Imagined Community
May is upon us, which means that flowers are blooming, baseball is in full swing, and the AMERICAN PATRIOT'S BIBLE is finally off the presses!!! Yes, be sure to be the first in your neighborhood to have this ornament of Christian Nationalism proudly displayed on your coffee table. Your friends and family will be sure to delight in its passages that compare the bravery of Moses with the stalwart courage of Washington, and demonstrate how America has replaced Israel of old as God's chosen land. Children will glean precious pearls of wisdom of how the Bible helped to end slavery and gave women equal rights by inspiring the work of early abolitionists and women's rights protesters (even if it forgets to acknowledge the fact that the "Good Book" also sanctioned slavery for some). You will be amazed at how American patriotism and Christian piety go hand-in-hand and how God must truly love Americans just a little bit more than the rest of humanity. As American Patriot's Bible editor Thomas Nelson states:THE ONE BIBLE THAT SHOWS HOW ‘A LIGHT FROM ABOVE’ SHAPED OUR NATION. Never has a version of the Bible targeted the spiritual needs of those who love our country more than The American Patriot’s Bible. This extremely unique Bible shows how the history of the United States connects the people and events of the Bible to our lives in a modern world. The story of the United States is wonderfully woven into the teachings of the Bible and includes a beautiful full-color family record section, memorable images from our nation’s history and hundreds of enlightening articles which complement the New King James Version Bible text.And here's a video about their "noble" project:
Yes, the American Patriot's Bible will, once and for all, bridge the gap between God's Holy Word and American Providentialism. Here are just a few comparisons between the Bible and America made within the pages of the American Patriot's Bible:
** The Lord’s statement that Moses “is faithful in all My houses” (Num. 12:7) calls for a boxed quote from Grover Cleveland about how the teachings of Christ “results in the purest patriotism…”
** In 2 Corinthians 10:5 Paul notes that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but are spiritual and mighty in God for the tearing down of strongholds. This inspires the Patriot’s Bible commentators to provide the reader with a historical note about Eisenhower signing into law the clause “one Nation under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance. Eisenhower is quoted as saying this clause would help “strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our countries most powerful resource in peace and war.”
** Perhaps the most famous verse in the Bible is John 3:16 which tells us “God so loved the world he gave his only Son…” This inspires the commentators of the Patriot’s Bible to quote Colin Powell on how “the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders.”
** Jesus statement that “if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed” (Jn. 8:36) inspires a page long commentary on the Bill of Rights, with an ominous emphasis on how the “wall of separation” between church and state today is threatening freedom of religion.
** David’s census of warriors in Israel and Judah (2 Sam. 23:8) elicits a full page commentary on “Freedom’s Defense,” consisting of quotes from various people who agreed that freedom is worth fighting for, including the 19th century former slave, Frederick Douglas
** A reference to Joseph being sold as a slave to the Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:28) elicits a tender quote from Dick Cheney regarding how easy it is to “take liberty for granted, when you have never had it taken from you
** A statement that the king of Tyre gave gifts to David (2 Samuel 5:11) occasions a commentary on President Thomas Jefferson who provided the newly converted Kaskaskia Indian tribe seven year support for a priest and money for a church
** Joseph’s statement to his brothers that God had sent him to Egypt before them “to preserve life” (Gen. 45:5) elicits a quote from Clarence Manion regarding the Declaration of Independence’s statement that “all men are equal in the sight of God.” In so far as any connection between this verse and commentary can be made, it seems the commentators are suggesting a parallel between God sending Joseph and God sending the Declaration of Independence “to preserve life.”
** Following a passage that says that Abram armed his servants for war (Gen. 14: 14) the reader is given a page-long history on “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms” that celebrates the fact that early Americans were always “prepared to fight” for “liberty” which was “at the heart of their religion.
Fortunately, not all Christian Conservatives are buying into the nonsense of the American Patriot's Bible. Pastor Gregory Boyd, author of the book, The Myth of a Christian Nation, has the following remarks regarding Nelson's new Bible:One of the more unsettling aspects of the Patriot’s Bible is the way it unashamedly glorifies nationalistic violence. Almost every nation and tribe throughout history has shared the idolatrous assumption that its military victories were evidence of divine favor. This has been a staple of pagan religion from the start. From its earliest days this same assumption has permeated American culture, it’s just that our tribal warrior god was called “Jesus” or “Jehovah.” In the Patriot’s Bible, this idolatrous mythology is given the appearance of divine authority by being interwoven into the biblical narrative.And here's another commentary on the new Bible:
From cover to cover, and in a wide variety of ways, the Patriot’s Bible is filled with glorified nationalistic violence. A good portion of its commentaries focus on America’s victorious wars (Vietnam, not so much) and on war heroes. Moreover, the introduction of every book of the Bible is accompanied with a montage of national monuments, symbols, stars and stripes, etc…that include, with few exceptions, images of armed soldiers, bombers and battleships. Most remarkably, each Gospel (The Good News of Jesus Christ!) opens with a picture that includes soldiers struggling to raise a flag under the words “In God We Trust.” All the subsequent books of the New Testament open with a montage that includes a flag waving behind the Statue of Liberty on one side and armed marching troops on the other.
When you consider the uniform and emphatic teaching of Christ and the New Testament authors that followers of Jesus are called to love and do good to our enemies, laying down our lives for them if necessary, this overt celebration of America’s violent victories over our national enemies is absolutely stunning. When you consider that Jesus explicitly repudiated Jewish nationalism (despite the fact that Israel, unlike America, actually had a special status with God) and that the New Testament consistently teaches that Gods’ Kingdom transcends national boundaries, the Patriot’s Bible celebration of American violence becomes more shocking still.
One can only imagine what David Barton and others will have to say!
55 comments:
Thanks for posting this. Jim Babka sent me and Ed Brayton a link but I didn't have time to get to it.
I can't wait to get a copy myself. If Greg Boyd's review is indicative of how it reads, then this Bible is a "must have." =)
Side note...the Mosaic Law and the apostle Paul tolerated slavery (primarily of the indentured servitude variety) as a reality of the ancient world, giving instruction as to how Christians should operate WITHIN that world.
In the same way, Jesus didn't call the Jews to rebel against Roman rule, but rather gave instruction on how to operate from within that framework (see Matt. 22:21).
In reality, though, the principles of the Bible very much indict slavery, particularly the type of race-based slavery that came to the New World.
Brad,
Your post, in general, is interesting. I hadn't heard of this new Bible.
However, you have this habit of indulging in Ann Coulter / Al Franken type jabs and punches in your commentaries. The feces picture is an example of this, and is a wee-bit over the top.
The Big Picture of all this is...
Bible publishers are spitting out all kinds of branded Bibles - we now have the "Green" Bible, the "Leadership" Bible, the "Teen" Bible, etc., etc. There are Bibles for men, women, history buffs, you name it. I'm not surprised that they've come out with The Patriot's Bible.
My take on it...I'm uncomfortable with associating American nationalism with the kingdom of God. Christianity transcends national boundaries. I say that as someone who absolutely loves the United States. I'm a true flag-waver, trust me. But...the Bible is for all nations, and I'm not comfortable with this particular angle.
Still...I don't think it's fair to associate it with feces and essentially dismiss it outright and altogether. I'm sure SOME of its commentaries, etc. are interesting and even insightful. I'll probably take a look at it myself at some point.
But, until then, I have on my list to buy...
The Leadership Bible and the Archaeology Bible. :-)
I already have a Men's Bible. :-)
Brian writes:
***"you have this habit of indulging in Ann Coulter / Al Franken type jabs and punches in your commentaries"***
Only on occasion, Brian. The mood has to strike me right, and this was one of those moments. To be honest, I simply found this to be quite funny...and ridiculous. Also, couldn't we argue that "marketing" the word of God, as you have pointed out, makes a mockery of scripture...especially if that person believes in the supreme infallibility of scripture?
