Is there a single example of cultural conservatism being on the right side of history?

[Gatsby]

I'm serious. Conservatives will often argue that they agree with basically every progressive cultural victory normalized up to this point in time...but NOW magically is when we have finally gone to far.

I think there's a fallacy here: survivorship bias.

The essence of cultural conservatism is resistance to change, and the essence of cultural liberalism is openness to change. Since history is always changing, it's easy to look back on whatever happened leading up to this moment and say "See, that's cultural liberalism! We were right!" And retroactively define all the abortive social movements that went nowhere as "not cultural liberalism."

There are some historical examples of radicals pushing for a social change, and the people who opposed it being correct:

- Communism
- Lobotomies
- Prohibition of alcohol
- "Free love" hippie cults
- Eugenics
- The French Revolution

It's easy to disavow any or all of those, and retroactively decide they have nothing to do with "cultural liberalism." But that's the point. *Any* new social movement that isn't explicitly revanchist is largely a cultural liberal phenomenon. We just remember the ones that succeeded more than the ones that failed.

We need a balance. Republicans are at their absolute worst when they look back fondly at eras of racism, sexism, and authoritarianism. Democrats are at their worst when they confidently push for goofy, destructive fads that they themselves didn't believe 10 seconds ago, like defunding the police or the "gender identity" stuff. The correct answer is to acknowledge that change is good, but most individual changes are bad. There is a limit to how fast society can or should change, and just being a normie is usually good politics.

 

[tonyeveland]

You know, I get that lots of people on this board want to hate on Trump all the time, but why don't they hate more on the entire Republican Party in general? It's like people can't remember anything before 2015.

George W. Bush was as terrible of a President as they come, other than Trump. Bush and Cheney are directly responsible for creating the GOP cesspool that led to Trump.

Do people just not remember how horrible the Republican Party was BT (Before Trump)? These idiots have NEVER done anything right during my lifetime!!

What led to Trump was the mess Obama made. Trump would not have been electable any time before. It took the huge Obama mess.

Obama spent 8 years criticizing cops, praising criminals, apologizing all around the world. Before Obama, we didn't have Antifa or ISIS.

You must be pretty young. Reagan's 1980's were the best times in decades. And he crushed the soviet union.

Someone mentioned the Civil Rights act of 1964, A higher percentage of Republicans voted for it than democrats.

And speaking of race, the KKK was Democrats.

LBJ screwed up the Vietnam war, dividing the country for ever. And he gave us the great society which wrecked the black family and the federal budget.

Jimmy Carter gave us the worst economy since the depression. Which Reagan fixed.

In Trump's last year, we had the lowest rate of illegal immigration, and $2 gas, and low inflation, and enemies at bay.
Biden immediately undid all of that,

 

[tonyeveland]

How about just in the past decade: Affordable Care Act.

How about this past week? Broadband expansion. Republicans already trying to take credit for it (they voted against it).

The Affordable Care Act caused healthcare cost to increase, and make people lose their plans and their doctors. Obama said that it wouldn't do that, but we knew it was a lie then. And it was.

 

[tonyeveland]

Someone said "Republicans look back fondly at eras of racism, sexism, and authoritarianism."

What do you get that?

 

[ralfy]

It's not possible to be right for long due to late capitalism. However, it's also not possible to be wrong for long due to the ultimate effects of late capitalism.

 

[tonyeveland]

And there is slavery, which Democrats supported and Republicans didn't.

That's pretty big.

 

[tonyeveland]

It's not possible to be right for long due to late capitalism. However, it's also not possible to be wrong for long due to the ultimate effects of late capitalism.

What is "late capitalism"?

 

[trouble13]

I'm serious. Conservatives will often argue that they agree with basically every progressive cultural victory normalized up to this point in time...but NOW magically is when we have finally gone to far. In hundreds of years of social justice fighting, only in the last like 10 years we just happened to have reached a point where now the radicals are out of control.

75% of people disproved of MLK when he died. Most of those people were probably White, and certainly none of the ones who did approve would have self identified as conservative. Women getting the right to vote. No fault divorce. Miscegenation laws. Same sex marriage. Jim Crow laws. Segregation. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I'm not saying the modern day progressive movement is perfect. Lord knows do I take issue with elements of it. But when speaking in broad strokes is the even a SINGLE example of cultural conservatism being remembered with anything but utter contempt in the long view of history?

And if not...why do you think the cultural conservatives of today will be remembered differently?

There are many examples of conservatism being the correct approach.

You brought up racism in your post and that's as good of an example as any.

The Progressive approach has had very little success in ending racism and from my perspective their approach has driven the wedge deeper than it's ever been between our races. Their approach has fostered resentment from everyone. Nobody is happy.

I'm not saying their heart isn't in the right place. I largely believe it is. The problem is that they rushed in with a poorly thought out approach. It has caused problems that a more conservative approach would have avoided. Abrupt changes have consequences.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

What led to Trump was the mess Obama made. Trump would not have been electable any time before. It took the huge Obama mess.

Obama spent 8 years criticizing cops, praising criminals, apologizing all around the world. Before Obama, we didn't have Antifa or ISIS.

You must be pretty young. Reagan's 1980's were the best times in decades. And he crushed the soviet union.

Someone mentioned the Civil Rights act of 1964, A higher percentage of Republicans voted for it than democrats.

And speaking of race, the KKK was Democrats.

LBJ screwed up the Vietnam war, dividing the country for ever. And he gave us the great society which wrecked the black family and the federal budget.

Jimmy Carter gave us the worst economy since the depression. Which Reagan fixed.

In Trump's last year, we had the lowest rate of illegal immigration, and $2 gas, and low inflation, and enemies at bay.
Biden immediately undid all of that,

Lots of stupid, inaccurate statements and whining in here ^ about Democrats....but very few Republican accomplishments are mentioned in this pitiful diatribe. Because you can't point to any Republican accomplishments.

Since this thread is supposed to be about conservative accomplishments, I'll address the 2 or 3 weak Republican "accomplishments" that you brought up --

1) Reagan did not win the Cold War by himself. That's just dishonest and wrong. All the Presidents before Reagan also played important roles in winning the Cold War, particularly Truman (Berlin Airlift) and Kennedy (Cuban Missile Crisis).

2) The Civil Rights Act was implemented by JFK and LBJ. Martin Luther King worked with both of them to make it a reality. Therefore, the Democrats deserve far more credit for the Civil Rights Act than Republicans do. And it's the reason that the racist South abandon the Democrats and started voting Republican in the 1960s.

3) It's hilarious that you would point to any Trump "accomplishments", considering how horribly he handled Covid his last year in office. In fact, Covid is still the main reason that incompetent deranged imbecile didn't get re-elected. Funny how you didn't mention any of this.

It's also very dishonest of you to mention Trump's "great" economy and not even mention the economic disaster that Bush left for Obama in January 2009. You made zero effort to be unbiased, which is not surprising.

 

[Geoist]

The Affordable Care Act caused healthcare cost to increase, and make people lose their plans and their doctors. Obama said that it wouldn't do that, but we knew it was a lie then. And it was.

The upsides overwhelm the downsides of the ACA (which is why the GOP never complain about it anymore.) For example, it protects people like me with pre-existing conditions.

But I believe in continuing to improve healthcare with the goal of expanding Medicare to all citizens.

 

[Craig234]

Oh for sure we needed prison reform (and still do). I think it's just this very specific aspect of reform that was misguided.

I think even the word misguided is not right. As part of the prison reform needed, it made a lot of sense to try to rehabilitate if possible. It needed to be investigated whether it was. Turned out it wasn't as doable as they hoped and they recognized that. But the issue of rehabilitation still needs more effort. Dumping someone on the street after years in prison with a few dollars isn't a good idea.

 

[Craig234]

Ronald Reagan had the 3rd largest increase in debt by percentage change of any president. In other words, he spent like a mo-fo. Interestingly, Republicans love spending when they're in power because they KNOW it powers the economy.

I don't think 'the economy' is their priority. Nixon was the last Republican president to still see a political need to spend much on the people. I think Republic spending has one main priority - their donors. Even things that should give them political benefit, doesn't mean they'll support them, e.g., they could get political credit for universal healthcare, they could boost Social Security or Medicare. Fossil fuel, Big Pharma, military? Sure.

 

[ralfy]

What is "late capitalism"?

It refers to the period where a country has gone past manufacturing and is dependent more on the service industry, to which many move to work. The same country will also now start spending more to maintain higher standards of living, and where total debt rises considerably.

One of the results of this is greater decadence and materialism. People start moving away from religion, raising families, marriage, etc., and focus more on careers, entertainment, leisure, and greater individual freedom. The latter may include the drive for diversity, the view that there are multiple genders, and so forth.

The problem is that it's all built on prosperity, which in turn is ultimately based on high levels of resources and energy available per person. What counters that are a biosphere that's limited and ecological damage, which means at some point nature will put limits on increasing consumption and ecological damage will overwhelm, leading to civilizational collapse.

With that comes more poverty and suffering, and a return to earlier views of the world, e.g., religious beliefs, relying on family to survive, etc.

 

[HK.227]

Part 1/2

Yeah, not so much. Conservatives defend the status quo, and when they lose, they become reactionary (if not outright revanchist).

I see. So an issue for you is that if people think a good idea has been supplanted by a bad idea, they are wrong for challenging it?

Did you finish that train of thought?
So what happens if they don't challenge the new idea? Then they eventually become statists, which according to you is the definition of a conservative. So they are conservatives if they challenge change and conservatives if they do not? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Yet the premise is actually not impossible to work with, but we would have to make a few changes in how we see cultural conservatives, and just whom the term applies to.
For example, we would have to define people who oppose the overturning of Roe vs Wade, a well established social and cultural pillar of modern America, as conservatives. And when Trump during his presidency changed long standing environmental codes, we would also have to define people who opposed him as environmentally conservative.

The alternative would be to only apply the label to certain people, like say people we don't like and whose arguments we do not want to consider, in which case it would become a simple perjorative (perish the thought).

Yeah, not so much.
Let's consider the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. The activists who wanted to change "everything right now, without any testing" wanted, among other things, to end segregation; protect voting rights of Blacks and other minorities; stop violence and oppression against Blacks; and end racial discrimination in housing, education, employment, and access to public accommodations. How long were they supposed to wait? What "testing" was required? Was the US supposed to gradually phase out racist violence against Blacks, racial discrimination and disenfranchisement?

It sounds to me like you are referring to an issue that Democrats eventually changed their minds on, mainly because they in danger of becoming irrelevant as a political entity, in part due to losing ground in the public discourse over the preceding couple of centuries. Nothing here and now about it, unless you are arguing that everyone in America just woke up one day in the 60's, having gone from red hot racists to humanitarians in an instant, rather than having been influenced by the experience of the several preceding decades.

Also, were Democrats conservative for wanting to keep the ancient institution of slavery? (Status Quo and all that.)
And are they conservative now, for not wanting to reinstitute it?

You can't blame the Holocaust on Western progressives and liberals, that's just insane. The Nazi party was a right-wing movement, and anti-semitism was the status quo in Europe for centuries. There are plenty of other right-wing dictators and regimes who violently oppressed their enemies or pursued genocidal policies (e.g. Suharto, Videla, Guatemala etc).

I blamed it on Radicals. Now while I can understand your conflating the two, seeing as radicalism is a built into Progressivism, it is by no means exclusive to it.
The Holocaust was begun by right wing radicals, the Holodomor by left wing radicals, and the French Reign of Terror by radical Liberals.

Do you know why there eventually came a time when Europe started leaving behind old religious hatreds and arrived at a point where even Jews could feel reasonable safe in their homes at night? It was because of laws. And the reason these laws could be instituted in the first place and not immediately overturned by the next government to come along, was that they evolved from culture and tradition, so that that even the most virulent anti-semite could feel pride in laws and what was considered common decency enshrined into principles which prevented him from burning his Jewish neighbour at the nearest stake along with the other undesirables, unless he was prepared to be denouced as a horrible human being.

And do you know who ridiculed, mocked, and eventually ablished out all of those laws and traditions and instituted the Nuremberg laws? Radicals did.
Basic Conservatism doesn't particularly concern itself with Progressivism which is a recent phenomena, whereas radicalism is a universal and timeless. When Coservatives often dislike progressives, it is usually commensurate with their radicalism and not because they desire progress (who doesn't, although it can obviously be enticing view it that way).

 

[HK.227]

Part 2/2

And the idea that arrogance is somehow the sole characteristic of progressives is hilarious.

I'm sure you think you made some decent points when you wrote this, but you are actually beginning to ramble.
You don't have to conflate radicalism with Progressivism, and noone ever said anything about arrogance being exclusive to either one. You are inventing stuff.
But regardless, if we stay on point and take your laundry list of causes, you finish off with this:

Conservatives don't object to change because it's a change. They object primarily to changes which conflict with their ideology.

