Positive Liberty

I know, this is hardly a shock. Lauren Green, the correspondent in question, has a piece on the Fox News website throwing a fit about Kathy Griffin’s Emmy jokes. Along the way, she throws in a few well-worn falsehoods. And her understanding of the history of Christianity in the West is shockingly inaccurate. She writes:

In 300 A.D. Emperor Constantine accepted Christianity and it beccame the religion of Europe. Rome soon became the seat of the faith. After several years of human failings, the church went through conflicts and quite a few unbiblical years — the crusades and the inquisition to name just two. Out of that came the Reformation — the reforming of the Church, sort of a back-to-basics Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Uh, right. Those unbiblical during the crusades and inquisitions were just a Catholic thing; once the Reformation started, it was back to the Bible and to the loving thoughts of Jesus. Perhaps Green would like to explain that to Michael Servetus, who was burned at the stake in Calvin’s Geneva. Or to all the Jews who were persecuted and murdered at the order of Martin Luther, the other great Protestant reformer. Instead of killing people for daring to question Catholicism specifically, they killed people for questioning Christianity as a whole; some progress, that.

Out of the Reformation emerged a vision of law by Samuel Rutherford, called Lex is Rex, Law is King. From that, others devised a secular version that is used to help lay the foundation of government for a new land called America.

The fact that Samuel Rutherford advocated a government limited by a constitution hardly means that he was a friend of liberty. To tie this in to the answer above, Rutherford was an enthusiastic supporter of killing those who spoke out against the church, including Servetus. He wrote:

It was justice, not cruelty, yea mercy to the Church of God, to take away the life of Servetus, who used such spirituall and diabolick cruelty to many thousand soules, whom he did pervert, and by his Booke, does yet lead into perdition.

Rutherford’s political views had little to do with his religious views as a Protestant. Indeed, they clearly took a back seat to his preference for theocracy. And there is no evidence at all that Rutherford was influential even on John Locke, much less on the Founding Fathers of this country.

Ninety-four percent of America’s founding era documents mention the Bible; 34 percent quote the Bible directly.

Ah yes, that old canard, which has been debunked time and time again. The phrase “founding era documents” is quite slippery; she doesn’t bother to say, doubtless because she has never read Lutz’ study and hasn’t a clue what it actually says, is that most of the documents in his study had nothing at all to do with the founding of the country and were in fact reprinted sermons. Small wonder that sermons contained Biblical references.

In fact, Lutz’ study notes that at the time of the drafting and ratification of the constitution, 1787 and 1788, there were precious few references to the Bible or to Christianity and none at all in the public writings of any of the Federalists who were explaining and defending the Constitution to the citizens. Lutz wrote of this period in his study:

The Bible’s prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little to say. The Anti-Federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles of government, but the Federalists’ inclination to Enlightenment rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible relevant.

Lutz’ study clearly argues against the notion that the Bible influenced the Constitution, not for it. If Green had bothered to actually read the study, she would know that. But instead, she credulously repeats religious right talking points. Then again, she does work for Fox News, so this is hardly a surprise.

The idea of bringing unity to the universal is a particularly Biblical concept.

I’ll take incoherent gibberish for $1000, Alex. What the hell does that even mean, bringing unity to the universal? This is word salad, nothing more.

The freedoms we enjoy in this country to speak freely and to live freely are directly related to that man who died on a cross 2,000 years ago.

Nonsense. There is not a single verse in the Bible that even suggests, much less endorses, the notion of political liberty or inalienable rights; there are, on the other hand, innumerable verses that flatly contradict those ideas.

Now I could have been mildly insulted at that and turned the other cheek, as the founder of Christianity taught. But then she went on to say “Suck it, Jesus. This award is my God now.”

Needless to say, she offended me and millions of other Christians.

Only because you’re an unthinking reactionary. Kathy Griffin was saying what Christians like you should be saying every time some vapid celebrity or athlete praises God for winning a game or an award. The notion that God cares who wins a football game or an Emmy award is far more blasphemous than anything Kathy Griffin said. She made fun of something you should be appalled at.

Trackback URI |