In this bill, the House Republicans are proposing that 2010 be designated "The National Year of the Bible".
And I quote:
Is there an argument to be made that this bill is not "respecting an establishment of religion"?
No.
And I quote:
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.
Is there an argument to be made that this bill is not "respecting an establishment of religion"?
No.
2 comments:
For an atheist, I'm not usually overly concerned with things like "One nation, under God" as part of the historical Pledge of Allegiance, and things of that nature, but you are right that this crosses the line.
It should also bother Christians. It is literally profane to put the name of the one God, the great I Am on a nation's money.
The "National Year of the Bible" is so stupid from so many levels it is hard to focus. The Bible is a book that heretical members of churches have taken to worshiping. That is irritating. What exactly about 2010 would make it a year to celebrate this book? What is one thing in this book that these Republican Christianists use to guide their decisions in office.
Regarding the Establishment Clause, I'm not sure what "respecting" means. Similarly, I'm not sure how "establishment of" works in the clause. I think it means you cannot have a state religion--e.g. Anglican for England, Roman Catholic for France, etc. I don't know what it says about a national cathedral or a cemetery full of crosses or a national holiday celebrating the birth of the Christian Messiah.
Post a Comment