One of the Most Ignorant Videos I Have Ever Seen

In an argument in a different venue someone referred me to a video that is, as the title tells you, one of the most ignorant videos I have ever seen. Our discussion was about religious principles in the system of government for the United States. The video presented to me, as an argument that the U.S. government and Constitution are not based on religious principles, was a wonderful opportunity to present many fallacies, foolish ideas and deceptions commonly used by those who disagree with me. I was salivating as I watched it. Critical thinkers watching the video should be able to quickly pick up on many of the aforementioned types of problems.

Let’s dissect this puppy piece by piece:

Our Constitution, our founding fathers and our heritage have been hijacked by the lunatic fringe. They are either lying or they’re too stupid to know any better.

No argument there.

But the Glenn Becks, the Palins and the Limbaughs are claiming our founding fathers based the Constitution on religious principles. It’s simply not so.

Wrong. It is not based on a specific religion, but it is based on religious principles. The respect for one’s fellow man and the rights of the same, are most definitely fruits of Christianity and religious principles. Most major movements to help people outside of one’s own group have been religious movements, and the American Revolution is no different. The abolition movement in the U.S. and Britain, the civil rights movement and the fight to save Indians and central Americans from slaughter have all been religious movements. The teachings of Christ really did revolutionize the world and even the most ‘rabid’ non-believer benefits from that today. In today’s world we are “born on a moral third base, and think we hit a triple.” If we look back in time at Greeks, Romans and other civilizations we will see that they would enslave those who were not Greeks or Romans and they would slaughter newborn babies for being female or less than desirable. (Granted, babies are still slaughtered in the U.S., which is unconstitutional) The abhorrence for enslavement and slaughter of those not in one’s own group is rooted in religious teaching and correct understanding of that teaching.

Not enough? OK. The phrases “taxation without representation”, “consent of the governed” and “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” can be traced to the Reverend John Wise. The coining of these phrases is attributed to the Reverend studying his Bible and preparing sermons. Nearly 50 years after his death his sermons were printed as pamphlets and passed around the colonies. 51 years after his death a certain Declaration was made containing many of his words. The principles (taken from sermons created from Bible study for religious purposes) in the Declaration are the basis for the Constitution, thus the Constitution is based on religious principles.

Still not enough for you? OK. When drafting the Constitution the delegates relied heavily upon John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government which references the Bible roughly 1500 times regarding government. Locke extracted principles and wrote about them, after which, our founders based the Constitution on them.

Still, even now, not enough for you? Take a look at the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights which, anyone who knows that little bit of history would also know that the U.S. Bill of Rights(1789) was based on it. Article 16 reads “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” Sounds a bit like religious principles when it says, “Christian forbearance, love, and charity”.

I could go on……

Let me introduce you to the founding father and the gentleman from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson. The very person who drafted our Constitution after the things he said at the time. “Christianity neither is, nor ever was part of the common law” – Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.

The first big problem any critical thinker might come to is the fact that he says that Jefferson is “the very person who drafted our Constitution…” If you are going to single out one person, and ignore all the other delegates, as having drafted the Constitution, anyone who knows a tiny bit about history would put James Madison way out above the rest.

For the second problem let’s ignore the first. The video man says, “the very person who drafted our Constitution after the things he said at the time.” then proceeds to give a quote supporting his position. The problem is that the quote is from 1814, well after 1787 when the Constitution was completed. How could Jefferson draft the Constitution after this statement if he had not made it.

The third problem is that Christianity is not part of the common law, but that does not exclude religious principles from the common law. In fact there are specifically Christian references in the Constitution itself, but that does not make Christianity the law of the land. It only makes certain ‘principles’ found in Christianity the law of the land.

” In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” – Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814.

First off – again with an 1814 quote.

Secondly, anyone who would deny that there have been bad priests who sought power and control over people knows nothing of history. That does not mean that all priests have been bad. And even if Jefferson did mean that all priests, ever, are bad, that does not make it true. This once again has nothing to do with the Constitution not being based on religious principles.

“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia 1782.

Finally, one that could have possibly been drafted into the Constitution, but it once again has nothing to do with the Constitution not being based on religious principles. This is merely a statement of fact that religions and/or people in any beliefs, are not uniform.

Why would our founding fathers want to forge a new nation under the same religious ethos that had supported the divine rights of kings and the class system that oppressed human endeavor, dignity and freedom for centuries? Still there were those who tried.

In answer to his question I just reply, “They didn’t, you idiot.” As for his follow up statement of, “Still there were those who tried.” it is moronic, unsupported here and doesn’t fit with his question.

The Reverend Dr. Jonathan Mayhew famously preached repeatedly against the divine right of kings and class systems. Mayhew is noted by John Adams as being one of the “most conspicuous, the most ardent, and influential in the awakening and revival of American ‘principles’ and feelings”.

“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it would read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the Holy Author of our religion;’ the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the gentile, the Christian and Mohammeddan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.” Thomas Jefferson in reference to the Virgina act for religious freedom.

Idiots the world over think that if the Constitution is based on religious principles that a theocracy is what must result. This is an absolute abandonment of all reason, especially when a religious principle is: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” If you wish to be allowed to believe as you do you must allow others the same.

Once again this statement does not support the Constitution not being based on religious principles.

Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers weren’t anti-religious, but they recognized the inherent dangers in religious fanaticism and the importance of keeping it out of politics.

The video man seems to be conflating religious principles with religious fanaticism. Referring to religious principles as “fanaticism” is dishonest and stupid. Of course, any kind of fanatic can be dangerous; especially in politics. That still has nothing to do with “religious principles” in the Constitution.

The separation of church and state is a basic and essential tenet of our Constitution.

Wrong. The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution at all. Rather we have, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. By not using the real text of the Constitution people focus on keeping church away from state rather than state(congress) not being allowed to make a law respecting the establishment of religion(church) or prohibit the free exercise thereof. That is all it says.

To demonstrate the inaccurate interpretation of Jefferson’s words (“separation of church and state”), in the famous Danbury baptists letter, I must inform you that two days after the letter was written Jefferson went to church. He attended services at the U.S. capitol building and listened to John Leland give a sermon there. (As an interesting side note to this, since 1865 the U.S. capitol building has had a painting in the rotunda of George Washington becoming a god. That sounds pretty religious and actually very akin to Mormon teachings.)

Our Constitution does not belong to the lunatic fringe or a bunch of silly people playing dress up in 18th century costumes or shooting off replica muskets.

False; it does belong to them if they are citizens of this fine nation.

It belongs to all Americans whether your forebears came with the pilgrim fathers or on an immigrant ship from Europe or Asia. Whether your forebears were shanghaied and brought out in chains from Africa or they were of Hispanic descent and were overwhelmed by the rapacious greed of manifest destiny. The promise of the Constitution belongs to all of us and it’s about time we raise our voices in protest against those who would corrupt it’s message for their own opportunistic purposes or because they are simply to simple to understand the safeguards and the principles therein.

The principles in the constitution do belong to anyone. Even though they are based on religious principles, they can be claimed by irreligious people as well.

There is far too much of this ill-informed, poorly-argued media floating around and there are far too many simpletons ready to throw out links to such garbage in youtube comment arguments or message boards. It makes for plenty of ammo against such historically inaccurate or irrelevant arguments. This video is an atrocious example of many fallacies. To sum up this video’s argument:

There are no religious principles(A) in the Constitution(B). Thomas Jefferson(C) wrote the Constitution according to what he said. Thomas Jefferson said that Christianity(D) is not part of the common law. Thomas Jefferson said bad things about priests(E) and Thomas Jefferson noted the non-uniformity(F) of mankind, therefore there are not religious principles(A) in the Constitution. Or to put it more simply

Main Point = A is not in B
C wrote B according to what C said. (which is at the very least misleading, at most just false)
C said D is not in B at a date after C wrote B
C said bad things about E at a date after C wrote B
C said something about F
Therefore A is not in B

Awful, just awful and weak. What kind of unthinking idiot would fall for this dung heap of an argument? Probably the same kind of person who thinks that simply having “religious principles” in the Constitution would make us a theocracy.

---