Our Christian Heritage?

[Kimstu]

tomndebb: Actually, it is not an urban legend, but an actual case from Colorado (although I do not know the school).

Thanks tom! I was misled by not being able to find the name of the school in the Denver district. In any case, as you point out, it is certainly an urban legend that the ACLU (or the Anti-Defamation League, for that matter) was involved in the case.

I have to point out here a fact about the ACLU that many people are unaware of: it does not itself initiate lawsuits in defense of civil liberties. It brings suit on behalf of a plaintiff who has decided to challenge some law or policy on civil-liberties grounds (and then only when it thinks the case is truly significant and has the resources to conduct it). Somebody has to ask an ACLU affiliate to bring suit before any action can be taken. So if there’s a civil-liberties suit that the ACLU wasn’t involved in, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the ACLU didn’t support it; it could simply be that the plaintiff did not seek ACLU backing.

[Freyr]

**Soup_du_Jour wrote:

Freyr, freedom, equality, and the sanctity of human life are all Christian principles. They may not be exclusively Christian, but they are Christian nonetheless.

This country was founded on principles of freedom, equality, and the sanctity of human life, among other things. I’d have to go with His4Ever on this one.**

Yes, they are Christian principles but you could just as easily say they’re Jewish principles or Buddhist principles or principles of many traditional religions around the world. The way His4Ever wrote that statement, it certainly seemed to imply that the principles were exclusively Christian. But as you, yourself said, they’re not.

**Jersey_Diamond wrote:

Freyr, maybe this cite will be useful:

Jersey_Diamond **, that website was so biased it’s not even funny. All of its quotes are taken out of context. Before I’ll accept them, I’d like to see the entirety of the documents that are quoted and the historical and social context in which the documents were made.

It still doesn’t answer my question, tho. His4Ever said that our country is based on Christian principles. I’d like to know exactly which ones. Are they so vague, like Soup_du_Jour, implies that they could apply to any religion? If so, then why label them Christian?

[GOM]

*Originally posted by gobear *
**and thus is called the Lemon test.

**

What an appropriate name…

Thanks.

[GOM]

*Originally posted by Freyr *
**

It still doesn’t answer my question, tho. His4Ever said that our country is based on Christian principles. I’d like to know exactly which ones. Are they so vague, like Soup_du_Jour, implies that they could apply to any religion? If so, then why label them Christian? **

I’m not sure which principles were being thought of, but our country was founded by Christians. **They wisely decided to seperate Church and State. **This means that they saw the problems in Europe that were caused by combining Church and State. They rightly wanted to avoid those problems in our new country. That’s one advantage of starting a new country. You can see the mistakes that others have made. **That’s why you do not see the Church of America. **

Unfortunately we now have people who twist the law to their own agenda of removing all mention of God and the Bible from any public function. Washington, Jefferson and Franklin would be in shock if they were to come back alive today and see what America has become, imo.

[iampunha]

GOM, quick question:

Was every person who helped to found this country a Christian?

Washington, Jefferson and Franklin would be in shock if they were to come back alive today and see what America has become, imo.

This is GD, not IMHO;)

And you’re right. I doubt even da Vinci envisioned the internet;)

[iampunha]

Oops. Left something out.

The difference (or one of them, anyway) between GD and IMHO is that in GD you’re expected to flesh out your opinion to more than “G. Washington et al would be in shock etc…”.

So, IOW, why would they be, GOM?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

GOM
but our country was founded by Christians.

Factually incorrect. Some were Christians, some were not. None of them envisioned a Christian country.

Unfortunately we now have people who twist the law to their own agenda of removing all mention of God and the Bible from any public function. Washington, Jefferson and Franklin would be in shock if they were to come back alive today and see what America has become, imo.

Cite, please, for any attempt by anyone to “remove all mention of god and the Bible from any public function.”

Neither Jefferson nor Franklin were Christian, btw.

[Apos]

I call “cite” on the Washington prayer. Whether Washington was a believing Christian or not is, and probably will always be, unknown. He certainly was not the sort to proclaim a belief in Christ. The rector of the church that he attended with his wife, James Abercrombie, has said that he was a Deist (as reported by The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister who made an exhuastive study of Washington after his death, and concluded that he was a Deist “and nothing more”).

