That is a false equivalency. The Constitution is an explicit definition of what the federal government is and what they are allowed to do. The Bible is a collection of a bunch of ancient stories.

Your quote reminded me of people with strong character: admitting to a mistake when it might cost them their job, urging a friend to return a stolen item, asking fellow church members to get to know a paralyzed man.

Putting aside personal convenience is fundamental to loving God and neighbor at times.

> Putting aside personal convenience is fundamental to loving God and neighbor at times.

No, it's fundamental to character. It's not exclusive to religion. That's just part of the myth.

I'll just point out that loving God and neighbor is a paraphrase of a specific quote from the Bible. That's why I mentioned it. The quote is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”

Where's your following of the other significantly more inconvenient parts?

Mixed fibers, prohibitions against eating pork, tattoos, fully submissive women, uncovered heads, slavery, divorce, etc

Some people actually do attempt to follow some of these things, but there's even contradictory information in the same book!

I’m not sure what you’re wanting, sorry. The quote that started this reminded me of some principled Christians I’ve admired.

Being fundamental to character, love of God, and love of your neighbor are not mutually exclusive claims.

Someone could come up with a definition for each that excludes this need, but that is true of character and any subjective definition.

I think the Catholic church for example should do that. The constitution is like America’s Bible.

In the context of a Church controversy where members of the church agree that the Bible is their foundational doctrine? I’d feel exactly the same.

Seems fine. Not everything in life is convenient. In fact, many of the most important things are hard.

I mean, I’ve never been able to wrap my head around people who are Christian (or whatever) and pick and choose which of the religions “rules” to follow.

I realize to not do so in general makes society a pretty awful place, but most religions say you’ll go to hell if you don’t.

It’s the Supreme Court’s job to explicitly follow the constitution. In your example I want them to be religious fundamentalists. If that turns out to be an issue we have a body that can change our society’s “bible.”

Jesus never revoked Leviticus. So that'll be a hard sell for most.