« The Daggers Hilt | Main | Translation, Please »
The Gospel According to Thomas
[Editors Note: Part of our ongoing Sunday series examining the intersection of religion and politics and its relationship to our present state of democracy, written exclusively for the DCP, by Matthew Carnicelli]
Unlike our current President, I often wonder how it is that I could have lived this long and yet still know so little. Take as a case in point my complete ignorance until just recently of a remarkable volume entitled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth – better known to posterity as The Jefferson Bible.
I wonder how is it that, despite years of Catholic education, knowledge of this uniquely American distillation of the four Gospels could have escaped me? This omission strikes me as both substantial and problematic.
Thomas Jefferson is an astonishingly important figure in American history. We all know him as the prose poet of the American Revolution. As the third President of the United States, he participated in what historians describe as The Revolution of 1800 – an historic peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another. His thinking on a wide range of subjects, from freedom of religion, to States’ rights, to slavery, to the virtue of eternal vigilance, casts a giant shadow over the shape of American history.
Today, with the torrent of rhetoric coming from the political right about America being a Christian nation, one would think that Jefferson’s Bible would be a crucial component in their argument. Think about it. Here is one of the Founding Fathers, perhaps one of the three or four most important Founders, producing his own version of the New Testament. This document must say something about the Founders’ attitudes about how Christianity would fit into the nation’s future. But on this subject, the Right is conspicuously silent. So why isn’t Jefferson’s Bible better known?
I suspect that, seen from the point of view of traditional Christianity and Catholicism, one obvious problem is that Jefferson’s ends his story with Jesus being laid in the tomb, not with the Resurrection or his appearances to his disciples afterward. Jefferson’s Jesus’ is a very human Rabbi and philosopher, an Enlightenment era thinker, and not a Messiah at all.
Some Background
Jefferson spoke of his enthusiasm for a project that would favorably contrast the doctrines of Jesus with that of the philosophers of antiquity in 1803, during his first term as President – in letters to Dr. Joseph Priestly, Benjamin Rush and Edward Dowse. In one of these letters, to Dowse, he describes “the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct and sublime than those of the ancient philosophers”.
Dr. Priestly subsequently produced the hoped for comparison, Socrates and Jesus Compared. This pamphlet inspired Jefferson to create his Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus - and later, in the years after he left the White House, to produce his own distilled version of the four Gospels. He described his approach to constructing his proposed volume in 1813, in a letter to his predecessor as President, Massachusetts’ John Adams:
We must reduce our volume to the simple Evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his and which is as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dung-hill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages.
In a later letter to William Short, dating from August 1820, Jefferson further explains his aims in deconstructing Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John in his now completed work.
My aim in that was, to justify the character of Jesus against the fictions of his pseudo-followers, which have exposed him to the inference of being an impostor. For if we could believe that he really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods and the charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that he was an impostor. I give no credit to their falsifications of his actions and doctrines, and to rescue his character, the postulate in my letter asked only what is granted in reading every other historian. When Livy and Siculus, for example, tell us things which coincide with our experience of the order of nature, we credit them on their word, and place their narrations among the records of credible history. But when they tell us of calves speaking, of statues sweating blood, and other things against the course of nature, we reject these as fables not belonging to history. In like manner, when an historian, speaking of a character well known and established on satisfactory testimony, imputes to it things incompatible with that character, we reject them without hesitation, and assent to that only of which we have better evidence.
Later in this same letter, he adds:
I say, that this free exercise of reason is all I ask for the vindication of the character of Jesus. We find in the writings of his biographers matter of two distinct descriptions. First, a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications. Intermixed with these, again, are sublime ideas of the Supreme Being, aphorisms and precepts of the purest morality and benevolence, sanctioned by a life of humility, innocence and simplicity of manners, neglect of riches, absence of worldly ambition and honors, with an eloquence and persuasiveness which have not been surpassed. These could not be inventions of the groveling authors who relate them. They are far beyond the powers of their feeble minds. They shew that there was a character, the subject of their history, whose splendid conceptions were above all suspicion of being interpolations from their hands. Can we be at a loss in separating such materials, and ascribing each to its genuine author?
And still later:
That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore. But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible. The whole religion of the Jews, inculcated on him from his infancy, was founded in the belief of divine inspiration.
Considerations
What are we to make of this little publicized side of Jefferson – the Deistic religious reformer and thinker, possessing a decidedly incendiary pen? And what can it tell us about his attitudes towards the idea of Christianity as a state religion? In my opinion, as with most things Jeffersonian, the evidence is contradictory, and, hence, conclusions are necessarily tentative.
In an 1890 description of Jefferson’s project provided by Ainsworth R. Spofford, then Librarian of Congress, he reports one of Jefferson’s descendants writing in a letter that "the idea he had at first was to compile a book which would be valuable for the use of the Indians." This is confirmed by an inscription on the title page of the first of two compilations of his "bible" that Jefferson physically produced:
Extracted from the account of his life and doctrines as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Being an abridgment of the New Testament for the use of the Indians, unembarrassed with matters of fact or faith beyond the level of their comprehensions.
This prefatory section raises a number of thorny questions? For instance, was it Jefferson’s inclination to "convert” Native Americans to the “philosophy” of Jesus (if not to a belief in his divinity)? Historians tell us that Jefferson saw Native Americans as potentially the equal of Europeans, but needing to be “civilized”. Might Jefferson have endorsed the propagation of a de-facto form of “secular religion” among the Native Peoples of North America? And, if so, could this be reconciled with his well-known views on the need for a Separation of Church and State?
Let me suggest that our answers to these questions can inform the current debate over the role of Christianity in the founding of the American nation. It is clear that many core precepts of the Judeo-Christian tradition were part and parcel of the European intellectual tradition that the Founders and Framers inherited. And yet, Jefferson has little problem distinguishing between the philosophy of Jesus and the supernatural elements of the four Gospels.
A story that Brooke Allen relates in a recent article entitled “Our Godless Constitution“, for The Nation, may throw a bit more light on this general subject:
During Jefferson's presidency a friend observed him on his way to church, carrying a large prayer book. "You going to church, Mr. J," remarked the friend. "You do not believe a word in it." Jefferson didn't exactly deny the charge. "Sir," he replied, "no nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir."
Is Jefferson here explicitly endorsing the retention of a kind of civic or secular religion? Does he believe that an established and widely accepted ethical code is the necessary veneer of human civilization?
Another question: should Jefferson’s incendiary rhetoric be considered illustrative of the Founders and Framers attitudes in general toward the organized religions of their day. Jefferson’s fiery views are largely consistent with those, for instance, of John Adams – which I hope to present in greater depth in a future article. For now, let me just offer this tidbit from Adams, in a June 1815 letter to Jefferson:
The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?
Let me close with one final question, and a personal observation. Considering the Enlightenment era perspective that Jefferson employs in the creation of his “bible”, which side of our current "science vs. faith-based revelation" debate do you think that he would come down on? It seems pretty clear to me that Jefferson would come down on the “science” side – with its insistence that a combination of reason, empirical data, and the lessons afforded by human experience are the best means for formulating the laws of a nation. But as Jefferson’s example also illustrates, spiritual teachings can, and do, retain an influential role in the creation of these codes, and the laws that reflect them. Thus, intellect should never be construed as the inevitable enemy of timeless wisdom.
I came here to post an article I found referenced on the Catholics for Kerry blog and was greeted with this challenging Sunday morning topic. Thank you for posting this Matthew. At first I thought the reference was to the gospel of Thomas, the apostle. That would have been interesting. But the gospel according to the greatest apologist for American Independence was a real surprise and a treat. I hope that this is indicative of a popular re-examination of the founders beliefs and philosophy as that is understood by only a very limited number of scholars and certainly not by the general public. This is not only a hole in Catholic education in America, but also in the more general public education.
