« The Naked Ape and the Other Partially Naked Primates
Main
Something Else to Worry About »
March 03, 2006
A Statement of Faith Masquerading as a Resolution of the Missouri Legislature
Missouri legislators are considering the following resolution, not legislation, sponsored by State representative David Sater of Cassville:
House Concurrent Resolution No. 1393RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY
4572L.02IWhereas, 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.
What can one say? Lots of things. First, the Constitution says nothing about the Christian God. It doesn't even mention it. That is why some of the founding fathers, Patrick Henry for example, did not favor the document. Second, the Constitution does say,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [emphasis added]
This First Amendment right was extended to the States with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and various subsequent Supreme Court rulings. Section one of the Fourteenth Amendment reads,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]
It is of course true that all citizens of the United States and not just some majority have the right under the First Amendment to acknowledge a Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him if they so desire and so believe. And where in all this is the professed "respect for those who object" to the majority's favorite "religious beliefs."
But this proposed resolution falls short of a full un-qualified endorsement of a single religion only because these items are in the "Whereases" and not in the "Therefore, be it Resolved." In other words, the proposed legislation incorrectly assumes the establishment of religion.
So what about the resolution itself. First, private prayer in school and anywhere else is already protected. This resolution will not protect it anymore. Second, except that they may constitute endorsement of one set religious views over another, "religious displays on public property" are also allowed. But it is exactly the endorsement of one set of religious views over others that this resolution seeks to codify.
Why is this a resolution of the legislature rather than a bill seeking to become legislation? My best guess is that its author knows full well that such legislation, if enacted, would be declared unconstitutional in its first test. The truth is that such resolutions are nothing more than cynical attempts to curry political favor with a minority of religious fanatics rather than any majority and to provide political fodder against those legislators that have the good sense to oppose them.
Via Atrios
Update: March 5, 2006
afarensis has a couple of updates on this resolution including feedback he received from one of the resolution's sponsors. If you had any question about the nature and goals of the resolution check out afarensis posts.
Update March 6, 2006
Ed Brayton on Dispatches from the Culture Wars has a line-by-line analysis of this resolution. I'm a little concerned that he persists in calling it a bill but otherwise his remarks are dead on.
Posted by DuaneSmith at March 3, 2006 11:32 AM | Read more on Current Events |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://WWW.telecomtally.com/cgi-bin/blog/mt-tb.cgi/569
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Statement of Faith Masquerading as a Resolution of the Missouri Legislature:
» MO House Resolution Gets Immanentized from Another Rovian Conspiracy - St Wendeler
King of the Open Thread (aka Atrios at Eschaton Blog) links to this article by KMOV TV here in St Louis (CBS affiliate). Are KMOV and Atrios (by extension) being disingenuous? Couldn't they (and shouldn't they) have provided the full text of the res... [Read More]
Tracked on March 3, 2006 12:10 PM
» The Missouri Concurrent Resolution from Afarensis
Redstate Rabble and Abnormal Interests both have stories on House Concurrent Resolution No. 13. This bit of news has finally made it into the papers here in St. Louis. From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Some religious leaders on Friday blasted... [Read More]
Tracked on March 4, 2006 05:37 AM
Comments
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.