The US Constitution vs. Biblical law

"If you are a true Christian who loves God with your whole heart and hates sin with your whole heart, then you are increasingly dismayed at the increasing godlessness in American society.  As Christians, we realize that the real problems of the world can only be solved with reference to Biblical principles" - from God's Law in the Modern World

I remember once, not too long ago, standing in a long line at a store listening to two "good Christian" women behind me, complaining and bemoaning the fact that "if only this country would go back to the bible", if only the people would obey the 10 Commandments, if only people would go back to church, everything in the US would be just about "perfect".  There would be peace and harmony and life would be so much better. "God's Laws" are more divine than any written buy humans. Why on earth do so many people reject paradise?

I didn't say anything to those women at the time, because my experience has usually been, that arguing with people who "know" everything is usually a futile waste of time. But I couldn't help wondering if all these people nowadays who want to follow "biblical laws" have actually ever read the complete bible, and know what those laws are.

"We must advocate the implementation of biblical Law in modern society and the Law's prescribed sanctions. More than just being involved in a few "hot-button" issues, biblical Christians must develop a comprehensive biblical worldview which can explain exactly how God's Word can be applied to changing society on all levels."

I've been trying to imagine what would happen to the US Constitution if the Religious Right had their way with it.   What new "Biblical" laws would come into effect?  Here are just a few of the new laws:

Capital Punishment Laws as taken from the bible:

-All witches will be executed.    (Exodus 22:18)

-Homosexual men are to be executed (nothing about women, however)   (Leviticus.20:13)

-Anyone who curses his father or his mother will be executed (Leviticus 20:9)

-Anyone who works on Saturday (even lighting a fireplace) will be executed (Exodus 31:1-3)

-Adulterers will be executed (Leviticus 20:10)

-rape victims who don't scream out loudly enough will be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

-If a man decides that he doesn't like his wife, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when he married her.  If her parents haven't kept the proof of her virginity (bloody sheets, nightclothes), then she will be stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 22:13, 21)

Other new criminal statutes/commandments from the bible:

-If a woman is suspected of adultery, her husband will take her to a priest, who will give her dirty water to drink. If she gets sick, she is guilty.  (Numbers 5:12-31)

-Woman wearing men's clothing and men wearing woman's clothing are an abomination to God (Deuteronomy 22:5)

-Shellfish are an abomination - no more lobster, crab, shrimp etc. (Leviticus 11:10-13)

-You are not to wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.  (Deuteronomy 22:11)

-Farmers can't mix different types of crops or cattle in the same fields. (Leviticus 19:19)

-Men are more valuable than women (I guess this means women can be paid less at work) (Leviticus 27:1-7)

-According to the bible, everything about a woman is unclean while she is having her menstrual period.  A women cannot be allowed to work or go to school while she is having her period (Leviticus 15:19-24)

Another big change:

-Slavery is legal again. According to the bible, you can have male and female slaves, acquired from "pagan" nations. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

-It's ok to beat your slaves, as long as they are still alive a couple days after their beating. (Exodus 21:20)

On the other hand, I was not able to find anything in the bible that is specifically anti-abortion.  God ordered thousands of babies to be killed throughout the bible - and even pregnant women to be "ripped up". According to Leviticus 27:6 there is no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.  In Numbers 3:14-16 children less than a month old were not even to be counted.  So why all the Fundamentalist concern over the topic of abortion?

There's also nothing in the bible that would seem to be against medical stem cell research.  Actually, there's nothing even suggesting that people back in biblical days knew anything about cells or medicine or even basic science.  In Leviticus 14 , God gives Moses a long first-aid "remedy" for the treatment of infectious skin diseases (leprosy) that primarily involves sacrificing birds and lambs.  Again, why all the religious upset over stem cell research?

Mankind has evolved in so many areas - medicine, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, engineering etc etc. and yet we still live with Stone Age religions.  The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are advanced political documents for an advanced form of government that was unthinkable back in the biblical times.  Yet modern Religious Fundamentalists are trying to say that it has some kind of Christian biblical foundation to it.

