A remonstrance

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were "brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen."
-- Gov. Mike Huckabee

Few years back I got a call from a friend who was putting on a community theater production of 1776, the musical about the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It's an audience-pleaser, but it's not done that often since it requires a large and overwhelmingly male cast and the gender ratio in community theater tends to tilt the other way. Hence the phone call.

I'm not a musicals guy, but I thought this might be interesting since it might mean a chance to play Abraham Clark, an ancestor of mine who signed the Declaration as part of the delegation from New Jersey. (Plus "Sit Down John" would be fun.) Turns out, though, that the play only includes three members of the Jersey delegation -- John Witherspoon, Richard Stockton and Francis Hopkinson. No Abraham Clark (or John Hart, for that matter -- Trumbull dissed him too). So I said no thanks.

My great-great-great-great (great?) uncle was a lawyer as were Stockton and Hopkinson. Hart was a farmer. Witherspoon was a minister and a college president.

The point here is that in the case of the New Jersey delegation, it would be wrong to say, as Mike Huckabee did Sunday, that "most" of the signers of the Declaration "were clergymen." One out of five is 20 percent -- that's not "most."

New Jersey's 20-percent clergy delegation, by the way, was actually the most clerical of any of the colonies, since Witherspoon was the only signatory serving as an active minister. Give Huckabee the benefit of the doubt for the three others who had, at one time, been members of the clergy and you've got a grand total of four out of 56. Seven percent isn't usually referred to as "most," either, but if you're trying to portray America as a sectarian nation you have to be willing, like Huckabee, to use words in new and unusual ways.

The sadly neglected Hart, by the way, was a descendant of Edward Hart, who in 1657 wrote the "Flushing Remonstrance." That sounds like a reference to the epic collapse that occurred this September at Shea Stadium, but it's actually a rather important little piece of American history.

Gov. Peter Stuyvesant had ordered the good people of Flushing to expel Quakers and other "damnable" heretics from his colony. The good people of Flushing responded with their Remonstrance:

Wee desire therefore in this case not to judge lest we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand or fall to his own Master. ...

Therefore if any of these said persons come in love unto us, we cannot in conscience lay violent hands upon them, but give them free egresse and regresse unto our Town, and houses, as God shall provide our consciences ...

In short, "We're for religious freedom, so take a hike guv."

Stuyvesant retaliated by declaring a colony-wide "Day of Prayer for the purpose of repenting from the sin of religious tolerance." The dispute continued for several years before the Remonstrance won the day. The name of the colony was then changed to reflect this new official policy that everybody is welcome and nobody can tell anybody else what to believe. That's what "New York" means.

Comments

[Boze]

So what do you think are Huckabee's chances of getting the nomination? His star is definitely on the ascent. The media for the last week has been attempting to portray him as a likeable, warm person who takes a firm stand on terrorism, who understands the plight of the poor and the destitute, and who knows how to work a crowd with the electrifying speeches which he gives. More and more people are being drawn into the campaign and I expect that there will be a snowball sort of effect. The Christian Right has already said it doesn't like him because he's not electable, but now a lot of other people in and outside of the GOP have suddenly decided he's electable. In fact, the Christian Right seems to be the only holdout left.

I predict the imminent collapse of the Giuliani and Romney campaigns as an increasing number of people flock to the banner of Mike Huckabee.

Do you think this could be a good thing, though?

[Doctor Science]

I didn't know about the Harts and the Flushing Remonstrance. I live down the same road as Hart's lineal descendents, who are still farmers. I didn't know their connection to the Remonstrance, but it makes their relocation to Hopewell clearer. The "Hope" element in place names around here indicates that the town was settled by Quakers, although when the Methodists came in the Quakers moved across the river to New Hope, PA.

In any event, the Quakers were outstanding in human history for agitating for the right to practice their religion, and then, when they got into power, turning it around and letting *other* religions have freedom, too.

[hapax]

In re Huckabee: Well, he's about the only Repub in the race that I wouldn't be looking for some way to emigrate if he were elected.

But I can't see him making it through the long haul. He's funny and personable, and unlike a lot of the Jesus-come-latelies, actually quite sincere in his conservative religious talk. But... he also has a very thin skin, doesn't take criticism well, and can be very petty and mean-spirited.

