When Ron DeSantis was a week away from being sworn in as governor of Florida, aides asked him what Bible he wanted to use for the ceremony:
DeSantis, who is Catholic, told them his family did not own a Bible.... Staff members for DeSantis had to buy a Bible for $21.74 on Amazon and have it shipped to the Republican Party of Florida headquarters less than a week before his inauguration, according to a receipt of the transaction shared with NBC News.
DeSantis doesn't own any Bibles? Hell, I'm an atheist and I own a couple.
Also: They had to buy one on Amazon? They couldn't just pop into a local store?
And one more thing: It turns out that they ended up buying a King James Bible. Really? None of them was savvy enough about religious stuff to realize they shouldn't get a Protestant Bible? But then again, apparently DeSantis didn't care, so no harm done.
Republicans sure are weird. The whole party is built around performative Christian faith, but look at their top three presidential candidates. Donald Trump is allegedly something or other¹ but obviously couldn't care less about religion. DeSantis is Catholic but only barely. And Nikki Haley converted to Methodism in her twenties for political convenience. Not a single one of them has a Christian faith deeper than a fingernail.
¹Presbyterian, for what it's worth. Which is not much at all.
Really? None of them was savvy enough about religious stuff to realize they shouldn't get a Protestant Bible?
It's probably because they are "savvy enough about religious stuff" that they purchases the King James Bible. Evangelicals are very touchy about Catholic bibles. Not that RDS's candidacy has a scintilla of viability left, but if they're not yet ready to face reality, keeping in good stead with that constituency is pretty basic to winning primaries.
Um, er, ah, this business with the KGV occurred when DeSantis was first inaugurated as governor five years ago. True, that time he just barely squeaked in, but he did win. The scintilla-less campaign of today was way out there in the future.
It's like that scene in The Grifters....
https://youtu.be/Rlwhv7m3CSI?si=yjv8YZkbHjXvQ17p
I thought of that episode of "The West Wing", where President Bartlett prepares for his second inauguration by requesting (unsuccessfully) a variety of historic Bibles, and finally ends up using the one an aide grabbed from the House of Representatives... which was a stolen Gideon Bible.
IIRC, WaPo published something in early 1990s about evangelicals being undereducated and easily led. Damn that was prescient.
Most Catholics I know including the ones who went to Catholic school, have never read the Bible. I, an atheist, tell them stuff that’s in the Bible and they don’t believe me.
“… they don’t believe me. “
Cause then they would have to significantly change their behavior.
I have never known anyone who, having read the Bible, and whether they “believe” or not to change their behavior.
Exactly.
If you know you SHOULD change your behavior but are not willing to do it you feel uncomfortable. Not reading the bible protects you from discomfort.
If you cite something from the Old Testament, it's unlikely the daily Catholic Mass attendee (or the faithful who partakes in the daily Bible readings) will have heard it during the cycle of the lectionary, as the vast majority of what's covered comes from the New Testament.
You'd have the opposite condition (knows just about everything in the Old Testament but practically nothing of the New Testament) if you speak to a Jew who attends daily service, naturally.
If you're Jewish, there's just The Testament.
I went to a Catholic mass with my wife. The priest talked about the sacrament and how it is transformed into the actual blood and flesh of Jesus. It was a warm day and I became nauseous. I asked her about it and she said she didn’t hear it. I’m not sure, but I think I might have been the only person there who was actually listening.
Your comment demonstrates that anti-religious bigotry remains alive and well among my fellow Leftists.
Or perhaps it's more of a defensive reaction that is both thoroughly rational and supported heavily by evidence? Last I noticed, it wasn't "Leftists" using "religious" arguments trying to deny appropriate and sometimes lifesaving medical care to women, condemn whole segments of society to second-class status, legally and sometimes violently harass those of different faiths, and ban and sometimes even burn books.
Thank you.
I am not anti-religious. Religious people are, afterall, just victims of the scam. The religion you follow, however, is just evil, and I am not a bigot for calling out evil where I see it.
Hopefully, one day you can deconstruct from that awful ideology.
I wish you well.
Well, I have no problem voting for people who say they read the Bible frequently and actively practice any religion, so long as they keep the government out of it. How many people do you think are willing to vote for an atheist?
Enough to elect tЯump.
For his voters, Trump IS god.
During the enlightenment French scientists smuggled out blessed sacraments and showed they were just wine and bread. The conservatives responded that you can’t fool God that easily. The more thoughtful suggested maybe it was all just metaphor anyway.
And the priest discussed that in the sermon. He said it was not symbolic, that it was part of the miracle that the wine was transformed to blood and the wafer transformed into flesh. That’s why I became nauseous, thinking about eating flesh and drinking blood.
If you are serious about understanding Catholic theology of the eucharist you have to start by learning neo-Aristotelian metaphysics. This is the prerequisite for making heads or tails out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The TL:DR version is that there is a distinction between the substance and the accident of the bread and wine. It is the accident that you perceive, and that those French scientists analyzed. The accident remains that of bread and wine, so the scientists' findings are to be expected. The miracle is the transformation of the substance, hence the word "transubstantiation."
I am Lutheran. The idea of Christian doctrine depending on ancient Greek philosophy is bizarre, even before we get to a discussion of how poorly this philosophy (like pretty much everything else Aristotle wrote) has held up. But we should understand what it is we are rejecting, if we wish to make public declarations on the subject.
My school required church attendance once a week, as a result I went to Jewish ceremonies on Friday night, leaving the rest of the weekend for partying.
I did not learn much but did find that I acquired a desire to read the Bible in its entirety.
The Catholic Church has historically discouraged lay people from reading the Bible, on the basis that it takes a theologian to understand it. Rather than reading the Bible to find out what God's instructions are, a Catholic is supposed to ask a priest.
While historically true, this has not been the case within living memory. That being said, not discouraging reading the Bible is not the same as actively encouraging it.
Old school Catholics certainly didn't read the bible. When I was a kid, all my Catholic friends memorized the Baltimore Catechism. Reading the bible on your own was not encouraged. I think that has changed somewhat these days
Ah, the Baltimore Catechism. I remember that, not fondly. Twelve years of Catholic school and I can say we never studied the Bible. We had one or two in the house but practicing Catholics aren’t into bible study like some other religions are.
Hence the personal study -- NASB -- Bible. You should get one; it's really good.
Cultural Christians, more or less.
“ Not a single one of them has a Christian faith deeper than a fingernail.”
As with many of their “religious “ voters. Makes it easier to claim to follow Jesus if you don’t listen to what he says.
I'm sure the state of Florida owns a few. I bet some even have historical interest.
What if it's not just the elected officials, and that the GOP and white fundagelicalism are simply mostly empty vehicles that bad people of all stripes have chosen to maximize their power?
This came up today on a different blog I read. Apparently this is Fred Clark's view: that evangelicalism is just what sociopaths use as an excuse for what they want to do anyway, to abuse others. It makes a fair bit of sense that this kind of person would use it to these ends - this country treats religious belief as something outside the bounds of public scrutiny, so if you're a grifter or an abuser it is ideally suited to the purpose. Nobody will dare call you out as a fraud who doesn't even believe in the Christianity that you claim guides your every thought and action.
They don’t let their religion affect their politics or behavior, rather they let their politics and behavior define their religion.
+1
Seems as if this could be applied to many religious fundamentalists, not just the American branch of protestantism.
Roman Catholicism is run by lawyers; Eastern Orthodoxy is run by historians; and Evangelicalism is run by salesmen. Yes, salesmen. The primary motive among the leadership is profit.
Not denying at all that abuse happens among Evangelicals, but that abuse isn't the main goal. Profit is the goal. Abuse is just a side effect.
"evangelicalism is just what sociopaths use as an excuse for what they want to do anyway"
I mean, I suppose it's nice to think that awful people know that they are awful and are just running a con pretending they are virtuous, but it's probably more likely that there aren't millions of evangelicals out there all giggling up their sleeves at the masterful hoax they and their cohorts are seemlessly pulling.
