Preserving wise words before they magically disappear
A Little Background
I do not know Beau Willimon. I’ve never met the young man and, quite honestly, until last week didn’t know a thing about him. Yet, most of what you will find here, all the good parts, are his words, not mine.
If you know of Mr. Willimon, it is likely in connection with this little show he produced for Netflix called House of Cards. Given all the awards its won and the general acclaim for the series, one might assume that Mr. Willimon understands how Washington politics work.
What you might not know is that Mr. Willimon has hands-on experience in the political world, having worked on campaigns for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, and was press aide for Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign. He’s done a bunch of other political stuff as well to give him a fairly substantial background in politics. Top that with his House of Cards experience and I think it’s reasonably safe to say his understanding of the political world is a bit more advanced than the average guy sitting at the bar.
So, when he decided last Friday, 3 February, to present the Internet with his Declaration of Resistance via Twitter, it carried a little more weight than the average entertainment industry celeb. However, Willimon is also a playwright and as such there are some subtleties and inferences built into his tweetstorm that may not be immediately obvious. Some of them may not need to be obvious for his meaning to be clear, but our opinion is that assurance is better than adding to the heaping mounds of confusion spread across the Internet. He bases his words largely upon the contents of the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, we’ve decided to annotate his entries both as a means of explaining what might not be immediately evident and confirm what might be inferred.
This also gives us a chance to more reliably preserve and index Willimon’s entries. If there is a downside to posting these things on Twitter, it is that they are quickly pushed down the list and more difficult to find with each passing day. Willimon uses Twitter a fair amount so even one day after they were posted we still had to do a great deal of scrolling to find them. This will, hopefully, provide a more consistent point of reference for more long-term use.
What Beau Said
These are the original tweets since from @BeauWillimon. Our additions are in red italics between tweets. Note: we do not control how Mr. Willimon’s tweets appear on this page.
1. DECLARATION OF RESISTANCE
When in the course of American history it becomes necessary for the people to save our Nation from a Tyrant,
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
If the opening sounds at least slightly familiar, that’s a good thing: it comes close to the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which I will refer to from here on out as “the Declaration.” He only modifies a portion of the first sentence, but the remainder is implied through the rest of the document. For those who slept through Civics class, please allow me to remind you of that first paragraph.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Now, see the connection between what the framers of the Declaration were saying and Mr. Willimon’s words? Consider the phrase “dissolve the political bands” extremely important from here on out.
2. To safeguard equality for all and their inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness from bigotry and corruption,
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
Another Declaration reference. The second paragraph of that document begins:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The use of the word “men” in this context should be interpreted as representative of all humanity. While women had few legal rights at the time of the Declaration’s writing, the framers were not intentionally leaving them out. Rather, they were attempting to make the statement as inclusive as possible. Willimon nicely modernizes the sentence with the phrase “To safeguard equality for all.”
3. To ensure that our Government continues derive its power from the consent of the governed rather than by autocracy,
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
Breaking things down into smaller chunks, we hit a point of the preamble that some consider inflammatory. Those who would call themselves “patriots” have long used this portion of the Declaration to justify acts of violence against the government and/or its representatives. The Declaration reads:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Arguably, in challenging the authority of the 45th president, Willimon claims that the person residing in the White House does not have sufficient consent of the government. His point is based on the fact that while some 63 million people did vote for the president, over 75 million voted directly against him and over 200 million others are not represented by either vote. Therefore, one might well argue that the president is far from having the consent of the governed and that his election is illegitimate.
4. That whenever any President becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to make such demands upon their Congress:
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
Willimon is being very careful with his words here. Using the phrase, “to make such demands upon their Congress” is a softer action than what is stated in the Declaration. I don’t blame him. To copy the words of the Declaration might be considered by some as an attempt to overthrow the government. Take a look at the original language:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
We have to understand the challenges that the founding fathers experienced in living under the auspices of Great Britain, which was in full-tilt empire-building mode at that particular moment. The intent was very clear: do the will of the people or the people will kick you out on your ass and do something different. Never would they have guessed that either the government or the nation would become as large and complicated as it is today. We can’t just march on Washington and institute a new government, no matter how attractive that might sound to some. Appealing to Congress to act on our behalf is a lot safer and doesn’t get one arrested as quickly.
5. Immediate impeachment of the President for crimes committed, or removal from office by way of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
Impeachment. There’s a word that politicians have been tripping over themselves to avoid. With the president’s administration only two weeks old, there are few members of Congress who have the intestinal fortitude to even think about drafting articles of impeachment at this point. While they might admit that the president is building such a case, few have dared to actually utter the word aloud in public. To engage in impeachment is to bring much of government to a grinding hault while the matter is addressed. This is not a matter to be entered into lightly or without sufficient preparation.
Willimon references the 25th amendment. Let me refresh your memory on that one.
The 25th amendment was ratified in 1967 and clarifies exactly what happens in the event that the president is no longer capable of fulfilling his oath of office. There are four sections to the amendment, the first two not applying to our current situation unless the president should happen to simply fall dead or become a victim of some violent action against his life. Section three has been used any time the president undergoes any type of treatment where he is under anesthesia, temporarily rendering him incapacitated. Section four is the kicker. It reads:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Let’s be clear that this action would most likely occur only after articles of impeachment against the president had been passed by both bodies of Congress, or should the vice-president be able to convince enough members of the Cabinet to implore Congress with sufficient reasons for removing the president from power. Either path is extremely difficult given the partisan politics currently dominating the legislative bodies. This is a serious course of action with a distinct set of consequences.
6. Donald J. Trump has conducted injuries and usurpations, pursuing the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
Here is Willimon’s charge against the president: that the has “conducted injuries and usurpations, pursuing the establishment of an absolute Tyranny …” Reference again back to the preamble, pretty much picking up where he left off. The Declaration specifically states:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Let me emphasize again that the framers were referring to the “abuses and usurpations” of Britain’s King George III. For our use here, Despotism and Tyranny are sufficiently close in meaning as to be interchangeable. In short, Willimon is saying that the current president is no better than mad King George III and should be deposed for exactly the same reasons.
7. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world–
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
This is a direct quote from the preamble. In the Constitution, it is followed by the charges of the colonies made against Britain’s king. This was not so much for the benefit of King George, but a justification for those who might choose with which side the might ally themselves.
In our particular case here, however, very specific charges are necessary not only so that one might recruit allies to the cause, but to justify taking any action in the first place. One does not simply call the president a tyrant without providing evidence of such. So, Willimon proceeds to make his case.
8. He has obstructed the Laws for Naturalization of Immigrants, and illegally banned refugees in need of safe haven.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
As I am writing this, we are waiting for the 9th circuit court of appeals to make a full decision regarding the president’s ban on immigrants and refugees. The president’s executive order created a ban against people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering this US. While verbally asserting that this was not a ban against a specific religious group, it had the effect of such, likely making it a violation of the Constitution’s first amendment prohibiting any action against any religion. One can also reasonably argue that the ban failed to allow for due process. The end result has been chaos.
9. He has continued to violate federal court orders which require the temporary cessation of this ban, thereby violating his executive oath.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
When a New York judge issued a temporary restraining order against deportations arising from the ordered travel ban, the president refused to acknowledge the action and instructed federal agencies to continue. This can be interpreted as a violation of the presidential oath, but actual charges against the president on this account could easily be challenged by Congress.
10. He has dismissed an Attorney General for fulfilling her oath to defend the Constitution, defying the autonomy of the Dept. of Justice.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
For the sake of history, and anyone who might not have been paying attention, one should be aware that the president dismissed acting Attorney General Sally Yates for failing to defend the president’s travel ban. By definition, it is the job of the Attorney General and the US Department of Justice to defend the laws and interest of the federal government. However, Ms. Yates voiced concern that the order was possibly not legal and therefore should not be defended.
