Washington Post Lies About Lawmaker's Biblical Reference

Jack Hays · Apr 2, 2017

Here's the WaPo caught making stuff up to further their preferred meme about religious conservatives. I'm not religious but I don't like those who lie about religion.

Washington Post Lies About Lawmaker's Biblical Reference
Sean Davis, Federalist

. . . The headline from the Washington Post couldn’t have been more clear: “GOP Lawmaker: The Bible says the unemployed ‘shall not eat.” Shocking, right? Judging by the Washington Post’s reporting, either this lawmaker is a real jerk, God is a real jerk for hating people without jobs, or maybe even they’re both jerks.
Here’s what the newspaper wrote about Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.):

One lawmaker is citing a godly reference to justify changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.) recently quoted the New Testament to question the strength of current work requirements.

The biblical passage, 2 Thessalonians 3-10, was a rebuttal to one of the hearing’s expert witnesses, a representative of the Jewish anti-hunger group MAZON. (He referenced Leviticus.) It is also a familiar refrain to anyone who has watched past debates about SNAP.

House Republicans have historically cited the verse — “if a man will not work, he shall not eat” — as justification for cutting some adults’ SNAP benefits. Arrington referenced the verse in a discussion about increasing the work requirements for unemployed adults on the food stamp program. But critics say that advances a pernicious myth about the unemployed who receive SNAP.

There are a few problems, however, with that story from Washington Post reporter Caitlin Dewey: the lawmaker never said that, the Bible never says that, and the Washington Post article never even quotes the Texas Republican as saying that. In fact, the article doesn’t quote Arrington a single time. Not one word. Because democracy dies in darkness, or something. . . .

JumpinJack · Apr 2, 2017

Jack Hays said:
Here's the WaPo caught making stuff up to further their preferred meme about religious conservatives. I'm not religious but I don't like those who lie about religion.

Washington Post Lies About Lawmaker's Biblical Reference
Sean Davis, Federalist

. . . The headline from the Washington Post couldn’t have been more clear: “GOP Lawmaker: The Bible says the unemployed ‘shall not eat.” Shocking, right? Judging by the Washington Post’s reporting, either this lawmaker is a real jerk, God is a real jerk for hating people without jobs, or maybe even they’re both jerks.
Here’s what the newspaper wrote about Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.):

One lawmaker is citing a godly reference to justify changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.) recently quoted the New Testament to question the strength of current work requirements.

The biblical passage, 2 Thessalonians 3-10, was a rebuttal to one of the hearing’s expert witnesses, a representative of the Jewish anti-hunger group MAZON. (He referenced Leviticus.) It is also a familiar refrain to anyone who has watched past debates about SNAP.

House Republicans have historically cited the verse — “if a man will not work, he shall not eat” — as justification for cutting some adults’ SNAP benefits. Arrington referenced the verse in a discussion about increasing the work requirements for unemployed adults on the food stamp program. But critics say that advances a pernicious myth about the unemployed who receive SNAP.

There are a few problems, however, with that story from Washington Post reporter Caitlin Dewey: the lawmaker never said that, the Bible never says that, and the Washington Post article never even quotes the Texas Republican as saying that. In fact, the article doesn’t quote Arrington a single time. Not one word. Because democracy dies in darkness, or something. . . .

WaPo corrected its title. It's just a bit different: GOP lawmaker: The Bible says ‘if a man will not work, he shall not eat’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/gop-lawmaker-the-bible-says-the-unemployed-shall-not-eat/?utm_term=.8810de84b843

Rep Arrington did cite that Bible passage as support for cutting the supplemental food program for adults.

This is a minor deal. The substance is the same.

But more importantly, we have a separation of powers in our country. It doesn't matter what one person's religion says, except to that person. We have many religions and holy books in this country. We don't set our laws in accordance with any religion's holy book.

Compassion and common sense are universal and secular. Thinking that unemployed people are freeloaders is secular. They shouldn't lean on their holy book to support uncompassionate or hostile viewpoints of people.

(The Bible also says that Jesus said that the poor will always be with us. Does that mean we should look at starving people and do nothing? Because there will always be starving people? That's denying the individual, isn't it? This starving person = that starving person. If one dies and another takes his place, no difference.) It's a slippery slope to try to start using holy book passages as support for laws. For every passage one can site on one side of the argument, another passage can be interpreted to support the other side.

