Rick Santorum’s near-miss in Iowa provides a reminder that, for many Republican voters (and not a few candidates), religion and politics overlap. If you need another reminder, though, consider this: recently, the Smithsonian has restored and put on display a weird and fantastic 19th-century book known as “The Jefferson Bible.” That’s Jefferson as in Thomas, and this private, personal document offers a useful case study in how politics and Christianity have mixed it up in American history, right up to today.
To understand Jefferson’s Bible, you need to start with the one book he published in his lifetime: “Notes on the State of Virginia.” Jefferson wrote this survey in the 1780s, organizing it around topics like “The different religions received into that State.” But the book came back to haunt him two decades later when he was battling John Adams for the presidency. Indeed, long before Rick Perry’s and Mitt Romney’s books caused them trouble on the campaign trail, Jefferson had to deal with some very specific attacks on what he’d written about religion.
Those attacks became a key issue in the election of 1800. While Jefferson referred to “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence, he preferred to keep his personal beliefs to himself, a reticence that lined up with his philosophy of individual freedom and religious tolerance. In “Notes,” he put it this way: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
In a presidential campaign, and in the hands of Jefferson’s enemies, this passage became proof of the candidate’s radicalism. One popular pamphlet from a pro-Adams minister quoted “Notes,” then countered it: “Let my neighbor once persuade himself that there is no God,” the minister warned, “and he will soon pick my pocket, and break not only my leg but my neck.”
Such attacks proved effective enough that, when Jefferson did win the election, some families buried their Bibles in their gardens, fearing the new president would burn them. So it made sense that Jefferson continued to keep his religious views private. Years later, after he and Adams had resumed a correspondence, Jefferson described Jesus’ teachings as “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals.” The problem, he wrote in another letter to Adams, came in the “artificial scaffolding” that surrounded those teachings — the Virgin Birth, the miracles and so on.
“The Jefferson Bible” is his attempt to tear down that scaffolding. Jefferson took his first stab at it while still president. In the White House, “after getting through the evening task of reading the letters and papers of the day,” he used a razor to slice Jesus’ teachings out of a couple of King James Bibles, then grouped them by subject (e.g., “false teachers”) and pasted them into a scrapbook. Its title page included these words: “an abridgment ... for the use of the Indians.” Scholars agree it was most likely a sly joke about the impossibility of circulating such a genuinely radical book, or perhaps a joke about Adams’ political allies, whom Jefferson referred to as “Indians” in his second inaugural.
That scrapbook didn’t survive, other than a copy of its title page. What did survive is a second, more elaborate version Jefferson created once he retired. This one includes four columns of text (Greek, Latin, English, French) from the Gospels, and Jefferson had his bookbinder cover it in gold-tooled red leather. Jefferson preserved Jesus’ life story and his teachings, but he removed anything that strained reason — the walking on water or Lazarus’ resurrection. And Jefferson applied this standard to the smallest details. Matthew 19:2, for example, reads: “And great multitudes followed him, and he healed them there.” But Jefferson carefully excised “and he healed them there.” The Smithsonian has published a gorgeous full-color facsimile of the restored Bible, and it shows the comma after “him” just dangling there.
“The Jefferson Bible” ends with Jesus’ entombment, and, given all the trouble caused by his published thoughts on religion, Jefferson seemed happy to take the book to his grave. When he mentioned it in letters to a small circle of friends, he cautioned them to keep it a secret. Even his family didn’t find out about it until after he’d died.
In 1895, his heirs sold the book to the Smithsonian for $400. A few years later, a congressman — a devout Christian from Iowa, as it happens — wrote a widely reprinted article about it. The government produced an extravagant edition at a cost to taxpayers of more than $500,000 in today’s dollars. Some protested the price. Others argued about whether the book confirmed or refuted Jefferson’s atheism. Still, in 1904 the government published more than 9,000 copies, with 14 going to each congressman — and with enough kept in reserve that a copy also went to every incoming representative or senator, a tradition that continued through the 1950s.
Today, the facts about “The Jefferson Bible” might seem like an impossible obstacle to anyone who wants to fashion Jefferson as a hero for right-leaning Christians — and America as a “Christian nation.” Instead, the book has been distorted to fit the religious right’s agenda.
