Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Hat tip to Sandefur for catching this. President Bush was at Monticello for a 4th of July celebration and he delivered an address. But it's quite telling that his speechwriters, in quoting Jefferson, cut out an anti-religious statement from a long and famous quote. Here's the way Bush put it:
Thomas Jefferson understood that these rights do not belong to Americans alone. They belong to all mankind. And he looked to the day when all people could secure them. On the 50th anniversary of America's independence, Thomas Jefferson passed away. But before leaving this world, he explained that the principles of the Declaration of Independence were universal. In one of the final letters of his life, he wrote, "May it be to the world, what I believe it will be -- to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all -- the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government."
Now let's look at the full quote, including the part that was cut out. This is from a letter he wrote to Roger Weightman reflecting on the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (which, it turns out, was the day both he and John Adams died):
May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.
Jefferson made many such statements, of course. Clearly they are best edited out by those who advocate nothing if not monkish ignorance and superstition.
Politics
Comments
Hmm, there's a kind of consistency in people who deliberately forget parts of our history and whole sections of our Constitution also editing the statements of our founding fathers to support their twisted ideologies. I suppose we should congratulate them on finally getting to a point where they're at least predictable, but I haven't the stomach for it.
Posted by: Julian | July 5, 2008 10:04 AM
Jefferson's stirring words of equality - lovely ideas that deny the bile of Us vs. Them Xenophobia - are tainted by the mouth that quoted them - the same lips that pronounced the syllables of the repellant phrase, "enemy combatant", which legislated systematic prejudice and injustice.
None of us humans will ever be secure until all of us can secure our rightful human rights.
Posted by: marnk | July 5, 2008 11:30 AM
Someone ought to pass Bush a copy of the 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, which were written by V.P. Jefferson (anonymously) in response to civil liberty violations that were said to be neccesasry to prevent war.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | July 5, 2008 11:41 AM
quoting George Bush:
"Thomas Jefferson understood that these rights do not belong to Americans. And he looked to the day when America's independence passed away. He explained that the principles of the Declaration of Independence were what I believe it will be -- the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains of self-government."
Two can play at that game.
Posted by: watercat | July 5, 2008 3:28 PM
George Bush really said, "But before leaving this world, he explained that the principles of the Declaration of Independence were universal"? George Bush, whose administration has constantly tried to explain that the rights granted under the Constitution are only for U.S. citizens? And only then if the government doesn't declare them terrorists?
Oh my.
Posted by: Chiropter | July 5, 2008 3:31 PM
Jefferson was certainly one of the good ones. Where are his kind now? Mind you, if you were a genius of his calibre would you go into politics? I'm nowhere that smart and the thought of running for office makes me nauseous.
Posted by: James K | July 5, 2008 6:03 PM
Good thing Obama hasn't mentioned "monkish ignorance and superstition." It would become a 24/7 tape loop on Fox.
Posted by: Dr X | July 5, 2008 7:16 PM
Thomas Jefferson and Barack Obama have precious little in common. (even if Obama is a closet atheist)
Posted by: Cuffy Meigs | July 5, 2008 10:21 PM
And by "self-government" he meant thinking for oneself, not "democracy."
Posted by: wheyghey | July 5, 2008 11:47 PM
Cuffy Meigs,
I'm not too sure what the point of your post was. Barack Obama certainly doesn't talk like an atheist, closeted or open, and Jefferson certainly was not an atheist. Obama has told Democrats several times that they need to reach out to the religious in this country in order to win elections. He has said that Democrats shouldn't be scared of appealing to them, certainly. Ed has pointed to multiple statements of Jefferson that characterize him as "theistic rationalist." Jefferson knew of atheists in France, and indicated that he did not think of himself the same way.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | July 6, 2008 12:20 AM
monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves
Hey . . . what's wrong with binding ourselves to monkish ignorance and superstition? We're Murkins, and we wanna stay free to bind ourselves, ok? What are you - some liberal elitist?
Posted by: chuck | July 6, 2008 11:27 AM
This is a no-brainer for me. Tell the Xtian Right anything, wrap it in holy devoutness and they will buy in. Look at the whoppers they have already accepted.
Keep in mind that half the US population is of less than average intelligence - the GOP base - but we need to have a "moronic outreach" to bring these dolts into the fold.
I don't care what ridiculous promises Obama makes to the Religious Right, he can break all of them with impunity and just say it's, "God's Will." They won't argue with that. Of the two kinds of Republicans, we need to reach out to the sucker side. The millionaires aren't listening anyhow.
Posted by: Greg Forest, Cowtown, Texas | July 6, 2008 11:59 AM
Not only was Jefferson not an atheist, he was staunchly opposed to atheism. He used atheism as a negative argument, as in "such and such an idea is wrong because it leads to atheism" (he said that about Calvinism, for instance). I have no idea what Cuffy Meigs' point is, since no one here ever compared Obama and Jefferson.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 6, 2008 12:20 PM
LATimes reports on the Jefferson Bible
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | July 6, 2008 12:42 PM
Cuffy, Obama and Jefferson like Strom Thurmond were the fathers of black children. I am told that while Jefferson was an admirer of Jesus, he removed all references to the supernatural from his Bible, and did not believe him to be the son of the god of nature in whom he believed.
I also believe that the thing all three of these men have in common is their humanity. Yes they had private flaws and weaknesses; but publicly they strove for something better. Jefferson may turn out to have been the biggest hypocrite of all talking about the natural rights of man while he treated the mother of his children as well as the children themselves as property.
Posted by: Harriet Stowe | July 6, 2008 1:03 PM
He may have been opposed to atheism, though I think it's important to recognize the sequence of his statements in regard to it, remember his political savvy, and realize the intense pressure he grew to be under due to the label of atheist as he became more and more involved in national partisan politics, but that opposition took a back seat to integrity and honesty with oneself (at least when giving advice to other people); his letter to his nephew and his strong anti-clerical views both being good indicators of this opinion on his part.
