Talk:Religious views of Thomas Jefferson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disestablishment and church-state sections

It seems to me that these two sections are really two different angles on the same material. Probably they should be merged. Mangoe (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yes and maybe no. Disestablishment focusses on the earlier Jefferson within the state of Virginia. Separation focusses on the later 1st amendment and on TJ's semi-private support for religion. Hardly anyone argues for "re-establishment", but many argue against a wall separating church & state --JimWae (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oldest church in DC claims

The page on St. Patrick's only claims it as one of the oldest churches in DC. As it happens, St. Paul's Rock Creek Parish is much older (see here): parts of the current building date back to 1721 and the main part dates to 1775. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Does not seem to be part of this article - no page on St. Patrick's.--Parkwells (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This relates to a claim removed from the article on the order of three years ago. Mangoe (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved fom article

A question has arisen about the relevance of this to the article:

Scholars have remarked that James Madison and James Monroe, observing the umbrage heaped on Jefferson for his religious views and concerned they would suffer the same fate, rarely put their thoughts about religion down on paper. Abraham Lincoln, whose early views about religion were similar to Jefferson's, also had to defend himself against charges of being an infidel.

It was removed with comment that "this is about Jefferson". The article is, however, about "Jefferson & religion" and if what happened to Jefferson affected how his successors acted, it is relevant to the article. I do think some specific sources are needed, however. --JimWae (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Was Jefferson a Deist?

I deleted Avery Dulles's claim that Jefferson was a deist for the following reasons: Dulles was a professor of religion, but he was NOT an expert on Jefferson or American intellectual history. His article (which has no footnotes or citations) doesn't appear in a peer-reviewed journal, but rather in a popular journal for educated Catholics. He is simply rehashing the common assumption that Jefferson was a deist, without any discussion of the evidence for and against. Furthermore, Dulles's claim that Jefferson was a deist because he believed in divine providence is absurd on its face. Deism, by definition, REJECTED belief in God's providence. Dulles's discussion of this issue is clearly incompetent, so I deleted it. --Other Choices (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We are going to need to assess this quote against other sources. It's missing what is generally considered the gold standard of deist belief (the lack of miracles. Also Jefferson's beliefs tended to shift somewhat over time. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Dulles is a leading expert on 18th century religion (see his history of apologetics) and his understanding of Deism is critical. There is no dispute about what Jefferson said, the issue is how it fit into the 18th century theology of Deism, and Dulles is clear enough. He satisfies all the criteria for a RS--and the critics here seem to lack any RS of their own, suggesting it POV as motivation. Let's see the RS they are depending upon--especially for their false statements like Deism, by definition, REJECTED belief in God's providence. Deists believed that God created a benevolent universe and that was what they meant by his "providence". Dictionary definition of Providence = God conceived as that ultimate reality whose sustaining power and ordering activity provide continual guidance over the matters of human destiny . (Webster 3rd) As Webb says, "most eighteenth-century deists believed in providence." (Stephen H. Webb, American providence: a nation with a mission (2004) p. 35. Rjensen (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the problem here is the muddy, two-faced definition of the phrase " divine providence." If different sources assume opposite definitions of this phrase, the result is likely to be fruitless argument. Perhaps for this reason alone, Dulles's quote is misleading and inappropriate for wikipedia.
My source for Jefferson's religious views is a 2004 dissertation by Gregg L. Frazer: The Political Theology of the American Founding. Obviously, Frazer is not as notable as Dulles. But on the other hand, Frazer's work is exhaustively documented, as opposed to Dulles's non-scholarly article. Here is an excerpt from pp. 75-77 of Frazer:

"Like Adams, Jefferson held a number of beliefs in common with deism, but was not a deist. Unlike the deists, who denied all present supernatural activity, Jefferson believed in a God who was active and involved in human affairs. He believed in God's providence and, consequently, he believed in prayer. While he did not believe that all of the Bible was divinely inspired, he did, in contrast to the deists, accept some of it as written revelation and had a higher regard for Scripture than did the deists....

"Without question, his best known affirmation of God's active interest in human affairs is the following statement regarding slavery in his Notes on the State of Virginia: 'Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever; that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events; that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.'" [citing Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, 1800 ed., p. 164, emphasis added by Frazer] --Other Choices (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest adding Gregg L. Frazer's comments to the article, rather than removing the analyses of much better known scholars. The passage has problems--Frazer does not cite evidence for his claim that "Jefferson believed in a God who was active and involved in human affairs" -- TJ never mentions any such divine activity or involvement. (TJ's slavery bit is phrased as a prediction abojut the future-- and says God's justice is currently asleep.)Rjensen (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The key to this debate is attribution. Wikipedia needs to maintain a WP:Neutral point of view and tone on any controversial topic... this means we don't state whether Jefferson was a deist or not... nor do we try to "prove" one view or the other... instead we report on what various reliable sources say about the question... attributing each view point to the authors that present them. We present a balanced discussion about the issue, giving each view WP:Due weight. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Blueboar's advice, I have eliminated the "Jefferson as Deist" section, preserving all of the content and redistributing it into other sections. In doing so, I rearranged the "General remarks" section, placing the pro-Deist scholarly quotes first, because there are more of them. As I arranged it, the "General remarks" title could be easily eliminated with the text simply incorporated into the previous section. There is already another section in the article that mentions Deism, and it seems that the "Jefferson as Deist" section was added more recently to promote a POV that is controversial among scholars. In addition to the POV problem, it seems provocative to present such a "red cape" so near the beginning of the article. --Other Choices (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue of Jefferson's theology is central to the article. Rjensen (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with that; the question is how to present a discussion of Jefferson's theology in a balanced and neutral way. The article is currently going through a process of digestion, because we are both bringing in new material. Part of the problem that we face is the conflicting use of the terms "deism" and "providence" by scholars who often don't specify what they mean. For example, it's hard to find common ground between Adams and Paine beyond the emphasis they shared with Jefferson on good works.--Other Choices (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Deism is currently lost in the Unitarian section, and there should be a section that specifically addresses deism. Perhaps the last section could carry a title that includes the word "deism", maybe Jefferson and Deism. The terms "Christian rationalism" & "theistic rationalism" are terms TJ never used (he did use the term "deism"), their usage did not become common (or even appear, in the case of "theistic rationalism") until after TJ had died, and they are both ways of trying to reconcile deism with Xty. Putting Deism last does disturb the chronological order somewhat, in that he was probably most strongly influenced by it before he shifted more towards Unitarianism, which itself has deistic ties. However, if we have to present a multitude of opinions, as it seems we must, it is better to do so near the end, as the other sections are more straight-forward and far less controversial.--JimWae (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make sense to have a section on Jefferson's early views and influences near the beginning. Right now, the article doesn't reflect the evolution in Jefferson's religious thought. I think that it is fair to say that he was a "thoroughgoing Deist" in his early adulthood (when he had the most to fear from societal opprobrium of his heterodoxy, being therefore inclined to conceal his real thoughts), but in his later years he was strongly interested in trying to reconcile deism with christianity; I think that is a reasonably mainstream scholarly view. Phrases like Strout's "mild deism" highlight the need for precision in our use of terms.--Other Choices (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

you need a RS that says he made that change--Peterson denies it and has TJ's God the same as Paine's (Paine was a Deist we all agree). Rjensen (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood, I need a reliable source that says he changed. Shouldn't be too difficult; I'll start digging as time permits. Off the top of my head; Adams reproved Jefferson for a contemptuous statement about the Bible in the 1770s, but decades later Adams declared that Jefferson's views were the same as his own. Seems to be prima facie evidence of a change in Jefferson. Of course Paine made a clear profession of deism. Adams and Paine had significant differences, so Jefferson couldn't agree with both of them; but I understand that we'll have to limit ourselves to what the published scholars say on the subject. (Perhaps Jefferson had a general tendency to be agreeable toward his interlocutor of the moment.) Your interpretation of Peterson's use of "theistic" might be correct, but of course that is OR and needs to be kept out of the article.--Other Choices (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A careful reading of a reliable secondary source is not OR. It's the mission for Wikipedia editors. Peterson says Jefferson and Paine were in full agreement about God and Paine was a deist. Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Fringe theories

It appears that the unpublished work of Gregg L. Frazer is being cited extensively. No other RS cites or even agrees with Frazer's views, so they have to be classified as "fringe" and downplayed according to Wikipedia rules. Note that no scholars say he believed in prayer. eg: "Jefferson's deist views were key in shaping his thoughts.... Prayer to such a God went unanswered; the love of such a God was ineffective." (Encyclopedia of American religion and politics (2003) by Paul A. Djupe, Laura R. Olson.) That TJ disbelieved in prayer is held by evangelical scholars. ["Jefferson was a thoroughgoing deist. ... For Jefferson, however, the extended prayer-request in the beloved hymn "God Bless America" would have been a pointless petition." says Remedial Christianity: what every believer should know by Paul A. Laughlin, Glenna S. Jackson - 2000]; he was the first president NOT to call for national prayer.[ rayer in America: A Spiritual History of Our Nation p 82 by James P. Moore, Jr.] Rjensen (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Frazer's dissertation is what I had handy when I started; I have just added a quote from the authoritative Sydney Ahlstrom, and will include others as time permits. --Other Choices (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahlstrom is a good example of a leading scholar, whose work is widely cited. I have found no scholar who cites Frazer, and many who disagree with him--that, and the fact that he has never published his findings, makes him fringe. Rjensen (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem here is one of terminology. Frazer identifies with other scholars who use terms like "Christian rationalist" or "theological rationalist" instead of his "theistic rationalist." All indicate a middle ground between orthodox Christianity and Deism, and this type of scholarship is well-represented in mainstream views (Ahlstrom comes to mind, and so does Merrill Peterson.) The advantage of Frazer is that his work is narrowly focused on the religious views of the leading founders, including lots of direct quotes, such as Jefferson's prayers for the Danbury Baptists and for John Adams at the death of his wife Abigail. Many other sources (like Dulles) make passing statements or come to hasty conclusions with only the most superficial analysis. In the world of Jefferson scholarship, Dulles is on the fringe, with absolutely nothing original to say. --Other Choices (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dulles is a leading authority on deism (he wrote the standard book on how Christian apologists tried to fight it in the 18th century). Frazer never published and no RS is known to cite him (that makes Frazer a fringe source--a loner). As for Peterson, he is indeed a leading scholar and Peterson says Jefferson "rejected revelation, the divinity of Christ, the miracles, the atonement, and so on, without which Christianity was nothing in the eyes of believers. He did not even accept Jesus on his own terms, for Jesus was a spiritualist by the grace of God and he a materialist by the grace of science." (p 961). Peterson makes the point, as quoted in the article, that Jefferson and Paine had the same theology -- and Paine was a leading deist.Rjensen (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And Peterson used "theistic" (not "deistic") to describe both Jefferson and Paine. Curious... --Other Choices (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"agreed in the essentials of their theistic faith," Peterson used "theistic" in the sense of believer in one God (ie not an atheist, not a polytheist). Paine defines what it means to be a Deist and Peterson says he and Jefferson agreed about God. Rjensen (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources needed

To tie Jeffesron to a middle ground between orthodox Christianity requires citations to scholars like Conrad Wright, Cushing Strout etc. Frazer will not do--his unpublished work is not easily available and he is known to make exaggerated claims that other scholars reject (like TJ believed in miracles, which all scholars reject).Stoput for example refers to "mild Deism of Jefferson" [Stout, The American image of the Old World (1953) p 45]. I don't think McMurry Richey discussed Jefferson's theology, and we'll need a cite for Conrad Wright on TJ. Rjensen (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahlstrom has already set out (in detail) the 18th-century American middle ground between Christianity and Deism. I would be surprised if McMurray mentioned Jefferson; Frazer discussed several leading Founders, and his point was that many scholars have noticed this 18th-century middle ground between Christianity and Deism, without agreeing on terminology. I suppose this point would be better discussed on the Theistic rationalism page. I'd be curious to know the source for your claim that Frazer claimed that Jefferson believed in miracles. In his dissertation, Frazer never made such a claim.--Other Choices (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Frazer is definitely a reliable source per wikipedia policy. Here's a quote from another one, Gaustad's Sworn on the Altar of God: "I limit myself to four bald categorical assertions....First, Thomas Jefferson was the most self-consciously theological of all American presidents. Second, he dedicated himself more deliberately and diligently to the reform of religion than any other president. Third, in partnership with James Madison, he did more to root religious liberty firmly in the American tradition than any predecessor or successor in the White House. And fourth, in succeeding centuries, no other president has been appealed to more frequently or fervently in religious matters than Jefferson."
--Other Choices (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Frazer qualifies asa RS but he's also a fringe theory because no one cites him or agrees with him. Gaustad is outstanding. Rjensen (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

the new section on "Jefferson and Deism"

I have serious reservations about the newly-added section on Jefferson and Deism. I think that the issue of Jefferson and Deism merits discussion, but perhaps not at the top of the article. Please, let's talk about how this article would be best structured. Furthermore, there appear to be some problems within this section as now written. First of all, it appears to be POV, promoting the "Deist" label without citing any Jefferson scholars. In particular, the sentence that begins "Important tenets of most deists..." appears to be both POV and OR. The quote from Patrick Henry's widow seems to be both OR and irrelevant. What's the point of including it in a wikipedia article? Also, the references to Jefferson's letters to Priestley and Adams seem to be OR. What do reliable sources make of these quotes?
Regarding whether Jefferson imbibed Deism at William and Mary in the 1760s, Dulles was apparently controverting the often-heard argument that Jefferson was an atheist, and Holmes is being misused. Holmes stated that the College of William and Mary was a hotbed of Deism IN THE 1790s, not in the 1760s when Jefferson was a student there. This reference to William and Mary appears in Holmes's discussion of James Monroe, not Holmes's discussion of Jefferson. Regarding Jefferson, Holmes wrote (p. 88), "In later years, Jefferson clearly moved toward a more traditional interpretation of Christianity. He valued Jesus as a person even more highly. Unlike some Deists, he came to believe in prayer and in a life after death." So for Holmes, Jefferson ended up a Deist who believed in prayer. Huh, a praying deist??? This is why some scholars prefer to make room for a third category between Christianity and deism. (Holmes's reference also shows that Jefferson's views changed over the course of his life, which should be integrated into the article somehow.) Perhaps, at the beginning of this section, there should be some discussion of the different ways that different scholars use the word "deism." Otherwise, we'll just get muddled.--Other Choices (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nearly all deists believed in an afterlife - it was one of 5 fundamental tenets. Many also believed in prayer - though few believed they were answered. If the ref to W&M (re Monroe) can be shown to be anachronistic, it can easily be removed without altering the text, Deism came into TJ's life very early & that is why it appears early in the article. It also needs to appear early because he is widely said to have BEEN a deist (even if he was not). The "label" is already in lots of literature, this section does not label him anymore than any other section - it presents TJ's connections to deism--JimWae (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

in Christianity as Old as the Creation, Matthew Tindal argues against praying for miracles, but advocates prayer as both a human duty and a human need. --JimWae (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "Deist" label is out there very prominently regarding Jefferson, and this should definitely be reflected in the article. But there are different ways to do that, and a special section on Jefferson and Deism is just one option. I'll look at your more recent posts more carefully later; but I have just one comment right now: Shaftesbury was a Theist, not a Deist! But he was definitely opposed to orthodox Christianity. My understanding is that there is no evidence that Jefferson read Shaftesbury before 1776 (although he probably did); but he definitely read Bolingbroke earlier. I'm going to suggest that we make an early section entitled "Early Influences," mentioning Bolingbroke and also other philosophers that Jefferson studied when young. But I think it is important to seek out scholarly sources when available for our discussion. (see below) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 08:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to edit war, but I don't think the "Jefferson and Deism" section is necessary, and I definitely don't think it is appropriate so early in the article. It appears to be a re-warming of the old "Jefferson as Deist" section which started as a promotion of a POV and ended up being a mishmash of conflicting claims. Perhaps the George Washington and religion article is a good example, where there is a separate section near the end about scholarly claims about Washington's personal beliefs. As I have suggested earlier, I think there should be an early section on Jefferson's early influences, including mention of Bolingbroke, etc. This will be one way to bring Deism into the article without using a sledge-hammer approach, leaving room for further mentions of deism in the article as appropriate.--Other Choices (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

While Other Choices has an agenda to downplay Deism, the editors have her responsibility to follow the reliable sources. In this regard I recommend the article on religion by ES Gaustad, in Merrill D. Peterson editor Thomas Jefferson: a reference biography (1986) pages 277 to 93. Gaustad's section headings are as follows:"Freedom from and for religion," page 279; "Jefferson's religion" page 283; "Life and morals of Jesus of Nazareth" page 286; "Deist doctrine" page 287; "Deist denunciation and restoration" page 291-3. Thus of the 16 page article, six pages --over one third--are given over to Deism by a leading authority on Jefferson and religion. Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen, please be careful about your assumptions regarding what you term my "agenda." The way I see things, deism is being inappropriately overemphasized, and I am trying to restore a neutral balance. In the case of Jefferson, there is much talk of deism in the relevant reliable sources, so of course this should be prominently mentioned in the article. The issue here is how to arrange a good article. Are you suggesting that we use the same divisions that Gaustad uses? Do you think that there should be a separate "Jefferson and Deism" section near the beginning of the article? Do you disagree with my suggestion that there be an "early influences" section near the beginning of the article? Your discussion of Gaustad's article shows that part of his discussion relates to information that, here at wikipedia, properly goes into the Deism article, not the Jefferson article. However, I am all for a concise summary of deism here in the Jefferson article, if such is possible.--Other Choices (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a wise decision to follow Gaustad's example closely. Yes, with a separate Deism section; yes, early on. The Gaustad article sticks closely to TJ--what TJ took from Priestly and Middleton, Price etc (it is not a general coverage of Desim) There is a TJ quote every few sentences. Following Gaustad will help relieve these useless debates here. Rjensen (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me to use the Gaustad article as a basic template; I imagine that JimWae will concur. I'll have to track down a copy; perhaps others will start to get this article in shape beforehand.--Other Choices (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Dumas Malone on Jefferson's early influences

Here's one basic source for Jefferson's early religious life: Volume 1 of Dumas Malone's multi-volume biography (with Malone's footnotes in brackets):

Dumas Malone, Jefferson the Virginian (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.: 1948)

p. 107: He concerned himself much, in his twenties, with the mysteries of death and immortality. In the year that he became President of the United States, replying to a communication about the transmigration of souls, he had this to say about the "country of spirits": "...When I was young I was fond of speculations which seemed to promise some insight into that hidden country, but observing at length that they left me in the same ignorance in which they found me, I have for very many years ceased to read or to think concerning them, and have reposed my head on that pillow of ignorance which a benevolent Creator has made so soft for us, knowing how much we should be forced to use it." [to Rev. Isaac Story, Dec. 5, 1801 (Ford, VIII, 107)]

p. 107: During his inquiring youth and young manhood he did not find the answers; and, characteristically, he addressed himself to the roblems of this world which reason can better understand. On the other hand, he did find noble and inspiring maxims and examples, not in the Christian Scriptures, which he undervalued at this stage, but primarily in the writings of classical antiquity, and out of these he evolved a working philosophy.

p. 108: It was at the beginning of this period of imperfect personal admustment that he wrote to John Page about bearing up "with a tolerable degree of patience under this burden of life," of proceeding "with a pious and unshaken resignation," and of arriving at such a philosophy that few things could disturb him at all and nothing could disturb him much. [July 15, 1763 (Ford, I, 349-50)]

p. 108: Before he attained domestic happiness he had probably worked out his enduring philosophy of life; it was marked by cheerfulness not gloom, and he afterwards described it as Epicurian, though he hastened to say that the term was much misunderstood. He came to believe that happiness was the end of life, but, as has been said, he was engaged by "the peculiar conjunction of duty with happiness"; and his working philosphy was a sort of blend of Epicureanism and Stoicism, in which the goal of happiness was attained by self-discipline. [Koch, p. 6, and ch.1 passim, taking issue with Chinard in Literary Bible, pp. 16-17; Jefferson to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819 (Ford X, 143)]

p. 108: Thus he appears as an exceedingly serious young man, who had worked things out in his own mind just about as far as he thought they could be worked out by him, and who had freed himself entirely from the need of churchly sanction. He was not wholly a rationalist, however, and he did feel the need for some sort of authority which he was unwilling to concede to church or priest. This he found within an individual's own breast in the conscience, which he regarded as a special moral sense, as truly a part of man's nature as his sense of sight or hearing, his arm or his leg.[to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787 (Ford, IV, 429); good discussion in Koch, ch. 3] How early he reached this opinion it is difficult to say. He may have groped for a time in a dim borderland of ethical uncertainty, but he had definitely emerged from it before he wrote the earliest of his notable public papers, for these are marked by a burning consciousness of moral values. Addressing King George III in 1774, he said: "The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counsellors."[In his "Summary View" (Ford, I, 446)

p. 109: As has been well said, "He was a pious man, if the religion of a humane morality is recognized as a kind of natural piety." {Koch, p. 39] But unqustionably he was secular in these years and he probably would not have called himself a Christian.

p. 109: At some time before the American Revolution he copied the dictum of Bolingbroke that the teachings of Christ comprise an incomplete body of ethics; and that a system collected from the writings of the ancient "heathen" moralists would be "more full, more entire, more coherent, and more clearly deduced from unquestionable principles of knowledge."[Literary Bible, p. 50] Young Jefferson may not have wholly agreed with the English writer at this stage; and in the ripeness of years he found in the teachings of Jesus "the purest system of morals ever before preached to man." [to S. kercheval, Jan. 19, 1810 (L. & B, XII, 345)] Eventually he regarded the "heathen" moralists as insufficient. Even in his old age, however, he was fully convinced that the "priests (Protestant as well as Catholic) had "adulterated and sophisticated" the teachings of Jesus for their own selfish purposes; and from his twenties to his death he was anticlerical in varying degrees of bitterness. He served for a time as a vestryman in his parish, as a leading planter was supposed to do; he continued throughout life to have warm personal friends among the "enlightened" clergy; and he always contributed generously to local churches. But before he attacked the special privileges of the Establishment in Virginia, ecclesiastical authority and traditional theology had wholly ceased to have validity for him. The right to complete intellectual and religious freedom which he afterwards championed so conspicuously for all men he had already claimed for himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 08:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A more recent source

Peter S. Onuf wrote "Thomas Jefferson and Deism," published September 2011 in History Now [1], the quarterly journal of the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. Parkwells (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Original research?

There is much interesting material here, but reliance on Jefferson's primary documents means the editor(s) are doing Original Research (OR). The article is supposed to rely on the use of valid academic third-party sources, not extensive quotations from Jefferson's own works. I agree that these are what are commonly considered Jefferson's opinions, but the article is supposed to use scholars' writings about Jefferson, not one or more editors' own selections among Jefferson's works.--Parkwells (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that what you are describing would be two degrees of separation from original research. If you can only reference a third party's opinion of Jefferson's words, what's to say we couldn't have a rule against quoting *that* scholar directly? Original research would be a first hand account of an event, not the quotation of a written source. Am I wrong?--Icowrich (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see the discussions below and WP guidelines; editors are supposed to use secondary sources.Parkwells (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson's words about Christianity

Jefferson said about Christianity the following words: Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man. Shall we write about it in the section Religion ? Or we love him too much to write such things !!!! 46.71.120.91 (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

As you can see from this accurate citation, he didn't say that. So I suppose we could include a section about misrepresentations passed along by the gullible, but it's not real about his religion. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Rationale for recent edit of the article

In my recent edit, I attempted to better clarify the difference between the concepts of Deism that Jefferson understood, and modern day Deism, the two being somewhat different, and I felt in need of a little further clarification. I also attempted to clarify up front that Jefferson consistently referred to himself as a "Christian", and never as a Deist throughout his life. (Obviously his definition of what a Christian is, and how most others defined it were somewhat different.) I love Jefferson's reference to parts of the Bible as being "dung". What I think he really meant to say was "the Bible is full of s***", but with a few diamonds thrown in, in his own gentlemanly way. At any rate, this is quite a good and interesting article. Scott P. (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)