What ideology? Regardless of the merits or reality of the conflicts you mention, mere minutes ago you defined conservatives as "people who don't like change".
Well, I'm guessing it is no coincidence that your list only contains items to which you consider opposition controversial, so which is it? Is it "people who fear change", or "people with whom you disagree to such a degree that you attribute statism to them"? In fact, where do all these conservatisms people talk about come from? Fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, cultural conservatism? And why aren't people who disagree with the same changes you do not conservative? Again, it sounds to me as if you and your peers are not talking about Conservatism, but rather selectively applying an adjective to opinions you strongly disagree with and the people who hold them.

Which brings us to:

Conservatism is not "peer review," and they aren't waiting for a "critical mass." That's just a rationalization.

As far as aspects of Conservatism relating to culture, the idea that tradition doesn't appear out of thin air, but is in fact frequently based upon social mechanisms which may be difficult to recognize and appraise, and must therefore be reformed carefully instead of being radically abolished, is literally the basis of Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, which is considered perhaps the best known Conservative text in existence.

Unlesss of course you were talking about conservatism. Which is an adjective and neither a political framework nor a group of people.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

I think there's a fallacy here: survivorship bias.

I think that is a good point to bring up, and is entirely possible. I'll have to think about it more.

- Communism

While any economic position is going to make and be built of social prescriptions, I don't consider economics an aspect of what I am talking about. I think two moral people can come to widely different economic positions.

- Lobotomies

Explain? How were lobotomies a progressive social position?

- Prohibition of alcohol

Explain?

- "Free love" hippie cults

I don't think there is anything wrong with them?

- Eugenics

Possibly. I don't know too much about the reasoning of the time, I'll have to look into it more. There might be something here.

- The French Revolution

I strongly disagree with this one. Imagine a hypothetical where there was a feminist revolution in some country and it got out of control and they killed a bunch of men. That reflects badly on those people, but I don't think it would change the social moral correctness of their arguments for equality. We still to this day try to live up to the social goals the French revolutionaries espoused. Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Those are all still pillars of liberal/progressive values.

 

[Greenbeard]

The Affordable Care Act caused healthcare cost to increase, and make people lose their plans and their doctors. Obama said that it wouldn't do that, but we knew it was a lie then. And it was.

Health care costs are basically the same (as a percentage of GDP, and as a percentage of both per capita income and per capita GDP) as they were when the ACA passed. We essentially just had a decade-plus in which relative health care costs didn’t increase. Which, needless to say, is unprecedented in the modern era (I.e., the 60-odd years they’ve been collecting health spending data).

 

[Nomad4Ever]

The problem is that they rushed in with a poorly thought out approach. It has caused problems that a more conservative approach would have avoided.

What was the conservative approach? As I noted in my OP MLK only had a 25% approval rating when he died, and a lot of that was probably from Black people and like 10% of the most radical anti-racist White activists of the time. I doubt there was even 1000 self identified conservatives that supported MLK. So what approach even would that be?

 

[Cope]

Why does the baseline homogeneity matter? You have not answered this.

I actually have answered it, numerous times. Culture.

How is this different than what the entire history of this country has been? Who do you think "we" are who created this country? No one came here because they were doing well in their home countries. Your complaints about immigration are nothing new. And yet we have done well not just in spite of it, but BECAUSE of it.

What is the dominant culture in the US? Are people fighting against that culture or assimilating to it?

Not a day passes but families are ruthlessly turned out to make room for foreign invaders. The rates are burdened with the education of thousands of foreign children.
- William Evans Gordon, 1905

The people of this country are too tolerant. There’s no other country in the world where they’d allow it... After all we built up this country and then we allow a lot of foreigners, the scum of Europe, the offscourings of Polish ghettos to come and run it for us.
– John Dos Passos on U.S. immigration policy

They are coming in such numbers and we are unable adequately to take care of them…It simply amounts to unrestricted and indiscriminate dumping into this country of people of every character and description…If there were in existence a ship that could hold three million human beings, then three million Jews of Poland would board to escape to America.
-Congressional hearing, 1920

Now, what do we find in all our large cities? Entire sections containing a population incapable of understanding our institutions, with no comprehension of our national ideals, and for the most part incapable of speaking the English language. Foreign language information service gives evidence that many southern Europeans resent as an unjust discrimination the quota laws and represent America as showing race hatred and unmindful of its mission to the world. The reverse is true. America’s first duty is to those already within her own shores.
- Representative Grant Hudson, 1924

Let me know what Europe's immigration laws look like.

Again, why does the baseline homogeneity of a country matter? The only reason I can see diversity being a liability to a country is if it's racist- IOW, a self-manufactured liability.

