Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News The National Year of the Bible

  1. May 11, 2009 #1

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

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

    And the good sense to keep the bible out of it.
    Don't quite see the link there guys
    Is 'logical-disconnect' too many syllables for congress?
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. May 11, 2009 #2

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  4. May 11, 2009 #3

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What's really sad is that Mr. Broun, the representative who submitted this resolution, claims on his http://broun.house.gov/ [Broken] 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:
    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
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  5. May 11, 2009 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  6. May 11, 2009 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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,..
     
  7. May 11, 2009 #6
    .....wasnt the first two added in the 50s?
     
  8. May 11, 2009 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    "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 [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  9. May 11, 2009 #8

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ivan,

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

    - Warren
     
  10. May 11, 2009 #9
    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?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  11. May 11, 2009 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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. 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.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2009
  12. May 11, 2009 #11

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  13. May 11, 2009 #12

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    "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.
     
  14. May 11, 2009 #13

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2009
  15. May 11, 2009 #14
    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.
     
  16. May 11, 2009 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  17. May 11, 2009 #16

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  18. May 11, 2009 #17

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    - Warren
     
  19. May 11, 2009 #18

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  20. May 11, 2009 #19

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    - Warren
     
  21. May 11, 2009 #20
    you guys realize such a resolution doesn't actually resolve to do anything, right?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: The National Year of the Bible
  1. The bible and evil (Replies: 6)

  2. UFO in Bible? (Replies: 8)

  3. The Bible (Replies: 64)

  4. Bible code (Replies: 3)

Loading...