The Bible bill?

The Bible bill?

news.yahoo.com

When the clock strikes midnight on Dec. 31, 2009, Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) hopes you’ll be ringing in “the Year of the Bible.”

It’s probably just wishful thinking.

Broun’s simple congressional resolution aimed at honoring the Good Book has produced a push-back of biblical proportion in the blogosphere, with critics dismissing it as either unconstitutional or a waste of time. Jews in Congress and atheist activists are dismissing the resolution, while none of the many Democrats in Congress who are Christian have bothered to sign on as co-sponsors.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I dont know what this guy is thinking....the year of the bible?!! Do he really has nothing else to think about in terms of legislation than this? With the crisis that we have at hand and all the things going on he just want to throw this in the mix?

Let's see what happens with this bill though...because these politicians have to pander to their christian's lets see if they have the nerve to pass this through.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Bunch]

Put simply, this guy is a joke
why divide people like that?
what purpose will it serve.

Stupidity!

reply to post by Bunch


Why shouldn’t they pass it through? A majority of this nation identifies themselves as Christians? And don’t give me the Separation of Church in state argument, when the founding fathers are on record as saying that they believed god should never be taken out of Public life.

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


Its just wrong for many reasons one of them being that small thing about separation of church and state, and like the article states...whats going to come next, "The year of the Quran", "The year of Buddah" and so on and so forth... the bill is just going to creat an unnnecessary controversy where we dont need one.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Bunch

 

Why shouldn’t they pass it through? A majority of this nation identifies themselves as Christians? And don’t give me the Separation of Church in state argument, when the founding fathers are on record as saying that they believed god should never be taken out of Public life.

Separation of Church and state is most certainly a valid argument. The United States was meant to be separatist on all matters of religion, adhereing to none. While the majority of this nation is Christian, that still gives them no right for the government to endorse Christianity. Most founding fathers agreed with this.

Please see article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), it was unanimously agreed upon by all members present at the senate.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

I can find quotes from various founding fathers who say quite the contrary to what you have presented, but their origins are lackluster when compared to the Treaty of Tripoli, which can be verified independently.



[edit on 22-5-2009 by ExistenceUnknown]

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
Why shouldn’t they pass it through?

Probably because its a stupid and useless idea.

A majority of this nation identifies themselves as Christians?

So whats your point? "Identifies themselves as Christians" to me means half the so called Christians do no go to church or could even quote a line from the bible to you. They are Christian when it suits their needs.

And don’t give me the Separation of Church in state argument, when the founding fathers are on record as saying that they believed god should never be taken out of Public life.

Again, whats your point? "Public life" does not imply or mean domestic politics. I think they made it quite clear what role religion has in politics.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

Source

Seems fairly clear to me.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by FreeSpeaker]

There are many religions as there are many races, to single out one religion is akin to singling out one race to have "the year of"....

IMO it's discrimination plain and simple. I don't believe it will happen as the very nature of anti discrimination laws would mean there would have to be "the year of", atheism, Muslim, buddhism, seventh day hoppists
and so on.

reply to post by whoswatchinwho


I agree with your statement, however we have Black History Month, and no other months celebrating any other race.

I believe this is an attempt to divert attention from real issues with an issue that clearly will have no end.

this whole seperation of church and state is a sham.America was founded by belivers in god, and with the laws of god.The 10 commandment and the constitution arnt that far apart in basis.In god we trust is on our money becuse our forfathers belived in god and wanted to say so on there money.George washington wouldn't have crossed the deleware had it not been his belife in god telling him to do so.all around you are reliogus symbols, obilisk, pyrimds,Roman/greecian style bulidings all over wall street,and just about every corthouse not built in last 50 years looks like or has roman like features.The reason the forfathers made the bill or rights, and constitution like they did was to make there people free,and used the laws of god and what they though mattered and mixed them togather.AMERICA was built on belive in god,albeit good intentions dont equal good action alot of time.
Was about 50 years ago everyoen started all this BS about god and state,If you joined the army for ww2,the old saying "yous soul belongs to jesus,but your A@@ belongs to the marine corp" , was in full effect.
Thats Why the U.S.A. is where it is today,It becuse of a move from the old ways,and saying god has no place in our goverment.
"Forgive them father for they know not what they do"
Peace

reply to post by devareous


Obviously you are very passionate about this subject. But your passion still does not account for your lack of evidence. Christianity being the majority in this country has hijacked the government for over 100 years. This is why we see things like "In God we Trust" on our money, which by the way had nothing to do with our founding fathers:

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.

