TOTALLY GEEKED!

Ohfour · Hooker

Tennessee Approves New “State Book” In Victory For Religious Right

Bonny22Pye · Guru

How is that legal with the whole separation of church and state thing?

Ohfour · Hooker

Bonny22Pye wrote:
How is that legal with the whole separation of church and state thing?

There's really no such thing...

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
How is that legal with the whole separation of church and state thing?
There's really no such thing...

Personally I would be against it because i don't want lawmakers or schools teaching my kid about religion. I want to do it at the church that I choose. But if its not against the law and the people voted for it...

Ohfour · Hooker

Part of the reason for this is to ensure that bringing a Bible to school is not punished. Students can now check out a Bible from the school library and it can be used for something like a book report.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Part of the reason for this is to ensure that bringing a Bible to school is not punished. Students can now check out a Bible from the school library and it can be used for something like a book report.

I'm fine with a book report on the Bible as long as its presented as this book says this and I believe it. Vs this book says this and its a fact.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Part of the reason for this is to ensure that bringing a Bible to school is not punished. Students can now check out a Bible from the school library and it can be used for something like a book report.

I'm fine with a book report on the Bible as long as its presented as this book says this and I believe it. Vs this book says this and its a fact.

A child in his book report can say whatever he wants about the Bible. The school doesn't have the right to be for or against. They can't tell him he's wrong, either. That would be interfering with his religion.

That separation in schools limits the administration - not the students.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Part of the reason for this is to ensure that bringing a Bible to school is not punished. Students can now check out a Bible from the school library and it can be used for something like a book report.

I'm fine with a book report on the Bible as long as its presented as this book says this and I believe it. Vs this book says this and its a fact.

A child in his book report can say whatever he wants about the Bible. The school doesn't have the right to be for or against. They can't tell him he's wrong, either. That would be interfering with his religion.

That separation in schools limits the administration - not the students.

The student can, but a teacher can not say its factual. That's more my issue. Should have explained better. Kid A says ... blah blah fact fact and teacher says, thank you for presenting these facts on the the bible.

WYSIWYG · Guru

So which Bible is it that's going to be the State Book: The King James Version, The New International Version, The American Standard Version, a version with the Apocrypha, a version without the Apocrypha, the Catholic version? Which?

This is a bad idea. Isn't it also in violation of the Separation of Church and State for a state to recognize a religious book of one religion over the religious books of all others? If Governor Haslam signs this into law it will waste Tennessee Taxpayer's money fighting and losing in court for no good reason, because, as we all know, someone will take it to court on the basis of "I'm not a Christian, but I am a Tennessee Resident, This book doesn't represent me!". But, isn't wasting money what legislatures are best at?

I even read where some clergy are against it.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

WYSIWYG wrote:
So which Bible is it that's going to be the State Book: The King James Version, The New International Version, The American Standard Version, a version with the Apocrypha, a version without the Apocrypha, the Catholic version? Which?

This is a bad idea. Isn't it also in violation of the Separation of Church and State for a state to recognize a religious book of one religion over the religious books of all others? If Governor Haslam signs this into law it will waste Tennessee Taxpayer's money fighting and losing in court for no good reason, because, as we all know, someone will take it to court on the basis of "I'm not a Christian, but I am a Tennessee Resident, This book doesn't represent me!". But, isn't wasting money what legislatures are best at?

I even read where some clergy are against it.

ALL OF THIS.

Twenty-seven people decided this for the entire state.

And the lawsuits will come, as they should.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
So which Bible is it that's going to be the State Book: The King James Version, The New International Version, The American Standard Version, a version with the Apocrypha, a version without the Apocrypha, the Catholic version? Which?

This is a bad idea. Isn't it also in violation of the Separation of Church and State for a state to recognize a religious book of one religion over the religious books of all others? If Governor Haslam signs this into law it will waste Tennessee Taxpayer's money fighting and losing in court for no good reason, because, as we all know, someone will take it to court on the basis of "I'm not a Christian, but I am a Tennessee Resident, This book doesn't represent me!". But, isn't wasting money what legislatures are best at?

I even read where some clergy are against it.

Without the Apocrypha.

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
So which Bible is it that's going to be the State Book: The King James Version, The New International Version, The American Standard Version, a version with the Apocrypha, a version without the Apocrypha, the Catholic version? Which?

