6 ms·

How Jefferson and other Founding Fathers defended Muslim rights

44 points by samclemens 11y ago

intrasight 11y ago
This article highlights the enlightened, thoughtful, respectful discourse which at the basis of the creation of the great nation that is the United States. Things were by no means perfect then. But certainly we can learn from the words and actions of many outstanding characters of the time.
- chkurprivilege 11y ago
  Outstanding characters? They all owned slaves and women could not vote. Check your privilege.
  - maratd 11y ago
    They were absolutely outstanding men relative to their peers. Check your PC bullshit.
    - vdaniuk 11y ago
      >Check your PC bullshit Come on, it's an anonymous troll account with an obvious goal of ridiculing pro-PC argument. Check your #{x}!
      - chkurprivilege 11y ago
        Yup
      - reitanqild 11y ago
        The annoying thing is he was close enough to fool me.
    - zappo2938 11y ago
      It was complicated. George Washington in discussions with Benjamin Franklin said to Franklin that he couldn't free the slaves because the unity of the United States was far more important. The British didn't give up trying to control the United States until Andrew Jackson destroyed them in a battle at New Orleans and the British came very close to succeeding. "I rejoice in a belief that intellectual light will spring up in the dark corners of the earth; that freedom of enquiry will produce liberality of conduct; that mankind will reverse the absurd position that the many were, made for the few; and that they will not continue slaves in one part of the globe, when they can become freemen in another." -- Fro the first draft of George Washington's inaugural address. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had to deal with more pressing issues at the time and put off freeing slaves for a later generation.
      - sremani 11y ago
        Washington freed his slaves upon his death. Jefferson, who had children with slave girl(s), did not grant any freedom after his death. Him being near broke could be a reason, but let us not forget that the Children of an American president and most possibly Grand Children lived in slavery till civil war.
        transfire 11y ago
        Jefferson did free all his slaves that were his children -- Sally Hemings children (I have never heard of any evidence that he slept with any other). Most likely he did not free the rest of his slaves because he was in a great deal of debt when he died and didn't want that debt to burden his children.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - Amezarak 11y ago
      > They were absolutely outstanding men relative to their peers. Check your PC bullshit. Honestly, setting aside anachronistic moral issues, I don't think they are any different than a random selection of modern US politicians. Read through their letters and through contemporary news articles and you get the impression that in some ways they were even more fractious and petty. The vapid insults and conspiracy theories they published aimed at each other often make even Trump look good. (Probably the biggest misconception I had was that the 'Founding Fathers' got along pleasantly even if they had the occasional intellectual disagreement. Nope, not at all. And their political positions existed on a much, much broader scale than I had ever imagined.) They don't come across as remotely exemplary characters even compared to their peers. Then you have things like the Alien and Sedition Acts, where even white men were arrested and prosecuted for criticizing the President, and you realize we've got it pretty good these days. Frankly it seems almost incredible that the early republic survived. I think the real lesson to learn from the early days of America is that the right circumstances and processes can make a workable union out of even a hugely disparate population - but that there are still limits. Early America made it only because the shared sense of values and community was just enough.
  - islandtech 11y ago
    Different times. You cannot hold past people to whatever the rights du jour are now. Slavery was legal then, right or wrong. I'm sure in 100+ years, people will look back on us and laugh at how "unenlightened" we are.
    - maxxxxx 11y ago
      Jefferson and Washington knew exactly that slavery was immoral.
      - Diamons 11y ago
        Just like we know that abortion and death penalty are immoral. Future generations will look back at us and look at us as barbarians.
        Razengan 11y ago
        Don't forget involuntary genital mutilation AKA circumcision.
        simoncion 11y ago
        > Just like we know that abortion and death penalty immoral. Heh. It's fairly clear that the justice system arrives at the wrong conclusion too often for it to be trusted to determine that a person is both irredeemable and needs to be killed. Even a cursory search of relevant medical literature reveals that there are situations in which abortion of a pregnancy is the safest and most correct course of action. This topic is substantially less clear-cut.
        Diamons 11y ago
        I am not 100% against abortion, especially when it comes to the health of the mother. I still think it's barbaric but it's the best option we have with the technology and treatments available. However I am against unregulated abortions. If an abortion is to be done, it must be under the guidance and consultation of a medical doctor.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Things are never perfect. The best we can hope for is that people work hard and are good to each other. The founding fathers had their fair share of flaws just like any leader today, and yet they managed to turn a rebellion into something great. The real tragedy today is that there are many Americans who want a monopoly on American identity, instead of embracing the source of America's strength: our ability to assimilate people and ideas into something greater than the sum of its parts (and genocical imperialism and slave labor helped too)
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    The real tragedy today is that there are many Americans who want a monopoly on American identity American identity is much more heterogeneous today than ever before, in no small part thanks to ecumenism.
    - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      Broadly, yes. But let's not mince words: the white and largely male-dominated subset of Americans see themselves as the vanguards of the true - and dying - standard of what it means to be American. Therefore, they would rather fight scorched-earth against alternative lifestyles and skin colors over the meaning of what makes up an American rather than work together to ensure national prosperity in a turbulent world order.
  - the-dude 11y ago
    As long as they are white and christian, yes. This week I learned on this very forum the US opened up to non-EU immigrants only after 1965? That is what they are referring to, right?
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > This week I learned on this very forum the US opened up to non-EU immigrants only after 1965? What? The stereotype of Asian laborers working (and dying) to build the great Western railroads is grounded in a fair bit of truth. Moreover, San Francisco's Chinatown acquired the Asian residents that lead to its name long before 1965.
zappo2938 11y ago
Here is a quote from George Washington sent to a Jewish congregation in Newport, RI while he and Thomas Jefferson were promoting what is now the 1st amendment. Although Rhode Island had ratified that amendment, "Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Georgia were still debating the amendments in August of 1790 when the President visited Newport." "For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." [1] [1] http://www.tourosynagogue.org/history-learning/gw-letter http://www.tourosynagogue.org/history-learning/gw-letter
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  What if they support Sharia law in place of American law?
  - transfire 11y ago
    This is really a false argument. The way it works is this. In so far as Sharia law is compatible with county, state and federal laws, it can be practiced. In so far that is not, it cannot. It's that simple. Many small regions have their own local laws, e.g. suburbs, condos, Mormons, Amish, etc.
    - forrestthewoods 11y ago
      Ok. And portions of Sharia law are not compatible with country, state, and federal laws. There are people who believe that full Sharia law should apply to Muslims. And some who believe that full Sharia law should apply to non-Muslims as well. I would consider these stances to fall foul of "giving it on all occasions their effectual support". Now on one hand everyone supports potential laws that are not laws. That's how new laws get passed. Something wasn't legal. The public said it should be. And it was. For example gay marriage. On the other hand some people think it should be legal to murder an apostate. Codifying these differences in language is difficult. But that doesn't mean they aren't different and should not be treated as such.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kr7 11y ago
He also became the first U.S. president to deal with "Islamic terrorism": > Jefferson and John Adams ... went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress: > The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/01/jeffersons_quran.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor... It wouldn't be out of place for someone from ISIS to say the exact same thing today.
- transfire 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War Cool factoid: "The schooner Enterprise (commanded by Lieutenant Andrew Sterret) defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli after a one-sided battle on 1 August 1801."
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
GnwbZHiU 11y ago
In the US, Muslims have already got more rights than non-Muslims, for example Christian. When you criticize Islam/Muhammad you will be called islamophobe, bigot, racist. When you criticize Christianity/Jesus you will be called progressive.

