I DID read it all! I asked a question, I figured I should read the answer. I even googled Spinoza to put him in the time line.

It is entirely plausible and perhaps likely that a man of Jefferson's education would have read and been influenced by Spinoza - perhaps there's proof that Jefferson did read Spinoza, I don't know. But there is very, very ample evidence that Jefferson and the men of his time did read the Bible extensively, so we can say with confidence that they were profoundly influenced by it. Does that make the US a "Christian nation"? No, not in my opinion. I personally reject the idea of a Christian nation on theological grounds rather than historical grounds, but that's a different story.

But even if Jefferson got his idea about God from Spinoza, that merely shifts my question over to Spinoza. Where did Spinoza get his ideas about God? He stole the idea of God from the Hebrew scriptures, then made up his own God - classic case of idolatry, wouldn't you say? You'd think a Jew would know better. Commandments one and two and all that. Outright atheism strikes me as being much more honest.

Here's my beef with Jefferson and Spinoza and the whole "I can believe in a god who makes the universe and then leaves it alone. I can't believe in a personal god who has preferences, likes and dislikes and who punishes sin and rewards obedience and allows miracles" crowd: Why not? If there was a transcendant god who was motivated to create a finite universe and people it with sentient beings, why wouldn't that god have preferences? And if that god endowed its creations with certain inalienable rights, why wouldn't that creator care about whether the created beings violated the inalienable rights with which they were endowed? And if that transcendant god bothered to reveal moral virtues to its created beings (whether by nature or by rational thought or by scripture), why wouldn't god be interested in whether or not the created beings lived virtuously?

I guess this isn't a very charitable take on Jefferson, but for all that Jefferson carried on about virtue he certainly struggled mightily to live it out. He knew slavery was wrong, but he continued to own slaves, exploiting them for labor and sex. I can understand why he would be very, very uncomfortable with the idea of a personal creator who might one day stand in judgment of creation. I myself am uncomfortable with the personal creator who "knows my every word before it is even on my tongue" and commands me to love my enemies. But then, I have a strong suspicion that the universe was not created for my personal comfort :-)

And as to Jefferson picking and choosing what he liked from Jesus based on what was "rational" and weeding out the theological - phooey, I say. Can't do it, at least not rationally. Jesus' moral teachings are based on the explicit belief that there is a God who is involved in creation. If you reject that premise then Jesus' teachings are idiotic, not rational. So for Jefferson to be both rational and honest he'd have to create a philosophical-moral system out of whole cloth. Which he didn't.

Anyway, it's time to wrap up my patented wall-o-text :-) I always feel nervous posting stuff like this on the internet because it's so easy to interpret people as being angry and obnoxious, so if you got that from me I apologize. I'm having fun with this too, so thanks for playing.

So then explain "Annuit cœptis" which literally translaters as "He approves of the undertaking", a reference to a supreme being and part of the same seal in which "E Pluribus Unum" appears along with "Novus Ordo Seclorum". The "He" is clearly a reference to God. After all, who else would it be a reference to. The god of the white population at that time was the god of the Jews and the Christians.

It's a quote from Aeneid, where it referred to Jupiter.

Jupiter - A Roman god, in fact the *king* of the Roman gods (Zeus in Greek mythology). But what god do you think the *founders* intended it to refer to?

I think it was deliberately left ambiguous because they didn't intend it to refer to the Christian god.

When designing the final version of the Great Seal, Charles Thomson (a former Latin teacher) kept the pyramid and eye for the reverse side but replaced the two mottos, using Annuit Cœptis instead of Deo Favente (and Novus Ordo Seclorum instead of Perennis). When he provided his official explanation of the meaning of this motto, he wrote:

"The Eye over it [the pyramid] and the motto Annuit Cœptis allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favor of the American cause."

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/lljc/022/0300/03490339.gif

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

PAGE FULL OF THOMAS JEFFERSON QUOTES

First, theist does not equal deist. Second, I would not consider Jefferson a Christian because he does not accept Jesus as the son of God who died for our sins, and rose again--the free gift of salvation. Jefferson was quite enmeshed in the academic zeitgeist of his day, the "rational = rejecting the supernatural" worldview that was prelevant in the salons and debating societies of his day. However, he did consider himself a Christian and on occasion at least had bad things to say about deists, which anyone can look up. He also wrote the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, as follows, in which he refers to "Almighty God" and the Lord, but says that government should not have any influence on religion unless religious practices threatened public safety. Read on:
An Act for establishing religious Freedom.
Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore 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 in his Almighty power to do,

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
Be it enacted by 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 opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
"Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, January 16, 1786". Virginia Memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

The atheist movement today seems to be wanting to cherrypick from Jefferson's writings to bolster their position that religion belongs behind closed doors. This was never the intent of the founders--neither the Christians, nor the deists like Jefferson (although he would reject that label). But our country was founded on the right to complete religious freedom and those rights are under attack from both those who would impose a theocracy (whether Muslim or Christian) and those who wish all traces of religion whisked away from public sight. C'mon, people.

Yes, the right to practice religion freely, Mujus.

It was NOT founded on the ideal that religion should have a place in the political sphere.

AT ALL.

And that's all I'm arguing against.

I am not appropriating Jefferson (though I'm glad you agree he wasn't a Christian) for the use that you imply...

I am merely saying that this is not, at all, a "Christian Nation" in terms of POLICY, ie, allowing school prayer and disallowing abortions and gay marriages to those who pay taxes equal as everyone else based solely on the religious dogma of some in this country.

The religious dogma of some is not, has never, and should never be the political dogma or legal authority and identity in this country is all I'm saying.



NO ONE is trying to repress your freedom of religion.

We simply ask that you keep it out of politics and, at that, out of our public schools--

Non-Christians pay good money in taxes for those schools, so to force kids to subscribe to a Christian ideology in Intelligent Design (it IS a Christian Creationist ordeal, no reputable scientific organization backs it or gives it any credence whatsoever) and have that shoehorned into the public sphere...

Or to give a prayer in public schools when children are NOT all Christian (as a still-believing Jew and then an agnostic/atheist growing up, that would definitely have been uncomfortable, I can tell you, and unfair)...

Or to deny women the right to their bodies' freedom...

Or to deny gays the legal and social protection and recognition of marriage, again, based SOLELY on a religious tradition when those same gays and women have to pay taxes the same as everyone else.



Keep your religion, and keep it free, Mujus, no one here is trying to steal Christmas, as it were--we just ask you keep it free of politics and the public sphere insofar as it may interfere with the freedoms and beliefs of others.

Obi, I just quoted Jefferson's official position on freedom of religion, in which he states quite clearly that the only time government should step in to religious matters is for reasons of public safety. But in his worldview, religion has a place in politics, but government does not have authority over someone else's beliefs, and cannot mandate how someone must believe. In fact he warned against the very thing you are doing in attempting to shut religion away from politics:
"...fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others...."
According to Jefferson and our constitution, laws can be based on the legislators' personal religious beliefs, if the majority of the legislative body agrees, because they believe those laws are correct. These laws can prohibit murder (the fifth commandment), lying in court, plural marriages, stealing, etc. The limitation is not what those laws are based on, but rather that in this country, laws cannot regulate belief or the expression of that belief in the public square, and the federal government cannot establish an official religion. There's a huge gap in understanding (or maybe its willful misunderstanding) about what the constitution and laws and our founders state. Religion is allowed and indeed assumed to be a part of the very fabric of society, including how people vote their consciences, laws they wish to enact on moral issues based on their religions, etc. But the government itself is neutral on those religious issues. That's it in a nutshell.

]How the hell are you going to tell people to keep their religion out of politics. Their religion is their world view. It is their politics. Just like the Abolitionists made their faith political by opposing slavery and others made their faith public by supporting temperance. Religion in politics is a hallmark our country. If you don't like the religious politics than oppose it. Its your prerogative.

How can you be so blind to think that it is acceptable in a Democracy to tell people what can and what cannot bring into politics. Disgusting. You make liberals look awful as always.

Obi - first an few areas of agreement. I don't believe mandatory school prayer is either constitutionally or theologically sound. I don't believe the US is a Christian nation, on either historical or constitutional or theological grounds. So there we go.

