« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Pennsylvania’s “2012 Year of the Bible” Proclamation Puts Left on the Warpath

The liberals at the York Dispatch newspaper are up in arms again about the Christians in Pennsylvania.  Seems that a bill co-sponsored by local Christian-conservatives, State Representatives Seth Grove and Will Tallman, introduced by State Representative Richard Saccone, passed unanimously, declaring this to be the “Year of the Bible.”  The liberal York (PA) Dispatch, taking dead aim at Saccone, Grove and Tallman, declared “The Year of the Bible Flap.”  They have also run editorials this past week criticizing the Bible specifically and Christians in general and complained about any recognition of the role of Christians in the founding of America.  So what’s their complaint?

First, I must admit to my bias here: I am one of the people who attended the ACTION of PA (Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation) breakfast this past Saturday morning in New Oxford, PA, and who joined in standing ovations for local legislators Seth Grove and Will Tallman when they spoke there.   Representatives Grove and Tallman may not be very popular at the York Dispatch and in the inner city of York, PA – a blue enclave surrounded by the very RED state part of south central Pennsylvania.  But a few miles out from the blue-city in more red, New Oxford, PA, the work of Representatives Grove and Tallman to represent mainstream “values” voters earned them serious applause, especially when Seth Grove recited a litany of benefits of his being part of the new Republican governing majority in Pennsylvania which includes the Governor and both chambers of the legislature.

Symbols can be scoffed at and yes we want substance but we really ought to pause a moment – as was done Saturday morning in New Oxford – to give applause where it is deserved.  So what is the liberal complaint about our recognizing a “Year of the Bible” in Pennsylvania, thanks to the support of Rep. Grove and Tallman, who joined as co-sponsors of House Resolution 535 authored by Rep. Rick Saccone (PA 39) in January and passed unanimously?

Well, The York Dispatch whines, not everybody agrees with HR 535′s unanimously adopted declaration that the Bible is “the word of God” and that people should “study and apply the teachings of the holy scriptures.”

Really?

Here’s a conservative dispatch, for the liberal Dispatch: if it wasn’t for the Christians who founded America, then the religious diversity which is allowed and indeed encouraged in America, would never exist.

Representatives Grove, Tallman and Saccone know, as do the attendees at this “Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation” breakfast meeting, that it was the Christian beliefs of the founders which caused the adoption of a First Amendment which still confuses the York Dispatch – a prohibition AGAINST the government’s then popular practice of prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion.  They parrot the usual leftist line that the Constitution demands a “separation of Church and State” without noting that such language appears nowhere – as Rep. Tallman is actually quoted saying.  The First Amendment is a prohibition against the federal government forcing us to practice a state religion, as was the case in merry old England.

Being a Catholic who has adopted the nom de plume of the father of that First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom, I am especially alarmed at how confused liberals are about what Patrick Henry’s purpose was.  In his state of Virginia – as back in the mother country of England – it was perfectly legal and routinely done – to prohibit Catholics from practicing their religion.

Oh?  You thought it was only in the Muslim countries of the Middle East and all the other countries where you can ONLY practice the religion endorsed by the state – and even be sentenced to death for becoming a Christian.  In America, before the First Amendment, the government could and did tell you what religion you were allowed to practice, and which you weren’t.  Just like old England.

Patrick Henry’s push for adoption of a “Bill of Rights” was designed to specifically STOP the FEDERAL government from doing any such thing in the future.  The First Amendment does not PROHIBIT you and me from practicing our religion, nor does it tell the Pennsylvania legislature that they are forbidden from recognizing the role of Christians in the founding of this great Republic.

And so we have an “Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation” (ACTION of PA) to take up the banner of that cause form long ago, the founding of the American Republic, because liberals such as those who wrote this editorial at the York Dispatch, are clueless about history or willfully rewriting it.  The founders’ work was to STOP the government from prohibiting us from practicing our faith.  The group is growing too, as their leaders report the recent Breakfast surprised them with 150 attendees instead of the expected 75, forcing them to switch to a larger room at the last minute.  One can imagine the panic at the nearby liberal York city newspaper.