In contemplating issues of faith, I think it is important to always keep in mind, that in our government, which is SUPPOSED to represent ALL Americans,separation of church and state is really about reality and 'truth'.
"Reality", as I see it, has very little margin of flexibility. On a hot summer day...the hood of a dark car will be hot, and its probably not a good idea to lay your hand on it...its dark at night...its light during the day...you get my drift here. Every other social issue we deal with, is subjective, and directly impacted by ones perspective.
"Truth...or better asked in a question, "What is truth?", is the absolute reason for our need to keep separate religion and our government. There is NO room for discussion of religion or its having an impact on our government...
JUST SAY NO! (to faith based initiatives)
http://www.progressive.org/webex05/wx020305.html
[snip]
Bush’s confidence in his divine agenda, his willingness to concoct a Social Security crisis, his headlong rush to give the store away to corporations, and his eagerness to continue to wage war should give Americans pause.
How about some Wil Durst...
http://www.progressive.org/durstdaily.html
PC Doc
I was trained to do research so objectivity was always our main focus. The only place to speculate was at the very end of the article, when discussing directions for future research. Even then, a good hypothesis has to have potential to decide support one of two competing theories.
Even in clinical work, we separate the objective from the subjective and when we write training and educational goals, we make them functional and measurable. Otherwise, no insurance company in the world would pay and we would be spinning our wheels.
There is a certain amount of art, intuition & maybe a little faith in all of the above but it is never in the foreground or it would be impossible to measure change or shift gears when needed.
In a typical "news" program, about 5% seems to be fact or reality-based, the rest seems to be subjective commentary.
In a typical Scott McClellan news conference, there seems to be zero factual content and most of the time he doesn't even make sense! It doesn't seem any different from the stuff the old Iraqi press secretary under Saddam used to put out, except he was at least amusing.
And as for separation of church and state - if it's not broke why should we fix it & is there really a happy medium between strict separation and a fundamentalist theocracy with its own version of something like Shariah law? I think not and I don't think it's something we should be experimenting with.
I consider it immoral that we already have 11 branches of government with "faith-based" grants! It seems immoral not to work on curing diseases and finding ways to keep kids healthy and educated, to have less not more people on pharmaceutical drugs, to have a cleaner environment and better energy sources and less wars.
Survey: Only 4 in 10 know how many troops killed in Iraq
By THOMAS HARGROVE and GUIDO H. STEMPEL III
February 10, 2005
Most Americans guess wrong when asked to estimate how many troops have died in the U.S. occupation of Iraq, a sign that many are giving scant attention to the nation's most dangerous military operation since the Vietnam War.
How vulgar is that, How do you get change when a Majority of the Country, is not interested enough to know how many of their young a dying daily, They certainly would not have any idea of how many have died in Iraq
Kangaroo
Privatizing Social Security
If a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes accepted wisdom.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0503&article=050341a
Wallis on the 'Bush Doctrine'
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0503&article=050351
[snip]
Most important, if the war in Iraq is the "practical" expression of George Bush’s theology of liberty and freedom, the world is in serious trouble. A war justified with falsehoods, conceived in confusion, and carried out in arrogance has now degenerated into chaos. Yet the war’s neoconservative defenders still cite Iraq as the archetypal action in America’s mission of freedom.
Because Bush used the social security surplus to pay part of the cost of his tax cut, he "borrowed" money from those making $90,0000 or less in order to give money to those making more than that amount. Now we know that in fact the IOU's he gave to the social security fund are worthless. That kind of ponzi game is theft and fraud and certainly could be grounds for impeachment.
If any reforms are needed for Social Security, they should be to ensure that when government securities mature, those owned by the SS fund are paid off first, enough to cover any SS deficit, before other government creditors.
"When Al Gore proposed putting Social Security in a “lockbox†during the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush promised to do the same thing. And in his first State of the Union address, George W. Bush said, …â€To make sure the retirement savings of America’s seniors are not diverted in any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security and for Social Security alone.†I don’t think most people know that Bush broke his promise and looted every dollar of Social Security surplus that became available on his watch and used it to fund his huge tax cuts for the rich."
more at
http://www.allenwsmith.com/id9.html
"Bush administration needs a prescription for truth serum."
