I knew a few things about the founding fathers. Most of them would have called themselves Christians, although some Christian denominations might deny them that title.
I could write a book on the definition of Christianity, but I don’t know if my interest on the subject is strong enough at the moment to do it justice. I perhaps know enough for a good essay.
But what got me thinking today was the memory of reading Thomas Jefferson talk about “the hindoo” among other religions. The idea of freedom of religion in the United States.
And what sparked that memory? There was an accusation of “anti-semitism” by a group that called the United States a Christian country.
In looking for the original article, I found one by Jewish Dems. It links to an article in The TImes of Israel.
The Times of Israel reports on an incident that others have called anti-semitic. The title of the article is, “US naval academy pulled exhibit for female Jewish graduates ahead of Hegseth visit.” Okay, so Hegseth didn’t want to see this exhibit, perhaps? But, soon we have a clarifying sentence. “Other displays featuring male Jewish graduates had stayed up.” So, the decision might have been anti-DEI, perhaps even sexist of mysogynist, but probably wasn’t antisemitic.
What does this proove? Democrats are so quick to condemn Republicans, they don’t even read the articles that they link to.
Another article, linked to by the Democrats, quotes someone as saying, “He’s always saying the first thing that pops into his head without understanding the weight of those words.” Yeah, perhaps many of us are like that. We say things, we do things, and we don’t realise the butterfly effect hundreds of years later.
So, let’s go back to the words of Thomas Jefferson. Here’s an extract from “The Works of Thomas Jefferson…”
“The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and 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 its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”
“The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and 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 its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”
Today, we have representatives who have sworn on Hindoo and “Mahometan” texts, including the Koran that was owned by Thomas Jefferson.
But the founders would have considered themselves to be Christian, even if they agreed to tolerate other religions in their midst.
Israel calls itself a Jewish state. Is that anti-Christian or islamophobic? If a country is Christian, does that mean that members of other religions are not patriotic or loyal? What does that say about the way Israelis might see non-Jewish Israelis?
Personally, I saw the United States as secular when I was a child. And Nazi Germany was also secular, as was the Soviet Union. I later learned that France and Turkey were supposedly secular countries, or that’s how their citizens saw them. Being secular and being tolerant are not the same thing, they do not correlate with each other.
To me, religion was never an issue growing up. It was an interesting subject, I was always interested in learning what different people were allowed to eat and not, their origin stories, their myths, their beliefs in the afterlife, their commandments, the way they might dress or celebrate important life events. It is like seeing different flowers in a garden, it is interesting to see the variety, to examine how a tulip differs from a daffodil.
Some people might see the United States as a protestant country. Most of the founders were protestant. Most of the influential Americans in history could be seen as “protestant” if you are a Catholic. But would a Baptist or Lutheran or Anglican today see the founders as protestant?
Jefferson was a Deist, and he was not alone among early American intellectuals. Franklin spent time as a Quaker, and so did many shipbuilders of the young American navy. Adams is said to have been a Unitarian, which is the opposite of Trinitarian. All of these religions have been heavily criticised by members of the religious right, the same people who say that “Mormons aren’t Christian” or call Jehovah’s Witnesses a cult because they deny the trinity. Others have problems with Seventh Day Adventists, alleging it is because they follow a woman who adds more interpretation than necessary to the Bible. In reality, their problems probably stem from insecurity among their own flock. Instead of preaching what they want, they need enemies. Just like ultra-secular Democrats, the Religious Right can’t spend long without attacking others, because they want to demonise the competition in fear that they will lose you to them.
It is like that terrible boss, who when you complain about your salary not being enough to live on, calls you a communist and tells you how bad things are in some drought-ridden war-torn part of Africa.
It is like both parties on their China fears, how they use a boogyman to get you to shut your ears to any idea that disagrees with theirs. They will brand people communist, fascist, anti- or -phobic or other -ist to dismiss something they don’t understand themselves. They will write articles condemnding others based on titles of articles that they haven’t even read.
However, let’s say you had a strongly Christian, protestant, country. That country could have loyal Jewish, Muslim, or Quaker subjects. Christianity itself could be the foundation for that tolerance.
Whether the US is a Christian country or not, what is important is that the founders wanted to protect all religions. There were suggestions that the first ammendment and similar parts in state constitions (like the constitution of Virginia) either not exist, or be modified to specify Christianity. So, yes, there were some who only wanted to protect Christian religions. (But, they had a much broader version of what it means to be “Christian” than the current religious right does.) However, the majority wanted to protect everyone’s rights.
We should remember that although the founders wanted to protect the rights of non-believers, the Declaration of Independence spoke of Deity, of “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” Was it just being poetic when it spoke of a “Creator?” I don’t think so.
The religions of the Quakers, the Unitarians, and even the Deists, along with perhaps the Puritans, the Anglicans and others, all influenced the thoughts of the signers of the Declaration and drafters of the Constition of the USA. Some of these churches may have changed their beliefs, or even names, over time.
But, as much as I don’t think they would have objected, I think Adams, Jefferson and others would be surprised to see so many Hindoos and Mahometans serving in the cabinet and in the congress of the United States of America. When they mentioned the rights of these groups, they probably imagined these to be fringe elements of society, a student here, an ambassador there, a travelling businessman or a small community. The rights of all individuals were important to them.
I think Jefferson would have been surprised that his Koran was used for an oath. He might have been happy that it was his own copy of that book. If he objected to it in any way, he might have objected to the principle of having to take an oath on a holy book at all. What about those who didn’t believe in sacred texts? Where does that leave them? Or those who didn’t believe in oaths?
How many Hindus were in America in Jefferson’s time? Not many. Why does he mention Hindoos and not Budhists? Was he predicting that one group would enter significant roles before another? I don’t think so. I think it had more to do with the books that were available to him, or with those that were in recent conversation. India was under British domination, and there were probably a lot of texts in English on it. Also, the Tea thrown into the sea from the Tea Party was most likely influenced by India. The “Mahomatans” were bordering Europe, and had occupied many European countries for a time, and so there was a lot of interest in them. (And there were the Barbary wars as well.)
It would be interesting to see what off-handed comments we made today, how they might be seen in the future. Some details we give, that we might not see as important. The fact that I mention tulips and daffodils, and not other flowers, will that have a bearing in the future? Maybe not, after all, I’m not planning on running for president.