Was Thomas Jefferson a Unitarian? A Humanist?
JOHN BURCHFIELD
Leo Nagorski
Over the years in UU, Jefferson has always been listed as a Unitarian due to remarks he made in personal letters. He never actually joined a Unitarian church. He is credited with claiming that Unitarianism would one day be the majority religion in America; obviously misjudging the emotional power of movements like the “Great Awakening” as opposed to the Enlightenment. He is usually also regarded as a Deist. At the time, many intellectuals were attracted to Deism because it seemed “science-friendly” and rational. Even those Unitarians who still claimed to be Christian were influenced by Deism. This was true even of the Universalist, Hosea Ballou whose own thinking was influenced by some of his Deistic acquaintances and Ethan Allen’s book, “Reason, The Only Oracle of Man”.
There has always been a strange kind of approach in UU circles regarding our “famous members”. I remember a discussion years ago as to whether Charles Darwin was “one of us”. Supposedly, Darwin set foot in a Unitarian church only once in his life – his wedding day and then only because his wife-to-be wanted it.
I get the feeling that many of the other ones we claim have an equally tenuous connection to the denomination.
A few years back on one of the UU/Humanist sites there was an online debate about who is a UU. This was because of the then new survey that showed that twice as many people outside the denomination identified as UU as were in the denomination. Some of the online discussion took a strange turn. Some of the people argued that one could only be called a UU if they actually belonged to a UU congregation and were involved in the congregation. Now, most of those who made this argument were ”institutionalists”; especially the ministers (which is logical, since that’s their bread and butter). But, if that idea is true, then that means UUA ad campaigns will have to change. After all, some of our “great heroes of the faith” have had strange relationships to the denomination; Ralph Waldo Emerson comes to mind. It seems to me that the institutionalists can’t have it both ways; saying that modern day “non-famous” people can’t call themselves UUs if they don’t join a church, but dead famous ones who may have never occupied a pew or put into the plate can.
But, Humanists also have a dubious history regarding claiming famous people. The AHA’s “Humanist of the Year” award came in for a lot of scorn and sarcasm from many Humanists because, as often as not, the winners weren’t Humanists (they may have been good humanitarians, though). I remember going to a Humanist Conference when the film maker Oliver Stone was given the award. He started out his acceptance speech by stating that, before the awards committee contacted him, he’d never even heard of Humanists.
So far as the politics of who we identify as UU or Humanist, I think there is a difference between owning up to everyone (even the baddies) and using questionable ones as part of an ad campaign when we clearly no longer think the way they did. Recently, the UUA has been exploring the part played by New England Unitarians in the slave trade, for example. I’ve even heard of a few Southern Unitarians who owned slaves. I remember years ago meeting the then editor of the “Universalist Herald” who gave a talk at a conference I was at in which he told how the Universalists almost split into Northern & Southern versions like the Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians over the Civil War. The vote to stay unified won by just one vote! I doubt that even southern UUs would defend slavery today.
I once heard Gordon Stein refer to Deism as “Humanism plus God”. I remember once kidding our now deceased member and friend Robin Dawes that he would’ve blackballed Albert Einstein for membership in our group because he occasionally used the word “God”. It’s also important to understand what a person’s situation is. What do they actually mean when they use certain terminology? I know Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics who think it is possible to have something like a “naturalistic spirituality” for example; though that phrase might send some of us up the wall. Also, in previous eras freethinkers often had to disguise their views just to stay alive or out of prison. Many, like Spinoza did not want their writings published until after their deaths. Some wrote under pseudonyms.
Leo
From: humanistco...@googlegroups.com [mailto:humanistco...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of JOHN BURCHFIELD
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 7:42 PM
To: Humanist Group <humanistco...@googlegroups.com>; Steve Hirtle <shi...@gmail.com>; Victor Grauer <vict...@verizon.net>; Michael Houlahan <mhoula...@gmail.com>; David Herndon <dher...@first-unitarian-pgh.org>; Richard Haverlack <r.hav...@comcast.net>; James DeHullu <jdeh...@verizon.net>
Subject: Was Thomas Jefferson a Unitarian? A Humanist?
