How Has the Bible Influenced U.S. National Holidays and Governance?

  • News
  • Thread starter mgb_phys
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Year
In summary: These days, you can swear on any book you wish. And if you are an atheist, you don't have to swear on a book at all.In summary, the conversation discusses a bill that calls for a proclamation to encourage citizens to rediscover the teachings of the Bible and to recognize its influence on American history and patriotism. The conversation also touches on the controversy surrounding the separation of church and state and the role of religion in government. There is disagreement over the validity of the bill and its sponsor's motivations.
  • #1
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,903
15
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc111-121

Whereas shared Biblical beliefs unified the colonists and gave our early leaders the wisdom to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States
And the good sense to keep the bible out of it.
Whereas the Bible has inspired acts of patriotism that have unified Americans, commemorated through shared celebrations such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas;
Don't quite see the link there guys
to issue a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture
Is 'logical-disconnect' too many syllables for congress?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Whereas the Bible has been the world’s best selling book since it was first published in English in 1526, and has influenced more people than any other book;

In a shorter time scale, what about making it the Year of Harry Potter?

I think all this represents is that Republicans (only Republicans are sponsoring this turkey) have been reduced to idleness. Sponsoring bills to try and then maybe say Congressional incumbents would have voted against the Bible, seems to be about the only idea they have to move the country further along.

Besides, what do you want them to be doing ... proposing more Budgets with no numbers?

I dount this will ever make it out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee.
 
  • #3
What's really sad is that Mr. Broun, the representative who submitted this resolution, claims on his http://broun.house.gov/ to judge all proposed legislature with his "4-Way Test." One of the four criteria is "Is it constitutional?"

I find it pretty hard to believe that Mr. Broun is not aware of the first sentence of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"), so I must conclude that Mr. Broun is a two-faced liar who pretends to uphold the constitution while simultaneously undermining it.

If you want a chuckle, check out his impressive legislative victories on his Wiki page. Top among them? His attempt to prevent military personnel from looking at pornography in their own homes. His law even includes the following incredibly elaborate definition of nudity:
Paul Broun said:
any part of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola with less than an opaque covering but does not include the exposure of the cleavage of the female breast exhibited by a dress, blouse, bathing suit, or other apparel.

Evil, evil areolae!

People like this jackass have no business in any public office. Is there any wonder that the Republican party is dying?

- Warren
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Not that I am defending this guy or supporting the idea, but in response to mgb:

One nation, under God
In God we trust
All men are created equal and
endowed with unalienable rights

His point is not completely without merit.
 
  • #5
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..
 
  • #6
Ivan Seeking said:
Not that I am defending this guy or supporting the idea, but in response to mgb:

One nation, under God
In God we trust
All men are created equal and
endowed with unalienable rights

His point is not completely without merit.

...wasnt the first two added in the 50s?
 
  • #7
Cyrus said:
...wasnt the first two added in the 50s?

"One nation under God" was added according to the following logic

The words "under God" were added in 1954 by then President Eisenhower, who stated at the time, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

The modern motto of the United States of America, as established in a 1956 law signed by President Dwight D Eisenhower, is In God We Trust.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_motto

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. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read...
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Ivan,

What's your point? Are you suggesting that because "God" has been referenced before, we should permit future references?

- Warren
 
  • #9
Ivan Seeking said:
"One nation under God" was added according to the following logic




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_motto


http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

Doesn't that go against the fact that the founding fathers did not put 'in god we trust' anywhere, which smacks at the face of this guys Bill?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
The point is that it is pretty hard to deny our religious heritage.

Whereas shared Biblical beliefs unified the colonists and gave our early leaders the wisdom to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States

And the damn good sense to keep the bible out of it.

Well, we didn't. In fact, in the Declaration of Independence, the existence of God is officially recognized. In fact, by implication, the existence of God is officially self-evident.

The official motto is "In God We Trust". How much more plain could it be? One key point:Even historically we can't limit things to the Bible. However the swearing upon a bible tradition does imply a strong official bias towards Christian beliefs.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Ivan Seeking said:
The point is that it is pretty hard to deny our religious heritage.

