A state religion in Missouri?

[Jessica]

This from KMOV-TV in St. Louis

State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion
09:24 PM CST on Saturday, March 4, 2006
By John Mills, News 4

Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.
House Concurrent Resolution 13 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.

[Meganator]

It sounds like something proposed to make a statement, not that would actually get passed. There are lots of arguments that can be made about what constitutes establishment of religion, but this one seems pretty clear...correct me if I'm wrong, but the U.S. Constitution applies to every state, and it clearly prohibits this.

[Jessica]

It sounds like something proposed to make a statement, not that would actually get passed. There are lots of arguments that can be made about what constitutes establishment of religion, but this one seems pretty clear...correct me if I'm wrong, but the U.S. Constitution applies to every state, and it clearly prohibits this.

I don't think it would pass, but as a member of a religious minority, it bothers me that some people think this is a good idea.

[zwieback]

The person who proposed this must have been high when s/he came up with it. What a stupid thing to propose. I doubt it would pass, too. Sounds like it would be illegal. The first amendment clearly states freedom of religion.

[Meganator]

I don't think it would pass, but as a member of a religious minority, it bothers me that some people think this is a good idea.


It is disturbing, I agree.

[Grace]

I believe they're doing it just to aggravate the ACLU and force them to spend money to oppose the law (since the ACLU spend so much time trying to remove any whiff of Christianity from everything). But that's just what I think.

And FWIW, the U.S. Constitution, while indeed applicable to all states, says that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion, but technically that does not apply to the State legislatures (not that I think they have any chance of winning on this technicality nor do I think they should win on this technicality).

[blazedog]

I believe they're doing it just to aggravate the ACLU and force them to spend money to oppose the law (since the ACLU spend so much time trying to remove any whiff of Christianity from everything). But that's just what I think.

And FWIW, the U.S. Constitution, while indeed applicable to all states, says that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion, but technically that does not apply to the State legislatures (not that I think they have any chance of winning on this technicality nor do I think they should win on this technicality).

Except that the 14th Amendment "due process" clause has been held by the Supreme Court to incorporate the Bill of Rights and state action by a state legislature must not violate the Bill of Rights.

[leightx]

Wow - how disturbing, that someone (and an elected reprensatative at that) would even propose such a thing. And sad. :(

[tbb113]

It is very sad that someone would propose this. Part of what has always been attractive of the US is religious tolerance. I would hate to see that disappear from this country (especially since I'm part of a religious minority) :(

[RunnerKim]

Having lived in St. Louis for many years, I'm an sure that there is no way a statewide resolution like this would pass. St. Louis is the first place I lived in the States that had such a variety of religions. Now St. Louis is hardly representative of southwest Missouri.

I don't remember if I was in sourthern Missouri or Arkansas at the time, but driving back from a trip, we drove past an adopt-a-highway sign that was sponsored by the KKK. DH and I just looked at each other. It was very eye opening to us. I hadn't realized how much of a bubble I can live in sometimes (which is only more the case that I've moved to the left coast).

Kim

[ClaraB]

I think that part of the reason that people are more religious in the US than in most other western countries is because the US has made more of an effort to separate church and state. Look at Europe - in many European countries, there is a lot of favoritism given to the Judeo-Christian faith, yet people are much less religious than in the US. Christianity is under far more attack from apathy than it is from the ACLU. I think this lawmaker in Missouri is forgetting that Christianity benefits from freedom of religion just as much as any other faith.

[honeygirl1971]

I think that part of the reason that people are more religious in the US than in most other western countries is because the US has made more of an effort to separate church and state. Look at Europe - in many European countries, there is a lot of favoritism given to the Judeo-Christian faith, yet people are much less religious than in the US. Christianity is under far more attack from apathy than it is from the ACLU. I think this lawmaker in Missouri is forgetting that Christianity benefits from freedom of religion just as much as any other faith.

While I agree with the last line of this post, I'm not sure about the point you are trying to make about Europe in the rest. Many "European countries" like France protect the separation of church and state much more than the US does.

I think it is SCARY that an elected representative would propose such a discriminatory bill. SCARY. :eek:

[ellielk]

I believe they're doing it just to aggravate the ACLU and force them to spend money to oppose the law (since the ACLU spend so much time trying to remove any whiff of Christianity from everything). But that's just what I think.

Gee, I guess this couldn't really be the ACLU then, could it?

ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services (1/12/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

PROVIDENCE, RI -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island announced today that it has filed an appeal in federal court on behalf of a Christian prisoner who was barred from preaching during religious services at the state prison.

Wesley Spratt had been preaching during Christian services for seven years at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) until 2003, when a new warden unilaterally stopped him from doing so based on vague and generalized "security" concerns. In its appeal, the ACLU argues that the preaching ban violates a federal law known as RLUIPA, which was designed to protect the religious freedom of institutionalized persons.

