An Example of How Religious Patriotism Trumps History
David Gibbs, the founder of the Christian Law Association gives a very dramatic sermon and presentation on the Founding Fathers as devout Christian patriots. I apologize that there is no video with this, but it is still very interesting:
I think Jon Rowe, Eric Isaacson, and any other lawyers will enjoy the part when Gibbs states, "I deal with lawyers every day and they are not nice people, but the founders who were lawyers were very special people."
The most bizarre claim made by Gibbs is that over 1/2 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were hunted down and killed within one year after signing the document. Where in all of God's green earth does he come up with this statistic? After hearing Gibbs make this statement I was reminded of blogger J.L. Bell of the Boston1775 blog and his recent piece on the erroneous essay that circulates our email every 4th of July entitled, "The Price They Paid." The email essay makes the same claim as Gibbs does that half of the signers were killed within a year of signing the Declaration of Independence. In addition, the email essay (and Gibbs) claims that five signers were captured, tortured and killed for signing their names to the treasonous document.
Professor E. Brooke Harlowe does an excellent dissection of how "The Price They Paid" is nothing more than a farce. In his article, Prof. Harlow points out that only one person (Richard Stockton) was ever captured under charges of having signed the DOI. Also, Stockton was not tortured in any way and did not die, but was released from prison. In fact, NOT A SINGLE SIGNER was ever killed by the British. As for those that died within a few years of signing the DOI, their deaths were completely unrelated to their signing the document. Thomas Lynch, for example, was killed after being shipwrecked on his way to the West Indies, Button Gwinnett was killed in a duel WITH HIS OWN MEN over failed military strategy, and John Hart or Thomas Nelson died from exhaustion from their travels during the war.
In addition, Gibbs makes another huge mistake by stating that the Founders coined the phrase "In God We Trust." Honestly, has this guy ever read a history book?
But I think that my favorite Gibbs faux pas is when he mentions James Madison and the freedom of religion. Gibbs states that Madison never wanted a separation of church and state, but that he endorsed the idea that all people MUST exercise their religious beliefs...essentially making America a theocracy.
Perhaps Gibbs should quit reading the ultra-patriotic B.S. emails he gets and actually read the words of the founders. Ever heard of the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, Mr. Gibbs?
9 comments:
Yeah, I remember receiving that email from my family every year at Memorial Day, July 4, etc.
Though you are right about the absurdity of this "email essay" I still think it is important to recognize that signing the DOI was no cake walk. It wasn't like they were signing a petition or something. This was literally a document of succession and the consequences were serious.
As for the video, this is just another pathetic example of extremism gone way too far. I did like the lawyer bit though. We will all have to remember that one in our dealings with Rowe and Isaacson. =)
Gibbs' pro bono legal practice [he seems to be a personal injury lawyer for bucks] seems to focus on freedom of conscience for religious types from government coercion, but I see no indication he advocates theocracy.
His historical errors are regrettable, but minor: he hangs no thesis on his error about the fates of D of I signers, and In God We Trust goes back to the Civil War, anyway.
As for Madison, the "Remonstrance" is interesting in that it does acknowledge a notion of man's "duty to his Creator," which we might read as "worship." Further, the Remonstrance reads:
"We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance."
...which seems to be exactly what Gibbs fights for in his advocacy practice.
Now, we might disagree with his causes [and he did represent Terri Schiavo's parents], but it seems he's a man of sufficiently good conscience, no theocrat, and I don't see why he's deserving of our scorn. If his history book reading is a bit under par, it's understandable as he seems to be quite a busy man.
As for the lawyers, I work with them every day. On the whole, they're very nice to me. Much better than when I worked with doctors, for instance...
.
Gibbs presents us with an excellent example of the power of the pulpit to sway the minds of the congregants.
.
.
If--as some say--it is true that Gibbs has put a false spin on American history in his sermon, my question is if anyone knows WHY he has done that. It seems to be fairly prevalent in politics as well as in religious circles that spokespersons do this and get away with it so easily.
.
Something is rotten in our culture that we allow this to be.
.
Phil, the influence of the pulpit is NOTHING new.
I'd argue it was the scrubbing out of the religious landscape of the Founding by secular scholars in the past century [and I believe the respected James H. Hutson agrees with this premise, in something I linked to awhile back] that made religious types so accepting of every email counterclaim that comes down the pike.
There's nothing more enticing than believing you are in possession of a long-suppressed truth. It's what's made gnosticism and cultism go 'round for millennia.
Moreover, there's no reason for most folks not to take these email claims at face value. They look credible enough. How many times has someone passed an email hoax on to you? Have you never passed one on yourself? It's the nature of these things.
As for Gibbs, it's a shame that he doesn't check his facts on the fate of the signers. But this kind of exaggeration is common in history - NOT just with the founding.
For example, those who feel strongly about the ill treatment of the Indians often accuse the US government of having a policy of "genocide" against Native Americans. The term "genocide" is clearly an exaggeration, and yet it IS true that Native Americans were brutally mistreated for years by the US government. The exaggeration is not necessary.
Same with the Founders. As Brad points out, they put their lives on the line and they did make great sacrifice and took great risk. It's not necessary to exaggerate that. But, unfortunately, some people HAVE exaggerated it, and then the correcting of that exaggeration can be seen (though it shouldn't be) as taking away from the Founders.
.
"The most bizarre claim made by Gibbs is that over 1/2 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were hunted down and killed within one year after signing the document."
.
That's much more than an exaggeration.
.
Re: Brian's remark about the "INFLUENCE" of the pulpit being nothing new.
.
At one time, the pulpit was the dominant media and even more powerful as far as creating reality in the minds of the American public than television is today. And of a course, that was why Teddy Roosevelt called the presidency the "bully pulpit". It was a reflection on the power the pulpit had carried over the entire nation for hundreds of years. No wonder we're so all fired up in religious traditions here in the good Ol' U. S. of A.
Ah, Phil, now we're getting somewhere.
;-[D>
Post a Comment