So nothing's really happening in Missouri.

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?

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

FELIPE NO