A ballot question went to Missouri’s voters last week that would, if passed, amend the state constitution with “Amendment 2,” and reassert the right for open prayer in public places, such as schools, a New York Times editorial said. About 83 percent of Missouri’s voters at last Tuesday’s election voted to pass the amendment.
The amendment “helps protect Missouri’s Christians,” the Huffington Post reported. But many of the amendment’s critics point out that the freedoms it asserts are already part of the federal Constitution’s First Amendment. And the part they’re concerned about, specifically, is about schools:
No student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs.
I can’t even begin to tell you about all the problems with this amendment’s language, especially the part about “compelling” students to “participate” in school. Oh, boy!
Violating his or her religious beliefs
The obvious belief being violated in Missouri is the belief that God created the world less than 10,000 years ago. They wouldn’t write an amendment like this unless there was some specific belief they wanted to stop from being attacked, and that’s the one that comes to mind. Therefore, even though the Missouri state curriculum says nothing about a young Earth, students might not be compelled to learn this:
Explain how similarities used to group taxa might reflect evolutionary relationships (e.g., similarities in DNA and protein structures, internal anatomical features, patterns of development) [Strand 3]
That is, since God just created all the species—at least that’s what some religions teach, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary—it might be offensive for a student to read a chapter about evolutionary relationships in protein structures between humans and chimpanzees. The schools have to teach it, because it’s in the curriculum, but kids don’t have to participate in learning this material, specified by the state’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
For that matter, what does it matter if I can identify a known doctrine from a known religion? Any kid, being totally free to believe whatever religious doctines he or she wants, as is his or her right as an American citizen, could claim anything is repugnant to those beliefs.
This amendment essentially erodes religious freedom, because nobody expects students to get ridiculous. Some kid who presents a religious doctrine that a teacher or principal has never heard of is likely to be greeted with looks of disapproval rather than acceptance of those particular religious beliefs. If the teacher has heard of the beliefs presented by a student, that student is more likely to be excused from participation in classroom assignments or projects than if the teacher has not heard of the particular beliefs presented, however honestly or dishonestly, by the student.
What about this one:
Predict the impact (beneficial or harmful) a natural or human caused environmental event (e.g., forest fire, flood, volcanic eruption, avalanche, acid rain, global warming, pollution, deforestation, introduction of an exotic species) may have on the diversity of different species in an ecosystem [Strand 4]
Well, the Christian Bible and Judaism both declare humans as “keepers of the garden,” i.e., lords over all the dominions of Earth. Anybody who claims a “human-caused environmental event” could be “harmful” is offending that particular religious belief.
But if we deny the negative impacts we humans have on the sustainability of Earth, we’re depriving our children and their children of everything we have worked to preserve. It doesn’t get any further away from Christ’s teachings than that!
How about sexual reproduction? The Missouri curriculum demands that students learn the following:
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of asexual and sexual reproduction with regard to variation within a population [Strand 3]
Sex is only to be considered in the context of marriage, according to many religious doctrines of Christianity. Nowhere should Missouri teach Christian students that there could possibly be any “advantages” to sex except those that have to do with love! Anybody who claims there are advantages “with regard to variation within a population” is a sinner! Stop, please stop!
I’m not being absurd here. Since we are free to hold any religious belief we want, this amendment gives all Missouri children a way out of learning anything at all. I have no idea what some religions teach, but I tell you this: A US law cannot protect Christians without defending every other “religious” belief with equal force and effect.
Do Jews eat ham? No. It might be offensive to a Jewish student to tell him that humans eat pork. It might offend a Hindu student to tell her that humans eat cows. Probably not, but these statements of fact are inconsistent with the tenets of those two major religions.
Of course, the obvious one that everyone is concerned about comes from Charles Darwin himself, but it’s right there in the Missouri state curriculum:
Identify examples of adaptations that may have resulted from variations favored by natural selection (e.g., long-necked giraffes, long-eared jack rabbits) and describe how that variation may have provided populations an advantage for survival [Strand 3]
Did he just say “natural selection”?
Lawsuits coming
Get ready for a whole bunch of lawsuits. Some kid is going to fail a state standardized test and then claim he wasn’t required to learn some bit of the material that counted toward his score because it offended his religion. Or, he’s going to get a low score on the ACT or SAT, get denied admission to study biology or history at Harvard, and sue the state for putting an amendment in the state’s constitution that said he didn’t have to learn key concepts in those subjects. He was simply, as is his right, following the laws of his state of residence. Poor kid.
Here’s another scenario: One teacher is going to have an unusually high proportion of Christians in her classroom. They’re going to refuse to participate in any of the above curricular areas in science. They’re all going to score poorly on the state test. That teacher’s going to look bad and get low scores on her evaluation. She’s going to be fired as an ineffective teacher. She’s going to sue the state for making it impossible for her to do her job (teach). She’s going to win, and the court is going to order all subject matter that might interfere with any religious beliefs (it’s a long list, trust me) off the state test. That should leave about six questions. Good luck!
This is a nightmare. It’s bad for religious freedom in Missouri, and it’s bad for Missouri’s students. Can somebody please stop this train wreck before it derails, before it makes a mockery of the state’s constitution?! I don’t care that more than 80 percent of Missouri’s voters favored it.
