At least the fantasy/sci-fi genre is getting a shot in the arm during the recession.

Provide them with a copy of the Constitution and Amendments. If they want to take oath on anything else, let 'em bring it themselves.

If the legislators get their choice of any holy book, I don't see an Establishment Clause issue as one faith is not being favored over another. That's a completely different issue from whether or not this is a bit of a frivolous perk of an expenditure.

State Rep. Dan Frankel also got a Quran, but it was an ordering mistake. He traded it in for another copy of the Torah - the sixth he has received from taxpayers since first being elected in 1998.

What the hell is he doing with six copies of the Torah? Giving them out as Christmas gifts?

The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the individual states...

Nabb1: If the legislators get their choice of any holy book, I don't see an Establishment Clause issue as one faith is not being favored over another. That's a completely different issue from whether or not this is a bit of a frivolous perk of an expenditure.

Just because you endorse several, doesn't mean it's okay. The state shouldn't be spending any money endorsing any religion, ever. This means Christianity, Judaism or anything else. After all, it's not like they're giving the same endorsement to Buddhism, Sikhism, etc.

abb3w: Provide them with a copy of the Constitution and Amendments.

Not only that, but if they cannot summarize the Bill of Rights they don't take office.

mattharvest: Nabb1: If the legislators get their choice of any holy book, I don't see an Establishment Clause issue as one faith is not being favored over another. That's a completely different issue from whether or not this is a bit of a frivolous perk of an expenditure.

Just because you endorse several, doesn't mean it's okay. The state shouldn't be spending any money endorsing any religion, ever. This means Christianity, Judaism or anything else. After all, it's not like they're giving the same endorsement to Buddhism, Sikhism, etc.

How do you know that? I saw nothing in the article to indicate any particular religious texts or even secular texts were off limits. If there is no restriction on the nature of the holy book, how is that an endorsement? Furthermore, how is it an endorsement to provide any holy book of a legislator's choice for his own personal use?

dj_bigbird: The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the individual states...

Um, well no.

In the 1880s, yes. Every year since the 1890s, no.

FTFA: "Everybody is looking to conserve resources," he said. "At a time like this, maybe people should be asked to bring their own scripture with them."

To be fair, they couldn't just bring their own Bibles from home because none of these people are really religious in the first place.

They're Religious for Political Purposes Only.

Questionable purchase, yes.

Violation of church and state, no.

It's not a race card, subby, you just can't throw it down willy nilly like that.

$13,700 for 220 books is like ~$62 per book. Someone's making a tidy little profit from this deal.

Nabb1: How do you know that? I saw nothing in the article to indicate any particular religious texts or even secular texts were off limits. If there is no restriction on the nature of the holy book, how is that an endorsement? Furthermore, how is it an endorsement to provide any holy book of a legislator's choice for his own personal use?

If the legislator were an atheist, could they choose to take cash?

Also, who really cares about $60 Bibles? Why do people insist on focusing on petty garbage like this instead of the real problems facing our budget? Oh yeah, because thinking is hard and talking about real solutions in this country makes you a socialist.

OregonVet: Questionable purchase, yes.

Violation of church and state, no.

It's not a race card, subby, you just can't throw it down willy nilly like that.

Pretty much this. Also, if it's just $62, why not have the legislators pay for them?

But these were secular bibles, right?

As I recall, incoming US Congressmen got a version of 'Jefferson's Bible' ("Unitarian Bible study next Sunday... bring your own exacto knife and rubber cement") up until the Red Scares of the 1950s.

Mad Tea Party: $13,700 for 220 books is like ~$62 per book. Someone's making a tidy little profit from this deal.

Must have come from a discount university textbook store.

Mad Tea Party: $13,700 for 220 books is like ~$62 per book. Someone's making a tidy little profit from this deal.

Well, they are signed copies.

WaltzingMathilda: dj_bigbird: The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the individual states...

Um, well no.

In the 1880s, yes. Every year since the 1890s, no.

I'm just using the logic some states are using to try and fight against the 2nd Amendment...if it's good for the 2nd, it's good for the others.

dj_bigbird: WaltzingMathilda: dj_bigbird: The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the individual states...

Um, well no.

In the 1880s, yes. Every year since the 1890s, no.

I'm just using the logic some states are using to try and fight against the 2nd Amendment...if it's good for the 2nd, it's good for the others.

Well, the 2nd (among a couple others) actually hasn't yet been held to be incorporated against the states. It's an open question and should be answered, though most scholars believe when the question is answered, it will be in favor of incorporation.

So, only most of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated against the states so far.

The Pittsburgh Democrat downplayed the overall cost of the books as minuscule, given that state spending this will top $28 billion. But he acknowledged that it might not send the right public message in these bad economic times.

Gee... ya think? This is the same as the outrage over the auto execs taking their private jets to DC. It's chump change, but it sends a bit of a "fark you" to the people who's money you're spending.

dj_bigbird: The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the individual states...

LOLWUT?

Those empty drawers won't fill themselves.

Nabb1: Furthermore, how is it an endorsement to provide any holy book of a legislator's choice for his own personal use?

The discussion shouldn't even go beyond why taxpayers should pay for legislators' personal holy books.

I'm betting they could have gotten them for less if they went through these guys.

Mad Tea Party: $13,700 for 220 books is like ~$62 per book. Someone's making a tidy little profit from this deal.

Nabb1: If the legislators get their choice of any holy book, I don't see an Establishment Clause issue as one faith is not being favored over another. That's a completely different issue from whether or not this is a bit of a frivolous perk of an expenditure.

They didn't get their choice of any holy book. They got their choice of a dozen pre-approved ones. Would they have paid if someone wanted to be sworn in on the God Delusion or something? Just because you cover a larger number than 1 of religions doesn't mean it's not a government endorsement of religion.

Wow, these guys couldn't bring their own bibles to be sworn in on? I mean, I'm not even Christian and I have a bible. It even has my name engraved on it.

This is a stupid expenditure. If your own faith doesn't compel you to buy a copy of its base tenets, then why should I, the taxpayer, who may not even own a copy myself, buy you a copy?

I just hope that they take the copies given to the (R)'s and redact every section in the Old Testament that has anything that can be even remotely construed as involving homosexuality. Preemptive damage control is preemptive.

State Rep. Chris Ross (R., Chester) got a copy of the Quran. He said yesterday that he took the Jan. 6 oath on his own Bible, but ordered the Muslim holy book because he had always wanted to read it.

Okay, that's pretty cool. Not that I support the expenditure, but I'd collect the whole set.

/ already have a set of such for the world's top ten or so religions
// taught Unitarian Sunday School

Mad Tea Party: $13,700 for 220 books is like ~$62 per book. Someone's making a tidy little profit from this deal.

One weird, interesting thing I've noticed about far-right Christian websites on the Internet is that they are nearly ALWAYS begging for money and/or charging money to read their content (usually in the form of printed "pamphlets" or "courses"). Seriously, there are few free fundie information websites on the Internet. Apparently fundamentalist Christianity is mainly about ripping off your fellow fundamentalist Christians. I assume this is no different.

One for you, and one for you, and one for you...



Imperial Guard: "Hey, how come I got a hymnal instead?"

A month ago Ed Rendell said he would close a school for the deaf and a school for the orphans of veterans (Scotland school) because they 'just don't have money'.

In reality he does, he just uses kids in school to justify his tax and spend ways. "oh my, we must keep increasing taxes for the kids".

He needs a cockpunch, then the legislators

Why couldn't they just steal them from motels like everyone else?

Crunch61: Mad Tea Party: $13,700 for 220 books is like ~$62 per book. Someone's making a tidy little profit from this deal.

I was thinking more this guy:



/The B-I-B-L-E, yes that's the book for me!

cousin-merle
Also, who really cares about $60 Bibles? Why do people insist on focusing on petty garbage like this instead of the real problems facing our budget? Oh yeah, because thinking is hard and talking about real solutions in this country makes you a socialist.

Those budget problems could be solved if they taxed churches.

It's either one or the other, take your pick.

Dust: To be fair, they couldn't just bring their own Bibles from home because none of these people are really religious in the first place.

Like they couldn't just grab one from whatever hotel they're banging the prostitutes in.

cousin-merle: Why do people insist on focusing on petty garbage like this instead of the real problems facing our budget?

Some people think Christianity will solve everything. Seriously. They think that if we put the commandments on display in public schools, there would be no violence in public schools anymore. These folks tend to have grown up during the fifties, and they nostalgically look back to that time when we swept all our problems under the carpet as the time when America literally had no problems.

I'm fine with these idiots being in office. We have plenty of dumbasses here in the states and they deserve representation too.

I don't see this as a Church/State issue, though. I see it as a wasted money issue. Imagine how many homeless in Philly or Pittsburg could have been helped with 13.7K. The ultimate irony is that is exactly what Jesus would have wanted.

MisterLoki: Why couldn't they just steal them from motels like everyone else?

Damn you!

mattharvest: Nabb1: If the legislators get their choice of any holy book, I don't see an Establishment Clause issue as one faith is not being favored over another. That's a completely different issue from whether or not this is a bit of a frivolous perk of an expenditure.

Just because you endorse several, doesn't mean it's okay. The state shouldn't be spending any money endorsing any religion, ever. This means Christianity, Judaism or anything else. After all, it's not like they're giving the same endorsement to Buddhism, Sikhism, etc.

they aren't endorsing anything. They are providing books for swearing in procedures.

cousin-merle: Also, who really cares about $60 Bibles? Why do people insist on focusing on petty garbage like this instead of the real problems facing our budget? Oh yeah, because thinking is hard and talking about real solutions in this country makes you a socialist.

It sounds like the state version of Pork to me.

Buy them all Korans, Torahs, and Joseph Campbell's "The Hero With A thousand Faces" while you're at it.

Mnemia: They didn't get their choice of any holy book. They got their choice of a dozen pre-approved ones. Would they have paid if someone wanted to be sworn in on the God Delusion or something? Just because you cover a larger number than 1 of religions doesn't mean it's not a government endorsement of religion.

The purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent the establishment of a national or state religion, not from religion being mentioned. That being said, this is a total waste of money.

IXI Jim IXI: It sounds like the state version of Pork to me.

Something to talk about to distract from real issues? By golly, you're right!

Memes Ate My Balls: cousin-merle: Why do people insist on focusing on petty garbage like this instead of the real problems facing our budget?

Some people think Christianity will solve everything. Seriously. They think that if we put the commandments on display in public schools, there would be no violence in public schools anymore. These folks tend to have grown up during the fifties, and they nostalgically look back to that time when we swept all our problems under the carpet as the time when America literally had no problems.

I'm fine with these idiots being in office. We have plenty of dumbasses here in the states and they deserve representation too.

I don't see this as a Church/State issue, though. I see it as a wasted money issue. Imagine how many homeless in Philly or Pittsburg could have been helped with 13.7K. The ultimate irony is that is exactly what Jesus would have wanted.

I am thinking one homeless person could have been supported for a year on that amount.

Arnold T Pants: The purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent the establishment of a national or state religion

Source?

wilde_at_heart: cousin-merle
Also, who really cares about $60 Bibles? Why do people insist on focusing on petty garbage like this instead of the real problems facing our budget? Oh yeah, because thinking is hard and talking about real solutions in this country makes you a socialist.

Those budget problems could be solved if they taxed churches.

It's either one or the other, take your pick.

Just as soon as they tax every other Non-Profit Group, doing any number of other good deeds.