Link to the actual bill: House Concurrent Resolution 13 (http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm)

State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion (http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/030206ccklrKmovreligionbill.7d361c3f.html)

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.

Lets kick them out of the Union!

Wow, don't we have some federal something or other that says there shall be no state sponsored or government sponsored religion? I could swear I heard that somewhere.

(btw, yes, that's sarcasm)

:lmao:

I wonder what the Vegas over/under is on when we'll declare ourselves a theocracy - that same form of government which 'we' won't 'allow' the Iraqi's to form.

I wonder what the Vegas over/under is on when we'll declare ourselves a theocracy - that same form of government which 'we' won't 'allow' the Iraqi's to form.
Yeah, kinda ironic. The more we try to transform them into us the more we transform us into them. It might be a good idea to start shopping for that burka now while the prices are still low.

It might be time to start investing in rifles again.

It might be time to start investing in rifles again.

And powder, lead, and reloading equipment.

I dunno I'd be more afraid of the anti-christians then the christians if this did pass.

Be afraid...be very afraid.

I don't think we'd be willing to blithely allow a bill which made Christianity the majority religion and 'protected the rights' of Christians.

Its like the laws from an older era which 'protected the rights' of Germans.

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

Institutionalising the dependency of the USA on the christian church so much better than forming a coalition of church and state, isn't it?

i'm glad as messed up as california is we dont come close to that ass backwards

If anyone picks up any updates on this, please post - I'm intrigued :)

I don't think we'd be willing to blithely allow a bill which made Christianity the majority religion and 'protected the rights' of Christians.

Its like the laws from an older era which 'protected the rights' of Germans.

Going back to an even older era...Church of England anyone? Who's up for a nice Spanish Inquisition? Our country was founded to get away from this sort of thing.

Going back to an even older era...Church of England anyone?

Do you mean the catholics who persecuted the protestants or protestants who persecuted the catholics? They took it in turns.

The only outcome of declaring the US a christian nation will be all sorts of different christians arguing about the different forms of christianity. As soon as one church accepts gay priests will that mean the American christian nation accepts gay priests? I'm sure it'll be fun.

Do you mean the catholics who persecuted the protestants or protestants who persecuted the catholics? They took it in turns.

The only outcome of declaring the US a christian nation will be all sorts of different christians arguing about the different forms of christianity. As soon as one church accepts gay priests will that mean the American christian nation accepts gay priests? I'm sure it'll be fun.


Well, that and the exclusion of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Deists, Shintoists, Fruity Neo-pagan types, and those freaks who play heathen ungodly games with magic and witchcraft in them.

Do you mean the catholics who persecuted the protestants or protestants who persecuted the catholics? They took it in turns.

Oh, either one is fine by me. Since I'm not Christian, I'm fubar'd no matter which Christian groups is chasing after which other Christian group.

I didn't grow up in a country with a state sponsored religion and I won't sit by and let it happen.

Part of American freedom means the right to choose whatever religion you want as well as allowing your neighbor to choose even if you don't like their choice. If you take that away, or let it be taken away from others, then we live in a free country only by name, not by deed. That's the sucky part about being in a free country, you have to let other people be free to make choices you don't agree with.

Where's my ticket off this planet? Marshome.org isn't working fast enough :)

My theory is that this is pre-election, whoop up the "religious right" and get them out to vote when those Godless judges and folks strike down this nonsense.

Well, that and the exclusion of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Deists, Shintoists, Fruity Neo-pagan types, and those freaks who play heathen ungodly games with magic and witchcraft in them.

Far be it from me to offer up arguments in favour of this bill, but it doesnt HAVE TO be that way, Aidon. Our so called "offical religion" has just about no "special" standing anymore short of a few soon-to-get-rid of moronic laws that really serve no practical purpose. There is no prayer or preaching in classrooms, they get funding on the same basis as everyone else and it's a criminal offence to discriminate anyone in any way based on religion etc etc.

That, of course, stems from the fact that religion really isn't such a huge deal over here. Noone gives a rat's ass who the neighbour worships, or if he worships at all. If people want to celebrate some religious holiday in public - go right ahead, noone cares. It's practically a non-issue. And of course, had the government MADE it an issue, the "offical" brand of protestantism would've been long gone, the people wouldn't have had it.

But even if it is possible to avoid the worst case scenarioes even with an "official" religion, your way is definitely the better way to go, so don't let'em change that, mmkay? :)

I think the Religious Right largely ignores history when it comes to this sort of thing. They sort of have this idealistic view that if the government has an "official religion" that the government will just bend to the will of what the church wants. They tend to forget those parts in history where the government bends the religion instead.

aye--separation of church and state has a reason. It was NOT meant to keep someone from wearing their religious symbols in school. It was NOT meant to keep a town where 99.99% of the people want to put up a nativity scene or display a menorah or whatever from doing so because 1 out of 10,000 dont want to.

However it WAS meant to prevent just this kind of B.S. This is a new level of stupidity even for the extreme right--what an embarassment for us.

aye--separation of church and state has a reason. It was NOT meant to keep someone from wearing their religious symbols in school.

I agree

It was NOT meant to keep a town where 99.99% of the people want to put up a nativity scene or display a menorah or whatever from doing so because 1 out of 10,000 dont want to.

I disagree. A town should not endorse any religion. Even if noone in the town complains (really, do you think the lone Jewish family in a town of Baptists is going to dare voice their concerns about the town erecting a nativity scene?).

However it WAS meant to prevent just this kind of B.S. This is a new level of stupidity even for the extreme right--what an embarassment for us.
Y'all gotta stop voting for these ass-hats then!

It was NOT meant to keep a town where 99.99% of the people want to put up a nativity scene or display a menorah or whatever from doing so because 1 out of 10,000 dont want to.


disagree. A town should not endorse any religion. Even if noone in the town complains (really, do you think the lone Jewish family in a town of Baptists is going to dare voice their concerns about the town erecting a nativity scene?).

You miss the point. A nativity scene is put up once a year for a specific holiday. Kind of like mardi gras which allows vodoo symbols. Or the chinese New year where Dragons puppets (a worship of sorts for them) are allowed in the street. Them having these annual celebrations is not endorsing a religion or belief.

Now if you were arguing against a year around nativity scene, or a jesus statue or a year around menorah --then yeah. But something displayed as part of a once a year celebration (puppet dragons--mardi gras etc) bah let them have their fun. If I lived in a town of budist and once a year they wanted to build a huge budda and rub his belly all day long--I could care less. That is not enforcing their religion on me--that is me letting them have their religion.

I would hope the one lone jewish family would not be so incredibly thin skinned to worry about it. People need to realize the difference between people forcing their views on you vs being able to express their own. So if I dont agree with the equal rights movement--do I have the right to demand that they can never be allowed any time on public grounds? Or do I agree that they have rights also? People really need to develop thicker skins.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

I would hope the one lone jewish family would not be so incredibly thin skinned to worry about it. People need to realize the difference between people forcing their views on you vs being able to express their own. So if I dont agree with the equal rights movement--do I have the right to demand that they can never be allowed any time on public grounds? Or do I agree that they have rights also? People really need to develop thicker skins.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

The ratio of years where Jews had to worry about Christian holidays including some persecution of their Jewish neighbors (from something as minor as egging the Jew house to full fledged pogroms, depending on where and when in the world you're speaking) means that many, many, Jews are leary whenever the state acknowledges a religion.

Its not being thin skinned, its self-preservation.

People are permitted to express their views. The State is not permitted to express views on religion.

If you want to put a naitivity scene up in your yard, more power to you. But when you wish to place that naitivity scene on my town square, I draw the line.

Can I egg the nativity scenes, please?

If you want to put a naitivity scene up in your yard, more power to you. But when you wish to place that naitivity scene on my town square, I draw the line.

so what then is your postion on

1. Mardi Gras---with public acknowledgement of vodoo--a religion?

2. Chinese New Year--with all the dragons(their celestial beings)

Should these two traditions be outlawed on our public streets?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Mardi Gras is a Catholic related event isn't it? They party out before Lent starts.

