So nothing's really happening in Missouri.
 

What's the big deal? Is this really that different from a country declaring its official religion? And are we really surprised? What else would be the majority religion in a U.S. state?

Government's are not allowed to establish a religion.

This isn't the establishment of a religion. The religion already exists.

There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the government favoring a religion. It simply prohibits governments from mandating a religion or creating one of its own accord. I don't feel that this piece of legislation is prohibiting anything; it's simply stating what we already know.

A government can "favor" a religion but the government isn't supposed to make it official. Technically the US gov't should be religiously neutral.

I really think this legislation is just making legal what is already fact. Christianity is the majority religion in Missouri. I'd find it hard to believe if they came out and said "Buddhism is the majority religion of Missouri." And, really, it isn't like their saying that Christianity is the official religion for their state. I'm a little iffy on its support of a "Christian god," though. That seems like it's teetering on the edge of breaking the First Amendment.

The statement is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". "Establishment" does not mean establishing. It refers to religions or religious organizations. The 14th Amendment then establishes that state governments cannot do what Congress cannot do.

Respecting Christianity over other religion is unconsitutional and will provide more of a slippery slope.

Hence why I said that the whole supporting a "Christian god" was a problem. If they'd jsut come out and said that it was the majority religion, we could have chalked it up to statistical fact.

I don't see any problem here. Wouldn't the world be a better place if we were all Christians?

Plus, it's Missouri. I bet there's more cows then christians there.

There's no reason to "officially" recognize Christianity as a majority religion. If there's a majority of Christians than Hindus, it's a matter of fact.

This is nothing but a bullshit "Christian Persecution" law implemented by paranoid reactionaries trying to make sure their kids can pray in schools and shit. There should be no reason to guarantee the rights of the majority because rights apply to all citizens regardless of their demographic. "Guaranteeing the expression of the majority" is favoritism, and an establishment of religion by the government. Undeniably unconstitutional.

Anybody who would argue otherwise has no concept of either English, or Law.

Sure there is. To establish Christianity as the official state religion and percescute the hethans.

Every theocracy needs it's baby steps. And look at how wonderful theocratic countries like Iran are doing!

The constitution is a contract. Contracts can be re-negociated at any time. Which is why we have the NSA domestic spying on Americans, The Patriot Act, and a history of presidents intervening in countries through so called "police actions" without a declaration of war. I could probably list more examples but really why bother.

Those are either direct violations, or circumventions of Constitutional law. "Re-negotiating of a contract" would be proposing an ammendment that would give the NSA the powers to spy on us and yaddy yadda.

I would like to see all documentation regarding how their statistical evidence that Christianity is, in fact, the majority religion in Missouri was gathered. Unless they release this information to the public, how are we to know if Christianity is truly the majority religion, rather than simply being assumed to be the majority religion?

Then the law is a very subjective thing then isn't it? If the people that are supposed to make the laws, break the laws. Then is there any law at all?

A demographic study would easily prove those statistics. As to where you could find one as reference online... probably wikipedia would have that.

Of course, it just means that certain people are above the law.

Dunno. I'm pretty certain that it would be better if it contained fewer Christians, tho.

If the Constitution is a contract, how come I can't go sign it, and, if I'm not allowed to sign it, do I have follow it?

Smart man. Then if the powers that be want a theocracy, they'll have a theocracy. Despite whatever the constitution says.

Don't say that if you're ever in Missouri. The cows will start a revolt like in the book Animal Farm. Or maybe that was pigs.... whatever.


You're bound by the contract as long as you're a citizen of the USA. You bought in to the program when you became one, likely when you were born.

But don't feel bad about being left out. In the good old days when the founding fathers were making it they left out a lot of people. Women, Native Americans, Blacks, Poor Whites, Poor Whites without any land, Asians, etc.

You can say that's not what is said in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court's interpretation disagrees with you. And whatever the Supreme Court interprets to be in the Constitution is what it really says.

eks, no one asks you to stay around. If you would like to stick around and amend aspects of the Constitution, then might I suggest you get in contact with your representatives and talk to them about specific amendments.

As for Missouri: I'm shocked that more people don't realize that this is a directly prohibited by the Bill of Rights, and how such an act can restrict the rights of its citizens, and how the theo-cons are pretty much attempting to run the show. Prettymuch.

Why bring the Supreme Court into this? The Supreme Court has contradicted itself many times throughout the history of this country.

Furthermore, in light of recent events that probably should've sparked a constitutional crisis the Supreme Court has been neatly avoided.... or taken out for a hunting trip in Wyoming with Dick Cheney to come to a understanding. Quite brave.

Don't be suprised. Most dipshits can't name the five freedoms the first amendment protects. If they can't do that then how are they going to name all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights?

And hey, if they don't know about it then, like it doesn't have to enforced okay?

Ok, here is the real resolution:
http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/bil...o/HCR0013I.htm

Basically, all it resolves is 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"
That is it. Nothing more.
There are statements that are premises for the resolution, but they are nt the resolution itself.

Maybe if you went to the actual source and actually read Missouri House Concurrent resolution 13

http://www.house.mo.gov/bills03/bill...o/HCR0013I.PDF

and not get your information from unrelibale left wing blogs, you'd present a more accurate subject for debate.

Edit:...I see that I'm a little late on the post, and I only had the first session draft of the resolution:doh:

Sorry Wesker, my link is better. It is more updated. 93rd general assembly versus 92nd general assembly. :P Your's is from 2003, wheras mine is from 2006. :D

Although, this IS rather interesting how those look significantly different.

I had no problem with the first draft that I found, but you're right, its intersting to see how it changed. I wonder why they weren't happy with it in its original form.

On a side note, I'm what could be considered a conservative Christian, but I'm 100% against prayer in public schools. You would, by law, have to allow all kinds of prayer..from Christian to Satanic, if you were to allow any. I'm thinking this may have been what prompted the change in the wording. Someone in the Missouri legislature realized that their kids just might be led in an Islamic prayer because of the law they passed.

More like some hazing and a good beating in public schools.

Or maybe because they'd have to tolerate some Islamic prayers in school. Seriously how many Muslims are in Missouri? Perish the thought.

It doesn't matter how many...if you allow prayer in public, i.e. government schools, you have to allow ALL prayers. If there is one teacher who is a Voodoo priestess, and she wants to lead a Voodoo prayer, the law..in its first draft..would have allowed that, so they changed it to be more "Christian" centered.

I don't see how this resolution could be passed, because "Christianity" has many sects, which are almost entirely different religions. Catholicism and Protestantism alone would yield much division in the "Christian" populace. Then you have to take into account the many competing sects of Protestantism, Baptists do not generally get along with Methodists or Pentacostals.

Also, how does this resolution effect secularists, agnostics and the like? What're the provisions of this resolution? What've the major considerations been in drafting this resolution?

In other words - Is the actual text of this resolution available or are we simply getting speculation on what it says?

Or of course whoever thought it would be fun to rape the laws in the first place could have just recognized that a student saying a prayer native to his or her religion is a practice of that religion and therefor it is unconstitutional to deny them that right, where as a teacher leading a class in prayer is a different matter as it denies students the right to their religious beliefs by forcing another upon them. And public schools are paid for with tax money, which is of course government money, and therefor if the government paid a teacher who led a class in prayer that would be the government supporting one religion over another. Teachers should be allowed the same rights as students and be allowed to make their own prayers, just not lead the class in prayer.

Look at the first page.
Wesker and I posted links to 2 different versions of the actual resolution, mine being the most updated, and the one that is considering being passed.

Double Post:
Different sects yes, but that ALL admit that it is the same God. I don't know of a single Roman Catholic who would say that protestants do not worship the same God that they do.

And no, this resolution doesn't really affect those who say they do not participate in any religious activities. If you want to see what the resolution says, look here:
http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/bil...o/HCR0013I.htm

But there are many fundamentalists who might say the Catholics have a different God..many folks might object to praying to Mary or one of the various saints. Bills like this, while they may be full of good intentions are really poorly thought out full of potential problems. Why not just have a moment of silence in the class. Kids who want to pray can pray, kids who want to think about theri next class or new video game can do that.

I think that is what the resolution is saying. That, by allowing children to, of their own accord, pray, that is in no way a violation of the establishment clause.

This changes nothing. The establishment clause only applies to government entities, not personal individuals.

What am I saying? Woe to the repressed majority of Christians in America!

I believe it is just a clarification resolution. Those happen all the time in all sorts of levels of government.
So, yes, it really shouldn't change anything; but it will do so nonetheless for those who want to read into the establishment clause things which aren't really there.

It's a news source for Missouri, not a blog, you retard.

And what is currently preventing children from praying to themselves whenever they want to? How is a resolution which explicitly allows prayer to a Christian God only going to change that? And is it really something that is needed, and/or fair for all those involved?

Like I said before, I believe this is a clarification resolution, seeing as how the vast majority of complaints about acts of prayer in schools are against Christians, not by them.

Essentially, all it does it silence a bunch of whiny pricks who might cry that permission implies endorsement, and thus violation of the establishment clause.

Then again, maybe the wording of the state constitution is inadequte, and so they felt it necessary to include this.

I dunno, I am just speculating on reasons that might not lead one to think "ZOMG!!!1! CHRISTIAN IMPERIALISM!"

I didn't realize that there were complaints against students who take it upon themselves to pray before a test as an example.

Any links to this kind of story would be appreciated, as it sounds pretty unreasonable to complain about such things.

Maybe next time you could credit your quote and not put some pithy little saying like "first amendment what" that nobody bothers to look at. I happened to find the same article in several left wing blogs.

You're attacking me because you were too lazy to click on my link?

It wasn't much of a link...what the hell does "firstamendment what?" mean..sound more like your opinion than a link. Plus I've noticed that you're the one calling people "retard" and "dork" so stop whining about being attacked.

I must say that your first post in this thread appears to be bordering on the low-end of PP quality standards. (to Sing)

Calling you a moron for not clicking the link before commenting on the source isn't whining.
It's a news article, with a clear story. The discussion is already set up, removing the need for me to do so. I then provided my opinion in the form of a sarcastic comment. I apologize for not being verbose to your satisfaction.

So this is what you consider an attack, yet you using terms like moron, dork and retard..thats ok..how old are you anyway????

Stop member moderating. If Singularity's post wasn't up to snuff, something would've been said about it by now. It may be the bare minimum, but it's something.

I know that the moderator icons aren't up, but Styphon, RacinReaver, Nadienne, and I are all moderators.

Singularity's posts are usually concise-- dry, but to the point.

Establishment clause is being trampled on here. You have the right to free exercise; however, the government CANNOT ESTABLISH A STATE RELIGION. A lot of establishment clause cases went to the Supreme Court and this is the kind of things that the Court rules against.