State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion

[badstar]

On one hand, I'm laughing my ass off. On the other...I'm pissed off that taxpayers dollars are being wasted on this, and that it hasn't been thrown out.

http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/030206ccklrKmovreligionbill.7d361c3f.html
(registration required)

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.


Text of the intro of the bill:

http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/hcr0013i.htm

Comments

[blaisepascal]

My prediction? It's likely to pass, because few of the State representatives and State Senators in Missouri are likely to take a stand against it.

On the otherhand, it doesn't do anything. It says a bunch of stuff, and says the House and Senate support something, but no one gets any money; no one has to do anything; no one is prevented from doing anything based on the resolution.

It's appalling, yes, but it's a do-nothing, feel-good resolution.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

establishing a state religion is doing nothing?

Yep.

[blaisepascal]

Here's the text of what the resolution does:

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.

While I disagree with what it says, and feel it shouldn't be passed, all it does is express an opinion of the House and Senate.

Think of it this way..... What could someone do to generate an "actual case or controversy" needed to go to court over this resolution. As far as I can see, nothing. In no way does this resolution affect the lives of the citizens of Missouri. It doesn't require them to do anything, nor does it prevent them from doing anything, nor does it cause the State to spend any funds on anything religious, nor any State employee to perform a religious action.

Re: Yep.

[tecie.livejournal.com]

I disagree, in that it endorses prayer in schools, which is rather dangerous (IMHO).

the bumper sticker says....

[fuego.livejournal.com]

as long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools.

i have no problem with prayer in schools. or anywhere else. if some kind feels the need/want to pray...have at it.

i don't think it belongs in government legislation...documentation, whatever you want to cal it.

[ranger-hotsauce.livejournal.com]

Have you actually read that intro? It doesn't establish any official anything. It's a throwaway peice of fluff legislation that some legislator thought would make his constituents happy. All it does is say that the senate as a body believes that "voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property" aren't the end of the world. The consitution of the United States already says both these things. For example, nativity scenes or menorahs in December aren't a violation of church/state seperation if they are accompanied by secular icons like Santa and Hanakkuh Harry ;-)

Seems like someone's being alarmist.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

i'm trying to find more text of the bill...

[blaisepascal]

That link is to the entire text of the legislation -- as introduced. That isn't the introduction to it, that's the introduced version.

No amendments have been made in committee. That's it.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

i remember why i thought it was the introduction....look at the URL "http://....intro/hcr0013i.htm"

[ranger-hotsauce.livejournal.com]

I rather imagine there isn't any. Like I said, fluff legislation, the same kind that establish "national strawberry ice cream appreciation day". And it looks like it's the local news station that's being alarmist. This is why I eschew local news stations.

[saratoga80.livejournal.com]

It's more than this. This is in direct response to the Judge Roy Moore rulings. It allows for the display of Christian religious symbols on public property. It is law expressly designed to challenge the removal of the 10 Commandments in Alabama, and its designed to provoke a High Court fight because Sandra Day O'Connor is retired, and she was hte pivotal vote in that issue.

In current broad interpretation, you are allowed religious display in general celebration or with a nod to history. It would be silly to try to remove all religious references in society, even if somewhat public in display and nature. But what this aims at is the current Supreme Court litmus test: "Establishment" as a principle that violates Church and State. I think, because it definitively references Christianity and attempts to place an individual religion in public discourse, this is Unconstitutional.

I don't think this is going anywhere without being broadened, but don't pooh-pooh this - it's proposed law designed to challenge a high court ruling, and I would be very surprised if it doesn't wind up in a few years before our justices.

-- Rich

[pagandenma.livejournal.com]

One problem right off the bat:

Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind. . .

By using "a" they immediately exclude most of the Eastern religions and Earth religions. As well as any Atheists or Agnostics. Not appropriate and not complete Constitutional either.

And considering the book I've been reading, not all that surprising.

More as I keep reading.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

what's the title of the book again? and can i be added to the list of folks to borrow it when you're done?

[pagandenma.livejournal.com]

the book is Contemporary Paganism: Minority Religion in a Majoritarian America by Carol Barner-Berry, a Political Science professor out at UMBC.

And through a weird twist of fate (I'll explain at ROC later today), I will probably be able to donate a copy to the Grove library soon!

Excellent reading,although DRY and very academic, but hellishly thought-provoking and yes, it will make your blood boil occasionally. GOOD stuff.

[sunneyone.livejournal.com]

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.
he hides because he knows his little bill is bullshit?