The press likes him right now because he's an underdog. If he gets on top, and they start to dig at him a little, he's likely to respond quite nastily. They'll turn on him like a pack of rabid wolves.

[MikeJ]

The work Jefferson did editing all of the miracles and stuff out of the bible might be considered ministerial.

Huckabee is a sincerely batshit crazy fundy who has gone both ways on wanting to torture people. He would be a disaster for America and the world.

[G-Do]

...but if you're trying to portray America as a sectarian nation you have to be willing, like Huckabee, to use words in new and unusual ways.

I LOLed.

Huckabee is an evolution-denier, and unfortunately, that is a make-or-break issue for me. Dugg down.

[Spaulding]

Maybe Huckabee, or whoever originated his claim, counts everyone who graduated from Harvard and Yale in those days as clergymen.

[LL]

Many religious people are always pulling figures like this out of their asses, secure in the knowledge that most people are ignorant and/or lazy and will either believe them or if they're not sure, won't bother to look it up. They seem to have as much trouble with math as they do biology.

Not saying, BTW, that ONLY religious people do this, but since they hold themselves out as being so honest and incorruptible, I think it deserves special attention and contempt when it happens. They throw around BS as casually as the most shameless political operative and expect me to take them at their word because Jesus is their homeboy.

I'm not sure if Huckabee is as batshit crazy as Brownback or Santorum, but that doesn't really provide much comfort, considering how insane both of them are. The fact that he would lie about something so easy to check makes him way more Bush-like than I care for. Even assuming a speechwriter came up with that, that doesn't let him off the hook. He was a governor. He should question and ask for attribution for every claim he makes before he makes it. It's accountability. Something the Republicans are supposedly in favor of.

[Craig]

The fact that he would lie about something so easy to check makes him way more Bush-like than I care for.

[Devil's Advocate/semantics warning]

He might not be lying, technically. The religious right tends to uncritically parrot any talking point regarding the alleged Christian state that was America of old (and evolution's failings, among many others) that they hear from some other designated fundie, basically under the assumption that anything that agrees with their preexisting views is true. Real True Christians never lie, you see (which is itself one of those assumptions).

...hrm. It just occurred to me that it might be hard to see how that isn't lying unless you've had that mindset at some point. Oh well.

[ako]

I get the distinction. If you believe it's true, because you believe the source is utterly trustworthy, it isn't you lying. You're mistaken.

Now someone who uncritically accepts all claims of right-wing media (and yes, left-wing media as well, Scott), is either lying to themselves or not that bright. Neither of which is a good quality in a prospective president.

[JessicaR]

TCM plays 1776 every 4th of July and usually on election day. It reminds me how much a love that movie. And how it's really quite subversive and gets more timely with each viewing. And I get tears in my eyes at the final tableau of the drums sounding as one by one they stand to sign the declaration. It's endlessly quotable too. "For god's sake it's a revolution! We're going to have to offend somebody!"

[Johnny Coelacanth]

"repenting from the sin of religious tolerance.""

Wow, sounds like Gov. Stuyvesant would be very popular with certain elements of the Christian right, were he alive today. Alternately, it's sad that so many "modern" Christians would be at home in 1657.

[rob]

Hello.

I also have an ancestor who signed the Declaration of Independence. Supposedly he spent the entire time drunk and had to be poked awake to actually sign the thing.

Am I special yet?

[Brian J.]

This former Arkansan native can tell you that you have nothing to fear from Huckabee. In ten years in Little Rock, his only noteworthy achievement was losing weight, he barely held the governor's mansion in 2002 (an otherwise great year for GOoPers), and left the Arkansas Republicans in shambles. When you've got one-third on Ron Paul's money, you're not a serious contender.

And by the way, he's a definite American Christian- he tried to claim that tornadoes weren't acts of God, keeping insurance policy holders from collecting on their claims.

[Ian]

I have an ancestor who was a United Empire Loyalist. Do Rob and I have to fight?

What, you've got something against the Queen?

[Jesurgislac]

Pah, you're all a bunch of rebellious colonialists... ;-)

[VorJack]

For the record: the Flushing Remonstrance. Or what's left of it, following the 1911 capitol fire.

[Pope Easier Rhino I]

Hey Jesu, the Iberians called: they want their island back.

