Louisiana bill would name Bible as official state book

[Captain Obvious]

Nothing better to legislate I guess...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/11/louisiana-bill-would-name-bible-as-official-state-book/


BATON ROUGE, La. – Lawmakers are moving ahead with a proposal to name the Bible as Louisiana's official state book, despite concerns the bill would land the Legislature in court.

A House municipal committee advanced the bill Thursday with an 8-5 vote, sending it to the full House for debate.

Rep. Thomas Carmody, R-Shreveport, said he sponsored the proposal after a constituent made the request. But Carmody insisted the bill wasn't designed to be a state-endorsement of Christianity or a specific religion.



Oh yeah, I promise not to cum in you mouth either.. lol!

[1751_Texan]

State legislators can write any loony laws they wish. That is like States naming a State Bird or State Flower...has about as much meaning.

[Alyosha]

So? Don't like it don't live there. Federalism and all that.

[Peter1469]

Louisiana has bigger problems that this.

BTW I will be there next week.

[Max Rockatansky]

Louisiana has bigger problems that this.

BTW I will be there next week.

Agreed Louisiana has bigger problems than violating the First Amendment. I see an adverse SCOTUS ruling in their future after wasting millions of Louisiana tax payer dollars on this issue.


What part of LA? Business or pleasure?

[Peter1469]

Agreed Louisiana has bigger problems than violating the First Amendment. I see an adverse SCOTUS ruling in their future after wasting millions of Louisiana tax payer dollars on this issue.


What part of LA? Business or pleasure?

None of the above. I need to handle my mother's affairs. She is dying.

But I will try to enjoy the food at least.

[Max Rockatansky]

None of the above. I need to handle my mother's affairs. She is dying.

But I will try to enjoy the food at least.

Sorry to hear that, man. Best wishes to you and your mother.

The food is awesome. The first time I had any type of Cajun food was in California at squadron get-together where one of the pilots, from Louisiana of course, made Chicken Gumbo. It was delicious. Since then I've sampled several types of Cajun food and love it all. Gumbo, seafood and/or chicken with turkey sausage, are still favorites for me to cook at home.

[Peter1469]

I try to stay away from the fried foods.


Sorry to hear that, man. Best wishes to you and your mother.

The food is awesome. The first time I had any type of Cajun food was in California at squadron get-together where one of the pilots, from Louisiana of course, made Chicken Gumbo. It was delicious. Since then I've sampled several types of Cajun food and love it all. Gumbo, seafood and/or chicken with turkey sausage, are still favorites for me to cook at home.

[Max Rockatansky]

I try to stay away from the fried foods.

Good idea, but nothing fried in boiled mudbugs, gumbo and Étouffée.

[Peter1469]

Good idea, but nothing fried in boiled mudbugs, gumbo and Étouffée.

Very true. My favorite place in the Quarter is the Gumbo Shop*. But be careful. There is another restaurant that advertises the best gumbo and they suck.

* other than a place called the Dungeon. That is for S&M fans.

[Mainecoons]

Sounds like another government body with too much time in session on their hands.

Send them home.

[Codename Section]

https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/3331

The court has evolved the 1st Amendment to a very controlling and anti-federalist position. Our nation was prevented from having a state religion declared but for 30-50 years after our founding states had state religions.

I don't understand how we allow "for the greater good" the principles of federalism to be destroyed. It was supposed to create a union where individual states got to make decisions based on the desire of their own populations, not a national sentiment.

[countryboy]

None of the above. I need to handle my mother's affairs. She is dying.

But I will try to enjoy the food at least.
I'm sorry to hear that Peter. I went through that a couple of years ago. Only my mom was at a religious hospital where they only serve vegetarian food. Luckily it was SoCal so there was good Mexican food close by, at my Bro's house. :D My sister in law is from Mexico, and is an awesome cook. :)

All kidding aside, I am truly sorry. :( I pray for peace for you and yours.

[Chris]

Make Way for Ducklings was designated the official children's book of Massachusetts in 2003. (http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/Massachusetts/Book.html) Wasn't even news.

[Green Arrow]

Agreed Louisiana has bigger problems than violating the First Amendment. I see an adverse SCOTUS ruling in their future after wasting millions of Louisiana tax payer dollars on this issue.


What part of LA? Business or pleasure?

It's not a violation of the first amendment, because the first amendment only prohibits the federal government.

[Ravi]

LA to non-evangelicals: fuck you.

[Codename Section]

LA to non-evangelicals: fuck you.

LA is mostly Catholic and AMEs. So it's more like to non-Christians: move to another state.

Not like non-Christians don't do the same shit.

[countryboy]

LA to non-evangelicals: fuck you.
Oh looky, more hyperbolic bullshit from Marie Archer. What a shock.

[Chris]

It's not a violation of the first amendment, because the first amendment only prohibits the federal government.

Depends on whether that portion of the BoR has been incorporated.

Those picking a state book is certainly no violation of US or Louisiana's Constitution.

[Ravi]

LA is mostly Catholic and AMEs. So it's more like to non-Christians: move to another state.

Not like non-Christians don't do the same shit.catholics don't use the bible that they are going to make the state book.

[Captain Obvious]

Make Way for Ducklings was designated the official children's book of Massachusetts in 2003. (http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/Massachusetts/Book.html) Wasn't even news.

Well duh...

[Green Arrow]

catholics don't use the bible that they are going to make the state book.

Yes, they do. It may be missing a couple books, but the Catholics do use all the books in that particular Bible.

[Green Arrow]

LA to non-evangelicals: fuck you.

Is that anything like Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) telling all the non-Democrat taxpaying citizens of his state that they were unwelcome?

[Chris]

Well duh...

And duh on Louisiana's choice.

[Ravi]

Yes, they do. It may be missing a couple books, but the Catholics do use all the books in that particular Bible.
No they don't use the King James Version.

[countryboy]

catholics don't use the bible that they are going to make the state book.

Careful, your ignorance is showing. Again.....and again and again and again and again.....

[Green Arrow]

No they don't use the King James Version.

The KJV is just a flowery, poetic version. It's all the same material.

[Alyosha]

No they don't use the King James Version.

We don't?

We use several versions, depending on the $$ for the parish.

[Mister D]

Louisiana has bigger problems that this.

BTW I will be there next week.

I just got back.

[Mister D]

Sorry to hear that, man. Best wishes to you and your mother.

The food is awesome. The first time I had any type of Cajun food was in California at squadron get-together where one of the pilots, from Louisiana of course, made Chicken Gumbo. It was delicious. Since then I've sampled several types of Cajun food and love it all. Gumbo, seafood and/or chicken with turkey sausage, are still favorites for me to cook at home.

I'm gumboed out for a while. Ate a lot of home cooked seafood gumbo, and shrimp creole.

[Chris]

No they don't use the King James Version.

Doesn't the bill specifically state why the Johannes Prevel Bible was selected?

[Mister D]

No they don't use the King James Version.

The Catholic bible has 7 additional books. That's all.

[patrickt]

As an atheist, this issue is about as exciting to me as picking the brown pelican as the state bird, picking the alligator as the state reptile, choosing agate as the state gemstone, and the honeybee as the state insect. Now, picking Landrieu as one of their two senators was incredibly stupid.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm gumboed out for a while. Ate a lot of home cooked seafood gumbo, and shrimp creole.
Great stuff, but agreed too much of a good thing isn't good.

[sachem]

Hey, if that is what LA wants, go for it.

As said before, if the legislature has nothing better to do, bless them.

It's political theater. And not very good theater at that.

[Max Rockatansky]

As an atheist, this issue is about as exciting to me as picking the brown pelican as the state bird, picking the alligator as the state reptile, choosing agate as the state gemstone, and the honeybee as the state insect. Now, picking Landrieu as one of their two senators was incredibly stupid.
If this passes, then I hope the citizens of Louisiana nominate Reps. Thomas Carmody, R-Shreveport; Taylor Barras, R-New Iberia; Johnny Berthelot, R-Gonzales; Robert Billiot, D-Westwego; Terry Brown, I-Colfax; Mike Danahay, D-Sulphur; Dalton Honore, D-Baton Rouge; Stephen Ortego, D-Carencro; and Tom Willmott, R-Kenner as the Official State Fruitcakes.

http://d3gnjjq3mhphne.cloudfront.net/uploads/image/article/7/6437/header/story/6437_50028_548_fruitcake.jpg

[countryboy]

If this passes, then I hope the citizens of Louisiana nominate Reps. Thomas Carmody, R-Shreveport; Taylor Barras, R-New Iberia; Johnny Berthelot, R-Gonzales; Robert Billiot, D-Westwego; Terry Brown, I-Colfax; Mike Danahay, D-Sulphur; Dalton Honore, D-Baton Rouge; Stephen Ortego, D-Carencro; and Tom Willmott, R-Kenner as the Official State Fruitcakes.

http://d3gnjjq3mhphne.cloudfront.net/uploads/image/article/7/6437/header/story/6437_50028_548_fruitcake.jpg
On a side note, that cake looks freakin' good. I'm one of those weirdos that actually likes fruitcake.