Anyone can apply for a parade permit. It isn't sponsored by the .gov. I think if it is a government paid for parade, it shouldn't be religious.

so what then is your postion on

1. Mardi Gras---with public acknowledgement of vodoo--a religion?

Mardi Gras is a Catholic holiday, technically (though, as with many Catholic holidays, it has tie ins to Pagan religions. Indeed, the entire 'religion' of 'Voodoo' is essentially a composite of Catholicism and african animism) ;). The fact that you (and most Americans) don't realize its a Catholic holiday renders its religious threat nil. Though, if forced to make a pure black/white no compromise choice, I'd rather see Mardi Gras go than state sanctioned religion.

2. Chinese New Year--with all the dragons(their celestial beings)

What cities celebrate Chinese New Year? San Fran might, I guess, but I gather it is probably not a government sponsored celebration, but rather a community celebration. I honestly don't know. I don't consider Chinese New Year to really be a religious celebration, but I don't know much about it. Other than Buddhism, Christianity, and Taoism, I'm not even sure what 'religions' the Chinese have.

Should these two traditions be outlawed on our public streets?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Public Streets and 'Town Squares' are two different things. As is holding a parade or demonstration vs placing a long term object on public property.

If the Catholic League of Podunk wanted to hold a Christmas march down mainstreet Podunk, more power to them, they have that right. But when the town elders place a giant Crucifix on the Town Square, it crosses the line.

Just curious Aidon, are you one of the types that believes that "Under God" should be removed from the Pledge or other "God" references on things like stamps or coinage/bills?

I am.

Our money doesn't need to say 'In God We Trust', indeed, in the name of our greenbacks most folks abandon all ideals of their respective religions. But that's simple irony, not a reason.

We don't need God mentioned anywhere because it endorses religion.

Actually I believe it endorses faith rather than religion, and as most people would agree, there is a marked difference between the two. I'm of the mind that the founding fathers wanted to create a society where you were allowed to practice any religion you wanted to, but also promote a belief in general. In other words, you don't have to be a Catholic or a Jew, but you do believe in someone or something. I agree that the Missouri proposal is outside of the scope of this view and clearly treads on the supposed separation of Church and State, but I think that getting rid of a 200 year old stamp of "Under God" because it tramples on your rights is a bit silly. And seeing that there are more religions practiced now than 200 years ago, it wouldn't seem as if many religions are feeing slighted by this fact.

200 years old? I think you need to look that up. ;)

I love it when people start spouting what the founding fathers wanted when they have no clue of the philosophic and religious idealogies that were popular at the time. Read about Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and the popular beliefs and movements from the period and you'll understand that some of them didn't necessarily believe in God (faith), some of them were fanatics. They were as all over the map on the issue as we are.

Yes, because I obviously stated that I what I thought the Founding Fathers were thinking was fact, not just an opinion. :rolleyes:

Actually I believe it endorses faith rather than religion, and as most people would agree, there is a marked difference between the two. I'm of the mind that the founding fathers wanted to create a society where you were allowed to practice any religion you wanted to, but also promote a belief in general. In other words, you don't have to be a Catholic or a Jew, but you do believe in someone or something.

One nation under someone as long as you're not atheistic or agnostic?

Atheists are the only ones that don't believe that there is a god, Agnostic people just don't believe you can prove it (or something). I actually am Agnostic (or something) and I've never felt slighted, stifled or otherwise "suppressed" by having to say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at school or at sports events much less little blurbs on coins or flags.

Agnostic people just don't believe you can prove it (or something).
Technically, they are the folks that believe in a supreme being, but not any single religion. Has nothing to do with whether you can prove and existance or not. They just believe in a supreme being, but chooses not to take a religious side. An agnostic can believe in one or more "gods", it doesn't matter.

Atheists just don't believe in any supreme being, even outright denies it's existance.

Atheists are the only ones that don't believe that there is a god

Then there are those who worship multiple gods. And those who believe in a goddess, not a god.

If the pledge was changed to say "one nation, under Goddess, ..." would it bother you to say that? How about "one nation, under Odin..."?

Atheists are the only ones that don't believe that there is a god, Agnostic people just don't believe you can prove it (or something).

Without arguing the definition of agnostics - One nation under someone unless you're an atheist?

I think people who take stock in a specific religion are more mortified by changes to things like that, Jinjre. It would affect me 0%.

