Does Missouri Need a "Right to Prayer" Amendment?

[Allegra]

fox2now.com/2012/08/07/poll-does-missouri-need-a-right-to-prayer-amendment/

According to the evening news, as much as 86% of voters said yes today! I think this is an excellent sign. Missouri isn’t generally considered a “red state” and yet a huge margin of voters wanted to protect the rights of the faithful in our state. It makes be proud to me a Missourian. I wonder if other states will pass similar ammendments? People of faith may be taking a beating in the judicial branch right now, but I find it encouraging that most of the people still want freedom and justice.

 

[Allegra]

Update: The final count is 84%!

 

[SwizzleStick]

fox2now.com/2012/08/07/poll-does-missouri-need-a-right-to-prayer-amendment/

According to the evening news, as much as 86% of voters said yes today! I think this is an excellent sign. Missouri isn’t generally considered a “red state” and yet a huge margin of voters wanted to protect the rights of the faithful in our state. It makes be proud to me a Missourian. I wonder if other states will pass similar ammendments? People of faith may be taking a beating in the judicial branch right now, but I find it encouraging that most of the people still want freedom and justice.

I was among those who voted “Yes” for the Amendment.

 

[ChibiViolet]

It’s sad that such a thing would be needed…

 

[Dale_M]

It’s sad that such a thing would be needed…

I am not sure that it is needed. Rather, there is a popular desire for it.

Simply because something is politically popular doesn’t mean it is legally necessary.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I was among those who voted “Yes” for the Amendment.

Me too!

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I am not sure that it is needed. Rather, there is a popular desire for it.

Simply because something is politically popular doesn’t mean it is legally necessary.

I agree. Those voters are apparently unaware of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but if it makes them feel good to vote that way, then let them.

 

[Allegra]

I am not sure that it is needed. Rather, there is a popular desire for it.

Simply because something is politically popular doesn’t mean it is legally necessary.

I think it IS needed because many people have determined that a person right to practice their religion only applies in their own home and their place of worship. They think a person beliefs shouldn’t be allowed to be expressed in politics, school, the workplace, or in some cases, any public venue. This is not a common interpretation in Missouri, but I’m glad that this ammendment was written and passed now because some of the intolerance from other areas of the country could easily spread to Missouri. Ten years ago, this measure would not have been needed, but just think how many threads have appeared since the Chick-fil-a inccident that contain phrases along the lines of “a person’s religious beliefs have no place in a public business.”
I think the clarification about the free practice of religion in public school is especially important. The national teacher unions are against it, but they are against any legal restrictions on teachers even when they include the same recommendations that they have made to their members for years! The local chapters are thrilled. They are made up of actual practicing teachers who realize that this measure protects their rights and their students’ rights. Real live teachers join the union so they can stand up for their student’s best interest without worrying about being fired, not so that they never have to face any restrictions on their behavior or consequences for their actions. The national organizations need to get this through their heads before they loose all credibility with the people. Despite what they are saying, Missouri teachers know the good of this measure.

 

[Allegra]

I agree. Those voters are apparently unaware of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but if it makes them feel good to vote that way, then let them.

There are alot of people who are unaware of it. (or just ignore it when it doesn’t suit their purpose.)

 

[Trader]

It would not be needed under the interpretation of the 1st Amendment used for its first 200 years.

It was only this year that the Solicitor General of the United States argued before the Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor that the ministerial exception did not exist. It is only a matter of time when a priest says “The mass is ended. Go forth to love and serve the Lord”, and a government official says, “Oh no you don’t. Keep that stuff inside your church.”

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

It would not be needed under the interpretation of the 1st Amendment used for its first 200 years.

It was only this year that the Solicitor General of the United States argued before the Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor that the ministerial exception did not exist.

A lawyer can argue any way he pleases before the Court. That doesn’t mean that his argument will be controlling.

It is only a matter of time when a priest says “The mass is ended. Go forth to love and serve the Lord”, and a government official says, “Oh no you don’t. Keep that stuff inside your church.”

That’s conjecture on your part, and anyway, the Administration acknowledged that we have “freedom of worship,” which would cover the example you gave. It’s not freedom of worship that we want - but freedom of religion!

 

[qui_est_ce]

It would not be needed under the interpretation of the 1st Amendment used for its first 200 years.

It was only this year that the Solicitor General of the United States argued before the Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor that the ministerial exception did not exist. It is only a matter of time when a priest says “The mass is ended. Go forth to love and serve the Lord”, and a government official says, “Oh no you don’t. Keep that stuff inside your church.”

To say nothing of Rahm Emanuel and pals.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I think it IS needed because many people have determined that a person right to practice their religion only applies in their own home and their place of worship. They think a person beliefs shouldn’t be allowed to be expressed in politics, school, the workplace, or in some cases, any public venue. This is not a common interpretation in Missouri, but I’m glad that this ammendment was written and passed now because some of the intolerance from other areas of the country could easily spread to Missouri. Ten years ago, this measure would not have been needed, but just think how many threads have appeared since the Chick-fil-a inccident that contain phrases along the lines of “a person’s religious beliefs have no place in a public business.”
I think the clarification about the free practice of religion in public school is especially important. The national teacher unions are against it, but they are against any legal restrictions on teachers even when they include the same recommendations that they have made to their members for years! The local chapters are thrilled. They are made up of actual practicing teachers who realize that this measure protects their rights and their students’ rights. Real live teachers join the union so they can stand up for their student’s best interest without worrying about being fired, not so that they never have to face any restrictions on their behavior or consequences for their actions. The national organizations need to get this through their heads before they loose all credibility with the people. Despite what they are saying, Missouri teachers know the good of this measure.

Apparently the people of Missouri overwhelmingly felt it was needed.

Along with CfA, I am hopefully seeing a trend. Perhaps we should be grateful to Obama?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Apparently the people of Missouri overwhelmingly felt it was needed.

I’m one with Dale_M on this one, “Simply because something is politically popular doesn’t mean it is legally necessary.”

 

[Trader]

A lawyer can argue any way he pleases before the Court. That doesn’t mean that his argument will be controlling.

That’s conjecture on your part, and anyway, the Administration acknowledged that we have “freedom of worship,” which would cover the example you gave. It’s not freedom of worship that we want - but freedom of religion!

The argument from the Obama adminstration certainly is not controlling. It drew laughter from the court and a 9-0 vote against from the court. Even Obama appointees could not accept it.

We need both freedom of worship and freedom of religion. Freedom of worship is not under attack–yet, but freedom of religion, “to love and serve the Lord” outside that church building definitely is, to unprecedented degree by the Obama adminstration and similar leaning state governments.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The argument from the Obama adminstration certainly is not controlling. It drew laughter from the court and a 9-0 vote against from the court. Even Obama appointees could not accept it.

Just so. Stupid on its face.

I

 

[qui_est_ce]

The argument from the Obama adminstration certainly is not controlling. It drew laughter from the court and a 9-0 vote against from the court. Even Obama appointees could not accept it.
**
We need both freedom of worship and freedom of religion. Freedom of worship is not under attack-**-yet, but freedom of religion, “to love and serve the Lord” outside that church building definitely is, to unprecedented degree by the Obama adminstration and similar leaning state governments.

.Agreed.