Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
That is how it looks to me. I frequently see alarmists and/or ideologues failing to make any distinction between "whereas" boilerplate and operative legislation. One such was a lefty who claimed that the Congressional resolution declaring Captive Nations Week was "a resolution partitioning the Soviet Union" because the boilerplate mentioned states swallowed by the USSR. Another was an apparent anti-semite who cited a resolution "honoring" the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and claiming that because the boilerplate mentioned the Noachian Law, this was legislation imposing the NL as the law of the land. The language here is so windy it is unclear WHAT they think they are saying; but when we look at the operative portion uh, there isn't one, just a paragraph saying public prayer is a Good Thing. At 07:25 PM 3/3/06 -0500, you wrote: is this much different from Reagan's [in]famous proclamation that we are Christian country? The resolution seems not to be any sort of law with impact -- just some hortatory language about how school-sponsored prayer and public-sponsored creches should be allowed. From: Winston Calvert <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED],Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>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: 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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.2/274 - Release Date: 3/3/06 ___ 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.
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
Signs hung by the City of Boston? Really? In most cities I'm aware of, any such banners must be paid for by private parties -- with the exception of Christmas banners, which costs are borne by the city. It's a big country, much more diverse than we realize sometimes, isn't it? Ed Darrell Dallas"Vance R. Koven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't know about Dallas, but they certainly do in Boston, especiallyaround the time of the gay pride parade.VanceOn 3/4/06, Ed Darrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>> Alas, lack of understanding won't increase if such changes occur. Would it> not be better to achieve a workable level of understanding rather than> vitiate the laws that protect the ! freedoms we have?>> Is there no one who will step up to the podium and tell what the rights> really are?>> And, by the way -- do you know of any city that has put up a gay pride> banner? How many times has this happened?>> Ed Darrell> Dallas>>> Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>>> I read the text of the Mo resolution, and what I read there between the> lines is not so much the desire to make Christianity the national religion,> but rather frustration caused by judicial decisions that appear to have> cleansed religion ! from the public culture.>> For people who are not as sophisticated as constitutional law scholars, it> is difficult to understand why a city can put up gay pride banners in public> parks but not nativity scenes. Why public schools can celebrate Earth Day,> but not Christmas.>> Why Chr! istian Charley has no Free Ex right merely to opt out of evolution in> the curriculum, but Secular Sammy has a right--not only to opt out for> himself--but to stop his willing classmates from even hearing about> challenges to evolution such as ID.>> Interestingly, the frustration may be about to end. With recent changes on> the Court (and! perhaps more to come this summer), I suspect that the Court> will no longer be obsessed with eradicating even harmless, passive displays> of religion such as nativity scenes, Ten Commandment displays, etc. Perhaps> the "purpose" prong of Lemon may soon ! be gone, making it easier for school> boards to adopt curriculum such as ID critiques of evolution and making it> more difficult for dissenters to throw out harmless religious displays such> as those eradicated in McCreary.>> Frankly, I don't think folks want Christianity to be the official religion! > of America. I think they merely wish it to have a seat at the table, to> allow Christmas as much a place in the public culture as Earth Day and> National Coming Out Day.>>> I think what is needed is a little less judicial government under the EC,> and a little more democratic self-government at the state and local level.>> Cheers, Rick>> Rick Duncan> Welpton Professor of Law> University of Nebraska College of Law> Lincoln, NE 68583-0902>>> "When the Round Table is ! broken every man must follow either Galahad or> Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle>> "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or> numbered." --The Prisoner> > Yahoo! Mail> Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.> ___>> 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&! gt; posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or> wrongly) forward the messages to others.>>--Vance R. KovenBoston, MA USA[EMAIL PROTECTED]___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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 can
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
Don't know about Dallas, but they certainly do in Boston, especially around the time of the gay pride parade. Vance On 3/4/06, Ed Darrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alas, lack of understanding won't increase if such changes occur. Would it > not be better to achieve a workable level of understanding rather than > vitiate the laws that protect the freedoms we have? > > Is there no one who will step up to the podium and tell what the rights > really are? > > And, by the way -- do you know of any city that has put up a gay pride > banner? How many times has this happened? > > Ed Darrell > Dallas > > > Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I read the text of the Mo resolution, and what I read there between the > lines is not so much the desire to make Christianity the national religion, > but rather frustration caused by judicial decisions that appear to have > cleansed religion ! from the public culture. > > For people who are not as sophisticated as constitutional law scholars, it > is