Forums → WEPR → The Bible: Louisiana's proposed state book
| 44 | 20866 |
As much as I hate to link to Fox News or Yahoo, there is word of a bill that would make the state book of the state the Bible, which raises questions of whether this violates the separation of church and state in the US Constitution.
The most relevant part of the Consitution regarding this topic is the Establishment clause, which prohibits the establishment of a religion by Congress. You may say that this applies only on the federal level, but through the SC case Everson v. Board of Education, (Link or tl;dr), the Establishment clause also applies to state and local government.
That was somewhat unrelated, and now to the more important question....
Does the nomination of a religious text as the official book of a state violate the Establishment clause?
- 44 Replies
[quote]The only way to stop this nonsense is to elect Democrats in a landslide to prevent this kind of insanity in the next elections!
...You're joking, right? [/quote]
That probably would put a quick end to it. Of course, some of us don't entirely trust Democrats either.
Well, I can't give you a good reason, but I can give you what I'm pretty sure is their logic: "Herrrrr derrrr im calling dibbs on the Bible, now no other states can have it! were beter than everyone!" That's what I can only assume is the problem here.
The republican party generally gains more support from the Christian community. I suspect the Louisiana representatives believe this move will give them enough votes to ignore the rest of the populace.
Like I said. Let the Supreme Court intervene and settle the matter.
I think you have advocated using both the Supreme Court or government to do so, which are you now championing? It's abit confusing to pin down the discussions if you keep vacillating. Unless by government you meant the SC?
The Gun Control argument is ongoing because it now directly affects people, specifically NYC Administration Code 10-306b. Something like a state busting the constitution over their state book is not worth bringing into the "ublic arena" because there is far less interpretation.
I feel that you're conflating two issues here, the consequence of a different interpretation of the Constitution (The resultant laws) which has now morphed into a cause as much, and the original cause itself (misinterpreting the Constitution). It might not be worthwhile as a reason to bring out because it is less debatable in relation to interpretation of the Constitution, but fact is, it ended up as a bill. Which therein, turns it into an important issue.
They're both a blatant play for attention to start unnecessary controversy. Hopefully the state book issue will be resolved and vanish as quickly as the book burner did. Like I said before, even needing a "state book" is far too petty of an issue. What are they going to do, make everyone read the Bible because it's the state book? Over the dead body of the entire democratic party.
They are different. They are both similar in that they cause controversy, but they are both different in that one is about a law that could be passed. I think that you can appreciate. The burning of the Qu'ran caused alot of anger as will this, but as far as I know, it did not spark a law that infringes upon the Constitution.
I know you said a state book is unnecessary, which is applaudable. Unfortunately, personal opinions won't not what the Louisiana House's decision, hence I think it is an important enough issue not to simply leave it to the SC or the government. The people should have a say over this.
That probably would put a quick end to it. Of course, some of us don't entirely trust Democrats either.
It would definitely cause a different problem.
Ideally, the democrats should win the Senate while the Republicans get the House and vice versa so they can watch each other.
Unfortunately, the corrupted ones always find a way to get what they want by introducing and passing bogus laws through corruption.
To answer the question of, and I paraphrase, "what is the point of a state book" you should ask yourself what is the point of a state motto, song, or bird etc... The answer to that question is rather simple I believe, and that is to show the general beliefs or even motivations of the state. The point of a state motto, song, or bird can be said about the point of a state book MattEmAngel. It also just so happens to be that in Louisiana, if wikipedia is to be believed, people in general tend to be largely religious (more so than most states anyhow) and the very vast majority of these religious folks are some denomination of Christianity.
This is hardly an Establishments Cause issue. Even if Louisiana does make the bible the state book it is showcasing the general beliefs of its residing citizens not of the government. Thus, it is not an issue of an Establishments Cause.
This is hardly an Establishments Cause issue. Even if Louisiana does make the bible the state book it is showcasing the general beliefs of its residing citizens not of the government. Thus, it is not an issue of an Establishments Cause.
Wrong. The Establishment Clause applies to state governments too.
Establishment Clause
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
Separation of Church and State
This is hardly an Establishments Cause issue. Even if Louisiana does make the bible the state book it is showcasing the general beliefs of its residing citizens not of the government. Thus, it is not an issue of an Establishments Cause.
This to me is a poor argument. It is a matter of the Establishment clause, which prohibits the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. When asked by dissenting House members to include other mainstream religious texts in the even the bill passes, the answer from the sponsors and its supporters was a no. It does not get more biased or preferential for me than that.
I do not think the views of the majority should hold here. It matters not that 90% of Louisianians are of a particular religion when it comes to matters like this. It discriminates against the other 10% simply for what they privately believe, which is nearly half a million people. Not to mention that using one specific version (The KJV I think) of the Bible is in itself discriminatory and shows obvious favouritism for one religion over another.
Wrong. The Establishment Clause applies to state governments too.You have misconstrued what I was saying. I was trying to say that the state government is showing the general ideals, beliefs and motives of its Louisianan citizens and not of its (the states) beliefs.
This to me is a poor argument. It is a matter of the Establishment clause, which prohibits the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.In my opinion it, having the bible as a state book, isn't showing preference by the Louisianan government. It is only showing the religion of preference in Louisiana. Which in and of itself cannot be used to say the state government of Louisiana prefers Christianity, as you seem to believe, but it (the state book) can only be used to say that the residents of Louisiana prefer Christianity.
In order to say that there is a breach of the Establishment Clause you need to look into the education system, and laws in Louisiana. Is wearing a burqa illegal because of a hatred to that religion, are all adolescents and teens forced to go to Sunday school and learn all about a specific religion in school? I hardly think so. State books, mottos, and songs have naught to do with the Establishment Clause; only the Laws and Acts of Louisiana that force people to do, or not do, things due to religion can be said to be a breach of that Clause.
Saying that this state book is in violation of that Clause is the very same as saying the American national anthem is in violation of the Establishment Clause for having the reference to God in it.
I do not think the views of the majority should hold here.When the goal of any state "thing" (like a motto, song or book) is to show the general views of the populace I would disagree.
It discriminates against the other 10%Nor is it discriminatory for the Louisianan government to have a state book such as a bible because it does not say that one religion is inferior or superior to another. The state book, unless I'm mistaken (which I very well could be), is to show the general attitude/motive of the populace.
Also, the definition of discrimination by online definition:
dis·crim·i·na·tion [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
noun
Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
As you can see a state book doesn't show any intolerance or mandate different treatment or considerations of different religions "simply or what the privately believe" as you seem to have thought..
P.S. Apologies for any poorly articulated statements. Decided to squeeze that out before heading off to sleep.
I was trying to say that the state government is showing the general ideals, beliefs and motives of its Louisianan citizens and not of its (the states) beliefs.
It's still effectively the same thing. The state would be representing a particular faith.
Is wearing a burqa illegal because of a hatred to that religion, are all adolescents and teens forced to go to Sunday school and learn all about a specific religion in school? I hardly think so.
Whether or not the state has other laws that breach freedom of religion and separation of church and state does not affect the proposed action.
only the Laws and Acts of Louisiana that force people to do, or not do, things due to religion can be said to be a breach of that Clause.
No. The text itself says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." These "state symbols" are used to represent the state. They are directly related to the state. By having the Bible as the State Book, they are directly putting religion into the realm of the state.
Saying that this state book is in violation of that Clause is the very same as saying the American national anthem is in violation of the Establishment Clause for having the reference to God in it.
It is. "Under God" and "In God we trust" should be removed from the pledge and from our currency - it was not there originally and it never should have been added. It directly associates the government with the Abrahamic god, and anyone with a brain knows that it's supposed to refer to the Christian god. People make the excuse that "Oh, it could be any god" but that's bull and they know it.
When the goal of any state "thing" (like a motto, song or book) is to show the general views of the populace I would disagree.
That's not the goal of the state "thing" though. It's meant to be representative or iconic. It is symbology. It's not the "general views of the populace" at all.
I agree that it isn't discrimination. It's the opposite. It's endorsement. They are trying to make the Bible the state book to support their religion.
It is discrimination in itself, because the sponsors have refused to include other religious texts as State books. It is claimed that the Bill is not aimed at establishing an official religion, nor would it be to the exclusion of anyone's religion, so it would stand to follow that the sponsors would be open to making all books of faith a group of official state books. However, they are not willing to doing so. That is discriminatory for me, if we want a book to represent the people, it's not very hard to introduce other religious texts to represent all. There's no law that asserts that we can only have one book. In doing so, it is indicating how the Louisianan government values the Bible over other religious texts, and by extension, religions, simply because more people believe in it.
The other problem for me is that a national/state icon is meant to be something that is on the whole neutral, symbolic and representative , so I have no problems with flowers, or birds and animals. However, if you take something so intensely personal as religion and hoist it up, stating that it's what's preferred in the state, then it unfairly casts aside the non-adherents which it does not represent. It brings up divides and only serves to heat up tensions. Just because something is preferred, does not mean it needs to be given official sanction. We already know that America is a Protestant majority nation, but there's no need to shove it down peoples' throats. In fact, it's a complete counter of what a national/symbol is supposed to accomplish by bringing up divides.
That being said, it is also blatant tangling of religion with government. Just because it is not coercing anyone into adopting Christianity as a religion does not make it any less insidious nor breaching of the Establishment Clause.
