I’m ONLY suprised that it wasn’t Kansas… but give it time.

I keep begging my parents to get out of there while they still can. *shudders*

HCR 13 for your edification:

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

Proposed effective date is 8/28/2006.  It has been offered, referred to the Rules Committe and reported back out of Rules that it Do Pass.  No other action taken.

“… and exercise the common sense that when we legislate something, it has nothing to do with the state.  And down is up, and freedom is slavery.  Or something like that.”

Consi, do you think this is intended to test the strict interpretation that the Constitution only prevents Congress from making a law respecting the establishment of religion, but that it’s perfectly okay for the states to do it?

And do you think that if this doesn’t pass or is otherwise struck down by the courts, they’re going to assume that God didn’t want it to pass, and give up this idiotic exercise?

Naaaaah ...

Consi, do you think this is intended to test the strict interpretation that the Constitution only prevents Congress from making a law respecting the establishment of religion, but that it’s perfectly okay for the states to do it?

LOL, no.  This resolution doesn’t do anything GM. Read the Resolution closely. All it does is say that we the House and Senate, think that voluntary prayer and religious displays are not a coalition of church and state.  The rest is as our friend Mr. Adams stated, useless plummage.

My response to it is so what?  The Resolution implements nothing. It doesn’t implement school prayer or ordain that there will be Christian displays on public property. 

We already know that when it comes to religious displays that the Supreme Court’s logic is pretty convulted and twisted.  So whether I agree with the House that interjecting some common sense into the jurisprudence would be a good idea, the bottom line is that nobody really cares what I think or the Missouri House thinks.

Although it is funny to watch the Chicken Little liberals (a subset of liberals) freak out.  Maybe in addition to being a do nothing bill that attracts religious voters to the proponents voting bloc, just maybe it will serve the dual purpose that all the Chicken Littles will go hoarse screaming about something that does nothing.

All it does is say that we the House and Senate, think that voluntary prayer and religious displays are not a coalition of church and state.

It seems to say a bit more than that and each of these points is debatable in and by itself, but what I consider more important is what it doesn’t say. Specifically, it is silent on minorities.

I also disagree that it does nothing. It’s divisive. I’ll be first in line to join the chorus that the U.S. needs to go on a search and rescue mission to find two long-lost brothers, Common Sense and Personal Responsibility. If we find their cousin, Mutual Tolerance, so much the better. Instead, resolutions such as these don’t just burn bridges, they pre-empt the planning of new ones.

Elwed said: Specifically, it is silent on minorities.

The Resolution states: Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority’s right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object

It says elected officials should....show respect for those who object. 

Want a clause that says:

Whereas, as elected officials in favor of all peoples, excepting the dim witted terrorists of the world, but nevertheless finding some value in all the cultures of all the peoples, do hereby give a shout out to all peeps of the world vis-a-vis this warm fuzzy, and want you to know that you are special just for being you?

Will you sing kumbaya with me if they do?

I will agree that whether the forefathers believed in a Christian God is certainly debatable.  Most were Deists from what I can tell, although I haven’t done a member by member tally.

Eric, I really think worrying birth control becoming illegal is rather ridiculous.  I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.  I’m pretty certain the vast majority of Protestants and Catholics use birth control despite the Vatican’s position.  I’m certain there are not enough traditional Catholics left that would be sufficiently motivated to change the public opinion of birth control enough for even a few congresspeople to go crazy about it.

I’m surprised a Deep South state didn’t do it first.

It says elected officials should....show respect for those who object.

Point taken, but ‘should’ isn’t the same as ‘shall’.

Want a clause that says:

...

Will you sing kumbaya with me if they do?

No.

...but ‘should’ isn’t the same as ‘shall’.

You missed your calling. Very few make that catch.

Chicken little eh? I think of myself more as a canary in a coal mine. Shut these stupid gas bags up and I’ll be happier than anyone not to say a word.

You act like there is no reason in the world anyone should be concerned about religious fanatics. I got two towers says you’re wrong, and I make NO distinction between radical Islam, fundamental Christianity, and Aum Shinri Kyo. You going to let the wolf at your door into your house just because it looks friendly?

I’m as skeptical about the good intentions of fundamental Christians as I am that there is a god at all.

Whereas, the Founding Fathers intended this nation to be a gay nation, and for the majority to be FABULOUS ... And we will join with the majority of our constituency in exercising common sense that voluntary showings of Brokeback Mountain in schools and statues of Liberace in front of our Town Hall are not a coalition of queers and state ...

Happy now, Consi? 

Say, whatever happened to Pope Brock, anyway?  It’s about time for him to come back and assume his throne ...

What would the status be for bisexuals? I am bisexual, as is John. I can only assume that we would be entitled to all of our civil liberties, as gays and lesbians are generally very open-minded people (as least they are in my experiences). 

Yes, Brock would make a delightful pope, as would my friend Bruno.

Same as everybody else - you’d have the civil liberty to read the Bible literally