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

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



Message

philosophy -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:28:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanaYielding

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.


...oooh, thanks for that. So the bit i've italicised seems to make the point that congress ought to have nothing to do with making 2010 the Year of the Bible. It clearly tacitally establishes a religion.



Musicmystery -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:28:47 AM)

Mezrem, you're on a different point.

To ignore legal precedent is render the judicial system pointless.

The role of the courts is to interpret the law. Those interpretations then become precedent, and that precedent becomes legally significant. Cases may be presented to attempt to overturn those rulings, but in this instance, the precedent is quite firmly rooted.

The constructionist/breathing rhetoric is another matter.





DanaYielding -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:30:10 AM)

it establishes no such thing. Any member may also put force a bill establishing 2010 as the year of the Qu'ran if they so choose, or the book of Kabala. No one is denying any free expression or exercise.



philosophy -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:32:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanaYielding

it establishes no such thing. Any member may also put force a bill establishing 2010 as the year of the Qu'ran if they so choose, or the book of Kabala. No one is denying any free expression.


....er......did you read my last post? You seem to be arguing that congress has the right of Free Expression to tacitally establish a religion. Which is clearly, from the quote you provided, not correct.



DanaYielding -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:37:06 AM)

How is this 'establishing' a religion? Establishing a religion would mean denying others their constitutional right to worship the god(s) of their choosing or deny them the right to not worship. There is nothing in my post, nor the Bill that suggests either.



Musicmystery -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:37:15 AM)

Her point may be that any member of Congress can propose such a bill. And it's true, they can.

It just will never actually happen--and they know this. It's political theater. They've got nothing else to offer.

Or apparently, in their view, to do.





Mezrem -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:38:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanaYielding

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.


Yes they do as a matter of tradition and if people do not wish to pray then they are not forced too do so. If we like it or not our founders where Christian. they based alot of thier ideals around both bible teachings as well as pholophices thousands of years old in some cases.

Yep we have freedom of religion here that is protected by the above section. That I know of there has been no recent attempt to make a state religion. I have not seen anyone on a state or federal level telling me that I must be Christian, muslim or any other faith.



Musicmystery -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:40:28 AM)

quote:

our founders were Christian


Deists, actually--and they carefully avoided incorporating specific Christian language, using only "God."





Mezrem -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:45:30 AM)

Musicmystry:

I have to concede the point to you there. I do have a basic understanding of the legal views on precedent. While it does not change my mind on my statements it does make them unnessery for the topic at hand.. A long way of saying.. yep they are ass hats doing nothing more then taking up time and tax payer dollars.



DanaYielding -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:50:25 AM)

I do concede and agree with musicmystery that this is all political theatre and most surely the Resolution will not pass.

It is a good and necessary debate. We must all remain vigilent to see that Congress does NOT establish any religion over another, nor any religion at all, and this resolution may be an attempt by this congressman to put his foot into the door as it were.
What I am tired of is the attempts to shout down free exercise of one's religeous beliefs because some one else is 'offended" by them.
Tolerance is a two-way street i think, and i'm not calling anyone out in particular but it seems to me that for a while now, those offended by christianity get a pass, and those that defend it are ostrasized.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:55:03 AM)

Is embarrassing he is from my state, but at least not from my district. I voted against the jackass in my district. This is a waste of time and effort when more important problems need fixing. Whether to honor some religion or not seems unconstitutional, unless they want to create a year of for every religion, philosophy, agnostic, deist and atheist view.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:56:39 AM)

Hiya Tim,

God or Creator was used not only in official writtings, but in private correspondence by many of the founding fathers as well.

Live well,
Orion


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

our founders were Christian


Deists, actually--and they carefully avoided incorporating specific Christian language, using only "God."






Cagey18 -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 11:32:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

our founders were Christian


Deists, actually--and they carefully avoided incorporating specific Christian language, using only "God."


And only in the Declaration of Independence (which has nothing to do with our laws), and specifically not in the Constitution.

Our founders did NOT make the U.S. a "Christian nation"--despite attempts by many to revise history otherwise.



Marc2b -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 12:00:23 PM)

First, Congress has a long history of passing resolutions declaring March to be “National Goat Appreciation Month” or 2002 to be “National Ass Pimples Awareness Year” or some such nonsense.  This is really no different.  It amounts to a gesture, nothing more.

As for the Constitutional problem:  this legislation does not create an official Church of the United States which is what the phrase “respecting (meaning: “in regards to”) the establishment of a religion,” means (bear in mind that many Americans had left England because they did like having to submit to the official Church of England).  So I don’t see a problem there.

Conclusion: this is nothing to get worked up over.

As for the question: was the U.S. founded as a Christian Nation?  Well, the founders were careful to keep the church (any church) from having any official capacity in running the government so, in that sense, the answer is no, the United States is not a Christian Nation.

However, there can be no doubt that both the Founders and the citizens of the United States at that time were largely Christian.  It colored their worldview and led to certain presumptions about the way things were.  That’s why women weren’t given the vote.  It was simply accepted – in keeping with Christianity's patriarchal principles - that men (whether as fathers or husbands) ruled over women made all of the important decisions for them.  There was no need for women to vote.  In this sense the United States was very much founded as Christian nation (it certainly wasn't founded as a Bhuddist nation).  Today, not so much so but it would be a mistake to think that Christianity still doesn’t hold a tremendous sway over our thinking – even those who don’t regard themselves as Christian.      



dcnovice -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 12:11:36 PM)

quote:

First, Congress has a long history of passing resolutions declaring March to be “National Goat Appreciation Month” or 2002 to be “National Ass Pimples Awareness Year” or some such nonsense.


