Yesterday I wrote about evolution’s version of a sick joke, Missouri House Representative David Sater. Today I’m going to talk about his bowl-burning diarrhea of an idea that should have been aborted before it ever saw the light of day. This gross missuse of gray matter is called House Concurrent Resolution No. 13. First I’m going to post the bill in its entirety and then I’ll break it down a section at a time and expound on the horrors of this piece of legislation as I go.
I’m truly disgusted with this whole ordeal. Literally, it makes me sick to my stomach to think about it. Why don’t you take a look at the newest candidate for Missouri Law while I go barf up my intestines?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECOND REGULAR SESSION
House Concurrent Resolution No. 13
93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY
4572L.02I
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This “resolution” has the feel of some weird project given to the kids in a Grace Community Chapel youth group. As I begin to respond to this I get the distinct feeling that this is what it must be like to grade homework at a Christian private school. I guess I’ll address this glob of bogus legislature piece by piece starting at the begining.
=====================================================================
“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”
*As The Vessel was kind enough to point out to us, the Author of the Bill of Rights (Thomas Jefferson) was not a Christian at all. If our forefathers had wanted Christianity to be our national religion they would have made it that way themselves.
======================================================================
“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”
*Nobody is stopping you from “acknowledging” your creator. What you can’t do is have your religious mumbo jumbo sanctioned by the Government.
======================================================================
“Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and”
*The majority’s rights are already protected. The only thing you can’t do is bring your cultish practices of chanting and idol worshiping on to Government property. The way our form of democracy works is that the majority are able to protect themselves through their votes. It is the job of the Government to protect the minority from abuses of the Constitution like the one being proposed here.
======================================================================
“Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and”
*Give me a fucking break. This part, whether the author knows it or not, is an out right LIE. This bag of shit bill does exactly the opposite of what this section of the resolution describes. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that can lead you to believe that our forefathers wanted us to wait 230 years and then start passing Christian laws.
======================================================================
“Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:”
*First, this seems to be incredibly presumptuous. Even if, in a worst case scenario, this law gets past, it is ridiculous to assume that ALL elected officials “recognize” a Greater Power”. Shit, even if they do what the hell does that matter? If all elected officials think red ties are the best does that give them the right to pass a law recognizing red ties as superior to all others?
======================================================================
“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.”
*Here it is, the meat of this waste of taxpayer’s money. Now I’m not up on my knowledge of legislative lingo, but I think the whole “Senate concurring therein” part means that this bill won’t go from the House to the Senate but is going through them both at the same time. This is part of the plan to sneak this bill through before the public knows what has hit it.
This next part is the section that makes me want to buy a gun and climb to the top of a tall tower.
“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,”
FUCK!!! Sorry about that guys. I just needed to vent. I mentioned this yesterday, but I’ll say it again. The wording of this bill is so broad that there are virtually no limits to what overzealous churchies might do when given this kind of leeway. With the wording being what it is there is nothing to stop teachers from calling an assembly for anyone that wants to pray leaving the children that choose not to wondering why the school caters to those that “believe”. There’s nothing to stop schools or courts from adorning their walls with all sorts of Christian paraphernalia. A public school with crucifixes and statues of Mary all over the place, that’s what could happen if this law is passed.
That’s not even going into the fact that “common sense” has nothing to do with this bill. Common sense says that the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” drop shit all over this bill with an elegance that I can’t even begin to approach.
Fuck me running. Justified recognition? Really? The reason Christianity gets this special treatment is because it deserves it? People of all races, religions, and creeds have built this nation. To say that Christianity is “deserving” because more of them have been Christian than not, is ridiculous. China is shortly going to take over our spot as the world’s greatest super power. Does that mean that Buddhism, Taoism, or Confucianism is more deserving of recognition than Jesus’ gang? Great people do great things and to assume that with out Christianity they would be incapable of nation building is arrogant enough to get you sent to Hell for “pride”.
I could go on about this waste of trees for pages but I’m probably boring you already. I just received a phone call and I’m not sure if it is grammatically correct to call a piece of paper a jerk but who am I to argue with a retailer that will soon surpass Wal-Mart for sheer volume of product moved. Hey House Concurrent Resolution No. 13, the Jerk Store called. They ran out of you.
Moody
|
This post is so blasphamous, that I don't even know where to start. But let me just say this:
When you talked about this bill going against the 1st amendment and "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion", you forgot something.
You didn't finish what the amendment said (I'll do it for you
Moody, just remember that one day you will stand before God and give account of what you have done.
God bless you
The piece of the ammedment that you quoted has no bearing on this law. This resolution "respects" a religion, which is unConstitutional.
Wait a minute. Did you say this post was blasphemous? HAHAHAHA!! What is this the Spanish inqusition? If you Churchies are right and "God has a plan" then I'm doing exactly what I'm supposed to be doing. If there is a hell then people like you are going to wind up there with the rest of us because while we don't believe you guys JUDGE which is God alones pprovidence.
Moody
I think if other people don't give any input on how ..wrong you are then I'll be using your comment as a basis for an entire blog entry here at the Jerk Store.
Moody
I would agree but there has been a total of 20 seconds of air time on TV regarding this bill and absolutely no written coverage. I live in Missouri and while St. Louis is definatley a Democratic city I have no idea how the Reprasentatives in rural Missouri might vote on this. If it gets voted in then we'll wind up with Christian shit everywhere by the time it makes it to the Supreme court. I suppose a lower Court might strike it down but I can't imagine it would end there.
Moody
Secondly, Spitfire, I wish I had an eye-rolling emoticon to insert here.
You didn't finish what the amendment said (I'll do it for you ). It finishes "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
You seemed very proud of pointing out this little piece of common knowledge but failed to make any kind of point. How exactly is not passing this law, which recognizes christianity, prohibiting free exercise of your mythology, I mean religion? Have your churches been shut down? Do people come and conduct bible searches and remove them from your house? When you pray silently do people say "Hey, if you are praying you'd better stop"? Do people try to burn you at the stake for your belioefs? No they don't. This is what allowing free-exercise means.
But I have a few more questions: Do kids need to pray aloud in school? Is your god hard of hearing? Doesn't he read minds or some kind of voodoo shit like that? Which religion's version of the ten commandments should we post on government propety? Should we also post the penalties so people can see that according to the bible worshiping another god is punishable by death? Would you mind if someone posted satanic symbols on government property? How about a nice freise of the pitchfork weilding red goat dude right above the judge's bench?
Moody, when we get to hell do you think they will have golf? I like golf. Maybe I'll bring my clubs just in case. Maybe you, me, Einstein and Ghandi can play as a foursome.
Moody,
feel free to use my comment as a basis for your blog. I'd like to see where it goes
You still haven't showed me where the Separation of Church and State clause is in the Constitution
It's been like 10 minutes since I asked you where the Separtation of Church and State clause is in the Constitution. Well?
The first case to state this was Reynolds v. U.S, 98 U.S. 145, where the court said:
New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia-included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: ‘Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.
I hate to break it to you, but the supreme court has the final word in the interpretation of the constitution and they have ruled time and time again that there is such a separation deriving from the first amendment… and what some knuckle fucker blogger says means jack shit compared to the supreme court, so keep your god damn bible away from my schools and shut your fucking mouth about it.
PS moody sorry bout the language… but this argument is getting old
I believe in God, but I am a liberal Christian, and I totally embrace the separation of church and state. I find it hypocritical in the extreme for right wingnut fanatics to split hairs by standing on a LITERAL interpretation to mean that the first amendment gives them the right to shove their beliefs down everyone's throats but only for THEIR beliefs, while at the same time they swallow with no problem whatsoever the violent rape of our FOURTH amendment rights by supporting Bush and his Big Brother invasion of our privacy.
I do not go to anyone's blog and smugly hint about their sin or anyone else going to hell or repenting, insinuating that I'm better than them because of my beliefs. I've got my hands full keeping my own dirty laundry under control, thank you very much, and I have no right to pass such judgements on others, especially just to try and score some dubious points on a blog? I find that disgusting. Sorry, but I do. That kind of attitude is precisely why church attendance is dropping,and it's why I don't go to church. No one likes a smug, self-righteous fundamentalist banging the Bible over their heads while they try to dictate politics to everyone based on their religion.
The same people who raise nine shades of hell about having the right to put the ten commandments on public buildings would go into an epileptic seizure if we put something from the Koran there as well, or built a statue of Budhha in the court foyer, or had the Wiccan Rede on every courtroom wall.
Frankly, the Wiccan Rede would be much better to use, it's short and to the point..An' it harm none, do as ye will. that includes harming yourself! So I'd say that would sum up the ten commandments and nearly every other religious golden rule teaching! But would they stand for it? No. Thus, they prove by that attitude that it isn't freedom of religion they are defending, it's a demanding of the right to have the Christian religion given pre-eminence and sole representation, even domination, at taxpayer expense anywhere they choose.
But they'll never admit it. And I'm sure I'll be told I'm going to hell for daring to liken them to the hypocritical self-righteous Pharisee's of old.
Sorry for the long rant, Moody, I've been madder than hell since the Patriot Act vote, anyway, and this just adds fuel to the fires of anger for me.
Why there exists in some the burning need to have their religion recognized as the "best" is beyond me. Validates them somehow I guess. This all comes from the idea that these people have that they know what God wants.
Anyway, anyone who can't see that this is in complete contradiction of the very first words of the very first amendment should not be allowed to vote.
I would write more but I still have plans to do a whole post. Ciao
Could you either spare atlanta or send a note before nuking the South. I consider myself to be one of the "sane" people and would appreciate some time to pack and relocate
At least we've got each other.
moody
I couldn't have said it any better if I had a couple of days to think about it... which i did :)
I always apreciate your comments. Thanks for wieghing in.
