There is a controversial measure introduced in Tennessee by State Sen. Kerry Roberts to make the Bible the official book of the state. Roberts insists that this is just a recognition of the historical importance of the book and not any elevation of the Bible over other books of faith. That is less convincing to many who view the measure as an official endorsement of, if not an entanglement with, Christianity.
Roberts insists that the Bible is merely being acknowledged as the book relied upon by George Washington in his inauguration: “He used the Bible for his swearing in. The attitude of these people was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep government out of religion.”
There is a legitimate debate over the purpose of the entanglement clause and whether it was solely meant to prevent the creation of an official religion. Some have argued that the framers were not opposed to general religious influence on government.
However, regardless of your view of meaning of the religious clauses, this is still a uniquely bad idea. For those who truly believe in fostering faith, the selection of the book of one faith (or two if you include the Old Testament as advancing a Judeo-Christian understanding) is neither inclusive nor supportive of all faiths. The Tennessean was particularly blistering in its editorial.
Try telling that to the editorial board of The Tennessean. Calling Roberts and his colleagues “theocrats,” the newspaper objected that “This is Tennessee, not Tehran. We are governed by the people, not the religious authorities.”
What is amazing to me is that this measure does not advance faith but a faith. It also creates a glaring conflict for agnostics and atheists in Tennessee. The question is why create such conflicts rather than honor the Bible in your own families and churches and private schools. The Framers were first and foremost concerned about individual liberty and freedom to think and live and pray according to our own values and beliefs.
Despite the rise of faith-based politics, those of faith should be the first to demand neutrality on religion to protect the free exercise of faith. These are many of the same people who openly warn about the encroachment of Sharia laws and other faiths into governmental programs or regulations. Putting aside the low likelihood of such developments, the greatest protection is found in the separation of church and state — not the erosion of separation principles through measures like the Bible bill in Tennessee. Where Roberts can demand that the Bible be honored as the official state book today, what is to stop another move to do so with the Torah (as the older book of Judeo-Christian traditions) or even the Koran under other claims of historical significance. These are merely majoritarian votes after all. The point is that, simply because you currently have the votes, does not remove any need for judgment or restraint.
The greatest demonstration of faith is to protect all faiths and not to try to place any one religious book higher than the rest. We are living at a time of religious extremism around the world. The United States represents a shining example of a place where all faiths flourish without violence or official favoritism. Despite their claims of being protectors of morality, I have never viewed Saudi Arabia or Iran as truly supporters of faith. They are the very opposite in flogging, arresting, or executing those who hold other religious views. We represent a system that truly values faith and protects free exercise. This is done not only in preventing government restrictions on faith but guaranteeing a separation of our government from our faiths. We manage the secular work of our government and leave matters of faith where they belong: with our families or our churches and temples and mosques.
By the way, there are various books based in Tennessee (“Tennessee Williams” would seem a logical choice but he was actually born in Mississippi and received that nickname due to the fact that his family came from the Volunteer State).
@stevegroen: All cultures are not equal. Had Europe been subjugated by the Moslems, those countries would be similar in advancement to the rest of the Islamic world. Which is to say, they would be quite backward. Instead of driving a car branded “the power of German engineering,” you would be pulling a donkey cart branded “the power of Arab engineering.” You can sneer at America if that’s what your leftist self-hating college professors taught you, but there comes a time when we should all be mature enough to see the world for what it really is…..
Exactly.
I believe in the Yellow Pages. I think it is sacrosanct. You can find things by catagory and the alphabet helps. I swear on it. A few little cuss words do not seem to hurt it.
Correction: My auto-correct function put Venice; it should read “Vienna.”
@ Stevegroen: if it were not for the Crusaders, you would not have the freedom to be an agnostic or whatever you choose to be. By the time the Europeans finally formed a coalition to beat back the Islamic armies, it was almost too late. The Europeans spent too much time squabbling among themselves and even making (as in the case of France) side deals with the Islamic Turks to advance their own nationalistic interests, rather than uniting to fight the conquering Islamic armies who were taking over massive swaths of Europe. The Arabs had ruled Spain for 500 years; they were well entrenched in much of Eastern Europe, including Hungary, Croatia, Albania, Yogoslavia, parts of Russia and so forth. They had overtaken Serbia and advanced on Western Europe, making it all the way to the gates of Venice before a significant opposition was mounted. Some military historians claim that if Charles Martel had not squeaked out a narrow victory over the Islamic armies, that all of Western Europe would have soon come under Islamic control.
Had Western Europe become Islamic, all science, technology, literature, art, medicine, exploration and everything that makes Western civilization great would have come to a halt. Islamists are taught that everything happens, or doesn’t happen, because of Allah. If an apple falls from a tree, they don’t ponder the laws of gravity; they just think, “Allah willed it.” As we all know, Islamic countries are at the bottom in terms of inquiry and inventions. There would be no computers, no automobiles, no wind energy, no advanced medicine, but plenty of beheadings. So thank a Crusader for your privilege of being who you are and having the right to express yourself without fear of torture or a gruesome death.
Tin: I don’t know that what you’re saying is all true. The Iberian Peninsula, for example, had Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and art and culture, prior to the Reconquest. Granted, Jews and Christians were subordinated in status, but if you’ve been to Palestine lately, you can see western Jews and Christians by proxy are doing the same thing: subordinating Muslims.
Because theologians are credible.
Paul: Powerful retort. Maybe focus that energy on your pending case rather than posting on a blog, then.
Tin: I could care less about that history, i.e. there’s no threat. But when government endorses that history, it becomes threatening.
Many texts shaped the views of the Founders, the bible being just one of them. And fortunately they nevertheless created a secular Constitution, in which there is no mention of any god, except to prevent religious tests for office.
Dave – anyone who has studied the Humanities knows the influence of the Bible on art, literature, music, theatre, law, etc. And the influence of the Bible on sending people to the New World. Tenn. is part of the ‘Bible Belt’ so it is only fitting.
Paraphrasing Bill Maher: If atheism is a religion then abstinence is a sex position.
fiver – Bill Maher is a comedian, not a theologian.
I don’t see it as a big deal. It’s just of symbolic recognition of the importance of the bible in law, literature, art, and morality. Like it or not, the bible has had a tremendous influence on the development of western civilization. That’s why my public high school and public college had courses in the bible’s influence in these areas. The only people who would be upset by this are those who feel threatened by Judeo-Christian history and influence, or somehow feel that there own religion is in competition.
I am more concerned that the only people deemed eligible to interpret the U.S. Constitution as a member of the SCOTUS are those who studied constitutional law under Alan Dershowitz.
fit = fits
Is this gonna be the Sears Roebuck version? That is the version which changes the Sixth Commandment. Thou Shalt Not Kill becomes Thou Shall Not Murder. This gives the state the right to kill a human for punishment for a crime. It is not “murder” if the state does it. In the South this is called: “The Y’all Can” exception to the Sixth Commandment.
Normal people (which religionists like to label as “athiests”) rarely say, “there is no god.” They don’t ever think about the concept of “god”. Their minds are occupied with helping others, doing good, improving the quality of life for all, all the things that are needed to sustain humanity. That does not fit the definition of a “religion”, which requires imaginary ghosts.
Doglover – most people only accept the first definition in the dictionary. Here is the one that fit you.
pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
Bad idea, Crusaders. Leave people alone.
Je suis apostasy.
Paul:
The Establishment Clause doesn’t kick in? How persuasive.
And it’s been said that Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.
Go on, try again.
Dave – I do not have to persuade you. I need only persuade the SC
Reblogged this on Scoop Feed.
Judaism has 3 sects, Christianity has several dozen, including non-denominational. The establishment clause does not kick in. As for atheist and agnostics, they have their own religion.
Spot on, Dr Turley. And more people should read the writings and speeches of Robert Green Ingersoll, in which exist quite concise and transcendent insights on the (limited) role of religion in government.
Wild. What would you call people who want a holy book as the state endorsed reader? What do you call people who want to ‘kill the gays’? What would you call people who want to ban a women’s choice of abortion and punish them for having an abortion due to rape or incest or health of the mother? What would you call people who want to carpet bomb or nuke regions of conflict regardless of the cost of innocent lives? What would you call people who promote the use of torture? What would you call people who want to ban drugs, ban alcohol, ban pornography, ban sex education, ban the discussion of evolution, ban discussions of climate change, ban sex outside of marriage, ban people of different religions from entering the country and ban certain books found to be untrue to the faith? Could it be the Taliban? Maybe satanism, wicca, paganism? Maybe some other controlling cult or primal orthodox sect? No. They would be called American ‘Christians’. God help us all…..
What if legislators voting on this proposed bill were required to take a test on biblical ideas? The test questions would be designed and graded by professional theologians. Most, if not all legislators, would fail the test. Not that they should know what is in any of the twelve versions of the bible. All are poorly written in an ancient style of writing, which anyone can interpret in any number of ways. The point is that those voting on it have no idea what it says, only that the world “bible” wins votes from a public who have no idea what it says but know it is “good”. The point is not that it represents any particular religion, but that it is likely to be used by those in power to oppress everyone else, as typically happens in Theocracies.
Which Bible?