I agree with Frazier from the video. Nothing against the Bible but making it the state book in a country the believes in religious freedom just doesn't seem right. If a book of another religion's beliefs in which you didn't believe was to become the state book, how would you feel? Kind of out of place I would think. Is that really would God would want, for Christians to make other people uncomfortable? I doubt it.
Eh... Jesus made plenty of people "uncomfortable" ergo the reason he was tried in Jewish Inquisition, handed over to the pagan Roman state, beaten, mocked with a crown of thorns, and hung naked on a cross to die.
The whole Bib;e from start to end is about God making others "feel uncomfortable."
I can take atheists or agnostics. Being a citizens of the USA born in the USA and raised around other United Statesians, I can take so-called "Americans" too. What I have problems with are the masses of flat out ignorant "Americans."
The United States Government was formed as a secular nation-state, not an officially atheist nation-state. That would be China or the former Soviet Union.
Religious freedom I would argue, indicates Mississippi can in fact make the Bible the state book, and Michigan can make the Koran the state book of Michigan.
"Separation of state and church is not explicitly stated" in the U.S. Constitution but it's inferred just the same way the Catholic Church infers from the Bible, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the Gates of hell shall never prevail against it," that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus as Peter as it's first Pope and that all churches are called to be in unity with the Pope.
Civil Law as in Louisiana is in part differentiated from Common Law in that no Judge can twist and jack the law code but is as subject to it as every other person. Whereas in common law the laws are written so convoluted and judges are the sole interpreters of the law using "precedents" as their standards to twist and jack the law every which way. So, when it comes to the law "Americans" are very much "Catholic-like" in that they depend on an elite group of Bishops (judges) to tell them what the "law" says. Civil Law is more like the "by the bible only" Protestant in which any man can read and interpret the law.
I'm saying all this because there is a thing called "state rights" in the USA by which the Federal Government is not supposed to be a dictator. State "governments" (who have their own supreme courts, own "congress," and own "presidents" called Governors) might be thought of as micro-level democracies. More micro would be city government in which people in a city vote for mayors and aldermans.
The more "state rights" the more democratic freedoms in theory. What people of Mississippi may democratically vote for may not be what citizens of Wisconsin democratically vote for.
So, this crosses into state rights too. A state book is not necessarily--logically--the same thing as a state religion (the official religion of a state), however, in Common Law slick mouth lawyers and biased judges might construe it to be so.
"Common Law" was established by the Normans (French) who conquered England and established said law system by which the English would follow. Part of the fundamentals of Common Law was that judges deciding cases were to inform their judgements by
the customs and traditions of the people (in this case Anglos and Saxons Englishmen).
So, it would be within keeping of Common Law for Mississippi to bear in mind the
history, the cultural history of the customs and traditions of Mississippi. In this case... what literary work might have impacted the customs and traditions of Mississippi the most? Perhaps the Bible some in Mississippi argue.
I live in Wisconsin, so, the people of Mississippi an make whatever book they want as the state book as they choose.