I tend to think that religions or philosophies that provide a little bit of structure and rigor to support what people want to do anyway likely end up winning in the marketplace of ideas (at least, for some segment of folks). Evangelicism seems to mostly require people to sometimes go to church, sometimes donate some money to church, and privately apologize to a silent abstraction for whatever you personally think you might have done wrong; in return, you get a snazzy group identity, a sense of righteousness, and the freedom to not think too deeply about the consequences of your culture. I doubt a person has to be a sociopath to find that package appealing.
Well said.
Those who have studied The Reformation understand that the whole Protestant version of Christianity was built as a vehicle to legitimize the accumulation of wealth. The Catholic Church demanded -- almost always successfully -- that people who were not kings or prelates themselves surrender their wealth to The Church.
This REALLY rankled the Good Burghers of the North Sea region where people had to work all the time to survive and so decided that they ought to be rewarded for their diligence. When Martin Luther nailed his Theses on the cathedral doors he gave these proto-capitalists an "imprimatur" for thei activities.
And the rest is history.
Isn't it just a teeny bit more complex?
Somewhat. There was genuine disgust with the corruption of the priesthood that ignited the desire for a change. But once it was started the non-hereditary business classes were the people shaping the new religions across Northern Europe.
Where did you go to school?
Weren't some of the Protestant sects created solely so that a powerful person could get a "get out of eternal hell" card? Like didn't one of the Henry's (the 8th?) create the Church of England to get around the whole "divorce is a sin" thing?
Henry split from Rome because the Pope would not give him an annulment. This was a political matter. An annulment was certainly theoretically possible, but the wife Henry wanted to dump was a Habsburg. The Habsburgs had vastly more power over the Pope, giving them a de facto veto.
The underlying issue was not was Henry sinning. He merrily fornicated with many women not his wife. The issue was the succession of the crown, requiring a legitimate heir, a male heir being strongly preferred. His first wife persistently failed to produce a male heir, so he was giving it another try. Hence the need for the annulment. The Pope would not or could not give it to him, so he kicked over the board and started over with new rules.
Without bad faith….
Republicans would have no arguments at all
they'd have no faith at all
Exactly.
Trump is about as far from a Presbyterian as a human being can get. But I think it's interesting that many evangelicals seem to be bad people attached to a religion that forgives them their worldly sins if they accept Christ as our savior. No good works necessary here, as in the Catholic or Presbyterian faiths, just a simple baptism and Christ's forgiveness. It's almost Christianity turned upside-down, using Christ's forgiveness to excuse all bad actions, instead of what was intended, as a means to prevent a guilty conscience from continuing bad behavior.
It is sad that so few evangelicals heed the warning in Matthew: “Beware false prophets who come dressed as sheep, but inwardly are ravenous wolves”.
You make a very good point about evangelicals. In a sense, they’ve put Christ and Satan on an equal footing as mere competitors for men’s souls. They’re both bidding on souls but the absence of an emphasis on works means that it’s no longer a question of good versus evil but just the power over other people that matters. The “prosperity gospel” very neatly epitomizes this.
I own a Bible, but I haven't the strength to dig it out of wherever it's gone to.
Why bother when you can look it up online, with three versions side by side for comparison. Invariably the King James reads best.
He could have just been sworn in on his phone.
Not surprising... I am sure based on current Florida law the Bible must be banned in the state.
Banned for promoting oral sex. News flash: when the Song of Solomon talks about tasting luscious ripe pomegranate, it’s not talking about fruit.
Well, it is. But it isn't talking *just* about fruit. We English majors understand that a text can have more than one thing going on at once.
I'm not sure that we know enough to discount Haley's conversion to Methodism as merely "politically convenient." For instance, she could have converted as a courtesy to her Methodist husband, or may sincerely have changed her religious beliefs over the years. That does happen.
What would happen if Biden's campaign called for a town hall at a Catholic church?
