Tennessee governor vetoes law christening Bible as official book

[Zaac]

The approach must be right on this one. If Missouri declared Huckleberry Finn its state book, that would mean everybody there worships Mark Twain, and anyone born there in1986 will be brainwashed into believing they're doomed with next appearance of Halley's Comet.

WhistlingWhistlingWhistling

 

[TCassidy]

but it's just not an honest interpretation of the US Constitution to say it is unconstitutional.

Where did you get your Juris Doctorate and does it include a proficiency in Constitutional Law?

You seem to have overlooked:

Amendment I. 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.

Article VI This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It is patently unconstitutional. If the law said the Qur'an was to be the official book of the state of Tennessee you would have thrown a conniption fit!

The Governor did the right thing, and saved his state millions of dollars defending a plethora of civil rights suits.

 

[TCassidy]

"With God all things are possible"

"God" is a generic name for deity and thus applies to all faiths. The bible is limited to Judeo-Christian religions and rejects most of the non Judeo-Christian religions in the world.

 

[TCassidy]

From your 25 years of studying this, can you show how designating a State book establishes a religion?

Establishing a RELIGIOUS book as the State Book establishes the religion(s) based on that book. Just like establishing the Book of Mormon would establish the LDS "church" as the state church.

 

[Zaac]

"God" is a generic name for deity and thus applies to all faiths. The bible is limited to Judeo-Christian religions and rejects most of the non Judeo-Christian religions in the world.

How about South Carolina declaring The Spiritual as its State music?

 

[TCassidy]

How about South Carolina declaring The Spiritual as its State music?

Generic. Doesn't mention any god or religion.

 

[Zaac]

"God" is a generic name for deity and thus applies to all faiths. The bible is limited to Judeo-Christian religions and rejects most of the non Judeo-Christian religions in the world.

It's a direct quote from the Christian Bible. The 6th Circuit Appeals Court said:

"We agree — and we would add that, just as the motto does not have as its primary purpose the advancement of religion, it does not have the primary effect of advancing religion, either," appellate Judge David A. Nelson wrote in the majority opinion.

So in applying that precedent to designating the Bible as the State book, is the primary function the advancement of religion?

I contend , again, like with all the other state symbols, it's just a popularity contest.

 

[Zaac]

Generic. Does mention any god or religion.

It's a direct reference to the Christian Negro Spirituals according to them.

 

[TCassidy]

It's a direct quote from the Christian Bible.

So, the word "God" is not in the Jewish bible? Or the Mormon bible. Or the Qur'an? The word "god" is a generic word. Unless you think Zeus, Jupiter, and all the gods of asgard are real too? (There is that word again! - "gods.")

 

[TCassidy]

It's a direct reference to the Christian Negro Spirituals according to them.

Oh, the animism of the slaves. Yes, of course.

 

[Zaac]

So, the word "God" is not in the Jewish bible? Or the Mormon bible. Or the Qur'an? The word "god" is a generic word.

It's a New Testament quote that's not in any Jewish Bible. Now if they made that known, that it's from the Christian Bible, I could see a problem. But Tennessee was attempting to recognize the Bible as an important historical text and not as an establishment of religion.

Unless you think Zeus, Jupiter, and all the gods of asgard are real too? (There is that word again! - "gods.")

That sounds like even more reason why it should be okay as again, the state motto doesn't say where it's from or attempts to say what god with whom all things are possible.

 

[Zaac]

Oh, the animism of the slaves. Yes, of course.

What does Christian Negro Spirituals have to do with animism?

 

[TCassidy]

Most slaves brought to the US were animists.

 

[Jeremy Seth]

Why would the placement of a religious book as the state book be establishing religion?
Why would a first amendment rule against establishing a religion prevent a state from deciding to promote one?

I really don't understand, help me see the equivalency in these.

A good presentation this week on the topic of "Separation of Church and State" has been shared,

 

[JonC]

It would be a state endorsement of a religious text. And what if the version of the Bible that was designated was one with the Apochrypha, would that bother you? What about one of the King James translations? Or the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness corruption)? Or the Book of Mormon or Koran?

I bet a bunch of Christians would get upset about some of those choices.

I do not think that it would, but the reason that it wouldn't may be unfortunate. The Bible played a significant role in the formation and governance of the state and Nashville was often the spot light for religious discussion/disagreements within the largest Baptist denomination. The Southern Baptist general headquarters is in Nashville (as well as the SBC archives and Lifeway). Tennessee is home to the National Baptist Convention, the Church of God in Christ, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, the Church of God of Prophesy, the the Free Will Baptist, and the Church of God.

Several religious publishing companies are also headquartered in Tennessee. R.H. Boyd, Thomas Nelson, Holman (Lifeway), the United Methodist Publishing House, and Randall House...for example. Lifeway (formerly the Baptist Bookstore) and Holman are of Southern Baptist origin while Randall house originated with free-will baptists....both in Nashville.

Strong theological stances originated or were forwarded through that religious atmosphere. Parker with his "two seed" doctrine still influences some primitive baptists. J.R. Graves' "landmarkism" is not without it's adherents. The Calvinistic stance originally present within the SBC and expressed so strongly by it's second president (R.B.C. Howell) in response to the "anti-missions movement" of "hyper Calvinists" (who in turn were responding to the growth of Wesleyan Arminianism within the Baptist denomination) was articulated plainly in Nashville.

