Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/8/2006 9:06:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 9:09:00 AM EDT by TheAvatar9265ft]

State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion
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.


www.kmov.com/localnews/stories/030206ccklrKmovreligionbill.7d361c3f.html
Registration required...

In the actual bill I didn't specificalll see the article's claimed "not protect minority" business:


... 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.


It seems to allow for only Christian prayer in schools...

Hmmm.....


"1st Ammendment to the United States Constitution"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...




"Missouri Bill of Rights Article 1 Section 7"
... no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.



I have a feeling this won't fly very far even if that moron Blunt signs it.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:07:52 AM EDT
That'll soar like a brick

how about that 1st ammendment?
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:08:27 AM EDT
Bad idea, though I imagine most here will love it.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:16:25 AM EDT
Nope it won't fly and if it gets passed and signed it will go immedialty into court and be overturned. And who loses with it? Tax payers. It will end costing tax payers money just to make these poloticians try and look good.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:22:09 AM EDT
As the major proponent put it on the TV box tuther nite, as a resolution it has no force of law.

Still think it's not a very good idea.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:25:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
That'll soar like a brick

how about that 1st ammendment?



Objectively, the first amendment restriction on religion applies specifically to Congress.

Back in the early days (following ratification of the Constitution), several states did have officially endorsed religions.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:33:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 9:34:21 AM EDT by Planerench]

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
That'll soar like a brick

how about that 1st ammendment?



1st applies to congress. 10th applies to states. Perfectly legal. Edit Still won't happen.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:34:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
That'll soar like a brick

how about that 1st ammendment?



Objectively, the first amendment restriction on religion applies specifically to Congress.

Back in the early days (following ratification of the Constitution), several states did have officially endorsed religions.



by that logic a state then could also take away your right to free speech, take your guns, and quarter troops in your home.

The 14th ensures that states have to respect the BOR as well



Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:36:30 AM EDT
We have a similar problem here in Cali - Atheists are suing local governments left and right to remove Christian (note that is "Christian", not "all religious") expressions from public property.

They're meddlesome assholes but it will be entertaining when they try to change the names of cities like "Los Angeles", "San Francisco", "San Diego", "Sacramento", etc.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:37:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
We have a similar problem here in Cali - Atheists are suing local governments left and right to remove Christian (note that is "Christian", not "all religious") expressions from public property.

They're meddlesome assholes but it will be entertaining when they try to change the names of cities like "Los Angeles", "San Francisco", "San Diego", "Sacramento", etc.



For fun, we could suggest some alternate city names.

Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:45:16 AM EDT

I don't have a problem at all with some official declaration of the state the Christianity is the "majority" religion in the state, and should be recognized as such.


But the second a bill tries to specify what prayers are allowed in public schools, and which ones aren't, or tries to use public funds in a school system for one religion over another, it is immediate death in the appealate court system, as far as I understand current precedent and interpretation.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:46:15 AM EDT
U.S. Constitution: 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.


Congress can't , but the Missouri state goverment can.


(Or IBTFAA In Before The Fourteenth Ammendmen Apologists)
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:47:45 AM EDT
Well that puts to rest any debate over their true intentions on trying to teach this junk in the classroom.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:49:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 9:50:36 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Well that puts to rest any debate over their true intentions on trying to teach this junk in the classroom.



... not sure where you are reading anything about "teaching" anything "in the classroom" - voluntary prayer sounds different from teaching anything.



Does anyone have a link to the actual resolution/bill ??
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:56:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ghengiskhabb:
U.S. Constitution: 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.


Congress can't , but the Missouri state goverment can.


(Or IBTFAA In Before The Fourteenth Ammendmen Apologists)



Missouri Bill of Rights Article 1 Section 7
... no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:58:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
But the second a bill tries to specify what prayers are allowed in public schools, and which ones aren't, or tries to use public funds in a school system for one religion over another, it is immediate death in the appealate court system, as far as I understand current precedent and interpretation.


That is the same bill... just the last paragraph of it... cannot find the right section on mogov's website
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:59:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft:

That is the same bill... just the last paragraph of it... cannot find the right section on mogov's website



Yeah - I looked on mogov as well, and searched the house record for "Sater" as a sponsor, but couldn't find it. I suck at the internet


Is a resolution different from a bill - like a non-binding bill, or is a bill jsut what a resolution is called after is passes or something?
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:00:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 10:02:20 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft:
Missouri Bill of Rights Article 1 Section 7
... no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.



If the resolution does nothing more than say "Most Missouri residents are Christian, and we hereby resolve that Christianity is a good faith and that Christian principles serve the purpose of liberty" then it wouldn't run afoul of the Missouri bill of rights section you quote, or even of the US Constitution.

Now if somewhere in that resolution there is a section that says "Non Christians are poo-poo heads and they should leave", then you got yourself a case, Matlock!

If the resolution requires no action on the part of citizens and imposes no penalties, then it doesn't really discriminate in any tangible way.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:01:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft:

That is the same bill... just the last paragraph of it... cannot find the right section on mogov's website



Yeah - I looked on mogov as well, and searched the house record for "Sater" as a sponsor, but couldn't find it. I suck at the internet


Is a resolution different from a bill - like a non-binding bill, or is a bill jsut what a resolution is called after is passes or something?



In most systems a resolution is nothing more than a statement. They usually don't carry any real legal authority or mandate.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:02:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft:

Originally Posted By ghengiskhabb:

...Congress can't , but the Missouri state goverment can....



Missouri Bill of Rights Article 1 Section 7

... no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.



ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZING!
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:02:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Now if somewhere in that resolution there is a section that says "Non Christians are poo-poo heads and they should leave", then you got yourself a case, Matlock!




We need a bill like that in the Danish parliament!

Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:05:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
We need a bill like that in the Danish parliament!




That's racist!!

Now report to the department of re-education for your indoctrination reprogramming sensitivity training.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:07:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:07:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
We need a bill like that in the Danish parliament!




That's racist!!

Now report to the department of re-education for your indoctrination reprogramming sensitivity training.



Hey - I'm plenty sensitive.

I almost cried at the part in the Jungle Book where it looks like Baloo is dead!
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:11:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
Exceptionally bad idea however I think the 1st would apply to the states through the 14th. If however Missouri does this, they should be thrown out of the Union.



The 14th applies the BOR to ALL government entities in the US.

I don't think a resolution saying "Christianity is a good thing" can really be cause for a serious Constitutional crisis.

George W. Bush has been running around calling Islam a "religion of peace". Is that a violation of the establishment clause??? Hardly.

Now if Missouri is trying to mandate that only Christian prayers can be offered voluntarily, they are in deep doo-doo. But if they are not mandating prayer, requiring a certain faith of anyone, or punishing those who do not comply, they are not violating the establishment clause.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:12:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Hey - I'm plenty sensitive.

I almost cried at the part in the Jungle Book where it looks like Baloo is dead!



You-woo-woo....I wanna be like you-woo-woo......
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:13:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Hey - I'm plenty sensitive.

I almost cried at the part in the Jungle Book where it looks like Baloo is dead!



You-woo-woo....I wanna be like you-woo-woo......




King Louie ruled !!!

Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:26:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 10:28:05 AM EDT by TheAvatar9265ft]

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By shotar:
Exceptionally bad idea however I think the 1st would apply to the states through the 14th. If however Missouri does this, they should be thrown out of the Union.



The 14th applies the BOR to ALL government entities in the US.

I don't think a resolution saying "Christianity is a good thing" can really be cause for a serious Constitutional crisis.

George W. Bush has been running around calling Islam a "religion of peace". Is that a violation of the establishment clause??? Hardly.

Now if Missouri is trying to mandate that only Christian prayers can be offered voluntarily, they are in deep doo-doo. But if they are not mandating prayer, requiring a certain faith of anyone, or punishing those who do not comply, they are not violating the establishment clause.



It specifically allows display of only Christian relgious things on public property. (vs none before)
It specifically permits voluntary Christian prayer only in public schools.

It's nto saying "any voluntary prayer" is allowed in public school. It says voluntary Christian prayer is allowed.

Prior to this bill no prayer allowed in public school. Now: Christian prayer OK.

This is a BAD idea and it will fail in court. It is BAD for Missouri. It is BAD for America.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:30:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft:
It specifically allows display of only Christian relgious thigns on public property.
It specifically permits voluntary Christian prayer only in public schools.



Do you have a link to the text of the bill so we can confirm this for ourselves?



It's nto saying "any voluntary prayer" is allowed in public school. It says voluntary Christian prayer is allowed.
Prior to this bill no prayer allowed in public school. Now: Christian prayer OK.



Not so. Voluntary prayer IS allowed in schools.



This is a BAD idea and it will fail in court. It is BAD for Missouri. It is BAD for America.



If your classification of the bill is correct, then yes it is a VERY bad idea, and it should die a well deserved death in the legislature.

If there is a mostly Jewish town that wants to have a menorah display at city hall, they are entitled to do so. No law can say that a menorah is verbotten but a manger scene is OK.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:32:27 AM EDT
Sounds like a swell idea to me.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:34:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Not so. Voluntary prayer IS allowed in schools.



That is also my understanding.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:35:39 AM EDT
choice of religion is subjective, and stupid. It shouldn't be a government decision no matter what level.

What if California decided to officialize islam? you would all be shitting yourselves.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:36:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
I don't have a problem at all with some official declaration of the state the Christianity is the "majority" religion in the state, and should be recognized as such.


But the second a bill tries to specify what prayers are allowed in public schools, and which ones aren't, or tries to use public funds in a school system for one religion over another, it is immediate death in the appealate court system, as far as I understand current precedent and interpretation.



+1

Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:36:28 AM EDT
If you had read my opening post I had that relevant text from the bill:


... 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.



This is the link I could find to the bill:
http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm
I can't get it to load...
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:38:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 10:40:14 AM EDT by bastiat]

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
That'll soar like a brick

how about that 1st ammendment?



Objectively, the first amendment restriction on religion applies specifically to Congress.

Back in the early days (following ratification of the Constitution), several states did have officially endorsed religions.



by that logic a state then could also take away your right to free speech, take your guns, and quarter troops in your home.

The 14th ensures that states have to respect the BOR as well






You're not seeing what he's really saying.

The first amendment is different because it starts out by declaring CONGRESS shall make no law...that is the key word there. The other amendments do not have that word, so they operate as restrictions on the powers at all levels of government. The first, OTOH, could be construed as enacting limits only on what congress can do with respect to those things.

But by custom and law, all the amendments apply to all levels of government...well, except for the 2nd, and that's because guns are 'icky'.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:40:47 AM EDT
It is working for me. Here is the full text of the link you provided:



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.



This resolution does absolutely nothing you were speaking of. It does not allow ONLY Christian prayer in schools, or indeed mandate any prayer whatsoever. It does not allow ONLY Christian religious displays on public property.

Read the text again. It requires nothing of anyone, and offers no penalty to anyone for anything. In short, it violates no ones rights. It is an expression of opinion and does not have anything in it that would violate the establishment clause.


Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:47:22 AM EDT
Loads for me now too.

Actions previously prohibited, the legislation says these things are OK with respect to Christianity... how is that not specific? And how is that not a violation of Article 1 Section 7 of the MOBOR? How is that not favoring a particular faith?


Originally Posted By bastiat:
You're not seeing what he's really saying.

The first amendment is different because it starts out by declaring CONGRESS shall make no law...that is the key word there. The other amendments do not have that word, so they operate as restrictions on the powers at all levels of government. The first, OTOH, could be construed as enacting limits only on what congress can do with respect to those things.

But by custom and law, all the amendments apply to all levels of government...well, except for the 2nd, and that's because guns are 'icky'.



I like icky things!
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:56:18 AM EDT
There is no law outlawing prayer in school in Missouri or any other state that I’m aware of there are laws that forbid public prayer. In other words if you want to bow your head and say a privet prayer to Allah, God, Buddha, or who ever you can legally do that. If you want to have a school assembly to have a public prayer you can not! I hear Christians all the time complain that won’t let me practice my religion. BS all the current laws do is state you can’t force me or any one to take part in your religion. Saying a prayer over the speaker before a basketball game is forcing me to take part in your religion. Would you be happy if some one lead a prayer to Satan over the intercom? Well no that would be wrong they say. Religions are like asshole every one has one and believes theirs is right.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 11:00:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft:
Loads for me now too.

Actions previously prohibited,



Voluntary prayer was not prohibited.

Neither was a public display of something religious in nature. (despite what some idiot court thinks on the matter....)



the legislation says these things are OK with respect to Christianity... how is that not specific?



The legislation is a resolution stating that expressions of Christian faith are acceptable even in the public square, which is exactly the position the founders had on the matter. It does not prohibit the expression of the Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist faith in the public square, so it does not violate anyone's rights.



And how is that not a violation of Article 1 Section 7 of the MOBOR? How is that not favoring a particular faith?



The Missouri bill of rights says no preference or discrimination based on religion. Since the bill does not give advantages to Christians or penalties to non-Christians, it does not violate that provision in the Missouri Constitution.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 11:00:05 AM EDT
If this passes I need an arfcommer with a kid in a MO public high school to say that I am a friend, a Senior in a WA high school, and get me a visitors pass for the day. At break and lunch I will roll out a rug and bow towards Mecca and start speaking arabic. Just to rock the boat.....
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 11:03:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markmars:
I hear Christians all the time complain that won’t let me practice my religion. BS all the current laws do is state you can’t force me or any one to take part in your religion.



Except when federal judges tell a valedictorian that they cannot mention Jesus in a graduation speech. That is a violation of their 1st ammendment rights.



Saying a prayer over the speaker before a basketball game is forcing me to take part in your religion.



No, saying you had to pray or else you could not attend the basketball game is forcing you to take part in my religion.

Merely exercising my religion in front of you does NOT violate your rights, any more than you exercising your non-religion in front of me violates MY rights.



Would you be happy if some one lead a prayer to Satan over the intercom?



Happy? No. But would I get a lawsuit together and claim that all satanists had to shutup in public because I don't like what they are preaching?

No.

It's called freedom, sonny. You don't have to like the ideas someone else expresses. You just have to respect their right to express them.

Link Posted: 3/8/2006 11:05:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
If this passes I need an arfcommer with a kid in a MO public high school to say that I am a friend, a Senior in a WA high school, and get me a visitors pass for the day. At break and lunch I will roll out a rug and bow towards Mecca and start speaking arabic. Just to rock the boat.....



And you will be allowed to pray towards mecca.

Because that is your right.

Free exercise people....It means exactly that, and nothing in this resolution stifles the free exercise of ANYONE.

Link Posted: 3/8/2006 11:16:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By markmars:
I hear Christians all the time complain that won’t let me practice my religion. BS all the current laws do is state you can’t force me or any one to take part in your religion.



Except when federal judges tell a valedictorian that they cannot mention Jesus in a graduation speech. That is a violation of their 1st ammendment rights.



Saying a prayer over the speaker before a basketball game is forcing me to take part in your religion.



No, saying you had to pray or else you could not attend the basketball game is forcing you to take part in my religion.

Merely exercising my religion in front of you does NOT violate your rights, any more than you exercising your non-religion in front of me violates MY rights.





Right - but those issues often seem to boil down to the USE of public funds, property or equipment for a particular religion, or with the notion of a "captive audience" which is being subjected to somone elses religious dogma without an opportunity to "opt out" - not with the expression of it by the individual who happens to be speaking.

If a Christian prayer is broadcast over the public school's PA system at a football game, that is very different than if the person sitting in the stands next to me loudly speaks the same Christian prayer. In the former case, not only does the use of the PA system represent public property used for a particular denomination's religious purpose, but it also may send the message that the use of public prperty for Christian prayer is subtly an official government endorsment for that religion. (In the same way that people are opposed to condoms being handed out in school because it somehow "endorses" or "encourages" sex, then the use of school property to speak Christian prayers might also be construed as "endorsing" a particular religion.)


Personally, I don't really think there is a problem with using a school PA system for a Christian prayer before a games, as long as all other religions on the campus have been contacted and been offered equal time to say their religion's prayer over the PA system as well. In MOST school districts, I have no doubt that nobody would take advantage of that offer - and thus a school should (in my opinion) be able to have a Christian (or otherwise) prayer over the PA system, as long as other faiths are given the same opportunity.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 11:17:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 11:17:43 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
If this passes I need an arfcommer with a kid in a MO public high school to say that I am a friend, a Senior in a WA high school, and get me a visitors pass for the day. At break and lunch I will roll out a rug and bow towards Mecca and start speaking arabic. Just to rock the boat.....



And you will be allowed to pray towards mecca.

Because that is your right.

Free exercise people....It means exactly that, and nothing in this resolution stifles the free exercise of ANYONE.





Exactly - but if he wanted a muslim call to prayer played over the school's PA system five times a day, it should NOT be allowed.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 11:46:29 AM EDT
Hmmm maybe I need to think about this a little more
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 1:01:32 PM EDT
Voting a dead man {Mel Carnahan} to the Senate, now this.

Link Posted: 3/8/2006 1:22:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 0ldGuy:
Voting a dead man {Mel Carnahan} to the Senate, now this.




They voted the dead guy b/c the other choice was Ashcroft....

I guess they figured Jean Carnahan would be a lesser evil... not much less there...

She was terrible... Blunt is terrible... Ashcroft would have been terrible...
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 1:29:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft:

Originally Posted By 0ldGuy:
Voting a dead man {Mel Carnahan} to the Senate, now this.




They voted the dead guy b/c the other choice was Ashcroft....

I guess they figured Jean Carnahan would be a lesser evil... not much less there...

She was terrible... Blunt is terrible... Ashcroft would have been terrible...



Ashcroft is one of the biggest friends the RKBA has ever had.

He would have been excellent.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 2:15:46 PM EDT
John_Wayne777 stated:
Except when federal judges tell a valedictorian that they cannot mention Jesus in a graduation speech. That is a violation of their 1st ammendment rights.


I agree I have never heard of the case you mention.

No, saying you had to pray or else you could not attend the basketball game is forcing you to take part in my religion.

No they don’t say you have to pray, they say bow your heads I don’t.

Merely exercising my religion in front of you does NOT violate your rights, any more than you exercising your non-religion in front of me violates MY rights.

No you exercising your religion does not violate my rights. I don’t have a non-religion I have a religion it is just not Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or any other mainstream religion.

Happy? No. But would I get a lawsuit together and claim that all satanists had to shutup in public because I don't like what they are preaching?
No.


That is you, and that is right. Others would use other means.

It's called freedom, sonny

I fight for freedom and the name is not sonny. Having a public prayer at before a basketball game is a religious ceremony, my opinion. I would not cause a fuss, but I would not attend another basketball game at that school. Others feel more strongly.

John_Wayne777 saying my religion is a non-religion and calling me sonny when you don’t know anything about me is rather low.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 2:31:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 2:31:17 PM EDT by leakycow]
What is the point of this "resolution" other than to establish an "either you're with us or against us" mentality?

Several of you have already pointed out that it doesn't really establish a government-sponsored religion, and it doesn't really prevent other religions from being practiced, so...

?
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:12:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 3:14:13 PM EDT by Turnkey]

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
Sounds like a swell idea to me.



The very year after prayer was taken out of schools ( 1963 ) the pregnancy rate of girls under fifeteen jumped from 5,000 per year to over 27,000
SAT scores have plumetted, violence and drug use increased Coincidence ?

Your laws ignore our deepest needs
Your words are empty air
You've stripped away our heritage
You've outlawed simple prayer
Now gunshots fill our classrooms
And precious children die
You seek for answers everywhere
And ask the question ,why ?
You regulate restrictive laws
Through legislative creed
And yet you fail to understand
That God is what we need

John Adams 1798 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for a government of any other."

George Washington 1799 "What students should learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ "

John Adams - "We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus "

Patrick Henry - "It cannoy be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded,
not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top