Opinion
Thomas Jefferson: “Atheist and Leveler From Virginia”
During the 1800 election campaign, rumors were spread that, if elected president, Jefferson would confiscate all the Bibles in the land and...
By Nick Gier, New West Unfiltered 4-15-09
Alexander Hamilton was so committed to preventing "an atheist in religion and a fanatic in politics from getting possession of the helm of state" that he urged New York governor John Jay to block Jefferson's election.
During the 1800 election campaign, rumors were spread that, if elected president, Jefferson would confiscate all the Bibles in the land and replace them with his own version, one in which all references to miracles and the Resurrection were deleted.
Jefferson was convinced that Jesus was a deist just as he was, and that the early Church had added unnecessary supernatural events to his life and teachings.
In a 1801 letter to Moses Robinson Jefferson wrote that "the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent instructor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."
Jefferson believed the propagation of religious dogma was the cause of much evil in the world, and he was convinced that reason alone could guide the moral life. In a 1787 letter Jefferson had this piece of advice for his nephew Peter Carr: "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God."
In a recent column in the Idaho State Journal Richard Larsen called on Jefferson's authority to criticize the Obama administration. He uses the phrase "God-given" rights from our founders assuming that the reference is to the God of the Bible.
When Jefferson referred to "Laws of Nature and Nature's God," he was not referring to a deity who intervenes in history and hardens the hearts of world leaders. (So much for their rights, dignity, and freedom!) Rights are inalienable only if they are guaranteed by the immutable laws found in human nature, immune from divine veto.
Larsen appears to use the phrase "God-given rights" to promote an American exceptionalism. The implication is that by having God on our side, we can defeat Europe’s “secular socialism” and continue the unfettered capitalism that has nearly destroyed the world's economy.
Larsen also seems to be saying that European rights, presumably because they are held by non-believers, are somehow more vulnerable than American rights. Let us remember, however, that it was a born-again Christian president who threatened our rights more than any other recent chief executive.
I join with Larsen in calling myself a classical liberal. I define that position in terms of the motto of the French Revolution, which I revise as "liberty, equality, and community." The American Revolution was far less violent than the French Revolution, primarily because our founders realized the importance of the traditional values embedded in our diverse communities.
Jefferson was called a radical in politics and a "leveler" because of his sympathy for the French Revolution. Dictionary.com defines "leveler" as "one who would remove social inequalities or distinctions; a socialist."
But of course Jefferson was no more a socialist than Obama is, but both of them are classical liberals because, while holding traditional values dear, they believed that equality was just as important as liberty.
Without equal opportunity and equality of rights, individual personal liberty will be fulfilled by some but denied to many. It used to be a fact that Americans could, by dint of their own efforts, move from the bottom of society to the very top. Today 75 percent of Americans born in the lowest economic 20 percent remain there. How does Larsen explain the fact that in "socialist" Denmark only 60 percent remain in the bottom 20 percent?
One aspect of Jefferson's views is actually way out of line with classical liberal philosophy, based as it is on international free markets. Jefferson's ideal America was a nation of small farmers living virtuously on the fruits of their own labor. True Americans would avoid manufacturing, a market economy, and wage labor, which he thought was degrading to the human soul.
Jefferson disliked the Federalists partly because they "all lived in cities," but Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton encouraged manufacture, banking, and the wise management of debt. Had it not been for Hamilton's successful plan to nationalized the Revolutionary War debt and build up the nation's credit in the world economy, President Jefferson would not have been able to purchase the Louisiana Territory from France.
Larsen praises a man with an odd and anachronistic view of the American economy, so we should commend both Hamilton and Obama for realizing that government and private interests must always work together in truly successful human societies.
Nick Gier taught philosophy and religion at the University of Idaho for 31 years. Read all of his columns. [End of article]
Even though NewWest editors have taught me how to insert links, I have forgotten once again. The full version is at http://www.home.roadrunner.com//~nickgier/JeffBD and all my columns are at http://www.NickGier.com I trust that these links come through.
Comment By Brenda Lal, 4-15-09I was looking up research on Thomas Jefferson and ran across your article, why are you trying to get others to believe this garbage? Are you searching or have you lost your way? Take a deeper look at yourself Nick.
Comment By atheist, 4-16-09Wow.... A man head of his time.
Comment By Jay Larry Lundeen, 4-16-09Jefferson's religious, political and financial views largely differ from a majority of the founding fathers. And one can't help but perform a drop-jaw guffaw at Mr. Gear's citing of Denmark as some sort of paragon of socialism success.
Below are excerpts from Per Henrik Hansen's Denmark: A Study in Social Democracy.
Despite its reputation as a showcase of political utopia, 40 percent of Denmark adult population live on government transfer income, full-time, all-year. A little more than a third of these people are pensioners and the rest are working age. About one third of the people who actually hold a job work for the government or government-owned companies. The effective tax level is around 70 percent, not the 50 percent that is usually reported (the lower figure comes about by disregarding the effects of the sales tax and excise taxes).
The prospects for being able to rely on government or family for social security are also rapidly diminishing. These are not very bright prospects indeed for a country where each working citizen are forced to sacrifice such a large share of his personal earnings to the "common good."
Read the entire article at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/950515/posts
Thanks for an interesting historical perspective on Jefferson, and the terms of endearment for political and religious opponents over the years.
The names may change, but the demonization lives on, it seems.
How dare you say that Jefferson didnt believe the bible is the exact word of god?
Next thing youre going to tell me is the Thomas Payne was an Atheist too!
Interesting how when only landholders could vote, we could elect a non-religious president but when we give voting authority to the masses, only people who are openly expressive of their "faith" have a chance. Seems like we have regressed.
Mr. Lundeen, I hesitate to offer this, but I believe I saw a segment on 60 Minutes in the last year or two in which Danes self-reported in a poll done across the world as the "happiest" people in the world. I know, it was 60 Minutes with their liberal bias and was probably based on a study done by some liberal think-tank, but the true believers in laissez-faire capitalism might want to consider the possibility that not everyone's definition of happiness involves materialism or selfishness, and that a lot of people derive some pleasure out of knowing that their neighbors are not necessarily suffering or judging them with respect to some narrow concept of human worthiness based on economic productivity.
Comment By McLagman, 4-16-09You forgot to mention Sally Hemmings and being a slave owner. Or do those only count when conservatives like him?
Comment By Jay Larry Lundeen, 4-17-09rcm2:
The "happiness" of the Danes as further explained on 60 Minutes was due to the fact that because they live in a nanny state the citizenry has very little expectations of themselves. No sense of self-betterment, setting higher goals, or personal achievement.
If you want to live in country which confiscates at least 70% of your income and then also steals your character, fine with me. But don't force me into that confiscatory state.
You should read the entire article I linked to in my post above, it details the severe problems Denmark is having with health care, education and crime.
My biggest problem with liberals is that most espouse wonderful theories and splendid good intentions while ignoring the heinous reality of their actions.
By the way, I'm not a "right-wing radical" which Janet Napolitano has warned you of. I'm a person of good-conscience who casts a cold eye on the blindness that pervades both the left and right.
Mr. Lundeen,
I didn't mean to suggest you were a "right-wing radical" and I'm not really a socialist, and don't propose that the US start taxing everyone's income at 70%. I am perhaps something of a moderate liberal that believes in government regulation of markets, equal opportunity, and progressive taxation.
But however you propose to explain away the Danish people's sense of bliss, it is still a higher rate of happiness than people caught up in the hero-worshipping, moralistic, materialistic, policeman/bully-of-the-world, American culture. In Denmark, you can still seek whatever betterment of yourself, higher goals, or personal achievement you may want; you just don't get to keep 70% of the personal wealth that you may feel you should be entitled to in pursuing those things. You still get to keep 30%, and that means if you go from a gross income that may be the "nanny-state" minimum of $30,000 to $3,000,000, you still get to keep 30% of the gain. I believe that would be an additional $891,000. That's still a lot of money by most people's standards. Is that not enough incentive for you to make the effort and set higher goals?
The idea that all the wealth in this country is generated by people pulling up their bootstraps and working hard is simply a myth. Other common means to wealth are inheritance, marriage, just plain luck, and the adulation of sports and media stars (hero-worship). Occassionally, people are even rewarded for morally questionable financial and marketing practices (usery, third-world labor, environmental degradation).
I'm not saying that capitalism is inherently bad and socialism is inherantly good. Those are positions for ideologues and academicians. What I care about is improving the lives of more people in this country, and how they rate their own happiness is certainly some important component of that.
