Deliberate lie, or just blind ignorance?

A prominent politician who is on the Republican National Committee has said this in a fund-raising email I got earlier:

…in the original Webster’s dictionary, which our forefathers knew well, they said we have certain inalienable rights … The definition of inalienable were those rights that were not repugnant to God (most were Christians and understood what that meant). How things have changed!

Utterly wrong. Noah Webster (born in 1758) was 17 years old when the Declaration of Independence was written. His first dictionary was not published until 1806 (Webster’s full Dictionary as we know it was not published until 1828), so regardless of what it said, Webster’s Dictionary would not have been known at all to the founders, much less “known well” by them.

Furthermore, it is doubtful that Webster’s Dictionary ever gave a religious meaning to the term inalienable (or, as the Declaration says, “unalienable”). The word simply means not capable of being alienated or taken away. Sure, you can argue that the rights come from God, but is it really necessary to limit them gratuitously (saying that rights cannot be “repugnant to God”) and then put all of that in the mouth of Noah Webster?

Sheesh.

I hope this man does not typify the RNC. Because if the GOP in the grip of minds like his, I’d say Hillary is a done deal.

MORE: As it happens, Webster’s original 1828 Dictionary is available online, and I just looked up the word in question.

INA’LIENABLE, adjective [Latin alieno, alienus.]

Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable The estate of a minor is inalienable without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature.

As Noah Webster was a deeply religious man, it seems pretty clear to me that if he thought God was implicated in the definition, he’d have said so.