WATCH: Former GOP House Leader Tom DeLay says God wrote the Constitution http://t.co/2XEBBdNs9o
— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) February 20, 2014
So ‘The Hammer’ is trying to burnish his rep with the Talibangelicals, before the election cycle redirects all available media attention to GOP criminals who haven’t been indicted (yet).
In related nitwittery, (via Lt. Col. Bateman, at Esquire), Right Wing Watch transcribes the Biblical exegesis of (Ret.) Lt. Gen. Jerry “My God Is More Awesome Than Yours” Boykin:
“Now I want you to think about this: where did the Second Amendment come from? … From the Founding Fathers, it’s in the Constitution. Well, yeah, I know that. But where did the whole concept come from? It came from Jesus when he said to his disciples ‘now, if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.’
I know, everybody says that was a metaphor. IT WAS NOT A METAPHOR! He was saying in building my kingdom, you’re going to have to fight at times. You won’t build my kingdom with a sword, but you’re going to have to defend yourself. And that was the beginning of the Second Amendment, that’s where the whole thing came from. I can’t prove that historically… but I know that’s where it came from.
And the sword today is an AR-15, so if you don’t have one, go get one. You’re supposed to have one. It’s biblical.”
My emphasis. “Okay, that’s not what’s in the Book I’m supposed to be quoting, and it’s sure as Scripture not in the philosophy of the God-Made-Man I profess to worship, but hey! It’s a free country, until my guys get their hands on the levers!”
I’m not using the ‘Religious Nuts’ tag, because neither of these guys are actually religious — they’re just spouting words they hope will be magical, in defense of their own manifest shortcomings.
Bill E Pilgrim
I always figured him for more of a Thor kind of guy.
srv
I do not know how much more stress the fabric of space time can take from these wingulartarisms.
Mustang Bobby
If God wrote the Constitution, how come there’s a typo in it? Doesn’t the Supreme Being have Grammar Check?
max
I’m not using the ‘Religious Nuts’ tag, because neither of these guys are actually religious — they’re just spouting words they hope will be magical, in defense of their own manifest shortcomings.
I’m going to disagree in the case of Boykin. From the descriptions, he’s pretty much a stock Southern apocalyptic evangelical, that can’t wait for the End Times. (And a check to make sure I parsed it correctly – yep, born in New Bern, NC.) *What* he believes is a different issue. I’m tempted to call it ‘Mithraic Christianity’ which is about liking that Jesus guy, but doesn’t much want anything to do with that hippy dippy stuff, whatever that was about. And I quote:
I am reasonably certain that if the Jesus of the Gospels is anything like the real thing and Boykin had been around at the time, Boykin would’ve been a centurion who was down with nailing Jesus to the tree. (That’s what you do with terrorists, amiright?) Thanks to the miracle of cognitive dissonance, Boykin is never going to comprehend that, but is nevertheless furious in his belief.
Delay, on the other hand, is just a crook with some patter, so I’m sure he believes what he says as well, in the sense that he sells himself on his invented bullshit before another round of dropping the new spin for even newer spin. (Ask him about the wonders of aluminum siding!)
max
[‘Kultastic!’]
Chris
Because none of their arguments are good enough to stand on their own merits without an appeal to authority. In fact, they’re so shitty that it takes an appeal to the highest authority there is for them to have a prayer of going through (pun intended).
Bill E Pilgrim
@Mustang Bobby: It looks like you’re trying to write a religion-based constitution. Would you like help?
• Explain how those are incompatible concepts.
• Just help me write the constitution.
KG
So, wait, James Madison was god?
Mustang Bobby
@Bill E Pilgrim: Thank you, Clippy.
Bill E Pilgrim
@max:
I don’t think they’ll let him in actually.
KG
@Bill E Pilgrim: actually, a religion based constitution isn’t impossible. It’s one of the reasons they wrote the first amendment the way they did. And if you look at constitutions in many Muslim states, they’re specifically religion based. Four members of the EU (Denmark, England, Greece, and Malta) have state religions. Sweden did too, until 2000. Our constitution is specifically secular, but that’s not necessarily a requirement
Fred
Isn’t DeLay supposed to be in jail? Oh that’s right. Jails are for the little people.
Bill E Pilgrim
@KG: I know, I thought of that afterwards. I still think they’re incompatible, personally, but you’re right.
I guess I also think in our case they knew what they were doing, i.e. no state religion, just because well, look at us now, even with it mostly secular. We’re sort of fanatics, that’s how Europeans see us often.
KG
@Bill E Pilgrim: pluralistic democracy, particularly one built on multi-generational immigration, such as the US, is incompatible with a state sponsored/mandated religion. There’s simply too much diversity within our society for a state religion to work. It likely would have torn the nation apart in the 1790s, whether because of a federal mandate or because states chose different religions/denominations.
? Martin
Man, God really has a böner for slavery. He writes it into everything.
Chris
@max:
“No, you haven’t. The best thing I can say for you is that you’ve been fighting for your country. I am not your country. Your country is a human construct and a temporary one like all of them. I didn’t come down and die on the cross for your country or any other, I did it for all of humanity, including the ones you thought it was your duty to cheerfully blow to hell. That was the point. You want to fight for me? I told you how to fight for me. I told you to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, invite the strangers into your home, look after the sick and visit the prisoners. Have you been doing that shit? Why not? Which part of it was too complex?”
Bill E Pilgrim
@KG: There are other reasons as well. That it would work less well for us I mean. European countries have a long history that we simply didn’t have, and it’s tempered any desire to let religion have state power. Religion is for “weddings and funerals” they say in France, any politician preaching about Gog and Magog as part of a political effort wouldn’t stand a chance. There are excellent reasons for this, they’ve seen what happens the other way.
Of course the people writing our constitution had the same history in a sense, and that’s why they did it that way, but I’m just saying there are reasons now that it would work far less well for us.
NotMax
The well of ignorance never runs dry.
MikeJ
@Bill E Pilgrim:
There’s some argument to be made that the reason we have so many fanatics is because we don’t have a state religion. If we had an official church it would just be another arm of the government to be ridiculed or ignored
Villago Delenda Est
Boykin should have been dismissed from the Army for the good of the service…no pension, for that shit. Unprofessional in the extreme. Disgrace to the uniform.
Skippy-san
@Mustang Bobby: For the win.
Alien Radio
Nobody Speaks for The Jesus
NonyNony
@Chris:
I think he’d be too stunned at how Semitic Jesus looked to be able to say much of anything.
St. Peter would meet him at the gate and he’d start screaming something about Ay-rabs invading Heaven and reach for his gun to try to liberate it.
Frankensteinbeck
The fundie obsession with individual verses baffles me. I just went back and reread Luke 22. The sword line isn’t a sermon to the general public, it’s specific instructions for a specific situation. You might as well go back a few verses and write a constitutional amendment about asking people for cups of water. Hell, later in the chapter it turns out the whole point of the swords is so Jesus can tell the disciplines not to fight for him, and Jesus heals the guy they fought.
folkbum
@Frankensteinbeck: And later, when Peter actually uses the sword, Jesus yells at him to put it away (“Put up again thy sword into his place: for all tthey that take the sword shall die by the sword,” Matthew 26:52) and heals the man Peter injured.
These kind of Christians are happy to nutpick the Bible, though.
aimai
@Frankensteinbeck: Yup, I did the same, read the entire passage. In Luke Jesus is really conflicted, seemingly, about whether he is going to fight or surrender to his fate. He tries to tell his followers that they are all going on a long journey, as rebels and outcasts who will be “numbered among the transgressors” and that they need a sword but he is satisfied when they manage to find two and only two swords. As you say its a specific historical incident. In this specific historical setting two swords is laughable since Jesus seems to be going up against the whole roman army and everyone in power. He spends all night praying to know what the right thing is to do and to reconcile himself with his imminent death and he even scolds his followers for not doing the same. Relaxing, sleeping, and just following orders (even the orders to carry the swords) is represented as a “temptation” to be resisted with prayer. When they wake up, and the guards come to seize Jesus, one of the swords guys gets a little frisky and there is a very small ear cutting incident which Jesus stops, heals, and rebukes. Either, as you say, the “whole point” of the entire passage is that swords are not needed in g-‘ds work and that Jesus will go out a healer, not a killer or Jesus himself changes his mind midway through the passage and reconciles himself that there is no military/violent way for a man to avoid his fate.
Punchy
Please…PLEASE tell me that Boykin quote is from the Onion….otherwise, WOW.
Lurking Canadian
@Chris: One of the many things I have learned at Balloon Juice is the answer to the puzzle of how these “Christians” manage to ignore or outright violate everything Jesus taught. It turns out the explicitly don’t care what Jesus taught.
As I understand it, the wingnut position is that Jesus’ earthly ministry was for the Jews of Palestine. Since they didn’t listen, and he died, everything he said while on Earth is null and void. The only Jesus that matters to them is the ass kicker in Revelation.
Now, how you can hold that position and call yourself a “Biblical literalist”, I couldn’t say, but with that exception, their religion holds together. I mean, it’s got nothing to do with the guy they claim it’s about, but it’s internally consistent at least.
debbie
These guys need to take a step back and realize they’re really just the Christian version of the Mooslum fundamentals they claim to despise so much.
Egypt Steve
There’s also this:
Jesus said, “put away your sword. All those who live by the sword will die by the sword. So if they pull a sword, you pull a gun. If they put one of yours in the hospital, you put two of theirs in the morgue. That’s the way of my Father in Heaven.”
Omnes Omnibus
@Egypt Steve: That is from Paul’s Letter to the Chicagoans, right?
The Red Pen
@Frankensteinbeck:
FWIW, the technical term for this is “proof-texting.” The word is usually said with a derisive tone.
