The National Year of the Bible

  • News
  • Thread starter mgb_phys
  • Start date
  • #26
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,090
4
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
 
  • #27
100
1
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?
 
  • #28
100
1
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.
 
  • #29
2,985
13
you're unaffected by it.
That is not a valid reason. A congressman should not be trying to push such things - period.
 
  • #30
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
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.
 
  • #31
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
34
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 [Broken]; it will not go to the president for action. This, in my opinion, only makes it more cowardly.

- Warren
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
100
1
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
34
: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
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.
 
  • #36
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
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
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,090
4
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
2,985
13
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 doesnt affect your life", and "congress traditionally gives holidays" is bogus rationalization.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
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 doesnt 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
2,985
13
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
664
3
Maybe we could make the next year the official non-bible year? :rofl:
 
  • #42
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?
 
  • #43
2,985
13
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 dont 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 dont make any point. You honestly don't know where there 'not supposed to do this'? Hint: Constitution.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
100
1
what about people that find "hug a tree day" (earth day) religiously offensive?
 
  • #45
drankin
You need to speak in more concrete terms when you say things to me. I dont 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 dont 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
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,090
4
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
100
1
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
jacksonpeeble
Gold Member
118
0
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
2,985
13
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
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,774
12
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.
 

Related Threads for: The National Year of the Bible

  • Last Post
3
Replies
64
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
6K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Top