CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
From the article: "Tennessee state legislators on Wednesday advanced a bill to make the Bible the official state book, a measure the state attorney general said would be unconstitutional and Republican Governor Bill Haslam has called disrespectful."
Later: "Representative Marc Gravitt said the attorney general's legal opinion made it clear Tennessee could spend millions of dollars in a losing effort to defend the measure if it becomes law."
So, what is your opinion on this move? Do you believe it is acceptable (personally) and do you believe it is constitutional, and why?
I believe they made an excellent move. More states should follow because the Bible is an amazing piece of work. Teachers can use the Bible as a piece of literature in classrooms, but they can't preach to the children about Christanity. I say it's fine as long as someone doesn't preaches to them in public schools.
Selecting a state book doesn't change anything really. A religion is not established by declaring a state book. No one does anything different in their life based on the state things. State bird doesn't change your life, state flower doesn't change your life, state book won't change your life. You do not do anything different in your life based on what the state book is.
But wouldn't it be a fair assumption to say that a state anything is a direct representation of that state? Tennessee chooses a certain bird to be their state bird and it represents them, kind of like a school mascot. When they choose a religious book as the "state book" it says that the bible is a direct representation of the state.
You don't have to like the state bird. You don't have to like the state flower. The state choosing a book doesn't affect your ability to have your own religion. The politicians are religious and they represent the state.
I fully agree with everything you just said, but adopting a religious text as a state book clearly mixes church and state. Politicians can be religious, but is it really right to say their religious beliefs are the best ones to represent their state?
I fully agree with everything you just said, but adopting a religious text as a state book clearly mixes church and state.
Unfortunately, it doesn't go against the constitution. They aren't endorsing a religion, just a book. It really depends on how the state chooses to represent the information. Just naming a state book I think falls just short of establishing a religion. It is about as close as you can get. It is a fine line.
Politicians can be religious, but is it really right to say their religious beliefs are the best ones to represent their state?
Well, yeah, they are the ones representing the state. The people already chose them to represent the state.
How is it unconstitutional? No one is forcing anyone to read it. And I'll just bet all you anti- religious people would have no problem, if it was the Koran instead. After all, you're ok with muslims having student led prayers in public schools. What a bunch of hypocrites.
As for your last comment, there is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. That is nothing but a reinterpretation of the Constitution by atheist judges.
I tried to find an article on that which wasn't overtly biased but struggled. Regardless, I am in just as strong opposition to what we were discussing regardless of which religion is at question, which includes Islam.
Additionally, I would like you to show me a single bit of precedent regarding the Establishment Clause that was handed down by an atheist judge over the course of the past hundred years. Conservative and Liberal judges have ruled time and time and time again that the principle of Separation of Church and State is indeed in existence in the Constitution in the form of the Free Worship and Establishment Clauses.
You may find this hard to believe, but the Supreme Court got it wrong. They are not infallible. They actually ruled that slavery was legal, at one point. Anyone who has read our founding fathers comments on the first amendment can plainly see that their decision was the result of nothing less than the court bowing to political pressure.
You may find this hard to believe, but the Supreme Court got it wrong
It is not simple the Supreme Court, it is almost the entire judicial system over the course of a hundred years, time and time and time again, from both Conservative and Liberal justices.
Anyone who has read our founding fathers comments on the first amendment
Interesting, you mean like Jefferson's letter, that coined the phrase Separation of Church and State? Regardless, our Founding Fathers did not have a unified opinion on anything, much less the First Amendment.
And no, the court did not "bow to political pressure" countless times over the past century.
Establishing any religious text as an official government text is an establishment of religion, in clear and direct violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That Tennessee has elected officials who either cannot grasp this or simply do not care ought to alarm the electorate, though then again I suppose they are the ones who voted them in. The irony is those same legislators likely rail on about wasted tax dollars, yet they will be wasting those same funds trying to push through a law doomed to failure that yields no positive financial or social return. It would be nice if these politicians would address some issues that actually matter instead of trying to undermine the basic laws of the nation they have been elected to help govern.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Adopting one religion's teachings as the "state book" directly states that that religion is more correct in the eyes of the law. What ever happened to the separation of church and state?
That said, the constitution is worded as 'Congress shall make no law.' In theory, that shouldn't apply to states, especially considering the tenth amendment.
I'm aware that the SCOTUS ruling on Everson v Board of Education of Ewing TP. et al in '47 established a precedent for applying this at the state level, AND that it is the job of the SCOTUS to interpret the constitution- but I wonder if this is truly a reasonable interpretation of the text?
I'm opposed to the idea of a state being able to establish a religion even if the federal government cannot, but I'm also generally opposed to the amount of weight we lend to case law. Perhaps case law should be taken into consideration at times, but I feel it muddies the waters, locking us into decisions made by individuals who are sometimes long-deceased, when said individuals were obviously incapable of looking at the decision from a modern context, and whos views do not necessarily represent the views of the modern populace.
Constitution and it's amendments- fine.
Bills and laws passed since the constitution for the amount of time they are allotted- fine.
