What Jefferson Got Wrong About Freedom of Religion

[XDU]

THE LEE MEN - Stratford Hall

www.stratfordhall.org

Ohio Company - Ohio History Central

ohiohistorycentral.org

What do you know about Robert E. Lee’s religious faith?

Gregory Elder writes about less well-known aspects of the still-controversial Confederate general’s life

www.redlandsdailyfacts.com

Entry | Timelines | US Religion

Details On People, Events or Movements for a US Religion Timeline

www.thearda.com

For those who don't know, the Lee family (as in the family of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee), has a notorious legacy which goes back to the French and Indian War from its ancestors founding the Ohio Company of Virginia which sparked conflict along the midwest frontier. Not only did they settle in lands long claimed by the French, but their abuse of native populations gave the French a justification to declare war to defend those abused. A lot of people will reduce this down to simple colonial imperialism, profiteering, and racial prejudice, but it's not that simple. The reality was the Lee Family has always been a low church Episcopalian family. It explicitly condemned the sacraments of Anglo-Catholic tradition as it came to be known under the Oxford Movement which again has implications when considering the Catholicism of the French.

The problem Jefferson had is he overreacted to this problem when pursuing the disestablishment of the Church of England in Virginia. Instead of filtering between the low and high church to understand where oppression really came from, he treated religion in general as a problem. He couldn't be bothered addressing the spirit of faith, but rather overgeneralized by simply blaming the institution of faith. This is quite the shame when considering how Jefferson had such French sympathies as well.

 

[Slartibartfast]

He's been dead for over 200 years.

 

[Mycroft]

THE LEE MEN - Stratford Hall

www.stratfordhall.org

Ohio Company - Ohio History Central

ohiohistorycentral.org

What do you know about Robert E. Lee’s religious faith?

Gregory Elder writes about less well-known aspects of the still-controversial Confederate general’s life

www.redlandsdailyfacts.com

Entry | Timelines | US Religion

Details On People, Events or Movements for a US Religion Timeline

www.thearda.com

For those who don't know, the Lee family (as in the family of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee), has a notorious legacy which goes back to the French and Indian War from its ancestors founding the Ohio Company of Virginia which sparked conflict along the midwest frontier. Not only did they settle in lands long claimed by the French, but their abuse of native populations gave the French a justification to declare war to defend those abused. A lot of people will reduce this down to simple colonial imperialism, profiteering, and racial prejudice, but it's not that simple. The reality was the Lee Family has always been a low church Episcopalian family. It explicitly condemned the sacraments of Anglo-Catholic tradition as it came to be known under the Oxford Movement which again has implications when considering the Catholicism of the French.

The problem Jefferson had is he overreacted to this problem when pursuing the disestablishment of the Church of England in Virginia. Instead of filtering between the low and high church to understand where oppression really came from, he treated religion in general as a problem. He couldn't be bothered addressing the spirit of faith, but rather overgeneralized by simply blaming the institution of faith. This is quite the shame when considering how Jefferson had such French sympathies as well.

Did the Constitution require Jefferson to address "the spirit of faith"?

 

[ttwtt78640]

He's been dead for over 200 years.

Yep, but at that time the 1A ‘mandate’ concerning religion was applicable to the federal government alone which is why it was worded “Congress shall pass no law to…”. Other parts of the BoR amendments ‘package’ were more broadly worded to guarantee protection of the rights of the people from being abridged or denied by any level of government.

 

[AGENT J]

The problem Jefferson had is he overreacted to this problem when pursuing the disestablishment of the Church of England in Virginia. Instead of filtering between the low and high church to understand where oppression really came from, he treated religion in general as a problem.

as a Christian myself how he viewed it nails it.
when it comes to government, rights and freedom while religion itslef might not be a problem but how people try to USE it is.

So in that regard, it has no place in government besides the acknowledgment that it exists, you are free to have/practice your own personal religion but only within the realm of EVERUBDOYS rights. If that practice infringes on the rights of others that is not protects because we all must play by the same rules.

in goverment/a free country . . . my religion is mine, for me . . thats basically it.

I love that my religious rights and freedoms are fully protected and i dont get to use it as a tool on others. We are even better at that last part today then we were then and thats great progress.

 

[XDU]

Did the Constitution require Jefferson to address "the spirit of faith"?

That's circular reasoning when considering the influence Jefferson had on the Constitution itself. The real point here is we need to realize how the Constitution is flawed.

 

[watsup]

THE LEE MEN - Stratford Hall

www.stratfordhall.org

Ohio Company - Ohio History Central

ohiohistorycentral.org

What do you know about Robert E. Lee’s religious faith?

Gregory Elder writes about less well-known aspects of the still-controversial Confederate general’s life

www.redlandsdailyfacts.com

Entry | Timelines | US Religion

Details On People, Events or Movements for a US Religion Timeline

www.thearda.com

For those who don't know, the Lee family (as in the family of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee), has a notorious legacy which goes back to the French and Indian War from its ancestors founding the Ohio Company of Virginia which sparked conflict along the midwest frontier. Not only did they settle in lands long claimed by the French, but their abuse of native populations gave the French a justification to declare war to defend those abused. A lot of people will reduce this down to simple colonial imperialism, profiteering, and racial prejudice, but it's not that simple. The reality was the Lee Family has always been a low church Episcopalian family. It explicitly condemned the sacraments of Anglo-Catholic tradition as it came to be known under the Oxford Movement which again has implications when considering the Catholicism of the French.

The problem Jefferson had is he overreacted to this problem when pursuing the disestablishment of the Church of England in Virginia. Instead of filtering between the low and high church to understand where oppression really came from, he treated religion in general as a problem. He couldn't be bothered addressing the spirit of faith, but rather overgeneralized by simply blaming the institution of faith. This is quite the shame when considering how Jefferson had such French sympathies as well.

What EXACTLY would you recommend other than Jefferson’s “separation of church and state”?

 

[XDU]

as a Christian myself how he viewed it nails it.
when it comes to government, rights and freedom while religion itslef might not be a problem but how people try to USE it is.

So in that regard, it has no place in government besides the acknowledgment that it exists, you are free to have/practice your own personal religion but only within the realm of EVERUBDOYS rights. If that practice infringes on the rights of others that is not protects because we all must play by the same rules.

in goverment/a free country . . . my religion is mine, for me . . thats basically it.

I love that my religious rights and freedoms are fully protected and i dont get to use it as a tool on others. We are even better at that last part today then we were then and thats great progress.

How does that protect people from faiths which become influential enough to tolerate abuse?

I say that especially since that's exactly what we're really talking about here - the prevalence of low church Episcopalianism that does not believe in respecting everybody. It believes some are chosen by God to be elected for salvation, and we can tell who is from their performance of good works to represent a predestined calling.

IOW, defining human achievement by usefulness is subjective. If a subgroup of people influences others to believe in a specific style of usefulness, then those who are incompatible will be condemned.

 

[watsup]

That's circular reasoning when considering the influence Jefferson had on the Constitution itself. The real point here is we need to realize how the Constitution is flawed.

How exactly is the Constitution flawed with respect to the separation of church and state?

 

[XDU]

What EXACTLY would you recommend other than Jefferson’s “separation of church and state”?

I'd recommend scholasticism when it comes to the spirit of the law. We must be able to reconcile discrepancies through dialogue instead of allowing some people to say, "THIS IS MY OPINION AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, TOUGH" when it comes to having authority over rights and responsibilities.

Also, freedom of religion enslaves society to a lawyer class since people have to pay to get legal representation instead of being able to depend on clergy for guaranteed representation.

 

[watsup]

I'd recommend scholasticism when it comes to the spirit of the law. We must be able to reconcile discrepancies through dialogue instead of allowing some people to say, "THIS IS MY OPINION AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, TOUGH" when it comes to having authority over rights and responsibilities.

You didn’t answer the question. What words would you substitute for those in the Constitution regards “freedom of religion”? Please be specific.

