• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Jefferson Got Wrong About Freedom of Religion

To be clear, I get what you're saying, but the question is wrong.

Possession has no place in religion.
Preferences have no place in religion.
The law follows grace, not the other way around.

When you understand these points, you'll get what I'm really saying.

More doubletalk. Just answer the question for a change.
 
To be clear, I get what you're saying, but the question is wrong.
But I did not ask a question: I stated a fact. That your aim is to use the law to favor only your religion (your sect of that religion)above all other religions/denominations.
Possession has no place in religion.
Preferences have no place in religion.
Irrelevant to the discussion of whether a religion should be mandated.
The law follows grace, not the other way around.
Untrue (human law and grace have no connection and neither follows the other).
When you understand these points, you'll get what I'm really saying.
The problem is that I’m not sure what your premises are, and your view of history does not conform to any version of history I’ve ever heard of. You seem to be looking at European and American history since the Reformation entirely as a conflict between Catholicism and various Protestant denominations. I’ve never heard of any actual historian even consider that position.

I also find it curious that you have not given any response to Pope Prius XII’s condemnation of mandating Catholicism.
 
What EXACTLY would you recommend other than Jefferson’s “separation of church and state”?

Of course, one also needs to realize that Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution.

During that time (1787-1789) he was Foreign Minister to France, a position he held since 1784. He did not return to the US until after the Constitution was adopted, and President Washington became the first President. This is because he was recalled to be the first Secretary of State.

So I find this entire thread to be silly, as he had nothing to do with it at all.
 
More doubletalk. Just answer the question for a change.
Again, that doesn't help. That statement can be made whether an adequate answer has been made or not.
 
But I did not ask a question: I stated a fact. That your aim is to use the law to favor only your religion (your sect of that religion)above all other religions/denominations.

Irrelevant to the discussion of whether a religion should be mandated.

Untrue (human law and grace have no connection and neither follows the other).

The problem is that I’m not sure what your premises are, and your view of history does not conform to any version of history I’ve ever heard of. You seem to be looking at European and American history since the Reformation entirely as a conflict between Catholicism and various Protestant denominations. I’ve never heard of any actual historian even consider that position.

I also find it curious that you have not given any response to Pope Prius XII’s condemnation of mandating Catholicism.
What you stated was a hasty conclusion which ignores how Catholicism's universality has no preference nor possession. It also ignored how the law has purpose. It is not simply a set of words. It has force because we believe it should.
 
Again, that doesn't help. That statement can be made whether an adequate answer has been made or not.

And yet another excuse for not answering the questions straight up. In other words, more obfuscation.
 
And yet another excuse for not answering the questions straight up. In other words, more obfuscation.
Calling someone out for not discerning between what is and what's not is not an excuse.

It's like when some people clamor about historical systemic prejudice because they don't want to discern between the oppressed and non-oppressed, the oppressive and non-oppressive.
 
Calling someone out for not discerning between what is and what's not is not an excuse.

It's like when some people clamor about historical systemic prejudice because they don't want to discern between the oppressed and non-oppressed, the oppressive and non-oppressive.

And yet another lame and obfuscatory excuse for not answering questions.
 
What you stated was a hasty conclusion which ignores how Catholicism's universality has no preference nor possession.
You can’t really say I’ve “ignored” an argument you haven’t made. Perhaps you could actually explain. In what way would mandating Catholicism and eliminating freedom of religion not give preference and dominance to one religion over all others?

It also ignored how the law has purpose. It is not simply a set of words. It has force because we believe it should.
In what way do you think I said anything contrary to that?
 
Of course, one also needs to realize that Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution.

During that time (1787-1789) he was Foreign Minister to France, a position he held since 1784. He did not return to the US until after the Constitution was adopted, and President Washington became the first President. This is because he was recalled to be the first Secretary of State.

So I find this entire thread to be silly, as he had nothing to do with it at all.
Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom in 1779. It was finally passed in 1786, largely through the efforts of James Madison. It disestablished the Anglican Church in Virginia and declared freedom of religion in Virginia.

Jefferson strongly urged Madison to introduce a bill of rights and it is clear that the Virginia statute influenced the 1st amendment. So while not directly a contributor to the constitution, Jefferson’s views clearly influenced it, and his continuous fight against mandated religion makes him the main reference point for all discussions on freedom of religion.
 
You can’t really say I’ve “ignored” an argument you haven’t made. Perhaps you could actually explain. In what way would mandating Catholicism and eliminating freedom of religion not give preference and dominance to one religion over all others?


In what way do you think I said anything contrary to that?
I've already explained.

To be Catholic is to be universal. It is to not have preference or possession over faith. It is to remember grace before law.

There is an underlying essence at hand which cannot be reduced down to tolerance, equality, and diversity of institutional labels.
 
I've already explained.

To be Catholic is to be universal. It is to not have preference or possession over faith. It is to remember grace before law.

There is an underlying essence at hand which cannot be reduced down to tolerance, equality, and diversity of institutional labels.
That is not an explanation, only vague pronouncements. You say no preference or possession over faith, but that is contradicted by your desire to allow only one form of religion. So please try again and explain in practical terms, what your vision is. How would you mandate Catholicism, how would you effect the millions of baptisms of those who do not wish to be baptised, what would be the penalties for non-Catholic worship, etc?
 
Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom in 1779. It was finally passed in 1786, largely through the efforts of James Madison. It disestablished the Anglican Church in Virginia and declared freedom of religion in Virginia.

All of which is in the pre-Constitutional Era. Therefore has no real application to this at all as you can not blame or accuse something that happened before as being caused by something that happened after.