Case law treated as actual law overriding anything in the above- not fine.
I can see using precedent as an aide in reaching a ruling, but case law should not be treated actual law or anything close to it in my opinion.
There is more than one way to invade a country, and it can be done without a single shot being fired. Certain religious groups that I won't name are known to play a very long game with this in the regions where they are active. I'm not so much concerned with these precedents being used to promote a state religion, so much as these precedents being applied to the 'prevent free exercise thereof' portion of the first amendment, tying our hands (so to speak) in the event of a non-violent (or at least non-overtly violent) religious/cultural invasion.
If you're referring to the line "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
I don't believe it necessarily does, in this case. What privilege or immunity is being violated here, exactly? Privileges are distinct from rights, ultimately. If it did effectively cover this sphere, the 1947 scotus ruling would have been unnecessary and redundant. Not that I hold the scotus so sacrosanct as to believe that this couldn't happen.
There'd be no need to continually reference the aforementioned case when the pre-existing amendment would suffice. Not all, but many lawyers are quite savvy, so you'd think it would come up more... but mostly references to 1947 Everson v Board of Education of Ewing TP. et al.
It's entirely possible that every lawyer, judge, etc. since 1947 has been incredibly obtuse and missed the obvious, and I'm off base here, but I truly think that if it were a tenable way to apply that law it'd be done already- admittedly a flawed assumption.
We have incorporated amendments because of the 14th amendment. One of those amendments is the 1st. So, states do have to honor the freedom of religion.
There'd be no need to continually reference the aforementioned case when the pre-existing amendment would suffice.
We don't always do things because they need to be done. If they prefer to reference cases instead of laws that could be reason enough. It could just be a preference.
Why break tradition? Is it really that weird to suggest that multiple generations could have the same personal preference? It is learned behavior. They did all go to school and learn case law to become lawyers.
I personally find it hard to believe- though not impossible- that simply citing the amendments in question would be completely overlooked by those multiple generations in favor of case law options- if only to avoid the cascade effect on subsequent case law rulings should that precedent be eventually superceded. If it were effective, the amendments would be a safer bet as they are significantly more difficult to supercede.
Whether common law ought to be as influential as it has become does not alter the reality that it is. Within current legal practice states are held to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and therefore my analysis is sound.
And in honesty, your objection to common law strikes me as non-unique and somewhat arbitrary. The Federal Constitution and its amendments as well as most of our other laws were also written by individuals who are sometimes long-deceased, who were obviously incapable of looking at the decisions from a modern context, and who's views do not necessarily represent the views of the modern populace. Why is this more objectionable where it concerns the judiciary? Common law also does not "lock us in" to anything; the judiciary has reversed and modified its own opinions over time. Of the three branches, the judiciary remains the most constrained and its accumulation of powers concerns me less than that same pattern in the legislative and executive branches.
However skeptical I am at the prospect of a successful cultural/religious invasion to start with, I am immensely more so at the notion that not holding states to the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution would combat that invasion. The precedent of applying the protections of the First Amendment to the states binds those governments both to preventing an establishment of religion and securing the freedom of expression. Without that common law extension a religious/cultural invasion would need only to overwhelm local and state governments to secure their power rather than the entire national infrastructure.
Whether common law ought to be as influential as it has become does not alter the reality that it is. Within current legal practice states are held to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and therefore my analysis is sound.
And I wasn't objecting to your analysis, and am well aware that states are held to this- my argument wasn't whether or not they are, so much as whether or not they should be, and even there I'm on the fence.
And in honesty, your objection to common law strikes me as non-unique and somewhat arbitrary. The Federal Constitution and its amendments as well as most of our other laws were also written by individuals who are sometimes long-deceased, who were obviously incapable of looking at the decisions from a modern context, and who's views do not necessarily represent the views of the modern populace. Why is this more objectionable where it concerns the judiciary?
The Federal Constitution and its amendments may have been written by individuals who are long-deceased, but at the very least they are/were ratified by the states or an electorate thereof. Case law, on the other hand, is created by a small number of judges who can really only be superceded by judges higher up the chain. It ends at the scotus. These are not elected individuals- they are appointed by the president. It's my fault for neglecting to add detail, but I think there is a huge difference between an amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states, or another bill passed by the majority of congress (representing said states) vs an interpretation by one (or a small handful) of appointed individuals with no constituency or oversight locking the 'meaning' of one of these laws for perpetuity.
Common law also does not "lock us in" to anything; the judiciary has reversed and modified its own opinions over time.
I'm aware that even scotus rulings have been overturned by subsequent positions. I'm not referring to a literal lock in, more of a de facto one, as I noted further down the other fork of the thread. Essentially, overturning a ruling becomes more difficult over time as other decisions are made based on that case precedent. Case law begets case law begets case law. Break the original, and you break the premises that other decisions were formed under, and so on and so forth.
Of the three branches, the judiciary remains the most constrained and its accumulation of powers concerns me less than that same pattern in the legislative and executive branches.
