Not that Sarah; Sarah Posner, this time. The one Digby is quoting:
But Sarah's right, both about the innate hypocrisy of the religious right and the useful idiocy of the Religion Industrial Complex. Most importantly, I shouldn't have gotten so lost in my own gleeful snark that I failed to note that using the Bible as the basis of any political argument is antithetical to enlightened democracy. I hereby correct that mistake.Better we should rely on the Laws of Plato, eh? Or the Nichomachean Ethics? Maybe we should look to Machiavelli? Locke? The Federalist Papers? Jefferson's letters to Baptists? At any rate, we should base political arguments on something we can all agree can and that can be read only one way! Right? Soon as we can find it.....
I mean, when Sarah Posner writes this:
Indeed, for many on the religious right, support for Ryan's government-slashing budget is found . . . in their Bibles.There's certainly no room to conclude that many of us find support FOR government social programs, and even social justice....in our Bibles. Indeed, support not only in the Gospels but in the dreaded "Old Testament," right back into those Laws of Moses everybody knows bans the eating of cheeseburgers and outlaws homosexuality (which it doesn't, but then the Bible fits Twain's definition of a classic: a book everyone praises (or denigrates) and no one reads).
So I have been chastised and proven wrong again, and I should stop using the Bible as the basis of any political argument, as that makes me antithetical to enlightened* democracy.
After all, it's what Digby said.
*we'll argue over the meaning of "enlightened" another day