I agree with other commenters that we need not assume the bad faith of this
resolution's proponents. What I find striking about it, though, is both the
odd marriage of different ideas contained in its propositions and the
strange letdown -- and, I think, mismatch -- between its propositions and
its ultimate payoff.
With respect to the propositions, it seems to me to teeter between arguing
that this is in fact a Christian nation and that the Christian faith is the
true faith ("the principles afforded to us by Him," "Him" being a
specifically Christian God), and that Christianity is relevant for its place
in our historical firmament ("our forefathers...recognized"). In short,
thinking in terms of cases like the recent Ten Commandments duo or the Roy
Moore case, it seems to vacillate between a genuine establishment-like
statement and a "Ten Commandments are part of our legal history" statement,
not quite forthrightly saying both are correct and not quite distinguishing
between the two. It is also unclear whether the resolution wants to say
that Christianity is both our American religion and the true faith, or
whether it wants only to say that our legacy of religious freedom, derived
from an identifiably Christian heritage, is one that allows persons of all
faiths to express their religious beliefs.
This seeming identity crisis is perhaps most apparent in its somewhat
lackluster conclusion, which draws no larger conclusion from its preambles
than that voluntary school prayer (it does not specify whether it means
teacher-led, student-led, or something else) and public religious displays
should be permissible -- a statement that, whether right or wrong, can
easily be advanced without the need of much that precedes it. It is also
apparent in the fact that this conclusion is said to follow from the
"recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great
nation of ours," while, at the same time, the resolution speaks in more
general terms about the "constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator" --
leaving somewhat unclear whether that means a right to acknowledge any
creator, or only the bill's sponsor's specifically Christian conception of a
creator -- and about the "majority's right to express their religious
beliefs." Should one draw the conclusion that if a non-Christian majority
were to take, by democratic process, the levers of power in Missouri, that
it would and should be equally free to mount solely non-Christian public
displays and voluntary school prayers, shutting out Christian public
displays while "showing respect for those who object?" Or is the resolution
premised on the idea that since Christianity is both true and central to the
American tradition, similar displays, if exclusively non-Christian, would be
inappropriate if not impermissible? Or is it premised on something of a
wink-and-nod assumption that the resolution's conclusions are true provided
we're pretty sure who is part of "the majority?" In any event, as I've
suggested, at least as long as the resolution's conclusion is not intended
to endorse -only- Christian prayer or displays, how much value does the
preamble lend to the conclusion?
None of this is intended disrespectfully. I'm happy to assume the good
faith of its proponents, and it seems to me there are perfectly respectable
arguments for the importance of Christianity either to the American founding
or to the American tradition. There are also perfectly respectable
arguments in favor of voluntary school prayer and/or public religious
displays, although one set of arguments need not follow from the other. But
it seems to me that this resolution is unsure what it wants to say, or
unwilling to say it clearly. This strikes me as a remarkably irresolute
resolution!
Paul Horwitz
Southwestern University School of Law
Los Angeles, CA
P.S.: Is it OK to plug someone else on the listserv, rather than oneself?
Winston Calvert, who generously posted the text of the resolution, did not
mention that he is the author of a very fine Note on judicial selection and
the Religious Test Clause, published in the Wash. U. L.Q. in 2004 and
available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363696
From: Winston Calvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion. Date:
Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:39:35 -0800 (PST)
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.