'Diversity" itself is not a known liability. I gave you my standard. It is the same standard you'd use in business. If they produce more than they take, then they are a net positive. The immigrants that do that, are welcome.

BUt what you seem to be focused on is diversity, for the sake of diversity (which, of course offers us nothing of the value I've been speaking of)

 

[ataraxia]

I actually have answered it, numerous times. Culture.

There is actually much value to diverse cultures learning to live and work together in an overarching culture of tolerance. This has many benefits, from workplaces to countries.

Diversity As A Core Value – What Does It Mean To Value Diversity?

Companies can no longer afford to merely talk about a diversity as a core value and inclusive workspace; it is the necessary to embed them.

www.emexmag.com

What is the dominant culture in the US?

One of tolerance and inclusion. E pluribus unum. That’s been its secret sauce of success, and most other developed countries are now trying to emulate it. They realize the alternative is stagnation and degeneration- same reason inbreeding is problematic.

 

[Cope]

There is actually much value to diverse cultures learning to live and work together in an overarching culture of tolerance. This has many benefits, from workplaces to countries.

Diversity As A Core Value – What Does It Mean To Value Diversity?

Companies can no longer afford to merely talk about a diversity as a core value and inclusive workspace; it is the necessary to embed them.

www.emexmag.com

Financial, none.
From a sociological aspect, I wouldn't disagree. Except that is not a quantifiable calculation and we are discussing assets and liabilities, not the feels.

One of tolerance and inclusion. E pluribus unum. That’s been its secret sauce of success, and most other developed countries are now trying to emulate it. They realize the alternative is stagnation and degeneration- same reason inbreeding is problematic.

One of white Christian, actually. The founders fostered the creation, and yes many immigrants helped to found but most notable, white and christian.

 

[ataraxia]

Financial, none.
From a sociological aspect, I wouldn't disagree. Except that is not a quantifiable calculation and we are discussing assets and liabilities, not the feels.

One of white Christian, actually. The founders fostered the creation, and yes many immigrants helped to found but most notable, white and christian.

That’s not what they said. You are projecting your racism and bigotry on them.

"If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists."
-George Washington, on the kind of workers he was looking to hire on his estate at Mt. Vernon


"I had always hoped that this land might become a safe & agreeable Asylum to the virtuous & persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong."
-George Washington
——————
And of course they did not want Christianity playing any more role in this country. They had had enough of that nonsense from Europe.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.”
-James Madison

 

[ataraxia]

Financial, none.
From a sociological aspect, I wouldn't disagree. Except that is not a quantifiable calculation and we are discussing assets and liabilities, not the feels.

One of white Christian, actually. The founders fostered the creation, and yes many immigrants helped to found but most notable, white and christian.

“The bill for establishing religious freedom,2 the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.”
-A Gina’s Jefferson

 

[Cope]

That’s not what they said. You are projecting your racism and bigotry on them.

I will say, it does nothing to your point to try and accuse me of things that have no basis in reality.

"If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists."
-George Washington, on the kind of workers he was looking to hire on his estate at Mt. Vernon

Not at all. The dominant culture doesn't care who comes, as long as they conform. Christian is just how the country was founded, not that they wanted it to be run that way.

"I had always hoped that this land might become a safe & agreeable Asylum to the virtuous & persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong."
-George Washington
——————
And of course they did not want Christianity playing any more role in this country. They had had enough of that nonsense from Europe.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.”
-James Madison

The dominant culture established the drive to be successful. It is alive today.

Dominant culture says:

Speak English
Be on time
Work hard (typical work week established originally M-Sat, Sunday off (gee, wonder why) Then it has evolved to M-F 8-5, which is evolving still.
Be honest
Get educated
Nuclear family
Stay away from crime
etc

There was a big push a year or so ago where the Smithsonian published a whiteness chart that was being fought against here in the US. I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

[ataraxia]

Not at all. The dominant culture doesn't care who comes, as long as they conform.

You think jazz and rock n roll came about because people conformed to white Christian culture?

Christian is just how the country was founded, not that they wanted it to be run that way.

This country did historically come out of the muck of the Christian culture of the dark ages, but was in many ways was founded as a REACTION to and a backlash to it.

"'The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
-John Adams

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

“But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”
– John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.”
-James Madison

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory..., more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter.”
― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

"It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom.... We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov. "
-James Madison,

"They [the Christian clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800