Will 2010 be the Year of the Bible?
If one U.S. Congressman has his way, 2010 will be the Year of the Bible. Georgia Republican Paul Broun has introduced legislation asking the President:
“to issue a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture which has profoundly influenced and shaped the United States and its great democratic form of government.”
The biblical legislation has sparked intense debate, with everyone from outspoken Congressman Barney Frank to national religious leaders throwing fuel on the fire. Here’s what people are saying about Broun’s Year of the Bible:
-----------------------------
1. “The National Year of the Bible Resolution reminds us that our great nation was founded upon Biblical principles and that religious freedom is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I encourage Speaker Nancy Pelosi to bring this resolution to the floor so President Barack Obama has the opportunity to designate an appropriate year as ‘The National Year of the Bible.’”
Rep. Paul Broun - (R) Georgia
2. “Does that mean 2009 is not the year of the Bible? What is 2012 the year of? The Quran?”
Rep. Barney Frank, (D) Massachusetts
3. "Would it really be so wrong to honor the most influential book, for better or worse, in America? Comfortable or not with that reality, that is the way it is. And for that reason alone, the year of the Bible should be a good idea."
Brad Hirschfeld, President of CLAL - National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership
4. “Right now, we’re seeing atheism on such a rise. We are seeing Christianity on such a dramatic decline that we’re not particularly worried about it. We’re thinking that this kind of old-style George W. Bush Republicanism is about to go away.”
David Silverman, Vice President, American Atheists
5. "I applaud [Rep. Broun's] courage in trying to convince Democrats and Republicans alike that the country needs to return to its first love for a God who has the power to restore America and prevent our country from further economic and ethical decadence and immorality. In the last decade, as homosexuality, abortion, and divorce, even among evangelicals, has increased, our nation has experienced a decline in the economy and employment. As we continue to adopt new legislation which deteriorates the moral fiber of our country and closely mirrors Sodom and Gomorrah, we will continue to experience a decline in the economy and run the risk of falling into the hands of an angry God."
Betty Sims, ordained minister, formerly with Macon Telegraph and Christian Life Newsmagazine
6. "I wonder if we’re going to have a year venerating every other religious text on the planet? Seems fair. Another upside is that we can confidently exclaim every other year to be not the 'Year of the Bible'."
Unattributable.com:
7. "The bill is but one more reminder of all the silly legislation that Congress so often spends its time passing, honoring this or that sports team, re-naming French fries and the like. It purposefully thumbs its nose at the idea of a separation between church and state, and plays favorites with one particular faith."
David Knowles, Editors of Politics Daily
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Maybe if more people actually read the Bible for themselves they would see what a horrible, primitive, and violent book it really is. Maybe they would begin to understand the folly of getting "moral guidance" from bronze-age shepherds who thought slavery and genocide were "just peachy".
I second the comments of Sylvia Boker and GMA. The issue is not whether the Founders called themselves Christians--many sincerely did. What's often forgotten is that their world view, including their interpretation of Christianity, was clearly and profoundly influenced by the Enlightenment. As Jefferson advised to a nephew, "Fix reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, He must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind-folded fear." As Madison wrote, "... religion and Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together..." Clearly, the U.S. was founded as a nation of the Enlightenment, not of the Medieval period! Hopefully, the decade beginning with 2010 will be one in which Americans begin to realize the pro-reason roots of the U.S.!
Let's make 2010 the year of the transition from superstition (all religions) to reason.
Let's see the bible for what it really is: an interesting history book written by primitive people thousands of years about what they thought they knew.
We shouldn't blame the humans who wrote the different pieces we now call the bible but anyone who beliefs that the bible is anything more than a history book written by primitive people is seriously delusional and superstition.
The United States was not set up as a Christian nation. It was set up to guarantee freedom of religion so that men may worship, or not as they choose. The bible is not timeless and priceless. It is a collection of myths, stories and rules meant to oppress people through their desire to be good---which religion calls sin. The bible, like every other religious text, is aimed against human beings, against their freedom and their pursuit of happiness. To celebrate it as if it represented goodness when all it has ever done is confuse, mis-lead and cause harm is viciously anti-man. Individuals may celebrate it as they choose in the privacy of their home. But to make it into a government fiesta is another attack upon the separation of church and state . This is the fundamental reason why Representative Paul Broun bill should be opposed and defeated.
Sincerely,
Sylvia Bokor
The foundation of US law is in the four religions of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Confucius: the primary source being the Ten Commandments. The philosophical structure of our government is found condensed in the Federalist Papers.
