Tuesday, 26 May 2009

  • Should 2010 Be Officially Named the Year of the Bible?

    Paul Broun (R-Ga.) recently passed a piece of congressional legislation for the year 2010 to be called "the year of the Bible."

    Broun's idea has stirred up much controversy and many have called it unconstitutional and a waste of time.  Jews in Congress and athiest activists have dismissed the resolution, and no Democratic representatives have signed on as co-sponsors.

    Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass), who is Jewish, believes this legislation is non-sensical.

    "Does that mean 2009 is not the year of the Bible?” Frank ­said. “What is 2012 the year of? The Quran?”

    Jarold Nadler (D-NY) believes that Broun's legislation is an endorsement of religion by the federal government. 

    Broun responds to this criticism by pointing out that the potential legislation has nothing to do with Christianity.  Instead, he intends to help people to recognize the central role that the Bible played in the building of the United States.  He explains that the Bible provides the basis for freedom of religion in the U.S., allowing people of various faith backgrounds to exercise their beliefs. 

    Some athiests, including David Silverman, vice president and national spokesperson of American Athiests, aren't even concerned about Broun's proposition, stating their belief that Christianity is on a rapid decline in the U.S.

    Another recent bill seeks to place the Lincoln-Obama Bible on permanent display in the Capitol Visitor Center. 

    This resolution aligns with Broun's motive to “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.”

    What do you think about Broun's legislation to make 2010 "the year of the Bible?"     Do you find it to be a good idea, or do you agree with Nadler that this is an endorsement of religion by the federal government?

Comments (1)

  • ChrisRusso@xanga

    Wasn't this done once before in 1983?  If so, there's at least precedent for it.

    Me, I don't see that there needs to be a Year of the Bible, or that there are any benefits to having one. I'd be more interested in seeing the Lincoln/Obama Bible being given a good display.

  • Choose Identity

  • Give eProps (?)

  • New! You can now edit your comments for 15 minutes after submitting.

Who recommended?

Who gave the eProps?

2 eProps from: