BS: Thomas Jefferson

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:20 PM

"With reference to the expulsion of The Acadians from Eastern Canada..ypur history of inaccurate"

Please explain that comment, as I have read quite a bit of history on this topic (in French and English), and do not rely on poetry or song lyrics.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: pdq
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:24 PM

"With reference to the expulsion of The Acadians from Eastern Canada..."

WTF does this have to do with Thomas Jefferson?

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:26 PM

Jefferson was a friend to all religions, but if you think for one moment he sanctioned a state religion you better do you home work ... Although not a Mason he strongly believed in the values of free masonry. I see this statement used frequently for justification in trying to say "the framers of the Constitution were fundamental Christians and the Constitution was bible based" nothing could be further from the truth.   They held to the principles of free masons ...The framers themselves ran the list of Christian, Dietist, athiest and occult.   I thank God everyday that they did or we would have a country based on Calvin ... They were too smart to put religion into the Constitution. They learned from history. This Christian thanks God they were that smart.

"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 "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:40 PM

I been called a non Christian, had some hate thrown at me lately via phone and email. Yet for me, I think I know more about the love and Compassion of Jesus far more than any of them will ever know. And it is indeed a personal thing.

Why would a Christian get upset at this attempt by fundamentists. Because it is destructive and it slanders the great men who made this nation. For me the hand of God took place by not giving them the organized faith but the ideals of the free masons. Without it, we would be the taliban because history proves that power and corruption always occurs when any church takes control.

"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:58 PM

and by the way, if you understand Jefferson and the Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse letter, you will also understand that TJ held to the belief system of the free mason's that is a higher power as you see him. He himself was not a mason. Jefferson hated any organized groups for fear it would hinder free thought. Those point are right out of the free mason's and were free mason's Christians, yes some were, some were other things. To be a free mason you had to believe in a higher power. Many of the founding fathers were not listed as masons, why? they were atheists and could not join. But held to the mason principles ... Now I am not a mason, but have a look at your money and the all seeing eye and the pyramid. Have a look at the layout of Washington DC.   Or how about the Washington Monument. Free Masons were called free masons due to their non ties to any kings or other groups. George Washington took the first oath of office, "ON the mason Bible". Every President since took the oath on the Jefferson bible. You know that is, TJ took the bible and removed everything that didn't say "Jesus said". He did not want any interpretation of the bible by clerics. Anything that is "Jesus Said" could do not harm to anyone reading or any other group. Jefferson's reasoning.

Thank you Lord for their wisdom

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:29 PM

Uh, OK (I guess), PeeDee- but what have TJ's philosophical musings wch. you posted got to do with:

He also helped make sure that God is in our government documents and on our money

???

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: pdq
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:58 PM

"...but if you think for one moment he sanctioned a state religion you better do you home work..." ~ oldude

I don't believe that anybody on this thread has advocated a state religion nor has anybody suggested that Thomas Jefferson was in favor of such things. He was not.

The much tauted "separation of church and state" means that a state religion, such as Anglican in England or Islam in Saudia Arabia is banned.

The concept was never intended to ban teaching Christian principles is school, banning the 10 Comandments from the steps of the county courthouse, banning crosses on soldiers graves or banning building a manger scene on public property when given a proper permit.

I doubt that Jefferson would like the anti-Christian attitude we have now in much of the entertainment industry, government and academia.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 02:16 PM

I doubt that Jefferson would like the anti-Christian attitude we have now...

PeeDee, I think you're confusing (willfully?) an anti-fundagelical lunacy, anti-hypocrite, anti-BS and anti-ram-your-religion-down-other-peoples'-throats attitude with an anti-christian attitude, and I think you'll find that TJ would heartily support the former.

Now, back to my question?

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 02:16 PM

The separation of Church and Hate, though, he was never able to pull that one off...

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: pdq
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 02:20 PM

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...


{God was mentioned in our founding documents on day 1 and remains there to this day. Those who demand we remove all mentioin of a supreme being are out of step with this country, its people and its history.}

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:58 PM

Well discussing teaching in school PDQ is another issue. My comments were to discuss the importance of Thomas Jefferson and the attempt to paint him and other founding fathers into a different light than history reveals. Your point is another topic. I am only trying to bring out the character of the man and the spirit of the crafting of the Bill of Rights. It is not a religious point although it sounds like it is. This is done as a political move by certain groups. The editing of Jefferson in textbooks for example.. It is a political point used by certain groups to sway votes by the distortion of history ... that's all ...And no matter what group of people or what politics they agree with I am sure you agree that history cannot be rewritten for a cause, any cause. I ask that people study Jefferson and the founding fathers and see what they said about everything..

