First South Dakota tries to say that Roe v. Wade doesn't apply to it and now Missouri is trying to do the same for the First Amendment. I found this disturbing story via Echidne of the Snakes.
Missouri state legislators want to name Christianity the offical state religion.
Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.
House Concurrent Resolution 13 has 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.
Echidne also points to a post at AlterNet which theorizes that it's a ploy to "further the right's narrative that Christians are a persecuted minority under siege." While I think that the author, Joshua Holland, is correct, that still should not diminish the import of this action. What part of "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does Mr. Sater not understand? Imagine if he had sponsored a bill trying to bring back slavery in direct opposition to the Thirteenth Amendment. Would the rest of the country just sit around and laugh? Apparently attempting to contravene the First Amendment is OK or, at least undeserving of much comment. The entire country should be outraged and anyone sponsoring the bill should be thrown into Gitmo. Having Arab ancestry isn't a crime but trying to throw the Constitution down the shitter is. If a lefty holds a sign up protesting the war, accusations of sedition fly. But if a right-wing Christian tries to make his state a First Amendment-free zone, there's nothing.
Then again, not many people know what the First Amendment actually says. Didn't Bush swear an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? Why isn't he defending it by denouncing these clowns in Missouri at the very least? It is the saddest statement that the legislators would even consider a bill that so blatantly tramples on the First Amendment.
EDIT: Here's the text of House Concurrent Resolution No. 13.
10 comments:
Actually, the First Amendment does not prevent a state from promoting a specific religion. It prevents the Federal government from doing so. The constitutions of some states however forbid promoting specific religions. In fact, most of the original states had official state religions. Over time that was changed, mostly because their respective official religion became less popular in their state, such as Congregationalism.
I thought that the point of Cantwell v. State of Connecticut was that the Establishment Clause applied to states as well and not just the Federal gov't.
While I can't say that I know the exact influence of Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom on other states, I do know that religious minorities also had a hand in deposing officially sanctioned religions. For instance, they didn't appreciate being taxed to support the state's official religion. Plus there was the issue of discrimination.
I was under the impression that Cantwell v. State of Connecticut established that states could not suppress religious expression. The case wasn't about state sponsored religion, it was about free speech.
Also see Everson v. Board of Education that held that the Establishment Clause applied to the states.
That case really doesn't answer the question about state sponsored religion. States have had official religions. So there is precedence to support the legislation in Missouri. Also, if you read the First Amendment, the wording is quite specific that the amendment puts limitations upon the power of Congress. Which was the reason state's were able to have official religions before.
You may not like the idea of a official state religion, but there is solid legal reasoning for a state's right to establish an official religion. But in Missouri's case, the hurdle they need to leap is not the First Amendment, it's their own constitution.
Sec. 6.
That no person can be compelled to erect, support or attend any place or system of worship, or to maintain or support any priest, minister, preacher or teacher of any sect, church, creed or denomination of religion; but if any person shall voluntarily make a contract for any such object, he shall be held to the performance of the same.
Section 6 of their constitution appears to forbid an official religion. Some states have provisions like this, some don't.
That states have had offical religions in the past has not escaped my notice. Please be assured of this. But so what? Mississippi didn't ratify the 13th amendment until 1995 or so but this did not mean that the state was not bound by it and its citizens free to own slaves.
Please read about the Everson case and Justice Hugo Black's decision which read that the Establishment Clause applied to the states just as it did the Federal government:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."
How you interpret this as "solid legal reasoning for a state's right to establish an official religion" is something that I fail to comprehend. Perhaps we our difference is that you do not equate the preference of one religion over another and establishing an official religion whereas I do.
Mr. Stehling - would you also argue that states can prohibit free speech, abridge the freedom of the press, deny people the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances?
The 13th Amendment is written differently than the 1st. The wording matters.
13th
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
1st
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.
As can be plainly read, slavery is prohibited within the entire United States. Now if the 13th was written like the 1st, things could be different.
Congress shall make no law respecting neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
That would establish a limitation upon the powers of the Federal government, but it does not mention limitations upon the power of the state. But of course Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, so even without the 13th Amendment, slavery may be prohibited within the entire United States. The question would have to be answered if the President had the power to issue that type of executive order. In the case of the first amendment, if you read the constitution of individual states, they include a definition of rights. Those rights limit the power of the state. In Wisconsin, you are guaranteed that state and local governments will not infringe your free speech because of Section 3 of the state constitution specifically grants that right.
How the US Constitution and its amendments apply to the powers of states depends on the wording and your views on federalism.
Sorry, actually how the US Constitution and its amendments apply to the powers of states depends on the wording and how the judge presiding over a case views federalism.
Now you're trying to change the argument. My example of slavery/13th Amendment addresses your statement about precedence which you have discarded in your last 2 comments. Sorry, actually how the US Constitution and its amendments apply to the powers of states depends on many things and precedence is among them.
Why do you appeal to precedence with regards to the actions of states yet abandon it when it comes to the SCOTUS? Do you deny the role of precedence in this matter? Just as there is no right to privacy enunciated in the Constitution, it is generally recognized because of various SCOTUS rulings, i.e. - precedents. Similarly, the Everson case set the precedent of making the Establishment Clause apply to states. The 14th Amendment is the historic justification for making all levels of government uphold First Amendment rights. ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.")
You and I can certainly argue that there is no right to privacy because it's not explicity laid out in the Constitution. We can argue theory. But to deny that in practice such a right exists via SCOTUS decisions (i.e. - precedence) is, I think, ridiculous.
You can argue a states' rights position and that's fine. I'm sympathetic to the notion, to a point. But you cannot deny the importance of precedence nor the precedent set by Black's statements above. While this precedent may someday be struck down, it still stands today as law. So, in the here and now, the Missouri bill is unconstitutional as it prefers one religion over all others.
Post a Comment