I would say yes, for me, it is unconstitutional to use the words "under God" in the pledge. I should have a choice to exclude the word "God" if I'm uncomfortable, and religious people can continue with it. I would pledge my allegiance to my country, but I do not want religious intrusion into the affair. But that is a different matter.
To answer the question of, and I paraphrase, "what is the point of a state book" you should ask yourself what is the point of a state motto, song, or bird etc...
Very little, really.
It also just so happens to be that in Louisiana, if wikipedia is to be believed, people in general tend to be largely religious (more so than most states anyhow) and the very vast majority of these religious folks are some denomination of Christianity.
So? If a bird is native only to the region of one state, it makes some sense to identify it with that state. The King James bible, however, is not native to Louisiana. It's just popular with one group of citizens.
I was trying to say that the state government is showing the general ideals, beliefs and motives of its Louisianan citizens [...]
Something which is in direct violation of this clause.
In my opinion it, having the bible as a state book, isn't showing preference by the Louisianan government. It is only showing the religion of preference in Louisiana.
So it isn't, except that it is. The state government is representative of the state citizenry. It is favouring one group of the citizenry and indicating that it holds them in highest regard.
[...] but it (the state book) can only be used to say that the residents of Louisiana prefer Christianity.
Which they don't. Only the Christians prefer Christianity.
Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
Therefore, this bill is discriminatory. It may help to actually read the definition before you cite it, so you can avoid embarrassing situations like this in the future.
Very little, really.Meaningless subjective opinion is meaningless subjective opinion. Fellow asked for the point of a state book, and thus I answered.
So? If a bird is native only to the region of one state, it makes some sense to identify it with that state. The King James bible, however, is not native to Louisiana. It's just popular with one group of citizens.It's just popular with the majority of its, Louisiana's, citizens as a whole.
Something which is in direct violation of this clause.Oh contraire. Here's what I got on the Establishment Clause on Cornell's Law website:
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law ârespecting an establishment of religion.â This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
Obviously Louisiana is not making Christianity an official state religion, but instead what they're doing is making the bible the state book, so obviously the first pact of the act isn't being violated.
As to the second half of it I can see why you're so ever confused and believe it is being violated. You believe that the government would be unduly preferring one religion over another if they make the bible a state book, but it is not so. The state book here shows what the majority of its citizens believe, or hold dear, but not what the government in itself believes (Laws and Acts forcing people to do or not do things would show if Christianity is being separated rom the state).
Also I will repeat what I've been saying for emphasis; the state book shows what the population believes in general. There is nothing wrong with Louisiana showing the world (by state book) what is the most widely believed religion in Louisiana. It doesn't show favouritism, or discrimination. It is only showing what is the most commonly believed religion. Nothing wrong with that.
So it isn't, except that it is. The state government is representative of the state citizenry. It is favouring one group of the citizenry and indicating that it holds them in highest regard.Yeah, far be it for a state to show what the vast majority of its populace believes in. The $#(@^*! $#*@!
Showing the world what its people believe in (meanwhile not endorsing the religion or enforcing it upon anyone) is definitely favouritism and holding a particular group in the highest regard.
P.S. It isn't endorsement since the state book only shows what the population believes in and not the government. This seems to be the confusion here. People seem to think a state book shows strictly what the state government believe in and adhere to as well as what they try to push off on others. I do not believe that is the case. The state book only shows what the general population believe in.
Which they don't. Only the Christians prefer Christianity.False, the majority of Louisiana population is religious, and over 90% (if I'm not mistaken) of those religious folks are Christians I believe. It is completely fair to say Louisiana prefers Christianity. Especially because when you say Louisiana it is clear you are referring to the people of Louisiana in general and not every single person or government.
Therefore, this bill is discriminatory. It may help to actually read the definition before you cite it, so you can avoid embarrassing situations like this in the future.It is ridiculous to believe that because Louisiana has a bible as a state book it is making a distinction in favor of... a person or thing based on group, class [etc...etc...]. When I see the state bird or animal of a state or nation you know what I think? That species must be indigenous, or have a large population, or may even be endangered in that state/nation. Nothing else, and nothing more. Thus, you know what I think when I see a state book such as a bible? Christianity must be dominate in that state amongst its people and only its people. Its people certainly not being the government. That is a far and ludicrous jump to make (from the peoples' belief, to the government's belief to what they try to make others believe).
P.S. You know where you can go to with your condescension and speaking down btw? To hell (figuratively ofc).
Obviously I read the definition before posting it Mr. Pompous. If anything you meant understand the material you post before posting it (although it is a little ridiculous of me to believe that the pompous and condescending would know even what they mean to say; my apologies.)
@ Kasic
The state would be representing a particular faith.And that's where we disagree. I believe here the state is showing what its people believe in and not itself. Thus, the state government is not representing a particular faith, but showing what the majority of its people believe in.
I see nothing wrong with a state telling the world or showing the world what's its populace believes in.
Whether or not the state has other laws that breach freedom of religion and separation of church and state does not affect the proposed action.Agreed, but what I'm saying is that the proposed action is not a law or educational act forcing people to study religion, or stop certain religious practices or anything of that nature so it cannot be in violation of the establishment act.
These "state symbols" are used to represent the state. They are directly related to the state.If what you mean by state is its populace and not government I would agree and see nothing wrong with that because in this case representing the people is only showing what the majority believe in. Nothing more and nothing less. Vice-versa is not true it does not represent the state government at all in my eyes.
By having the Bible as the State Book, they are directly putting religion into the realm of the state.I disagree, acts and laws would do that. Not a state book.
It is. "Under God" and "In God we trust" should be removed from the pledge and from our currency - it was not there originally and it never should have been added. It directly associates the government with the Abrahamic godI disagree, national anthems are symbolic and is really just meant to stir the blood and arise patriotism.
In today's day and age I wouldn't say that it's meant to be taken literally. I say that because of all the laws and acts the government has passed saying they wish to have the government and religion separated. I would think of anthems as a "ep rally" for the people and not literal..
I also agree with your second half of that statement. It is obviously referencing the Abrahamic God.
That's not the goal of the state "thing" though. It's meant to be representative or iconic. It is symbology. It's not the "general views of the populace" at all.I agree it is meant to be representative and iconic, but for the populace NOT the government. The state government has naught to do on an official level with the state book. The state book isn't an endorsement of a religion but the showing that the religion is the most commonly held religion in Louisiana. The telling of facts and endorsement are two separate things.
@Nich
Since I've answered already why I don't believe this would be discrimination or endorsement of Christianity I think it would be unnecessary to say it again.
Also, I totally agree that this bill is unnecessary and will only serve to create "heat" and tensions and that it is a division between religions and serves the opposite of what state symbols should serve for. What I'm saying is that this isn't an Establishment Clause issue. I do completely agree that this state book is a foolhardy thing to do, but not one in which violates that Clause.
That being said, it is also blatant tangling of religion with government. Just because it is not coercing anyone into adopting Christianity as a religion does not make it any less insidious nor breaching of the Establishment Clause.In order for it to be a blatant tangling of religion with government there does need to be the coercing of people into adopting Christianity or flagrant abuse of other religions (and by flagrant I mean unfair persecution or outlawing of other religions) or at least unfair prejudices towards one religion. In this case there is not, so there is no breach of the Clause.
[...] government actions that unduly favor one religion over another [...]
[...] making the bible the state book, so obviously the first pact of the act isn't being violated. [...]
You cannot just will a contradiction to disappear. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe if you say it another dozen times, it will become true.
Also I will repeat what I've been saying for emphasis; the state book shows what the population believes in general.
Which is in error, as this is not what the population believes in general. The population is multicultural. Therefore, this choice of state book is discriminatory. Clearly, the confusion is all yours.
This seems to be the confusion here. People seem to think a state book shows strictly what the state government believe in and adhere to as well as what they try to push off on others.
I concur. That particular notion of your opponent's beliefs is most likely at the root of the misunderstanding.
False, the majority of Louisiana population is religious, and over 90% (if I'm not mistaken) of those religious folks are Christians I believe.It is completely fair to say Louisiana prefers Christianity.
Non sequiter. The majority is not the same as the entirety. As I stated previously, the government is representative of the state. Therefore, in saying that Louisiana prefers Christianity, you contradict your previous assertion that it doesn't.
It is ridiculous to believe that because Louisiana has a bible as a state book it is making a distinction in favor of... a person or thing based on group, class [etc...etc...].
I think you can agree that it is a distinction. It is the selection of one (1) book over all others. Do you deny that? The book is preferentially chosen. It is favoured.
Christianity must be dominate in that state amongst its people and only its people.
Which is an erroneous conclusion.
That is a far and ludicrous jump to make (from the peoples' belief, to the government's belief to what they try to make others believe).
Why, then, did you make it?
P.S. You know where you can go to with your condescension and speaking down btw? To hell (figuratively ofc).
Obviously I read the definition before posting it Mr. Pompous. If anything you meant understand the material you post before posting it (although it is a little ridiculous of me to believe that the pompous and condescending would know even what they mean to say; my apologies.)
I hadn't expected the personal attacks to appear this early in the discussion. If you are going to resort to ad hominem, it is clear that you have no real argument on offer here.
Of course, assuming that you do fully understand what you are arguing, I can only conclude that you are well aware that your position is invalid and you are simply trying to force its acceptance in a most petty and belligerent manner.
You must be logged in to post a reply!