Defying Atheists, State Wants To Make The Bible Its Official Book

[Proverbs_Four]

✡

Defying Atheists, State Wants To Make The Bible Its Official Book

11:00 AM 1/13/2015 | Jonathan Kaminsky/Reuters

A pair of lawmakers in Mississippi have introduced a bill to make the Bible the official state book, the two said on Monday.

State Representatives Michael Evans and Tom Miles, both Democrats, said they introduced the measure on Thursday as a way to encourage people to read the Bible and be inspired to treat others with dignity.

The lawmakers said it was not their goal to force their Christian beliefs on others. The measure would not compel anyone to read the book, Evans said, adding: "It don't force anybody to do anything."

The bill came in response to constituents recommending it as a small corrective for "all the bad things happening in the world," he said.

The measure has about 20 co-sponsors, both Democrats and Republicans, and its prospects for passage appear good, said Miles.

Last year, Mississippi put "In God We Trust" on the state's seal, Miles noted.

"This (bill) isn't any more out there than that," he said.

 

[Human]

✡

Defying Atheists, State Wants To Make The Bible Its Official Book

11:00 AM 1/13/2015 | Jonathan Kaminsky/Reuters

A pair of lawmakers in Mississippi have introduced a bill to make the Bible the official state book, the two said on Monday.

State Representatives Michael Evans and Tom Miles, both Democrats, said they introduced the measure on Thursday as a way to encourage people to read the Bible and be inspired to treat others with dignity.

The lawmakers said it was not their goal to force their Christian beliefs on others. The measure would not compel anyone to read the book, Evans said, adding: "It don't force anybody to do anything."

The bill came in response to constituents recommending it as a small corrective for "all the bad things happening in the world," he said.

The measure has about 20 co-sponsors, both Democrats and Republicans, and its prospects for passage appear good, said Miles.

Last year, Mississippi put "In God We Trust" on the state's seal, Miles noted.

"This (bill) isn't any more out there than that," he said.

Religion should have nothing to officially do with state other than that some of its representatives are free to practice it and they lend that freedom to all of their constituents regardless of their religions or lack thereof.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."


Regardless of what these men want, the US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

 

[wisebeardman]

Religion should have nothing to officially do with state other than that some of its representatives are free to practice it and they lend that freedom to all of their constituents regardless of their religions or lack thereof.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."


Regardless of what these men want, the US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

the separation of church and state was put into the constitution to stop the state from having a religion. "ie like the church of England"

 

[Human]

the separation of church and state was put into the constitution to stop the state from having a religion. "ie like the church of England"

Also to stop the state endorsing a particular religion; to stop the state making any law respecting any particular religion, to stop the state sponsoring any particular religion, to stop the state forcing any particular religion either in image or in function. It was written to create a wall of separation between church and state. A wall of separation. Think about that. A total blockade.

 

[p_rehbein]

Religion should have nothing to officially do with state other than that some of its representatives are free to practice it and they lend that freedom to all of their constituents regardless of their religions or lack thereof.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."


Regardless of what these men want, the US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

What the Constitution/Founding Fathers did was to assure that the STATE could not establish a single religion/church as the STATE SPONSORED OFFICIAL CHURCH/RELIGION.......

Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution............

The Founding Fathers wrote the 1st Amendment to keep the State out of the Church.................not the Church out of the State..........and all their latter works/writings show this to be true........

 

[p_rehbein]

the separation of church and state was put into the constitution to stop the state from having a religion. "ie like the church of England"

The Establishment Clause.............not the separation of church and state..............the Establishment Clause...........just saying,

 

[Human]

What the Constitution/Founding Fathers did was to assure that the STATE could not establish a single religion/church as the STATE SPONSORED OFFICIAL CHURCH/RELIGION.......

Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution............

The Founding Fathers wrote the 1st Amendment to keep the State out of the Church.................not the Church out of the State..........and all their latter works/writings show this to be true........

What I gave you, the excerpt, is from the constitution. How can it not be in the constitution if it is in the Constitution?


​lol

 

[Human]

If, or instance, a state makes 'the bible' -- a Christian religious book -- its official book, then that state is endorsing the Christian religion and preferring the bible as an officially endorsed text over, say, the Koran or the Dhammaphada, which are both religious texts.

That is, in effect, the state breaching the 1st Amendment, since the first Amendment prevents, as per the Establishment Cause 'the government respecting an establishment of religion', which is interpreted by the Supreme Court to be any action that prefers one religion over another for government or state purposes.

 

[PopClick]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Yo, that's not the first amendment.

P_rehbein is correct that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the US constitution.

 

[Oncefallen]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

What I gave you, the excerpt, is from the constitution. How can it not be in the constitution if it is in the Constitution?

Your first quote is NOT the 1st amendment to the US constitution, it is a commentary on the constitution taken from a letter written by then President Thomas Jefferson and until after the Civil War the restrictions on government in the Constitution applied only to the Federal Government, not the state governments. At the time of the writing of the US Constitution several individual states had official religions.

The specific text of the "establishment clause" as it is known says,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" is taken from the personal correspondence of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. It was in response to their concerns that the government might interfere in their particular sect that was not very popular at the time.

I'm not a big fan of Wiki, but this page

Baptists in the history of separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

gives the text of both the Thomas Jefferson's letter, and the text of the letter that he was responding to.

 

[Oncefallen]

When you research the "Establishment Clause" of the first amendment as far as the founding fathers views, you will quickly find that none of them intended it to block government from promoting religion, but to keep the Legislature from establishing an "official" state religion.

Many of the founding fathers had come from England where all churches other that the official state church (The Church of England) were actively persecuted by the government and they wanted to insure that the same thing did not happen here.

 

[Desdichado]

What I gave you, the excerpt, is from the constitution. How can it not be in the constitution if it is in the Constitution?


​lol

The quote you flagged as "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution" was, in fact, an excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptists.

While it is, to a certain degree, authoritative in that it captures the spirit of the First Amendment when read in context, it is not (or rather should not) be considered the most authoritative piece of commentary.

If, or instance, a state makes 'the bible' -- a Christian religious book -- its official book, then that state is endorsing the Christian religion and preferring the bible as an officially endorsed text over, say, the Koran or the Dhammaphada, which are both religious texts.

That is, in effect, the state breaching the 1st Amendment, since the first Amendment prevents, as per the Establishment Cause 'the government respecting an establishment of religion', which is interpreted by the Supreme Court to be any action that prefers one religion over another for government or state purposes.

The Establishment Clause does make a provision for official state (as in provincial) religions.

Laurence Tribe summed up it's meaning in a more succinct fashion then I am able to:

"[a] growing body of evidence suggests that the Framers principally intended the Establishment of Religion Clause to perform two functions:to protect state religious establishments from national displacement, and to prevent the national government from aiding some, but not all, religions."

If the Constitution is interpreted contextually, it is fairly clear that a state (not the State) can have an established religion. Whether it is a good idea for a state to adopt an established religion is another debate.

 

[Desdichado]

The OP presents a related but different question: Does a state adopting the Bible as an official book amount to establishment of a state religion?

Short answer: No. At least by notions of religious freedom/establishment contemporaneous with the drafting of the United States Constitution.

 

[Human]

The OP presents a related but different question: Does a state adopting the Bible as an official book amount to establishment of a state religion?

Short answer: No. At least by notions of religious freedom/establishment contemporaneous with the drafting of the United States Constitution.

It amounts to ''the government respecting an establishment of religion''.

 

[Human]

As established in Supreme Court case Wallace vs Jaffree, 1985, states may only promote religious messages that serve genuine secular purposes, for instance ''Season's Greetings''. Further cases -- Lee vs Weismann, 1992; Santa Fe ISD vs Doe, 2000; and particularly Elk Grove USD vs Newdow, 2004 -- show that religious displays or affections (public school prayer, ''Under God'' on a government banner, or indeed the promotion of the bible as a state's official book) as part of state policy are ''endorsements of religion and therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution''.

 

[Desdichado]

As established in Supreme Court case Wallace vs Jaffree, 1985, states may only promote religious messages that serve genuine secular purposes, for instance ''Season's Greetings''. Further cases -- Lee vs Weismann, 1992; Santa Fe ISD vs Doe, 2000; and particularly Elk Grove USD vs Newdow, 2004 -- show that religious displays or affections (public school prayer, ''Under God'' on a government banner, or indeed the promotion of the bible as a state's official book) as part of state policy are ''endorsements of religion and therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution''.

Indeed, and those decisions were based more off the jurisprudence of midcentury Supreme Court Justices more than they were the context in which the First Amendment was written.

 

[maxwel]

What I gave you, the excerpt, is from the constitution. How can it not be in the constitution if it is in the Constitution?


​lol

Regarding your quote, that was NOT from the constitution.
That was a letter from Thomas Jefferson.
A small portion of that letter you quoted actually contained a SMALL PART OF ONE LINE from the First Amendment.

All of the surrounding text, which was the majority of your quote, was just Thomas Jefferson's personal opinion regarding that line from the First Amendment.

If you're going present yourself as a constitutional expert on another nation's constitution, you might consider trying to be a little more accurate.

 

[Human]

Indeed, and those decisions were based more off the jurisprudence of midcentury Supreme Court Justices more than they were the context in which the First Amendment was written.

Irrelevant to the present, legally. The motion for the bible becoming a state's official book by legal premises already laid off court cases involving the constitution will befall the same fate. It's better that way, for I'm sure a state with a Muslim majority forwarding two representatives to officiate the Koran as a state's symbolic text would be met with reprisal, too.

 

[maxwel]

For the record... I am constantly baffled by people from other countries hanging around here and pontificating about how we should interpret our own constitution.

 

[Human]

For the record... I am constantly baffled by people from other countries hanging around here and pontificating about how we should interpret our own constitution.

Not unlike people ''hanging around here'' (a site run from the Phillipines, not America) pontificating ignorantly on Birmingham being a ''sharia no-go zone'', or indeed Americans thinking they own the site like they think they own the rest of the world!

I'd stand up for equal religious rights any place on the internet, which is, by the way, an international communicative resource in a globalized society. And in a globalized society, information across international boundaries is important.