 

[XDU]

You didn’t answer the question. What words would you substitute for those in the Constitution regards “freedom of religion”? Please be specific.

The first thing to be disputed is freedom of religion itself before getting to the words to be used.

Once freedom of religion is eliminated, we can discuss how to carry out a mandate responsibly instead.

 

[watsup]

The first thing to be disputed is freedom of religion itself before getting to the words to be used.

Once freedom of religion is eliminated, we can discuss how to carry out a mandate responsibly instead.

Then quit being so coy, go ahead and discuss it. What do you mean by “freedom of religion is eliminated”? What sort of “mandate” do you recommend? How exactly is freedom of religion “disputed”? Expand and fill in the blanks so that I don’t have to keep asking you obvious questions. And there’s not a reason on the world why you can’t go ahead and tell us the “words to be used” as a part of the ongoing discussion.

 

[Mycroft]

That's circular reasoning when considering the influence Jefferson had on the Constitution itself. The real point here is we need to realize how the Constitution is flawed.

How is it flawed?

Do you think the 1st Amendment should have a "spirit of faith" exemption?

 

[AGENT J]

How does that protect people from faiths which become influential enough to tolerate abuse?

youll have to be more specific

I say that especially since that's exactly what we're really talking about here - the prevalence of low church Episcopalianism that does not believe in respecting everybody. It believes some are chosen by God to be elected for salvation, and we can tell who is from their performance of good works to represent a predestined calling.

who cares what they believe as long as they have no legal right to enforce it on others

 

[Slartibartfast]

That's circular reasoning when considering the influence Jefferson had on the Constitution itself. The real point here is we need to realize how the Constitution is flawed.

The constitution is certainly flawed, but not in this way.

 

[XDU]

Then quit being so coy, go ahead and discuss it. What do you mean by “freedom of religion is eliminated”? What sort of “mandate” do you recommend? How exactly is freedom of religion “disputed”? Expand and fill in the blanks so that I don’t have to keep asking you obvious questions. And there’s not a reason on the world why you can’t go ahead and tell us the “words to be used” as a part of the ongoing discussion.

I mean what I said in the OP. The details are there to be discussed.

 

[XDU]

How is it flawed?

Do you think the 1st Amendment should have a "spirit of faith" exemption?

I think freedom of speech tolerates duress, intimidation, harassment, provocation, slander, fraud, defamation, and misrepresentation.

Without the spirit of faith guiding the spirit of the law, there is no way to reliably regulate these forms of speech. People can engage in these acts while discussing freedom of speech itself to get those they don't like labeled as doing the exact things they're doing.

 

[watsup]

I mean what I said in the OP. The details are there to be discussed.

So you can’t actually produce any alternative to the Constitutional separation of church and state. Well okay then! Thank goodness we had people like Jefferson involved in the founding of our country rather than those like yourself who can’t fully explain your stance.

 

[XDU]

youll have to be more specific

who cares what they believe as long as they have no legal right to enforce it on others

...but that's the problem.

When their belief becomes popular enough, the people will vote to give them that right.

 

[ecofarm]

Is that you, Mash?

 

[watsup]

I think freedom of speech tolerates duress, intimidation, harassment, provocation, slander, fraud, defamation, and misrepresentation.

Without the spirit of faith guiding the spirit of the law, there is no way to reliably regulate these forms of speech. People can engage in these acts while discussing freedom of speech itself to get those they don't like labeled as doing the exact things they're doing.

How exactly would you install the “spirit of faith” in respect to the rule of law?

 

[XDU]

So you can’t actually produce any alternative to the Constitutional separation of church and state. Well okay then! Thank goodness we had people like Jefferson involved in the founding of our country rather than those like yourself who can’t fully explain your stance.

You're being hasty. I'm trying to be methodical to take things one step at a time.

There's no point to discuss alternatives until we can agree the status quo deserves to be replaced.

 

[XDU]

The constitution is certainly flawed, but not in this way.

How do you see it as flawed?

 

[XDU]

How exactly would you install the “spirit of faith” in respect to the rule of law?

...through scholasticism like I said before.