hate to derail the thread, but, since Obiwanobiwan has gone to bed...

Few things of any relevance are tautological, so I'll concede the first point about definite proof. (Also, I find the idea of definite proof of God to be theologically problematic)

I disagree with the idea that less-than-100% certainty (through reason or otherwise) is a detriment to "real Christianity" or faith. In that case, I am not a "real Christian."

I also disagree that faith in God is the idea that we believe that God exists despite lack of evidence (rephrased from what you wrote, because of my comments regarding tautologies). As to this point, I think I can persuade you to change your mind about the nature of religious faith (especially in the case of Christianity), no matter what you have heard from prominent opponents and exponents of religious faith.

Suppose the story of the resurrection corresponds to real historical events: the apostles then saw, touched, and listened to the teachings of the risen Christ. Would you say that the apostles had no faith because they didn't need it, even though, through all of Church history they have been regarded as men and women of great faith?

SC perhaps I'll talk to you when you learn to have an adult conversation. And really I'm pretty sure than my intelligence is far superior to yours so you should think of a different insult. I was stating my opinion, so sorry. And 'god' is a very loose term, they didn't believe in a 'god' like we generally think of 'god' today. And which christian thinkers did not think you could know god definately existed?
People that believe in god partly through reason and science and partly through faith conflate language games and have inconsistent beliefs. In that sense I guess it is possible to be a chrisitian with faith and reason, but it is like me honestly thinking I would win a game of basketball in overtime by scoring a touchdown on the first possesion.