Missouri Passes Right-to-Pray Amendment

Aug 21, 2012 Full story: abcnews.go.com 148

Reiterating a protected right under the U.S. Constitution, on Tuesday Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution reiterating individuals' right to pray publicly and in schools.

Full Story
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#1 Aug 21, 2012

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#2 Aug 21, 2012
What a waste of legislation, no one has said that the students cannot pray, just that the school cannot endorse prayer because then the school would have to endorse a specific religion and thus it would break the law.

Missouri is proving to be clueless.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#3 Aug 21, 2012
This goes quite a bit farther than the Bill of Rights. It could be construed to prevent science teachers, for instance, from controlling classroom to keep it on-topic. Students could stand up and pray loudly, disrupting classes, and the Missouri courts would have no choice but to uphold their rights to do so. They could insist on propounding their faiths' teachings and the teachers would have no right to make them sit down and be quiet.

Media outlets might be required to publish any and all religious tirades that they received from their readers or audiences. Citizens might be able to filibuster public meetings as long as their comments didn't veer away from religion.

I hope that the direst of all possible unintended consequences occur quickly so that the citizens of Missouri will realize how foolish this amendment is and demand its removal.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#4 Aug 21, 2012
I think everyone should have the right to talk garbage to themselves in public.

If everyone has the right, can we interupt each other's babblings with even louder babblings?

That way the whole world can go around shouting at the tops of their voices about whatever nonsense unproven god they want all the while being righteous.

That will fix everything.

F*ck the right to demand proof of god. Let's just let the lunatics babble all day and not allow ourselves to interrupt their religious nonsense with any intellectual insights from science and reality.
guest

Jonesboro, AR

#5 Aug 22, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
F*ck the right to demand proof of god. Let's just let the lunatics babble all day and not allow ourselves to interrupt their religious nonsense with any intellectual insights from science and reality.
Science and logic unequivocally prove the existence of a supernatural force or being.

It's the atheist position that is wholly based on blind faith.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#6 Aug 22, 2012
There's a clause in this bill that allows students to opt out of assignments that conflict with their faith. This should prove to be interesting.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#7 Aug 22, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Science and logic unequivocally prove the existence of a supernatural force or being.
It's the atheist position that is wholly based on blind faith.
Reference please.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#8 Aug 22, 2012
Here's the full text, copied from http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2012ballot/20...

FIRST REGULAR SESSION
[TRULY AGREED TO AND FINALLY PASSED]
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
0293L.01T 2011
JOINT RESOLUTION
Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri an amendment repealing section 5 of article I of
the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section in lieu thereof relating to the
right to pray.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:
That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next
2 following the first Monday in November, 2012, or at a special election to be called by the
3 governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for
4 adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of
5 Missouri:
Section A. Section 5, article I, Constitution of Missouri, is repealed and one new section
2 adopted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 5, to read as follows:
Section 5. That all men and women have a natural and indefeasible right to worship
2 Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no human authority can
3 control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no person shall, on account of his or her
4 religious persuasion or belief, be rendered ineligible to any public office or trust or profit in this
5 state, be disqualified from testifying or serving as a juror, or be molested in his or her person
6 or estate; that to secure a citizen's right to acknowledge Almighty God according to the
7 dictates of his or her own conscience, neither the state nor any of its political subdivisions
8 shall establish any official religion, nor shall a citizen's right to pray or express his or her
9 religious beliefs be infringed; that the state shall not coerce any person to participate in any
10 prayer or other religious activity, but shall ensure that any person shall have the right to
11 pray individually or corporately in a private or public setting so long as such prayer does
12 not result in disturbance of the peace or disruption of a public meeting or assembly; that
13 citizens as well as elected officials and employees of the state of Missouri and its political
14 subdivisions shall have the right to pray on government premises and public property so

