Thursday, December 24, 2015

Texas Gov. Gets History Wrong in Opposing a Monument

You can check out the display in the Patheos article. I don't find it offensive at all. But then again, I like satire, parody, iconoclasm, South Park among other things.

But the Governor claims "it promotes ignorance and falsehood" to suggest G. Washington, B. Franklin, and T. Jefferson "would worship" the Bill of Rights over "Jesus." I don't suggest that these men worshipped the Bill of the Rights. But they worshipped God, not Jesus. Jefferson was a militant unitarian in his rejection of Jesus' divinity. Franklin was gentler in the way he dealt with the Trinity. But he is on record supporting the unitarian project and claiming to "have doubts" as to Jesus' divinity (though Franklin never doubted Providence). And George Washington also gives no evidence of being a Jesus worshipper as opposed to a Providence worshipper.

We could say, well the Governor goofed with one word. He should have just said "God" and not "Jesus."

But because of the lack of real evidence for George Washington being a Jesus worshipper, the Governor cited a long passage from the Daily Sacrifice (which uses orthodox Trinitarian language), a spurious document.

This is a real example on how Christian Nationalist revisionist history harms.

6 comments:

jimmiraybob said...

If eye-rolling was a thing in the late 18th century colonies/states, I can't help but think that the founders depicted wouldn't have just rolled there eyes at such a depiction.

There is no evidence that they viewed the DOI, the Constitution and the first amendments as anything more than political documents. The idea of making them sacred would likely have gotten a large segment of devout Christians as well as the more deistic Unitarians, at the least, uncomfortable - if for different reasons.

When I see the depiction I see a satiric statement to this effect. Of course, the thing with art and literature is that it is completely open to multiple interpretations, which leaves room for lots of knee-jerk reaction rather than contemplation.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Ray Soller said...

In contrast to the commotion raised by Governor Abbott of the Lone Star State, here’s the reported resolution to the FFRF nativity scene in the Cornhusker State:
11/23/2015 – Indystar – This Nativity scene will have the Bill of Rights, not baby Jesus.

Tom Van Dyke said...

This is a real example on how Christian Nationalist revisionist history harms.

The harm is minor, if any. The real harm to the polity is from swine like the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" and their anti-religious provocations. Completely unnecessary and overtly malevolent.

Tom Van Dyke said...

We could say, well the Governor goofed with one word. He should have just said "God" and not "Jesus."

He said Jesus because the Bill of Rights was in a manger and Jefferson was kneeling to it. You're correct that "God" would have been accurate, but that's the reason Jesus got dragged in.

You can bet that if it had been something Islamic profaned, a lot of people would be singing a different tune on this provocation.

Ray Soller said...

December 14, 2915, NY Times prints FFRF Nativity Ad - THREE WISER MEN UNTO US A BILL IS BORN.

Tom Van Dyke said...

THREE WISER MEN

What swine. They wouldn't pull this stunt on Muslims, that's for sure.