Daniel McClellan is critiquing the late Charlie Kirk - unfairly. I may as well take this space to explain how to do it fairly.
Charlie Kirk was one who thought on his feet - and then spoke from his hip, if I may. He does not always say everything properly. That said, I think I can explain what he's talking about in the video which McClellan is calling "lies".
Kirk brings the "Liberty Bell", which McClellan points out was not called that until 1830 when it had the crack, from its origins as a Leviticus 25:10 bell, which even then "proclaimed liberty throughout the land". For the Holiness Code, libertas was Sumerian amargi: relief from grain debts and freedom for the debt-bonded. In 1830, the people associated libertas with, well, freedom: from oppressive governments. Inasmuch as Philadelphia was founded by Quakers, they intended the same.
This was not an "Enlightenment" slogan but a Christian one. The Quakers who struck the clapper on that bell for the first time were ringing out their Christianity.
In that respect, Kirk is reading the same targum upon וַיִּקְרָא as the Quakers had done. As for "The Founders": although the Declaration might be Jeffersonian, Deist, Enlightened and generally Left; since the Constitution and the First Amendment, the Union Of States was decidedly more conservative in its stance. I do not believe it is an accident that this Government was then assembled in Philadelphia. (It had to move later because of the yellow fever but - let's not get too far in the bullrushes here.)
Kirk perhaps worded his argument poorly, and the Quaker reading was at base flawed. Neither of them are coming off as poorly, however, as McClellan; who is simply slandering the man.
BACKDATE 10/28
No comments:
Post a Comment