Willimon’s claim regarding the autonomy of the Department of Justice is shaky, however. The position of Attorney General, specifically, has been highly politicized since John F. Kennedy nominated his brother, Robert, to the post in 1961. There are no laws that specifically require or enforce the autonomy, though it is, in practice, an ethical goal.
11. He has purged the State Dept. of its highest level officials without any regard for a responsible continuity of State Affairs.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
Here, Willimon is referring to actions taken on 26 January 2017. At first, it appeared as though the senior officials at the State Department had walked out of their own accord. Only later did it become known that they had, in fact, been dismissed by the president. This created a vacuum of knowledge and experience within the federal government regarding international relations. While the move is within the president’s prerogative, it came at a time when the action arguably left all US embassies and overseas personnel without a direct contact or person of authority at the State Department, creating an inherent security issue.
12. He has enlisted amateur ideologues – such as the white supremacist Stephen L. Bannon – to make national security decisions.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
The reference here is regarding the placement of the president’s chief strategist (and campaign manager) Steve Bannon to the principals committee of the National Security Council. This committee ultimately makes direct recommendations to the president regarding matters of national security. Mr. Bannon’s previous statements present ideologies and philosophies consistent with those of a white supremacist, though Bannon denies the charge.
13. He has vowed to enact policy and legislation which clearly tread on the separation of church and state.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
At a prayer breakfast on 2 February 2017, the president told a group of religious leaders that he would “get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment.” The Johnson Amendment was enacted in the 1950s to maintain the wall between church and state by prohibiting religious organizations from participating directly in political activities. The president enjoyed considerable support from Christian extremists during his presidential campaign. This move is seen as a way of undergirding that support. However, repealing the Johnson Amendment would require, at the very least, a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Congress, something that is not generally considered likely to happen.
14. He has refused to remove or address conflicts of interest regarding both his own business and that of his cabinet and family.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
Conflicts of interest have been a persistent issue against the president from the day he took office. Already, multiple lawsuits have been filed in federal court seeking to force the president to either divest himself of his business holdings or place them in a genuine blind trust. To date, the president has refused to do either. Instead, he handed off control of his business concerns to his two oldest sons while maintaining full ownership.
The effective law here is what is generally considered the emoluments clause of the Constitution. The clause in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution says that, “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or Foreign State.” Given that the president’s considerable business holdings are often utilized by other heads of state, many claim that to retain any interest at all in the properties or holdings would be in violation of the law.
We should note that the current lawsuits represent the first serious challenge to the Emoluments Clause in modern history.
15. He has hastily signed multiple Executive Orders without the advisement of Congress, policy experts, his cabinet or staff.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
Willimon’s statement here is based primarily on anecdotal evidence. While that evidence appears likely to be valid, it lacks the weight of authority to have any genuine effect beyond the matter of public opinion. The argument speaks more to the character of the president and the possible presence of mental illness, specifically narcissistic personality disorder (DSM-5 301.81 (F60.81)). The presence of such a mental illness could provide justification for the invocation of the 25th amendment.
16. He has signed an Executive Order which knowingly deprives the sick of desperately needed healthcare with no concern for their lives.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
Repealing the Affordable Care Act was one of the president’s primary campaign promises and one of the first executive orders signed once he was in office. If the repeal were to be immediate, ti would indeed leave many without healthcare. However, any change in the law requires action on the part of Congress where the momentum to make any change has waned under differences of opinion and public backlash. At the time of this writing, there is no way to determine whether the president’s order will have any long-term effect or not.
17. He has signed an Executive Order permitting a pipeline that tramples on Native American Rights and endangers safe water supply.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
In two separate Executive Orders, the president pushed for reinstatement of the KeystoneXL pipeline and the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Keystone pipeline had been effectively halted by the previous administration while the Dakota Access project had been stalled due to high-profile protests. Both pipelines present significant environmental concerns, endanger nearby water supplies, and usurp the rights of indigenous North American tribes. While the president’s actions on the matter are not technically illegal, one can argue they are in violation of the public trust by putting drinking water at risk.
