News How Has the Bible Influenced U.S. National Holidays and Governance?

[mgb_phys]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc111-121

Whereas shared Biblical beliefs unified the colonists and gave our early leaders the wisdom to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States

And the good sense to keep the bible out of it.

Whereas the Bible has inspired acts of patriotism that have unified Americans, commemorated through shared celebrations such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas;

Don't quite see the link there guys

to issue a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture

Is 'logical-disconnect' too many syllables for congress?

 

[LowlyPion]

Whereas the Bible has been the world’s best selling book since it was first published in English in 1526, and has influenced more people than any other book;

In a shorter time scale, what about making it the Year of Harry Potter?

I think all this represents is that Republicans (only Republicans are sponsoring this turkey) have been reduced to idleness. Sponsoring bills to try and then maybe say Congressional incumbents would have voted against the Bible, seems to be about the only idea they have to move the country further along.

Besides, what do you want them to be doing ... proposing more Budgets with no numbers?

I dount this will ever make it out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee.

 

[chroot]

What's really sad is that Mr. Broun, the representative who submitted this resolution, claims on his http://broun.house.gov/ to judge all proposed legislature with his "4-Way Test." One of the four criteria is "Is it constitutional?"

I find it pretty hard to believe that Mr. Broun is not aware of the first sentence of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"), so I must conclude that Mr. Broun is a two-faced liar who pretends to uphold the constitution while simultaneously undermining it.

If you want a chuckle, check out his impressive legislative victories on his Wiki page. Top among them? His attempt to prevent military personnel from looking at pornography in their own homes. His law even includes the following incredibly elaborate definition of nudity:

any part of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola with less than an opaque covering but does not include the exposure of the cleavage of the female breast exhibited by a dress, blouse, bathing suit, or other apparel.

Evil, evil areolae!

People like this jackass have no business in any public office. Is there any wonder that the Republican party is dying?

- Warren

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not that I am defending this guy or supporting the idea, but in response to mgb:

One nation, under God
In God we trust
All men are created equal and
endowed with unalienable rights

His point is not completely without merit.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..

 

[Cyrus]

Not that I am defending this guy or supporting the idea, but in response to mgb:

One nation, under God
In God we trust
All men are created equal and
endowed with unalienable rights

His point is not completely without merit.

...wasnt the first two added in the 50s?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...wasnt the first two added in the 50s?

"One nation under God" was added according to the following logic

The words "under God" were added in 1954 by then President Eisenhower, who stated at the time, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

The modern motto of the United States of America, as established in a 1956 law signed by President Dwight D Eisenhower, is In God We Trust.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_motto

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read...

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

 

[chroot]

Ivan,

What's your point? Are you suggesting that because "God" has been referenced before, we should permit future references?

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

"One nation under God" was added according to the following logic




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_motto


http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

Doesn't that go against the fact that the founding fathers did not put 'in god we trust' anywhere, which smacks at the face of this guys Bill?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The point is that it is pretty hard to deny our religious heritage.

Whereas shared Biblical beliefs unified the colonists and gave our early leaders the wisdom to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States

And the damn good sense to keep the bible out of it.

Well, we didn't. In fact, in the Declaration of Independence, the existence of God is officially recognized. In fact, by implication, the existence of God is officially self-evident.

The official motto is "In God We Trust". How much more plain could it be? One key point:Even historically we can't limit things to the Bible. However the swearing upon a bible tradition does imply a strong official bias towards Christian beliefs.

 

[chroot]

The point is that it is pretty hard to deny our religious heritage.

Which holds more weight, the word "God" in the preamble, or the First Amendment?

Are you just playing devil's advocate? If so, why?

- Warren

 

[turbo]

The point is that it is pretty hard to deny our religious heritage.



Well, we didn't. In fact, in the Declaration of Independence, the existence of God is officially recognized.

The official motto is "In God We Trust". How much more plain could it be?

"in god we trust" did not appear until the end of the Civil War and did not become official for another 90 years after that. References to the intent of the "founding fathers" get tossed around pretty freely, and incorrectly.

 

[chroot]

Besides, Ivan, the Declaration of Independence mentions "Nature's God" in a sort of workaround to avoid naming the deity of any specific religion. In contrast, Congressman Broun wants the government to acknowledge and endorse the claptrap book of one specific religion. I hope you recognize the difference.

- Warren

 

[drankin]

As a "religious" person, I don't think Congress should pass/endorse any laws or holidays or anything pertaining to religion. If we can just keep them to screwing up one thing at a time it will be easier to follow in the media.

 

[russ_watters]

The point is that it is pretty hard to deny our religious heritage.

