Concerned Catholics

[kalm]

Didn’t Jefferson also reference “nature’s god”?

We’re clearly not a Christian nation according to the founding documents. Personal beliefs have nothing to do with it.

If we’re not a secular nation what are we?

Serious, genuine, questions, Joe so please try and avoid smarmy answers.

Agree that Jefferson was a deist, but still respected Christianity and other religions. I think the term Christian nation was conceived because during the early days of the Republic, the majority of citizens were Christian. Also, going back further, several of the colonies were founded by people seeking religious freedom, such as Pennsylvania by the Quakers, Maryland by the Catholics, Mass. by the Puritans and Pilgrims.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure. But if the majority of citizens are caucasian, does that make us a "white nation" or a majority white nation"? You have to keep those savages and negroes at bay ya know.

Remember...."Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

and I will add..."not from some farcical aquatic ceremony".

[Chizzang]

Speaking of "rejections"
I thought Jefferson rejected Jesus as the Messiah..?
Which would make him a regular old Deist... not a Christian Deist

everything else in your post checks out

Jefferson is typically referred to as a "Christian Deist" because, although he did not accept Christ as divine and was thus not "Christian" or a member of any Christian church, he actively adopted Christian ethics as the foundation of societal law.

Did you know Jefferson actually "edited" the Gospels to create narratives of Jesus' life that included no references to his divinity or miracles -- distilled to include only Jesus' teachings? In a often-misquoted statement, Jefferson once wrote: ""[T]o 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, & believing he never claimed any other." (I probably don't have to point out which part of this quote is frequently taken out-of-context ).

Avery Dulles, S.J., an authority in 19th-century American religions and a theologian of world-wide notoriety, wrote: "In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day."

For these reasons, Jefferson is typically identified as a "Christian Deist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

Joe,
Christian ethics is a whole other conversation (please)

But back to Christian Deist
So Jefferson does NOT believe that Jesus is Christ
Therefore he cannot be any form of Christian

Being sympathetic to Christian doctrine is philosophical in nature not spiritual (such as myself)
But to be "Christian" one must believe the most basic tenant
Step one: "Jesus is Christ" if your answer is "Nope, he's not"

That's a deal breaker

[Ibanez]

I agree with everything you wrote, except this. You will strain to find a single reference from any of the founders, anywhere, saying that the United States is to be a "secular" country. Go ahead and see if you can find one.

Now, to be honest, the term "secularism" as pertains to a moral philosophy or a system of government would not even be coined until the mid-19th century -- so its absence in this sense in the writings of the founders is entirely predictable.

The question is: Did the founders intend a "secular" state as that term is used today?

Well, if you read selectively, you could string together a quote here and there to support that. Take Jefferson's reference to the "wall between Church and state." That quotation has to be measured against the historical background of the era during which Jefferson wrote, and in the greater context of his writings. We revolted against a nation whose king was also the head of its national church. Jefferson's writings teem with hostile references to the concept of the "divine right" of kings, by which kings claimed, and priests ratified, that the king ruled through a direct delegation from God. Jefferson repeatedly wrote that such an understanding by which kings claimed the right to rule, both politically and theologically, twisted and distorted not only the proper role of the sovereign, but the proper role of the priest.

But here is where the case for a "secular" Jefferson is undermined: he declared the authority of the sovereign resulted from a delegation by the "people" and only with their consent. He proclaimed a system of government founded on "natural law" by which every person "is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ..."

So, in Jefferson's estimation, rather than a delegation from the Creator to the king, the delegation from the Creator runs directly to each individual, which then delegates authority to the sovereign -- the sovereign being, thus, subordinate to the individual.

My point is simply this: Jefferson's reference to a Creator negates any legitimate argument that this a "secular" nation so long as our founding documents remain the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Our nation may be neutral on the matter of religion, but it is not neutral on the role of the Creator. Ultimately, this is why generic expressions of faith in God have always been allowed in the public forum: the Creator is a founding force in all our governing documents.

If you were to ask genuine secularists whether we really are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights," they would say no, and that this was just a figure of speech employed by Jefferson. But that is not correct. If you read Jefferson, you cannot avoid concluding that Jefferson believed in a real God -- although he did not adhere to any of the faith systems popular in his day.

Jefferson was a "Christian Deist" who believed in natural law. He would have rejected secularism.

I didn't say TJ didn't believe in God and I know he was a Deist (as were many in that time, as well as a few founding fathers).

Secularism, thought not "coined" until the 19th Century, has its roots going back to the Greeks. Voltaire. John Locke. Thomas Jefferson. So the idea wasn't foreign.

To me - looking at our country's history, the ideals of the Founding Fathers, the establishment and free exercise clause - I come to the conclusion that our Government is not to be run by religious leaders, make religion a requirement for service, vote, etc... will not make religious based laws, etc.. Based on that, it is my opinion that our government was set up so that religion will not influence the elected officials and their governmental duties. Secularism is, according to Merriam-Webster, is

indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations

. That's not to say you a politician can't be guided by religious principles (would would surely influence any laws he creates, votes for or against.) But that religion as a whole will not be used.

I guess if our Republic desired - the people could elect people that would make us more of a theocracy. I don't know.

I'll end with this, and I realize i'm debating a lawyer (that's a compliment, btw). You stated,

If you were to ask genuine secularists whether we really are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights," they would say no, and that this was just a figure of speech employed by Jefferson. But that is not correct. If you read Jefferson, you cannot avoid concluding that Jefferson believed in a real God -- although he did not adhere to any of the faith systems popular in his day.

That's from the Declaration of Independence, not our Constitution. One being a formal letter of secession and grievances, the other being the basis for our Laws. Regardless of the author - I think the lack of " Natural Law" or "Divine Providence" or "Creator" from the Constitution points to the fact that the framers of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights (Madison) intended to divorce religion from the government.

The DoI is a lovely document with enlightened ideas. But it isn't the rule of the law. But I can see why you married the two.

[Ibanez]

Speaking of "rejections"
I thought Jefferson rejected Jesus as the Messiah..?
Which would make him a regular old Deist... not a Christian Deist

everything else in your post checks out

Jefferson is typically referred to as a "Christian Deist" because, although he did not accept Christ as divine and was thus not "Christian" or a member of any Christian church, he actively adopted Christian ethics as the foundation of societal law.

Did you know Jefferson actually "edited" the Gospels to create narratives of Jesus' life that included no references to his divinity or miracles -- distilled to include only Jesus' teachings? In a often-misquoted statement, Jefferson once wrote: ""[T]o 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, & believing he never claimed any other." (I probably don't have to point out which part of this quote is frequently taken out-of-context ).

Avery Dulles, S.J., an authority in 19th-century American religions and a theologian of world-wide notoriety, wrote: "In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day."

For these reasons, Jefferson is typically identified as a "Christian Deist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

Yeah - that's kind of the point of Deists. It's religion w/o all the magic.

God gave us nature. There are laws of nature.


Also - God gave us the Earth and we are to be stewards of it - but it seems Republicans don't give a shit about that only who is banging who. But, I digress.

[JoltinJoe]

Jefferson is typically referred to as a "Christian Deist" because, although he did not accept Christ as divine and was thus not "Christian" or a member of any Christian church, he actively adopted Christian ethics as the foundation of societal law.

Did you know Jefferson actually "edited" the Gospels to create narratives of Jesus' life that included no references to his divinity or miracles -- distilled to include only Jesus' teachings? In a often-misquoted statement, Jefferson once wrote: ""[T]o 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, & believing he never claimed any other." (I probably don't have to point out which part of this quote is frequently taken out-of-context ).

Avery Dulles, S.J., an authority in 19th-century American religions and a theologian of world-wide notoriety, wrote: "In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day."

For these reasons, Jefferson is typically identified as a "Christian Deist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

Joe,
Christian ethics is a whole other conversation (please)

But back to Christian Deist
So Jefferson does NOT believe that Jesus is Christ
Therefore he cannot be any form of Christian

Being sympathetic to Christian doctrine is philosophical in nature not spiritual (such as myself)
But to be "Christian" one must believe the most basic tenant
Step one: "Jesus is Christ" if your answer is "Nope, he's not"

That's a deal breaker

Did you happen to miss the quotation in which Jefferson referred to himself as "Christian?"

"Christian Deist" is a widely accepted, scholarly term used to describe a deist who accepts the teachings of Christ as societal law. I didn't make the term up myself.

[Ibanez]

Jefferson is typically referred to as a "Christian Deist" because, although he did not accept Christ as divine and was thus not "Christian" or a member of any Christian church, he actively adopted Christian ethics as the foundation of societal law.

Did you know Jefferson actually "edited" the Gospels to create narratives of Jesus' life that included no references to his divinity or miracles -- distilled to include only Jesus' teachings? In a often-misquoted statement, Jefferson once wrote: ""[T]o 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, & believing he never claimed any other." (I probably don't have to point out which part of this quote is frequently taken out-of-context ).

Avery Dulles, S.J., an authority in 19th-century American religions and a theologian of world-wide notoriety, wrote: "In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day."

For these reasons, Jefferson is typically identified as a "Christian Deist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

Jefferson referring to his first attempt, the “Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth”:

"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

Maybe the US was founded on Jesus’s principles (among others) instead of Christian principles?

Personally - this where people get confused. Our country, founded by men with religious beliefs most assuredly has religious principles in its founding laws. Those principles and beliefs helped craft the laws.

But that doesn't necessarily make a country Christian. Or religious. Especially if the very first right says the government will not stop you from believing anything you want nor will it require you to believe in something.

[Ibanez]

Joe,
Christian ethics is a whole other conversation (please)

But back to Christian Deist
So Jefferson does NOT believe that Jesus is Christ
Therefore he cannot be any form of Christian

Being sympathetic to Christian doctrine is philosophical in nature not spiritual (such as myself)
But to be "Christian" one must believe the most basic tenant
Step one: "Jesus is Christ" if your answer is "Nope, he's not"

That's a deal breaker

Did you happen to miss the quotation in which Jefferson referred to himself as "Christian?"

"Christian Deist" is a widely accepted, scholarly term used to describe a deist who accepts the teachings of Christ as societal law. I didn't make the term up myself.

I grew up Catholic - but as soon as I read a few biographies on Thomas Jefferson and went down the rabbit hole of Deism - I have to admit that it aligns more closely with my beliefs. My God given logic and common sense doesn't reconcile with supernatural events. Especially those that were naturally occurring but we couldn't understand them at the time. So - why did X happen? God.

[JoltinJoe]

But that doesn't necessarily make a country Christian. Or religious. Especially if the very first right says the government will not stop you from believing anything you want nor will it require you to believe in something.

I never said our government was "Christian." All I said was that it's not correct to say our government is "secular." In fact, that was the only comment from your initial post that I said I disagreed with.

[Chizzang]

Joe,
Christian ethics is a whole other conversation (please)

But back to Christian Deist
So Jefferson does NOT believe that Jesus is Christ
Therefore he cannot be any form of Christian

Being sympathetic to Christian doctrine is philosophical in nature not spiritual (such as myself)
But to be "Christian" one must believe the most basic tenant
Step one: "Jesus is Christ" if your answer is "Nope, he's not"

That's a deal breaker

Did you happen to miss the quotation in which Jefferson referred to himself as "Christian?"

"Christian Deist" is a widely accepted, scholarly term used to describe a deist who accepts the teachings of Christ as societal law. I didn't make the term up myself.

Doesn't he also say several times over the course of his life that he is not a Christian...

That said:
If Christians are going to start including in their ranks folks who think Jesus was just a cool guy
That includes almost all of Judaism and every Hippie soccer mom from California

Christianity almost doubles over night !



Plus add me to the list then...

[JoltinJoe]

Did you happen to miss the quotation in which Jefferson referred to himself as "Christian?"

"Christian Deist" is a widely accepted, scholarly term used to describe a deist who accepts the teachings of Christ as societal law. I didn't make the term up myself.

Doesn't he also say several times over the course of his life that he is not a Christian...

That said:
If Christians are going to start including in their ranks folks who think Jesus was just a cool guy
That includes almost all of Judaism and every Hippie soccer mom from California

Christianity almost doubles over night !



Plus add me to the list then...

Ok, by your own admission, you are a Christian Deist.

[Ibanez]

But that doesn't necessarily make a country Christian. Or religious. Especially if the very first right says the government will not stop you from believing anything you want nor will it require you to believe in something.

I never said our government was "Christian." All I said was that it's not correct to say our government is "secular." In fact, that was the only comment from your initial post that I said I disagreed with.

I know you did. Your post came across that way, so I apologize.

Question - if we aren't a Theocracy and we aren't Secular...then what are we?

Or is the answer not that easy? Is or isn't it a binary condition (instead of we're kinda secular?)

[89Hen]

My God given logic and common sense doesn't reconcile with supernatural events.

Serious question... you believe in a supernatural being that doesn't have supernatural powers?

[JoltinJoe]

That's from the Declaration of Independence, not our Constitution.

Please read what I wrote:

My point is simply this: Jefferson's reference to a Creator negates any legitimate argument that this a "secular" nation so long as our founding documents remain the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

.

Now, if you want to claim that the Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document, or that the Constitution is not an extension and application of the theory of government detailed in the Declaration of Independence, that's fine, but you are going to find yourself on a very lonely island.

[Ibanez]

My God given logic and common sense doesn't reconcile with supernatural events.

Serious question... you believe in a supernatural being that doesn't have supernatural powers?

I don't think he (she, it) is supernatural. I have faith in something I can't see but something I feel to be true. I think most people, deep down, have a sense that there's something more to this. Perhaps we can't understand it yet. There are plenty of things people couldn't understand centuries ago that we now know to be true. Maybe we haven't evolved enough to truly understand it.

Those contradictions are the odd thing about religion.


I guess all i'm saying is - I see the world around me and find it difficult to believe that a tornado of fire held of an army, a man blew a horn that crumbled walls, a man walked on water, etc... But I believe that there's a purpose and a being that set it in motion - even if I'm not capable of understanding that being.

But i'm not sure it's supernatural.

[Chizzang]

Doesn't he also say several times over the course of his life that he is not a Christian...

That said:
If Christians are going to start including in their ranks folks who think Jesus was just a cool guy
That includes almost all of Judaism and every Hippie soccer mom from California

Christianity almost doubles over night !



Plus add me to the list then...

Ok, by your own admission, you are a Christian Deist.

I'm a deist of sorts...

I confuse Christians because I don't believe god is mysterious at all
Mathematics and Science will eventually answer all of the big questions
and thus: That is the language of God

[Ibanez]

That's from the Declaration of Independence, not our Constitution.

Please read what I wrote:

My point is simply this: Jefferson's reference to a Creator negates any legitimate argument that this a "secular" nation so long as our founding documents remain the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

.

Now, if you want to claim that the Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document, or that the Constitution is not an extension and application of the theory of government detailed in the Declaration of Independence, that's fine, but you are going to find yourself on a very lonely island.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting the two documents were written for two, very different purposes. Two different audiences at two different times in our nations history. And you have to consider.

Just my opinion on my observations and comprehension. I'm open to revisiting my opinions and adjusting them if a good, legitimate argument can be made. We all misunderstand something. Or forget a component or two.

Hell - I've changed my opinion (for the better) on Abraham Lincoln after I read new details about the man.

[JoltinJoe]

Please read what I wrote:

.

Now, if you want to claim that the Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document, or that the Constitution is not an extension and application of the theory of government detailed in the Declaration of Independence, that's fine, but you are going to find yourself on a very lonely island.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting the two documents were written for two, very different purposes. Two different audiences at two different times in our nations history. And you have to consider.

Just my opinion on my observations and comprehension. I'm open to revisiting my opinions and adjusting them if a good, legitimate argument can be made. We all misunderstand something. Or forget a component or two.

Hell - I've changed my opinion (for the better) on Abraham Lincoln after I read new details about the man.

When one studies to become a citizen of this nation, the official guidance provided by our government explains that the two documents are inter-related and understood by reference to each other, i.e., "the Declaration of Independence is the promise; the Constitution is the fulfillment."

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/fil ... /M-654.pdf

Also note the common claim that there is no reference to "God" in the Constitution overlooks the concluding language that it was "ratified in the Year of our Lord ..."

[kalm]

Please read what I wrote:

.

Now, if you want to claim that the Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document, or that the Constitution is not an extension and application of the theory of government detailed in the Declaration of Independence, that's fine, but you are going to find yourself on a very lonely island.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting the two documents were written for two, very different purposes. Two different audiences at two different times in our nations history. And you have to consider.

Just my opinion on my observations and comprehension. I'm open to revisiting my opinions and adjusting them if a good, legitimate argument can be made. We all misunderstand something. Or forget a component or two.

Hell - I've changed my opinion (for the better) on Abraham Lincoln after I read new details about the man.

Of for fucks sake. He’s no longer the The Great Tyrant? Has Citdog been told?

Southerners...

[Ibanez]

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting the two documents were written for two, very different purposes. Two different audiences at two different times in our nations history. And you have to consider.

Just my opinion on my observations and comprehension. I'm open to revisiting my opinions and adjusting them if a good, legitimate argument can be made. We all misunderstand something. Or forget a component or two.

Hell - I've changed my opinion (for the better) on Abraham Lincoln after I read new details about the man.

When one studies to become a citizen of this nation, the official guidance provided by our government explains that the two documents are inter-related and understood by reference to each other, i.e., "the Declaration of Independence is the promise; the Constitution is the fulfillment."

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/fil ... /M-654.pdf

Also note the common claim that there is no reference to "God" in the Constitution overlooks the concluding language that it was "ratified in the Year of our Lord ..."

I can accept that.

However, I'm still not convinced that our government was set to be nonsecular. I get the language used, I understand that. But the US Government doesn't have a Deity at the top - like a theocracy. We have a man or in this case we have Trump. We have civil laws - not religious laws. We don't follow Catholic Canon or Sharia Law. We don't follow Halakha. Even though our lawmakers follow those religious laws personally (and use their influence in their decision making) we aren't adhering to religious laws.

And that tells me that we are secular.

[Ibanez]

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting the two documents were written for two, very different purposes. Two different audiences at two different times in our nations history. And you have to consider.

Just my opinion on my observations and comprehension. I'm open to revisiting my opinions and adjusting them if a good, legitimate argument can be made. We all misunderstand something. Or forget a component or two.

Hell - I've changed my opinion (for the better) on Abraham Lincoln after I read new details about the man.

Of for fucks sake. He’s no longer the The Great Tyrant? Has Citdog been told?

Southerners...

Citdog can take a short walk off a long pier. I tried looking his name up once in a list of Citadel Alum...I never found it.

[89Hen]

Serious question... you believe in a supernatural being that doesn't have supernatural powers?

I don't think he (she, it) is supernatural. I have faith in something I can't see but something I feel to be true. I think most people, deep down, have a sense that there's something more to this.

I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the belief of a god, but that god not being supernatural. You did say it's contradictory, but that seems a self-imposed contradiction.

[Chizzang]

Of for fucks sake. He’s no longer the The Great Tyrant? Has Citdog been told?

Southerners...

Citdog can take a short walk off a long pier. I tried looking his name up once in a list of Citadel Alum...I never found it.

I don't believe Kevin graduated from The Citadel ..

[Chizzang]

I don't think he (she, it) is supernatural. I have faith in something I can't see but something I feel to be true. I think most people, deep down, have a sense that there's something more to this.

I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the belief of a god, but that god not being supernatural. You did say it's contradictory, but that seems a self-imposed contradiction.

This is the part that gets fun..!!!
Lets apply logic to conversations about God and see what happens

Hen, you go first

[Ibanez]

Citdog can take a short walk off a long pier. I tried looking his name up once in a list of Citadel Alum...I never found it.

I don't believe Kevin graduated from The Citadel ..

Or was in the Army.

[89Hen]

I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the belief of a god, but that god not being supernatural. You did say it's contradictory, but that seems a self-imposed contradiction.

This is the part that gets fun..!!!
Lets apply logic to conversations about God and see what happens

Hen, you go first

God is great. The end.