Having said that though, its also important to remember that Jefferson said allot of things to allot of people for allot of reasons, and taken together, there is little consistency in his words and actions throughout his life. The same man who pledged to be Adams lifelong friend in France deliberately inflamed public opinion against Britain and encouraged French meddling in the States at a time when Adams was desperately trying to avoid international war, and did so for purely partisan purposes. The same man who wrote the Declaration of Independence and declared us "All Democrats, all Federalists" at his inauguration, took all manner of questionably legal and moral steps to drive elected and appointed federalists from state, federal, and judicial office. The same man who despised banks as a source of national debt and expounded the virtues of thrift died near penniless from his personal profligacy. Then there is, of course, the disconnect between his early, highly negative views of slavery, and his life-long slave ownership, which lacked even the grace of a Washingtonian death-bed manumission.
Jefferson had many fine words, and he was certainly an important figure who played a beneficial role in the history of this federation, but he had negatives as well which we should not forget.
Posted by: Julian | July 6, 2008 2:07 PM
"Atheist" is one of those generalized pejoratives which means I don't like this guy and you shouldn't either. Jefferson was called an atheist, but he was primarily anti-clerical, and most specifically anti-Catholic, as the quote in the article shows. He believed in a god, but in the impersonal sense of 18th Century Deism, not the He's got the whole world in his hands sort that our current batch of pols are testifyin' about.
Einstein was raised by nonobservant Jews, and except for a short time in his childhood so was he. He would not be called an atheist either, and said more than once that his religious beliefs were much like those of Spinoza. Ironically, Spinoza was expelled from the Jewish community in Holland because the elders said that he was an atheist.
And so it goes.
Posted by: ChicagoMolly | July 6, 2008 2:23 PM
Clearly allowing Bush to lecture against "monkish ignorance and superstition" would have caused an irony vortex that would have risked the lives of all mankind.
Posted by: Jordan | July 6, 2008 3:01 PM
Wow dude I was like totally impressed.
JT
http://www.FireMe.To/udi
Posted by: JIm Jones | July 6, 2008 4:15 PM
Harriet Stowe:
Obama, Jefferson AND Strom Thurmond. Jeez, I don't know. Strom was a FUCKING RACIST POS.
Posted by: democommie | July 6, 2008 5:02 PM
I dislike Bush as much as the next anyone, but still, the next two sentences of that quote make it pretty clear what context Jefferson was discussing 'monkish superstition' in:
'That form, which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom whereby all eyes are opening or are opened to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science had already laid open to every view the palpable truth that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their back, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them by the grace of God.'
It wasn't freedom from religion per se, but freedom from divinely appointed kings and aristocrats, freedom from the belief that one type of man was intrinsically better than another.
Posted by: Ren | July 6, 2008 7:09 PM
Julian,
Jefferson was a student of the Bible and avidly read about religion. If you are not familiar with it, please take a look at the Jefferson Bible which was mentioned in another comment. Jefferson, as you probably know, was a deist as were many creative thinkers of the 18th Century.
As you probably also know, Jefferson opposed Adams' support of the British in Great Britain's conflict with France because Jefferson loved and sided with France. Remember Lafayette and the Louisiana purchase? Jefferson's preference for France was not an error. The difference of opinion about America's relationship with England and France was understandable considering the backgrounds of the two men.
Jefferson rightly opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts which John Adams used to prosecute Jefferson's Republican friends. While I do not agree with Jefferson on many things, I believe that both Adams and Jefferson must be given credit for the tradition of political dialog that they established, In their later years, their dialog produced a series of wonderful letters which I enjoy reading to this day.
Adams and Jefferson both opposed banks. In one of Adams' letters to Jefferson, Adams discusses his compromise proposal to establish one national bank and limit its capital to a relatively small sum.
Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence died profligate. Jefferson (and many other Founding Fathers) focused on service to the American people rather than on building their own wealth. They generously sacrificed for us. We owe Jefferson and Adams so much. Their rivalry, their disagreements, their conflicts were as essential in guaranteeing that we could enjoy the freedom they hoped for as is the Constitution. We are still attempting to resolve the issues that were the subjects of their partisan competition.
Adams and Jefferson set us out on our journey. And while they were with us, they set an example for creative discourse in a free society.
God bless America -- and Adams and Jefferson, wherever they are.
Posted by: Diana | July 6, 2008 7:16 PM
Zeitgeist.
Posted by: chad | July 6, 2008 9:09 PM
As I understand it, this was an address to new citizens, and some speechwriter decided that, on July 4, they should not be exposed to the uncensored correspondence of an author of the Declaration.
In an ideal world, whomever was responsible would be asked to compose a letter, apologizing to all present for the insult to their judgment, and to the People for the insult to the Republic.
Posted by: kynefski | July 6, 2008 9:13 PM
If you actually read the quote in context, you will find that Jefferson was talking about political parties, something he hated with a vengeance, even though he was forced to join one. It is not about religious views.
Posted by: lilricky | July 6, 2008 9:27 PM
Jefferson was a Scientist. Bush is the most anti-Science president in history. Period.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | July 6, 2008 9:31 PM
The reference to "monkish ignorance and superstition" is not meant to reference religion, but to attack those that have an arbitrary reverence for traditional political institutions.
It's not saying "ignorant, just like monks are ignorant," it's saying "ignorant, evoking obsequious subservience in the manner of monks."
It was likely edited out just to make the quote less awkward. The phrase turns the quote from optimistic to contemptuous, a tone less appropriate for a celebration.
I write this as an atheist, and I'm no fan of the administration. But it seems like Bush has opened himself to criticism in a few places outside of his 4th of July speeches, we should probably focus on those.
Posted by: Thomas B. | July 6, 2008 9:39 PM
Where is the video?
Posted by: Jose | July 6, 2008 9:50 PM
Thomas B wrote:
Upon what, for crying out loud, do you base this claim?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 6, 2008 10:25 PM
OK, Thomas B. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are, in fact, correct about the meaning of "monkish." Now what about the meaning of "superstition?"
Jefferson was notoriously agnostic about the BigAngryCloudCritter and even wrote a de-miraculized version of the New Testament.
To what did Jefferson refer in mentioning "superstition," if not to the religious superstition he loathed all his life?
As Jefferson so wisely noted: "the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Samuel Kercheval, 1810
Posted by: Bob Kincaid | July 6, 2008 11:19 PM
"Obama and Jefferson like Strom Thurmond were the fathers of black children"
Uh, hello?! Obama is a black man, and his wife is black, so is it really a revelation that their children are black?
"Harriet Stowe", you're a MORON!
Posted by: Joe | July 6, 2008 11:34 PM
Bob Kincaid wrote:
Thomas Jefferson was not the least big agnostic, notoriously or otherwise, about the existence of God. He just didn't think that God was anything like what was described in the Bible.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 7, 2008 12:07 AM
what's frustrating is the omitted portion is hardly, to my thinking, a sort of discount of theology. The "monkish ignorance and superstition" might not be a statement of whether God exists and is to be worshipped, but might rather be the notion that a secularly formed government, as opposed to the God granted monarchies of old Europe, might it self be a sin, and that notion could be what he is discounting.
So... Bush is not much of a critical thinker for trying dispel words that might not at all conveying what he might worry they do.
Posted by: aerogelrocks | July 7, 2008 12:25 AM
"Obama and Jefferson like Strom Thurmond were the fathers of black children."
Besides the comparison being incorrect, this statement is relevant to this thread how?
Just sayin.
Peace.
Posted by: Michael Roberson | July 7, 2008 1:21 AM
That makes me think that George Orwell's "Animal Farm" should be required reading in all american schools.
Posted by: Yves Lalonde | July 7, 2008 2:26 AM
Monkish ignorance is greatly misunderrated.
Posted by: thelonius | July 7, 2008 3:30 AM
Politics=Religion=Social Control ...
Jefferson was talking about all of that ... and if you don't agree, you must be one of them there atheists! :D
Posted by: alfonso el sabio | July 7, 2008 6:48 AM
Thomas B wrote:
"The reference to "monkish ignorance and superstition" is not meant to reference religion, but to attack those that have an arbitrary reverence for traditional political institutions.
Upon what, for crying out loud, do you base this claim?"
If this were true, why would Bush's people remove it?
Posted by: Brian | July 7, 2008 6:51 AM
Excellent! Thank you for the very good post pointing out the historical revisionism at work. From the US Constitution, Article 6, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Posted by: Ed | July 7, 2008 8:16 AM
Ed, were you being playfully ironic, or do you really not understand the meaning of "agnostic?"
Posted by: Bob Kincaid | July 7, 2008 9:00 AM
Dear Mr. Brayton:
Why do you hate America? And Thomas Jefferson? And President Bush? Also, why do you hate our troops? Why do you render flesh from babies and drink their blood? WHY, MR. BRAYTON, WHY?!
Sincerely,
A concerned Christain
Posted by: chrisD | July 7, 2008 9:35 AM
Following an article on the butchering of Jefferson's writings, let's not misrepresent his religious views.
Although Jefferson may not have been an "atheist" by some definitions, he was not a theist, and certainly no Christian. He was what we'd call a deist today, although by standards of blasphemy laws, deism is tantamount to atheism.
It's a question of semantics what you call Jefferson, but a believer in the one true God he was not.
Posted by: Dan | July 7, 2008 9:57 AM
PS: references are nice, and I should have provided one. There are many, including Wikipedia, but perhaps this is the most concise:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
Posted by: Dan | July 7, 2008 10:05 AM
Clearly having "monkish ignorance and superstition" included in a speech (by present president of U.S. , a country of Catolic religious majority) is to send an unwanted message to the people. Provoking the majority in some way - with what message? What would have been the point? Of course it was omitted.
On the other hand there no support to the view that the statement by Jefferson was anti-religious in general, in the context of his character.
The careful wording of the original post, gives a clue that the writer was aware of the thin historical ground his spirit was moving on when creating the article.
Maybe it be the time to face the historical fact that U.S. was founded by religious people who wanted to secure their religious rights and freedom from any restrictions including "monkish ignorance and superstition", and the ones imposed by any religion to each other or atheism which wasn't unknown concept for them either.
This meaning also that religiously guided people created a government for all ideas to compete freely, theistic or atheistic.
Posted by: Pauli J | July 7, 2008 10:41 AM
The best comments were made by Julian and Diane. If only all were as reflective as they.
You can say by some of Jefferson's writings that he was not an atheist, but if you look at the ensemble, he was most likely an atheist, but also a politician.
Hell, Lincoln was probably an atheist too, but he wouldn't have succeeded if he had let on. Possibly, and maybe even probably, Jefferson was aware of the writings of French atheist Baron d'Holbach.
Posted by: bernarda | July 7, 2008 11:11 AM
We the people are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights
Posted by: Todd | July 7, 2008 11:24 AM
I guess all history is going to be subject to the political correctness of today. I don't see why anyone would want to quote someone and drop some of what they said. It's a typical trick to say part of what someone said to twist their words. Bush is such a tool quoting Jefferson in an inaccurate way.
Posted by: Chris | July 7, 2008 11:37 AM
Pauli:
Perhaps it's also time to conclude that the moon IS made of green cheese. Absent any specific evidence, on what do you base that supposition?
Posted by: democommie | July 7, 2008 12:37 PM
Not just a lie, a dumb lie. The letter the quote is from is online. Did you just assume no one would look it up?
Posted by: Citizen Z | July 7, 2008 12:43 PM
I guess everyone forgot about Thomas Paine, who had more to do with the ideas that created our current goverment then anyone.