Seems a little contradictory to me.
"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36 (KJV).
Yep, that pretty much sums it up.
Brad, Brad, Brad, ... :-(
Please do follow up with the 3 vids of Byod ;-)
They're coming. Probably tomorrow or the next day. You don't wanna waste all your ammo right away!!!
Please do not infer my next comments to be in support of "The Patriot's Bible." I've not read it, nor have I heard of it, until today. My comments are on the packaging and marketing of the Bible in general. With that disclaimer in mind...
Brad writes: "Also, couldn't we argue that 'marketing' the word of God, as you have pointed out, makes a mockery of scripture...especially if that person believes in the supreme infallibility of scripture?"My response...
In I Corinthians, Paul writes: "I am become all things to all men, that I might win some."
One must make a distinction between tailoring a message to a particular audience (something that Jesus did, Paul did, etc.) on the one hand and then twisting or distorting something for greed or manipulation on the other.
When it comes to John Maxwell's "Leadership" Bible, I can say that there's definitely a market for it. What Maxwell has done is made the Bible appealing and perhaps more approachable for business people and workplace and/or community leaders.
To do that is consistent with Paul's saying he "became all things to all men." In that passage, after all, Paul's talking about how he would approach his audience (be they Jewish, Greek, etc.) AS IF he were one of them.
Is it wrong for Christians today to do that?
NO.
Is it wrong for Christians to CHANGE THE BIBLE (as in change its content or twist its message) in order to appeal to certain audiences?
YES
Which category does "The Patriot's Bible" fall into?
My answer: I don't know, because I haven't read it.
I will admit, though, that there's a caution flag up, for the verse that Eric cited. We can't limit the Bible, God's kingdom, Christianity, whatever to the United States, nor should we try.
Yeah, I agree with everything you said there. That makes sense..
I guess I just see this whole patriot bible thing as completely self-destructive. This is the exact stuff that anti-Christian Nation people scream about all the time. Seems like they are adding unneeded fuel to the fire.
Again, I am interested to see of the "hard core" Christian Nationalists (Barton, etc.) will back this or distance themselves from it.
"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36 (KJV).Mr. Isaacson, I don't quite know why you jumped in here after all this time, nor with this quote, since your previous posts and comments have been rife with political content.
Sorry, Eric, this just doesn't fit. If you're saying Jesus and God and stuff is out as we try to figure out what might be right and what might be wrong, then take your place in line with the materialists. I'm just not feeling you here.
But I hope you'll explain what you meant by injecting that quote---I'm not getting it. Perhaps I'll gain a greater understanding of your thinking.
Brad, all I can say is I used the search function at wallbuilders.com and found very few hits with "Christian nation." What mostly came up were quotes from American lumaniaries, and very few at that.
I dunno if Barton says what he's credited/condemned for saying. Let's be fair here. Check it out for yourself, and I hope others do, too.
I prefer not to defend him chapter and verse, because he still errs, but I think he's being slimed.
Eric, I exepct you'll enjoy the post on Boyd.
Tom, I believe the the point of John 18:36 is that politics are out of place in a Christ-like life.
That's one reading. But as citizen-rulers in this here democracy, we cannot walk by the injured man in the ditch. Mr. Isaacson lives that, and that's respectable. But once again, politics and religion don't mix only when you don't vote Democrat.
ERIC ALLEN ISSACSON,
What about the Lord's prayer where he prays that his kingdom come, his will be done on earth as it is in heaven?
King,
Regarding the Lord's Prayer, does that passage not refer to the end-of-times ... when the material world comes to an end?
bpabbot,
That is not my interpretation. It would not make sense in the context to me. He is telling them now to pray right then and there. If one part of the prayer is for a time when the material world comes to an end then why not the rest. The whole context is about God knowing what they need before they say it. Thus, it seems to be about praying for needs on this earth in this life.
I preached on this once and had some verses to back it up that I cannot remember. There was video of it. I was thinking about trying to get the video today because I could not remember what I said and it made sense to me at the time.
