Pennsylvania House Declares 2012 "Year of the Bible"

article image

By Joseph L. Conn

Is the Bible the “word of God”? Pennsylvania House members apparently think so. They just passed a measure declaring exactly that.

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 535, a resolution designating 2012 the “Year of the Bible.” Introduced by Rep. Rick Saccone (R–Elizabeth Township) and 36 other legislators, the measure insists that “biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.”

It also asserts that “renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through holy scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people” and declares “our national need to study and apply the teachings of the holy scriptures.”

The resolution was dubbed “noncontroversial” so it could be brought to the House floor quickly and without committee hearings. It passed unanimously.

The measure is nonbinding, so it didn’t get much press attention. The only news account I saw was in the Examiner, an online publication.

Scranton Atheism Examiner columnist Justin Vacula questioned the constitutionality of the resolution and wondered what the reaction might be if the wording were a little different.

“One should wager that if Pennsylvania lawmakers were to pass a resolution calling 2012 ‘The Year of the Koran,’ noting that the Koran was 'holy scripture' that was the word of Allah, such a resolution would be problematic. Why not, then, concerning the Bible?

“Governmental entities,” he concluded, “ought to remain neutral on matters of religion.”

Vacula is exactly right. If church-state separation means anything at all, it ought to stand for the proposition that government stays out of religious debate. Lots of Americans believe in the Bible, but lots of others don’t. The Pennsylvania House has no constitutional authority to jump into a theological fray.

One of the great ironies of this situation is that Pennsylvania was founded as a refuge for those seeking religious tolerance. In his “holy experiment,” William Penn famously welcomed religious dissenters of many different stripes to his colony. He thought God, not government, was the “only Lord of Conscience.”

It’s a shame that today the Pennsylvania House has turned its back on that admirable tradition and sent a message of intolerance to those who do not share the majority faith.

sherri21o's picture

This is amazing to see this happen. Im surprised that they are taking this in such a direction.

johnwhte30p's picture

This was a really very interesting to read. I didnt even know any of this could happen. Very educational to say the least.

jchalfac1's picture

Its good to see that people are showing respect to god. This was a great article.

James Smith's picture

Are they aware that this was illegal? They had to know but in typical theist arrogance, simply did not care.

What should happen next is that they all should be removed from office, sentenced to a few decades in jail, and made to read the Constitution and take tests on it every week.

If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear.

stockball's picture

If it's non-binding I don't think you can attach any sense of illegality to it. It's simply a waste of their time.

James Smith's picture

It is a government body endorsing a particular religion. That's illegal, not to mention offensive to Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Pastafarians, and atheists.

If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear.

stockball's picture

No, it's actually not illegal. Please re-read the Constitution.

James Smith's picture

You should read it yourself. No government agency may endorse any religion.

If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear.

stockball's picture

No, you made that up because you don't actually know (or care) what it says. Allow me to help you out. "Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." No law was made. Is the non-binding resolution stupid and a waste of time and taxpayer money? Yes. Is it illegal? No.

James Smith's picture

Yes, I do know and do care. You're quoting only one part of the Constitution.

Yes, it is almost as stupid as you are.

If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear.

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter

 

randomness