Tennessee Pushing Legislation to Make Bible the State Book

[Skwim]

It's not unconstitutional to recognize religion as part of the heritage of the state. The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment is just saying that you can't establish a national religion, it's not saying that religion has to be banished from the public square.

Quite right.

 

[psychoslice]

It could be a Trojan ?.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It does a lot more than that. Another thing the first amendment does is is prohibits legislation that "respects the establishment of religion." The Bible as a state book is not just to display it is a cultural symbol, it is also a way for the state to promote Christianity. You don't make something a state symbol unless you want to draw people's attention to it, and want to share the symbol, for what the symbol signifies, and promote it as a part of the states way of life. State symbols are also often learned about in school as a part of the history of that state.
There is simply no way for a state to promote a religious book as a state book without promoting religious ideology.

Wrong. To pass constitutional muster, it has to pass all three prongs of the "Lemon Test":

1. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs. (also known as the Entanglement Prong)
2. The statute must not advance nor inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong)
3. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (also known as the Purpose Prong)

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikiwand

1. No, it does not constitute excessive government entanglement in religious affairs because it is wholly symbolic and neither promotes nor inhabits religious exercise, in regards to the government.
2. Much the same as above. It does not have any effect on the practice of religion or place any restrictions on religion.
3. Yes, it has a secular purpose as it is a cultural recognition of the effect of the Bible on the state's heritage.
Where Law and Religion Meet: Counter-Radicalization: Excessive Government Entanglement?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Quite right.

And?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1. No, it does not constitute excessive government entanglement in religious affairs because it is wholly symbolic and neither promotes nor inhabits religious exercise, in regards to the government.

And you believe this to be the intention of a state that has shown it has no problems passing religious-based laws? But even if their intentions are pure, by the very way symbols work, for the state to promote a book as a state book is to promote that book. The book the state is wanting to promote, even if it is only a secondary effect, is a religious book.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And you believe this to be the intention of a state that has shown it has no problems passing religious-based laws? But even if their intentions are pure, by the very way symbols work, for the state to promote a book as a state book is to promote that book. The book the state is wanting to promote, even if it is only a secondary effect, is a religious book.

Regardless of intention, we have to look at the real effects it would have, if passed. Basically, the effects are...nothing.

 

[Skwim]

And?

You need this explained to you? Really? Well, perhaps someone here will come along and help you out.

3. Yes, it has a secular purpose as it is a cultural recognition of the effect of the Bible on the state's heritage.

What culture is recognizing this? And what effect did the Bible have on the state's heritage?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You need this explained to you? Really? Well, perhaps someone here will come along and help you out.

No, I'm wondering what your point was.

Just what effect did the Bible have on the state's heritage?

I'm not the one who proposed the legislation.

 

[Skwim]

No, I'm wondering what your point was.

Just agreeing with you.

I'm not the one who proposed the legislation.

But you're the one who said, "Yes, it has a secular purpose as it is a cultural recognition of the effect of the Bible on the state's heritage."[/QUOTE]

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just agreeing with you.



But you're the one who said, "Yes, it has a secular purpose as it is a cultural recognition of the effect of the Bible on the state's heritage."

I'm just providing a possible argument for it. Truthfully, I don't care much one way or another if it's approved.

 

[Skwim]

I'm just providing a possible argument for it. Truthfully, I don't care much one way or another if it's approved.

Curious; would you be as indifferent if the book was The Satanic Bible?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Curious; would you be as indifferent if the book was The Satanic Bible?

Of course not. I find LaVeyan Satanism repellent. (I used to be a LaVeyan Satanist and I own the TSB, so I know what it says.) But it would be funny if California tried to make it its state book. If they did, I'd just roll my eyes.

 

[Revoltingest]

A symbol that does not reflect any geographical or natural symbols of the state and a symbol that does not reflect the cultural leanings and backgrounds of all citizens. And, as a symbol, it represents the ideas behind that symbol, which are religious ideas.

I'll add to this that choosing a single religion to represent the whole state has problems:
- It is arguably unconstitutional because it erodes church & state separation. In a pattern of representing only Xianity in government (10 Commandments in public places, attempts to institute prayer in public schools), this rises to the level of establishment.
- It conveys the message that it's a Xian state, even though many citizens there aren't.

For those Xians who think the Bible is an appropriate choice with de minimis constitutional difficulties, consider this......
To get a feel for how non-Xians react, suppose a different religious book were chosen.
Let's say it's the Koran or Dianetics.
Would you be OK with either of these being your state book?
How about if passages from each were also posted in public places?

 

[Marisa]

I think I've pretty much decided that the foundation that all this tripe stands firm on is district gerrymandering. We may get to a point where both parties want a fair amount of the other other party's constituency in their district just to keep the nutters in check. When you rig the (local) (political) system so you can't lose, it seems that the naturally inevitable consequence is being forced to legislate from the whackadoo base. Straight lines!

 

[Marisa]

No. It's mostly a cultural thing. It's a symbol.

I, personally, am on board the "let's relegate religion to a cultural identity" train. But I'm not sure you'd think that's a great thing. As an atheist living in Tennessee, where the state's constitution says I can't run for office because my atheism isn't something I feel compelled to hide, I can attest to that up north, it might be a "cultural thing". But down here, they take that crap seriously.

 

[Curious George]

Wrong. To pass constitutional muster, it has to pass all three prongs of the "Lemon Test":

1. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs. (also known as the Entanglement Prong)
2. The statute must not advance nor inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong)
3. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (also known as the Purpose Prong)

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikiwand

1. No, it does not constitute excessive government entanglement in religious affairs because it is wholly symbolic and neither promotes nor inhabits religious exercise, in regards to the government.
2. Much the same as above. It does not have any effect on the practice of religion or place any restrictions on religion.
3. Yes, it has a secular purpose as it is a cultural recognition of the effect of the Bible on the state's heritage.
Where Law and Religion Meet: Counter-Radicalization: Excessive Government Entanglement?

Look up the endorsement test and see if you still feel the same.

 

[Curious George]

... As an atheist living in Tennessee, where the state's constitution says I can't run for office because my atheism isn't something I feel compelled to hide...

Citation to where state constitution prohibits atheists from running?

 

[LuisDantas]

If that idea is approved, there will later be people wanting to present the Bible as justification for legal proposals of some kind.

That alone would be reason enough to reject that proposal. And then there is the implication that Christianity is and should be granted greater consideration than other beliefs. Even if it is supposed to be a mistaken implication, it will matter little in the end.

 

[Marisa]

Citation to where state constitution prohibits atheists from running?

"The six states besides Maryland with language in their constitutions that prohibits people who do not believe in God from holding office are Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/u...-push-to-end-largely-forgotten-ban-.html?_r=0

 

[Revoltingest]

"The six states besides Maryland with language in their constitutions that prohibits people who do not believe in God from holding office are Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/u...-push-to-end-largely-forgotten-ban-.html?_r=0

I wonder how effectively states can enforce this? The US Constitution's 1st Amendment applies to all states under the Incorporation Doctrine.