Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This will come as a shock to no one: Sarah Palin thinks we should make laws based on the Bible -- and that the founding fathers would have wanted that. In an interview on Bill O'Reilly last night about the National Day of Prayer, she peddled all kinds of dangerous nonsense. Like this:
I have said all along that America is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and, you know, nobody has to believe me though. You can just go to our Founding Fathers' early documents and see how they crafted a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that allows that Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our lives. And our Constitution, of course, essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don't come from man; they come from God. So this document is set up to protect us from a government that would ever infringe upon our rights to have freedom of religion and to be able to express our faith freely.
As religious right ignorami often do, she conflates the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence -- but it's so much funnier when she says "of course" it says that. Of course, the notion that the few spare references in the Declaration of Independence to a vague deity means that those who wrote it wanted "Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our lives" is utter nonsense.
The principal author of that document was Thomas Jefferson. What did he think of the Jewish god of the Old Testament? He called him "cruel, capricious, vindictive and unjust." He also rejected the notion that Jesus was the son of God, which pretty much negates the Christian part. The other two men who helped write the DoI, John Adams and Ben Franklin, largely agreed with Jefferson.
The nonsense continues:
I think we should kind of keep this clean, keep it simple, go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant. They're quite clear that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the 10 Commandments.
Really? They are? As I documented many years ago, not only should we not base our laws on the Ten Commandments, 8 of the 10 are indisputably unconstitutional.
Also bear in mind that Jefferson argued for a total separation of church and state and hated the idea that law should be based on religious beliefs. The notion that the government should use coercive laws to enforce religious dictates was anathema to him:
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
All of this Palin argues while accusing other people of being revisionist. As usual, she is engaging in ignorance-fueled projection.
Politics
Comments
I saw part of that "interview." Even O'Dildo was sitting there with an expression on his face of: "If I weren't making $10 million a year I'd slap this delusional moron."
Palin 2012. Slogan: "Run, Sarah Run!"
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | May 10, 2010 12:19 PM
Just once, someone should shove Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance" under her nose and ask her to read it. Is that too much to ask?
Posted by: carlsonjok | May 10, 2010 12:22 PM
Aren't these same the same right wing nutballs saying that rights come from God the ones saying that people should decide whether or not to give them to terrorist suspects?
So God gives them but man decides who gets them? Is that the story now?
Posted by: Dugglebogey | May 10, 2010 12:23 PM
"Sarah Palin thinks we should make laws based on the Bible -- and that the founding fathers would have wanted that."
- Riiiight - even though they DIDN'T.
Posted by: Christopher Letzelter | May 10, 2010 12:32 PM
She needs to say this in the presence of someone with a decent education. They could make her look stupid simply by asking, "how do you know that?"
Posted by: DougH | May 10, 2010 12:49 PM
I always wonder is people who say that we should base our laws on the Bible have read it. Jesus was really not a capitalist. Early Christian communities were fairly communal. I can't see that working for Sarah Palin.
Posted by: katydid13 | May 10, 2010 12:53 PM
Posted by: WScott | May 10, 2010 12:56 PM
Ed stated:
Perhaps a bit pedantic, but this isn't entirely correct and two DofI passages makes my objection germane.
We don't have notes from the drafting committee Jefferson belonged to so we only have some subsequent letters of those exchanges and a couple of slightly different 1st drafts showing edits by, IIRC, Franklin and Adams. Some of the claims in Jefferson's letters written long after the drafting are either contradictory or couldn't have happened. These differences are attributed to old memories not perfectly recalled, not some covert agenda. We can be confident that John Adams and Ben Franklin did cause some modifications, we don't know exactly what all those changes were or what changes, if any, came from other Committee members Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman.
In addition, on July 1st the 2nd Continental Congress passed a resolution that turned the Congress into a committee of the whole and made a number of changes to the Committee's dfaft, significant enough to annoy Jefferson so much he frequently promoted people distinguish his first draft from the version that was signed. The committee of the whole added language to the end of the DofI from a June 7th resolution drafted and promoted by Richard Henry Lee. I'm not sure if they recited Lee's resolution word for word, but it incorporate some natural religion talk:
[Emphasis is the god-talk added by the Congress not contained within Jefferson's 1st draft which I referred to as germane to Ed's blog post topic that I blockquoted.]Here is how Jefferson's 1st draft finishes:
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 10, 2010 12:56 PM
Now wait just a dog-gone minute! Our country was founded on at least one biblical guideline from Acts which clearly states that good Christians should pool their wealth and live as a commune.
Oops. Sorry, that was communist China I was thinking of.
Never mind...
Posted by: Ken | May 10, 2010 1:02 PM
Isn't it odd that people like her claim to revere the Constitution, but obviously have never actually looked at it? There is no way you can point to any place in the Constitution, not one article, amendment, clause or word, that supports this idea.
When will the Democrats start making an issue of conservatives constitutional ignorance?
Posted by: James Hanley | May 10, 2010 1:06 PM
Unless you're a Jew (and probably an Orthodox Jew at that), there's nothing "Judeo-" about our beliefs. The overwhelming majority of our civilization comes from the Greeks, Romans and Norse (with bonus math and medicine from the Arabs); and even our religion is a WESTERNIZED version of Christianity (coming out of ROME), not the somewhat-more-Jewish-oriented version that prevailed in the East. Jesus himself was a Jew, but he was definitely a "reform" Jew, not the kind who wanted to keep old tribalistic practices past their "sell-by" date.
When right-wingers use the phrase "Judeo-Christian," the "Judeo-" part is totally meaningless, a token to reassure one very vocal religions minority that they would not be persecuted like all the others. We Americans have no use for ancient Jewish law, except whatever bits we can use to justify scapegoating a minority when things get tough.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 10, 2010 1:06 PM
Correction: The overwhelming majority of our civilization comes from the Greeks, Romans, Celts and Norse (with bonus math and medicine from the Arabs)...
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 10, 2010 1:09 PM
I think we should kind of keep this clean, keep it simple, go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant
I assume she would like to wipe off all of the amendments past the Bill of Rights. There's probably nothing in them that is beneficial anyway. Keep it "clean".
Posted by: Odie | May 10, 2010 1:11 PM
Well, I really don't care whether the country was based on "Judeo-Christian" values or not. If those were the values that allowed the country to take on the political and cultural landscape of considering women like chattel, enslaving a full race, committing genocide on another race and a dozen other things that most people today consider to be obscene then I really don't care.
In fact, if Palin actually does speak the truth it makes it less likely that I would ever want to again creep toward "Christian" values as governing values.
Posted by: Duane | May 10, 2010 1:12 PM
When right-wingers use the phrase "Judeo-Christian," the "Judeo-" part is totally meaningless, a token to reassure one very vocal religions minority that they would not be persecuted like all the others.
Meaningless, yes, but I don't think they're saying it to reassure Jews. IMO they say 'judeo-christian' to try and reassure themselves that they aren't sectarian bigots (when in fact they are). I have no doubt that the same folks who spout 'judeo-christian values' would have no problem requiring religious tests for office which prohibited Jews. Remember these are the same groups who looked at Kennedy suspiciously because he was Catholic.
Posted by: eric | May 10, 2010 1:18 PM
It's been said a million times by now, I'm sure, but it bears repeating.
Anyone who says our law is based on the 10 Commandments is clearly not familiar with one or the the other and most likely not familiar with either.
Posted by: el donaldo | May 10, 2010 1:40 PM
James Hanley #10 : "When will the Democrats start making an issue of conservatives constitutional ignorance?"
Regrettably the Democrats appear to be just as ignorant of the constitution as the Repubs are.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | May 10, 2010 1:43 PM
Duane @ 14:
Or not is the correct answer. I think we should care since if it were the opposite, we'd have a far tougher row to hoe in the public square fighting for our liberty.
Duane @ 14:
If you don't care so much why are you posting comments? I'd guess you do care and should be proud you do.
The problem at our founding was not our founding framers' "values", actually principles and ideals that buttressed both the DofI and the federal Constitution. Instead it was that these principles and ideals weren't pervasively employed for all people. Therefore what we started was great from an abstract perspective where we continue down a road of moral progress towards 'a more perfect union' that does trend towards better fulfilling those principles and ideals.
