Showing posts sorted by date for query THOMAS PAINE. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query THOMAS PAINE. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Sunday, May 17, 2026

INTERNATIONALIST FREETHINKER 

Thomas Paine helped start America. In the Trump era, he's under fire.

In some ways, the debate over Paine's legacy today is a proxy for a much larger debate over whose vision gets to govern.



Jack Jenkins
May 13, 2026
RNS

(RNS) — Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., was revving up a crowd of tens of thousands gathered in Philadelphia for the first major No Kings protest last June. His speech, like the demonstration itself, was focused primarily on pushback against President Donald Trump, whom critics such as Raskin likened to a would-be monarch.

But after railing against the president, Raskin paused to focus on one of his favorite Founding Fathers: Thomas Paine, an English-born political writer who supercharged the American Revolution with his wildly popular pamphlet “Common Sense” 250 years ago.

Noting that he named his own late son after Paine, Raskin recalled the corset-maker-turned-revolutionary’s dream of an America that would operate as “an asylum to humanity.” Paine, he told the crowd, envisioned “a place of refuge for people seeking freedom from religious and political and intellectual and economic repression from around the world” — and then helped spur a revolution to make it a reality.

Less than a month later, at the inaugural service of Christ Church DC — a congregation organized by self-described Christian nationalist Doug Wilson and attended by influential conservatives, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — Pastor Jared Longshore delivered a sermon that held up Paine not as a hero, but a cautionary tale. Longshore dismissed Paine as someone who “exalted human reason to the place of a golden calf,” an apparent reference to Paine’s deism and his criticism of organized religion’s entanglements with political power.


Portrait of Thomas Paine by Laurent Dabos, circa 1791.
 (Image courtesy of National Portrait Gallery/Wikimedia/Creative Commons)

“Thomas Paine actually lost all of his old friends,” Longshore said, standing at a pulpit underneath an American flag. He then implied Paine’s fall from grace could be the ultimate fate of modern progressives, saying: “Only a few mourners came to his funeral, and even the Quakers wouldn’t let him be buried in their cemetery. That’s tough. Shows you how people used to think and how people are thinking now.”

The contrast captures not only Paine’s contested place in American memory, but the larger political and religious debate in the US over whose founding vision should govern.

Scholars say Paine’s historical importance is undeniable. A seminal and celebrated voice in the American Revolution, Paine was so influential that John Adams once referred to the late 1700s as “the age of Paine.” What’s more, in addition to his role in America’s founding, Paine, an Englishman, championed democratic values so fervently that he later became a leader in the French Revolution despite not speaking French.

But Paine ultimately proved polarizing in his own lifetime, largely because of his blistering critique of organized religion, historians say. Among other things, he helped initiate debates over the separation of church and state that continue to this day, resulting in a bifurcated legacy: Paine as a champion of freedom or Paine as the “Forgotten Founding Father” — embraced or dismissed, depending on who is doing the remembering.

That fissure appears to be growing amid ongoing celebrations of the 250th anniversary of the U.S., with left-leaning leaders who support the separation of church and state championing Paine even as he is derided by prominent Christian nationalist figures aligned with Trump. And as the Trump administration and its allies prepare a faith-themed event on the National Mall to “rededicate” America “as One Nation to God,” debate over Paine’s ideas — such as his passionate opposition to “mingling religion with politics” — is unlikely to abate.

Paine once enjoyed vocal bipartisan support in Washington. In 1992, bipartisan legislation, signed by President George H.W. Bush, authorized construction of a memorial, but the project stalled. A 2022 bill renewed the push for a Paine memorial that could be erected on the National Mall by 2030, but it is still awaiting approval from the U.S. Department of the Interior and, ultimately, Congress.


Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., speaks during a protest against the shuttering of the United States Refugee Admissions Program, Feb. 4, 2025, in Washington. 
(RNS photo/Aleja Hertzler-McCain)

As the sponsor of the 2022 bill, Raskin is perhaps Paine’s most visible modern-day champion in Washington. The Maryland congressman told Religion News Service he first encountered Paine in high school by reading the revolutionary’s best-known works: “Common Sense,” “The American Crisis” and “The Rights of Man.” “I read Paine and I just felt like a light bulb went off,” Raskin said, noting that President Abraham Lincoln was also a fan of Paine. “(Paine) had this passionate and unwavering commitment to democracy as the system that will both protect people’s freedom and allow for mutual progress in society.”

Raskin often cites Paine in speeches and even pushed to name a congressional caucus he co-founded with Rep. Jared Huffman the “Thomas Paine Caucus.” The group, which boasts 36 members and is dedicated to both religious freedom and church-state separation, ended up being called the Congressional Freethought Caucus instead, although a portrait of Thomas Paine graces the group’s website.

“Tom Paine is still too radical a figure even in the 21st century, apparently,” Raskin joked.

Liberals, progressives and radicals across the globe have long claimed Paine as one of their own, often pointing to his progressive policy views for his day, such as opposition to slavery as well as support for public education and state-sponsored prenatal and postnatal care.

However, it is Paine’s views on religion — as well as how religion should interact with government — that have likely complicated his legacy. Raised in a Quaker home, Paine made several lengthy theological arguments in “Common Sense,” but ultimately declared himself a passionate deist.

“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life,” Paine wrote. “I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow-creatures happy.”

"The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine was controversial, in part because of his blistering critique of organized religion. (Public domain image)

"Common Sense" by Thomas Paine is credited with helping to inspire the American Revolution. (Public domain image)

In 1793, Paine published “The Age of Reason,” a lengthy critique of organized religion — especially what he called “the adulterous connection of church and state.” Among other claims, he wrote that he believed the American Revolution would be followed by revolutions in the religious world.

Seth Perry, who teaches American religious history at Princeton University, told RNS the book was hardly met with the rapturous praise enjoyed by “Common Sense.” Part of the issue, Perry said, was timing: “The Age of Reason” was published just as religious revivals associated with the Second Great Awakening had already swept across the U.S., and Paine’s involvement in the chaotic French Revolution — during which Paine himself was imprisoned — gave his ideological opponents in the U.S. cause to condemn him.

“There’s good scholarship showing how the anti-religious vibe of the French Revolution was used by those at the time who wanted more religion in the government as a cudgel to push back on people like Thomas Paine, who were pushing against religion in the government,” Perry said.

In the 20th century, some prominent conservatives embraced Paine, particularly President Ronald Reagan, who often referenced Paine in public remarks. But these days, Paine has become a target among far-right intellectuals, particularly those aligned with Christian nationalism or Catholic integralism, an ideology similar to Christian nationalism that advocates for a less overt approach to exerting Christian influence over society.

“We can find in Paine antecedents for almost every political ideology we find today,” Ben Wright, a professor of American history at the University of Texas at Dallas, said in an interview. “It’s curious to see who decides to claim him and who doesn’t — and that changes over time.”

It's curious to see who decides to claim him and who doesn't — and that changes over time.Ben Wright, professor of American History at the University of Texas at Dallas

At last year’s National Conservatism Conference in Washington, Patrick Deneen — a professor at the University of Notre Dame who is associated with Catholic integralism — urged conservatives to distance themselves from Paine. After acknowledging Paine’s influence, Deneen argued far-right thinkers have overlooked Paine’s involvement in the French Revolution and his longstanding debate with Edmund Burke, a seminal conservative intellectual figure.

“Paine was no conservative, and nor, really, was his political theology,” declared Deneen, who went on to voice support for more public religious expression in government. “I would submit that by adopting this Painian, Rousseauan, French Revolutionary … political theology that conservatism has been equally the cause of woe and destruction to the values and the institutions that conservatives all along claimed to hold dear.”



Patrick Deneen addresses the National Conservatism conference, Thursday, Sept. 4, 2025, in Washington. (RNS photo/Jack Jenkins)

Gary Berton, president of the Thomas Paine Historical Association, acknowledges that Paine has long made some conservatives uncomfortable. But he insisted Paine’s criticisms of religion continue to inspire young people, many of whom are religiously unaffiliated: Berton said that, in recent years, young people often walk into the association’s building wanting to know more about Paine after reading “Age of Reason.”

Raskin, meanwhile, sees the hostility from conservatives in the Trump era as predictable.