Quote by Thomas Paine:
The opinions I have advanced... are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonorable to the wisdom and power of the Almighty; that the only true religion is Deism, by which I then meant, and mean now, the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues--and that it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now--and so help me God.
Posted by: Liz, Encino | July 7, 2008 12:44 PM
Bush follows the exact directions of Straussian Neoconservatives, who follow Strauss's guidance that 'the people need their opiates (i.e. religion).' Considering Obama's recent migration to "the middle" by emphasizing religious devotion, one would think the neoCONs are probably advising him to some capacity as well.
Jefferson was also demonstrably anti-central banking as well, yet you'd never hear his views on monetary issues from *either party*...
Posted by: Dan | July 7, 2008 1:08 PM
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: Dan | July 7, 2008 1:13 PM
Bob Kincaid wrote:
I understand the meaing of agnostic perfectly well, both in its classic and modern formulations; Jefferson fit neither. Not even close. Jefferson firmly and absolutely believed in an active, interventionist, provident God. His writings are replete with statements making that quite clear.
You are, in fact, distorting Jefferson's religious views. Jefferson quite clearly did believe in "one true God" he just didn't believe that God was the God of the Bible (he rejected the Old Testament God as "cruel, capricious, vindictive and unjust" and completely dismissed the idea that Jesus was divine or had ever claimed to be). He did not believe in the distant, aloof, non-interventionist god of deism but in a personal, provident and interventionist God (thus the famous statement in his Notes on Virginia: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever", which was aimed at slavery). That makes him a theist rather than a deist (though in his day, admittedly, that distinction wasn't quite so clear as it is today).
bernarda wrote:
Of course Jefferson was aware of d'Holbach; he refers to him several times in his writings. It is likely that they even met one another when Jefferson was in France; at the very least they had many friends in common. How that makes Jefferson an atheist, though, is a mystery to me. The notion that Jefferson was secretly an atheist who had to hide that for political purposes is utter nonsense. He expressed a very strong belief in God (though again, not the Biblical God) throughout his life, including in dozens of private letters written long after he had left public life. In many letters exchanged with his dearest friends, most obviously Benjamin Rush and John Adams, after he retired from political life, Jefferson still expressed this over and over again. This is rank historical revisionism, every bit as ridiculous as the bullshit David Barton peddles.
Jefferson was stridently anti-atheism. Indeed, he argued that some forms of Christianity were bad specifically because they would lead to atheism. Here is Jefferson from an 1823 letter to John Adams (when both were old men long removed from politics and thus had no need to hide anything from anyone):
It really doesn't get any more clear than that: Jefferson believed in a single God, a Creator, who governed the world with benevolence, but he rejected the Christian conception of God. Jefferson was a theistic rationalist, not a deist and not an atheist. He believed, as this quote shows, that basing one's theism on a claim of revelation was a bad idea and led to atheism, which, as he puts it, he could never be.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 7, 2008 2:08 PM
What I like most about the comments here is how bigotry, stereotyping and racism are quickly pointed out when used against particular segments of society, but seem to be no problem when lumping all Christians together. Nice.
I guess that hypocrisy, as usual, is alive and well.
Let's not think about anything good that religion has done. Oh no. And don't give me that "it does more harm than good" crap. The same goes for the U.S. Government (no matter who is in charge), and yet you all remain U.S. citizens, eh?
Sister Theresa alone has done more good for this world than all of you put together could even imagine.
Any of you know anything about leper colonies and who took care of them?
Please. Climb down from your self-made "enlightened" mounds of dirt, and take a good look around. Pretty sure things have changed within the Christian Church over the last couple hundred years.
My parish represents over 42 nationalities, everything from PhD's to grocery store cashiers, and everything in between. We help feed, clothe, and house those in need on a DAILY basis, out of our own pockets and hearts.
But because we think differently than you do, we are wrong, eh?
Sounds familiar....
Posted by: Yeah Right | July 7, 2008 2:42 PM
Yeah Right:
Who here has lumped all Christians together? Perhaps you could actually quote what you're allegedly responding to. I don't see any statements at all in the comments about whether religion is, on balance, good or bad or about all Christians being anything at all.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 7, 2008 3:02 PM
>> Dear Mr. Brayton:
Why do you hate America? And Thomas Jefferson? And President Bush? Also, why do you hate our troops? Why do you render flesh from babies and drink their blood? WHY, MR. BRAYTON, WHY?!
Sincerely,
A concerned Christain >>
That would be an example of lumping all Christians together. I find it ironic and amusing too because I have argued with lefties on this blog that insist that Obama and other lefties are in fact Christians. Go figure. Never could figure out why lefties hate being identified as Christians in some contexts but want to be identified that way in others. Weird.
Posted by: mroberts | July 7, 2008 3:12 PM
I find it ironic and amusing too because I have argued with lefties on this blog that insist that Obama and other lefties are in fact Christians. Go figure.
And the problem is...what? Do you have reason to disagree with such assertions?
Never could figure out why lefties hate being identified as Christians in some contexts but want to be identified that way in others. Weird.
Which "contexts" are you talking about, exactly?
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 7, 2008 3:31 PM
mroberts wrote:
No it isn't. It neither says nor implies that all Christians agree with it.
What is ironic and amusing is the fact that you stereotype unnamed "lefties" in a paragraph complaining about such stereotyping. You don't even bother to name any "lefties" who are Christian who hate being identified as Christians. Can you name even a single one? Certainly not Obama, the only person you mentioned by name, who wears his religion on his sleeve as much as any conservative Christian does.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 7, 2008 3:33 PM
"This is a no-brainer for me. Tell the Xtian Right anything, wrap it in holy devoutness and they will buy in. Look at the whoppers they have already accepted.
Keep in mind that half the US population is of less than average intelligence - the GOP base - but we need to have a "moronic outreach" to bring these dolts into the fold.
I don't care what ridiculous promises Obama makes to the Religious Right, he can break all of them with impunity and just say it's, "God's Will." They won't argue with that. Of the two kinds of Republicans, we need to reach out to the sucker side. The millionaires aren't listening anyhow."
"Dear Mr. Brayton:
Why do you hate America? And Thomas Jefferson? And President Bush? Also, why do you hate our troops? Why do you render flesh from babies and drink their blood? WHY, MR. BRAYTON, WHY?!
Sincerely,
A concerned Christian"
The above quoted posts pretty much sums up what I am getting at.
My apologies though, as this thread is not only one I have read today, and in general the view of many is that ALL people of religion are the same, and that all Republicans are Christians, or that all Christians are are Republican, etc, etc, when it is just not the case.
Again, sorry to have muddied the waters here.
As to this thread, I would say that given the state of religion and its oppressive role in both the British government and everyday life at the time, Jefferson was striving to make sure that our government would not allow the same oppressiveness to occur here. (see Iran)
He most certainly had a belief in a higher power.
As to the speech Bush gave, I think that "watercat" pointed out that he did not use the quote in the context that would have meant he was purposely leaving out the monk and superstitious parts, as you alluded to.
However, Bush and his crew are hideous and not above editing on the level you point to.
P.S.- I have met monks that are some of the most educated and enlightened people in society. How many of you have ever met or had discourse with a monk?
Posted by: Yeah Right | July 7, 2008 3:55 PM
Sorry I do not know how to "reply with a quote"
But seriously, you really have to be pretty smarmy to say that you do not believe that this post:
"Dear Mr. Brayton:
Why do you hate America? And Thomas Jefferson? And President Bush? Also, why do you hate our troops? Why do you render flesh from babies and drink their blood? WHY, MR. BRAYTON, WHY?!
Sincerely,
A concerned Christian"
is stereotyping Christians (also known as "lumping together").
As usual, I have stumbled across another blog that I thought would be objective (science tends to be better when it is objective you know), but sadly, is not. It appears to be yet another in a series of public forums where it is Ok to bash a segment of society with impunity.
And when these affronts are pointed out by contributors, they are quelled by whatever means necessary, such as denying that you "meant anything at all by those words", "or they are only meant for certain people" (though of course you used the name Christian)...
There are plenty of bigoted blogs out there, I am still looking for the truly open-minded ones...
Posted by: Yeah Right | July 7, 2008 4:08 PM
Three of those quotes were explicitly alluding to the religious right, not to all Christians; the very fact that they bothered to specify that subset of Christians shows that they did not do what you accused them of. The fourth quote was signed "A concerned Christian." A being a singular modifier, it could only be referring to one specific type of Christian. Do you deny that such Christians exist? We have many Christians who post here who would say the very same thing. I think you're presuming what you are accusing others off without any evidence. I myself have gone to great lengths to make clear that my criticisms of the religious right do not apply to all Christians (and the fact that many Christians agree with those criticisms completely is proof of that).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 7, 2008 4:35 PM
To do the "reply with a quote" use the blockquote tag, like this:
I call it satire of a religious-right mindset. Rather mediocre satire, I'll grant you. But no, I do not see it as an attempt to stereotype Christians.
If you are truly looking for an open-minded forum then that means you'll also need to remain open to the fact that people will occasionally saying things you disagree with or may even offended by. Had you directed your ire at the individual who made the comment you object to, instead of characterizing the entire site as a "bigoted blog," then I think you might have found a bit more sympathy. As it is, the only stereotyping I've seen has come from you in the way you've generalized the Ed and the commenters here.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 7, 2008 4:46 PM
Yeah Right - That's a spoof of a mindset that does exist. If you'd like to see actual examples see the site:
http://www.fstdt.com/
There is nothing in the quote that implies ALL Christians think that way. But many people do express absurd ideas and attempt to justify them via their Christianity. It seems you should be more upset with those people. They're the ones who are truly disparaging your religion.
Posted by: Taz | July 7, 2008 4:48 PM
Sorry, I messed up the how-to at the start of my post. Lets try that again...
To do the "reply with a quote" use the blockquote tag, like this: <blockquote> copy/paste text to be quoted here </blockquote>
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 7, 2008 4:53 PM
I'm afraid you will likely never find a "truly" open-minded blog, or newspaper, or writer of any paper. I believe your probability of finding such a beast in a series of science-related blogs is greater than those of anti-science or religious persuasion, however.
The reason why blogs, and other areas where personal customization are not only allowed but encouraged, thrive is because people get to speak their mind. Even if their minds are full of garbage. It's up to you (you as in the reader) to sort the useful data from the useless. Unfortunately, a great many people are incapable, or unwilling, to think for themselves and will never recognize what is useless.
One of my favorite quotes: In order to resist the influence of others, one must first know one's Self.
Posted by: Richard | July 7, 2008 4:56 PM
Perhaps because I have just come across your blog recently, I am missing the posts where you have "gone to great lengths to make clear that my criticisms of the religious right do not apply to all Christians"
I browsed through several different religious posts and didn't notice that you are not critical of religion in general, but only specifically.
If I had written:
"Dear Mr. Brayton:
Why do you hate Blacks? And Martin Luther King Jr.? And Obama? Why do you render flesh from babies and drink their blood? WHY, MR. BRAYTON, WHY?!
Sincerely,
A concerned African-American"
would that mean it was only referring to one of "A" particular group of African-Americans, since "A" is a singular modifier?
As for me, the whole fad of cliche names really seems to be the cause of a great deal of conflict in itself. Religious Right, Left Wing Liberal, etc...
I will agree that there are extremists in ANY group, be they Religious, Scientific, Political, or any other group.
However to only point out the extremists in one group does not lead me to believe that you are in any way open-minded or objective. But perhaps it is my misguided hope that I would find that in a science blog.
I have not noticed any posts about groups like the "leftist" anarchistic movement, Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, or MEChA and Aztlan. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on groups such as these.