What IS known is that Washington was scrupulously opposed to praying out loud or in public, especially when he was in office (which was actually a matter of some amusement, as people often tried get to him admit this or that religious belief, and he always coyly avoided their questions). He seemed to consider public prayer unseemly. When speaking of fate/divine type subjects, he also spoke of Providence, rather than God or Christ. The only known mention of Christ in his own writing was a poem he wrote for an assignment when he was thirteen:

Assist me, Muse divine, to sing the morn
On which the Savior of mankind was born
– George Washington, poem, age 13, from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 20
So, while I don’t think the claim that he was a Christian should be dismissed, I am skeptical of purported prayers and such that present the matter as definitive.

This is especially so because there are lots of utterly bunk “founding father” quotes floating around, invented by people like Daniel Barton of Wallbuilders Inc. (and later admitted to). The most famous regarding Washington is a supposed prayer set on a plauqe at St. Paul’s Chapel, Broadway and Vesey Streets, New York City. It contains things like “Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep these United States…” and ends with the standard Episcopal “Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.” However, none of these things appear in the original letter that this is quoted from. This sort of misrepresentation happens all the time. Indeed, the original letter, which mentions only a plain “God” and “Divine Author” is not even in Washington’s handwriting, but his secretaries, who were known to pen and embelish things in his name when he was busy.

Even if you ignore that complication, however, what I think is important to ask is why anyone would want to misrepresent that letter in order to make Washington sound more pious and flowery. The original needs no embelishment, and is certainly highly laudatory of “our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose examples in these things [humility, charity, mercy, etc.], we can never hope to be a happy nation.”

The beliefs of the various founding fathers are complex and diverse. They range from very orthodox Protestant Christian (Hamilton) to regegade Christian (Jefferson) to Deist heretics (Paine, maybe Madison and Franklin). It’s silly to try and pigeonhole an entire country based on their beliefs. In fact, it’s cynically dishonest. For while the religious beliefs of the founders were manifold (and changed over lifetimes as well), they very clearly agreed on one thing: that one’s beliefs were private matters of personal conscience, not to forced on anyone else with the aid of the state, or ever used to deny or specially privelege someone’s participation in public life.

Washington, for instance, was a passionate defender of tolerance, and of basic respect for everyone, regardless of belief.

When securing workmen for his estate, he said: “If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.” Washington, letter to Tench Tilghman, cited in Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion. page 118

When clergymen complained that the Constitution did not reference Christ, Washington replied: “I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe, that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Carta of our country.” Washington, Papers, Presidential Series, 4-274

He was quite a character (and nothing like the saint he is often portrayed as: for instance, it’s rarely mentioned that he had something of an amusing vain streak for the latest fashions ).

[Apos]

—Neither Jefferson nor Franklin were Christian, btw.—

Oh, I don’t think it’s that clear cut. Jefferson certainly didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ, but there are certainly interpretations that would have him a Christian, and him agree. Franklin, likewise, was an iconoclast: his humor and sarcasm makes it hard to tell exactly what he really believed.

For instance, there’s this: “He [the Rev. Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard.” Benjamin Franklin, from Franklin’s Autobiography

Yet he also speaks fondly of religious faith in his Almanacs, and confines his rants to “Christian dogma” and says only that he avoids “Christian assemblies” We have Christians on this very board who could say the same. It’s hard to tell for anyone really, because quiet beliefs in Christian divinity and salvation can easily coexist with Deism.

[Lissa]

I’m surprised that no one has yet mentioned the Treaty of Tripoli, which adresses the debate over our “Christian” government quite clearly:

ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Or, John Adams’ statement that: “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature. . . . [In] the formation of the American governments . . . it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven. . . . These governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

Now, as for this, I’ll add to what ** Apos** said (already had my reply typed when I saw his on preview):

A prayer by George Washington:
Direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb, and purge my heart by thy Holy Spirit… daily frame me more and more into the likeness of thy son Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time attain the resurrection of the just unto eternal life…

This sounds like the famous “Prayer at Valley Forge,” (of which there is no contemporary record, BTW) which came from the same Washington “biography” by Mason Locke Weems that gave us the Cherry Tree myth. Weems wished to make Washington into a hero, and where instances showing Washington to be a paragon of virtue were lacking, he helpfully provided them. Unfortunately, a lot of these myths have seeped into our history as accepted truths.

In reality, Washington was intensely private about his religious faith, even refusing to take communion in his church. (He would wait out front in his carriage when communion began until his wife came out afterwards.) When the pastor of the church chastised him for the poor example that he was setting as the persident, Washington thanked the man for his candor, and simply stopped coming to church on communion Sundays, though he attended at other times.

Washington was in no way anti-religion: his speeches and letters have warm references to the positive aspects of religious faith, but he never clearly outlined his own beliefs, nor did he usually use the word “Christian.”

