Listen to “Bibles and Partisan Mandates” on Spreaker.
Some issues make news because they stir emotion or seem far outside the mainstream. Commentators – I’m a talk show host, not a reporter – sometimes get criticized for even talking about them. The argument goes like this: you know it’s not going anywhere, so why give it airtime or whatever real estate one has to give?
That’s a fair criticism, but I personally don’t accept it.
When a bill is introduced, regardless of its odds of passage, it offers a window into how a lawmaker thinks and what they consider important. No single proposal should define a legislator, but voters deserve to know how legislative time is being spent and what personal priorities are being established. That larger picture can’t be understood if these efforts go undiscussed and that larger picture should frame decisions at the polls.
With that in mind, consider two recent proposals.
The Aitken Bible
Senate Bill 388 would require every public school in the state to make a copy of the Aitken Bible available in all fourth, eighth and 10th-grade social studies classrooms, including public charter schools.
A bit of history matters here.
The Aitken Bible is recognized as the first complete English-language Bible printed in the United States. It was produced in 1782 in Philadelphia by Robert Aitken during the closing years of the American Revolution.
Before independence, most Bibles in the colonies were imported from Britain. Wartime disruptions made those imports scarce, prompting Aitken to print a full King James Bible domestically. His work caught the attention of the Congress of the Confederation, which formally approved the project and recommended it to the public — an unusual endorsement, even for that era.
Although roughly 10,000 copies were printed, the venture was not financially successful. Once British trade resumed, cheaper imported Bibles returned to the market, and today only a few dozen original copies are known to survive.
That history is worth teaching. But teaching it does not require mandating a specific modern reprint in every classroom.
Two senators, one Democrat and one Republican, both Catholic, tried to amend the bill to also allow use of the American Catholic Bible. That effort failed.
That’s where this moves from history lesson to policy problem.
The Aitken Bible is a King James Bible. Why single out one translation when you really don’t need it physically present to discuss historical context? Why not also allow the New International Version, the Contemporary English Version, the Catholic Bible, or texts from other faith traditions in schools as well?
Limiting the requirement to one specific version abandons the government neutrality on religion that protects both the majority and the minority. Today that might not feel consequential. In a less uniformly Christian future, it might.
Put me down as supportive of placing Bibles in school libraries — all versions, alongside texts from other religions. Need help paying for the Bibles? Call me. But mandating one version for classroom availability – unintentional as it may be – crosses from education into preference. How would the Danbury Baptists feel about that?
A better approach would be to revise the bill to allow any and all religious texts, provided no public money is used to purchase them. Or simply leave the decision to schools and teachers. Neutrality is the better path.
Candidly, the entire debate seems a bit like legalism to me –- the ongoing battle of Appalachian tradition versus the Gospel — what is foundational, clearly revealed and true in Scripture.
The bill passed the Senate and moves to the House. Veteran newsman Brad McElhinny filed a full report.
Editor’s note: I tend to read / study the Amplified Bible and the New Living Translation with help from a few commentaries. My Bible app has more than 3,700 versions in nearly 2,400 languages. I’d suggest asking a pastor for help in picking the best version for you.
Partisan Mandates in Municipal Elections
House Bill 4080 would require all municipal elections to be conducted on a partisan basis. Many West Virginia cities currently choose not to do that.
This effort cuts against the long-standing conservative principle of local control and would further sideline independent voters.
The West Virginia Republican Party chose to close its primary to independents. Agree or disagree, that was the party’s decision to make. But a state mandate forcing cities to run partisan elections – codified – is different. It sends a message to voters who reject party labels that their independence doesn’t count and that punishment will follow if not abandoned.
For a growing share of West Virginians, that’s more than frustrating. It feels dismissive.
Most voters don’t choose their city council member based on party affiliation. They care about garbage pickup, functioning sewer systems and safe streets. Turning every local race into a partisan contest risks importing national political fights into issues that are, at their core, practical and local.
Pushing partisanship into every corner of civic life looks less like reform and more like an attempt to force voters into one camp or another – a camp they don’t want to be in. It diminishes unaffiliated voters and undermines the idea that communities should decide how to run their own elections.
This bill was pulled from committee agenda and remains at markup stage in House Judiciary; a sign the legislative process is doing its job. But voters should still ask their representatives what they think of it.
Ultimately, you – the individual voter – are the arbiter of what matters and what doesn’t. Best of luck as you decide.