[Green Arrow]

On a side note, that cake looks freakin' good. I'm one of those weirdos that actually likes fruitcake.

Ya damn fruitcake :tongue:

[countryboy]

Ya damn fruitcake :tongue:
You are what you eat. :) I guess I'm a.....well, never mind.

[Ravi]

Doesn't the bill specifically state why the Johannes Prevel Bible was selected?
Rep. Thomas Carmody, R-Shreveport, originally filed a bill to declare a specific copy of the Bible, found in the Louisiana State Museum system, the official state book. But by the time he presented the proposal to the committee, he changed language in his legislation to make the generic King James version of the Bible, a text used worldwide, the official state book.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/04/louisiana_bible_official_state.html

[Ravi]

The Catholic bible has 7 additional books. That's all.
Oh I guess those books aren't important :rolleyes:

[countryboy]

Oh I guess those books aren't important :rolleyes:
They are to Catholics. What's your point? Would you be in favor of the Catholic Bible being the official book of LA? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess.....no.

[countryboy]

Rep. Thomas Carmody, R-Shreveport, originally filed a bill to declare a specific copy of the Bible, found in the Louisiana State Museum system, the official state book. But by the time he presented the proposal to the committee, he changed language in his legislation to make the generic King James version of the Bible, a text used worldwide, the official state book.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/04/louisiana_bible_official_state.html
What's wrong with the KJV? It's not a particularly accurate translation, but it is beautifully poetic.

[Green Arrow]

Oh I guess those books aren't important :rolleyes:

Actually, they really aren't. It's kind of like omitting Habakuk. Is the book important? Sure. Is it of high importance? No. Most people forget it's there to begin with.

[Mister D]

Actually, they really aren't. It's kind of like omitting Habakuk. Is the book important? Sure. Is it of high importance? No. Most people forget it's there to begin with.

Considering that Ravi probably couldn't name a single one of them without looking it up suggests as much.

[Mister D]

Oh I guess those books aren't important :rolleyes:

no, Ravi. What it means is that this claim of a grievous insult to Roman Catholics is about as frivolous as most of your claims of prejudice and bias.

[Mister D]

They are to Catholics. What's your point? Would you be in favor of the Catholic Bible being the official book of LA? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess.....no.

Frankly, I don't really care what bible I have to read. Any will do.

[Chris]

Rep. Thomas Carmody, R-Shreveport, originally filed a bill to declare a specific copy of the Bible, found in the Louisiana State Museum system, the official state book. But by the time he presented the proposal to the committee, he changed language in his legislation to make the generic King James version of the Bible, a text used worldwide, the official state book.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/04/louisiana_bible_official_state.html


OK, so does this yet make a difference. Like many here, I'm wondering what your beef is.

[Codename Section]

I wouldn't move to Massachusetts because I can't stomach the progressives. Why would progressives move to Mississippi and Louisiana?

[countryboy]

Frankly, I don't really care what bible I have to read. Any will do.
There are a couple of translations to steer clear of, but most modern translations are fine, with only slight differences in style.

[sachem]

I wouldn't move to Massachusetts because I can't stomach the progressives. Why would progressives move to Mississippi and Louisiana?They wouldn't if they had a choice.

[Codename Section]

They wouldn't if they had a choice.

There's 48 other states. They have choices. They move there because their own states made taxes too high.

[KC]

Make Way for Ducklings was designated the official children's book of Massachusetts in 2003. (http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/Massachusetts/Book.html) Wasn't even news.

Yeah, because there's no controversy.

[GrassrootsConservative]

There's 48 other states. They have choices. They move there because their own states made taxes too high.

They've been coming to Conservative Nebraska, too. We actually had a few of their vile little plaguemites camped out on the capitol grounds in Lincoln when OWS was doing their thing. I think it's disturbing how they don't learn their lessons when their own states are ruined.

[sachem]

There's 48 other states. They have choices. They move there because their own states made taxes too high.Yes. There are 48 other states.

[Codename Section]

Yes. There are 48 other states.

So why move to Mississippi and Louisiana? Can't find a job in New England or their home state?

[Chris]

Yeah, because there's no controversy.

And the controversy here?

[sachem]

So why move to Mississippi and Louisiana? Can't find a job in New England or their home state?Maybe their job moved? Maybe family is there and they need help? Maybe a particular career opportunity is there?

[Codename Section]

Maybe their job moved? Maybe family is there and they need help? Maybe a particular career opportunity is there?

Then they should move and be quiet about it. They had a choice, maybe not the choice they wanted, but they had a choice. Instead people move and immediately complain and want it to be like the place they left.

Fact is most people move from high tax states to low tax states and then want things that raise their taxes. It's fucking rude.

[Mainecoons]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Yup, look at Kalifornicated Arizona for a great example.

[Green Arrow]

This goes back to my whole issue of caring about a state you don't live in. The only reason I worry about Louisiana politics is because my wife lives there. But even then, this isn't even that big of a deal. Really, what harm does it do?

[Mister D]

Then they should move and be quiet about it. They had a choice, maybe not the choice they wanted, but they had a choice. Instead people move and immediately complain and want it to be like the place they left.

Fact is most people move from high tax states to low tax states and then want things that raise their taxes. It's fucking rude.

My brother married a girl from St. Charles Parish. He moved down there because he felt priced out of new Jersey since they wanted kids and a nice house. He likes it. He was always conservative so the culture fits him.

[sachem]

Then they should move and be quiet about it. They had a choice, maybe not the choice they wanted, but they had a choice. Instead people move and immediately complain and want it to be like the place they left.

Fact is most people move from high tax states to low tax states and then want things that raise their taxes. It's fucking rude.They live there, they can complain. Why they live there doesn't matter.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Agreed. It is rude.

[Codename Section]

They live there, they can complain. Why they live there doesn't matter.

If you are an atheist and move to a religious community that's on you. Don't be a bitch about it. Don't get there and be a bad neighbor by trying to change the community. Live with it or don't move there.

Same thing if you're a religious nut and move to a place like Vermont. Shut up about gay marriage. You just moved to fucking Vermont.

[Mister D]

Agreed. It is rude.

Yes, in general. Complaining about the choice of state book is just plain silly.

[Mister D]

If you are an atheist and move to a religious community that's on you. Don't be a bitch about it. Don't get there and be a bad neighbor by trying to change the community. Live with it or don't move there.

Same thing if you're a religious nut and move to a place like Vermont. Shut up about gay marriage. You just moved to fucking Vermont.

^^^This

[sachem]

If you are an atheist and move to a religious community that's on you. Don't be a bitch about it. Don't get there and be a bad neighbor by trying to change the community. Live with it or don't move there.

Same thing if you're a religious nut and move to a place like Vermont. Shut up about gay marriage. You just moved to fucking Vermont.Sorry. I really don't care about this. I'll just repeat my previous post. They live there, they can complain.

Maybe they are there to change the place.

[sachem]

Yes, in general. Complaining about the choice of state book is just plain silly.Yes, the book thing is silly.

[KC]

And the controversy here?

It's not obvious? A large portion of the public is ideologically committed to secularism and church-state separation. Regardless of whether or not they live Louisiana they see this as an attack on their values.

No one cares about a third grade-level book about ducks.

[Codename Section]

Sorry. I really don't care about this. I'll just repeat my previous post. They live there, they can complain.

Maybe they are there to change the place.

Anyone can complain. They're just assholes for doing it. Stay home or learn to embrace the new community you moved to.

[Peter1469]

My brother married a girl from St. Charles Parish. He moved down there because he felt priced out of new Jersey since they wanted kids and a nice house. He likes it. He was always conservative so the culture fits him.
What is her name? That is where I grew up.

[1751_Texan]

If you are an atheist and move to a religious community that's on you. Don't be a bitch about it. Don't get there and be a bad neighbor by trying to change the community. Live with it or don't move there.

Same thing if you're a religious nut and move to a place like Vermont. Shut up about gay marriage. You just moved to fucking Vermont.

How would anyone know what the 'character' of a community is? If Im looking for a house to buy...I can care less what my neighbors are "into"...just like they don't have to know my business.

This idea that one not move into a community because the "communitiy" may be offended by my politics, my religion, or my sexual oreintation...ect. is absolutely ridiculous.

[Codename Section]

How would anyone know what the 'character' of a community is? If Im looking for a house to buy...I can care less what my neighbors are "into"...just like they don't have to know my business.

How? Most real estate agents tell you what your community is like and people tend to know if they're moving into the Bible Belt there are probably Bible believers.

If you're content to mind your own business, then that's just fine. Moving from a progressive haven to a nonprogressive community then trying to change it is rude.



This idea that one not move into a community because the "communitiy" may be offended by my politics, my religion, or my sexual oreintation...ect. is absolutely ridiculous.

I said "offended"? Don't think I did. I said you're rude if you move into a community and try to change it to be like the one you left. It's like those people who always want to make their new bf/gf like their ex.

[Mister D]

How would anyone know what the 'character' of a community is? If Im looking for a house to buy...I can care less what my neighbors are "into"...just like they don't have to know my business.

This idea that one not move into a community because the "communitiy" may be offended by my politics, my religion, or my sexual oreintation...ect. is absolutely ridiculous.