Do you think Trump would be too scared to enter one, on account that he might be struck down one toe into it? Do you think DeSantis would recoil in terror if Biden asked DeSantis to hold hands and say the Lord's Prayer?
If his spray tan includes the "Anti-Holiness Shield" additive he should be OK for up to an hour, provided he avoids direct contact with Holy Water. So stay well away from the guy(s) with the Holy Water censers...
I don’t think that either one would be in the least bit worried. If there’s two people that we can be pretty sure don’t believe in god, it’s got to be Trump and Desantis.
From what I've read, Trump is superstitious, even if not religious. Do you think DeSantis would know the Lord's Prayer?
I doubt whether Desantis knows any prayers at all. I think that, for him, as with many other “Christians” praying is something he does as a form of self justification. I think he’d be absolutely stunned if god actually spoke to him with advice. It’s all performative with these people.
I’ve also heard that Trump’s superstitious but I doubt he associates it with an omnipotent, omnipresent being who represents good. I think it’s something he picked up as a child but if Trump believed there was a god, he’d be terrified and change his ways (or change as much as .the mental illnesses he’s in the grip of would allow).
While these hypocritical Republicans (are there any other kind?) may not own a Bible (I've never owned or read one, but I'm an atheist), I bet plenty would happily make a few buck by selling them through the scam used by grifting Bible "salesman" Ryan O'Neal in the classic Paper Moon.
Hell, I'm an atheist and I own a couple.
They say the quickest way to become an atheist is to actually read the Bible, so no surprise there.
Amen, bro! For a good read -- with pictures! -- check out the R. Crumb version of "Genesis." Jehovah sure seems to favor the cheats and grifters.
I’m trying to understand how a comment such as this can fail to be taken as antisemitic. And yet I’m guessing that that was not actually your intention?
We need to face the facts: everything can be "taken as" anti-semitic.
Many, many things in the Bible can be taken as antisemitic. For example, the very first sentence of the story of David and Bathsheba tells us that the Jews were warmongers: "In the spring, when kings usually go to war . . . ."
I could cite a hundred more examples. Things that the writers of the Bible took to be normal are utterly appalling to people today. Does this mean the Bible is antisemitic? Maybe, but I would say no. It just means that moral standards have changed, for Jews as well as everybody else. Books written 3,000 years ago should not be taken seriously today.
Since half the Bible (the Old Testament part) is the same for Jews as it is for Christians, it would seem that the intent behind the Bible isn't to be antisemitic, regardless of how people twisted passages to justify antisemitism in later centuries.
That's the problem with your holy book. It's filled to the brim with rape, incest, infanticide, condoning of slavery, condoning of selling young girls to be sex slaves.
It's a mess of truly abominable evil.
Once you start reading and quoting it approvingly, it's hard to come off as a good person, so me pointing that out to you probably hurts your feelings.
It sucks, but so does your religion.
It's not "antisemitic", it's "pro-sanity". There's a difference.
that explains alot of his very unchristian-like behavior.
Not to pile on Donnie (and certainly not Presbyterians), but according to Protestant doctrine, Don-don is NOT saved. He's never asked for his god's forgiveness.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4624981/asked-god-forgiveness
Fred Trump was religious about taking his family (including young Donald) to church every Sunday. They attended Norman Vincent Peale’s church in Manhattan. Peale was nominally Methodist. Like many affinity scammers. I fear young Donald learned to “talk the talk”, but never had any desire or intention to “walk the walk”.
Peale was a major force in the "If I'm Rich It Means God Favors Me" heresy of so much of modern American "Christianity".
Jesus would have been appalled.
That isn't doctrine in Mainline Protestantism.
Too many Americans assume that all Protestantism is equivalent to whatever Evangelicals or Pentacostalists believe, but there is a huge variety of theology in Protestantism.
More generally, there is no one Protestant doctrine of salvation. To suggest otherwise betrays ignorance of the subject.
Have you ever been to Florida? The only bookstores I saw there definitely didn't sell bibles.
To be fair, there's the Gator Hunter's Bible™ , Gun Owner's Bible™ , Boat Owner's Bible™ , Golfing Bible™ , Pest Control Bible™ ...