I am also working on a response to Dr. Fraser right now that will include some thoughts on this. What do you think?
Brian wrote, I'm uncomfortable with associating American nationalism with the kingdom of God..
This is one of those areas where Brian and I are one hundred percent in agreement.
.
And when Eric Alan Isaacson quoted, John 18:36, [Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world.] he also was one hundred percent on and to the point.
This "Patriots' Bible" is little more that a Broad Side on the political left here in America and it is an attack in the ongoing war the Christian Right has been waging against our U.S. Constitution and the Amendments. My prediction is that it will raise dialogue that will work against religious politics.
.
I could be wrong.
.
Pinky,
I am not associating American Nationalism with the Kingdom of God. I think the Dominionist, Nationalist, and Religious movements are destructive and seek to legislate one view of morality on everyone else. I hope I am clear in that.
With that said I think the Bible has some things to say about righteous government. I think most of it is found in Exodus 34:5-7 when we find out who God is:
Compassionate
Gracious
Forgiving
Patient
Just
I forgot the other two. I think man is created to reflect the image of God on earth. In my view what I stated about is God's image and glory. It is who He is. I think this applies to all aspects of society. This is much like the Enlightenment thinkers trying to apply the natural law to society. I am just not sure how or if it connects because I am fairly ignorant on the natural law theory.
I hope this clears up where I am coming from with my comments.
I forgot the other two. I think man is created to reflect the image of God on earth. In my view what I stated about is God's image and glory. It is who He is. I think this applies to all aspects of society.Interesting, King. But I dunno if God has more than, as you put it, "one view of morality."
_______________________
in the ongoing war the Christian Right has been waging against our U.S. Constitution and the Amendments...
Oh, I doubt you can back that up with actual facts, Pinky. That's just invective.
After 150+ years of relative quiet since the Founding, the legal issues have accelerated greatly since 1940. For those interested in the facts, this book preview is as good a place to start as any:
http://books.google.com/books?id=eaAivaq6zVAC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=religion+constitution+1940&source=bl&ots=8384aocnao&sig=_fbj-9DxwrSOCnfGP_kiHp8Ffjk&hl=en
.
In response to a statement I made about the war the "Christian Right" is waging against the Constitution and our Amendments Tom came back with, That's just invective..
Your insults are tiresome, VanDyke.
.
.
But it is just invective, Phil, until you back it up with fact and argument. The floor is all yours. Man up, or go crying to Lindsey again.
It's the victim act when it's you who are the attacker that's tiresome, Phil, hateful and partisan. What makes you think you're not transparent? I don't get it.
I don't think The Patriot's Bible is intended as an attack on the Left at all.
The Patriot's Bible is actually aimed at the Right. Conservatives are the target market. Patriotic, flag-waving types who may be conservative, but who don't go to church much or who don't read the Bible much. That's the target market.
.
You are a blowhard, Tom, and hardly worth the time of day.
.
This! Is all you get for your nasty and mean spirited ways.
.
I think Brian emphasizes my point.
.
The mere fact this new version is named, The American Patriot's Bible, makes it obvious that a division is being made--the good guys and the bad guys--the right and the left--the Americans and the Un-Americans.
.
I see it as an attack on everything America stands for. It's an attempt to create a superseding authority in the minds of those people who are taken in by it. And, a lot of people will be--it's a foregone conclusion.
Otherwise, why create such a publication?
.
Tom: "But it is just invective, Phil, until you back it up with fact and argument. The floor is all yours. Man up, or go crying to Lindsey again. It's the victim act when it's you who are the attacker that's tiresome, Phil, hateful and partisan. What makes you think you're not transparent? I don't get it."
? ... Tom, do you not see the extreme hypocrisy in your words?
At a slight transgression, you respond in such a manner to elevate the grievance to higher and very personal levels.
And what of the Lindsey comment? Is that subturfuge for "butt out"?
