(X-post)Atheist Group Files Suit Over “Year Of The Bible” Resolution!

[yortsed snacilbuper]

An atheist group from Wisconsin has filed a federal lawsuit against state lawmakers saying "The Year of the Bible" is unconstitutional. KDKA's Kristine Sorensen reports.

video
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/video/6886922-atheist-group-files-suit-over-year-of-the-bible-resolution/

[hlthe2b]

1. Hmm... I'm not sure this is very clear cut...

After all, the bible is merely a book (unless you are a fundy "literalist&quot . If you take that as premise, what would be different between this resolution and one that said, say, a certain anniversary year would be the year of Charles Dickens" Great Expectations or Shakespeare's Hamlet, Louisa May Alcott's Little Women?

Just sayin....

[longship]

2. Lemon test specifically addresses this

So you would be wrong.

The Lemon Test tells you all you need to know.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

4. The way the OP framed it

putting next to Shakespeare would create obvious problems. However . . .

"The Lemon Test is not immutable - there is discussion in the general public and on the current Court about the Lemon Test. However, it has stood as a good guide for lower courts ever since 1971.

The following paragraph is taken from the Lemon v Kurtzman opinion and establishes the rules of the test:

Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion."

So let's parse the three tests:
1) In order to appreciate much of the western tradition, including the vast majority of literature and philosophy preceding the 20th century, one must be biblically literate. If one is not, then non-Christian writers like Goethe, Hegel, Nietzsche, etc. become incomprehensible. A liberal education MUST have the Bible as one of its foundational texts, not for the appropriation of some sort of moral foundation but for the understanding of various theological, political, and philosophical systems. To be biblically illiterate is simply to be illiterate.

2) This one is the major sticking point. But if tied closely to point one, then things would go by pretty smoothly. But to advance the argument, one could easily argue that all aspects of the Bible would be taught--questions of genocide, slavery, god-ordained war; in other words, those very things which America has found distasteful and illegal. This could in no way be argued that one would attempt top advance a religion. Just teaching the text proves prima facie that no one is trying to inhibit it.

3) This one is easiest to prove because its phrasing is so ambiguous. The first two points presented as they are makes the argument for point three.

[longship]

5. Let's look at this again

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose.

2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion.

3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Now, here we are with a government body, a legislature declaring "A Year of the Bible".

1. If any of the legislators used religious language to justify the bill, that would imply a failure of this test. There is case law to support this interpretation including the original Lemon v. Kurtzman.

2. This is the religious neutrality test. As the Bible is an explicitly religious document, and is explicit to Christian, and only Christian religious sects, the effect of this must necessarily advance religion.

3. Entanglement. You are correct that this is a tougher standard. Nevertheless, one can argue involving a legislature in pronouncements about religious texts necessarily entangles the government in religious matters. What's next? The year of the Koran? The Torah? Or, my favorite, the Kama Sutra? So this also fails.

Note that a failure of the Lemon test only requires one of the prongs to fail. Here, I think we have a failure of all three. (The weakest is the third.) But it only takes one.

on edit: for a good overview see McLean
v. Arkansas, 1982, where in his decision federal judge William Overton outlines precisely how the Lemon test is to be applied. It's a perfect case study.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

6. Let me clarify.

First, thanks for the rational, reasoned response.

I should have been clearer in my response. Apologies. My initial response wasn't about how it's written now but about how something like this could be conceived so as to pass muster. This sort of thing doesn't have to fail inherently. I've helped write this sort of thing without any problems legally. I thought this context would be obvious because the way the bill is written is so obviously illegal: ""Year of the Bible" and declaring "our national need to study and apply the teachings of the holy scriptures." Fails prima facie according to Lemon test.

Nevertheless . . .

1) You are correct. Prima facie.

2) not necessarily true, but MOST CERTAINLY true the way they framed it.

3) I don't this case is ambiguous at all. It's pretty clear it fails here too.

Again, thanks.

[longship]

7. No problem, excellent discussion nonetheless

I admit, sometimes I post responses to flesh out the discussion for other hangers-on. You addressed Lemon out of context, as did I. So I thought a response specifically addressing what the Lemon Test actually is was in order in this thread.

Sorry, it's the educator in me. My bad.

I really love these discussions. Thx much.

[immoderate]

3. Consider that the bible is a religious scripture.

Those other books are not.

--imm

[RebelOne]

8. Sorry, but in my opinion, as an atheist,

the bible is in the same class as "Grimm's Fairy Tales."

[immoderate]

11. The people who fill churches to worship Hansel and Gretel agree with you.

And a couple of atheists, too. Probably.


--imm

[saras]

9. It's a great opportunity for atheist organizations to promote knowledge of the Bible ;)

People, especially young people, have a right to choice based on definitive knowledge, not cherry-picked quotations.

Retell the Bible in plain English, and it's way past obscene, especially if you explain obscure parts and not just transliterate them. The book of Numbers is spectacular if presented well. I'm thinking a really grim B&W graphic novel, or anime. Something about the mass rape of girls begs for anime (i.e you can't get away with it anywhere else).

One problem is, you'd get murdered for antisemitism. Seriously. The folks in the Old Testament describe themselves, in detail, as awesomely evil bastards. They whine about others' decadence, but don't describe anything nearly as bad as themselves - in their own words, they're the baddest muthafuckas in the desert, except when their fickle populace turns away from God and God turns away from them, or God just decides to hassle them for sport.

Sorry. I was one of those kids who read the King James version unsupervised.

[Nye Bevan]

10. Say they win. What's the remedy?

The judge solemnly pronounces that it is *not* in fact, the "Year of the Bible"?

The judge tells the legislators that they have to pass a second resolution undoing their first resolution, and if they do not, they will go to prison?

The judge allows the atheist group to issue their own proclamation?

[yortsed snacilbuper]

12. Atheist's just want religion out of government,

Atheist's don't need any proclamations!