????????????????
I have not found this to be true. I go to Florida every year to visit relatives and every mall or shopping area we go to has a Christian bookstore. This has been the case in the rural area where one of my cousins lives, and in Orlando as well.
Because you were out on the road to the bookstore, or were they hand-me-down/inherited?
Typical arrogant atheist, assuming that the only valid religions are the extremist ones. It's Pat Robertson, Pope Benedict, or nothing! Drum translated: Faith = speaking in tongues + playing with venomous snakes + wearing funny hats + hating gays + blowing up abortion clinics.
There is nothing in Kevin's writing that would allow you to reach these conclusions.
+1
Contemporary Republican faith, to be specific.
(Also, he doesn't say these things, imply them, or even suggest them.)
Those atheists certainly exist (I'veknown many), but Drum doesn't seem to be there.
It's the Republicans who claim to follow all the extremist flavors of Christianity. Hell, they reject the words of Jesus on a regular basis as too "woke."
It's hard to understand how you can't see that when weirdos like Mike Johnson are out there talking about how they have their son monitor their masturbation and want to make it illegal to be gay. You find that normal? Moderate? Rational?
Perhaps if you read more of the quotations thst Kevin Drum places above his posts,, you might notice those that are from the Bible.
This was originally started aa a response to Mcbride, but is now misplaced- too too long to complete & edit (due o problem with orange font)?
I assume self proclaimed religious people are either liars or idiots.
Well, many are sexual predators too! Especially those Catholics priests and “youth pastors”. ????.
Oh come on, there are a lot of authentically religious people who are neither liars nor idiots. I am an atheist myself, but I think that you are being too dismissive in your assumption of the worst among people who disagree with you.
You don’t like me calling them idiots… ok. Let me think of a better description… willfully ignoring basic facts because they can’t or won’t imagine an existence without some payoff in eternal life? The whole point of belief in gods and salvation/ damnation is that there is more to life than just life. Suffering is tolerated because there is a payoff later. Or something along those lines. I find this to be silly. They construct this elaborate rationalization in order to avoid facing their mortality. And it seems like they have a hard time justifying being a decent person absent this threat of eternal damnation.
I live a simple life. I don’t hurt people and I help those close to me… unconditionally. I don’t expect to be rewarded for it, but when I needed some help recently, people stepped up. Reciprocal altruism. That’s the way of the world. Supernatural beings not required.
Being publicly* known as a Christian is basically all performative nowadays anyway. It’s not like the people loudly proclaiming to be Christian exhibit any kind of behavior advocated by Jesus. Help the poor? Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s? Judge not lest ye be judged? Fuck all that. I got mine and fuck everyone else.
*There are lots of quietly Christian people who actually do do things like serve the poor, pay their taxes and follow laws without bitching, mind their own business when it comes to other people’s freedoms, respect other people’s beliefs or lack thereof and don’t spend all their time talking shit about other people. But none of those people are going to be the Face of Christianity in our society as long as the millions of Asshole “Christians” are still around.
I like the term "Christianist," like "Islamist" terrorists. It's all form and no substance.
Agreed. It emphasizes that for them "religion" is just the Marketing Division of their worship of Mammon.
One of the big issues is that what you call "quietly Christian" people are just boring. The media and the public wants drama and argument.
Even when something like Bishop Barber's Moral Mondays tries to get attention, it just doesn't get the engagement. Prior to Francis becoming Pope, there was almost never any news coverage of Catholic social justice strains. It's not that surprising or unique. The social works of Reform Jews don't get talked about either.
It is worse than that. About ten years ago the United Church of Christ, the most leftie of Protestant denominations, tried to run a TV ad campaign promoting inclusion of homosexuals, racial minorities, people with disabilities, and so forth. CBS and NBC rejected the ads as too controversial.
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
You didn’t get this part, did you.
Well, it seems that you find it more important they say nice things than do nice things, like in the sentiment you shared.
Which is probably why a person of the same name as you posts bigoted screeds here regularly.
