Let’s Give Thanks…For Being “Unbiblical”

As Thanksgiving approaches, it is incumbent upon us to count our blessings, to remind ourselves of the multiple good things in our lives. (Complaining is far too easy these days, especially if you care at all about public policy and the state of the nation. )

A recent post to the Civic Literacy blog by Don Knebel makes a pretty compelling case for the proposition that a lack of “bible-based” lawmaking should top our list of gratitude-inducing items.

Most of us simply shrug off the constant drumbeat from the theocratic Right about our “secular” laws and the need to “return to biblical principles.” Don’s post demonstrates something I’ve long suspected: these pious frauds have no idea what most of those principles actually were or are. (My personal favorite from Don’s extensive list: Public execution by stoning would be required for “stubborn and rebellious” children.  Deuteronomy 21:18-21. If I’d only known….)

Click through for a truly edifying lesson in “bible law.”


  1. Sheila; wonder if it would help to start a movement for a National Day of Prayer to save the theocratic right – and the rest of us – from their abstract version of Christianity? Accomplishing this would certainly be a blessing – maybe not this Thanksgiving but Christmas and Hanukkah will soon be upon us, what better time to hope and pray for a miracle?

    Not really a pun intended here as I pray daily that this government would begin working for the country and the people and stop working for themselves.

    Happy Thanksgiving; I remember your message last year about your wonderful family celebration…a true picture of a real family with much to be thankful for.

  2. How long before we learn that what we live is what we believe. Our daily life is our religion. ‘You connot serve god and mammon.’ (Sound strange comming from me?)

  3. Your piece (and Don’s listing) is especially relevant the day after SCOTUS decided to take up the Hobby Lobby and companion case which claims that for-profit corporations can be exempted from laws that violate their religious tenants. Hopefully Justice Scalia will hold to what he had to say a decade ago in Employment Division vs. Smith, in which he joined the majority in upholding laws banning peyote for certain ceremonies which Native Americans performed as part of their religious beliefs. Essentially that was to say that if each and every claim of religious exemption were honored, laws would be useless.

    Otherwise, I can see it now: “We at General Motors, having restricted issuance of our shares to those holding to the biblical principles of the (insert name here) faith, which confirms the God-ordained raising of men over women, hereby declare that paying the two genders equal pay for equal work is a violation of our most cherished beliefs, and enforcement a form of religious persecution.”

    “And what’s good for General Motors is good for America”.

  4. Matthew 6:24 – No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

    Back to my good old Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary: Mammon; material wealth or possessions, as having a debasing influence. Mammonist; one devoted to the ideal or pursuit of wealth.

    The GOP, spouting their version of Bible quotes, laws and meanings while being supported by the Tea Party led by Koch brothers and The Donald and their ilk, are not serving God or their constituents…they serve only themselves. So; Brother Earl, you are on target with your observation but I would make one change…THEIR daily life is THEIR religion. They are trying to force it on us but have lost sight of the meaning of all Jesus’ preachings.

    Sorry I haven’t gotten away from being biblical; but I do give thanks for the blessings in my life and try hard to accept the losses by remembering others have less and their troubles are more devastating. A daily battle; some days I win, some days I lose. Some days I get the bear; some days the bear gets me. That is as unbiblical as I can do right now.

  5. I mis-spoke a bit above….the decision I was referring to came out in 100-, not ten years ago. And it was a First Amendment case before the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) was passed. My understanding is that the current cases are based on that law, but suspect there are also First Amendment arguments to be made also.

Comments are closed.