Usually the selection of a state bird or state song is not particularly divisive or even notable. The same goes for a state book (though it seems a bit odd to select a single book for a state unless it is written by a native son or daughter). Louisiana however could find itself in court as it moves to make the Bible the state book. Rep. Thomas Carmody, R-Shreveport, proposed the official adoption but insisted that it should not be viewed as any type of state endorsement. It is simply the selection of one faith’s religious book as the official book for the entire state. Who could possibly view that as a state endorsement?
It does seem at times that religious legislators look for any opportunity to entangle government with religion. This seems particularly gratuitous. Indeed, the best defense for the state may be that the selection is really quite meaningless. However, there are presumably some government action — and clearly endorsement — associated with the selection.
A House committee has approved the selection by an 8-5 vote so it will now go to the full House for debate. The concern is that few members want to be seen voting against the Bible. In the meantime, a state that has long been denounced for its lack of funding of key programs, particularly educational programs, would be triggering another costly court fight in its effort to endorse a religious faith.
Carmody insisted that the adoption of the religious book for one faith is “not to the exclusion of anyone else’s sacred literature.” Of course, their books would be excluded from the list of official state books but that is not exclusion from . . . well its just not exclusion.
He received bipartisan support for his measure with favorable votes from Reps. Taylor Barras, R-New Iberia; Johnny Berthelot, R-Gonzales; Robert Billiot, D-Westwego; Terry Brown, I-Colfax; Mike Danahay, D-Sulphur; Dalton Honore, D-Baton Rouge; Stephen Ortego, D-Carencro; and Tom Willmott, R-Kenner.
The greatest irony is that some opposition has come not in the adoption of the Bible but what version of the Bible would be adopted — potentially triggering an intra-sectarian fight. Will it be the King James version or some other version?
If the Bible is the official state book, there may be demands that it be featured more prominently in Louisiana schools, incorporated into lessons, and even promoted on state sites or campaigns. Then citizens can be exalted to read such passages as John 14:6: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
Carmody in the meantime has continued to express disbelief that anyone would see a constitutional issue or be insulted in any way. After all, he insisted “It’s not meant to be offensive. There’s no requirement that they would have to follow this particular text.” Of course note, he is not seeking to bar you from reading other books. However, if he is successful, there can be only one state book and that is the Bible.
Carmody is a real estate broker and a founding member of the Louisiana Legislative Conservative Coalition.
By the way, if the state were to honor a great Louisiana book (one of my favorites), an obvious choice would be A Confederacy of Dunces by American novelist John Kennedy Toole. It seems as relevant today as in 1980. After all, Carmody may find the views of the main character, Ignatius, rather attractive. Ignatius insisted that “with the breakdown of the medieval system, the gods of chaos, lunacy, and bad taste gained ascendancy.” and warned that “[a] firm rule must be imposed upon our nation before it destroys itself. The United States needs some theology and geometry, some taste and decency. I suspect that we are teetering on the edge of the abyss.”
Source: NOLA
As I have stated previously, they should just vote The Bible the state book and then everyone can pick the version they feel most comfortable with. 🙂
I share the predicament of which particular version of the Bible would correctly be the Louisiana State Book.
How about The Interpreter’s Bible, which I quite naturally have in my professional library, all twelve volumes of it, accompanied by the four volumes of The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Right now, I am partial to one particular version over all others, though I expect that to change soon. For right now, I favor the Fourth Edition of The Macintosh Bible, published by Peachpit Press, though the Sixth Edition, also published by Peachpit Press, is almost as favored by me for now.
Alas, the Fourth Edition of The Macintosh Bible cannot be accurately deemed to be an authoritative source regarding Macintosh System 7.5, as System 7.5 had not become available when the Fourth Edition of The Macintosh Bible was published.
Given that The Macintosh Bible has evolved through several editions, Is The Macintosh Bible an authoritative source for Biblical proof of evolution?
Dr. Harris,
……”Given that The Macintosh Bible has evolved through several editions, Is The Macintosh Bible an authoritative source for Biblical proof of evolution?”
Given that evolution is nothing more nothing less than the process of change then the answer to your question is yes.
[Note to grammaticians: I’ve always had difficulty with then/than, it has been a continuous effort in frustration.]
