So nothing's really happening in Missouri.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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?
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.