I'll agree with you overall here, I am less concerned with the judicial branch than the others, but I think you're downplaying the amount of power inherent in being able to interpret the law.
However skeptical I am at the prospect of a successful cultural/religious invasion to start with, I am immensely more so at the notion that not holding states to the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution would combat that invasion.
I'm not as skeptical as I used to be, having done some recent reading on the expansion of certain groups and their birth rates vs. the standard, amongst other things. And I think you're also overestimating the power of law under the weight of religion and culture.
When the group in question manages to attain a local majority (as it has in several regions), the law often goes ignored in favor of their own, with the weight of their numbers to back it. It won't matter if the first amendment applies to the states in theory if there is a de facto social standard in place with a very real threat behind it. On the other hand, granting the states the power to ban such practices altogether and enforce such a ban could potentially prevent the issue from occurring before it reaches critical mass.
Without that common law extension a religious/cultural invasion would need only to overwhelm local and state governments to secure their power rather than the entire national infrastructure.
I believe that even with the extension, overwhelming a local area would still be quite possible, if they're able to achieve sufficient numbers to ignore our law in favor of their own.
That said, I don't wish to get into a protracted debate here because I'm quite uncertain of my position, to be honest. As noted, I previously discounted this as a threat entirely but have been rethinking it significantly. On one hand, giving the states the ability to crack down on a potentially dangerous religious group before it achieves critical mass would be a good thing. On the other hand, at least some states would almost certainly abuse the power needed to the detriment of others. I'm not trying to knee-jerk here but think it through rationally, and I don't think I have enough info yet.
The Federal Constitution and its amendments may have been written by individuals who are long-deceased, but at the very least they are/were ratified by the states or an electorate thereof. [...] with no constituency or oversight locking the 'meaning' of one of these laws for perpetuity.
This clarification significantly shifts your objection from one of obsolescence to one of representation, which is fundamentally different. While case law is insulated from the electorate this was done intentionally and for numerous reasons, and while judicial powers have expanded some I think that insulation remains more beneficial than detrimental.
I'll agree with you overall here, I am less concerned with the judicial branch than the others, but I think you're downplaying the amount of power inherent in being able to interpret the law.
I rather happen to think you are overplaying the influence of interpretive power, particularly when held relative to the powers of our elected branches (an important context to my original statement). Not only is the judiciary incapable of raising issues on its own and rendering new independent laws, but it is generally lacks the capacity to enforce its own rulings (e.g. the delay in desegregation after Brown v. Board, etc.).
I'm not as skeptical as I used to be, having done some recent reading on the expansion of certain groups and their birth rates vs. the standard, amongst other things.
An inter-generational demographic shift is not the same thing as a cultural or religious invasion; that seems rather a semantic stretch even coming from you, and was certainly not what I thought you meant which explains my prior response I suspect.
And I think you're also overestimating the power of law under the weight of religion and culture.
Christianity possesses an overwhelming majority and while I am distinctly aware of how that has continued to impact laws affecting civil liberties in particular, I am also very aware that this we are not living in even a remote approximation of earlier Christian America let alone the Vatican. I think you undervalue the influence of the law to mitigate against religious encroachment.
When the group in question manages to attain a local majority (as it has in several regions), the law often goes ignored in favor of their own, with the weight of their numbers to back it.
Where exactly has this happened?
It won't matter if the first amendment applies to the states in theory if there is a de facto social standard in place with a very real threat behind it. On the other hand, granting the states the power to ban such practices altogether and enforce such a ban could potentially prevent the issue from occurring before it reaches critical mass.
If your stance is truly that the law cannot prevent a gradual cultural/religious demographic shift that also encroaches upon the separation of church and state, then I hardly see what difference states passing laws would have either. What powers are you even suggesting that states exercise beyond requiring that they not make laws respecting an establishment of religion which is not only already permissible but required under federal law? The power to prevent people from practicing certain religious beliefs, congregating, having more than two children if they are of a certain faith, etc?
I believe that even with the extension, overwhelming a local area would still be quite possible, if they're able to achieve sufficient numbers to ignore our law in favor of their own.
Assume this happens. I would much rather have a federal government with the authority and power to come in and force the locality to adhere; a federal system has far more numbers than any state or locality simply by virtue of scale.
That said [...] I don't think I have enough info yet.
I respect that you can acknowledge your uncertainty on the point. Personally, I have always found these claims based in the Christian persecution complex more than actual reason and evidence. Yes, there is a certain truth in demographic shift but I frankly find the alarmist notions surrounding that fairly absurd. Culture changes over time, and just because a religious shift is different than it has been does not necessarily mean it is going to be "dangerous" or "wrong". I would be concerned if the numbers showed a probability for a demographic shift towards any radical (particularly religious) culture... but simply that the prevailing religion itself might shift is not all that worrisome to me.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I love the 72 books of the Bible. On the other hand, religion and government should remain separate.
A state doesn't need to declare the official book of the state. It doesn't make sense. A state bird is a bird that is found in the state. The state flower is a flower that is found in the state. A state should not declare ANY book to be the state book.