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#9 Aug 22, 2012
HJR 2 2
EXPLANATION — Matter enclosed in bold-faced brackets [thus] in the above bill is not enacted and is intended
to be omitted from the law. Matter in bold-face type in the above bill is proposed language.
15 long as such prayers abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech
16 under similar circumstances; that the General Assembly and the governing bodies of
17 political subdivisions may extend to ministers, clergypersons, and other individuals the
18 privilege to offer invocations or other prayers at meetings or sessions of the General
19 Assembly or governing bodies; that students may express their beliefs about religion in
20 written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of
21 their work; that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic
22 assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs; that the
23 state shall ensure public school students their right to free exercise of religious expression
24 without interference, as long as such prayer or other expression is private and voluntary,
25 whether individually or corporately, and in a manner that is not disruptive and as long as
26 such prayers or expressions abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free
27 speech under similar circumstances; and, to emphasize the right to free exercise of religious
28 expression, that all free public schools receiving state appropriations shall display, in a
29 conspicuous and legible manner, the text of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the
30 United States; but this section shall not be construed to expand the rights of prisoners in state
31 or local custody beyond those afforded by the laws of the United States, excuse acts of
32 licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the
33 state, or with the rights of others.
Section B. Pursuant to Chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional
2 provisions and laws of this state allowing the General Assembly to adopt ballot language for the
3 submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the
4 amendment proposed in Section A shall be as follows:
5 "Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure:
6 • That the right of Missouri citizens to express their religious beliefs shall not be
7 infringed;
8 • That school children have the right to pray and acknowledge God voluntarily in
9 their schools; and
10 • That all public schools shall display the Bill of Rights of the United States
11 Constitution.".

EXPLANATION — Matter enclosed in bold-faced brackets [thus] in the above bill is not enacted and is intended
to be omitted from the law. Matter in bold-face type in the above bill is proposed language.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#10 Aug 22, 2012
Okay, so they've written this in such a way as to prohibit disruptiveness, but also to limit these rights to monotheists and deny them to prisoners. About what I'd expect from Missouri...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#11 Aug 22, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Science and logic unequivocally prove the existence of a supernatural force or being.
It's the atheist position that is wholly based on blind faith.
Please, this is an intelligent forum.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#12 Aug 22, 2012
May the state of Missouri be very quickly inundated with millions of prayer rug toting school aged children.

May hordes of whirling dervishes descend en mass upon the Missouri public schools, each with a dozen young sons, dressed in the skirts and funny little hats, and may they whirl, while they and their Christain compradres, never have to face a single moment of actual education, nor to have it interfering with their very public displays of religious lunacy.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#13 Aug 22, 2012
People should keep religion out of schools. Apart from the requirements of different faiths for different prayers (and sometimes for congregations to face in different directions, e.g. East or towards Mecca) why would religionists want people to attend prayers in which they have no interest? And why bring religions into schools at all when secularism is what's required for cooperation between faiths and between religionists and atheists. Prayers won't help cooperation and understanding and school time is precious.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secular

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/bisho...

Religion = superstition
guest

United States

#14 Aug 23, 2012
To madscot and skeptic, here's the scientific and logical proof of the existence of a supernatural force or being:

I often hear the lame charge by atheists that theists throw logic and reasoning out the window, but it simply doesn’t wash. There exists sound scientific and logical proof that a supernatural force or being does exist.

The question really boils down this: Either the universe itself has always existed (is itself eternal), or it was brought into existence by a supernatural power or being.

My position is that science and logic unequivocally prove the latter.

The consensus of science, based on cosmology and astrophysics, is that the universe is not itself eternal, did indeed have a beginning, and that all matter and energy at one time existed at one point. Then, there was a big bang that propelled it all into motion. And according to astronomers, it's all still moving today.

Newton's law of motion states that bodies at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. If the entirety of the universe's matter and energy existed at one point, any outside force would be outside of all matter and energy in the universe. Something outside all matter and energy in the universe is by definition supernatural. Therefore, according to science, a supernatural force was necessary to act upon the body of matter and energy causing the big bang.

Now, if we want to look at it logically as well, there is a maxim of logic that dictates "ex nihilo nihil fit" which means out of nothing, nothing comes. IOW, things don't simply pop into existence from nothing, rather they are brought into existence by something. Therefore, if the universe did indeed have a beginning as science demands, then there is a logical necessity for a supernatural force or being (a something) to bring it into existence.

So, unless one “throws logic and reasoning out the window” as most atheists errantly claim theists do, he will come to the inescapable conclusion that a supernatural force or being exists.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#15 Aug 23, 2012
guest wrote:
To madscot and skeptic, here's the scientific and logical proof of the existence of a supernatural force or being:
I often hear the lame charge by atheists that theists throw logic and reasoning out the window, but it simply doesn’t wash. There exists sound scientific and logical proof that a supernatural force or being does exist.
The question really boils down this: Either the universe itself has always existed (is itself eternal), or it was brought into existence by a supernatural power or being.
My position is that science and logic unequivocally prove the latter.
The consensus of science, based on cosmology and astrophysics, is that the universe is not itself eternal, did indeed have a beginning, and that all matter and energy at one time existed at one point. Then, there was a big bang that propelled it all into motion. And according to astronomers, it's all still moving today.
Newton's law of motion states that bodies at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. If the entirety of the universe's matter and energy existed at one point, any outside force would be outside of all matter and energy in the universe. Something outside all matter and energy in the universe is by definition supernatural. Therefore, according to science, a supernatural force was necessary to act upon the body of matter and energy causing the big bang.
Now, if we want to look at it logically as well, there is a maxim of logic that dictates "ex nihilo nihil fit" which means out of nothing, nothing comes. IOW, things don't simply pop into existence from nothing, rather they are brought into existence by something. Therefore, if the universe did indeed have a beginning as science demands, then there is a logical necessity for a supernatural force or being (a something) to bring it into existence.
So, unless one “throws logic and reasoning out the window” as most atheists errantly claim theists do, he will come to the inescapable conclusion that a supernatural force or being exists.
A lot of failed assertions here based on presuppositions. We also know that there is no "nothing" as once thought, the concept of "nothing" is now an urban myth. But the only serious problem is your presuppositions, of which there are a few:

1. You presuppose it was or had to be an intelligent force.

2. You presuppose it had to be your particular intelligent force.

3. You presuppose that none of this can happen without an outside force.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#16 Aug 23, 2012
guest wrote:
The question really boils down this: Either the universe itself has always existed (is itself eternal), or it was brought into existence by a supernatural power or being.
False dichotomy. it is quite possible that the universe came into existence without an outside influence.
The consensus of science, based on cosmology and astrophysics, is that the universe is not itself eternal, did indeed have a beginning, and that all matter and energy at one time existed at one point.
This is actually a misunderstand, although a common one, of what the Big bang theory says. There was no point in time where the whole universe was a single point.
Then, there was a big bang that propelled it all into motion.
This is also a common misunderstanding of what the Big bang theory says. There was no explosion in the typical sense. Space itself expanded. In a real sense, each galaxy is at rest while the space between them is expanding.
And according to astronomers, it's all still moving today.
Newton's law of motion states that bodies at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. If the entirety of the universe's matter and energy existed at one point, any outside force would be outside of all matter and energy in the universe. Something outside all matter and energy in the universe is by definition supernatural.
Several problems here. First, Newton's laws are inappropriate for questions concerning the early universe, where relativistic effects are very important. Also, quantum effects need to be considered during the very earliest stages of the expansion.
Second, it does not necessarily follow that anything outside of the matter and energy of this universe is supernatural. There are many possibilities, such as a previous, contracting universe or a multi-verse that are not supernatural but are also more than our single universe.
Therefore, according to science, a supernatural force was necessary to act upon the body of matter and energy causing the big bang.
Incorrect conclusion because of multiple misunderstandings of what the actual science says.
Now, if we want to look at it logically as well, there is a maxim of logic that dictates "ex nihilo nihil fit" which means out of nothing, nothing comes.
You may *think* that is a maxim of logic, but it is not. That is an assumption about the nature of the universe. Furthermore, it is an assumption that is known to be false. At all times, there are what is known as quantum fluctuations which spontaneously and randomly bring particle and anti-particle pairs into existence briefly. Thi sis a measured effect.
You are calso assuming causality applies in this situation, where it is quite likely not to. In fact, we know of many situations *inside* our universe where it does not apply. Quantum fluctuations are one, most radioactive decays are another, and many quantum effects are still others.
You also fail in your definition of 'supernatural'. It is quite possible that this universe is part of a much larger system with its own laws of physics. That larger system would still be 'natural'.
Next, you assume there is a single cause for the entire universe. This goes against the fact that most events have a large number of causes. There is no reason to think only a single cause was needed for the whole universe.
Next, you assume that any 'supernatural' cause has to be an intelligence. You assume this with no reason to actually believe it.
Next, you assume that even if there was an intelligence involved, that the creation was an intentional event, as opposed to a fortunate accident.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#17 Aug 23, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
May the state of Missouri be very quickly inundated with millions of prayer rug toting school aged children.

May hordes of whirling dervishes descend en mass upon the Missouri public schools, each with a dozen young sons, dressed in the skirts and funny little hats, and may they whirl, while they and their Christain compradres, never have to face a single moment of actual education, nor to have it interfering with their very public displays of religious lunacy.
It happened to Louisianans. They passed a bill authorizing the issuing of school vouchers for failing high school students who wanted to go to religious schools. Then the Muslims showed up asking for their checks, and the poop hit the blades:

From "Louisiana Lawmakers Object To Funding Islamic School Under New Voucher Program" at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/loui... :

"Stakes escalated last week when, to the frustration of some lawmakers, the Islamic School of Greater New Orleans applied for federal funds under the voucher program. Republican state Rep. Kenneth Havard objected to the Islamic School's request for 38 government-paid student vouchers, saying he opposed any bill that "will fund Islamic teaching," the Associated Press reports."