The irony of our history of course is that modern-day liberals are ignorant of it, reject it for faulty thinking, or don't have the guts and/or marketing savy to exploit the fact that our primary modern day enemy to these principles and values is Sarah Palin and her ilk. This is a source of never-ending frustration for me.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 10, 2010 1:53 PM
Does this mean we have to give up wearing blended fabrics?
Posted by: Chilidog | May 10, 2010 2:16 PM
I wonder if Palin is for the parts of the bible which basicly say that she is not allowed any rights what so ever.
I could also use a few good looking female slaves. If you have seen the weeds in my garden? Then you know I need help getting them out. I promise not to do anything to the slaves on Sundays.
Posted by: theroachman | May 10, 2010 2:55 PM
There could be SOME benefits to a bible-based set of laws.
If I were to get drunk and stupid and marry Bristol Palin, after the wedding night I could drag her (and the un-stained sheets) back to her father to get a free divorce and he would then be required to expel Bristol from the country.
Posted by: Ken | May 10, 2010 2:59 PM
our primary modern day enemy to these principles and values is Sarah Palin and her ilk
I'm not really a liberal, but speaking as a moderate, I don't fear a Sarah Palin run. I think she quite effectively pushed the undecided middle into Obama's camp and would be similar poison to any other republican ticket.
For that matter, barring some Democratic screw up (which is not at all impossible), its hard to see how any far right candidate could be nationally electable. They publicly demonize both large and growing parts of the voting populace in order to appeal to their base. Someone needs to remind them that a vote from a New Yorker or a Jose counts as much as a vote from a farmer or Joe the plumber...and there tend to be more of the former than the latter.
Posted by: eric | May 10, 2010 3:03 PM
It's funny. Whenever fundamentalists insist on laws based in "Judeo-Christian" values, they never specify what those oalues are! Do these values include:
- Persecuting wiccans (Exodus 22:18)?
- Deporting people who have sex during a woman's menstrual period (Leviticus 20:18)?
- Counting only men and boys during the census (Numbers 3:15-16)?
- Allowing fathers and husbands to invalidate women's legal contracts (Numbers 30:3-16)?
- Executing sexual assault victims (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)?
- Shaving women's heads if they don't wear hats or head-scarves at church (1 Corinthians 11-5-6)?
- Firing female teachers and professors (1 Timothy 2:11-12)?
Palin and other Christian reconstructionists need to realize that a bronze age book of legends and barbaric laws is not a sound basis for just laws!
Posted by: Angie | May 10, 2010 3:11 PM
We need to stop elevating stupidity as a virtue in this country.
We also need to educate our kids better. Look how many followers Palin has, who believe what she says, and do not have the research skills to look this subject matter up themselves.
There are consequences to putting up stupid ignorant people as leaders of the rest of us.
Posted by: kevin | May 10, 2010 3:14 PM
eric @ 22,
Sarah Palin doesn't have to win elective office to cause our country damage, e.g., her getting funds taken our of the HCR bill that would have funded Medicare patients getting counsel from their family doctor on filling out a superior advance directive form due to her falsely describing that process as "death panels" run by the government.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 10, 2010 3:21 PM
Sharia law!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 10, 2010 3:25 PM
Found this link at Jerry Coyne's site, it's an interview with Dan Barker, head of the FFRF that won the federal suit on the national day of prayer. The Fox "newscaster" makes the same mistake so many Christianists do including Sarah Palin by conflating the DofI to the Constitution and inferring that the DofI's "creator" is the Christian god.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 10, 2010 3:33 PM
The Ten Commandments are a good and original body of laws.
Unfortunately, the Commandments that are good are not original, and the Commandments that are original are not good.
Posted by: Tommy Holland | May 10, 2010 3:47 PM
Which Bible and version of the 10 Commandments is Ms. Heath (aka Todd Palin's sex partner)referring to here? Should we base our laws on the true Bible and 10 Commandments, or the perversion of these that Ms. Heath believes? Because if we bring our laws in compliance with the true Bible - the one created by the early Catholic Church, and not the blasphemous work known as the King James "bible," I'm all for it. Because that means we can burn heretical hussies like Sarah Heath (aka Sarah "Palin") at the stake.
Oh, was that not what she meant?
Posted by: CPT_Doom | May 10, 2010 4:20 PM
So if Bible Spice is so keen on following biblical law, when is she putting her daughters up for sale per Exodus 21:7?
