Speaker 1: Welcome to the nonprofit. Say again, the Bible is one
Speaker 1: hundred percent correct.
Speaker 2: Huh.
Speaker 1: I was thinking maybe it was more of a question
Speaker 1: of Sully stories made by people a couple thousand years
Speaker 1: ago who thought eating selfish was a sin and slavery
Speaker 1: was an okay practice. Are you arching an eyebrow? You
Speaker 1: should be. Let's have Kelly get us through this article
Speaker 1: from the Wild Hunt. Shall we Kelly take it away?
Speaker 3: Well? Helen? Christian nationalist lawmakers in West Virginia have introduced
Speaker 3: a resolution to have the Bible recognized as an accurate
Speaker 3: historical record of human history. I guess they just forgot
Speaker 3: the first four hundred and fifty thousand years. And then
Speaker 3: it goes on to describe it as the ultimate moral
Speaker 3: authority and claiming it is divinely inspired. Even worse, the
Speaker 3: resolution calls for the Bible to be placed prominently in
Speaker 3: all public buildings, including schools, and give it a reverend
Speaker 3: from state laws and policies, currently law declaring the Kingship
Speaker 3: of Jesus Christ as being advanced to North Dakota. Of course,
Speaker 3: these resolutions are totally unconstitutional and hopefully won't hold up
Speaker 3: in court, but it seems at least some of the
Speaker 3: state government GOP leaders have recognized this as well, because
Speaker 3: they seem to be shuffling this bill around so it
Speaker 3: doesn't gain any traction in any of the committees. Now,
Speaker 3: if it does manage to get past one of these committees,
Speaker 3: it will head to the ballot box and be voted
Speaker 3: on in twenty twenty six to see if the state's
Speaker 3: residents are willing to defy the US Constitution and codify
Speaker 3: this resolution into state law. So this will be an
Speaker 3: interesting vote to keep an eye on in the future.
Speaker 3: This story is from The Wild Hunt by Many moreto
Speaker 3: and Many Tejeda, published on March fourth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Okay, Kelly, Kelly, Kelly, my fellow dirty heathen, we know
Speaker 1: that the Bible is not the inherent word of God
Speaker 1: and fill with so many holes.
Speaker 3: Hell and I don't know that.
Speaker 1: Okay, fine, okay, But it's filled with so many holes
Speaker 1: it wouldn't hold a thimblefol of water. But why do
Speaker 1: you think that West Virginia is even trying to codify
Speaker 1: the Bible as the almas authority of human behavior. I
Speaker 1: would love to hear your opinion on this, because it
Speaker 1: is a trip.
Speaker 3: This is this is This is a way too, and
Speaker 3: I think I mentioned it earlier in the week. This
Speaker 3: is a way for the GOP to take attention away
Speaker 3: from the fact that they aren't solving society's problems. We're
Speaker 3: not we're not making we're not getting rid of poverty,
Speaker 3: we're not solving crime, we're not doing we're not solving inflation.
Speaker 3: They're doing none of the things that they said that
Speaker 3: they were going to do. So what they do instead is, well, hey,
Speaker 3: you know, the majority of our voters are Christians, so
Speaker 3: let's pass a Christian law to get them all back
Speaker 3: on our side, because as long as we keep doing that,
Speaker 3: they will keep voting for us, even if we don't
Speaker 3: solve any of their problems.
Speaker 1: But are they trying to do an argument for popular fallacy?
Speaker 2: You think?
Speaker 4: I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't know that that's what it is, like argument
Speaker 3: from argument, argumentum ad populum, Hold on a minute, toy bote,
Speaker 3: toy boat, toy vote. Okay, I don't know that that's
Speaker 3: what it is. But they're definitely using Christianity to get
Speaker 3: themselves votes when it looks like probably they can't stand
Speaker 3: on their record to get those votes. So that's fair
Speaker 3: that's fair.
Speaker 1: So, Tracy, you mentioned that you weren't you weren't brops
Speaker 1: from a religious So how did you feel about the
Speaker 1: Bible being accurate and not have any problems at all
Speaker 1: according to this particular stance.
Speaker 2: So I wasn't raised super religious, but I was raised Catholic.
Speaker 2: But I was, you know, a Christmas Eastern kind of Catholic.
Speaker 2: I wasn't the You know what I'm gonna tell you
Speaker 2: is this. It's It's patently absurd. It is simply patently absurd.
