Does that version of the book even exist? I’ve always assumed it’s just cliff notes of whatever they want it to say today. Maybe with some generic general reference that it maybe was in some bible, sort of, if you squint, but just trust them, they say it’s in there and that should be good enough.
8 Likes
They long for the old days when the Bible was in Latin and the general population was illiterate. Still, if they say it’s in the Bible, they can count on the majority never checking.
14 Likes
Thank the Lord we have a “constitutional republic,” Johnson says. “The founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition on what a civil society is supposed to look like.”
Hold on, if a republic founded on the Bible is such a good thing - how come there isn’t an example of one - in the Bible?
8 Likes
Yeah, interestingly, the Roman Republic was replaced by the Roman Empire not all that long before the supposed time Jesus was born. So if Jesus had been born a few years earlier, there might be a reference to a republic in the Bible.
Also, “the biblical admonition on what a civil society is supposed to look like” is a weird thing for an alleged Christian to say. According to some versions of the Bible, Jesus said something along the lines of “render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s” when asked if his followers should pay Roman taxes, something the people of Judea had no say in.
ETA: What I mean by that last part is that Jesus’s idea of what a civil society should look like was, to paraphrase, “Other than taking care of the poor and the sick, it doesn’t fucking matter. The only thing that matters is the Kingdom of Heaven. Do whatever Caesar tells you to. I don’t care.”
15 Likes
Since this is based on interpretation, then yes, it does. While I’m sure that plenty of the hard core don’t read the reference material, I’m equally sure that some do, and that they find ways to get scripture to fit their world-view… That’s sort of the whole basis of Protestantism in the first place, after all.
Considering how much they hate Catholics, I doubt that. More like the yearn for the days of Martin Luther and violent wars that cleansed the land of the “wrong” kinds of Christians.
10 Likes
Okay, Hebrew then. Aramaic? Anything hoi polloi need interpreting for.
4 Likes
“English, but we don’t teach the poor to read” maybe. 
7 Likes
That works.
4 Likes
Someone should point out that any country operating on the teachings of Christ would include health care for all. (I was led to believe that healing the sick was quite on-brand for him). That might change their minds
16 Likes
mike [moderated] johnson can go and [moderated] and [moderated]. His [moderated] ass can also go and [moderated], [moderated] and [moderated].
7 Likes
They just want to use force to enforce their own interpretation.
Yes.
Not in their interpretation, which rests deference to white, patriarchal authority…
11 Likes
The one written in Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Aramaic, and/or Greek. I wonder how he would react if someone introduced a bill to make one or all of those three languages the official language of the United States. “If it was good enough for the scholars writing the Bible …”
Not only should that country provide health care, it should also provide food for the hungry. He did it twice in the Bible (including once that was the only miracle other than the Resurrection to appear in all four Gospels.)
8 Likes
which Bible? I submit this one
https://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Bible-Translation-Commentary-Three/dp/0393292495/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1701735437&sr=8-1
1 Like
… and definitely not that Geneva Bible 
2 Likes
One would think that if the Bible was used as the primary source or inspiration for the Constitution (the only founding document that matters in all this), that direct credit or citation would be given to the Big Man Himself.
Yet, there is no mention of Jesus, God, the Bible, or any other Christian source material. Odd that these Dominionists never mention that.
7 Likes
12 Likes
It’s true that some “founders” criticized “democracy”, and instead argued for a “republic”.
But when they did so, some of those “founders” had in mind Athenian democracy-- political power resting in the hands of juries selected by lot.
For a Republic, they had in mind a power sharing arrangement based on consensus among officeholders who owed their political franchise to different sources. For instance, the president was intended to be elected by people who were elected by the people, but immune to bribery. The Senate was selected by the state legislators. but only a third of its body at any one time. And the house of representatives by the public going nuts every two years.
Ironically, the house turned out to be far more stable than the Senate, and the electoral college didn’t make sense. The conceit was that no one would be able to assemble political power except through consensus.
The same conservatives who disparage the more democratic elements of our goverment, also appear to disparage this idea of divided power. Entire stale legistaltive sessions have been characterized by persecuting LGBT, restricting abortions, expelling the opposition, subordinating the State to the interest of national Republic groups like ALEC and redrawing the district boundaries to ensure their own election.
6 Likes
Re: “Ultimate Cancel Act” Were that constitutional that bill would also cancel the Republican party, given their advocacy of rule based on the Bible. From Leviticus:
25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
6 Likes
A rather lot of conservatives seem to think that the Founding Fathers weren’t influenced by anybody, save God. They do completely ignore those various secular governments. On purpose, since those facts interfere with what they want to believe. It’s how people like Mike Pence can interpret “freedom of religion” to mean “you can have whatever religion you like, so long as you have one”
4 Likes