"After all that has happened, only a fool would believe the numbers coming out of the White House."
~some refreshing honesty, editorial from St. Petersburg, FL Times:
Medicare money pit
As the cost of the Medicare drug program continues to climb, it's becoming clear that the Bush administration needs a prescription for truth serum.
The cost of the Medicare drug program is growing faster than Pinocchio's nose, and for the same reason. When the Bush administration pushed the measure through Congress in late 2003, it promised lawmakers the 10-year cost would not exceed $400-billion. Two months later, a Medicare official revealed that the administration knew all along the real price tag was more than $500-billion. Now we find out that buried in President Bush's budget is the latest estimate - $1.2-trillion.
How the amount grew threefold in a matter of months is a tale of deceit that should outrage members of Congress, even Republicans.
Beginning in 2006, Medicare recipients will be offered drug coverage, although the promised benefit has already been diminished by the fact that the law prohibits Medicare from negotiating lower prices with the drug companies. Whether the program proves to be popular remains to be seen, but one thing is already certain: The Bush administration has never been honest about the cost.
Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster, knew for months before the vote that the $400-billion promise couldn't be kept, but he was told he would be fired if he shared that information with Congress. The order, Foster believed, came from the White House.
Now that the cost has grown to $1.2-trillion, the administration's attempt to explain the price inflation only hurts its credibility more. The new projection is for a different 10-year period, explained Mark McClellan, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The estimate given Congress included 2004 and 2005, years when the drug coverage wasn't even offered, and now the cost covers a decade of full implementation, he argued. What that really means is that Congress was given a bogus quote, one that covered only 8 years of expenditures.
Besides, McClellan said, the new program will lead to savings that will cut the cost to $720-billion. Apparently, he said that with a straight face. Yet members of Congress who believe the latest figure have only themselves to blame if, or probably when, it proves false.
There is nothing surprising in any of this. The Bush administration has played financial games from the time it began turning a healthy surplus into a gaping hole in the budget. It is doing so again with its plan to privatize Social Security, by exaggerating the retirement program's financial condition and low-balling the cost of adding individual accounts.
Congress should rewrite the Medicare drug program to get costs under control, and it should start by demanding that the government drive a hard bargain with the pharmaceutical industry to lower the cost of prescriptions.
Congress should also admit that the administration's financial projections cannot be trusted. After all that has happened, only a fool would believe the numbers coming out of the White House.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/11/Opinion/Medicare_money_pit.shtml
Also in the St. Petersburg Times today, an in-depth story on the suicide of a soldier who did not want to return to Iraq:
'Over my dead body'
Sgt. Curtis Greene loved the military; the structure, the stability. But eight months in Iraq changed him. And the thought of returning led him to a stark proclamation.
SPRING HILL - The words haunt Lisset Greene as she struggles to understand what happened to the man she loved. Home from fighting in Iraq, he had grown depressed and distant as he witnessed thousands of his fellow soldiers head off to war.
Curtis Greene was angry about the war and frustrated with Lisset for not understanding what it had been like there. They argued, so fiercely that twice the police had to break it up.
Gone was the man smiling with her and the kids in family photos. "He was not the person I knew when he came back from Iraq."
One night he disappeared from their home outside Fort Riley, Kan. Lisset and the kids went to stay at her father's house in Hernando County. When he called her to apologize for running out, he promised he would come home to Fort Riley. But he wasn't about to return to Iraq.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/13/Hernando/_Over_my_dead_body_.shtml
Privatizing Social Security
If a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes accepted wisdom.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0503&article=050341a
Posted by: battlebob at February 13, 2005 01:05 PM
IT IS my thought that every "interaction" Pres. Bush had with the "folks" on his tour pushing (it's now PERSONALIZATION - privitization wasn't being accepted by folk as readily) social security reform was planned ahead. Words were chosen very carefully.....word by word they are reaching into the psyche of America to accomplish their agenda.