The York Dispatch reports complaints from the usual suspects, such as the Pennsylvania Council of (Leftist) Churches, whose Executive Director, Rev. Sandra Strauss, said this Year of the Bible resolution introduced by Representatives Seth Grove, Will Tallman and Rick Saccone, “sends a negative message to non-Christians.”

And, the paper reports, some unnamed legislators immediately paid homage to Reverend Sandra by calling a press conference to apologize for saying good things about the Bible in public.  Being Catholic, I have to wonder, what penance do they suggest for us who are in fact, all guilty of the terrible sin of speaking good about the Word of God and of the founding fathers who said they were guided by His word?

I joined the ACTION of PA audience this past Saturday in giving a standing ovation to Rep. Seth Grove and his co-sponsor, Rep. Will Tallman, and I urge you to give them both a tip of the hat as well.  I am delighted that there exists a group with a name like “Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation.”  Who says the issues of concern to “values voters” are always ignored?  In Pennsylvania, a wrathful liberal city paper sure doesn’t think that’s the case.  Send more of this our way, Representative Rick Saccone, Seth Grove and Will Tallman!  (http://www.repgrove.com, http://www.repwilltallman.com, http://www.repsaccone.com).

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • mikeymike143

    well done.

    • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

      It is like saying “I am a Republican.” The Tea Party influence has become so enormous – a generally great thing for our Republic except in the minds of leftists – that I must note this simple truth: all Tea Party clubs are not equal. Some were established simply as a method of attacking the GOP and/or recruiting for anti-GOP third parties. Hardly surprising, the media gives them a lot of attention and support because it helps advance the anti-conservative, anti-GOP “party line.” Other Tea Party groups were formed by newly activated citizens who see the trouble our country is in from following the left. And some are led by those God fearing Christians who continue the work begun by our founding fathers. It certainly appears that you are in that category, and I thank you and salute you for your work and will most certainly be happy to visit your facebook page . Do lets be friends, https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry

      • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

        celebrating our 3rd birthday, we started with a devotional that included scripture reading, followed by a prayer and recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. You might enjoy reading the report of our event here

        God fearing Christians everywhere indeed.

        • Scope

          is to be envied. Unfortunately the larger majority of Tea Party groups are in support of trashing Republican candidates that don’t meet their litmus tests, as hanover has stated. I just read today that Mark Meckler, a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots resigned from his position. Don’t know all the inner workings, or the characters, but one of his statements rings very true. He claimed that the TPP have become a top down organization, rather than a bottom up organization. I’ve read stories that the TPP leaders were collecting six figure paychecks. I’ve read that if you click on any of the TPP sites, you were automatically counted as a member, just for clicking on their sites.

          When the Tea Parties first started, I was excited, and my husband and I attended some rallies. They were great, and I know attended by every age group who supported the grassroots movement. Unfortunately, whenever there is a vacuum in a movements leadership, someone is going to take advantage and try to claim the leadership position. I love having local leaders, I hate having national leaders, including Bachmann’s claim to be the House Tea Party leader. No no, go away, the Tea Partiy is about the people, and we don’t need a Washington House group to lead the way.

          • westcoastpatriette

            founder that included a copy of Mark Meckler’s resignation letter and it gave quite a bit of detail about his reasons for resigning and the internal struggle taking place inside the Tea Party Patriots. I was not aware of any of the problems before this email but I am not surprised. When you begin to amass a huge treasury (in the millions) you are bound to run into more and more problems sticking to the mission and disagreements about how to spend the money.

            My local leader assured everyone that Mark’s resignation would have no affect on our group as we did not receive funds nor give funds to the TPP.

        • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

          Excellent spirit of unity and yes Melody I did enjoy reading that. I commend you! Thanks for writing. (sorry for duplicate post – trying to figure out where to put the REPLY, hope this one works!)

        • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

          I do not know if it is the “majority” or simply a large and outspoken minority but I share your concern – easy enough to verify by simply scanning facebook pages of the groups and see what they say the are for and what they are against. Many are as you say Scope.

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        Excellent spirit of unity and yes Melody I did enjoy reading that. I commend you! Thanks for writing.

  • hal2715

    And this nation is not the first to allow free practice of religion- I’ll cite Moor-controlled Spain. This proclamation was red meat thrown to the base.

    • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

      Thank you for your note about the Muslims/Moors. Perhaps you can cite that to the clerics in Iran who announced a few days ago that they will execute the Iranian Christian because of his Christian beliefs. I am sure they will be influenced by this “first” you are claiming, and be happy to continue that tradition. Oh. As the kids say, “not.” The truth is that Christian countries are where you are allowed to practice the religion of your choice. Diversity is a synonym for Christianity. America is another synonym for diversity. The government should not tell people what religion they must practice, or prohibit them from practicing the religion of their choice.

      • rogsterling63

        I was not aware India is a Christian country. Thank you for clarifying

        • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

          Complete non-sequitur.

          • rogsterling63

            henry claimed “truth” that Christian countries are where you are allowed to practice the religion of your choice.

            One may also do that in India

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            What does India’s religious identity have to do with whether Christian countries allow you to practice the religion of your choice.

            Now if henry had said “only” – then you would be trying to present a counterexample – but he made no such claim that I see. No need to have been snarky about it, either.

            Though in passing, it is at least arguable that India’s level of religious tolerance at the national level reflects the influence of British rule and the associated Christian ethos that they imported. – although religious pluralism has also characterized India’s history more than most nations.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            thanks. That is known as the “straw man argument,” ie. you setup a pretense of what your opponent said, and then you demolish it. I am delighted to “meet” a fellow fan of C.S. Lewis. Interesting to see so many of the arguments normally associated with the liberals and even the left, being echoed so faithfully in the “pages” of a place like Red State. Including the straw man tactic you rebutted so nicely there. Thanks again.

    • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

      quoting Rodney Stark from Discovering God, page 377

      As for “enlightened” Moorish Spain, about 4,000 Jews were murdered there in 1066 and several thousand more in 1090. Much is made of the fact that upon having reconquered Spain, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella ordered Jews to convert to Christianity or to leave. But almost nowhere is it mentioned that in doing so, they merely repeated a prior Muslim policy: in 1148 all Christian and Jews were ordered to convert to Islam or leave Moorish Spain immediately, on pain of death.

      • aesthete

        Moorish Spain was not an idyllic utopia, but it was very religiously tolerant both during its early, unified period (under the Almoravids, and especially the Umayyads), and also in the later period of independent taifa states — the Almohad period were less tolerant than either late or early Moorish Spain, but its religious edicts were mostly ignored. Certainly, the Moorish taifas and emirates were much more tolerant than unified Spain or Portugal after the Reconquista.

        • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

          …but you’ve evidently studied this more than I, so I’m not prepared to get into the fine points of the matter.

          Stark does note that Islam did conquer before it converted, so as a matter of necessity, the early period of Islamic Moorish rule would have been relatively tolerant of non-Muslims because of the percentages. In particular Stark notes that it took 247 years to convert 50% of the population to Islam (Table 8, p376).

          The late era of “tolerance” would likely reflect to decline in religious energy, probably due to state sponsorship, which is a pattern that Stark observes as characteristic of state-sponsored religion rather than a reformed religious doctrine.

          • aesthete

            Muslims could not be taxed at the same rate as unbelievers. “Moorish Spain” (a catch-all term describing several empires and states in the region) was disinclined to have mass emigration of their tax base to either other Muslim regions, or to their Christian rivals. Generally speaking, this was a favorable climate for Jews and heterodox Christians, and a tolerable one for Western Catholics. Both Christian kingdoms and Moorish Spain asserted religious supremacy, defaced one anothers’ sites of worship after conquest, and neither was what one would call a classically liberal state on such issues, but minority religions had some guaranteed religious rights under Islam — and the highly developed tax base of Moorish Spain made rulers loathe to push their non-Muslim subjects to the breaking point. Indeed, proselyting by non-Muslims was decriminalized in some of the taifa states as an attempt to increase the tax base!

