Cameron: America Based on ‘Hebrew Republic’

Kirk Cameron spoke at the Values Voters Summit and wondered why he wasn’t taught in school that the founding fathers based this nation on the “ancient Hebrew republic under Moses.” Well Kirk, you weren’t taught that because it’s utter nonsense.

The only source he cites is the journal of William Bradford, who founded the Plymouth Colony in what is now Massachusetts. This is the common trick that Christian nation frauds use, citing the founding documents of the original colonies as though they were the founding documents of the country. But the Constitution could hardly be more different from the theocratic societies that existed in the early colonies. I have no doubt that Bradford was influenced by the Old Testament when he set up his little theocracy, but the Constitution is a direct repudiation of those ideas.

In the Plymouth Colony, for example, church attendance was mandatory; that could hardly be more different from the principle of religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment. When it later merged with the Massachusetts Bay Colony, it became even worse, where even being the wrong kind of Christian — Baptist, Quaker, Catholic — could land one in jail, in exile or put to death. This is the model that the Christian Nation folks praise as being so godly.


  1. Mr Ed says

    To be just a bit pedantic our government and constitution are based on those earlier governments. What didn’t work and what was seen to be unjust were kept out of the new government formed by the constitution.

  2. John Hinkle says

    Values Voters Summit

    I love that name. Like no one else has values except these Xian halfwits.

    Washed up actors for Jesus. Was Banana Man there too?

  3. says

    Who knew that the US system was really supposed to be built on a bunch of people fleeing poverty and desparation, wandering lost for a while, then becoming illegals in a neighboring country.
    Do the Christian Mythers realize that makes Americans Mexicans?

  4. dingojack says

    So Kirk thinks Amerindians are descended from the ‘lost’ tribes of Israel do he? He should fit in with Rmoney (and his ilk) rather well.
    ;) Dingo

  5. leftwingfox says

    “So what Values do you espouse at your Conference?”

    “Greed, bigotry, paranoia, ignorance, misinformation. You know, all the important ones.”

  6. Childermass says

    Does anyone have a citation to a specific person who was terminated by the so-called “Pilgrims” for the high crime of being Baptist?

    A good artist could make it into a Facebook meme.
    (And it really needs to be Baptist because the are some of the worst offenders in separation issues and because they tend not to think of Catholics other Christians are not Christians.)

  7. dingojack says

    Not quite Baptists, but it did happen.
    I guess this is what Kirk wants – Christians killing and persecuting each other. Imagine the self-righteous (and self-loathing) wingnut hard-ons!

  8. Scott Simmons says

    Does anyone have a citation to a specific person who was terminated by the so-called “Pilgrims” for the high crime of being Baptist?

    Not having any luck finding examples of that. Lots of imprisonment, fines, and looting of property. Quite a few seem to have been whipped or otherwise corporally punished. But execution seems to have been reserved for witches.

  9. says

    You know, this really fits with my suspicion that they want the US to be divided into numerous disparate groups dominated by sectarian violence and hatred.

  10. TGAP Dad says

    …you weren’t taught that because it’s utter nonsense.

    Honestly, do you really think that the fact that something is utter nonsense ensures that it won’t be taught in school? We need only look at Louisiana, Texas, Kansas, and Dover, PA for counter examples.

  11. Scrutationary Archivist says

    So, if these folks don’t like the current Constitution, have any of them actually proposed a theonomic document to replace it? Has anyone ever published the kind of theocratic, pre-Constitutional charter they would like to see in force in today’s United States?

  12. fastlane says

    If this isn’t under the ‘Dumbass Quote of the Day’ heading, I’m afraid to continue reading and find what is….

  13. lofgren says

    I forget, does the OT book of Elected Presidents come between Judges and Kings, or after Kings?

    It’s in Samuel.

    The government of the ancient Hebrew state described in Samuel is familial. I don’t know what the proper name for it is, but basically each of the families would take a turn as ruling family, selecting from among them their chief according to their own systems. The executive’s power was bound by the judges (who are also clerics), who traveled the countryside interpreting and applying the law that already existed to local disputes. It’s not a democracy, but it’s closer to it than the tribes around them, who have hereditary god-kings, and there is a rough separation of powers.

    The leaders of the houses are vain and egotistical. They continuously go to Samuel and tell him, “Sam, we need a King. Everybody knows that no god is worth respecting unless you have a king. We gotta pick a King. Just tell us which of us God likes best, and we’ll make him King.” Of course each one thinks that he is the one that God likes best, so he will be King.

    Samuel says, repeatedly, “You don’t need a king. You have the law. You have judges to apply the law. If you set up a king with power over the judges, he will pervert the law.”

    But the people are all, “No, no, we totally need a king.”

    So Samuel is finally like, fine, whatever, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

    But instead of handing the kingship to one of the heads of the families who has been agitating for it, Samuel gives the kingship to the least authoritative creature he can find: the youngest man, in the smallest tribe. A boy who has been given the care of three donkeys, and managed to lose all three. Then he went looking for them, and got lost himself. He is so nervous about being king that he hides in the kitchen during his own coronation.

    Thus Saul is crowned. But Samuel warns that by crowning a king and granting him power over the judges – priests – is to turn away from God, and there will be a price to pay. And of course it all goes badly for the Hebrews, as they forget the law and fail to offer proper sacrifices, and steal from their enemies, so God punishes them, etc., etc., following pretty much the same cycle the bible does over and over again.

    It’s not a democratic message, exactly. But there is definitely a hint of some of the ideas on which our government was founded. There is the rotating leadership that vaguely resembles a parliamentary system, a separation of powers (although they are civil and religious, not executive, legislative, and judicial), a ruler whose power is constrained by existing laws, an independent judiciary (OK, again, they’re priests, the lines were fuzzier in those days).

    Anyway, I am always reminded of this section when I think about the Supreme Court and the 2000 presidential election. I think there are some pretty clear parallels between the lost, clueless boy who was granted a role he didn’t really understand and couldn’t handle by a supposedly disinterested judiciary, who promptly expands his powers beyond their traditional limits, who charges off to war for what he claims are just causes but it turns out to be all about pillage and plunder, who invokes God careless and for petty causes but fails to honor his wishes or his laws, and ultimately finds himself rebuked by the very nation who once demanded him and the story of Saul. We can only hope that, like Saul, W. is tormented by his conscience for the rest of his life.

  14. baal says

    @#16, You’re spot on. The founding colonies were pretty harsh on each other. One reason for the commerce clause was the irrational tariffs at the State boundaries.

  15. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    Do the Christian Mythers realize that makes Americans Mexicans?

    +1 for the win!

Leave a Reply