"Truth...or better asked in a question, "What is truth?", is the absolute reason for our need to keep separate religion and our government. There is NO room for discussion of religion or its having an impact on our government...
Posted by: pcdoc at February 13, 2005 12:32 PM
VERY well said, doc. FREEDOM. It's not just a privilege, it's a NECESSITY.
~ from Sunday morning TV "news" shows:
Lawmakers Divided Over Social Security
http://tinyurl.com/4je8w
Posted by: pcdoc at February 13, 2005 12:32 PM
Posted by: DiAnne at February 13, 2005 12:52 PM
I agree with both of you. I advocate a strict separation of church and state (but I base my opinion about separation of church and state on almost 50 years of historical studies and knowing how very murderous things become when the two are mixed).
Thank you, Matthew, for a great header! If anyone has not yet read "Our Godless Constitution" I recommend it highly. I copied that link and the entire article out in an email and sent it to almost everyone I know a few days ago. The Jefferson Bible I read about in that piece, and hadn't had time to research yet, so I'm glad you found it and posted a link to it. I have to go and read it yet, but I've already marked it....
IMHO, religious "blind faith" is an emotion, a subjective feeling, not open to objective ("scientific") analysis or mathematical facts, reason, or logic. By analogy, anyone can take a piece of paper and list a hundred reasons why one loves various people in one's life.... but even at the end of that list (which will invariably involve intangibles like thoughtfulness or considerate, etc., and various other things that mean different things to different people based on emotional responses), it comes down to human emotion and not quantifiable by logic, for the most part. One loves, or not, by one's emotional responses to people in one's life. Thus, mixing the subjective religious emotions (blind faith) with what are supposed to be objective facts and logic involved with political functions in government is essentially incompatible and illogical.
Now... toss in a "trust issue" when a politician lies to people, or accepts bribes for getting pork legislation passed.... then one has a basis for quantifiable, objective analysis based on facts, logic that one can point to in their written and spoken words... and a reason not to trust that politician to "do the right thing" for the people who elected him or her.
I still like Rabbi Hillel from the 5th century BCE. If I remember the story correctly, someone asked him to distill the books of law (Torah?) down to one sentence, to which he replied: "Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you; all the rest is commentary." Succinctly and eloquently stated.... and eminently logical. Note: the "not" in there - the common sense factor in that little word is the prohibition.... it implies what one may not do that virtually everyone accepts as ethically, morally, even logically, wrong (like murder, stealing, etc.); it doesn't say all the various things one may or may not do for the sake of politeness and good manners (the "do unto's") that are right for various situations that may or may not arise in one's life. (In other words, Hillel carries more weight with me than the later writers who took the 'not' out of what Hillel said. One must always go back to the source for a more accurate meaning.)
from the Chicago Tribune
~~the Repubs will begin using the term "Progressive indexing", which results in SS benefit cuts... now that's typical Republican "framing":the use of the word:
Progressive == SS benefit cuts
Plan presents U.S. with hard choices
Social Security cuts seem inevitable
By William Neikirk
Tribune senior correspondent
Published February 13, 2005
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is aggressively selling his proposal for Social Security private accounts as a potential retirement bonanza for young workers. But he is giving less attention to the chillier prospect that their future guaranteed benefits are likely to be sharply reduced.
snip~
Conservative groups said the White House is seriously considering a controversial proposal that would change the way initial Social Security benefits are calculated. Rather than being indexed to the growth in wages, as the initial benefit is now, it would be indexed to the rate of inflation, which is normally less than wage growth.
snip~
`Progressive indexing'
Tanner said the White House is looking at a hybrid proposal by Robert Pozen, a veteran manager of mutual funds who served on Bush's Commission to Save Social Security, that would use a combination of inflation and wage indexing. Pozen calls his plan "progressive indexing."
Over time, experts said, it would mean that initial guaranteed benefits would be smaller than they are now projected to be.
more~
http://tinyurl.com/7xtnz
One of my favorite parts of the New Testament is the passage about prayer, and how public prayer (or charity) is vanity and an act carried out to gain benefits in this life. Real prayer is introspective -- between the conscience of a mortal and some immortal providence. That's always the way I understood the allegory about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and why I really can't understand how a person that believes in the bible as revealed truth (as opposed to a diest like Jefferson that rejects the concept of revealed truth)would ever be against a strict separation of church in state. I read the opposite in the New Testament -- the involvement of the church in the state corrupts the former (e.g., the Saducee and Pharisee parts, if memory serves). When I hear some of the things people say in support of the GOP from a Christian perspective, I honestly wonder what bible it is that they read.
Nice topic for a thread.
Chuck in Baku (not an adherent of any particular religious creed, hence maybe a diest, and a bit rusty in my biblical citations -- apologies)
Also, I like this biblical reference, which I haven't checked yet, so I'm posting it on faith:
Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7
I picked that up on the Daily Kos blog someone referenced above about a Kerry testament at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/12/174812/691
I am pretty sure Jefferson would appreciate that under that "most sublime and benevolent code of morals" he referred to.
God Bless and GOTV in 2006!
Chuck in Baku.
~~keep it up, DEMS!
Sen Dorgan, D-N.D. will hold Dem. Policy Committee Inquiry tomorrow, because Republicans refuse to investigate this matter:
U.S. Said to Pay Iraq Contractors in Cash
WASHINGTON - U.S. officials in postwar Iraq paid a contractor by stuffing $2 million worth of crisp bills into his gunnysack and routinely made cash payments around Baghdad from a pickup truck, a former official with the U.S. occupation government says.
Because the country lacked a functioning banking system, contractors and Iraqi ministry officials were paid with bills taken from a basement vault in one of Saddam Hussein's palaces that served as headquarters for the Coalition Provisional Authority, former CPA official Frank Willis said.
Officials from the CPA, which ruled Iraq from June 2003 to June 2004, would count the money when it left the vault, but nobody kept track of the cash after that, Willis said.
"In sum: inexperienced officials, fear of decision-making, lack of communications, minimal security, no banks, and lots of money to spread around. This chaos I have referred to as a 'Wild West,'" Willis said in testimony he prepared to give Monday before a panel of Democratic senators who want to spotlight the waste of U.S. funds in Iraq.
continue~
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/iraq_loose_cash
Chuck in Baku for on.to.victory4Dems:
I followed that story a year or to ago. I worked in contracts at the time in the oilfield not gfar from Iraq (Azerbaijan). I was astounded by the concept of us -- you and me through our representative goevernment -- sending, quite literally, containers full of greenbacks to an Iraq that we had no administrative control over whatsoever. As you and others have pointed out, our army didn't even have basic accounting controls over these massive cashi disbursements. Remember that OBL type organizations, like narco-mafias, depend on cash transactions. What an incredible case of criminal negligence that all adds up to. And it's been going on since day-1 of our occupation of Iraq.
Chuck in Baku.
PS: Sounds like Harkin Energy/Enron style accounting practices in action!
The beat goes on...
Clarke warned rice on Jan, 2001
Here is memo.
WTF did she want? Osama's home address?
The misspellings bother me about the validity of this document
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021305Y.shtml
[snip]
As we noted in our briefings for you, al Qida is not some narrow, little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy. Rather, several of our regional policies need to address centrally the transnational challenge to the US and our interests posed by the al Qida network. By proceeding with separate policy reviews on Central Asia, the GCC, North Africa, etc. we would deal inadequately with the need for a comprehensive multi-regional policy on al Qida.
Chuck in Baku for Battlebob:
If by mispellings you mean the al Qida thing, I wander if that might be an arabic to english transliteration glitch?
Chuck in Baku
As for any others -- may be typos (e.g., my "wander" should read "wonder" above) or some scanning text-recognition glitch.
