Only in Missouri

[Markp.com]

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

[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?

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.

[indivision]

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.

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.

[indivision]

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.

[Markp.com]

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!

[bisconer]

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

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

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)

[Markp.com]

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