Plan B Forum

...some states have decided to make hamburger of the 1st Amendment as well:

Tennessee might be the first state to establish the Bible as its official book, after the state Senate approved a measure to do so on Monday in a 19-8 vote.

The bill is now headed to Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam, but it's unclear whether Haslam, who said in 2015 that the bill wasn't "very respectful" of the religious text, plans to veto or sign the bill. It will automatically become law if he does not take action within 10 days, excluding Sundays, after the speakers of the House and Senate sign off the legislation.

"The governor doesn't think it's very respectful of what the Bible is," the governor's spokesman David Smith told The Tennessean.

The state's Attorney General Herbert Slatery also released a statement last year that said acknowledgement of the Bible as the official state book would violate the First and Third Amendments of the Constitution for giving preference to a religious institution. Meanwhile, legislators in support of the measure argued for the significance of the holy scripture and its role in founding the United States (??? ).

Related: Mississippi Governor Signs 'Religious Freedom' Bill Into Law

State Sen. Kerry Roberts, R-Springfield, who voted in favor of the bill, said he understood the difficulty in deciding on the issue (what difficulty? there is no place for such an odious measure in a society that isn't run by theocratic nutjobs), The Tennessean reported. However, he noted that George Washington's inauguration contained many religious references.

"The very founding of our nation — the very form of government that we have today — was put forth by men of faith, based on their faith, based on what they read in Holy Scripture," he said.

Others proponents of the bill were concerned the Bible would be trivialized in comparison to Tennessee's other state symbols. Other official badges of the state include the state's official beverage, milk; its official wild animal, the raccoon; official fruit, the tomato; and, most recently, the official state rifle, the M82 sniper rifle (I guess that part of the Bible that speaks of beating swords into ploughshares didn't quite take).

There is no way that the Bible should be the official book of anything or anywhere other than the body of Christ. No country, no state, no municipality has any right to do this. It is indeed trivializing and condescending beyond belief.

Honestly, I just do not understand why legislators feel compelled to enact such measures. I mean, other than obvious pandering to a certain segment of the electorate, which I can't imagine is more than a small minority (isn't it? Really, I'd like to know.)

This bill is plainly unconstitutional and, as Meade says, trivializing and condescending in the extreme; from where does it draw support? Who thinks this is a good idea and why? I'm not being facetious; these are serious questions.

The Supremes had better schedule this on their docket; you know that if this bill gets signed (or enacted through inaction — and since when did that become a thing?  I thought the pocket veto was a long and honored feature of the balance of powers) — it's going to end up before them.

-"BB"-

What doe sit mean that the Bible is the "Official book" of Tennessee? Is it like saying that the pigeon is the official state bird or something else is the official state song, or next week is Cotton Candy Week or next month is Dry Cleaning month? If so, it would seem to be much ado about nothing as it has no effect on the laws or the residents of the state. It's pretty silly, and while I can understand Meade's reaction as it trivializes what is t some a sacred text, I can't see how it has any effect on the state whatsoever.

sue may well be right that it could be challenged on Constitutional grounds, but I would think that would depend on what being the official book book means, and I can't see that it means much.

If someone hadn't made an issue of this, the bible would have quietly become the 'Official Book' and I doubt that many people in Tennessee would even know about it (or care). I'm sure most states don't even have an official book, unless they are talking about what is used to swear an oath.

Come to think of it, isn't using the bible as the official book for the court something that should be challenged? Or has it? That seems like it should be much more of an issue than giving the bible an 'official' designation that is similar to that of a state bird, flower or beverage.

Anyway, I agree with Big RR. This is silly. A lot of people getting stirred up just because they need something to be stirred up about.

Big RR wrote:sue may well be right that it could be challenged on Constitutional grounds, but I would think that would depend on what being the official book book means, and I can't see that it means much.

Being designated "the official state book" is plainly sufficient for a constitutional violation. Under the First Amendment's Establishment clause, where a state action touches on religion, it must (1) have a secular purpose and (2) not have the effect of endorsing religion. In this case, the legislature's action is an obvious failure on both prongs. If I were admitted in Tennessee, I'd grab me a client and file suit in a hot minute, because an application for attorneys fees and costs on a violation this egregious would make this case an easy payday as well as rectifying a flagrant debasement of our constitutional values.

Joe Guy wrote:This is silly. A lot of people getting stirred up just because they need something to be stirred up about.

If it were silly, the legislature wouldn't be so hot to enact it. It is another anti-American attempt to give Bible-based religion -- and Christianity in particular -- the imprimatur of state approval in the service of making the United States a "Christian nation." Do not doubt the significance of such actions in the "culture wars" for control of our society.

Joe Guy wrote:This is silly. A lot of people getting stirred up just because they need something to be stirred up about.

Sue U wrote:If it were silly, the legislature wouldn't be so hot to enact it. It is another anti-American attempt to give Bible-based religion -- and Christianity in particular -- the imprimatur of state approval in the service of making the United States a "Christian nation." Do not doubt the significance of such actions in the "culture wars" for control of our society.

That depends on what you mean 'hot to enact it'. It was put up for a vote and passed and the governor is either going to sign it or not. Probably not now since everyone has their official underpants in a twist over it.

Even though the idea is overblown in my opinion, the '1st Amendment's Establishment clause' does seem to apply - but what do I know.

Other than not having the education, ambition, determination, brains, sense of purpose, speaking skills and competence, I believe I could have been a very good lawyer...

Sue--I think your analysis may well be correct.

If it were silly, the legislature wouldn't be so hot to enact it.

I have to disagree there; legislatures do a lot of silly things. Is there anything serious about having a state bird or a state fish, or designating a silly holiday like National Detergent Day? Sure, there must be some people who cared enough to push those things, but in the balance they are pretty silly.

It is another anti-American attempt to give Bible-based religion -- and Christianity in particular -- the imprimatur of state approval in the service of making the United States a "Christian nation."

That's the point in your analysis I agree with--it does promote and entanglement between church and state, which is impermissible. But as Meade pointed out, it is hardly a Christian consensus position.

Do not doubt the significance of such actions in the "culture wars" for control of our society.

And what is that significance? Clearly NJ's designating Good Friday as a state holiday says a lot more about the entanglement between church and state than some idiotic proclamation designating the bible as the state book, yet you don't see people going apoplectic over that.

Big RR wrote:Clearly NJ's designating Good Friday as a state holiday says a lot more about the entanglement between church and state than some idiotic proclamation designating the bible as the state book, yet you don't see people going apoplectic over that.

New Jersey does not designate Good Friday a state holiday; there is no proclamation or legislative act that adopts or promotes the observance of Good Friday. However, like Christmas, the state recognizes that a sizeable portion of its workforce is going to be taking leave for part or all of that day, and so as a practical matter closes its offices to allow employees their holiday observances. It is sometimes a thin distinction, but one that does make a difference.

In contrast, there is not even a remotely secular administrative purpose to declaring the Bible the official state book, and there is not even a fig leaf of an argument that such a declaration is not an endorsement of religion. Whether many people heed that endorsement or not, and whether they think it silly or not, it is nevertheless a prohibited state action. (I, for one, do not think there is anything silly about it at all, and I would bet that neither do atheists, Muslims, Hindus, pagans, or other non-Bible-believing groups. And that doesn't even consider the potential conflict over exactly which "Bible" is the official state book.)

Aside from non-thinking ones, I doubt that Christians think this is merely "silly". I would hope they think that it is disrespectful, wrong and not to be endured.

The state book? Good heavens, what are they - Oprah Windbag?

New Jersey does not designate Good Friday a state holiday; there is no proclamation or legislative act that adopts or promotes the observance of Good Friday. However, like Christmas, the state recognizes that a sizeable portion of its workforce is going to be taking leave for part or all of that day, and so as a practical matter closes its offices to allow employees their holiday observances.

Perhaps, but then buses and trains run on a holiday schedule (and these are not state employees), state banks (to the extent that there still are some) are closed, etc. Google state holidays for NJ and every one of them lists Good Friday by name (no special status as just a day when state offices are closed). There may be no proclamation for the celebration of the day, but it is a day that mirrors the Roman Christian observance (apparently the orthodox Good Friday only gets that honor when it coincides with the Roman one) and is a purely religious observance with no other secular purpose. When other religious holidays are to be celebrated, from Passover to Y'id to Lunar (Chinese) New Year, etc., employees are expected to use float holidays, yet only Good Friday gets this special status (and FWIW, I would bet fewer christians would take Good Friday off than Jews would take Passover off (or leave early for the seder)). No, it's clearly a special status given to Roman Christianity, and I see the distinction you raise as a pure and simple attempt to justify it.

On the other hand, I can't see the designating the bible as a state book does anywhere near this much to advance a particular religious belief; indeed, as Meade pointed out, it may be offensive to many of those the state is pandering to. But, as a practical matter, are you telling me that naming a book as the state book is a more serious endorsement of religion than making a day of religious observance a holiday (whether there is a proclamation or not)? Indeed, which is more likely to advance the culture wars to make our society a Christian (and a roman Christian one at that)?

ETA: One other thing, I recall the USSC refused to hear a case challenging a Good Friday holiday, leaving stand a circuit court (can't recall if it was originally from Hawaii or Indiana) that upheld the right of the legislature to designate it as a holiday. But IMHO, if Good Friday can be a state holiday, it makes little sense to quibble about what the state book is.

In my NSHO, there is a HUUUGE difference between a state or national holiday (an excuse for special merchandising and retail sales and perhaps a day's pay without working) and a Holy Day. The USA has a long history of confusing the functions of religion and government. "Blue Laws" prohibiting some commerce on one day of the week, suspending side-of-the-street- parking rules because a particular religious group declared moving the car on that day would be a violation of their religious requirements. That is the heart of the controversy about same-sex marriage. Many individuals cannot separate their religious faith about the sacrament of marriage with the state's legal interest in marriage. Rationally, they should be independent, and in some European traditions they are separate. If the Roman Catholic church officially declares that a marriage is only official for them if done by their clergy, why should they have any voice in who can be married by a local Judge, or an officiant from Scientology?

And just which version/translation/edition of the Bible is to be the official state book? Is it the one to be sold in the gift shop in the state capital?

snailgate

You put your right foot forward and your left foot back
Start a little wiggle in your sacroiliac
And that's a Tennessee two step they do it on a hardwood floor

You put a bad law forward
The courts take it back
You blame the godless courts
And that's a Tennessee two step.

Burning, I agree the Blue Laws (which were upheld by the courts even if they were only on sunday) and the other state acts you mention do much more to promote religion than declaring a holiday to coincide with a holy day (but then could you imagine the uproar if one of the days of Ramadan was made a state holiday?); and I agree that the issue over gay marriage is solely rooted in the desire to make others do what they (to so-called religious people) feel is moral.

LR, that sounds like the Hucklebuck.

After Rhode Island (54%), New Jersey is the second most-Catholic state in the country, with nearly 45% of religiously-affiliated people identifying as Catholic. (I have said before that it wasn't until I went to college that I learned Catholicism was a minority religion in the U.S., as the overwhelming majority of people I knew growing up were Catholic.) I don't have any statistics, but my bet is that Catholics represent an even greater percentage of state workers in NJ, because (from anecdotal observation only) the pool from which the state seems to draw employees tends to be significantly more urban and particularly Hispanic -- not least of all because state offices are heavily concentrated in larger cities with large Spanish-speaking populations. It is just a practical reality that if you have that many employees who are likely to be out in any event, you close the office. I will also bet that Good Friday is a holiday negotiated in the union contract for state employees, so closing the offices may not even be so much a state decision as it is a labor contract obligation.

The town where I now live is heavily Jewish -- the last number I saw was about 30% of the population. The public schools close for the Jewish holidays because so many kids, teachers and administrators take those days off anyway. It's not a celebration or observance or state endorsement of the holidays, it's an accommodation in respect of the practical realities of the situation.

Again, the constitutional issues focus on (1) a legitimate secular purpose and (2) the effect of endorsing religion. Nothing requires a government entity to make such accommodations, but as long as they meet these criteria, nothing constitutionally prohibits them, either.

the issue over gay marriage is solely rooted in the desire to make others do what they (to so-called religious people) feel is moral.

I'd like to understand that sentence.

Is it that: "So-called religious people want to make homosexuals do what so-called religious people feel is moral"?

What exactly are the so-called religious people forcing homosexuals to do? Whatever this thing they are being made to do, how is it "moral" for them to do it in the eyes of so-called religious people?

(Please answer carefully; you have not specified that the issue is what so-called religious people want homosexuals NOT to do).

Thank you

Sue--I know the tests, but I fail to see a legitimate secular purpose with declaring good Friday a holiday; indeed, I don't think a lot of Roman Catholics would take the day off if it was not a holiday, nor do I know of any RC requirement that suggests or requires it. Certainly public accomodations can be closed on a case by case basis if it makes sense (like public schools closing for the Jewish holidays in the fall in areas with a large jewsih population), but that is not the case here. this is the state choosing to close all public faciilties, from the courts to state chartered banks, to permit the observance of purely religious holiday. I think saying a lot of . people would take off anyway is a pretext--a lot of people take the Friday after Thanksgiving off and that is not designated a holiday. And I see it as much an endrosement of Christianity as pretty much anything the state can do. that the courts tolerate and permit it does not change the basic premise of that holiday, which is a promotion of Christianity, and IMHO, much more of an unadulterated endorsement of that religion than any designation of a state book.

What do the so-called religious people want homosexuals to do? To at least abstain/refrain from any physical homosexual activity, and to refrain from forming families or even par-bonded couples. They want homosexuals to eschew the protections the state gives to a married couple because they do not believe people of the same sex should be married. At the very least, they want homosexuals to go back into their closets and leave them alone. Now you can phrae this as what some want homosexuals not to do, but so what?

You're welcome,

What do the so-called religious people want homosexuals to do? To at least abstain/refrain from any physical homosexual activity, and to refrain from forming families or even par-bonded couples. They want homosexuals to eschew the protections the state gives to a married couple because they do not believe people of the same sex should be married. At the very least, they want homosexuals to go back into their closets and leave them alone. Now you can phrase this as what some want homosexuals not to do, but so what?

I appreciate the unpacking of that sentence. There certainly must be a small number of "so-called" religious people who meet all the criteria given.

My feeling is that the majority of them, while opposed to homosexual "marriage", are not opposed to civil recognition of such relationships. Government can and must treat people equally (isn't that one of them Constitutiony things?). But that of course is not good enough, is it? The battle was about the words "marriage", "husband", "wife" - not about any actual equal accommodation. "So-called" religious folks who were prepared to compromise were marginalized by a complete contempt for the meaning of language and a desire to rub their noses in the dirt - successfully done too.

Be that as it may, despite sophistic revisionism, the fact is that Bible declares that God is 100% opposed to sin and homosexual activity is defined there as sin. "So-called" religious people should rightly be concerned to recognise and repent of sin in their own lives and express concern for sinners who glory in their sin. It is more than unfortunate that the first part is often neglected in preference for a rather un-Christian zeal to emphasise the second.

I'm not seeking to change anyone's mind about all that. All change must be forced upon me.

Meade--for the semantic argument, the bible defines many things differently than we do in our laws--from killing/murder (depending on the translation) which is extended by the bible to wishing people dead, although I have seen no groundswell to get the civil authorities to define murder that way, to many other examples. But the point is, that many things that are listed as "sins" in the bible are not illegal under the civil law, and many words in the bible are used differently in civil law. And husband, wife, and marriage are some of those terms. Religion did not invent marriage, and there was no objection use of those terms for civil marriages of men and women, just with regard to homosexual marriage.

As for expressing "concern for sinners who glory in their sin", I will leave the issue of whether or not homosexuality is indeed a sin outside of this discussion, but will say refusing to serve homosexuals in ordinary commerce is not an expression of concern, but a statement of contempt, a very different thing. By all means the religious institutions can refuse to perform such marriages or not as they see fit, but other businesses may not discriminate. How is refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage in any way an expression of "concern"?