03/04/06
Missouri: Let it be resolved that Christianity is good
I agree! I don't know that the state government needs to remind me, but hey.
That’s what the state House of Representatives in Missouri is working on though. HCR No. 13 will be voted on soon there, and if it passes it’ll make its way to the state Senate soon after. The resolution (which cannot become a law) was sponsored by Rep. David Sater, and states:
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 what’s the problem? Well, some religious leaders are seeing it as the state bestowing Christianity with an official capacity. From STLToday.com:
The Rev. David M. Greenhaw, president of Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis, said he found the resolution "offensive as a Christian. I don't want the state defining my Christianity."
Of course, there is no shortage of supporters for the resolution as well.
What’s most interesting about this story in my eyes is the fact that this is a resolution. Were it a bill, it’d most likely get struck down immediately, or conversely would have been a big deal were it passed. But being a mere resolution means it’s basically just the House members saying something for the cameras.
What do you think? Is this resolution tantamount to instituting a state religion in Missouri? Is it time wasted the reps could be putting to better use? Or do you agree with what they’re doing. I’d love to hear from all sides of this one.
Trackback address for this post:
http://www.christianswhothink.com/htsrv/trackback.php/94
Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:
Radical Russ had headlines up at his place and Pam's the Headline: "Missouri proposes making Christianity the official state religion"
Russ wrote:
The fact that anyone could even propose such legislation is a high-water mark in the chronicles of ...
Permalink
03/04/06 @ 04:31 A state legislative body is announcing that it officially supports Christianity as the only true religion of the state, it incorrectly assumes that the U.S. was founded on Christianity (it wasn't; it was founded by theists who did not want to recognize any single religion), and it alienates all Missouri residents who are not Christians. Regardless of it being a resolution rather than a bill, it is officially sanctioning one religion over another and placing into public record the declaration of elected officials that the state is a Christian state. It spits in the eyes of non-Christians. It tells them that this is not their government but is instead a government for the Christian majority only. It is a declaration of state-sponsored religion even though it's not binding.
I'd have no problem with it if they didn't utilize an official government function to say it. They've offended the U.S. Constitution and have definitely provided fodder for the escalating war between Christianity and the rest of the country.
How would Christians feel if the government passed a resolution announcing it was based on Satanism and supported the premises of that religion? Or Islam? Or Judaism? Would they accept it under those circumstances? Would they sit back and say, "Ah, it's just a resolution, so don't worry about it..."? I doubt it, yet they expect all non-Christians to do just that as the government for all the people of Missouri makes the effort to segregate their own state into the ruling religious majority and everyone else.
Permalink
03/04/06 @ 11:39 I'd say it's time wasted that should be spent on the state's business and the needs of its citizens. It's more a waste of time and resources than anything else, but that doesn't negate its offense.
Yes, but it's a Republican controlled house. The more time they waste, the less time they have to cut funding for after school programs and low income housing. :P
Permalink
03/04/06 @ 14:11 The Missouri House is looking at legislation to preserve and respect the Christian heritage of the State.
The media have not been honest in their reporting of this legislation, and…The left are freaking out!
The fascists who bring down Americ...
Permalink
03/04/06 @ 21:32 I've read several commentaries on this, and while I agree that this situation is somewhat mitigated by the fact that we're talking about a resolution and not a bill, that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea. If for no other reason than for the fact that it does nothing good, and can have a possibly negative impact on non-Christians (or Christians who disagree) in the state.
Really, what good comes out of this? What's the point? Something to put on the ol' resume for November?
Permalink
03/04/06 @ 21:57 The "be it resolved" clause isn't that bad. Allowing prayer in public schools does not violate the Fiirst Amendment, nor does erecting religious symbols on public land. Still, I think the monetary appropriation for the "let's make our offices pretty" committee should be kept to a minimum--government should be concerned with protecting my life and property, not buying gingerbread houses.
Permalink
03/05/06 @ 14:49 There's a vast middle ground between having a state religion and taking Christianity out of every sector of life.
And the founding fathers wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, but without Christianity as the national religion? Wha?
I think they wanted a country where everyone could have a seat at the table. That's what I want too.
Permalink
03/05/06 @ 18:01 And MO's action is not the intent of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and clearly grants our right to freedom of religion and establishes the separation of church and state. The Fourteenth Amendment says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." and guarantees that the states must acknowledge and abide by the Bill of Rights. Technically, the MO legislature has followed the letter of the law, but they have clearly violated the spirit of it. They, acting in their official roles as the states' duly elected legislative representatives, are promoting Christianity as the one valid religion by passing a resolution "respecting an establishment of religion."
That's a very fine line they're walking, and the only reason it's barely constitutional is that it's not a law. Despite that, it's still intolerant, exclusionary, and segregationist. It's now an "us and them" situation publicly declared by a government. I find it disturbing. Simply put yourself on the other side of the situation and ask how you would react were it Islam or Hindu or some pagan religion. If you can put yourself in the shoes of others, I think you'll better understand why this is near unconscionable.
Permalink
03/05/06 @ 21:43 Permalink
03/06/06 @ 12:19 This compassionate gentleman's dedication and devotion to his work has enabled the weak and the lonely throughout the nation to achieve and maintain a new degree of concern for their future. He has been officially recognized by the state of Massachusetts for his noted activities and unconventional techniques involving population control and applied psychology.
It passed unanimously. :P
Permalink
03/06/06 @ 13:31 Permalink
03/20/06 @ 07:37 I think "hate" is a strong word, but I generally agree. That's why I started this site. The current religious right-wingers in this country don't just want us all to be Christians, they want us to be their kind of Christians. Anyone else is perceived as doing something wrong.
Permalink
03/20/06 @ 14:43