Apparently Christian Fundamentalists think that slavery really wasn't so bad back in ancient biblical life, and women really had rights, and all those wars and the rape and pillaging and diseases and burning people to death and crucifixion and the genocidal killing of every man woman and "unborn" child in a particular tribe that God decided he didn't like - all neatly described in the bible - must not have really been so bad after all.  No, those were the "good old Stone Age days" - the days the Religious Fundamentalist want us all to go back to.

•  Maybe We Need a Shellfish Amendment

  Thanks for compiling these.  
  I've heard or read most of them before but it is nice to know I can find a list of them now.

  by R2 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:18:58 PM PDT

  •  Sorry - An Amendment to the Constitution

    All Red Lobster (and other seafood) restaurants must be shut down immediately.....

    by Anna M on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:25:40 PM PDT

    •  I did Actually Think About This as An Amendment

      I did Actually Think About This as An Amendment when Congress was debating passing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  

      If their basis is that it is immoral because the Bible tells them it is an abomination, then why don't they ban shellfish since it too is an abomination (according to the Bible).

      by R2 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:28:46 PM PDT

      •  They'll take my sushi

        ..when they pry that cold dead seafood outta my cold dead hands.

        A'course, down here in Ahia, most folks call it "bait".

        Damn, now I really want some sea urchin roe. And ebi. And California roll.

        by Ahianne on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:34:20 PM PDT

  •  Shellfish taboo

    That is the main reason I cannot be a Biblical literalist.

    by Catte Nappe on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:00:20 PM PDT

  •  Conservatism is all about shellfishness n/t

    by slksfca on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:18:25 PM PDT

    •  Oh that's a great one! LOL

      by Anna M on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:23:27 PM PDT

    •  Very funny...thanks for making me chuckle

      by R2 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:37:22 PM PDT

    •  Wow

      that's so punny!

      by scionkirk on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:44:00 PM PDT

•  Amen, sister

  Heck, how many instances of people calling votes are there in the bible. The bible is full of autocrats and wannabe autocrats. God doesn't talk to the masses, he talks to individuals who then must be treated as leaders.

  You would be hard pressed to find a book more anti-democratic than the Old Testement, and the New is only marginally better, in that Jesus isn't encouraging his chosen people to slaughter everyone around them anymore.

  by Mysticdog on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:19:08 PM PDT

•  This is all from the old testement

  There are much better laws in the new testement.

  Blessed are the peacemakers, love thy neighbor, etc.  

  While there are more examples on both sides, I agree with your premise.

  by jimraff on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:24:45 PM PDT

  •  NT beats OT

    2 to 0 in overtime.

    Feloneous

    by feloneouscat on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:32:29 PM PDT

  •  Excuse me?

    "Love your neigbor as yourself." Leviticus 19:18.  Jeus was just quoting the "Old Testament"

    Also the New Testament and Jesus assume and affirm the laws of the Old Testament see Matthew 517-18.

    by illinifan17 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:37:50 PM PDT

  •  I really believe in live and let live

    and I would agree that Jesus said some remarkably good and "radical" things for his time.  Here is an excellent article on that very issue.
    However, the 10 Commandments (Old Testament) are a big issue for the Religious Right right now.

    by Anna M on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:38:51 PM PDT

  •  Christ's Teachings Replaced Old Testament Law.

    We don't follow these either. Christ said "love thine enemy", We say get your enemy before he gets you. Christ says turn the other cheek. We say wage war. We ignore the laws we don't like.

    by drumroll on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 12:04:53 PM PDT

•  And Another Thing

  I forgot to comment on the concept that we need, or our laws are based on, the 10 Commandments.

  First of all, that isn't true.  

  Someone had a diary not too long ago on this very issue because the  Louisiana Legislature was trying to adopt (I don't know if it was a law or resolution) the 10 commandments but there are different versions of them and so they couldn't figure out which ones to adopt.

  Second, if the Republicans are so up in arms about increasing the minimum wage, can you imagine how incensed they would be (if they weren't hypocritical) if there was a law requiring everyone to take a day off per week for the Sabbath.  (That raises the issue of what is the Sabbath -- being Jewish I know for me it is sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday, but is it Sundays for Christians?)  

  Of course if they were to consider adopting the ten commandments into law we should insist that they also adopt all the remedies as well...so if your neighbor cuts his lawn really early every Saturday or Sunday morning (depending on which day is the Sabbath) you have a duty to kill him.  

  Instead they just like to pick and choose statements that they like and then promote them as law.

  by R2 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:26:32 PM PDT

  •  Yeah...if we had the 10 Commandments as law...

    the VAST majority of Republicans will be put to death for adultery...god knows almost all of them are cheating bastards! I think it would probably be faster to list the ones who haven't cheated...what...are there like 10 of those?!

    and we're not even talking about the ones busted with child porn and trying to solicit sex from minors online!!

    by Elise on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:29:57 PM PDT

    •  But Where Would We find all the Stones

      If we had to stone them all to death -- because that is one of the punishments in the bible -- we would run out of stones

      by R2 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:31:23 PM PDT

      •  Smart Republicans are investing in quarries! nt

        Jesus of Mesopotamia

        by BentLiberal on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:49:09 PM PDT

    •  Jimmy Carter talks about the hypocrisy

      of the right in applying these biblical mandates:

      there is a unique and special emphasis--which is a recent development too--within the religious community, an obsession with the condemnation of homosexuality. Now, in the bible homosexuality is condemned, but along with divorce and greed and callousness toward poor people. So its elevation to a highest priority among some religious groups has been very disturbing to me.

      Pick up Our Endangered Values, America's Moral Crisis if you get a chance

      Jesus of Mesopotamia

      by BentLiberal on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:54:30 PM PDT

  •  The good old days

    a law requiring everyone to take a day off per week for the Sabbath

    Long ago (1985 or so)and far away (Texas) there was major uproar and hysteria over changes to the "blue laws" that would enable many businesses to be open on Sunday, and workers would no longer have a day of rest, and the whole state would go to hell in a handbasket, and as it turned out...look at Texas today.

    A blue law, in the United States and Canada, is a type of law restricting certain activities, particularly shopping hours, on Sunday. It had its roots in accommodating Christian Sunday worship, although it persists to this day more as a matter of tradition
    <snip>
    The ubiquitous "weekend" is also a result of blue laws, although it is practiced nearly worldwide, except in some Islamic countries (who have their weekend on Thursday and Friday) and in Israel (where the weekend is from mid-day on Friday and all of Saturday).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    by Catte Nappe on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:09:47 PM PDT

    •  They had a similar law in Europe

      at least in Germany. I live there for about 7 years and I remember being annoyed (at least at first) that everything was always closed on Sundays.  It's odd because the Germans were not particularly religious.  I think it was more a "family time" reason rather than religious.

      by Anna M on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:21:18 PM PDT

  •  Stephen Colbert

    Had on a politician who was touting the ten commandments.  The loser could only name three of them.  I Love Steven Colbert.

    by airshipjones on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:34:17 PM PDT

    •  I saw that - it was Rep Westmoreland

      It was great.  You can see the video on
      Crooks and Liars

      by Anna M on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:39:32 PM PDT

•  Thanks for these links:-)

  I wasn't aware of some of them...and some will definitely be beneficial!

  by Elise on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:26:50 PM PDT

•  Thanks for this compilation

  Exactly what I need for discussions in class this fall.

  by Ghost of Godwin on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:36:00 PM PDT

•  And women, be careful.

  If your husband gets in a fight with another man, think twice before grabbing the other guy's nuts, or it's off with your hand.  Deuteronomy 25:11-12

  by illinifan17 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:40:12 PM PDT

  •  Makes you wonder what event

    inspired THAT, no?

    by ogre on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:41:29 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, remember,

      nobody sits around making up laws about stuff that is not a problem.  This must have happened a lot to get put into writing.

      Of course, the biblical literalists have to believe that Moses was up on the mountain and God was reciting all of this to him.  I can only imagine old Moshe pausing on this one and saying something like, "Where the hell have you been hanging out?"

      by illinifan17 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:52:24 PM PDT

•  If only America will...

  it'll be Sharia--with a Cross.

  God, save us from your followers.

  by ogre on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:40:20 PM PDT

•  If your daughter is raped

  everything can be just fine if the father sells her to the rapist for a wife.

  IIRC, this was in Dueteronomy.

  The exact quote would be a great one to point out to republican relatives.

  by teresab on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:44:11 PM PDT

  •  I think that was a workaround

    A little teen pre-marital sex, and "dad, he raped me, I didn wanna" - "well, he'd by G better marry you now, and he pays me - I aint putting up any dowry.)

    by Catte Nappe on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:13:04 PM PDT

•  Imagine the intrusion

  If the government is going to enforce Leviticus 15, then it will need to know everything about your menstrual cycles, your sexual relations, even with your spouse, and your wet dreams.  I think this requires a cabinet level position.  Secretary of Emisions?

  by illinifan17 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:47:21 PM PDT

•  where's the tip jar?

  great post!  what amazes me more is that those women probably don't really understand the role that women are supposed to play within the bible.  those women in the supermarket were lucky enough that they were allowed out without a male escort/allowed to express opinions in public/vote/whatever outside of the kitchen.  

  thanks for the info... time to attack a cherry-picker.

  by Magamus on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:50:24 PM PDT

•  I agree with you, but , , ,

  While I agree that the literal text of the Bible shouldn't be placed above the Constitution or laws of the United States, and while I agree that many fundamntalists seem to engage in idolatry of the Bible, let's not be too quick to condemn people who place their duty to obey God's law as they understand it above their duty to obey the laws of the United States.

  I trust that most of us would have (or hope we would have) sheltered Jews in Nazi Germany, or sheltered runaway slaves during the period preceding the Civil War, even though those activities were criminal.  I don't think you're saying anything inconsistent with that, but too often, people on both the right and left seem to act as though the question of whether society's laws should trump one's duty to his conscience is a simple one.  It isn't.

  Society has every right to impose negative consequences upon those who violate its laws, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't respect the integrity of those who do violate laws that they consider immoral -- whether it's resisting serving in a war that they view as immoral, or refusing to fill a prescription for "morning after pills" that they view as immoral.

  by leevank on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:02:27 PM PDT

  •  There is a Difference Between

    There is a difference between morality and legality.

    The religious right wants to make them one and the same.

    by R2 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:48:10 PM PDT

    •  Let's face it, we all do that

      We all want to see the law enforce our standards of what conduct should and shouldn't be permitted.  A pro-slavery apologist in the antebellum South could have said to abolitionist, "Your position is that slavery is immoral, but so what?  It's legal, and there's a difference between morality and legality.  The abolitionists want to make them one and the same."  I trust that most of us think the abolitionists were justified in making their morality into law, and we're glad that they did so.

      One needn't agree with the "pro-life" position (I certainly don't) to recognize that its proponents have every bit as much of a legitimate right to seek to see it incorporated into law as those of us on the liberal side have to seek to enact OUR version of morality into law (such as by assessing taxes on Person A in order to pay welfare benefits to Person B who is unable to work).

      by leevank on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:50:25 PM PDT

  •  Oh -- and refusing to fill a prescription

    I don't see that as a moral issue.

    I see it as a legal issue.

    If a pharmacist is licensed to dispense medication ordered by a physician, then the pharmacist must dispense the medication.  

    The pharmacist does not have a license to second guess a physician.

    If you would allow them to not dispense medication based on their views of what is and is not moral, how do you make certain that minorities are not discriminated against, or aids patients, or anyone else?

    I think refusing to dispense it is unlawful and should be sanctionable.

    by R2 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:51:51 PM PDT

    •  That's how YOU see it

      But there are a fair number of people in this country who regard abortion as murder (I'm not one of them) and who regard the "morning after pill" as equivalent to abortion (I also don't agree with them).  I don't think that whether I should respect the integrity of one's moral position is a function of whether I agree with their position.

