Thumping for Nothing - the Year of the Bible

[JollyRoger]

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.

According to GovTrak.us, the resolution is among the most-blogged-about pieces of legislation, with most posts less than complimentary in nature.

“Does that mean 2009 is not the year of the Bible?” mocked Rep. Barney Frank . .(D-Mass.), who is Jewish. “What is 2012 the year of? The Quran?”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090522/pl_politico/22832

Perosnally, I don't think Congress should be determining the book of the year. And if they do, why choose one with so much deviant sex and violence (think of the children), not to mention the dubious literary merit due the numerous inconsistencies. Edit the darned thing a bit first before trumpeting it as a masterpiece. Anyway, 1983 was already the year of the Bible and if the fans of the book need to further promote it, that's what they have all that tax free property for.

 

[MobBoss]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090522/pl_politico/22832

Perosnally, I don't think Congress should be determining the book of the year. And if they do, why choose one with so much deviant sex and violence (think of the children), not to mention the dubious literary merit due the numerous inconsistencies. Edit the darned thing a bit first before trumpeting it as a masterpiece. Anyway, 1983 was already the year of the Bible and if the fans of the book need to further promote it, that's what they have all that tax free property for.

Well, fwiw, if Barney Frank doesnt like it, its probably ok to support.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, fwiw, if Barney Frank doesnt like it, its probably ok to support.

Barney Frank doesn't like bin Laden. Should I report you to Homeland Security?

 

[Camikaze]

Didn't the 1st Amendment kind of make this unconstitutional?

 

[IglooDame]

“This doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity,” he said in an interview with POLITICO. Rather, he says, it seeks to recognize that the Bible played an integral role in the building of the United States, including providing the basis for our freedom of religion that allows Muslims, Hindus and even atheists to vocalize their own beliefs.

Ummm... what part of the Bible would one cite as a basis for freedom of religion?

 

[JollyRoger]

Ummm... what part of the Bible would one cite as a basis for freedom of religion?

The Congressman must still be taking this guy too seriously:

And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be you Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe there are infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior.

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess a resolution wouldn't violate the "Congress shall pass no law ..." bit?
Anyway, I'm happy to honor the Bible. Let's excise the good parts from the bad parts.

 

[bhsup]

Didn't the 1st Amendment kind of make this unconstitutional?

Absolutely not. The First Amendment was meant to protect against the US Government doing what our mother country did and creating an official "Church Of The United States" where the Head of State was also the official head of the church. People have so horribly twisted it over the years, it is pathetic.

Christianity is not a specific religion. Church of England is. We have a National Cathedral, we have various denominations giving prayer for Congress. There would have been nothing wrong with this, but a small minority of cry-babies that hate Christianity have to rear their heads.

 

[Kraznaya]

Preferring specific groups of denominations to others is still religious discrimination.

 

[JollyRoger]

Which version of the Bible is it going to be the year of?

 

[Cutlass]

Didn't the 1st Amendment kind of make this unconstitutional?

Yes. However, a lot of people don't care about the Constitution. And many of them are conservatives in Congress. They see the Constitution as an obstacle to their power and prejudices.

Absolutely not. The First Amendment was meant to protect against the US Government doing what our mother country did and creating an official "Church Of The United States" where the Head of State was also the official head of the church. People have so horribly twisted it over the years, it is pathetic.

Christianity is not a specific religion. Church of England is. We have a National Cathedral, we have various denominations giving prayer for Congress. There would have been nothing wrong with this, but a small minority of cry-babies that hate Christianity have to rear their heads.

Wrong. Separation of church and state is about protecting Christians. There are fundamental differences of doctrine between many Christians. The First Amendment was a law for Christians and also by Christians, for the purpose of not making any law whatsoever that interferes with the worship of some or makes some act in the specified by the religion of other people. That's why the school prayer and other laws have been struck down as unconstitutional. Because they are, and this is too. And so are 100 other issues that people have just been unwilling to fight through to their Constitutional conclusion yet. The fact that we've been ignoring the Constitution for 100s of years on many issues does not change the fact that the Constitution does not allow certain things.

And it is flat out false to claim the opponents hate Christians. The truth is that the supporters hate freedom of faith.

 

[Tarquelne]

Didn't the 1st Amendment kind of make this unconstitutional?

No. That's the "establishment religion"/separation of church and state amendment.

There is no amendment against stupid grandstanding. (In fact, there's arguably one that protects it.)

 

[El_Machinae]

Which version of the Bible is it going to be the year of?

Jefferson's

 

[.Shane.]

Shouldn't this type of nonsense be left to Oprah?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Blimey - the politicians want to bugger up religion too.

 

[Aegis]

Preferring specific groups of denominations to others is still religious discrimination.

I agree.

Keep religion out of politics, please.

 

[GoodGame]

Preferring specific groups of denominations to others is still religious discrimination.

That could be averted by having a non-denominational version, but not likely. I wouldn't be surprised if the proposers believe their verrsion is identical to the one used in other religions.

Congress doesn't need to be promoting this though.

 

[Shadylookin]

Well it better be the King James version and not that heretic catholic one or Jesus will damn America. And heaven help us all if it's the Ethiopian version

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I tend to think that this -- and probably pretty much any resolution that doesn't have the force of law -- is just a big waste of time.

 

[amadeus]

Who tagged this "Only in America?"

Let's try and remember that Norway, Denmark, Iceland, England, and Greece all retain state churches. Glass houses.