That is like saying the fall of France caused Germany to invade Poland.
 
To be Catholic is to be universal. It is to not have preference or possession over faith. It is to remember grace before law.

All well and good. However, that is a personal philosophy and not a matter of law. So how does it apply to this?
 
All of which is in the pre-Constitutional Era.
Exactly. Jefferson’s Statute was the inspiration for the 1st amendment. So while he was not directly involved with the constitution, he clearly influenced it, and therefore his ideas on religion are relevant when discussing freedom of religion and the constitution.
Therefore has no real application to this at all as you can not blame or accuse something that happened before as being caused by something that happened after.
I have no idea how you think I’ve done that.
 
🤷‍♂️

He's been dead for over 200 years.

Yup, and just like every single legal document out there, the words in the document and the way they are interpreted is all that matters. Intent does not matter. You can't say you meant this or that. That's why you have to be clear. That's why legal documents are so long and wordy. If you write a contract and there is a dispute, the language and how the judge interpret it is all that matters.

So its pointless discussing intentions of people long gone
 
Yup, and just like every single legal document out there, the words in the document and the way they are interpreted is all that matters. Intent does not matter. You can't say you meant this or that. That's why you have to be clear. That's why legal documents are so long and wordy. If you write a contract and there is a dispute, the language and how the judge interpret it is all that matters.

So its pointless discussing intentions of people long gone
Discussing them is fine. Being bound to them though ... I would rather be free.
 
Exactly. Jefferson’s Statute was the inspiration for the 1st amendment. So while he was not directly involved with the constitution, he clearly influenced it, and therefore his ideas on religion are relevant when discussing freedom of religion and the constitution.

Every single one of the Articles in the Bill of Rights came about because of things the Colonies went through before and during the Revolution. And the 10 most important ones essentially became the Bill of Rights.

Now the actual inspiration for that law was the Anglican Church, as many of the colonies had requirements that almost mandated attendance in the "Official Religion of England". And if you wanted to rise at all in the Colonial Service, get contracts, and a great many other things you had to be Anglican. But this was a problem with the majority, who were normally Congregationalists, as well as the Catholics and the small Jewish groups.

All that law (and later the Constitution) did was forbid mandating religion, or any one single religion. Prohibit the suppression of other religions, and allow people wo worship how they wish. And some of the States by that time had even established "State Churches". And a great many of the "Founding Fathers" were Anglican (now in the US known as Episcopalians - basically Anglican without the British Monarch as head of religion).

Most of the early settlers to the Colonies were fleeing religious persecution (or came under such persecution as their colony changed hands). And this even shows up a second time in Article VI.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

But the Bill of Rights is still very much a Child of the Revolution. Which is why it includes things like the Third Amendment, which was in response to the Quartering Act. Or the Fifth and Sixth, as quite often in the Colonies government officials would arrest people and hold them for months or years without trial. And it also prohibited through the writing the establishment of "Debtor Prisons" as was seen in England. You could only be sent to prison for criminal offenses, not because a debt was owed.

Then you have the curious Seventh Amendment, which mandated all law suits of over $20 to a trial by jury. Of course, once inflation is taken into account that $20 is in the area of $1,000 today. But the intent is what allows the "SMall Claims Court" system to operate.
 

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.
Your 100% correct. And yes, the founding fathers were anti-catholic. They deplored French settlement in the New World and invaded Quebec. Most Catholics, whom were denied of rights, fought for the King, especially the Irish in Upstate NY and Vermont.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XDU
That is not an explanation, only vague pronouncements. You say no preference or possession over faith, but that is contradicted by your desire to allow only one form of religion. So please try again and explain in practical terms, what your vision is. How would you mandate Catholicism, how would you effect the millions of baptisms of those who do not wish to be baptised, what would be the penalties for non-Catholic worship, etc?
Pragmatism comes from Calvinism, not Catholicism, and focusing on forms is idolatry, not spirituality.

The way you're directing the conversation literally doesn't make sense.
 
A

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.
Are you suggesting that Virginia should have an established religion? To what end?
 
Pragmatism comes from Calvinism, not Catholicism, and focusing on forms is idolatry, not spirituality.

The way you're directing the conversation literally doesn't make sense.
I’ll try again. You say you think that Catholicism should be mandated and that there should not be freedom of religion. You have not explained what precisely you mean by that.

How would this mandate be implemented?
Would you require everyone to be baptized Catholic?
Would non-Catholic Christian denominations and non-Christians be barred from their religious practices?

And for fun: which of the 24 particular churches in communion with each other under the Pope would be allowed? And what would be the status of Old Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics not in communion with Rome?
 
I’ll try again. You say you think that Catholicism should be mandated and that there should not be freedom of religion. You have not explained what precisely you mean by that.

How would this mandate be implemented?
Would you require everyone to be baptized Catholic?
Would non-Catholic Christian denominations and non-Christians be barred from their religious practices?

And for fun: which of the 24 particular churches in communion with each other under the Pope would be allowed? And what would be the status of Old Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics not in communion with Rome?
Again, preciseness is not Catholic.

Catholicism is based on the mystery of faith. First, we figure out what to be faithful in. Then, good works follow.

We don't put the cart before the horse. The idea is once you know what to do with conviction, you do what's necessary to implement it. Appeals to absurdity are not allowed.
 
A

Are you suggesting that Virginia should have an established religion? To what end?
I'm saying Jefferson oversimplified the problem because he couldn't be bothered analyzing the spirit of faith among different denominations.
 
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.
Now you want to choose peoples' religions for them?

How about no?
 
Back
Top Bottom