      I think there should be laws requiring pharmacists to fill all valid prescriptions (at least if there isn't another pharmacist readily available to do so), and I think that violation of the law should permit revocation or restrictions upon a license, since society has a legitimate right to enforce its standards.  But that doesn't mean I can't respect the integrity of their positon, or that it reflects some kind of ignorant fanaticsm.

      by leevank on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:39:52 PM PDT

      •  Again with the beliefs and actions

        We need to make sure that one persons beliefs don't get turned into actions that negatively impact others.  

        by airshipjones on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:50:15 PM PDT

  •  A problem

    with what you said about filling a prescription based on "moral grounds".  Where does it stop? I mean can a doctor refuse to see a soldier who fought in a war becuse he is "morally" against war?  Can an ambulance driver refuse to take a gay person to a hospital because he is against homosexuality? Can a waitress refuse to serve Republicans because she believes them to be immoral?

    by Anna M on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:10:01 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      by R2 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:19:29 PM PDT

    •  Yes, yes they can

      If they feel that strongly about it. And there may be consequences. Getting fired. Getting sued. Getting arrested. Getting executed.

      I trust that most of us would have (or hope we would have) sheltered Jews in Nazi Germany, or sheltered runaway slaves during the period preceding the Civil War, even though those activities were criminal

      by Catte Nappe on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:31:36 PM PDT

  •  '..Many fundamentalist seem to engage in idolatry

    of the Bible...".  I agree that many seem to, but with all due respect, I would argue that at least a few actually do; that these few effectively equate or merge God and Bible into a single entity.

    If a person believes that there is a God because the Bible says there is one, he or she is effectively putting the Bible before God, which is idolatry.

    by jpk on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:14:13 PM PDT

    •  I don't think they put it above God

      They believe the Bible is the word of God. God gave them that instruction set. The user's manual. The cookbook. It's not believing in God because the Bible said so - it's believing in the Bible because God said so.

      by Catte Nappe on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:37:13 PM PDT

      •  It's a question of who 'they' are.

        I have the distinct impression that a minority, a tiny one perhaps, of believers in every monotheistic religion make no distinction between the "word of God" and God.  They may themselves insist that they are making the distinction, may indeed really believe that they are in doing so, but for all practical purposes do  not.

        by jpk on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:39:03 PM PDT

        •  I wouldn't know about that

          You may be right.
          All of the fundamentalists I know (and I know a good number of them) believe in God first and foremost, and then the Bible because it is the word of God.

          by Catte Nappe on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:11:30 PM PDT

  •  Beliefs and actions

    I don't care what someone believes, no matter how whacky.  But if their actions affect my life, then I have a problem with how they practice their faith.

    by airshipjones on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:38:29 PM PDT

•  For those of you

  who aren't in the know, this is about the coolest thing ever on the Old Testament.

  http://www.thebricktestament.com/

  

  by scionkirk on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:53:09 PM PDT

  •  Hilarious -- The Bible As Told With Legos!

    by R2 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:05:14 PM PDT

  •  i've been losing my mind over it all morning

    -- incredible!! i love that being all yellow implies nudity, and admire the cinematic feel to the camera work.

    Mannah from heaven strikes me as particlularly riotous for some reason,  and the big cloud that is the face of Yahweh...

    when a man spills his seed, the "seed" looks a lot like the mannah though (laugh)

    also, i am delighted that they finally have pink lego aceessories  (the doors and other components in Sodom & Gomorrha.) i feel a little ripped off since i could only dream of such things as a lego-loving young girl.

    my husband & i laughed our asses off at the Lazarus mummy!

    by phemme texxii on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 11:04:57 AM PDT

•  Our Hypocrisy is Astounding

  Amen Sister!

  by drumroll on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 12:10:59 PM PDT

•  I'd recommend

  but it's too late.  Great diary, if only you could get the right-wing Christian fundamentalists to look in that mirror and see themselves.

  by jasfm on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 03:12:53 PM PDT