Now I stand corrected, some presidents used the Jefferson Bible, others did not ... Thanks Dean for pointing that out to me

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:08 PM

PDQ's point is well take that there are movements against faith, no question and corresponding movements against non faith people. That is why the Constitution is so important and the words of the founding fathers are so important ...and the genius of those who wrote the words. America needs to embrace differences, stand on the document and the founders who have served us so well ... with no attempt to revise the character of the men or the spirt of their words and deeds. don't ya think?

:-)

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:17 PM

As to Jefferson and the Acadians, there is no relationship. However,I made a comment on Jefferson's involvement in colonization of African Americans to Africa. One response was: "The British moved freed Africans, who had supported them, back to Africa, after Yorktown".

The suggestion was (as I took it) that the British moved Africans back to Africa, as if it was a reward for their loyality...My tongue in cheek comment (don't trust promises of a reward from the British) was, yes like the reward the Acadians received from the British...who tricked them to attend a meeting, and shipped them off to deplorable conditions (at the time)...the history of this abounds in books. As to today's standards, in the winter Louisana looks pretty good, compared to snow in the winter in eastern Canada....But few on eather side would likely choose to change places.

(BTW, I am an ancestor of an Acadian who was murdered by the British in 1756 (shot by British solders when tending his fields in then Acadia)..only, because he refused to leave his homeland...But, I bear no grudges today...I am just suspicious of any government official who says they are going to do me a favour).

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:59 PM

"I am just suspicious of any government official who says they are going to do me a favour..."

            Sounds like a phrase out of the "Tea Party Manifesto..."

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:02 PM

Ed T told us:

I am an ancestor of an Acadian who was murdered by the British in 1756 . . .

My, Ed T, you must be EXTREMELY old, something like three hundred years, in fact.

Now, if you're a descendant of those Acadians, that's a horse of a different color.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:20 PM

ok, I dont mind being called a horse...I have been called worse. And, yes I am old.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:23 PM

and, by the way...it's colour, not color. I have to defend the French influence on "official gentrified" English every year or so.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:55 PM

My good friends, I would like to submit a challenge. With the many political threads we have here at the cat, sometime we argue on emotion, I raise my hand "guilty as charged" Lets try this, if we have a position, take the time to justified the position, via the words of the Constitution, the writings of the founding fathers. What I find is it takes the labels left and right out of the argument. What would they have to say. Prove the point by quote.

When the Supreme court hears a case, they look at the Constitution first, if it is not clear, the look at the writings of the founders, debate and come to a conclusion. This is great for the mind ... it takes the strong emotion out of it ... sometimes we will find what we did not want to find, or we find exactly what we thought. The copy of Jefferson's autobiography should be on the coffee table of every American by the way.

Love DAn

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:23 PM

The subject of Jefferson has come up on another thread.

1)   It's not confirmed that he in fact had children by Sally Hemings.   There is a probability--but there are other factors, other theories--and the DNA evidence is not conclusive. Various groups have been hemming and hawing on this for a while, and it is not settled as a fact.

2)   He did not free most of his slaves in his will--he in fact could not do so due to his financial straits:

Joseph Ellis:   American Sphinx:   The Character of Thomas Jefferson (p. 290)

"Although his fear of living too long proved justified, his providential demise on July 4, 1826 spared him the ultimate tragedy of watching all his worldly possessions, including '130 valuable negroes' sold to the highest bidder."

3)   It is clear that he was no atheist--friend to Tom Paine, but his own views were different.   So the Mudcat atheists who try to claim Jefferson as one of their own are distorting his attitude beyond recognition--as PDQ has already noted.

I know there is at least one poster on this thread who disagrees with my first point--but let him give specific proof--not just a theory--that Jefferson had 4 children by Sally Hemings.    Just giving a book title or two is no answer.

And I will be at a folk festival most of the weekend so not replying very often to postings.


But this is a thread that could run a long time--and it would be fine if it did.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:41 PM

The person in the other thread, also on this one, with whom I had a dispute about Jefferson and Sally Hemings, was fondly known in the other thread as Mr. FO-after his frequent invitation to me.

It should be possible to have a civil conversation on the subject of Thomas Jefferson.