Speaker 2: When you look in the book, you can find certain statements.
Speaker 2: If you check those statements against reality, you find that
Speaker 2: those statements do not hold up against reality. If I
Speaker 2: don't know what definition of true we're using, but mine
Speaker 2: is that which comports with reality, and the book doesn't
Speaker 2: comport with reality. So this, this statement is just a
Speaker 2: flat out lie. It is simply untrue, and they know
Speaker 2: it is untrue. If you look, America isn't a land
Speaker 2: where kings exist. If you vote to inaugurate Jesus this
Speaker 2: guy as the king of America, you have now voted
Speaker 2: for not having America anymore. If you vote to to
Speaker 2: heighten a certain religious text above all others. Okay, well,
Speaker 2: that's directly flies in the face of the First Amendment.
Speaker 2: You have now voted to not have America anymore. It's
Speaker 2: it's pretty flat out and simple. And either of these laws,
Speaker 2: either of these ideas, are just voting because you don't
Speaker 2: like America. You don't want America to exist, you want
Speaker 2: some sort of theocratic regime. You don't like America.
Speaker 1: But Tracy freedom, freedom, freedom from so Eli you you
Speaker 1: mentioned and you're like, you know certain things about the Bible,
Speaker 1: like love that namer and you know others, certain things
Speaker 1: that we could, you know, kind of agree on. But
Speaker 1: what was your kind of sticking point with this particular story?
Speaker 4: So, like, are there some things that are written in
Speaker 4: what we now recognize as the Bible that you can
Speaker 4: say aren't the worst advice? Sure, but that doesn't then
Speaker 4: lead logically to this book is completely and totally morally
Speaker 4: good in its entirety. And I don't know where they're
Speaker 4: getting this idea that that's the case. Like, yeah, like
Speaker 4: you said, love thy neighbor. Jesus is reported to have
Speaker 4: said that I think that's not bad, Like, okay, yeah,
Speaker 4: if your neighbor is a dick, like I'm not going
Speaker 4: to hold you to that, Like, don't you don't have
Speaker 4: to be super kind to your neighbor if your neighbor's
Speaker 4: a dick. Like I think there's different Like there's subjective morality,
Speaker 4: and there's different ways to look at different situations, and
Speaker 4: what is the most moral choice is going to be
Speaker 4: primarily subjective, not only to the circumstances, but to the
Speaker 4: individuals involved. So to as Tracy said, to name one
Speaker 4: religious code as the moral authority for all of a
Speaker 4: nation and not just that religious group is a direct
Speaker 4: violation of the establishment clause. And not only that, but
Speaker 4: I really really want to know where they're getting the
Speaker 4: idea that the Bible is morally good, because it's it's
Speaker 4: the construably not.
Speaker 1: I want to point it up too, this is this
Speaker 1: article was a Wild Time, which is a pagan you
Speaker 1: know news outlet. I'm as a foreign pagan. I would
Speaker 1: like to acknowledge my people, which has a is a
Speaker 1: religion that does not proselytize, It does not think that
Speaker 1: it should inject yourself into government. And I think that
Speaker 1: one of the wonderful things about this particular that it
Speaker 1: comes from my hunt that understands the difference between religion
Speaker 1: versus politics. And I think that we can have discussions
Speaker 1: even within religious institutions where we're talking about the establaged
Speaker 1: to clause and using like one book to say like
Speaker 1: this is the moral authority of but that everybody should
Speaker 1: be following. And I think those nuances are really really important.
Speaker 1: We're having this conversation because like, if you get your
Speaker 1: morals from the Bible, great, good for you. Great, I'm
Speaker 1: a question why. But even if you're fram of your
Speaker 1: morals within a religious context, as long as you're have
Speaker 1: compassionate kindness for your fellow human being, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to poopoo on you. But when you start saying like
Speaker 1: the Bible has to be the moral authority for us
Speaker 1: the rest of us dirty heathens and people that don't
Speaker 1: particularly follow that religion, whether you're atheist or not, I'm
Speaker 1: going to have some quibbles and I'm probably gonna throw
Speaker 1: my hands up and go, hold on, why are you
Speaker 1: saying this particular book has to be correct? So, Tracy,
Speaker 1: do you think the Bible should be the ultimate authority
Speaker 1: on morality? Obviously, I'm I I kind of already know
Speaker 1: your answer, But following that up, what do you think
Speaker 1: other states are going to follow suit? And what happens
Speaker 1: if we try to codify the Bible, Like are we
Speaker 1: going to go back to like stoning people on Sunday
Speaker 1: for working on the Stabbath? Like what is the actual
Speaker 1: outcome of us if we're going to actually say that
Speaker 1: this is the moral authority of how people should behave well.
