Pirate Fish image courtesy of the CotFSM.

The Missouri Constitution has an establishment clause in, not one, but two places. The first:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7

Public aid for religious purposes–preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

[emphasis added]

And, in another place in the 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.

[emphasis added]

A bill, introduced yesterday by Representative Scott Fitzpatrick (r):

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 687 [pdf]

98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE FITZPATRICK.

1463H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 173.1104, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to financial assistance awards for theology degrees.

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

Section A. Section 173.1104, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu

thereof, to be known as section 173.1104, to read as follows:

173.1104. 1. An applicant shall be eligible for initial or renewed financial assistance only if, at the time of application and throughout the period during which the applicant is receiving such assistance, the applicant:

(1) Is a citizen or a permanent resident of the United States;

(2) Is a resident of the state of Missouri, as determined by reference to standards promulgated by the coordinating board; and

(3) Is enrolled, or has been accepted for enrollment, as a full-time undergraduate student in an approved private or public institution[; and (4) Is not enrolled or does not intend to use the award to enroll in a course of study leading to a degree in theology or divinity].

2. If an applicant is found guilty of or pleads guilty to any criminal offense during the period of time in which the applicant is receiving financial assistance, such applicant shall not be eligible for renewal of such assistance, provided such offense would disqualify the applicant from receiving federal student aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

3. Financial assistance shall be allotted for one academic year, but a recipient shall be eligible for renewed assistance until he or she has obtained a baccalaureate degree, provided such financial assistance shall not exceed a total of ten semesters or fifteen quarters or their equivalent. Standards of eligibility for renewed assistance shall be the same as for an initial award of financial assistance, except that for renewal, an applicant shall demonstrate a grade-point average of two and five-tenths on a four-point scale, or the equivalent on another scale. This subsection shall be construed as the successor to section 173.215 for purposes of eligibility requirements of other financial assistance programs that refer to section 173.215.

[emphasis in original, added strike through emphasis illustrates text to be removed]

Chapter 173 RSMo refers to higher education and, in part, scholarships and tuition aid programs administered by the state.

The bill listing on the House web site:

HB 687

Specifies that any benefits afforded to students enrolled at an institution of higher education shall be afforded to students enrolled at a theological or divinity school

Sponsor: Fitzpatrick, Scott (158)

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2015

LR Number: 1463H.01I

Last Action: 01/26/2015 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

Bill String: HB 687

[….]

[emphasis added]

How do the changes in HB 687 conform with the requirements of the Missouri Constitution? Just asking.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C131145 10/10/2013 MISSOURIANS FOR CHILDREN’S EDUCATION Missouri Catholic Conference 600 Clark Ave Jefferson City MO 65109 10/9/2013 $11,216.59

C131145 10/10/2013 MISSOURIANS FOR CHILDREN’S EDUCATION Archdiocese of St. Louis 20 Archbishop May Drive St Louis MO 63119 10/10/2013 $300,000.00

[emphasis added]

It’s a brand new PAC:

C131145: Missourians For Children’s Education

Po Box 144 Committee Type: Campaign

Jefferson City Mo 65102

[….] Established Date: 10/09/2013

[….]

Ballot Measures Election Date Subject Support/Oppose

Constitutional Amendment To Article Ix, Relating To An Education Tax Credit 11/04/2014 Children’s Education Initiative/State Of Missouri Support

[emphasis added]

Probably this one:

Constitutional Amendment to Article IX, Relating to an Education Tax Credit

2014-045

[….]

Submitted by: Barbara Swanson

Barbara Swanson

201 Dover St

Jefferson City, MO 65109

Official ballot title certified by Secretary of State on September 18, 2013.

OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE AS CERTIFIED BY

SECRETARY OF STATE

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

   create a tax credit for donations made to nonprofit corporations that provide funds to improve programs in public school districts, provide scholarships for students to attend qualified private or parochial elementary or secondary schools, or support special education services for children;

   limit the tax credit to $50,000 annually per individual or business entity, and cap the entire credit at $90 million annually; and

   repeal any constitutional provisions that prohibit taxpayer funds from being used to aid private or parochial elementary or secondary schools that qualify for the funding in this measure?

Any decrease in state revenue will depend on the redemption of tax credits issued related to this proposal, initially limited to $90 million per year. Increased annual state operating expenses are expected to be initially about $120,000. Each individual school district will experience an unknown annual change in revenue.  

[emphasis added]

Initially limited to?

It’s probably not this one:

Constitutional Amendment to Article IX, Relating to Repealing the Current Prohibition on Using State or Local Government Funding for Religious Purposes

2014-033

[….]

Submitted by: Todd Jones

Todd Jones

231 South Bemiston Ave.

Suite 800

St. Louis, MO 63105

Official ballot title certified by Secretary of State on June 12, 2013.

OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE AS CERTIFIED BY

SECRETARY OF STATE

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

   repeal the current prohibition on using state or local government funding for religious purposes;

   repeal the current prohibition on using state or local government funding to aid religious schools, academies, seminaries, colleges, universities, or any other school controlled by a religious organization; and

   repeal the current prohibition on the government granting or donating personal property or real estate for religious purposes?

The potential costs or savings to state and local governmental entities are unknown.

Which religions? Just asking.

It’s not this one, though the effect would definitely go further in the same direction:

Constitutional Amendment to Article X, Relating to a State Income Tax Credit, version 2

2014-022

[….]

