Posted on 03/03/2006 10:59:51 PM PST by Dallas59
Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.
House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the state legislature.
Many Missouri residents had not heard about the bill until Thursday.
Karen Aroesty of the Anti-defamation league, along with other watch-groups, began a letter writing and email campaign to stop the resolution.
The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs.
The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition."
State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri, sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over the phone.
KMOV also contacted Gov. Matt Blunt's office to see where he stands on the resolution, but he has yet to respond.
Oh-oh. Now you've gone and done it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a resolution isn't a law so perhaps they can do it?
They might want to tack on a never-to-be-paid-back-bond measure to cover the inevitable court costs that would allow those who actually want to fund a doomed statement of conscious to do so without forcing the entire population to shoulder the burden.
Of course, if this is just a (meaningless) resolution, its just stupid. If its a bona fide attempt at legislation, it will be deader than a doornail as it hits the first courthouse steps...
Somehow, I think the MO legislature has better things to with their time. A bunch of libs will now shout "see, we told you! Crazy, right wing religious extremists want to take over the country...blah blah blah..." (interestingly, they refer to Christianity in these rants and not the much more obvious threat) Regardless, this bill\resolution is not helpful.
I would prefer to wait until after we have the 2008 president and a 60 house majority before we start doing the things I want to do.
We have state birds and fish, why not a state majority religion? It will drive many bats with worry but I don't see how it explicitly violates the Constitution. The establishment clause does not prohibit the stating of fact it only prohibits the state establishment of a religion presumably one to which people are coerced into joining through the law. One could say this is a slippery slope but it is a stretch and though it may be political gasoline I still love the effort. It is such a delightful picture to imagine the heads of leftists shooting right off worrying about this while otherwise calmly applying moral relativism in defense of terrorist cartoon hating mullahs everywhere.
No good can come of this.
That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.
I would venture a guess that it's a trial balloon to see if there is the political will to initiate a challenge to the extra-constitutional "Wall of Separation" doctrine.
The ability of states to establish a religion has long been used as a theoretical example of the federal/state division of the "Federalist" system.
Granted, they are creative idiots, have been for decades, but I wonder what would happen if they became sufficiently creative as to define, at law, that a religion is a philosophy or belief that expresses the advocacy for the existence of a higher power but does not call for, in any manner, the harming or slaying of those who do not adhere to said philosophy.
You realise, of course, that 'religion' has never -- in the US -- been defined at law.
Now (said he, just postulating), if Islam should be legally undefined as a 'religion' (no comment here, although I could make a very pithy one), why then the CAIR crowd and their ilk would have to play on the same field as do Christians, Jews, and Orthodox, this very day, in Saudi Arabia.
Very interesting notion, wouldn't you say?
Whatcha smokin', Jack?
I imagine they could do just about anything by majority vote. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be struck down by the ACLU within ten minutes of having taken place. Yeah, I know, the ACLU can't do anything, but you know what I mean.
When we allowed a multitude of Moslems into the nation, we opened a can of worms that will be with us from now until dooms day. Those folks want majority rights on a minority status.
While that's not necessarily a bad thing, their version is anything but a good thing IMO. Christianity is going to pay a very heavy price for what the secularists have facilitated.
" That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship. "
I still think that as long as the legistlature limits themselves to stating a fact that "the majority of people in the state of Missouri are Christians" they are not in violation of the above section. It may be in bad taste but no more so than having a black studies class but it still tastes good in so many other ways.
I hadn't heard of this Utah case. I'd heard the "established religion" rationale described as recently as a year ago, though I can't for the life of me remember what the context was.
I'll have to do some research...if I get interested enough ;o)
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
It's not. The problem is, the Moslems will be pushing the courts to support their views non-stop. What this will mean, is that something we have taken for granted for hundreds of years, will now be challenged on legal terms 'all the time'. That's going to suck big time.
Something tells me this legislator's just trying to make a capital-P Point.
Well, it does occur to me that when call to prayers is played over a loudspeaker across the landscape, that you're getting pretty darned close to it. There was a town last year where this was taking place. I'd have to move if that happened near where I live. There's no way in hell I'm going to have the Moslem religion shoved in my face 24/7/365.
But you're not doing that in the village square. You're doing it in the home. Now be good... LOL
We're in agreement on this.
You may be right about our differing views, but from my perspective it doesn't sound like we're differing on this post at all.
Here's the Resolution:
Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and
Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and
Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and
Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and
Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.
Amen. The amount of money wasted on the follow up lawsuits to this is so not worth the gesture.
You touch on a great point for many of us.
While I'm not believer in organized religion by any stretch of the imagination, I have no problem with religious displays in public places. As long as my (our) tax dollars don't go to pay for it, bring 'em on.
I might not believe in the messenger, I do believe in the message.
I think it was Hamtramck MI and I think they got a pass on the noise ordinance.
Carolyn
Carolyn
Yes they can.
The federal constitution says "Congress can make no law"
The State legislatures are not 'Congress'.
---------
George Mason's Master Draft of the Bill of Rights
20. That Religion or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society of Christians ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others.
This resolution merely reiterates the intent of the Founders.
Thanks for the comments.
"Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly . . ."
The obvious one that pops to mind is the 10 Commandments on the courthouse lawn. Now if the courthouse lawn were subdivided into 50 regions and each was available for lease by different religions for their displays I would have less of a problem with it but that just sounds like a dumb idea.
Good points & I agree. Just keep them off gov't property and we can avoid like 99.9% of all issues, stop wasting taxpayers money AND keep it out of the courts. ...where every good idea goes to die.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.