We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:56 PM

Ron,
not true, here is the research. Also I know of no one on this thread that called Jefferson an atheist .. certainly not me, and I am not an atheist either. My assertion is he was not influenced by religion in the creation of the Constitution ... as many today wish to assert. As per Sally ..
-------------------------

But in 1997, Annette Gordon-Reed, a lawyer who studied the subject, sized up the same evidence and reached the opposite conclusion: a liaison was very likely, although it could not be proved, Ms. Gordon-Reed wrote in her book "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings."

The debate might have deadlocked there were it not for a new genetic technique of tracing ancestry through the Y chromosome, which descends through the male line, and for the research efforts of Eugene A. Foster, a pathologist who resumed a project to test whether Jefferson was the father of Hemings's children.

Jefferson had no male descendants, but blood samples from five descendants of his uncle, Field Jefferson, provided Dr. Foster with the authentic Jefferson Y chromosome. He also tested descendants of the Carrs and of Hemings's son Eston.

Dr. Foster found in 1998 that the Jefferson Y chromosome differed from that of the Carr family, but was identical to that of Eston Hemings's lineage. Jefferson was at Monticello at the conception of all of Hemings's known children, historical documents show.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:04 PM

Ron and as a Christian myself, and a student of history, I cannot let stand an assertion by many in the media that the Constitution was written based on the Bible as many are saying in the media. It is false and does great discredit to history and God. Nor can I accept the assertion that Jefferson prescribed to rock solid Christian belief's that too is false ...

We are a great nation because of our history ... that cannot be altered for anyone's agenda Christian or otherwise ... Jefferson was not an athetist, however his belief was as complex as the man himself was. Your assertion that he could not free all of the slaves for money is correct by the scholars, I think it maybe more complex even than that. I would love to research it some day in depth.

Kind Regards
Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:08 PM

by the way, that DNA test from my understanding would hold in any court of law for paternity.

Kind Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 12:17 AM

It is my understanding, Dan, that TJ had several close male relatives who cannot be eliminated from the Hemings gene pool.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 12:47 AM

Agreed Ebbie You are correct. The placement of Jefferson himself at the time frames makes it pretty strong. Along with the accounts of how he lovingly treated her makes the argument pretty compelling. Today it would hold up in court most believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:05 AM

One of the most amazing things is the Declaration of Independance. Think about it now, Jefferson was charged with creating a document that would be so compelling that a man would sign virtually a death sentence with him. Ben Franklin told them "we must all hang together or we will certainly hang alone".   Jefferson did it, read it, one of the greatest masterpieces ever written. He pulled no stops, He used "God", "Creator", Life, Liberty, happiness every word crafted to meet the challange. That challange, to get others to agree to literally die with him. For once you signed it, you lose your life if it fails.

In that room were men of every faith and non faith, Christian, Non Christian. He used every word carefully to make the argument. Did you know that one of them was even Roman Catholics? Yup Charles Carroll. It is a mistake to extend the Declaration of Independance to Jefferson's faith. It is incorrect unless you look at the whole man. He carefully chose God and Creator and not any specific religion. He was not addressing one group or another but all . I see this a lot in arguments on Jefferson's strong faith. It is simply not the case. As a Christian I find myself in a pickle arguing against faith in the document. But truth is truth, that is what makes history so important.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:19 AM

The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation issued a report in January 2000 concluding that there is a strong likelihood that Thomas Jefferson was the father of at least one and perhaps all the children of Sally Hemings.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:43 AM

Point is, according to my sources, Thomas Jefferson is not the only one indicated by that DNA. My understanding is that the Y chromosome did not in fact differ from that of the the Carr family. Do you have a source that it did? Can you give me a direct quote on that, with source?

Supporting Peter Carr as the father in question is the former manager of Monticello, Edmund Bacon, who claimed in an interview of 1862 that he had seen another man leaving Sally's quarters "many a morning" and supposedly Peter Carr had admitted to Martha Jefferson that he was the father when she confronted him with the charge. Obviously the last point is just oral history, and therefore does not carry much weight.

So the DNA evidence is crucial---particularly the necessity to eliminate the Carrs as possible subjects.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:52 AM

True, Old Dude, they did in 2000--but backed off later.

By the way, I appreciate the way a civil tone has been maintained--in stark contrast to the situation on the other thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:21 AM

Not only that but he carefully called it "Nature's God" if the above quote is correct.

It is worth taking a look at a side-by-side comparison of the Iroquois Federation's "Great Law of Peace" and the U.S. Constitution to see the Founding Fathers, some of them anyway, knew of the earliest known "constitution" in North America and wrote similar parts. I have a book which does this which I bought at a powwow years ago. If you google it, you will find many references including THIS BOOK published in 2004.

I also thought this was interesting from HERE:

For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

BTW, Dan, there were also several Rosicrucians involved in the founding of our country including Benjamin Franklin and LaFayette, who of course didn't "found" but did so much to help it be born so to speak. I've actually seen his real signature on a charter for the Masonic Lodge in Northampton, Massachusetts.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 09:40 AM

Those are very good points Ron, I suspect the debate will continue for quite some time and you are right it is far from over my friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 10:43 AM

Ron
I dislike wikipedia and usually don't trust it but this does site sources and it interesting reading on all sides of the debate. I will see if I can dig out my research that I played with.

tom and sally

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 11:16 AM

So Simple Infallible Seeker - after admitting that the points I raised in the other thread were in fact correct - is attempting to blame me for the tone of the "other thread"?

Unbelievable. Or rather, considewring the source, perfectly believable.

Beware, Olddude- your having made the exact same points that I did in the "other thread" you have doubtless laid yourself open for waves of abuse from The One True Fount Of Information.

It should be possible to have a civil conversation on the subject of Thomas Jefferson.

As in the dreaded "other thread", Oh Simple One, the outcome is entirely in your hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 11:27 AM

I've done some research myself and it appears that the Y chromosome was in fact not found in the Carrs.    It's a mystery why my debate partner of the other thread did not point this out, rather than immediately descend into the gutter.   He seems to consider it a point of pride to not ever answer a direct question.   Ah well, different strokes.....

The relationship of the Hemings to the Jeffersons is indeed a fascinating topic.

From the Ellis book: p 153


"Finally, all the slaves working in the household, and most of those living along Mulberry Row on the mountaintop, were members of two families that had been with Jefferson since the earliest days of his marriage to Martha.   They enjoyed a privileged status within the slave hierarchy at Monticello , were given larger food and clothing rations, considerably greater latitude of movement, and even the discretion to choose jobs or reject them on occasion..."

"The other and larger slave family were all Hemingses, headed by the matriarch, Betty Hemings, whom Jefferson had inherited from his father-in-law, John Wayles, along with ten of her twelve children in 1773. It was an open secret within the slave community at Monticello that the privileged status enjoyed by the Hemings family derived from its mixed blood. Several of Betty's children, perhaps as many as six, had most probably been fathered by John Wayles......All the slaves he (Jefferson) eventually freed were Hemingses.

"Since the members of the Hemings family were the front-and-center slaves at Monticello, most guests and visitors to the mountaintop experienced the Jeffersonian version of slavery primarily as a less black and less oppressive phenomenon than it actually was."


And despite this, Jefferson was in fact capable of dealing harshly with slaves. "No reliable evidence exists to document an instance in which Jefferson personally flogged a slave or dispensed any physical punishment himself."   But "on rare occasions he ordered overseers to use the lash, but his general policy was to sell off troublemakers."

Yet again "he was extremely reluctant to sell slaves against their will"..."he tried to respect the wishes of those slaves who asked to be sold, usually to be united with their families."

But he did believe in "the real distinctions nature has made."--though he was " careful to advance the view 'as a suspicion only', people of African descent were sufficiently inferior to whites in mental aptitude that any emancipation policy permitting racial interaction was a criminal injustice to the freed slaves as well as a biological travesty against 'the real distinctions nature has made'."

"As the depth of his own indebtedness began to sink in, there were three ways tp raise large amounts of capital to appease his creditors: He could sell off land....he could sell slaves outright; and he could rent or lease the labor of his slaves to neighboring planters. He expressed considerable guilt about pursuing the last two options, suggesting it was a betrayal of his paternal obligations to the black members of his extended 'family'".

"The net result of all these influences was a somewhat tortured position on slavery that combined unequivocal condemnation of the institution in the abstract with blatant procrastination whenever specific emancipation schemes were suggested".

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 11:31 AM

You made no points with any exact quotes. Sorry, just your word is not enough, Mr FO.   As I said at the time. Even you have to provide exact quotes.   And your constant recourse to ridiculous and pointless gutter language does not help your credibility, to say the least.

All you have to do is learn to answer questions directly and we will get along fine.