You appear to have this ass backwards, Tex.

[Max Rockatansky]

If you are an atheist and move to a religious community that's on you. Don't be a bitch about it. Don't get there and be a bad neighbor by trying to change the community. Live with it or don't move there.

Same thing if you're a religious nut and move to a place like Vermont. Shut up about gay marriage. You just moved to fucking Vermont.

I completely agree with this. OTOH, we have a Bill of Rights for a reason. Communities can't violate those rights nor any other parts of the Constitution just because they feel like it.

Do we really want to let that camel nose in the tent? What if a Muslim community in west buttfuck Kansas decides to pass Sharia Law as the supreme law of the land? "Don't move there" is the best advice? What if they start growing and take over the state? Still not a problem?

Best to nip shit like this in the bud and stick to the Constitution as our best defense against abuses of personal rights.

[Green Arrow]

I completely agree with this. OTOH, we have a Bill of Rights for a reason. Communities can't violate those rights nor any other parts of the Constitution just because they feel like it.

Do we really want to let that camel nose in the tent? What if a Muslim community in west buttfuck Kansas decides to pass Sharia Law as the supreme law of the land? "Don't move there" is the best advice? What if they start growing and take over the state? Still not a problem?

Best to nip shit like this in the bud and stick to the Constitution as our best defense against abuses of personal rights.

The constitution does not limit the states, it limits the federal government. Technically, the constitution makes state power near-limitless.

[Chris]

The constitution does not limit the states, it limits the federal government. Technically, the constitution makes state power near-limitless.


That's the way it was written, but not the way it's been applied. Much of the BoR has been incorporated.

[Max Rockatansky]

The constitution does not limit the states, it limits the federal government. Technically, the constitution makes state power near-limitless.

Agreed about the Federal government but disagreed about the States. The States cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution. That is their limitation.

[Green Arrow]

Agreed about the Federal government but disagreed about the States. The States cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution. That is their limitation.

Sure, via the Supremacy Clause, but the first amendment is explicitly referring to the federal Congress. Suggesting that the states are bound by it too is like saying a law explicitly banning only left-handed individuals also bans right-handed individuals.

[Max Rockatansky]

Sure, via the Supremacy Clause, but the first amendment is explicitly referring to the federal Congress. Suggesting that the states are bound by it too is like saying a law explicitly banning only left-handed individuals also bans right-handed individuals.

Okay, so, according to you, States can pass official religions, ban the press and lock up anyone who expresses an opinion. Sorry, but I disagree.

[Green Arrow]

Okay, so, according to you, States can pass official religions, ban the press and lock up anyone who expresses an opinion. Sorry, but I disagree.

You can disagree all you want, it doesn't change the facts. For much of our early history, several states had official religions or churches and the federal government never did a damn thing to stop them, including the founding members who wrote and signed the constitution.

Now, if you'd like to prevent states from doing this, advocate for a clarification of the first amendment. Until then, it has always referred explicitly to the U.S. Congress.

[Max Rockatansky]

You can disagree all you want, it doesn't change the facts. For much of our early history, several states had official religions or churches and the federal government never did a damn thing to stop them, including the founding members who wrote and signed the constitution.

Now, if you'd like to prevent states from doing this, advocate for a clarification of the first amendment. Until then, it has always referred explicitly to the U.S. Congress.

It going to be fun to see Utah declare Mormonism as it's official religion and ban all others. I'm looking forward to seeing you rally to their side when SCOTUS says that isn't kosher.

[Green Arrow]

It going to be fun to see Utah declare Mormonism as it's official religion and ban all others. I'm looking forward to seeing you rally to their side when SCOTUS says that isn't kosher.

I highly doubt that will happen. The backlash would be tremendous. But, assuming it did, you may be right. SCOTUS these days seems to fashion itself as a rogue dictatorship that can make and declare law at a whim. So, it may be bullshit for them to declare it "not kosher," it was also bullshit to declare Obamacare (among many other things) "kosher."

Not that the constitution matters to me one way or the other.

[Max Rockatansky]

I highly doubt that will happen. The backlash would be tremendous. But, assuming it did, you may be right. SCOTUS these days seems to fashion itself as a rogue dictatorship that can make and declare law at a whim. So, it may be bullshit for them to declare it "not kosher," it was also bullshit to declare Obamacare (among many other things) "kosher."

Not that the constitution matters to me one way or the other.

Why doubt it? If you are correct, they have every right to do so. Fuck the backlash. Backlash by whom? Those in Nevada? Colorado? What right do they have to say anything against what Utah does. Washington? According to you, the law is on the side of Utah.

[Green Arrow]

Why doubt it? If you are correct, they have every right to do so. Fuck the backlash. Backlash by whom? Those in Nevada? Colorado? What right do they have to say anything against what Utah does. Washington? According to you, the law is on the side of Utah.

Non-religion is the fastest growing religion in America. Believe it or not, the deterioration of federalism in this country has made it so that if enough people from outside of a state got together and made a fuss, changes will be made inside that state.

Plus, something tells me not a whole lot of Mormons would be happy with a theocracy, whether it's in their favor or not. Cthulhu can correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

[Mister D]

Why doubt it? If you are correct, they have every right to do so. Fuck the backlash. Backlash by whom? Those in Nevada? Colorado? What right do they have to say anything against what Utah does. Washington? According to you, the law is on the side of Utah.

Authoritarian much?

[Dr. Who]

None of the above. I need to handle my mother's affairs. She is dying.

But I will try to enjoy the food at least.

I'm so sorry to hear that Peter. I know how difficult the road ahead will be. I wish you strength. You have my most sincere sympathies.

[Ravi]

They are to Catholics. What's your point? Would you be in favor of the Catholic Bible being the official book of LA? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess.....no.No, I think it's divisive.

[Max Rockatansky]

Authoritarian much?The opposite. It's those chipping away that the Constitution who are leading down the path of Authoritarianism.

[Alyosha]

No, I think it's divisive.

The majority of people in Louisiana are complaining about it? Or just secular outsiders?

[Libhater]

I come from the 'live free or die' state of New Hampshire and many people there have bumper stickers that say
Visitors welcome but Massachusetts liberals turn around and go home. New Hampshire used to be a predominately
Conservative/Republican/Christian state until Taxachusetts liberals starting moving there to escape their own taxes
from an ultra liberal governor Michael Dukakis--now making N.H. a hotbed for all leftists and progressives alike.


My suggestion is that we get congress to pass a bill that would give all 50 states the pride and joy in having the
Bible be their official state book. Afterall, the Bible is the most read book in the world. What's not to like? The majority
or about 70% of Americans call themselves Christians, so it only makes sense we declare that every state recognize
the Bible as its official book. Of course, naysayers, atheists and Satanists and alike aren't going to like this.

[Alyosha]

The opposite. It's those chipping away that the Constitution who are leading down the path of Authoritarianism.

Ohhh hahahahaha this is fucking rich coming from you. Tell me does the government pay you by the hour to cheerlead for them?

[Max Rockatansky]

I had no idea New Hampshire was so anti-Constitutional, but then Yankee ways were always queer ducks to me.

[Libhater]

I had no idea New Hampshire was so anti-Constitutional, but then Yankee ways were always queer ducks to me.

I prefer you call us ancestors of our FOUNDERS or Constitutionalists as I am a descendant of John Adams and I take the Constitution rather seriously-- rather than Yankees, okay?
You see, I've alsways had a disdain for the Yankees being a lifetime fan and supporter of the World Champion Red Sox baseball team. We do have a few queer ducks running
around here, but I have yet to hear about anyone north of the Mason Dixon line screwing their prized pink-eyed sheep as a pasttime event. No, we don't have any redneck cities
up here in GOD's country.

[Max Rockatansky]

I prefer you call us ancestors of our FOUNDERS or Constitutionalists as I am a descendant of John Adams and I take the Constituion rather seriously-- rather than Yankees, okay?

I take the Constitution very seriously and have sworn an oath to it multiple times. As for Yankees, they're still the anti-Constitutionalist assholes who invaded the South with a scorched earth style of warfare. They can all go fuck themselves.

[countryboy]

I take the Constitution very seriously and have sworn an oath to it multiple times. As for Yankees, they're still the anti-Constitutionalist assholes who invaded the South with a scorched earth style of warfare. They can all go fuck themselves.
How is it you can be so reasonable at times, and then post tripe like this? You're an odd duck Max.

[Alyosha]

I take the Constitution very seriously and have sworn an oath to it multiple times. As for Yankees, they're still the anti-Constitutionalist assholes who invaded the South with a scorched earth style of warfare. They can all go fuck themselves.

:roflmao:

[1751_Texan]

I prefer you call us ancestors of our FOUNDERS or Constitutionalists as I am a descendant of John Adams and I take the Constitution rather seriously-- rather than Yankees, okay?
You see, I've alsways had a disdain for the Yankees being a lifetime fan and supporter of the World Champion Red Sox baseball team. We do have a few queer ducks running
around here, but I have yet to hear about anyone north of the Mason Dixon line screwing their prized pink-eyed sheep as a pasttime event. No, we don't have any redneck cities
up here in GOD's country.

