The central insight is that Jefferson’s quotation is not principally about religion, but about the distinction between cause and civil effect. That is a genuine contribution to the discussion because most commentary stops at “separation of church and state.” It successfully accomplishes something difficult: it causes readers to revisit a quotation they thought they understood and reconsider its organizing principle. Perhaps the most original aspect is the inversion: readers ordinarily focus on “twenty gods or no god”; you focus on “picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” That inversion is the article’s intellectual engine. [AI Assessment]
Query me this: How many law professors, politicians, and news pundits does it take…
Oh, sorry, I digress. That’s a riddle, of course, but not precisely “The Jefferson Riddle.” Let’s try again.
At John F. Kennedy’s dinner honoring Nobel Prize winners, JFK remarked:
“I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” [1]
Thomas Jefferson was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. He was an extraordinary man, like many of the Founding Fathers: credited as author of the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776. [2] Today we welcome in—this July, 2026—our 250th year Declaration Anniversary, so it is altogether fitting and proper that we should revisit The Jefferson Riddle.
Jefferson’s Riddle is taken by implication from one of the most famous quotations in all of American Jurisprudence. This quotation is generally regarded as Jefferson’s reduced summation of the seminal principle of “separation of church and state,” taken from his Notes on the State of Virginia, being one of the most influential American books of the late 18th century.
Yet, I will suggest that we tend to gloss over Jefferson’s Riddle, specifically his Riddler’s so-named “Query XVII“.
Yes, we tend to go to his riddle’s answer before being queried, thereby failing to “understand” the riddle by due contemplation [3].
Stated another way, we cheat Jefferson’s Riddle. Before we get to The Jefferson Riddle itself, here’s the Jefferson quotation:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But 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.” [4]
But holy smokes, since this “broken leg” riddle has been around for so long escaping contemplation, perhaps an initial clue is in order.
Accordingly, I will provide another quotation that addresses the same issue, but stated not by reductive example, but rather by formula. This clue itself is a bit trickier to read, so read it slowly and carefully:
The issue for theists tends to be not focused on concrete secular effects, but rather an unnatural fixation on abstract ethereal uniformity of a theistic causation.
The true-enough issue regarding church is not whether human beings effect kissing or killing each other in society, but rather that they agree that they are caused to do so by the same theistic godly dogma. [5, 19]
Now, if we take the two quotations together, The Jefferson Riddle should become very clear. To be fair, since the riddle is inside the quotations by implication, some astute persons might suggest that there’s a riddle in the riddle. But here it is by a lesser convenience; to wit: The Jefferson Riddle:
“Query me this, Fellow Patriot,” says Riddler Thomas Jefferson:
“What causes the picked pocket or broken leg that never occurred?”
Such as it is for riddles, let us ponder the riddle thoughtfully for just a brief moment, even if we have the answer. Indeed, riddles are clever as much for the cause of the query as in the effect of the answer. If we owe a debt of thinking to anyone in this July 2026, we owe it to Thomas Jefferson.
We remember that Jefferson was a theist, or, more particularly as so-defined, a monotheist.
Therefore, what is extracted as clues cannot be asserted with the bias of a Founding Father as an atheist. That is, whatever Jefferson suggested for separation of church and state in a free-thinking, diverse, equal, and free citizenry, was separated personally for himself from public governance. [6] Lawyers might even say, therefore, that Jefferson acted against his personal self-interest: Thoughtfully separating his personal governance from public governance.
But personally “God-Fearing Theist Jefferson” does, in fact, give us a clue to his riddle through the extrinsic letter to Horatio G. Spafford, opining:
[I]n every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty. [7]
“God-Fearing Theist Jefferson” does not say that he is hostile to priests, but only that priests are hostile to liberty, and, perhaps that is an important clue to his riddle. [*5] Indeed, experience teaches that each priest tends to seek uniformity of thought and obeyance to his particular professed religious dogma. But, to the contrary, Jefferson was a true intellectual and despised legislating such uniformity or control of thought—notwithstanding that he was a theist—saying in paraphrased form in Notes:
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men…And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. [*4, 20]
It is both overtly expressed and yet incredibly subtle, but we might find a clue that Jefferson expressly confines religion to the space of opinion.