Who could have seen it coming? Certainly not this person:

“I actually support funding for teaching the fundamentals of America’s Founding Fathers’ religion, which is Christianity, in public schools or private schools,” Hodges told the Livingston Parish News. "I liked the idea of giving parents the option of sending their children to a public school or a Christian school,” Hodges added. The newspaper reported that she “mistakenly assumed that ‘religious’ meant ‘Christian.’”
http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/lo...

Of course, this is the desired result - shunting tax dollars to the church, including those of taxpayers who object to the church:

"The New Living Word School, which is run by a church,...[may] also get $2.7 million in taxpayer money, and students who attend the school will be transported there by public school buses."
http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/sc...

Obviously, we have a duty to resist this church, and to work to shrink its social and political influence.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#18 Aug 23, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
May the state of Missouri be very quickly inundated with millions of prayer rug toting school aged children.
I forgot to leave these with you:

[1] http://squathole.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/...
[2] http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/prayer.jpg

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#19 Aug 23, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It happened to Louisianans. They passed a bill authorizing the issuing of school vouchers for failing high school students who wanted to go to religious schools. Then the Muslims showed up asking for their checks, and the poop hit the blades:
From "Louisiana Lawmakers Object To Funding Islamic School Under New Voucher Program" at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/loui... :
"Stakes escalated last week when, to the frustration of some lawmakers, the Islamic School of Greater New Orleans applied for federal funds under the voucher program. Republican state Rep. Kenneth Havard objected to the Islamic School's request for 38 government-paid student vouchers, saying he opposed any bill that "will fund Islamic teaching," the Associated Press reports."
Who could have seen it coming? Certainly not this person:
“I actually support funding for teaching the fundamentals of America’s Founding Fathers’ religion, which is Christianity, in public schools or private schools,” Hodges told the Livingston Parish News. "I liked the idea of giving parents the option of sending their children to a public school or a Christian school,” Hodges added. The newspaper reported that she “mistakenly assumed that ‘religious’ meant ‘Christian.’”
http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/lo...
Of course, this is the desired result - shunting tax dollars to the church, including those of taxpayers who object to the church:
"The New Living Word School, which is run by a church,...[may] also get $2.7 million in taxpayer money, and students who attend the school will be transported there by public school buses."
http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/sc...
Obviously, we have a duty to resist this church, and to work to shrink its social and political influence.
I had missed that bit of "gotcha".

So I went ahead and gave this news tidbit it's own headline --

" http://www.topix.com/religion/atheism/2012/08... ;

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#20 Aug 23, 2012
guest wrote:
I often hear the lame charge by atheists that theists throw logic and reasoning out the window, but it simply doesn’t wash.
Lame charge? Your entire world view is based upon a guess motivated by an emotional need for comforting. Your most fundamental premise - the axiom of all of your thought - is that a god named Jesus exists, a wild guess.
guest wrote:
There exists sound scientific and logical proof that a supernatural force or being does exist. The question really boils down this: Either the universe itself has always existed (is itself eternal), or it was brought into existence by a supernatural power or being. The consensus of science, based on cosmology and astrophysics, is that the universe is not itself eternal, did indeed have a beginning
The consensus of science is that there is no evidence for a god.

Moreover, there is no evidence that the universe is not eternal. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary - that this expanding universe of ours is but the latest iteration of an infinite bang-crunch-bang-crunch cycle. Only it had a beginning, not its substance.

From "Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang" at physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44388 :

"Circular patterns within the cosmic microwave background suggest that space and time did not come into being at the Big Bang but that our universe in fact continually cycles through a series of "aeons"."
guest wrote:
My position is that science and logic unequivocally prove the latter.
Then you were just shown to be wrong. The issue is very open and unresolved in the scientific community. This eminent physicist disagrees with you:

"Julian Barbour, a visiting professor of physics at the University of Oxford, says that these circles would be "remarkable if real and sensational if they confirm Penrose's theory"."

Hardly unequivocal outside of your faith based mind.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 11 min KiMare 227,381
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 15 min Eman 22,031
Atheism 101: What's the most aggravating argume... 56 min Thinking 2
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 1 hr Thinking 183
Stump a theist with 2 questions 1 hr Patrick 16
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 4 hr Patrick 41
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 9 hr Thinking 69
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••