Constitutional Amendment #2 needed for Missouri


Recently the Missouri Libertarian Party issued a press release stating that they opposed the Missouri Public Prayer Amendment (Constitutional amdendment #2 on the August 7th Ballot).

I am a member of the Libertarian Party and I agree with 95% of their platform, however; this is an area in which I must disagree.

Constitutional Amendment #2 does not infringe on anyone’s rights. In fact it simply is an attempt to protect the rights of Christians.

According an August 2 article found in the Springfield News-Leader: “the statewide ballot says people have the right to pray in public or private so long as they do not disturb the peace, and it gives a specific imprimatur for prayer before government meetings. In addition, the proposal states students can express their beliefs and cannot be compelled to participate in school assignments or educational presentations that violate their religion. Missouri public schools also would be required to post the text of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.”

Constitutional Amendment #2 would offer more protection to parents and students for their religous freedom and personal beliefs.

Quite frankly, I do not understand the Libertarian Party’s opposition to this and the posting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in our schools. The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights SHOULD be posted in schools , right beside the Missouri Constitution.

The more students learn about our Constitution and States Rights, the harder it will be for future politicians to dupe them.

About aldermanlacy

I am just an average blue collar American who works hard and tries to be a good dad. I have a passion for history, music and freedom.

7 Responses to “Constitutional Amendment #2 needed for Missouri”

  1. The primary reason that the LP opposes this amendment is that the protections that you listed already exist through the US and MO constitutions. Once again the political class is using our children to distract voters. This amendment is a political trick, and I am proud that the LP stood our ground, and did not fall for it. Nothing will change as a result of this bill passing, or not passing.

  2. Some Christians agree with the MO LP

  3. •That all public schools shall display the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

    This is taken directly from the SOS website. Just playing Devil’s advocate (no offense to Christians intended :), what governmental department will determine if the display is adequete and meets regulation? Shall the display be located in the main lobby, the front of the school, the gym, every room in the school, the principal’s office only???? Who will pay for the displays? Since this is a state law, I have to assume that all Missouri residents will pay regardless. Isn’t the Constitution taught at some point during a student’s education?

  4. •That the right of Missouri citizens to express their religious beliefs shall not be infringed;
    •That school children have the right to pray and acknowledge God voluntarily in their schools; and

    Does this imply that school children are not Missouri citizens?

    Does a school child have the right to pray and acknowledge Aquaman voluntarily in their schools? Zues? Allah?

  5. This religion, especially in the wording, directly discriminates against my nonChristian religion. Additionally, as a not so far out of the Missouri school system I have to say I have never, ever witnessed Christians being discriminated against so this law is unnecessary. I have however, as a nonChrisitan, not had my religions freedom extended in the classroom on grounds that it would create a “hostile environment for to learning” for other students. Which is actually EXACTLY what this law does to people who believe as I do.

    In effect, this law is establishing a favored religion – especially with the wording because I do not pray to God Almighty.

    • Do I understand you right, are you saying you don’t believe in GOD.

      • I do not worship, nor do I want to have any language that implies such in a legal context, the Christian concept of “God”; no. I didn’t say I don’t “believe” in it because that’s objective and I personally believe anything is possible: I make a choice that the Christian frame of reference for divinity is not one I want to support or be a part of – and as a US citizen I do not want any kind of law or constitutional amendment being written to imply I should or must.

        The wording implies one doesn’t have the same rights to worship or pray to Thor, Zeus, the Buddha (I’m not sure if Buddhists “pray” per say but for the sake of argument), ancestral gods, saints, the Virgin Mary, or any goddess. All of these religious choices should be equally affirmed under any law that purports to protect religious freedom: and that means the wording of this law is absolutely problematic OR that this law means to promote one specific religion as more protected than all others. (The last part is what I would put money on if I had to make a bet on the intent behind those who wrote and lobbied for this law.)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: