Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.
In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.
The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.
Get a FREE Copy of "The Essential Federalist Papers
What Jefferson called the greatest commentary on Government ever written, organized by topic!
Get a FREE Copy of "The Essential Federalist Papers
What Jefferson called the greatest commentary on Government ever written, organized by topic!
My favorite! It is timely and current to our present day debacle.
Where did these men all come from???? We need some like-minded today”Big Time!!
Bill,
Isn’t it amazing. All of these types of men happened to be together at the single point in time in orfer to establish a free country using an unheard of idea in the history of the world….SELF Rule. No monarchs, not the Holy Roman Empire, just Main Street USA and a limited government of people from Main Street USA.
Bill, you ask where did these men come from and say we need some likeminded today. I agree. But I think we do have many likeminded today. Part of our problem (me included) is that we don’t know our history and our Constitution. These men (the Founders) studied previous governments of the world. They knew what didn’t work, and with that information, figured out what would work. It was a long and calculated process.
Self governance through Christian Principle…what a novel concept…
I whole heartedly recommend reading The Federalist Papers. If you guys like GW, read 1776 by Pulitzer prize winner, David McCullough. I enjoyed 1776 for its historical accuracy combined with letters, documents and diary entries of the characters of the day. It is colorful and deep. I came away with an understanding of a larger than life, complex, shrewd and ambitious giant who jumped off the pages and made the ghostly, pasty portraits of him fade away.
PRAYER NEEDED HERE~
Barbara, Gag me. If they were planning self governance through Christian Principles, why did they insist on separation of church and state? f
Laura, all 85 of them…
Caryn, Who is it that insisted on separation of church and state?
Caryn, “they” did not insist on it. Jefferson mentioned it in a response letter. It is a one way door. The Federal cannot impose a national religion. There were state religions, and “they” all knew it.
Caryn, my dad always said…son, it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you don’t know about a thing, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Separation of state & religion only means you will not be forced to attend one religion or church. All our forefather prayed, believed faith in God & honor & morals are what keep a strong country working. In God We Trust is not an idol statement, it its the glue that binds to our strength of life.
Karen, “In God We Trust” was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956.
Do not be confused with regard to the prohibitions against Federal (or national) intrusion into state religious affairs, the ability of a state to manage its own religion(s), and the context of the response letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut 1802.
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State. [ the Federal-Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
In the last paragraph of the letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, he speaks of the “common Father and Creator of man”. This is the paragraph.
“I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”
It seems very clear, when one reads the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association to the President, and his reply, that the intent is to keep government out of the church. It would not be sensable to think that a man would use words like these with the intent to remove God from government.
“Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars”…
Which means…anyone that attempts to subvert Christian Religion and Christian Morality in the USA is NOT a Patriot…. the person is closer to a traitor to this nation.
James: That is quite an accusation.
Dan: Are you saying that law-abiding citizens who do not believe in God are not welcome in the United States?
Or are you drawing a distinction between belief in a Supreme-Being and belief/faith in the the Christian faith? If it is Christianity specifically which will allow a person to stay in the United States, please tell me which sect. of Christianity? Which modern or (ancient?) translation of the Christian Bible is approved for a non-enemy of God and country? Who shall judge whether a citizen is an “enemy of God?”
Is this a matter for the Judicial system? Perhaps a court of Christian doctrine review? Sanctioned by the populist will to weed out “infidels”? Maybe we need a secret police system to spy on Americans in order to determine their religious piety…
I am trying to understand the rhetoric invoked in some of these posts.
Or is this an archaic way of expressing that criminals (of civil and criminal law) are bad using a populist expression “enemy of God?”
I am trying to sort it all out.
Dan: I appreciate your post. I will surley have to read through it again. One thing that perplexes me though is this: if citizens are free to peacefully practice any religion or other belief (as we seem to agree) then we have freedom of religion. Yet you state that since American government is “based upon Christian Principles, one who is an enemy of God would be suspect of un-americanism and his loyalty would be questioned.” So to be perfectly clear, one who does not believe that Jesus was the son of god and died to be resurrected for mans’ sins, then that person’s loyalty should be questioned? If a man is to be a suspect of treason for not being a Christian? I am trying to understand this. What if a citizen has doubts? What about a citizen with a non-Christian religious affiliation? Are these people “suspects”? Can a law-abiding non-Christian be a good citizen? Maybe I am missing something. Because if a person must adhere to “Christian Principles” to keep from being accused of treason, that seems like a distinct lack of freedom to religion or lack therof.
As ever, I appreciate the dialog. I am really trying to understand your position.
Dan: I understand. That is all I can ask of you. You make it clear the difference between adhering to principles and enforcing doctrine. I am glad we have common ground.
Also, after reading your statements carefully, I understand better what you mean by “enemy of God”. Yet that is a very subjective label. The paragraph preceding though:
“If said citizen choses to reject religion that’s perfectly within his rights, and few – if any – will pay him much mind beyond an occasional out reach to win him over.. an irritation to the steadfast, I’m sure, but not at all oppressive.”
makes your position more clear. An “enemy of God” sounds to me like a “jerk”. Respect of others and adherence to the basic (yet incredibly powerful) moral principles you identified in your post makes us good neighbors.
Being a good neighbor is being a good citizen.
Dan: That is perfectly clear, thoroughly sensible, and agreeable to me. This “Enemy of God” is clearly not a good citizen by any means. This is an enemy of citizens and the Constitution that you are describing. I see now that “jerk” is not a strong enough name for the concept. A “jerk” is not attempting to subvert the rights of others. Thank you for your patience with my questions. Your answers are duly noted and appreciated. I hope that at my best, I can communicate such concepts as skillfully as you have for me.