wow this is interesting. not saying i agree, with all the honors there are for books and whatnot. as a religious person i hope this passes.. i bet this gets heated...
basically Paul Broun is hoping/trying to get 2009 as the Year of The Bible since it was an integral document in the founding of the US
what the hell... i hate being born in feb. now.. i guess they all pick it to be the punk.. shortest days so lets give it away.. (little rant)
As I said he was born on the 12th of Feb and it was only for the 200th anniversary of his birth. Even if you don;t agree with his ideas he was still a great scientist and deserves a celebration of his life. His work on barnacles is brilliant lol. Its all about respect I don't agree with the bible but I still respect what it says just for the morals etc.
I don't mean to turn this into a debate about the ethics of Christianity, because that's not what my opposition to this is based on, but I couldn't help but do a double-take at this from the article:
âThis doesnât have anything to do with Christianity,â 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.
How can someone say that the BIBLE, of all things, provides the basis for religious freedom?
Regardless, this isn't a religious issue, this is a legal issue. And as the article mentioned, the First Amendment specifically prohibits the establishment of a religion, and the Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that any decree concerning religion must have an explicitly secular purpose as well.
The Bible has never served a secular purpose for our government. Does it have secular morals? Of course. Does that mean that it is used as a secular book? No.
The Bible isn't secular; the Year of the Bible doesn't serve a secular purpose.
Can I just clarify, as I wasn't 100% sure from the article, but what does this 'Year of the (insert book here)' actually mean in practice? Is it nothing more than a governmental endorsement?
From what I gathered from the article, the main reason most were objecting was because it would seem like the state was endorsing a particular religion. Even if this has no real impact, from a symbolic perspective I don't think the bible should be endorsed, unless they endorse the Tora, the Qu'ran etc.
However, that would be a flagrant disregard of the Separation of Church and State. I can't believe that that legislator has compromised his responsibility as a member of the government to keep the two separate. Then again, I can. After all, how many people in power are corrupt or crooked? Nearly all of them.
the government is NOT endorsing the bible or saying its the main religion over the rest of them.. from what i got, all it is saying is that it should be honored as a work that helped to shape the US into what it is today..
That's not at all considering the amount of the nation who would be opposed to honoring a book such as the Bible, anyway.
It's not a book whose primary function is a secular document, nor a government-founding one. It's a religious book, first and foremost. That's why it's unconstitutional.
including providing the basis for our freedom of religion that allows Muslims, Hindus and even atheists to vocalize their own beliefs
How did the Bible do that? When in fact it's doing the opposite. The Bible is the Main reason why Homosexuals aren't granted their constitutional rights, and throughout history has been used as a weapon against minority groups.
The Bible does not say nowhere that you should hate the other religions. The people and the Catholic Church has misinterpreted what the Bible says.
*cough*
Funny you should say that...
Exodus 22:20
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
And just so that you don't rag on me for taking only from the old testament..
Mark 6:11
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
2 John 1:10
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
Not quite sure how you can misinterpret those passages.