There’s no better example of this than David Barton, an amateur historian who’s become quite popular with Perry, Santorum and Michele Bachmann. Barton loves archival flourishes — his Texas offices include a concrete vault filled with 18th century arcana — but his true concerns lie in the present. Though Barton admits that “The Jefferson Bible” often comes up as proof that its namesake wasn’t the evangelical Christian conservatives want him to be, he also says he can refute this. In a TV appearance in 2010, Barton fixated on Jefferson’s “Indians” title page, mixed in some unrelated material about Jefferson’s Indian policy, then pivoted to an outrageous fabrication: “He then gave it to a missionary,” Barton said of Jefferson and his Bible, “and he said, ‘Here, if you get this printed, and you use this as you evangelize the Indians.’”
There’s absolutely no evidence of Jefferson giving either version of his Bible to anyone other than his bookbinder. Perhaps it’s no surprise that last year, in Iowa, Newt Gingrich said, “I never listen to David Barton without learning a whole lot of new things.” That’s because Barton loves to cherry-pick a phrase and manipulate it support his side in a partisan, present-day debate.
But there’s a bigger problem with Barton’s method: He strips history of its complex human appeal. After all, “The Jefferson Bible” stands as one of the most interesting and iconoclastic moments in America’s religious past — one man with a razor, a pot of paste and a unique and private set of ideas. They were intricate ideas: Jefferson was no more a Bible thumper than he was a Bible burner. And that’s why he and his handmade book have enjoyed such an odd and exciting afterlife. After one politician got his 14 copies of the 1904 edition, he reported receiving more than 2,000 requests from his constituents.
Let’s hope just as many people seek out the new Smithsonian edition, where they can see for themselves what Jefferson spent so much time making — and no doubt reading as well.
• Fehrman is working on a book about presidents and their books. He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.
Comments (37)
Add commentShows belief in our country's founding principal
And justice for all....
We are a nation of varied beliefs and no one has the right to tell me what to believe....yet the GOP would deny a gay couple the right to marry. Be true to you convictions, practice your beliefs and leave me out of it.....
I challenge you to tell me how gay marriage hurts you...and like Jefferson..leave the bible out of it as our founding fathers intended because
“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
God bless Thomas Jefferson
He was the greatest American that ever lived.
It might shock my devotees in this forum to learn that I actually do believe in God, but I strongly believe God has no place in our politics, on our money or in our laws. And I will be the first to acknowledge that I can't prove God exists, and he very well may not. It is my own belief which I do not impose on others.
The current anti-gay oppression the previous poster refers to, has it's origins inJudeo-christian culture. The gay marriage prohibition in our state's Constitution stands testament to that. This is why it is dangerous to mix politics with religion. Jefferson understood that better than anyone.
When you mix religion with politics, you get Taliban.
But there is little doubt in my mind that the anti-gay marriage amendment will be repealed one fine day. It's just a matter of time. The younger generations see gay discrimination for what it is.
And that is the exact same kind of hope Martin Luther King had for his demographic as well. That one day we will all be judged not by who we choose to love or who we choose to have sex with, but by the content of our character.
Its a war on freedom of religion not a war on religion
and yes...it continues
Democracy and theocracy
If one looks around the world at all the nations, those that are really democracies where the people have freedom of religion and theocracies where a state religion is imposed upon all members - under what type of government would you prefer to live?? In the US, England, France, Japan, Germany , or Iran, Pakistan, some African nations?
Our founding fathers of European descent had lived under systems where there was state religion and decided that they wanted to do their best to set up a democracy, not another theocracy with a state religion.
Oneofwe
You write about the Bible being the "Word of God," and that is fine with me if you believe that.
But there are others in the world who believe that their "Sacred Books" are the "Word of God, or the 'Gods'" When we live in a nation where people have a variety of beliefs, where they have other traditions of abiding by the "Word of God," as they believe, we have to come to some kind of agreement; allowing people to believe and practice their religious beliefs, and not trying to impose their beliefs on others.
In a multi-cultural, multi-society nation we need to find a way for all to be treated fairly, justly as equals as citizens, find a way for peace among all citizens. That is the challenge of maintaining a democracy with a representative government that represents all members, not just specific "believers" of just one text they consider the "Word of God, or Gods."
Really WeeOne?
The bible has all sorts of whacky mandates regarding what one can eat, when one can eat it, how one treats one's slaves, what sorts of horrible punishments will be meted out for various trivial offenses...
