Bible bill in U.S. Congress

Bible bill in U.S. Congress (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Vendaval -> Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 8:27:08 AM)
What are your thoughts on this? Pro, con or neutral? Does this violate separation of church and state? "Lawmaker wants to make 2010 'Year of the Bible'" By Victoria McGrane 5/22/09 "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." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22832.html

philosophy -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 8:40:17 AM)
It's a bit like making 2011 the Year of the Republican. Incredibly partisan.

Musicmystery -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 8:50:07 AM)
quote: with critics dismissing it as either unconstitutional or a waste of time ...it's both, as well as a desperate play for an issue in lieu of any actual ideas.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 9:04:57 AM)
This is what they're reduced to? If I didn't hate them so much, I might almost feel sorry for them. Just go away, please. Just shut up and... go... away. Please.

thishereboi -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 9:18:48 AM)
oh yea, book of the month club, or would that be the book of the year club. I don't have a problem with it, if they let me pick the book for 2011. I am thinking maybe Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Oh and they need to let us know what the book of the year for 2009 is, so we can get that read before the new year.

Musicmystery -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 9:21:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda This is what they're reduced to? If I didn't hate them so much, I might almost feel sorry for them. Yes. quote: Just go away, please. Just shut up and... go... away. Please. No. [It's a joke, of course...I'm assuming you mean the bill's backers.]

LaTigresse -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 9:24:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda This is what they're reduced to? If I didn't hate them so much, I might almost feel sorry for them. Just go away, please. Just shut up and... go... away. Please. Agreed. Separation of church and state.

breatheasone -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 9:26:03 AM)
i personally love The Bible, i'm just thinking the goverment naming the Bible or any other book, "Book of the year" is a bad idea....[sm=2cents.gif]

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 9:30:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery [It's a joke, of course...I'm assuming you mean the bill's backers.] Absolutely. I think the bible has a lot of value in it, but for god's sake, the republicans don't have anything better to worry about than this? It's borderline pathetic.

dcnovice -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 9:33:50 AM)
It would be interesting to see how the Capitol Hill bible study group wrestles with Matthew 25: 31-46 or Matthew 20: 1-16.

MstrPBK -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 9:36:44 AM)
and I AM A UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ... AND MAY I POINT OUT THAT THE USA HAS WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE SEPARATION OF CHURCH and STATE. IF SUCH A BILL WOULD BE PASSED IT WOULD BLATANTLY VIOLATE SEPARATION OF CHURCH and STATE, and FREEDOM OF RELIGION FOUNDATIONS OF OUR NATION. IF CONGRESS WANTS A SECOND CIVIL WAR THEN THIS WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO START IT. MstrPBK ST .Paul, MN USA

MasterG2kTR -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 9:46:29 AM)
They should change to the "YEAR OF THE DICTIONARY" so they know what the hell they are actually talking about.

Musicmystery -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 9:48:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice It would be interesting to see how the Capitol Hill bible study group wrestles with Matthew 25: 31-46 or Matthew 20: 1-16. dcnovice, it's absolutely amazing what twists people invent. Listen to Jeff Sharlet's interview--it's no Jesus you've heard before. And these people have power. Scary.

rulemylife -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 9:56:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Absolutely. I think the bible has a lot of value in it, but for god's sake, the republicans don't have anything better to worry about than this? It's borderline pathetic. Borderline?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:05:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Absolutely. I think the bible has a lot of value in it, but for god's sake, the republicans don't have anything better to worry about than this? It's borderline pathetic. Borderline? Conceded. [:D]

Mezrem -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:06:55 AM)
First off it's a vulgar waste of time for the congress to have this on the agenda. There are not enough problems with every thing going on to keep these idiots busy? One point I would like to make is this though... There is no constitutional basis for the separation of church and state as interpreted by the majority today. Such a separation is an interpretation of some other documents one of them being a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Minister.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:13:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR They should change to the "YEAR OF THE DICTIONARY" so they know what the hell they are actually talking about. Wouldn't that be a radical departure!

Musicmystery -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:14:41 AM)
quote: There is no constitutional basis for the separation of church and state as interpreted by the majority today. Such a separation is an interpretation of some other documents one of them being a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Minister. It's more than that at this point, Mezrem, as significant legal precedent is one of the foundations of legal interpretation. This issue certainly has such precedent.

DanaYielding -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:16:05 AM)
Every day that congress is in session, it is begun with a prayer by the house chaplin. B) Amendment I (1791) 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.

Mezrem -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:25:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It's more than that at this point, Mezrem, as significant legal precedent is one of the foundations of legal interpretation. This issue certainly has such precedent. Oh and I understand the legal precedent being used to prop up this. The fact remains that there is no inherient constitutional right here. It is one we have invented as an end run around a founding document. Then again I fall more into the amp of the strict constructionist then the living breathing document camp. If you wish it to be changed then propose an amendment rather then making it up as we go along. As a pagan I should not care what happens to the Christian community in mass. I do though beause it will effect me on some level. Words mean things and if we wish to hold up anything of vaule we would do well to remember that. That said I do agree with most of the people posting here. For congress to spend time and money on this is lunicy at the best. It is just the my view on why that is different then some. As I have said both on here and to people in life.. they have forgotten that they are there for We The People... and I'm not longer sure they care. (just in case this was taken poorly it was/is not my intent to flame. I'm just putting my thoughts out there and not making a personal attack and I hope it is taken well. )

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125