Good point, Marc.

Of course, it's then a little sad to see the Bible lumped in with National Mashed Potato Appreciation Month and the Year of Endangered Iguanas.



DomKen -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 12:16:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Hiya Tim,

God or Creator was used not only in official writtings, but in private correspondence by many of the founding fathers as well.

Live well,
Orion

And many of the founders expressed grave doubts about the existence of a deity. Jefferson was call an apostate, basically an atheist, during his campaign for the presidency.



DomKen -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 12:22:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
As for the question: was the U.S. founded as a Christian Nation?  Well, the founders were careful to keep the church (any church) from having any official capacity in running the government so, in that sense, the answer is no, the United States is not a Christian Nation.

Actually in one of the first treaties our nation entered into the founders explicitly stated this wasn't a christian nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

quote:

However, there can be no doubt that both the Founders and the citizens of the United States at that time were largely Christian.  It colored their worldview and led to certain presumptions about the way things were.  That’s why women weren’t given the vote.  It was simply accepted – in keeping with Christianity's patriarchal principles - that men (whether as fathers or husbands) ruled over women made all of the important decisions for them.  There was no need for women to vote.  In this sense the United States was very much founded as Christian nation (it certainly wasn't founded as a Bhuddist nation).  Today, not so much so but it would be a mistake to think that Christianity still doesn’t hold a tremendous sway over our thinking – even those who don’t regard themselves as Christian.  

While the citizens of the US may have been largely christian in the traditional sense the founders were not. Some were certainly, John Adams is the most obvious example. Jefferson was at most a deist. Paine was openly contemptous of all religion. The bulk of the founders were deists based on their own writings.



cadenas -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 12:31:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

As for the question: was the U.S. founded as a Christian Nation?  Well, the founders were careful to keep the church (any church) from having any official capacity in running the government so, in that sense, the answer is no, the United States is not a Christian Nation.

However, there can be no doubt that both the Founders and the citizens of the United States at that time were largely Christian.  It colored their worldview and led to certain presumptions about the way things were.  That’s why women weren’t given the vote.  It was simply accepted – in keeping with Christianity's patriarchal principles - that men (whether as fathers or husbands) ruled over women made all of the important decisions for them.  There was no need for women to vote.  In this sense the United States was very much founded as Christian nation (it certainly wasn't founded as a Bhuddist nation).  Today, not so much so but it would be a mistake to think that Christianity still doesn’t hold a tremendous sway over our thinking – even those who don’t regard themselves as Christian.      


Actually, the founding fathers were quite explicit that the United States was NOT a Christian nation (and they were quite aware of Islam, for instance). Another poster earlier referred to a letter by Thomas Jefferson, where the term "separation of church and state" originated. In that letter (to a congregation), Jefferson was very explicit that the intent of the First Amendment was to prevent establishing a Christian nation.

The patriarchal principles were cultural at the time, not religious. Of course, Christianity being the predominant European religion, there was little conflict between the two.

The claim that "since they were all Christian, the First Amendment really was only meant to apply to Christians" amounts to saying "the First Amendment was sloppily written". Given that they debated the exact wording for months - and also given that the founding fathers explicitly voted to remove the word God from the first drafts of the Constitution - that doesn't hold water. There are plenty of letters and notes from those debates that show that they were very much aware that the First Amendment could lead to a "Muselman" (muslim) becoming President.

So the separation of church and state really is on very solid ground, both historically and by legal precedent.




Marc2b -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 12:47:27 PM)

quote:

Actually in one of the first treaties our nation entered into the founders explicitly stated this wasn't a christian nation.


I just said that.  Officially, the United States was not founded as Christian Nation.  So what’s your point?

quote:

While the citizens of the US may have been largely christian in the traditional sense the founders were not. Some were certainly, John Adams is the most obvious example. Jefferson was at most a deist. Paine was openly contemptous of all religion. The bulk of the founders were deists based on their own writings.


How many people who do not consider themselves Christian – including Deists – believe in a single God as opposed to many Gods?  Why is this?  Even if some of the founders did not believe in the God of the Bible, they were from a culture heavily steeped in Christianity and this led to certain presumptions, certain paradigms, on their part.  That’s my point. 



lronitulstahp -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 12:47:29 PM)

"Separation of church and state" isn't something that can be "violated" actually. It's not a Constitutional law...it's more a theory, or an ideal. Still, i have a problem with The Bible and religion being sponsored by any political group. i say this as a Christian, and so i don't have an anti-religion axe to grind.

What really bothers me about this is the timing, and the fairly obvious appeal to the fundies and extreme right. A Republican congressman from Georgia wants to cozy up to the Bible so that his constituents can be reminded of how the GOP are the party needed to safeguard G-d and country...pure manipulation in my opinion. It's a divisive measure...used in 2000, and 2004. Can't fault the guy for remembering the "Us" against "Them" tactic has worked in the past.



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875