T.J. and the Liberties, Part 1

Today I intend to approach my topic a bit backwards from my usual method. That method is to search through the genealogies of the Reagans and O'Connors until I encounter a relative whose info contains a reference to a historical event, then research that event and write about it. Occasionally I run into an interesting story about the person that illuminates the times he/she lived in and relate that story.

But today, in light of discussions that have been ongoing for a couple of decades and have intensified in more recent years, I wanted to hark back to the reason the Barebones Parliament failed -- a striking difference in approaches to religion in public life. That same issue resulted in the colonization of the land we live in by English settlers -- note that this did not seem to be a problem for the other major nations who made their mark on the American landscape: the Spanish, French, and to some extent the Dutch. Sure religious dissidents existed in those nations, but they weren't the ones colonizing the Americas. 

That said, I did look for an ancestral link to hang these discussions on, wondering whether anyone in the clan was related to the two, great figures of religious liberty legislation in the early days of our nation, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

As it happens, Sharon is a distant -- very distant -- cousin of Thomas Jefferson and a slightly less distant cousin of Dolly Madison, making Madison a sort of cousin-in-law. Jefferson wrote the draft for Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom and the infamous response to the Danbury Baptists. Madison shepherded the Virginia legislation through their General Assembly in Jefferson's absence and wrote the framework for the Constitution and its first 10 amendments.

First we need to examine briefly what religion these men adhered to. If you're like me, you were probably taught that they were deists. The deism of the time, briefly explained, believed in a God who created the universe and all that is in it, including certain universal or "natural" rights enjoyed by humans. This God is mostly unknowable, but the principles God built into the universe can be discovered. God may still be active in God's creation but not in the miraculous ways posited by other religious systems. 

Probably the best description for Jefferson's can be found on the Monticello.org website:

"He was baptized and raised Anglican (and married and buried by Anglican ministers), bu he rejected many of the tenets of that church. He regularly attended church[es] of various denominations, but he declared that 'I am of a sect by myself.' In simple terms, Jefferson is a theist (he believes in God). ... Technically , he was not a deist if the ter is understood to mean belief in a god who created the universe and then left it to 'run' on its own according to natural laws, a 'clock maker' god. Jefferson did believe that God actively engaged in time, sustaining creation on an ongoing basis; yet in his rejection of Biblical miracles and belief that natural laws were the language of God, he certainly is deistic."

I have heard in more recent years proclaiming authoritatively that Jefferson was a Christian, citing a declaration from Jefferson indicating as much. But those who refer to the quote seem to think that Jefferson said, "I am a Christian." Full stop.

But the actual quote is: "I am. in the only sense in which he [Jesus] wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all other; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & and believing he never claimed any other."

Now you might be saying, "Well, one of Jesus' doctrines was that he was the divine son of God and the only means to salvation," and you'd be correctly describing both the historic creeds and modern "Evangelicalism." But if you root through Jefferson's writings, he rejects any concept of the Trinity or Jesus' divinity, the need for atonement, the concept of original sin and the resurrection, all of which most Christians would probably say Jefferson does not qualify for the title he claimed. 

In case you're interested, you can find several searchable archives of Jefferson's writings online, where you can discover I'm not engaging in revisionist history. 

Image: Cropped portrait of Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States taken from Official Presidential portrait of Thomas Jefferson (by Rembrandt Peale, 1800). Retrieved from Wiki Commons.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Road not Taken

Image
I mentioned last week that I would check to see if I was related to Robert Frost or Robert Burns. I meant it as a joke, but as the week progressed, I decided I would follow up on the idea, including another couple of famous poets, W.B. Yeats and John Keats while I was at it.  As I've said before, if you broaden your search beyond direct ancestors -- your great and great-to-the-X grandparents, the chances you are related to someone famous multiply greatly, and some of the genealogy sites make the search pretty easy. Give them enough information to pinpoint the person you're looking for, click an icon, and voila, the information pops up.  The program I use won't identify relations beyond 15 generations, but you can still go back pretty far. I ran the four men I cited above and found that our family is related to two of them -- Yeats, who married a 10th cousin, three times removed, and Frost, a 6th cousin, three times removed. I'll skip which side of the family is related ...
Read more

TJ and the Liberties: That infamous letter

Image
A letter such as the one sent by the Danbury Baptist Association to a sitting president needed to be answered. When I first read it, I was a little confused because the letter doesn't seem to indicate that the writers knew anything about the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, which were ratified a decade before they contacted President Jefferson.  Now I wonder if they were testing the President. How committed was he to religious freedom? After all, his politics trended to a "states' rights" perspective. Now that he held the president, would he commit to defending religious rights for everyone as part of the duties of his office, or might he side with states that had enacted establishment legislation and defer to them in the hopes that they, like his home state, might see the light and disestablish their Christian denominations? I've not read widely enough to settle these questions. But keep them in mind when you consider the contents of the letter. Take a min...
Read more

TJ and the Liberties: Who were those pesky Baptists

Image
I neglected to mention last time the outcome of the "Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion" -- it failed. Perhaps you already guessed that.  I should also point out Patrick Henry's reasoning on the bill. Simply put people who follow religion -- and yes, I know that whole argument about how "Christianity's not a religion, etc." -- and who regularly attend churches for religious instruction tend to be the kind of citizens we want to foster: prone to follow rules (laws), not given as much to being quarrelsome, more generous than the average unchurced person, regular nice people. And government should want to prop up an institution that creates these law-abiding, somewhat passive citizens. I see this reasoning quoted in an annual ad by a commercial business that used to appear in the papers I read. Ben Franklin -- hardly a Christian icon -- and George Washington -- pretty much your standard Anglican churchgoer -- believed the same ...
Read more