Many if not most of the founding fathers were deists. Hardly orthodox faithful.

Sounds a bit narcissistic.

Edit - I just said sounds....I didn't say I was smart or qualified to opine.

[deleted]

​

It's interesting to note that Thomas Jefferson was unique among the founding fathers in his religious beliefs. He was a deist, but unlike many of the other deists, he attended multiple different churches and declared himself to be "of a sect by myself". It's a fascinating example of how one can be deeply religious while still having a unique perspective.

He created a new version of the Bible that took out all miracles or mention of supernatural and just left the moral teachings of Jesus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

Devoted is a misnomer here.

I think people who only visit one church could be deemed narcissistic

Most Freemasons are Christians.

Honestly I really don't see religion and unique perspective in the same sentence. But agree to disagree I guess... Or whatever they say....

Edit - Religion in a nutshell. Something we can't prove now did something and now we need to worship said thing.

Such arrogance. The same writers who detailed the moral teachings also detailed the miracles.

He also kept hundreds of people enslaved, including his own children from his rape victim, so he could live in obscene luxury.

But it's not a requirement they only have to believe in a higher power.

How is arrogant to derive value from moral teachings without believing in the super natural. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Do you think he went to a church buffet, or was it more like they wheeled out different blessings on a dessert cart, and he just gobbled them up willy-nilly?

And owned people. Look elsewhere for a role model

Are you ai?

Hey. Don't bother people with the truth , they hate it

*uses a thesaurus on the title* you get me?

This is like deciding you don't like The Beatles' music, so you throw away the vinyl and declare they were excellent models for album sleeves and nothing more.

He also dressed like a frenchman to fight in the war.

Damn all those churches and never learned that it’s wrong to rape and enslave people, let alone your own children.

[deleted]

TJ lives by TJ’s rules!

The arrogance and conceit to think nothing is good or wise unless accompanied by the transubstantiation of water to wine or some other such bullshit.

How much does it say about your beliefs that the only thing shackling you to them seems to be its supposed tie to divinity, or fear of some eternal torment?

AA says that too. It's still bullshit.

Here's your Head of John The Baptist. Fries are coming right up.

He was the worst kind of influential and intelligent human. A hypocritical influential and intelligent human.

He did other things too. Interracial, sexual, dominant, things.

> including his own children from his rape victim

Not only is there no actual proof that he had children with Sally Hemings, but also there’s no proof that he had a sexual relationship with her at all.

Well nothing in the bible forbidding slavery.

Which is odd really, don't steal made the cut, no worshipping false idols made the cut, not owning other people though, no rules against that.

Very few of the founding fathers were “devoted”, they were deists. Learn MORE.

DNA tests say otherwise, contrarian goof…

Strange because the people behind the one DNA test say that it doesn’t prove that Jefferson was the father..

There were 13 potential Jefferson’s that could claim paternity for the one tested descendant, and a very strong candidate is Thomas Jefferson’s brother Randolph.

What's wrong with that? Hell the Sgt Peppers cover is an art peice in and of itself and I would gladly have it on my wall. But I don't fancy their music much.

I too have sects by myself

What's more arrogant, editing a book or calling yourself the son of god?

Legend

Many founding fathers were "observant", that's not the same as "devoted" or even "believing". Nearly all were "Enlightenment" thinkers, and many were Freemasons. All had grown up under state religions. Their "Freedom of religion" was more about freedom FROM religion.

Edit: spelling

Quite the contrary, there are guidelines for slavery in the Bible.

[deleted]

Wait til you hear how he made it. He took a razor blade, cut out the parts he wanted and glued it to new paper, ransom note style.

Nope, I’m Catholic.

There is only one true church and I am it's only member.

Good news everyone! Jefferson didn't rape any of the people he enslaved

Washington also regularly attended different Christian denominations to promote National unity. Although the atheism of the founding fathers is sometimes overrated, many of them were undoubtedly way ahead of their time in regards to religious freedom.

One of the requirements of being a Freemason is belief in god, although you are correct that many of the founders were not deeply religious.

There is a difference between the religion of Jesus, and the religion about Jesus, he recognized this.

A shining example of self devotion.

He also raped slaves.

What a stand up guy!

Now I'm all for analogies, but comparing the Beatles' music to walking on water is a new one for me.

Also there's nothing wrong with using the moral guide book and only taking the moral lessons from it. That's... the whole point of the book. I'd bet Jesus would love it tbh.