"it is still a higher rate of happiness than people caught up in the hero-worshipping, moralistic, materialistic, policeman/bully-of-the-world, American culture"
GOOD LORD! Are you from Iran or Venezuela?
And Napolitano wants us to watch out for right wing radical terrorists who hold peaceful protests.
How can anyone spew such anti American hate and claim to love their country? Unless their country is Iran or such?
Jay Larry Lundeen, You don't live in America do you?
Sorry Mr. Lundeen, That was adressed to RMC2. My appologies.
Comment By Nick Gier, 4-18-09Contrary to Lundeen's assertion, a majority of our founders were religious liberals with views very similar to Jefferson's. As Episcopal minister Bird Wilson said in October, 1831: "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one
was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." As a proud Unitarian I refer you to my article "Religious Liberalism and the Founding Fathers" at http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/foundfathers.htm
So the Danish government "steals" its citizens' character?! That is quite a claim, and as one who was married to a Dane for 16.5 years and spent four years in Denmark, I can assure you that this charge is false and libelous.
I taught at three Danish universities during three of those years so I had the most intimate experience with students. They were the best students I ever taught. Prepared to read assignments in English, German, and French, these students were already well motivated independent scholars. (I can say that about only 50 of the over 6,000 American students I have taught.) Danish universities students pay no tuition, and, if they keep up their grades, they are guaranteed a $800 a month stipend.
In 1966, only 8 percent of Danish students attended gymnasium, the high quality European university preparatory schools. At that time Denmark had only four universities, but now it has seven serving 5.4 million people. While the U.S. workforce has 33 percent higher education graduates, the Danish portion has now risen to 40 percent. This figure is from the most recent report from the Danish university system, so I dispute the figures given by Per Henrik Hansen in the article referenced by Lundeen.
The U.S. used to have the best high school graduation rate in the world. By 2001, however, it had slipped to 14th place, when only 78 percent students received a high school diploma. The top five countries--Japan, Hungary, the Netherlands, Germany, Korea, and Denmark--graduated 90-95 percent.
In 1966-67 I was a Rotary Foundation Fellow in Denmark and my main duty was to give speeches in Danish to Danish Rotarians (21 total). I was able to get a good grasp of the strong character of the Danish business community. Business taxes are actually lower than the U.S. and Denmark is ranked 5th in the world for "ease of doing business" (The Economist, 3/14/09, p. 13). Denmark also leads all countries in venture-capital investments (ibid.) The recently hijacked Maersk Alabama is actually a Danish ship, owned by A. P. Moller/Maersk, the largest shipping company in the world.
In a recent study on economic competitiveness by the World Economic Forum, seven European welfare states were ranked in the top ten. Sweden and Denmark were third and fourth, and the U.S. had dropped to sixth. The Economist magazine has also rated Denmark as the least corrupt and most business friendly country in the world. Denmark is currently running a budget surplus of .65 percent of GDP, while the U.S. is running a budget deficit of 4.5 percent of GDP.
For several years running Denmark has had the lowest unemployment rate in the world, currently 2.5 percent compared to our 8.1 percent. Lundeen gives the false impression that most Danes are just sitting around drinking beer and collecting state checks. The Danish government spends 20 times more than we do for job retraining and placement, so this is reason for this remarkable employment success. With a poverty rate of 4.3 percent, Denmark is tied with the Czech Republic for the lowest rate. The U.S. rate of 17.1 percent is second worst behind Mexico.
Starting with Danish hippies experimenting with wind mill rotors in the 1970s, Denmark is now a leading exporter of wind turbines, as well as producing 20 percent of their power from wind. They are now energy self-sufficient and actually export power to other countries when the wind is really blowing hard.
Denmark was the first country to legalize pornography in 1965, followed by Sweden in 1970 and Germany in 1973. After legalization, Danish criminologists were able to detect a small but significant decline in sex crimes in their country.
With regard to the connection between rape and pornography, a study showed that incidents of rape in Denmark, Sweden, and German remained under 10 per 100,000 between 1964-1984, while rapes in the U.S. rose from 10 to 35 per 100,000 during the same period when pornography was illegal.