Ancestor denotes coming before. Did you mean predicessor?

[Libhater]

I take the Constitution very seriously and have sworn an oath to it multiple times. As for Yankees, they're still the anti-Constitutionalist assholes who invaded the South with a scorched earth style of warfare. They can all go fuck themselves.

Excuse me but wasn't it the Southern State of South Carolina that wanted to trash the Constitution by seceding from the union that besides the slavery issue
was the reason for the civil war? Didn't you rednecks set up your own capitol in defiance of the one in D.C. where Lincoln resided? You're still pissed that you
graybacks lost the war. Need a hanky?

[Max Rockatansky]

Excuse me but wasn't it the Southern State of South Carolina that wanted to trash the Constitution by seceding from the union that besides the slavery issue
was the reason for the civil war? Didn't you rednecks set up your own capitol in defiance of the one in D.C. where Lincoln resided? You're still pissed that you
graybacks lost the war. Need a hanky?

South Carolina lawfully seceded membership from a government which was no longer serving their interests. The cause of the Civil War wasn't the Southern secession, but the attack by Union troops to drag them all back into the Union by force.

Please point out in the Constitution where you Yankee liberals say a State has to stay a member of the US and cannot secede.

[1751_Texan]

South Carolina lawfully seceded membership from a government which was no longer serving their interests. The cause of the Civil War wasn't the Southern secession, but the attack by Union troops to drag them all back into the Union by force.

Please point out in the Constitution where you Yankee liberals say a State has to stay a member of the US and cannot secede. What federal statute or Constitutional provision provided for lawful state secession?

[Alyosha]

What federal statute or Constitutional provision provided for lawful state secession?

What provision in Britain's constitution or charters allowed America to secede? It you're unhappy why be forced to stay? Have we prevented divorce, and if not...why not?

[Libhater]

Ancestor denotes coming before. Did you mean predicessor?

You caught my mistake as I was rushing through that one rather quickly. So you won't mind that I
correct your spelling mistake .....predecessor.

[1751_Texan]

What provision in Britain's constitution or charters allowed America to secede? It you're unhappy why be forced to stay? Have we prevented divorce, and if not...why not?

America did not secede lawfully, it committed revolution.

[Peter1469]

I take the Constitution very seriously and have sworn an oath to it multiple times. As for Yankees, they're still the anti-Constitutionalist assholes who invaded the South with a scorched earth style of warfare. They can all go fuck themselves.

The South should not have tried to leave the union. It did and lost.

[Alyosha]

America did not secede lawfully, it committed revolution.

It seceded under Nature's Law. All true rights, including the pursuit of happiness derives from it. It was lawful and successful.

[Max Rockatansky]

The South should not have tried to leave the union. It did and lost.

Perhaps and yes, it did lose, but the argument is whether or not they were legal to do so and I believe they were legal.

[Max Rockatansky]

What federal statute or Constitutional provision provided for lawful state secession?
None, but you're asking the question from the perspective of a Fed. The question is "What requires a State to remain a member of a union?" Answer: Nothing. They are free to secede. Or were in 1861.

[Alyosha]

Had the south won no one would question its lawfulness. It is the lack of victory which made it unlawful

[Max Rockatansky]

Had the south won no one would question its lawfulness. It is the lack of victory which made it unlawful

Agreed. As far as history goes, the worst thing anyone can do is lose the war.

[Peter1469]

Perhaps and yes, it did lose, but the argument is whether or not they were legal to do so and I believe they were legal.

It doesn't matter at this point.

[Peter1469]

Had the south won no one would question its lawfulness. It is the lack of victory which made it unlawful

Just like the American revolution against British rule. America won.

[junie]

LA to non-evangelicals: fuck you.



lol why are they shoving the bible down people's throats? :dontknow:

[Refugee]

Just like the American revolution against British rule. America won.

No, no you're wrong. We demand a re-match! :smiley:

[Alyosha]

lol why are they shoving the bible down people's throats? :dontknow:

Declaring a state book is shoving the Bible down someone's throat? What would forcing someone to read it be? Anal rape by an elephant?

[junie]

No, I think it's divisive.



yep deliberate divisiveness is terrible leadership...

[Max Rockatansky]

Declaring a state book is shoving the Bible down someone's throat? What would forcing someone to read it be? Anal rape by an elephant?
It gives tacit recognition of one religion over all others. It also sets a precedent for such actions, some of which may not be as agreeable to other states as recognizing Christianity. What if California decided to go Buddhist or New York Islam?

[Alyosha]

yep deliberate divisiveness is terrible leadership...

Yes, the state is split in half over the naming of a state book, bird, reptile, or color. Wow, you guys are sensitive.

[Mister D]

Considering that Ravi probably couldn't name a single one of them without looking it up suggests as much.
junie

What I said was probably true. no substance? personal attack? What? I doubt you could either without looking it up. This whole issue is "controversial" because some folks won't rest until they have found something new to be offended by.

[Alyosha]

It gives tacit recognition of one religion over all others. It also sets a precedent for such actions, some of which may not be as agreeable to other states as recognizing Christianity. What if California decided to go Buddhist or New York Islam?

I'd be fine with it. I think communities have a right to decide these things and people also have the right to move.

[Cigar]

Jobs Jobs Jobs :rollseyes:

[Max Rockatansky]

I'd be fine with it. I think communities have a right to decide these things and people also have the right to move.
I agree that communities should be free to do as they please provided they don't violate the Constitution.

By accepting Statehood in 1812, Louisiana agreed to abide by the Constitution.

[Chris]

No, I think it's divisive.

It's divisive or you and few others reactions are divisive in making a mountain out of a molehill?

[Chris]

The majority of people in Louisiana are complaining about it? Or just secular outsiders?

There you go. That's all I see. Just another example of fauxrage on the left.

[Alyosha]

I agree that communities should be free to do as they please provided they don't violate the Constitution.

By accepting Statehood in 1812, Louisiana agreed to abide by the Constitution.

In 1830, Massachusetts still had an official state religion. The Bill of Rights was always about preventing a "Church of England" (sorry Paperback Writer and Refugee) not preventing states from deciding.

The courts have always strengthened the central government's authority over the states, but that doesn't make it original intention or even correct in a republic. Those issues are meant for legislatures and states to decide.

[Peter1469]

No, no you're wrong. We demand a re-match! :smiley:

Back then you were the preeminent power. Now you aren't. You don't really want a rematch. :wink:

[Chris]

I agree that communities should be free to do as they please provided they don't violate the Constitution.

By accepting Statehood in 1812, Louisiana agreed to abide by the Constitution.


Not arguing but could you document that? Show that Louisiana did agree to that. It's possible, never heard of it. It would also make the doctrine of incorporation nonsense.

[Max Rockatansky]

Not arguing but could you document that? Show that Louisiana did agree to that. It's possible, never heard of it. It would also make the doctrine of incorporation nonsense.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/statehoodproc.htm

The territory, if it has not already done so, is required to adopt a form of government and constitution that are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

[Max Rockatansky]

In 1830, Massachusetts still had an official state religion. The Bill of Rights was always about preventing a "Church of England" (sorry @Paperback Writer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=862) and @Refugee (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1060)) not preventing states from deciding.

The courts have always strengthened the central government's authority over the states, but that doesn't make it original intention or even correct in a republic. Those issues are meant for legislatures and states to decide.

They abolished that in 1833, although I couldn't find out the exact reasons.

[Alyosha]

They abolished that in 1833, although I couldn't find out the exact reasons.

Probably because they didn't want a state religion anymore. That's what was cool about the US once, states had that authority and the will of the people in that state had the ability to make criminal laws, establish standards, etc.

The Constitution has been offended by federal criminal laws and usurpation of the federal will over states. Piracy, counterfeiting, treason, and international criminal law is all the federal government has a constitutional right to preside over.

Times have changed for the worse.

[Peter1469]

Most people wouldn't know the Louisiana state bird without Google. Most people won't know Louisiana's state book without Google.

That is all faux butt-hurt. :smiley:

[sachem]

Most people wouldn't know the Louisiana state bird without Google. Most people won't know Louisiana's state book without Google.

That is all faux butt-hurt. :smiley:Hey, if it hadn't been for Katrina, many would not know LA exists.

[Peter1469]

Hey, if it hadn't been for Katrina, many would not know LA exists.

You are probably correct. And you proved my point. :wink:

[sachem]

You are probably correct. And you prove my point. :wink:Then I have done my good deed for the day. :)

[Peter1469]

Then I have done my good deed for the day. :)
You did!

[junie]

yeah sure, the louisiana legislature, and the people who voted for them to represent their best interest, have absolutely no idea where they live...




Legislators became concerned that the proposal wasn't broad enough and did not reflect the breadth of Bibles used by religious communities. In particular, some lawmakers worried that singling out the King James version of the Bible would not properly reflect the culture of Louisiana. The Catholic Church, for example, does not use the King James text.

"Let's make this more inclusive of other Christian faiths, more than just the ones that use the King James version," said Rep. Stephen Ortego, D-Carencro.


A few committee members fought the bill vehemently, saying the legislation was likely to upset some citizens who are not Christian and open the state up to legal challenges.

