this idea that the bible was a significant influence on the constitution is obviously widespread but i've always been struck by insane it is. not that evidence matters to these people but if there's anything we know for certain about the 1787 convention it's that the bible had nothing to do with it.
Secularism is a feature, not a bug. It is not, as Modi has asserted, a ‘fad.”
What is proposed is the reinstatement of a tyranny that fueled our original revolution.
Secularism is a realization of the first amendment.
I always imagine a room of drunk frat boys work- shopping democracy where they still come come out on top. That's the constitutional convention for ya.
and the thing is, we know a LOT about the 1787 Convention! A bunch of people wrote about it at various degrees of remove and revisions after the fact who were there, or talked about it and their recollections were recorded. If anyone had cited biblical text directly, we'd know it, probably!
This is one of those things where in a sane world I'd argue that, yes, there are biblical influences across European/US political theory and thus on the Constitution...but in this world it's much more important to point out that the bible->Constitution stuff is just a lie.
Yes. Also these people appear to have a limited understsnding of whats actually in the Bible. These kinds of people have banned books with less racy content - polygamy, incest, murder, etc. But it's not really about what's inside. It's totemic.
I must have missed the bible-influenced part of the Constitution that state:
- The aquatic space chicken is the national bird.
- It is not illegal for a woman to be her own biological mother.
- Abortion is punishable by a fine (a camel or a horse).
- Working on Sunday is punishable by death.
In my more Machiavellian moments, I sometimes think we should be trying to encourage the formation of a German-style Christian-center movement to eat the non-crazy Republican constituencies.
Stuff like this would unwittingly feed it, for sure.
Its common good of european civilization after 2000 years, and of others too, not steal, not kill, theres nothing there about anal sex, as the cajouns very well know.
My “country full of exiles and refugees from European religious wars were not keen on replicating the circumstances of those wars” shirt has people asking a lot of questions answered by my shirt
This would be great if the kids were allowed to attack the Bible for its numerous gross and immoral bits. But somehow, I don't think this will be allowed.
I do not think he would appreciate how I would use the Bible as a historical document. So kids, today we are going to see how 3rd century men viewed women, as told by the authors of the Bible
This is nothing more than lawsuit bait. They’re literally saying, “Sue me.” hoping that eventually Alito, Thomas, Barrett, et. al. will dismantle the separation of church and state and make Christianity the official state religion
This state is so fucked up.
Probably the most backwards place I’ve lived. And I’ve lived in 9 states.
It’s like a trifecta of poverty, ignorance, and poor education. And meth. Lots of meth.
I think republicans are the primary source of income for attorneys - either as defendants or plaintiffs - because they're always doing dumb shit things that cause lawsuits. (I don't know if this is statistically accurate, but it's my assessment, and I'm sticking with it until proven wrong.)
The thing about the bible is that of you actually read it, you'll soon be screaming in distress that the basis of Christianity was founded on such a BONKERS mess of horror and wackiness.
It's the same thing as with guns, Freedom of religion was a specific thing aimed at avoiding a state religion, because most of the founders/framers were English and had no intention of repeating the War of the Roses, but here we are thanks to illiterates.
I'm always amazed at how many self-described Christians in this country don't seem to recall why the pilgrims came to the New World in the first place.
Are they going to be teaching the Quaran too? Nope, didn't think so. I imagine pretty soon they will be making similar arguments for mein kampf in classrooms.
The constitution that famously does not mention God and says that it’s the people of the US who grants this document its power? (Unlike other similar documents from that time)
I looked it up, and the revised KJV was only published in 1769.
I somehow doubt the Bible, even if only the Bible as we know it, had anything to do with it.
Didn't Franklin tell Jefferson to change "sacred and undeniable" to "inalienable" in the Declaration of Independence because the former sounded "too much of the pulpit" or something? Why would there somehow be *more* pulpit in the Constitution?
Probably apocryphal, but still an awesome anecdote: when asked why the Framers did not mention God in the Constitution, James Madison replied "We forgot."
I’ve recently been brushing up on my English Civil War/Restoration/Glorious Revolution history. I think the men who wrote our Constitution may have been familiar with that sequence of events.
They may even have heard of the Thirty Years War
There's actual evidence that the organizational principles of the Haudenosaunee confederacy were a huge influence on it, as well as (to a lesser degree) the ship's articles used by Caribbean pirates during the late 17th/early 18th centuries, but somehow that never seems to be factor to these types.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't a lot of the founders Deists? Which means they would have rejected religious texts.
I learned this years ago and keep forgetting to verify the info.
Madison wrote Memorial and Remonstrance in 1785, as Virginia considered funding teaching Christianity. Years before he wrote the Bill of Rights (largely), he wrote an absolutely blistering condemnation of government supporting religion. firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/memo...
Bring it on. As a teacher (not in OK thankfully) my first lesson would be about who, when, and where the Bible was written pointing out the much if not all of the New Testament was written after the death of Jesus and oftentimes in Greece and other places. Evaluating sources is very important.
I’m also struck by the term ‘historical document’ here. It’s safe to assume these kids aren’t getting a crash course in ancient languages or any exposure to methods of historical analysis, so it’s just a declaration that something—which could be anything—is historical fact bc they say so.
I feel like there are a lot of language tricks Christians employ with the words Founding, Founders, and Framers. They will happily conflate and dismiss each when it is useful to their argument.
I'd like to see some malicious compliance, such as educating the students that it was a religious edict to forgive all loans every seven years to prevent debt accumulation, and return all land to original holders every 50 to prevent land hoarding.
Modern right-wing Christians would also be shocked by the specific beliefs of “founding fathers” and the diversity of belief. I don’t know what they think those dudes had faith in, but it’s not like what they do.
my favorite book on this subject is Joseph Moore's FOUNDING SINS, which among other things is about would-be theocrats who hated the Constitution for its secularism. www.amazon.com/Founding-Sin...
I fully AGREE with you:
My ancestor Josiah BARTLETT (this is my pen name)
Wrote the Constitution, his signature was the most important after Hancock's: he was a physician, Quaker & FREEMASON.
Quakers believe that we're created in God's image, that WE are the building blocks to society