Emphasis on personal liberty and responsibility is also found in Danish sex education, promoted with very explicit student manuals. Although some Danes believe that their programs have a long way to go (they point to Sweden as a more successful model), teen pregnancy rates have been cut in half over the years. The U.S. teen pregnancy rate of 53 births per 100,000 is worse than that of India, the Philippines, and Rwanda. In stark contrast is the Danish and Swedish rate of seven per 100,000.
Per Henrik Hansen's article talks about an increase in unmarried households, but this is a widespread phenomenon even in the U.S. A recent AP story on the census reported that 40 percent of U.S. births are out of wedlock, comparable to European figures. Where is the Religious Right when we need them to build American character?
One needs to be reminded that except for a short period in the 1990s when the Social Democrats did regain power again, Denmark has been ruled, since 1985, by a center-right government, which has only made minor adjustments to the welfare state. It is also significant to note that this government can pass most of its legislation only with the votes of a libertarian, anti-tax, anti-immigrant party.
This government has cut back on some health coverage, and more and more Danes are buying supplemental policies in the private market. Still recent surveys demonstrated that 91 percent of Danes were satisfied with their health care, but only 40 percent of Americans said that they were. American infants die at a rate of 6.9 per 100,000, while only 4.4 Danish babies do. For every three obese Americans, there is only one Dane who is overweight, even with a diet heavy in diary products.
Yes, it is true that crime has increased, especially in an immigrant population that has increased dramatically. (At one time Denmark was admitting more refugees per capita than any other country.) But American crime rates are of course far worse.
In 2002 there were 668 prisoners for every 100,000 Americans, and now has the highest incarceration rate in the world. In stark contrast Danish, Finnish, and Norwegian prisons held 59 inmates per 100,000. A general web search revealed that while as many as two thirds of American criminals re-offend, the German and Danish figure is 28 percent.
I've gone on far too long, and if readers are interested there is more at http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/DKReturn.htm
I think that's what you call a good old fashion beat down. Sorry I didn't go read your freeper article Jay; Dr. Gier's response is certainly more credible than your whine synopsis.
Nick: no need to apologize for going on; that was good!
this is revisionism.
jefferson being called an atheist, or even a deist, was as accurate as liz dole calling her christian opponent in her last election an atheist. Jefferson was an ordinary Christian who simply didnt believe Jesus was a deity, but rather the single bearer of God's truth and morality in the history of mankind. There were and are Christians then and today with the same beliefs, they are not deists, in the sense used today.
I noticed that the author of article intentionally confuses some terms. Jefferson used the term Creator(Nature's Creating God) in the D of I when he described God, which is the traditional Christian belief.
Inalienable rights or natural rights of man was first put forward by John Locke, who also argued atheists couldnt be citizens since they couldnt swear an oath to God. Indeed Christian anti blasphemy laws from revolutionary times are still on the books in many states, though no longer enforced.
Locke believed mankind had 3 natural rights, to life, liberty and estate(all that he created, earned or was gifted).If a king or leader attempted to take these rights away, Locke reasoned, he had broken a social contract and no longer had authority to govern.
John Adams used Locke's inalienable rights to justify the colonial revolt to monarchy Europe. Jefferson merely followed the argument already in place.
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the compliment. We Unitarians have to stick together!
Dear James,
I didn't say that Jefferson was an atheist; that was his enemies who did. If you had read my essay on the founding fathers, you would have found a nuanced discussion about deism. Jefferson used the term as a Latin homologue for the Greek rooted term theism. In my essay I also argue that only Thomas Paine could be called a deism in the sense that European philosophers used the term. That is why I use the more general term "religious liberalism," but I've now realize that this is not the best term either.
The phrase "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" in the Declaration is definitely not the biblical God. Those two phrases can be traced back to the European deists. As I argued in my column, rights cannot be inalienable, if God can harden my heart. I have always rejected this idea of God.
It is good for America that we did not follow Locke's reasoning about atheists not being morally trustworthy. Even the
Apostle Paul believed that the moral law was written on the hearts of the pagans (Ro. 2:14-15).
Jefferson also breaks with Locke on replacing Locke's property with happiness. He was trying to tell us all that happiness is more important than owning property.
Most Christians I know would disagree that Jefferson was an "ordinary Christian." He rejected all the basic doctrines of the faith: the deity of Christ, the Resurrection, and Jesus's miracles. If he were alive today, he would go to my Unitarian Universalist Church.