“Monarchists and reactionary conservatives have always hated Tom Paine,” Raskin said, noting that Paine famously railed against the divine right of kings, the theology that monarchs answer only to God.

In the meantime, Raskin said, he is looking forward to a Paine memorial eventually being erected in Washington, and will continue to draw inspiration from a man he insists is unfairly maligned by those on the right.

“Democracy is always a controversial idea,” Raskin said. “Monarchy is obviously a betrayal of that idea. Aristocracy is a radical betrayal of that idea. Theocracy is just somebody dressing up their pretensions to power and dictatorship in religious garb.”


Sunday, May 03, 2026

Founding Felons: Jefferson Would Be on a Watch List Today—You Might Be Next 

 May 1, 2026

Image Source: American Statesman

Everything this nation once stood for is being turned on its head.

We are being asked—no, told—to believe that the greatest threat to America today is not government overreach, endless war, corruption, surveillance, or the steady erosion of constitutional rights.

No, the real threat, it seems, is speech.

Dangerous speech. Hateful speech. Critical speech. Speech that dares to challenge power.

In the wake of the reported assassination attempt on President Trump, the Trump administration has wasted no time advancing a dangerous narrative: that criticism of the president—especially criticism labeling him authoritarian or fascist—is not just wrong, but responsible for violence.

The implication is as chilling as it is unconstitutional: if you criticize the government too harshly, you may be to blame for what happens next.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the government’s argument is this: criticism fuels anger, and anger leads to violence against the Trump administration.

Which means the solution, in the government’s eyes, is simple: silence the criticism—but only when it is leveled at the Trump administration.

When White House officials suggest that calling a president a fascist may constitute libel or slander, they are not merely defending reputations—they are laying the groundwork for criminalizing dissent.

This is how it begins.

This is how republics become regimes.

First, criticism is labeled dangerous. Then it is labeled harmful. Then it is labeled illegal. And before long, it is gone.

Beware of those who want to monitor, muzzle, catalogue and censor speech—especially when the justification is “safety.” Because every time the government claims it must limit freedom to protect the public, what it is really doing is expanding its own power.

The irony is almost too glaring to ignore.

By the standards now being floated by those in power, America’s founders themselves would be considered extremists.

Seditionists. Radicals. Domestic threats.

Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, and John Adams would certainly have been placed on an anti-government watch list for suggesting that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to protect their liberties and defend themselves against the government should it violate their rights.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government,” insisted Paine.

And who could forget Patrick Henry with his ultimatum: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

By today’s standards, these are not the words of patriots.

They are the words of people who would be surveilled, flagged, censored—and likely arrested.

Had the government of their day succeeded in suppressing their “dangerous speech,” there would have been no Revolution. No Declaration of Independence. No Constitution. No Bill of Rights.

You see, the right to criticize the government is not a side issue.

It is the foundation of a free society. And yet, that foundation is already cracking.

More and more, any speech that challenges authority—exposes corruption, questions policy, or calls out abuses of power—is being recast as dangerous, extremist, or even violent.

The categories keep expanding: Hate speech. Misinformation. Disinformation. Conspiratorial speech. Radical speech. Anti-government speech.

Different labels, same goal: control the narrative.

What has changed is not the tactic—it’s the target.

Under the previous administration, “dangerous speech” meant election denial, COVID dissent, and those who challenged official narratives about public health and national security.

Now, under the Trump administration, “dangerous speech” means media outlets that report unfavorably on the government, comedians who mock those in power, and citizens who dare to call authoritarianism by its name.

The script keeps flipping depending on who is in power, but the ending never changes: censorship.

The message is unmistakable: criticize the wrong people, and your livelihood may be next—not because you committed a crime, but because your words were treated as one.

The latest example: the Trump administration is once again targeting former FBI director James Comey—this time for posting a photo of seashells spelling out “8647,” a slang expression of opposition to Trump, the nation’s 47th president.

A social media post. Treated like a threat.

This is how dissent is being redefined—not as a constitutional right but as a threat.

Yet while the government wrings its hands over so-called dangerous rhetoric, it continues to wield—and expand—its own machinery of violence.