Thomas Jefferson noted in his journal: “Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice” (Jefferson’s Works, Vol. iv., p. 572).

On his deathbed, Washington neither prayed aloud (as was the custom) nor asked for a clergy man to attend to him.

This site has a lot of quotes from source material on Washington and religion.

As to his duties as a vestryman, see this site:

Washington, like many people in colonial America, belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society, as is illustrated by the following taken from *Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, * by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. “Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence.”

If you scour the writings of our Founding Fathers, you will find quite a few quotes expressing positive opinions of religion. People wishing to “prove” that America is a Christian nation have taken them out of context, and ignored other quotes entirely. Others are made up entirely, as I suspect the “prayer” of George Washington to be.

[Avalonian]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**I would also remind you that the Msrs. Jefferson, et al did not set out to create an egalitarian society. Democracy was only for white, male landowners **

This is not strictly true, Diogenes, though in a larger sense I see your point. Jefferson and Franklin, neither of which seemed to adhere to traditional Christianity, as Apos helped to point out, were both opposed to slavery in principle, though both owned slaves. John Adams, a more traditional Christian by standards of that time, also opposed slavery both in principle and practice. From David McCullough’s biography John Adams:

He never owned a slave as a matter of principle, nor hired the slaves of others to work on his farm, as was sometimes done in New England. He was to declare unequivocally in later years that “Negro slavery is an evil of colossal magnitude,” and like Abigail, he felt this at the time.

The book also describes an early draft of the Declaration of Independence which Jefferson had written, which included a long passage denouncing slavery:

And it was the King, “the Christian King of Great Britain,” Jefferson had emphasized, who was responsible for the horrors of the slave trade. As emphatic a passage as any, this on the slave trade had been the ringing climax of all the charges. Now it was removed in its entirety because, said Jefferson later, South Carolina and Georgia objected. Some northern delegates, too, were “a little tender” on the subject, "for though their people had very few slaves themselves yet they had been pretty considerabl carriers…"

So, the passage denouncing slavery was cut largely due to politics and the need for expedience in approving a final draft for the Declaration of Independence. In the end, you are essentially right on broad terms. But its existence at one time suggests a contingent of the founding fathers, including Jefferson himself, who did indeed want a society of equals, even at that early stage.

And just so this is not a complete hijack, I would also use this example to highlight the fact that the belief in freedom and equal rights is not a Christian tenet, per se. Rather, it is an important element of humanitarian philosophy, which Christian beliefs sometimes align with.

To those who say that “freedom, equality, and the sanctity of human life are Christian principles,” I return that all good people can (and do) believe in these principles, whether they are Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Pagan, Native American, agnostic, atheist, or none of the above. These are not principles solely related to Christianity, and you should not consider them only the territory of Christian belief. Many people of others faiths (or not faith) hold to the same principles.

[Siege]

I just made a run to the local grocery store and a sign on the door said, in large letters, “Check out our Lenten specials!” This is not, by the way, a small, Mom-and-Pop place, but the biggest grocery chain in town whose made it pretty clear that they’re only interested in their own profits. (I don’t like them, but they’re the only grocery store within a mile of here.) If I go for a drive through any of the business districts out in the suburbs, I’m likely to find a Mom-and-Pop place with some sort of signboard on it which endorses Christianity. I’ll also pass a lot of churches, but one or no places of worship for other religions. I also won’t find businesses which endorse other religions, although I do know of a couple of places around here at which one can buy Wiccan paraphenalia. They’re over 30 miles apart, although there may well be others I don’t know about. On the other hand, there are Christian bookstores all over the place. As far as I know, the ACLU hasn’t protested any of these things. Nor will they about the Friday night fish fries which local fire halls will be holding during Lent, or at least they haven’t so far. Sorry if that last seems slanted towards Catholicism – in my city, I think Roman Catholicism is the largest denomination in sheer raw numbers, and I’m pretty sure some of the Eastern Orthodox Churches urge people to fast on Fridays in Lent, and, in fact, my own, Episcopalian mother still doesn’t eat meat on Fridays in Lent. There was a case in the midwest recently where a teenage girl was not allowed to wear a necklace with a pentacle to school, while, I think, crosses were perfectly acceptable. The former, you see, was considered disruptive. Most days at noon downtown, there are people on some of the major street corners proclaiming the Gospel. They are, for the most part, ignored. If they were proclaiming Islam or Wicca, I suspect there’d be a pretty loud outcry.

