• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcasts
  • Support
Current

Current

Commentary. Reflection. Judgment.

  • Way of Improvement
  • About John
  • Vita
  • Books
  • Speaking
  • Media Requests

Tennessee Governor: The Bible Will Not Be The State Book

John Fea   |  April 14, 2016

Tennessee BibleGovernor Haslam vetoed the bill.  Some of you may recall that I argued against the bill last week.
Here is a taste from an article in The Washington Post:
Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam on Thursday vetoed a bill that would have made the Bible the state’s official book.
“In addition to the constitutional issues with the bill, my personal feeling is that this bill trivializes the Bible, which I believe is a sacred text,” Haslam (R) wrote in a letter to the speaker of the statehouse.
“If we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then we shouldn’t be recognizing it only as a book of historical and economic significance,” continued Haslam. “If we are recognizing the Bible as a sacred text, then we are violating the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee by designating it as the official state book.”
Read the entire article here.

If you appreciate this content, please consider becoming a Patron of Current.

Filed Under: Way of Improvement Tagged With: Bible, church and state

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Jimmy Dick says

    April 15, 2016 at 11:03 am

    The Bible must be the Catholic Bible. Otherwise it is not the Word of God and is just somebody else’s mistaken version of the Bible.
    America as we know it owes more to Hammurabi’s Code than it does the Bible.

  2. Tom Van Dyke says

    April 15, 2016 at 3:00 am

    The original essay read
    The people of the state no longer share a common Christian heritage, making House Bill 0615 look like little more than an attempt by legislators, perhaps threatened by such religious diversity, to protect a Christian culture that seems to be steadily eroding.
    4 contentions in one paragraph, each of which are arguable esp #2 which is subjective and #3 which is purely speculative.
    #4 is interesting: Although also accurate, I would not choose “eroding” as much as “under attack.”
    Would I have suggested the law? No. Unnecessary, and unnecessarily provocative and nourishing to the left.
    Would I have voted for the law? Yes: It has no legal force or import, and I believe that America as we know it owes more to the Bible than to any other single book.
    Credit where it’s due. An historically accurate resolution. The arguments against are not historical, they are ideological.

Primary Sidebar

Archives

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Footer

Contact Forms

General Inquiries
Pitch Us

Search

Subscribe via Email