Our founding fathers wisely kept religion out of our government.

Jack Hays · Apr 2, 2017

JumpinJack said:
WaPo corrected its title. It's just a bit different: GOP lawmaker: The Bible says ‘if a man will not work, he shall not eat’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mployed-shall-not-eat/?utm_term=.8810de84b843

Rep Arrington did cite that Bible passage as support for cutting the supplemental food program for adults.

This is a minor deal. The substance is the same.

But more importantly, we have a separation of powers in our country. It doesn't matter what one person's religion says, except to that person. We have many religions and holy books in this country. We don't set our laws in accordance with any religion's holy book.

Compassion and common sense are universal and secular. Thinking that unemployed people are freeloaders is secular. They shouldn't lean on their holy book to support uncompassionate or hostile viewpoints of people.

(The Bible also says that Jesus said that the poor will always be with us. Does that mean we should look at starving people and do nothing? Because there will always be starving people? That's denying the individual, isn't it? This starving person = that starving person. If one dies and another takes his place, no difference.) It's a slippery slope to try to start using holy book passages as support for laws. For every passage one can site on one side of the argument, another passage can be interpreted to support the other side.

Our founding fathers wisely kept religion out of our government.

From the OP:

. . . Not only did Arrington not disagree with the witness who quoted passages from Leviticus requiring the Israelites to leave harvest gleanings in the field for sojourners and the poor, Arrington actually affirmed him and noted that the passage in question is “a great reflection on the character of God and the compassion of God’s heart.” Here’s what Arrington really said:

I did hear, Mr. Protas, your opening remarks where you quoted Leviticus, I believe, and I think that’s a great reflection on the character of God and the compassion of God’s heart and how we ought to reflect that compassion in our lives.

But, there’s also, the scripture tells us in 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you we gave you this rule: ‘If a man will not work, he shall not eat.'” And then he goes on to say, “We hear that some among you are idle.”

I think that every American, Republican or Democrat, wants to help the neediest among us. And I think it’s a reasonable expectation that we have work requirements. I think that gives more credibility quite frankly, to SNAP. Tell me what is a reasonable and responsible work requirement as part of the SNAP program?

At no point did Arrington ever declare that the Bible requires that the unemployed shall not eat. Not once. At no point did Arrington ever say, “The Bible says the unemployed shall not eat.”
Rather, the Texas congressman noted to the witness at his hearing that in addition to commanding God’s people to leave a share of their harvest for the needy to pick up and eat as they moved through the fields, the Bible tells Christ’s disciples not to allow idleness to make them a burden on their fellow Christians. Paul’s letter to the church in Thessaloniki, after all, was not a directive to government officials in Rome, but an exhortation to his fellow followers of Christ in Greece. . . .

RabidAlpaca · Apr 2, 2017

That's the beauty of religion, you can take it, interpret and reshape it into any subjective form you choose. Unfortunately many American Christians decide to ignore most of what Jesus said about helping the poor and shaming the rich to do the exact opposite. Unlike science, in religion there is no one right answer and everyone's arbitrary view points are equally valid. Supply-Side-Jesus is going to give this guy an extra Ferrari in the afterlife while the others burn.

Jack Hays said:
I did hear, Mr. Protas, your opening remarks where you quoted Leviticus, I believe, and I think that’s a great reflection on the character of God and the compassion of God’s heart and how we ought to reflect that compassion in our lives.

It's good to know that when these Christians needs to reflect on the character of god they pick Leviticus of all books, one of the most vile books in the bible that everyone immediately distances themselves from as "old law and no longer applicable" as soon as we start bringing up bashing in sinners' heads with rocks.

Grim17 · Apr 2, 2017

JumpinJack said:
Our founding fathers wisely kept religion out of our government.

What? The founding fathers did no such thing. The "establishment clause" in the first amendment of the constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Interpreting that to mean they wanted to keep religion out of government is not only dishonest, but absolutely ridiculous.

.

countryboy · Apr 2, 2017

RabidAlpaca said:
That's the beauty of religion, you can take it, interpret and reshape it into any subjective form you choose. Unfortunately many American Christians decide to ignore most of what Jesus said about helping the poor and shaming the rich to do the exact opposite. Unlike science, in religion there is no one right answer and everyone's arbitrary view points are equally valid. Supply-Side-Jesus is going to give this guy an extra Ferrari in the afterlife while the others burn.

It's good to know that when these Christians needs to reflect on the character of god they pick Leviticus of all books, one of the most vile books in the bible that everyone immediately distances themselves from as "old law and no longer applicable" as soon as we start bringing up bashing in sinners' heads with rocks.

You mean like idiotic libs do all the time to bash Christians? I agree.

RabidAlpaca · Apr 2, 2017

countryboy said:
You mean like idiotic libs do all the time to bash Christians? I agree.

Yep, how you interpret it is 100% arbitrary. That's why christianity is shattered into hundreds of different denominations with wildly varying interpretations of literally everything. Even though they all contradict each other it doesn't stop many of you from pretending your unique interpretation is the one and only divine word of god. I wish people would just admit it's their opinion and stop trying to overlay god onto it as an appeal to authority.

countryboy · Apr 2, 2017

RabidAlpaca said:
Yep, how you interpret it is 100% arbitrary. That's why christianity is shattered into hundreds of different denominations with wildly varying interpretations of literally everything. Even though they all contradict each other it doesn't stop many of you from pretending your unique interpretation is the one and only divine word of god. I wish people would just admit it's their opinion and stop trying to overlay god onto it as an appeal to authority.

Hundreds? Get real. And no, not all denominations contradict each other. Please, quit making **** up, it only reveals your ignorance and hatred and bigotry. Maybe that's your intention, but take my word for it, it's not a good look.

RabidAlpaca · Apr 2, 2017

countryboy said:
Hundreds? Get real. And no, not all denominations contradict each other. Please, quit making **** up, it only reveals your ignorance and hatred and bigotry. Maybe that's your intention, but take my word for it, it's not a good look.

There are LITERALLY hundreds, here's a list for you: List of Hundreds of Different Christian Denominations

And yes, they all contradict each other on at least one issue, many on many issues, and some on pretty much all the issues. You're part of one denomination of hundreds out of hundreds of different religions. Completely arbitrary, but I'm sure you feel you've found the one true path and can speak for god and his will. It's also really sad how little you know about your own religion.

Somerville · Apr 2, 2017

countryboy said:
Hundreds? Get real. And no, not all denominations contradict each other. Please, quit making **** up, it only reveals your ignorance and hatred and bigotry. Maybe that's your intention, but take my word for it, it's not a good look.

RabidAlpaca said:
There are LITERALLY hundreds, here's a list for you: List of Hundreds of Different Christian Denominations

And yes, they all contradict each other on at least one issue, many on many issues, and some on pretty much all the issues. You're part of one denomination of hundreds out of hundreds of different religions. Completely arbitrary, but I'm sure you feel you've found the one true path and can speak for god and his will. It's also really sad how little you know about your own religion.

Actually there are THOUSANDS of Christian denominations according to the National Catholic Register

Independents: 22,000 denominations
Protestants: 9000 denominations
Marginals: 1600 denominations
Orthodox: 781 denominations
Catholics: 242 denominations
Anglicans: 168 denominations

The total number depends upon the definition of "denomination" used when counting

Gimmesometruth · Apr 2, 2017

Jack Hays said:
Here's the WaPo caught making stuff up to further their preferred meme about religious conservatives. I'm not religious but I don't like those who lie about religion.

Washington Post Lies About Lawmaker's Biblical Reference
Sean Davis, Federalist

. . . The headline from the Washington Post couldn’t have been more clear: “GOP Lawmaker: The Bible says the unemployed ‘shall not eat.” Shocking, right? Judging by the Washington Post’s reporting, either this lawmaker is a real jerk, God is a real jerk for hating people without jobs, or maybe even they’re both jerks.
Here’s what the newspaper wrote about Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.):

One lawmaker is citing a godly reference to justify changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.) recently quoted the New Testament to question the strength of current work requirements.

The biblical passage, 2 Thessalonians 3-10, was a rebuttal to one of the hearing’s expert witnesses, a representative of the Jewish anti-hunger group MAZON. (He referenced Leviticus.) It is also a familiar refrain to anyone who has watched past debates about SNAP.

House Republicans have historically cited the verse — “if a man will not work, he shall not eat” — as justification for cutting some adults’ SNAP benefits. Arrington referenced the verse in a discussion about increasing the work requirements for unemployed adults on the food stamp program. But critics say that advances a pernicious myth about the unemployed who receive SNAP.

There are a few problems, however, with that story from Washington Post reporter Caitlin Dewey: the lawmaker never said that, the Bible never says that, and the Washington Post article never even quotes the Texas Republican as saying that. In fact, the article doesn’t quote Arrington a single time. Not one word. Because democracy dies in darkness, or something. . . .

News flash

Jack and the Federalist defend a lawmaker utilizing religious fiction in the creation of law.

BWG · Apr 2, 2017

countryboy said:
Hundreds? Get real. And no, not all denominations contradict each other. Please, quit making **** up, it only reveals your ignorance and hatred and bigotry. Maybe that's your intention, but take my word for it, it's not a good look.

:lol: Now that there is damn well funny. Kinda like the narcissistic, misogynist so-called president, lying liar, l'll donny saying "Believe me"

countryboy · Apr 2, 2017

Somerville said:
Actually there are THOUSANDS of Christian denominations according to the National Catholic Register

Independents: 22,000 denominations

Protestants: 9000 denominations

Marginals: 1600 denominations

Orthodox: 781 denominations

Catholics: 242 denominations

Anglicans: 168 denominations

The total number depends upon the definition of "denomination" used when counting

I guess you didn't even read the article you posted. Not buying it. What are we talking, denominations of one? :roll:

countryboy · Apr 2, 2017

And like clockwork, the haters come out of the woodwork, like cockroaches. :roll:

LowDown · Apr 2, 2017

RabidAlpaca said:
That's the beauty of religion, you can take it, interpret and reshape it into any subjective form you choose.

There's hardly any field of human thought where that isn't done except for maybe the hard sciences.

Chomsky · Apr 2, 2017

My opinion:

Nonsensical Right Wing distraction attempting to conflate non-relevant issues with the critical issues of the lies and subterfuge emanating from the White House.

Even if their were to be merit in this matter, there's no equivalence to the reporting done on the White House - but the OP source would like to besmirch the reputation of WaPo.

It's the same "Hey look over there" technique Trump uses in his Tweets.

Jack Hays · Apr 2, 2017

Chomsky said:
My opinion:

Nonsensical Right Wing distraction attempting to conflate non-relevant issues with the critical issues of the lies and subterfuge emanating from the White House.

Even if their were to be merit in this matter, there's no equivalence to the reporting done on the White House - but the OP source would like to besmirch the reputation of WaPo.

It's the same "Hey look over there" technique Trump uses in his Tweets.

I've been a WaPo subscriber for decades. They do a fine job of besmirching their own reputation. The WaPo was a great newspaper that is now in decline from staff and budget cuts. This article would have been stopped by an editor in the old days. You can't publish an article about what a Congressman said without quoting what the Congressman said.

reinoe · Apr 2, 2017

Jack Hays said:
You can't publish an article about what a Congressman said without quoting what the Congressman said.

You can now! Heck, in the case of WaPo you can even make up quotes and experts to support those fake quotes!

Chomsky · Apr 2, 2017

Jack Hays said:
I've been a WaPo subscriber for decades. They do a fine job of besmirching their own reputation. The WaPo was a great newspaper that is now in decline from staff and budget cuts. This article would have been stopped by an editor in the old days. You can't publish an article about what a Congressman said without quoting what the Congressman said.

I'll give you the benefit of doubt in the declination of WaPo, since I've seen it elsewhere in the mainstream press.

But I'll not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Right now the press is all we have left to stand-up to Trump in matters where he or his may have acted illegally. The House won't, that's for sure. The Right Wing media won't. The Nune's committee won't. The Republicans won't. The Senate remains T.B.D., but I'm not optimistic.

Right now most of what we know about Trump's lies and improprieties comes from the press. The fourth estate is starting to really function again, thankfully.

Jack Hays · Apr 2, 2017

Chomsky said:
I'll give you the benefit of doubt in the declination of WaPo, since I've seen it elsewhere in the mainstream press.

But I'll not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Right now the press is all we have left to stand-up to Trump in matters where he or his may have acted illegally. The House won't, that's for sure. The Right Wing media won't. The Nune's committee won't. The Republicans won't. The Senate remains T.B.D., but I'm not optimistic.

Right now most of what we know about Trump's lies and improprieties comes from the press. The fourth estate is starting to really function again, thankfully.

As you wish. IMHO, Nunes is actually out in front, and the FBI is performing well. The Dems and much of the press/media have worked themselves up to an irrational frenzy.

Chomsky · Apr 2, 2017

Jack Hays said:
As you wish. IMHO, Nunes is actually out in front, and the FBI is performing well. The Dems and much of the press/media have worked themselves up to an irrational frenzy.

Not to get too far off track, but have you considered some of the items in this or similar reports? The events seem pretty damning, IMHO.

Jack Hays · Apr 2, 2017

Chomsky said:
Not to get too far off track, but have you considered some of the items in this or similar reports? The events seem pretty damning, IMHO.

None of these guys has the slightest clue how this matter is complicated by the extraordinary importance of classified sources and methods.

Fenton · Apr 2, 2017

RabidAlpaca said:
That's the beauty of religion, you can take it, interpret and reshape it into any subjective form you choose. Unfortunately many American Christians decide to ignore most of what Jesus said about helping the poor and shaming the rich to do the exact opposite. Unlike science, in religion there is no one right answer and everyone's arbitrary view points are equally valid. Supply-Side-Jesus is going to give this guy an extra Ferrari in the afterlife while the others burn.

It's good to know that when these Christians needs to reflect on the character of god they pick Leviticus of all books, one of the most vile books in the bible that everyone immediately distances themselves from as "old law and no longer applicable" as soon as we start bringing up bashing in sinners' heads with rocks.

WaPo's flat out lie about a Texas rep quoting a biblical passage has nothing to do with religious interpretation and everything to do with a dishonest attempt to malign a GOP Politician.

And Jesus never advocated for Socialist nanny state Governemt, forced wealth redistrubtion nor did he say it was the Governments responsibillity to decide what was fair and compassionate. Every " right wing christian " I know is more than willing to give a percentage of their income once a week every week to help those in need

Somerville · Apr 2, 2017

Jack Hays said:
None of these guys has the slightest clue how this matter is complicated by the extraordinary importance of classified sources and methods.

The matter becomes more interesting by the day.

Adam Schiff views documents White House says back Trump surveillance claim

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) traveled to the White House Friday to view documents President Trump has said partially vindicate his claim that his predecessor ordered surveillance of him during the campaign.

In a statement, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said he was told they were “precisely the same materials” viewed previously by the committee’s chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare), which Schiff said should now be shared with the full panel membership.
(. . .)
Schiff, in his statement, said that “the White House has yet to explain why senior White House staff apparently shared these materials with but one member of either [Intelligence] committee, only for their contents to be briefed back to the White House."

Somerville · Apr 2, 2017

Fenton said:
WaPo's flat out lie about a Texas rep quoting a biblical passage has nothing to do with religious interpretation and everything to do with a dishonest attempt to malign a GOP Politician.

And Jesus never advocated for Socialist nanny state Governemt, forced wealth redistrubtion nor did he say it was the Governments responsibillity to decide what was fair and compassionate. Every " right wing christian " I know is more than willing to give a percentage of their income once a week every week to help those in need

Your words would seem to indicate that "your Jesus" is not the same one that many others worship.

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

I understand there are many who believe in the Prosperity Gospel but then there are many more who find it to be heresy.

Washington Post Lies About Lawmaker's Biblical Reference

Jack Hays

Traveler

JumpinJack

Jack Hays

Traveler

RabidAlpaca

Engineer

Grim17

Battle Ready

countryboy

RabidAlpaca

Engineer

countryboy

RabidAlpaca

Engineer

Somerville

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

BWG

countryboy

countryboy

LowDown

Curmudgeon

Chomsky

Social Democrat

Jack Hays

Traveler

reinoe

Chomsky

Social Democrat

Jack Hays

Traveler

Chomsky

Social Democrat

Jack Hays

Traveler

Fenton

Somerville

Somerville