Of that there is no doubt, but how does that have anything to do with the Constitutionality of the proposed bill? A national year of the bible endorses Christianity - it is about as plain a violation of the establishment clause as there could be.

 

[turbo]

Besides, Ivan, the Declaration of Independence mentions "Nature's God" in a sort of workaround to avoid naming the deity of any specific religion. In contrast, Congressman Broun wants the government to acknowledge and endorse the claptrap book of one specific religion. I hope you recognize the difference.

- Warren

The founding fathers were often deists, and they were well aware of the fact that many of the people who emigrated to the colonies came here to escape religious intolerance and state-sponsored religions.

 

[chroot]

Of that there is no doubt, but how does that have anything to do with the Constitutionality of the proposed bill? A national year of the bible endorses Christianity - it is about as plain a violation of the establishment clause as there could be.

I agree; I don't understand why Ivan keeps trying to derail the discussion.

- Warren

 

[turbo]

I agree; I don't understand why Ivan keeps trying to derail the discussion.

- Warren

Maybe if the resolution encouraged Americans of all faiths to embrace the tenets of the Torah, the Koran, or the Book of Mormon people would understand just how wrong the resolution is. Not just in terms of Constitutionality, which is paramount, but in terms of fairness to all.

 

[chroot]

Maybe if the resolution encouraged Americans of all faiths to embrace the tenets of the Torah, the Koran, or the Book of Mormon people would understand just how wrong the resolution is. Not just in terms of Constitutionality, which is paramount, but in terms of fairness to all.

I agree entirely... it's about as pleasant a sentiment as a sharp burning stick to the eye.

- Warren

 

[Proton Soup]

you guys realize such a resolution doesn't actually resolve to do anything, right?

 

[chroot]

you guys realize such a resolution doesn't actually resolve to do anything, right?

Yes, I'm aware that it's not a law, or a proposal for a law. Either way, doesn't it bother you that a Congressman wants the President of the United States to encourage people of all faiths to read and learn from the the holy book of a specific religion? For an entire year?

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

you guys realize such a resolution doesn't actually resolve to do anything, right?

Why is that relevant?

 

[Proton Soup]

Why is that relevant?

good question. why is this relevant?

 

[turbo]

you guys realize such a resolution doesn't actually resolve to do anything, right?

The resolution is a "gotcha". Any Dem that doesn't vote for it in Congresss will be "anti-bible" in the mid-term campaign ads, and if there were actually enough idiots to vote for it in Congress, Obama would be "anti-bible" for not designating a National Year of the Bible. ("See? That PROVES he's a Muslim!") It's political grandstanding by a desperate GOP, watching their base shrink to the Deep South and Christian Fundamentalists.

 

[Cyrus]

good question. why is this relevant?

Does my question elude you?

 

[LowlyPion]

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[PREAMBLE ...]

You know Ivan I appreciate your point that the founders were reverent of a Creator. Maybe even The Bible as well. Yes they gave a nod to God at the birth of the Country. But that said there is a bit of a leap in representing then that The Bible represents the Word of The Creator any more than perhaps Broun should also consider that the Koran, or The Book of the Dead, or the Book of Mormon, or any of a number of other faith-foundational references might also be held in equal reverence by their respective Religions. That The Bible would be accorded some special recognition separate from other documents and other religions? That puts them well into conflict with the Establishment Clause, if only symbolically.

I think Congress would be better served sticking to honoring wildflowers and birds and fixing the economy and reforming healthcare.

I'd guess that the reason for this bill has more to do with Obama downgrading the observance of National Prayer Day with any official event than anything else. The bill was filed on National Prayer Day.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer

 

[Proton Soup]

Does my question elude you?

you're unaffected by it.

Yes, I'm aware that it's not a law, or a proposal for a law. Either way, doesn't it bother you that a Congressman wants the President of the United States to encourage people of all faiths to read and learn from the the holy book of a specific religion? For an entire year?

- Warren

it is part of our history.

do people get indigestion from national brussel sprout month?

 

[Proton Soup]

The resolution is a "gotcha". Any Dem that doesn't vote for it in Congresss will be "anti-bible" in the mid-term campaign ads, and if there were actually enough idiots to vote for it in Congress, Obama would be "anti-bible" for not designating a National Year of the Bible. ("See? That PROVES he's a Muslim!") It's political grandstanding by a desperate GOP, watching their base shrink to the Deep South and Christian Fundamentalists.

he's quite the diplomat. it'll be interesting to see what he does. a quiet signing without fanfare would be his best bet.

 

[Cyrus]

you're unaffected by it.

That is not a valid reason. A congressman should not be trying to push such things - period.

 

[turbo]

he's quite the diplomat. it'll be interesting to see what he does. a quiet signing without fanfare would be his best bet.

I think you underestimate him. Kowtowing to the right-wing would be a big mistake, and he's smart enough to know that.

 

[chroot]

he's quite the diplomat. it'll be interesting to see what he does. a quiet signing without fanfare would be his best bet.

It's a http://www.house.gov/house/Tying_it_all.shtml ; it will not go to the president for action. This, in my opinion, only makes it more cowardly.

- Warren

 

[Proton Soup]

That is not a valid reason. A congressman should not be trying to push such things - period.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1869854,00.html

It's a http://www.house.gov/house/Tying_it_all.shtml ; it will not go to the president for action. This, in my opinion, only makes it more cowardly.

- Warren

so you're saying he's not trying to make Obama look bad/feel uncomfortable?

 

[Cyrus]

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1869854,00.html

Posting a link doesn't pass as a response. I'm sure you've read the link and have the mental capability of typing what you want to say.

 

[chroot]

so you're saying he's not trying to make Obama look bad/feel uncomfortable?

I said nothing of the sort. I agree with turbo-1; it's just a way to vilify anyone who votes against it.

Those insignificant votes will then be amplified in mega-churches throughout the country. Pastors not unlike Ted Haggard will tell their throngs that so-and-so voted against the Bible, and their cow-eyed voting blocs will respond mechanically, as they have been trained to do over many years.

You underestimate these people; they are the ones who so frequently use the words "culture war," after all. This is ammunition.

- Warren

 

[drankin]

Posting a link doesn't pass as a response. I'm sure you've read the link and have the mental capability of typing what you want to say.

I read the first two paragraphs and understood his point precisely. In fact, I like it better than if he added a comment to it.

 

[turbo]

I said nothing of the sort. I agree with turbo-1; it's just a way to vilify anyone who votes against it.

Those insignificant votes will then be amplified in mega-churches throughout the country. Pastors not unlike Ted Haggard will tell their throngs that so-and-so voted against the Bible, and their cow-eyed voting blocs will respond mechanically.

You underestimate these people; they are the ones who so frequently use the words "culture war," after all. This is ammunition.

- Warren

Yep. As a swimmer/lifesaver I can attest that panic and flailing can drown you faster than any of the forces of nature (aside from hypothermia). In the Scouts, the most valuable training for a life-saver involved techniques for extending flotation/towing aid to a desperate swimmer while avoiding his/her grasp so you both wouldn't die.

This wild flailing on the part of the GOP bodes ill for them. Desperation is ugly. If they could calmly regroup, recruit fiscal conservatives, and submit alternative ideas instead of just saying NO to everything, the party might once again start appealing to adults. Who cares if their performance in the next mid-terms stink? If they can rebound and capture Independents in the next 4-6 years, the GOP can gain a lot - especially if some of the current initiatives endorsed by the Dems and the moderate GOP members have unintended consequences or are co-opted by politically-connected actors for financial gain.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think there is some confusion here. This has only been introduced as a resolution. It has been assigned to a Subcommittee. I'd be surprised if it ever sees the light of day again. Much less come to a vote. Those 13 Republicans are apparently using the filing as a vehicle to pad their Bible Belt resumes.

Like I said before, it looks like with summer coming and them without anything useful to do except be some chirping Greek Chorus of "No" as the Democrats proceed to have their way with them, they decided to file a silly bill. That way it looks like they are doing something.

 

[Cyrus]

I read the first two paragraphs and understood his point precisely. In fact, I like it better than if he added a comment to it.

So I just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading the link. What was the point of it?

The point of our complaint in this thread is that such things, bills, resolutions, whatever, should not be proposed in the first place. Arguing "it doesn't affect your life", and "congress traditionally gives holidays" is bogus rationalization.

 

[drankin]

So I just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading the link. What was the point of it?

The point of our complaint in this thread is that such things, bills, resolutions, whatever, should not be proposed in the first place. Arguing "it doesn't affect your life", and "congress traditionally gives holidays" is bogus rationalization.

In all honesty, it's a bogus realization, this is what our elected officials do when they are done clipping their toenails. If you say "they shouldn't do that!", well that's what they do when they are elected. It's like telling a cop to stop eating donuts.

 

[Cyrus]

In all honesty, it's a bogus realization, this is what our elected officials do when they are done clipping their toenails. If you say "they shouldn't do that!", well that's what they do when they are elected. It's like telling a cop to stop eating donuts.

They are not supposed to do this. How is this not clear to you? This is not something they do 'when they are done clipping their toe nails'. It's something they do on the job. This is not what they are supposed to be doing, on the job.

 

[Moridin]

Maybe we could make the next year the official non-bible year?

 

[drankin]

They are not supposed to do this. How is this not clear to you? This is not something they do 'when they are done clipping their toe nails'. It's something they do on the job. This is not what they are supposed to be doing, on the job.

Where is it written that are not suppose to do this?? It's a tradition. I don't know the history but they have been doing this, Dems and Reps, for decades if not centuries thousands of times a year. Are you just now realizing this?

 

[Cyrus]

Where is it written that are not suppose to do this?? It's a tradition. I don't know the history but they have been doing this, Dems and Reps, for decades if not centuries thousands of times a year. Are you just now realizing this?

You need to speak in more concrete terms when you say things to me. I don't know what 'it's a tradition' is supposed to mean. Neither do I know what 'have been doing this' means either. Have they been pushing religious resolutions? I don't care if for the last ten billion years they have been assigning it national hug a tree day. That's irrelevant so long as they have not been pushing 'praise the bible day'. Bland statements like the one above don't make any point. You honestly don't know where there 'not supposed to do this'? Hint: Constitution.

 

[Proton Soup]

what about people that find "hug a tree day" (earth day) religiously offensive?

 

[drankin]

You need to speak in more concrete terms when you say things to me. I don't know what 'it's a tradition' is supposed to mean. Neither do I know what 'have been doing this' means either. Have they been pushing religious resolutions? I don't care if for the last ten billion years they have been assigning it national hug a tree day. That's irrelevant so long as they have not been pushing 'praise the bible day'. Bland statements like the one above don't make any point. You honestly don't know where there 'not supposed to do this'? Hint: Constitution.

You need "concrete" terms? Ok, let me "backfill" my comments and create an "embankment" that you can recognize without using the "borrow pit" or any additional "ballast".

If there was something un-Constitutional going on in a room full of lawyers, don't you think something would be done about it?

 

[LowlyPion]

what about people that find "hug a tree day" (earth day) religiously offensive?

You can ignore them. That's their problem.

The basic protections of the Constitution are to protect the few from the tyranny of the many, and protect the many from the tyranny of the few.

The issue of the Establishment clause is not to impose a religion as a State Religion. That no one religion will have primacy by means of action by the state.

I don't see that you can make a useful argument that there is a tree-hugger's religion. There may be many that appreciate and wish to preserve Nature and its wonders, but that doesn't really rise to being a religion in any organized sense, though it might seem to some that their fervor matches the fervor of the most extreme practice of some religion. Hugging trees, moreover, is not exclusionary as there are individuals from many religious denominations that are tree huggers one must presume.

As a practical matter then it would seem to devolve into political expediency, as to whether Congress would judge that there are enough people of a particular persuasion that would be offended, so as to act as a brake on their interest in honoring trees.

 

[Proton Soup]

You can ignore them. That's their problem.

The basic protections of the Constitution are to protect the few from the tyranny of the many, and protect the many from the tyranny of the few.

The issue of the Establishment clause is not to impose a religion as a State Religion. That no one religion will have primacy by means of action by the state.

I don't see that you can make a useful argument that there is a tree-hugger's religion. There may be many that appreciate and wish to preserve Nature and its wonders, but that doesn't really rise to being a religion in any organized sense, though it might seem to some that their fervor matches the fervor of the most extreme practice of some religion. Hugging trees, moreover, is not exclusionary as there are individuals from many religious denominations that are tree huggers one must presume.

As a practical matter then it would seem to devolve into political expediency, as to whether Congress would judge that there are enough people of a particular persuasion that would be offended, so as to act as a brake on their interest in honoring trees.

there is no establishment here. there's not even a law.

 

[jacksonpeeble]

I wouldn't worry about this too much. It's a democratic congress.

I believe that all religions need to be treated equally. So, yes, Ivan, I believe it is completely without merit. Times have changed (for the better in this regard, I believe) to be more accepting of others and their religions. I experience everyday religiously generated hate and intolerance toward people that have differing views. The United States of America started as a method in which to escape harsh British religious restrictions, and we're carrying on the Pilgrims' tradition.

 

[Cyrus]

You need "concrete" terms? Ok, let me "backfill" my comments and create an "embankment" that you can recognize without using the "borrow pit" or any additional "ballast".

If there was something un-Constitutional going on in a room full of lawyers, don't you think something would be done about it?

If there were a room full of congressmen passing a bill, do you think they would read it first?

 

[mgb_phys]

The United States of America started as a method in which to escape harsh British religious restrictions, and we're carrying on the Pilgrims' tradition.

The pilgrims left for America because they wanted to introduce harsh religious restrictions. They first left for Amsterdam in the hope of finding a less liberal attitude - this was about the level of strategic thinking that accompanied the rest of their endeavor.

150 years later the framers of the constitution were still trying to sort out the mess.