• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The religious right's hypocrisy now on full display

Junebug said:
Like many areas of contemporary politics, the Bible doesn’t have much to say about American immigration policy. Yes, you can derive a principle that we should treat the people trying to enter — like all people — with decency and dignity, but the Bible doesn’t speak to whether they should be granted entry or not, etc., or immigration policy more broadly. The concept of citizenship and participation in a culture were just totally different in Biblical times. Lifting quotes from the Bible on this topic is too acontextual, as it often is as applied to contemporary politics.
Click to expand...

This is fucking rich.
 
Junebug said:
Like many areas of contemporary politics, the Bible doesn’t have much to say about American immigration policy. Yes, you can derive a principle that we should treat the people trying to enter — like all people — with decency and dignity, but the Bible doesn’t speak to whether they should be granted entry or not, etc., or immigration policy more broadly. The concept of citizenship and participation in a culture were just totally different in Biblical times. Lifting quotes from the Bible on this topic is too acontextual, as it often is as applied to contemporary politics.
Click to expand...

Yet millions of conservatives use passages from that era to justify their positions.

What's the word for wanting something to apply to you but not allow the same thing apply to those with whom you disagree?
 
Shooshmoo said:
Click to expand...

Kinda tired of people acting like you have to, say, have daughters to understand that abusing women or trafficking children is bad. There are many things people without kids, myself included, don't know about parenting, but that's not one of them.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
My wife’s former pastor(Lutheran) shared information relative to the homosexual context, apparently if you go back to the earliest German translation in print that passage as well as the one in the New Testament are actually condemning man Laying with boys not man laying with man. Apparently it is a 20th century construct to change the words to condemn homosexuality as opposed to pedophilia. Kind of makes the rights condemnation more contrived.
Click to expand...

Thanks, it doesn't surprise me that fundamentalists are taking yet another Biblical verse out of context to suit their own purposes. Fundies love to claim that you shouldn't "interpret" Biblical passages, but must take them literally, yet they interpret the Bible all the time, whether they admit to it or not. The Bible is pretty clear in how one should treat "strangers" (what today would be called immigrants), yet they insist that it doesn't apply to modern government policy. When it comes to homosexuality, premarital sex, women's rights, etc., however, they do insist that what the Bible says (or, rather, what they interpret it says) should apply to modern politics and culture and all the rest. They are very selective in what they choose to interpret and what to take literally. If Leviticus says that homosexuality is bad in their view, then that must be taken literally and implemented as government policy. But when the same Biblical book very clearly states how people should treat "strangers" (immigrants), then suddenly that doesn't apply to government policy. I've read that the Bible actually only has a limited number of verses that deal with what could be homosexuality, yet it far more often mentions and condemns divorce. Yet you almost never hear fundies today talk about that. Why? Because so many of them are divorced. Strange how that works.
 
Demonwolverine said:
Kinda tired of people acting like you have to, say, have daughters to understand that abusing women or trafficking children is bad. There are many things people without kids, myself included, don't know about parenting, but that's not one of them.
Click to expand...

That's not the take here. You don't have to have daughers to know better, but if you have daughters you damn well know better.
 
bym051d said:
The Shining remake looks scary!
Click to expand...

LOL, that was my first thought too. Sounds horrible, but it was the first image that popped into my head. I'm sure those girls will enjoy their abstinence is fun/don't be a lesbian summer boot camp when they get to be teens.
 
Junebug said:
Huh? My point is that we shouldn’t use the Bible as a basis for social policy. I would have thought that position would be well-received on this board.

I guess not because Junebug.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you may not have noticed the name of this thread or the point under discussion, which is the hypocrisy of the religious right in purporting to follow Biblical principles in their political and policy choices yet ignoring them when it comes to things like treating refugees with dignity or the morality of their chosen leaders. The last time we exchanged posts, a narrow focus on the title of the thread and the initial post therein was important to you. I suppose not this time.

Moreover, as a Christian, I disagree with your post. My faith does and should inform my public policy choices, and I think that is true of many millions of Americans. My method of reading and interpreting the Bible differs greatly from Franklin Graham's purported focus on literalism and inerrancy, which he and his ilk conveniently discard when it comes to such things as welcoming the stranger. Thus this thread.

As an aside, I think the conservative judicial focus on purported "original intent" and constitutional textualism is not coincidentally related to the fundamentalist Christian focus on Biblical literalism and inerrancy. Both purport to provide some reassuring authoritative objectivity and certainty to texts that are inherently imprecise, and both readily veer from their principles when necessary to promote the political preferences of the propounders.
 
Deacon923 said:
Sorry, you may not have noticed the name of this thread or the point under discussion, which is the hypocrisy of the religious right in purporting to follow Biblical principles in their political and policy choices yet ignoring them when it comes to things like treating refugees with dignity or the morality of their chosen leaders. The last time we exchanged posts, a narrow focus on the title of the thread and the initial post therein was important to you. I suppose not this time.

Moreover, as a Christian, I disagree with your post. My faith does and should inform my public policy choices, and I think that is true of many millions of Americans. My method of reading and interpreting the Bible differs greatly from Franklin Graham's purported focus on literalism and inerrancy, which he and his ilk conveniently discard when it comes to such things as welcoming the stranger. Thus this thread.

As an aside, I think the conservative judicial focus on purported "original intent" and constitutional textualism is not coincidentally related to the fundamentalist Christian focus on Biblical literalism and inerrancy. Both purport to provide some reassuring authoritative objectivity and certainty to texts that are inherently imprecise, and both readily veer from their principles when necessary to promote the political preferences of the propounders.
Click to expand...

+1. Good post.
 
Deacon923 said:
As an aside, I think the conservative judicial focus on purported "original intent" and constitutional textualism is not coincidentally related to the fundamentalist Christian focus on Biblical literalism and inerrancy. Both purport to provide some reassuring authoritative objectivity and certainty to texts that are inherently imprecise, and both readily veer from their principles when necessary to promote the political preferences of the propounders.
Click to expand...

This is well said, and completely accurate.
 
Junebug said:
A post arguing that we shouldn’t look to the Bible to inform policy decisions is on-topic and appropriate in a thread about religious hypocrisy in government policy. You know that.

As for your second point, I disagree. Policy positions based on religious texts are necessarily irrational. The only difference in you and Franklin Graham is the result, which is not a place I would like to be. If you want to appeal to principles of fairness and human dignity, I’m on board, but the invocation of Jesus as the justification for a policy position is the imposition of your faith on others. Sure, in this instance, your faith doesn’t impose on others’ freedom, but the same can’t be said about Franklin Graham, and the only thing you can do is argue against him on religious grounds. You may be right, but you are setting a dangerous precedent by having your appeal be to God.
Click to expand...

Well this is just silly. The Founders expressly invoked God's authority in the Declaration of Independence. There is no country on Earth where politics and policy are completely "rational" and divorced from the deeply held moral (or perhaps, immoral) beliefs of the citizenry, or at least the rulers, and those beliefs are seated in and express through religion. Throughout the history of the United States, religious principles have been held up in support of or in opposition to policy decisions, from the Great Society on the liberal end to the Hyde Amendment on the conservative end. Politics is not some theoretical, "rational" practice of running algorithms through a computer and picking the optimal policy outcome. It is inherently subjective and dependent on the opinions of the actors in the system. 75% of Americans say they are Christians, and 62% say they are part of a church congregation.

The Republican Party drapes itself in the Christian flag now more than ever and claims Biblical authority - which is to say, the very highest authority - to impose its policy preferences on the rest of us. If anyone set a "precedent", it's the Moral Majority. Christians who disagree with those policy preferences are perfectly entitled to make their case on religious grounds and compete in the arena of ideas on that basis, and in fact would be foolish not to do so given that 3/4 of the electorate identifies as Christian. And when one side of the argument consistently claims the Bible and Christianity as the foundation for its policy preferences, it is more than fair to point out the hypocrisy in those claims.

All that said, your elaborate attempt to boside the issue at hand is duly noted.
 
Junebug said:
I obviously disagree, but I’m not going to argue about it today, except to say that if your objection is to courts imposing their policy preferences then you are backing the wrong horse. Liberals don’t even make the pretense of interpretation. At least conservatives show their work, whether you agree with it or not.
Click to expand...

That’s just objectively not true. Disregarding the false assertion that somehow only liberal justices are the ones imposing policy preferences to decisions, it’s pure poppycock to suggest that liberal justices somehow don’t show interpretative work in making decisions. Originalism and textualism have bastardized the law to a degree that hasn’t made the practice nearly incomprehensible. Liberal justices correctly try to figure what the purpose or intent of an enacted law is and work towards applying the law consistent with those purposes and intents. You may not agree with that interpretation philosophy, which is fine, that’s your prerogative. But spare me that only the liberal justices are employing “judicial activism” when the GOP denied Garland a hearing and campaigned for Trump solely to get more SCOTUS justices.
 
Junebug said:
Invoking the Creator in the Declaration of Independence is a far cry from invoking select passages from the Christian Bible in the minutiae of social policy. The constitution doesn’t mention God, much less Jesus, and it only references religion insofar as it says that religious exercise must be free from government interference and that Congress shall not establish it.

You are, of course, free to bring your own personal religious beliefs and prejudices into policy debates, but I would have thought that an enlightened liberal such as yourself would be leery of such arguments. What is more, if it is hypocritical to adhere to Biblical passages regarding homosexuality but not sojourners and strangers, is the opposite not also true?
Click to expand...

And that is exactly where you go wrong (as does, too often, the Democratic Party). A faith truly lived does not leave its stated precepts at the voting booth door. The Democratic Party should not leave the language of faith to be co-opted by the GOP, just as it should not allow the GOP to lay exclusive claim to what it means to be a "patriot". Religious faith is a very important guiding force for millions of Americans, and a party that insists on pure rationalism while allowing its opponent to appeal to faith is leaving itself very vulnerable.

As for the charge of hypocrisy, liberal Christians do not believe that the Bible is literally true and that every word in it is inerrant, and acknowledge that there are many facets of modern life that the Bible does not adequately address. That's why we do not insist on literalist absurdities such as teaching Noah's flood in the public schools as an "alternative" to real education. Mainline Christians see the Bible as a story of God's love for man being revealed over time, most perfectly in the ministry of Jesus. Jesus said not one word about abortion or the right to bear arms, but a great deal about loving your neighbor and serving the sick, poor, prisoners, and immigrants. The vast majority of Trump-supporting Evangelicals, on the other hand, give a great deal of lip service to believing that every word in the Bible is literally true and that Biblical principles should govern every decision, but have now suddenly decided that most of Jesus' ministry doesn't matter that much if Trump wants to do something.

To be clear, it is certainly also possible to criticize the fundamentalist stance from a non-religious, rationalist stance. And maybe it's easier in some ways. But again, this is politics, not a computer game. Christians can and should express their deepest beliefs, and should call out those who bear false witness and inflict cruelty in Jesus' name.
 
Junebug said:
I obviously disagree, but I’m not going to argue about it today, except to say that if your objection is to courts imposing their policy preferences then you are backing the wrong horse. Liberals don’t even make the pretense of interpretation. At least conservatives show their work, whether you agree with it or not.
Click to expand...

Yikes. This is just....bullshit. No other word comes to mind.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
My wife’s former pastor(Lutheran) shared information relative to the homosexual context, apparently if you go back to the earliest German translation in print that passage as well as the one in the New Testament are actually condemning man Laying with boys not man laying with man. Apparently it is a 20th century construct to change the words to condemn homosexuality as opposed to pedophilia. Kind of makes the rights condemnation more contrived.
Click to expand...

The pastor's argument, at least as articulated here, is sadly BS.

It makes little sense except perhaps in the context of Lutheran practice alone. Who cares about the earliest German printed version? Wouldn't the argument be more persuasive if you traced the "boys" argument back further?

Seems like a Lutheran pastor invoking the Luther Bible to absolve themselves of today's toxic Christian teaching? (I assume they're not talking about the Mentelin 1466 because that was based on a C14 translation of the vulgate)

I don't have the Hebrew or Greek, but the Vulgate is clear: both passages in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) read "cum masculo", which is not the phrase you'd use to specifically signify "with boys".

So the most important pre-reformation text doesn't support "with boys". Luther is translating the OT from a number of sources, including the Vulgate, so it would be strange if he chose to make that change himself. (Anybody with good German want to find the 1534 and check?)

I say all this without any knowledge of the interpretive tradition of these lines. But it seems wrong to want to point to the authority of a C16 translation to support an originary argument about the biblical text.

Or you could have misremembered the pastor's argument. They probably know more about this stuff than I do.
 
Lev. 18:22 in the Luther 1545, if you can believe "Jesus-is-lord.com", is:

Du sollst nicht bei Knaben liegen wie beim Weibe; denn es ist ein Greuel.

And "knaben" is unambiguously "boy".

So now I'm curious what Luther was up to. He certainly didn't get that from the Vulgate.

Pastor's larger argument is still BS, but they seemed to know something about this. What's Luther up to? Gotta find his other sources. Too bad Erasmas didn't have a convenient OT for him to translate too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top