A proposed amendment to the state Constitution that supporters say would protect Missourians’ right to pray in public will pass by a mammoth margin if numbers from a Post-Dispatch poll hold until Aug. 7.
That’s when the so-called “right to pray” ballot measure ”” known as Amendment 2 ”” will go before voters.
The measure’s champions say it better defines Missourians’ First Amendment rights and will help to protect the state’s Christians, about 80 percent of the population, who they say are under siege in the public square.
Does anyone have any erudite opinions on this? I don’t know what to make of it.
A section says that “no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs.”
That alone is very problematic, given the degree of anti-evolution sentiment in Missouri and other states.
The wording does seem to be extremely vague. That concerns me.
I suspect that many people in the USA are beginning to feel like the frog that is being unwittingly boiled by incremental increases in the temperature of the water in which the frog is residing.
In the case of American citizens, these incremental increases are viewed as insidious increases in in political power, government policies, laws, regulations, ordinances and court decisions that are being implemented by progressive politicians led by an elite cadre of progressive activists who are very effectively enabling a minority political group to run the country.
And by “run the country” I mean “run” by more than elective politics. The country is being “run” more and more by non-elected progressives who “run” the media, teachers’ unions (who control the education of the next generation of voters), other unions, etc.
A major ‘stumbling block’ facing the progressives are Americans with deeply held religious beliefs.
The people in Misssissippi who are in favor of public prayer or prayer anywhere at an individual’s choosing are acting in reaction to the oppressive gains that the political progressives have made against religious belief in the USA over the fifty years.
I applaud the sentiment but the wording is a real problem. I doubt it will survive the inevitable court challenges. It is too broad and fuzzy. It can be interpreted in such a broad manner as to sanction things that just won’t fly as a matter of common sense. They should pull the current amendment and reword it more narrowly.