Braun Bible Babbles

OK. I need to admit it probably was very smart of Broun (or Fox) to back out of having me oppose him on Fox and Friends. I would have ripped him to shreds. Really.

One might watch this video and ask “how can a man in Congress be so ignorant”? He’s not. He’s desperate.

This same movement which once drew hundreds of supporters in Congress now can only find 15 sponsors. The Religious Right is literally begging for attention.

It’s the same old stuff. The government was based on the Bible because some of the founding fathers owned a bible and some even read it, and if we say it over and over again it becomes true, and if you’re not on our side you’re against the Bible and Jesus and of COURSE America itself.

So let’s set the record straight. Nowhere in the Bible is there democracy, trial by jury, Habeas Corpus, or freedom of religion (the latter is specifically forbidden). Of the Ten Commandments, only four are US law (killing, stealing, lying and adultery –the last two I’m being generous), and all four of those are also laws in countries based on other religions or none at all.

Indeed, “Coveting” is the basis for capitalism and it’s a big Thou Shalt NOT in the Holy Book!

There IS slavery, genocide (LOTS of genocide), rape, incest, murder, and of course bigotry, all cast as positive things in the Bible, but no civil rights, or woman’s rights, or really anything at all that resembles America. Sorry.

If Broun is really interested in history, he’d be sponsoring a bill to make 2010 the year of the Bill of Rights (a damn good idea, come to think of it). He’s not, because he’s NOT really interested in history — he’s interested in pushing his religious agenda.

Broun is an endangered species. The last dinosaur. His own state is 12% non-religious — the 2nd-largest segment (more than Catholics). In the 21st century, we will see the end of preacher politicians, and watch as we elect representatives with knowledge of the country and actual PRIDE in the Constitution.

And yes, for the record, I openly challenge Mr. Braun to a debate on the subject, anytime, anywhere. Just don’t chicken out again.

50 Responses to “Braun Bible Babbles”

  1.  dfledermaus says:

    And yes, for the record, I openly challenge Mr. Braun to a debate on the subject, anytime, anywhere. Just don’t chicken out again.

    Let’s hope he accepts!

  2. Lisa Hamilton LisaH says:

    I left a comment on the youtube video:
    Representatives such as yourself make me embarassed to admit I live in Georgia.
    You have absolutely no knowledge of American History. The Bible is not the basis of the U.S. Government. Our founding fathers were adamant about the Establishment Clause. Separation of Church and State protects both the government and religion. Combining the two is the first dangerous step along a well worn path toward intolerance and oppression.

  3.  dw says:

    How did such a bumbling ignorant man ever get into Congress?! Christians repeat over and over that this country was founded on the bible. Repetition, it has been proven, will be believed if it occurs often enough. Politicians use it all the time. I have heard Rush Limbaugh repeat lies over and over and sure enough soon his callers begin to parrot that viewpoint.

  4. It should take about 10 posts or so before specific folks jump in on this, & try to give xtians the credit for everything that’s ever happened.

  5.  augustine2 says:

    Let’s see…
    Communist bogeyman? Check!

    “Washington Corruption” from a Congressman as a way to appear as an outsider? Check!

    Uber-Patriotic lies about founders? Check!

    Society in Decline? Check!

    Gay environmentalists giving abortions in exchange for pentagrams? What, no? Mr. Broun, you’re falling down on the job! We need better representation to prevent our christian heritage of burning witches from being removed by those so called “scientists” who believe that black magic isn’t real!

    •  dfledermaus says:

      You forgot to add…

      Make our presence pervasive in the military? Check and perhaps mate!

  6.  what says:

    OT ALERT

    Another topic Dave wont touch. From todays Washington Post:

    JERUSALEM, May 27 — Supporters of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank are increasing the pressure on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as he steers between a government coalition that supports continued building in the area and President Obama’s demand that it stop.

