Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There may be a "lot of religious stuff in that story" but it's not a book that a particular religion's based on. You say "If the state of New York made the Iliad their official state book, I don't expect anyone would make much of a fuss about it ", what if the State of New York made say the Torah the official state book? Or the Bhagavad Gita? Or, the Quran ?
Personally, I believe there should much fuss made if any religious text is made an 'official' book of any government in the US. We're guaranteed freedom of religion and I don't believe that freedom exists unless we're also given freedom from religion.
Like I already said, you can make the Bible the official state book or the official state bird or the official state paper-weight -- and none of it actually means anything. That's really my whole point. It doesn't mean anything. Nobody is required to read it, believe in it or change their way of living their life over it.
I live in Illinois. The official state bird is the cardinal. Sum total impact on me living my life? Zero. If the Quran was the official state book of Illinois, the same would be true. Now if the Quran actually was the official state book of Illinois, I would expect that Progressives here would be gushing all over about how accepting and welcoming and culturally diverse they are. But it still wouldn't change any aspect of my life.
Now if NY wants to make any of those books their state book, I say go for it!
I love threads like these that so perfectly illustrate the intolerance and bigotry of liberals
Actually, it's violation of the constitution, which conservatives claim to support, but clearly don't, as is obvious to anyone who is not a completely ****ing moron. And no, I'm not exaggerating. The fact that there are people who support Mitch McConnel and the other Republican leaders in their willingness to avoid doing their constitutionally required job of holding a hearing for a candidate of the Supreme Court is evidence that Republicans use the constitution only to further their own needs and not as a civil document intended to protect all citizens.
Call me hateful and intolerant for calling the Republicans hypocrites all you want. It's an objective fact that saying one thing, then doing another, makes on a hypocrite.
Also, from a literature standpoint, the Bible is a TERRIBLE book. Why anyone would want bad literature as as their state book is beyond me. It'd be like picking the Koran or Aristotle's 'the politics.' These are works that are objectively bad from a literary standpoint, regardless of the ethical value of their content.
Also, is a state gun an actual thing or was that just porn for the conservatives in that state?
I hope Gov. Haslam vetoes this legislation, it violates the separation of church and state. If I lived down South I would be so embarrassed and humiliated by the "God, Guns, and Bibles" mantra, and the endless bashing of gay people and minorities.
No, it doesn't.
It's a state matter. If you don't live there then what's the big deal? It's the state book... oh boy. That's like declaring the state movie.
Actually, it's violation of the constitution, which conservatives claim to support, but clearly don't, as is obvious to anyone who is not a completely ****ing moron. And no, I'm not exaggerating. The fact that there are people who support Mitch McConnel and the other Republican leaders in their willingness to avoid doing their constitutionally required job of holding a hearing for a candidate of the Supreme Court is evidence that Republicans use the constitution only to further their own needs and not as a civil document intended to protect all citizens.
Call me hateful and intolerant for calling the Republicans hypocrites all you want. It's an objective fact that saying one thing, then doing another, makes on a hypocrite.
Also, from a literature standpoint, the Bible is a TERRIBLE book. Why anyone would want bad literature as as their state book is beyond me. It'd be like picking the Koran or Aristotle's 'the politics.' These are works that are objectively bad from a literary standpoint, regardless of the ethical value of their content.
Also, is a state gun an actual thing or was that just porn for the conservatives in that state?
Actually, it's not. The separation of Church and State was intended to prevent the federal government from establishing a state religion... like the Church of England. It says nothing at all about what choices a state must make with regard to religion. That is entirely up to the individual states and what Tennessee did is perfectly legal.
How is this and "religious liberty" bills going to improve the economy and defeat ISIS?
Why are Republican so hell-bent on making us into a theocracy like Iran and install Christian sharia law as law of the land?
This is complete grandstanding, and many Republicans are getting damn tired of going out into the weeds on these social issues.
Part of this frustration drove support for Trump. Trump was not pushing religion and these issues, but speaks common sense on a lot of issues that resonate with common people on the street.
Actually, it's not. The separation of Church and State was intended to prevent the federal government from establishing a state religion... like the Church of England. It says nothing at all about what choices a state must make with regard to religion. That is entirely up to the individual states and what Tennessee did is perfectly legal.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,091,524 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyster
Actually, it's not. The separation of Church and State was intended to prevent the federal government from establishing a state religion... like the Church of England. It says nothing at all about what choices a state must make with regard to religion. That is entirely up to the individual states and what Tennessee did is perfectly legal.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
No, states do not have the right to circumvent federal law, based on what you say any state could implement slavery again....
Actually, it's not. The separation of Church and State was intended to prevent the federal government from establishing a state religion... like the Church of England. It says nothing at all about what choices a state must make with regard to religion.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
I think that the person not know what they are talking about is not the person for whom your comment was directed.
The Supreme Court has ruled, as it should that the 1st Amendment is fully incorporated within the 14th Amendment's privileges and immunities clause which states that,
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "
Now if you don't believe that then it logically follows that a state can shut down a local news paper for criticizing the governor. You would believe that a state can decide whether or not a particular religion can be practiced within its boundaries. If you wish to argue that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the state then it only follows that a state would have such powers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quran 
