[Elspode]

Like the story here, for instance. I particularly like the quote at the end where Representative Johnson notes that voting against it would make you look bad, like you were against religion. Its the political equivalent of the classic question, "When did you stop beating your wife?"...

http://www.stltoday.com/blogs/news-g...an-resolution/

Mo. House considers Christian resolution
By Tim Townsend
03/02/2006 12:34 pm
A Missouri House resolution stating that “voluntary prayer in public schools, religious displays on public property, and the recognition of a Christian God are not a coalition of church and state” has made it through the committee process and is scheduled for a floor vote as early as today (Thursday, March 2.)

HCR 13, sponsored by Rep. David Sater (R-Cassville) and co-sponsored by Rep. Barney Joe Fisher (R-Richards), was voted out of the Rules Committee 5-3 and onto the floor, according to Rules Committee member and Minority Whip Rep. Connie “LaJoyce” Johnson (D-St. Louis).

The resolution, which is concurrent with the Senate, does not have an enacting clause, and therefore “is just a political statement about Christianity,” said Rep. John P. Burnett (D-Kansas City), a Rules Committee member who voted against passing the resolution to the full House.

Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said the resolution had no teeth and was nothing new.

“This is a resolution, not a law,” he said in an e-mail message. “The legislature is basically approving a statement saying it does not like the Supreme Court’s rulings on school prayer. It changes nothing. It’s akin to passing a resolution praising motherhood. It may make some people feel good, but it doesn’t achieve anything.”

But the Anti-Defamation League was not as casual about the possibility of the resolution. “I’m sure Representative Sater is coming from a place of sincere and strongly held faith and you can’t fault him for that,” said Karen Aroesty, the ADL’s regional director in St. Louis. “But this would disenfranchise a whole bunch of people who are his constituents…even if this doesn’t pass, the harm is substantial.”

Neither Sater nor Fisher returned calls seeking comment. Rep. Shannon Cooper (R-Clinton), chair of the Rules Committee also did not return a call to his office.

David Clippard, executive director of the Missouri Baptist Convention, said he was not familiar with the resolution, but after hearing its language said the resolution “seems to reflect our country’s history.”

“Fifty three of the founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence were committed evangelical Christians,” said Clippard. “The foundations of this country started with Christianity, and this just goes back and acknowledges where we started.”

The resolution states that:

“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…

“Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority’s right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object…

“Now, therefore, be it resolved…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…”

Rep. Leonard Hughes (D-Kansas City), a member of the Rules Committee, said lawmakers were told in the public hearing that the resolution was “to protect majority rights.

“Last time I checked, majority rights were protected,” he said. “It’s ridiculous.”

Burnett said he wondered who “the majority,” referred to in the resolution, was. “Is the majority ‘we the policy makers in the legislature,’ or is it ‘we the citizens of Missouri,” or is it ‘we white people?’” he asked.

Clippard said the resolution’s critics do not understand the basic foundations of the U.S. government. “For someone to get upset with the country’s historical roots…you can’t change history, you can’t change truth,” he said.

Burnett said that although the resolution doesn’t have the “force or effect” of a bill that could become law, he believed the resolution was “a clever half step” in that direction.

Boston said that approach was unlikely to be successful. “Sure, they could pass a law based on the resolution,” he said, “and see it promptly declared unconstitutional by the federal courts.”

Potential amendments to HCR 13 have been circling the legislature, according to lawmakers. Most are attempts to make the resolution more inclusive by mentioning Islam and Judaism. Others are trying to negate the reference to “the majority.”

Johnson said she thought there might be an ulterior, election-year, motive to the resolution. “If some people vote against this, there’s a fear it might be used to make them look like atheists,” she said. “If you come out against something like this, you can fear a backlash - like you’re coming out against Christianity.”

'Bout time someone took a stand in support of the oppressed Christian Majority.