            It is worth noting that at no time was an Islamic state the world or regional (Europe+Near East) leader in religious freedom: the Eastern Roman Empire was undoubtedly better from a religious freedoms standpoint than any of the earlier Islamic states, as was the Khazar state and a number of smaller, primarily heterodox Christian states. In the High Middle Ages, Norman Sicily, Hungary, and Poland were better on religious freedoms than their Christian or Muslim contemporaries. By the time that those kingdoms were disestablished or marginalized, the rest of Western Europe caught up to and surpassed the Muslim states when it came to religious (and other) freedoms (though some of the Founders and other Enlightenment thinkers did cite the Ottomans favorably during this transition period).

            I don’t know enough about the Indian states to have an informed opinion, but it is my recollection that India, Afghanistan, SE Asia, and others within India’s cultural orbit were significantly freer than the Muslim states established afterwards in the same regions. IIRC, the same was true of Zoroastrian Persia, as well.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            I just finished reading it because it was the current book for a book club I belong to. (Rodney Stark, Discovering God – it’s on Amazon.)

            Stark takes the viewpoint of a sociologist in reviewing the major religions of Europe and Asia (including Zoraostrianism). He develops a market theory of religion that parallels in concept economic market models – and as noted, documents that toxic consequences of state-support to the continued viability of a religion, and some other contrarian positions on the factors behind the rise and spread of a new religion.

  • rogsterling63

    It was? Please show me where Messrs. Jefferson and Madison explicitly claimed they were practicing Christians?

    • streiff

      and come to the conclusion he wasn’t a practicing Christian. He went to a religiously administered (Presbyterian) college and studied Hebrew.

      Be that as it may, the Constitution was ratified by the states. The states were adamantly Christian, some even imposed fines for missing church services.

      So, I’d refer you back to the advice you received from Moe. It is your last chance to, as we say in this Lenten season, “turn away from sin”

      • rogsterling63

        They were?

        From Mr. Madison’s own writing in opposition to state legislation offered by Patrick Henry to levy common fees for religious schools

        http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html

        • streiff

          1. That he did so has nothing to do with his religious beliefs.

          2. Which denominations had schools???

          3. You realize Patrick Henry was governor and what did you say he was doing????

          If you want to continue your self-beclowning by all means continue to do so… at least until I’ve had enough.

          • rogsterling63

            What do you mean? That they simply had a majority Christian population? Sure. That’s based in fact. That they were governed ecumenically? Not even close…

            Governors may politically support legislation even if they do not have the power to introduce it in a legislative body. Nothing that I posted was inconsistent with this notion.

            Henry was indeed Governor when Madison drafted this in 1785. The following year Jefferson’s Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (in opposition to the levy supported by Henry) was passed while TJ was in Paris. The year following that, Henry returned to the VA legislature.

            Who again did you say was the ignorant one?

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            was championed by religious groups who lacked the size and money individually to compete with The Anglican Church.

            Here’s what Virginia Memory had to say.

            “The Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, commonly known as the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which the Virginia General Assembly passed on January 16, 1786, is one of the most important laws that the assembly ever adopted. Its passage concluded a ten-year campaign in Virginia to disestablish the Church of England, which had been the official state church of the colony since the first English settlers arrived in 1607. Baptists led the campaign, joined by Presbyterians and others during the American Revolution,… ”

            So yes, contrary to the spin you’ve put out there worthy of Richard Dawkins, it took very religious people to secure religious freedom and tolerance in the early American Colonies.

          • rogsterling63

            I acknowledged that there was indeed a Christian majority in the colonies and they certainly had an impact on the founding of the nation.

            I draw the line at the claim that it was a Christian nation.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            You seem to be arguing that a Christian nation is one where the practice of the government is in close conformity to a utopian adherence to Christian principles.

            Most people here seem to be addressing “Christian nation” as meaning a nation founded by imperfect Christians building a nation dominantly ruled by Christian principles as the founders saw them, which by our modern insight contained a fair number of flaws and errors. But one which had room for non-Christians to influence as well.

            So you’re judging by content, most here are judging by the people.

            But you do seem to have an attitude that the other posters here are ignorant of the flaws in our system – and that misconception is creating much friction as you have a hard time refraining from poking with pointy sticks.

          • aesthete

            would be more descriptive in modern times than “Christian nation” — but only because so many people believe that state = nation. That is not the case. The definition for nation is “a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history.” While calling the US a “Christian nation” is somewhat inaccurate in a strictly pedantic sense (only individuals can be “Christ followers”), it is accurate in a colloquial sense (i.e., “Christian church” being used to refer to the brick-and-mortar building where people worship on Sundays and Wednesdays, rather than the aggregate of believers). It is, however, eminently true that post-Revolution, the colonies broadly dropped their sectarian affiliations and all adopted variants of the religious liberties/freedom of conscience planks embodied so perfectly in Vermont’s constitution. The most accurate statement that succinctly addresses the state of affairs in post-Revolutionary America would probably be “a Christian nation that freely chose an Enlightenment state”.

          • acat

            (null)

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            and try to avoid using that term.

            I was trying to interpret the set of comments here. There seemed to be some degree of folks talking past each other – as there’s nothing worse than an argument over a term that two sides are defining differently.

            Ah, the Enlightenment myth – at least Stark views it so, but he covers that in The Victory of Reason. In that book, he traces classical liberalism to Aquinas (reflecting the influence of Aristotle) and the Scholastics triumphing over the legacy of Plato and the classical thought. If I recall, he viewed the Reformation as retrograde and the Enlightenment are reversion to classical thought, which was hostile to individual freedom, free markets, decentralized government.

            Excellent review here by Thomas Woods of the Independent Institute The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            by the Stoics than Aristotle.

            I also do not call us a Christian nation, mostly because a majority of the public is indeed not christian.

            I do not count anyone as a Christian who merely says they belong to a Church and only attend for weddings and funerals, and pay no attention to what that church teaches. That is most of the people nominally called Christian.

          • aesthete

            in that half* of the branches of the Enlightenment were indeed highly illiberal, there were a good deal of liberal Enlightenment-era thinkers who are proven to have influenced the views of the Founders and to have had tremendous impact on their thoughts regarding constitution of government, expression of basic rights, and negative liberties. I would agree that the Enlightenment emerged from the milieu of religious attitudes extant in Europe, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call early acknowledgements from church members as equivalent or superior to the blossoming of classical liberal thought during and after the Enlightenment. There is a reason that Western Europe was so backwards relative to other regions in the Early Middle Ages, and a lot of it had to do with the truly bizarre and counterproductive relationship that the Catholic Church had with continental European powers, as well as the relationships between these powers and their peers or subordinates. In particular, the Spanish and French realms had a highly unpleasant and illiberal experience during the Middle Ages in part due to these relationships.

            There were some partial success stories (some of the northern Italian city-states; a handful of largely isolated monastic holdings and crusading orders), but Europe was on the whole hostile to free markets and freedom until the Enlightenment and the Reformation — one cannot account for the rise of productivity in Great Britain and Germany and ossified status of southern Europe without acknowledging that these proto-capitalist states and half-measures were superior or equal to later attempts. IMO, just as good a case can be made for a “capitalist-friendly” Islamic history, if we’re going to use favorable references to merchants and occasional pockets of freedom as our evidence. I’m not trying to make an anti-Catholic case, but I just don’t see the historical evidence for a largely capitalist Europe prior to the Enlightenment: even if the church was universally disposed towards such, it was not nearly powerful enough to dominate the illiberal kingdoms which were in place everywhere except (in some cases) the free-cities in northern Italy and along the Adriatic. IMO, the Weberian thesis has the most explanatory power at the present for the origins of capitalism — though I’ll withhold final judgement until after I’ve finished reading the book (which your posts have made me interested in reading).

            *WAA, of course.

          • jamesm

            people sharing the common belief that Jesus is the son of God. It is correct to say that the United States is a predominately Christian country.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Franklin was a deist, Jefferson was probably a deist. Thomas Payne, (who I do not consider one of the founders) was an atheist.

