?!?!?!? MO passes resolution to create an Official State Religion

[bobbieinok]

http://thedailypulse.blogspot.com/2006/03/official-state-religion.html

Author 1st explains why s/he is writing the long comment/article, then gives text of MO resolution, then discusses Scalia, Thomas previous comments on SCOTUS rulings,...

Official State Religion

....

...a Missouri legislator wants to make Christianity the official state religion. Contrary to the objections of many on dKos, this is not a "crazy stunt," but is most likely intead just like the South Dakota abortion statute, an intentional challenge of constitutional law, focused on making Scalia and Thomas' minority opinions new majority opinions and the law of the land.

....

...Justice Scalia turned next to the Establishment Clause. "The Establishment Clause," he wrote, "was adopted to prohibit such an establishment of religion at the federal level (and to protect state establishments of religion from federal interference)." The import of the last statement might well be hidden by its location in a parenthetical statement, but it can not be underestimated, for it is the heart of Justice Scalia's opinion. His final position is that States are free to establish official religions. Further, he would only limit such establishment to prohibit 'actual coercion,' "acts backed by threat of penalty" by the State government. In other words, short of statutory punishment, such as imprisonment or fine, a State could establish an official religion, and delegate to it official state functions.

Justice Scalia went on, rejecting even Jesus' admonition against public prayer, arguing on behalf of public and institutional prayer. He wrote "hurch and state would not be such a difficult subject if religion were, as the Court apparently thinks it to be, some purely personal avocation that can be indulged, entirely in secret, like pornography, in the privacy of one's own room. For most believers it is not that, and has never been. Religious men and women of almost all denominations have felt it necessary to acknowledge and beseech the blessing of God as a people, and not just as individuals…." While, on its face, this argument has validity, combined with the establishment of an official State religion it legitimizes public devotion, not at individual churches or synagogues, but at public institutions and events.

more....

[madrchsod]

1. a city that has home rule could establish a city religion

a precinct could establish an official religion ..opps i should be county first- then city,etc..

[scot]

2. I hate to say this,

but as a point of law, I believe Scalia is correct. I believe (and if I'm wrong, I know I'll be corrected - savagely) that at the time it became a state, Maryland was an officially Catholic state.

[Erika]

3. My ancestors were polygamists

who believed in go forth and replenish the earth. We need to uphold this. Our founding fathers were for it.

[andino]

4. How is this not like the taliban again?... n/t

[jackbourassa]

5. It's not a violation of constitutional law

It's a direct violation of the constitution. The first ammendment to be exact.

The US shall not create a state religion.

[ChristianLibrul]

6. official religion

People left Europe and came here to escape official religion. Nothing is clearer in the Constitution than that the founding fathers specifically prohibited official religion. Problem is, republicans have never recognized the Constitution, and they don't now. Remember, Bush recently called it, "just a @$&%#@$ piece of paper." They will continue to ignore the Constitution until they're out of power.

[HereSince1628]

8. That depends on when you are talking about,

Because some people came to North America and helped establish state religion.

[HereSince1628]

7. But, They said it couldn't happen HERE!!!

Forget ten commandment bearing memorials on lawns, and stickers in the front of biology textbooks. How long until Missouri hires a Dean of Theology and establishes curricular contol at public universities? I expect his office will be in western Missouri at AdamOnAmandi.

Forget ethics rules. How long until "right and wrong" are dictated by scripture interpreted by priests?

How long until what can be a law must pass not a vote in upper and lower houses but a clerical review, by the likes of Pat Robertson or the Christian Coalition?

How long until law enforcement turns its attention to cleansing society of its humanist ills?

How long until law enforcement in the Ozarks is replaced by hooded night riders?

How long until sinners are dragged before ministers for summary judgments on moral failings and swing by their necks in trees?

How long until the streets of St. Louis ring with backpack bombs as Opus Dei and the Antidefamation League form up militias to protect neighborhoods from the ravages of MoChristians?

It's a great leap forward along the path to christo-fascism.

[fasttense]

9. Seems to me State governments

could pass all sorts of laws since according to the dancing supreme, the US constitution only applies to the federal government.

Here is exactly the wording of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So if the religion issue only applies to the federal government then the free exercise of speech, the press and peaceable assembly only applies to the federal government. Using the idiot supreme's logic, states could institute slavery, ban all possessions of firearms and not allow their citizens to vote and still be A OK by Scalia's standards. What a useless piece of humanity Scalia is.

[Kber]

12. Technically

I think the amendments guaranteeing the right to own guns and abolishing slavery cover the whole country, but your point about the first amendment's other guarantees stands. State by state, we could abolish free speech and the right to assembly.

Interestingly, Roberts has come down in the few cases he's heard so far, on the side of greater federal power. I wonder if he's going to become a state's rights advocate now.