Source

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Bunch

 

Why shouldn’t they pass it through? A majority of this nation identifies themselves as Christians? And don’t give me the Separation of Church in state argument, when the founding fathers are on record as saying that they believed god should never be taken out of Public life.

Odd, considering the contents of your constitution, and the fact that they implemented freedom of religion from the get-go.

Originally posted by Tyler 720

I agree with your statement, however we have Black History Month, and no other months celebrating any other race.

touche!

One reason why America is in a ditch is because of voters in the bible belt
And politicians pandering to america's christian beliefs

this has brought you nothing but chaos, shame and corruption.

Anyhow, so when's Year of Hinduism?
We clearly have the best cuisine so i'm sure even christians would enjoy Year of Hinduism more than Year of hamburgers and mcdonalds.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
One reason why America is in a ditch is because of voters in the bible belt
And politicians pandering to america's christian beliefs

this has brought you nothing but chaos, shame and corruption.

Anyhow, so when's Year of Hinduism?
We clearly have the best cuisine so i'm sure even christians would enjoy Year of Hinduism more than Year of hamburgers and mcdonalds.

doesn't make any sense- America is a much better place to live in that most countries in the world- to somehow castigate it because the majority of its population is Christian is bizzarre.


How does pandering to "Christian beliefs" bring corruption- which specific beliefs are they pandering too that demands corruption?!

Originally posted by blueorder
to somehow castigate it because the majority of its population is Christian is bizzarre.

Ummmm, when did I do that?

Originally posted by blueorder
How does pandering to "Christian beliefs" bring corruption- which specific beliefs are they pandering too that demands corruption?!

it's not about that
Look at how many religious people voted for Huckabee, so many nuns

When I say pandering to christian beliefs I mean just talking about christian values and not about real issues like foreign policy and the economy.

Many people in the bible belt wouldn't give two [snip] about the economy and foreign policy as long as a candidate panders to their beliefs.

These are some of the most blind people on the planet and only represent a threat to other citizens with half a brain or more.


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 22-5-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

it's not about that
Look at how many religious people voted for Huckabee, so many nuns

I have no idea how many nuns voted for him (nor whether it made any discernible difference, are there that many voting nuns!?)

When I say pandering to christian beliefs I mean just talking about christian values and not about real issues like foreign policy and the economy.

The two are not mutually exclusive though, in fact, a moral (non fundamentalist admittedly) grounding, in this case morals from christianity, can be no bad thing

Many people in the bible belt wouldn't give two sh!ts about the economy and foreign policy as long as a candidate panders to their beliefs.

I think that is a gross oversimplification of the situation- there may be a tiny minority of people who would happily live on a dollar a day and be happy with a nuclear war in Pakistan, so long as a candidate mentions the bible, but I would suggest such numbers are staggerinly low

These are some of the most blind people on the planet and only represent a threat to other citizens with half a brain or more.

Fundamentalism of any ideology, whether religious or secular, can represent danger, but I think you are grossly overstating things here

Republicans designate 2010 as "The National Year of the Bible"

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

it's not about that
Look at how many religious people voted for Huckabee, so many nuns

Look at how many blacks voted for Obama simply because he was black.

When I say pandering to christian beliefs I mean just talking about christian values and not about real issues like foreign policy and the economy.

Can give a few specific examples of the "Christian beliefs" that they pander to ?

Originally posted by blueorder
I think that is a gross oversimplification of the situation- there may be a tiny minority of people who would happily live on a dollar a day and be happy with a nuclear war in Pakistan, so long as a candidate mentions the bible, but I would suggest such numbers are staggerinly low

Not at all

I don't know how many people you know in the bible belt
But I work for a consulting firm and have several clients in that region.
I speak to them daily and they all talk to me about how things are.

For example there was a drought in SC and the city told them not to use alot of water and told restaurants to only offer water to cliens if they asked. Then it rained and a fairly big crowd of people were claiming it was thanks to god lol.

So many other stories as well, you'd be surprised you'd think you were hearing about a village in a 3rd world country.

Fundamentalism of any ideology, whether religious or secular, can represent danger, but I think you are grossly overstating things here

Unfortunately not

And this is not only about bible belt voters either

The mere fact that you don't oppose this bill yourself says alot
This is nothing more than a distraction