He probably made the publishers use the text version of the so-called “Wicked Bible” from 1631. He would feel right at home with their version of Exodus 20:14.
Glad I read the comments first, this article is Rage Bait, it doesn’t list any amendments beyond the Bill of Rights, if it omitted these two things specifically that’d be sus, but it didn’t.
Though the irony of a Holy Book that says not to make any law in support of a specific religion is worth a chuckle or twelve.
Based on the headline I got the impression that the bible was excluding these two amendments. As in, their absence was jarring in the presence of the other amendments.
The truth is that they left out 17 amendments. Because it’s Trump. It’s aimed at people who don’t care about the Constitution. The customers just want the greatest hits, the big names.
Misleading headline aside, here’s what the they actually omitted (aka here’s a truth which doesn’t leave anything out.)
Can’t sue a state unless you live there.
Structures electing presidents / VPs.
Slavery is banned except when it isn’t.
Born on US soil == you’re 'Merican, Harry.
Suffrage regardless of race.
Taxes.
Structures electing senators.
Prohibition good!
Suffrage regardless of sex.
Specifies length for Presidential / VP terms.
Prohibition bad!
The two term limit for Presidents.
Gives D.C. electors.
You can vote even if you didn’t pay taxes.
Formalized the VP succeeding a dead president.
Voting age set to 18.
That time when Congress took 200 goddamn years to impose a restriction on their salary.
Essentially, they needed a list of things their target audience would eat up. Then they included the minimum amount of content required to say they had those things. (Remember, Trump et al are cheap as hell.)
It’s like an anthology saying, “We have Anne Rice! Stephen King! Issac Asimov!” and then it’s just one novella from each. But the customer just wants a book with those names on the front so it’s fine.
And it’s an equally amusing parallel that there are, depending on how you count, 17 or 18 commandments in the bible but everyone goes around acting like there are only 10. And then, there are 27 constitutional amendments but people go around acting like there are only 10…
There’s a better discussion over there. Trump is dumb. This version of the Bible is dumb. The headline is not wrong but is (probably intentionally) misleading.
I do not understand what is happening here. I do not understand why you are spending your time like this. I don’t know why there seems to be a few users dedicated to downvoting people.adding context to a sensational - if true - headline. I don’t think I’m going to succeed at this, but I have some free time so I’ll try one more time. Here’s a hypothetical:
Say there was many who went crazy and stabbed 30 people at the mall. Half of the victims are white and half are black. This is inline with the racial demographics in the area where the population is about a 50/50 mix of white and black people. A headline is written that reads “Man Stabs 15 Black People”.
Now, this headline is completely accurate and truthful. The crazy guy totally stabbed 15 black people. However, they also stabbed 15 white people. Only including part of the data in the headline gives the impression that the man was only stabbing black people. He totally wasn’t and that totally isn’t what the headline says, but it is what it implies.
The author of the headline could have and should have said that the Bible did not include the entire constitution or that it left out most of the amendments (including those ending (most) slavery and allowing women to vote). They could have but they didn’t. People choose words intentionally. In this case, they chose words that made people believe that only those two amendments were left out. Any user could read the article and find the whole truth there. Outrage drives engagement, though, and engagement sells ads. I get why the author made the choice they did. It was not factually wrong and it probably achieved their goal of greater engagement. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t misleading.
Here’s some bits from Merriam-Webster. Mislead: : to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit : to lead astray : give a wrong impression
Also, if the intent was to include only the amendments that Republicans like, I would have expected at least the 11th to be there.
You don't understand that the Constitution is made up of all the amendments to it or you don't understand that cherry picking the amendments you want to read is stupid?
Yeah, how dare he omit the amendment which permits electors from the district of Columbia!
I think the previous authour is suggesting that if this offering omits not 2, but sequentially from 11-27 inclusive (aka, everything ratified after 1791) that this isn’t “cherry picking”. A line was drawn, reasonable or not, and that’s the line.
On the other hand, reporting and headlining 2 specific amendments, implies that they were specifically hand-picked (dare I say it, “cherry-picked”) to maximize outrage. Because let’s face it, nobody gives a fuck about how many electoral votes DC gets.
It might even read, to some readers, that maybe these were the ONLY two amendments removed. Even though that’s not true.