Monthly meetings of the Humanist Group have been suspended, at least until the merger between the Humanist Community of Pittsburgh and CFI-Pittsburgh is resolved. In the meantime I intend to resume my occasional e-mails. Remember, as the President of the HCP, I am speaking ex cathedra concerning matters of faith and morals. Unlike the Pope, I don't claim to be infallible. Your response is appreciated.
While surfing the Internet recently to find out what exactly Thomas Jefferson believed about the Trinity, I found an interesting Wikipedia entry about Jefferson's views on religion. Religious views of Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia Some of this was surprising. His views deviated so far from Christian orthodoxy, as I understand it, that I am surprised that he was considered a Christian at all (although he was often accused of being an atheist). He seems to have had an admirable, Bill Maher-ish willingness to call out religious people on their bullshit (e.g., the Trinity, the Book of Revelation), although I suppose he only did this in private letters. I was a little surprised to find that Jefferson still believed in divine providence, although he is classified as a deist.
|
|
I also looked up information about the decision in 2011 to change the name of the UU Thomas Jefferson District, in the South to the Southeast District. Thomas Jefferson District changes name What I found out was depressing, and representative of what I find wrong with the contemporary UU movement. Part of the decision was a sop to minorities. Of course, this action was proudly defined as a benefit to "the beloved community" and as bending "the arc of justice." He was, of course, a slaveholder, which was the norm in the circles that Jefferson traveled in, as his supporters noted. (Truthfully, some of his opinions were racist even by eighteenth-century standards.) But he was supposedly "not a Unitarian," despite well-known statements that suggest otherwise. This opinion may be spreading; I recently saw a chart about the religious views of the presidents (from the Pew people, I believe) that didn't include Jefferson among the four Unitarian presidents--he was listed, along with Lincoln, under "no formal affiliation." True, I believe he never attended Unitarian services, but to write him out of Unitarian history, as the UUA has done, smacks of Stalinesque political correctness. As is so often the case, the UUA is on the forefront of liberal piety. Sometimes this has been laudable, as in our support of the civil rights movement and the drive to establish LGBT rights. Sometimes this is questionable; I would cite our support of "preferred gender pronouns."
|
|
I am reminded of a co-worker I knew about thirty years ago who was surprised that a government building was named after Rep. William S. Morehead because he was a "well-known homosexual." Wikipedia doesn't "out" him, but Morehead was involved in a scandal with what would today be called a "trans" prostitute. At one time you would be read out of the human race if you were identified as gay or a Communist sympathizer. Today you better not be stigmatized as a "racist" despite the vagueness and ambiguity of that concept. Sometime I will tell you happens when I mention the name of our own Voldemort, Roy Frye, at First Church.
Who's next to be consigned to the dustbin of history? The first female Humanist of the Year, Margaret Sanger, might be ripe for excommunication, although she is probably safe because she was a woman and an advocate for birth control. Sure she was a humanist, but was she a Unitarian? One UU source on the Internet has this to say: "Yet, there is no record of her ever having become a member of one of our congregations and we seem to be stretching facts when we claim her." There is endless right-wing propaganda about Sanger being a racist and the instigator of Black genocide by locating Planned Parenthood clinics in Black neighborhoods. This is what the Jews call a "blood libel," but Sanger definitely advocated eugenics--a position condemned by our won Right Relations Policy--long after it became unacceptable. Is she too hot to handle?
I would appreciate something from long-term Humanist and UU Leo Nagorski about the politics of identifying historical figures as UU's. Remember, Leo, I am your president!
As far as identifying Jefferson as a Humanist is concerned, I would classify him as such along with other deists like Voltaire and Tom Paine, along with others who may have been atheists but disguised it for prudential reasons, like Hobbes and Spinoza.
Wow! I didn't expect this to be so long! Any input is welcome.
John
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanist Community of Pittsburgh" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to humanistcommunit...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanistco...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/humanistcommunitypgh.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
|
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
|