So I guess Johnson is opposed to all of the Republicans who have banned the Bible from schools?
I can’t find a comment on it by Johnson, perhaps because the number of such Republicans is few. But I would be pretty sure the answer is yes.
Background:
Utah Republicans defend book removal law while protesting district that banned Bible
It has been a very long time since I read it, but I do not recall “G-d mandated abortion”.
Pretty much, there is nothing in the Bible that even mention abortion, except maybe some lines about punishment for attacking a pregnant women, etc.
Well, David’s firstborn son was doomed to die because of David’s misdeed against Uriah. He did survive to be born, but died soon afterward.
Johnson managed to get his continuing resolution through the chamber with mostly Democratic votes and not get removed, but that’s probably a bullet he can only fire once. He’s already paid some for it – yesterday FC members had a snit and wouldn’t let the House proceed to other bills, so they adjourned early for Thanksgiving. But what’s he going to do in January when we’re in this exact same position and a government shutdown is looming?
Meanwhile, here’s right-wing FC member Chip Roy making a great point:
To be fair, the description is vague and the methodology doesn’t seem like it would be effective. We have extra-biblical sources which suggest that King Solomon compiled/authorized an official Book of Remedies for All Ailments that was suppressed by King Hezekiah, along with other Solomonic works.
We also know that the Assyrians had an explicit ban on abortions that we don’t see in any other Middle-Eastern region of the time. The Assyrians conquered Israel just prior to the reign of Hezekiah so, as the lord of a vassal state, he would have been pressed to remove and replace any traditions that were in violation of Assyrian law.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1454182?read-now=1&seq=11#page_scan_tab_contents
I’ll also note that in Hosea, God orders that pregnant women of the vanquished have their bellies torn open.
In Biblical law, the loss of a fetus is treated as a loss of property and fined, rather than given the usual treatment for most acts of physical harm which demand an “eye for an eye” response.
We also find notes in the Mishnah that a woman who is to be executed and is determined to be pregnant should either be summarily executed with the fetus still inside her or first given an abortifacient.
In general, a straight reading of the Bible that isn’t influenced by any push to interpret in any particular way, suggests that God wants the Israelites to produce as many children as they can so that they can conquer everything. It’s not particularly sentimental about the goodness of life, it just has a very calculated and shrewd agenda of conquest and strength. But it also wants a smooth and simple legal structure of ownership, inheritance, and etc. Cases of adultery complicate such things and a tradition of abortion by ordeal fits in well with that. You give an abortifacient that is not 100% effective and say that the success rate is tied to God’s judgement on whether the woman truly did or did not have an affair. Whatever the result is, that’s God demonstrating her innocence or guilt, accordingly.
It’s not clear what purpose the ordeal serves if it’s not that. And, of course, even a straight read - making the assumption that we’re just dealing with ink+slightly muddy water - would suggest that a sufficient quantity of water could still put enough pressure on the belly to cause a miscarriage. As written - depending on the quantity of water given - it may still be an act of intentional abortion.
I certainly wouldn’t try tying a pregnant woman to a chair and seeing what happens when you get to the LD50 of water consumption.
Moderating:
@DrDeth, @ekedolphin, @Sage_Rat and any others who may be tempted:
Further discussion of Biblical interpretation should take place in a new or existing thread. Just not this one. Thanks.
The shit-stirrers are back. They dont do anything positive- they spew shit, and they stir it.
WASHINGTON, Nov 16 (Reuters) - A group of hardline Republicans has put new U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson on notice that he can no longer count on their support for legislation, signaling a possible early end to his “honeymoon” period.
Three weeks after the Louisiana lawmaker won the gavel of the House of Representatives, 19 House Republicans - including 15 hardliners - voted to block debate on their party’s bill to fund federal programs on commerce, justice and science for fiscal 2024, which began on Oct 1.
I just watched a 22-minute YouTube video where James Carville gives his thoughts about fellow Louisianan, Mike Johnson.
I can’t go so far as to recommend the vid – Carville can really ramble – but his central thesis is clear: Carville knows these people (of whom MJohnson is one), these are serious and committed people, and what they stand for, believe in, and want for this country is anathema to the majority of us.
He kind of draws a hub-and-spoke word picture for us of connections between Johnson and the more prominent figures in Christian Nationalism. Maybe more compelling is that Carville takes pains to describe where Johnson comes from, and pegs it as a crucible for this very parochial, very closely-held belief system.
TL;DR: Wolf. Sheep’s clothing. Clutching a Bible.
The FC has been railing against passing continuing resolutions and omnibus spending bills because they bypass “regular order.” So to show they’re serious, they prevent Johnson from bringing up the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill through regular order.
Cancelled by mod-note.
Well when you have a speaker who believes that America deserves god’s wrath because we’re too wicked and gay, I think the import of his speakership could be concerning.
I really wish these people would quit trying to shove their religion down our throats.
I have to admire the business model that goes “Pay us to get access to every sensitive file on your devices, and then specifically flag for us material you view that could be used to blackmail you”. What could possibly be bad about that?