Submitted by: Mr. Herman Kriegshauser

Herman Kriegshauser

19 Jennycliffe Lane

Chesterfield, MO 63005

314-223-4555

Official ballot title certified by Secretary of State on March 20, 2013.

OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE AS CERTIFIED BY

SECRETARY OF STATE

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to create an individual and corporate state income tax credit of 60% of the amount donated to Missouri not-for-profit elementary and secondary schools or school districts and Missouri not-for-profit foundations providing scholarships for Missouri secondary school graduates to attend Missouri not-for-profit higher education colleges and universities (this credit cannot exceed the donor’s state income tax liability for the year)?

Annual state government revenue may decrease by an estimated $236 million to $938 million. Annual state operating costs may increase by at least $200,000. Reduced state revenue could result in decreased state funding for local governments and public education entities. Public education entities could have an unknown increase in donation revenue.

[emphasis added]

Well, that would certainly contribute to defunding public education.  

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.

“….there is no evidence in the record that the cross has been universally embraced as a marker for the burial sites of non-Christians or as a memorial for a non-Christian’s death….”

Near Interstate 40 in the Texas panhandle, on private property.

If it were on public property the Utah Highway Patrol Association could argue in court that it is a secular symbol.

Clueless:

@RepHartzler Rep. Vicky Hartzler

Sad day. The Supr. Ct. let stand a ruling to remove 14 roadside crosses in honor of fallen Utah state troopers. Religious liberty dies. 8 hours ago

[emphasis added]

That doesn’t read like Representative Hartzler buys the secular symbol argument either. There is the small matter of the Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….

Religious liberty didn’t die. There’s nothing stopping anyone from placing a cross on their private property.

The Supreme Court denied [pdf] petitions for writs of certiorari, Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.

From the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion [pdf]:

AMERICAN ATHEISTS INC v. DUNCAN

No. 08-4061.

— August 18, 2010

….Here, we conclude that the cross memorials would convey to a reasonable observer that the state of Utah is endorsing Christianity. The memorials use the preeminent symbol of Christianity, and they do so standing alone (as opposed to it being part of some sort of display involving other symbols). That cross conspicuously bears the imprimatur of a state entity, the UHP, and is found primarily on public land….

….The fact that the cross includes biographical information about the fallen trooper does not diminish the governmental message endorsing Christianity. This is especially true because a motorist driving by one of the memorial crosses at 55-plus miles per hour may not notice, and certainly would not focus on, the biographical information. The motorist, however, is bound to notice the preeminent symbol of Christianity and the UHP insignia, linking the State to that religious sign.

Moreover, the fact that all of the fallen UHP troopers are memorialized with a Christian symbol conveys the message that there is some connection between the UHP and Christianity….

….The parties agree that a cross was traditionally a Christian symbol of death and, despite Defendants’ assertions to the contrary, there is no evidence in the record that the cross has been universally embraced as a marker for the burial sites of non-Christians or as a memorial for a non-Christian’s death. The UHPA acknowledges that when it asserts that it would honor the request made by a Jewish state trooper’s family to memorialize him with a Star of David rather than a cross.

The State Defendants point to the use of crosses as markers for fallen soldiers as evidence that the cross has become a secular symbol of death. However, the evidence in the record shows that the military provides soldiers and their families with a number of different religious symbols that they may use on government-issued headstones or markers. Even in the American military cemeteries overseas, which include rows and rows of white crosses, fallen Jewish service members are memorialized instead with a Star of David. Thus, while the cross may be a common symbol used in markers and memorials, there is no evidence that it is widely accepted as a secular symbol….

It doesn’t appear that Representative Hartzler (r) understands the proffered arguments. Or, barring that, bothered to read the Tenth Circuit opinion. Go figure.  

The next thing you know Congress will be wasting its time reaffirming that “In God We Trust” is a motto. Oh, wait…

Previously:

White House: petitions – We the People (September 22, 2011)

Those who ignore history are, well….stupid (October 25, 2007)

The White House started an online petition process on September 22nd, with an initial staff review threshold of five thousand signatures for petitions submitted through the process. Several petitions have quickly reached that threshold, including one to legalize marijuana, one to abolish the TSA, and, as of this writing in third place (with over 9,000 signatures), one to remove “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance:

We Petition the Obama Administration to:

Edit the Pledge of Allegiance to remove the phrase “Under God”.

The Pledge of Allegiance is said every day in schools across America. It is a government sanctioned speech, and should remain neutral in matters of religion. In its current state, it supports the existence of God, which goes against several religions, and supports others. This bias should not be supported by the country according to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Created: Sep 22, 2011

Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Human Rights

In 1943, as described in WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. BARNETTE ET AL., 319 U.S. 624, the text was:

…’I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of [319 U.S. 624, 629]  America and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’…

Note what is missing.

The pledge is not a founding document:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth’s Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country…

In 1954:

History of the Pledge of Allegiance:

….the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the words “under God” to the Pledge. The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 – 2008) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7….

And, back to WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. BARNETTE ET AL., 319 U.S. 624, no individual is under any compulsion to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in whole or in part:

….A person gets from a [319 U.S. 624, 633]  symbol the meaning he puts into it, and what is one man’s comfort and inspiration is another’s jest and scorn….

….Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity….

….Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard….

….If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us….

[emphasis added]

In a time of war, no less. In 1943.