Merry Christmas is not just for Christians

These are the facts that are generally agreed to by historians. Sometime between 6-4 BCE Jesus was born. He was a devout Jew who traveled and preached lessons of love and peace around the hinterlands of Galilee between roughly 27 and 33 CE. He got on the wrong side of the law and was executed. Other details of his story have been up for debate. Thomas Jefferson is well known for the parts of the Gospel story he rejected, but he firmly believed in Jesus’s most pivotal message. Jefferson wrote:

His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends, were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers… and they went far beyond… inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen; but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, and common wants and common aids.

The “most correct philosophers” Jefferson had in mind were the ancient Greek and Roman thinkers, who wrote extensively about love. For them, love was often tied to virtue, reason, and mutual excellence—something cultivated among equals and governed by merit. What Jesus did that truly rocked the world was to expand the very meaning of love. Love was no longer merely a sentiment or an attraction, but an action. It meant doing good for those you did not know, those who had wronged you, and even those you might not necessarily like. It was about offering aid to the stranger, the foreigner, and anyone in need of help.

Christmas is the day when this idea entered history. A world marked by this kind of love would look quite a bit different than it does today.

Dumping on Democracy

On October 19, 2025, Donald Trump sank to a new low in his break from presidential traditions. He shredded the principle that because the President is the one officer elected by the entire nation, not merely by one state or district, he must at least attempt to rise above party politics. President Andrew Jackson once summed up this principle when he declared that unlike all other government officers “the President is the direct representative of the American people” and must therefore always endeavor to rise above party politics. Presidents up until now have—despite their flaws—tried to at least pay some lip service to this idea.

For years, Donald Trump has sneered at anyone who dares to disagree with him—calling them “dishonest,” “weak,” “corrupt,” “losers,” “low IQ,” and “lazy.” But on October 19^th he went further. He posted a juvenile cartoon video of himself flying a fighter jet, dumping excrement on millions of citizens peacefully exercising their freedom of speech. It was crude, it was cruel, and it was the clearest window yet into his contempt for the American people he has sworn to serve.

Let’s be clear: he wasn’t just emptying his bowels on the protesters. He was emptying them on every president who came before him who worked to soothe political agitations rather than vilify and dehumanize their opponents. Starting with George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, everything they stood for—principle, unity, and the belief that disagreement should never dissolve the bonds of the republic—was desecrated and defiled in Trump’s video.

Washington, for all the myth of universal adoration, was hardly spared the sting of politics. He was burned in effigy more than once by his opponents. Many balked at the idea of celebrating his birthday—after all, national birthday celebrations were for kings, not presidents. Yet despite the vitriol Washington endured, in his Farewell Address he warned against the “spirit of revenge” that arises from partisan politics and has perpetuated “the most horrid enormities.”

John Adams fared no better. His political opponents called him a “mentally deranged, blind, bald, toothless old man” who supposedly planned to end presidential elections and turn the country into a monarchy. Yet Adams refused to fully align himself with the party that supported him, nor did he engage in personal attacks against his opponents. He claimed simply to be a man of principle—a “party of one.”

Of course, we leave it to Thomas Jefferson to best articulate the central principle of our democracy—one that Donald Trump seems to find most contemptible. After prevailing in the contentious election of 1800, an election that included claims that Jefferson’s victory would unleash a reign of terror where murder, adultery, rape, incest, and robbery would be openly taught and practiced—Jefferson rose above the frenzy. In his inaugural address, he declared:

Let us then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty, and even life itself, are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance, as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.

Washington, Adams and Jefferson hoped to convey that despite our political differences, we are knit together by our love for this country. As Jefferson wrote,

Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans: we are all federalists.

Mistakes and Apologies

The idea that immigrants come from “prisons” or “mental institutions,” especially in reference to immigrants from South America, expresses a theme that is an entrenched part of the American narrative.

When laws that specifically target one group are passed, they are seen as necessary at the time, driven by the perceived need to protect national security. However, history inevitably reveals them as moments when our nation was deeply mistaken. Despite the lessons these mistakes should teach us, we repeatedly fail to learn from them, allowing fear and prejudice to shape our policies again and again.

Trump recently invoked the Alien Enemies Act that was passed in 1789, when the French were the target of our collective fears. If the Quasi-War with France expanded from a naval conflict to a land war, which side would the French be on? The act made it easier to deport suspected spies and made it harder to become a citizen. If Trump were a better student of American history, he would know that most historians agree that the passage of that law was the low point of Adams’ presidency. Even Adams later claimed that “this law was never executed by me, in any sense.”

In 1882, the Chinese became the target of intense national xenophobia, with accusations that they were stealing jobs from Americans, driving down wages, and engaging in vices such as gambling and opium smoking. In response to these prejudices, the U.S. government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, a law that aimed to halt Chinese immigration. In 1943 they were suddenly no longer a menace. We needed an alliance with China in order to win World War II and the law was repealed. As Franklin Roosevelt said at the time, “Nations like individuals make mistakes. We must be big enough to acknowledge our mistakes of the past and to correct them.”

In 1988 it was President Ronald Reagan’s turn to apologize when he signed a bill that provided restitution for the wartime internment of Japanese-American civilians. Reagan admitted that “This action was taken without trial, without jury. It was based solely on race…we must recognize that the internment of Japanese-Americans was just that: a mistake.”

Sometimes, it’s not the passage of legislation, but the absence of it, that becomes a national disgrace. After World War II, the fear of communism coupled with deep-seated antisemitism, prevented the U.S. from passing a law that could have offered refuge to some of the war’s most aggrieved victims. In 1945, a proposal to increase the number of Jewish refugees allowed into the United States was blocked by Congress. Critics at the time argued that “many of those [Jewish refugees] who seek entrance into this country have little concept of our form of government.”

Some even described the rejection of this legislation as a “betrayal of our basic American tradition.” But in reality, it was a continuation of our darker traditions—one that persists to this day.

Are we a “city upon a hill”?

George Washington: “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.”
John Adams: “The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a greater Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty”
Sam Adams: “A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.”
Richard Henry Lee: “The happiness of America will be secured, at least so long as it continues to be virtuous, and when we cease to be virtuous we shall not be happy.”
James Madison: “Virtue is the vital principle of a republic, and it cannot long exist without frugality, probity, and strictness of morals.”
Benjamin Franklin: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”

Ronald Reagan frequently invoked the imagery of a “city upon a hill.” It originated from the Gospel of Mathew (5:14) where Jesus said “You are the light of the world. A city upon a hill cannot be hidden.” The metaphor was echoed by John Winthrop in 1630, in a sermon titled “A Model of Christian Charity,” and was used to describe the new society he and his fellow Puritans aimed to build.

For Reagan, to be “a city upon a hill” meant that the United States would be a beacon of freedom and prosperity. We would achieve this by building a strong economy through lower taxes and fostering a business-friendly environment. We would strengthen the military. We would emphasize individualism and personal responsibility.

These ideas were not what either Jesus or Winthrop had in mind.

Jesus taught that his followers should live as visible examples of morality and integrity, embodying the values of love, humility, forgiveness, compassion, and mercy.

Winthrop envisioned the new community as a model of religious virtue and social harmony, guided by the core principles of mercy and justice.

The original vision of being a “city upon a hill” seems so distant now that we hardly mourn its loss. Yet, these ideals were very much alive for the founders, who believed that moral leadership was essential for a stable and prosperous nation. They argued that leaders should exemplify virtue, integrity, and self-discipline, both in public office and in private life, acting as role models whose character would shape and inspire that of the citizens.

An investment in the future of our country

“[Childless] leaders don’t have enough of an investment in the future of our country”

“When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power…. You should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic than people who don’t have kids. Let’s face the consequences and the reality. If you don’t have as much of an investment in the future of this country, maybe you shouldn’t get nearly the same voice.”

–JD Vance. “JD Vance on Our Civilizational Crisis” Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Sept. 7th 2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBrEng3xQYo

Founder	Appellation	Number of Children
George Washington	*“Father of our Country”*	0
James Madison	*“Father of the Constitution”*	0

We are a great nation…

In his July 24^th speech to explain why he withdrew from the presidential race, President Biden made two key points. First, he rhetorically asked “Does character in public life still matter?” Yes, character mattered. Second, “we are a great nation because we are a good people.” The founders would have agreed with the first point but not with the second.

The founders knew that survival of a government based on individual liberty depended on the moral quality of its citizens.

Benjamin Franklin: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”

John Adams: “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.”

George Washington: “There exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness.”

Sam Adams: “A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.”

Richard Henry Lee: “The happiness of America will be secured, at least so long as it continues to be virtuous, and when we cease to be virtuous we shall not be happy.”

James Madison: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.”

This brings me to President Biden’s second point. But first, some back story on that quote about a great nation and good people. This line might sound familiar because it has become a central rhetorical pillar of American exceptionalism, used by presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bill Clinton. In the 2016 Democratic convention, Hilary Clinton used the line in her acceptance speech.

One might assume that because the founders knew a nation needed virtuous citizens to be great, they believed we were indeed good. They didn’t. The relaxed religious views of founders like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were not representative of their time. Most 18th-century Americans adhered to the dominant Calvinist beliefs. We were all the fallen children of Adam. We were corruptible, vane, and selfish. Given that we are not inherently GOOD, how did the founders believe the nation could ever be GREAT? There were many ways, but two key methods were: first, maintaining consistent effort to overcome our evil nature; and second, carefully choosing the president.

Calvinism emphasized the inherent sinfulness of human nature, but it also advocated for a disciplined, virtuous life achieved through rigorous moral instruction, consistent effort, and the influence of virtuous leaders and role models.

Therefore, when it came to electing the president, the founders were keenly aware of the importance of preventing someone with, as Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist 68, “talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity” from ascending to the presidency.

In the election of 1800 when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were tied in the Electoral College, Hamilton stressed that it was Burr’s low character that should disqualify him from being selected.

“As to Burr there is nothing in his favour. His private character is not defended by his most partial friends. He is bankrupt beyond redemption except by the plunder of his country. His public principles have no other spring or aim than his own aggrandizement… If he can, he will certainly disturb our institutions to secure to himself permanent power and with it wealth…. he has held very vindictive language respecting his opponents.”

The Declaration of Independence and the Current Supreme Court

On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence. The first section outlined the fundamental principles of just governance, emphasizing that free people do not live under tyranny. The middle section catalogued the actions of King George III that demonstrated his tyrannical rule. “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations,” wrote Thomas Jefferson, “all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

The facts that were then submitted to the candid world were twenty-seven grievances against King George III that highlighted his repeated abuses of power. These included imposing unfair laws and taxes, and dissolving representative bodies. He obstructed justice and maintained a standing army in peacetime without consent. He cut off trade and disrupted colonial governance. These actions collectively justified the colonies’ decision to seek independence. By structuring the grievances as charges and justifications, the Declaration effectively presented a compelling legal case against King George.

All of these actions, however, were carried out by the King as part of his official duties of ruling the empire.

If the delegates to the Congress of 1776 had shared the worldview of the conservative members of the current Supreme Court, all actions taken by King George III in his official duties would have granted him immunity. Consequently, the case could not have been prosecuted, and the decision to declare independence would not have been made.

Please click HERE to return to HOMEPAGE