4/13/16 RADIO – Mikey Weinstein battles right-wing shock jock Bill Cunningham

Go to the 13 minute, 20 second mark to hear the explosive dialog

CUNNINGHAM (13:20) : “…the founding fathers are flipping over in their graves and Mikey Weinstein, you’re gonna burn in hell!” 

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

18 Comments

  1. Lee Reed

    Excellent argumentation. I could tell that by the time you quoted the Treaty of Tripoli that Cunningham had no idea what to say.

  2. John Schuster

    Ditto what Lee Reed said. Raising how the Treaty of Tripoli exposes the oft repeated lie that the US was formed as a Christian nation. This apparently cannot be repeated enough.

  3. Rev Bob

    One treaty does not make it true!

    Bill Cunningham did get it right that Mikey could burn in hell, if he rejects to accept Jesus as her Messiah and Lord.

  4. Tom O

    Rev Bob wrote “One treaty does not make it true!” What is the “it” to which you refer?

  5. Rev Bob

    That the United States is not a Christian nation. Whether or not the US is a “Christian” nation, it was founded on Judeo-Christian principles found in scripture.

  6. Tom O

    So, a treaty negotiated by Pres. John Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate which included many of the Founding Fathers is not a valid indication of what kind of country the US is and what kind of government we have. Why is that?
    If the US “was founded on Judeo-Christian principles found in scripture,” what principles that are uniquely Christian and/or Jewish are they, and where in scripture can we find them?
    This is the fourth time I’ve asked that question on the comment section for a page of this website, and I haven’t seen an answer yet.

  7. Connie

    RevHolYesh,

    I second Tom O’s question:
    If the US “was founded on Judeo-Christian principles found in scripture,” what principles that are uniquely Christian and/or Jewish are they, and where in scripture can we find them?

    If you haven’t expected this question then you haven’t been paying attention.

  8. Tom O

    He probably hasn’t expected that question because the theocrats and their supporters are so accustomed to having their assertions blindly accepted as fact that the whole concept of critical thinking barely exists for them.

  9. Tom O

    More about the first question in my 4:49 comment above||
    The Treaty of Tripoli says “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” The treaty was negotiated by emissaries appointed by Pres. George Washington, was signed by Pres. John Adams, and ratified UNANIMOUSLY by the US senate in June 1797, while most of the Founding Fathers were still alive and many were still active in politics.
    If the people who set it up based the US government on Christian principles, why did the ONLY objection to those words that I’ve found come from Secretary of War James McHenry, who was a political enemy of Adams?
    Again: why didn’t the people who allegedly founded the US government on Christian principles accept a treaty which explicitly says the opposite, instead of screaming their heads off in opposition to it, like Rev Bob would ?

  10. Tom O

    Clarifying the typo in previous comment, I intended to write: why DID the people who allegedly founded the US government on Christian principles object to a treaty which explicitly says the opposite?
    Illustrating the basic authoritarian mindset, which tends to judge the validity of an idea by how much “authority” the person (or document, in this case) voicing the idea possesses, rather than by the logical/factual validity of the idea itself, Rev Bob wrote (11:18AM 5/15) “One treaty does not make it true!”
    When an authoritarian reads comments like the first two above, he interprets them as claiming that the “authority” of the Treaty of Tripoli somehow overrides the theocrats’ claims that “the US government was founded on Christian principles.”
    What those first two comments above, and all of mine on this page, are actually arguing is the following.
    Theocrats claim that the US is a “Christian nation” and that the people who set up the US government created a government structure “based on Christian principles,” although they don’t want to answer when asked which specific “Christian principles.”)
    Some of those same people negotiated, signed, and ratified a treaty which explicitly says “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
    In addition to those “Founding Fathers” who negotiated, signed, and ratified the treaty, most of the other “Founding Fathers” were still alive and many were still active in politics in 1797, when the treaty was debated in the US Senate. According to The Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the United States Senate, the treaty was read aloud on the floor of the Senate and copies were printed for the senators. No
    discussion or argument about the document was recorded, but the vote in favor was unanimous.
    In a brief search of the historical record, I could find only two objections to the part of the treaty which says “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” The text of the treaty was published on the front page of newspapers all over the country: the only negative comment about it I could find was in ONE newspaper, by William Cobbett, a pro-British Englishman, editor of the Porcupine Gazette of Philadelphia, on June 23, 1797. Also, as I wrote previously, the only other objection to those words that I’ve found came from Secretary of War James McHenry, who at the time was actively supporting Alexander Hamilton’s political views opposing Adams, so much so that Adams fired McHenry in May 1800.
    The theocrats claim that, in 1797, the US was a “Christian nation” and the people who set up the US government, and were still running it, had created a government structure “based on Christian principles.” If that were true, why did those same people not publicly object to the US government officially stating that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”?
    Why didn’t they scream in protest as vehemently as theocrats like Rev Bob would have screamed if he was there at the time?

  11. Tom O

    Typo correction in last comment:on 5th line, should be “Rev Bob wrote (11:18AM 4/15)”
    not Rev Bob wrote (11:18AM 5/15)
    I’m not able to predict the future.

  12. Tom O

    I’ll make one attempt to predict the future. If a theocrat responds to my last comments, it’ll be about the discrepancy between the English and Arabic versions of the treaty, in an attempt to deflect the discussion from the fact that the English version was the one presented to the Senate and published in the newspapers.

  13. Tom O

    One last correction to the typos in my above comments.
    The last sentence of my 9:32PM 4/15 post should have been “Again: why DIDN’T the people who allegedly founded the US government on Christian principles OBJECT TO a treaty which explicitly says the opposite, instead of screaming their heads off in opposition to it, like Rev Bob would ?”
    The first sentence of my first attempt at 3:252PM 4/16 to correct the previous error should have been “why DID the people who allegedly founded the US government on Christian principles ACCEPT a treaty which explicitly says the opposite?
    This comment software seriously needs an edit function, so we can correct typos that we notice immediately after posting them.

  14. dolores dempsey

    It always boggles my mind why the ‘you are going to burn in hell’ people thinking has them in some belief mode that Christians all believe as these people do. The idea of removing bibles can be changed when the military puts all religious books on the same table, or removes all of them, including the bible. Simple, really. To Bill Cunningham, I would say, who died and left you God, in judgment of all people. How I worship or not, is, respectfully, none of your business. That is just a fact. As such, I should not have to look at, and accept that, the only religious book that has a right in the military, is the book called the bible. I try to look at each individual and not judge, but be discerning. Whether I want to associate with that person, is based on my values of wanting to associate with them on the basis of their character and principles. Their ability to be respectful, loving, kind, grateful, giving, sharing, helpful, sympathetic, joyful, and I am sure others would add more.
    These judgmental people live in a very very small world.

  15. Tom O

    dolores, if you want some more insights into the authoritarian theocratic attitudes and personality, read the comments at http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/2016/04/response-to-e-mail/

  16. Tom O

    At 4:49PM 4/15, I asked Rev Bob: If the US “was founded on Judeo-Christian principles found in scripture,” what principles that are uniquely Christian and/or Jewish are they, and where in scripture can we find them?
    3 days later, still no response from Rev Bob or any other theocrat, to that or anything about the Treaty of Tripoli. If there ever is a response about the treaty, they might also try to argue that the second treaty between the US and Tripoli in 1806 does not contain the sentence “the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” and that the only reason the 1797 treaty referred to religion at all was “a strategic move to distinguish the United States as distinct from the European Christian nations so long embroiled in religiously-defined warfare with North African Islamic powers.” (Quoted from page 15 of
    http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/09/04-founding-fathers-muslim-kingdom-spellberg/brookings-analysis-papers_denise-spellberg_final_web-(2).pdf
    which has much more info about this subject) That’s true, but as with the translation discrepancy, it doesn’t change the fact that the the people who set up the US government and were still running it in 1797 had no public objection to the US government officially stating “”the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” The only public objections I’ve found, which I referenced at 3:25PM 4/16, are the following.

    (from William Cobbett’s editorial in Porcupine Gazette of Philadelphia, June 23, 1797, quoted from same Brookings article cited above)
    The eleventh article of this treaty certainly wants some explanation. That “the government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion,” is a declaration that one might have expected from Soliman Kaya (Tripoli’s military commander), Hassan Bashaw (Tripoli’s ruler), or the sansculotte Joel Barlow (US consul in Algeria, who arranged translation of treaty from Arabic), but it sounds rather oddly from the President and Senate. If it will admit to satisfactory explanation, it ought to receive it; for it certainly looks a little like trampling on the cross.”
    (from Wikipedia article on Treaty of Tripoli-couldn’t find original source) Secretary of War James McHenry, wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, Jr., September 26, 1800: “The Senate, my good friend, and I said so at the time, ought never to have ratified the treaty alluded to, with the declaration that ‘the government of the United States, is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.’ What else is it founded on? This act always appeared to me like trampling upon the cross. I do not recollect that Barlow was even reprimanded for this outrage upon the government and religion.”
    Why do these writings from over 200 years ago sound familiar to to regular readers of the MRFF’s inbox?

  17. Connie

    Two days and Rev Bob has commented a lot but never addressed any of the outstanding questions on his plate. The list is getting longer and longer.

    I don’t know Tom – perhaps he won’t be giving any answers?

    LOL I know he won’t. I tried to write the last sentence with a straight face, and I held it for at least ten seconds but the effort was too much.

    We know the answers. He doesn’t even recognize our questions are legitimate. In fact I expect him to Revsplain to us Heathens that we are Satan come to trick him. You know how tricksy us demons are.

  18. Tom O

    When I was looking for records of public opposition to article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, Google led me to several theocrat websites. Their discussions of this issue played up the objections I quoted above, and NO OTHER ONES.
    Today’s theocrats constantly claim that in 1797 the US was even more theocratic than it’s ever been since then, while ignoring the obvious (to non-theocrats) implication of their inability to find any other people who publicly objected to Article 11: the people who supposedly set up the US government as a Christian organization and were still running it in 1797 had no public objection to the US government officially stating “the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” Can you imagine what a national outcry there would be from today’s theocrats if the current US government even considered officially stating that “the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”? Rev Bob would probably work himself into such a rage that he’d be at serious risk of a stroke.
    It amazes me how these people get so accustomed to having their assertions blindly accepted as fact that the whole concept of critical thinking barely exists for them.
    Another thought about McHenry’s objection: it apparently wasn’t public. His letter quoted above, claiming that he had objected to the treaty when it was negotiated in 1797, was written 3 years later in Sept 1800, 3-4 months after he was fired as Secretary of War by Pres. Adams for actively supporting Alexander Hamilton’s political views opposing Adams.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*