Your view of the separation of church and state , as stated in the First Amendment, is confused.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The clear intent was and is that congress shall not establish an official state religion nor shall it restrict other religions.
There is a clear difference between establishing a state sanctioned religion and recognizing the true source of US law and society .
You are mistaken. The foundation of US law is not "in the four religions," nor is "the primary source [of those religions] the Ten Commandments."
Briefly, US law is based on the work of Sir William Blackstone and John Locke's Two Treatises on Government. Blackstone's work deals with English Common Law and the natural rights of man identified by Locke. James Kent and Joseph Story helped to develop the American concept of law. John Marshall is considered the most important in developing constitutional law.
The Ten Commandments are social negatives demanding without argument or discussion what people should do according to Moses' hallucination. They are rules in regard to moral conduct, not principles of government or legality. They are not the source of Judaism or any spin-off of Judaism. Judaism flourished a long time before Moses lived.
It is also a mistake to consider Confucius a religion . He was a man living c.551-479 BCE. Confucianism is a loose system of ethical do's and don'ts meant for the management of society . Like Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism, Confucianism too, is a collectivist doctrine, accepting as proper a society that subordinated the individual to the state through a combination of etiquette and ritual. He also accepted the notion that an individual was born into an unchangeable "social status."
I mentioned nothing about the separation of church and state in my initial post. So, I don't know what you're referring to.
Sincerely,
Sylvia Bokor
You misdirect. The foundation of US law is in the four religions, primarily the Ten Commandments. English Common Law was derived over time from precedent and Christianity. The real beginning of English Common Law was the Magna Carta. By the time of the American Revolution, English Common Law was the accepted law, and became the springboard for US law.
Jurist William Blackstone wrote what became the definitive *definition and original intent* of English Common Law. John Locke wrote the philosophical underpinnings for the separation of powers.
"...I mentioned nothing about the separation of church and state in my initial post. So, I don't know what you're referring to."
From your initial post: "... But to make it into a government fiesta is another attack upon the separation of church and state ..."
Hence my response.
While you are technically accurate in your descriptions of Confucianism and the Ten Commandments, you ignore the influence each has in the development of not just law, but society in general.
ou are mistaken on a number of issues and inaccurate on others. First, it's false that "the foundations of US law is in the 4 religions, primarily in the Ten Commandments," and that "English Common Law was derived over time from precedent and Christianity."
I previously showed the foundations of US law. To repeat what you said before is not a rebuttal. Repeating a statement does not make it true.
Second, you mistake the nature of religion and the nature of law. Religion is a set of beliefs based on fears, wishes, myths, legends and unfounded notions of the nature of reality and man, and are promulgated by some mystical grouping or by the church. Laws are ideas concerning men's actions in a given geographical area and enforced by the state.
You claim that "The real beginning of English Common Law was the Magna Carta." This is inaccurate. The Magna Carta was a brief and vague statement issued by King John (in 1215) under compulsion from some barons and the church regarding the crown's abuse of power. Over the years it was interpreted in many different ways, attributing to it content that was simply make-believe. After much debate and scholarship, it has been determined that the Magna Carta is little more than a promise by a king not to overstep his feudal powers. That is all.
You more or less show that you agree with what I wrote, even though you seem to be pretending that you originated what I said.
You wrote, "While you are technically accurate in your descriptions of Confucianism and the Ten Commandments." Thank you. I'm pleased that you acknowledge that.
However, you add that I "ignore the influence each has in the development of not just law, but society in general." I don't "ignore" it.
Re my failure to recall my mention of the separation of church and state : You're right. I see that I did refer to that.
"...I previously showed the foundations of US law . To repeat what you said before is not a rebuttal. Repeating a statement does not make it true..."
I stand by my previous post.
"... The Magna Carta was a brief and vague statement issued by King John (in 1215) under compulsion from some barons and the church regarding the crown's abuse of power..."
I remind you that King John was forced to sign and acknowledge the Magna Carta at the point of civil war. One he would lose, because most of the troops the King would normally call on belonged to the nobility. See feudal structure for details.
The Magna Carta was not just some back room deal where King John made a feel good statement. He was forced to be bound by his own law, a reaffirmation of the Charter of Liberties, he would have avoided if at all possible.
"...However, you add that I "ignore the influence each has in the development of not just law, but society in general." I don't "ignore" it..."
Then discuss influences in context. Separation and trivialization of people, religion and government hide rather than reveal the true context of events.
made it into the Constitution? The US Criminal Code? Should we assume that legal acts an individual can take that violate those commandments are un-American?
Of those commandments that did make it in, are there no pre-Ten-Commandment laws that are equivalent?