As an inheritor of New England attitudes and agnosticism akin to Thomas Jefferson's, I am positive you are right about the wall working both ways. My forbearers (names of Parker, Potter, Perkins, Young are obvious) of Anglo-American heritage were primarily agnostic, some more deist than others, who would have agreed wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson's edited Bible, and my father's worst fear was that his children might become "intolerant." My own adolescent rebellion was to join a standard Christian church, but I remain convinced that allowing a specific religion to guide the government results in destruction (or major reformation) of that religion. My faith does not allow me to judge others by their faith--only by their actions. These people don't understand the Founding Fathers, except for the Cotton Mather or sinners-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-God sort. My parents, grandparents, and generations before (I have letters) were Christians with faith like Thomas Jeffersons's--except for slave-owning!--which most of the evangelical crowd would not accept as "Christian."
Outstanding!!! A great way to start off the New Year. Johnson has shown when it comes to religious liberty, church-state separation and Jefferson, he is severely intellectually and educationally challenged. A very low IQ when it comes to these critical issues.
How can Johnson and others of the far right argue that the words of the founding fathers are immutably written and yet themselves alter the meaning of those words at their whim to make the power of their Christian church exceed that of the state?
Great essay, and I'm in total agreement with your main thesis, which I took as we are all (including Speaker Johnson and other elected leaders) obligated to defend the wall separating Church and State. But I was disappointed that you seemed to focus only on Jefferson's comments and the arguments in favor of protecting the church from the state control. Can you say more, perhaps in another essay, on the founding arguments for protecting the state from religious control? That seems a much fuzzier topic, and I'm sure that Johnson and others are more concerned with enabling theocracy (their theology, of course) than they are truly concerned that the state will meaningfully curtail religious liberty. Given the composition of SCOTUS, I think we all need to be well-equipped with strong "originalist" arguments that depend both "sides" of this precious wall.
As an inheritor of New England attitudes and agnosticism akin to Thomas Jefferson's, I am positive you are right about the wall working both ways. My forbearers (names of Parker, Potter, Perkins, Young are obvious) of Anglo-American heritage were primarily agnostic, some more deist than others, who would have agreed wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson's edited Bible, and my father's worst fear was that his children might become "intolerant." My own adolescent rebellion was to join a standard Christian church, but I remain convinced that allowing a specific religion to guide the government results in destruction (or major reformation) of that religion. My faith does not allow me to judge others by their faith--only by their actions. These people don't understand the Founding Fathers, except for the Cotton Mather or sinners-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-God sort. My parents, grandparents, and generations before (I have letters) were Christians with faith like Thomas Jeffersons's--except for slave-owning!--which most of the evangelical crowd would not accept as "Christian."
Outstanding!!! A great way to start off the New Year. Johnson has shown when it comes to religious liberty, church-state separation and Jefferson, he is severely intellectually and educationally challenged. A very low IQ when it comes to these critical issues.
How can Johnson and others of the far right argue that the words of the founding fathers are immutably written and yet themselves alter the meaning of those words at their whim to make the power of their Christian church exceed that of the state?
This is terrific, Brian -- thank you!
Great essay, and I'm in total agreement with your main thesis, which I took as we are all (including Speaker Johnson and other elected leaders) obligated to defend the wall separating Church and State. But I was disappointed that you seemed to focus only on Jefferson's comments and the arguments in favor of protecting the church from the state control. Can you say more, perhaps in another essay, on the founding arguments for protecting the state from religious control? That seems a much fuzzier topic, and I'm sure that Johnson and others are more concerned with enabling theocracy (their theology, of course) than they are truly concerned that the state will meaningfully curtail religious liberty. Given the composition of SCOTUS, I think we all need to be well-equipped with strong "originalist" arguments that depend both "sides" of this precious wall.
Excellent work!!! Thank you!!!