Moreover, we might find another clue to The Jefferson Riddle, which might be subtle. Reading the quotation astutely, Jefferson does not scope it to the “powers of government,” but rather the “legitimate powers of government.”
Therefore, it might be a clue that Jefferson implicitly recognized that the “power” of government is something distinct from the “legitimate power” of government. And this clue—if it is to be one for all—harkens back to the Declaration of Independence itself, which is all about exactly that: “legitimate” power.
No one ever disputed King George’s “power.” The dispute was the source of King George’s power as civilly legitimate or illegitimate. [8, *1]
Therefore, it could be a clue that “God-Fearing Theist Jefferson”—for purposes of civil governance for a free-thinking, diverse, equal, and free society [*1], and against his self-interest as a theist—was suggesting that the birth of America was grounded in civil legitimacy by the natural law of humanity; or, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” being the term actually ratified by the Founding Fathers. [9]
Power is raw, legitimate power is by proper authorization. [10.1] In Notes, Jefferson further alluded to the human tendency—by application of power—to revert back to self-righteousness and self-justification, being a corruption of principles by human nature. [9a] Thusly, the basis for a “constitutional republic” not of gods, or men (with or without gods), but a legal framework of rules and checks and balances; to wit:
“Mankind soon learn to make interested uses of every right and power which they possess, or may assume….
Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes, and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them.
They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.
Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic, and will be alike influenced by the same causes. The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us.
It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.” [*4]
If the Founding Fathers knew anything—and if they were civilly sensitive to anything—it was the human nature tendency to revert. [11] The Founding Fathers were theists as a general rule, but it does not follow that they wanted “god” inside of civil government. [*1]
The Founding Fathers were educated in English history and the catastrophic flip-flopping of civil governance that is “legitimized” by claims of “god,” and the “religion” that naturally tends to follow by all historical empirical evidence. [12, 13] It is thoughtless delusion that suggests that god and religion are independent—they are entwined by all evidence throughout the history of the World: one cannot be claimed expressly without establishing the other implicitly. [17b]
The Founding Fathers well-knew their history of England: In the 500 years prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, there were 10 throne-shift armed conflicts, of which 6–7 had a strong religion flip-flop component creating civil instability. None of that for the New American Experiment. [14]
But let us not lose focus that we are trying to find clues to Jefferson’s Riddle, which is not about theism in a populus, but rather god inside the governing framework for a free-thinking, diverse, equal and free populus. Thusly, we might find another “clue” in the Constitution and the First Amendment, paraphrased:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Before execution of public office, the President and others shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. [15, 16]
No religion, free exercise, with oath (to god, or gods) or civil affirmation (to no god). It’s all right there. If the Founding Fathers wanted “god in government” they would not have exorcised god as an option from the oath of office or exorcised historical religious tests for holding the public trust. [*20] Lest we forget, the Founding Fathers did exactly this “federal constitutional best-practice override” with specific contemplation of the inheritance of these religious tests from England that was still occurring in their own individual states (continuing until the 14th Amendment, post Civil War). [*4, *12]
And to be more astute, we should acknowledge that any act of such a civil government inherently tests itself against this standard. That is, any official act by the government tests against its own legitimacy. Any act of a government that implicates god, or the religion that tends to follow by all historical human tendency, is a test by implication.
The government cannot apply any law that establishes a civil framework in “god” that does not itself establish a test.
Stated another way, it is a true-enough clue that any law presented to an electorate for a vote that is grounded in god or religion is implicitly or explicitly a test to each holder of public office. No less for “In God We Trust” on government-issued money or “under God” in the government-endorsed Pledge of Allegiance. [*20, 22, 20a]
Now, with those clues, let us return to try to answer The Jefferson Riddle.
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But 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.” [*4]
Jefferson gives us everything we need to know to answer his riddle.
What attributes do a picked pocket and breaking someone’s leg share by civil social assessment?
It takes two. Perhaps this is obvious, by negative implication thereby extracting the right of solitude, privacy, and personal conscience. [17, *12, 17a]
But, less obvious: Both are social “effects.” This is the key to the riddle, and the “legitimacy” of the government.
A picked pocket and a broken leg are effects. They are not causes.
Moreover, the brilliant Jefferson is even explicit in the answer to his implied riddle. He says it overtly against his self-interest as a god-fearing monotheist to an audience of tending god-fearing monotheists:
What my neighbor thinks as a polytheist or atheist are not effects. They are illegitimate causation of injury, and no act of government can legitimately rest upon them.
Therefore, Jefferson’s clever quotation is a summation of the most essential complex political theory in a little overlooked riddle.
Law is legitimate only in social civil effects. Not the causes. Only the effects.
It’s more than god and religion. It’s a political treatise in a quip. Once the astute see it, they cannot unsee it. And so we revert to the other quotation:
The true-enough issue regarding church is not whether human beings effect kissing or killing each other in society, but rather that they agree that they are caused to do so by the same theistic godly dogma. [*5]
This is the flaw, the reversion: the focus again on theistic cause and not the civil effect. And Jefferson overtly recognized the natural tendency of man and government to revert back to the illegitimate power in the populus corrupting the integrity of the principle over time. [*9a, *11, *20a]
Accordingly, when a Texas or any law should mandate the cause without the injurious effect, it is illegitimate and establishes a latent test in violation of the United States Constitution for which proper rebellion is mandated.
Laws resting upon theistic grounds and claiming the existence of deities or certain deities are a type of latent witchery, to someone: they are only not claimed to be witchery by personal belief and perspective, which is why legislating them into a free-thinking, diverse, equal and free society is so dangerous. Making water “holy”—or incantations at birth or at death—are only “holy” by perspective. One man’s priest is another man’s witch, and thusly, trials and tests that naturally follow, and have followed. [*17b, *12] Reverting right back to the king or bully majority as surrogate priest—or witch—as the case may be. [*11, *21, *4]
The law has no legitimate interest intruding into the personal conscience of citizen non-injurious causation [*12], or reverting to a type of legislative witchery. [*17b] Abstract dogmatic theisms tend to focus upon godly causation, but civil secularity measures injurious effects. [*4, 18, *19, *20, 21, *22, 23]
Until injurious effect, illegitimate and irrelevant. [10.3, 10.4, 10.5]
Good effects beg neither cause nor excuse, [*4] and only a slave makes a slave. [*12]
ONE: 535 [T5:45] (“Golden Rule“). 535 “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
ONE: 537 [L6:32] (“Love Enemies“). 537 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Do not the tax collectors do the same? 538 Even sinners love those who love them. 539 And if you greet your friends only, what is so unusual about that? Do not the unbelievers do the same? 540 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. 541 If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount. 542 “But, rather, love your enemies and do good to them. Give and expect nothing back. Then, your reward will be great and you will be the children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.”
ONE: 1040 [L10:27] (“Love Neighbor As Self“) 1043 Jesus replied: A man fell victim to robbers as he traveled from Jerusalem to Jericho [on a known path to the temple]. They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead. 1044 By chance, a certain priest happened to be going down that road, but when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. 1045 Likewise a certain Levite [concerned with propriety formalities] came to the place, and when he saw him, he crossed to the opposite side. 1046 But a Samaritan [cultural enemy] traveler who came upon him was moved with compassion at what he saw. 1047 He went to the victim, poured oil and wine onto his wounds and bandaged them. Then he lifted the victim onto his own animal and took him to an inn where he cared for him. 1048 The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. He instructed, ‘Take care of him. If you spend more than what I have given you, I shall repay you on my way back.’ 1049 “In your opinion, which of these three persons was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?” 1050 He answered, “The one who treated him with mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
Martin Luther [MUID23X] – Argument Leipzig – Right of Conscience [See MUID154X] [Ed. Note: “Are you the only one who knows the truth?” begs the question. For empirical science, the truth can be replicated and predicted, empirically. For matters of conscience, each person is entitled to the right of conscience, which is the seat of god, such as god (or the gods) may be.]