18. He has illegally threatened to cut off funding to Sanctuary Cities which have determined their values through self-governance.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
Back in January, the president signed an Executive Order instructing federal agencies to identify funds that might be withheld from sanctuary cities. This presents problems on two fronts. Denying the funds would require an act of Congress and it’s difficult to imagine a member of Congress who would vote against their home state. Such an act would almost certainly come back to haunt them in 2018. Second, the very suggestion of the idea may exceed the limit of the president’s authority. The cities in question are already fighting back. Removing funding from these cities could dramatically hurt a lot of people, but the president seems to not care.
19. He has knowingly, repeatedly and egregiously misled the public, and directed his staff to do the same.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
You’ve heard the phrase “alternative facts” by now, right? That would be a prime example of what Willimon addresses here. The number of misstatements and outright lies are too numerous to list. One would think that the White House would be embarrassed being caught in so many lies. Instead, they double down and assert their own version of reality. There are a lot of things the White House can get away with, but lying to the American public is not one of them. This issue alone is an impeachable offense.
20. He has strongly advocated for the silencing and suppression of a Free Press.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
Again, there are multiple examples backing up Beau’s statement. The press is a protected entity under the first amendment. Any attempt to suppress or silence the press would violate the Constitution. The challenge is that the White House is using demeaning and distraction tactics in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the press. The latest salvo came on 5 February as the president claimed that any “negative” polls are a form of “fake news.” Shortly thereafter, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer attacked the satire of an NBC television show. While the tactics skirt the border of legality, any outright attempt to quieten the press would be an impeachable offense.
21. He has repeatedly and consistently shown contempt for people based race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity and religion.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
Much of the evidence behind this statement comes from the mountain of information in the president’s path. While he actively denies that he dislikes anyone when he is challenged, his actions and his history both point to an attitude of contempt for anyone not rich and white. This includes comments regarding inappropriate groping of women and demeaning people because of their ethnicity, including a federal judge. While this is not directly an impeachable offense, it does speak to his suitability for the office and could potentially be used in a 25th amendment argument for removal from office.
22. He has shown disdain and disregard for the judiciary, and the fundamental human rights that are the foundation of Justice.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
Willimon is using nice words again here to convey what is a rather nasty characteristic of the president. Put more accurately, the president seems to have absolutely no concept of the system of checks and balances put in place by the country’s founders. The founders understood all too well the corruptive power of the office of President and put in place multiple safeguards to protect against the totalitarianism of a despot. This is where we get to test those safeguards placed in both the judiciary and legislative branches.
23. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
Once again, a direct quote from the Declaration. Of course, in its original context, the “Prince” was King George. The parallels between the behavior of the mad king and the 45th president are striking. Just as there were assertions made regarding the king’s mental state and his suitability for governing, so too have such concerns been raised in regards to the president. Both would seem to suffer from narcicisstic personality disorder, among other things. Of course, proving that assertion without clinical examination is impossible. Yet, given the accusations made above, it doesn’t seem improbable for Congress to demand such an examination.
24. We shall Resist until our Congress uses the mechanisms afforded to by the Constitution to remove this Tyrant from Power.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
The most important thing Beau says here is the phrase “mechanisms afforded to by the Constitution.” During times like these, there will always be those who find in their cause a reason for violence. We saw those forced in action both at the inauguration day protest and more recently at the protest in Berkley. Chaos and anarchy is their goal. They do not represent thoughtful-minded people but are vigilantes bent on vengeance and a warped sense of justice. Any resistance to this president must first employ every available legal method available to it.
This is the precedent set forth in the Declaration. Look at it. The phrases “We have warned …,” “We have reminded …,” and “We have appealed …,” reference the attempts on the part of the colonists to resolve their grievances in an appropriate and legal manner. King George III and his parliament made the fateful decision to not only ignore the colonists, but to increase the unfair treatment directed toward them. Only when separation was the only choice remaining did the representatives pen the Declaration.
