Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Rep. Thad McCotter is co-sponsoring House Resolution 121, which calls on President Obama to declare 2010 "The National Year of the Bible." Unfortunately, the resolution contains historical inaccuracies that undermine its credibility. For instance, the resolution states:
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...
There are several problems with this statement. First, the notion that the colonists had "shared Biblical beliefs" that unified them is inaccurate. In reality, 11 of the 13 colonies at the time of the writing of the Constitution had established churches that denied equal rights not only to non-Christians but to other denominations of Christianity.
Those "shared Biblical beliefs" did not prevent the Massachusetts Bay Colony, for example, from imprisoning, exiling and sometimes even putting to death Baptists, Quakers and Catholics. Even as late as 1774, with agitation for the revolutionary war in full swing, Massachusetts had at least 18 Baptists in jail for refusing to pay taxes to support a town's Congregationalist minister.
Likewise in Virginia, the jailing of Baptist ministers as late as 1778 inspired James Madison to fight for the complete separation of church and state. Persecution of Catholics and Quakers was particularly rampant in almost every colony during the founding of this country, those "shared Biblical beliefs" notwithstanding.
Perhaps even more inaccurate is the claim that those "shared Biblical beliefs...gave our early leaders the wisdom to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States." The Declaration of Independence was written primarily by three people: Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. Jefferson wrote the first draft and Adams and Franklin edited it before it was presented to the full Continental Congress.
While all three men shared a strong belief in God, the only shared belief those three held about the Bible was a rejection of much of its content. All three rejected the notion that Jesus was divine, with Jefferson arguing that he had never claimed to be anything but a man, that the men who wrote the New Testament had corrupted his purely human message and turned him into a god.
The conception of God in the Old Testamant, Jefferson said, was "a Being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust." The men who wrote the gospels were "ignorant, unlettered men," a "band of dupes and imposters" who turned the words of Jesus into "a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications." Paul, who wrote the epistles that make up the bulk of the New Testament, was to Jefferson "the great Corypheaues, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
John Adams likewise wrote, in his many letters to Jefferson and others on the subject, that he thought the Bible contained many inaccuracies and errors. Like Jefferson, Adams was a unitarian (not to be confused with Unitarian, as that actual church did not exist at the time), rejecting and even openly mocking the notion that Jesus was divine.
We also know the sources from whom Jefferson derived the ideas found in the Declaration of Independence because he stated them specifically in a letter to Henry Lee in 1825. "All its authority," Jefferson wrote, "rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. The historical documents which you mention as in your possession, ought all to be found, and I am persuaded you will find, to be corroborative of the facts and principles advanced in that Declaration."
We also know from what sources the ideas found in the Constitution are derived because they are spelled out in great detail in the Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton. In those 85 essays, written to explain and defend the new Constitution to the people of America, the Bible is nowhere mentioned at all. Nor was the Bible ever mentioned as justification for anything during the debates at the constitutional convention in 1787. The intellectual sources for the provisions of that Constitution were found in the same places Jefferson looked to for the ideas in the Declaration, particularly Locke, Sidney and Montesquieu.
We have had officially declared "years of the Bible" before, most recently in 1983. We will likely have them again. But let's at least be historically accurate when advocating them.
Politics
Comments
Lying For Jesus™, now an official plank of the GOP platform. One of maybe three left.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 14, 2009 9:35 AM
Let's not stop here. 2011 the year of the Quran, 2012 year of the Book of Mormon, 2013 year of the I Ching, 2014 year of Dianetics, etc. I hope someone in Congress has the gonads to offer an amendment to HR 121 to include these.
Posted by: Dogbert | May 14, 2009 9:36 AM
Dogbert, can you make the year of Dianetics 2011? I love science fiction, but religious fiction bugs the hell out of me.
Posted by: GaryB, FCD | May 14, 2009 10:16 AM
Part of the text of the bill reads:
"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, as well as its rich spiritual heritage, and which has unified, healed, and strengthened its people for over 200 years."
The calling of all faiths to apply the specific biblical message is offensive to me in the extreme.
Posted by: Robert Faber | May 14, 2009 10:37 AM
So if we make 2010 the year of the Bible, does that mean no one will protest abortion for a year, or eat shrimp for a year? Does that mean that for one full year, the punishment for rape will be either a fine or marriage to the victim? Will we have to leave all of our poly/cotton blend shirts in the back of the closet until 2011? If my (hypothetical) husband dies in that year, do I have to marry his younger brother?
Or will it just be a year of worshiping some book without actually reading any of it?
Posted by: catgirl | May 14, 2009 10:38 AM
I believe PZ offered to endorse the year of the bible if they add a statement that all subsequent years are NOT of the bible and stop bringing it up in political debates after the end of 2010
Posted by: Matty | May 14, 2009 10:52 AM
I believe PZ offered to endorse the year of the bible if they add a statement that all subsequent years are NOT of the bible and stop bringing it up in political debates after the end of 2010
Posted by: Matty | May 14, 2009 11:00 AM
My question for the GOP: if the Bible is so Important, why ONE year?
Posted by: abb3w | May 14, 2009 11:08 AM
Robert Faber reported the following text of the bill:
"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, as well as its rich spiritual heritage, and which has unified, healed, and strengthened its people for over 200 years."
So, this bill is asking for a certain level of apostasy from other religions? WTF?!? I mean, if you say that your religion should consider the message from another religion as sacred, wouldn't that be a "bad" thing? Also, can you imagine how this would play out in the rest of the world? (I know that the GOP don't care about that, but I do.)
Posted by: Umlud | May 14, 2009 11:47 AM
"...if the Bible is so Important, why ONE year?"
Because David Vitter can't stand more than one year without patronizing his favorite escort service.
Posted by: Keanus | May 14, 2009 11:53 AM
The repeated efforts of the religious right, with the passive support of secular Republicans, to rewrite western intellectual and American history drives me mad. The ignorance that they parade at every opportunity, while wholly oblivious to it, reveals a serious deficiency in American education. The displays make me yearn for a day when politicians are required to pass some minimal test on American civics and history to qualify for a ballot slot.
Posted by: Keanus | May 14, 2009 11:58 AM
Inasmuch as such a resolution would clearly be a government action to advocate a single religion, it seems patently unconstitutional. But hanging around the Dispatches crowd has taught me the difficulties of legal standing. Can anyone think of a way to challenge this resolution, if and when passed, through the courts without getting the case dismissed for lack of standing?
Posted by: BobApril | May 14, 2009 12:11 PM
Keanus stated:
I'd argue their state of mind is well past mere ignorance. I believe all of these types of post-high school supporters are some combination of: virulently ignorant, delusional, and dishonest.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 14, 2009 12:12 PM
Why just one year?
The bill is just a rhetorical device. The intention is to get the Democrats in Congress to stop it, or Obama to veto it.
If by some quirk it is actually enacted and signed into law, next year they will introduce a bill to make it continue over to 2011. After several years of this, they will finally introduce a bill to make it apply to every year, forever.
Posted by: xebecs | May 14, 2009 12:48 PM
The text mentions MLK a few times. Didn't a lot of Christians regard MLK as a communist during his life, as well as some for a time after?
Also: Reading Ed's post above, there is a common misconception that a lot of Christians have about the founding fathers (and in society in general). A lot of people in the USA assume that if someone believes in God, then they are a Christian; or if they mention God, they are talking about the trinitrian God of the Bible.
Washington, for example, did believe that there was a God who did intervene in people's lives. Yet he never took communion, and in his writings he rarely, if ever, used the words "Jesus", "Christ" or even "Bible", from what I have been able to gather. He did use the word "God" sometimes, but he seemed to prefer other terms like "Providence", "Almighty", "the Author of all Good", or the "Supreme Author of the Universe". He did believe that people should have a religion, but he never said which one. He was a Freemason, and some people say that while Masons believe in God, they do not (and some say usually are not) Christian. (Granted, some Mason chatter gets really loony.)
Let me close with this: During the last election, CNN had YouTube debates with the candidates for each party back when each party still had 8 or so people on each side. In the Republican debate, one of the questions was a guy holding up a Bible and saying, "I have one question for the candidates: Do you believe every word in this book?" Of course, the answer he wanted was "Yes." If we were to ask the Founding Fathers that question, a lot of people today would not like the answer.
Posted by: Blue Nine | May 14, 2009 1:07 PM
I'd like to see a bill get passed where any legislator discovered inserting false assertions into any congressional record as if it were true is censured on the first instance and expelled forever on the third. Same goes for framing assertions as if they were factually and generally understood to be true when in fact the evidence is nowhere near convincing. Given Ms. Prejean's current notoriety, we could call it the "Truth in Text Sempiternal"; I prefer its acronym. ;)
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 14, 2009 1:31 PM
BobApril: Since the bill doesn't actually do anything, there is nothing unconstitutional about it. If the Congresscritters want to say they like some book, they have that right. What shocks me is that there hasn't been one since 1983. Karl Rove has been asleep at the switch, apparently.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 14, 2009 2:30 PM
Except that they're not just saying "they like some book." The resolution is telling the 25% of America that isn't Christian to toss out their Korans, Torahs, Vedas, Dianetics, and whatever Atheists read, and pick up the real book, backing it up with shitty historical lresearch. I read it as "fuck you, non-christians". Am I reading it wrong?
Posted by: Robert Faber | May 14, 2009 3:31 PM
Kehrsam - "Since the bill doesn't actually do anything, there is nothing unconstitutional about it."
Arguable - but I'll give you that. So push it one step further. Assume that the President complies with the resolution and actually designates such a Year of the Bible. Would THAT reach the level of unconstitutionality? And if so, who, if anyone, would have standing to sue to stop it?
Posted by: BobApril | May 14, 2009 4:32 PM
Kehrsam - "Since the bill doesn't actually do anything, there is nothing unconstitutional about it."
Arguable - but I'll give you that. So push it one step further. Assume that the President complies with the resolution and actually designates such a Year of the Bible. Would THAT reach the level of unconstitutionality? And if so, who, if anyone, would have standing to sue to stop it?
Posted by: BobApril | May 14, 2009 4:32 PM
Hey Dogbert, what about the Principia Discordia?
Posted by: Knight of L-sama | May 14, 2009 5:46 PM
A SERMON ON ETHICS AND LOVE
One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said YES?
"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"
WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.
"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?
"But nobody Wants it! Everybody hates it."
OH. WELL, THEN STOP.
At which moment She turned herself into an aspirin commercial and left The Polyfather stranded alone with his species.
SINISTER DEXTER HAS A BROKEN SPIROMETER.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yeah...I think the Principia Discordia makes a little too much sense sometimes...
Posted by: Kate | May 14, 2009 5:59 PM
The American Patriot’s Bible
http://www.americanpatriotsbible.com/
Posted by: Derender | May 14, 2009 7:20 PM
BobA: I doubt it. All it is doing is positing a historical relationship between a country and its favorite book, plus this sort of thing has never been challenged in the past. As for challenging it, all it takes is for one House Member to object to it being on Unanimous Consent Calendar to block it. Email the Muslim guys' office. There is zero reason for a Court to get involved.
A "Year of the Bible" does not rule out a "Year of Dianetics." All of it is a distraction and waste of time. Somehow the nation survives the various honorary days, and the Ukranian-Americans don't feel slighted when it's Lithuanian-American day. This, too, will pass.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 14, 2009 7:21 PM
I agree with Robert Farber at #18. I'll add that I'm getting damned tired of the wingnuts saying "Fuck you; by the way, you're also going to hell," to me.
Posted by: the chaplain | May 14, 2009 7:23 PM
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.” – Patrick Henry
----------------------------
27 of our 56 founding fathers had Christian seminary degrees
-------------------------------
Jefferson was trying to protect religion from the government, not the opposite
-------------------
Some people call Jefferson agnostic, deist, and other such things, but those ideas can be countered simply by knowing history. When Thomas Jefferson was the governor of Virginia, he issued some proclamations that may disappoint those who call him agnostic. For one thing, he issued days of “public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to the Almighty God” and even went as far as signing an appropriation of funds to be paid to the Kaskakia Indians, who called for the U.S. to build them a Roman Catholic Church. Jefferson also proposed, along with Benjamin Franklin, that the final design for the national seal should include the Biblical image of Pharoah’s army being destroyed as it passed through the Red Sea (see Exodus chapter 14). If Jefferson really did believe that there was a wall of separation between church and state and that religion should not be a part of public (particularly government officials) life, then why did he do these and many other similar things and contradict his own letter to the Danbury Baptists?
Jefferson did, in a way, contradict his own words about separation of church and state and actually clarified things in his second Inaugural address in 1805, three years after his letter to the Danbury Baptists. The words of this address are ignored by those who, today, still believe in a “separation of church and state” through Jefferson’s letter. In his second Inaugural address, he states:
“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies. Many contemporary writers attempt to read back into the past a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state which, in fact, never has existed in the United States”.
These words spoken by Jefferson should proof enough about the truth of separation of church and state. If that is not enough to convince oneself about this issue, then another document called the Northwest Ordinance should be thoroughly researched. Among one thing mentioned in this ordinance is religious freedom.
One thing that is hardly ever mentioned is the fact that Thomas Jefferson was raised an Anglican, but later developed a distrust in organized religion. As a Virginia lawmaker Jefferson was responsible for assuring religious freedom and tolerance while at the same time, abolishing special privileges of the Anglican denomination in Virginia and even eventually took Anglican clergymen off of the state payroll and exempted Virginian from paying taxes to support the Anglican Church. Jefferson never once stated that religious belief and worship had to be separated from public life. He only separated church and state issues to protect religious freedom from the state. Ultimately if the church (of any denomination) was receiving taxpayer money from the state, then that church and it’s religious views could have been virtually owned and operated by state law and that’s the very thing that Jefferson was trying to avoid. He wanted church and state to remain separate in order for the general public to practice religious belief and have religious freedom while keeping the state from interfering in these affairs.
Posted by: Derender | May 14, 2009 7:26 PM
Derender - did Patrick Henry accept an invitation to attend the Constitutional Convention or did he reject his invitation and instead argue to continue with the Articles of Confederation? Where did Henry stand on ratifying the Constitution once it was presented to the states for ratification, even after a deal was struck to add a Bill of Rights? When President Washington asked Henry to serve his country in his administration how did Henry respond?
How did Henry's view of the relationship between church and state differ from Thomas Jefferson's, James Madison's, and the aprox. 67 Assemblymen who voted for Virginia's Statue for Religious Freedom? What had Henry fought for in the previous session of the Virginia Assembly that became illegal under Virgnia's statue when it was ratified in 1786? Whose viewpoint on church and state ultimately prevailed in Virginia and the United States in terms of what is now ratified into the federal constitution?
In other words, given your first quote, was Henry someone who supported our current form of government or one who opposed such a government?
Derender - what formal training do you have regarding America's founding? If any, where did you get such training? Finally - please provide a link to a primary source for your Patrick Henry quote. The American history I studied never contained such a quote.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 14, 2009 8:10 PM
Derender:
Click this link and scroll down to "Questionable Quotes".
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/founding.htm#MYTHING
Posted by: Dwimr | May 14, 2009 8:27 PM
On May 14, 2009 7:26 PM, Derender posted this paragraph from Thomas Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address:
In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies. Many contemporary writers attempt to read back into the past a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state which, in fact, never has existed in the United States.
I did some online searching, and I found a few copies of that address. They have the above paragraph, except for the last sentence. Take that out, and it changes things.
I also looked at the Northwest Ordinance. I glanced it over fairly quickly, but the only reference to religion I found was this:
Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.
and this:
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
I would hardly call either of those statements endorsements of Christianity.
Posted by: Blue Nine | May 14, 2009 8:31 PM
Obama can't veto it. It's a concurrent resolution and doesn't need his signature.
Posted by: eric | May 14, 2009 8:42 PM
The American history you studied was revised history and the liberal who wrote it would never put such a quote into text that a child might read in fear that he/she might learn something.
Google it. Not only that, ever heard of Gary DeMar?
Besides if you can find one, take a look at http://www.americanvision.com/ sometime too. There are numerous books o the subject. Most are not to be viewed by school children according to the far left militants who hate church and despise the fact that America did have Christian roots.
However, as more and more parents decide to take their kids out of the failing government run schools and start homeschooling, the more you will hear of this in the future. Happy future!
Here is a source that all homeschool parents should definitely take a look at teaching their kids. It wouldn;t hurt anything if private Christian schools adopted it either. The ACLU hates it, so it must be good.
Once again, happy future!
Ever read any of the Politically Incorrect Guide series? There is one on American Historyy, the Constitution, the South and Civil War, and others that blleding heart liberals should read before opening their traps.
These are not taught in school textbooks, but sometimes are mentioned by the teacher regardless. Some teachers I have known did add stories and information that was not in the state madated information book. Makes sense doesn't it?
Posted by: Derender | May 14, 2009 8:46 PM
Take a good look here to see where I am coming from.
www.americanvision.com/christianlifeandcharacterpdf.aspx
Of course, atheist don'e even believe the simplest things like a supreme being, how could they believe anything as complicated as this. For heaven's sake, atheist still beleive that the universe suddenly appeared out of nothing and somehow planets wre formed and the dirt came alive and water made itself. Now, it does take faith to believe that something came from nothing.
I would love to witness an entire universe spring into existance all by itself. Atheists can talk about it, but they cannot back it up. Go ahead and prove to me how the univserse came into existance from nothing without a God.
Explain how a perfect harmonious world with perfect eco-systems and supreme precision designed life could come about all by itself.
Go ahead. Pour some salt in a glass of water. maybe in a trillion years it will make a human. That's the sum of atheism.
If you cannot explain why you are here and where you came from, and why things are the way they are, the waht is the purpose of life? Can atheists expalin a purpose of life? Can they explain how every story in the Bible is true and accurate? Can they explain how archaeology proves Biblical accounts? Can they explain how every prophecy in the Old Testament and New Testament (except for Revelation) has come to pass exactly like the prohecy predicted?
That's what I thought. You talk the talk, but when it comes down to it, you shout us down rather than debate us intelligently becuase you know you cannot win. That why conservatives give good speaches and liberals get to throw pies at those who tell the truth - then they get arrested for being a pest and wonder why we can't get along.
Posted by: Derender | May 14, 2009 9:01 PM
I forgot to add that the pies were probably paid for by the Obama stimulus package. They might as weel have been. Everything else has been paid for by the taxpayers.
Maybe we should claim a recall on liberal pies thrown at conservative speakers. They probably are contaminated by swine flu. Call the FDA.
Posted by: Derender | May 14, 2009 9:08 PM
Well, I guess America could be considered a Christian nation if murdering Native Americans, enslaving Africans and denying women of all colors basic legal rights are core doctrines of Christianity.
Posted by: Finch | May 14, 2009 9:12 PM
In 1892, the Supreme Court of the United States declared, "This is a Christian nation."
During the War for Independence, Congress resolved to import 20,000 volumes of the Bible because "the use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great."
The New England Confederation stated that the purpose of the colonies was "to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the gospel in purity with peace."
Harvard College required that each student believe that "the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life."