[Susie from Philly]

The Quakers weren't all THAT tolerant. Elizabeth Griscom Ross (Betsy Ross to you) was read out of meeting for the horrible sin of marrying John Ross - an Episcopal clergyman. The good people of the congregation joined in boycotting the couple's upholstery business - which was a pretty serious economic blow.

[Paul]

Island at the Center of the World by Russell Shorto mentions the Remonstrance in his history of the Dutch Colony, and highlights Tolerance grudingly given, but given, as a central tenet of the colony that got passed into the DNA of the Thirteen Colonies in general.

[Scott]

No love for Ron Paul's willingness to criticize the war? That's right, we have our Almighty Social Programs to defend. Let the Iraqis die.

[wintermute]

Hey Jesu, the Iberians called: they want their island back.

Iberia? Island? Do you mean Gibraltar, which is a part of the Iberian peninsula but not an island? If so I'm not sure Spain has any real claim on it; their political claim ended when they signed the Treaty of Utrecht; their historical claim is weak, as their occupation of Gibraltar was shorter than either Britain or Moorish Granada; their moral claim is laughable while they still refuse to cede Ceuta and Melilla back to Morocco.

And besides, if the Treaty of Utrecht is invalidated, would we also have to give Quebec back to France? How would that work?

[cjmr]

if the Treaty of Utrecht is invalidated, would we also have to give Quebec back to France? How would that work?

Well, that'd throw the Québécois Separatist movement for a loop, wouldn't it?

No love for Ron Paul's willingness to criticize the war?

Actually, I admire the man's integrity. He's the only candidate who has been consistently willing to condemn torture.

Huckabee is an evolution-denier, and unfortunately, that is a make-or-break issue for me.

Ah hah! That's why he's so popular in the conservative Christian home-schooling circles. I was wondering about that.

[cjmr]

Forgot to add:

I have an ancestor that got read out of meeting for marrying an Anglican. That was *during* the war, so he's probably lucky he didn't also get tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

[Spalanzani]

Scott: "No love for Ron Paul's willingness to criticize the war? That's right, we have our Almighty Social Programs to defend. Let the Iraqis die."

I wonder if I could use some of Scott's mind-reading techniques. It looks like fun.

*concentrates* Paparappa paparappa hoi hoi sa!

Hey, it worked!

Scott, just because your liver is acting up again doesn't mean you have to take it out on the rest of us. And I know your infection hasn't gone away yet, but then you really haven't been taking your medication as often as you should. Don't make us suffer for your own forgetfullness. I know you don't want to get addicted, but still. Oh, and don't forget to pick up Maggie from the theater. She's still mad about last time.

[hapax]

No love for Ron Paul's willingness to criticize the war?

Sure. <3

Now, if he could only do something about that pesky willingness to pander to Nazis... (Don't call Godwin on me -- they're proud of the association)

[Nate Winchester]

As a "resident" of the conservative side of the web, I'll give you guys what I know (the 'inside track' if you will).

Huckabee won't win the nomination. By now almost every move he's making is into a VP position. If Guiliani or Romney win, look for Mike to become VP to prevent party fission.

Ron Paul won't win, but at least he is helping to keep the center of gravity in the debates pulling to the right.

The race will pretty much come down to a slug fest between Guiliani and Thompson.

Now a personal comment. Something that could be interesting... Hiliary certainly generates no love, so when she becomes the nominee, a lot of leftists might end up flocking to a 3rd party (especially if Bloomberg runs). Ironically if Guiliani wins the nomination, the exact same could occur on the right (with Ron Paul most likely getting the nomination of a 3rd party).

So then, in theory, in 2008 we could actually end up with a serious 4-way contest for president. (which would be freakin historic and cool to watch, regardless of who wins)

I don't know how likely this theory is, I've been asking around some of the conservative ghetto and will let anyone interested know what I learn.

[Nate Winchester]

Hapax:
Now, if he could only do something about that pesky willingness to pander to Nazis... (Don't call Godwin on me -- they're proud of the association)

Which is funny because as Derb pointed out:
"But Caldwell is being very unfair to Paul here. You could turn up people like that among the camp followers of any candidate, from any party. Send me out to poke among activists for Giuliani, Clinton, Edwards, or — for sure! — Obama: I’ll come up with worse than that."

Yet R Paul has become known more by his crazy followers than anything else.

Oh well.

[Simon]

Contrary to popular conception, as propagated by Shorto et. al., religious tolerance was not really an inheritance from New Amsterdam; the colony made several attempts to expel Quakers, Jews, and other inconvenient religionists. It was actually the English conquest, and the relatively progressive policies of the Duke of York (who acted as proprietor, and as a Catholic in Stuart England, had plenty to fear from religious persecution) that established toleration as a principle. Like the man says, that's what New York means.

As an aside, I wouldn't really compare that with Quakers reading members out of meeting.That's not a question of state, but of doctrinal scrupulosity.

[hapax]

@Nate: I wasn't relying on Caldwell, whoever he is. I just provided one link of the many I received by googling "Ron Paul" + Stormfront. Most of the hits were so obscene as to require me to bleach my monitor after viewing them.

I defy you to produce any organizational endorsement received by Giuliani, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, or any other candidate half as repellent as those received and *sought by* by Paul, which they have not immediately repudiated.

C'mon. You may not like the National Educational Association, but are you really going to put them in the same class as a pack of white supremacists?

[Nate Winchester]

Relax Hapax, I'm not a rabid Ronulan. I was just stating it seems a shame that a man becomes known more by the insanities that follow him rather than the merits of his ideas.

I defy you to produce any organizational endorsement...

Ummm... that was a direct quote. You can email and ask Derb himself for that.

[Rob]

"No love for Ron Paul's willingness to criticize the war? That's right, we have our Almighty Social Programs to defend. Let the Iraqis die."

Honestly, I'm not convinced that pulling out of Iraq, no matter how fast or slow we do it, will actually save Iraqi lives. But hey! This seems like as good a place as any for a no-sleep rant about how appalling I found it that Lynn Cheney – or anybody – would compare the situation in Iraq to our own Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Congress.

First there are the obvious differences. It took us a lot longer to get a constitution signed and ratified, true. But, of course, we also did it all by horseback. We also did it in the absence of an occupied force, and for the most part basic necessities like food, water, and power were provided locally, so if supply routes were disrupted, other parts of the country could survive without total chaos setting in. Whatever we may feel about King George and his insanity, he was nowhere near as ruthless and evil a tyrant as Saddam, and many Americans already had first hand experience with the parliamentary system. Religious fundamentalists were more interested in securing their right to exist than their right to dominance, and there was no attempt to make representation based on your particular sect or racial group.

But more frightening are the similarities. It took us fifty years before a vicious civil war really cemented our national identity, and got us to the point where almost 50% of the population could vote – assuming they could pass the literacy test. For over a hundred years after the Declaration, there were large territories that fell in and out of lawlessness, persistent bloody border conflicts, and a caste of untouchables who made up the brunt of the work force. We executed a ruthless genocide that was nearly 100% successful, and won the right to barely acknowledge it today.

If these people, these idiots who led this invasion, really expected something like American independence on fast-forward, well, they're absolutely getting it. In all the absolutely worst ways.

[cjmr's husband]

Re: EVILution

I seem to recall that when asked about it in the debate, most of the republicans raised their hands to self-identify as creationists.

It's Huckabee I want to see not get the nomination. He could reunify the party. Go Giuliani!

Re: third parties

I see Ron Paul as building his base for an inevitable run on the libertarian ticket.

Hillary's best bet is to run against Giuliani with Ron Paul as a spoiler. Flyover Country would look at that and say "We have to choose between to New York liberals? I'm staying home or voting Libertarian."

Without Ron Paul running, her nightmare would be Romney+Huckabee.

Brock O'bama doesn't need to worry about anyone but Huckabee himself.

[Nate Winchester]

cjmr's husband:
I see Ron Paul as building his base for an inevitable run on the libertarian ticket.

Ron Paul has run as the libertarian party's candidate before.

No really point, just saying he's kind of done this once before at least.

[cjmr's husband]

Like I said, inevitable. It will take a MASSIVE bribe to keep Ron Paul from running as a Libertarian, and he's known all along that he wouldn't get the R nomination.

[Wakboth]

"Like I said, inevitable. It will take a MASSIVE bribe to keep Ron Paul from running as a Libertarian, and he's known all along that he wouldn't get the R nomination."