Which holds more weight, the word "God" in the preamble, or the First Amendment?

Are you just playing devil's advocate? If so, why?

- Warren
 
  • #12
Ivan Seeking said:
The point is that it is pretty hard to deny our religious heritage.



Well, we didn't. In fact, in the Declaration of Independence, the existence of God is officially recognized.

The official motto is "In God We Trust". How much more plain could it be?
"in god we trust" did not appear until the end of the Civil War and did not become official for another 90 years after that. References to the intent of the "founding fathers" get tossed around pretty freely, and incorrectly.
 
  • #13
Besides, Ivan, the Declaration of Independence mentions "Nature's God" in a sort of workaround to avoid naming the deity of any specific religion. In contrast, Congressman Broun wants the government to acknowledge and endorse the claptrap book of one specific religion. I hope you recognize the difference.

- Warren
 
Last edited:
  • #14
As a "religious" person, I don't think Congress should pass/endorse any laws or holidays or anything pertaining to religion. If we can just keep them to screwing up one thing at a time it will be easier to follow in the media.
 
  • #15
Ivan Seeking said:
The point is that it is pretty hard to deny our religious heritage.
Of that there is no doubt, but how does that have anything to do with the Constitutionality of the proposed bill? A national year of the bible endorses Christianity - it is about as plain a violation of the establishment clause as there could be.
 
  • #16
chroot said:
Besides, Ivan, the Declaration of Independence mentions "Nature's God" in a sort of workaround to avoid naming the deity of any specific religion. In contrast, Congressman Broun wants the government to acknowledge and endorse the claptrap book of one specific religion. I hope you recognize the difference.

- Warren
The founding fathers were often deists, and they were well aware of the fact that many of the people who emigrated to the colonies came here to escape religious intolerance and state-sponsored religions.
 
  • #17
russ_watters said:
Of that there is no doubt, but how does that have anything to do with the Constitutionality of the proposed bill? A national year of the bible endorses Christianity - it is about as plain a violation of the establishment clause as there could be.

I agree; I don't understand why Ivan keeps trying to derail the discussion.

- Warren
 
  • #18
chroot said:
I agree; I don't understand why Ivan keeps trying to derail the discussion.

- Warren
Maybe if the resolution encouraged Americans of all faiths to embrace the tenets of the Torah, the Koran, or the Book of Mormon people would understand just how wrong the resolution is. Not just in terms of Constitutionality, which is paramount, but in terms of fairness to all.
 
  • #19
turbo-1 said:
Maybe if the resolution encouraged Americans of all faiths to embrace the tenets of the Torah, the Koran, or the Book of Mormon people would understand just how wrong the resolution is. Not just in terms of Constitutionality, which is paramount, but in terms of fairness to all.

I agree entirely... it's about as pleasant a sentiment as a sharp burning stick to the eye.

- Warren
 
  • #20
you guys realize such a resolution doesn't actually resolve to do anything, right?
 
  • #21
Proton Soup said:
you guys realize such a resolution doesn't actually resolve to do anything, right?

Yes, I'm aware that it's not a law, or a proposal for a law. Either way, doesn't it bother you that a Congressman wants the President of the United States to encourage people of all faiths to read and learn from the the holy book of a specific religion? For an entire year?

- Warren
 
  • #22
Proton Soup said:
you guys realize such a resolution doesn't actually resolve to do anything, right?

Why is that relevant?
 
  • #23
Cyrus said:
Why is that relevant?

good question. why is this relevant?
 
  • #24
Proton Soup said:
you guys realize such a resolution doesn't actually resolve to do anything, right?
The resolution is a "gotcha". Any Dem that doesn't vote for it in Congresss will be "anti-bible" in the mid-term campaign ads, and if there were actually enough idiots to vote for it in Congress, Obama would be "anti-bible" for not designating a National Year of the Bible. ("See? That PROVES he's a Muslim!") It's political grandstanding by a desperate GOP, watching their base shrink to the Deep South and Christian Fundamentalists.
 