difficult to understand why a city can put up gay pride banners in public > parks but not nativity scenes. Why public schools can celebrate Earth Day, > but not Christmas. > > Why Christian Charley has no Free Ex right merely to opt out of evolution in > the curriculum, but Secular Sammy has a right--not only to opt out for > himself--but to stop his willing classmates from even hearing about > challenges to evolution such as ID. > > Interestingly, the frustration may be about to end. With recent changes on > the Court (and! perhaps more to come this summer), I suspect that the Court > will no longer be obsessed with eradicating even harmless, passive displays > of religion such as nativity scenes, Ten Commandment displays, etc. Perhaps > the "purpose" prong of Lemon may soon ! be gone, making it easier for school > boards to adopt curriculum such as ID critiques of evolution and making it > more difficult for dissenters to throw out harmless religious displays such > as those eradicated in McCreary. > > Frankly, I don't think folks want Christianity to be the official religion > of America. I think they merely wish it to have a seat at the table, to > allow Christmas as much a place in the public culture as Earth Day and > National Coming Out Day. > > > I think what is needed is a little less judicial government under the EC, > and a little more democratic self-government at the state and local level. > > Cheers, Rick > > > > > > Rick Duncan > Welpton Professor of Law > University of Nebraska College of Law > Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 > > > "When the Round Table is ! broken every man must follow either Galahad or > Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle > > "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or > numbered." --The Prisoner > > Yahoo! Mail > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > ___ > > 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. > > -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
Alas, lack of understanding won't increase if such changes occur. Would it not be better to achieve a workable level of understanding rather than vitiate the laws that protect the freedoms we have? Is there no one who will step up to the podium and tell what the rights really are? And, by the way -- do you know of any city that has put up a gay pride banner? How many times has this happened? Ed Darrell DallasRick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I read the text of the Mo resolution, and what I read there between the lines is not so much the desire to make Christianity the national religion, but rather frustration caused by judicial decisions that appear to have cleansed religion ! from the public culture. For people who are not as sophisticated as constitutional law scholars, it is difficult to understand why a city can put up gay pride banners in public parks but not nativity scenes. Why public schools can celebrate Earth Day, but not Christmas. Why Christian Charley has no Free Ex right merely to opt out of evolution in the curriculum, but Secular Sammy has a right--not only to opt out for himself--but to stop his willing classmates from even hearing about challenges to evolution such as ID. Interestingly, the frustration may be about to end. With recent changes on the Court (and! perhaps more to come this summer), I suspect that the Court will no longer be obsessed with eradicating even harmless, passive displays of religion such as nativity scenes, Ten Commandment displays, etc. Perhaps the "purpose" prong of Lemon may soon ! be gone, making it easier for school boards to adopt curriculum such as ID critiques of evolution and making it more difficult for dissenters to throw out harmless religious displays such as those eradicated in McCreary. Frankly, I don't think folks want Christianity to be the official religion of America. I think they merely wish it to have a seat at the table, to allow Christmas as much a place in the public culture as Earth Day and National Coming Out Day. I think what is needed is a little less judicial government under the EC, and a little more democratic self-government at the state and local level. Cheers, RickRick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is ! broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! MailBring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
I read the text of the Mo resolution, and what I read there between the lines is not so much the desire to make Christianity the national religion, but rather frustration caused by judicial decisions that appear to have cleansed religion from the public culture. For people who are not as sophisticated as constitutional law scholars, it is difficult to understand why a city can put up gay pride banners in public parks but not nativity scenes. Why public schools can celebrate Earth Day, but not Christmas. Why Christian Charley has no Free Ex right merely to opt out of evolution in the curriculum, but Secular Sammy has a right--not only to opt out for himself--but to stop his willing classmates from even hearing about challenges to evolution such as ID. Interestingly, the frustration may be about to end. With recent changes on the Court (and! perhaps more to come this summer), I suspect that the Court will no longer be obsessed with eradicating even harmless, passive displays of religion such as nativity scenes, Ten Commandment displays, etc. Perhaps the "purpose" prong of Lemon may soon be gone, making it easier for school boards to adopt curriculum such as ID critiques of evolution and making it more difficult for dissenters to throw out harmless religious displays such as those eradicated in McCreary. Frankly, I don't think folks want Christianity to be the official religion of America. I think they merely wish it to have a seat at the table, to allow Christmas as much a place in the public culture as Earth Day and National Coming Out Day. I think what is needed is a little less judicial government under the EC, and a little more democratic self-government at the state and local level. Cheers, Rick Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. ___ 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.