    A group of rabbis who support expanding settlements gathered Wednesday in an outpost near Ramallah and issued a statement asking the government “not to destroy settlements while maltreating pioneers.” The group, calling itself Rabbis of the Torah and the Land, also declared that Jewish law forbade police and troops from obeying orders to remove settlements.

    •  neowolfe says:

      Here’s a subject that whutthole won’t touch,

      That he is obsessed with his antisemitic views, can’t see past them. Has declared he wants nothing to do with freethought. And that he is an irrelevent, KKK, amoeba piece of shit. Did I leave anything out?

      NeoWolfe

  7.  phreedm says:

    Wow…sour grapes Dave?

    I would have ripped him to shreds. Really.

    Really? You’ve been on Fox several times and I can’t recall a single time when you ripped anyone to shreds…

    If you’re so good, then why would you and Mr. Ed take up JCC’s and my offer to debate you at the AA party in Atlanta as a fund raiser?

    But I digress…

    This same movement which once drew hundreds of supporters in Congress

    In your anger you’ve once again proven the “myth” is just that…

    So let’s set the record straight. Nowhere in the Bible is there democracy, trial by jury, Habeas Corpus, or freedom of religion

    OK…whatever you say. Do some research Dave…answers to these claims are so obvious that I’m sure many on your side know that you’re wrong…

    Indeed, “Coveting” is the basis for capitalism

    Ah no Dave…

    covet
    1. To feel blameworthy desire for (that which is another’s). See Synonyms at envy.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/covet

    Actually it’s the foundation of socia1ism…

    Capitalism is based on greed…Socia1ism is based on envy.

    Capitalism, while not perfect, has been proven to be the best system to raise the standard of living for their citizens…

    And JCC and I give you an open offer to debate you anytime…

    •  jcc says:

      phreedm:

      I’d say Capitalism is based on the freedom to pursue one’s self-interest which is a completely different animal than selfish greed. An ethical pursuit of one’s self-interest, when economically successful, benefits not only the individual but also those whom he/she is able to employ.

      And yes, debating the nogodblog god would be a hoot…

    •  neowolfe says:

      Phreedumb, you and JaCCoff keep throwing down the gauntlet, and it’s so hilarious. Your brand of debate is to accuse and disappear. Like this asshole in the video in the threadhead. He said freedom was a christian principal , and that was what this country was founded upon.

      Well, you only have to look as far as why those christians left Europe to realize that christianity had nothing to do with freedom, more like conform or die by torture. But did the christians who arrived in the new world discover freedom? No, they found a place where they could practice slavery and when the free masons tried to establish a government that would work, the christians insisted that negroes were monkeys without rights. And even as we watch the clock today, there are christian idiots who think they are god’s white chosen to keep the niggers and jews in their place. (Sound familiar whutthole?)

      America was absolutely not founded on Christianity, but on the beliefs of the Freemasons, and it was the compromises they made with Christians that resulted in the Civil War. If you disagree prove me wrong.

      NeoWolfe

    •  dancingplatypus says:

      – Capitalism is based on greed…Socia1ism is based on envy.

      Based on greed? Greed is the desire for MORE than what is necessary or deserved. This seems like a personal, individual motivation, not the broad basis for an economic form. And “based on envy” doesn’t fare much better. Envy is the contempt one feels for not possessing what another has. It’s harsh to say that a system that wants equal rights for all (whether it be health, education, or income, or all of these) rises from contempt. As an example, I personally do very well, but I believe that crime and destabilization can be linked to poverty and lack of education, and so I am for egalitarian education and health care reform. I would certainly pay more out of my taxes if it meant that my health insurance and education bill went down. Again, this is my PERSONAL view and motivation, and so is as fallible as I am.

