Tennessee Could Make Bible the Official State Book

[Paleocon]

I do not agree with your premise, Not sure how you got that controted strawman from what I said but it is 100% baloney

So you do not believe that the state should be secular?

 

[Cephus]

Actually, this is meaningless. Every state declares a ton of things "official" and it means jack. I am not affected by my state's official bird, official reptile, official color or official sex toy. This is much ado about nothing.

 

[Quag]

So you do not believe that the state should be secular?

Secular:

adjective


1. of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:
secular interests.

2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ):
secular music.

3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular ).

5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century:
the secular games of Rome.

6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages

Secular | Define Secular at Dictionary.com


Yes the state should be secular and no your statement:

If a set of beliefs about a matter of existential importance (e.g. which if any religion is true) are true, it is only right that they be acted on by the state.

Has nothing to do with it. Secular means NOT pertaining to religion it is not a religion in and of itself.
It is just a silly stramwan.

 

[Gaius46]

well, in order for a court to rule this a violation ( pertaining to the first prong) , the would look at the purpose of the legislation....the only purpose the legislation provides is to add the book to a list of official state objects.... such as they do with birds, flowers, trees, etc.... adding it to the list , to me, is a rather meaningless symbolic gesture... one that carries no legal weight ( without additional legislation providing additional legal weight, such as the case with a state flag or motto)

as for Stone V Graham, i agree with the majority ruling on that one... for 2 reasons... first that the text of the commandments don't align perfectly with western legal codes in it's entirety (which makes their claim incomplete ,at best), and also that there was a specific duty to display the commandments in every classroom.
a few key differences is that the bible can most certainly be construed as having cultural and historic value , outside of it's religious value... additionally, they is no duty to display the bible, or revere it, .. just to add it to a list of significant cultural items..

that would probably be the best argument available, that i can think of anyways.... though I'm not sure it's a good one either.
I think one would have to look at other items on the list to see if their inclusion has any similar sort of impact.( basically testing the legal and social weight of the list itself)... I mean, if a state tree is an oak, does this designation any any way impact pine trees?
I don't tend to believe that an items inclusion on the list as any impact, great or small.... though that would certainly change if the government (officials or agents) were to use it's inclusion as evidence of the State officially being a Christian State.
if that were the case, that would be considered "aid" or a benefit to Christianity, and would then most certainly violate the 2nd prong.

I think with the current make up and demeanor of the court, it would most certainly fail, if it ever got there ( which i highly doubt it would)... but that's not to say it's a cut and dry case by any means.

I agree it probably won't go to the SC. The governor allegedly has qualms about it or his AG does at any rate so it may not even be signed so this may be all moot anyway. Is interesting to think about though and while I still think it's a 1A violation I'm not as sure as I was before. Thanks for putting up a rational, considered opposing viewpoint.

 

[Paleocon]

Secular:

Secular | Define Secular at Dictionary.com


Yes the state should be secular and no your statement:

Has nothing to do with it. Secular means NOT pertaining to religion it is not a religion in and of itself.
It is just a silly stramwan.

So you do believe the state should follow what you believe to be true, just as I do.

 

[KeeKee]

So if these people want the bible to be the state book in recognition of the contribution of the Bible to Tennessee's culture and history then would these people also expect it to be read/taught as a part of history class in schools?
Surely students should not be deprived of any part of Tennessee's history that made it the great state that it is.

 

[Top Cat]

So you do believe the state should follow what you believe to be true, just as I do.

No. The state should endorse no religion in any way. Period. Whether it's your twisted religion or someone else's.

 

[Paleocon]

No. The state should endorse no religion in any way. Period. Whether it's your twisted religion or someone else's.

So you also believe that the state should follow your beliefs.

 

[Removable Mind]

So you also believe that the state should follow your beliefs.

Our government better follow We the People - not Jesus or Allah or any other religion figures. We the People are made up of many beliefs.

 

[humbolt]

Actually, this is meaningless. Every state declares a ton of things "official" and it means jack. I am not affected by my state's official bird, official reptile, official color or official sex toy. This is much ado about nothing.

Agreed. This changes nothing. The Cardinal is the state bird in Virginia. If the Grackle was the state bird, there'd be no fewer Cardinals nor more Grackles than there are now.

 

[polgara]

Agreed. This changes nothing. The Cardinal is the state bird in Virginia. If the Grackle was the state bird, there'd be no fewer Cardinals nor more Grackles than there are now.

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

The cardinal is Ohio's State bird, too. :thumbs: I've got a cardinal family that has lived on my property for a few years, and they are beautiful when they dart around! I've hung the mesh bag of dryer lint I've been collecting all Winter for them, and all the other feathered creatures around here, on a high limb to use in their nest building, so I hope they continue to stick around... When I see that they do have babies, I'll put a ball of suet out, too. My neighbor keeps everyone fed from a bunch of different bird feeders, but I've noticed that the blue jays are bullies - I've had to have talks with them about that! :naughty: :mrgreen:

 

[Risky Thicket]

Agreed. This changes nothing. The Cardinal is the state bird in Virginia. If the Grackle was the state bird, there'd be no fewer Cardinals nor more Grackles than there are now.