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
In a message dated 3/3/2006 9:16:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, I don't see christianity becoming a minority religion in the US any time in my lifetime or my grandchildren's. My point was both a descriptive (predictive) point and an analytic one. Steve might be right about the descriptive point, but the analytic point remains. Are those people who want to enshrine a particular religion as the Nation's religion prepared to accept another religion as the nation's religion if and when that other religion becomes the majority religion? And if not, how do they explain, without making some rather implausible assumptions, why we (members of currently minority religions) should accept their argument now? Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
Paul, I read things differently. Creches are quite legal when displayed by a private party, in a public forum, with proper permits. No Santa is required. There is a creche that is displayed annually a block or so from the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia, for example -- on federal property, as I recall, though it may be a state park. The question should be, why are some people asking government to do what they or their churches may do? This question becomes especially poignant when one realizes that it's legal for the churches to do it, but illegal for the government. Why not favor action over argument? Ed Darrell DallasPaul Finkelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Creches on public property are only legal if surrounded by Santa,! a few clowns, candy canes and enough other junk to destroy the religious meaing; the 10 commandments on texas lawn was legal only becauase it is "not sacred." The Court essentially tells those who insist on putting up their religious displays with my teax dollars only if they do so in way that destroys the religoius meaning. WHat I do not udnerstand is why religous people don't take the hint and stop volunteering to desecrate their own symbols so they can display them.Ed Darrell wrote:Isn't this a rather milquetoast resolution? Could we not make a case that voluntary prayer and creches on public property are already legal -- in fact, hasn't the ACLU been defending exactly those things in the past five years? One might wonder if these same legislators are among those who would refuse to sign a petition calling for the Bill of Righ! ts -- or worse, if they'd go to the mat to slam Congress, the President, and activist judges, for not allowing such things as the Bill of Rights. I'd flunk these guys on their history; shouldn't someone tell them that what they ask is already the law? Ed Darrell DallasSteven Jamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: is this much different from Reagan's [in]famous proclamation that ! we are Christian country? The resolution seems not to be any sort of law with impact -- just some hortatory language about how school-sponsored prayer and public-sponsored creches should be allowed. 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.htmWhereas, 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; andWhereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majorit! y also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; andWhereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; andWhereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; andWhereas, 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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law &nbs! p; fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425 (1918) __! _To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailma
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
Eugene pointed out that I was being a bit loose with my characterization of Reagan's proclamation -- the actual proclamation was for the Year of the Bible with statements about the Bible being a foundation of our Constitution and such. It is, naturally, carefully worded with the most potentially objectionable statements being taken as quotes from others.I was trying to find (in my papers from a case I handled in the 80s no less) the speech in which Reagan explicitly called the US a "Christian nation," but, with the passage of time, was not able to find it -- I didn't keep much from that file when I left practice for teaching.Here are a couple of webpages with the official proclamation and speeches from Reagan.http://www.moseshand.com/studies/reagan.htmhttp://www.hqda.army.mil/chaplain/Top%20Stories/PresidentReaganandTheBible.htmhttp://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/20383b.htmSorry for the loose language on my part, but I think the sense is what I said it was -- but deniability reigns.SteveProf. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"Politics hates a vacuum. If it isn't filled with hope, someone will fill it with fear."Naomi Klein ___ 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.
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
Creches on public property are only legal if surrounded by Santa, a few clowns, candy canes and enough other junk to destroy the religious meaing; the 10 commandments on texas lawn was legal only becauase it is "not sacred." The Court essentially tells those who insist on putting up their religious displays with my teax dollars only if they do so in way that destroys the religoius meaning. WHat I do not udnerstand is why religous people don't take the hint and stop volunteering to desecrate their own symbols so they can display them. Ed Darrell wrote: Isn't this a rather milquetoast resolution? Could we not make a case that voluntary prayer and creches on public property are already legal -- in fact, hasn't the ACLU been defending exactly those things in the past five years? One might wonder if these same legislators are among those who would refuse to sign a petition calling for the Bill of Rights -- or worse, if they'd go to the mat to slam Congress, the President, and activist judges, for not allowing such things as the Bill of Rights. I'd flunk these guys on their history; shouldn't someone tell them that what they ask is already the law? Ed Darrell Dallas Steven Jamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: is this much different from Reagan's [in]famous proclamation that ! we are Christian country? The resolution seems not to be any sort of law with impact -- just some hortatory language about how school-sponsored prayer and public-sponsored creches should be allowed. 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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law &nbs! p; fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425 (1918) __! _ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.e
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
Well, I don't see christianity becoming a minority religion in the US any time in my lifetime or my grandchildren's. Unless, of course, one excludes Spanish-speaking Catholics from being Christians.On Mar 3, 2006, at 8:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a fairly straightforward question or set of questions: What does it mean to say that the United States is a Christian country or that Christianity is, in the United States, the "official" religion? Is this a descriptive claim? More Christians than members of other religions? A historical claim? Christianity has played an important role in American history? Does it mean we're dedicated to Christian values only? Or perhaps it means that only moral values acceptable in the United States are ones that are derived from Christianity? (Which version of Christianity?) Moreover, whatever it means, does it entail that other religions are unwelcome in the United States, or though welcome are merely tolerated and should refrain from advancing their values in the public square? I would suggest that state legislatures or Congress can say what they want? Descriptively, this is not a Christian country, or if it is, it will in the near future no longer be one. In the future, it might be a Muslim, Hindu, etc. country, and I think anyone committed to the values of religious liberty and tolerance will reject the idea that American constitutional values countenance the idea that this is an X country, where "X" stands for a particular sectarian religion. It's not at all clear to me why committed Christians or committed religionists cannot embrace their religions without seeking the imprimatur of official endorsement. But if they cannot, it's important to remember that soon their religion might be descriptively a minority religion, and the entire framework of constitutional religious liberty might be reinterpreted into the values of a future majority religion that Christians might not be terribly fond of. Domestic religious imperialists ought to think twice about the reasons for holding up their faith as the one true faith and seeking to express this commitment in law, whether they conscientiously believe it or not. And just as soon as they attempt to make their religion the law by constraining mildly or ferociously other conscientious practices, many other religionists and secularists together will reject, even by force, their imperialism. BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"The most precious things one gets in life are not those one gets for money."Albert Einstein ___ 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.
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
I have a fairly straightforward question or set of questions: What does it mean to say that the United States is a Christian country or that Christianity is, in the United States, the "official" religion? Is this a descriptive claim? More Christians than members of other religions? A historical claim? Christianity has played an important role in American history? Does it mean we're dedicated to Christian values only? Or perhaps it means that only moral values acceptable in the United States are ones that are derived from Christianity? (Which version of Christianity?) Moreover, whatever it means, does it entail that other religions are unwelcome in the United States, or though welcome are merely tolerated and should refrain from advancing their values in the public square? I would suggest that state legislatures or Congress can say what they want? Descriptively, this is not a Christian country, or if it is, it will in the near future no longer be one. In the future, it might be a Muslim, Hindu, etc. country, and I think anyone committed to the values of religious liberty and tolerance will reject the idea that American constitutional values countenance the idea that this is an X country, where "X" stands for a particular sectarian religion. It's not at all clear to me why committed Christians or committed religionists cannot embrace their religions without seeking the imprimatur of official endorsement. But if they cannot, it's important to remember that soon their religion might be descriptively a minority religion, and the entire framework of constitutional religious liberty might be reinterpreted into the values of a future majority religion that Christians might not be terribly fond of. Domestic religious imperialists ought to think twice about the reasons for holding up their faith as the one true faith and seeking to express this commitment in law, whether they conscientiously believe it or not. And just as soon as they attempt to make their religion the law by constraining mildly or ferociously other conscientious practices, many other religionists and secularists together will reject, even by force, their imperialism. BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
Isn't this a rather milquetoast resolution? Could we not make a case that voluntary prayer and creches on public property are already legal -- in fact, hasn't the ACLU been defending exactly those things in the past five years? One might wonder if these same legislators are among those who would refuse to sign a petition calling for the Bill of Rights -- or worse, if they'd go to the mat to slam Congress, the President, and activist judges, for not allowing such things as the Bill of Rights. I'd flunk these guys on their history; shouldn't someone tell them that what they ask is already the law? Ed Darrell DallasSteven Jamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: is this much different from Reagan's [in]famous proclamation that ! we are Christian country? The resolution seems not to be any sort of law with impact -- just some hortatory language about how school-sponsored prayer and public-sponsored creches should be allowed. 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.htmWhereas, 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; andWhereas, 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; andWhereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; andWhereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; andWhereas, 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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law &nbs! p; fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425 (1918) __! _To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
is this much different from Reagan's [in]famous proclamation that we are Christian country? The resolution seems not to be any sort of law with impact -- just some hortatory language about how school-sponsored prayer and public-sponsored creches should be allowed. 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 SESSIONHouse Concurrent Resolution No. 1393RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY4572L.02Ihttp://www.house.state.mo.us/bills061/bills/hcr13.htmWhereas, our forefathers of this great nation of theUnited States recognized a Christian God and used theprinciples afforded to us by Him as the foundingprinciples of our nation; andWhereas, as citizens of this great nation, we themajority also wish to exercise our constitutionalright to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks forthe many gifts provided by Him; andWhereas, as elected officials we should protect themajority's right to express their religious beliefswhile showing respect for those who object; andWhereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted inthe Constitution of the United States of America bythe founding fathers; andWhereas, we as elected officials recognize that aGreater Power exists above and beyond the institutionsof mankind:Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of theHouse of Representatives of the Ninety-third GeneralAssembly, Second Regular Session, the Senateconcurring therein, that we stand with the majority ofour constituents and exercise the common sense thatvoluntary prayer in public schools and religiousdisplays on public property are not a coalition ofchurch and state, but rather the justified recognitionof the positive role that Christianity has played inthis great nation of ours, the United States ofAmerica. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-84282900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425 (1918) ___ 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.
RE: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
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
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
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 Christi
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
"I wonder how many of them would have the courage of their convictions if that were the likely outcome of their little legal-literary exercise." I suspect that large numbers of them -- or of their fellow travelers -- would be willing to suffer legal sanctions for their opinions. I think that they are wrong, but I see no particular reason to suppose that they are insincere. It is always nice to imagine that those we disagree with are also cowards or hypocrits, but reality has a nasty way of refusing to script itself as precisely the sort of morality play that we might prefer. NBO -- ** Nathan Oman "It is a misleading cult that teaches that the remedy of our ills is to have the law give over, once and for all, the strivings of the centuries for a rational coherence, and sink back in utter weariness to a justice that is the flickering reflection of the impulse of the moment." -- Benjamin Cardozo -- ___ 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.
Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
A not-very-analytic observation on a Friday afternoon: I happened to read these posts on the Missouri resolution at about the same time as I was taking a look at a remarkable document called the "Flushing Remonstrance," written in 1657, in which the leaders and citizens of Town of Flushing told Governor Stuyvesant of the then-Dutch colony of New Amsterdam (later, of course, New York) that they would not cooperate with his oppressive measures against the Quakers. The document is often called the first formal statement of religious liberty in the American colonies, and some treat it as one of the direct precursors to the First Amendment. Unsurprisingly, its argument for religious liberty is, in large measure, a religious argument. It strikes me, for what it's worth, that the Missouri resolution not only contradicts the Constitution (whether it "violates" it is a more complicated question having to do with the status of such legislative expressions of opinion), it also, in the saddest possible way, violates the "law of love, peace, and liberty" referred to in the Flushing Remonstrance. Moreover, with all its talk of majority rights, the Missouri resolution is really more a statement of identity politics by an angry faction than a genuine defense of either religious values in general or even Christianity in particular. I am also reminded here of Bob Cover's discussion of "commitment." The authors of the Flushing Remonstrance knew that Stuyvesant would end up arresting them, which he did. I am not proposing, of course, that anyone actually test the mettle of the Missouri legislators by arresting them, but I wonder how many of them would have the courage of their convictions if that were the likely outcome of their little legal-literary exercise. Perry ___ 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.
RE: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
As a fairly new resident of the state of Missouri, I agree with Eugene that the resolution deserves condemnation, but is it, if it passes, unconstitutional? I ask this as someone who ought to know, but perhaps owing to the fact that it's Friday afternoon of a long week, I can't say that it is. I seem to recall having read somewhere that some state constitutions have language of this type in their preambles. I have to be away from the computer the rest of the day, but will appreciate any enlightenment the list can offer. Kevin Pybas -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Winston Calvert Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 1:40 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion. 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 > > me
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
I know someone who firmly believes lawyers should be prohibited from serving in legislatures. He has some interesting and not totally absurd arguments. I humor him by threatening to take the opposite position, though I don't believe it, but want a chance to rattle his cage. So, I propose that only lawyers should be eligible to serve in legislatures. When he asks me to argue, I now have another bit of data to use. Lawyers would have learned enough to know not to do something like this. Of course, it may be that the person(s) generating this resolution are lawyers. Pity. Jim Maule >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/3/2006 2:41:28 PM >>> *soapbox mode on*I read stories like this, and I say to myself that it's no wonder so many people think conservative Christians are intolerant idiots. Doesn't this guy understand that stupid things like this accomplish nothing other than leaving a mess for others to clean up? *soapbox mode off* Sigh. Thanks for passing this along. I've often said that the biggest proof of the existence of God is the fact that Christianity still exists despite who He has for "ambassadors. Sheesh. Brad Jean Dudley wrote: 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. ___ 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.
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
Agreed, Donald. I was in the process of googling for the actual wording of the resolution when Winston got there first. On Mar 3, 2006, at 11:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not that I agree with the resolution, but it does not say half of the things attributed to it in the summary circulated by Jean...we all need to be much more precise Donald C. Clark, Jr. Counselor at Law Bannockburn Lake Office Plaza I 2333 Waukegan Road Suite 160 Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 (847) 236-0900 (telephone) (847) 236-0909 (facsimiles)___ 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. 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.
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
Thank you, Winston. Once again, the media tends to overdramatize
issues with incendiary titles/headlines. I'm not sure that Missouri is
declaring Xianity a state or official religion, but the wording of this
resolution surely smells of it. Besides, it's plainly a way to have
prayer in public schools and nativity scenes on public property.
It's just a resolution--can future law or jurisprudence be based on it?
Are we at the top of a legislative or judicial "slippery slope"?
On Mar 3, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Winston Calvert wrote:
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.)
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.
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
Not that I agree with the resolution, but it does not say half of the things attributed to it in the summary circulated by Jean...we all need to be much more precise Donald C. Clark, Jr.Counselor at LawBannockburn Lake Office Plaza I2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015(847) 236-0900 (telephone)(847) 236-0909 (facsimiles) ___ 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.
Re: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
*soapbox mode on*I read stories like this, and I say to myself that it's no wonder so many people think conservative Christians are intolerant idiots. Doesn't this guy understand that stupid things like this accomplish nothing other than leaving a mess for others to clean up? *soapbox mode off* Sigh. Thanks for passing this along. I've often said that the biggest proof of the existence of God is the fact that Christianity still exists despite who He has for "ambassadors. Sheesh. Brad Jean Dudley wrote: 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.___ 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.
RE: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
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.
RE: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
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.
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.
