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.
...if we're to believe KMOV's (sic) illiterate and spotty account.
Now, legislatures "consider" all kinds of bills, like proposing to recognize the fact that the earth is flat, illegal Martian aliens killed Nicole Simpson, or that Willie Mays was the greatest baseball player of all time. They usually vote no. (Mays was the 2nd greatest, sorry. Babe Ruth could pitch.)
I like the bill, in its way. The anti-theists can only push so far, and this is the pushback. No Roe v. Wade, no Pat Robertson, and that's a fact. They say you can't impose morality, but you can't impose moral neutrality either. Human beings aren't wired that way.
But let me say I think it's a bad idea for a state to simply declare an "official religion." I think they should put it up for bids, like being the official beer of the NFL. The Mormons would take a pass, but the Scientologists would take a stab at it and the Baha'is could certainly use the exposure. Then again, the UAE would probably just swoop in and buy it for Wahhabism.
The Official Religious Terrorist Cult of Missouri. Now that has a ring to it. Christian Identity skinhead losers* would be really pissed, though. Outsourced again.
*I was going to provide a link to "storm front," for some cheap laughs, but it looks like they've been closed down by their free-website provider. Cleaning up spills on Aisle 4 just doesn't provide much of a revenue base. Not a great act of courage on my part, but come and get me, you bastards. I'm a Republican and that means I've got guns, and enough dough to afford bigger ones than you.
5 comments:
Militant relativist? Evangelical nihilist? Totalitarian democrat?
Regardless, you'll always remain my favorite Jacobin.
Saying that you cannot force your religion on others...
This is a religious (value-based) belief in and of itself. Now I happen to be OK with it, as long as people don't go overboard with the whole notion. But why should we hold to that principle? Is there some objective truth you can cite for its primacy?
...in no way precludes you from following it yourself (unless of course your religion says you have to force others in which case i have zero sympathy for you).
Interesting. Your first statement (You can't force religion on others) is religious, and you demand that others comply with it (in certain settings at least).
Does that mean I should have zero sympathy for you (at least in those settings)?
(quick any states about to name Buddhism the "official" religion? Hinduism? Wicca? Judaism? Totemic Shamanism? No just Christianity).
Forget the 'about to name' part. How many states already are secular humanist?
Uh no it isn't. It has no basis in religion. You could say that it is constitutional.
What moral authority does the constitution have? Is there a foundational presupposition that is based on something objective? Or is it just based on another truth claim?
Come on, you're the relativist here. You understand that people choose their truth, and there is no way to objectively tell them they're wrong. At that point, we have a test of wills.
You, understandably, don't want it to be that way. You have the establishment position. But don't confuse getting that position by winning a monkey trial with earning it.
The point here is that moral neutrality does not exist. Everyone has some form of morality, and the state cannot get away from favoring one type. It may be convenient to think that secular humanism isn’t a religion because there are no formal meetings (other than the NFL on Sundays), but it is simply not the case. Despite their disdain for the word, the foundations of secular humanism are religious in nature.
Now I don’t mind it too much that it is now the de facto operating religion in politics. It works fairly well when people of all faiths lay down some of their truth claims in order to function together under this arrangement. But just as the idea of a militant Moral Majority is repugnant to you, we don’t always like it when militant secularists get to define what is right and wrong because they are somehow above and beyond mere religion.
Take a look at how some of these issues are being decided today. Which side is making appeals to certainty or moral authority? Which side is making popular appeals (voters)? The "rationalists" look just as dogmatic as anyone else.
There is a constant struggle going on for the moral foundations of this country. As Tom pointed out, it’s been a remarkably civil process so far. Next time you think that we’re forcing ourselves down everyone else’s throat, take a breath and remember that we’ve not (yet) imposed sharia – and that maybe, just maybe, we’ve given up as much as anyone relative to our standing in the general population.
In fact it can ONLY be morally neutral because the state has no morality whatsoever. It is a thing. It has no animus, no conscience, no dreams, and no morality.
So you think that the state is always morally neutral? I guess you won’t mind then if Missouri declares itself a Christian state. The moment the state actually says something it is imposing a value system on us – and it’s impossible for it to be neutral. As for the definition of secular humanism, I suggest you go look it up. You’ll see all kinds of phrases like: belief system, life stance, religious worldview, outlook, philosophy. It states that there is nothing supernatural, which is interesting, because I’m not really sure how you prove that. I’m sure you don’t want to hear it, but there is an element of faith involved there.
I don't doubt that some people who are secular humanists also believe in concrete morals. I think they are mistaken, of course, as a relativist.
On the other hand if you are going to be bossed around by a moralist do you prefer the one who bases moralitiy on faith or one who tries to base it on fact?
I'm not making a judgment about whether I like or dislike what anyone does. I'm just pointing out that they are imposing their beliefs on me. One side's 'lack of morals' is a morality itself.
Your analysis of the situation is, in fact, a value judgment - hard to see how I could view it as neutral.
The person who was on top always views equality as a loss.
I have yet to complain on this thread about what Christianity has lost. The point - which you have missed entirely, in every phrase, due to the craziest semantic gamesmanship – is that secular humanism (or whatever term you want to use) is a moral position that competes for control (is that better?) of the state with others, including Christianity. This control enables its moral positions to be implemented/imposed by the state. Secular humanists win these battles for control regularly.
Therefore, it is a load of garbage to think that Christians are the only ones imposing their values on others.
Post a Comment