Speaker 2: Helen uh in our over this week, I've heard Kelly.
Speaker 2: Kelly's really tamped me down a lot about my fears
Speaker 2: of people violating the Bill of Rights. He's really tamped
Speaker 2: me down good.
Speaker 3: And so what I'm gonna.
Speaker 2: Say is, I don't think it's gonna spread. I don't
Speaker 2: even think it's really gonna catch. I think it'll it'll
Speaker 2: get stopped. And if it doesn't get stopped, it'll go
Speaker 2: into Bill's status, and then somebody will appeal it. Somebody
Speaker 2: will say this is very clearly a violation of the
Speaker 2: establishment Clause and we need to get rid of it.
Speaker 2: What I'm gonna say here is that what you were
Speaker 2: talking about earlier about freedom and I and I just
Speaker 2: responded freedom too and freedom from and it's a very
Speaker 2: basic concept. If you move into a primarily Jewish neighborhood.
Speaker 2: You are still allowed to eat pork. If you move
Speaker 2: to Utah, which is primarily you know, the where the US,
Speaker 2: where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is.
Speaker 2: You do not need to revere the con man Joseph Smith.
Speaker 2: And if you and just because you live in America
Speaker 2: does not mean you need to revere an iron age, mytho, history,
Speaker 2: sex manual, and cookbook. It's that plain, flat out and simple.
Speaker 2: This is a country for all people, not just the
Speaker 2: group of people that some, not just the most populous.
Speaker 2: It's a group for everyone.
Speaker 3: That He's right, it is a It is a country
Speaker 3: for everybody. And I don't know where these guys are
Speaker 3: coming up with these crazy laws like this. It seems
Speaker 3: like every every time we turn around here on nonprofits,
Speaker 3: we're talking about another one of these crazy Christian nationalist
Speaker 3: laws that have been introduced somewhere, you know, trying to
Speaker 3: push this religious, let's face it, zelotry. You know, we
Speaker 3: got the Ten Commandment laws in Louisiana and Texas classrooms.
Speaker 3: We got mandatory teaching of the Bible and Oklahoma publicsouls.
Speaker 3: We got that Jesus is King of the USA or
Speaker 3: some other weird shit going out of North Dakota right now.
Speaker 3: And a lot of these bills just aren't really getting passed.
Speaker 3: They're getting put put in, but a lot of them
Speaker 3: aren't getting passed because the GOP leadership realizes that in
Speaker 3: the end this is not going to get them votes.
Speaker 3: There there's a small group of radical people within the
Speaker 3: GOP that thinks the entire country thinks the same way
Speaker 3: they do, and they need to be slapped out and
Speaker 3: shown that the country doesn't. And that's why we're seeing
Speaker 3: like this bill is just getting passed around in committees,
Speaker 3: so eventually it's going to die somewhere and these but
Speaker 3: the party leadership knows that these down ballot races are
Speaker 3: really hurting them with these with this kind of legislation. Sure,
Speaker 3: people are going to vote for the guy at the
Speaker 3: top because there's a cult of personality built around them,
Speaker 3: but as we've just seen in the last election, that
Speaker 3: is not always carrying down carrying through to the down
Speaker 3: ballot races, and a lot of the GOP leaders are
Speaker 3: afraid of that and they're trying to do something about it.
Speaker 3: But we're still going to have these freaking crazy Christian
Speaker 3: nationalists that keep putting these bills in boom boom boom.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think that's a really good point because
Speaker 1: you can put it through. But I don't think it's
Speaker 1: going to make people change their lives. I don't think that,
Speaker 1: Like even if you said that, if they said that,
Speaker 1: like you know, the Bible is the one hundred percent
Speaker 1: and inherent truth, like, it wouldn't change my opinion. It
Speaker 1: wouldn't change anything about how I lived my life. So
Speaker 1: why would they expect people to just cowtail and you know,
Speaker 1: automatically bow over to believe it.
Speaker 3: So I was just thinking, if the Bible is inherently true,
Speaker 3: I'm really glad I don't follow it right exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank goodness you know that I don't. So Eli,
Speaker 1: you mentioned some stuff about like, you know, an accrid
Speaker 1: historical record of an accrid historical record of humanist history,
Speaker 1: and you had some quibbles and I would love to
Speaker 1: hear your quibbles with this particular statement.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a lot like you were kind of just saying,
Speaker 4: They're like you can't, like, are we just going to
Speaker 4: codify a new truth into law? And now, like, are
Speaker 4: we really at a point where there are people who
Speaker 4: believe that you can just make a law saying this
Speaker 4: thing is the truth now, and then that makes it
Speaker 4: actually true about the universe. And I don't think, similar
Speaker 4: to what Kelly was saying, I don't think that anybody,
Speaker 4: anybody in power, actually believes that there may be some
Speaker 4: people throughout. But like, but that aside, that's not my point.
Speaker 4: It's it's that I do think that this is a
Speaker 4: performative measure. This is let's propose this, let's get it
Speaker 4: shut down. It's going to get shut down, and we
Speaker 4: know that, so then later on we can be like, well,
Speaker 4: we tried to do this, and we try to do this,
Speaker 4: but those liberals stopped us. And now if you don't,
Speaker 4: if you don't reelect us, then there's there. You have
Speaker 4: no hope, well your last hope, you know, we need.
Speaker 4: So I think there's some element of that to it.
Speaker 4: But I also think that you can talk to almost
Speaker 4: any Christian about like the types of things they find
Speaker 4: moral and immoral, and there will come a point in
Speaker 4: which their opinion of what is morally good will diverge
Speaker 4: from what the Bible says, and you can point that
Speaker 4: out to them and you can say, look, you can
Speaker 4: tell like you, you agree that this is not a
Speaker 4: morally good thing, whereas it does say it is a
Speaker 4: morally good thing here in the Bible, or vice versa.
Speaker 4: You think this is not morally bad, but the Bible
Speaker 4: says that it is. So you know that you don't
Speaker 4: get your morality from the Bible. That is an example
Speaker 4: of you having some morality that is distinct from what
Speaker 4: God says. Yet you, like those people who have that opinion,
Speaker 4: will still insist that they get their morality from the Bible.
Speaker 4: And I don't understand what the benefit is of of
Speaker 4: knowing that this is not your source of information, but
Speaker 4: insisting that it is and insisting that you maintain with it.
Speaker 4: That's it's something that it's not a logical process that
Speaker 4: I can follow.
Speaker 2: Eli, it sounds like you just haven't read your Bible.
Speaker 4: Working on it.
Speaker 1: Also come from the end where you're a believer, so
Speaker 1: it makes sense and you.
Speaker 4: As an atheist, and then I will just decide to
Speaker 4: believe it and then read it again and.
Speaker 1: It will make perfect sense and everything all your ducks
Speaker 1: will line up, and that's how that works, especially your bed.
Speaker 1: So so should we be worried about like others?
Speaker 5: My my bigger tree duck is over there online Preusser.
Speaker 5: Let if I can't all scuse he's a special big
Speaker 5: a tree duck anyway, seeking of.
Speaker 1: Bigotry and also the Bible possibly being codified, should be
Speaker 1: worried about other states that are following student or should
Speaker 1: we kind of take Kelly's attitude of that, like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you might codify it, but at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: are we really going to follow it? Tracy, what's your
Speaker 1: thought on that?
Speaker 2: Even if they codify it, as they've said, as my
Speaker 2: two co hosts and you have reiterated, it does not
Speaker 2: matter if the law says something is true. If it
Speaker 2: isn't true, then the law is wrong. It's that flat
Speaker 2: out and simple. The laws don't change that which is true.
Speaker 2: Reality determines that which is true. So if they pass it, fine,
Speaker 2: it seems like a performative measure. I agree with Eli.
Speaker 2: Even if they do pass it, it's gonna get knocked
Speaker 2: down by somebody at some point because it's just blatantly wrong.
Speaker 2: And also again our constitution. So there's no sane reality
Speaker 2: where this stays and is actually observed. There's no sane
Speaker 2: reality where that happened.
Speaker 1: Kelly, do you want to elaborate more on what you
Speaker 1: were saying before about like you know, how this is
Speaker 1: just like smoke and mirrors and just like something we
Speaker 1: shouldn't really be concerned about.
Speaker 3: I don't know that we shouldn't be concerned about it, right,
Speaker 3: I think I think we should. I think we should
Speaker 3: be concerned about it. I don't think in the long run,
Speaker 3: it's going to be a huge problem problem. Like I
Speaker 3: brought up in one of the earlier segments this week,
Speaker 3: all the porn laws that were passed in the nineteen
Speaker 3: eighty anti porn laws that were passed in the eighties
Speaker 3: that are on gone now. They're all gone because we
Speaker 3: couldn't figure out what porn was, right, I think there
Speaker 3: was was it a US representative senator or a senator
Speaker 3: that I don't remember who it was that said, you
Speaker 3: know porn when you see it? And that was it.
Speaker 3: How do you talk about a law no porn when
Speaker 3: you see it? And that's that's you're kind of in
Speaker 3: that same situation. How do you know sin when you
Speaker 3: see it? And and so how do we codify what
Speaker 3: sin is? How do we codify with what religion what
Speaker 3: religion is? We just can't do it. You know, we
Speaker 3: just can't. So I don't think we're gonna hopefully, we
Speaker 3: will see all of these laws eventually get struck down.
Speaker 3: They may even get through some of the local courts,
Speaker 3: they may even get through state courts, but I don't
Speaker 3: think in the long run they're going to be They're
Speaker 3: going to hold up in federal courts. And I want
Speaker 3: to point out that we not only have a conservative
Speaker 3: majority on the Supreme Court, but we have a Catholic
Speaker 3: majority on the Supreme Court as well, and a lot
Speaker 3: of these Protestant evangelical zalet Ze laws are not going
Speaker 3: to get past that Catholic majority. I really don't think
Speaker 3: they will.
Speaker 1: So, so Eli, you know, piggyback off of what is
Speaker 1: being said, what is your kind of perspective about like
Speaker 1: why you know the GOP in certain states are trying
Speaker 1: to push these last fours forward, oh my god, forward?
Speaker 3: And what is your.
Speaker 1: Should we like, I know that we should be concerned
Speaker 1: and something we should fight against, but do you, as
Speaker 1: Kelly said, do you think it's going to hold any water?
Speaker 1: And what for the rest of us that are concerned
Speaker 1: about these things, like what are the type of things
Speaker 1: that we should be looking at for and the type
Speaker 1: of stuff that we should be kind of pushing against
Speaker 1: when it comes to, you know, potentially living in our theocracy,
Speaker 1: maybe question mark.
Speaker 4: I think that, like as you know, not to be
Speaker 4: a dead horse. But like we've said, making a law,
Speaker 4: saying something is true doesn't make it so. However, it
Speaker 4: does make it punishable to say that it is not so,
Speaker 4: so it does make it punishable to say no, gender
Speaker 4: is not binary, and also gender is not the same
Speaker 4: as sex, and that's also not binary. It does make
Speaker 4: it punishable to in some contexts to say otherwise. So
Speaker 4: I think whether it is for smoke and mirrors, whether
Speaker 4: it is performative, or it is for like true effect
Speaker 4: that they think they want to achieve, I think we
Speaker 4: should be loud. I think we should you know, not
Speaker 4: just count on it to get struck down in the
Speaker 4: Supreme Court. Because even if I'm not sure that I
Speaker 4: have that I know enough to either agree or disagree
Speaker 4: with Kelly, So I'll just have to kind of defer
Speaker 4: to you. But I think if I did hold the
Speaker 4: opinion that it's very likely to get struck down in
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court, I would still recommend being loud, because,
Speaker 4: like I mentioned earlier in the week, our silence can
Speaker 4: be used as a weapon against us. But also it's
Speaker 4: important to not allow the perception that things like this
Speaker 4: are acceptable, that advocating for laws and policies like this
Speaker 4: could have the potential to come into effect. Like, we
Speaker 4: shouldn't allow that perception at all.
Speaker 3: Right, I was going to say that it's important to
Speaker 3: stand up so that people ten years from now aren't
Speaker 3: having the same fucking conversation we're having right now today.
Speaker 4: And asking us where the hell were you guys?
Speaker 3: Right exactly exactly, So, if.
Speaker 1: You do not want to be evil and semi and
Speaker 1: do nothing and learn how you can help out and
Speaker 1: also get more information, please do the thing where you
Speaker 1: subscribe to nonprofits, click on a video, learn more about
Speaker 1: down there or on the sides or whatever. Also as
Speaker 1: well like and subscribe and leave comments. We love all
Speaker 1: that stuff and we will see you all next time. Goodbye, everybody,