  • #25
Proton Soup said:
good question. why is this relevant?

Does my question elude you?
 
  • #26
Ivan Seeking said:
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[PREAMBLE ...]

You know Ivan I appreciate your point that the founders were reverent of a Creator. Maybe even The Bible as well. Yes they gave a nod to God at the birth of the Country. But that said there is a bit of a leap in representing then that The Bible represents the Word of The Creator any more than perhaps Broun should also consider that the Koran, or The Book of the Dead, or the Book of Mormon, or any of a number of other faith-foundational references might also be held in equal reverence by their respective Religions. That The Bible would be accorded some special recognition separate from other documents and other religions? That puts them well into conflict with the Establishment Clause, if only symbolically.

I think Congress would be better served sticking to honoring wildflowers and birds and fixing the economy and reforming healthcare.

I'd guess that the reason for this bill has more to do with Obama downgrading the observance of National Prayer Day with any official event than anything else. The bill was filed on National Prayer Day.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer
 
  • #27
Cyrus said:
Does my question elude you?

you're unaffected by it.

chroot said:
Yes, I'm aware that it's not a law, or a proposal for a law. Either way, doesn't it bother you that a Congressman wants the President of the United States to encourage people of all faiths to read and learn from the the holy book of a specific religion? For an entire year?

- Warren

it is part of our history.

do people get indigestion from national brussel sprout month?
 
  • #28
turbo-1 said:
The resolution is a "gotcha". Any Dem that doesn't vote for it in Congresss will be "anti-bible" in the mid-term campaign ads, and if there were actually enough idiots to vote for it in Congress, Obama would be "anti-bible" for not designating a National Year of the Bible. ("See? That PROVES he's a Muslim!") It's political grandstanding by a desperate GOP, watching their base shrink to the Deep South and Christian Fundamentalists.

he's quite the diplomat. it'll be interesting to see what he does. a quiet signing without fanfare would be his best bet.
 
  • #29
Proton Soup said:
you're unaffected by it.

That is not a valid reason. A congressman should not be trying to push such things - period.
 
  • #30
Proton Soup said:
he's quite the diplomat. it'll be interesting to see what he does. a quiet signing without fanfare would be his best bet.
I think you underestimate him. Kowtowing to the right-wing would be a big mistake, and he's smart enough to know that.
 
  • #31
Proton Soup said:
he's quite the diplomat. it'll be interesting to see what he does. a quiet signing without fanfare would be his best bet.

It's a http://www.house.gov/house/Tying_it_all.shtml ; it will not go to the president for action. This, in my opinion, only makes it more cowardly.

- Warren
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Cyrus said:
That is not a valid reason. A congressman should not be trying to push such things - period.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1869854,00.html

chroot said:
It's a http://www.house.gov/house/Tying_it_all.shtml ; it will not go to the president for action. This, in my opinion, only makes it more cowardly.

- Warren

:rolleyes: so you're saying he's not trying to make Obama look bad/feel uncomfortable?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Proton Soup said:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1869854,00.html

Posting a link doesn't pass as a response. I'm sure you've read the link and have the mental capability of typing what you want to say.
 
  • #34
Proton Soup said:
:rolleyes: so you're saying he's not trying to make Obama look bad/feel uncomfortable?

I said nothing of the sort. I agree with turbo-1; it's just a way to vilify anyone who votes against it.

Those insignificant votes will then be amplified in mega-churches throughout the country. Pastors not unlike Ted Haggard will tell their throngs that so-and-so voted against the Bible, and their cow-eyed voting blocs will respond mechanically, as they have been trained to do over many years.

You underestimate these people; they are the ones who so frequently use the words "culture war," after all. This is ammunition.

- Warren
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Cyrus said:
Posting a link doesn't pass as a response. I'm sure you've read the link and have the mental capability of typing what you want to say.

I read the first two paragraphs and understood his point precisely. In fact, I like it better than if he added a comment to it.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top