Watch, read, conclude.

An except from the Jonathan Miller PBS series "A History of Disbelief." Take careful note of the quotations of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson:

Both quotations are bogus.

The Adams quotation as presented in the video:

"God is an essence we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."

The Adams quotation as presented in a collection of correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson:

The Europeans are all deeply tainted with prejudices both Ecclesiastical, and Temporal which they can never get rid of; they are all infected with Episcopal and Presbyterian Creeds and confessions of faith, They all believe that great principle which has produced this boundless universe. Newtons universe, and Hershells universe, came down to this little Ball, to be spit-upon by Jews; and untill this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there can never be any liberal science in the world.
(letter to Thomas Jefferson, January 22, 1825) (italics added for emphasis)

I suppose I should note that the first part of the quotation in the video is from an entirely different document. Here is that document (in full, as far as I can tell), from a collection of Adams' works.

When we say God is a spirit, we know what we mean, as well as we do when we say that the pyramids of Egypt are matter. Let us be content, therefore, to believe him to be a spirit, that is, an essence we know nothing of, in which originally and necessarily reside all energy, all power, all capacity, all activity, all wisdom, all goodness.
(John Adams, January 17, 1820)(italics added for emphasis)

The video account produces a quotation very friendly to atheism and unfriendly even to Deism, and they unblushingly cobble together quotations that were five years apart.

Obviously, the "blasphemy" Adams talked about was not the god of unknown essence, but the deity of Jesus of Nazareth. The way the film presents the quotation, one would never know.

****

The Jefferson quotation as presented in the video:

"The clergy believe that any power confided in me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly."

Jefferson's letter to Benjamin Rush:

I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X.Y.Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.
(positiveatheism.org)

The video paints Jefferson in opposition to all the purposes of the clergy, omitting the context pointing directly at the establishment of a national religion and Jefferson's reference to swearing "upon the altar of god." I suppose it wouldn't do to let Jefferson swear on the altar of god since the idea is to make him appear hostile to religion generally.

The Miller production takes substantial liberties with these quotations, either because of poor research, ineptitude or overt dishonesty. Words are added without any admission of tampering with the text, context is dropped, and quotations from separate documents are combined to give new and foreign meaning to both.

Thomas Jefferson said what?

I've stumbled across another quotation that appears to be bogus. In this case, it appears to be a quotation misattributed to Thomas Jefferson.

I ran across this issue in the course of examining the David Paszkiewicz/Matthew LaClair issue.

New Jersey History teacher Paszkiewicz submitted a letter to his local paper in the midst of the fracas, resulting in considerable noise from his critics.

In his letter, Paszkiewicz stated something to the effect that "separation of church and state" was only mentioned once--I won't get into any argument at present over the proper context in which to understand that statement.

In reaction, a number of critics derided Paszkiewicz's understanding of history.

The following quotation appeared a number of times as though to contradict Paszkiewicz.

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
(no peeking yet)

The passage, we are told, comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to Virginia Baptists on November 21, 1808.

But you won't find it here.

And you won't find it in the text of the Jefferson's letter to the Virginia Baptists, either.

To the General Meeting of Correspondence of the Six Baptist Associations Represented at Chesterfield, Virginia. Washington, November 21, 1808.

Thank you, fellow citizens, for your affectionate address, and I receive with satisfaction your approbation of my motives for retirement. In reviewing the history of the times through which we have passed, no portion of it gives greater satisfaction, on reflection, than that which presents the efforts of the friends of religious freedom, and the success with which they were crowned. We have solved by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government, and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason, and the serious convictions of his own inquiries. It is a source of great contentment to me to learn that the measures which have been pursued in the administration of your affairs have met your approbation. Too often we have had but a choice among difficulties; and this situation characterizes remarkably the present moment. But, fellow citizens, if we are faithful to our country, if we acquiesce, with good will, in the decisions of the majority, and the nation moves in mass in the same direction, although it may not be that which every individual thinks best, we have nothing to fear from any quarter.
I thank you sincerely for your kind wishes for my welfare, and with equal sincerity implore the favor of a protecting Providence for yourselves.

So what's going on?
As I was doing my research, I discovered that Jim Allison had beaten me to it, and Jim did an excellent job of it.
Jim found the quotation in a collection of Jefferson's material, but in the form of a later author's commentary (now go check what you weren't supposed to peek at). He surmised that somebody lifted what they supposed was the letter to the Virginia Baptists from that source and subsequently the quotation was taken as Jefferson's work.

So, it looks as though Paszkiewicz was correct about the letter to the Danbury Baptist being the sole (Jeffersonian, at least) source of the "wall of separation" imagery.

More on TiC, O'Reilly and Jefferson

I don't trust the TiC folks to publish my comments any longer.

Here's what I sent in reply to the Jefferson/church-state separation issue.

Separation of church and state was completely different in Jefferson's day.
Take a look at the letter that Media Matters cited.
The context clearly indicates that Jefferson was referring to the federal government. O'Reilly is dealing with a local (city) government issue.
Jefferson wouldn't recognize today's separation of church and state, and he would be extremely surprised that the "self-evident" basis for the revolution was no longer self-evident to many. He believed in a natural law that undergirded every religion, giving them all a common morality. Today's application of church/state separation would stand Jefferson's understanding on its head. Something would have to give in his views--would you suggest he'd become a moral relativist?

I didn't link to the letter in the original, since it was clear in the original context (or should be) what I was talking about.

TiC on O'Reilly and Jefferson

Here's a twofer from Talking in Circles, under the heading "bill o'reilly lies about thomas jefferson."

Bill O’Reilly wrote that the “separation of church and state argument” is “bogus” because it “does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.”
(TiC)

The post is lifted (with a head-nod attribution) from the Media Matters website.
Word up: Don't trust Media Matters. Here's the Media Matters version:

Bill O'Reilly wrote that the "separation of church and state argument" is "bogus" because it "does not appear anywhere in the Constitution."
(Media Matters)

And, finally, here's the Bill O' Reilly version:

The anti-Christmas forces are still clinging to the bogus separation of church and state argument that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would mock these secular fools and then retire to his Virginia estate for Christmas dinner.
('Tis The Season, by Bill O'Reilly)

TiC and Media Matters are nice enough to provide all the necessary links, I should add. It's like they either can't think well enough to realize that their evaluation of O'Reilly is bogus, or they're trusting that nobody will bother to double-check.

1) O'Reilly's logic, as it comes from the quotation, does not suggest that the "separation of church and state argument" is "bogus" because it doesn't appear in the constitution. He merely states that the argument is absent from the constitution--and he's perfectly correct on that point.
If the critics want to take O'Reilly to task on that point, they should quote him specifically to that effect. Media Matters failed on that point, thus they probably misrepresented O'Reilly's position on the matter.
2) The better argument--the one that O'Reilly probably adheres to--rests in the fact that the early United States allowed considerable public expression of Christianity. There was no thought that the First Amendment would be applied broadly to all state and local governments through the extension of the Fourteenth Amendment. Check the date on the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't believe me.

So, Thomas Jefferson probably wouldn't celebrate Christmas with the same mindset of Linus van Pelt, but O'Reilly makes a valid point in the context of applying federal law to restrict municipalities from permitting a nativity scene.

I think that Jefferson would have come to realize that not all religions may be accomodated in the laws of one nation. If you took a poll today, a large number of people would disagree that it is self-evident that all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights--and apparently that's exactly what Jefferson and company believed as they signed the Declaration of Independence.

Jefferson would, I think, be flabbergasted that the self-evident has largely gone out of vogue in terms of popular belief.