If I recall correctly, the lawsuit against public prayers before football games in Texas wasn’t brought by an atheist; of the two people who brought the suit, one was Catholic. On the other hand, state and city school boards have attempted to require teaching Creationism in science classes in school.

I’ll also point out that while the settlers at Plymouth Rock may have been escaping persecution in England, when Roger Williams criticized those who ran the colony on religious grounds, he was banished and, as a result, founded Rhode Island.

Finally, the influx of immigrants from Ireland and Eastern Europe in the early 1900’s was also seen as a force which would destroy American culture. While I did see a certain amount of green and white in the grocery store this morning in preparation for St. Patrick’s day, if encouraging over-consumption is going to destroy this company, we’d better go after the advertisers, first!

I’m sorry, His4Ever and Jersey Diamond, I don’t see anyone trying to eliminate Christianity in the United States. I can see why Christians would feel threatened, but it’s because they’re trying to impose their views on people who don’t share them. A friend of mine in high school was Jewish. This was in a town where you could get flack for not going to the right youth group. Formal prayer in that school would just have made him more of an outsider. Creationist views aren’t even held by the majority of Christians, I suspect, although that may vary by state. Still, people insist on teaching them in science classes and claim their freedom of religion is being abridged when, in fact, it isn’t.

That people are saying Christianity is under attack saddens me. First, because, as I said, from all I can see, it isn’t true. Second, because it does come across as, “You must be like me or else!” it turns people away from Christianity. I understand the need to build walls, to defend oneself. I also know from experience that one can defend oneself from things which aren’t really there.
Respectfully,
CJ

[Soup_du_jour]

From Diogenes the Cynic
**Actually, the New Testament endorses slavery, so freedom and equality are out the window as Christian values. The sanctity of human life is a universal value not a Christian one, per se, and the founding fathers drew nothing whatever from Christianity in drafting the constitution. It was based on Greek and Roman democratic models more than anything else, and was always intended to be secular. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, to name two, were not Christians. Jefferson even compiled his own gospel in which he removed all miraculous or supernatural references from the canonical gospels.

I would also remind you that the Msrs. Jefferson, et al did not set out to create an egalitarian society. Democracy was only for white, male landowners**

I’d remind you that Mr Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, stated that…

…all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

The Declaration was the official position from the Colonies on why they seceded. It specifically relates the ideas of equality, liberty, and the sanctity of life.

For your argument, you seem to be saying that; first, the USA isn’t founded on principles of equality and freedom; second. these aren’t Christian principles. Doesn’t this sort of agree with my point of view? Or are you just pointing out flaws in my argument?

[quote]
Originally posted by Avalonian
To those who say that “freedom, equality, and the sanctity of human life are Christian principles,” I return that all good people can (and do) believe in these principles, whether they are Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Pagan, Native American, agnostic, atheist, or none of the above. These are not principles solely related to Christianity, and you should not consider them only the territory of Christian belief. Many people of others faiths (or not faith) hold to the same principles.[/quoteI agree completely. Any good Christian/Buddhist/Muslim et al would hold these truths. Christianity makes no exclusive claim to these tenets. It does, however, make a claim to them.

[Soup_du_jour]

Gah! Fixing of coding would be greatly appreciated by anyone with the power to do so right about now.

For the rest of you, I’m sorry. :mad:

[Guinastasia]

Another thing-WHICH Christians get to decide? Because, His4ever and Jersey Diamond, according to the faith I was raised in, both of you are heretics.

Oh, and JD? Some of those sites were vile and ignorant and hatefully anti-Catholic.

[Polycarp]

*Originally posted by GOM *
**What an appropriate name…

Thanks. **

There is a touch of irony in it, isn’t there, GOM? But it actually derives from the case of Alton J. Lemon et al/ v. David H. Kurtzman.

Part of the Court’s decision is very instructive:

Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312, 72 S.Ct. 679, 683, 96 L.Ed. 954 (1952); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 422, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 1803, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Fire inspections, building and zoning regulations, and state requirements under compulsory school-attendance laws are examples of necessary and permissible contacts. Indeed, under the statutory exemption before us in Walz, the State had a continuing burden to ascertain that the exempt property was in fact being used for religious worship. Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a ‘wall,’ is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.

This is not to suggest, however, that we are to engage in a legalistic minuet in which precise rules and forms must govern. A true minuet is a matter of pure form and style, the observance of which is itself the substantive end. Here we examine the form of the relationship for the light that it casts on the substance.