One nation under something, maybe nothing?

How about:

"One nation, under the sky, with liberty and justice for all"

**note
I thought about "under the stars", but there aren't always stars you can see... I thought of "under the clouds", but again, you can't always see clouds overhead... and "under the weather" just didn't seem right at all....

How about "One nation, indivisible, blah blah blah". Or as probably most school kids say it, "One nation, invisible..."

Well Aidon thinks we should own the moon too, and our flag is up there, so... how about we skip that whole part and go right to the liberty and justice bit.

I always liked "E pluribus unum" (as did the founding fathers :-).

Well Aidon thinks we should own the moon too, and our flag is up there, so... how about we skip that whole part and go right to the liberty and justice bit.

Change it back to the way it originally was, you mean?

"Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954ish to seperate us from those damn ruskies and godless commie bastards.

As such I favor getting rid of it, not only because I think that it has no place, but because "traditionally" it didn't have it.

As for money... same thing, I favor putting back "E Pluribus Unum" as our national motto, and on money, as once again it was only put there for political reasons, (for coin in the 1850's, and for paper the 1950's) and really has no traditional history to it, and once again, there is no good reason to have it there.

Not only does "God" generally refer to the Christian god, (Doesn't have a commonly practiced name like other religious figureheads such as Mohammad, Buddha, etc..) but its connected to certain types or religions, (I'm no expert here, but dont a lot of religions not have a god per se, like some Native Americans spiritual nature stuff, or Buddhism etc?)

But I'm not goign to loose any sleep over it continue being on money or our national motto, its very low on my list of things that should change, but ultimately if it was up to vote, or I could make the decision, I would get rid of it

Change it back to the way it originally was, you mean?
Or the 1924 version, the ones before it sounded weird.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

seems pretty clear our forefathers if at not unanimously then at least with a quorum were believers.


This phrase, which comes straight from the declaration of independence and is revisited in the constitution, is the cornerstone of our constitution. Therefore, it can be said that this concept (that there are transcendent rights endowed by someone higher than government) is the foundation of our entire government

Brum, do you even know what that phrase meant in the context of the times? And who do you think wrote the Declaration of Independence? I'll wait while you google... and who actually rewrote that particular sentence and what influenced that choice of words?

Now go and read the body of Thomas Paine's work (a co-signer) and tell me what his belief was about man and his relationship to god.

somewhat off topic, but I find it interesting that when the words "under God" were added to the pledge, the people doing the editing decided, ironically enough, to insert it into the pledge in a place that would divide the 'indivisible'.

Old wording:

One nation, indivisibile, with liberty and justice for all

New wording:

One nation, under God, indivisible...

They divided the indivisible. I wonder if they can divide by zero too? Sometimes the budgets put out make me think that they think they can.

Declaration of Indepedence is not government document, it is a historical document

I'm pretty sure that the word creator does not occur in the Constitution.

sorta on topic sorta off topic, but people have this idea that the founding fathers were a cohesive group who all had similiar and strong convictions about how the country should be run, when in fact many of the founding fathers ended up on opposite sides of the first polictical party system, that makes our current politics seem tame.

FWIW though, The Declaration of Indepedence was mostly written by Thomas Jefferson (who had to revise it so more people whould agree with it (a big part of it was equating slavery with the british, in an attempt to get rid of it) As president he generally lead a secular government (not prohibiting people from practicing religion, but keeping a proverbial wall between government and religion)

Jefferson was a Deist, (a creator type exists, but hes left the building)

I'd say the founding days of our country had less religion, and certainly less christianity then we do now heh.

Or the 1924 version, the ones before it sounded weird.

I think Aidon can agree to that. Dont you love it when it all works out? :)

Edit: Now, onto the money-thing.. Can we work something out there too?

There were a lot of different things going on. One movement was away from churches with a hierarchy where one guy tells everyone what God wants (aka Pope, cardinal, etc). It was left more up to the local pastor, or even individual people, to determine for themselves. Another very important movement of the day was the Enlightenment (http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/enlightenment.html). The principles of which are rather humanistic ones: * 1. autonomy of reason
* 2. perfectibility and progress
* 3. confidence in the ability to discover causality
* 4. principles governing nature, man and society
* 5. assault on authority
* 6. cosmopolitan solidarity of enlightened intellectuals
* 7. disgust with nationalism.