Criticism is being treated as a threat to public safety, while the police state openly embraces more brutal forms of punishment, soon in the form of execution by firing squads.

History makes one thing clear: governments do not fear violence nearly as much as they fear dissent. That is why the first target of any regime drifting toward authoritarianism is not the gun. It is the voice.

As George Orwell warned, “In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

If we allow the government to decide which words are too dangerous to be spoken, it won’t be long before we discover that the most dangerous words of all are the ones that speak truth to power.

We are further down that road than most Americans realize.

This is the part of the story Americans should recognize.

First, the government tells you certain speech is dangerous. Then it tells you those who engage in it are dangerous. Then it tells you those people must be monitored, silenced, and, eventually, punished. And all the while, it wraps these measures in the language of safety, unity, and national security.

This is not new. It is as old as tyranny itself.

As we warned in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the road to authoritarianism is paved with small compromises—especially when it comes to speech, dissent, and the willingness of the citizenry to push back.

This is how freedom rises or falls.

For those who still believe in exercising their First Amendment rights, the risks are becoming harder to ignore.

With every passing day, the line between a free society and a controlled one is being erased—replaced by a system where speech is monitored, dissent is punished, and truth itself is treated as a threat.

And once that happens, freedom doesn’t just fade—it dies, one silenced voice at a time.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His latest books The Erik Blair Diaries and Battlefield America: The War on the American People are available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.orgNisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Wednesday, April 22, 2026

The Axis of Terror: The Destructive Price of America’s Blind Allegiance to Israel



 April 20, 2026

Photograph Source: NAVCENT Public Affairs – Public Domain

The unprovoked joint U.S.-Israeli war launched against Iran on 28 February 2026 will manifestly change West Asia.  When it ends, Arab despots, who allowed their countries to be used as platforms for aggression against Iran, will confront a new reality.

The safety and stability they thought was theirs based on fealty to the United States and its Israeli proxy was shattered as Iranian missiles and drones were en route to destroy the U.S. military and intelligence installations they had allowed on their soil; a subordination they falsely believed would protect them.

The Arab world is learning the hard way what the late-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in his cold logic, implied decades ago about American foreign policy: “The word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”

On the other hand, it is clear that Iran does not abandon its allies, having supported the just cause of the Palestinians for 47 years.  And during the current war, Tehran has refused to abandon its Lebanese Hezbollah allies as well. It has adopted a “peace for all or no peace” stance, refusing peace negotiations/accords that would not include its regional allies.

Deep-seated militarism and distrust, hallmarks of the region, are directly linked to a legacy of foreign intervention: the post-WWI breakup of the Ottoman Empire; the 1948 imposition of the Zionist colony in Palestine; and America’s unwavering support for its killing machine.

From the Truman Doctrine to the Carter Doctrine, the Persian Gulf and its natural resources have been regarded as “vital interests” of the United States, to keep riches in the hands of wealthy Americans.  Every U.S. president has declared a willingness to use “any means necessary” to dominate the region.

To “protect its interests” and its Israeli proxy, the United States has operated 19 military bases across roughly 10 countries in West Asia, housing 40-50,000 military personnel. Of that number eight were considered permanent installations, while the others were temporary or forward-operating sites.  It also deployed several naval ships to the Mediterranean; with the headquarters of the anti-Iran naval armada, the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, anchored in Bahrain.

Prior to the latest Zionist instigated war on the Islamic Republic, these sites had been used by America to spy on, destabilize and attack Iran as well as other Muslim countries.

For example, the drone that killed Quds commander, General Qassem Soleimani and several others, including Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, in 2020, was flown from the Al-Udeid air base in Qatar, home of U.S. Central Command.   It is worth noting that the Iraqis assassinated in the attack were Qatar’s fellow Arabs; Soleimani was the lone Persian among them.

It is important not to forget that the presence of U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia was identified by al-Qaeda as a primary reason for the attacks of 11 September 2001; this in addition to Washington’s unconditional support for Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians.

When the Arab states outsourced their security to the United States, believing they had purchased safety and security, they essentially relinquished their sovereignty; this is especially true of the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states that border the Persian Gulf: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Beyond military bases, the U.S. has dominated these Gulf regimes through economic ties, security partnerships and massive arms sales, which have created dependence on American military technology, training and maintenance.