However. Your support of unrestricted abortion rights is based on your religiously atheistic worldview. My opposition to abortion is based on my religiously theistic worldview. Why do you get to bring your atheism to the public arena but I can't bring my Christianity? My tax dollars are spent ramming evolution - the creation-myth of secular humanism and the apology for British empire (whew, that's another big discussion!) - and a-moral "sex education" down the throats of unsuspecting children....why can't your tax dollars pay for some instruction in the theory of intelligent design? Are we afraid that if ideas compete in an open market the truth won't emerge?

A final thought: I'm always amused by liberals who demand that people keep their religion out of the public sphere. Have you forgotten the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.? Should he have kept his religion out of the public sphere? Hmmmm.

Thank you Santa.

@FlemGem:

Evolution is a scientific theory. It makes sense to teach it in a science class -- religion in the public sphere or no. Intelligent design isn't -- religion in the public sphere or no. Intelligent design doesn't belong in a science classroom. Possibly a philosophy classroom, but not science.

Willtor, I'm going to go ahead and disagree. I think evolution and intelligent design are both scientific theories and philosophical theories. They should both be discussed in the science and philosophy classrooms.

Fact is, intelligent design is a method that is integral to many scientific disciplines. Take the SETI program, for example, and all the forensic sciences. CSI shows are all about intelligent design. It is only in biology, where the philosophical stakes are so high, that intelligent design is inadmissable.

I posit that even if intelligent design is correct, it cannot be known through science.

You can study the "designer" in an objective way in a forensic investigation. Certainly, as in any scientific or engineering field, there is a lot of application of human intuition and speculation. But at the end of the day you have to be able to measure your accuracy or inaccuracy. If intelligent design is correct, and if the designer is God, how would you propose to measure Him?

Evolution, on the other hand, is eminently measurable. You can measure changes in the frequency of alleles within a population and correlate it directly to environment. From it, you can infer perfect nested hierarchies with respect to those alleles. In terms of the development of complex features, you can hypothesize means by which they were formed and support or debunk them as new evidence presents itself.

I contend that one is scientific, and the other, even if true, cannot be known through science.

Is it even possible to keep religion out of the public sphere? Regardless of what religion one follows it is likely to be a system of morals and ethics with which other will likely agree of disagree. How can one be told leave your morals at the door when deciding your stance on this or that issue? When was the last president who had 100% of the vote? It's the nature of a democratic republic that we will disagree on issues and once the vote is settled the people have spoken.

There seems to be this strongly held opinion that people would agree on certain issues if only the churches would shut up about them. That seems to me to be a rather naive assumption that most people would agree with a certain speaker if only they had the benefit of his upbringing.

If you want to support gay marriages, and to protect free-access to abortions, while at the same time to oppose Intelligent Design or prayer (when children are present) in school, Then why not debate the merits of those stances rather than placing blame on a specific group and calling for them to ignore their principles?

Take abortion as an example. Forgetting the fallacy of ignoring the middle, let's take two rational people who disagree on the issue. What is so wrong with a person, who has never hurt anyone or would never say anything negative about anyone,
standing up and saying "Don't kill children"?

On one had you disagree with it and see it as a fundamental assault on women's rights. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be made in favor of that stance. On the other hand, your opposition has the completely rational claim that killing anyone (even an unborn child) is wrong. One favors the rights of the mother the other favors the life of the child. They both are defending the rights of another person. As such they both have a claim to being the good guy.

If you ignore the middle, then you have abortion doctors tossing fetus's in trashcans by the millions on one side and crazed bombers tossing explosives into abortion clinics on the other. Resist that fallacy and you have rational, caring people on both sides of the issue. BOTH of whom have the right to be heard in a representative republic.

I have no problem with people's religion influencing their politics, but if a politician is implementing a policy because of his religion, he *must* also have nonreligious reasons for doing so. Oppose abortions because of your religion all you want, but you need to have reasons to enshrine that opposition into law that those not of your religion can also find convincing.

