Since it is the Fourth of July, it seems only right to post something from the Revolution. Our reading for the day is the Age of Reason, by that fierce freethinking firebrand, Thomas Paine.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.
It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?
Of course, Paine died abandoned and spurned by the Republic he had inspired for these views…if deists could have a martyr, here he is.
I see we had similar ideas for our Fourth of July posts. I chose to highlight the Treaty of Tripoli. Patriotism is served best with a healthy side of secularism.
Paine’s Rights of Man and Age of Reason are wonderful books. Well-argued, funny, radical, and eminently accessible even after more than two centuries. A breath of fresh air for the liberal reader.
“The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity….
“Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.”
— The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831, first sentence quoted in John E. Remsberg, “Six Historic Americans,” second sentence quoted in Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15
Excuse me for posting a second time so quickly, but I wanted to add something about Tom Paine.
Tom Paine was saved from prison by U.S. ambassador in Paris at the time, James Monroe. Monroe said in a letter to Paine,
“It is not necessary for me to tell you how much all your countrymen — I speak of the great mass of the people — are interested in your welfare. They have not forgotten the history of their own Revolution and the difficult scenes through which they passed; nor do they review its several stages without reviving in their bosoms a due sensibility of the merits of those who served them in that great and arduous conflict.
The crime of ingratitude has not yet stained, and I trust never will stain, our national character. You are considered by them as not only having rendered important services in our own Revolution, but as being on a more extensive scale the friend of human rights, and a distinguished and able defender of public liberty. To the welfare of Thomas Paine the Americans are not, nor can they be indifferent.”
Age of Reason is timeless, and just as compelling today as it was 200 years ago. And that is really sad. Not much seems to have changed, regarding religion. The war with the British is long over, but the battle against mindshrinking stupidity rages on.
Since I’m a Unitarian Universalist I thought I’d post this from a wonderful essay by Robert Ingersoll.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/paineri.htm
Thomas Paine, having done so much for political liberty, turned his attention to the superstitions of his age. He published The Age of Reason, and from that day to this, his character has been maligned by almost every priest in Christendom. He has been held up as the terrible example. Every man who has expressed an honest thought, has been warningly referred to Thomas Paine. All his services were forgotten. No kind word fell from any pulpit. His devotion to principle, his zeal for human rights, were no longer remembered. Paine simply took the ground that it is a contradiction to call a thing a revelation that comes to us second hand. There can be no revelation beyond the first communication. All after that is hearsay. He also showed that the prophecies of the Old Testament had no relation whatever to Jesus Christ, and contended that Jesus Christ was simply a man. In other words, Paine was an enlightened Unitarian. Paine thought the Old Testament too barbarous to have been the work of an infinitely benevolent God. He attacked the doctrine that salvation depends upon belief. He insisted that every man has the right to think.
After the publication of these views, every falsehood that malignity could coin and malice could pass was given to the world. On his return to America, after the election to the presidency of another infidel, Thomas Jefferson, it was not safe for him to appear in the public streets. He was in danger of being mobbed. Under the very flag he had helped to put in heaven, his rights were not respected. Under the Constitution that he suggested, his life was insecure. He had helped to give liberty to more than three million of his fellow citizens, and they were willing to deny it to him. He was deserted, ostracized, shunned, maligned, and cursed. He enjoyed the seclusion of a leper, but he maintained through it all his integrity. He stood by the convictions of his mind. Never for one moment did he hesitate or waver.
He died almost alone. The moment he died Christians commenced manufacturing horrors for his death-bed. They had his chamber filled with devils rattling chains, and these ancient lies are annually certified to by the respectable Christians of the present day. The truth is, he died as he lived. Some ministers were impolite enough to visit him against his will. Several of them he ordered from his room. A couple of Catholic priests, in all the meekness of hypocrisy, called that they might enjoy the agonies of a dying friend of man. Thomas Paine, rising in his bed, the few embers of expiring life blown into flame by the breath of indignation, had the goodness to curse them both. His physician, who seems to have been a meddling fool, just as the cold hand of death was touching the patriot’s heart, whispered in the dull ear of the dying man: “Do you believe, or do you wish to believe, that Jesus Christ is the son of God?” And the reply was “I have no wish to believe on that subject.”
