It’s definitely not a fair fight.

United States Constitution, Article VI

….but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

United States Constitution, Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

On May 13, 2013, Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) signed on to letter addressed to the Secretary of Defense taking issue (“expressing concern”) with a meeting on religious freedom that Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, had with representatives of the Department of Defense. The exchange of letters was made available on Representative Hartzler’s congressional website yesterday. That meeting would probably fall under that pesky “redress of grievances” clause, plus a few others.

The letter [pdf], signed by Representative Hartzler (r):

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

May 13, 2013

The Honorable Chuck Hagel

Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301

Dear Secretary Hagel,

It has come to our attention that as recently as April 23, 2013, Pentagon officials met with Mr. Michael “Mikey” Weinstein, Founder and President of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), to discuss religious freedom in the military. As we have great concern regarding numerous inflammatory statements from Mr. Weinstein in recent weeks, we are seeking further clarification on the meeting that took place last month.

In a recent posting in his own words, Mr. Weinstein characterized men and women of the christian faith as, “monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans” and offered consent to labeling individual faith based family groups as “hate groups.” Mr. Weinstein also urged exposure of these “patholgically anti-gay, Islamaphobic, and rabidly intolerant agitators,” equating them as “die hard- enemies of the United States Constitution.” There are additional previous examples where Mr. Weinstein compares men and women of faith serving in the Pentagon to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and followers of the Christian faith to that of Hitler and Stalin. Also of Concern are statements equating spiritual expression to “spiritual rape” and sedition and treason in the military. Such sentiments are consistent throughout Mr. Weinstein’s printed and other media materials.

We question the Pentagon’s judgment and reasoning in accepting a meeting from someone with a history of such statements and sentiments like Mr. Weinstein. We would respectfully request clarification on the nature of the meeting and detailed information regarding the following items:

1. Confirmation of a meeting between Pentagon officials and representatives from MRFF, as well as a list of attendees, both military and civilian;

2. The purpose of the meeting, specifically whether the meeting was organized to inform deliberative policy for the Armed Forces, as well as a summary of the meeting’s discussion;

3. Prior to arranging this meeting, were Pentagon officials aware of Mr. Weinstein’s previous statements, including those referenced above?

4. In addition to any meeting already held, are there additional meetings scheduled?

Noting that this is a particularly critical time for the Department of Defense as they finalize regulations protecting the moral and religious convictions of service members and military chaplains, we would appreciate your attention to this matter.

Thank you and we look forward to the favor of a reply.

Sincerely,

[signed – 68 members, including:]

VICKY HARTZLER

Member of Congress

[emphasis added]

“….Noting that this is a particularly critical time for the Department of Defense as they finalize regulations protecting the moral and religious convictions of service members and military chaplains, we would appreciate your attention to this matter….”

Is this about possible restrictions on proselytizing others in the Armed Forces who don’t want it? Just asking.

Mikey Weinstein is a graduate of the Air Force Academy, served with distinction, is a Republican, is an attorney, and served in the Reagan Administration.

A 2008 interview with Mikey Weinstein:

….I was at the Academy for a conference, when my younger son (who had just finished the arduous one-month combat survival training) asked me if it would be possible to sit down and talk. It was June 29, 2004, and he was very troubled. He told me he had been called a “fucking Jew,” and that he and the Jewish people had total complicity in the execution of Jesus Christ by numerous people up and down the chain of command at numerous places around the Academy….

That’s a very special kind of proselytizing, isn’t it? And:

….Later, I found out this kind of harassment was not limited to the Air Force Academy – that this contagion of unbridled right-wing, Christian fundamentalism had spread not just to the Air Force Academy but throughout the entirety of the United States Air Force, United States Marine Corp, United States Navy and the United States Army.

The proselytizing mission has gone so far that there are formal organizations among officers and enlisted men. For the officers, it’s called the Officers’ Christian Fellowship; for the enlisted folks, it’s called the Christian Military Fellowship. And they have a three-level, or a tripartite goal, which goals they view as far more critically important than the oath, the blood oath, they all swore out to protect and preserve, support and defend the Constitution of the United States. There are now 737 U.S. military official installations — it’s actually closer to 1,000 — in 132 countries and we have variances of this Christian Taliban and the Christian al-Qaeda on every one of them….

And:

….Now, I remind you, Hitler never had more than eight percent of the German citizenry in the Nazi party; I don’t think Stalin ever had more than 2.9 percent of his closest association. So, this is plenty, particularly when you are talking about a command and control structure like the U.S. military. The frightening prospect that our conventional and nuclear forces–technologically the most lethal organization ever created by humankind-was falling into the hands of a Christian Taliban. There was nobody focusing directly there….

Go. Read the entire interview.

I see how that could upset Representative Vicky Hartzler (r).

The response [pdf], dated as received on June 27, 2013, from the Acting Secretary of the Air Force (listed on Representative Hartzler’s website as “Response from Secretary Hagel on Religious Liberties.pdf”) was relatively bland. It was signed by Eric Fanning who became Acting Secretary of the Air Force on June 21, 2013.

You think the previous Secretary might have had other more pressing concerns? Just asking.

Or maybe not. How did we miss this one?:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 799

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES CONWAY (104) (Sponsor), REIBOLDT AND FITZWATER (Co-sponsors).

0088L.01I          D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 566, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to sexual exploitation by a clergyperson, with a penalty provision.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 566, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 566.088, to read as follows:

          566.088. 1. A person commits the crime of sexual exploitation by a clergyperson if such person is or holds oneself out to be a clergyperson as defined in subsection 3 of this section, and engages in sexual conduct, as defined in section 566.010, with another person who is not the clergyperson’s spouse, and the sexual conduct occurred:

           (1) During the course of a meeting in which the victim sought or received religious, spiritual, marital or relationship advice, counseling, therapy, aid, or comfort from the clergyperson or within one hundred twenty days after such meeting; or

           (2) During a period of time in which the victim was meeting on an ongoing basis with the clergyperson to seek or receive religious, spiritual, marital or relationship advice, counseling, therapy, aid, or comfort from the clergyperson; or

           (3) While the clergyperson was in a position of trust or authority over the victim and used that position of trust or authority to engage in the sexual conduct.

           2. Consent by the victim is not a defense under this section.

           3. As used in this section “clergyperson” means any person practicing as a minister of the gospel, clergy, pastor, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, Christian Science practitioner, or other person serving in a similar capacity for any religious organization, as defined in section 352.400.

           4. Sexual exploitation by a clergyperson is a class C felony.

This bill, sponsored by Representative Kathie Conway (r), had a committee hearing today:

Missouri House of Representatives

97th General Assembly , 1st Regular Session

Activity History for HB 799

Date Jrn Pg Activity Description

3/07/2013 H 546 Introduced and Read First Time (H)

3/08/2013 H 558 Read Second Time (H)

4/18/2013 H 1365 Referred: Crime Prevention and Public Safety(H)

4/30/2013 Public Hearing Completed (H)

“…or within one hundred twenty days after such meeting…”

Fancy that, there’s a waiting period. Is there a background check? Just asking.

…the establishment clause.

Because if you’re in a sort of religious majority, not being able to use the institutions of government to proselytize people who don’t want what you’re selling makes you a victim.

The right wingnut cult of the victim, via Representative Todd Akin (r):

66 Members of Congress Call Attention to Alarming Pattern of Attacks on Faith in the Air Force

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO) along with Congressman Diane Black and Congressman Randy Forbes, sent a letter signed by 66 Members of Congress urging Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to investigate a pattern of hostility towards faith in the United States Air Force. The letter calls on Secretary Panetta to issue clear Department of Defense policy guidance, consistent with our Constitution, to preserve the place of religious expression in the military at large….

And, guess who else signed the letter? Yep, Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) [pdf].

Representative Hartzler has a broad view that religious freedom means imposing one religious belief system on everyone else:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Many have written me opposing the #HHS mandate. I stand w religious liberty & will fight for conscience rights for all. #Fortnight4Freedom 2:34 PM – 22 Jun 12

From the Military Religious Freedom Foundation:

Religious Freedom & the Military: An Ongoing History

….All Americans have the right to worship as they see fit within the bounds of the law, but no one has the right to use the government , military, or power of the state to endorse or promote his or her religious beliefs or demand help in spreading sectarian messages. Given that, it is imperative that when military professionals take the oath to support and defend the Constitution, these democratic principles are what they are promising to protect.  On September 1, 2011 the Chief of Staff, General Norton A. Schwartz sent a memorandum for all commanders, the subject was “Maintaining Government Neutrality Regarding Religion.”  In this memo he states, “Leaders at all levels must balance Constitutional protections for an individuals free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and its prohibition against governmental establishment of religion”. Further “They must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.” To do so, he states, “Commanders or supervisors who engage in such behavior may cause members to doubt their impartially and objectivity. The potential result is a degradation of the unit’s morale, good order, and discipline. Thus the flagrant proselytizing of subordinates by superiors, non voluntary evangelizing of members by chaplains and public prayer in official, mandatory settings, outside of voluntary worship, are at the root of what the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is fighting against….

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation was founded by Mikey Weinstein, a former Air Force officer, as a reaction to the religious harassment and proselytizing he and his sons received while attending the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Spotted today on a vehicle with Kansas plates on U.S. Highway 50, west of Jefferson City, Missouri:

Calvin and Hobbesism (left) and Hope and Stay the Course (right).

Synchronicity.

Reportedly from a Mitt Romney (r) press availability today:

Question: When you did an interview with Sean Hannity in February, you said that you believed that Obama is trying to make America a less Christian nation. It was responding to quote that he had just played for you on the radio. Do you stand by that? And do you believe that President Obama’s world view was shaped by Reverend Wright and do you see evidence of that in his policies?

Mitt Romney: I’m not familiar precisely with what I said, but I’ll stand by what I said whatever it was.

Mitt Romney (r), on Sean Hannity’s (r) radio show, February 7, 2012:

Mitt Romney (r): ….I, I, I, uh, I think again that, that the president, uh, takes his, his, uh, philosophical leanings in this regard, uh, not from those who are, uh, uh, ardent, uh, believers in, in various faiths but instead from, from those who would like to see America more secular. [crosstalk] And I’m not sure which is worse, uh, him listening to Reverend Wright or him, him saying that, uh, uh, that we, uh, we must be a, a less, uh, Christian nation….

Throw everything against the wall, and see if anything sticks. It’s the republican way.

“…I’m not familiar precisely with what I said…”

He can’t remember haircuts, either.

Yesterday, from Representative Vicky Hartzler’s (r) Twitter flurry:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler

Hmmm. When the Koran is burned, riots and death threats. When the Bible is burned, Christians pray for the perpetrators. 9:48 AM – 22 Feb 12

Uh, you need to understand exactly who is doing the burning.

September 10th, 2010

12:12 PM ET

Would a Muslim burn the Bible?

….To burn a Quran is not just offensive; it is the equivalent of “destroying a people’s soul,” one Muslim scholar says.

The Quran is so sacred that many Muslims will not touch it without washing their hands, face and feet, says Caner Dagli, a religious professor at the College of Holy Cross in Massachusetts.

“Muslims always keep the Quran in a high place. No book is ever placed on top of it. It is never placed on the ground,” Dagli says. “When a Muslim picks up the Quran, he or she typically kiss it and then touch it to their forehead, and do the same when they are about to put it down.”

The Quran teaches Muslims to respect the sacred books of Christians and Jews as well, says Chris van Gorder, a religion professor at Baylor University in Texas.

“To burn a holy Quran for a Muslim is to throw down a gauntlet,” he says. “Those who deface any holy book, including the Bible, in many Muslim countries today, will be executed….

[emphasis added]

Yes, there are individuals on this planet who burn Bibles. You just need to understand who is doing it and who isn’t.

Nearly 1 in 4 people worldwide is Muslim, report says

October 07, 2009|By Richard Allen Greene CNN

….There are about 1.57 billion Muslims in the world, according to the report, “Mapping the Global Muslim Population,” by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. That represents about 23 percent of the total global population of 6.8 billion.

There are about 2.25 billion Christians, based on projections from the 2005 World Religions Database….

Can we all agree that it’s a really bad idea to burn any book anywhere?  

an·ti·dis·es·tab·lish·men·tar·i·an·ism

[….]

noun

opposition to the withdrawal of state support or recognition from an established church….

Well, this couldn’t be more blatant. Right wingnut republicans in the General Assembly want to gut the establishment clause applying to education funding in the Missouri Constitution. At present Missouri has one of the strongest, if not the most explicit establishment clause of any state constitution.

Introduced today by Representative Shane Schoeller (r):

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 70

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES SCHOELLER (Sponsor), JONES (89), SHUMAKE, WIELAND, ALLEN, FRANZ, KEENEY, DAVIS, RICHARDSON, DIECKHAUS, CURTMAN AND KOENIG (Co-sponsors).

5181L.01I                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri an amendment repealing section 8 of article IX of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section in lieu thereof relating to education.

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 following the first Monday in November, 2012, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article IX of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

           Section A. Section 8, article IX, Constitution of Missouri, is repealed and one new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 8, to read as follows:

           Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation[, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever] may deny to any individual or entity the general state benefits of any education program, funding, or other support on the basis of religious identity or belief, so long as such general state benefits comply with the requirements of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[strike through emphasis added]

The proposed change is the exact opposite of the original intent of the section in the Constitution:

Missouri Constitution

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

   Source: Const. of 1875, Art. XI, § 11.

   (1953) Use of state and school district funds for transportation of parochial school students by public school bus which also transported public school children held unlawful. McVey v. Hawkins, 364 Mo. 44, 258 S.W.2d 927.

   (1953) Evidence reviewed and held to establish that schools taught by nuns of religious order were not in fact free public schools and therefore not entitled to support from public funds. Berghorn v. Reorganized School Dist. No. 8, 364 Mo. 121, 260 S.W.2d 573.

   (1973) The provisions of the state constitution notwithstanding educationally deprived children attending nonpublic schools are entitled to receive allocation of federal funds for programs of special services comparable in quality, scope and opportunity to children in public schools. Barrera v. Wheeler (CA Mo.), 475 F.2d 1338.

   (1973) Payment of taxes by parent who sends his children to religiously oriented schools does not interfere with his constitu- tional right to select such a school for his children. McDonough v. Aylward (Mo.), 500 S.W.2d 721.

   (1974) Held, that portion of section 170.051, RSMo, requiring public school boards to provide textbooks to teachers in private schools violates Art. I, §6, of the Const. of Mo. which prohibits the “support” of any “teacher of any sect”. The provision requiring textbooks to be provided to pupils attending private schools violates Art. IX, §8, of the Const. of Mo. which prohibits payment from a public fund in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose. Paster v. Tussey (Mo.), 512 S.W.2d 97.

   (1974) Memorandum opinion affirming Luetkemeyer et al. v. Kaufmann, 364 F.Supp. 376, which denied right of parochial children to transportation on public school bus, affirmed in memorandum opinion. (U.S.) 95 S.Ct. 167.

They want to defund public education, they want vouchers for religious schools, and they want you to pay for it.

Today, from the right wing Family Research Council’s Washington Watch Weekly Radio (via People for the American Way – Right Wing Watch):

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council: But, do you see this as a part of a, a growing trend that we see that, uh, there is really kind of a marginalization of Christianity and a, uh, almost a promotion of, uh, other forms of, I would have to say, fringe religions?

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Uh, I, I agree, I think so. And if Christianity is the main religion in our country and, um, as a policy for the Department of Defense, I mean, we need to defend the, uh, practice of religion but we do not have to obligate taxpayer funds to facilitate it or accommodate it or pay for it.

Tony Perkins: Is it the government’s role to, to try to put all religions on the same plane?

Representative Hartzler (r): No, it’s not their role at all. I mean, their role is to, uh, facilitate basic policy for our country and, and to not to try to lift up one religion or, over the other, uh, they should be defending the basic rights that we have, that freedom of religion here, and certainly not facilitating, uh, or accommodating fringe religions, I mean, it’s, it’s, uh, crazy.

From the United States Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

“…And if Christianity is the main religion in our country…”

Which sect? Just asking.

“…and certainly not facilitating, uh, or accommodating fringe religions, I mean, it’s, it’s, uh, crazy…”

And that First Amendment thingy also means that neither the government nor any vacuous member of Congress gets to decide which religious belief is fringe or not.

The cult of the victim, cluelessness, and projection all wrapped up in a neat little package just in time for a cheery “Season’s Greetings!”  

Graffiti on a gas station pump in the Texas panhandle. This is ironic on so many levels, especially so

when there are producing oil wells in the same area as the gas station.

What’s the matter with Kansas?

On Interstate 35 just north of the Flint Hills.

Have you noticed that lately right wingnuts have been strangely silent about global warming?

The temperature in western Oklahoma.

And the consequences:

The landscape in western Oklahoma.

They do things really big in Texas.

On Interstate 40 near Groom, Texas.

Previously: Department of Redundancy Department: Representative Mike McGhee (r)

Pirate Fish image courtesy of the CotFSM.

On April 26th, by a vote of 125 to 30, the Missouri House third read and passed HJR 62, a constitutional amendment to be submitted to the voters which will add complications to the definition of religious freedom as stated in the Missouri Constitution.

HJR 62 Proposes a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a citizen’s right to pray and worship on public property and reaffirming a citizen’s right to choose any or no religion

Sponsor: McGhee, Mike (122) Proposed Effective Date: Referendum

CoSponsor: LR Number: 4153L.01P

Last Action: Senate Committee: GENERAL LAWS

05/04/2010 – Executive Session Held (S)

VOTED DO PASS

HJR62

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

The current statement on religious freedom in the Missouri Constitution:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 5

Religious freedom–liberty of conscience and belief–limitations.

Section 5. 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; that no person shall, on account of his religious persuasion or belief, be rendered ineligible to any public office or trust or profit in this state, be disqualified from testifying or serving as a juror, or be molested in his person or estate; but this section shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.

What the Missouri House did on April 26th:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

[PERFECTED]

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 62

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES McGHEE (Sponsor), DAVIS, BURLISON, JONES (89), ERVIN, KRAUS, THOMSON, DIECKHAUS, LAIR, DEEKEN, SCHIEFFER, RUZICKA, FUNDERBURK, WELLS, SMITH (150), RUESTMAN, GATSCHENBERGER, COX, WASSON, DETHROW, WILSON (130), WALLACE, WILSON (119) AND KOENIG (Co-sponsors).

4153L.01P                                                                                                                                                 D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

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 following the first Monday in November, 2010, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

           Section A. Section 5, article I, Constitution of Missouri, is repealed and one new section 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 Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no person shall, on account of his or her religious persuasion or belief, be rendered ineligible to any public office or trust or profit in this state, be disqualified from testifying or serving as a juror, or be molested in his or her person or estate; that to secure a citizen’s right to acknowledge Almighty God according to the dictates of his or her own conscience, neither the state nor any of its political subdivisions shall establish any official religion, nor shall a citizen’s right to pray or express his or her religious beliefs be infringed; that the state shall not coerce any person to participate in any prayer or other religious activity, but shall ensure that any person shall have the right to pray individually or corporately in a private or public setting so long as such prayer does not result in disturbance of the peace or disruption of a public meeting or assembly; that citizens as well as elected officials and employees of the state of Missouri and its political subdivisions shall have the right to pray on government premises and public property so long as such prayers abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances; that the General Assembly and the governing bodies of political subdivisions may extend to ministers, clergypersons, and other individuals the privilege to offer invocations or other prayers at meetings or sessions of the General Assembly or governing bodies; 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; that the state shall ensure public school students their right to free exercise of religious expression without interference, as long as such prayer or other expression is private and voluntary, whether individually or corporately, and in a manner that is not disruptive and as long as such prayers or expressions abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances; and, to emphasize the right to free exercise of religious expression, that all free public schools receiving state appropriations shall display, in a conspicuous and legible manner, the text of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States; but this section 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, excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.

           Section B. Pursuant to Chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the General Assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in Section A shall be as follows:

           “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure:

           •          That the right of Missouri citizens to express their religious beliefs shall not be infringed;

           •   &
nbsp;      That school children have the right to pray and acknowledge God voluntarily in their schools; and

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

[emphasis (changes) in original]

…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…

Question. If a Pastafarian is served spaghetti at a school lunch will they be able to accuse everyone else in the lunchroom of blasphemy? Just asking.

And then, in the interest of complete religious freedom, there’s this: Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)

What would control? The individual’s religious expression? Who gets to decide? Just asking.

As a commenter pointed out in January:

“Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.”

— Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755)

And as I concluded in January:

…As long as there are tests there will always be prayer in school. And as long as there’s a Missouri General Assembly there’ll always be state representatives who’ll waste everyone’s time introducing redundant legislation.

Brace yourself for “Talk Like a Pirate Day” in our public schools across Missouri.

President Obama spoke in Turkey, using the bully pulpit in a fashion the the American wingnut right is not going to like. Witness this exchange on CNN:

(hat tip for the video to MyDD)

President Obama: …One of the great strengths of the United States is, uh, although as I mentioned, uh, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. Uh, we consider ourselves, uh, a nation of citizens, who are, uh, bound by ideals and a set of values…

American history is on President Obama’s side.

In 1796:

Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary

…Art. 11. As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility, of Musselmen;  and, as the said States never entered into war, or act of hostility against any Mohametan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption in the harmony existing between the two countries…”

Or, a little earlier:

United States Constitution

Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Why in Turkey? Read that nation’s Constitution:

Turkey Constitution

{Adopted in: 1982}

{Last Amendment: May 10th, 2007}

{ICL Document Status: May 10th, 2007 }

…Article 1  Form of the State The Turkish State is a Republic.

Article 2  Characteristics of the Republic

The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law; bearing in mind the concepts of public peace, national solidarity and justice; respecting human rights; loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the Preamble.

Article 3  Integrity of the State, Official Language, Flag, National Anthem, and Capital

(1) The Turkish state, with its territory and nation, is an indivisible entity. Its language is Turkish.

(2) Its flag, the form of which is prescribed by the relevant law, is composed of a white crescent and star on a red background.

(3) Its national anthem is the Independence March.

(4) Its capital is Ankara.

Article 4  Irrevocable Provisions

The provision of Article 1 of the Constitution establishing the form of the state as a Republic, the provisions in Article 2 on the characteristics of the Republic, and the provision of Article 3 shall not be amended, nor shall their amendment be proposed…

Over the past few years you may have noticed that Turkey has had some political struggles concerning religion and the state. From 2001:

Turkish Court Bans Religious Party, Main Opposition Force

By DOUGLAS FRANTZ

Published: Saturday, June 23, 2001

Turkey’s messy political system suffered another jolt today when the country’s highest court banned the religious-oriented Virtue Party. The court said the main opposition party violated a law that prohibited religious activities that could undermine the secular government.

The court stopped short of expelling large numbers of the party from Parliament, a move that would have automatically led to new elections because it would have left more than 5 percent of the Parliament seats vacant. The party controls 102 of the 550 seats. Most of the rest are split among the three governing parties…

From 2008:

Turkey’s ruling party to stand trial for being ‘too religious’

By Nicholas Birch in Istanbul

Tuesday, 1 April 2008

Turkey’s highest court has voted to hear a case to close down the country’s ruling party, in a move that looks set to open the bitterest bout yet in a 50-year war pitting popularly-elected governments against the secular establishment.

The Constitutional Court’s unanimous decision comes a fortnight after a prosecutor charged the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) with trying to turn Turkey into a country that “takes religion as its reference” and demanded political bans on the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the president Abdullah Gül…

Turkey has been going through a political struggle that some in America would probably like to emulate, it’s just that their specific choices might vary slightly in the details.