It’s an older translation but still used in some circles -
(Off topic, but the which bible question brough this lovely tome to mind)
9 Likes
An Older Testament, as it were
6 Likes
ResEdit we do hold hallowed.
4 Likes
Also, being a republic does not exclude the possibility being a democracy (although most places who call themselves democratic republics aren’t either). Republicans are saying the equivalent of “I don’t play football, I play soccer”, a completely meaningless statement unless you have already decided that soccer is not a football code.
The Bible doesn’t really have anything to say about republics. A bit about rule by judges (I don’t see the supremes leading an army at any point in the future), a short section where the Israelites say they want a king and God says “that’s a bad idea, but if you insist…”, then lots and lots of kings. So I don’t even know what a biblical republic is, unless it is really a theocratic monarchy (Spoiler: It will be a theocratic monarchy)
The religion has to be recognised by the government. Pagans and religious socialists don’t count.
5 Likes
I love that their book of sad mac chimes and other error messages was called “the dead mac scroills”.
7 Likes
Though you can save quite a bit of time and download the text of the lecture here.
5 Likes
This seems an awful lot like a dog whistle. Christians have historically portrayed themselves as lambs. As the number of church-going Christians declines, the ‘lambs’ are outnumbered by the ‘wolves’ (anyone not of their religion). This would be a justification for gerrymandering. It is to protect the ‘lambs’.
Yes, there is word play here. Pointing out the branding issue is interesting. Quibbling over the correctness of terms too much misses the subtlety here. It is part of a re-framing to shift the understanding of the purpose of a representative govt. In any representative govt. the majority does rule (except when it sets rules requiring a super-majority). That is true for pure democracy or republics. And that isn’t a problem when their are lots of view points. Minorities can band together to protect their interests from larger groups. This, however, frames it as a system with only two groups, lambs and wolves. He’s saying that the purpose is to let the minority group rule (ostensibly to protect itself). Clearly an inversion of the Founders’ intentions (or the intentions of any representative govt). Speaker Johnson has been broadcasting his alternate versions of those intentions.
It used to be that the victors wrote the history. That was too slow and relied on academics. With the new media landscape, verbal repetitions of alternate histories suffice. Enough folks don’t remember their history (or civics) particularly well, so just blast the alternate history over social media. This is the about growing the number of people who will join the next insurrection (even if they aren’t really members of the minority driving it). It is cleverly twisted to have the ‘lambs’ take up arms to kill those wolves (who must be violent why else would you call them wolves) to protect themselves. It avoids touching on the Nazi references with words like vermin.
Edit: Ok, I should have watched the video about the origin of this claim above before posting. It covers most of what I say, in much clearer depth.
4 Likes
I don’t know if this paper was ever published, but the preprint notes
Some contemporary observers have again drifted toward Progressive era dichotomies. Citing figures ranging from Benjamin Franklin to James Madison, some modern conservatives have embraced the idea that the founders sought to establish a republic, not a democracy. *Resurrecting a John Birch Society slogan (“This is a republic, not a democracy – let’s keep it that way!”), some conservatives now celebrate Charles Beard for his description of founding-era thought while reversing his normative preferences. At the dawn of the Kennedy administration, Robert Welch, of Birch Society fame, had himself argued that “republic” and “democracy” were more nearly antonyms than synonyms, and had been understood as such by early Americans.*9 Former presidential aspirant Patrick Buchanan took the second Bush administration to task for “democracy-worship” and a failure to appreciate the more tempered (and less populist) virtues of a republic.10 The conservative writers of the Madison Project, for example, insist that it is a mistake to characterize the United States as a “democracy,” when the founders were instead seeking to establish a “constitutional republic.”11 In the 1960s, the semantic dispute over republics and democracies was fodder for arguments over the Great Society.12 In the twenty-first century, contesting the coupling of republics and democracies helps provide the philosophical foundation for objecting to idealistic adventurism abroad and expanded social welfare programs at home.
Even if wasn’t ultimately published, its footnotes lead somewhere.
https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=schmooze_papers
2 Likes
in my hubris, i’m confident i can clear up this confusion:
- i want to pick my representatives
- i want my representatives to pick me
- i represent me. good enough
- despite the irony, i choose a dictatorship
- chaotic evil, guns for everyone
- chaotic chaotic, all of the above
- cats. and only cats.
0
voters
4 Likes
“I want my representatives to pick me” is a pretty apt description of gerrymandering
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