So the Bible was certainly important to the state. But the reason that it would not be a state endorsement of a religious text is because if the state were to affirm the Bible as the "state book" then it would reduce the Bible only to a tradition (to ceremonial deism....like "in God we trust" or opening prayers). It would only be a political pawn (like statues of the Ten Commandments). It would be different if the state endorsed Scripture as the Word of God and as the guide for the faith and practice of it's citizens. That would be state endorsement of a religious text. Recognizing a book for it's contributions, it's history, and it's popularity is not endorsement.

What is more sad is the fact that there are probably Christians who would have viewed such a recognition as a victory, and it being struck down as a type of wrong, or persecution.

 

[Baptist Believer]

A good presentation this week on the topic of "Separation of Church and State" has been shared,

Actually, this is a terrible presentation. Remember, anyone can make a video and post it to Youtube. The fact that something is in a video or book does not give it any more credibility than an opinion overheard on a city bus. As Christians, we must do the hard work of thinking for ourselves and checking to see if what we are told is true.

That being said, I don't have time to watch the whole thing today - I'm busy getting things ready for church tomorrow - but in the first 2:30 minutes, he has already committed a few fatal errors.

The concept of separation of church and state came from our Baptist forbearers. The metaphor was first coined by Roger Williams (founder of the colony of Rhode Island) when he was advocating for religious liberty as a Baptist. He wrote that God had created a "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" in his book, "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience" Williams established separation of church and state from the very foundation of the Rhode Island colony. (Please note that I am including hyperlinks to the documents I am referencing)

Later, when the Danbury Baptist Association was concerned that there would be a proper separation of church and state, they appealed to Thomas Jefferson (the principal writer of the Declaration of Independence) and he wrote back to them assuring them that he was a champion of religious liberty. Like a good communicator wanting to connect with his audience, he used Williams' phrase, writing "wall of separation between church and state." Not only was Jefferson a Founding Father and the principal author of the Declaration, he was also highly influential in the formation of the First Amendment. Jefferson and James Madicon <-(the stupid software changed James M a d i s o n ' s name to an icon) had worked together to formulate and pass the Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom in 1786, and the First Amendment (as part of the Bill of Rights) that were formulated in 1789 and ratified in 1791.

Quick conclusions from just 2:30 minutes of this video:

1.) He builds a straw man premise at the very beginning of the video, he claims that "we can't have any reference to religion, or at least Christianity, in our public schools." This is simply false. Here's what the ACLU has to say. Here's what the U.S. Attorney General had to say in 1995. From my experience with these kinds of presentations, I suspect he is going to use this false premise that he has established to try to undermine the historical basis for separation of church and state by show how ridiculous it is. It is ridiculous, and it is also not an honest presentation of separation of church and state.

2.) As a Baptist, you should carefully consider your religious heritage. Baptists have consistently advocated religious liberty and separation of church and state until very recently in the United States when apparently some would be Baptist leaders have forgotten their history - if they knew it at all. For example, George W. Truett, the esteemed pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, delivered a famous sermon from the steps of the U.S. Capitol in 1920. The sermon, entitled Baptists and Religious Liberty, lays out the Baptist position. It is worth your time to read.

3.) He claimed the phrase separation of church and state did not come from

"...some other organic utterance by the founders and framers, maybe it's in the Declaration or some other public document? No, it's not found in any of the organic utterances of those who framed the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence."

Let's think about his statement carefully.

• He is correct that the phrase does not appear in the Declaration of Independence.
• He is correct that the exact phrase does not appear in The Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom.
• He is completely wrong that the phrase does not appear in the "organic utterances" of those who framed the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, since Jefferson famously used the phrase.
• It is possible he is defining "organic utterances" in unusual way, but the effect is deceptive if he is doing so.

4.) He quoted from Everson v. Board of Education and insinuated that Justice Black introduced Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists out of the blue. It had actually been cited before, in Reynolds v. United States (1878). Moreover, the Justices deciding the Reynolds case in 1878, and the Justices deciding Everson in 1947 were students of history and law, and knew what they were talking about. That doesn't mean that we should simply agree with them, but that we should at least pay attention to their arguments instead of cherry-picking quotes and condemning their work based on the quote choices those who oppose them make. That's just common sense.

Based on these things, I urge you therefore to actually read the texts of the documents I have cited and then take that knowledge back to the video. When the smiling video man makes a claim or cites a document, go look up the source document - not commentary on it - and read it for yourself before you pay attention to the opinions of others. Otherwise you will be intellectually held captive to other people instead of what might be true.

 

[Baptist Believer]

So the Bible was certainly important to the state. But the reason that it would not be a state endorsement of a religious text is because if the state were to affirm the Bible as the "state book" then it would reduce the Bible only to a tradition (to ceremonial deism....like "in God we trust" or opening prayers). It would only be a political pawn (like statues of the Ten Commandments). It would be different if the state endorsed Scripture as the Word of God and as the guide for the faith and practice of it's citizens. That would be state endorsement of a religious text. Recognizing a book for it's contributions, it's history, and it's popularity is not endorsement.

What is more sad is the fact that there are probably Christians who would have viewed such a recognition as a victory, and it being struck down as a type of wrong, or persecution.

Oh I agree. The Governor apparently has a high view of the Bible and sees it as endorsement of religion, while others apparently see it as a religious totem or a cultural badge.