Furthermore, when the disciples say, “Hey, we’ve already got a couple of swords,” Jesus basically says, “OK, you can stop talking now.” There’s a definite sense, particularly in the original text, that Jesus thinks they’re missing the point.
Paul in KY
@Villago Delenda Est: Agree. he sure got off light for shooting his mouth off & endangering all our troops in Iraq/Afganistan.
You know, though, that that is typical for general officers (not being held accountable, giving each other the mildest punishments).
Paul in KY
@Egypt Steve: 1st Nugent, Chapter 3, verse 16
BubbaDave
As Fred Clark (Slactivist) says, “That’ll preach.”
divF
@Bill E Pilgrim:
France particularly knows that sectarian strife isn’t worth it. Henri IV said, “Paris is worth a mass”, as he casually converted from Protestantism to Catholicism to obtain the crown.
Comrade Dread
Actually, most people I know say that in context it was done to fulfill the prophesy that Christ would be numbered with the transgressors. Messianic cults at the time typically ended in armed revolt against Rome. Having armed disciples would lend credence to the charges of the priests that He was planning to rebel against Rome.
And most people say that because when St. Peter decided to actually use the darn sword, Jesus told him to put it away and healed the man Peter had hurt, and because the early church decided to follow Christ’s example and accept prison, beatings, or death rather than engage in violent self-defense, probably harkening back to the “Do not fear him who can kill the body…” teachings of Christ.
Frankensteinbeck
@The Red Pen:
When I read the gospels, ‘missing the point’ seemed to be the main role of the apostles. Jesus gathered together idiots, murderers, the poor, the rich, priests and non-Jews, and used them to say to the world ‘See? ANYBODY can live a good life, even these chuckleheads.’ He spent a lot of time lecturing them on why they were less wise and faithful than random people he met on the street.
Aaron S. Veenstra
IT WAS NOT A METAPHOR! But also, the sword is a gun.
The Red Pen
@Frankensteinbeck:
I certainly hope whatever reality exists behind the stories, the actual apostles were smarter. I think that the “Duh, I don’t get it, Jesus,” gambit allowed for a lot of expository dialogue in the narrative. It was either that or a lot of the “As you all know…” trope. Tedious either way.
Michael Bay would have dispensed with all that and just have Jesus and Herod turn into giant robots and fight each other.
Fred
@Aaron S. Veenstra: Wellll, now yer just gettin’ picky!
Rafer Janders
No True Scotsman Fallacy.
Um, yeah. That’s what makes them religious.
Mnemosyne
@Rafer Janders:
No, I get what Anne Laurie is saying — she thinks that DeLay and Boykin are saying these things cynically, not really believing them, because it will get them extra points from the folks who actually do believe them.
Mnemosyne
@Frankensteinbeck:
Fred Clark at Slactivist has been doing a lot of posts lately on “clobber texts” and reading the Bible selectively and linking that kind of reading directly to the “Biblical” justifications for American slavery — here’s just one of them.
As with so many things in American culture, it’s all about defending slavery and racism.
WereBear
Yes, it’s sadly ironic, that in creating a culture where everyone had a shot, they would immediately follow it up with, “Except you. And you. And you and you and you.”
Greg
Mormons believe that the US Constitution was “divinely inspired” and that the US has been chosen by God for…. well, for whatever.
Citizen_X
Whew. Thanks, General. Some of us were worried that Heaven might not be completely faaab-u-lousssss!
Cervantes
I don’t know how you distinguish Boykin from a religious person. He’s been spouting this sort of nonsense for a long time and before religious audiences. For example:
That’s him explaining how he (Delta Force) defeated Osman Ato, a Somali warlord in the early ’90s.
And here he is on the subject of Election 2000:
Ian
@Bill E Pilgrim:
I almost forgot about that annoying paper clip and its insidious suggestions
chopper
it was not a metaphor! ok, yeah, it was a metaphor.
slippytoad
@Chris:
I’ve said baldly and I think it should be said LOUDLY.
When someone tells you “God wants” just IGNORE the God part. Replace it with “I” as in “the speaker.”
Now, if you listen more carefully, and remember the motivation of the speaker, you’ll discover that God wants whatever he does, curiously enough, and even if it’s not a Godly thing to want.
I don’t know why some people are so mother-fucking dumb, just head-smacking fucking retarded, that they do not have the ability to see through these kinds of con-artists. But, so many of them are, and they just happen to be conservative.
slippytoad
On that subject, Boykin was 100% correct. He was in fact an illegitimate President, as we all know.
God is not a legitimate elector, Jerry Boykin. You should try reading the Constitution if you’re not too fucking illiterate to do so.
Mnemosyne
@slippytoad:
Or, as Anne Lamott said:
dmhlt
If God REALLY wrote our Constitution …
Then why did it need Amendments?
Rafer Janders
@Mnemosyne:
I don’t know about DeLay, but Boykin CERTAINLY believes it. He’s been spouting this nonsense for years and years.
mmc
He was simply quoting from the Book of Armaments I believe those verses came right before the instructions for the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch…
Cervantes
@mmc: Good call!