I’m sorry you are mentally ill. Does that help? I’ve never been so depressed that I wanted to mutilate myself. That must be awful.
I've never shit in my own hands either, which you do regularly and with great gusto ... anything to get someone to make eye contact, amirite?
I never claimed to be a Christian or a "Christian" myself. I know a lot of them from growing up in the South, and some are genuine believers who follow that commandment to the letter, not harassing me for being gay or harassing our female friends for having abortions or voting for amoral monsters like Trump, DeSantis, Abbott, etc who throw kids in cages and do other shitty things.
But Justin, you're an amoral monster yourself most of the time on here, with your opinions on this site suggesting you don't give a fuck about anyone or anything on earth but yourself. So, thanks for the biblical advice offered in undoubtedly bad faith given 99% of everything you've ever written on here, and go fuck yourself with it in return.
Whatever I am, I have no effect on anyone. Not even you! If comments here make me an amoral monster, then so be it. No one ever suffers as a result. Though I suppose you do. Maybe you need a thicker skin?
And really… you still don’t get the whole “I don’t care” perspective. You don’t care. You don’t take action. You don’t do a damn thing in response to all these awful events. I can’t do anything effective either. But you want me to express solidarity and empathy I guess. Such expressions are pointless and akin to the “thoughts and prayers” offered by gun nuts after some mass murder event. What’s the point?
Now that I think about it, while it's surprising that God-Botherer DeSantis doesn't have a bible, how weird is it that apparently no member of his staff, campaign, nor aides have one either??
Just a quick disclosure: I've got 3-4 versions of the bible on my shelves, plus the book of Mormon, the Koran, and (of course) R. Crumb's "Genesis", which clearly shows that the Old Testament is anti-semitic. (Thanks, Juretta!) Also Jehovah.
I honestly don't know which is more dangerous: politico-religious true believers, or politico-religious panderers.
I could argue it either way. Historically, I think the evidence weighs in favor of true believers being willing to do anything for the cause [whether eg Reformation or Communism], whereas panderers have lines and will work to compromise (ie they care more about success here on earth than on scoring points with god).
Regardless, this hardly strikes me as especially relevant to anyone except people voting Republican because of religious convictions. To put it differently, would you be outraged if an Israeli politician was a cultural Jew, saying all the words but not especially interested in living the devout life style?
There are things these guys are doing (like justifying Jan 6) that ARE worth complaining about. Diluting the serious complaints in a stream of fauxtrage about things that do not matter just conveys the opinion that you don't actually care about the serious stuff, it's all just fauxtrage.
I don't think you can make the choice without knowing the actual theology involved, what theological issues the individual is focused on, and why they might put up a pretense.
Fred Rogers was a true believer Presbyterian. I'd take him over fake Presbyterian Donald Trump any day.
Both Popes Francis and Benedict are true believers. Both my grandma and Ron DeSantis just went through the motions. In each of those pairings there is one person who is much better than the other.
Now I need to know, did they buy the cheapest bible available, or did they buy one that looked like a bible?
... and did he hold it upside down for the photo-op?
I am a bit surprised. You'd think there'd be an old family Bible tucked away somewhere. Or one he thought he might need for a photo-op at some point.
I don't think I have one anymore. I had a rainbow of the little freebees but you won't even find them in hotels anymore.
It's a really boring book.
Genesis, illustrated by Robert Crumb, isn’t boring at all. I wish he had illustrated the entire thing.
Mencken had some elaborate theory about how the the national churches in Renaissance Europe throve according as they were able to keep the Bible out of the hands of the people. According to him, the King James translation was purposely obscure, even for the time, in order to create an air of mystification; whereas the French Church translated the Bible into excellent vernacular and suffered accordingly. (Martin Luther is holding on line three.)
But it has long been clear that American "Christians" set out to read the Bible from front to back, as they might the latest best-selling novel, and quickly bog down -- most in Genesis, the more pertinacious getting through a good bit of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, but none of them getting anywhere near the New Testament. Their God is JHWH, and Jesus is his press secretary.