      Capitalism is the ability to sell one’s services (or property). It can exist in varying degrees from a free economy to a centrally planned economy. This includes almost every country in the world, INCLUDING SOCIALIST COUNTRIES. America itself is a mixed economy, choosing to regulate certain aspects of capitalism. For example, in response to the Great Depression, the US created economic regulations that effectively prevented these depression cycles until the late 80’s when many of those regulations were lifted. (You want empirical evidence to support government regulation of an economy, this is it). These regulations sadly get labeled “socialist” as a way to vilify them and polarize the uninformed rather than allowing them to be judged on individual merit. They gain traction because people are suffering and desperate and looking for a bogeyman.

      While I wouldn’t say capitalism has been “proven to be the best system”, it certainly seems pretty good, especially when tempered with regulations to close the dearth between its best off and worst off.

    •  dancingplatypus says:

      – Capitalism is based on greed…Socia1ism is based on envy.

      Based on greed? Greed is the desire for MORE than what is necessary or deserved. This seems like a personal, individual motivation, not the broad basis for an economic form. And “based on envy” doesn’t fare much better. Envy is the contempt one feels for not possessing what another has. It’s harsh to say that a system that wants equal rights for all (whether it be health, education, or income, or all of these) rises from contempt. As an example, I personally do very well, but I believe that crime and destabilization can be linked to poverty and lack of education, and so I am for egalitarian education and health care reform. I would certainly pay more out of my taxes if it meant that my health insurance and education bill went down. Again, this is my PERSONAL view and motivation, and so is as fallible as I am.

      Capitalism is the ability to sell one’s services (or property). It can exist in varying degrees from a free economy to a centrally planned economy. This includes almost every country in the world, INCLUDING SOCIALIST COUNTRIES. America itself is a mixed economy, choosing to regulate certain aspects of capitalism. For example, in response to the Great Depression, the US created economic regulations that effectively prevented these depression cycles until the late 80’s when many of those regulations were lifted. (You want empirical evidence to support government regulation of an economy, this is it). These regulations sadly get labeled “socialist” as a way to vilify them and polarize the uninformed rather than allowing them to be judged on individual merit. They gain traction because people are suffering and desperate and looking for a bogeyman.

      While I wouldn’t say capitalism has been “proven to be the best system”, it certainly seems pretty good, especially when tempered with regulations to close the dearth between its best off and worst off.

  8.  phreedm says:

    And speaking of the myth…

    May 28

    He left Yale for four years to fight in the Revolutionary War.

    After graduation, he became a lawyer and taught school in New York.

    Dissatisfied with the children’s spelling books, he wrote the famous
    Blue-Backed Speller, which sold over one hundred million copies.

    After twenty-six years of work, he published the first American
    Dictionary of the English Language.

    His name was Noah Webster, and he died MAY 28, 1843.

    In his 1788 essay, “On the Education of Youth in America,” printed in
    Webster’s American Magazine, Noah Webster wrote:

    “Select passages of Scripture…may be read in schools, to great
    advantage.

    In some countries the common people are not permitted to read the
    Bible at all.

    In ours, it is as common as a newspaper and in schools is read with
    nearly the same degree of respect.”

    Noah Webster continued:

    “My wish is not to see the Bible excluded from schools but to see it
    used as a system of religion and morality.”

    In his book, The History of the United States, published in 1832,
    Noah Webster wrote:

    “All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime,
    ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their
    despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”

    •  atheist_republican says:

      I’m sure there was a Bible on every slave ship.

    •  neowolfe says:

      So, Phreedumb, why don’t you quote a Mayan priest and rationalize the necessity for human sacrifice?

      Your god is busted. He created the heavens and earth on the first day six thousand years ago?? Yet the light from galaxies thousands of light years away is arriving on earth as we speak? And you are quoting webster? Did you ever consider that the morals in the Bible are just common sense and a good conscience?

      And you are busted too, Phreedumb. I cannot remember it all, nor do I care too, but Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians , chapter 15, something to nature of: If there is no resurrection, we are the most to be pitied.” Well, you qualify.

      Sad the way you have wasted your life.

      NeoWolfe

  9.  Charlie says:

    I dont care about the holy dirt what….I dont care about what happens to the jews and palestine people….I know we send a bunch a federal dollars over there because its where god shot his super natural sperm into marry without consent…but…I am done caring about this squabble over whos on first…as long as these people hang on to thier stupid religion and believe in thier ridiculously exaggerated and unverifiable claims; there will be no reconciliation…..fuck them…

    this turd from georgia certainly makes fox and christain republicans an easy target for ridicule…..It will be interesting to see what happens in 2 years…..will the republicans loose more ground or will they drop the religiously based social issues

  10.  pugsley42 says:

    @phreedm

    You can postulate all you like, but until you can actually PROVE these “obvious references” in the bible to “democracy, trial by jury, Habeas Corpus, or freedom of religion” being a universal truth, I call shenanigans. Remember, the burden of proof is on you if you expect anyone to believe you.

    Quoting Webster doesn’t prove anything other than he was a Christian. He was no legal expert and so it was his own personal opinion, nothing more. It holds no more water than a sieve. It’s also interesting to note that part of his quote was: “All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” when it’s abundantly clear that by *paying attention* to the precepts in the Bible, it ENCOURAGES war, murder, slavery, etc, and by its very existence necessitates oppression.

    If you wish to offer a contrary view, that’s fine. Spouting off outrageous claims with no proof just gets you laughed at.

    •  neowolfe says:

      Wait, Phreedumb, I threw down the gauntlet:

      “America was absolutely not founded on Christianity, but on the beliefs of the Freemasons, and it was the compromises they made with Christians that resulted in the Civil War. If you disagree prove me wrong.”

      Where are you coward christian creeps when you are exposed for what you are?

      JaCCoff and Phreedumb. God’s warriors are cowardly pieces of shit.

      You are ankle biting chihuahuas. Loud and obnoxious, and serve no purpose but to shit on the carpet.

      NeoWolfe

  11.  jcc says:

    Off Topic:

    An interesting article in the NYT that cites a survey in which:

    most children raised unaffiliated with a religion later chose to join one… By contrast, only 14 percent of those raised Catholic and 13 percent of those raised Protestant later became unaffiliated.

    Most said that they first joined a religion because their spiritual needs were not being met. And the most-cited reason for settling on their current religion was that they simply enjoyed the services and style of worship.

    http://tinyurl.com/c9fp3n

    •  atheist_republican says:

      Math Tip: Most of a hundred thousand is still quite a bit less than 13% of three hundred million.

      •  jcc says:

        Please clarify your “Math Tip.” You seem to imply that there are only a hundred thousand “religiously unaffiliated” people in the whole country?… and by saying “13% of three hundred million” implies to me that you’re asserting that the entire population is either Catholic or Protestant, correct?

    • I always enjoy it when JCC quotes something that actually contradicts his own views (like that paper on PE a while back). From the article:

      Yes, the evidence for evolution is irrefutable. Yes, there is a plethora of Biblical contradictions. Yes, there is mounting evidence from neuroscientists that suggests that God may be a product of the mind.

    •  what says:

      most children raised unaffiliated with a religion later chose to join one… By contrast, only 14 percent of those raised Catholic and 13 percent of those raised Protestant later became unaffiliated.

      Which adds detail to the well established fact the unaffiliated group continues to grow.

      What did you think your quote supported? Embarrassing.

  12.  godless sodomite says:

    Why are so many Americans ignorant of their own history? it shocks me when people spout revisionist lies about the founding of our secular Republic. Where did this inaccurate meme begin which states that the USA was founded as a xian nation when it is exactly the opposite? its maddening!!!

  13.  Show Me Some PROOF says:

    This is for Phree or JCC, or perhaps even God’s new warrior-

    Even if you and a large portion of this nation believe in Jesus and derive a good amount of your morals and such from the Bible, why is it necessary for the Braun to include this in law somehow, or for a President to declare that it is “The Year of the Bible?”

    I don’t want to hear that it’s because our nation was founded on its teachings, because that it obviously not true and it would not justify such a thing. Why is it not simply acceptable to have a year of the Bible for those who like to pleasure themselves to ancient texts? Can 2011 be the year of the Magna Carta? We derive just as much, if not more, from this document than from a random collection of writing 1800-3000 (probably more) years old.

  14.  karen says:

    Wait, didn’t he say that Reagan already asked for, and got, a year of the Bible? (I got fascinated by Broun’s shiny accent and glazed over for a bit.) If so, then the Bible has already had it’s year. A Bill of Rights year is a much better idea. (or as Broun would say, ah-daeee-yah.

  15.  what says:

    OT ALERT

    Does this explain why Obama did not release the torture photos? We will see.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54R50K20090528

  16.  atheist_republican says:

    JCC,

    Don’t make me have to dumb it down. 50% of 2 is less than 13% of 100, got it?

    Understand that the normal route to atheism is by being a member of a religion first. Not by being raised by atheist parents. Of course this will change (evolve if you will) in 200 years when your religion has been relegated to the same fates as the religions of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Persia, etc.

    In summary: We are skimming more of your people than you are skimming from us.

    •  jcc says:

      Don’t make me have to dumb it down.

      I can’t make you do anything—not the least of which is to get you to understand the concept here.

      50% of 2 is less than 13% of 100, got it?

      Oh I got that all right, but that wasn’t the point of the survey—which has clearly eluded you. The point was the percentage of each group’s defection rate relative to each other, not the raw number of defections. Do you get that?

      Understand that the normal route to atheism is by being a member of a religion first.

      Not according to a lot of atheist on this blog… they seem to think that atheism is the “default” belief system of every human being at birth.

      this will change (evolve if you will) in 200 years when your religion has been relegated to the same fates as the religions of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Persia, etc.

      Huh? The religions of Greece, Rome, Egypt and Persia lasted two millennia and continue to show no sign of atrophy? And are you saying that worldwide, Christendom is in decline?

      We are skimming more of your people than you are skimming from us.

      Don’t assume that “unaffiliated” is equivalent to “non-” or “a-religious.”

      •  atheist_republican says:

        Little of what you posted merits reply. But this:

        Huh? The religions of Greece, Rome, Egypt and Persia lasted two millennia and continue to show no sign of atrophy? And are you saying that worldwide, Christendom is in decline?

        No sign of atrophy? Lot of worshippers of Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, and Ahura Mazda out and about? Fact is, Christianity is in decline worldwide. You currently are only enslaving the minds of 30% of the world’s population. In 200 years America will be either an Islamic or atheistic nation.

      •  neowolfe says:

        AR,

        JaCCoff blathers a couple of lines that are supposed to contradict an intelligent argument. Then when a counterpoint is made, he simply ignores it. That is his brand of debate. His, and Phreedumb’s both. When you ask them to defend the ridiculous myths in their bible, you can hear a cricket chirp. But yet they keep calling people out to debate, but, they are the only ones who get to comment. Very Republican, wouldn’t you agree? :-)

        NeoWolfe

      •  Boise Jim says:

        … they seem to think that atheism is the “default” belief system of every human being at birth.

        Hate to break it to you, but the default is atheism at birth. A fact is a fact, whether you agree with it or not.
        So, when you were 3 months old, you had a complete belief and understanding of god and Jesus?

        Thought so. That’s what is called atheism- a lack of belief in a god or gods. That’s it.

        No, your parents believed in a god, and it just so happened that you were born in to a xian family. You could have easily been a Muslim if you were born in to a Muslim family.

      •  neowolfe says:

        Boise Jim,

        All children are not born atheists. They have no capacity to conclude that there is no god or gods. Neither do they possess the capacity to decide that there is a god. Therefore, they are agnostics until someone fucks them up.

        Someone fucked me up, but I recovered.

        NeoWolfe

      •  Boise Jim says:

        Neo-
        I understand your agnostic argument, but I’m going on the definition of atheism- a lack of belief, period.

        I guess both really do apply, to be honest.

      •  Boise Jim says:

        Neo-
        Fortunately, no one fucked me up. I was born atheist/agnostic and was raised that way. That’s one of the things that I am eternally grateful for about my parents.

        Except when I left the nest and realized that most people aren’t open minded- like the way I was raised- and honestly, quite bigoted.

  17.  Show Me Some PROOF says:

    JCC you continue to shoot yourself in the foot, I’m beginning to think that Dave pays you to make religion look just as dumb as it is.

    ‘Don’t assume that “unaffiliated” is equivalent to “non-” or “a-religious.”’

    From the article- ‘(It should be noted that about a quarter of the unaffiliated identified as atheist or agnostic, and the rest said that they had no particular religion.)’

    So you’re right, but this also means that not all of these people finding religion were atheists, I’d be surprised if more than 5% were true atheists.

    As for this math lesson, I didn’t think this was actually necessary but here goes.

    250,000,000 Christians
    40,000,000 Nones

    Both are very rough estimates, but they’ll do for this exercise.

    13% of Christians (32.5 million) lose their religion

    That would mean 81.3% of these nones would have to find God just to even it out, and I can assure you that isn’t the case. If I could only live 700 years like Noah I would be able to live the majority of my life in a world free from this trash.

    •  neowolfe says:

      While society is not free from the trash, your mind is, and that is as much as you can hope for outside of mythology.

      NeoWolfe

  18.  jcc says:

    atheist_republican:

    Little of what you posted merits reply.

    Uh yeah. I notice you didn’t comment on my pointing out how you either misunderstood or willfully distorted the premise of the survey.

    No sign of atrophy?

    Nope. None.

    Fact is, Christianity is in decline worldwide.

    Don’t know where you get your “facts,” but they clearly don’t reflect reality. Perhaps you should peruse these sites:
    http://tinyurl.com/nk4bfb

    http://tinyurl.com/lmrmq

    In 200 years America will be either an Islamic or atheistic nation.

    Really? Where’d you get that information? That’s a pretty bold assertion considering that atheists only represent a little over 2% right now. And what makes you so sure present growth rates won’t change over the next two centuries?

    •  neowolfe says:

      JaCCoff embarrassed himself again by asking:

      “That’s a pretty bold assertion considering that atheists only represent a little over 2% right now. And what makes you so sure present growth rates won’t change over the next two centuries?”

      Response: Recently the vatican finally pardoned Galileo for his crime of heracy. He tried to education mushrooms like you that the heavens don’t revolve around the earth, but that the earth is in an orbit around the sun with the other planets. In return for his brilliance, they decided not to disembowel him, but to sentence to house arrest for the rest of his life.

      The world is learning, the light is growing brighter, and you think that the next two centuries will find humanity returning to their embarrassing stupidity???? It won’t be atheist, and it won’t be muslim, it will be freethinkers.

      NeoWolfe

  19.  what says:

    Galileo did his best work after house arrest. This fact tickles me. Take that religionist gestapo!

  20.  Atheangolist says:

    Braun is a pu$$y

  21.  reason says:

    david would have done well but how many minds would it change.people want easy answers and lets face it atheists don’t offer easy answers.we demand that people think about things we insist that one must look at things as they are not as we wish they were.i am happier as a atheist than i was as a believer but it was easier as a believer.i could be lasy as a believer.sometimes i come on here and feel i present my view on something well and sometimes i get my butt kicked but that is how you learn.i suppose in sum what i am driving at is going on fox is one thing getting people out of their comfort zone is another.and i’m not sure how we do that best.braun is appealing to voters desire for easy answers he is only thinking about relection not what is good for the country this is true for both parties.btw i encourage you all to read american theocracy by kevin phillips if you haven’t already.one nation under law by mark douglas mcgarvie is another good read.