Proposed House resolution on religion irks some here
[FONT class=byLine]By [A class=byLine href="mailto:"]Tim Townsend[/A] and [A class=byLine href="mailto:"]Matt Franck[/A][/FONT]
[FONT class=byLine]ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH[/FONT]
[FONT class=byLine]Friday, Mar. 03 2006[/FONT]
Some religious leaders on Friday blasted a proposed Missouri House resolution
that supports prayer in schools and recognizes a "Christian God," saying
legislators are pushing Christianity as a state religion.
"It's an atrocity," said the Rev. Timothy L. Carson, senior minister at Webster
Groves Christian Church. "Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave. It's
indicative of a movement within one segment of activist Christianity that wants
to dominate the rest with their views."
Some lawmakers blamed the backlash on a misunderstanding of the purpose of such
resolutions.
The proposed resolution states 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."
It was recently approved by the House Rules Committee along party lines - five
Republicans backed it, three Democrats did not - and could come for a vote
before the full House next week. It would also have to pass in the Senate.
The resolution, sponsored by Rep. David Sater, R-Cassville, and co-sponsored by
Rep. Barney Joe Fisher, R-Richards, is not a bill and therefore cannot become a
law.
Rep. John P. Burnett, D-Kansas City, a House Rules Committee member who voted
against passing the resolution to the full House, dismissed it as "a political
statement about Christianity."
Sater and Fisher could not be reached for comment. Rep. Shannon Cooper,
R-Clinton, chairman of the House Rules Committee, also could not be reached.
The proposed resolution states that the country's forefathers "recognized a
Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding
principles of our nation. ... As elected officials we should protect the
majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for
those who object."
Conservative evangelical leaders were upbeat about it.
"The foundations of this country started with Christianity, and this just goes
back and acknowledges where we started," said the Rev. David Clippard,
executive director of the Missouri Baptist Convention.
The Rev. Mark Friz, senior pastor at St. Paul's Evangelical Church in St.
Louis, said he was "100 percent behind this resolution."
But other Christian leaders were furious.
The Rev. David M. Greenhaw, president of Eden Theological Seminary in St.
Louis, said he found the resolution "offensive as a Christian. I don't want the
state defining my Christianity."
Some non-Christians also reacted strongly. Batya Abramson-Goldstein, executive
director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, said the fact that the
resolution made it out of a committee was significant.
"It's not that this is one individual's opinion," she said. "Other legislators
have voted on this already, so it takes on a legitimacy that makes it more than
a resolution. It's painful for faith communities outside the Christian
community."
House Speaker Pro Tem Carl Bearden, R-St. Charles, believes the backlash
against the resolution is unmerited. He and other lawmakers say much of the
uproar is due to a misunderstanding of resolutions. They are largely symbolic,
typically having no force of law. They serve as a kind of opinion poll that
lawmakers hope will be noted, but officials say privately that the measures are
often ignored.
Bearden said that just because a resolution is filed, it doesn't necessarily
represent the views of the entire Legislature. While the resolution on religion
has cleared the House Rules Committee, there's no guarantee it will go further,
he said.
In fact, dozens of resolutions filed in the past two years have died or been
withdrawn. At least two of those were similar to this year's religious
resolution. One would have supported the motto "In God We Trust" for use in
public buildings.
