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

  • Thread starter Thread starter mgb_phys
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Year
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around a resolution introduced in Congress to declare a "National Year of the Bible," primarily sponsored by Republican representatives. Participants express concern over the implications of such a resolution, arguing it endorses Christianity and violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion. Critics highlight the historical context, noting that while references to God exist in foundational documents like the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers intentionally kept religious texts out of government. The resolution is viewed as a political maneuver, aimed at rallying the Republican base and framing opposition as "anti-Bible." Many contributors emphasize the need for Congress to focus on substantive issues rather than symbolic gestures that could alienate non-Christian citizens. The discussion also touches on the broader implications of religious endorsement in government and the importance of treating all religions equally. Overall, the sentiment is that the resolution is unnecessary and could further divide rather than unify the nation.
  • #31
Proton Soup said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Cyrus said:
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

chroot said:
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

:rolleyes: so you're saying he's not trying to make Obama look bad/feel uncomfortable?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Proton Soup said:
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.
 
  • #34
Proton Soup said:
:rolleyes: 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
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Cyrus said:
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.
 
  • #36
chroot said:
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.
 
  • #37
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.
 
  • #38
drankin said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Cyrus said:
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.
 
  • #40
drankin said:
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.
 
  • #41
Maybe we could make the next year the official non-bible year? :smile:
 
  • #42
Cyrus said:
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?
 
  • #43
drankin said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
what about people that find "hug a tree day" (earth day) religiously offensive?
 
  • #45
Cyrus said:
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?
 
  • #46
Proton Soup said:
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.
 
  • #47
LowlyPion said:
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.
 
  • #48
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.
 
  • #49
drankin said:
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?
 
  • #50
jacksonpeeble said:
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.
 
  • #51
mgb_phys said:
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.
Not too dissimilar from the Jonestown project. Good thing the pilgrims didn't have Kool-Aid. Plenty of them died anyway simply from underestimating the severity of New England winters, though if they had consulted with the European fishermen who had been exploiting NE fisheries for long before the pilgrims showed up, they might have had a clue. All latitudes are not created equal.
 
  • #52
jacksonpeeble said:
I believe that all religions need to be treated equally.
I agree!
but I believe All religions should be questioned on a personal basis. As in, where did you acquire this belief? What facts prove this belief?
And the religions that cannot justify their beliefs should be abandoned.
 
  • #53
russ_watters said:
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.
This thing is a resolution, not a law or bill. Congress is free to resolve tomorrow morning that Physics Forums is the greatest web presence in the history of the world and in the afternoon resolve that the Constitution be balled up and trashed, all without care to the Constituion. This particular resolution is however, in my opinion, foolish.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
Alfi said:
I agree!
but I believe All religions should be questioned on a personal basis. As in, where did you acquire this belief? What facts prove this belief?
And the religions that cannot justify their beliefs should be abandoned.

Abandoned by who? What constitutes a justification in a belief system? What is justified by one is not by another.
 
  • #55
Alfi said:
I agree!
but I believe All religions should be questioned on a personal basis. As in, where did you acquire this belief? What facts prove this belief?
And the religions that cannot justify their beliefs should be abandoned.

Religious beliefs are based on faith, not proof. Many do fail. For example, how many Shakers have you seen lately? :biggrin: