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."
Agreed. There are some well educated and well spoken ones, however there is far too many who are ignorant and proud of it.
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.
Exactly, and that's the reason why governments should not be making religious texts their official book.
You're making the leap that if the government doesn't pass this bill then Mississippi is somehow endorsing atheism. Or that a state that doesn't give some measure of support to religion therefore gives support to the atheists. That's just flat out wrong.
An endorsement of atheism would be if Mississippi passed a bill that said it's the official position of the state that god doesn't exist, and that all religions are fake. That's not what's happening here (and if that was the bill up for question, I would not support it either for the same reasons as the bible bill. It'd be a violation of the first amendment.)
A secular government gives no preference to any religious group. The government is not allowed to officially endorse the idea that there is no god, and the government is also not allowed to officially endorse any religion, religious group or holy text.
You yourself said that it's a secular country, as such, the government should not be giving endorsements (even symbolic ones) to a particular religion.
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.
No, religious freedom would mean the citizens of Mississippi or Michigan are free to practice whatever religion they want, or free to practice no religion at all without any government coercion.
"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.
The point you're missing though is that this is a constitutional issue. How the public votes on the issue is irrelevant if the vote subject is unconstitutional. That's the reason why if people voted to bring back slavery, it doesn't matter, slavery is still going to be illegal because of constitutional protections.
The United States is not a pure democracy, it was founded as a constitutional republic and remains so to this day. John Adams said the main reason for the bill of rights and the constitution as a whole is to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority".
In other words, the majority doesn't need constitutional protections, the minority position on a given issue does need those protections to prevent their rights from being trampled in a "mob rule" scenario.
This story is a shining example of how that system was designed to work.
"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.
However, in doing so they violate the first amendment to the United States constitution. So, no.... they can not choose that book as their state book.
If they want to pick another book that doesn't lead to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, then so be it.
