Resolution Proposes Christianity Be Missouri’s Official Religion- Page 2

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 7:02pm

The question was rhetorical jasonf. I am in seminary, (even though it is a VERY liberal one) I see this idiocy everyday. But I also see the many people who fight against this.
The sad thing is these people have completely missed the point of both the religion they claim, and the constitution.

I am propelled to more anger after reading the actual document. There is nothing so dangerous as insisting upon ignorance.

[Kitzarina]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 7:04pm

*headdesk* And here I thought moving to Kansas City was a good idea because people are more tolerant there.

Looks like I need a plan B.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 7:06pm

"Start spreadin' the news..."

[jasonf]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 7:25pm

sorry smartpenguin -- I must've misread your original post. :) Now, convert to my stupidity!

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 7:28pm

It is hard to tell the level of Sarcasm I have in message board form. Generally I have no faith in people, so you can garner my real opinion from that.

That last statement is an example of an extreme point that I don't believe (entirely)

No problems though jasonF.

[kjklo]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 9:11pm

Loathsome and offensive as it is (also embarrassing to me as a Missouri resident), you have to note that it is a resolution, not a bill. It's intended to express a policy opinion of its supporters--an idiotic opinion, but just an opinion--and would have no effect on actual law. It's meant as a declaration that the legislature disagrees with the judicial ruling that school prayer is unconstitutional. It would not establish an official state religion. I doubt that it has much chance of passing, but perhaps I'm being overly optimistic. I hope not.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 9:13pm

A state flower - yes
A state motto - yes
A state flag - yes
A state religion - No way - Bad idea

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 9:16pm

papa, what this bill says to me is that the only religion that is recognized as belong to the majority is Christianity, and that it will be allowed to exercise their beliefs, nowhere does it say minority religions shall be granted the same rights. All it says it that the beliefs should be exercised by the majority while "showing respect for who object." It does not say that minorty should also be able to exercise their beliefs. It does no protect the rights of the minority to exercise their religious beliefs. To me, this is state sanctioned religion.

And kjklo, I am not familiar with how the process works in Missouri, but are not resolutions the first step in introducing a Bill? I think they are in some states. I am not sure about Missouri.
Updated On: 3/4/06 at 09:16 PM

[kjklo]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 9:37pm

This story from the St Louis Post-Dispatch gives a few more details. The last three paragraphs explain a bit about the role of resolutions in the Missouri legislature.

MO controversy Updated On: 3/4/06 at 09:37 PM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 9:57pm

To me, the statement in the article:

"Bearden said that just because a resolution is filed, it doesn't necessarily represent the views of the entire Legislature. While the resolution on religion has cleared the House Rules Committee, there's no guarantee it will go further, he said."

means that it is in fact a step (most likely that will never be followed up) in the process to pass a law. Many of recognize that this will ever be realized as a formal bill. Or come to the Gov for signature. I am just outraged at the fact that it was even introduced.

As I said before, William Penn is turning in his grave.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 10:03pm

If politicians think they are justified in this nonsense, how long do you think it will take for real and dangerous laws to be introduced. We should speak out now, while we still can.

[Kitzarina]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 10:04pm

I enjoy the irony in the fact that the conservative Christian college I attended had the William Penn Library.

[kjklo]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 10:16pm

You're right, the article's wording is a little ambiguous, but I just checked the website of the MO State Senate. According to their "Official Glossary of Legislative Terms," a bill is defined as a "draft of proposed law" and a resolution is defined as a "formal expression of the will, wish, or direction of one or both houses." That's pretty much the way I always understood the distinction. But I'm no expert, so any further light that can be shed, would be appreciated.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 11:27pm

I was always under the impression that a resolution is the first step towards something becoming a law.

[justthefacts2]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 11:30pm

papa, I see you posted a link to the resolution. I found it, too, and it's not long, so I pasted it below. In spite of all the references to Christianity in the preamble, interestingly there is no actual statement that Christians are the majority. The "majority" in the preamble, as close as I can tell (it's not well written) are those "who wish to acknowledge our Creator". The "majority" referenced afterwards is the majority "of our constituents" but also not specified as Christian. The only wording that matters in the whole thing is:

"voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state."

The resolution boils down to them stating their position on this issue. Even the "but rather" wording that follows carries no weight. It doesn't specify a denomination for either the voluntary prayer nor the religious displays. That's my reading, for what it's worth - but everyone can read it themselves. All I can say is, the quality of news reporting these days terrifies and horrifies me at times.


SECOND REGULAR SESSION

House Concurrent Resolution No. 13

93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY

4572L.02I

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.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 11:45pm

no, ywiw, a "concurrent resolution" as this is is merely a statement by the legislature and has no legal power. it's the same thing the us congress does when it wants to say something without doing anything. actually at that level it's usually used for procedural purposes like scheduling or expressing a sentiment of the congress (any congress-o-philes out there are welcome to educate me if i'm wrong).

stuff like this...
h. con. res. 79

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 11:48pm

Ummm - connect the dots.

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
. . .

Whereas: as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object;

. . .

Now, therefore: 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.

How does this not state that the Majority believe in Christianity and these beliefs should be given more respect than any other? Or more specifically, only Christianity, or the majority, is given the statement of the right to express religious beliefs, "while showling respect for others."

And papa, you may well be right, but other sources cited indicated to the contrary for Missouri. But, it was my understanding this was the state of Missouri, not the Federal Government. If a Concurrent Resultion in Missouri is never the first step in becoming a law, then the information I originally sourced was incorrect.
Updated On: 3/4/06 at 11:48 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 11:51pm

i don't see many of the other hcr's becoming laws, but you can check for yourself here.

scroll down for the hcr's.
missouri house of representatives - 93rd general assembly, 2nd regular session

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/4/06 at 11:57pm

I live in California, half of that crap would be passed into law regardless. It seems to me this is the first step. Granted, there are often no second steps, but the fact that any elected representative would even pursue this frightens me.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

We both believe that regardless it is unconsitional. And both of us believe it would never reach the level of actually being signed into law. I guess as a Jew, anything that smacks of making Christianity the recognized religion of any state scares the heck out of me.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/5/06 at 12:11am

ok, ywiw, i'm on a semantic kick. in missouri, a resolution is not a part of the process by which a bill becomes a law. in fact, a resolution is by definition not a bill.

i have a feeling that you might mean it in a more general sense that this paves the way for a bill to be introduced at which point the legislative proces would begin, but a resolution is not a part of that process.
how a bill becomes a law in missouri

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/5/06 at 12:18am

Yep, that was my intent. Some of the story I reads from Missouri newspapers indicate that that it is the start of the process.

Notice, I changed the title of the thread in oder to be accurate.

[kjklo]

Posted: 3/5/06 at 12:19am

I understand what you're saying (I think). Even if it's nothing that will be signed into law, or if it somehow were, it would be struck down immediately, it doesn't matter. Just the fact that it was even brought up in a public legislature in this day and age is disturbing. Yes, you're right, it is. It's horribly depressing. The religious right is feeling very cocky right now and is on an aggressive crusade that needs to be watched very carefully.

Papa, I know you're a conservative, and I ask you to comment on what Barry Goldwater would have had to say about all this nonsense.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/5/06 at 12:22am

Barry Goldwater is turning is grave right along side with William Penn.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/5/06 at 12:23am

early in his career he would have supported it. towards the end he would have said something along the lines of, "every good christian should line up and kick the missouri house of representative's ass."

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/5/06 at 12:25am

papa, I could have voted for Goldwater.

My dad was a Goldwater Republican.

My mom, a Kennedy Democrat.

We had some very interesting dinner conversations.

When I was a kid, we had both a McGovern and a Nixon sign on our lawn.