How Do You Achieve Theocracy? In Imperceptible Increments, That's How

[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.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

This is a resolution designed not to create a theocracy, so there's no call for alarm here.

The insuperable problem with "theocracies" is that no actual gods are to be found in the executive branch. They're not found in the other two branches of government either.

[warch]

Message to MO House "get to some real work you worthless pack of vote whoring show dogs. Resolve to fund early childhood literacy initiatives."

[cowhead]

therein lies the problem, the more educated you get the less likely you are to go along with a theological based government.. and trust me the mid west doesn't want people knowing too much.. it's bad for them you know. apple, garden, ribs and the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our/your faith. etc etc. you know the deal.

(ps. by the by I am not trying to start an arguement on the topic 'HEY! I'm well read but also religious! the two are not mutually exclusive..okay?)

[xoxoxoBruce]

Aren't there some elections (primary) coming up soon?

[Elspode]

Yes. I am so sick of religious pandering, I could just puke. It is just another commodity in the great "vote me into power so I can get richer" game.

[Torrere]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The insuperable problem with "theocracies" is that no actual gods are to be found in the executive branch. They're not found in the other two branches of government either.

The three branches of government in a theocracy? Are you talking about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

[Spexxvet]

“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”

Does this mean that, on public property, I can't display my Menorah or my statues of quetzalquatl, Vishnu, Buddha, or build Stonehenge?

[Elspode]

I'm pretty sure that, if you try it, someone will point out that it is not Christian, and therefore not a majority expression, and therefore not allowable.

After all, this is only about being the Majority.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Naw, it's about pandering to voting blocks.

[Elspode]

The onslaught of Christian vs Anyone Who Doesn't Live Their Way continues in Missouri. Our current Right Wing government, fresh from kicking thousands of indigent and disabled off of the Medicaid rolls, is now preparing to take away birth control from women on public assistance. The best part? It doesn't save any money from the existing budget, and the sponsor of the bill (a woman) flat out states that it is a Right to Life issue.

Yep...you read it right. A Right to Life issue. This means that the motion is intended to either curtail people from doing the nasty, or making sure that the chances of conception are increased if the act is committed, at least, by those who rely on public funds. Another case of "the majority" forcing their religious ethics on everyone else. This case is particularly stupid, since lack of access to birth control for the already indigent can only lead to the birth of more indigent children, and a greater burden on the public dole. But at least God will be happy.

Someone tell me again how we aren't moving to Theocracy? I find it amusing to hear those arguments while my legislature continues to work on laws designed to bring The State of Missouri closer to God.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...l/14109047.htm

[wolf]

Birth control is elective, medical assistance shouldn't be paying for it anyway. Neither should any private insurance plan.

I want to see more strict regulations regarding drug use ... mandatory testing, and you get dropped off the rolls if you turn in a hot urine*.



*I know from experience that the tests are unreliable, and have a high number of false positives. If someone tests positive, then they get screened with the more sensitive test. Still positive, you're off welfare.

[Trilby]

wolf, with all respect: One dollar of prevention saves 3 dollars of cure.

I also know that those who are "doing drugs" are eventually caught. Easy-peasy Japaneasy. I've done a few (urine) drops myself.

[Elspode]

I presume that this sentiment runs to the dispensation of ED medications such as Viagra and Cialis, too? There are *still* insurance plans that pay for that, but not for birth control (which seems silly, too...isn't a pack of pills a lot cheaper than a hospital delivery and insuring of another dependant?)

The view of birth control as elective tends to indicate a view that sex is also elective. The animal drive to propagate the species might make this position problematic.

[wolf]

I think you should pay for your own damn viagra, yes.