Thomas Jefferson and his Koran « Catholic Exchange Forums

geno - Inactive

Rep. Kieth Ellison, took his oath of office by swearing on a Koran. The media took great pleasure in saying that this Koran belonged to President Thomas Jefferson. But that all they said. I find it very interesting as to why Jefferson had a Koran. In the late 1700 Islamic terriorists known as the Barbary Pirates were attacking U.S. merchant ships and demanding huge amounts of money to stop. John Adams paid the ransom but the attacks continued. When Jefferson became President the payments stopped. He ordered the navy to begin fighting back. The war lasted about 11 years and ended when the Marines defeated the Islamic terriorists at Tropoli. The Marine Hymn pays tribute to the war in the words"from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" In 1786 Thomas Jefferson went to Europe to meet with the Tripolitian ambassador to Britian. He asked him why the American ships were being attacked. The ambassador told him that it was" Founded on the laws of the prophet to do so " It is there that he asked for a copy of the Koran so that he could study Islam. So when someone says that the Islamic radicals hate us because of our support of Israel and our involvement in the Middle East just remember the Barbary pirates and the fact that Israel did not exist in 1786.

Posted 1 year ago #

lpioch - Moderator

I'm not sure why he wanted to own a copy of the Koran and study Islam. I own a copy of the Book of Mormon. I think it good to know about what the other faiths read/believe to be able to help them (or to know how they intend to live out their faith). Seems Thomas Jefferson was very wise to get to know his enemies.

Posted 1 year ago #

fishman - Member

Jefferson was a mason and as such probably and anti-catholic. Many masons especially high masons of years ago were into a kind of unitarianism that treated all religions as being equal. Most of the founding father were masons. 1 or 2 were catholics.

Posted 1 year ago #

lpioch - Moderator

I'm by no means a historian. Actually, when I read it, I don't enjoy it...but I know it's good for me. So this is my own personal perspective. Many of the founding fathers were masons. But many that were masons (I'm thinking Ben Franklin) did so because of the incredible social/political/business connections made through it. That's a far stretch from being anti-catholic.

I think it's a little unfair to say Jefferson was anti-catholic because he was a mason, unless it can be seen in other aspects of his life (like his writings). I think there are many who are masons not for the religious ideology, but for the very practical, pragmatic relations and benefits that come with membership.

Posted 1 year ago #

greenknight - Inactive

Jefferson wrote the 1st Amendment, practically ending anti-Catholic persicution in New England. Obviously he never became a Catholic himself, yet seemed perfectly fine with accociating himself with those who were. He was in favor of the French Revolution up until he heard of the horrible violence, particularly against Catholic clergy. Probably the only founding father who could match Jefferson in his Catholic favorability is Washington.

The only real issue here is this Koran bussiness. Should it be allowed? My humble and uneducated opinion would be "no."

Posted 1 year ago #

fishman - Member

well I would hope the most catholic amongst the founding fathers was: Charles Carroll a catholic from Maryland who singed the declaration. The idea of 'freedom of religion' in the united state I do not think had any really strong idealogical roots. Consider that up until that time only pilgrims could vote in Boston, only catholics in Maryland etc etc. Religious discrimination abounded. What 'freedom of religion' was meant to be was 'let's not kill each other'. They were united by much greater enemies 'like the empire of Britain a world super power at the time'. That being said it is obvious that it was never intended to apply to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists , wiccans, atheists, satanists , etc. You see it was never intended to be 'freedom of philosophy' or even 'freedom of theology'. it is freedom of 'religion' and even that phrase was never used. The words are 'shall not make and official religion'. A religion in the strict sense was intended as 'a set of ceremonies and practices intended to be an act of worship towards God.' What did NOT ban? They did not ban the state promote Christianity in general. They approved of the public execution of witches and the jailing of homosexuals. ( these were not examples of religion in their opinion because they did not involve public acts of worshiping GOD ) . That is the history of it. how that is interpreted now is something very different then what it was originally ment for.

Posted 1 year ago #

Make CE Your Homepage

Catholic Exchange Forums » Politics

Thomas Jefferson and his Koran

Reply

Donate

CE Spotlight

Faith Factory

Radio & Podcasts