I guess the basic line of the first set of verses is very obvious and the song can be 100% explained by "The truth is only ever relied on that which we agree and abide".

The Council of Nicea had to face a very hard dilemma: Are the father, the son and the holy ghost only one, or three separate entities? Monotheism does not allow for more than one god, and clearly never 3!! There were 2 currents: one, that all 3 entities were really one (defended by Alexander of Alexandria) and that there is really one god and the son and holy spirit are not really gods, but derived from one (defended by Arius).

Of course the issue is metaphysical and the decision had to ARBITRATED. Hence, the truth comes from decision (agreement) in these regards and must abided.

This is an opposition to the naturalistic point of view, where "the truth is one and only defined by scientific proof". I do not know the details, but surely in Tennessee the teachings were not based on Darwin.

But what strikes to me the most is the verse "We all need some kind of creed to lead us to light". So the "light" (truth, reality, verity) can only be achieved through a creed? Hum... is Naturalism nothing more than a creed? Is the verse sarcastical?

Does creed imply faith? Maybe... maybe not. It can be defined as a set of beliefs. Now, can we believe in something natural? In other words, does belief imply only faith, or does it embrace proved phenomena? Is belief a step behind knowledge? Do I believe the sun rises from the east, or do I know it rises from the east? Do I need to believe the truth??

I think we need NOT to believe the truth, as something true is immutable. Therefore, hard to understand why naturalism can be a creed. Of course this only my interpretation, but naturalism is not a set of beliefs, so it cannot be a creed. Which leads me to my annoying feeling that the line "We all need some kind of creed to lead us to light" is indeed sarcastical.

It is a great song, short and dense, condensating the christian x naturalistic "dispute", even though we all know christendom can never find a way (logical, at least) to go around naturalism. Point well scored, Greg :)

If anyone wants to further this discussion, please PM me :)

The first verse ("In 325, the Council devised a set of sacred testaments (...)") is about the "First Council of Nicaea". The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 325. The Council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.

The second verse ("In old Tennessee, the last century (...)") is about "The Scopes Trial". The Scopes Trial was an American legal case in 1925 in which high school biology teacher John Scopes was accused of violating the state's Butler Act which made it unlawful to teach evolution. -Info from 'The Answer'

My guess is that the third verse is the political state of the US right now and touches on "Obamacare." I don't have an opinion as to what side of the debate Greg Graffin stands on but the line "I witnessed a guy complaining about how a so-and-so had lied," reminded me of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro which also makes more sense with the following line being "No longer will the markets decide what the government should provide."