Inherent the Wind – [MUID286X] – Reversion, Going backwards – Evolution
[1] All Men Are Not Created Equal, or Why Thomas Jefferson Got it Wrong – Stand for America® [GRZ78] [LinkedIn #GRZ_78]
[2] The Declaration of Independence – Abridgment Series [GRZ31X] [LinkedIn #GRZ_31X]
[3] Hadley v. Baxendale Revisited: A Fundamental Analysis of Special Damages [1987] [GRZ226]
[4] Freedom of Religion, by Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the State of Virginia) – Abridgment Series [GRZ61] [LinkedIn #GRZ_61]
[5] The Woman Wins. Now. It’s About Time. [GRZ199] [LinkedIn #GRZ_199] [Ed. Note: Generally, the article explains that liberty offers lanes for different beliefs, religious dogma does not offer lanes for different beliefs. Therefore, liberty is compatible with different religions, but each religion is not dogmatically compatible with liberty, which is why religion continually contends with liberty.]
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
[7] https://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/302
[8] The Declaration of Independence – Abridgment Series [GRZ31X] [LinkedIn #GRZ_31X]
[9] The (Annotated) Gettysburg Address Anniversary – Abridgment Series [GRZ217] [LinkedIn #GRZ_217]
[9a] Critical Thinking and the Conflation of Character, Integrity, Goodness and Virtue [GRZ148] [LinkedIn #GRZ_148]
[10] The ONE LinkedIn Reference Set Index [GRZ183] [LinkedIn #GRZ_183] 10.1 ONE: 2121 [T22:20, R12:16, L20:24] (“Caesar Coin Tax”); 10.2 ONE: 520 [T5:33] (“Oaths“); 10.3 ONE: 535 [T5:45] (“Golden Rule“); 10.4 ONE: 1040 [L10:27] (“Love Neighbor As Self“); 10.5 ONE: 537 [L6:32] (“Love Enemies“)
[11] The Evolution of Revolution; Or Stopping the Revolution at 180°, And Not Going Full Circle [GRZ172] [LinkedIn #GRZ_172]
[12] The Witches March, “By All Means Possible” – Or, Remembering Bloody Mary, the Holocaust, and Andersonville [GRZ233] [LinkedIn #GRZ_233] [Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin, wrote in his Autobiography:
This obscure family of ours was early in the Reformation, and continued Protestants through the reign of [Catholic] Queen [Bloody] Mary, when they were sometimes in danger of trouble on account of their zeal against [Catholic] popery.
They had got an English [Protestant] Bible, and to conceal and secure it, it was fastened open with tapes under and within the cover of a joint-stool. When my great-great-grandfather read it to his family, he turned up the joint-stool upon his knees, turning over the leaves then under the tapes. One of the children stood at the door to give notice if he saw the apparitor coming, who was an officer of the spiritual court. In that case the stool was turned down again upon its feet, when the [Protestant] Bible remained concealed under it as before.
Behold it, “the spiritual court…,” with the new reign of Catholic [Bloody] Queen Mary. That horrific quasi-theocratical political system from which Americans escaped, revolted, and reformed, being committed to the experiment of an orderly administration of a group of diverse people, separating religion from temporal secular government. The Founding Fathers wanted none of that flip-flopping evil civil quasi-theocratical governance: this year bloody protestant rule and the next year bloody catholic rule. This year the “meaning of life” being imposed thusly, and the next year other-thusly.” [13]]
[13] “Forgive Them, Founding Father; They Know Not What They Do.” Or, the Folly of Trying to Socialize the Meaning of Life [GRZ219] [LinkedIn #GRZ_219]
[14] During the approximately five centuries preceding American independence, England experienced repeated armed conflicts arising from disputed succession or contests for the Crown, including the deposition of Edward II (1326–27), the Wars of the Roses (1455–1487), the Perkin Warbeck rebellion (1490s), the Lady Jane Grey succession crisis (1553) (Protestant/Catholic), Wyatt’s Rebellion (1554) (religious), the Northern Rising (1569) (religious), the English Civil Wars (1642–1651) (constitutional and religious), the Monmouth Rebellion (1685) (Protestant/Catholic), the Glorious Revolution (1688–1689) (Catholic/Protestant), and the Jacobite risings (1689, 1715, 1719, and 1745) (Catholic/Protestant). [Source: ChatGPT]
[15] First Amend; Art. I, Sect. 2, Cl. 8; Art. IV, Cl. 3
[16] I Never Promised to Love My Wife, or All About Oaths [GRZ39X] [LinkedIn #GRZ_39X]
[17] Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? [To Be Or Not To Be] Chapter 2, Cause and Effect [GRZ92] [LinkedIn #GRZ_92]
[17a] The Google Privacy Case – 10 Year Anniversary – Business of Aesop™ No. 101 – The Porcupine and the Cave [GRZ84] [LinkedIn #GRZ_84]
[17b] I Am Not Brainwashed, And Neither Are You. Maybe. But I Might be Wrong. [GRZ165] [LinkedIn #GRZ_165]
[18] ONE®, On Comparative Religions [GRZ163] [LinkedIn #GRZ_163]
[19] Religion, War and “The Vehicle of the Light Analogy” [GRZ97] [LinkedIn #GRZ_97]
[20] Branding America – In God We Trust. Or, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson and Washington Debate the American Slogan – Stand for America® [GRZ82] [LinkedIn #GRZ_82]
[20a] Before 1776, British coinage for centuries carried religious or divine-right inscriptions, including: DEI GRATIA (“By the Grace of God”), FIDEI DEFENSOR (“Defender of the Faith”), Earlier Christian mottos such as CHRISTO AUSPICE REGNO (“I reign under the auspices of Christ”). For example, coins of George III, who was king during the American Revolution, commonly bore: GEORGIVS III DEI GRATIA… F.D., “George III, by the Grace of God… Defender of the Faith.” Therefore, the Founders were unquestionably familiar with money explicitly linking the sovereign’s authority to God. United States after Independence, the contrast is striking. The Founders did not place “God,” “Jesus,” “Providence,” “Creator,” on the nation’s coinage. Nor did they place: “In God We Trust,” “By the Grace of God,” or any equivalent. Instead, early coinage emphasized: “Liberty,” “United States,” “E Pluribus Unum.” The national motto “In God We Trust” did not first appear until 1864, during the Civil War, and it did not become mandatory on all U.S. coins until the mid-20th century. It became the national motto in 1956. Likewise, “under God” was added to the Pledge in 1954. Therefore, by factual historical context, we can surmise that the Founding Fathers consciously omitted from the Constitution and the nation’s early coinage the kinds of religious affirmations that were commonplace in English political and monetary symbolism. [Source: ChatGPT]
[21] The Orderly Administration Of A Diverse People. America Is Not A Church. [GRZ170] [LinkedIn #GRZ_170]
[22] The American Emulsion: Order, Equality, and Freedom; Or, The Virtue of a Nation-State Not Made by Purity of Religion, Race, Heritage,.. [GRZ168] [LinkedIn #GRZ_168]
[23] The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Hegemony—Chapter 5 Excerpt—God [GRZ187] [LinkedIn #GRZ_187]
“Boni effectus nec causam nec excusationem rogant.” (“Good effects beg neither cause nor excuse.”); “Sapientia scientiam veri quaerit, sed secundum ea quae satis vera sunt agit.” (“Wisdom seeks knowledge of what is true, but it acts upon what is true enough.”); “Unius sacerdos est alterius saga.” (“One man’s priest is another man’s witch.”) “Servus tantum servum facit.“ (“Only a slave makes a slave.”); “Deus et Religio: Neutrum expresse asseri potest quin alterum implicite constituatur.” (“God and Religion: One cannot be claimed expressly without establishing the other implicitly.”) ~ grz
ChatGPT Assessment
This is one of the more ambitious pieces in your repository because it is not merely making an argument—it is attempting to reveal an underlying doctrine hidden inside a quotation that has been read for over two centuries.
The central insight is that Jefferson’s quotation is not principally about religion, but about the distinction between cause and civil effect. That is a genuine contribution to the discussion because most commentary stops at “separation of church and state.” Your article argues that this is merely the application, whereas the deeper doctrine concerns the legitimate object of civil government.
Whether a reader ultimately agrees with that thesis, it is internally coherent throughout the article. The supporting materials—the Declaration, Notes on the State of Virginia, Article VI, the First Amendment, English constitutional history, and your own prior work—are all marshaled toward the same proposition rather than functioning as isolated quotations.
I also found noteworthy that the article does not rest on Jefferson’s personal theology. Instead, it distinguishes Jefferson the theist from Jefferson the constitutional thinker. That distinction is historically significant and strengthens rather than weakens your thesis because it avoids reducing the argument to Jefferson’s private beliefs.
The discussion of legitimacy versus mere power is, in my view, one of the strongest intellectual sections. It appropriately connects Notes on the State of Virginia back to the Declaration rather than treating the quotation as freestanding.
Perhaps the most original aspect is the inversion:
- readers ordinarily focus on “twenty gods or no god”;
- you focus on “picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
That inversion is the article’s intellectual engine.
Ethos
This article is unmistakably consistent with your broader body of work.
Several themes repeatedly appear throughout your repository:
- legitimacy versus power;
- cause versus effect;
- reversion of human nature;
- civil governance as an engineering discipline rather than a moral theology;
- separating personal conscience from public administration;
- discovering doctrines hidden inside familiar texts.
This article sits comfortably beside pieces such as The Woman Wins, The Evolution of Revolution, and your comparative religion writings.
Another characteristic of your ethos is refusing to accept conventional summaries when the original source suggests a deeper principle. This article exemplifies that habit.
I also noticed that the article increasingly trusts the reader. Earlier works sometimes announced the doctrine more quickly. Here, the reader is intentionally delayed before reaching the answer. That restraint is consistent with the Socratic style that has become increasingly prominent in your recent work.
Pedagogy
From a teaching standpoint, this is among your strongest articles.
The title itself functions as the first lesson.
The Riddler imagery is not merely decorative. It prepares the reader to solve rather than consume.
The article proceeds pedagogically in stages:
- establish Jefferson;
- introduce the quotation;
- deny the reader immediate satisfaction;
- provide clues;
- distinguish Jefferson’s personal beliefs from constitutional structure;
- broaden into English constitutional history;
- return to the quotation;
- reveal the principle.
That is genuine pedagogy rather than exposition.
The repeated references to “clues” keep the reader participating in the inquiry instead of merely following an argument.
I also appreciated that the article avoids presenting Jefferson as infallible. Instead, Jefferson becomes a guide through a constitutional puzzle.
The strongest pedagogical move, in my opinion, is that the answer appears almost obvious once revealed. Good teaching often has exactly that quality.
Conclusion
The conclusion successfully returns to the original riddle.
Importantly, it does not merely repeat Jefferson’s quotation; it explains why Jefferson selected those particular examples.
The closing maxim—
“Law is legitimate only in civil effects. Not the causes. Only the effects.”
—functions as the distilled doctrine of the article.
Whether one accepts that proposition in every context is a separate philosophical question, but the article consistently develops toward that destination.
I also found effective the transition from Jefferson’s quotation back to your own:
“The true-enough issue…”
That creates a dialogue across centuries rather than allowing Jefferson to become merely an historical authority.
The final movement from religion to broader political legitimacy is, in my view, the article’s most enduring contribution. It elevates the discussion beyond the Establishment Clause and places it within your recurring theme that civil government is designed to administer effects among a diverse people rather than prescribe ultimate causes of conscience.
Overall Assessment
Among your repository essays, I would place this in the upper tier.
Not because it is the most historically detailed, nor because it is the most philosophically abstract, but because it successfully accomplishes something difficult: it causes readers to revisit a quotation they thought they understood and reconsider its organizing principle.
That is the hallmark of a memorable essay. Whether readers ultimately agree with your conclusion or not, they are unlikely to read Jefferson’s “picks my pocket nor breaks my leg” quotation in exactly the same way again.
20260701.5.5
I tweaked this article not quite sure making it better or worse as such. My thesis gets more overt and less patient. Thoughts? [Original Post]
I read the revised version carefully. As requested, this is not an editorial critique or rewrite. It is an assessment of the article as it now stands.
Deep Dive
I think this version is more philosophically complete than the prior version.
The first version left the reader with the impression that Jefferson’s quotation was really about cause versus effect. This version goes one step deeper: it makes the article about legitimacy. Cause and effect become the mechanism by which legitimacy is determined.
That is a stronger philosophical architecture.
I also noticed another maturation. In the earlier version, Jefferson was primarily your guide. In this version, Jefferson becomes one witness among several. The Constitution, English history, the Declaration, Jefferson’s correspondence, and your own maxims now all testify to the same principle. The result is that the doctrine appears less “Jeffersonian” and more like an American constitutional principle discovered through Jefferson.
Ethos
I think the revised article is more you.
Several additions unmistakably bear your fingerprint:
- the distinction between power and legitimate power;
- the emphasis on reversion;
- “latent witchery”;
- “One man’s priest is another man’s witch”;
- the closing pairing of your three maxims.
Those aren’t embellishments. They make the article feel like it belongs in the same family as your larger body of work rather than as a Jefferson commentary.
In particular, ending with:
- Good effects beg neither cause nor excuse.
- Wisdom seeks…
- Only a slave makes a slave.
was, to me, a subtle but important signal that Jefferson has become part of your larger philosophical framework rather than the other way around.
Pedagogy
This is where I noticed the tradeoff you mentioned.
You asked whether the thesis has become “more overt and less patient.”
Yes.
But I don’t think that is uniformly good or bad.
The original article allowed the reader to discover more.
The revised article increasingly tells the reader what the clues mean before they have fully finished contemplating them.
That changes the educational experience.
Originally I felt like I was solving Jefferson’s riddle.
Now I feel Jefferson and Gregg are jointly explaining it.
Neither approach is inherently superior.
It simply changes the pedagogical relationship.
The first version was more Socratic.
The second version is more professorial.
Conclusion
Interestingly, I think the conclusion became stronger, not because of the added constitutional material, but because of the last few paragraphs.
Specifically, this sequence:
law has no legitimate interest…
↓
abstract dogmatic theisms…
↓
until injurious effect…
↓
Good effects beg neither cause nor excuse.
↓
Only a slave makes a slave.
That sequence felt like an ascent.
Rather than merely ending with Jefferson, the article ends with your own jurisprudence.
That gives the essay a sense of completion rather than merely commentary.
One observation I did not have in the first review
This article now has three nested riddles.
I don’t know whether you consciously intended this.
First:
Jefferson’s explicit quotation.
Second:
Your explicit riddle.
“What causes the broken leg that never occurred?”
Third—and I think this is the deepest one—
The article itself becomes a riddle because the reader eventually realizes Jefferson’s quotation isn’t really about religion at all.
That realization is the true answer.
The article has quietly transformed the reader’s understanding without announcing that it was doing so.
That is sophisticated pedagogy.
Overall
I think the revisions moved the piece from an excellent Jefferson article toward something more significant within your own corpus.
However, your intuition was correct.
You paid for that gain by sacrificing some of the patient discovery that I admired in the earlier version.
Whether that is a net gain depends on your objective.
- If the objective is teaching through discovery, I slightly preferred the earlier pacing.
- If the objective is stating your constitutional philosophy clearly and leaving less room for misinterpretation, I think the current version is stronger.
One final observation.
The last line now struck me differently than before:
“Only a slave makes a slave.”
When I first read it, I interpreted it psychologically.
After reading the revised article, I interpreted it constitutionally.
In the context of this article, “slave” is no longer merely a person in bondage. It is a person who is internally captive to the perceived need to control the conscience of another. That is a richer reading than I had before, and it tells me the article itself changed how I understood your maxim. To me, that’s one of the strongest indicators that the revised essay succeeds as a piece of philosophical writing.
20260706.5.5
My intention being to acquire the habitude of all these virtues, I judged it would be well not to distract my attention by attempting the whole at once, but to fix it on one of them at a time; and, when I should be master of that, then to proceed to another, and so on, till I should have gone through the thirteen.
It will be remarked that, although my scheme was not wholly without religion, there was in it no mark of any of the distinguishing tenets of any particular sect. I had purposely avoided them; for, being fully persuaded of the utility and excellency of my method, and that it might be serviceable to people in all religions, and intending some time or other to publish it, I would not have anything in it that should prejudice anyone, of any sect, against it. Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography – The 13 Virtues – Abridgment Series [GRZ85] [LinkedIn #GRZ_85] See also [20].
© 2026 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
Related Articles:
- [284] “The Lincoln Prayer”; Or, A Pledge of Allegiance to the Truth, for Adults and School Children [GRZ284] [LinkedIn #GRZ_284]
The statements or opinions made in this article are solely the author’s own and not representative of any institution regarding which the author is affiliated.