            That is about it. Most of the others were good Christian men, several of them devout.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            I have not seen anywhere, such a statement. It is not part of the “2012 Year of the Bible” proclamation unanimously passed by the Republican State legislature, which began this thread. There are eight clauses in the resolution. The strawman arguments which are being endlessly debated here, together with the imperfections of the sinners known as human beings who are our founders, along with the fact that they held differing views about a variety of matters including religion, does not alter or change the truth which CIVIL articulates so splendidly. The influence of those guided by the Bible, played a decisive and constructive role in the formation of this Republic. Like it or not, hate Christians or not, admire them or not, it remains our history, and Pennsylvania’s legislators recognized this truth, and are to be commended.

          • Agelaius

            I’ll freely admit that the founding fathers were a diverse lot, religiously, but all of them were at least deists. (Tom Pain excepted, but he’s not entirely one of the founding fathers.) If one looks at the religious and cultural context of the Enlightenment in the late 18th century, it’s pretty clear that the US was founded on a principle of religious freedom meaning that all religious are allowed to coexist as long as they don’t infringe upon the basic agreed upon rights of all. IU guess what I struggle with is the idea that atheism can be included within the concept of religious freedom. Atheists would maintain that the United States is not a Christian country, and that freedom of religion means freedom from religion, particularly in government. I think this is quite a stretch. The intent of the founders was to allow religion to flourish, and atheists were such a tiny minority, and so marginal, that they couldn’t have been an issue when the nation was founded. I guess I’m saying that the lack of religion should not be granted the full status of being a religion… and should have less protections. Our nation was founded to prevent Christians from oppressing each other, and expanded to include rights for Jews and even Muslims under the rubric of religious freedom. But we are a religious nation, a predominantely Christian one, and I wonder if the lack of religion should be granted equal respect under freedom of religion. Those atheists who propose banning the Ten Commandments are working at cross-purposes from the original intent.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    This idea that no one religion should be allowed to be imposed on everyone and that the government should not have the power to stop people from practicing the religion of their choice, united the founders of America, principally Christians. Despite the claims of liberals, those who believe in the Bible as the inspired word of God did establish a nation which allows this diversity. They were themselves of diverse beliefs, but united in this Christian precept, which guided them in their work from the very start.

    • rogsterling63

      because they saw the chilling effect that organized Christian denominations in Europe had upon the governance and society of their forebears

      • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

        “Established” as in state sponsorship of a particular denomination, leading to low levels of religious participation.

        Disestablishment opened the doors to a vibrant pluralism of Christian groups and the historically high level of active participation in local congregations. (c.f. Rodney Stark Discovering God, p 332).

        And the Bible has been a mainstay in maintaining pluralism. And that pluralism includes a place at the table for atheists, agnostics, and unconventional religious practices too. This what religious freedom is about – freedom for all.

        Very different that the cleansing of all religion from the public arena under the guise of “neutrality” – as though neutrality requires suppression of religious speech rather than a vigorous marketplace of speech.

        But it was a Christian ethos that undergirded the religious pluralism that developed in the U.S., even if the percentage of active participants was still rather low in colonial times (outside of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the only large colonies without an established church).

  • thephoenix13

    At least insofar as you believe in the power of the Supreme Court. In the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education, they decided that the establishment clause of the first amendment actually does apply to state governments. Therefore it is blatantly illegal for the PA state legislature to pass a law that is so clearly “respecting an establishment of religion”.

    Sorry.

    • ww2nd95

      I think what PA is doing here is illegal. And though “Year of the Bible” doesn’t bother me, it may bother many different religions in PA that do not believe in the Bible. I think everyone needs to be considered when Govt is doing anything, considering it impacts every person in that district, city, state, or nation.

      So while declaring declaring a “Year of the Bible” resolution might appeal to most Christians, it doesn’t appeal to everyone else who isn’t a Christian, therefore it never should have come to be. I see these congressman as using religion as a political tool, which unfortunately has been used multiple times by both parties to achieve certain ends. I fundamentally believe in separation of church and state, as I believe Govt should have no part in Relegion and needs to be completely neutral, which unfortunately it has trouble doing. ,