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

[maxwel]

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.

We aren't even talking about equal rights on the internet.
We're talking about how one region, in a country you don't live in, should interpret it's own constitution, which has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Now, that said... you have every right, on this forum, to give your opinion on anything you like, which has nothing to do with you.
You have every right, on this forum, to jump in and give your opinion on interpretation of laws in another country, which you can't even quote correctly, which again, have nothing to do with you.
You can absolutely spout off here on anything you like... no matter how little you know about it.

But nonetheless... it still has nothing to do with you.

 

[Human]

We aren't even talking about equal rights on the internet.
We're talking about how one region, in a country you don't live in, should interpret it's own constitution, which has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Now, that said... you have every right, on this forum, to give your opinion on anything you like, which has nothing to do with you.
But nonetheless... it still has nothing to do with you.

I disagree. Does the war in Iraq have nothing to do with me? What about the Vietnam war? What about the American stock market crash? Does that have anything to do with me? Of course it does. I'm a citizen of this planet, whose access to the internet is virtually unrestricted, who lives in a globalized society where specific high-profile occurences have rippling effects throughout several areas not limited to academia, world politics, global affairs and the progression of various societies.

If, as you say, ''it has nothing to do with me'', then Birmingham has nothing to do with you, the collapse of the Bank of England has nothing to do with you, the global ramifications of a British economic crisis have nothing to do with you, the Egyptian revolution has nothing to do with you, Paris has nothing to do with you, Christians being killed in Syria have nothing to do with you, but of course, it does have something to do with you, because you make it your business, you percieve some effect on you, and you feel it pertinent in this globalized world to make your opinion heard.

As for religious rights; if you want the bible to be an official book, I see no reason the Koran can't be one too. The logic, to a secular government governing a multicultural and multireligious nation, is no different.

 

[maxwel]

For the record, I don't really care what Mississippi is doing.

Adding that thing about the Bible isn't going to help anything, or change anything.
Not really.

What I do care about is people from other countries, who can't even quote our constitution correctly, trying to pontificate, for us, how it should be interpreted.
To me, this is just the height of absurdity... not to mention the height of condescension.

 

[Human]

For the record, I don't really care what Mississippi is doing.

Adding that thing about the Bible isn't going to help anything, or change anything.
Not really.

What I do care about is people from other countries, who can't even quote our constitution correctly, trying to pontificate, for us, how it should be interpreted.
To me, this is just the height of absurdity... not to mention the height of condescension.

Suck it up. You're one of the foremost spoonfeeders of that medicine mate, I'm a little disappointed you're so fragile as to be unable to take it when you're offered a dose! How many times I've heard you condescend this and that about Europe's socioeconomic, political or legal ideologies.

Suck it up.

 

[maxwel]

I disagree. Does the war in Iraq have nothing to do with me? What about the Vietnam war? What about the American stock market crash? Does that have anything to do with me? Of course it does. I'm a citizen of this planet, whose access to the internet is virtually unrestricted, who lives in a globalized society where specific high-profile occurences have rippling effects throughout several areas not limited to academia, world politics, global affairs and the progression of various societies.

If, as you say, ''it has nothing to do with me'', then Birmingham has nothing to do with you, the collapse of the Bank of England has nothing to do with you, the global ramifications of a British economic crisis have nothing to do with you, the Egyptian revolution has nothing to do with you, Paris has nothing to do with you, Christians being killed in Syria have nothing to do with you, but of course, it does have something to do with you, because you make it your business, you percieve some effect on you, and you feel it pertinent in this globalized world to make your opinion heard.

As for religious rights; if you want the bible to be an official book, I see no reason the Koran can't be one too. The logic, to a secular government governing a multicultural and multireligious nation, is no different.

As far as I recall, the U.K. is usually an ally in every stupid thing the U.S. gets itself into.
Maybe you should spend some of your time complaining about U.K. laws, and U.K. initiatives... ya know... in a place where you're actually a voter, and you can do something about it.

 

[maxwel]

Suck it up. You're one of the foremost spoonfeeders of that medicine mate, I'm a little disappointed you're so fragile as to be unable to take it when you're offered a dose! How many times I've heard you condescend this and that about Europe's socioeconomic, political or legal ideologies.

