JOPLIN, Mo. —
The Joplin Globe’s editorial (July 29) misses some important facts about the Public Prayer Amendment that will appear on Tuesday’s ballot.
Much of what is in this amendment is superfluous; the rest is, to say the least, problematic. First of all, note that it calls for the repeal of Article I, section 5 of the Missouri Constitution. This article, which has served our state well since its adoption in 1875, asserts “that all men 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.” Thus, Missourians already enjoy the right to pray in public or private.
But despite the misleading title of Amendment 2, public prayer is not the only subject it addresses. Going just by the ballot summary, voters might not realize that buried in the middle of the rambling text are the provisions “that students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work; that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs.”
Now to be sure, the public has a right to expect educators at all levels to respect the religious beliefs and practices of their students. But do we really want to grant students from elementary school up the “right” to refuse to write reports on assigned literature or to allow them to pick and choose which assignments they will complete in science classes required for their college majors and professional accreditation, lest we offend their religious sensibilities? Nor are these only questions of educational integrity. Despite the assertion on the ballot that passage of the amendment would entail no costs, if it passes, I anticipate expensive litigation that will entail significant costs for school districts and taxpayers.
Finally, when the Globe calls on voters to approve an amendment that, as the paper says, only re-asserts existing rights, just so voters can send a message, I think it misses the point of amending a constitution. The purpose of a constitutional amendment is to address an identifiable problem with the existing system of government. Already, the Missouri Constitution runs some 125 pages versus 17 for the United States Constitution. It guarantees that the people of Missouri, individually or collectively, may send whatever messages they wish on vital issues of the day.
But only rarely is a constitutional amendment the proper way to convey a message. For the most part, the 34 sections of Article I that constitute the state’s Bill of Rights provide fairly direct and concise assertions of the basic principles on which our government is constructed. Amendment 2, by contrast, consists of a long, convoluted sentence that, in the end, seems more like talking points for a party platform than a constitutional principle.
To be sure, any durable constitution must from time to time be adapted to reflect new circumstances or changes in public sentiment. But if Amendment 2 is allowed to provide a precedent for how we go about this, I fear that Missouri’s Constitution will no longer prove very useful for establishing and regulating a workable system of government. In short, this amendment sadly fails the “Show-Me” test. For all these reasons, I urge an emphatic “no” on Amendment 2.
Paul Teverow lives in Joplin and is a university professor.
Opinion
Guest columnist, Paul Teverow: Public Prayer Amendment deserves an emphatic 'no'
- Opinion
-
-
Other Views: Still inspiring
Cutbacks in the military budget and the still-recovering economy mean this Memorial Day weekend will go down as a relatively subdued affair — relative, that is, to our usual end-of-school, official-start-of-summer blowout.
-
Our View: Setting standard
The sight of hundreds of young student volunteers walking across Moore’s Fourth Street interstate overpass had to be uplifting to the city’s tornado victims.
-
Our View: Safer schools
Being able to see for ourselves what would have happened to our children had they been standing in the main hall of their schools during the May 22, 2011, tornado had a profound effect on our understanding of safe schools.
-
Marilyn Beasley, guest columnist: Claiming responsibility for abuse of power
Over the past few months we’ve witnessed the abuse of power by President Barack Obama and his administration.
-
Our View: ‘Why?’ has no answer
Just hours before, there was breakfast and laughter. There were pictures on the walls and memories in every room.
-
Our View: Absent from House
We can’t figure out why two Missouri legislators think they should be elected to the U.S. House when it appears they can’t seem to show up to take care of business in the Missouri House.
-
Your View: Terrible injustice
I see this Jasper County nuisance law as a terrible injustice on the rights of the residents of Jasper County.
-
Your View: Should we be outraged?
Were there effusive apologies following the lockdown of Boston as most of the continent indulged vicariously in the ongoing manhunt?
-
Your View: Terrorism is terrorism
In the May 13 issue of The Joplin Globe there was an Associated Press article concerning the New Orleans shooting.
-
Phill Brooks, columnist: Missouri Senate did what Founding Fathers had in mind
George Washington once described the Senate as being like a saucer in which you pour coffee or tea.
- More Opinion Headlines
-
Other Views: Still inspiring