I don't know if we can call this Bible "an attack on the left." Having read Boyd's reviews and the segments of scripture that are compared with American history, is seems like an ultra-pro American text that promotes the Christian Nation agenda, much in the same way that Barton's books do. But I don't see any indication (mind you I haven't read the Bible) of it being anti-left.
No, Ben, it was a reference about going behind my back. Phil knows what I'm talking about. He can't back up his slanders with facts in this public forum, so he plays the victim behind the scenes, crying to mommy.
If Phil wants to do more than try to slip in hateful and groundless attacks against his favorite bogeymen, he knows where and how to do it.
No hypocrisy at all, Ben. That's cheap, too, man. I don't mind a little snark mixed in with intelligent and principled argument, but not a study diet of it.
Notice a certain regular commenter missing around here lately? At some point, enough's enough already.
The link I posted to the mushrooming of religion as a legal issue since 1940 is highly discussable, and relevant. I'd also love to hear anything from the books Phil says he reads, like Barry Shain's. They sound interesting.
Hang it up, Tom.
You got all you're gonna get from me.
I'm sick of your assumptive insults.
Ok, people...let's take this moment to let the grudges go by joining hands around the American Creation campfire:
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya.
Ahhhh...now doesn't everyone feel a little bit better!!! =)
Brad, I oppose hatefulness and ignorance regardless of its source or POV.
I have proven that.
If we're going to summarily delete and dismiss critics of Mormonism, I don't see why we're obliged to sing Kumabaya at other similar abuses of truth and civility.
Just trying to ease the tension...that's all.
GEEZ, Tom! Let's see, you've managed to piss off...almost everyone! I know you consider yourself the "fair and balanced" person on this blog (and we all know how "fair and balanced" has worked out for FOX News) but could you at least try to rebuke others in a...how shall I put this...less abrasive manner?
I love your comments and posts, but I think most people here see your rebukings as an attack on their character sometimes. Nobody expects you to agree with Pinky, Abbott, and others, but try to do so without putting everyone else on the defensive. I know you will respond with something like, "I never attack anyone. I defend everyone" or something to that effect. Just try being a little less abrasive. That's all.
Ugh! Why do we always have our comments sections deteriorate into a debate over whether or not someone is out of line!?!
Ok, Lindsey, you think Tom is “abrasive.” We got it. If that’s the case, then others are being every bit as "abrasive" towards him. Look back in this thread and then tell me I'm wrong. In fact, your “rebuttal” of TVD was more “abrasive” than anything he’s written on this thread. Sounds like he isn’t the only “abrasive” person here.
Look, everyone has his or her own style. What you call “rebuking” I call sincere objectivity. Yes, TVD probably comes at things from a different perspective than others on this blog, but what’s the problem? To steal a line from the “culture warrior” Ed Brayton, “If two people are thinking exactly alike on everything, one of them probably isn’t thinking at all.”
I’ve had my tiffs with TVD (and almost everyone else on this blog) in the past, but DAMN PEOPLE!!! Do we have to assume that disagreement equates into someone being “abrasive” or “ignorant?”
Let it go! The true sign of intelligence/scholastic integrity is in one’s ability to handle a disagreement. This isn’t talk radio where we just put a “smack down” on those we don’t like or agree with.
Let it go!!!!!
I know you will respond with something like, "I never attack anyone. I defend everyone" Actually, I wouldn't have thought of that, but I'll use it. It reflects my beliefs, although I admit expressing an unhappiness with a Mr. Brayton recently. But I backed up my reasons with facts.
in the ongoing war the Christian Right has been waging against our U.S. Constitution and the Amendments...
Oh, I doubt you can back that up with actual facts, Pinky. That's just invective...
This is what started it. Now which statement is more abrasive? I was far more gentle than we were with the critics of Mormonism.
Nice to see you this deep into a comments section, Lindsey. Did someone send you an email, by chance?
;-D
Mr. Hart's comment came in as I was posting the previous. Anyone who reads this blog has seen Brad & I disagree and indeed butt heads. These things happen. Yet we remain respectful and indeed friendly with each other. Thx for the back, man.