These were the last remembered words of Thomas Paine. He died as serenely as ever a Christian passed away. He died in the full possession of his mind, and on the brink and edge of death he proclaimed the doctrines of his life.
I have often wondered why Christians insist that non-Christians should lie about their non-Christian status – swearing on the Bible in court; the Pledge of Allegience, etc. Why do they want me to lie?
Because when they hear you lie to them, it makes them not feel so bad about lying to themselves.
*cough*LRonHubbard*cough*
*aaaa*Scientology*choo*
If you’re interested in other similar books — nah, couldn’t possibly be ;) — try to find a copy of Celsus’ On the True Doctrine (aka True Reason). He was a 2nd century Roman who saw the same kinds of nonsense from Xians back then, and many of his arguments against them still ring true today, especially re: their blatant disrespect for common sense and the Earth and unwillingness to cooperate with others in society.
Ian Gibson writes:
I have often wondered why Christians insist that non-Christians should lie about their non-Christian status – swearing on the Bible in court; the Pledge of Allegience, etc. Why do they want me to lie?
That reminds me of an entry I made on 9 July 2005, to an internal company blog:
—————————
Title: Is Your “Holy” Wholly Like My “Holy”?
As NPR reports today, N.C. Judge Forbids Quran in Witness Swearing In. How wonderful. Now, I have a few thoughts on this:
[1] Clarification: Clearly, it would matter for some people. My point here is that, lacking specific knowledge of what such an oath means to the witness in question, the court has no basis to know whether the oath means anything at all.
—————————
Paine a martyr? A little desperate for credibility of your beliefs, PZ?
As for Chris’ Treaty of Tripoli screed (reposted from a comment to his blog in case it doesn’t get posted):
Okay, I’ll mull it over and show you where you’re wrong.
First off, you claim this part of the treaty proves America was not founded as a Christian nation. Your claim is false. The section begins, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” Did you catch it? “As the GOVERNMENT” not “as the NATION.” Our government is not the whole of the nation. The nation is the people and their society, which were both very much Christian back then and are still primarily Christian today. The government was rightly created to be neutral.
Next, there is a rather interesting fact about that part of the treaty: it was not reproduced in any form in the non-English version. Why is that?
Finally, you are quoting a defunct version of the treaty. The Treaty of Tripoli was renegotiated years later and that entire part of the original treaty was dropped. What you are doing is tantamount to laughably quoting some old judicial ruling that states that slavery is legal and claiming it means that slavery is still legal today.
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripoli canard doesn’t fly. Try something else.
How freaking dense can one human being be? The entire point of this discusion was about the US government. Man what a tard.
If what you say is true than the US before was a nation following whatever religions the Indians practiced until of course the good Christians crushed them.
We had the ghost of Thomas Pane visit Dolores Park this afternoon!
Okay, it was really just an actress playing Pane’s ghost in the latest San Francisco Mime Troupe production: Godfellas, in which the real Pane’s writings play a major role.
Paine also has a regrettable paean to what amounts to an intellectually honest version of Intelligent Design in the Age of Reason. Too bad the bit on organized religion is in the same book.
No, actually. Chris’ point wasn’t about the government, but about the nation.
The U.S. wasn’t a nation before 1776.
Yeah, and it was good infidels like your beloved Jefferson who were trying to protect the Indians and their lands.
President Jefferson and the Indian Nations
“Jefferson wanted to guarantee the security of the United States and so sought to bind Indian nations to the United States through treaties. The aim of these treaties was to acquire land and facilitate trade, but most importantly to keep them allied with the United States and not with European powers … Jefferson used the networks created by the treaties to further the program of gradual “civilization.” His Federalists predecessors had begun this program, but it was completely in keeping with Jefferson’s Enlightenment thinking. Through treaties and commerce, Jefferson hoped to continue to get Native Americans to adopt European agricultural practices, shift to a sedentary way of life, and free up hunting grounds for further white settlement.”
