Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

ST. LOUIS (RNS) Missouri will vote next week on a constitutional amendment to protect Missourians' right to pray in public, but critics say it will open the door to all manner of unintended and costly consequences including endless taxpayer-funded lawsuits. By Tim Townsend.


  1. I am personally tired of people who call themselves Christians whining about how they are under siege. It is the exact opposite… They want create legislation that forces their set of beliefs on everyone else.

  2. The non-stop efforts of religious people, almost exclusively evangelical Christians in this country, to force their religion onto others not only defies the Constitution of the United States, it betrays an awful lack of conviction in their own religious beliefs. Their homes, their churches, and their private lives prove insufficient for the practice of their religion. They are insecure. They think they can build a sense of security in plain numbers by forcing others to participate in their mythological practices thereby pretending that they are also believers. What violations of law and shams of religion these practices are.

  3. While I may be suspicious of the motives of those advocating for this legislation, on the face of it I can see some merit. The Second Amendment objection (that these rights are already protected) is specious. The Second Amendment has already been interpreted in unexpected ways; it seems legitimate that a legislative body would want to clarify the extent of protections to be ensured. Also, the majoritarian argument is flawed in that Christians (or believers in general) seldom feel threatened by laws that win majority support; it is typically court decisions which often are out of line with majority opinion that create the sense of of ‘being under seige’. It is correct for courts to decide cases based on law and not majority will. However, it is fine for legislatures (representing public senitment) to speak for majorities. While it’s not stated in the article, it seems mainly like a branches of government issue with the legislative branch clarifying the rights they intend Missourians to have so as to circumscribe court decisions (which is fully legitimate–legislatures write the laws, courts interpret them).

  4. What is stopping people from praying in public? Some people apparently believe that if they cannot shove their religion down other people’s throats at every opportinity, they are being discriminated against. Freedom of religion also meand freedom from religin and government needs to remain neutral on religion. Prayers have no place in government meetings or government business. If they are allowed, they will no doubt be Christian. I would love to see what happens when someone wants to say a Hindu or Muslim prayer. Allowing children to refuse to do any assignment in school that violates their religions belief is ridiculous. This is probably aimed at evolution. How can teachers teach if the students can pick and choose what they will do claiming that their religious liberty is being violated.