Moody
We all know that those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it, but in my experience the religious right acts like your not playing fair when you bring up the history of Christianity.
Moody
Dude, did you forget that we live in a border state? I'm not exactly happy with some of the decisions our rural state mates make but I'm not quite ready for suicide yet.
Moody
While I may spend a good deal of my time "blogging" I do not spend ALL of my time here. I may not get to your comment within your ten minute time limit I do eventualy reply to all comments.
I left it up to others to reply to your comment because I had just written a rather long entry and didn't want to fill another three pages replying to a comment that would have taken at least that to adress.
As to your comments? Anything I write would only reiterate the comments of some of the more astute members of blogstream that took the time to reply to your comment. Palsgraf adressed your question directly. Pretend that I wrote what Paslgraf did and you've got my answer.
Just so you know, I feel that all of your comments have been adressed sufficiently to void the need for an entire blog post dedicated to you.
Moody
That's all I'm trying to do :) Thanks for the support.
Moody
You cut down on my need to do any kind of leg work for a reply to spitfire. What you posted was perfect. Thanks for going to bat for all of us that feel the need to protect ourselves form the those on the right that fall into the zealot category of right wingers.
Don't sweat the cussing. I used far worse language in my past two posts. If you want to see me at my worst our friend Spitfire did a post on reverse racism. I went off in a comment to that post in a way that is faaar more offensive than the opinions you put forth.
Thanks again,
Moody
Fuck yeah! Lay that shit down. I like the way you write when your ranting.
To me it's like a badge of honor to be told I'm going to hell. I live as good a life as I can and know from experience that my best is better than most Christians. You tend to be condemed whe you make a political argument that, while blasphemous, is legaly correct.
Nobody that is zealously religious can except any other religion becaus to do so is to go to hell. They're fine with their trinkets hanging form court room walls but when it comes to another religion all of a sudden your smack dab in the middle of sinsville.
Don' apologize for going off. I'm always ready to read a rant written in righteous anger. (how's that for aliteration?)
Moody
I imagine you meant a blue city in a red state and if I'm right I hope Winston is willing to spare more than one because the city we live in is just such a city.
I'm hoping for a sort of liberal judgement day. You know, where everyone that had an open mind and cared for others more than they cared for money gets taken away before some horrible calmity befalls the rest of the earth? Not by God or anything, but by some super hip party aliens or something equaly as cool. That's my version of Winston's civil war.
Moody
But here's a simple question: if a public-school student wants to read a Bible during lunch, recess, or a studyhall, would you allow it?
I have no problem with anyone reading a Bible on their own time.
Road Kill,
Resolutions are often used to change the rules of the House or Senate. Kind of like them saying "This is what we all agree to be true". If this resolution passes it is their way of telling us that any laws regarding these topics in the future will be based on this new "truth".
Also, while it is only a resolution, do you think that is going to stop public schools in rural areas from using this as a blank check to let religion in? Do you think conservative rural judges are going to stop the schools just because this is a "resolution"?
Moody
I don't think the fact that it's only a resolution will keep some imbecile setting on a bench wearing a black robe, could possiblly be a judge, from using it to allow some stupidity dressed up like religious freedom from being placed in to law.
What really pisses me off about the whole thing is that the lunatics doing this have actually attended an institution of higher learning. Apperantly it didn't work. There suppose to be well educated and well informed. They must have had a labotemy some where along the way are were sleeping through the whole thing.
I'm a conservative at heart but this religous BS is enough to make vote for an alteritive any alteritive the first time one of my right wingnuts even useds this crap as a lever to get his/her sorry ass elected.
My final word on this is, hey poeple, wake up and smell the coffee before the world goes to hell in a hand basket.
I really don't have anything to say I just like a forum to use my country euphemisms.
Actually looked up the spelling on euphemisms.
I do have to disagree with you on the China statement. China's infrastructure is a long way from where it needs to be for even a semblance of economic efficiency (at the moment they're simply utilizing their MASSIVE surplus of labor to make up for a lack of capital), and its culture is reasonably far from any point where it is likely that society will demand these changes. It's going to be the elephant in the room very soon, don't get me wrong - but it's not going to overtake the US as the global superpower without establishing a track record of political and military intervention in other people's business. That's what we call superpowers, right? People who we're afraid will nuke us if we don't deal with them?
At first I thought that your idea of nuking the south and all border states was possible the dumbest thing I had read in a long time, after all what is nuclear radiation going to do that excessive inbreeding hasn't already done, talk about a waste of perfectly good nukes. Then it occured to me that you could not possible nuke the south and border states without destroying Washington DC. Now if we could pull of this plan without DC knowing then we could solve all of this nations problems in one fell swope. Of course it would be so much more effecient to use the nukes on the Northern States. The only state that would remain unaffected would be California. Everything already causes cancer there so it would just be another day for them.
just addin a little fuel to the fire.
and p.s. i still think jesus was a hippie.