Anyone who reads the Worldnutdaily, as I do every day, knows that one of the key elements of their business model is the creation of fake “news reports” that are really just ads for books that they’re selling. The standard way to do this is to ask the author of a book they’re selling to comment on the controversy du jour, then putting up an article with their quotes that is really just an advertisement for the book itself. Call them adverticles. This one is a perfect example, but it elicits this rather baffling statement from weapons grade dumbass Ray Comfort:
WTF?
He said this is evidence of a nation abandoning the Bible as its moral guide.
“It has no rudder in the stormy sea of human opinion, so it is driven by whatever wind blows the hardest. When the Bible is abandoned, the question is asked, ‘Is killing a child in the womb morally OK?’ The answer comes from those who yell the loudest. The same applies with homosexuality and other moral issues,” he said.
“Abraham Lincoln once said, ‘Our government rests in public opinion. Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government. …’ That becomes a weakness and not strength, when the Bible is left out of the equation,” Comfort said…
Comfort noted Thomas Jefferson’s words: “The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.”
“I propose a small amendment to his words. They should read, ‘The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Scriptures and treats the Constitution as though it was the Word of God,’” he said.
I’ve seen that Jefferson quote used by wingnuts for years, but I’ve never seen an actual citation to any Jefferson document. Given that he believed the Constitution should be rewritten every 20 years, I tend to doubt its authenticity. But even if it were accurate, quoting Jefferson while demanding that the Bible be the guiding principle in American law is enough to destroy even the strongest irony meter.
16 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
DaveL
September 11, 2012 at 11:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I find it odd that Comfort would like the DNC vote on including the “God language” in the platform to Pontius Pilate before the Jerusalem mob. The latter acceded to the crowd’s wishes, whereas in the former the vote was overruled. The former was ostensibly a democratic process, the latter had no legal duty to listen to the mob.
I guess his only point is that allowing people to vote is a bad idea because it means they can vote against his own wishes. Theocrat opposes democracy, film at eleven.
d cwilson
September 11, 2012 at 11:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, a questionable voice vote on a meaningless piece of fluff to a party platform is just like an angry mob demanding that a guy be tortured to death.
tomp
September 11, 2012 at 11:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This is rather strange since this is the opposite of what their Republican candidate believes. Mormons believe that the US Constitution is a divinely inspired document. It is as perfect as any page of the Book of Mormon which is, of course, more divinely inspired that the King James Bible.
Michael Heath
September 11, 2012 at 11:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed writes:
Yes, but it is a mainstream argument within the Republican party since conservative Christians become the predominant voting base.
We’re constantly barraged with conservatives claiming they are the sole defenders of the Constitution and liberty while simultaneously arguing for policies which, while consistent with their religious dogma and bigotries, effectively makes their interpretation of the Bible the supreme law of the land rather than the Constitution. And in a way that where no one could argue our government has an obligation to defend our rights. Their position is fatally defective when it comes to adhering to the ‘just governance’ standard we all supposedly support that is derived from the Declaration of Independence.
Perhaps the most illustrative example I’ve seen recently was when David Gregory interviewed Rick Santorum earlier this year on the Meet the Press. Mr. Gregory was weakly digging into Santorum’s position on gay marriage. Mr. Santorum responded by claiming he didn’t want spend his time on that issue but instead wanted to discuss issues impacting our liberty et al.
Michael Heath
September 11, 2012 at 11:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
DaveL writes:
While I appreciate your pointing out the logical extension of where we get with Mr. Comfort’s argument, I highly doubt he used any logic at all to express himself. Instead the man just flings poo on the wall.
falstaff
September 11, 2012 at 11:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Instead the man just flings poo on the wall.”
And then uses it to write his books and blog posts.
waynekerr
September 11, 2012 at 11:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Off topic – The god botherers in Ontario are trying to make public education unmanageable by shielding their children from any possible discussion or instruction that might conflict with the parent’s self imposed idiocy (homosexuality, birth control, wizardry, evolution and “environmental worship”). It started when the government passed a law that stated that bullying gay kids at school is not ok.
I bring it up here because there is now a poll:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/education/article/1254611–stock-letter-asks-school-to-warn-when-sensitive-subjects-arise
“Should public school students be allowed to opt out of class topics contrary to their faith? Yes. No.”
Although the poll question is not very good. 1) it is the faith of the parents, not the students. 2) students have always been allowed to opt out. The difference here is the extent that schools and teachers would need to bend over backwards to ensure that certain students never come in contact with views which differ from the parents. Sorry Billy, before I can answer your question, I first must ensure that there are no students present whose parents may be offended.
slc1
September 11, 2012 at 11:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Michael Heath @ #5
Actually, I suspect that Comfort is too dumb to know any better.
Randomfactor
September 11, 2012 at 12:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
When the Bible is abandoned, the question is asked, ‘Is killing a child in the womb morally OK?’
And when the Bible is consulted, the answer is “yes.”
Numbers 5:19-22
sunsangnim
September 11, 2012 at 12:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, at least he’s open about his contempt for democracy. It’s refreshing to hear some honesty from the wingnuts.
Sastra
September 11, 2012 at 1:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
My best guess is that Comfort and his fellow theocratic wingnuts are consciously and subconsciously adopting a presuppositional stance regarding the relation between the Bible and the Constitution, God and democracy.
The argument goes:
If God created the democratic constitution, then anyone who fails to acknowledge the authority of God must also be unable to appeal to the authority of the Constitution. You can’t figure out how democracy ought to apply to modern situations without looking at Who and what they were derived from. It’s a simple hierarchy which a child can understand. Without presupposing that the Constitution expresses the will of God, democracy can’t be justified, nor can it be properly interpreted. It’s all one smooth, harmonious reality.
People who pretend they can separate the two are confused and self-contradictory. They seem to think that God’s existence isn’t the foundation of everything — when surely they know better.
Theocracy fits with liberty because there’s no freedom like the freedom to bow down to Jesus!
Modusoperandi
September 11, 2012 at 4:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Um, weren’t the people involved in that vote 2,000 years ago following their bible? From this, weren’t they the reactionary right of their day?
falstaff “And then uses it to write his books and blog posts.”
And also form a mustache with it.
tacitus
September 11, 2012 at 4:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, it’s true that Comfort would have an iron-fisted autocrat imposing the “Biblical truth” on the American population than allowing them to make up their own mind on the subject.
After all, doesn’t one sense a hint of jealousy when his fellow believer, Pat Robertson tells a man that he should go to Saudi Arabia where at least husbands are still allowed to beat their insolent wives into submission?
Christoph Burschka
September 11, 2012 at 7:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It should be unsurprising that “amending” what people said (widely known as “lying”) comes naturally to Ray Comfort.
Christoph Burschka
September 11, 2012 at 7:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
(In other news, I have it on excellent authority that Thomas Jefferson told Ray Comfort to simply shut up.)
Michael Heath
September 11, 2012 at 7:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sastra writes:
I wish this was mere hyperbole to make a point, but I had a similar argument in meat-world thrown at me just a couple of weeks ago.