Wayne – if it makes you feel better only grammar nazis know the difference between then and than. 🙂
Thanks Paul…I can now rest must easier 😉 My aunt was an English Teacher in High School and I could always count on her to answer my questions. Once she passed I was lost…
Wayne – my mother was an English professor, try living with one. 🙂
Warning graphic language abound….. But apt for this thread….
http://youtu.be/HF7HIuk2vdk
AY – the funniest one is when Hitler realizes he has lost his health insurance and has to get a new doctor. 🙂
“Government should acknowledge God and not pretend that it is blind and ignorant about God.”
Replace god with “sponge bob square pants.” The meaning remains the same.
Fewer and fewer buy the cartoonish parodies of faith others seem to need to cram down our throats. And adult conversation about faith has no need of a angry deity, or the childish empty threats it implies.
It’s the busy-body strain that is the most pernicious, the need to insert one’s big nosey beak — using religion via government in this case — into the private affairs of others.
The recent marriage equality decisions suggest the country is choosing a different path.
Cheese and rice, it never stops does it, this need to insist bronze-age parables trump any original thought which followed?
There does not seem to be any appeal for those under aged 45 or so. Not even the bible belt can withstand that readjustment, and it really cannot get here soon enough.
There is no need for a Constitutional Amendment acknowledging “God”. It won’t happen. There is no war against the religious, unless they start one.
Annie wrote: “There is no war against the religious, unless they start one.”
What planet do you live on? Try to sell that baloney to Frank Lay and Robert Freeman.
Principal faces possible jail time for praying
http://youtu.be/jQjJWFWS82s
David said…
“Government should acknowledge God and not pretend that it is blind and ignorant about God. The authority of government is diminished if government does not acknowledge God yet presumes to have authority to use force over people who do believe in God. At some point, people who believe in God will rise up against such governments. Most religions teach that the right of government to punish the lawless is derived from God.”
——————————–
Ah yes David, you are describing Dominionism. “Rise up”, huh? Thanks for the heads up, the secularists will no doubt fight back. Would that ‘Godful’ government also have the right to punish the ‘sinful’ ? If so I wonder, will there be a Sharia court of sorts? What if the religionists can’t decide on whose God should be in the list of acceptable Gods? Pesky details your Theocracy will need to iron out .
Annie, what I describe has nothing to do with Dominionism or Sharia or any Theocracy. What I have described are the basic principles of separation of church and state which Christians established in this country. A government that is hostile toward religion is a bad government. History has proven this concept many times over. Your vision of a secular government devoid of a belief in God is patterned after the communist Soviet Union under Lenin, or China under Mao Zedong. The bottomline is that embracing theism in government is not the same as advocacy for Dominionism or any other form of Theocracy.
I encourage you to read history and philosophy to understand that the concept of separation of church and state is a theistic concept, not a secular one. It is derived from Christian theology based in the Bible. The secularists have hijacked the concept and bent it for their own irreligious purposes.
davidm2575 ~ Seriously, a Constitutional Amendment? I concur with the words of James Madison who said: “Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
Paulette wrote: “Seriously, a Constitutional Amendment? I concur with the words of James Madison who said: “Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
If you concur with Madison, then you would concur with my words also. James Madison also said, “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe.” Madison also wrote, “The belief in a God All Powerful wise & good, is … essential to the moral order of the World & to the happiness of man.”
In the very letter from which you quote, Madison points out how as President he appointed religious days of worship and fasting for the entire country, but he did it as recommendation and without penal sanction enforcing the worship.
The reason I say a Constitutional Amendment is warranted is because of the fight against religious expression by public officials. Such an Amendment was not necessary in Madison’s time because champions for the liberty of conscience like James Madison never imagined the culture war that exists today. The Declaration of Independence was still fresh in their minds, even mentioned by Madison in the letter from which you quote.
Let’s cut through the political fog. Rep. Carmody’s proposal is a reactionary effort to give preferential recognition to Christianity as the “official” religion of Louisiana. Rep. Carmody is a Roman Catholic educated by the Jesuits. So am I. That order has been suppressed enough times over the past five centuries to have a special appreciation for the dangers of state sponsored orthodoxy. Clearly Rep. Carmody didn’t run this mind-numblingly stupid idea past any of his former teachers at Shreveport Jesuit.
The bill is motivated by that favorite of right-wing fantasies, the secular “war on religion.” But masquerading religious endorsement by a seemingly innocuous legislative selection of a state book won’t get by the Establishment Clause. Nor should it. And when Louisiana Pentecostals realize that the bible read by Rep. Carmody wasn’t commissioned by King James, it will make for an interesting canonical debate.
Mike, the idea of having an official State book is silly, but these kinds of proposals will keep happening when government infringes upon religious liberty. The ACLU has championed bad laws, which result in knee jerk reactions like this one. Expect more bad ideas to follow as the ACLU continues to trample upon the civil liberties of students and teachers.
Annie – I am agnostic and I recognize a war against religion in this country, especially Christianity. BTW, you still haven’t told us which Thor you love.
======
Mike – the Jesuits were only suppressed once, as a group, and the current Pope is a Jesuit. As a group, the Jesuits have more martyrs than any other order.
Incoherent and unrelated ……
“Who’s house, our house!!”
Dredd,
======================
Add this
1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
A Constittutional Amendment to acknowledge God. Well you can guess what I’m about to ask…. whose God? I kind of love Thor, God of Thunder. <3
Annie – do you love Thor or the actor currently playing Thor? 😉
Annie, that is the nice thing about the word God. It is a generic term that does not carry a lot of semantic baggage. You can apply it to your God Thor, Christians can understand it to refer to their God, Jews apply it to their God, Muslims apply it to their God, etc. Leave it to the religions to work out opinions about the nature of God. Government should acknowledge God and not pretend that it is blind and ignorant about God. The authority of government is diminished if government does not acknowledge God yet presumes to have authority to use force over people who do believe in God. At some point, people who believe in God will rise up against such governments. Most religions teach that the right of government to punish the lawless is derived from God.
Once the Bible becomes the State Book they can no longer take oaths Mike.
Dredd – I do not understand the reasoning behind your comment at 6:55 pm. Could you please expand on it?
See how tangled things become when religion enters a discussion? The lesson here is to keep all things relating to religion out of the government regardless how trivial they may seem.
Paulette wrote: “See how tangled things become when religion enters a discussion? The lesson here is to keep all things relating to religion out of the government regardless how trivial they may seem.”
There is an old saying about how one should never bring up religion or politics in polite company. I hope you are not going to argue that one must also keep politics out of government. 🙂
Some quotes from Mark Twain:
=========================
In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.
– Autobiography of Mark Twain
=========================
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.
– Mark Twain in Eruption
=========================
I think every government must acknowledge God to have any power or authority to operate. We need a Constitutional Amendment to that effect, which simply reiterates what has been established in our Declaration of Independence, the document upon which our Constitution was founded.
Working out the details about God does not belong to the realm of civil government. Government deals with actions, while religion and philosophy deals with the mind. Government should respect and encourage religion and philosophy in its societal purpose, but it should not entangle itself in taking sides. This is why the First Amendment was written, forbidding Congress from interfering in the free exercise of religion and speech, but also prohibiting it from respecting any particular establishment of religion.
Mike,
Brings back memory’s of being sworn in to testify
…
===========================
Did you forget:
James 5:12 – But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
Matthew 5:33-37 – Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Paul, thank you for the lesson on AZ state this and that. Y-a-w-n. BTW, the reason the bolo tie is the state tie is because of all the southwest cowboys wore them to go to church mettin’s and for any dress-up occasion, with a silver or turquoise designed fastener to hold it in place. Bolo’s are seldom worn anymore (except for a few cow hands. Now Arizonian’s wear shorts and cool shirts in the summer and light jackets in the winter. Gorgeous weather and beautiful state!!
Giovanna – the bolos are both silver AND turquise, and it became the state tie because a very popular newscaster always wore them and pushed for the bill. I do wear short sleeve shirts year round and sandals. Today because I had to go to a meeting I wore jeans. Except in downtown Phoenix, jeans are considered business casual.
Anonymously Yours
Dredd,
After what you said…. I feel the need to yawn……
===============
Proceed.
Brings back memory’s of being sworn in to testify
US: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Scotland: I swear by Almighty God that I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
UK: I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
South Africa: I swear that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
Anonymously Yours
Mespo… Just so you know… One version of the KJV states that that thou shalt commit adultery… I think 5 are still out there….
=================
If Paul, david2575, or other bible thumpoids want a copy, the holier than thou Vance McAllister has one of those 5 Louisiana copies (Rep. Vance McAllister (R-Bullshitistan) Caught With Five Foot Tongue-Tying Married Staffer).