Theism, babey!!

I have this, it’s great. Just sensible.

Freemasonry in the 18th and 19th century were radical atheists, anti-monarchists, feminists, and libertines. That's why they had to be so secretive

Modern Freemasonry is just a club

Killing also seems OK, based on the situation

[deleted]

He owned slaves as well.

Where did the bad founding father touch you?

Guidelines doesn't mean a ban, it means it's ok as long as you follow a particular magic sky elf or whatever they believe.

Actually, this is a fascinating subject, and I think it has to do with the fear of the unknown that most people actually lean on religion to help them with. For those people, religion is probably necessarily supernatural to allow it to give moral prescriptions and provide explanations that the logical mind fails to provide for itself. The low stakes and "reality" of the miracles Jesus was described as performing hit a satisfying middle ground for this type of person, bleeding from reality into the fantastical to create just enough plausibility that the logical brain accepts the unknown as something that can be understood and possibly even used if you just follow the right lessons. For those same people, it is understandable that trying to impart religious morals and teachings without the supernatural aspects is arrogance because it suggests that anyone with logical thinking is capable of overcoming the fear of the unknown and understanding divinity, something that to them is seemingly impossible without instruction coming from an order higher than Man.

Shoutout to deism for being a chill religion

If you just want one copy, that was by far the easiest method at the time.

Hey, Ted Kaczynski was a brilliant mathematician whose work is still cited to this day, but obviously shouldn't be revered for other reasons. People are complex and lived in different times and circumstances than you and I. Knowing the truth is powerful and useful, but it is all about context. Facts about Jefferson's slave-owning have practically zero to do with his contributions to law and philosophy. Many great thinkers were not necessarily great people.

The same people who want Jefferson struck from memory revere French gender theorists who signed a letter in support of men (ages 39-45) who were awaiting trial for statutory rape of 12 and 13 year old kids when the age of consent was 15 in France.

From Wikipedia:

"Whilst it is recognized that Masonry is not atheistic (Masons aligned with the United Grand Lodge of England are asked if they believe in God or another supreme being before joining and only accept candidates that do),[17] its use of the expression Supreme Architect of the Universe—a term attributed to the Protestant theologian John Calvin—is seen by some Christian critics as indicating Deism, the belief that God created the Universe but did not intervene in the world after this."

"Supreme Architect of the Universe" was a convenient dodge in the 18th century world where living people could still recall the Witch Trials.

> Hey, Ted Kaczynski was a brilliant mathematician whose work is still cited to this day

Is it? Google scholar seems to only show a handful of citations of his papers, mostly from when he was active.

I'm skeptical that you're a founding father.

So basically any of Saul’s letters to the Greeks were cast aside? Good. St. Paul the Bandwagoner did so much damage to Jesus’s legacy in the Church.

You're exactly right, there is more to Jefferson than slavery. Yet, you could measure historical figures in their entirety and not see them as people to hold in reverence at all. I'd be more impressed that Jefferson was the primary penman behind the Declaration of Independence if he wholly subscribed to the ideals therein, for instance. You know, contrary to the whole "don't measure by today's standards, such and such person was just a product of their time", it's perfectly acceptable to judge the actions of a historical figure by our own standards. It reasserts our own moral progress. People in the future are going to do it to us, too

He took me behind the furnace and touched me in my pants.

The small sample is easily explained by it being an obscure area of math and the most recent citation to his most prolific work was in 2021 from a quick search...

ETA: some support about the obscurity: "Maxwell Reade, a member of his dissertation committee, said, "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 men in the country understood or appreciated it"

What is all this nonsense about striking Jefferson from history and revering French gender theorists?

He really got around a few ways.

The woke left who have vandalized statues of Jefferson revere the gender theory laid down by the likes of Simone de Beauvoir.

Also, I said memory, not history. To clarify, they want any positive memory of Jefferson to be drowned out with "he owned and raped slaves" while they are blissfully ignorant that Jefferson tried to pass laws to reduce and eliminate slavery. The man wasn't perfect, but was a much better man than they want to believe.

I have no idea who this de Beauvoir guy was, and to be honest I don't give a shit. Jefferson was what he was. Pointing out that he owned slaves isn't somehow wrong, no matter what effect that information has on the public. Those facts should be just as front-and-center as any of his redeeming qualities or achievements.

I'm not saying don't judge; Teddy K and I aren't buds or nothin. All I'm saying is that this line of discussion is irrelevant to the topic, just like discussing the legacy of the Unabomber is useless when the topic is math.

Simone de Beauvoir was a woman.

The point is, it is a problem when ignorant people only bleat out "Jefferson had slaves" anytime they see something remotely positive about him, when they have no clue he was on the forefront of trying to end slavery in the US in his day.

This is extremely important. The difference between a deist and a theist is massive and despite them aligning themselves with Christian values, it's dangerously disingenuous to use that as proof of the US being founded on Christianity.

That's true too. Remember discussions don't have to stay in one place though. The post was about Thomas Jefferson's variety with churches he attended, and the comments drifted toward a discussion about Thomas Jefferson in general, which seems normal honestly. It's natural for people who aren't fans of Jefferson to point out his flaws and for people who think positively about him to defend all his merits

Most of the Founding Fathers can best be described as Deists- they believed in God, but were not necessarily very 'Christian'.

But try telling that to the Republicans.

So level with me then: these people are ignorant by stating a simple fact about him. This frustrates you because it doesn't complete the picture. Yet I have to ask, if Jefferson "was at the forefront" as you say, why did he not start with his own slaves? If you're going to expect something from others, you should probably make it your own practice. In my mind, that makes him one of two things in regards to the abolition of slavery: foolish or insincere. We can't pretend he had no influence in Revolutionary America, and we can't we pretend he practiced what he preached. Honestly if he had started with his own (more than just 2 of his 600), it may have gone a long way. Yet speculation is just speculation and the facts remain: Jefferson owned slaves and used them. He freed a handful (including those freed before and after he died), and the rest were sold after his death to pay off his substantial debt.

[removed]

Laws were restrictive in freeing slaves at the time. Jefferson also believed in educating and training slaves so they were no illiterate and unskilled citizens destined to be desititue for life with little or no resources to build a life for themselves. Presumably, he lacked the resources to pursue his political career (including trying to end slavery), maintain his family and estate, and properly prepare more slaves to be freemen.

In the end, his efforts to curb slavery socially and politically didn't bear great fruit, though slavery was shrinking until the industrial revolution made slave labor more economically viable. Perhaps Jefferson would be looked upon more kindly if he had a time machine, knew his policies wouldn't end slavery, and had the foresight to free a greater amount of his own slaves. (Though again, pro-slavery politicians and landholders made freeing large numbers of slaves very difficult with laws and policies they successfully put in place.)

For people to just spew "hur dur, Jefferson had slaves" when he couldn't just wave his had and free all his slaves to live happy and productive lives is lazy and smears the legacy of a great leader in our history.

Gave it to the church and they flipped it and reprinted it as gospel. Amen

The US is explicitly NOT founded on the Christian religion, and anyone throwing out quotes from them to prove otherwise is pulling shit out of their ass. They all believed in a higher power but knew the dangers of defining it narrowly or letting a single religious organization run the country

250 years later and we're still fighting for The Enlightenment.

So, he was asectual

I imagine he used his collection of letters he cut out of magazines.

Washington owned slaves. Madison owned slaves. Monroe owned slaves. Were there any founding fathers from the south that weren't slaveowners? I mean, you probably weren't getting elected to anything unless you owned a plantation. If you tried to farm without using slaves you'd probably go broke, because your competition is able to sell at a cheaper price.

He did? How?

Also, if you married a daughter of a plantation owner, even if you don't want more slaves, you or she may inherit slaves from her parents when they die, and you don't have an option in the matter. Messed up situation all around.

I mean, a deist still believes in God.

That's very true. But the majority are still very much Christian.

Yes, he would not have fit into the "Christian box" that exists in modern American culture, nor would have a lot of ancient Christians. He, like most of the deists, still believed in God – just not quite as "structured" as we have these days.

Even C.S. Lewis, who is uplifted by evangelicals, had some very different views about God that they would find strange.

The problem is that – like everything else, Christianity has been broken up into nice and neat little boxes. God simply will not fit in these.

>Freemasonry in the 18th and 19th century were radical atheists

That is an historically dubious claim.

Jill Lepore wrote that the founding of the United States was the least religious time in the history of our nation or British colonial times.

Oh, for heaven's sake, he wasn't restricted from freeing his own slaves. Robert Carter did it! George Washington did it! Nobody said anything about a magic hand wave. He could have just made the decision to let his own captives go. He seemed to have thought the event of complete emancipation would trigger great civil unrest at the time. His refusal to create an amendment for the gradual emancipation of slavery combined with his condemning/outlawing the international slave trade leads me to believe he was wishy-washy and selfish in his anti-slavery efforts, at best.

Thomas Jefferson owned and read the Quran. That same Quran he owned is in the library of Congress. It has been used for serveral members of federal government when sworn in who are Muslim.

Let's just say that some Christians take issue with aspects of Paul's writings, and argue that they should be considered his personal opinions (or prejudices) rather than the direct Word of God.

I see what you did there🤟

You want to believe the worst of the man while refusing to acknowledge the conflicts he had to contend with to do so.

Interesting, never heard of that before.

Amazing that a man who owned his own children and knew slavery was wrong (per his own writings) also felt like he could improve religious texts.

Yep. I suppose you could free all your slaves and sell your land (most of these guys were up to their asses in debt, so maybe not), and wash your hands of the whole nasty business, but now...

1. You have to move. Your neighbors will hate you. Intensely. Go north, old man. Run.
2. Your former slaves have no clear path forward. No money, no land. Do you think the locals will welcome them warmly as new equal citizens and offer employment at fair wages? Not likely. No, they will (best case) drive them away as living embodiments of the immorality of their way of life. Or (more likely), lynchings will ensue.
3. That guy you sold your farm to. What do you think he is going to do? That's right: buy some more slaves and get back to business as usual. Congratulations, you have financially ruined your family and have accomplished... nothing. Changing the world ain't easy.

Probably, I wouldn't know.

Jesus in the gospels states that all people are equal, you should approach every situation with love, and should basically just dedicate your entire life to helping others. Paul took that and said, “yea definitely, so what you’re saying women should be subservient to men and the church should be organized according to a strict hierarchy. Also gay people are gross”

Nope. He had many redeeming qualities and he did indeed make some legislative effort to remove the institution. I just think his own internal biases and uncertainties were his undoing in regards to slavery. He believed blacks were inferior to whites, and he thought they should be emancipated in Africa and that freedmen should colonize there, because doing it on American soil would lead to great social turmoil and violence. From an observational standpoint, he was correct in the latter thought, to his credit. Civil unrest and war broke out after the abolition of slavery.

I can improve religious texts. Just replace “god” with “your imaginary friend”. Voila prefect

So.. "Cut and Paste"?

Unless you're a freemason. They will attack and assault you as part of a perverse "non religious" practice. When they want someone to do something, they will leverage their "brothers" to compel your fate.

Freemasons these days are about being above the letter of the law.

This concept of 'devoted founding fathers' is nonsense, revisionist history. Jefferson and Franklin were agnostic and may even have been atheists. Washington paid lip service to religion on his best day but it played no major role in his life.

If you're wondering why so many American right wingers are religious and like to mix their religion with politics, it is mainly because, in their minds, the US is like a fallen angel that was once a great nation, and was a great nation because it was God fearing. And it has gotten away from that. And if only it would get back to God, that would solve most of its problems and it would once again become great. That's why they say 'put God back in schools.' God was never in schools, at least no school that I ever attended. And what they really mean there is 'put Christian God back in schools.' Somehow I don't think Muslim kids kneeling and praying to the west in the gym is quite what they have in mind when they say that.

The entire premise of this is false. From a Constitutional perspective, the US was never ever a God fearing or Christian nation. This is pure revisionist history.

Source: Me. I worked in the Republican party apparatus in my local politics for a period of years and I know how they think. And I read the Constitution. Jesus' name never comes up even once.

Yeah, he was a dick.

There was no abortion back then. There were a lot of biracial people on the plantation. The hypocrisy and slavery were the worst things.

Christians, Catholics. America wasn't founded by atheists or scientologists.

Yeah he would look for different information to believe in considering TJ was actually a huge asshole and slave holder.

Naturally he would be looking for support in all types of different places lmao.

The amount of BS pop-history hot takes here is appalling haha

Thomas Jefferson was among the best educated of the founders. This information doesn’t surprise me in the least.

Most of the founding fathers were deists not Christians. In God We Trust wasn't even added to the USA until the 1950s lol.

>his most prolific work

I hope you mean his second-most-cited work, number one is the manifesto

One case in point:
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these
shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for
centuries.”
James Madison — 1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

John Adams - Treaty of Tripoli

Your "Learn MORE." sentence made me immediately think of the movie Starship Troopers.

I have a copy of it—it’s a reproduction obviously. It’s very fascinating!