Posted by: Big Boppa | May 10, 2010 4:32 PM
So if we're to have laws based on "Judeo-Christian Bible" (and why do I get the impression that this doesn't mean banning pork?) then I suppose we should start by going to an inherited monarchy, with Judges who are the ultimate in activism.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 10, 2010 4:41 PM
Although I'm not one myself, IMO, the US government (as a body) should be strictly atheist as an institution to avoid favoring any one faith over another.
Besides, unlike the idiotic Sarah Palin, I truly don't care if our elected officials are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, Hindu or none of the above.
Posted by: CHV | May 10, 2010 5:18 PM
Bee @ 12: Exactly. America's notion of Western-style constitutional government is heavily based upon the ancient Pagan models that preceded it.
But don't tell Sarah, or smoke will start streaming from her ears.
Posted by: CHV | May 10, 2010 5:21 PM
Not possible. There would have to be something inside to
engagecombust.Posted by: blf | May 10, 2010 5:30 PM
CHV,
Secular != atheist
Please don't confuse the two orthogonal concepts as it tends to set off the rabid theists into a tizzy. As an atheist I'd love for the majority of the country to be accepting of same, but I require that the gov't simply maintain secularity.
Posted by: Don't Panic | May 10, 2010 5:52 PM
Rights do so come from God, it sez so in the Constitution.
Oh,wait - that's the Confederate Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html
Posted by: ursa major | May 10, 2010 5:55 PM
Former USA Vice-Presidency candidate calls for basing her country's legal system on a Bronze Age religious book. Shades of a Christian sharia. And yet, Bill Maher blithely says that "our" wackos are less awful that "theirs".
Yeah, right.
Posted by: Irene | May 10, 2010 6:15 PM
Funny thing is, the "ten commandments" Christians use aren't even the "real" ten commandments (those written on the stone tablets and carried in the arc of the covenant). Check out 43Alley's youtube vid and see for yourself in the Bible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCJ8rb8Grw
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034:%201-27&version=NIV
Posted by: Robert Faber | May 10, 2010 6:36 PM
Sarah Palin. Read. Historical documents.
To answer your question, yes.
Doubtful that the BoR would pass muster with her, barring the Second and perhaps the Tenth.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 10, 2010 6:57 PM
@ eric #22:
This is profoundly untrue. In the Presidential election, thanks to the Electoral College, the value of votes varies widely, depending at bottom on the population of your state.
The last time I did the arithmetic was in 2004, and the current census will undoubtedly change things a little, but then if you lived in a one-Congressman state like Alaska or Montana you got about 2.4 votes for President and if you lived in California, you got ~.85 of a vote.
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | May 10, 2010 10:03 PM
She is a bag of hammers, for sure, but she's a dangerous bag of hammers.
Does Faux News/Rupert Murdoch really support this brainless moron? Or is this just a ploy to get us to watch and be OUTRAGED. And then sell Pringles to us?
Posted by: Kevin | May 10, 2010 11:29 PM
I want to be a fly on the (kitchen) wall when Palin has to start cooking according to Leviticus.
Posted by: Shay | May 11, 2010 12:40 AM
@Kevin
Sarah is the manicurian candidate. She's the pretty face on Murdoch's evil empire.
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | May 11, 2010 1:16 AM
The Gregarious Misanthrope, "The manicurian candidate"? How long have you been waiting to use that? I'm not saying that it's not good (it is) and a googling shows it to be about as original as anything can be in this crazy, modern era, but it sounds like something you thought of months ago; in essence, a punchline waiting for a joke to find it.
I know this because it happens to me. Then, when the opportunity finally arises to drop on a suitable conversaton, I know that there's something I should say, but by then so much time has passed that I can't remember what that something is.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | May 11, 2010 3:57 AM
James Hanley:
The Constitution doesn't, but it's worth noting that Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence stated:
As an atheist, I don't really care where the Founders thought that rights came from, but it seems likely that those who had a religion would try to tie their politics into it, seeing as people of every religion try to do that.
They'll do it at the time that they think that it would be politically advantageous to do so (i.e., never). The vast majority of the people of the U.S. (left and right) don't care what the Constitution says and usually don't even know what it says (and so assume that it supports all of their viewpoints).
Posted by: Miko | May 11, 2010 7:39 AM
Religion-based laws worked so well for the Taliban. I'm sure it'll be a smashing idea for a modern 21st century country.
Posted by: William George | May 11, 2010 7:51 AM
miko:
You're a dolt.
This:
"We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable: that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
regardless of YOUR interpretation, does NOT cite a deity.
Posted by: democommie | May 11, 2010 7:59 AM
In order to argue that the US was founded "as a Christian nation", I would expect to see the words "Jesus" or "Christ" in the founding documents.
Posted by: Jeremy | May 11, 2010 8:14 AM
Democommie,
In fairness to Miko, I don't think he suggested that it does. I think he suggested that religious people would inevitably try to do so. And I think the evidence suggests he's right about that.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 11, 2010 8:16 AM
Isn’t it coincidence that the WORST environmental disaster in human history will affect “drill baby DRILL” Red States Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia and crazy South Carolina? Not to mention Tennessee and Kentucky getting hit with un-heard-of flooding.
Georgia experiencing years of drought and Oklahoma multi-funnel tornados.
(Lloyd the Baptist was right… Every Conservative wacko in America will be burning in HELL by 2012. see: post on jinnbad.blogspot.com)
Progressives have been WARNING you ignorant redneck Right-Wingers for decades but you HARDHEADS choose to listen to the corporate spokespersons like Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, Robertson, Hagee etc… HOW’S THAT WORKING FOR YA? (…and FOX News is owned by the Saudi Royals)
TAKE A HINT!
It’s as though GOD himself has come down from heaven to rub Republican/Conservative noses in the evil BS they’ve spewed for the last few years. It seems like just yesterday that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck worked their groupies into a cult frenzy with calls for off-shore oil DRILLING.
IF Democrats/Progressives were degenerates like Republicans/Conservatives we’d probably come up with something vicious and cruel like “we don’t want our tax dollars used to save your Red State fishing or tourism industry”. But the LEFT-WING really DOES love the USA and wouldn’t kick our fellow citizens when they’re down like the right-wing mental deficient’s do.
Get the government out of your lives, right? LET the Corporations have their way? THIS IS WHAT YOU GET! Profits over patriotism or the least bit of human dignity, social or environmental concerns. You think the multi-national corporations care about the American PEOPLE? Hell NO! Maybe you Conservative wackos didn’t notice but Corporations are the ones who moved all your good paying jobs to Communist China and caused the meltdown of our economy WITH THE HELP OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY…
I want to know something else… WHY is it that every other civilized nation on the planet, EXCEPT the USA, REQUIRES Oil drilling operations to have back up plans and top shelf shut off valves in case of emergency? I guess British Petroleum thought $500,000 was TOO MUCH for a workable shut off system. I know they LOBBIED in 2003 against the US government putting such REGULATION into place… (and I heard Cheney’s Halliburton is involved with this and other spills)
NOTE: search Greg Palast
Ohhhh and isn’t it telling the Times Square idiot bomber tried to make a hasty escape to Dubai? …Just like Dick Cheney’s Halliburton. A corporation who made a fortune from shoddy workmanship. Unlike the average American, corporations like Halliburton, Massey Energy and British Petroleum can get away with shoddy workmanship, mining explosions and oil spill disasters because the Republican Party (and some Blue Dog Democrats) are their paid for Ho’s…
IT’S ACCOUNTABILITY TIME! If the PEOPLE don’t DEMAND IT now then you don’t deserve rights and freedoms the USA represents. Conservative wacko’s are always calling the French cowards but at least during the French Revolution the PEOPLE had the balls to make Aristocrats pay the price for their acts of evil.
consciousmc.blogspot.com
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
According to anti-gay activists George Rekers and James Dobson from the so-called Family Research Council… The Male Model/Escort industry has a great future in Republican Party politics… lol
GOP - Gay Old Party
Posted by: SPO101 | May 11, 2010 9:11 AM
SPO101 "and caused the meltdown of our economy WITH THE HELP OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY…"
Granted, the GOP is nuts for deregulation, but that should still be "with the help of both Parties". The GOP, while pretending to be for the common man, is obviously for the Big Guy, while the Dems are obviously for something, if the wind is blowing that way and if they have any time left after letting the Right constantly set the subject (and conclusion) for the national dialogue.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | May 11, 2010 9:29 AM
IF Democrats/Progressives were degenerates like Republicans/Conservatives we’d probably come up with something vicious and cruel like “we don’t want our tax dollars used to save your Red State fishing or tourism industry”. But the LEFT-WING really DOES love the USA and wouldn’t kick our fellow citizens when they’re down like the right-wing mental deficient’s do.
Absolutely spot-on, give or take a misplaced ap'strophe. Basic decency, FUCK YEAH!
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 11, 2010 10:48 AM
Since when does a RepubliKan care about the truth? They live in their own little shrieking world of fear, hate and racial intolerance, leavened by a big dose of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy.
The Quitter Queen isn't any different.
Posted by: Kenneth Mark Hoover | May 11, 2010 11:04 AM
I wonder how this would effect Alaska's shellfish(crab) industry, when her new bible-based rules take effect?
Posted by: muttpupdad | May 11, 2010 11:14 AM
Oh, goody. Then I guess Sarah won't mind me raping her daughter, and if I get caught I just have to pay her 30 shekels.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | May 11, 2010 11:18 AM
FTFY.
Posted by: Paul | May 11, 2010 11:28 AM
The way Greek exchange rate going:
30 Shekels is what, about US$0.02? -Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | May 11, 2010 11:40 AM
Hey, I agree. Pick up some stones and start hurling 'em at her - the slut left her husband! Stone her! Stone her! And I don't mean give her pot to smoke either.
Posted by: MadScientist | May 11, 2010 9:24 PM
The problem I have with the Palins of this world is that they know so very little about the bible. I contend that most atheists are better versed (no pun intended) in the bible than most Christians. Sarah is no different, she spouts back what has been droned into her head since childhood, never once taking the least bit of time to actually study the bible and its contradictions. To actually state that we should use the bible as our means of law making is absurd, at its best. I suppose we should go about the business of killing those who work on Sunday, or Saturday depending on your belief system, and women should again become the property of men. And what of slavery? Shall we once again take our fellow man into chains, and only beat them according to the words of Jesus? Perhaps we can change the laws on murder to read that you shall not kill except in the name of god. I could go on and on, but I tire of the likes of Sarah Palin and can't wait for her to meet her maker.
Posted by: Martin Kinard | May 12, 2010 5:12 PM
Martin Kinard,
Of course, that's the Law of Biblical Knowledge.
See "The Ruby Tuesday Law" on the same link.
Posted by: heddle | May 12, 2010 5:52 PM
Irene:
Former USA Vice-Presidency candidate calls for basing her country's legal system on a Bronze Age religious book. Shades of a Christian sharia. And yet, Bill Maher blithely says that "our" wackos are less awful that "theirs".
Yeah, right.
Maher is wrong, but only about quantity, not quality.
I'm not going to bother dredging up all of the violent acts "our" religious wackos have engaged in over the years, but the fact that they're not doing it en masse like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda's various pals have doesn't mean that people like Eric Rudolph or groups like the Hutaree don't exist.
BTW, Lady Lenscrafters is in the Chicago area giving a speech at a GOP fundraiser tonight. I'm sure her latest chunk of brain-shrivelling drivel will be worth a ton of useful Dispatches quotes in the days to come.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | May 12, 2010 8:46 PM
Believe it or not if you study the context of each Bible Testament you will see that it actually does not contradict itself. That's because God has one agenda in the Old Testament. That agenda was to show the world (using the Jewish people) the punishments people deserve for their sins and direct ignorance of his word (Angie did a good job citing many verses in this area). God did provide a method for avoiding these issues, and that was summed up in the Ten Commandments. However, the Jews failed miserably, thus showing that people are incapable of fixing the problem of sin on their own. This is where Jesus came in, and took the sin problem on himself. And it was at this point that a new agenda began. The New Testament is aimed more at telling the world about this new agenda, the agenda that God has taken care of the sin problem for them through Christ. Forget the rules and rituals of the old covenant (Old Testament Law), welcome the new through Christ! This is noted on several times in the New Testament.
However, Angie did take the New Testament verses WAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of context. The verse in Corinthians about women shaving their head was a metaphor. If you read the verse closely you see that he was comparing the severity of insincere prayer with the social ramifications of a woman not having hair. And the verse about woman not being teachers applies to churches, not government or private authorities. That book (1 Timothy) is one of the pastoral books of the NT because it was aimed at church leadership. I would sincerely hope that if anyone bases a law off of the Bible, they keep context in mind and don't assume anything like Angie did.
Lastly, if you read the Bible, even the Old Testament, you can see that some moral points of our constitution clearly draw, at least to a minor degree, from the Bible. Our policies on being a free land that's open for all are biblical. The Jews were supposed to welcome everyone and anyone into their land for shelter and refuge (Exodus 23:9). In fact, they were commanded to leave some of their grain in the fields and grapes on the vine (Leviticus 19:10) so the alien and stranger had something to eat when they came! Of course, the aliens and strangers had to obey the Jewish law of the land, but that's no different than newcomers in our nation obeying the law of our land. So to a degree, one can not honestly deny that their was no biblical influence in the Constitution. Some of the founding fathers were Christians, and obviously that influence did show up someplace. To say that's not the case is ignorance on your part, just as much as it would be ignorance if I didn't say that some of the founding fathers were not.
Happy commenting.
Posted by: Bobvila | May 13, 2010 1:16 PM
[insert the same kind of apologetics that Bobvila used, but with suitable bits from the Koran, proving that the Mohammad is the Man]
Posted by: Bob Al-Vila | May 13, 2010 1:22 PM
[insert the same kind of apologetics that Bal Al-Vila used, but with suitable bits from the Book of Mormon, proving that the Joseph Smith is the Man]
Posted by: Bob Smith | May 13, 2010 1:24 PM
Bobbo the clown blithered: "..if you study the context of each Bible Testament you will see that it actually does not contradict itself.." "That's because God has one agenda in the Old Testament." "The New Testament is aimed more at telling the world about this new agenda,"
Yep there's no difference between the old (testament) agenda and the new (testament) agenda.
Nope, no contradiction there (except they are completely different)! - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | May 13, 2010 1:34 PM
[insert some crazy shit about Thetans]
Posted by: Tom Cruise's publicist | May 13, 2010 1:40 PM
Stop that, "Tom Cruise's publicist"!
Posted by: Law Firm of Lafayette, Ron & Hubbard | May 13, 2010 1:51 PM
The only thing wrong with Christian principles is that most Christians have stopped believing in them.
Oh, they want the ten commandments to be displayed prominently and prayer in school and Bible verses on our building and the word "In God we trust" on our coins. But they have long since abandoned the actual teachings of Christ.
How many "Christians" are for kicking out some hard working illegal immigrant who is living in a shack trying to earn money to feed his poor family back home?
Many Christains say "tough luck" when people who are sick and can't afford healthcare can't afford to see a doctor.
How many Christians accuse the poor of just being welfare freeloaders...to lazy to work?
Christ said that the second greatest commandment was "Love your neighbor as yourself."
And "For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"
So it really doesn't do any good to call this country a Christian nation founded by Christian principles if we are not going to follow Christ's teachings.
Christ expects a lot more from us than to to put some words on a coin or mention God's name in the pledge of allegiance or put the ten commandments in a public place. Those are just actions to make many people think they are following Christ's teachings.
Deeds not words. Actions not talk
Posted by: norris hall | May 13, 2010 11:45 PM
norris hall "Christ said that the second greatest commandment was 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
And the first is "Love God". How on Earth could an omniscient God possibly know how much you love Him if you aren't using His name, book and backing to treat your neighbours (unpopular minorities) like shit? How?!
"And "For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink..."
That's charity. Jesus was against the so-called "social" so-called "safety" so-called "net". Also, taxation is theft. I know these are true because my pastor told me. He drives a Mercedes. Would a pastor in a car that's worth more than my mobile home lie to me? I think not.
"So it really doesn't do any good to call this country a Christian nation founded by Christian principles if we are not going to follow Christ's teachings."
Now you're just being ridiculous. It's about "personal salvation", silly billy.
"Those are just actions to make many people think they are following Christ's teachings."
But if your neighbour doesn't think you're more religious (ie: moral) than they are, how can you lord it over them? How?!
"Deeds not words. Actions not talk"
Sola fide is four of the Five Solas for a reason, heretic!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | May 14, 2010 12:08 AM