1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by mioque, Mar 4, 2006.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion


    12:28 AM CST on Friday, March 3, 2006

    By John Mills, News 4
    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.
    http://www.kmov.com/localnews/stories/030206ccklrKmovreligionbill.7d361c3f.html
     
    #1 mioque, Mar 4, 2006
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Is this for real?

    I would vote "no" if a Missouri resident.
     
    #2 NaasPreacher (C4K), Mar 4, 2006
  3. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    #3 Daisy, Mar 4, 2006
  4. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's pretty much a (hollow) gesture towards those Christian voters in Missouri that appreciate that sort of thing.
    It sounds nice, doesn't actually do anything if it isn't challenged in court and if it is challenged than the lawmakers can still point to it as something they tried to do for Christian voters.

    At least, that's my theory.
     
    #4 mioque, Mar 5, 2006
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    This is hardly a statement that Christianity will be Missouri's state religion as implied in the title. All it does is recognise the role Christianity has played.

     
    #5 NaasPreacher (C4K), Mar 5, 2006
  6. fromtheright

    fromtheright <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with C4K on this one and almost posted the same paragraph before I read his response. The thread title is disingenuous or a serious misunderstanding of the resolution.

    I would add, though, and C4K probably disagrees with me on this, but I see no Constitutional problem with a state declaring an official religion. The First Amendment doesn't prohibit it and I don't believe that if the 14th Amendment incorporates the BoR as believed, it incorporates the establishment clause. I also certainly understand that is a minority position and not in line with current Supreme Court jurisprudence.
     
    #6 fromtheright, Mar 5, 2006
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    I agree that there is no constitutional problem - I just would not want to be a part of it.
     
    #7 NaasPreacher (C4K), Mar 5, 2006
  8. fromtheright

    fromtheright <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    C4K, I would only have a problem if it infringed on equal protection of the laws.
     
    #8 fromtheright, Mar 5, 2006
  9. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    The thread title is simply the title of the newspaper article.
     
    #9 mioque, Mar 5, 2006
  10. fromtheright

    fromtheright <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, thanks, mioque, and my apologies. Do you think that what they are doing is tantamount to an establishment of Christianity?
     
    #10 fromtheright, Mar 5, 2006
  11. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Do you think that what they are doing is tantamount to an establishment of Christianity? "
    "
    Certainly not in any practical sense. Possibly in a symbolic sense.
     
    #11 mioque, Mar 6, 2006
  12. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think it's great.
     
    #12 LadyEagle, Mar 6, 2006
  13. gtbuzzarp

    gtbuzzarp New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dare I ask..

    If this passes, how long do you think it will take the ACLU to file/financially support a "separation of church and state" lawsuit?

    If this were Utah and it was Mormonism, would you feel any different?
     
    #13 gtbuzzarp, Mar 6, 2006
  14. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 - It will not pass.

    2 - If it did pass, it does not specify what form of Christianity would be the state's religion.

    3 - If it did pass, it would be rightly nullified as violating the US Constitution in the courts.
     
    #14 Johnv, Mar 6, 2006
  15. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is a reaction. The leftist ACLU types have been long effective in quieting the majority while protecting the right of the minority to impose their wills and opinions on everyone else.

    How is it a violation of anyone's rights to allow expressions of majority views? Ans: It isn't.

    I don't want religion in government schools... I want government out of the education business. That is THE ONLY way to protect everyone's rights concerning what can or cannot be done in a classroom concerning religion, values, or philosophy.
     
    #15 Scott J, Mar 6, 2006
  16. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1 - It will not pass.

    2 - If it did pass, it does not specify what form of Christianity would be the state's religion.

    3 - If it did pass, it would be rightly nullified as violating the US Constitution in the courts.     </font>[/QUOTE]John, Why not the immediate skepticism about the truthfulness of the article that you often display when ultra-conservatives make wild charges?
     
    #16 Scott J, Mar 6, 2006
  17. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    This isn't an issue of private individuals expressing a majority view. It's an issue of a governmental body violating the US Constitution.
     
    #17 Johnv, Mar 6, 2006
  18. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Er, you got me there. Clearly, the title of the OP is not accurate. The context of the REAL legislation does not appear to endorse any religion in any way, only recognizing a cultural nature of history.
     
    #18 Johnv, Mar 6, 2006
  19. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This isn't an issue of private individuals expressing a majority view. It's an issue of a governmental body violating the US Constitution. </font>[/QUOTE]No it isn't. The establishment clause says that "Congress shall make no law..."

    The legislature of the state of Missouri does not depend on Congress nor the US Constitution for its authority nor legitimacy.

    Further, there is no more violation in allowing public prayer in school than in not allowing it. Both represent a "law" concerning the establishment of religion. The main difference is that religion has an implicit Right to influence the beliefs of people... while the federal gov't is expressly denied that right.
     
    #19 Scott J, Mar 6, 2006
  20. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    Let's back up a minute: If a state established an official religion, it would indeed be a violation of Amendment I, thanks to Amendment XIV, which forbids any state from abridging rights granted federal citizens. Since Amendment I guarantees that a person is free from government-endorsed religion, no state can impose its own government religion upon a federal citizen. (State churches were nominally constitutional until Amendment XIV). The case of Everson v. Board of Education (1947) affirmed this.
    I'm trying to figure out where I brought up the issue of public prayer in the school.
     
    #20 Johnv, Mar 6, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2
Loading...