If our laws and standards were largely based on the bible, our society would make Sharia law look like a petting zoo. Thank God (pun intended) our founders were more enlightened than that .
America has a Constitution
America has a Constitution that allows all citizens to be treated equally. Those rights are endowed by our creator.
The progressives in America have perverted our founding document to the point that they literally call it "flawed".
In their minds unless there is equal outcome, someone is being treated unfairly. Which is exactly what they have built their political platform on - dividing the nation along gender, race, sexual preference, income, religion, etc. and pitting citizen against citizen.
It's always amusing how the progressives tout Europe as the panacea and to a lesser extent California. These are countries and a state where the welfare state rules. Everyone is a victim in some way or another and the state is the only entity that can guarantee equality for all. And the only way the state can achieve that end is by taking from some and redistributing to others.
Socialism and secularism go hand in hand and they always fail eventually. Government is not God.
Why do you suppose Obama is referred to as The Messiah or The Annointed One? He is THE savior in many America's eyes. It's very creepy.
I don't get the fear of Christianity in America. The only thing I can come up is that the progressives subscribe to the Marxist tendencies and Christianity and a fascist or totalitarian ideology cannot co-exist. They don't have a choice but to villainize Christianity.
I would challenge any one of you liberals to name another country where a person has the religious freedom that is afforded them in America.
Since other posters brought it up - does anyone else see the hypocrisy in the gay marriage debate? The gays and progressives have not one single problem cutting down anyone that believes in Christianity but then turn around and scream discrimination.
Why aren't civil unions good enough for the gays? Why can't gays use our legal system to get the things they want?
Marriage has the distinct definition as a union between a man and a woman. Evidently, by election and poll results, the majority of Americans don't want to change that definition.
Maybe the gays can think of another word and see if the citizens will be more accommodating. It's getting to be a tiresome argument coming from ONE particular segment of our society.
As wally would say - that's my opinion. Fire away...
Assumptions and generalizations
One of we - when you speak of the "vast majority of the population that gave birth to America" you sort of miss the point I think. No- You are absolutely wrong!
European immigrants came to what to them was a new land, but where thousands or from what we can tell now, millions of people lived as indigenous people. They were certainly not the "majority of those who gave birth to America." But with firearms, weapons and technology they overcame, "conquered" these indigenous people. They didn't give birth to American, they took it over and for centuries killed, re-located, put indigenous people on reservations, brought in slaves, welcomed immigrants from Europe over time..... that wasn't "giving birth to America" it was colonizing the territory, and imposing their traditions, cultures, beliefs and technology on those whose ancestors had been here for many centuries, or those they imported to work for them.
I hope that we today, the inhabitants of the United States don't consider ourselves to be the "Chosen People" of God in a new land our ancestors moved into and displaced those who had been here for many generations. Perhaps you don't understand that around the world, even right here in Alaska, many people believe that they are the chosen people. In fact, the Native names that people have for themselves all translate into "real people," not those strange others.
We need to set aside the ideas or beliefs that you or I or anyone else is the chosen person of the "Biblical" or "Qu'ran" the Kojiki or any other ancient text.
We need to be a place where all humans are accepted and treated as equals and under fair and just laws.
@oneofwe: so you think the
@oneofwe: so you think the first 150 years of our country's history was "moral." Is slavery moral to you? Genocide? Objectification and marginalization of women? How about old-school, state-sponsored union busting (the kind with guns)? Child labor? Are lynch mobs moral?
You are basing your opinion on a make-believe history of the United States. If anything, our country is more moral today than it was in the past, unless you live in a bizarro universe where racism and sexism are the pinnacles of morality and it's totally okay to commit crimes against other people so long as they are brown and you are white.
@ Calypso
I'll tell you why....
As our nation has seen in the civil rights struggles from 1950s and beyond, "separate but equal" rarely means equal.
That is why gays insist on marriage, not just civil unions, or any other word. It's the conservatives who are hung up on the word, not gays.
We don't want special rights, we want EQUAL rights. Civil unions would be special rights. Marriage rights would be equal rights!
And your argument of "one man, one woman" is seriously flawed. Throughout history, marriage has been defined and redefined for centuries. Mormons defined it as polygamous for example.
And just because a majority of voting Alaskans choose to amend our constitution to deny equal rights to a certain class of people doesn't mean it's right.
