Shortly after hamming it up for the crowd saying "my opponent likes to quote the bible," he brought up Daniel 5 outlining the point in the passage where King Belshazzar sees a hand appear out of an write on the wall. Barbour then states that even if a hand could appear right now in this room and write on the wall that Haley Barbour's blind trust is ok, that Mr. Eaves still wouldn't believe that Barbour had no ties to Barbour, Griffith and Rogers.
A college friend advised me to look up what Daniel 5 actually says. Yes, the hand appears, but here is what was written on the wall:
25 "This is the inscription that was written:
Mene , Mene , Tekel , Parsin [e]
26 "This is what these words mean:
Mene [f] : God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.
27 Tekel [g] : You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.
28 Peres [h] : Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians."
29 Then at Belshazzar's command, Daniel was clothed in purple, a gold chain was placed around his neck, and he was proclaimed the third highest ruler in the kingdom.
30 That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, [i] was slain, 31 and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.
If Eaves somehow continues to close the gap this will be very ironic. For now it just serves as a good reminder of how much we need Biblical Literacy in our schools. The Bible is the foundation of much of literature, art, culture, and civilization. It's not unreasonable to expect students, or at the very least the Governor, to have at least a basic knowledge of it.
Good job! It really does show how clueless Haley is about the Bible.
ReplyDeleteIf you'll check, the original is mene mene tekel upharsin...parsin comes in a much later translation.
ReplyDeleteAlso the Bible story doesn't follow history. That's understandable. The Jewish history of the Old Testament would see Babylon as bad prior to Cyrus because after Cyrus took over the city, he allowed Jews to return to their homeland. He became "the annointed one."
If I recall history correctly, the last king of Babylon was Nabonidos. Cyrus the Persian took Babylon and arrested the king, Nabonidos, who had fled to Babylon after Babylonian generals opened the gates to other cities and allowed Cyrus' generals in. Nabonidos had a son, Belshazzar, however, who could have been sitting on the throne in his father's stead until Nabonidos came home.
Wow, you have a very strong grasp of Bible history. If you don't mind me asking, where did you pick it up?
ReplyDeleteI was a history major.
ReplyDeleteCharlie Mitchell totally rips Eaves's on this
ReplyDeleteFrom the Mitchell article:
ReplyDelete"In March, Time magazine reported 460 school districts in 37 states now offer Bible literacy instruction in some form. While skeptics see this as a veiled attempt to get around Supreme Court rulings, the fact is that from a strictly academic perspective, knowledge about the Bible and its contents is essential to understanding America's founders and founding documents, the motivation of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and virtually everything that has occurred in the Western World for the past 2,000 years.
Even to understand Shakespeare requires knowledge of the Bible. The Bard's works contain hundreds of references to biblical themes and events. And if a president says, "I feel like Daniel in the lion's den," for example, a member of the godless media would have to know something about the Bible and something about the story of Daniel to understand what the president meant."
Charlie Mitchell is one of the smartest columnists in the South. His intellect shows every time he writes. I don't always agree with his opinions, but I always, always respect anything he writes.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is open to varying interpretations. If it's taught in the schools, whose interpretations will be taught? Will all interpretations be presented equally? Not likely. Also, there is a sizeable minority of Americans who aren't Christians. Will they be required to take this course? Bible history belongs in college or church - not in public schools.
ReplyDeleteThe biblical literacy classes are optional where they are taught and use a textbook and their version of choice of the Bible. The classes don't teach Christianity, they only teach people how to understand literature, world history, culture and art. We need more learning in schools, not less.
ReplyDeleteSec 18 of the Mississippi constitution reads "The rights hereby secured shall not be construed...to exclude the Holy Bible from use in any public school of this state."
ReplyDeleteEaves is Right!
The Governor was making the point to show that Eaves will ride the blind trust wave no matter what or who says otherwise. The Governor was not giving a Bible lesson nor did he intend it to be. I love how people love to try and twist everything the Governor says. John, it seems you want Eaves to win more than his own camp does. What gives? When reading your dissection of Barbour's ad, you flat out say the Eaves camp had nothing to say about the ad. You and your friend went on and did the research for the Eaves camp after they showed no interest in doing it themselves. What kind of campaign is he trying to run?
ReplyDeleteI see that John’s bible gets bigger and bigger every time he’s on T.V. Sometimes I wonder if it’s really the bible he’s holding or a copy of Moby Dick.
This proposal is constitutionally invalid, and Eaves ought to know it. Any governmental action that favors one religion over another (as this one would), or even any action that favors religion over irreligion, violates the Establishment Clause.
ReplyDeleteThis is pandering, plain and simple.
Bardwell,
ReplyDeleteBiblical literacy classes have been analyzed by liberal and conservative constitutional scholars and none found that it violated the Constitution.
The classes are being taught without challenge in many districts across the country.
None?
ReplyDeleteI'd be very interested to read any of those articles, and I'm quite certain that I could quickly find several scholarly works in direct disagreement.
"Critics of our textbook fall into two categories," said Stetson. "The first are those who think that academic study of the Bible in public schools should not take place at all. Yet the courts have said that academic study of the Bible is legal as long as it is part of a secular program of education, and provides knowledge, but does not promote nor disparage belief."
ReplyDeleteA Chicago Tribune editorial (May 12, 2005) states "When [public schools] decline to impart knowledge about such an important subject [the Bible], they are not doing anything to preserve the separation of church and state. They are merely failing their students."
The Bible Literacy Web site
8% of public schools already offer Bible electives.
I really don't understand the automatic no when anyone brings up discussion of Christianity or religion in general in public schools. Schools are where students are supposed to learn, right? (And that shouldn't be read as told what to believe)
John, with all due respect, you're carrying the water for Eaves here. He's pandering to the right on this issue.
ReplyDeleteAs Stetson (whoever that is) rightly points out, academic study within a public school of the Bible is permissible only as a part of a larger, secular curriculum (e.g. for its historical or literary value). But under Eaves' plan, the study of the Bible IS the curriculum. No larger secular interest exists.
The Supreme Court has held consistently that any program, even when carried out in good faith, that has the effect of advancing religion violates the Establishment Clause. I think even Eaves would admit (proudly, no doubt) that his plan is fueled by a motivation to advance religion.
The fact that some Democrats, long the vanguard against state-sponsored religion, are buying into Eaves' purely political ploy is distressing to me.