Only in Missouri

Actually I figured Kansas would have been the one to do this

link

Quote:

---

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.

---

Because we all know that the christians are horribly oppressed in the US. No word on which sect of Christianity though.

Yasu, sometimes I wonder which side of the fence you swing on.
Personally, I'm with the radicals on this one.
Not because I hate Christianity, but because I feel that putting a blanket over religion like that could potentially cause a lot of s***.
There are some (NOT ALL) Christians (and I do mean Billy and his moonshine drinking fanatic friends) who would use this sort of thing for their own twisted means and feel they were justified or excused by their actions.
Why drive a further wedge in a diverse community by segregating everyone else into a "atheist" category?
Its not a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natsia

Yasu, sometimes I wonder which side of the fence you swing on.

---

No, no. I'm straight. The wife can vouch for that.

Wait, how do mean?

I think I might have to pm the question. I dont want to offend anyone :P
Im good at putting my foot in my mouth.

Missouri is like the dead center of the country. With the Blues sucking ass this year they have nothing better to do. Plus all but something like less than 10% of the state isn't one Christian denomination or another.

What's ironic is the state's motto: "The show-me state." No, it's not as dirty as you think. It's because being the "gateway to the west" people there were wary of tall tales and were skeptics, wanting to see proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natsia

I think I might have to pm the question. I dont want to offend anyone :P
Im good at putting my foot in my mouth.

---

Have fun with that. ;)

bah, until I see a declaration for a christian jihad, I'm going to remain apathetic.

I think Christians really do need to go on another round of Crusades. It would be interesting to say the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yasunobu13

I think Christians really do need to go on another round of Crusades. It would be interesting to say the least.

---

Isn't that what bush is doing at the minute? I think my stupid priminister said something equally as moronic this week...

It's just conservative chrisian leaders backlash / reaction to all of the other idiots on the other end of the spectrum who freak out if they see the 10 commandments in a government building or a christmas tree on public property.

I think both sides are pretty wacked.

Me too!

Wasn't the original American government set up to be free of religion? Any man can practice what ever religion he wants, but that shouldn't influence government? And then something about the people taking up arms to get rid of governments every 40 years or something?

I think its time for a change... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markp.com

Wasn't the original American government set up to be free of religion? Any man can practice what ever religion he wants, but that shouldn't influence government? And then something about the people taking up arms to get rid of governments every 40 years or something?

---

actually, the early americans came here to avoid religious persecution and "containment" at the hands of the evil imperial britisher/eurolandian.

the separation of church and state came during the fight for independence years to avoid the perpetuated tyranny of horny kings that wanted to change the church laws so they could get rid of frigid in-bred wives and go for more lively, erm... in-bred female stock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gerbick

actually, the early americans came here to avoid religious persecution and "containment" at the hands of the evil imperial britisher/eurolandian.

the separation of church and state came during the fight for independence years to avoid the perpetuated tyranny of horny kings that wanted to change the church laws so they could get rid of frigid in-bred wives and go for more lively, erm... in-bred female stock.

---

So... yes then :D

damn. I think I did actually prove your point.

its not freedom from religion the early americans sought. it was freedom of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indivision

its not freedom from religion the early americans sought. it was freedom of religion.

---

Almost the same thing :D

So how did things get so screwed up? Come on... its in your constitution, rise up and remove those idiots in power! :D

Ever heard of the Montana Militiamen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markp.com

Almost the same thing :D

So how did things get so screwed up? Come on... its in your constitution, rise up and remove those idiots in power! :D

---

hah. only a couple more years and we'll have another opportunity to make the big vote. should be interesting this time around. :)

almost the same thing, true. but the reason for leaving was that Henry persecuted the religion in majority in favor of a minority religion. its pretty clear that the first americans didnt have any intentions of removing religion from government. just that no person would be persecuted because of their religion. whether they are in the right or not is one thing, but what they are doing in Missouri really isnt out of line with the principles of the original americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indivision

hah. only a couple more years and we'll have another opportunity to make the big vote. should be interesting this time around. :)

almost the same thing, true. but the reason for leaving was that Henry persecuted the religion in majority in favor of a minority religion. its pretty clear that the first americans didnt have any intentions of removing religion from government. just that no person would be persecuted because of their religion. whether they are in the right or not is one thing, but what they are doing in Missouri really isnt out of line with the principles of the original americans.

---

So by making one religion recognised by law and subsiquently ignoring all other religions, isn't that persicution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markp.com

So by making one religion recognised by law and subsiquently ignoring all other religions, isn't that persicution?

---

its actually not a law that they want. but, even if it were, i dont think so. persecution is pro-actively trying to prohibit a religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indivision

its actually not a law that they want. but, even if it were, i dont think so. persecution is pro-actively trying to prohibit a religion.

---

Yeah but aren't they doing that... if you make one thing favorite, or the default choice, then the others are sidelined...

Its Microsoft in Europe all over again :D

So let’s say hypothetically that 95 percent of the state wants to make this thing happen, is it really wrong? How dose it look when 5 percent can make the choice for the other 95? Something there doesn’t seem right... But then again with the other way around, that doesn’t seem right either? So where do we draw the line here?

I personally think this is all Bull.... What every happened to religious tolerance? I can’t go to college any more with out being called an evil person just because I'm Christian... I don’t go around telling people that are atheist or other that they are evil and going to hell...

Come on we NEED to respect people for what they believe and let them speak their mind.

But any way... If that’s what the people want then let them have it... If it’s not then stand up and say something... But don’t do it because you have some biased opinion about it.

yeah. it definitely has implications about other religions. i just think persecution is a little strong a word for it, imo. they arent trying to say everyone has to be Christian or that Christians get special tax breaks or anything. Just that its the state religion, like they have state flowers, state birds, etc. Though, I'm sure the Daffodil feels left out since it wasnt chosen as the state flower there. :D

the establishment clause in the constitution forbids congress from setting up a national religion. im not sure if that requirement legally extends to state constitutions as well. if it does, since an overlying principle is that its government by the people, those requirements can be changed. introducing the idea, as they have would be the appropriate step in that direction if thats what they want to do. not to say i agree with it or anything. but, its not really far-fetched or dastardly in terms of our legislative system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bisconer

So let’s say hypothetically that 95 percent of the state wants to make this thing happen, is it really wrong? How dose it look when 5 percent can make the choice for the other 95? Something there doesn’t seem right... But then again with the other way around, that doesn’t seem right either? So where do we draw the line here?

---

We have historically recognized the need to protect minority groups in some cases. Thats what the Bill of Rights is for. But, yeah, the question about where that line is drawn has always been debateable. I would say that line is about as straight as the border between West Virginia and Virginia.

Personally, I tend toward the belief that the people should be able to form the government they want more so than they seem to be able to now. After all, if what the majority wants is almost always bogged down due to legal wrangling, its not realy an effective democracy any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indivision

We have historically recognized the need to protect minority groups in some cases. Thats what the Bill of Rights is for. But, yeah, the question about where that line is drawn has always been debateable. I would say that line is about as straight as the border between West Virginia and Virginia.

Personally, I tend toward the belief that the people should be able to form the government they want more so than they seem to be able to now. After all, if what the majority wants is almost always bogged down due to legal wrangling, its not realy an effective democracy any more.

---

Exactly... its all about lines and where you draw them.

With something as emotive as religion, I'd leave that crap well alone! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markp.com

Exactly... its all about lines and where you draw them.

With something as emotive as religion, I'd leave that crap well alone! :D

---

Yeah... How do you debate personal faith? You can’t. The whole basis of religion is believing even if there are no facts. We Christians take pride in believing in what can’t be proved.

Now how do you debate that? All that’s going to happen is your going make some one mad... And then ridicules laws are going to get passed. Leave religion alone. It has no place in politics.

(Edited for spelling)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bisconer

Yeah... How do you debate personal faith? You can’t. The whole basis of religion is believing even if there are no facts. We Christians take pride in believing in what can’t be proved.

Now how do you debate that? All that’s going to happen is your going make some one mad... And then ridicules laws are going to get passed. Leave religion alone. It has no place in politics.

(Edited for spelling)

---

try editing it again ;)

You're right... I need to setup a country where religion is not part of the politics... if you're of a religious bias, then you can't be in my government :)