ACLU files federal lawsuit challenging Missouri prayer amendment

[proud2BlibKansan]

JEFFERSON CITY -- The ACLU of Eastern Missouri filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday challenging an amendment to the state's constitution it contends violates the religious rights of prison inmates.

On Tuesday, Missourians overwhelmingly approved the so-called "right to pray" amendment. The measure says the state can't infringe upon public expressions of religious beliefs, that students have the right to voluntarily pray in schools and that all public schools must display a copy of the Bill of Rights.

Not included in the summary that appeared on the ballot, however, was a provision stating the amendment "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."

Beginning with its first Constitution in 1820, Missouri has provided additional protections for religious liberty beyond federal law, the lawsuit contends. Over the years state courts have agreed.

The amendment approved by voters takes away an existing right from only one group — prisoners— "without a legitimate reason," the lawsuit says. That constitutes a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom.


Read more here: http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/aclu-files-federal-lawsuit-challenging-missouri-prayer-amendment/#storylink=cpy

[Lint Head]

1. Excellent!

[patrice]

2. So, prisoners are excluded from this right to pray in public? Guess that makes it not a right, then

doesn't it? but a privilege, instead. And just how did those with this privilege acquire it???

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. Two things I don't understand

1) The U.S. Constitution already guarantees the right of anyone and everyone to pray in public, so what was the point?
2) Since this amendment mimics rights already available, why are people annoyed by it?

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. 1) The point was to pander to he right wing talibornagains

2) This goes beyond current rights. Students now have the right to refuse to do certain assignments or take certain classes.

[pstokely]

12. and bring them out in November

but the governor placed it on the August ballot when they would have come out for the repuke Senate primary

[patrice]

4. Haven't students always had the right to reject curriculum that violates their religion? Or was that

just parents could mandate their students' participation in any curriculum? and now that's been extended to students who can just opt-out for themselves???

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Not really

It also hasn't been an issue that I'm aware of.

[patrice]

11. I had a couple of them opt out of high school Psychology curriculum in Oklahoma some years

ago.

Older age group? Non-core curriculum?

Can't remember what it was about now. It wasn't a big deal. I just gave them other work to do.

[Robbins]

5. Good

This Missourian Is happy about this.

[archiemo]

8. Local school boards will now have their hands full...

With the plethora of students opting out of assignments/classes because they offend their religious beliefs. Christian Scientists shouldn't have to take that state required health class because they don't believe in scientific medical best practices or medicines, the Christian student now can opt out of that Western Civilization assignment requiring them to study different religions of the world because that would be heresy. We don't have to even think about all of the students that will be excused from biology classes/assignments that dare to broach that crazy evolution talk. The dumbing down of Missouri students just became a lot easier. Truly flabbergasted Missourian here.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. "I can't do my homework because I have to go to church tonight"

[longship]

10. The Bible says pi is 3.0!!

And that one ewe + one lamb + milk = an abomination in God's eyes. And don't get me started about the vegetarian dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden.

6015 years!!! 6015 years!!! 6015 years!!!