John Adams wrote, "The Christian religion is...the Religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and humanity."
Engraved on the metal cap on the top of the Washington Monument are the words "Praise be to God."
RESOURCES:
http://www.americanvision.com/americaschristianhistory.aspx
Posted by: Right Wing Man | May 14, 2009 9:12 PM
@#33
Would that be the government-funded FDA whose assistance you are requesting?
Posted by: Finch | May 14, 2009 9:15 PM
To: Derender
Why do "conservatives" and "Christians" always think it is everybody else's interpretation of history that is revised?
Christians cannot "expalin a purpose of life". Just because you think something is true does not mean that it is true. Besides, every argument for the existence of God is pretty circular. And proving that a being created the world does not mean that he sent his only begotten son to Israel 2000 years ago to take the blame for you.
Can Christians prove that every story in the Bible happened? Do you think you can? Considering that the four Gospels were 1. written decades after the supposed death of Jesus 2. in a language that he never spoke 3. by people who never met him, I would say that the Bible might not be as accurate as you think.
Posted by: Blue Nine | May 14, 2009 9:17 PM
OMG!GODLESS LIBERAL PIE THROWING!
Posted by: Finch | May 14, 2009 9:30 PM
Derender, please slow down. What you are doing is commonly referred to in creationist/evolution debates as The Gish Gallop. Duane Gish had a debate technique of throwing so many falsehoods out at an audience at such a high rate, that his debate opponent could not possible rebut them all.
Let's try to keep it simple and start with your very first claim. Can you please source that Patrick Henry quote?
Posted by: Sean | May 14, 2009 9:32 PM
Derender - I see you failed to provide a primary source for your Patrick Henry quote which led off your argument. That's because there is no record Patrick Henry ever made the statement you attributed to him. Most of us here have known this for years. Which means you bore false witness to the readers in this forum, which breaks the 9th commandment.
Will you be repenting for bearing false witness? Will you ask for our forgiveness given that you attempted to lead us away from the historical evidence of what Patrick Henry actually stated? Will you attempt to reform your method of getting educated given what you've 'taught' obviously convinced you of facts that are simply not true?
Derender - this is a ScienceBlog.com forum. We deal with rational arguments based on strong empirical evidence. You should assume the readers here are conversant in history and immune to false witness from those who've been indoctrinated by propaganda, as you've clearly shown yourself to be given you lead off with a false assertion you obviously found convincing since you started your argument with it.
If you want help getting a authentic education just ask. Most of us honest folk are generally eager to help others get educated. I gotta admit, when I saw your first post lead off with the old fake Patrick Henry quote, I thought it was satire, I didn't realize there were people still gullible enough to fall for that one.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 14, 2009 9:38 PM
Why do conservatives love out-of-context quotes?
The "Christian nation" quote from Brewer's 1892 decision occurs in dicta, meaning it has no force of law behind it. What exactly did Brewer mean?
Source
The New England Confederation was dissolved nearly a century before the War of Independence. None of the founding fathers of the United States could have been active in informing its principles.
Harvard College is not a branch of the United States Government. You might as well quote the mission statement of Liberty University.
Many of the founders were indeed Christian. Many could not have been described as such in any meaningful sense. In any case they realized the potential for harm in allowing any religion to wield civil power, and so deliberately separated it from civil government.
BTW, your Adams quote actually ends with "let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.", but I notice you left out the part that suggests another founding father disagreed with his assessment.
Source
Posted by: DaveL | May 14, 2009 9:42 PM
Derrierender and Reichwing Gag:
You two fellas know each other? You got so much in common maybe you could have a deep and meaningful relationship. But you can't both be "bottoms".
Posted by: democommie | May 14, 2009 11:13 PM
Today's good news for Derender is that scientists were able to synthesize RNA using a natural process.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
And they didn't even need lightning to strike a muddle puddle.
Posted by: Robert Faber | May 15, 2009 12:34 AM
Derender:
You complain about how damned liberals are removing any evidence of Christianity from our heritage. It seems ironic that your educational materials had material carefully excised to avoid the risk of any cognitive dissonance.
The first thing I see missing is any sort of understanding about science.
Salt water in a glass as the starting point for abiogenesis? Have you even read the basics of the Miller-Urey experiment? Gaseous water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, with sparks comparable to lightning. Regardless of the accuracy or meaningfulness of Miller-Urey or any more recent abiogenesis experiments, your description is an inaccurate parody.
The next thing I see missing is exposure to other faiths, and their views about your religion.
I see that you repeat the tired claim that Jesus fulfilled all prophecies. I think you'll find that the Jews disagree with you on that point. Notwithstanding groups like Jews for Jesus, Jesus failed to fulfill many prophecies. He did not rebuild the temple; the second temple was still standing throughout His lifetime. He did not return the Jews to their homeland, and he did not reign as King. Jesus did not complete any of the prophesied Messianic tasks, so he could not have been the Moshiach promised in the Torah.