Posted by: Yeah Right | July 7, 2008 5:01 PM
He was shooting at the Holy Alliance, the post-Napoleanic international order in Europe which used religion (and the divine right of kings) as an argument against liberalism.
Posted by: Barney | July 7, 2008 5:03 PM
>> What is ironic and amusing is the fact that you stereotype unnamed "lefties" in a paragraph complaining about such stereotyping. You don't even bother to name any "lefties" who are Christian who hate being identified as Christians. Can you name even a single one? Certainly not Obama, the only person you mentioned by name, who wears his religion on his sleeve as much as any conservative Christian does. >>
As far as I know Ed, you are a supporter of Obama, right? For all your criticism of Christianity, do you have an issue with the fact that Obama says he is a Christian?
Posted by: mroberts | July 7, 2008 5:17 PM
>> However to only point out the extremists in one group does not lead me to believe that you are in any way open-minded or objective. But perhaps it is my misguided hope that I would find that in a science blog.
I have not noticed any posts about groups like the "leftist" anarchistic movement, Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, or MEChA and Aztlan. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on groups such as these. >>
Seems to me I pointed out the exact same thing recently. The one freak who was spitting madness about the gay marriage ceremonies in San Francisco was Ed's apparent representation of all people who oppose gay marriage. Just an example.
Posted by: mroberts | July 7, 2008 5:21 PM
I read the reference that I cited, as well as Wikipedia, and overall it seemed to me he was a deist, not a theist. But perhaps he does not fit nicely into a category, but you know what I meant, and I was not misrepresenting, when the underlying is somewhat ambiguous.
If you have references that clear this ambiguity, I'd love to read them.
What is not ambiguous is that he was not Christian.
Posted by: Dan | July 7, 2008 5:43 PM
Posted by: Taz | July 7, 2008 5:44 PM
Yeah Right wrote:
These two paragraphs don't fit together at all. There is a difference between "critical of religion" and believing that all criticisms of religion apply equally well to all religious people (or even that all criticisms of any particular religion applies to all people of that religion). I am not irrational enough to believe such a thing. Criticisms of biblical inerrancy, for example, do not apply to Christians who do not believe the Bible to be inerrant (and there are many). Criticism of anti-evolution nonsense among Christians obviously does not apply to Christians who accept evolution (and again, there are many). I do not believe that all Christians are anything - all ignorant, all stupid, etc. I do, however, believe that there is a subset of Christianity in this country with an ideology based primarily upon ignorance and I criticize that ideology often and loudly; the fact that I have a sizable number of Christians who agree with those criticisms and comment here should tell you (as it tells me) that this cannot be a criticism of all Christians.
Oh for crying out loud, that comment was pure sarcasm. He was making fun of the kind of people who respond to any criticism of the government, especially of government entanglement with religion, by claiming that the speaker hates America. Those people really exist and they deserve to be mocked. He mocked them. If you don't think like them, it doesn't apply to you at all.
Of course. That is the problem with any such label, they can easily become a substitute for thinking. But you will not find me guilty of that, ever.
Again, obviously true. And merely being "extremist" does not mean "wrong." But you are jumping to a false conclusion in assuming that I only criticize one side; I criticize wrong ideas, period, regardless of which side in a dispute makes them. Look at this very thread, where I have not only attacked the typical religious right claim that Jefferson was an orthodox Christian, I have also strongly criticized the claims of some on the other side who think that Jefferson was an atheist, an agnostic or a deist (though the third one is much closer to being true than the first two; Jefferson borrowed much from the deism of his day, but still believed in a personal, interventionist god).
This is a ridiculous criticism. If I criticize one group I have to criticize every group? You're new here so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but let me explain something: I really couldn't care less about this mostly fictional left/right dynamic. I attack wrong ideas, period, and I don't care which side of that wall they happen to fall on. I will blast anti-gay bigots at the same time that I blast hate speech codes that punish anti-gay bigotry (and I do both of those things often and very passionately). I will blast Hitchens and Dawkins for claiming that Jefferson was some sort of closet atheist at the same time that I blast David Barton for his truckload of lies about Jefferson and the other founding fathers too. I will criticize Clarence Thomas for a whole range of bad ideas at the same time that I defend him from a number of really bad arguments used by liberals against him (like the "Scalia's lapdog" myth or the criticism of him not asking questions during oral argument).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 7, 2008 6:07 PM
mroberts wrote:
Wrong.
Not a bit.
You are so full of shit your eyes must be brown. Nowhere did I ever say or imply that that man represented all people who oppose gay marriage. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 7, 2008 6:11 PM
Dan wrote:
I would agree that he doesn't fit nicely into the categories we usually assign people to. I've written about this at great length over the years and I use the term "theistic rationalist" (first coined by Christian historian Gregg Frazer and also used by my friend Jon Rowe) for Jefferson and the other key founders (Washington, Franklin, Adams and Madison). It is most common to call Jefferson a deist, but he clearly expressed many times that the god he believed in was personal, provident and interventionist; that is why I call him theist instead of a deist. But he was a rationalist in the sense that he rejected claims of revelation and believed that all religious claims must meet the test of reason; reason was the primary concern. Calling him a deist isn't a huge stretch; he borrowed much from deism and many deists of the day did not believe in a strictly non-interventionist god. But calling him an agnostic or an atheist, as others up the thread did, is utterly absurd.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 7, 2008 6:17 PM
Let me add one more thing: the notion that if someone criticizes a group from the "right" then one then also has to criticize a group from the "left" in order to be "objective" is patently absurd. The only thing that matters is that the criticism offered be accurate, not that it be balanced with criticism of someone else on the other side of some subjective divide. And I find that criticism especially amusing coming from those who are ostensibly on the right. Unless you go to Townhall or other conservative blogs and demand that they criticize absurdities on their own side, you're engaging in special pleading. And isn't that demand remarkably like that fairness doctrine that conservatives (rightly, in my view) hate so much?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 7, 2008 6:50 PM
I'm not sure the response to Bush's speech writers is either fair or accurate but may show that his speech writers are excellent at what they do and had thoroughly done their homework, even if Bush may not have understood the significance of his words. In the context of Jefferson's time, we have to remember that there was a risk that 1 of 2 scenarios occuring and Jefferson (always a little ambigous) probably directed his words as he reflected on the 50th anniv. towards one of the following:
1. Its was foreseeable to the founding fathers that to much power might be vested in one particular part of government and that out of that chaos a monarchy could arise. (ie the Federlist Papers were written in support of the new Constitution)
2. The other was the potential for a nonsecular government to be established. Jefferson was constantly derided as an Atheist (which he most likely was not) because he (Jefferson) simply supported a clear separation of church and state.
Its likely, that Jefferson's quote dealt with one (maybe both) of these two points. Based on the second point, had the quote been left uncut, it could have been viewed as an affront to countries where the line between religion and government don't exist. So on this point, I think Bush's speech writers were very clever (or very lucky) and deserving of credit for cutting it out.
Although, had his writers left the passage in the liberals would probably be posting that Bush was inciting war within Iran.
Posted by: Brian | July 7, 2008 7:20 PM
Brian,
Another option, of course, would be to find a quote that said what you wanted to say, instead of using one that didn't.
Posted by: Jackson | July 7, 2008 7:36 PM
The word 'monkish' does not imply religion. I highly doubt that Jefferson would have narrowed his diction to religions that had monks -- why pick on such a small minority? The word also means 'inclined to disciplinary self-denial' which makes much better sense in the context of his letter.
Mr. Jefferson was not anti-religious.
Posted by: ronboom | July 7, 2008 8:59 PM
No, he was just against it as the end all, be all of existence that so many religious conservatives seem to push. Jefferson put reason and tolerance above religious doctrine as the guiding force humanity. That he also believed in a god that would agree with him is not too surprising. Most people's imagine of God is of one that would approve of them.
I think today he'd be referred to as "spiritual but not religious" and part of the "no religion has it right but it's still good to have belief in a higher power," crowd. It's a pretty popular position, where people pick and choose what fells right to them, ignore the rest, and acknowledges it. (Why am I suddenly flashing on I'm thinking Oprah? Oh yea.) Personally I think if you choose to believe in a god, that's the best way to do it.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 7, 2008 10:50 PM
Here I am to answer to my own words, and I find it quite ironic that I should be accused of stereotyping when in the very same post introducing this accusation there is actual stereotyping going on. I.E:
When I signed my humorless letter I did not sign it "Sincerely, All Christians Everywhere." That would have been stereotypical. I was actually being statistical - there is bound to be at least one person who self-identifies as a Christian with not precisely those sentiments but something akin.
Posted by: chrisD | July 7, 2008 11:28 PM
Compare Immanuel Kant's description of enlightenment to Jefferson's hopes for universal self-government.
Kant writes in 1784; " Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment."
There is a similarity in the understanding that the obstruction to both enlightenment and autonomy lies in the individual. We have to have the resolve and the courage to burst the chains forged by self-imposed immaturity and monkish ignorance.
Bush's omission reflects the conservative contention that liberty is thwarted from external influences that must be affected through military means. Kant and Jefferson recognize that the fault lies with ourselves. The last thing conservatives want us to understand is our own ability for self-determination.
Posted by: Robt. Braam | July 8, 2008 9:44 AM
Jefferson's views on religion were complex and unconventional to say the least, yet he regularly attended religious services, perhaps, for the sake of political expediency.
The "monkish ignorance" trope was an Enlightenment commonplace with a long pedigree. The Protestant Reformation gave it a loud voice. What better way to slam Papists while currying favor with proponents of the new science?
Jefferson's correspondent would have taken little notice of the comment. We sholdn't either. As did several commenters above, I suspect that the phrase was edited out because it might be misunderstood. I doubt that Jefferson would think that the President misrepresented his main point.
Posted by: Old Dad | July 8, 2008 2:16 PM
One ought not to confuse the thinking of Jefferson with that of Kant, since he followed the thinking of the Scots Enlightment, men like Hume and Adams Smith. They were philosophistic realists, and while Kant may have been "awakened" by Hume, he went on a very different track. Jerrferson, it is true, was influened by French Revolutionary ideas, and there is therefore something of the fanatic's glint in his eye, and the charges of atheism had some foundation in his case. Nonetheless, since he was not a consistebnt thinker, there is no doubt that depsite his fulminations about priestcraft and superstitution, he regarded the Christian moral code as foundational to our society. Which he why he lent his presence to Sunday school classes in the capitol--that and, of course, the need to turn the thrusts of men Timothy Dwight and to reassure a public that was beginning to turn away from the rationalism of the previous century.
Posted by: John Schuh | July 8, 2008 2:22 PM
The mere thought of Bush at Monticello made me queasy, and I'm not at all surprised that he (or his speechwriters) would mangle Jefferson's words.
I can't wait until our long national nightmare is over, and Dubya returns to his "ranch" at Waco to clear brush and eat pretzels until the end of his days.
Posted by: cognitive dissident | July 8, 2008 4:20 PM
Old Dad wrote:
Sorry, this simply isn't true. Jefferson rarely attended religious services and that fact was used against him in the election of 1800, when followers of Adams declared him an atheist because he did not keep the sabbath.
And therefore....what? Jefferson didn't mean it? His writings are full of this and many other similar sentiments expressing his belief that religious institutions had been a key component in convincing men to surrender their liberty to the government (being an active opponent of the Divine Right of Kings, how could he feel otherwise?). This was not a throwaway line, it was something Jefferson passionately believed and expressed often.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 8, 2008 5:08 PM
Ed Brayton
i find your comments courteous, enlightened and informed.
it's funny how so many people need it to be either or, when in fact, it's always both and neither as you've continued to point out.
thanks
Posted by: taldutronc | July 8, 2008 5:38 PM
wait
i just reread some of your replies, so i have to take back courteous, as you're often not, but whatever, i forgive.
again, both and neither.
also, considering our options for fearless leader, how and why could you not support obama? it's one of those things you can tell at a glance. for instance, how many here could see nine years ago that bush was full of shit and not to be trusted. it took me one second, literally a glance. we do it all the time, generally with prejudice but often without. so, a quick glance, not caring one bit what they say, tells you what? for me, it's overt and distinct - mccain is not to be trusted. so what the huh?!
you ever read blink?
Posted by: taldutronc | July 8, 2008 5:56 PM
taldutronc wrote:
We have more options than just Obama and McCain. Between the two, I prefer Obama; the constituencies he has to appease to stay in office scare me less than the constituencies McCain has to please to stay in office. But I do not plan to vote for either of them.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 8, 2008 6:24 PM
I much prefer a presidential speech writer trimming a Jefferson quote without altering the meaning (in order to make the words flow better I'm guessing) to the idiots who are constantly misquoting Jefferson, ala "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism".
Posted by: KaziA | July 8, 2008 7:48 PM
Many of the comments in this thread are from people who fancy themselves to be of above average intelligence and have no qualms making the claim. The common thread among them is unreasoning hatred of the President and blind obedience to left-wing talking points and myth. Liberal fascists marching in lockstep are the opposite of intelligent.
Posted by: Mike | July 9, 2008 2:16 AM
Mike wrote:
Thank you for adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 9, 2008 2:42 AM
As previous posters have said- context is king. Jefferson was talking about political factions and people who put their fate in the hands of government. What you have done Mr. Brayton, is read your own bias into Jefferson and assumed he meant what you think he should mean.
"under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves" sounds like those of you who buy into anthropogenic global warming and are willing to destroy the world's economy over it.
Posted by: Garet | July 9, 2008 5:49 AM
Economics is apparently tangentially related to certain concepts such as, oooh, say supply and demand perhaps. Given that the demand for energy is hardly likely to disappear overnight, then there will always be money to be made in satisfying that demand. That this money is made by certain companies instead of certain other ones hardly seems like a disaster for anyone except the people with passionately vested interests in a particular kind of company.
[/feedthetroll]
Posted by: Matthew | July 9, 2008 6:40 AM
What great wit, Jordan:
"Clearly allowing Bush to lecture against "monkish ignorance and superstition" would have caused an irony vortex that would have risked the lives of all mankind."
Posted by: jimbojames | July 9, 2008 8:09 AM
Nice half-truth, Matthew.
"Economics is apparently tangentially related to certain concepts such as, oooh, say supply and demand perhaps. Given that the demand for energy is hardly likely to disappear overnight, then there will always be money to be made in satisfying that demand. That this money is made by certain companies instead of certain other ones hardly seems like a disaster for anyone except the people with passionately vested interests in a particular kind of company."
No one disputes the idea that there is supply and there is demand, but don't pretend that oil/energy companies operate in a free market or that people's concern with the excessive profiteering of oil/energy companies has anything to do with supply and demand.
Posted by: jimbojames | July 9, 2008 8:13 AM
But, Garrett, you take the cake.
I love the way you use big words like 'anthropogenic' to mislead readers into thinking that you possess wisdom or facts to back up your contention. After all, while you might be right, you fail to support your contention that Jefferson was speaking of political factions, and not religion, which I admittedly assumed him to be, and then you essentially reveal your ignorance when you claim that global warming is somehow a fraud and/or that it would wreak the world economy. Who pays you to write such garbage? Or, worse, who taught you such vile nonsense?
Posted by: jimbojames | July 9, 2008 8:20 AM
I get a kick out of the view that what he edited out 'doesn't matter because it wasn't important and nothing to do with religion' view. If that were so, then why edit it out?
Chris Rodda has her take HERE.
Posted by: Dave S. | July 9, 2008 8:38 AM
Garet wrote:
Utter bullshit. Jefferson argued very strongly and many times over in his writings that religion had been a powerful tool for political oppression. He used a variety of terms for this, sometimes referring to "monkish" beliefs, other times to a "priest-ridden people" and still other times to "clergy." All of these, he argued, had historically aligned themselves with dictatorial kings and against the rights of conscience. When he writes that "monkish ignorance and superstition" had convinced men to bind themselves, he is saying here what he said a hundred other times in many different ways, that religion had historically aligned itself with authoritarianism in order to stay wedded to power. That is precisely why he supported separation of church and state. This is not even remotely controversial to anyone who has studied Jefferson's views.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 9, 2008 1:36 PM
I think he is not stupid editor, what the editor did may be he know every well what it effects other religious too, so it is ok.
Posted by: rstv | July 28, 2008 10:39 PM
I still love bush as my hero.
Posted by: forkguy | July 28, 2008 10:41 PM
forkguy: and we're supposed to care because...?
Posted by: jba | July 29, 2008 1:01 AM
As others have pointed out, (correctly) Jefferson was not specifically addressing religion with the section that Bush omitted. However, one can easily infer parallels between the clique-mongered group think that Jefferson opposed with his words and the same behavioral mechanisms that religion subsists upon.
As others have pointed out Jefferson was a Deist, he was not atheist. He seemed to believe in a creator but it also seems that Jefferson did not believe in a benevolent God or a God that interferes. Of course one could easily imagine that Jefferson might be an atheist if he were alive or privileged with today's knowledge. In Jefferson's time people were not given insight into beauty of Darwin's ideas -- the ability to explain something as profound as the diversity of all life on the planet WITHOUT invoking a God.
While the omitted section of Jefferson's quote may not have been as ominous the author if this article suggest, they are certainly relevant. Ignorance manifests both religion and the divisive stagnation of political discourse.
Jefferson might not have been an Atheist, but he could certainly be described as an atheist as much as anyone could in back in those days.
Posted by: idav | January 28, 2009 2:14 PM