Andrew Richardson (Gribbit), Christian Privilege, and Violence as a Substitute for Argument

Many - far too many - conservative Christians believe that their religion should be favored over all others in America. This position is not only antithetical to the Constitution, but also to basic decency and morality. It is interesting, though, to witness how they defend this: how they defend their pretensions of superiority, their assertions of legal privilege, and worse.

Andrew Richardson, aka Gribbit, writes:

Also keep in mind that the major objection to prayer in schools is the leftist idea of Separation of Church and State. There is NO mention of separation of church and state in the entire Constitution. It appears NO WHERE.

Andrew Richardson is one of those who labor under the mistaken belief that the absence of specific words also means the absence of whatever concept is communicated by those words. Why do some people believe this? It not only makes no logical sense, but it has absolutely no basis in any understanding of communication — everyone knows that words, whether spoken or written, communicate ideas and that those ideas might be expressed in a variety of ways.

The absence of the phrase “separation of church and state” is no more evidence that the concept isn’t there than the absence of the phrase “separation of powers” means that this concept is also absent from the Constitution. Is there no “right to a fair trial” because that phrase doesn’t appear in the document? No — and we know this because we know that the principle of this right is communicated even without that precise phrase being employed.

And if you try to mention the establishment clause I’ll slap your stupid a**.

This isn’t mere rhetoric; Andrew Richardson really does seem to believe that physical violence is an appropriate means for resolving a dispute between two people. He has announced that he is making a trip to Cleveland, Ohio, in the hopes of meeting and physically assaulting two people who have accused him of lying. Talk about an argument ad baculum... When a person has to resort to physical violence in order to defend their ideas, it’s a sure sign that even they recognize that their ideas have become worthless — good ideas can and should be defend intellectually; poor ideas can only be defended with force.

For the average adult, such an accusation should be a reason to either apologize for their misdeeds or to demonstrate that what they said was actually correct. It doesn’t look like Andrew Richardson can do the latter — his statements might originally have been explained as a simple error, but as Ed Brayton says:

He’s been shown that he was wrong, in black and white, direct from the texts of the law and the court ruling he was speaking of, yet he refuses to stop passing that falsehood along. That’s no different from lying, in my book. The only alternatives are rank stupidity and mental illness (suffering from delusions). But as I said previously, the one thing that is crystal clear from all of this is that this guy has far too much testosterone and far too little intelligence and education.

Andrew Richardson also appears to be unwilling to do the former — to simply admit error, apologize, and move on. Is this why his reaction now is to simply lash out violently at those who have the temerity to tell him what they think? Particularly ironic is the fact that Andrew Richardson insists that when he calls liberals “moron, imbecile, idiot, or stupid,” they should just accept it and not take it personally; when someone calls him a liar, though, they should be willing to meet him somewhere so he can try to physically assault them. There’s no way to describe this as anything other than extreme immaturity — emotional and psychological.

Like a schoolyard bully, Andrew Richardson even taunts others by saying that if they don’t show up, he’ll write a post to prove their cowardice (update: yes, that's what he did, and further demonstrated his lack of basic maturity and ethics by saying "I haven’t been in a good fight in a few years and was kind of looking forward to busting some faces." What Would Jesus Do? Bust some faces....). You have to pity a person who has nothing better to do with their time; those who refuse to stoop to his level and ignore his taunts should be respected. Accusing them of cowardice is a reaction that should have ceased in grade school. Grant him that he can "beat up" those who disagree with him - what does this prove? That he has more brawn than brains? That he has more fighting skills than reasoning skills? This seems to make him proud — which, given the context, isn't surprising.

Curious how Andrew Richardson can write the above when, in his description of who he is, he writes:

Liberalism armed with the moronic lack of belief in direction from a Divine influence known as atheism is the agent of the devil. [...] Those who believe in GOD understand that for every good act that we perform get a disproportionally positive return on that investment. Good begets good and evil spreads like a virus of pandemic proportions.

GOD gave to the Israelites a set of 10 Commandments to which Christ was asked which were the most important. He told his disciples “Honor the Lord Thy God and love thy neighbor.” This is true tolerance.

Is this just another example where a conservative Christian’s insistence on their own self-righteousness and superiority to “godless liberals” is simply thin mask covering their more violent tendencies? This demonstration of Andrew Richardson’s inability to reason clearly or consistently adhere to his own principles helps explain the rest of his article:

And don’t you dare mention interpretation of anything, it’s written in English for the Love of Mike.

This is the first time I’ve ever found anyone trying to openly proclaim that words written in English don’t need to be interpreted — as if the full meaning of a text, with all that it denotes and connotes, can be immediately apprehended without it being filtered through out linguistic, cultural, political, and ideological assumptions. Andrew Richardson is quite wrong, of course, but I suspect that his position is more common than we realize.

Why is he wrong? Because all an interpretation is, is an explanation of what one thinks something means — a text, a gesture, a sign, an action, etc. If something has meaning, it can be interpreted — and since meaning is conveyed through symbols, interpretation is necessary. By definition, a symbol represents something else and regardless of how or why this representation is used, its meaning must be explained.

Why might his position be common? It can be difficult to argue for why one interpretation is superior to another and, for some people, it might appear to be easier to simply deny that any interpreting is necessary. If there is no interpretation, then one has no responsibility to understand why they interpret things in a certain way and what sorts of assumptions might be influencing that interpretation.

It also frees one of the responsibility to examine other interpretations to see what value they might have. It’s a simplification of the world into absolute black and white: I’m right and you’re wrong by definition. Discussion and thought are no longer required, only submission — either submission to your superiors who are capable of understanding without interpretation or submission of physical force should you have the gall to object.

In the George Mason draft of the Bill of Rights, the establishment clause was better defined: That Religion or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society of Christians ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others.

If you mention the establishment clause to Andrew Richardson, he’ll kick your a**; it’s OK for him to not only mention it to you, but also to claim that it is better “defined” (read: can be better interpreted) in a particular draft of the First Amendment. I guess this is like how it’s nothing personal for Andrew Richardson to insult liberals (such that you’re just being petty if you take offense), but if others use personal insults against him they are just showing their immaturity.

Anyway, is it just a coincidence that this version of the First Amendment would privilege Christianity over other religions? Notice that it would prohibit favoring any sect of Christianity, but it wouldn’t prohibit attempts to favor Christianity over all other religions — or favoring religion over non-religion, of course. Is it possible that he merely considers this draft “better” because it privilege him and his religion?

I don’t think it occurred to him that it’s hard to regard this as “better” when it was obviously rejected in favor of what we have now. I don’t think that it occurred to him that his essay was fundamentally contradictory. He started with arguments about how we must stick to the original text of the Constitution and at the end expresses a preference for a rejected draft that says things not included in the final text we have. He started by rejecting the very idea of “interpretations” and any thought of the text conveying ideas that can be expressed in other words, but then he offers a draft that is “better” because it supposedly expresses the principles of religious liberty in a better manner.

This essay by Andrew Richardson, as well as the separate post promising violence against people he labels “trolls,” are not aberrations. They are, instead, excellent examples of the intellectual and moral qualities which define the Stop the ACLU blog which he is an important part of.

 

Separation of Church & State:

• Separation of Church and State 101
• Secularism 101
• What is the Separation of Church and State?
• Religion's Place in the Public Square
• Myths About Church/State Separation
• Church and State News
• Church & State Polls

 

Christian & Religious Privilege:

• Religious Privilege
• Christian Privilege
• Hidden Christian Privileges
• Christian Supremacy