A recent story out of Missouri has many people in an uproar. A local television station reported that the legislature is considering making Christianity the state’s “official religion“. The only problem is the bill under consideration never says that.
I read several liberal blogs (One, two, three, four, five…) and none of them give the actual text of the document. They just parrot the line about “official” religion and give some pithy comment about a theocracy and the Constitution. (Our good friends at Insulted actually do bother to link to the resolution and discuss it, albeit from a left-wing perspective.)
Liberals and non-Christians, please do me a favor and read the actual resolution. And please remember to quote the entire 1st Amendment which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” but wait there’s more “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It’s funny how often that second part gets left off.
Most likely, you disagree with this resolution. I’m not sure I would support this resolution. But can we at least be honest and say that this does not support or establish Christianity as the state religion of Missouri. It says the majority of Missouri citizens are Christians and that the elected officials recognize the role Christianity has played in the history of our nation.
Even if this was establishing a state (not national) religion, it could be argued that it is not unconstitutional. The 1st Amendment cannot be used because when it was written nine of the 13 states had state religions.
The amendment dealing with a prohibition of the states rights is the 14th Amendment. It grants all citizens “equal protection of the laws,” but it never says that a state cannot establish a religion suffice that it does not violate the rights of citizens who are not of the established faith.
While liberals continue to implore us conservatives to read the Constitution, they should be reminded that the Constitution does not ban “government” from establishing a specific religion, it specifically bans the federal government from establishing a religion.
I am not arguing for a state religion. I think state – and especially national – religions were a bad idea (for both religion and state), but you liberals who see theocracy behind every bill should really examine what you are pointing at. Let me stress that because I know you want to read something in this that is not there – I do not support a state religion of Christianity or anything else. I think it would be harmful to both the religion and the state.
I’ll address the main point that is angering most people. The resolution reads, “Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority’s right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object…”
This does not mean the Missouri legislature will (or can) do anything other than protect everyone’s right to express their religious beliefs. This resolution would not change any laws that already guarantee that right. It would only voice support for Christians expressing themselves in the public arena. You may not think it is needed, I may not think it is needed, but this resolution does not a theocracy make.
Aaron,
Overall, I see this as the equivalent of "The majority of legislators in Missouri think Jesus is really cool". Not too much more.
I agree that this does not amount to the establishment of a state religion, but I as an agnostic would be "concerned" if my legistlature passed this. Not "screaming mad" or "in-a-clock-tower-with-a-deer-rifle-mad", but "concerned".
There are a couple reasons for this… as I will outline
First off, I have no problem with the following and take it as fact:
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
Here is where I start to get edgy:
Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and
I disagree with the "showing respect", as I believe it should be "protect the rights". As legislators, you can be nasty to me if you like (I can work to have you thrown out of office) but it is your duty to ensure that those who oppose your views are also protected under their Constitutional rights. This may be a bit picky, but government documents have to be scrutinized, as things can snoball.
Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and
OK, good, doing your job…
Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:
This would be OK as long as they acknowledge that some of the legislature (probably) dissented, and that the Greater Power is not the U.N. or the Aliens from Close Encounters.
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.
Terrific, just don't make me pay for a prayer meeting, statue or monument, and I will be fine with it… have at it!
And yet, whenever laws are written that don't promote Christianity, us Liberals are accused of a secret plot to destroy Christianity. Play fair Aaron. If (some) Christians get to chastize us for being opposed to religious displays in public, we get to chastize those (some) Christians for trying to establish state religion.
I don't accuse liberals of plotting to destroy Christianity – you don't have that much power. ;)
That does bring up a sad point though, too many on the Christian right believe unless every state government does something like this Christianity will go away. Actually the most vibrant Christians are the ones where the government is hostile to them. Not that I think we should do that, but it won't destroy us.
You can chasize whomever, whenever you want Sam, but that does not mean anyone is trying to establish a state religion. I agree with Evil Lonnie that this is essentially "Jesus is cool and we like Him" with little weight.
If this was anything other than a resolution like say a law or a bill then we could (and should) get nit-picky and condemn this, but it is the same as proclaiming this first Wednesday in May as honorary Teacher Day or something like that. It has no bearing on laws or whose rights are protected.
If people want to get riled up about this, go ahead. But us Christians have been conspirarcies to unleash on the poor seculars among us.