I've had my say. Out.
No Tom. Nobody sent me an email. Actually, several people have sent me emails in the past. I'm sure you recall a few of them.
I don't care about opinions, arguments, and all the rest. I'm just trying to create a friendly environment. Can't we all at least do that? It isn't too much to ask, is it?
Brad, I think you are out of line on this. I didn't attack anyone, not even Tom. For you to assume as much is wrong. I am just trying to create a friendly atmosphere. But in the spirit of fairness let's apply this to everyone I am agreed on that.
Tom, nobody is being an OFT equivalent here. I think that much is clear.
Ok, I'm bored of this so adieu to all. The thread was killed a long time ago. My parting comment will be this:
Yes, nobody is being an OFT (thank God). Lindsey, I appreciate your efforts on this blog. You've done a great job. However, don't play mama bear here. If people have a problem with another commentator then let them deal with it. Unless there is blatant hostility then why do you or I need to be involved? Yes, some have complained about TVD, but there have been complaints about others as well. Who gives a shit? I sure don't. As a moderator of this blog I have never...NEVER seen anything from Tom or any other contributor that needed deletion, so why do we need to fight the battles of those who disagree? Let them have it out. That's the whole purpose of this blog. Duke it out in the comments section. Hell, that's where most of the fun lies. Just make sure your fights are backed with evidence, etc.
I'm done.
Tom: "No hypocrisy at all, Ben. That's cheap, too, man."
Tom, please try to be real.
My observation is that you are the most offensive and abrasive individual who frequents this board. While you are also a solid contributer, you are too quick to insult (imo).
On repeated occasions your have treated me to rants accompanied with personal insults. To what end? Do you really expect that such would compel me to adopt your perspective? ... have you noticed my posting habits have changed? ... every wondered why?
On the other hand, I was very pleased with how dealt with OFT ... without rant or personal insult.
Regarding your accusation that someone is tattling to Lindsey .... Really? Even if there was such juvenile behavior going on, how does it do your position any good be act juvenile yourself?
I agree with Brad that your posts do not merit deletion by a moderator. However, they are a long way from an example of good behavior. I encourage you to moderate yourself.
Brad,
If Lindsey is out of line for admonishing those commenters who resort to insults, imagine you how look admonishing her for suggesting commenters treat others respectively. As part of "management", please take that discussion off line ... and please avoid quips like "momma bear" :-( ... besides "guardian angel", or such, would be a more appropriate metaphor ;-)
Ben, nobody appointed you moderator. Take part in the actual discussion or butt out.
The next time you stand up for someone you disagree with, or against someone you agree with, that'll be the first time. Then perhaps you'll have standing.
Please contribute intelligently when you can, preferably on topic instead of fanning up the drama. We do just fine with drama part without your help.
And I'm letting slide your previous ugly remarks in this thread. You seem to think you're not transparent either. I'll never understand how people think they're not, as if people can't scroll up a little bit.
And, no, Ben---I don't ever expect to "compel" you or convince you of anything. Lord, no---you're far too obtuse. This is a colloquy, a public discussion. Our readers can see you back away or disappear, dodge, elide and evade even the most plain of questions.
Perhaps I give them too much credit, but you give them far too little.
Tom, I'll participate in a manner consistent with my principles. If you don't like it ... take your own advice.
Consistent with your leanings, Ben,
until you stand up for someone you disagree with, or against someone you agree with. Let's be clear.
.
For what it's worth.
.
It takes a mature person to admit to their failings, to apologize, and to say, "I'm sorry", when, in fact, they have injured another person in any way.
.
For sure, that seems beyond some people.
.
Yes, Phil. You owe the blog an apology for slandering the Religious Right as enemies of the constitution.
I wouldn't slander, say, Michael Newdow as an enemy of the constitution. I simply disagree with his understanding of it, and mostly---so far at least---so do the courts.
.
Invective"▸ noun: abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will.
So, who is the one throwing the invectives around?
.
Why, it's little Tommy Tucker.
Tom: "Consistent with your leanings, Ben, until you stand up for someone you disagree with, or against someone you agree with. Let's be clear."
I'll go right past the irrelevancy, and point out you haven't been paying attention.
My present critique of your behavior has nothing to do with your ideology, it has to do with your divisive and insulting behavior.
Tom: "Yes, Phil. You owe the blog an apology for slandering the Religious Right as enemies of the constitution."
Tom, you might attempt to lead by example and offer an apology for the personal attacks and insults.
Hiding behind "the blog" will not protect you from critique.
.
Among other protections against an abusive government, our Constitution provides detailed declarations regarding the rights of Americans to be free from what might otherwise be dictator type authorities driven by some religious ideology of one brand or another.
.
Power, at hand, to act beyond firmly established limits might be the most intoxicating temptation any authority can face when sitting in the highest seats of government. And, when any large enough voting block in our democracy believes that we answer to a higher power than the U.S. Constitution when in comes to those protections, then, we stand at a dangerous precipice and my point is well made. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance..
Little more need be said.
.
Otherwise, why the First Amendment? Is it there for no reason at all?
.
The intelligent reader sees through the tactic of trying to change the subject to me.
If Phil [or Ben] could defend his irresponsible and inflammatory statement with actual facts, they would. But as they cannot pound the facts, they have chosen to pound the table.
________________
And, when any large enough voting block in our democracy believes that we answer to a higher power than the U.S. Constitution when in comes to those protections, then, we stand at a dangerous precipice and my point is well made...
Whatever. The Founders believed we answer to a higher power than any man-made laws. When the constitution is properly interpreted, they are not at odds.
.
This conjecture about WHAT The Founders believed is tiresome.
.
And, it doesn't make even a small bit of difference to an intelligent person. It is what they signed into our law that makes all the difference.
.
We have the greatest lawyers in the world thinking about that and adjudicating what it means.
Comments to the contrary are little more than idle blather.
.
What we need is for RED blooded Americans to stand up for the U.S. Constitution in a clear cut way--think Obama. We need common people to get a handle on their Constitution.
Enough of the clap trap already.
.
Knock off the personal dissing and let us speak our piece as long as we don't get personal. Now let's cool it, Tom, and like my Marine Corps drill instructor used to say, "Put it where the sun don't shine".
.
Let's enjoy our differences.
.
Obama? You're kidding, right? Stay tuned while his initiatives make their way to the courts, and we'll pick this up in a year or so.
"RED blooded" Americans, Phil? To the intelligent reader, the ironies abound.
And there are many things that the Founders believed that are provable and beyond conjecture, first and foremost that there is a higher law than man's. You'll find it in Blackstone, you'll find it in James Wilson, you'll find it in Jefferson.
Therefore, your assertion that what they signed into law is what "makes all the difference" is completely illogical and indeed dead on arrival.
Oh, and Ben, I tend to forget slights and insults, but I let you call me a hypocrite without returning fire. Obviously the gentle, reasonable and civil example I set is of no influence, not that I reasonably expected it to be. But that you hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself to, well, there's a word for that and it begins with "h", eh?
.
A publishes an interesting blog.
B comes along and makes a comment not relating to any individual participant to the blog.
C attacks B for making some statement or other that is contrary to C's judgments.
B is in a double bind as a result of C's judgments and a fuss unfolds that speaks ill for the entire blog site causing participants and observers to ride off into the sunset.
Who is the trouble maker?
Grade school arithmetic 101?
Phil asked: "Who is the trouble maker?"
Do you refer to the gentle, reasonable and civil example of one of our contributers? ;-)
Tom, perhaps we are in agreement that all posts should be "gentle, reasonable, and civil".
.
TVD
.
That's Tom Van Dork, and anyone who has been here for any length of time knows it.
.
But, have you noticed how gently he handles those who have authoritative rights of censorship?
Post a Comment