44 points by samclemens 11y ago

This article highlights the enlightened, thoughtful, respectful discourse which at the basis of the creation of the great nation that is the United States. Things were by no means perfect then. But certainly we can learn from the words and actions of many outstanding characters of the time.

chkurprivilege 11y ago
Outstanding characters? They all owned slaves and women could not vote. Check your privilege.
- maratd 11y ago
  They were absolutely outstanding men relative to their peers. Check your PC bullshit.
  - vdaniuk 11y ago
    >Check your PC bullshit Come on, it's an anonymous troll account with an obvious goal of ridiculing pro-PC argument. Check your #{x}!
    - chkurprivilege 11y ago
      Yup
    - reitanqild 11y ago
      The annoying thing is he was close enough to fool me.
  - zappo2938 11y ago
    It was complicated. George Washington in discussions with Benjamin Franklin said to Franklin that he couldn't free the slaves because the unity of the United States was far more important. The British didn't give up trying to control the United States until Andrew Jackson destroyed them in a battle at New Orleans and the British came very close to succeeding. "I rejoice in a belief that intellectual light will spring up in the dark corners of the earth; that freedom of enquiry will produce liberality of conduct; that mankind will reverse the absurd position that the many were, made for the few; and that they will not continue slaves in one part of the globe, when they can become freemen in another." -- Fro the first draft of George Washington's inaugural address. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had to deal with more pressing issues at the time and put off freeing slaves for a later generation.
    - sremani 11y ago
      Washington freed his slaves upon his death. Jefferson, who had children with slave girl(s), did not grant any freedom after his death. Him being near broke could be a reason, but let us not forget that the Children of an American president and most possibly Grand Children lived in slavery till civil war.
      - transfire 11y ago
        Jefferson did free all his slaves that were his children -- Sally Hemings children (I have never heard of any evidence that he slept with any other). Most likely he did not free the rest of his slaves because he was in a great deal of debt when he died and didn't want that debt to burden his children.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Amezarak 11y ago
    > They were absolutely outstanding men relative to their peers. Check your PC bullshit. Honestly, setting aside anachronistic moral issues, I don't think they are any different than a random selection of modern US politicians. Read through their letters and through contemporary news articles and you get the impression that in some ways they were even more fractious and petty. The vapid insults and conspiracy theories they published aimed at each other often make even Trump look good. (Probably the biggest misconception I had was that the 'Founding Fathers' got along pleasantly even if they had the occasional intellectual disagreement. Nope, not at all. And their political positions existed on a much, much broader scale than I had ever imagined.) They don't come across as remotely exemplary characters even compared to their peers. Then you have things like the Alien and Sedition Acts, where even white men were arrested and prosecuted for criticizing the President, and you realize we've got it pretty good these days. Frankly it seems almost incredible that the early republic survived. I think the real lesson to learn from the early days of America is that the right circumstances and processes can make a workable union out of even a hugely disparate population - but that there are still limits. Early America made it only because the shared sense of values and community was just enough.
- islandtech 11y ago
  Different times. You cannot hold past people to whatever the rights du jour are now. Slavery was legal then, right or wrong. I'm sure in 100+ years, people will look back on us and laugh at how "unenlightened" we are.
  - maxxxxx 11y ago
    Jefferson and Washington knew exactly that slavery was immoral.
    - Diamons 11y ago
      Just like we know that abortion and death penalty are immoral. Future generations will look back at us and look at us as barbarians.
      - Razengan 11y ago
        Don't forget involuntary genital mutilation AKA circumcision.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        > Just like we know that abortion and death penalty immoral. Heh. It's fairly clear that the justice system arrives at the wrong conclusion too often for it to be trusted to determine that a person is both irredeemable and needs to be killed. Even a cursory search of relevant medical literature reveals that there are situations in which abortion of a pregnancy is the safest and most correct course of action. This topic is substantially less clear-cut.
        Diamons 11y ago
        I am not 100% against abortion, especially when it comes to the health of the mother. I still think it's barbaric but it's the best option we have with the technology and treatments available. However I am against unregulated abortions. If an abortion is to be done, it must be under the guidance and consultation of a medical doctor.
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Things are never perfect. The best we can hope for is that people work hard and are good to each other. The founding fathers had their fair share of flaws just like any leader today, and yet they managed to turn a rebellion into something great. The real tragedy today is that there are many Americans who want a monopoly on American identity, instead of embracing the source of America's strength: our ability to assimilate people and ideas into something greater than the sum of its parts (and genocical imperialism and slave labor helped too)
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  The real tragedy today is that there are many Americans who want a monopoly on American identity American identity is much more heterogeneous today than ever before, in no small part thanks to ecumenism.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    Broadly, yes. But let's not mince words: the white and largely male-dominated subset of Americans see themselves as the vanguards of the true - and dying - standard of what it means to be American. Therefore, they would rather fight scorched-earth against alternative lifestyles and skin colors over the meaning of what makes up an American rather than work together to ensure national prosperity in a turbulent world order.
- the-dude 11y ago
  As long as they are white and christian, yes. This week I learned on this very forum the US opened up to non-EU immigrants only after 1965? That is what they are referring to, right?
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > This week I learned on this very forum the US opened up to non-EU immigrants only after 1965? What? The stereotype of Asian laborers working (and dying) to build the great Western railroads is grounded in a fair bit of truth. Moreover, San Francisco's Chinatown acquired the Asian residents that lead to its name long before 1965.

zappo2938 11y ago

Here is a quote from George Washington sent to a Jewish congregation in Newport, RI while he and Thomas Jefferson were promoting what is now the 1st amendment. Although Rhode Island had ratified that amendment, "Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Georgia were still debating the amendments in August of 1790 when the President visited Newport." "For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." [1] [1] http://www.tourosynagogue.org/history-learning/gw-letter http://www.tourosynagogue.org/history-learning/gw-letter

forrestthewoods 11y ago
What if they support Sharia law in place of American law?
- transfire 11y ago
  This is really a false argument. The way it works is this. In so far as Sharia law is compatible with county, state and federal laws, it can be practiced. In so far that is not, it cannot. It's that simple. Many small regions have their own local laws, e.g. suburbs, condos, Mormons, Amish, etc.
  - forrestthewoods 11y ago
    Ok. And portions of Sharia law are not compatible with country, state, and federal laws. There are people who believe that full Sharia law should apply to Muslims. And some who believe that full Sharia law should apply to non-Muslims as well. I would consider these stances to fall foul of "giving it on all occasions their effectual support". Now on one hand everyone supports potential laws that are not laws. That's how new laws get passed. Something wasn't legal. The public said it should be. And it was. For example gay marriage. On the other hand some people think it should be legal to murder an apostate. Codifying these differences in language is difficult. But that doesn't mean they aren't different and should not be treated as such.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kr7 11y ago

He also became the first U.S. president to deal with "Islamic terrorism": > Jefferson and John Adams ... went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress: > The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/01/jeffersons_quran.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor... It wouldn't be out of place for someone from ISIS to say the exact same thing today.

transfire 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War Cool factoid: "The schooner Enterprise (commanded by Lieutenant Andrew Sterret) defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli after a one-sided battle on 1 August 1801."

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

GnwbZHiU 11y ago

In the US, Muslims have already got more rights than non-Muslims, for example Christian. When you criticize Islam/Muhammad you will be called islamophobe, bigot, racist. When you criticize Christianity/Jesus you will be called progressive.