So nothing's really happening in Missouri.

Quote:

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.

Firstamendmentwhat?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

What's the big deal?

Government's are not allowed to establish a religion.

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

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

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Acro-nym

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.

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.

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

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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 nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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..

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

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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

Originally Posted by Bradylama

"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.

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.

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

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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?

Originally Posted by russ

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?

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

FELIPE NO

Quote:

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?

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

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

Originally Posted by Watts

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

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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

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

Originally Posted by eks

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

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.

Originally Posted by eks

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?

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Acro-nym

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

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.

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?

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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:

FELIPE NO

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.

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

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.