Er… Oops! Guess not.
Paine at least had an excuse: he preceded Darwin by half a century.
Yeah, and it was good infidels like your beloved Jefferson who were trying to protect the Indians and their lands.
Well, it’s not like there was any sort of real, strong push from any Christian church to do much about it beyond forced assimilation and conversion, was there? Shouldn’t Christians, being supposedly more moral than infidels, be held to a higher ethical standard?
In any event, why is this particular discussion taking place here and not on Chris’ blog? Dirty pool, old man. But you do make a good point in that the United States government should remain unmistakably neutral when it comes to religion. Now, run along and hip the Religious Right to that concept, as I think you’ll find the Left pretty much with you.
“The nation is the people and their society” No Kiding?
Maybe I’ve misunderstood the concept that in this nation the government is supposed to be of the people by the people and for the people. So pray tell me which group of people in this nation are not included?
The Constitution of the United States of America:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I’m going to repeat myself again …
[b]All religions are blackmail, and are based on fear and superstition.[/b]
Religion offers a supposed comfort-blanket, or carrot to the believers, and waves a stick at the unbelievers.
“Do as we say, and you’ll go to heaven, don’t do as we say, and you’ll go to hell.” What they conveniently leave out here is the unspoken threat, which is only made manifest in those societies which are theocracies: “If you don’t do as we say, we can make sure you go to hell really painfully, and quickly.”
Thus all “priests” are liars and/or blackmailers. They may not be deliberate liars, but nonetheless, they are telling untrue fairy-stories.
Fear of exclusion from the community, in one form or another, is a standard part of the power-structure of any religion or cult. Excommunication, anathema, banishment, exile, fatwah, etc, … Fear of entry being refused in “the next world”, or “the community of saints”, or “the party”. Fear of real physical punishment by the “secular arm”, the NKVD, the Saudi religious police, or whomsoever the current set of spiritual thought police happen to be.
Fear of exclusion from the community, in one form or another, is a standard part of the power-structure of any religion or cult.
The fear of exclusion from the community is a part of almost any social structure, and is not specific to religion or cult.
Would you hate me if I disagreed?
Ian Gibson writes:
I have often wondered why Christians insist that non-Christians should lie about their non-Christian status – swearing on the Bible in court; the Pledge of Allegience, etc. Why do they want me to lie?
Because if you’re a witch, and you swear on the Bible, you’ll lose your Satanic Powerz. And if you’re a Commie, you’ll get kicked out of the Party. Makes sense, right?
Jason wrote…
“Paine a martyr? A little desperate for credibility of your beliefs, PZ?”
You want to elaborate on that? Refute some of Paine’s assertions? In all likelyhood, the substance of Paine’s arguments is more than a little over your head.
As for this notion that the US is somehow a “christian nation” and such other bravo sierra, every read Jefferson’s correspondence to the Danbury Baptists? Maybe some of Madison’s writings on the subject of religion and government. How about bernarda’s post above? Why don’t you show me precisely in the substance of the Constitution where it even mentions your tin horn, tribal god. Why was it that christo-facist groups attempted into the 20th century to have gawwwwd inserted in the Constitution?
The distinction you made between government and nation is completely irrelevant. That’s like saying this is a nation of baseball fans or American Idol viewers. Yea? So? What’s your point? The fact remains our government is secular in nature in order to protect the rights of ALL American’s to believe in whatever silly jebus fairy tale they so chose…or none at all. It is a nation where one can be an idiot, such as yourself, if one so choices as long as one does not harm anyone else and does not attempt to impose one’s brand of idiocy on the rest of us.
With respect to your precious jebus, as Celsus wrote so long ago, he’s more than likely the bastard son of Roman soldier. He’s also, like your brain, as dead as a fence post.
Jason- your clueless.
Hmm, I guess Ohio isn’t backward in everything. When I testify the judge just asks “do you solemnly swear to tell the truth…”, no Bible nor any reference to God.