So, too, now it is necessary that we utilize every legal option available to its fullest extent as we resist the illegal dealings of this tyrant in the White House. We must implore Congress to act on our behalf as they have been elected to do and we must show patience in giving them an opportunity to act within the letter of the law. We fail just as surely if we allow ourselves to be taken by our own anarchy as we would if we did nothing.
25. And for the support of this Declaration we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Honor.
Signed. The Resistance
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) February 3, 2017
This is an interesting though not inappropriate variation of the final line of the Declaration. The founders included the phrase, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” and also referred to their “Sacred” Honor. Too many have misinterpreted those inclusions, along with other deific references in the Declaration, as pointing toward a specific religious foundation in our country’s founding.
Those misinterpretations are grossly unfounded. Among the signers of that document were men of many various and contrasting belief systems., most notably Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Franklin, both of whom were deists. None of their belief systems, including those of the four active preachers on the list, would have remotely compared to anything seen in contemporary religion. They would not have held any book or writing as inerrant nor infallible and bristled at the thought of their religious beliefs dictating the functions of government.
The only common belief among them was that some power external to them must be guiding their direction. It was that unnamed power they refer to as divine and sacred.
Given the extremes of religious beliefs and behaviors in contemporary America, it is appropriate that those references be removed so as to not infer an association that does not exist. We are not bound by religious duty or obligation. Ours is a duty to one another as humans. Our morality is based on the greater good of humanity, not the confines and strictures of a specific dogma.We do better because we know better.
Equally important in this statement, and something the founding fathers knew well, is that unity within the cause and the mutual support of those who resist is critical. This president has already proven that he can create chaos and destruction faster than anyone we’ve ever encountered. Dissent and resistance against the broad array of offenses is going to be tiring and will not stop. His intention is to wear us down in hopes we will just give up and let him have his way.
We cannot afford to give up. We cannot afford to give in to weariness. To stop is to yield to tyranny, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. We cannot let the banner be carried by a few while the rest sit in silence on the sidelines. The resistance must come from every state, from every city, in number incalculable. We must support and encourage each other, helping those most adversely affected by yet another madman attempting to ascent to a throne of his own construction. We must pledge to each other. Together.
Conclusions
I do not know Beau Willimon. I do not know his motivations, his plans, nor his favorite flavor of ice cream. As an artistic person who has achieved some success with his writings, I assume he has an underlying passion that pushes him into action. When he latches on to a concept or an idea, he follows it through with some level of excitement, I would guess. Based on what I’ve seen in his twitter feed the past few days, that seems to be evident. I would also guess that his carefully selected friends consider him a nice guy. Just guessing.
What I do know is that this statement of his is bold. He puts out into the public conversation a well-constructed argument and solid statement of intent. While he leaves the topics of methodology and implementation open for conversation, he has at least provided a framework around which those conversations can occur.
I don’t expect him to stand up and lead this fight. He might, but I don’t think it’s right to obligate him in that way. After all, it wasn’t Thomas Jefferson leading troops across the Potomac in the middle of that cold winter. Some stir the fires, others lead the charge.
Still, Mr. Willimon’s voice alone is not enough. The resistance needs voices in such volume as to create a shout that cannot be ignored. We need those willing and able to march as much as those willing to consistently hold members of Congress accountable for their actions. We need you.
Thank you, Beau Willimon, for igniting this conversation.
Now, let us carry it forward.
Let’s Talk: Common Sense From Founding Fathers
WARNING: some people may find the following content offensive. If they don’t, then I’ve missed the mark. I’ve sat quietly, more or less, for a whole week without going on any diatribes about how absolutely ludicrous it is to pay any attention to the Orange Felon, let alone follow him. There has been an absolute sea of misinformation on both sides and I’d really rather not wade into the muck and mire that is being perpetrated by those who genuinely want to see our country fail. I’ve had enough, though, and there are some things I think we need to straighten out. Fortunately, there were stupid people around during the American Revolution as well, so the Founding Fathers had plenty to say about many of the issues we’re still fighting over today.
One of the things precipitating this post was an item posted on Facebook by a group called Heavens Army For America. As far as I can tell, they’re no legal entity and it honestly looks like the work of one person, possibly even a bot. What brought them to my attention, however, was one of their posts was shared by a person I once respected. The post takes Leviticus 8, specifically verses 22-24, wildly out of context and claims that the blood coming from the right ear of the Felon is a symbol of his consecration by God. I saw the post and wanted to throw up.
First of all, Leviticus chapters 8-14 focus on one thing and one thing only: The consecration of Aaron and his sons as priests. Painful detail is taken in describing this multi-day event that involves the slaughter of multiple animals and the placing of blood on the lobe of the right ear, the thumb of his right hand, and the big toe of his right foot. This was done for Aaron only as a high priest, not his sons. The sons merely had blood sprinkled on their garments. If there is any correlation to be drawn between this and the attempted assassination of the political ass, and there isn’t, but if there were, it would only be for the establishment of a high priest for a temple located in a desert. There’s nothing here that equates to the deity in charge choosing a President for the United States some 6,000 years in the future.
Second, to believe such nonsense demonstrates an incredible level of Biblical naivete. In fact, after looking at the passage of scripture in multiple mistranslations (Christians are especially bad at translating ancient Hebrew texts), the only way one can jump to such a ludicrous conclusion as to think that there is relevance in the passage for anyone living today, regardless of their ambition, is to completely cast aside all historical context and read it as a far-fetched futuristic fairy tale! There’s no intelligence here! There’s no authority here! There’s no textual understanding here! This is all fabricated nonsense designed to pander to conservative Christians from Red Oak, Oklahoma who dream about the United States having a king.
A king? Honestly? We’re going to talk about the US having any kind of system that resembles a monarchy or any other type of system that defies democracy? What part of the Constitution are these people not understanding? How in the world does any intelligent person, or even semi-intelligent person, read the Declaration of Independence and think for one second that any type of authoritarian rule is what is best for the United States?
“Well, the Founders said…”
Shut the fuck up. You don’t have a fucking clue what the Founders said if you’re falling for this claptrap. Let’s take a look at what the Founders really had to say and LET’S TAKE IT IN THE FUCKING CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN!
Let’s start with Thomas Paine’s introduction to the pamphlet that was the metaphorical match lighting the dynamite of the American Revolution. Paine wrote:
Of the origin and design of government in general. With concise remarks on the English constitution.
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. – Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
I especially like that part about, “The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.” By all means, can we please go with the side that encourages intercourse? Of course, I know Paine was not making a sexual reference (or was he?), but his point is far from lost. A restrictive government, however necessary in some situations, tramples on the general freedoms of good people to restrain the actions of bad people. The more authoritarian a Government is, the more freedoms are lost. The more power a Government claims for itself, the fewer rights exist for the people it governs.
What the GOP is currently proposing in their platform is a government so ardently authoritative that even King George III, as mad as he was, looks generous by comparison. What we see on page after page of Project 2025 is not the freedom to build an open society as the Founders intended, but rather, one tightly glued to the worship of a deity that never has existed, never will exist, and if it did exist would be despised by all. Sure, they’re using the language and literature of Christianity, but those with a scholastic understanding of the texts understand that what Republicans propose hardly brushes the shade of anything intended by the Bible or its characters.
So, it’s not the least bit surprising that when we examine the words of the Founders themselves, we’re more likely to find contempt for Christianity than an open embracing of the religion. Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at more than one or two cherry-picked examples.
“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution”
-Thomas Jefferson
“The priests of the different religious sects… dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820
“Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Yeah, Jefferson had a lot to say on the subject. Here’s more:
“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
“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.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
“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 Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
“I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to him on Oct. 26th about the harm done by religion and wrote “Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?”)
