Bill would protect religious rights on public property
The amendment would not grant new rights or change existing ones.
Published April 13, 2007
Religious freedom protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution could be protected even further if a proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution passes in the Senate.
The Missouri House of Representatives passed the amendment Tuesday, with only seven representatives voting against it. If the resolution passes the Senate, it will have to also pass a vote by the public to take effect.
The joint resolution would amend the Missouri Constitution by guaranteeing an individual's right to pray on public property and reaffirming a citizen's right to choose any or no religion.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Carl Bearden, R-St. Charles, said during a February committee hearing about the proposed amendment that the bill is intended to clarify religious expression rules that have been blurred.
"They didn't have this problem 230 years ago with the First Amendment because everyone knew what it meant," he said in the committee hearing.
The proposed amendment would grant no new rights nor change any existing First Amendment rights. The only provision in the bill that would change current law is a requirement by all public schools to display the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.
The bill intends "to emphasize the right to free exercise of religious expression, [by requiring] 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."
Kerry Messer of the Missouri Baptist Christian Life Commission testified in favor of the bill during the February committee hearing. He cited incidents in which educators violated children's First Amendment rights of religious expression in public schools and staff who did not understand the distinction between separation of church and state and private religious expression.
"We still live in a culture with systemic ignorance regarding religious liberty," Messer said during the hearing.
Messer said the proposed amendment is necessary to ensure children's rights of religious expression in schools.
Jeremy Leaming, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the proposed amendment is written too broadly and could be interpreted in many ways.
"I don't think an expanded Article 1, Section 5 of the Missouri Constitution is a wise move," he said.
Leaming said the amendment is unnecessary because private religious expression is already protected in public places. But this amendment, if passed, could be interpreted as a mandate for public schools to provide a time and place during the school day for children who want to pray or engage in religious activities, which is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution, Leaming said.
"In public schools, free speech and free expression of religion are already permitted," Leaming said. "The Federal Courts have said that. But the Federal Courts have also said those rights are not absolute."
