John Adams on the Unalienable Right to Commit Blasphemy
Jonathan Rowe on Jan 12th 2008
I’m going to reproduce the entire letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825:
MY DEAR SIR,—We think ourselves possessed, or at least we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact. There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny, or to doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments. from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself, it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not much better; even in our Massachusetts, which, I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemies upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any arguments for investigation into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Volney’s Recherches Nouvelles? Who would run the risk of translating Dapin’s? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them; but as long as they continue in force as laws. the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever; but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which, I think, will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated. Adieu.
Adams is quite clear that the unalienable right to liberty of conscience means the right to blaspheme or in particular to doubt the truth of the divine inspiration of the Bible, which Adams himself personally did. When Adams stated the Christian religion “has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which, I think, will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated,” an evangelical Protestant might hope he were referring only to Roman Catholicism. But this is wrong. Adams, himself a lifelong, committed theological unitarian believed the entire institution of orthodox Trinitarian Christianity was corrupted. And those “corruptions of Christianity” were defined by Adams’ and Jefferson’s spiritual mentor, Joseph Priestley, as the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, and plenary inspiration of scripture. The Bible itself was “corrupted” and Adams believed man had an unalienable right to use his reason to edit what he saw as “error” from the Bible exactly as Jefferson did. As Adams praised Jefferson for cutting up the Bible in this regard:
“I admire your Employment, in selecting the Philosophy and Divinity of Jesus and seperating it from all intermixtures. If I had Eyes and Nerves, I would go through both Testaments and mark all that I understand.”
John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 14, 1813.
How this relates to today’s dispute over “originalism.” Most constitutional scholars agree that the original public meaning of constitutional words and principles trumps the “original intent” of the Framers. But sometimes those original principles, especially vaguely and broadly defined like “unalienable rights of conscience” are pregnant with implications (yes I know those words are not even in the Constitution, but rather in America’s Founding era natural rights documents). When one examines the private intent and one sees key Founders repeatedly discussing what they hoped to achieve by founding America on particular principles (i.e., the rights of conscience means the right to profess openly heresy and blasphemy) and then this is exactly what happens (even though many folks in the populace during the time those principles were enunciated weren’t quite on board with the plan), such is telling to say the least.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bureau
Jonathan,
Those are some great posts today! Hope to see more like it.
Thanks
But this also illustrates the understanding at the Founding that “religion,” even protection of Christianity, was left to the states and was entirely legal and constitutional. Those who use the First Amendment against mangers should pick another cudgel.
“Unalienable rights of conscience” is a good argument; however, nobody is required to believe that the doll of Little Baby Jesus lying there represents God His Ownself. The manger only represents the free expression of the other guy’s religion.
Now, I read somewhere that Bill O’Reilly declared victory in the War Against Christmas this year. Still, just as the Christian Nationists are still a threat, so are those who seek to use Amendment I as grounds for the establishment of a Naked Public Square.
[And, judging by John Adams' amateur theology in his other writings, if he marked the parts of the Bible he fully understood, it would make for a very small book indeed.]
Tom,
It is not the 1st amendment that is interpreted to place restrictions on “mangers”. It is the 1st amendment in combination with the 14th.
Regarding the founders it is only necessary to understand that they intended the 1st amendment to restrict such actions by the national government.
It is the framers of the 14th who are believed to have intended that the 1st amendment protections be extended to other forms of public governance.
Well, we’re back to original intent, as “equal protection of the laws” had ex-slaves in mind. But I don’t deny that can be stretched to mangers, because it has. Under a Living Constitution, all things are possible.
Tom,
You position that the 14th was intended to apply only to ex-slaves ignores the larger agenda of the Federalists. That being that much of the state’s liberty would yield to that of the nation.
Usually there will be government owned public square adjacent to government buildings and privately owned pulblic squares most everywhere else. No one can go before a court to argue that a plurality of viewpoints, including religious views, cannot be displayed somewhere on privately owned property because that property is a public square. People can create charities to finance their preferred public display on privately owned property and on billboards all around the country. It is usually possible to put up public displays that everyone can see on centrally located privately owned properties. The dispute over partisan displays is necessarily confined to government owned properties. Not all public squares are government owned properties even though some are.
You position that the 14th was intended to apply only to ex-slaves ignores the larger agenda of the Federalists. That being that much of the state’s liberty would yield to that of the nation.
Well, Ben, that wasn’t the understanding of the ratifiers of the constitution. It took the War of Northern Aggression [1861-65] to fulfill the Federalists’ nefarious plot.
But I’m mostly addressing that Amendment I is most often used rhetorically on the issue, even if XIV is the legal hammer. And if the meaning of the Constitution were clear, we wouldn’t need a Supreme Court at all, or have 5-4 votes, let alone William O. Douglas’ “penumbras.”
The “art” of law—rhetoric—still plays an important part in defining the law of the land, so I’d be remiss not to point out that I don’t think that XIV requires the state to protect atheists from Little Baby Jesus.
Ben,
My pleasure.
Great discussion from the rest of you as always.
[...] As Adams noted the rights of conscience also were inconsistent with blasphemy laws. Keep in mind, most originalists believe that the public meaning of the words, not secret private intent of the Framers is dispositive. However, as noted above, the principles contained in those words are pregnant with implications. When one examines the private intent and one sees key Founders repeatedly discussing what they hoped to achieve by publicly founding America on particular principles and then this is exactly what happens, such is telling to say the least. [...]