As a fairly new resident of the state of Missouri, I agree with Eugene that the resolution deserves condemnation, but is it, if it passes, unconstitutional? I ask this as someone who ought to know, but perhaps owing to the fact that it's Friday afternoon of a long week, I can't say that it is. I seem to recall having read somewhere that some state constitutions have language of this type in their preambles. I have to be away from the computer the rest of the day, but will appreciate any enlightenment the list can offer.
Kevin Pybas -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Winston Calvert Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 1:40 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion. Here is the text of the resolution: SECOND REGULAR SESSION House Concurrent Resolution No. 13 93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY 4572L.02I http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills061/bills/hcr13.htm 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. --- "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it that Missouri "declares" Christianity its > official > religion, or just that some legislators have > proposed such a resolution? > (Either are worth condemning, I think, but it's > important to have a > sense of what exactly is happening.) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jean Dudley > > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 10:58 AM > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > Subject: Missouri declares Christianity its > official religion. > > > > > > Via Eschaton: 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. > > > > Jean Dudley > > http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com > > Future Law Student > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To post, send message to > Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get > password, > > see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > > > Please note that messages sent to this large list > cannot be > > viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the > list and read > > messages that are posted; people can read the Web > archives; > > and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward > the > > messages to others. > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get > password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list > cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe > to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members > can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to > others. > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