This is a bad idea. Isn't it also in violation of the Separation of Church and State for a state to recognize a religious book of one religion over the religious books of all others? If Governor Haslam signs this into law it will waste Tennessee Taxpayer's money fighting and losing in court for no good reason, because, as we all know, someone will take it to court on the basis of "I'm not a Christian, but I am a Tennessee Resident, This book doesn't represent me!". But, isn't wasting money what legislatures are best at?

I even read where some clergy are against it.
ALL OF THIS.
Twenty-seven people decided this for the entire state.
And the lawsuits will come, as they should.
flan

But that's how it works. 9 people decided gay marriage for an entire nation. Really, only 5. You were ok with that.

WYSIWYG · Guru

But that's how it works. 9 people decided gay marriage for an entire nation. Really, only 5. You were ok with that.
- huskerbb

________________________________

That's not what they did, huskerbb, and I believe you are smart enough to know it. What they did was decide that the religious beliefs of some people don't have sway over the law when the rights of others with differing religious beliefs are involved.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
But that's how it works. 9 people decided gay marriage for an entire nation. Really, only 5. You were ok with that.
- huskerbb

________________________________

That's not what they did, huskerbb, and I believe you are smart enough to know it. What they did was decide that the religious beliefs of some people don't have sway over the law when the rights of others with differing religious beliefs are involved.

Bull****. VERY few states passed gay marriage by a vote. 5 people absolutely made the decision for everyone.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

In fact, many states voted AGAINST gay marriage.

Tinydancer · Guru

WYSIWYG said "but they weren't voting for gay marriage" (of course they were) "they were deciding that the religious beliefs of some people don't have sway over the law when the rights of others with differing religious beliefs are involved" (no they were deciding gay people had more rights than the rest of the voters). What a crock that is.

WYSIWYG · Guru

In fact, many states voted AGAINST gay marriage.
- Lawyerlady

_____________________________

And the Justices ruled correctly that in a country such as ours where we separate Church and State, and where all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law, laws taking rights away from some people because of a religious belief are invalid.

We may not want gay marriage, but the proper remedy for that isn't to outlaw it for others as a legal activity. The proper remedy for it is for us to not get gay married in the legal sense of marriage.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
In fact, many states voted AGAINST gay marriage.
- Lawyerlady

_____________________________

And the Justices ruled correctly that in a country such as ours where we separate Church and State, and where all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law, laws taking rights away from some people because of a religious belief are invalid.

We may not want gay marriage, but the proper remedy for that isn't to outlaw it for others as a legal activity. The proper remedy for it is for us to not get gay married in the legal sense of marriage.

BS. That is a MYTH. There was NOT some big movement to outlaw gay marriage. It was illegal from the foundation of this nation. NO ONE recently had some right taken away.

WYSIWYG · Guru

BS. That is a MYTH. There was NOT some big movement to outlaw gay marriage. It was illegal from the foundation of this nation. NO ONE recently had some right taken away.
- huskerbb

____________________________________

I'm not sure of the Latin term for it (maybe Lawyerlady might know), but there's a belief in free countries such as the United States whereby for something to be illegal there has to be an actual law against it. Prior to D.O.M.A. I don't believe there was an actual law anywhere that stated "It shall be illegal for man to marry man or woman to marry woman". It may have been generally accepted by everyone that it was unacceptable to society, but "generally accepted" doesn't equal "illegal".

Do you have proof otherwise?

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
BS. That is a MYTH. There was NOT some big movement to outlaw gay marriage. It was illegal from the foundation of this nation. NO ONE recently had some right taken away.
- huskerbb

____________________________________

I'm not sure of the Latin term for it (maybe Lawyerlady might know), but there's a belief in free countries such as the United States whereby for something to be illegal there has to be an actual law against it. Prior to D.O.M.A. I don't believe there was an actual law anywhere that stated "It shall be illegal for man to marry man or woman to marry woman". It may have been generally accepted by everyone that it was unacceptable to society, but "generally accepted" doesn't equal "illegal".

Do you have proof otherwise?

Irrelevant. If it was not the law--then a court would not have had to decide the issue. Courts decide matters of law.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Actually, common law - those laws NOT codified - said marriage was between one man and one woman. You don't need a statute for something to be law.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Actually, common law - those laws NOT codified - said marriage was between one man and one woman. You don't need a statute for something to be law.
- Lawyerlady

____________________________________________

I was under the impression that that applied to what I've heard of as "positive rights". Cases where you can do something and it's recognized by law because society approves of it anyway, such as "common-law marriage". And in the cases of common-law marriage I always believed it was basically a "socially accepted" shortcut to having to get a license and do vows and file paperwork. I didn't realize it was a limiter too.

I stand corrected.