"RLUIPA is an important federal law that was designed to protect the religious freedom of people like Wesley Spratt," said ACLU cooperating attorney Carly Beauvais Iafrate. "That law is undermined if courts give uncritical deference to prison officials in denying inmates the right to practice their religion."

Spratt, who considers his preaching a "calling" from God, had been preaching at religious services on a weekly basis under the supervision, and with the support, of clergy at the ACI. The Department of Corrections provided no evidence of security problems during, or as the result of, his supervised preaching during the seven years he had been doing so. Nonetheless, when the new warden took over, Spratt was ordered to stop preaching.

In November, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacob Hagopian upheld the ban. Notwithstanding the lack of any security problems in the years Spratt had been preaching, Judge Hagopian ruled that he would "defer" to the warden's judgment that there was no means to accommodate Spratt's preaching while maintaining institutional security.

In taking over Spratt's appeal, the ACLU argued that prison officials failed to meet the standards of the federal religious freedom law by not protecting the exercise of religious beliefs by prisoners. The law bars states from imposing any substantial burden on an inmate's exercise of religion unless it furthers a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means available.

Regarding the "least restrictive means" standard, the ACLU brief notes that, unlike a ban, "supervised preaching that existed in an unremarkable way for seven years" was clearly the least restrictive means available to prison officials. The brief points out that supervised preaching is also the method used in federal prisons to accommodate inmates' exercise of religion.

The brief concludes that the magistrate improperly accepted the prison's "unsupported explanations for its sudden and unexplained change of position," and that the facts establish that "allowing Spratt to continue preaching, as he had for seven years, while supervised, satisfies security concerns and preserves his critical religious exercise."

The ACLU is seeking a court order to allow Spratt to resume preaching at religious services.

[ClaraB]

While I agree with the last line of this post, I'm not sure about the point you are trying to make about Europe in the rest. Many "European countries" like France protect the separation of church and state much more than the US does.

I think it is SCARY that an elected representative would propose such a discriminatory bill. SCARY. :eek:I also agree that the proposed bill is scary, but I'd beg to differ with your assertion that many European countries protect the separation of church and state - Finland, Norway, Denmark, the UK and Greece all have state religions, Germany has an agreement with "major" religions to collect church taxes from their members for them (can you see that happening in the US :eek:?), and we won't even talk about the French law that forbids Islamic girls from wearing the hajib to school, or the Bavarian law that mandates a crucifix in every classroom :rolleyes:.

[stefania4]

I'll be darned - I figured this was a hoax and checked snopes.com. Then I googled on kmov tv in St. Louis, and indeed this story is one of the most e-mailed of the day.

[honeygirl1971]

...we won't even talk about the French law that forbids Islamic girls from wearing the hajib to school... :rolleyes:

You may be as sarcastic as you like, but you don't seem to understand that that law is there to enforce separation of church and state. In private schools, you can wear whatever you want, but religion (in general, not just Islam, ALL religion) is kept out of state-sponsored public schools. You may practice any religion you like IN PRIVATE, but the French are fierce about protecting their secular state. In court, you swear on the civil code, not on a Bible, and no religious symbols are allowed in state buildings, schools, et cetera. If you ask a French person on the street if there is separation of church and state in America, he/she will say "no," because by French standards, there isn't.

[ClaraB]

You may be as sarcastic as you like, but you don't seem to understand that that law is there to enforce separation of church and state. In private schools, you can wear whatever you want, but religion (in general, not just Islam, ALL religion) is kept out of state-sponsored public schools. You may practice any religion you like IN PRIVATE, but the French are fierce about protecting their secular state. The problem is that those who practice their religion should be allowed to practice it everywhere, not just at home. When the state prevents you from practicing your religion in a public place such as a school, you have the same problem that's happening in Missouri, where one religion or doctrine becomes the only publicly accepted one. Doesn't matter if the dominant "faith" is Christianity or secularism, the problem is the same - people are prevented from freely practicing their faith.

[honeygirl1971]

The problem is that those who practice their religion should be allowed to practice it everywhere, not just at home. When the state prevents you from practicing your religion in a public place such as a school, you have the same problem that's happening in Missouri, where one religion or doctrine becomes the only publicly accepted one. Doesn't matter if the dominant "faith" is Christianity or secularism, the problem is the same - people are prevented from freely practicing their faith.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree at all. I don't think public schools or government offices are the appropriate places to practice any religion. The current law in France is controversial, but there is no doubt that it was put in place to avoid any one religion dominating any public space (the way Christianity often does in the US). And I never said that people are only allowed to practice their religion at home, either. Churches, mosques, synagogues, private meeting halls, private schools, and all sorts of other private spaces are used by religious people here to practice their faith.

[ClaraB]

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree at all. I don't think public schools or government offices are the appropriate places to practice any religion..I think we'll have to agree to disagree, then. To me, the whole point of "separation of church and state" is to promote freedom of religion, which should be the ultimate goal (and which is why the bill in Missouri should never pass, IMO). When the state starts to tell me where I can and can't practice my religion, then they've violated the principle of "separation of church and state" this whole argument is about.

[Kathy B]

I would be interested in reading the proposed bill if someone with more search aptitude than me can find it. Just because something is listed as the official state "whatever" doesn't necessarily mean it impacts anything. Not that I think the bill should pass, but I'm pretty sure the intent isn't really to prohibit someone's freedom to practice another religion.

It kind of sounds like the bills that pass making the teddy bear a state's official stuffed animal or some creepy crawly the state's official insect. I have always wondered about the purpose of that kind of thing. Seems like a real waste of the legislature's time.

It is interesting to me that someone would propose such a bill and then NOT be available to comment on it. Don't you usually want to promote ideas you are trying to sell by telling people why it's a great idea every chance you get?
Kind of makes me wonder what the intent truly is.....

[cminmd]

The problem is that those who practice their religion should be allowed to practice it everywhere, not just at home. When the state prevents you from practicing your religion in a public place such as a school, you have the same problem that's happening in Missouri, where one religion or doctrine becomes the only publicly accepted one. Doesn't matter if the dominant "faith" is Christianity or secularism, the problem is the same - people are prevented from freely practicing their faith. ClaraB

How on earth does the state stop you from practicing your religion in a public place? I have never heard of a single instance of a school asking a student to stop praying privately to themselves in study hall. I have never heard of a mall kicking some family out for praying in the food court before they eat dinner. Never. What they are prohibited from doing is inserting prayer into official functions or creating a scene. It is sad that "Christians" are so used to getting their way that have become to view any respect for other peoples values as oppression. As a practicing Catholic I want the Church and State on opposite sides of the street, if not on opposite ends of the town! I know what a horrible job the Church did when it was an instrument of government.

[Kathy B]

ClaraB

It is sad that "Christians" are so used to getting their way that have become to view any respect for other peoples values as oppression.

Not Clara, but I think she did cite the instance of Muslim girls NOT being allowed to wear head coverings in French schools as an example of "other peoples values" that were being oppressed by the government.

I hate to see comments like yours that generalize what "Christians" think. Especially when the comments are so negative. Kind of similar to comments that generalize what Muslims think. There is a huge spectrum of ideas and beliefs in both religions (as well as others).

[cminmd]

The "War on Christmas", the boycot of stores that sell holiday cards, constantly criticising the ACLU when half the time, they are defending the rights of christians, lawsuits and laws trying to insert christian pray into school functions, Judges placing copies of the ten commandments in public buildings- sorry but that is what the christian movement is doing. It may not be every single christian, but it is certain a very large, powerful, well financed group of christians that have a very profound impact on the politics of this country. Why am I being negative for pointing out a political reality? Why can't I have an opinion on what goes on in America?

[Kathy B]

The "War on Christmas", the boycot of stores that sell holiday cards, constantly criticising the ACLU when half the time, they are defending the rights of christians, lawsuits and laws trying to insert christian pray into school functions, Judges placing copies of the ten commandments in public buildings- sorry but that is what the christian movement is doing. It may not be every single christian, but it is certain a very large, powerful, well financed group of christians that have a very profound impact on the politics of this country. Why am I being negative for pointing out a political reality? Why can't I have an opinion on what goes on in America?

You can have an opinion. So can I. So can everyone else. Mine is that I hate to see Christians all lumped into one category of beliefs when in truth there are many different opinions. I liken it to thinking all Muslims are terrorists, just because there is a powerful, well financed group of Muslims that are having a profound and violent impact on the politics of the Middle East.

[Grace]

constantly criticising the ACLU when half the time, they are defending the rights of christians

Why am I being negative for pointing out a political reality?

Can you please provide the proof that "half the time, the aclu is defending the rights of christians"? I believe that is your perception and belief, but I don't have that perception and I do not believe that they defend an equal number of pro vs. anti christian cases. I believe that they are very anti-christian, and if not anti-christian, then for sure anti-christian values. They do throw in a token case defending some christians here and there, but that does not make them balanced in their crusades at all (which is what the term "half the time" implies).


You claim it as a political "reality" that they spend half their time (I'll even give you something even close to half their time) defending the rights of christians. I don't believe that's reality. Again, I think that's your perception. But I would be willing to concede your point if you can point me to some hard statistics proving it's a reality.

[blazedog]

The ACLU is an organization which defends the CIVIL LIBERTIES of every American. Since Christians are a majority their civil liberties are rarely trampled on but the ACLU is completely impartial in terms of the cases it takes -- Nazis marching on Skokie, Seventh Day Adventists fighting ordinances barring their door to door solicitations.

It is not waging a war on Christians -- it is waging a war in support of the Constitution. I would urge people to go to their website and check out exactly what rights they are defending.

Three of their most recent cases:

PROVIDENCE, RI -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island announced today that it has filed an appeal in federal court on behalf of a Christian prisoner who was barred from preaching during religious services at the state prison

DETROIT -- After exhausting all avenues in the Michigan courts, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a Catholic man who was criminally punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program.

The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging restrictions on an asylum seeker's right to wear a religious head covering. The plaintiff, Harpal Singh Cheema, is a devout Sikh, imprisoned since 1997 while awaiting a decision on his asylum application

[ClaraB]

ClaraB

How on earth does the state stop you from practicing your religion in a public place? I have never heard of a single instance of a school asking a student to stop praying privately to themselves in study hall. I have never heard of a mall kicking some family out for praying in the food court before they eat dinner. Never. What they are prohibited from doing is inserting prayer into official functions or creating a scene. It is sad that "Christians" are so used to getting their way that have become to view any respect for other peoples values as oppression. As a practicing Catholic I want the Church and State on opposite sides of the street, if not on opposite ends of the town! I know what a horrible job the Church did when it was an instrument of government.
You took my quote out of context - I was referring to the political situation with Muslims in France, not the US, in response to some of honeygirl's posts. Please read everything I've posted before presuming to take me to task for something I never said.

[blazedog]

You took my quote out of context - I was referring to the political situation with Muslims in France, not the US, in response to some of honeygirl's posts. Please read everything I've posted before presuming to take me to task for something I never said.

As a member of a super minority, I certainly support separation of government and religion to the fullest extent.

However, the French action really is an example of governmental intrusion. While I have grave issues regarding head scarves and their implication in terms of female rights -- such as I have the same issues regarding wigs and types of permissible female clothing among the orthodox Jews, I certainly can not support an ordinance forbidding one from wearing such clothing in a public school.

Where would it stop -- yarmulkes? crosses?

Of course, there is a line in which "clothing" can be regulated -- i.e. the Muslim women who wanted to take an ID license picture with her face totally shrouded; or if there are requirements pertaining to health or safety in which the rights of the individual are balances against the need for such action -- there was an instance in which the ceremonial knife worn by Sikh males was not permitted in a school system which banned ALL weapons -- sectarian or not.

The French action would be FOUGHT by the ACLU if an American school system banned head scarves or crosses or any religious symbol -- very different than a school favoring religious ACTION by having prayers recited before an assembly or football game.

[honeygirl1971]

Blazedog, I agree with the points you are making, and I don't necessarily agree with the French law, but it does also forbid yarmulkes and crosses (unless they can be hidden under clothing) in public school. The law doesn't single out Muslims, although Muslims are the ones who have protested the most vociferously. Again, I don't necessarily agree with the law, but I had to take a civics class as part of the resident visa process and the law was explained to me in much more detail than it is explained in the American press. First, there are already no references to God, no prayers, and no religious symbols allowed in the public schools as part of the long-standing separation of church and state law. (Teachers are not allowed to ask students about their religious beliefs, either.) Second, studies were done that showed students who wore ostentatious religious symbols were in some cases discriminated against or used those symbols to propagate discrimination against others (Muslim teachers favoring Muslim students or Christian teachers picking on Muslim students, Christian males picking on Muslim girls, Muslim males picking on Muslim girls who were not wearing the veil, for just a few examples). Finally, many young girls were being forced by family members (usually a more radical brother) to wear the veil (to school and elsewhere) against their will. So, the controversial law was enacted to take religion out of public school completely--it's not there to start with and you can't bring it in, if you will. I believe the lawmakers saw this as similar to not allowing students to wear gang colors or insignia to school, which is certainly an infringement on personal freedom but many American schools have still felt that this was a necessary step to provide a safe, egalitarian environment. The other part of the law is that you cannot wear ostentatious religious symbols for job-related functions if you are a governmental official, for the same reasons stated above. Otherwise, you can wear whatever you want wherever you want. Again, I'm not saying I agree with this law, but I do understand why they passed it. Surely there is a better solution to the problems I mentioned above out there, but this is the one they have come up with for now. It probably won't last since Chirac's government is very unpopular already and Muslims are such a huge, vocal minority, but for now it is enforced. I agree that the ACLU would fight this if it happened in America, but I also think that the separation of church and state is a lot blurrier in America than it is here.