“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
“I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 26 January 1799
“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
Now, read this next one quite carefully, please. He’s talking to a congregation of Baptists in what has always been a conservative and highly religious state.
“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
Those statements were made in 1808 and throughout the rest of his life, Jefferson never let up. Here’s some more:
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
“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, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
[Note: Horatio G. Spafford was the Presbyterian minister best known for writing the hymn It Is Well With My Soul. Mr. Jefferson didn’t seem to care about the pastor’s relative popularity.]
“If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
Remember this quote, and feel free to use it, the next time someone complains that you’re being too hostile in your argument against Republicans:
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
[A “mountebank” is a person who deceives others, especially in order to trick them out of their money; a charlatan.]
“My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August 6, 1816
“You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819
“As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819
[Epicurus and his disciples believed either there were no gods or, if there were, the gods were so remote from humans that they were not worth worrying about. Similarly, humans would not have to worry about the afterlife. Instead, humans should live by maximizing their pleasure. You can read more about the doctrines of Epicurus here.]
“Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.”
-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
“I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshiped a false god, he did.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
“It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825
“May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)
Those comments alone should be enough to put away any argument about the United States being founded by Christian men with Christian principles. But, just in case there’s any lingering doubt, here are the opinions of additional founders.
“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.”
– Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791
“The legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion.”
– Charles Pinckney, Constitutional Convention, 1787
“The American states have gone far in assisting the progress of truth; but they have stopped short of perfection. They ought to have given every honest citizen an equal right to enjoy his religion and an equal title to all civil emoluments, without obliging him to tell his religion. Every interference of the civil power in regulating opinion, is an impious attempt to take the business of the Deity out of his own hands; and every preference given to any religious denomination, is so far slavery and bigotry.”
– Noah Webster, calling for no religious tests to serve in public office, Sketches of American Policy, 1785
“Some very worthy persons, who have not had great advantages for information, have objected against that clause in the constitution which provides, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. They have been afraid that this clause is unfavorable to religion. But my countrymen, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution, and to secure to you the important right of religious liberty. We are almost the only people in the world, who have a full enjoyment of this important right of human nature. In our country every man has a right to worship God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he be a good and peaceable person he is liable to no penalties or incapacities on account of his religious sentiments; or in other words, he is not subject to persecution. But in other parts of the world, it has been, and still is, far different. Systems of religious error have been adopted, in times of ignorance. It has been the interest of tyrannical kings, popes, and prelates, to maintain these errors. When the clouds of ignorance began to vanish, and the people grew more enlightened, there was no other way to keep them in error, but to prohibit their altering their religious opinions by severe persecuting laws. In this way persecution became general throughout Europe.”
– Oliver Ellsworth [Philip B Kurland and Ralph Lerner (eds.), The Founder’s Constitution, University of Chicago Press, 1987, Vol. 4, p.638]
Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such oppression.”
– Oliver Wolcott, Connecticut Ratifying Convention, 9 January 1788
“A man of abilities and character, of any sect whatever, may be admitted to any office or public trust under the United States. I am a friend to a variety of sects, because they keep one another in order. How many different sects are we composed of throughout the United States? How many different sects will be in congress? We cannot enumerate the sects that may be in congress. And there are so many now in the United States that they will prevent the establishment of any one sect in prejudice to the rest, and will forever oppose all attempts to infringe religious liberty. If such an attempt be made, will not the alarm be sounded throughout America? If congress be as wicked as we are foretold they will, they would not run the risk of exciting the resentment of all, or most of the religious sects in America.”
– Edmund Randolph, address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 10, 1788
“It is contrary to the principles of reason and justice that any should be compelled to contribute to the maintenance of a church with which their consciences will not permit them to join, and from which they can derive no benefit; for remedy whereof, and that equal liberty as well religious as civil, may be universally extended to all the good people of this commonwealth.”
