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).
Tin:
“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.”
—————————————-
Tin, it is the other way around, everything western civilization is built on came from the Arabs 🙂
That’s a fact, that’s historical…even the coffee you drink? From the Turks?
Many of your english words, including a great many in science? Arabic!
Mathematics, astronomy, medicine, chemistry…etc…
The first university? Muslim, a woman no less!
By the way, the Crusades were not about religion, it is was about colonization, as for everything, in order to appeal to the masses, had to be wrapped around the relig
po – we do owe the Muslims a great debt for saving Western civilization, since they saved and translated the books that we discarded during the Middle Ages. And you are right, the first university was Muslim. However, you are wrong about the Crusades. There were two reasons for the Crusades: 1) the Muslims had closed access to the Holy Land and 2) there were a lot of unemployed knights with time on their hands.
In other hilarious news, George Mason recently renamed it’s law school after the late justice Scalia. The Antonin Scalia School of law was quickly hash tagged #asslaw. Seems so perfect!
Stupid, ignorant pols trying create more vindictiveness.
A classic case of determining who is the wise man and who is the fool. Starts with the grammar.
Mike Appleton,
you are 100% correct, This is a clear violation of the establishment clause, and the attempt to sneak it in as literature fools no one but the foolish. And the liars.
Very reminiscent of Mississippi’s new “religious objection law” which totally IS NOT about allowing people to discriminate and totally IS about people being able to practice their religion. And making the bible the state book is like, you know, heritage, like the confederate flag, no not the white flag they waved in abject surrender, I’m talking about the so-called battle flag, the stars and bars, which has nothing to do with racism even though they hoisted it after the Civil Rights Act passed. But that was a coincidence. See?
These are all meaningless coincidences and have nothing to do with SCOTUS affirming the right to marry and so on. Get it?
To the point, the bible is a terrible mix of wisdom, murder, mayhem, misconceptions, outright bullsh*t, rape, incest, slavery, infanticide, and hypocrisy in every form. It was a bunch of guys writing the best they had to come up with, some of which was truly inspired, and most of which missed the point entirely. Can’t wait to see this law flushed away where it belongs.
Really? Big whoopee? Paul, I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic, but neither my religious beliefs nor yours have any bearing on the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. It is not a curriculum bill. Looking beyond all of the pretextual language in the preamble, the real intent of the law is to make the Bible (and the legislature probably has the KJV in mind, which is not my Bible anyway) a symbol of the religious beliefs adhered to by a majority of Tennesseeans. It is an endorsement of Christianity as superior to all other faith and unfaith systems. It makes a mockery of the neutrality principle at the core of the Establishment Clause.
Mike – since it doesn’t specify an edition of the Bible, the selection is neutral and open to three religions. Could not be fairer.
Paul:
“The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968). Unless you’re being deliberately obtuse, read the applicable case law and get back to me. This is not a difficult Establishment Clause issue.
Mike – I have taught the Bible as literature. If you are agnostic or an atheist you don’t believe anyway, so big woopee.
Thank you, Mike Appleton, for your spot on comment.
Paul Schulte:
Please. The legislation has nothing to do with making the Bible part of Tennessee’s literature curriculum. It is instead intended as an official endorsement of Christianity. It not only violates the Establishment Clause; it violates Tennessee’s state constitution as well. And it ain’t just me saying so. Read McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 668 (1984); and Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) for starters. The statute is merely the latest fundamentalist effort to defeat the forces of evil in the mythical war on Christianity.
Mike – the Establishment Clause only says you cannot have a State religion. At the time of the signing of Constitution and Bill of Rights several states had state religions. TN is not making Christianity the State religion. Any educated person knows that Christianity does not exist as a religion, per se. Christianity is a collection of religions. And by using the Bible, they include Jews (3 sects) and Muslims (2 sects) in that group.
Olly,
Understand the “not the point,” my overarching “target” is all the criticism of Christianity and its adherents which miss the real message of the Scripture. It’s also interesting how many conveniently ascribe the perversions of some to the whole of the faith. It’s akin to saying American citizens (aka Constitution-alists?) are “dronists” since the executive branch seems to think we have a Constitutional interpretation which provides a rationale to drop “drone turds” on even innocents.
I agree Paul. It does not violate the establishment clause depending on how it is taught. Gateways for a Better Education has a very good site for educators to guide them.
http://www.gtbe.org
My view is that the statute is unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause. And, of course, the purpose behind the legislation is transparent.
Mike – it is perfectly within the bounds of the establishment clause to teach the Bible (usually the King James version) as literature. There should be no reason not to have it as the official book of TN
Not “missed” Renegade, just not the point of my post. That being said, I agree with your post.
Something missed in all the arguments preceding is that the book in question, no matter the translation or edition, clearly conveys a concept which is not found in any other faith structure—grace.
No matter the egregious behaviors done in its “name,” the divine grace as the keystone of the NT is not muted Obscured at times? Yes. But it’s truth is there nonetheless.
steveg:
Historically, Muslims subordinated non-muslims by requiring a tax, granting few if any rights, inferior status under the law, inability to bear witness against a Muslim, and the right to kill them if they refuse to pay the tax or convert. They kept non-Muslims as slaves who were forcibly circumcised, and the women kept as sex slaves.
By contrast, Muslims are represented in Israeli government, and are not threatened with death if they do not convert. The difference under the law is that they are not required to serve in the Israeli army, and thus are not able to receive military benefits and pensions. The problem is the Palestinians want the destruction of Israel, which obviously creates a very serious problem.
You can recognize the historical importance of Christianity without making the Bible an official book of the state. This defies the separation of Church and State.
Lloyd:
The criticism of Trump’s remark about punishing women is that this is not a conservative position. Conservatives claim that Trump’s statement sounds like a Liberal pretending to be a conservative. The pro-life position is supposed to be that abortion harms the woman, too. My family and friends encompass the full range on the abortion issue, and I’ve never heard anyone say women should be punished.
Olly:
I agree that civics should be taught in high school. However, since Liberals appear to control the education system from K to graduate school, it would be biased.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation will be all over this one. In Freethought Today, they observed that they had had a very busy Easter.
I’d like to nominate “Naked Lunch” for official book of the state.
“Philosophy Of Classroom In One Generation Will Be Philosophy Of Government In The Next” Abraham Lincoln
Forget religious tests, I want civics tests. That’s right, when you eliminate from our educational system the moral teachings found in the Bible and replace it with the moral relativism endorsed by progressivism, then you get this massive and largely unaccountable administrative state. Not only have we lost our moral compass to guide the people, we have generations of people that have no idea what compass is to guide our form of government. So if we want to keep government secular, and I do, then you had better figure out what will temper their nature. They have proven an unwillingness to confine themselves to constitutional limits, so if religious tests are undesirable then shouldn’t the people electing them at least prove themselves literate enough to elect and keep only those that respect the rule of law?
So-called “Bible believers” have a hard time (translation: they simply ignore) with Mathew’s quoting of Jesus ordering them to “pray in” their “closet.” They much prefer chest-thumped prayers from the steeple of their government-financed (i.e. tax-exempt) mega-church. In the West, the most caustic branch of this error is the SBC/Southern Baptist Convention.
It’s interesting that pre-Christ the concept of a separate church-state did not exist. To think there was such a thing is to think that in the year 1600 AD, some indigenous American (Western “Indian”) adolescent could wake up one morning, and think to his or her self (in their indigenous tongue of course): “You know, I think I’ve had enough of this Indian pagan stuff, worshiping the sun, moon, stars, and animal kingdom. I think I’ll just stop all this nonsense, stop following my family’s religion, and become an Indian atheist…or maybe start my own brand of religion right now.” Even if such Indian ever existed, if he/she verbalized his/her intent, he/she would of course be instantly banished to the plane, to soon die a lonely death, teaching a valuable lesson to anyone else to propose such insanity.
Mathew the tax collector would be the equivalent today in the West of Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, or maybe Bushy Jr. himself. He was a much-hated tax collector and representative of the Roman elite, hated by all or most “Ioudaios” (now wrongly translated “Jew,” a word that first appeared in print in 1775 AD…don’t argue with me, tell Oxford they are wrong because I quote the Oxford Dictionary…Jesus was indeed not a “Jew” because the word “Jew” did not exist till 1775 AD.)
Simon the Zealot (later named Peter the Rock of the Church) was the equivalent of a modern Western anarchist, the polar opposite of Mathew.
Why is there never one point in the Bible describing any political or ideological difference between Mathew and Simon/Peter? Because the gospel is unrelated to such difference, and does not pick political sides in any political argument.
God’s Kingdom is in the world, but “not of this world.”