Suck it up.

Human,

Go ahead, disagree all you like, but stick to things I've actually said.

I can't recall EVER having gotten into Europe's socioeconomic, political, or legal ideologies.

I usually stay out of that stuff.

Seriously, disagree all you want, but don't just make things up.

 

[Human]

As far as I recall, the U.K. is usually an ally in every stupid thing the U.S. gets itself into.
Maybe you should spend some of your time complaining about U.K. laws, and U.K. initiatives... ya know... in a place where you're actually a voter, and you can do something about it.

I do. But as I see it, America's foreign interests and political policy seem to influence, usually forcefully, the decisions and opinions undertaken and perpetrated around the world. We voted our troops out of Iraq, we voted to abstain from the Syrian conflict, because essentially, Brits by and large want no part in America's alienation of the world, and our government are there to represent us, not dictate to us.

However, the continued involvement globally, coalescing between financial institutions and American political factions in the furtherance of war, disparagement and bigotry is in my opinion detrimental in various ways to me and those I love both socially and ecomomically, but also globally in respect to generalized aggression, war, the state of economic affairs and on many social levels in various regions.

In the context of this thread, making the bible the official book of Mississippi is in my opinion a backwards step from premises of religious freedom and the already established legal opposition to state sponsored religious endorsements, which should to my eyes be furthered throughout the world, regardless of whether I live in that country or not.

 

[maxwel]

Human,

I'm kind of tired and cranky tonight.
Sorry if this was starting to get too abrasive or personal.
I can do better.
: )
Feel free to take things to pm anytime you like.

 

[Human]

Human,

I'm kind of tired and cranky tonight.
Sorry if this was starting to get too abrasive or personal.
I can do better.
: )
Feel free to take things to pm anytime you like.

I have done. No worries, I've been up most of the night to be honest with you ...

All the best.

 

[Percepi]

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........

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

-1st Amendment

The government is not supposed to endorse religion, nor is it supposed to prohibit religion. You're ignoring the bolded segment.

 

[Desdichado]

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

No, it amounts to a state declaring a religious text as an official book.

Establishing an official state religion is more than tacit agreement with a broad religious worldview. It involved the declaration of a particular sect as official within a state and dictated where state funds would flow. During the time of the Framers, an established Church would receive funds from state coffers to finance the hiring of clergy and other church activities.

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.

I fail to see how gaining a clearer understanding of the intentions behind the Constitution is somehow irrelevant. Even someone disagrees with them (an active thinker is bound to), they are quite relevant to the discussion at hand. That the present legal community does not recognize their validity or appreciate their importance is a fatal flaw in our system. Yet again, Americans have a house against itself.

You're right though, Professor Tribe may reinforce my historical point, but when the question of legal relevance arises he would pat me on the head and say "Now Des, that's all well and good, but we've moved on. Trying to apply it would get you a one of nine before SCOTUS."

How do you move on without an adequate understanding of human nature though? We can't just airbrush these things with Everson v. Board of Education and its line of successors. By comparison they are but footnotes or, on some occasions, the legal equivalent of sidewalk scrawl.

 

[p_rehbein]

-1st Amendment

The government is not supposed to endorse religion, nor is it supposed to prohibit religion. You're ignoring the bolded segment.

Whhhaaaa??? You just said the same thing I did..............except that "endorse" part............Founding Fathers were concerned about "establishing" a religion as the One State Religion..........that's what "MAKE NO LAW" means........

According to the 1st Amendment, the State is NOT to establish an Official State named religion, nor prohibit it's citizens from freely worshiping as they choose.............AND THIS is where the Government today is in COMPLETE violation of the Constitution....................

 

[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.

George Washington - “The blessings and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.”

 

[TheAristocat]

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

Something that I think should be understood is that at least in our day legal jargon contains a lot of repetition (e.g. pleonasm such as "cease and desist") for the sake of clarity. I wonder if in this case "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is simply a continuation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (i.e. the phrases are one and the same in their intent). My only concern is that the legal language of the 18th century may not have been as fleshed out as it is today, but the same principles of clarity may have exerted similar effects on its content.

Your thoughts?

 

[Human]

No, it amounts to a state declaring a religious text as an official book.

Establishing an official state religion is more than tacit agreement with a broad religious worldview. It involved the declaration of a particular sect as official within a state and dictated where state funds would flow. During the time of the Framers, an established Church would receive funds from state coffers to finance the hiring of clergy and other church activities.



I fail to see how gaining a clearer understanding of the intentions behind the Constitution is somehow irrelevant. Even someone disagrees with them (an active thinker is bound to), they are quite relevant to the discussion at hand. That the present legal community does not recognize their validity or appreciate their importance is a fatal flaw in our system. Yet again, Americans have a house against itself.

You're right though, Professor Tribe may reinforce my historical point, but when the question of legal relevance arises he would pat me on the head and say "Now Des, that's all well and good, but we've moved on. Trying to apply it would get you a one of nine before SCOTUS."

How do you move on without an adequate understanding of human nature though? We can't just airbrush these things with Everson v. Board of Education and its line of successors. By comparison they are but footnotes or, on some occasions, the legal equivalent of sidewalk scrawl.

The Clause in question isn't about establishing a religion. As per the Constitution, the verbatim term is ''respecting an establishment of religion''. That forbids government even RESPECTING, as in PREFERRING or GIVING FAVOUR TO an establishment of religion, as was shown in the court cases mentioned.

 

[Desdichado]

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

The Clause in question isn't about establishing a religion. As per the Constitution, the verbatim term is ''respecting an establishment of religion''. That forbids government even RESPECTING, as in PREFERRING or GIVING FAVOUR TO an establishment of religion, as was shown in the court cases mentioned.

From John Baker, Professor of Law at LSU:

The addition of the word "respecting" is significant. It prohibits Congress from legislating either to establish a national religion or to disestablish a state religion.

In a word, yes, it is quite germane to the establishment of religion. Hence why it is part of the Establishment Clause. So much so that the Senate and House went through several definitions to get that precise meaning across.

 

[Oncefallen]

The Clause in question isn't about establishing a religion. As per the Constitution, the verbatim term is ''respecting an establishment of religion''. That forbids government even RESPECTING, as in PREFERRING or GIVING FAVOUR TO an establishment of religion, as was shown in the court cases mentioned.

Ummm, the definition of respecting (in that context) is pertaining to. In other words Congress cannot make a law that pertains to ESTABLISHING a state religion. The founding fathers were very obviously (read enough of their personal writings) in favor of government promoting religion (specifically Christian values) since they viewed it as the foundation of a good and polite society.

 

[Billyd]

I don't think that God wants His Word to be abused by people who twist it to support the things of the state. I personally believe that he would rather His people to their lives than make it an Idol of some state or federal government so that some politician who has never studied it get elected to office.

 

[Human]

Ummm, the definition of respecting (in that context) is pertaining to. In other words Congress cannot make a law that pertains to ESTABLISHING a state religion. The founding fathers were very obviously (read enough of their personal writings) in favor of government promoting religion (specifically Christian values) since they viewed it as the foundation of a good and polite society.

If you know English, you'll see its grammatical placing makes it a verb.

''Congress (noun) shall (modal verb) make (verb) no (determiner) law (count noun) respecting (verb) an (indefinite article) establishment (possessive count noun) of (preposition) religion (count noun, subject), or (conjunction) prohibiting (objective verb) the (article) free (adverb) exercise (verb) thereof (objective adverb)''.

Another way to write it:

''Congress shall not respect any establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise of religion''.

Even if it were as you say, the government never established Christianity as the national religion, thus they still cannot do it. It has also been shown that they cannot show preference to one religion over another, nor favour a religion, since the US is a multicultural multireligious society with secular laws.

 

[Kencore]

Obama only has a year and a half or so to go so if islam is going to do something they need to do it soon. This is like their dream situation because trust me, there will never be another president associated with islam again in the White House ever. Remember the devil sends the beast with wrath because he knows that time is short. Islam is the antichrist spirit talked about throughout the New Testament. Their rightly guided prophet raped girls and boys and dressed in women's clothing. Also he raped prisoners of war and beheaded anyone who was not in agreement with him as his followers do today. He broke everyone of the Ten Commandments. And anyone who disagrees with the truth. JUST SUCK IT UP!