– George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776
“In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced, and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind.”
– Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists (1771)
I especially enjoy this one from a largely overlooked President.
“It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin. Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties.”
– James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817
“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
– James Madison, “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
ibid.
Almost as verbose on the topic as Jefferson was John Adams. The fact that the two were political opponents makes their agreements on these topics all the more powerful. Let’s take a look:
“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
– John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
“l almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”
– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
“What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the ‘index expurgatorius’, the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine.”
– John Adams, letter to John Taylor
“The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes.”
-John Adams, letter to John Taylor
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
– John Adams, “A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788
“Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
– John Adams, “A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)
“We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.”
– John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785
Oh, and we dare not forget the senior statement of the Revolution, Benjamin Franklin, who had these words to say:
“Lighthouses are more useful than churches.” – Benjamin Franklin
“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both there (England) and in New England.”
– Benjamin Franklin
“You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them…
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure…
I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it… I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all.”
– Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, shortly before his death; from “Benjamin Franklin” by Carl Van Doren, the October 1938 Viking Press edition pages 777-778 Also see Alice J. Hall, “Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin,” National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94
“It is pity that good works, among some sorts of people, are so little valued, and good words admired in their stead. I mean seemingly pious discourses, instead of humane, benevolent actions. These they almost put out of countenance by calling morality, rotten morality; righteousness, ragged righteousness, and even filthy rags, and when you mention virtue, pucker up their noses; at the same time that they eagerly snuff up an empty, canting harangue, as if it were a posy of the choicest flowers”
– Benjamin Franklin, 1758, to his sister, Mrs. Jane Mecom, Works, Vol. VII., p. 185
“My parents had early given me religious impressions and brought me through my childhood piously in the dissenting [puritan]way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist”
– Benjamin Franklin, “Autobiography,” p.66 as published in *The American Tradition in Literature,* seventh edition (short), McGraw-Hill,p.180
And finally, for the holdouts who still mistakenly think George Washington signed the Declaration of Independence, here’s what the nation’s first President had to say.
“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
– George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
“Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
– George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792
“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition… In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
– George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793
After all of that, it seems to be disingenuous that the phrase “God bless America” should ever come out of our mouths. Moreover, it is disturbing the accuracy with which these Founding Fathers predicted the ills that would befall us if we ever allowed religion to take the place of reason, science, and our ever-expanding understanding of nature. They understood the history of how horribly religion had corrupted Europe and its leaders for hundreds of years and were explicit in their warnings and determination that the United States should not follow down the same path.
Yet, here we are, dangerously close to destroying everything that the Founding Fathers fought so hard to achieve. How can we in good conscience let them down by voting for anything resembling a Republican, any member of the GOP no matter how compromising they may appear in the campaign, anyone who claims to represent God first, or to be a prophet of a church, or in any way, shape, or form dare to put the principles of their misinterpretation of the Bible before the clear intent of the Founders?
Again, these are not new conversations. If there had not been people in 1776 with the same arguments that we’re hearing from the GOP platform now, there would have been no reason for our Founding Fathers to have made such a strong and continuous rebuttal. There have been bad actors all along the way and to this point we have managed to hold them in check and prevent them from undermining this careful balance between government and society.
Sadly, it appears that such a balance is on the verge of tipping into Fascism and Authoritarianism using the name of God as a battering ram, and ridiculing those who dare to stand up against them. Yes, people are being doxed. Yes, people are being threatened with retribution. Yes, people are losing their jobs. Our Founding Fathers were willing to lay down their lives and while I hope that we would never be pressed to make such a decision, we have to attack this election with that same attitude that we would rather die than let the country fall to a felonious orange-color despot and his henchmen.
I hope you will take these quotes and use them as the weapons they are against insanity and absolute stupidity. While my words may hold no weight in any theater of debate, those of the Founders most certainly do. Use them. Use them repeatedly and without apology.
Do not let this country die.
Share this:
Like this: