Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hokulele said:
You mean like the misquote of Jefferson's letter to John Adams you deliberately posted on the previous page of this very thread? I wonder what that did to your credibility . . .
Click to expand...

I must admit you are quite good at misleading statements. Notice how you said "deliberately posted" with a negative implication. You could have just said "posted" but I assume that wasn't negative enough sounding, so you said "deliberately posted" it to spice it up a little... Every time you post an excerpt of a article you are deliberately posting it.

And are you saying the author of the article was dishonest because he used an ellipses.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
And are you saying the author of the article was dishonest because he used an ellipses.
Click to expand...


Yup, he was. And you are an incompetent researcher for linking it when specifically asked to use primary sources and quotes in context. And questions are supposed to end with a question mark, unless you were trying to make a rhetorical point. And I can ignore grammar rules and start as many sentences with "And" as I like as long as I acknowledge that is what I am doing. And I did.
 
joobz said:
I was simply pointing out the FACT. Ladewig didn't say he was a moral absolutist. You described him as such.
Click to expand...

Yes, after reading his post again he seems to be implying that he is a moral relativist. I really don't know for sure though because he just says "Welcome to the club'.
 
DOC said:
Originally Posted by Ladewig]When I pointed out that Jefferson's opinions on the beauty of Jesus's ethical teachings really weren't worth much given that Jefferson was not only a slave holder but also raped at least one of his slaves...
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't seem to be able to find any evidence that Jefferson raped anybody.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Yes, after reading his post again he seems to be implying that he is a moral relativist. I really don't know for sure though because he just says "Welcome to the club'.
Click to expand...
Well, thank you for admitting your error. It's a good step toward being a respectable participant.
 
joobz said:
Well, thank you for admitting your error. It's a good step toward being a respectable participant.
Click to expand...
Then I must be a very respectable participant because this is as least the 3rd error I've admitted to as you well know.
 
joobz said:
He also believes that america was more moral in the 50's, when we had lynchings, racial segregation, women abused in homes, mccarthyism, no worker's rights etc. It's no suprise that this was the same time when there was a weakening in the church-state seperation. He's a perfect example of why the seperation of church and state, which the founding fathers created, is so important for a moral society.
Click to expand...


So it seems your saying the Church is responsible for lynchings, racial segregation, woman abuse in homes, McCarthyism, and no workers rights. And once we separated the church more from the state the lynchings, racial segregation, woman abuse in homes etc. got better.

Well I have to disagree, I think people like the Reverend Martin Luther King, and the Reverend Jesse Jackson played a big part in ending the racial segregation and racial discrimination. And actually it was Eisenhower, the man who put his support behind making the US motto "In God we Trust" who played a big part in ending the McCarthy era.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Then I must be a very respectable participant because this is as least the 3rd error I've admitted to as you well know.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, admitting to only three when you made many, many more doesn't really equal respectable.

I hold out hope that you do wish to be an honorable person and do not wish to give you any road blocks in the process.
 
DOC said:
So it seems your saying the Church is responsible for lynchings, racial segregation, woman abuse in homes, McCarthyism, and no workers rights. And once we separated the church more from the state the lynchings, racial segregation, woman abuse in homes etc. got better.

Well I have to disagree, I think people like the Reverend Martin Luther King, and the Reverend Jesse Jackson played a big part in ending the racial segregation and racial discrimination. And actually it was Eisenhower, the man who put his support behind making the US motto "In God we Trust" who played a big part in ending the McCarthy era.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not saying that the church is responsible for those actions. But, there does seem to be correlations between theocratic rule and oppressive government. All we need to do is look toward the feudal systems and modern islamic states to see this is the case.

to give an analogy, frogs aren't naturally evil or dangerous. However, when they were moved to australia, they became a huge pest because of no natural predators. They were unchecked.

Much the same way with religion. Religion and church isn't dangerous when kept in check. But if they are allowed to have a position of power (control or sway over state decisions), then they tend to become pests.
 
DOC
Originally Posted by gypsey
you're right it was nothing like some guy raping a girl in a back alley it was so much worse that i can't believe even a genocide condoning horror like you would try to make it sound like it was just something that went on,
that woman was property she had no escape, at least the girl in the back alley can get help after its over and knows it won't happen again especially once the rapist is locked up but Sally had no escape
she had nothing to look forward to but more of the same whenever master desired and no matter what you say since he owned her and No was not an option it was rape each and every time he called her to his bed!
Click to expand...
I realize you are very upset about the issue of slavery and people should be upset. And yes Jefferson, the man on Mt. Rushmore, was not perfect and will have to answer for any sins he committed according to my beliefs. But I would like to ask you, do you believe the 35,000,000 blacks and the 70,000,000 other minorities in this country are better off because the main author of the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson) lived or worse off.
Click to expand...

first of all let me point out that you left out an important part of my post so let me fix that for you
you are one sick twisted individual and you need some serious help
Click to expand...
as an american indian i couldn't care less about jefferson or any of the rest of the founding fathers
no i do not think the original peoples nor the blacks of this country are better off from any deliberate act of jeffersons
we weren't considered in anything he did so why be grateful to him?

DOC
Originally Posted by Ladewig]When I pointed out that Jefferson's opinions on the beauty of Jesus's ethical teachings really weren't worth much given that Jefferson was not only a slave holder but also raped at least one of his slaves...
Click to expand...
Actually, I don't seem to be able to find any evidence that Jefferson raped anybody.
Click to expand...
she was a slave so it was rape any time he had sex with her as she didn't have the option of saying no
 
DOC said:
Then I must be a very respectable participant because this is as least the 3rd error I've admitted to as you well know.
Click to expand...


Well, when you take into account that this brings your Error Acknowledgement Rate up to approximately 0.001%, "respectable" isn't exactly the word that comes to mind...
 
Last edited:
gypsey said:
she was a slave so it was rape any time he had sex with her as she didn't have the option of saying no
Click to expand...
I hear this position argued frequently, but I don't believe it's valid. A man may honor a woman's option to say no even if she is a slave. We have evidence, from Sally Hemings' own children, that her relationship with Jefferson was consensual. There is additional evidence that she had admiration for Jefferson -- she reportedly stayed in Charlottesville rather than moving to Ohio with her sons after being freed by Jefferson's daughter, and visited Jefferson's grave regularly until her death.

While it's possible that Hemings sugar-coated the story for her children, or that they sugar-coated it for history, and possible that her actions in later years are more indicative of the Stockholm syndrome than true admiration, it's also possible that she considered her options and her feelings and chose to become Jefferson's concubine as her way of making the best of a bad situation.
 
bokonon
Originally Posted by gypsey
she was a slave so it was rape any time he had sex with her as she didn't have the option of saying no
Click to expand...
I hear this position argued frequently, but I don't believe it's valid. A man may honor a woman's option to say no even if she is a slave. We have evidence, from Sally Hemings' own children, that her relationship with Jefferson was consensual. There is additional evidence that she had admiration for Jefferson -- she reportedly stayed in Charlottesville rather than moving to Ohio with her sons after being freed by Jefferson's daughter, and visited Jefferson's grave regularly until her death.

While it's possible that Hemings sugar-coated the story for her children, or that they sugar-coated it for history, and possible that her actions in later years are more indicative of the Stockholm syndrome than true admiration, it's also possible that she considered her options and her feelings and chose to become Jefferson's concubine as her way of making the best of a bad situation.
Click to expand...

i guess thats true to a certain extent but as there were children involved they obviously had sex and as she was a slave i do not believe her wishes would have mattered to much and if she consented as a way of making the best of a bad situation that is still rape
if the proverbial alley rapist offered the girl the choice of being raped or of being beaten and sold would it still be rape if she chose the sex?
 
bokonon said:
I hear this position argued frequently, but I don't believe it's valid. A man may honor a woman's option to say no even if she is a slave.
Click to expand...

A man might choose to honor a slave's "no", but that's not really relevant. A man with a drawn gun might also choose to honor a woman's "no". In each case, though, that's more a function of his situational freedom than of hers. Perhaps more accurately, her ability to give unconstrained consent is a function of (among other things) her perceived freedom to withhold it.

A slightly different angle on the question arises from the fact that slave status entailed general legal incapacity. In many jurisdictions nowadays, a sexual act is deemed to be committed without someone's consent where the victim lacks the legal capacity to give consent even if she in fact acquiesces to the sexual act.
 
ceo_esq said:
A man might choose to honor a slave's "no", but that's not really relevant. A man with a drawn gun might also choose to honor a woman's "no". In each case, though, that's more a function of his situational freedom than of hers. Perhaps more accurately, her ability to give unconstrained consent is a function of (among other things) her perceived freedom to withhold it.

A slightly different angle on the question arises from the fact that slave status entailed general legal incapacity. In many jurisdictions nowadays, a sexual act is deemed to be committed without someone's consent where the victim lacks the legal capacity to give consent even if she in fact acquiesces to the sexual act.
Click to expand...

As I see it, given all the evidence we have at this time there is no way Jefferson could be convicted of criminal rape. I find it ironic that some atheists who are always talking about evidence are so ready to convict a man of the serious charge of rape when the beyond a reasonable doubt evidence is not there.

And if the following info brought in by bokonan is true then Jefferson probably in my opinion wouldn't even be convicted in a civil case.

"We have evidence, from Sally Hemings' own children, that her relationship with Jefferson was consensual. There is additional evidence that she had admiration for Jefferson -- she reportedly stayed in Charlottesville rather than moving to Ohio with her sons after being freed by Jefferson's daughter, and visited Jefferson's grave regularly until her death."
 
DOC said:
As I see it, given all the evidence we have at this time there is no way Jefferson could be convicted of criminal rape. I find it ironic that some atheists who are always talking about evidence are so ready to convict a man of the serious charge of rape when the beyond a reasonable doubt evidence is not there.

And if the following info brought in by bokonan is true then Jefferson probably in my opinion wouldn't even be convicted in a civil case.

"We have evidence, from Sally Hemings' own children, that her relationship with Jefferson was consensual. There is additional evidence that she had admiration for Jefferson -- she reportedly stayed in Charlottesville rather than moving to Ohio with her sons after being freed by Jefferson's daughter, and visited Jefferson's grave regularly until her death."
Click to expand...
It's clear you missed ceo_esq's point. even if it was functionally consensual, legally it could be considered rape. Legally, consent couldn't be given by her. She didn't have status to give consent.

I don't understand your desire to defend Jefferson's slave ownership. He could have at anytime in his life got rid of his slaves. but he waited til the end. Jefferson was a man, and flawed as such. His flaws don't subtract from the good he does. Neither does the good negate the bad he does.
It is this simple fact which makes all of your appeals to authority meaningless.
 
DOC said:
As I see it, given all the evidence we have at this time there is no way Jefferson could be convicted of criminal rape. I find it ironic that some atheists who are always talking about evidence are so ready to convict a man of the serious charge of rape when the beyond a reasonable doubt evidence is not there.

And if the following info brought in by bokonan is true then Jefferson probably in my opinion wouldn't even be convicted in a civil case.

"We have evidence, from Sally Hemings' own children, that her relationship with Jefferson was consensual. There is additional evidence that she had admiration for Jefferson -- she reportedly stayed in Charlottesville rather than moving to Ohio with her sons after being freed by Jefferson's daughter, and visited Jefferson's grave regularly until her death."
Click to expand...


We have DNA evidence that a male in Jefferson's family fathered some of Sally Hemmings's children. We have the evidence from Sally Hemmings's own children and from other sources that Thomas fathered the children. In my opinion that would be enough to win a civil case and I suspect a criminal case as well. Why are you having such a hard time understanding that a slave cannot give consent? All civilized countries in the world have laws against statutory rape because all reasonable people agree that a child is not capable of giving consent to a sexual union that is as unequal as an adult-child relationship. Similarly, slaves cannot give consent because the relationship is inherently unequal.
 
joobz said:
I don't understand your desire to defend Jefferson's slave ownership. He could have at anytime in his life got rid of his slaves. but he waited til the end.
Click to expand...

Got rid of???

Anyway, maybe this information could explain why he didn't release his slaves:

Thomas Jefferson did not free his own slaves for several reasons, we can surmise. First "freeing" slaves was not an easy task. The owner had to put up a bond to pay for any transgressions the slave commited on society while free. Also, slaves being considered property, they were subject to debt and property laws. If a owner of slaves was in massive debt, as was Thomas Jefferson to the tune of $100,000.00, freeing them was impossible. In fact once Jefferson died his creditors seized the slaves along with Monticello and sold them at auction. Thomas Jefferson also knew that his own fellow Viginians were not ready nor willing to support emancipation. Jefferson's many attempts at emancipating slaves in the state failed. Also he knew that it would not be humane to free a people into a society that did not want them, and who had their habits nurtured in slavery. Jefferson was a progressive. Many of his fellow Virginians felt he was a dangerous radical on slavery. Being progressive he knew that time and patience would eventually destroy the institution. It is amazing how modern Americans want simple solutions to complex social problems, i.e: slavery in the 18th century.

From the website: CONVERSATIONS ON JEFFERSON AND JEFFERSONIAN POLITICS

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/jeffersonians/jpfor005.htm
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
And would you say the United States (and today's blacks) are better off because Jefferson lived or worse off. I believe the vast majority of educated people would say the US (and the world for that matter) is better off because Jefferson lived. Thus almost all the blacks in the US today are better off because Jefferson lived. You have to look at the big picture sometimes. Sure Jefferson wasn't perfect and could have acted better to the slaves he inherited. But I'm sure glad he lived (even though he wasn't a mainline Christian) and I believe if most educated blacks today took some time to think about the big picture, they would be glad ,too, he lived, even though he "might" have done some bad things (by our modern standards) to one of the slaves he inherited when he was 14.

I don't see any blacks wanting to tear down the Jefferson monument in Washington or chisel his face off Mt Rushmore or take his image off our coins and paper money.
Click to expand...


I am having a hard time following your argument that blacks are better off today because Jefferson lived. After the Constitution was written, slavery continued to exist for 80 years and when it was finally abolished, it was replaced with the concept of separate but equal. That injustice existed until 1955. I cannot believe that in the intervening 168 years no other statesman would have come up with the idea that "All men are created equal." Jefferson was a great man, but he was not so unique, so revolutionary, so peerless that no other person could have come up with the ideals of equality expressed in the Constitution.


In any case, the item that caused me to reject your assertions was not whether or not Jefferson was a great man; the argument was that a slave owner's opinion about Jesus's system of ethics (link to DOC's post ) is of no use at all. If an educated, enlightened man cannot see that slavery is wrong, then his opinions about the beauty of a system of ethics are of no value.


Furthermore, the post that caused me to label your idea as insane was not using Jefferson's opinions to evaluate Christianity (I do not believe that is useful, but I would not characterize it as insane) but rather your defense of Jefferson's owning slaves. Specifically:
DOC said:
And to Jefferson's and Washington's defense, if you inherited many slaves at age 14 like Jefferson and at age 10 like Washington you'd probably be a slave owner too. Washington did eventually will his slaves to be released.
Click to expand...

I stand by the idea that for someone claiming to champion Christian ideals to use that argument is, well, kind of crazy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom