MO Prayer Amendment -review

These are my interpretation after reading the upcoming bill to amend the MO Constitution Section A, Section 5, Article 1,

Voting on August 7th.
Missouri will be voting on an amendment to the MO Constitution in August concerning prayer.  The text of the amendment and the ballot language can be seen at http://prayeramendment.org/    I was surprised to see that the current article is not as clear as the US Constitution on this issue.  Basically the amendment expands on the language of the current MO constitution concerning religious freedom.  

Section A. Section 5, article I, Constitution of Missouri, (Currently)

That all men and women have a 

---natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; 

---that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience; 

---that no person shall, on account of his or her religious persuasion or belief, 

-be rendered ineligible to any public office or trust or profit in this state, 

-be disqualified from testifying or serving as a juror, 

-or be molested in his or her person or estate; 

---but this section shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.

That seems like a good article and many have said that the new amendment would not really change much from this current article.   

I have read the changes to this article that are proposed and believe that some of these changes are needed due to the way our culture has interpreted the original language.  

Here are the changes.  The bold type is what is to be added.

First of all, they have made the language to include men "and woman" to clarify for today's society.  (Not much of a change since that language is understood already.)

that to secure a citizen's right to acknowledge Almighty God according to the dictates of his or her own conscience, neither the state nor any of its political subdivisions shall establish any official religion,  (WOW, can't believe that wasn't in there before--although it is in the US Bill of Rights)

nor shall a citizen's right to pray or express his or her religious beliefs be infringed;  

(implied in the original language, but not expressly stated)

that the state shall not coerce any person to participate in any prayer or other religious activity, (also implied but not stated)

but shall ensure that any person shall have the right to pray individually or corporately in a private or public setting so long as such prayer does not result in disturbance of the peace or disruption of a public meeting or assembly;  (This very clearly states the right to pray or more importantly the right not to be kept from praying and also gives guidelines to ensure the rights of those who fear that the right to pray will disrupt public meetings.  It gives the right for those planning the meetings to allow prayer and not to ban it for fear of "establishing a religion.")

that citizens as well as elected officials and employees of the state of Missouri and its political subdivisions shall have the right to pray on government premises and public property so long as such prayers abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances;  (This removes the misunderstanding that often leaves government employees with the impression that their religious freedom ends when they step onto the grounds of their workplace.)

that the General Assembly and the governing bodies of political subdivisions may extend to ministers, clergypersons, and other individuals the privilege to offer invocations or other prayers at meetings or sessions of the General Assembly or governing bodies;  (This had been a common practice since the first congress and still is, but  how many local governing bodies are under the impression that prayer is illegal at the start of a city council meeting or other governing body?  We need this clarification.)

that students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work;   (This has been a problem in the news.  Teachers can teach process and not base assessment on content.  Many have asked students to choose a new topic or told them that it is inappropriate.  This needs clarification.)

that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs;  (Some believe that this will cause students to refuse to do assignments, but as a former teacher, I know that an alternative assignment of equal academic value can be given)

 that the state shall ensure public school students their right to free exercise of religious expression without interference, as long as such prayer or other expression is private and voluntary, whether individually or corporately, and in a manner that is not disruptive and as long as such prayers or expressions abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances;   (This needs to be stated in order to avoid the numerous lawsuits and cases that arise from misunderstandings.  A Christian who wants to pray before school with a few others should feel free.  A Muslim who wants to pray at certain prayer times, can be accommodated.  Things can be arranged to avoid disruption and keep academic excellence.)

to emphasize the right to free exercise of religious expression, that all free public schools receiving state appropriations shall display, in a conspicuous and legible manner, the text of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States;  (I believe displaying the Bill of Rights in schools is a great idea and should be suggested, but requiring it seems a little bit out of line.  I can live with it, though.)

but this section shall not be construed to expand the rights of prisoners in state or local custody beyond those afforded by the laws of the United States, excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others. (this bold section is added to address the practice of prisoners to receive special outlandish privileges based on their "religious freedom."  I believe religious freedom extends to prisoners, but there are those that would go so far as to argue that their punishment for crime is against their religion.  Other laws address the rights of prisoners.)

This may be my longest post ever, but after carefully viewing this bill, I believe it is necessary.  I have heard the arguments that it is not needed and in theory, I agree but in practice I believe it is very necessary to address religious freedom in our society today.  Clarification is needed since we do not live in a society where prayer and religion are readily understood anymore.  I am voting in favor of this amendment.