"I am so bothered by this bill that I just called my pastor. My pastor just said that he thinks we are going to have a legal problem," said Rep. Wesley Bishop, D-New Orleans, who voted against the legislation.


Rep. Ebony Woodruff, D-Harvey, tried to amend the bill to declare "all books of faith" the official state books of Louisiana, but the proposal failed 5-8. When asked if he would be open to making "all books of faith" a group of official state books, Carmody was fairly adamant in his opposition.


"I would certainly be against that amendment," he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana already has concerns about the bill. "[The official state book] ought to be one that relates to the history of Louisiana and not one that is going to discriminate against a large number of Louisianans," said Majorie Esman, executive director of the organization. Esman declined to say whether the ACLU would fight the Holy Bible designation in court if it became law.


Michael Weil, who heads up the Jewish Federation of Greater New Orleans, said his organization -- which is cultural and not religious in nature -- hasn't take a stance on the bill. But the legislation gives him some personal pause.


"I think the state should consider a text that is not religious," he said.


Those who voted against declaring the Holy Bible Louisiana's official state book: Bishop, Woodruff and Reps. Jared Brossett, D-New Orleans; Austin Badon, D-New Orleans; Barbara Norton, D-Shreveport


http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/04/louisiana_bible_official_state.html

[Peter1469]

ok

[Mister D]

90% of LA residents are Christian.

[Peter1469]

90% of LA residents are Christian.
There is a lot of African religions there too.

[sachem]

yeah sure, the louisiana legislature, and the people who voted for them to represent their best interest, have absolutely no idea where they live...




Legislators became concerned that the proposal wasn't broad enough and did not reflect the breadth of Bibles used by religious communities. In particular, some lawmakers worried that singling out the King James version of the Bible would not properly reflect the culture of Louisiana. The Catholic Church, for example, does not use the King James text.

"Let's make this more inclusive of other Christian faiths, more than just the ones that use the King James version," said Rep. Stephen Ortego, D-Carencro.


A few committee members fought the bill vehemently, saying the legislation was likely to upset some citizens who are not Christian and open the state up to legal challenges.

"I am so bothered by this bill that I just called my pastor. My pastor just said that he thinks we are going to have a legal problem," said Rep. Wesley Bishop, D-New Orleans, who voted against the legislation.


Rep. Ebony Woodruff, D-Harvey, tried to amend the bill to declare "all books of faith" the official state books of Louisiana, but the proposal failed 5-8. When asked if he would be open to making "all books of faith" a group of official state books, Carmody was fairly adamant in his opposition.


"I would certainly be against that amendment," he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana already has concerns about the bill. "[The official state book] ought to be one that relates to the history of Louisiana and not one that is going to discriminate against a large number of Louisianans," said Majorie Esman, executive director of the organization. Esman declined to say whether the ACLU would fight the Holy Bible designation in court if it became law.


Michael Weil, who heads up the Jewish Federation of Greater New Orleans, said his organization -- which is cultural and not religious in nature -- hasn't take a stance on the bill. But the legislation gives him some personal pause.


"I think the state should consider a text that is not religious," he said.


Those who voted against declaring the Holy Bible Louisiana's official state book: Bishop, Woodruff and Reps. Jared Brossett, D-New Orleans; Austin Badon, D-New Orleans; Barbara Norton, D-Shreveport


http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/04/louisiana_bible_official_state.htmlI think most do have an idea of where they live. And I think, like a lot of people in this country, they are busy living their lives and really don't care, or even notice, crap like this.

[Mister D]

There is a lot of African religions there too.

Or some weird mix of Catholicism and African faiths.

[Peter1469]

Or some weird mix of Catholicism and African faiths.

Exactly.

[Max Rockatansky]

Most people wouldn't know the Louisiana state bird without Google. Most people won't know Louisiana's state book without Google.

That is all faux butt-hurt. :smiley:
It's legal precedent that bothers me regardless of how many people know their rights are slowly being chipped away.

[Peter1469]

It's legal precedent that bothers me regardless of how many people know their rights are slowly being chipped away.

Vote for people who will make a state book that you approve of. It is within state authority.

[Alyosha]

yeah sure, the louisiana legislature, and the people who voted for them to represent their best interest, have absolutely no idea where they live...



How does this effect you? Do you live there? Are you forced to read the state book, whatever it may be?

[Green Arrow]

It's legal precedent that bothers me regardless of how many people know their rights are slowly being chipped away.

Declaring a state book is chipping away rights, but the federal government arbitrarily declaring private land as public land and forcing the owners to pay fees isn't?

[Green Arrow]

If Tennessee tomorrow decided to make Mein Kampf the state book, do you know who would be affected?

Nobody, because it's meaningless.

[Alyosha]

Declaring a state book is chipping away rights, but the federal government arbitrarily declaring private land as public land and forcing the owners to pay fees isn't?

Right. Because everyone reads their state book. Except me because I don't know what ours is.

[Chris]

Right. Because everyone reads their state book. Except me because I don't know what ours is.



Texas doesn't have one. :cry:


But the state vehicle is the chuckwagon, think I'll go trade in my pick up.

[Max Rockatansky]

Declaring a state book is chipping away rights, but the federal government arbitrarily declaring private land as public land and forcing the owners to pay fees isn't?

Where did the Feds declare private land public?

[Alyosha]

Where did the Feds declare private land public?

The land that belonged to Nevada was appropriated and not for any of the Constitutionally designated reasons--dya see a fort there?

[Max Rockatansky]

The land that belonged to Nevada was appropriated and not for any of the Constitutionally designated reasons--dya see a fort there?

My understanding is that all of those lands were acquired legally or already public lands. Are you claiming that the land Bundy was grazing his 900 cattle on was his?

[Alyosha]

My understanding is that all of those lands were acquired legally or already public lands. Are you claiming that the land Bundy was grazing his 900 cattle on was his?

The land is all of ours, his no less, but it is not the property (according to the Constitution) of the US government unless it intends to put up a fort, which it is not.

If I had proximity claim I'd use it, too. We pax taxes, but even if we didn't it is hubris and extreme foolishness to think you own land. It will exist after we are all dead. We own improvements we make, but not the land.

[Max Rockatansky]

The land is all of ours, his no less, but it is not the property (according to the Constitution) of the US government unless it intends to put up a fort, which it is not.

If I had proximity claim I'd use it, too. We pax taxes, but even if we didn't it is hubris and extreme foolishness to think you own land. It will exist after we are all dead. We own improvements we make, but not the land.

The point being that it was public land, not confiscated private land as some have intimated.

[Max Rockatansky]

If Tennessee tomorrow decided to make Mein Kampf the state book, do you know who would be affected?

Nobody, because it's meaningless.A surprising statist statement.

[Peter1469]

This is the take away. Americans against fascism.

[Alyosha]

The point being that it was public land, not confiscated private land as some have intimated.

You are correct, it is not "private" land. It is public land that we all pay taxes to support whatever they allegedly do to the land. According to the news, they buy gift cards with out funds, but waste fraud and abuse happens in all our agencies. Certainly no worse than the IRS and its Star Trek themed convention.

[Green Arrow]

Right. Because everyone reads their state book. Except me because I don't know what ours is.

Until this story broke, I didn't even know states HAD "state books."

[Green Arrow]

A surprising statist statement.

What's statist about saying a stupid and meaningless policy doesn't affect anyone?

[Max Rockatansky]

What's statist about saying a stupid and meaningless policy doesn't affect anyone?
You statists always pooh-pooh actions by legislators as not really making any difference. A little here, a little there then all of a sudden it's full blown authoritarianism.

[Green Arrow]

You statists always pooh-pooh actions by legislators as not really making any difference. A little here, a little there then all of a sudden it's full blown authoritarianism.

Not really, no. I'm just an emotionally well-adjusted adult who can tell the difference between REAL authoritarianism and hysterics.

Do continue, though. It's amusing as hell watching you freak out about this while justifying government extortion in another thread.

[Terminal Lance]

There was a reason our Founders created a federalist system and that was to allow choice between "countries" (as states were called then) and to prevent the tyranny of a strong central government. I would rather 10 states have the ability to make the Koran their state book than to allow the federal government to step in and tell them they can't.

[Max Rockatansky]

There was a reason our Founders created a federalist system and that was to allow choice between "countries" (as states were called then) and to prevent the tyranny of a strong central government. I would rather 10 states have the ability to make the Koran their state book than to allow the federal government to step in and tell them they can't.

You may get your wish in 20 years. That and a Virgin Mary on the courthouse steps.

FWIW, it's not "the federal government" stepping it. It's a matter of the States following the Constitution as they are bound to do.

[Max Rockatansky]

Not really, no. I'm just an emotionally well-adjusted adult who can tell the difference between REAL authoritarianism and hysterics.
Good for you! Keep telling yourself that.


Do continue, though. It's amusing as hell watching you freak out about this while justifying government extortion in another thread.Unsurprising you want to see it that way.

Let's flip that around; you think the Statist government overstepped their bounds in Nevada by holding a rancher to his obligations to pay his bill, but you have no problem with mixing Church and State. An odd mix if I ever saw one.

[Terminal Lance]

You may get your wish in 20 years. That and a Virgin Mary on the courthouse steps.

FWIW, it's not "the federal government" stepping it. It's a matter of the States following the Constitution as they are bound to do.

The Constitution doesn't prevent states from doing what LA is doing. The SCOTUS has made a few rulings that I believe are overstepping in their authority that the Constitution granted them. As a concerned American I am making myself heard and saying this must cease.

Federalism will save us from tyranny and people wish to replace it. I have to wonder why.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Constitution doesn't prevent states from doing what LA is doing. The SCOTUS has made a few rulings that I believe are overstepping in their authority that the Constitution granted them. As a concerned American I am making myself heard and saying this must cease.

Federalism will save us from tyranny and people wish to replace it. I have to wonder why.

Fine with me. It's you and your children who will be swearing allegiance to the Holy Koran, not me.

Once we chip away at the Constitution, there is nothing left to defend us in law. It's either comply or go to war. If it's war, then we will be destroying ourselves as our enemies look upon us with anticipation.

[Green Arrow]

Good for you! Keep telling yourself that.

Unsurprising you want to see it that way.

Let's flip that around; you think the Statist government overstepped their bounds in Nevada by holding a rancher to his obligations to pay his bill, but you have no problem with mixing Church and State. An odd mix if I ever saw one.

Who said I wouldn't have a problem with it? If it happened here in Tennessee, I would fight it.

As has been pointed out many times, establishing the Bible as the state book does not violate the constitution. The separation of church and state is a separation that applies to Congress, not the states.

[Terminal Lance]

Fine with me. It's you and your children who will be swearing allegiance to the Holy Koran, not me.

Once we chip away at the Constitution, there is nothing left to defend us in law. It's either comply or go to war. If it's war, then we will be destroying ourselves as our enemies look upon us with anticipation.


It's not chipping away but restoring the Constitution. Designating the Bible as a state book has the weight of designating Cat in the Hat. Nothing at all. No one makes you read it, it simple defines your state and its inhabitants.

We have a right to our state sovereignty and federal encroaching and our acceptance of it is a destruction of the principles of liberty that John Adams so famously argued for in our Continental Congress.

Leave us alone and don't treat on me!

[Max Rockatansky]

Who said I wouldn't have a problem with it? You did. You said it's meaningless. I think it's chipping away at the Constitution.

Since I'll be dead in 20 years, it'll be up to you and those who don't see the problem to try to roll back the tide.


If Tennessee tomorrow decided to make Mein Kampf the state book, do you know who would be affected?

Nobody, because it's meaningless.

[Terminal Lance]

How is telling the federal government to stay out of state's business chipping away that the Constitution which clearly left the bulk of the power to the states?

Which constitution are we speaking of?

[Max Rockatansky]

It's not chipping away but restoring the Constitution. Designating the Bible as a state book has the weight of designating Cat in the Hat. Nothing at all. No one makes you read it, it simple defines your state and its inhabitants.
On this point we'll have to disagree. Time will tell. This isn't the first time I've seen the insidiousness of encroachment.

[Green Arrow]

How is telling the federal government to stay out of state's business chipping away that the Constitution which clearly left the bulk of the power to the states?

Which constitution are we speaking of?

He keeps using that word. I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

[Terminal Lance]

On this point we'll have to disagree. Time will tell. This isn't the first time I've seen the insidiousness of encroachment.


I see no encroachment since this was the purpose of the Constitution, to create strong states but with a seam that can join them together in defense or to bargain for treaties and economic associations.

[Max Rockatansky]

I see no encroachment since this was the purpose of the Constitution, to create strong states but with a seam that can join them together in defense or to bargain for treaties and economic associations.

Which is the point we disagree.

[Terminal Lance]

Which is the point we disagree.

Can you explain the encroachment at all? I'm really not seeing it. No one is forced to read the book in LA and no one outside LA is forced to also have that as their state book. It's just federalism at work.

[Max Rockatansky]

Can you explain the encroachment at all? I'm really not seeing it. No one is forced to read the book in LA and no one outside LA is forced to also have that as their state book. It's just federalism at work.

It's the "official state book". As such, shouldn't the "official state book" be in every school? If in every school, shouldn't it be taught as part of the curriculum, the history and culture of the great state of Louisiana?

[Chris]

I don't know, max, the official state vehicle of TX is the chuckwagon, and I don't see one of those in every school. I don't think the law implies that, though not to say there are those who would think so, pro and con.

[Green Arrow]

It's the "official state book". As such, shouldn't the "official state book" be in every school? If in every school, shouldn't it be taught as part of the curriculum, the history and culture of the great state of Louisiana?

I dunno, do Louisiana schools have pet pelicans in every classroom? My guess is no.

[Max Rockatansky]

I dunno, do Louisiana schools have pet pelicans in every classroom? My guess is no.

Do they teach that the Brown Pelican is the state bird? My guess is yes. Is there a fine for shooting Brown Pelicans compared to other pelicans? My guess is yes again.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't know, max, the official state vehicle of TX is the chuckwagon, and I don't see one of those in every school. I don't think the law implies that, though not to say there are those who would think so, pro and con.Like above, it's nice to see you guaranteeing that the "official state vehicle" isn't taught in schools, featured in parades or otherwise receiving more recognition than other vehicles.

That aside, the fact you consider the teaching of religion in schools to be on par with chuckwagons is very odd to me.

[Green Arrow]

Do they teach that the Brown Pelican is the state bird?

According to my wife, no. In 12 years of school in California, I never learned what any of our state symbols were either.


Is there a fine for shooting Brown Pelicans compared to other pelicans? My guess is yes again.

Why don't you stop guessing and actually look up the facts? The Brown Pelican is an endangered species, and thus is protected by state and federal law. It has nothing to do with it being the state bird and everything to do with it being endangered.

[Chris]

Like above, it's nice to see you guaranteeing that the "official state vehicle" isn't taught in schools, featured in parades or otherwise receiving more recognition than other vehicles.

That aside, the fact you consider the teaching of religion in schools to be on par with chuckwagons is very odd to me.


Rather I consider the concern for the state book on par with concern for the state vehicle. So what's odd is simply your misinterpretation of my remark.

[Max Rockatansky]

According to my wife, no. In 12 years of school in California, I never learned what any of our state symbols were either.
Tell me more about how you believe every state is exactly as fucked up as California.

[Green Arrow]

Tell me more about how you believe every state is exactly as fucked up as California.

I believe that? Really? Do show me.

[Max Rockatansky]

I believe that? Really? Do show me.LOL. No, you keep right on believing every state is just like you growing up in California. I don't want to burst your perceptions.

[Green Arrow]

LOL. No, you keep right on believing every state is just like you growing up in California. I don't want to burst your perceptions.

You can't show me where I said every state was just like California?

[Max Rockatansky]

You can't show me where I said every state was just like California?
And bust your belief? No. Ask your wife:
According to my wife, no. In 12 years of school in California, I never learned what any of our state symbols were either.

BTW, there are endangered species and there are state birds. Killing either results in a fine.


Why don't you stop guessing and actually look up the facts? The Brown Pelican is an endangered species, and thus is protected by state and federal law. It has nothing to do with it being the state bird and everything to do with it being endangered.

[Captain Obvious]

BTW, there are endangered species and there are state birds. Killing either results in a fine.

PA's state bird is the ruffled grouse.

Grouse season starts in September.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiXcPj6AkXY

[Max Rockatansky]

PA's state bird is the ruffled grouse.

Grouse season starts in September.

I'm guessing a license is required and there are limitations in place. Maybe even a special stamp.

[Dr. Who]

I suspect that most states don't have a state book. In fact I checked a few states and none had a state book. State symbols tend to involve things of nature, trees, flowers, rocks, even fossils, perhaps even a chuck wagon. Things representative of the landscape or even it's early history. Visual things. A book, such as the bible, is not symbolic. To suggest that it is a symbol really diminishes its importance. The bible is not a symbol of Christianity, it is the foundation of Christianity. If there is a symbol of Christianity, it is the cross.

[Green Arrow]

And bust your belief? No. Ask your wife:

She was born and raised in Louisiana and still lives there. Are you suggesting you, with your "guesses," are more knowledgable about Louisiana practices than a Louisiana native?


BTW, there are endangered species and there are state birds. Killing either results in a fine.

Not really, no. State birds that are not endangered, like the Pennsylvania grouse, can be killed without a fine.

[Max Rockatansky]

I suspect that most states don't have a state book. In fact I checked a few states and none had a state book. State symbols tend to involve things of nature, trees, flowers, rocks, even fossils, perhaps even a chuck wagon. Things representative of the landscape or even it's early history. Visual things. A book, such as the bible, is not symbolic. To suggest that it is a symbol really diminishes its importance. The bible is not a symbol of Christianity, it is the foundation of Christianity. If there is a symbol of Christianity, it is the cross.

Agreed. It's a small step, but it's a definite step toward an official state religion.

[nic34]

State religion plain and simple. I would not live or do business there. You can keep Jindle dwindle...

[Max Rockatansky]

She was born and raised in Louisiana and still lives there. Are you suggesting you, with your "guesses," are more knowledgable about Louisiana practices than a Louisiana native?



Not really, no. State birds that are not endangered, like the Pennsylvania grouse, can be killed without a fine.Kill one without a license, out of season or above the bag limit and see what the game warden thinks about it.

You mentioned California. Now you are moving the goal posts to Louisiana? You don't see a problem with that "debate" style?

[Green Arrow]

Kill one without a license, out of season or above the bag limit and see what the game warden thinks about it.

That goes for just about anything you hunt. Point is, you made another incorrect statement.


You mentioned California. Now you are moving the goal posts to Louisiana? You don't see a problem with that "debate" style?

You asked about what is taught in Louisiana schools regarding state symbols. I answered your question, then used my own experiences in another state to bolster my argument. So, no, I don't consider normal debate practices problematic. Your refusal to accept when you're losing the debate, though? Or your utter lack of anything tangible to support your arguments?

Yeah, that's a bit problematic.

[Libhater]

The bible is not a symbol of Christianity, it is the foundation of Christianity. If there is a symbol of Christianity, it is the cross.

You're right of course, and that's why you see those Christian KLAN members lighting the cross so as to shine the light for and on Christ.
So many great qualities do the KLAN members have; they are or should be an inspiration to us all.

[sachem]

You're right of course, and that's why you see those Christian KLAN members lighting the cross so as to shine the light for and on Christ.
So many great qualities do the KLAN members have; they are or should be an inspiration to us all.And they are. http://downloadpolitics.com/images/smilies/kkk.gif

[Libhater]

And they are. http://downloadpolitics.com/images/smilies/kkk.gif

Thank you for that little reminder of the KLAN's dedication to serving Christ for you
know how many atheists, abortion advocates and naysayers we have trolling about here.

[sachem]

Thank you for that little reminder of the KLAN's dedication to serving Christ for you
know how many atheists, abortion advocates and naysayers we have trolling about here.They are everywhere. :rolleyes:

[Captain Obvious]

There are no special restrictions on the grouse because its the PA state bird, its no different than any other game bird in this sense.

[Codename Section]

So Massachusetts and 4 other states were allowed to have official state religions for 40 years but Louisiana can't even have the Bible as a state book? This feels like preferential treatment is given to the North. :)

[Max Rockatansky]

So Massachusetts and 4 other states were allowed to have official state religions for 40 years but Louisiana can't even have the Bible as a state book? This feels like preferential treatment is given to the North. :)
Do any states have official state religions now?

[Max Rockatansky]

Thank you for that little reminder of the KLAN's dedication to serving Christ for you
know how many atheists, abortion advocates and naysayers we have trolling about here.

A Klan member just murdered two Christians in a Jewish Center parking lot and a woman outside a Jewish retirement center.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/14/1-reportedly-dead-1-injured-in-shootings-at-jewish-centers/

Miller has been involved in the white supremacist movement for most of his life. He founded the Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and was its "grand dragon" in the 1980s before the center sued him for operating an illegal paramilitary organization and using intimidation tactics against blacks. He later founded another white supremacist group, the White Patriot Party.
Miller, an Army veteran and retired truck driver, was the subject of a nationwide manhunt in 1987 after he violated the terms of his bond while appealing a North Carolina conviction for operating a paramilitary camp. The search ended after federal agents found Miller and three other men in an Ozark mobile home, which was filled with hand grenades, automatic weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Miller tried running for U.S. House in 2006 and the U.S. Senate in 2010.

[Max Rockatansky]

What federal statute or Constitutional provision provided for lawful state secession?
Where is there a statute requiring it? The States freely choose to band together as a means of self-defense against the Brits. They were free to break off the relationship at will since there is nothing saying they could not.

[Codename Section]

Do any states have official state religions now?

No, and they also don't have the sovereignty given to them by the Constitution, either. We've allowed the central government to expand its powers beyond the federalism described in the Constitution. If people are finally pushing back its because people feel backed in a corner and its coming out passive-aggressively.

I'm not "religious". I'm spiritual, but I can also see where religious people have all been labeled like they are all members of Westboro Baptist or pedophiles, where when secular folk do the same it's overlooked. It makes someone like me who believes the purpose of religion is purely to keep men from marrying and staying with the women he's knocked up, sympathetic.

Having the Bible as the state book is saying, "Fuck you, liberals", not "Oooooh, let's make everyone believe in Jesus".

[Max Rockatansky]

No, and they also don't have the sovereignty given to them by the Constitution, either. We've allowed the central government to expand its powers beyond the federalism described in the Constitution. If people are finally pushing back its because people feel backed in a corner and its coming out passive-aggressively

While I agree about Washington exceeding it's authority in state matters (drug laws being one), holding the States to their obligations to the Constitution is just.

Passing an official religious book is one step toward passing an official religion. That's a precedent which could come back to bite us.

Before the Texas revolution, the official religion of the territory was Catholicism and any American immigrants to Mexico-controlled Texas were required to convert. An essential part of religious freedom is non-interference from government and government favoritism shown to any particular religion.

Designating an official religious book or religion itself is a step away from religious freedom, not a step toward it.

[Libhater]

A Klan member just murdered two Christians in a Jewish Center parking lot and a woman outside a Jewish retirement center.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/14/1-reportedly-dead-1-injured-in-shootings-at-jewish-centers/

Its hard to believe that those killed were Christians, afterall, the shooting took place at a Jewish center, didn't it? Then of course
you got an aging KKK member doing the shooting. You won't find any young KKK members resorting to this kind of violence.
That guy had a storied history of violence to where it finally caught up to him. Good riddance to him.

[Codename Section]

While I agree about Washington exceeding it's authority in state matters (drug laws being one), holding the States to their obligations to the Constitution is just.

There is no Constitutional obligation for a State when it comes to religion. As the many states post-Constitution having state religions showed us, it was intended to constrain the national government and prevent another Church of England not tell states what they can do.

[Max Rockatansky]

There is no Constitutional obligation for a State when it comes to religion. As the many states post-Constitution having state religions showed us, it was intended to constrain the national government and prevent another Church of England not tell states what they can do.

As you have seen, the post-Constitution state religions have gone by the wayside of, what?, almost 180 years?

[Chris]

Where I agree with max is (a) Louisiana on joining the union agreed to abide by the Constitution, and (b) despite the original intent of the BoR to limit only the federal government, much of it, definitely including the religious clauses of the 1st amendment, has been incorporated onto the states. Where I still disagree is while we can imagine certain people abusing the law, I see nothing in it to be so alarmed about. It's not a state naming a state religion but a state naming a state book. I would think some Christians would be concerned the Bible is diminished to a mere book.

[1751_Texan]

Where I agree with max is (a) Louisiana on joining the union agreed to abide by the Constitution, and (b) despite the original intent of the BoR to limit only the federal government, much of it, definitely including the religious clauses of the 1st amendment, has been incorporated onto the states. Where I still disagree is while we can imagine certain people abusing the law, I see nothing in it to be so alarmed about. It's not a state naming a state religion but a state naming a state book. I would think some Christians would be concerned the Bible is diminished to a mere book.

Totally agree.

[Max Rockatansky]

Where I agree with max is (a) Louisiana on joining the union agreed to abide by the Constitution, and (b) despite the original intent of the BoR to limit only the federal government, much of it, definitely including the religious clauses of the 1st amendment, has been incorporated onto the states. Where I still disagree is while we can imagine certain people abusing the law, I see nothing in it to be so alarmed about. It's not a state naming a state religion but a state naming a state book. I would think some Christians would be concerned the Bible is diminished to a mere book.
Alarmed? No. Factually pointing out that this is a step toward mixing church and state? Yes.

Is there any doubt that there are people who'd love to see Christianity recognized as this nation's religion? Haven't many said for years that "we're a Christian nation"? If there is no problem with recognizing a specific religion's primary documents as a "state book", why not recognize the religion itself as the "state religion"?

It's not that I have a problem with the choice or the religion, but that I recognize this "camel nose in the tent". The danger such a precedent represents. Actions such as this remind me of the story of the genie who grants a person a wish, but also grants the same wish to his enemy.

By creating a precedent of popular vote for state recognition of religious books and opening the door to state recognition of a state religion, we're opening the door to any population voting in their religion. As TL mentioned previously, this could result in Muslim religious zones inside the USA. That goes directly against the Constitution rights of any American living there or transiting. The advice to "well move, don't live there or don't go there" isn't good enough. That's not what we're about.

[Chris]

Alarmed? No. Factually pointing out that this is a step toward mixing church and state? Yes.

Is there any doubt that there are people who'd love to see Christianity recognized as this nation's religion? Haven't many said for years that "we're a Christian nation"? If there is no problem with recognizing a specific religion's primary documents as a "state book", why not recognize the religion itself as the "state religion"?

It's not that I have a problem with the choice or the religion, but that I recognize this "camel nose in the tent". The danger such a precedent represents. Actions such as this remind me of the story of the genie who grants a person a wish, but also grants the same wish to his enemy.

By creating a precedent of popular vote for state recognition of religious books and opening the door to state recognition of a state religion, we're opening the door to any population voting in their religion. As TL mentioned previously, this could result in Muslim religious zones inside the USA. That goes directly against the Constitution rights of any American living there or transiting. The advice to "well move, don't live there or don't go there" isn't good enough. That's not what we're about.


Let's not get hung up on a single word in my post. You don't think you're alarmed, I do, fine.

[Max Rockatansky]

Let's not get hung up on a single word in my post. You don't think you're alarmed, I do, fine.
Let's not get hung up over two words in a 4-paragraph post about the Constitution and the dangers of mixing church and state.

[Ravi]

There are no special restrictions on the grouse because its the PA state bird, its no different than any other game bird in this sense.
So I can still legally burn bibles in LA?

[Captain Obvious]

So I can still legally burn bibles in LA?

The fuck you asking me for? I'm a Quaker.
Codename Section is a Cajun queen, ask him.

[Chris]

Let's not get hung up over two words in a 4-paragraph post about the Constitution and the dangers of mixing church and state.

"the dangers of mixing church and state" => alarm.

[Ravi]

The fuck you asking me for? I'm a Quaker.
@Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866) is a Cajun queen, ask him.
Is he? I knew there was a reason for his political views.

[Green Arrow]

While I agree about Washington exceeding it's authority in state matters (drug laws being one), holding the States to their obligations to the Constitution is just.

Passing an official religious book is one step toward passing an official religion. That's a precedent which could come back to bite us.

Before the Texas revolution, the official religion of the territory was Catholicism and any American immigrants to Mexico-controlled Texas were required to convert. An essential part of religious freedom is non-interference from government and government favoritism shown to any particular religion.

Designating an official religious book or religion itself is a step away from religious freedom, not a step toward it.

There is no constitutional obligation for states regarding religion.

[Ransom]

Let's not get hung up on a single word in my post. You don't think you're alarmed, I do, fine.

How about if it was just two words. Like isolationist or non-interventionist?

Oops.

[Ransom]

There is no constitutional obligation for states regarding religion.

There is a Constituional obligation for government not to interfere with it's establishment or practice.

[Green Arrow]

There is a Constituional obligation for government not to interfere with it's establishment or practice.

For Congress, not for the states, unless the state constitution also bears that provision.

[Chris]

For Congress, not for the states, unless the state constitution also bears that provision.


I think though that the federal government has taken on that obligation. It wasn't intended, but progressivism has driven us here.

[patrickt]

For Congress, not for the states, unless the state constitution also bears that provision.

:The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) to the states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state). Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States). Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore) that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank) (1876) still held that the First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) and Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

[Green Arrow]

:The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) to the states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state). Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States). Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore) that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank) (1876) still held that the First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) and Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

What's your point?

[Chris]

What's your point?

What patrick's saying is how the federal government took on the obligation to oversee the states on matters like the one the topic is concerned with. Much like in Marbury v Madison, the court invented their power.

[patrickt]

Sorry, Green, my crayon was broken. The 1st Amendment apparently applies to the states now where the state constitutions repeat it or not.

[Green Arrow]

Sorry, Green, my crayon was broken. The 1st Amendment apparently applies to the states now where the state constitutions repeat it or not.

And Obamacare is apparently constitutional. The point is it isn't constitutional, just like the first amendment applies explicitly to the U.S. Congress.

[Alyosha]

:The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) to the states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state). Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States). Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore) that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank) (1876) still held that the First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) and Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights


CS Lewis had Wormwood say that the biggest trick the devil ever pulled was making people believe he didn't exist. I think the biggest trick the US government ever pulled was making us believe that the SCOTUS has the weight of legislative law or Constitutional amendment.

[Cthulhu]

Non-religion is the fastest growing religion in America. Believe it or not, the deterioration of federalism in this country has made it so that if enough people from outside of a state got together and made a fuss, changes will be made inside that state.

Plus, something tells me not a whole lot of Mormons would be happy with a theocracy, whether it's in their favor or not. @Cthulhu (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=872) can correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

Theocracy would be a scary world to live in. That being said I wouldn't mind so much if it were run by the Host and his angels. But seeing as it is run by men....

Yeah. I think I'll pass on a theocracy.

[Cthulhu]

It gives tacit recognition of one religion over all others. It also sets a precedent for such actions, some of which may not be as agreeable to other states as recognizing Christianity. What if California decided to go Buddhist or New York Islam?

I hardly think it will lead to the weirdness you are conjuring up.

If I recall correctly Utah made a 'state gun' the Colt .45. You don't see pressure being mounted to buy one though. Although I guess they technically could - states rights and powers not granted to the federal government and all that jazz.

[Cthulhu]

While I agree about Washington exceeding it's authority in state matters (drug laws being one), holding the States to their obligations to the Constitution is just.

How so? The feds have been in breach of contract for more reasons than I can count. Tell you what, when the feds follow their own rules, than they can preach of the virtues of the rulebook.

Until then. "Mind the beam in thine own eye." is what I would say to the feds.



Passing an official religious book is one step toward passing an official religion. That's a precedent which could come back to bite us.

I believe this is where the intellectuals would declare a 'slippery slope fallacy' and then stomp off on an imaginary victory. Fortunately, I am not one. I simply disagree because there is not teeth in the bill. Although I find it amusing you'll point out the dangerousness of a slippery slope in matters of faith.

If it were mandated to study said book, I'd be right there with you saying it is jacked up. But there isn't.



Before the Texas revolution, the official religion of the territory was Catholicism and any American immigrants to Mexico-controlled Texas were required to convert. An essential part of religious freedom is non-interference from government and government favoritism shown to any particular religion.

Designating an official religious book or religion itself is a step away from religious freedom, not a step toward it.

Meh. I disagree. Utah has a state bird of the seagull. Yeah. The rat with wings. Does anybody care other than the historically informed LDS members? Nope.

[Max Rockatansky]

How so? The feds have been in breach of contract for more reasons than I can count.
A list of 3-5 examples would be a good start.

[Cthulhu]

A list of 3-5 examples would be a good start.

Patriot Act.

NDAA.

ACA - no matter how how much the black robed quasi deities at the supreme court church it up as a 'tax' it is still evil incarnate.

Federal Income Tax.

[pragmatic]

Don't see where this is violating any Constitutional issue. The Bible is a cool book. Lots of people like/respect it.

The action of deeming it the state book is a symbolic gesture. Doesn't translate to any statute...

[Ransom]

For Congress, not for the states, unless the state constitution also bears that provision.

So the states can interfere with the establishment of religion?

[Ransom]

And Obamacare is apparently constitutional. The point is it isn't constitutional, just like the first amendment applies explicitly to the U.S. Congress.

Yes it is Constitutional as it is a tax.

[Chris]

Yes it is Constitutional as it is a tax.


In the opinion of SCOTUS.

[Ransom]

In the opinion of SCOTUS.

Yes. After much disagreement and claims by both sides, we decided the issue in our highest court. It's a tax. Thus Constitutional.

[Chris]

Yes. After much disagreement and claims by both sides, we decided the issue in our highest court. It's a tax. Thus Constitutional.

The court decided, we didn't. We are not the government as progressives are wont to believe.

[Ransom]

The court decided, we didn't. We are not the government as progressives are wont to believe.

A government for the people...by the people. We did decide, the decision affirmed in our highest court whether you and I disagree or not. The ACA isn't unconstitutional, the issue also front burner for the 2012 Presidential election where Obama won quite comfortably. Admitting when you're wrong will make debating me much easier, Chris.

[Chris]

A government for the people...by the people. We did decide, the decision affirmed in our highest court whether you and I disagree or not. The ACA isn't unconstitutional, the issue also front burner for the 2012 Presidential election where Obama won quite comfortably. Admitting when you're wrong will make debating me much easier, Chris.

By the people simply means we created it, with the Constitution, you know: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Of, for and by the people didn't come along till Lincoln at Gettysburg.

You can of course argue legal positivism all you want, but without better justification than the law is the law and an opinion, you don't have an argument.

[Ravi]

A government for the people...by the people. We did decide, the decision affirmed in our highest court whether you and I disagree or not. The ACA isn't unconstitutional, the issue also front burner for the 2012 Presidential election where Obama won quite comfortably. Admitting when you're wrong will make debating me much easier, Chris.Good for you, Ransom.

[Captain Obvious]

lol! Chris gets to babysit the trollboy today.

Good luck with that.

[Chris]

lol! Chris gets to babysit the trollboy today.

Good luck with that.


Nah, made my point, he can play king of the hill if he likes, with ravi his queen apparently.

[Ravi]

Nah, made my point, he can play king of the hill if he likes, with ravi his queen apparently.He just wiped the floor with your ass. Credit where credit is due.

[Chris]

He just wiped the floor with your ass. Credit where credit is due.

wtf?

[Ravi]

wtf?
Yeah, I was like wtf, too? Ransom blew Chris out of the water???

Though in retrospect, it really isn't that difficult to do.

[Chris]

Yeah, I was like wtf, too? Ransom blew Chris out of the water???

Though in retrospect, it really isn't that difficult to do.



What's it like out there in lala land, ravi? Can we get a report?