Mertvaya, you only need a majority to support your policies, whether from their own religious convictions (or lack of conviction) or on any other grounds they choose. It's just that we are prohibited from imposing religious requirements on others, such as where they worship, who they have to support, or whether they have to pray at all.

I was being prescriptive, not descriptive. I know the failings of democracy: I studied Syracuse. :)

It would be interesting to know what impact the Great Awakening had on the movement for independence. My guess is it caused major strains between the evangelical and Anglican Church, which created a hostile environment between the Parliament & various colonial assemblies, especially Massachusetts. It is odd that Enlightenment thought was strongest about the more Calvinist branches of Christianity. It's a pity these branches modern day groups seem to have turned away from rationalism to more spiritualistic approaches to religion.

@ Mertvaya

How are you to determine what a politicians motivations for introducing a law would be? We can only rely on what we see in his argument in favor of it. Even so laws that one might suspect as religiously motivated are subject to discourse and argument just like any other.

Historically, in Europe, churches enjoyed places of authority in which clergy held actual political power as a result of their positions in church (take a look at the game King Maker. Bishoprics and arch-bishoprics are handed out in the same manner as Earldoms and Baronies). It was never about Christian politicians having little right to draw upon Christianity as a source of inspiration for laws or even use it as a basis for an argument in favor of a law. It was about keeping the Baptist Church, or the Methodist or Catholic one from grabbing power and drowning out others.

@Crazy Anglican, You can never know why a person is doing something, but I expect him to explain his reasoning in a representative government, and his reasons should include non-religious ones. We saw something like this whenever an anti-marriage equality law goes to court, and suddenly people opposed to gay marriage have nothing that stands up in court.

For my legislative prescription:

We have a diverse society and our laws should reflect that diversity. Laws that regulate social interactions and norms need to balance the value of encouraging a pluralistic society in which it is safe and comfortable to behave in ways consistent with your beliefs, with the realization that certain beliefs and norms will inherently conflict in any heterogeneous society. An example of this is gay or polygamous marriage.

There is often also a balancing act between the interests of the individuals involved (and whether, as a society, we will decide to classify them all as proper individuals deserving of some measure of rights) and sometimes the interests of the community vis-a-vis an individual or group. What about the rights of an unborn child? What about the fact that many women will have abortions even if they are made illegal -- to the widespread detriment of the women who have them? Why not legalize cocaine -- isn't it an individual's choice? What is society's interest in the matter?

To my mind, the question of one's religious beliefs (and any beliefs acquired during upbringing or during the course of one's life) is pertinent because it will impact how one interprets balance. Quite to the contrary of leaving one's personal beliefs at the door to the Capitol, I'd argue that we would benefit from a widespread representation of people with diverse personal and community-related beliefs. It would help us to build a healthier heterogeneous society -- a more perfect union, as it were.

@ Mertvaya

It seems we're in agreement?

There is nothing to prevent legislators from bringing in whatever argument they choose to support the passing of a bill into law (you've stated that it would require more than religious reasons, but all that is needed is a majority in most cases). As WIlltor says the more we bring in people of various opinions the better we will be. Checks and balances are there to insure that a majority party does not get to subjugate others. When that happens there are the courts. Those checks and balances aren't to prevent politicians from drawing upon religion as an inspiration for legislation, but to prevent a body not elected by the people from gaining control of the government.

Exactly, CA, and yes, Willtor. Plus one to you both! Mertvaya, the constitution actually prohibits a religious test, such as whether someone has religious or non-religious reasons for any law they want to enact. The restriction in the Constitution is not based on one's reasons for wanting a law, but simply on not giving a church, any church, and by extension any faith group, including atheists, any official power in the government. Communist Russia made atheism a test for many high positions in the party and the government, but that's not how we roll over on this side of the Atlantic. :-)

Much of Europe has official churches that actually perform functions that are relegated to government in other democracies, such as census rolls, etc., but that's also prohibited in the U.S. So people can elect pro-life legislators and congressmen if they want, who can try to pass pro-life bills, or sanctity of marriage bills, to their hearts' content--If they can get a majority. But they can never pass a bill to require that part of our taxes go to a church, or that people running for office have to be Mormon, or evangelical, or Catholic, or atheist... and like that.