*615 In order to determine whether the government entanglement with religion is excessive, we must examine the character and purposes of the institutions that are benefited, the nature of the aid that the State provides, and the resulting relationship between the government and the religious authority. Mr. Justice Harlan, in a separate opinion in Walz, supra, echoed the classic warning as to ‘programs, whose very nature is apt to entangle the state in details of administration. * * *’ Id., at 695, 90 S.Ct., at 1425. Here we find that both statutes foster an impermissible degree of entanglement.

[6] Ordinarily political debate and division, however vigorous or even partisan, are normal and healthy manifestations of our democratic system of government, but political division along religious lines was one of the principal evils against which the First Amendment was intended to protect. Freund, Comment, Public Aid to Parochial Schools, 82 Harv.L.Rev. 1680, 1692 (1969). The potential divisiveness of such conflict is a threat to the normal political process. Walz v. Tax Commission, supra, at 695, 90 S.Ct., at 1424. (separate opinion of Harlan, J.). See also Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S., at 249, 88 S.Ct., at 1929 (Harlan, J., concurring); Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 307, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 1616, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963) (Goldberg, J., concurring). To have States or communities divide on the issues presented by state aid to parochial schools would tend to confuse *623 and obscure other issues of great urgency. We have an expanding array of vexing issues, local and national, domestic and international, to debate and divide on. It conflicts with our whole history and tradition to permit questions of the Religion Clauses to assume such importance in our legislatures and in our elections that they could divert attention from the myriad issues and problems that confront every level of government. The highways of church and state relationships are not likely to be one-way streets, and the Constitution’s authors sought to protect religious worship from the pervasive power of government. The history of many countries attests to the hazards of religion’s intruding into the political arena or of political power intruding into the legitimate and free exercise of religious belief.

The merit and benefits of these schools, however, are not the issue before us in these cases. The sole question is whether state aid to these schools can be squared with the dictates of the Religion Clauses. Under our system the choice has been made that government is to be entirely excluded from the area of religious instruction and churches excluded from the affairs of government. The Constitution decrees that religion must be a private matter for the individual, the family, and the institutions of private choice, and that while some involvement and entanglement are inevitable, lines must be drawn.

Re: George and his religious convictions – I think that it is only fair to say that they are a matter best left between the Father of our Country and the Father of All. But I’d note that from the beginning of the Anglican Church, a great deal of respect for individual thought and scruple has been left available. I see no conflict in Washington having personal scruples that prevented him from speaking publicly on matters of religion – in fact, with the respect he was accorded as the preeminent Founding Father of a nation founded on freedom of religion, he may have seen it as his moral duty to keep silent on what he did or did not believe. I personally do not accept the idea that that particular man would maintain allegiance to a given denomination out of personal expediency; I think he felt that his personal differences from what was presented as Anglican doctrine in those days were the business neither of the country as a whole nor of a group of clergymen addressing him, but between him and God, however he conceived Him.

[Lilairen]

Christianity makes no exclusive claim to these tenets. It does, however, make a claim to them.

What is so special about Christianity’s claim that it gets the identifier and the expectation of that identification to go unquestioned?

If the statement is supposed to be read as, “Post-Enlightenment human beliefs, and numbered among post-Enlightenment humans are modern-day Christians”, it would be easier to say that rather than use a phrasing that is easily read as a blatant attempt to co-opt post-Enlightenment human beliefs as the sole property of a single faith among thousands.

[Avalonian]

*Originally posted by Soup_du_jour *
I agree completely. Any good Christian/Buddhist/Muslim et al would hold these truths. Christianity makes no exclusive claim to these tenets. It does, however, make a claim to them. **

I never said it didn’t. I was only pointing out that it doesn’t hold sole dominion over these principles, and calling them “Christian” principles is somewhat of a misnomer in this context, or at best only part of the whole picture.

Further, depending on which branch of Christianity we’re talking about (as Guinastasia points out), these principles are applied unequally. Adherence to these “Christian” principles seems to be a sketchy thing, even among those who call themselves Christians.

The point being that this country can be founded on the principles of equality, freedom, and the sanctity of human life without these necessarily being labelled “Christian” principles. These principles exist as part of a much larger subset of humanity than just Christians.

[Avalonian]

Or, what Lilairen said.

[iampunha]

[quote]
Soup stated:
I’d remind you that Mr Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, stated that…

[quote]
…all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.
[/quote[/quote]

Emphasis mine. Though we now take “men” to mean people, this has not always been the case. My personal opinion is that Jefferson probably meant for it to mean all people. However, history has shown us that all people in this country do not yet have those rights all the time, or for some people even a healthy fraction of the time. Not even all men, as gobear et al could show you very quickly and easily with a brief list of the rights they do not have with their SO.