Chuck in Baku
Chuck in Baku again and on topic for once:
I'm reposting something I saved from the old Kerry blog posted by demvet -- sorry for the length, but it seems to be to the point on this (the following text until my sign-off a cut-paste quote from that old post):
This is a nation of laws. Here are some quotes from the founding fathers.
George Washington
“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.” - George Washington
“I have never been a communicant.[took communion]” - George Washington
John Adams
“Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.” - John Adams
“Thirteen governments [states & former colonies] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery...are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.” - John Adams
“It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [formation of the American governments] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven...”
Treaty of Tripoli ? Ratified by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams on 10 June, 1797 reads...
“[T]he Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...”
“How has it happened that millions of myths, fables, legends and tales have been blended with Jewish and Christian fables and myths and have made them the most bloody religion that has ever existed? Filled with the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?” - John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
“His [Calvin's] religion was demonism. If ever man worshiped a false God, he did.” - Thomas Jefferson
“Their [Presbyterian’s] ambition and tyranny would tolerate no rival if they had power.” - Thomas Jefferson
“It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist.” - Thomas Jefferson
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” - Thomas Jefferson
James Maddison
“During almost fifteen centuries, the legal establishment of Christianity has been on trial. What have been the fruits of this trial? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; and in both, clergy and laity, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” (Speech to the General Assembly of Virginia, 1785)
From a document in Madison’s own hand and re-published in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
“The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.”
“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”
“But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & the civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all coprporations , ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acuired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”
James Monroe
“It is not necessary for me to tell you how much all your countrymen -- I speak of the great mass of the people -- are interested in your welfare. They have not forgotten the history of their own Revolution and the difficult scenes through which they passed; nor do they review its several stages without reviving in their bosoms a due sensibility of the merits of those who served them in that great and arduous conflict. The crime of ingratitude has not yet stained, and I trust never will stain, our national character. You are considered by them as not only having rendered important services in our own Revolution, but as being on a more extensive scale the friend of human rights, and a distinguished and able defender of public liberty. To the welfare of Thomas Paine the Americans are not, nor can they be indifferent.” (letter to Thomas Paine written after publication of Age of Reason)
John Quincy Adams
“There are in this country, as in all others, a certain proportion of restless and turbulent spirits - poor, unoccupied, ambitious - who must always have something to quarrel about with their neighbors. These people are the authors of religious revivals.”
Andrew Jackson
Not until the 7th President (1829 - 1837) did organized religion win a proponent in that office. Jackson started out religious and grew ever more so with advancing years. Yet even so he saw the limits of his office in that regard.
“I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation form the political concerns of the General Government.” (letter explaining his refusal to proclaim a national day of, among other things, prayer.)
Posted by demvet at October 14, 2004 03:14 AM
Reposted by Chuck in Baku
PS: I feel like Indy posting this!
Posted by: battlebob at February 13, 2005 05:23 PM
Battlebob,
The memo is legit – it's one of two memos that were declassified by NSC last April 7, but were not released publicly until the National Security Archive filed an FOIA request. The memos were widely reported in the media in the last couple days, including a front-page NYT story:
'01 Memo to Rice Warned of Qaeda and Offered Plan
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/12/politics/12clarke.html
Matt
A great piece. I had no idea Jefferson had written his own synthesis and interpretation of the various books of the New Testament and it's something I have put on my "must read" list.
This is the kind of discussion that we need to continue to put front and center. These are the principles our country was founded on - not Bush's faux and self-serving interpretation.
Eventually, when the dust settles, I hope those who think Bush is Jesus reincarnated will understand how they have been used and misled. Remember the novel - Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis? As a fictional character he was pretty representative of a very American form of opportunist - and Bush puts him to shame.
I don't understand this whole "Rapture" stuff & I try to avoid learning more...but this is eye-opening!
Rapture Awaits in the Florida Panhandle
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021305I.shtml
I have only this to say.
I will NOT WORSHIP nor ACCEPT a God for whom the "sanctity of life" only extends to Republican unborn children, and not to Democratic pets. As I have a neighbor who has killed one of my cats and is unrepentent about it (and still has a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker on one of his numerous Ford pieces of sh*t), this really hits very close to me.
I will NOT WORSHIP nor ACCEPT a God who condemns his own creations just because they love the "wrong" types of people.
I will NOT WORSHIP nor ACCEPT a God who only loves the rich at the expense of the poor.
I will NOT WORSHIP nor ACCEPT a God who blesses a war based on lies, calls it divine, and blesses the crooked commander of that war (Bush) with four more years of power.
Unfortunately this is what the Christian God has become. To me, from now on, American Christianity is nothing more than a FALSE CULT that deserves to be banished.
Ally,
There was a story last year on Counterpunch in which the author (I think it was Wayne Masden, but I could be wrong) claimed that, according to Vatican sources, the Pope had begun to see Bush as a possible candidate for the Anti-Christ - due to Dubya's relentless focus on creating a culture of death (premature/preventive war, capital punishment, etc.)
That one failed to make the network or cable news stations. I wonder why (well, not really)...
Posted by: Cyrano at February 13, 2005 07:27 PM
I'm sorry, but the Pope has lost my respect as well. He has signed an alliance of convenience with Bush to ban gay marriages worldwide.
As long as the Christians wage war on my well being, I won't just sit and take hits anymore.
Ally, I'm with you on that one. So long as anyone's civil rights are under attack, all our our rights are under attack.
Besides, gay people are already permitted to marry. They're permitted to marry people they have no sexual interest in - which is bad for them and bad for the people of the opposite sex that they might marry. Such marriages inevitably lead to infidelity, betrayal and heartache. How anyone could consider this "unnatural" condition a good thing is beyond me.
On to -
What a wonderful and terrifying Truthout piece. Published in the Toronto Star, the piece was written by Tom Harpur, a theologian whose focus is on cosmic spirituality. Everyone should read the chilling piece, but here are some snippets.
As a Canadian, this are some of his initial impressions of the Gulf Coast section of Florida.
Excerpt:
"The whole coast from Panama City on the east to Pensacola on the west, apart from having the most beautiful beaches in the world, is the focus of some of the most intense conservative evangelical activity in the entire U.S. Superchurches, training schools, and all kinds of crusades abound."
"You know you are in a different culture when you enter the U.S. We always enjoy the flagrant billboards along the highway. Shortly after entering Ohio, a large sign trumpets a coming "Gun and Knife Show;" this one was followed shortly by another equally vast board touting "Microsurgery: Vasectomy Reversal a Specialty - Money Back Guarantee!"
"In rural Georgia, a rather beat-up Pentecostal Church had a big sign: "Road Rage? How would Jesus drive?" Another advertised a Bible Factory Outlet with drastic savings on both new and used Bibles. Then there was the enormous Wal-mart store with a sign at the customer service counter: "No refunds on guns and ammunition." Guess they meant use them or lose them, but don't bring 'em back."
Here is an alternative spiritual site:
Tom Harpur is a theologian whose focus is on cosmic spirituality. His website is at http://www.tomharpur.com.
Published on Saturday, February 12, 2005 by the Toronto Star
Rapture Awaits in the Florida Panhandle
Ally McLesbian
I am a follower of Kwan Yin
I was raised a Methodist & I work closely with some Christian pacifists but we don't really discuss religion - just share some moral overlap.
I think alot of harm has been done in the name of the religion & any true spirituality within each religion is often suppressed by dogma and false teachings.
My Episcopalian formerly Baptist & Republican mother is rejecting organized religion these last couple of years & told her priest that Bush is the antiChrist & told me that she doesn't worship the same God he does & that church attendance & prayer don't guarantee anything - that if there are heaven & hell we probably create them here on earth.
Posted by: DiAnne at February 13, 2005 08:27 PM
Your mom sounds a lot like me. I am a former Baptist and a former Repug myself. And now I am stepping away from it all - because I am finding out that they are not in my best interests.
"that if there are heaven & hell we probably create them here on earth."
Right on.