Thank you Rachel. You've always been my heroine! While Chris Matthews may be a decent human being. He failed to grasp the fact that our current Republican politicians are basically EVIL. Matthews fell into the bipartisanship crap, which has nearly destroyed the correct path for President Obama and the Democrat party. Just because Chris Matthews' father was a Republican, he needs to THINK instead of following the footstep of his Dad.

Rachel, we are living in the Middle East, for the next month, been here almost 2 years, & we see your show on MSNBC through the OSN satellite network.

I wanted to comment on your report from Wednesday on Politifac seeming to not want to ascribe truth to the a portion of the President's State of the Union Address. I would like to suggest you look at a Fact Check published by ABC News, they are being what I would describe as "nitpicky". In one segment it issaid the President's claim of 4 million jobs lost in the months prior to his administration is wrong, it was 3.51 million jobs. In another segment ABC news says he took office in 2008, it was 2009. If you have someone who can, have them take a looka t thei Fact Check by ABC news, & see if you care to comment.

Thanks for advocating for the USA Progressive community

G Drew Butler, PE, LEED AP

Doha, Qatar

I'm not sure what exactly it is you're trying to say here but I think for the most part you're right. The phrase does originate most likely from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:14, "You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden."

This I believe is all part of the modern right-wing move to make our government a Christian government. Reagan and his handlers frequently used this type of "new Jerusalem," language to attract and solidify the evangelicals to the Republican party.

It is important I think to reiterate to all that no where in our constitution are the words, Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, God or Divine. In fact in Article 6, Section 3, it says, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." This was incredibly radical and progressive because up until this time the kings and royalty of Europe (as well as elsewhere) claimed that their authority to rule came from God. This was the original and ultimate "entitlement." Jefferson instead wrote that the power of the government came from the governed.

It is interesting to me that the Republican party is the party that wants a return to religious authority. It wants a return to rule by the rich and powerful who they feel are entitled to that power due to corporate personhood and sheer wealth. They simply disregard the wishes of the majority and certainly the wishes of those who do not fall into their right wing, evangelical, political beliefs. It is a backward moving party not a forward moving party. Our founding fathers I believe would stand against everything they support and the direction they are pushing this nation towards.

Matthews is WRONG. While he may be a decent right leaning American, Matthews got too enchanted with his memory of his Republican father. He failed to realize that today's Republicans are basically EVIL. Period! Many thanks to Rachel Maddow. She is the lightening rod!

Sarah Vowell's The Wordy Shipmates is a nice reflection on the Puritan Dream of the shining city. This country is made up of lots of experiments, but people have been drawn here in the past by visions of opportunity and freedom. It's worthwhile projecting those visions, as a byproduct of actual opportunity and freedom.

I think she said "late addition," not "late edition."

I'm intrigued by the progression. Jesus was speaking about individuals. Winthrop was talking, essentially, about the Puritan Church. Reagan was talking about a nation.

The Republicans really don't seem to understand. America is a country, not a religion.

Thanks for the history lesson. I, too, was wondering where she was going with that remark.

I think he meant he liked it as the Republican party's message responding to Obama's. You'd probably win an argument for argument's sake. But it would be like arguing a theology. In context of conveying the party's message to the public, I thought it was good one too. Whether I agree or agree partially or not is another thing.

I like when Mr. Mathews asks "I don't understand it. What do you mean by that?". He does understand it but he doesn't because it shouldn't be so. He understands it because of his father and understand it well because of his love for his father. It is just that his intellectual ideals and conviction of politics don't understand it. He loves his religion but he hates theocracy. That's what I'm guessing.

Bonus: Yes, Will, the Biblical passage from Matthew is in fact the basis of the "This Little Light of Mine" song. I can't speak to the Grateful Dead song, however.

So just for fun, how many of us are directly descended from good ol' Gov. John Winthrop? (he fathered A LOT of children)

<raises hand>

I've had many years to contemplate my illustrious ancestor, since first encountering A Model of Christian Charity in my college lit textbook, while my aunt was also doing family genealogy research (anybody want a Salem witch? We've got one! Clara Barton too!). Which also happened to be at the same time Reagan was in office, decimating the economy with his model for Christian Charity (people living under bridges, kicked out of mental hospitals).

Anyway, I just wanted to bring in one more reference for Winthrop's City on the Hill that Winthrop would have known well (as would the other Puritans), and that is based more in (I believe, going off memory) Revelations (or else it would be John I, II or III).

It's the prophecy of the "New Jerusalem." In Revelations, it is all spelled out in precise cubits by cubits, which leads many science fiction writers to speculate that it is really a city modeled as a spaceship, which will actually SET DOWN on the HILL, and miraculously hold 144,000 (that very special number, which is why you have all those cubits in the first place).

At the time of Northern Europeans migrating to the "New World" for religious freedom, the New World didn't just represent a fresh start. They overtly hoped to literally build that "New Jerusalem" in this new space. It was a bit of a mythological symbol for them (and secular folks too. One could argue that Shakespeare used it liberally, in Twelfth Night's concept of "Illyria," for instance, or in "The Tempest" --the famous magical "island")

So the "City on the Hill" is sort of thought as being a real city, the utopian city, the New Jerusalem. As in, "Let's do it right this time." With all those cubits.

And of course, no witches.

Several comments due here.

First, it's clear Chris Matthews was at a complete loss in this exchange. Perhaps he was still dealing with that "tingling" in his leg from the last election, or more likely was simply in over his head, again. MSNBC might want to rethink this "gaggle of anchors" format for election coverage. It comes across as Maddow trying to herd cats and not getting a chance to make her laser-like comments, or when she does, being interrupted in the midst. Too many egos competing for air time. Maddow would be better off alone, or with only the folks who can control themselves. That would exclude Matthews and O'Donnell.

Second. Using the Bible to prove a point is a very old, very effective tactic in certain circles. John Winthrop was not the first person to attempt to motivate folks in this manner, and certainly not the last. Reagan and his successors have flogged this "shining city" thing to death. As Maddow correctly points out, there is no "shining" to be had here, but Reagan was into drama, and the image suited his purpose. It continues to work for the Neocons. It's become a "catch phrase" that those "in the know", know. Doesn't make much sense, can't actually define what it means, but "we" all know what it means. Right?

Lastly. Will, I noted the time of this post, and I'm a bit concerned about you. Haven't you got something better to do in the wee hours of morning than sit around thinking about stuff like this and trying to connect the dots between the Book of Matthew, John Winthrop, Ronald Reagan and Mitch Daniels, all to Grateful Dead tunes in your head? Isn't there a good bar open in your neighborhood at that hour?

As someone who was raised Southern Baptist but then turned out okay (a liberal feminist socialist - gasp!) I can tell you that yes, "This Little Light of Mine" is based on that passage in Matthew ch5. Or, at least, that's what I was told at Vacation Bible School.

There's a long evangelical tradition of shininess.

I've never read Winthrop, but the passage of your post sounds most intriguing. Matthew is my second favorite biblical writer; behind Job and in front of Mark. I appreciate the Grateful Dead selection, and counter it with this.

But, please, don't get me started ion the puritans. I don't want to go there.

The original "city on a hill" that serves as an example to others is John Calvin's Geneva. English Calvinists called themselves Puritans. It's important to understand Calvinism to identify right-wing moral intolerance, elitism, and obeisance to the rich whose wealth demonstrates God's favor. Read up on The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber.

All but two religions say materialism is a distraction from God. Those are Calvinism and Confucianism.

I see nothing inherently wrong with the American ideal of a shinning city on a hill. I think that's a positive image. Of course the GOP and Dems have different ideas on how we got there and how we should go forward.

And you can't possibly be so ignorant as to think that Jesus was *literally* talking about light and candles can you?

If Chris Mathews took exception to your comments (I don't know that he did but he might have) it is because he, like I, believe that America really is exceptional. That America is and should be a beacon of freedom to the world. Chris has said as much on his show and in ads for MSNBC. People still come to America in droves because for them we are still the only hope they have for making a better life for themselves.

I suspect that Chris simply didn't want to get into yet another pissing match with you over who could trash the United States the most. You despise America, ok, we get that, but right after the President's uplifting SOTU is NOT the place to air out your grievances against everything that America stands for.

-------------------------

The imagery of things "shinning" goes back even further than the 1st century CE. The Greeks, as usual, were first and they perceived that things and people in their world could "shine". That simply means to perform at one's best, to be an exemplar of what is the best in oneself. Whether one is a inanimate object like a sword or a person both will "shine" when they exemplify themselves as the best sword or person there could ever possibly be.

The United States has been and continues to be that city on a hill. People came here because they dreamed a place where they could be free from the oppression in their homelands. They still come here for that reason. And it is my sincere wish that everyone in the world should enjoy the rights and freedoms that I am so lucky to enjoy here. I think Barack Obama should adopt that imagery and make it his own. You don't get anywhere by tearing others down, not for long you don't.

Perhaps that is a lesson YOU could learn as well.

Settlements inside hillforts are common in Neolithic cultures- for example the Pa of the Maori, and so from the first time a prehistoric tribe's village was overrun we villagers have been treated to narratives of how the current leader is an idiot and we need to get back to the good old days of that city on the hill. If you think about it, the metaphor is neolithic political rhetoric that a human would recognize 10,000 years ago. Mitch Daniels prehistoric gibberish nowadays has a fancy category: it is a “declensionist narrative”. These decline and fall stories require a lot of doom and gloom talk about the current state of affairs. Colbert had a pretty good parody of it of taken from various apocalyptic disaster movies.

Sedwinners and Chris earlier mentioned the metaphor of "New Jerusalem", and of course this predates Christianity, going back to the prophecy of Ezekiel forseeing the re establishment of Jerusalem on the hill (the temple mount). This was echoed in Revelations, in Augustine's City of God- uniting Roman secular with Christian spiritual authority restored on Capitoline hill that was recently sacked by the Visigoths.

What exactly does that city represent, and what is the light shining from it supposed to mean? I am pretty sure the city Rachel thinks we shouldn't return to is the Reaganesque Pottersville on a Hill decorated with delusional lights. But the GOP no more owns that meaning than did fifth century Christians, or 6th century BC Jewish rebels or for that matter the Neolithic Chief wannabe stirring up trouble for the current Fred Flintstone in Chief. Chris Matthews is a Kennedy sort of liberal and he definitely believes in America setting a good example- that's the positive view of American exceptionalism, and I think we are on the same page about that.

There are progressive narratives of a city on a hill that we can aspire to- ones that maintain fidelity to diversity of perspective in an egalitarian society. For example consider the light projected from a multiplicity of stained glass windows on a new sort of spiritual dwelling on the hill. The light within that dwelling is not confused with truth itself but a tool employed in the adventure of discovering elusive truths. When the light of one narrative analysis does not cut through the fog and surface some bits of truth, we can shift to another stained glass narratives. This is a postpostitivist sort of city on the hill, and the light shining from it is kaleidescopic.

I didn't go into the light metaphor. Shining thing is certainly not a late addition. In the pre-christian story, the Temple on the Mount according to Josephus was gilt so that,

At the first rising of sun reflected back a very fiery splendor, and made those who forced themselves to look up it to turn their eyes away, just as they would have done at the sun’s own rays. But this temple appeared to strangers, when they were coming to it at a distance, like a mountain covered with snow; for as to those parts of it that were not gilt, they were exceedingly white. (source Josephus The Jewish War, book 5, chapter 5 sect 6 line 222-223)

It would be pretty bold to think Herod was the first leader to recognize that he could enhance his prestige by drawing attention to his city with light. Regardless, light had more pedestrian practical uses. Fire was recognized for its ability to keep night roving animals at bay, so the association of light with sanctuary has been burned into our consciousness since we first started lighting them outside caves to keep the animals away. Using signal fires as beacons in hill forts was a technique known to pre-European contact neolithic technology Maori.

The light from the settlement on the hill meant safety to friends, and a warning to enemies, and this has been so for millenia.

And then there is this 19th century (progressive) allusion [words in the public domain]:

Hail the glorious golden city,
Pictured by the seers of old!
Everlasting light shines o’er it,
Wondrous tales of it are told:
Only righteous men and women
Dwell within its gleaming wall;
Wrong is banished from its borders,
Justice reigns supreme o’er all.

We are builders of that city,
All our joys and all our groans
Help to rear its shining ramparts;
All our lives are building stones:
Whether humble or exalted,
All are called to task divine;
All must aid alike to carry
Forward one sublime design.

And the work that we have builded,
Oft with bleeding hands and tears,
Oft in error, oft in anguish,
Will not perish with our years:
It will live and shine transfigured,
In the final reign of right;
It will pass into the splendors
Of the city of the light.

(words by Felix Adler, first Leader of the New York Society for Ethical Culture www.nysec.org )

I read Winthrop's speech in my sophomore year of college. Beautiful language and very optimistic for its time, but this is not 17th century America. You simply cannot impose your Puritan, non-secular subjective view of a utopian America upon the rest of us. The religious overtones are bad enough on their own, but a "city on a hill" speaks to me of Orwellian subjugation, magisterial infallibility and moral superiority.

Thank you for bringing this subject up.It always grates on my nerves when I hear Reagan supposedly quoting Gov. Winthrop and inserting the "shining" in there. Especially because since then it is constantly misquoted.

I always assumed that Winthrop was referring to the fact that the Puritans going across the ocean to live in the wilderness where everyone would rely on each other to survive was looked on as a experiment destined to fail.

Thanks for bringing up this subject. It always drives me nuts when I hear Reagan insert "shining" into the quote which he attributed to Winthrop. Winthrop never said shining.

I always assumed it meant that he was basically saying, "Look, everyone, they are laughing at us back in England so we better work hard to make it work."

bottom line the rich will not be made to pay at the rate of the working man imo ever...because if u raise their taxes they will lower their contributions, to me that;s it in a nut shell, Obama is looking out for his campaign as are the others on the hill...this will never change until the people rise as one and stop paying taxes for things they don't support like war...where there is no choice for the people revolutions begin....short sighted politicians won't look at the common plight of man, our middle class is being deteriorated and will soon be non-existent. Civil war is becoming a very real alternative to the common folk...where are our Lincolns FDR, JFKs and Jeffersons when we so need them....bring back the train so we can campaign in truth and one on one...stop contributions to the presidency who pays that dollar they say they don't charge us hmmm smells fishy to me just like their arguments for why we are charged more and receive less....

I, too, was brought up mostly Southern Baptist and turned out ok. I left that church at age 16 because of entirely too many contradictions in its teachings. (like Satan is the Great Destroyer who cannot create anything, only destroy and who also created and buried all the dinosauer bones for us to find in the hopes that would lead us into the sin of not believing the Bible as the holy, exact Word of God *rolls eyes til can see self think*)

I believe that the Republicans are indeed trying to create a new monarchy, declared by God to have the same divine right to rule as the old kings, only not by blood, but by money. "Not by the blood of kings but by the size of the wad of cash in their pockets (or in their banks) shall ye know them to be the rightful rulers of the United States."

While studying at Princeton Theological Seminary I started believing Christians would hate to do the "good deeds" Jesus requires his followers to do in order to let their "light shine."

What "good deeds" does Jesus require for us to be that shining "city on a hill?"

• Luke 12:33, "Sell your possessions and give to the poor."
• Luke 18:22, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor... Then come, follow me."
• Matthew 19:21, "Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect [Τελειος ειναι, To be complete], go, sell your possessions and give to the poor... Then come, follow me.'"
• Mark 10:21 "Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor... Then come, follow me.”
• Matthew 10:9, "Acquire no gold or silver or copper in your belts."
• Luke 9:3, He told them: "Take nothing for the journey--no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic."
• Luke 14:13, "But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,
• Luke 6:35, "...Lend without expecting to be repaid."

According to Luke this is how the early church operated:

• Acts 2:45: "Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."
• Acts 4:34: "There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales."