Multiple Bibles: It's OK
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, May 18, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
I cannot let Maris Sanner's April 30 letter “Catholic catechism,” which called for book burning, go unchallenged.
Her demands for book burning and chastising of Catholics for their “altered” Ten Commandments show precisely why we should not have Ten Commandments monuments on public property like Valley High School. Stone commandments monuments can become idols.
America honors freedom of conscience, but Sanner does not. She apparently thinks Scripture and beliefs different from her own should not be tolerated.
The term “Bible” refers to “books,” not just one book. There are multiple Bibles because hundreds of years after Jesus, those in control of “the church” approved a limited number of writings from the abundance of circulating Scriptures. Many of the unapproved writings were burned. Catholics and Protestants have been burning each other's books ever since those first church councils voted on Scripture.
Let's not inflame this issue any further.
Is not this fight over Catholic versus Protestant commandments and beliefs just another form of coveting thy neighbors' goods? Is it not stealing to burn another's books? Is it not bearing false witness to contend that God approves one set of beliefs over another?
It's one thing to hold beliefs in a church of your choice with like-minded believers; it is quite another to attempt to plant your beliefs on the grounds of another church or public grounds walked by those of different beliefs.
The writer is a Mt. Pleasant native.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- Obstacles to hiring
- Math in common?
- Putin’s actions I
- Putin’s actions II
- Our nation’s testing obsession
- Beneficial, irreplaceable