Bill To Make Christianity Official State Religion

[Lunar Shadow]

Why can't people try reading the constitution every now and then? Why is it that people are so stupid in thinking that they can just go and change the foundation that this country was founded on with out consequences? Thoughts?

Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.

House Concurrent Resolution 13 has [sic] is pending in the state legislature...

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. [via Atrios]

First, let me say that this is far too wing-nutty to get by even Missouri's Repub-led House and Senate. The fact that the bill's sponsor won't talk about it tells you it isn't likely to fly.


full article (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/33056/)

[Lunar Shadow]

Here is the Bill

Source (http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm)


SECOND REGULAR SESSION

House Concurrent Resolution No. 13

93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY

4572L.02I

Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and

Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and

Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and

Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and

Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense 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 of ours, the United States of America.

So not only are we breaking constitutional law we are changing history too by saying that the founders "recognized a Christian God and used the principles" which is not true yes there may have been a couple of Christians in the continental congress but most where deists and agnostics. I swear this Christian historical revisionist movement is really starting to piss me off.

[uncertaindrumer]

Here is the Bill

Source (http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm)




So not only are we breaking constitutional law we are changing history too by saying that the founders "recognized a Christian God and used the principles" which is not true yes there may have been a couple of Christians in the continental congress but most where deists and agnostics. I swear this Christian historical revisionist movement is really starting to piss me off.

Yeah this is pretty dumb... although it is true that many of the Founding Fathers WERE Christian, that does not really have anything to do with anything...

[RalphyS]

Think of it this way, it must be an enormous relief for the Christian God to be finally official in the USA :)

[RMadd]

holy crap... i live in Missouri, and haven't heard a thing about this. i didn't think people in our state House were that whacked out. and to think they held out on my $1000 scholarship last fall for about 2 or 3 months while debating if we (the state) had enough money to pay those scholarships (anyone who scores a 30 or better on the ACT & attends school in-state gets $2000 per year, $1000 each semester). Luckily, it didn't get held up this semester in the interest of debating whether we should make Christianity the official majority state religion. Morans.

[RMadd]

So not only are we breaking constitutional law we are changing history too by saying that the founders "recognized a Christian God and used the principles" which is not true yes there may have been a couple of Christians in the continental congress but most where deists and agnostics. I swear this Christian historical revisionist movement is really starting to piss me off.
I suppose there's two ways to look at this: either the proponents of this bill are utterly stupid, or they have other motives. By this, I expect that they realize that it is unconstitutional. They (quite reasonably) expect someone to challenge it, and that the case would eventually go up to the Supreme Court (through numerous appeals by the state). There, the hope would be that an opinion would be rendered by the now right-leaning court in favor of the state. The only other way that it would hold up would be a constitutional amendment, and there certainly aren't the numbers in either the House or the Senate, let alone the entire population, to pass this bullsh**.
As such, it's somewhat akin to South Dakota's illegalization of abortions. They know it's unconstitutional, but hope it will eventually make it to the SC, and that the justices, led by Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, etc. would render an opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade (1973).

[eusebioCBR]

I will not rely upon the fickle appoval of man or government. Jesus Christ is who validates my faith.

[Unforgiven Fan]

holy crap... i live in Missouri, and haven't heard a thing about this. i didn't think people in our state House were that whacked out. and to think they held out on my $1000 scholarship last fall for about 2 or 3 months while debating if we (the state) had enough money to pay those scholarships (anyone who scores a 30 or better on the ACT & attends school in-state gets $2000 per year, $1000 each semester). Luckily, it didn't get held up this semester in the interest of debating whether we should make Christianity the official majority state religion. Morans.


I live in missouri too and I heard it through a poly-sci group I belong with, this state is messed up because of the republicans (I am not a democrat either) that are in control, this will not fly though at all...

[Lunar Shadow]

I suppose there's two ways to look at this: either the proponents of this bill are utterly stupid, or they have other motives. By this, I expect that they realize that it is unconstitutional. They (quite reasonably) expect someone to challenge it, and that the case would eventually go up to the Supreme Court (through numerous appeals by the state). There, the hope would be that an opinion would be rendered by the now right-leaning court in favor of the state. The only other way that it would hold up would be a constitutional amendment, and there certainly aren't the numbers in either the House or the Senate, let alone the entire population, to pass this bullsh**.
As such, it's somewhat akin to South Dakota's illegalization of abortions. They know it's unconstitutional, but hope it will eventually make it to the SC, and that the justices, led by Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, etc. would render an opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade (1973).


I think that you are getting it Rmadd

the problem that they don't realize is that right leaning justices tend not to legislate from the bench so I have a feeling that their plan will backfire if it passes at all (and part of me hopes it does for that reason)

[RMadd]

<~~ yep.... i'm pretty sure it was Roberts who, despite not giving away a whole lot during his confirmation hearings, mentioned something about not being likely to overturn precedent too easily. and, as you pointed out, they're conservative, so not likely to approve so much of judicial activism.