You suggest that the Bible's stories are all accurate. Who first saw Jesus after He rose? Mark, Matthew, Luke and John don't actually agree on that. That does not mean that Jesus is not Lord, but it does mean that your claim of biblical inerrancy is simply false. There are numerous other disagreements in the books of the Bible.
My final comments relate to your demand that atheists show you the purpose of life. I frequently read similar demands - to me, they make no sense. The existence or lack of existence of God is a fact. He exists or He doesn't. Your assertion that the world would be a cold, meaningless place without Him seems to essentially be summed up as, "I wouldn't like the way the world would be without Him, so He exists." That's terrible logic. The world does not have to be the way that you or I would like it to be. You would like your life to have an eternal purpose - I understand that. Your desire for an eternal purpose does not make God exist. It is not an argument for God.
I will end with a simple analogy. A puddle in the sidewalk is commenting about how perfectly designed the sidewalk is, the perfect, precise shape for the puddle to fit - a miracle of an intelligent designer. Adaptation through natural selection explains how creatures adapt to fit their surroundings. I should also add that the majority of Christian denominations accept the theory of evolution as an accurate explanation.
Posted by: gopi | May 15, 2009 4:10 AM
Derender:
You complain about how damned liberals are removing any evidence of Christianity from our heritage. It seems ironic that your educational materials had material carefully excised to avoid the risk of any cognitive dissonance.
The first thing I see missing is any sort of understanding about science.
Salt water in a glass as the starting point for abiogenesis? Have you even read the basics of the Miller-Urey experiment? Gaseous water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, with sparks comparable to lightning. Regardless of the accuracy or meaningfulness of Miller-Urey or any more recent abiogenesis experiments, your description is an inaccurate parody.
The next thing I see missing is exposure to other faiths, and their views about your religion.
I see that you repeat the tired claim that Jesus fulfilled all prophecies. I think you'll find that the Jews disagree with you on that point. Notwithstanding groups like Jews for Jesus, Jesus failed to fulfill many prophecies. He did not rebuild the temple; the second temple was still standing throughout His lifetime. He did not return the Jews to their homeland, and he did not reign as King. Jesus did not complete any of the prophesied Messianic tasks, so he could not have been the Moshiach promised in the Torah.
You suggest that the Bible's stories are all accurate. Who first saw Jesus after He rose? Mark, Matthew, Luke and John don't actually agree on that. That does not mean that Jesus is not Lord, but it does mean that your claim of biblical inerrancy is simply false. There are numerous other disagreements in the books of the Bible.
My final comments relate to your demand that atheists show you the purpose of life. I frequently read similar demands - to me, they make no sense. The existence or lack of existence of God is a fact. He exists or He doesn't. Your assertion that the world would be a cold, meaningless place without Him seems to essentially be summed up as, "I wouldn't like the way the world would be without Him, so He exists." That's terrible logic. The world does not have to be the way that you or I would like it to be. You would like your life to have an eternal purpose - I understand that. Your desire for an eternal purpose does not make God exist. It is not an argument for God.
I will end with a simple analogy. A puddle in the sidewalk is commenting about how perfectly designed the sidewalk is, the perfect, precise shape for the puddle to fit - a miracle of an intelligent designer. Adaptation through natural selection explains how creatures adapt to fit their surroundings. I should also add that the majority of Christian denominations accept the theory of evolution as an accurate explanation.
Posted by: gopi | May 15, 2009 4:11 AM
gopi:
I see that you inadvertently posted your comments twice. That's okay. You could post it 1,000 times (with different arguments in each entry) and you would be no closer to refuting the "logic" of folks like derrierender. GOD has made up his mind and that, as they say, is that.
Posted by: democommie | May 15, 2009 7:41 AM
@Derender:
Ok, so now how about you try that source research again but don't use one that has "christian" or "religion" in the URL. I suspect that you'll find that that rubbish is nothing more than propaganda. Period. And I'm apparently not the only one...
from Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp):
Below this quote in this same stub it says that, "Another spurious quotation.These words appear nowhere in the writings or recorded utterances of Patrick Henry. Elsewhere it says "...and is completely contradictory to his character as a strong proponent of the separation of church and state."
Simply put, you have no idea of that which you write and, probably, speak. Here - and most other rational places where arguments are crafted - there is great emphasis placed on finding real, actual, independently cited sources that back your assertions. We are a skeptical bunch and will research any claim that doesn't pass the Smell Test. And your citations stink to High Olympus.
Posted by: Pi Guy | May 15, 2009 9:40 AM
Derender blithered thusly:
I would love to witness an entire universe spring into existance all by itself. Atheists can talk about it, but they cannot back it up. Go ahead and prove to me how the univserse came into existance from nothing without a God.
To which I reply:
I would love to witness a God creating an entire universe all by himself. Theists can talk about it, but they cannot back it up. Go ahead and prove to me how a God could create the univserse from nothing. (Oh, and how did this God get created in the first place?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2009 10:36 AM
If your god was creating the universe solo, Derender, why did he/she/it use the Hortive Subjunctive rather than the Imperative when switching on the lights? Who was he/she/it indirectly ordering to do this, tell me, who? :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 15, 2009 10:53 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | May 15, 2009 11:27 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Big Bang Theory (to which Derender most likely was referring to) only really say that there was a singularity which expanded into things like time, space, matter, the white stuff in Oreo cookies, etc.? I couldn't find anything (that didn't also have a religious bias not-so-subtly hidden within) that stated that there was absolutely nothing "before" the Big Bang.
Posted by: Monimonika | May 15, 2009 1:59 PM
Hey, Derender: Google "jefferson's second inaugural address". Look at the text of the address at the first six sources listed; they include bartleby.com, the Avalon Project at Yale Law School, the official site of Colonial Williamsburg, about.com's History1800s, JeffersonToday.org, and the Encyclopædia Britannica.
Look at the 7th paragraph of the address at each of these sources. Do you see this sentence anywhere: "Many contemporary writers attempt to read back into the past a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state which, in fact, never has existed in the United States."
No, you don't. That's because Jefferson never said, or wrote, any such thing. It's totally made up, a lie, spurious, false, and meretricious. And Good Lord, man, can't you read that sentence and realize right away that no 18th-century man wrote it?
Others on this thread have demonstrated that your Patrick Henry quote is also a lie.
Your sources are lying to you, Derender, and you're repeating the lies even after you know it.
And what does that make you? A Liar for Jesus, buddy. Jesus doesn't like lying, you know. And that makes me wonder about your claim to the Name. You might give some thought to how utterly crappy your witness for Him is.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | May 15, 2009 3:08 PM
Derender = hillbilly boy
Seriously, check it out:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/vermont_becomes_fourth_state_t.php#comment-1543484
And that's from me Googling for the "Many contemporary writers attempt to read back into the past a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state which, in fact, never has existed in the United States" pseudo-quote, and getting only that one result.
Posted by: Monimonika | May 15, 2009 4:08 PM
democommie:
Yeah, I figure it's probably futile; when I see people using arguments that have been thoroughly refuted many times before, I expect that they're impervious to logic. I figured that I would do a bit of research to get more details of *how* wrong they were, for my own knowledge, and that posting here would perhaps help prevent other bystanders from too much misinformation. I did enjoy researching and reading through the details of the Milley-Urey experiment and Jewish prophecy.
Posted by: gopi | May 15, 2009 4:36 PM
gopi:
Good for you, that's always a great idea. Education or, rather, its lacks, is what separates the GODbots from the rest of us. I think religions are a worthy course of study in the mechanics of mass hysteria and persistent self-delusion.
Posted by: democommie | May 15, 2009 10:21 PM
As Eric pointed out, this is just a stunt (not to mention a serious waste of time.) I've said it before: if you want to live in a Theocracy, move to Iran!
Posted by: Raymond Minton | May 15, 2009 10:49 PM
Derender "You talk the talk, but when it comes down to it, you shout us down rather than debate us intelligently becuase you know you cannot win."
We try. The problem is that you don't listen. For example, you didn't listen to any of the comments before your first one, nor the ones 'tween that and your next. I suspect that if you return, you won't read the comments posted in your absence. Remember, reading is more than just looking at the words.
Finch "Would that be the government-funded FDA whose assistance you are requesting?"
Just wait until they sell it off. An FDA run by the government is a waste of time and money, and can't protect you from companies (all of which really, really care about your wellness, even over that of their own margins and shareholders), but an FDA run by Monsanto and Tyson Foods (not to mention Texaco-EPA)...
Posted by: Modusoperandi | May 17, 2009 2:45 PM
To kehrsam - you said: "BobApril: Since the bill doesn't actually do anything, there is nothing unconstitutional about it. If the Congresscritters want to say they like some book, they have that right. What shocks me is that there hasn't been one since 1983. Karl Rove has been asleep at the switch, apparently."
There is something unconstitutional about it, congress supporting one religion over all the others. What part of the first amendment don't you understand.
Posted by: vgerdj | May 18, 2009 11:01 AM
Damn, and I was hoping that 2010 would be the year of Dianetics and Xenu!!!
Posted by: Brad hart | May 18, 2009 7:15 PM
it's good... 2010: the year of the Bible... I hope it will change lot of people there in America...
Posted by: Ezekiel | May 22, 2009 10:44 AM
I don't think kehrsham misunderstands anything, and your answer is in the first five words of the amendment: "Congress shall make no *law*". This resolution is not a law.
Posted by: Spartan | May 22, 2009 10:53 AM
Peace to all,
Thanks God, I've found a new Key to decoding the Quran in its first chapter called The Key that consists of
7 verses,
29 words, and
139 letters.
All are primes and their digit sums (7=7, 2 9=11, 1 3 9=13) are primes too and the sum of these sums (7 11 13=31) is yet another prime. And to cap it all 139297 and 729139 are primes too :)
Glory to Allah, the Sustainer of all worlds, Seen and Unseen!
The first decoded message found is related to 07-Jan-2012. It predicts that a four-day event that will repeat 31 times (Quran 44:10, 44:15) before a big event (Quran 44:16) takes place on perhaps 21 December 2012 as predicted by Western researchers using the astronomically accurate Mayan Calendar:
Quran 44:10“فَٱرْتَقِبْ يَوْمَ تَأْتِى ٱلسَّمَآءُ بِدُخَانٍۢ مُّبِينٍ”
“Look out for a day when the sky brings clarifying smoke.”
Quran 44:15 “إِنَّا كَاشِفُوا۟ ٱلْعَذَابِ قَلِيلًا ۚ إِنَّكُمْ عَآئِدُونَ”
“We are lifting the punishment a little but you will be back.”
Quran 44:16 “يَوْمَ نَبْطِشُ ٱلْبَطْشَةَ ٱلْكُبْرَىٰٓ إِنَّا مُنتَقِمُونَ”
“On a day when we seize you with a mighty onslaught: We are taking revenge.”
The word “مُنتَقِمُونَ” or “taking revenge” can be seen as revenge for those who belie God’s signs and bounties (ءَالَآءِ).
More research has revealed an even later date from the same Merciful verse by joining its 31 repeated verse numbers right-to-left (Arabic direction) to produce a 62-digit number that has only two factors:
77757371696765636159575553514947454240383634323028252321181613 = 7 *11108195956680805165653650502135350605769090617575464617311659
This new 64-digit prime number is then split into new 31 2-digit numbers that are summed up to yield yet another prime Hijri year with a prime digit sum as follows:
11 10 81 95 95 66 80 80 51 65
65 36 50 50 21 35 35 06 05 76
90 90 61 75 75 46 46 17 31 16 59 = 1619 prime
with digit sum 1 6 1 9 = 17 prime too.
1619H maps to 2192 which shows that 2012 will not be the End of the World but hopefully a Spiritual Awakening by all humanity worldwide.
Future generations should look forward to the year 2192 as yet another small correction to the course of human history because only Allah decides when the End will come and can bring it anytime at the blink of an eye or even nearer:
Quran 16:77
“وَلِلَّهِ غَيْبُ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ ۚ وَمَآ أَمْرُ ٱلسَّاعَةِ إِلَّا كَلَمْحِ ٱلْبَصَرِ أَوْ هُوَ أَقْرَبُ ۚإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىْءٍۢ قَدِيرٌ“
“To Allah belongs the Unseen of heavens and earth and The Hour can come at the blink of an eye, or even nearer. Truly! Allah is capable of doing anything.”
Alive Quran
All of the above findings can be changed and forgotten before they ever occur for the Quran is not just a normal book, but literally a living book as stated in Quran 2:106:
"ما ننسخ من ءاية أو ننسها نأت بخير منها أو مثلها ألم تعلم أن الله على كل شىء قدير"
"Any verse (sign or revelation) that We edit or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Don't you know that Allah is capable of doing anything?"
This verse is so unimaginable that Allah the Almighty emphasizes its likelihood with the "Don't you know that Allah is capable of doing anything!" reminder and not the common “And Allah is capable of doing anything” factual statement.
Indeed Allah not only “can” but “does” change the verses of the Quran at will, both on paper (including read only media like CD-ROM) and deep inside our minds for better or similar versions that exhibit miracles relevant to each time and no human, jinn, or angel would ever be aware of the change with all copies of the Quran updated instantly and keeps the text sacred at all times as promised in Quran 15:9:
"إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا ٱلذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُۥ لَحَٰفِظُونَ"
"It is We who have sent down the Message and it is We who guard it from corruption.
It is very difficult to believe that no one thus far has counted the number of verses, words and letters of chapter The Key and didn’t instantly think of prime numbers! It could be that previous text did not produce primes and only recently this numerical miracle was added to warn us of the approaching events of 2012.
Further Research
This research is at its early stages and is always open to all who wish to joining the group and help it grow and be effective in awakening the general public to take heed and be ready to meet their Creator instead of the endless pursuit of worldly desires and materialism.
Our souls need to conform to the commands of our spirits to please Allah alone and be ready to fight the forces of evil under the banner of our Saviors Imam Mehdi and Prophet Jesus (peace be upon them both).
Muslims and non-Muslims alike need to think collectively as a unit, not as islands of knowledge, despite our differences to try our best to decode Allah’s Message using prime numbers amongst other tools and to make noble use of it for the good of all, not the selfish few.
See http://aliadams.blog.com for details.
Ali Adams
God > infinity
Posted by: Ali Adams | June 20, 2009 7:42 AM