If it changes nothing why do it? Why support it?

 

[Quag]

So you do believe the state should follow what you believe to be true, just as I do.

No, the state should do what is best for the people and never try to impose any religious belief at all.
Before you go into a silly strawman.
1. I am not atheist.
2. That does not mean the state should impose atheism.

 

[Paleocon]

No, the state should do what is best for the people and never try to impose any religious belief at all.
Before you go into a silly strawman.
1. I am not atheist.
2. That does not mean the state should impose atheism.

Okay, so you do believe the state should act upon your secularist beliefs.

Thanks for answering.

 

[humbolt]

If it changes nothing why do it? Why support it?

Why not support it, or not, as it suits you. It makes no difference. If the objective is to portray everybody in Tennessee as a bunch of Bible thumping, backwoods rubes, as some here maintain. then it's a lowly objective. I see nothing giving evidence to any state religious control in naming the Bible the state book. If they want to do it, so what? If you happen to live in Tennessee and the book means nothing to you, again, so what?

 

[Quag]

Okay, so you do believe the state should act upon your secularist beliefs.

Thanks for answering.

Not at all.
it isn't about a state acting on beliefs but not trying to enforce any beliefs.
Beliefs after all are personal and by definition not supported by anything other than faith.

 

[Paleocon]

Not at all.
it isn't about a state acting on beliefs but not trying to enforce any beliefs.
Beliefs after all are personal and by definition not supported by anything other than faith.

The state can't exist without acting on some foundational premise. The neutral state is as unreal as the tooth fairy.

 

[Quag]

The state can't exist without acting on some foundational premise. The neutral state is as unreal as the tooth fairy.

If you dont understand the idea of a secular state not promoting or hindering any faith based belief and a theocratic state that does, the problem is with your understanding of the terms.

 

[Gaius46]

Agreed. This changes nothing. The Cardinal is the state bird in Virginia. If the Grackle was the state bird, there'd be no fewer Cardinals nor more Grackles than there are now.

Birds aren't people. They cannot reason. As discussed previously in this thread making the bible the state book could be construed as making Tennesee a Christian state and inhibit the practice of other religions. That link is far from clear but the point can neither be as easily dismissed as you seem to be doing in this post.

 

[Paleocon]

If you dont understand the idea of a secular state not promoting or hindering any faith based belief and a theocratic state that does, the problem is with your understanding of the terms.

I understand it. The difference between us, is that I also understand what "the state" is. I don't believe in fanciful idea like neutrality or the Easter bunny.

 

[TheGoverness]

I understand it. The difference between us, is that I also understand what "the state" is. I don't believe in fanciful idea like neutrality or the Easter bunny.

You obviously don't understand it, seeing as you don't understand the secularism established within the state, as there is no endorsement of any religion that is permitted.

 

[humbolt]

Birds aren't people. They cannot reason. As discussed previously in this thread making the bible the state book could be construed as making Tennesee a Christian state and inhibit the practice of other religions. That link is far from clear but the point can neither be as easily dismissed as you seem to be doing in this post.

Bibles aren't people either. The recognition that the Bible is an important book to those in Tennessee is simply that - a recognition. That recognition imposes nothing on others who choose to exercise a different belief or none at all. There is no penalty imposed for not endorsing the Bible and no reward for endorsement of it. The establishment of the Bible as Tennessee's state book is a simple acknowledgement that Tennessee is in fact smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt - something known to most people for at least a century.

 

[fmw]

"Tennessee Could Make Bible the Official State Book"

I recommend Asimov's Guide To The Bible." It is a much more entertaining read and is quite secular.

 

[Gaius46]

Bibles aren't people either. The recognition that the Bible is an important book to those in Tennessee is simply that - a recognition. That recognition imposes nothing on others who choose to exercise a different belief or none at all. There is no penalty imposed for not endorsing the Bible and no reward for endorsement of it. The establishment of the Bible as Tennessee's state book is a simple acknowledgement that Tennessee is in fact smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt - something known to most people for at least a century.

Not the point. The point is whether or not the primary effect of the legislation advances or inhibits religious practice. If it does then it represents a 1A violation. That it's simply recognizes the importance of the bible to Tennesseans doesn't factor into the equation.

 

[humbolt]

Not the point. The point is whether or not the primary effect of the legislation advances or inhibits religious practice. If it does then it represents a 1A violation. That it's simply recognizes the importance of the bible to Tennesseans doesn't factor into the equation.

And my point is that such legislation has no effect. The legislation imposes nothing one way or the other on speech or belief. I view the fuss over this as fear mongering with no substance but unfounded speculation for political ends. When the purchase of a Bible is required in Tennessee and non-Biblical speech is censored, I'll change my tune.