Now, see, this is the BRILLIANCE in it. Trump can ARGUE that it was an arbitrary line. And people like me might say “it wasn’t cherry picked per amendment, because it’s consistently applied by ratification date”, and argue that for him.
But let’s get real. It’s no coincidence the line was drawn where it was. It’s telling that “prohibiting disallowing the vote based on sex” (19th amendment) or race (15th) and maybe most ominously “limiting presidential terms to 2” (22nd) are all after the 10th. It’s also kinda telling of where the media sees its barrier for rage inducing material (sorry POC, Trump toasting your rights to vote doesn’t make the cut. We don’t gauge this as something people will get upset about)
They had to get the 2nd amendment in there. The 10th is about states rights. Republicans are generally onboard w/ the first 10. The rest are pretty “woke”.
So, it turns into an argument around semantics. Perfect. Plausible deniability.
Edit: revised after pointed out that the cutoff was the 10th, not the 11th as my original post stated.
I just want to point out that the 11th Amendment isn’t included either; just the first 10, according to the article. The original Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It makes the dividing line seem a little less arbitrary that way.
The only “cherry picking” being done is by the writer of the headline. This Bible doesn’t include Amendments 11 - 27 (everything that came after the Bill of Rights). It’s not advertised to contain those amendments, either. It contains the original Constitution of the United States and it contains the Bill of Rights. The fact that the book description lists the Bill of Rights separately from the US Constitution logically implies that “US Constitution” doesn’t include its amendments in the context of the book’s contents.
The headline suggests that two very specific amendments were omitted in such a way to evoke outrage and paint Trump in a bad light.
I despise Donald Trump and would rather see him in prison than in the White House again, but propaganda is propaganda.
Well it’s a good thing we’re not talking about a human child, we’re talking about a body of text consisting of several distinct documents that were introduced over a span of more than two centuries. Context is tricky, I know.
It’s more like if you show up with a baby photo… A reasonable person might say “that was my child, the way they were long ago. They were smaller then, and they’ve grown and learned since. They had many flaws, and they still haven’t grown out of many of them. It’s important to remember the way they were, just as it is important to know them as they are.”
Right, having trouble following the logic here. When referring to the constitution, people can (and do) refer to it in it’s original state.
If you Google constitution you find the original document including photos. I could understand why someone would possibly expect all amendments. But the thing does also list “bill of rights” and for the average American that would purchase such a thing it’s more than enough. I’m sure we’ll see these on auction in 20 or 30 years.
What I really don’t get is the anger this conversation has drawn, the title of the article tries to imply that not including all the amendments is an intentional act of sexism & racism. As if trump is hand selecting it all. We don’t need a money grab bible to tell us he’s sexist & racist.
I want a Nice Cage move where he steals the constitution but everyone is super pedantic any time someone refers to the stolen artifact as the constitution.
I don’t know if it’d be a better bit if HE always calls it the constitution and everyone else (including some backwoods “Deliverance” type character) is just like “… ackshully… I may not be too good on book learnin’ but that’m thar document ain’t no constitution cuz’ it don’t reference no democratically ratified amendments”, driving Nic to freak the fuck out…
Or if everyone else calls it the constitution and Nic is the one constantly telling people it isn’t actually, eventually freaking out.
The fact that the sales description lists the Bill of Rights separately from the US Constitution logically implies that “The US Constitution” isn’t meant to include its amendments in the context of the book’s contents.
The writer of the headline wants us to assume that Trump cherry-picked the 13th and 19th amendments to be excluded, when that’s obviously not the case. The 11th through 27th Amendments were all left out.
It can both be reporting the facts and be rage bait. A headline that said “Trump Bible only contains the Bill of Rights and not the rest of the Constitution” would also be factual, but it doesn’t push the narrative that Trump is anti-black and anti-woman.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Trump is absolutely anti-black and anti-woman, but the headline is absolutely ragebait. It is selective to get people to click it.
I’m not disagreeing with you about it being incorrectly advertised. I’m saying the headline is written to imply that the bible specifically excludes only the amendments that apply to slavery and women. That is not the case. In fact, the only place in the article that mentions that exact fact is the headline. So while it is technically true to say that it excludes those amendments, it is, at best, misleading. Why not say it “excludes amendment to handle the death of a president”? That is also technically true.
So what I’m saying is: you’re engaging in Lemmy’s second past time, bashing someone for calling out something that’s misleading because the implication fits your narrative.
Add comment