Good. Then the rest of the world doesn't have to worry about the possibility of him getting the nomination, let alone the Presidency.

[Lee Ratner]

Wow, sounds like Gov. Stuyvesant would be very popular with certain elements of the Christian right, were he alive today. Alternately, it's sad that so many "modern" Christians would be at home in 1657.

Stuyvesant tried to kick the Jews out of New Amsterdam, stating that if we tolerate the Jews, then we'd have to tolerate the Lutherans and Catholics to. The Dutch West India Company shot him down.

[Jim]

Personally, I'd like to see Ru Paul run for President.

[cjmr]

Finally got around to watching the "Sit Down, John!" video. I didn't realize William Daniels played John Adams in that. He's one of my favorite cranky actors! Has been every since "St. Elsewhere".

[Craig]

I seem to recall that when asked about it in the debate, most of the republicans raised their hands to self-identify as creationists.

30% equals "most" now?

I recall Brownback, Huckabee, and either Tancredo or Tommy Thompson as the only ones to raise their hands. McCain gave some mealy-mouthed attempt to pander to both sides, but that doesn't really count in my opinion.

[Jim]

Huckabee's statement is pure Truthiness. (Not linking to the Wikipedia article on it, because if you are inclined to look the word up in a reference work, you'll never truly understand it. ;) ) The Religious Right (and Republican candidates trying to appeal to them) has a long history of misrepresenting the Declaration of Independence as being a Christian document on the basis of the word "Creator" being mentioned therein. They associate it with the Christian God, sometimes saying "The Creator, God," in the manner of Stephen Daedalus asserting "The French call him Dieu, but his name is God."

Let's see, a Deist (Jefferson) using a Deist term. Yup, he must be referring to the Christian God. It helps, of course, to be completely ignorant of other religions and American history.

[cjmr's husband]

For Huckabee's definition of "most", you can safely say that "most" of the repub candidates are creationists. :-)

[wintermute]

For Huckabee's definition of "most", you can safely say that "most" Americans live in San Fransisco.

[Craig]

For Huckabee's definition of "most", you can safely say that "most" Americans live in San Fransisco.

I guess that would explain the Radical Gay Agenda.

[Jon H]

"This former Arkansan native can tell you that you have nothing to fear from Huckabee. In ten years in Little Rock, his only noteworthy achievement was losing weigh"

He did pardon Keith Richards for a reckless driving offense from some time back in the Triassic.

[Nate Winchester]

BTW, for those interested, rightwingnews.com did have the
The Conservative Case For -- And Against -- Mike Huckabee

Figured it might be of interest for some.

[hapax]

In fairness to Huckabee, his response to the Katrina disaster was both more competent and compassionate than Blanco's or the Fed's.

Of course, I could also say that about my dog.

[Jeff]

Hiliary certainly generates no love, so when she becomes the nominee, a lot of leftists might end up flocking to a 3rd party (especially if Bloomberg runs).

I'd MUCH rather Obama win the Primaries, but I think that a lot of Lefties would rather see Hillary win than ANY of the Republiscum running.

[Nate Winchester]

Jeff:
I'd MUCH rather Obama win the Primaries, but I think that a lot of Lefties would rather see Hillary win than ANY of the Republiscum running.

A lot of people would rather Obama win the primaries.

My point was (in the sentence you quoted), when Hiliary wins the nomination, what if there's another left-leaning candidate running? It was merely a hypothetical (fun theorizing if you will).

Republiscum

Now c'mon, I haven't called any of you any names. (well... i did use Ronulans but that's because I'm such a star trek geek)

[Ian]

It's disturbing that a neo-nazi cuddler is a more attractive candidate than many D candidates and all of the Rs. Ron Paul doesn't want to overturn the American way of government and doesn't want to kill huge numbers of foreigners in overseas adventures. He's a horrible man, but he's right on the issues that matter most, and few other candidates are explicitly in the same camp.

[Nate Winchester]

Ian, like I said, I'm not a RP supporter but why do you call him a "horrible man"? I mean, the guy was an OB/Gyn doctor for many years!

And I'm not sure how much of a "cuddler" you can call him. It's not like he's openly inviting them or shielding them from criticism. Your statement's no different from right-wingers calling the Democrats "terrorist-cuddlers". I mean WTD?

Perceptions skewed much?