State representative David Sater of Cassville has introduced legisltation to recognize Christianity as the recognized majority religion of the state and nation. I think it’s a disgusting ploy. He has to know it won’t pass Constitutional muster. His goal is to force the ACLU or other liberal groups to fight the bill so that he can then claim oppression. It’s crass and vile.
That’s…really dumb.
But I don’t get how the fact that there’s no way this will go through could be construed as oppression. I mean, it’s unconstitutional. Why does David Sater of Cassville hate the Constitution?
Because it keeps him from oppressing others.
Well, yeah…but then he goes on about how great America is. The America whose laws are based on the Constitution that will not permit his stupid bill to be passed!
Really dumb.
Because if the ACLU comes out against the resolution, then he can go back to the hoosiers in the hinterlands and shout from the rooftops how he tried to get the state to recognize their faith and allow their Baby Jesus displays on the lawn at the Courthouse but he was stopped by those evil, godless liberals.
It’s the same oppression that Christians suffer throughout the U.S. None. It’s in their heads. But that doesn’t stop them from claiming it exists or that there is a War on Christmas. Search for Christian persecution in America on Google and see what you get.
Gah, I’m going to go froth at the mouth and chew on some carpet, now.
Though it’s nice to see some really crazy bullshit legislation coming from somewhere besides Utah, for once.
I didn’t know you were a lesbian.
I don’t know if it is unconstitutional, just because it doesn’t seem to do anything. I mean, if it said something like “voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state and therefore public schools shall have daily prayer”, then it probably would be unconstitutional. But this resolution doesn’t seem to do make or prohibit anyone from doing anything, therefore it doesn’t affect anybody, and therefore nobody has standing to challenge its constitutionality.
[QUOTE=HomebrewIt’s the same oppression that Christians suffer throughout the U.S. None. It’s in their heads. But that doesn’t stop them from claiming it exists or that there is a War on Christmas. Search for Christian persecution in America on Google and see what you get.[/QUOTE]
I know, I know, but it’s so damn stupid I can’t even bring myself to get upset. Like a crazy guy ranting on a streetcorner with a cardboard sign.
Maybe if I lived in Missouri, or if this had any chance of passing, I’d get more worked up. As it is, all I can do is say “that’s…really dumb”.
So he’s trying to be provocative, but still a coward. 
It probably doesn’t mean anything and wouldn’t do anything. But we know what the spirit of the resolution is, and it’s aggravating to say the least. To borrow from common political speak, he’s being “divisive.” Or trolling, if you will.
Not necessarily. It might be even worse. As I said in the GD thread on this issue, it might be that he wants to have some political opponents on record as being “anti-Christian” if this goes to a vote. Then he, and other Republicans, can use that against them in the upcoming election. I doubt very seriously that he just wants to stir up the ACLU.
BTW, it might not be unconstitutional since it doesn’t really do anything. But you never know. The Suprremes could decide that this is like posting the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, and rule it unconstitutional. It sure does create a climate of intolerance toward non-Christian religions.
That’s the beauty of it.
It doesn’t do anything. I wonder if this would be ripe for a poison pill amendment?
Daniel
Here’s what some Missouri Legislature needs to introduce counter-recognitions: establish women as the “recognized majority gender,” dogs as the “recognized majority canine,” grandparents as the “recognized majority child-spoilers,” poor people as the “recognized majority socio-economic status,” etc. The stupider the better. Then, any legislator who votes against that hates women, dogs, grandma and Grandpa and poor people. The attack ads will write themselves!
Seriously, though. This is Colbert Report-esque.
Maybe someone could introduce legislation to revoke the letter ‘C’ from the name of Rep. David Sater’s hometown.
Let’s try that bolded part again:
"Here’s what someone in the Missouri Legislature needs to do:"
Sorry about that.
How do you pronounce that?
Stooooopid! 
I seriously doubt that a state legislator from Missouri has any interest in talking to people in the hinterlands of Indiana (at least until some future date when he runs for national office).
Here is the GD thread: Bye bye nonestablishment clause?.
I believe Tom is unaware that “Hoosier” is a derisive term for unsophisticated hicks in Missouri. Unsophisticated hicks who have money are called “Hooseoisie.”