100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 'OFFICIAL STATE BOOK' of TN = BIBLE Good Thing Or Really Stu | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
MadDog1974
no more decisions can be based on a state book than on a state bird it has no legislative significance, it is only a symbol,, like a flag its something that might appease others who are feeling their religious rights being pushed into a closet by the lgbt lobbyists I really wouldn't, care except it would be nice to be represented, though the constitution is written in a way so that its forbidden for christians(or other religions) to be supported "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," Id much rather legislation that prevents laws which prohibit free exercise and force christians(or other religions) to leave their values in the closet at work or in their businesses, which the constitution also includes " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" People don't take late 18th century English into consideration when reading the Constitution. The First Amendment says (only in regard to religion for the sake of staying on topic): Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.... Translation: The government is not allowed to take any action regarding any specific religion. They are neither allowed to establish a national religion, nor are they allowed to interfere with religious practices. This does not mean that there may be no religious practices in the public eye. In fact, banishment of public displays of religion are just as much in violation of the First Amendment as establishing a government sanctioned religion. Such a banishment amounts to government sanctioning of atheism, which is showing preference to one religious belief over all others. As this pertains to the discussion at hand, being an "Official State Book" is pure symbolism and carries no serious ramifications. This is not imposing a religion and does nothing to interfere with the free exercise of any religion.{b] This will be challenged on Constitutional grounds, but it is not in violation of the First Amendment. While you make excellent points the reference about the 18th century English has always been a stickler for our current legal wrangling and many-many appellate court issues for the SCOTUS {ie. gun laws and ref the 14th amend.}...also the Flag---there is only one American Flag not a variety that is used nation wide or world wide for that matter. Each state has the right to their own flag - represents their entire state - not a select few who believe that faith system. Yes, if the few humans that seem driven by their own foolish agenda want to keep wasting tax payer money for such a right leaning issue they will keep dragging/flogging their state with this 'BIBLE' issue and it will fail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MadDog1974
no more decisions can be based on a state book than on a state bird it has no legislative significance, it is only a symbol,, like a flag its something that might appease others who are feeling their religious rights being pushed into a closet by the lgbt lobbyists I really wouldn't, care except it would be nice to be represented, though the constitution is written in a way so that its forbidden for christians(or other religions) to be supported "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," Id much rather legislation that prevents laws which prohibit free exercise and force christians(or other religions) to leave their values in the closet at work or in their businesses, which the constitution also includes " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" People don't take late 18th century English into consideration when reading the Constitution. The First Amendment says (only in regard to religion for the sake of staying on topic): Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.... Translation: The government is not allowed to take any action regarding any specific religion. They are neither allowed to establish a national religion, nor are they allowed to interfere with religious practices. This does not mean that there may be no religious practices in the public eye. In fact, banishment of public displays of religion are just as much in violation of the First Amendment as establishing a government sanctioned religion. Such a banishment amounts to government sanctioning of atheism, which is showing preference to one religious belief over all others. As this pertains to the discussion at hand, being an "Official State Book" is pure symbolism and carries no serious ramifications. This is not imposing a religion and does nothing to interfere with the free exercise of any religion.{b] This will be challenged on Constitutional grounds, but it is not in violation of the First Amendment. While you make excellent points the reference about the 18th century English has always been a stickler for our current legal wrangling and many-many appellate court issues for the SCOTUS {ie. gun laws and ref the 14th amend.}...also the Flag---there is only one American Flag not a variety that is used nation wide or world wide for that matter. Each state has the right to their own flag - represents their entire state - not a select few who believe that faith system. Yes, if the few humans that seem driven by their own foolish agenda want to keep wasting tax payer money for such a right leaning issue they will keep dragging/flogging their state with this 'BIBLE' issue and it will fail. I'm not advocating for or against the Bible being the Official State Book, only that there is no Constitutional conflict. I personally don't see the point of a State Book, but I also don't see a problem with it either. People should focus more on what state legislatures and Congress do that actually affect their lives instead of getting worked up over symbolic resolutions like this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Texas there was a big stink about having the State food as Chili or BBQ. There is a State Flower, Bird, whatever ...
I think having the State Book be the Bible in some State is just symbolic and doesn't constitute law. It is probably a response to the current attack on the Christian Faith. The courts aren't going to start make judgements of "An eye for an eye." or "Turn the other cheek." I don't think it is much of an issue since the judicial system is based on Judea-Christian values anyway. Sharia Law ... that's a different story. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MadDog1974
no more decisions can be based on a state book than on a state bird it has no legislative significance, it is only a symbol,, like a flag its something that might appease others who are feeling their religious rights being pushed into a closet by the lgbt lobbyists I really wouldn't, care except it would be nice to be represented, though the constitution is written in a way so that its forbidden for christians(or other religions) to be supported "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," Id much rather legislation that prevents laws which prohibit free exercise and force christians(or other religions) to leave their values in the closet at work or in their businesses, which the constitution also includes " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" People don't take late 18th century English into consideration when reading the Constitution. The First Amendment says (only in regard to religion for the sake of staying on topic): Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.... Translation: The government is not allowed to take any action regarding any specific religion. They are neither allowed to establish a national religion, nor are they allowed to interfere with religious practices. This does not mean that there may be no religious practices in the public eye. In fact, banishment of public displays of religion are just as much in violation of the First Amendment as establishing a government sanctioned religion. Such a banishment amounts to government sanctioning of atheism, which is showing preference to one religious belief over all others. As this pertains to the discussion at hand, being an "Official State Book" is pure symbolism and carries no serious ramifications. This is not imposing a religion and does nothing to interfere with the free exercise of any religion.{b] This will be challenged on Constitutional grounds, but it is not in violation of the First Amendment. While you make excellent points the reference about the 18th century English has always been a stickler for our current legal wrangling and many-many appellate court issues for the SCOTUS {ie. gun laws and ref the 14th amend.}...also the Flag---there is only one American Flag not a variety that is used nation wide or world wide for that matter. Each state has the right to their own flag - represents their entire state - not a select few who believe that faith system. Yes, if the few humans that seem driven by their own foolish agenda want to keep wasting tax payer money for such a right leaning issue they will keep dragging/flogging their state with this 'BIBLE' issue and it will fail. MadDog1974 stated >>> I'm not advocating for or against the Bible being the Official State Book, only that there is no Constitutional conflict. I personally don't see the point of a State Book, but I also don't see a problem with it either. People should focus more on what state legislatures and Congress do that actually affect their lives instead of getting worked up over symbolic resolutions like this. Seems we're in TOTAL agreement; this is just going to waste those tax payers money and it is going to keep getting regurgitated non-stop because those 'BIBLE THUMPERS' won't take a NO for an answer! See we do and can agree on something! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aich.
Legislators are infamous for standing up in congressional meetings and putting on serious expressions to propose all manner of nonsense. 99% of the time, they are doing it for one reason: to fool some voting block in their district into thinking they support their B.S. insanity, so as to, in effect, "buy" their votes. Think about it: what is the absolute cheapest way to get a bunch of people who hold strong views, to vote for you, even though you can't do anything for them? Do you buy expensive TV ads, making speeches about how deeply you care? Pay for internet and radio campaigns, to slander your opponents in the other direction? Or do you instead, propose and or vote for a law which you KNOW will never fly, and then rake in a flurry of entirely free-to-you mass media "advertising," and charge 100% of the cost of the whole "campaign," not to your own war chest, but to the voters themselves via taxes? |
|
|
|
|