We may lose a battle here and there, but we are definitely winning the war for gay rights. The repeal of DADT stands testament to that, and it only took us a few decades to get that passed.
Well, fire away
Calypso what I find somewhat amusing is your use of the term "progressive" as if it some kind of evil. From what I can tell the term "progressive"means to move ahead coming from Medieval English. I don't see life as either adhering to what our ancestors said, what the way of life was or is today and saying that any step forward is the evil of socialism or communism. Life to me is not black or white, either/or, there is a lot of gray between black and white.
Forty years ago, I didn't know about DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) nor that there were billions of galaxies in the universe, I didn't know about "derivitives" and "bundling mortgages," "sub-atomic particles that make up the atom," but I learned that these things exist and people do these things. And so I "progressed" and stepped ahead to a new level of understanding the real world.
When I see that a large percentages of "marriages" end up in divorce after people have promised to love, cherish and take care of each other in sickness and in health, in good times or bad times. If two people of the same sex agree to do the same, they may someday "divorce" or separate. They should have the same rights to do so, or if they fail to live up to those promises, but in the meantime have the same legal status.
Whether one uses the term "marriage," "civil union" or whatever there should be fair and equal rights for all. To me, that is a "step forward" or "progressive." I have searched the New Testament and have failed to find any text that Jesus said that "marriage is between a man and woman." Is that definition Christian or simply a dictionary's dictionary definitions which means "de-fine" drawing a line around what a word means in the English language.? Are we confusing definitions with the teachings of those we believe in?
Uh, WeeOne...
Have you actually LOOKED at the 10 commandments lately?
Let's see:
1. 'No other gods before me.' Actually, the Constitution allows exactly the opposite.
2. 'No graven images...' Um no, not that one either.
3. 'Name of lord god in vain...' Not really, except perhaps swearing to tell the truth in court.
4. 'Keep the sabbath holy' No law requiring that.
5. 'Honor father and mother.' No law requiring that.
6. 'Shall not murder.' Check. But I would expect that nearly every society has rules against murder, though they may define it differently.
7. 'No adultery' Nope, unless you're in divorce court.
8. 'Shall not steal' OK, kind of. Unless you're a banker.
9. 'Don't bear false witness' OK, kind of. Unless you're Rush Limbaugh or pretty much anyone on television.
10. 'Don't covet neighbor's wife...' Uh, missed on that one too.
I'll give you 3.5 out of 10. It looks like you have to do one helluva lot of boiling on those commandments, pal.
What's the problem?
I am a committed heterosexual, and I'm sure several people will testify to that. But what is the great evil if individuals are homosexuals?
In my studies of people, societies and cultures around the world, what I have found is that in the past each group, society, clan or tribe wanted to have as many members as possible because that was their path to dominance of others. If a person or persons were capable to producing new members they were expected to do so. Of course, homosexuals did not produce new offspring and new members. But in some societies they were accepted as productive members.
I remember looking at photos by the Catholic, Jesuit missionary Father Jette who lived in the interior of Alaska for many years. He spoke and photographed some male "bardash" that is homosexual men among the Native people. He simply said that this man was accepted and skilled in many of the "womanly arts."
He didn't say that these men were threats to others, to "marriage." He simply said that they were part of the society in which they lived and left it at that.
So what is the problem? Do those who happen to be homosexual threaten all others who are not? They don't threaten me. Or is the real problem that they question and challenge many ancient rules and religions because they do not produce new members?
It is my opinion that we have to open our minds and think exactly about what was considered most important in the past or what is most important today. Do we live by past rules and assumptions, or accept things as they are today?
No wonder the Founders stayed in the closet
considering the minister of the day from the article stated that an atheist would...pick his pocket and break not his leg but his neck. The Founders tiptoed around a superstitious populous every day.
This bigotry against atheists continues to this day where murderers and rapists receive more favorable opinions in poll after poll. Just think about that.
There are states with constitutions that still, in the 21st century, say it is illegal for an atheist to hold public office. Ask yourself why Maryland, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee have yet to remove these bigoted laws despite the 1961 Supreme Court ruling banning discrimination against atheists? Politicians are still tiptoeing around a superstitious electorate.
Mike
Mike, is it atheists that are feared, or just those who question
Mike for thousands of generations people looked at what they saw as the world around them and tried to answer questions like "How did we get here?" "Is there a creator of the universe?" "How should people live?" "What is right and wrong?" "Is there a life after we die?"..... all good questions.
Some have answered by saying that there is no God of creation, or simply "There is no God." Theos in Greek means "God" and the "a" in front means denial. That is, they are "a-theists."
"Gnostic" means one who know and is certain. There are others who simply say, as I have had to do many times in life, " I just don't know." Folks like that are called "a-gnostics" I guess I fall in that category.
Then there are those who are believers. They believe there is a God that is or was the creator of a vast universe and who interacts daily with folks on planet earth, and His Son came to earth two thousand years ago. Or some believe that God, the Creator spoke directly to Mohammed, and some who believe that an emperor is the direct descendant of the Sun Goddess.
The problem that arises is that those who believe in certain things try to impose their beliefs on others.
That is where belief, religion, government and politics collide.
Fortunately the founders of our government recognized all these conflicts and drew up a fundamental set of rules saying that everyone has a right to believe and practice their beliefs, but our government will not support nor fund their beliefs.
We now seem to be moving away from all that with people saying "we need to be consitutionalists" but "we want it our way", not what the founders and writers of the Constitution really wrote, said and accepted as the best way to go as a nation.
Latitude58
Wow, where did you pull that version from?
Between you, Persnickety, and Jo yammerin' on one side....and Calypso, oneofwe and Jeremiah's, blah-blah-blahhing, on the other.
Now that's a cross-section view of the America we all know and love.
While you're fighting over who should man the bilge pump, the rest of us in the hold, are busy trying to stay afloat.
Ima49er
I understand you feeling and frustration.
Life is difficult when one is trying to survive physically mentally and intellectually and make a living on top of all that!
There was a saying years ago that when one is up to their butt in alligators, they tend to forget their assignment was to drain the swamp.
America today is a cross section of religions, beliefs, philosophies, people all speaking out on things that to them are important. Don't give up, keep pumping the bilge and when you get a break at work, think about some of those things others are saying.
Education doesn't come packaged in some high school, college or university course, it comes in everyday questions that each person has to think about an answer for themselves.
Don't feel bad, it only took me thirty to fifty years to stop minding the bilge pump and think for myself.
Prof. Olson, answer if you want to, or don't, but I'd really
like to ask you this question. What gods are you agnostic about? Are you agnostic about Thor, Wotan or Zeus? In my experience, people who claim to be agnostic have some sort of concept about god(s). So my question is always to ask, what about that concept is the person agnostic about?
The privilege that religion holds in politics is enormous today and I agree with you that the Founders established a political system that should be, in principle, religiously neutral.
Regarding your question, the polls indicate a clear prejudice for the term atheist, they don't ask, give us your idea about people who question or require evidence for claims. Nor do state constitutions word it that way.
Mike
Wow
Mike when you ask what "gods" I am in a state of agnosticism, I will have to think a while because around planet earth people believe in many different "gods" and creators of the universe, all the things we must do and how we must behave, I don't know if I want to toss all of them out not. I had forgotten about Wotan, Thor, Mercury, Krishna, Amaterasu and many other gods now out of thousands I will have to pick just a few.
What I do agree with is that a lot of Americans are tired of hearing those who want to be our elected representative promising that what they will do,if elected is what they hold as a personal belief saying in so many word, "Elect me because I say that I have the same beliefs you do...although I may not practice them all the time. What I want to look at is what they have done in the past and present and weigh whether one or another person has demonstrated that they will do best for all Americans and not just themselves personally.
Prof Olson, don't trouble yourself, my point was this...
It seems to me that agnosticism, as you actually pointed out, holds out for at least the possibility of gods, be they Yahweh or any other Creator.
I guess I'd like to ask any agnostic the following:
Do you accept events that violate natural laws (miracles)?
Do you accept that consciousness survives the death of the brain (a disembodied mind)?
Do you accept that morality can come from supernatural beings?
Do you even believe in supernatural beings?
If the answer to these questions is no, then I wonder why a person remains agnostic. Is it because they think there is some aspect of the supernatural that is possible? If so, what aspect would that be?
Anyway, this is all a bit off topic from the article so feel free to just mull on my questions. Perhaps we can flesh out this discussion another time when the subject is more about agnosticism.
Mike
@oneofwe: you didn't point
@oneofwe: you didn't point out any historical facts at all. You're espousing a fantasy history that didn't exist. I don't know why you're trying to excuse slavery, which is never moral, but is especially immoral in our case, where slavery wasn't a punitive measure or a result of warfare, but the systemic trade and breeding of an entire people based on skin color alone.
Sorry bro, all morality is subjective, but most of us in this culture have a general idea of what's moral, and slavery, genocide, and prejudice are definitely not moral.
I challenge you to show, with facts and figures, not baseless statements, that the United States are less moral today than they were in 1850.
@Mike: all atheists are
@Mike: all atheists are really agnostics. Atheism is not, for the vast majority, the disbelief in the possibility--however remote--of some sort of god or pantheon of gods, but the idea that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest these things exist, and so no reason to act as if they do.
People choose the term agnostic because "atheist" has so much more baggage attached to it. But when you get right down to it, both groups have pretty much the same views and act in the same way (as if there is no god).
oneofwe
I had no idea you were a resident of San Francisco.
If you had let some of us Alakans know perhaps we have better understood your comments.
Persnickety Persimmon, well I am an exception to your rule
You're right that there is no evidence for Yahweh, Wotan, El Elyon, Baal, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, or any other, essentially, avatar of nature that constantly has the goal posts shifted depending on the era.
But I have observed, along with others like PZ Myers, that there really can't be any meaningful evidence for any of the gods ever proposed to exist because of serious logical inconsistencies with the claims. (Not including deities that have no attributes and take no actions, but what can be said of them anyway...)
There is a difference between agnosticism and atheism definitionally. It seems to me agnosticism must allow in principle for the possibility of Yahweh or Wotan or Bertrand Russell's teapot orbiting Mars.
Atheists do not necessarily require that caveat. That's a major difference. However, you are correct that many in both camps do choose to live their lives as if no gods existed anyway.
Thank you for the reply.
Mike
Depends...
...on one's definition of a god, doesn't it?
If I showed up on Earth a thousand years ago with all of my technology intact, it's highly probable the residents would have viewed me as supernatural. Who's to say we won't encounter a being with a similar disparity in technology/power?
Latitude58, gods and supernatural
But those people a thousand years ago would be wrong about you being supernatural.
There is a difference from being treated as a god and actually being a god. Where this matters most for me is religion. Popes and clerics don't believe in super aliens for instance that resemble gods. They believe in gods proper. They need all that theology to go to work every day.
Perhaps it would be interesting to explore how many attributes one would have to remove from the term god to mean super alien or hyperdimensional being. In fact, do you have a working definition of supernatural? What would an alien need to do, for instance, to be supernatural?
On second thought. Don't answer that. I am getting over a cold and need to rest so won't be replying the rest of the night. Thanks for your thoughts.
Mike
Ask an agnostic - me!
To my friend Mike, here's an agnostic's answers to your queries:
Q: Do you accept events that violate natural laws (miracles)?
A: I accept that anything is possible, and that there are some things in life which can't be explained. Therefore, I don't discount the possibility of miracles because technically, they are possible.
Q: Do you accept that consciousness survives the death of the brain (a disembodied mind)?
A: I have no idea. Neither do you or anyone else. THAT'S the reason I am an agnostic. I acknowledge the possibility, and I follow my instincts on things the world cannot explain or prove. Most of the times, my instincts are correct. So, yes, I believe the above can happen.
Q: Do you accept that morality can come from supernatural beings?
A: There is no universal morality, so this question is moot.
Q: Do you even believe in supernatural beings?
A: Yes. But I'll be the first to say that no one knows. Not you, not me. Even though it is irrational, I still believe it because even though it can't be proven, it can't be disproven, therefore, it is entirely possible. And since I can't explain if there are or not, I trust my instincts. My instincts say yes.
Irrationality and ambiguity coexist peacefully in my world. I am an artist. Everything is possible. There is no black and white with anything. Laws of nature constantly change.
@oneofwe: The christianoids don't hold a monopoly on the concept of "Thou shalt not kill." Please stop taking credit for that, and propping up the archaic and irrelevant 10 commandments on such statements.
No problem oneofwe
you wear your foot well!
Then you...
don't have your foot where I was suggesting it was!
Figures your from SoCal!
John Adams...
Adam's minister must have flipped when he read that John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli which stated:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,..."