[Catfight]

10. How is this not like Nazi's? nt

[dhonig]

11. 14th Amendment

Thanks for thinking this worthy of posting. Let me reiterate, for those struggling with the length, that the issue isn't just the 1st Amendment (making the argument it only applies to the feds seem realistic), but the APPLICATION to States of the 1st Amendment by the 14th Amendment. That's really the issue Thomas and Scalia were addressing. It's also why what happened in colonial times, before the 14th Amendment, aren't as relevant as the wingnuts would argue.

dhonig

[newyawker99]

15. Hi dhonig!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ikojo]

13. It is true....here is what a prominet rabbi in St Louis

sent out to members on the synagogue e mail list. I of course sent it to everyone I know and posted it to lists.

Dear Friends,

There are many challenging resolutions facing Missouri legislators this session. Decisions are being made that will affect us from (Tax payer Bill of Rights) TABOR that will make the Hancock Amendment look generous to legislation affecting choice and stem cell research and the availability of health care to our most vulnerable citizens. All of these demand our attention and at this months board meeting we will ask for approval to create an advocacy awareness arm of the congregation that addresses those issues that conflict with the call of our prophets to seek justice and love mercy and walk HUMBLY in the world while respecting the boundaries of religion and state.

HCR NO 13 (see below), introduced by Representative David Sater, undermines the religious pluralism upon which this country was founded. Karen Aroesty of the ADL reminds us that the logical outcome of this legislation asserts that elected officials can chose to only represent their Christian constituency. Affirming the rights of the majority without any attempt to protect the rights of others is dangerous, divisive and frightening.

Please let your representatives and other officials know of your concerns about HCR 13.
This bill blatantly crosses the line and reminds us that our perspective is needed not just for ourselves but for all who are most vulnerable.

Thank you for being there. What one of us could never dream of alone, I believe we can accomplish together.

Love,
Susan

House Concurrent Resolution No. 13

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.

A Message from the NCCJSTL

Supporters of NCCJSTL, (The National Conference fro Community and Justice of Metropolitan St. Louis),

Please read the letter below from Jeanette Mott Oxford, State Representative of the 59th District, and a response by Karen Aroesty of the Anti-Defamation League. Over the years, NCCJSTL has joined with community partners to oppose such legislation. We believe that the bill noted here (HCR 13) is harmful, excluding, and undermines the religious pluralism on which the country was founded. The bill incorrectly interprets constitutional ideals. The bill seeks to establish Christianity as the state religion. It is much more than voluntary prayer or religious displays. It sends a strong message to those who are not Christian that they are "objectors" and this is simply unacceptable.

As Karen Aroesty of the Antidefamation League has asserted, "There is no attack on Christianity in this country. It would seem that the Christian faith is stronger than ever. Are those who would vote for this resolution actually asserting that as elected officials they only represent their Christian constituency? The resulting divisiveness is too scary to contemplate."

Please contact your state representative and other officials to assert your opposition to this legislation. .

Martin Rafanan

From Karen Aroesty of the Anti-Defamation League
I was in Jeff City Tuesday. This bill was never supposed to see the light ofday. I learned that it was on the calendar and started an email campaign to stop it. I also contacted the Post and Tim Townsend is doing an article. I almost got Ch 4 to do a piece last night but they bumped it for something else. I'm watching with some legislator friends to see if they sneak it onto the floor for a vote in the next few days. The sponsor, David Sater from Cassville, refuses to comment publicly. This thing is not only unconstitutional, it is seriously harmful to democratic ideals. It had passed out of the Rules Committee on a party vote and this is simply amazing. Even Republicans ought to know better.

I talked with the Federation's lobbyist Tuesday. I have alerted Americans United and the Interfaith Partnership too. This will be a broad effort and if successful, the leadership will quietly take the bill off the calendar.

Spread the word as much as you can.

Karen J. Aroesty, ADL
.
A Message from Rep. Mott Oxford

Martin and Susan,

I hope you'll have a look at Rep. David Sater's resolution HCR 13. It's has been on the House calendar for several days, and Democratic leadership felt certain it would be brought forward for floor debate when our caucus met on Feb. 27. Here's a link to the text: http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm

Several Democrats have prepared amendments (Barbara Fraser, Leonard "Jonas" Hughes, Judy Baker, & Yaphett El-Amin come to mind). Some Democrats see it as a blatant attempt to record a roll call vote and frame Democrats as "anti-christian" in the fall elections if they vote No.

Resolutions such as this do not have the force of law, so in the great scheme of things, may not be a big deal, BUT I think having the Legislature affirm the religious rights of "the majority" is of concern. I welcome your thoughts on this and any advocacy you can do.

JMO
Jeanette Mott Oxford
State Representative, 59th MO House District

[ikojo]

14. I believe Matt Blunt, the babyfaced governor of MO, has

presidential aspirations. He will do anything to appease the radical right and there are A LOT of them in this state, although he is ruffling their feathers on the stem cell issue.