So nothing's really happening in Missouri.

Originally Posted by Wesker

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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

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:

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

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?

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

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Fyodor D.

I don't know of a single Roman Catholic who would say that protestants do not worship the same God that they do.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Fyodor D.

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!

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Wesker

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

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

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Fyodor D.

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.

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?

I was speaking idiomatically.

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!"

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Sing

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

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Plus I've noticed that you're the one calling people "retard" and "dork" so stop whining about being attacked.

Calling you a moron for not clicking the link before commenting on the source isn't whining.

Quote:

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

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Wesker

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

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?