As Washington built up its military in the region and increased its threats to use force if Iran did not surrender to its (essentially Israeli) demands, the Islamic Republic, in an official letter to the United Nations (19 February 2026), reaffirmed once again that if subjected to military aggression, it would:

“respond decisively and proportionately in the exercise of its inherent right      of self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. In such circumstances, all bases, facilities, and assets of the hostile force in the region would constitute legitimate targets in the context of Iran’s defensive response. The United States would bear full and direct responsibility for any unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences.”

Soon after the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes and targeted assassination of 86-year old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family on 28 February, Iran launched retaliatory attacks on U.S. bases in the Gulf; installations used to strike the country.

Ironically, the Gulf monarchies have based their security on the primary source of regional insecurity. Washington’s unconditional support of Israel has made the entire region a target.

Despite warnings of the risks to the economic and structural stability of its Gulf partners, the Trump administration, with Israel, escalated its attacks on Iran.  Forced to the forefront of a war they did not want, Gulf rulers have learned that they are expendable in the eyes of Tel Aviv and Washington.

The disparity between the vast economic wealth of the Gulf states and their limited political agency is largely a legacy of their historical evolution.

The modern oil-rich monarchies of the Persian Gulf evolved from ancient maritime trading hubs and tribal confederations.  Until the late 20th century, the Gulf states, except Saudi Arabia, existed as British protectorates and their boundaries were primarily shaped by colonial officials.

Most of the current ruling families are descendants of leaders maintained in power by the British during their 150-year domination of the Gulf (1820-1971).

To support its strategic interests, primarily in India, Britain legitimized existing hereditary leaders and installed local hand-picked rulers that were willing to accept British authority. Those who refused “supervision” risked being deposed and replaced with a more compliant family member.

Interestingly, Britain’s hegemony over the Gulf began in 1820 over its refusal to pay tolls to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.  At that time, the powerful Qawasim maritime tribe (the Al-Qasimi family) controlled the waters of the Gulf and levied tolls on all trade that passed through the strait.  The British refusal led to confrontations between the two sides and the destruction of the entire Qawasim fleet.

Today, the descendants of the Al-Qasimi family, continue to rule two Emirates (Ras El Khaimah and Sharjah).

If the Gulf monarchs survive the war, their populations may—for the first time since both world wars—decide their futures free of tyrants, profligate sheiks and foreign domination. They can look to their own history, traditions and cultural heritage instead of relying on and mimicking the West, building one more alien useless skyscraper, sponsoring LIV golf tournaments and drag racing in the desert.

For nearly five decades, Zionist regimes have focused on a strategic goal: the election of a U.S. president compliant enough to wage war against Iran on their behalf.  They found their cat’s-paw in the current occupant of the Oval Office, Donald J. Trump.

Born at the barrel of a gun, Israel secures its place in the region by fostering chaos and conflict.  By deliberately sowing inter-Arab and Iranian-Arab division, it has reaped enormous profits through a booming arms and intelligence industry.  And by keeping its neighbors at odds and concentrated on Iran, it ensures no unified front arises that can challenge its existence.

The war on Iran has forced evolution, if not a revolution, upon West Asia. This shift could alter the geopolitics of the region, triggering U.S. independence from Israel and enabling regional transformation free from U.S. and Israeli domination.

With these stirring words, “The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, TIS TIME TO PART,” Thomas Paine (Common Sense) called on the American colonies to sever ties and declare independence from Britain.  His call for a complete break from imperial power in 1776 is more timely than ever.

For America and the Arab states, severing ties with Israel is the only sensible path to take in order to finally end the chronic destructive cycle the region has known since Israel was forced upon it.  Yet, owing to Washington’s strategic myopia and Arab leaders’ historical deference, it is doubtful that they will make such a fundamental and necessary shift in regional politics.

Although our days are filled with grief and uncertainty because of yet another U.S.-sponsored Israeli war against its neighbors, one thing, however, is certain there will never be peace in West Asia until there is justice and self-determination for the Palestinians.

Dr. M. Reza Behnam is a political scientist who specializes in comparative politics with a focus on West Asia.