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 11:33 AM

Re:   atheists and Jefferson:

It is true that no atheist on this thread has claimed Jefferson was also an atheist. But this is a refreshing change from other threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 11:54 AM

Sigh.

Joseph Ellis' book was researched and written BEFORE the DNA testing was done. Ellis is also recognized as one of the traditional primary deniers of the Jefferson/Hemings liason. See Annette Gordon-Reed for additional information on Ellis' biases and mis-interpretations.

Also:

That early, firsthand experience with the interplay of race and history informs much of Gordon-Reed's work, including her compulsively readable new book, "The Hemingses of Monticello(2008)," in which she traces the family history of Sally Hemings, the slave who had a 38-year relationship with Thomas Jefferson. Gordon-Reed, a former lawyer, also edited an anthology of essays about race and the law, and co-wrote Vernon Jordan's 2001 memoir, "Vernon Can Read!" But she is best known for 1997's groundbreaking "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy," which examined historians' treatment of the Jefferson-Hemings liaison, and made a strong case that Jefferson fathered seven children with Hemings. DNA testing a year after the book came out vindicated Gordon-Reed's assertion, and made her book a cause célèbre among Jefferson scholars. Joseph Ellis, whose National Book Award-winning biography of Jefferson, "American Sphinx(1998)," claimed Jefferson never slept with Hemings, later conceded the point, writing that it was difficult not to conclude Jefferson had been "living a lie."

From- http://www.newsweek.com/2008/10/03/a-lawyer-s-new-jefferson-memorial.html

See also :http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm for aditional information on Ellis' biases. A simple (Simple?) web search will turn up lots more in this vein.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 12:01 PM

You made no points with any exact quotes.

Oh Simple One, as I've simply stated before, a single "direct quote" from a single source doesn't signify much of anything- particularly when taken from a work decades old. Read the suggested books- you might actually learn something (doubtful).

Nor is it apparently necessary for your own exalted self to supply that which you require of others.

Have a nice day & re-administer the paregoric as required..

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 12:14 PM

Well they will be debating Sally and Thomas for a long time unless something else surfaces.   One thing I know about TJ, he was a complex man with the same baggage as we all carry. Why I suspect it maybe be true is just my opinion. We know that the only family freed was Sally's, we also know for certain that even heavy in debt, money was sent to the family. TJ, freely admitted trying to seduce one of his neighbors in a letter to The Secretary of the Navy so we know he was not a saint.   Sally by all historical accounts was a stricking beautiful woman.   Many scholars of the Jefferson foundation say he was the only one there during her conception.   

but me and many others could indeed be wrong

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:21 PM

If we wanted to know what Jefferson would consider right or wrong in regard to textbooks, one only has to read him.

"I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this [i.e., the purchase of an apparent geological or astronomical work] can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offense against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. If [this] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:127

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:48 PM

Are real Americans left or right? A true American is both. When the elected official in Texas opened the meeting with a prayer the media was all over it. Now if you study Jefferson he many times cautioned against doing such. However, he would have given his life to allow her because of her personal right to exercise her belief, even in public and even as an elected official. As americans we have to understand where we came from and exercise tolerance for each other. Today we label and harrass each other when our own history will tell us what we should do.

-- this one don't do it ---

"To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2: 546


---- this one don't stop them ---

"The proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:546

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:54 PM

And why did we remove school prayer, it was not liberal, it was not conservative ... it was the founding fathers and the Supreme Court studying history

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:57 PM

I am going to stop now my friends, I know I bored everyone to tears with my rant. What I tried to do is this

when we disagree on politics, we name call, instead ... lets look back at what they had to say ... then we no longer name call, we figure it out as to what they wanted when they built this great nation. Pretty much the issues are there .. and have been somewhat addressed .. but we distort and confuse our own history and it leads us down a path that is not American ...

please study ...

many blessings to all
Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:29 PM

Actually school prayer--and religious instruction in general--stayed in schools quite a while after 1819.    There was a lot of friction--and worse--between Protestants and Catholics over this. One of the rabid Protestants was....a young Walt Whitman.   I have a great quote on this--but right now the festival calls.   Maybe tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Thomas Jefferson
From: olddude
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:34 PM

Ron
you are absolutely correct ... the Supreme Court can only render an opinion on cases that are brought before it ... no one brought the case for argument but once it was brought, the Jefferson readings were one of many determining factors. you are correct absolutely