The phrase that Brum quoted was actually penned by Ben Franklin who was highly influenced by Enlightenment philosophy when he was in Europe.

On June 21, after he had finished a draft and incorporated some changes from Adams, Jefferson had a copy delivered to Franklin, with a cover note far more polite than editors generally receive today. “Will Doctor Franklin be so good as to peruse it,” he wrote, “and suggest such alterations as his more enlarged view of the subject will dictate?”

Franklin made only a few small changes, but one of them was resounding. Using heavy backslashes, he crossed out the last three words of Jefferson’s phrase, “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable” and changed it to read: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”

The concept of “self-evident” truths came less from Jefferson’s favored philosopher, Locke, than from the scientific determinism of Isaac Newton and the analytic empiricism of Franklin’s close friend David Hume. Hume had distinguished between “synthetic” truths that describe matters of fact (such as “London is bigger than Philadelphia” and “analytic” truths that are self-evident by virtue of reason and definition. ( “The angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees” or “All bachelors are unmarried.” When he chose the word “sacred,” Jefferson had suggested intentionally or unintentionally that the principle in question—the equality of men and their endowment by their creator with inalienable rights—was an assertion of religion. By changing it to “self-evident,” Franklin made it an assertion of rationality.

You can't lift out a section of the DoI and try to interpret it in a modern context and make assertions about what the Founding Fathers believed. Well, you can, but you'll look like a uneducated noob to anyone that has looked at it with an eye towards understanding the history of the period and social and philosopical influences that were at work in that society. And not just America, but England and France as well. The changes that occurred in all three countries were very interrelated and it is quite possible that the French revolution wouldn't have happened without the writings of Thomas Paine and the success of the American Revolution.

And look what came out of the French Revolution, a very secularized society where church and state are extremely explicitly separated. All because people were sick of not only Monarchs were dictating everything to them, but the Churches were as well. Much the same as in the US, but most of the frustration was directed at the Monarchy.

Actually I believe it endorses faith rather than religion, and as most people would agree, there is a marked difference between the two. I'm of the mind that the founding fathers wanted to create a society where you were allowed to practice any religion you wanted to, but also promote a belief in general. In other words, you don't have to be a Catholic or a Jew, but you do believe in someone or something. I agree that the Missouri proposal is outside of the scope of this view and clearly treads on the supposed separation of Church and State, but I think that getting rid of a 200 year old stamp of "Under God" because it tramples on your rights is a bit silly. And seeing that there are more religions practiced now than 200 years ago, it wouldn't seem as if many religions are feeing slighted by this fact.

<cough>

'Under God' has only been in the Pledge since Prez Ike's days. To set us further apart from those 'Godless Commies'

And nowhere in the 1st Amedment does it say Freedom of Religion (so long as your religion believes in God). Hindu's believe in many Gods. Buddhists believe in...whatever it is Buddhists believe in, but it really isn't God as we think of him. I, as a Jew, worship a very different God than you goyim (No three for deals). Hell Catholics worship a very different pantheon of Gods and demi-gods than Baptists.

Krishna != Jesus != Allah != Adonai != Hale Bop Comet

seems pretty clear our forefathers if at not unanimously then at least with a quorum were believers.

This phrase, which comes straight from the declaration of independence and is revisited in the constitution, is the cornerstone of our constitution. Therefore, it can be said that this concept (that there are transcendent rights endowed by someone higher than government) is the foundation of our entire government


Show me this.

I can not find a reference to god or creator in all of the Constitution.

About the reference in the Declaration? It was a fVck you letter to a king whose power was divinely inspired. In essence, it was just calling Charles out, and that he was not any more or less divine than the rest of us.

Modern day revisionists have interpretted the words incorrectly, because they put it context of modern civil rights, championed by a Black preacher in the 50s. Not in the context of a bunch of rebels overthrowing the power of their king, who thought he was king because a god made him such.

He really was king because his ancestors were brutes, rapists, and thieves who stole everything they owned from somebody else; as are any other modern day monarchists.

WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that,
eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,
you saw it didn't you?