Comments about ‘Legal wrangling begins over Missouri's prayer amendment’

Let's hear it for the ACLU.....not!! They ALWAYS protect the criminal, the rapist, the robber, the mugger, the murderer, etc and years ago they saw to it that skyjackers had more rights than the rest of the people on the airplane combined. Maybe someone with a peck of common sense could explain to them that incarcerated criminals have LOST their rights as law-abiding citizens BECAUSE they violated the laws of society and are locked-up to help keep the rest of socisty safe. Now there's a concept, huh?

Do children who misbehave risk losing their toys when parents find out? Same concept, you attorney dudes who love the ACLU, so what's not to understand about that? Just how many prisomners "want to pray" and how many are being "denied their right to pray" anyway? C'mon, give us some statistics, ACLU attorney dudes....just how many?

It's obvious you believe in free speech and are against freedom of religion.......so obvious!

The Constitution says free of religion not banning it. it just says the government can not put one religion over another, this amendment allows people to be exempt and not to participate, so i do not see how rights are violated. people can pray to what ever they want God or no God! or not pray at all.

Just as long as the law covers all religions!

toosmart: where was this indignation against the ACLU when they stood up to the mayors of Boston and Chicago on behalf of Chik-fil-a?

to smart for you. Don't forget the single mother who is is incarcerated for writing a bad check to cover Chrismas for her family. As far as how many prisoners want to pray the answer is a lot. Are you even aware the LDS have a ward at Draper, with a Bishop, an institute program and Family home evening every Monday. There is a non denominational chapel and many volunteers of various faiths that work with inmates on a regular basis. I worked at USP for five years. Yes there are dangerous criminals there. That doesn't mean we should deny them religious freedom and rights.

NeilT - the prisoners are not being denied they rights under the constitution. But the State of MO allows more rights than the constitution and that State should have the right the limit those rights as it deems appropriate. In this case the State of MO feels it is appropriate to limit the additional rights of the prisoners but not without the rights of the constitution.

Seems fair to me.

@ Neil T

You are missing the point. The ACLU seems to think that allowing school children some additional lattitude for prayer is somehow, in their twisted convoluted logic that applies only to selected instances, discriminates against convicted felons in some undefined way. So I'm asking them to document how that is happening. Particularly because inmates do have religious instruction, not only at the point-of-the-mountain facility in Draper but every county jail also on the Wasatch Front with services more than once a week that offer a variety of religions from which to choose and a library of religious books available to them as requested, I'm asking where is the discrmination? Using the equal-protection clause is a stretch that the ACLU attorny's were looking for----just an excuse to file against the law to prevent the school children from being able to pray. Prisoners aren't being denied; school children are, in part due to the efforts of the ACLU!!

@ OHBU

You are comparing apples and spinich. The Chick-fil-a case was about freedom of speech and the right one has to express opinions without government reaction or interference. The Missouri prayer case is being attacked by the ACLU under the equal-protection clause, wehich is a real stretch because allowing children some lattitude in school to pray does NOTHING against incarcerated felons in prison. But the ACLU can't see that because it doesn't fit their agenda so they are going to fight it in court. I don't respect their position in the school prayer issue; not at all. Their logic is lacking and appears to be grasping at straws. They should be happy the children will get additional lattitude from the State. But not so.....

toosmart: I never said the two cases were comparable. But you seem to think the ACLU is a bunch of godless heathens who are always on the side of evil. I'm merely pointing out the fact that they often intervene in cases that don't fit into what you believe their agenda is, such as when they intervened FOR Chick-fil-a. Believe it or not, the ACLU is a non-partisan group, and if there is a group of strict Constitutionalists out there, the ACLU is probably it.

So sorry. I forgot. From Salt Lake City... which way is Mecca? I am confused. Shall the schools and the Senate be providing rental rugs, shawls and bowling shoes? Are we not Capitalists? Are we not to be allowed to pray under the Arc of Smith-Barney?

Pardon the parody, but isn't all of this just a little bit silly? When it comes to "common" sense, don't we first have to come to our senses? (Apologies to Sam Clemens)

States have the right to make this type of amendment. It certainly doesn't infringe on inmates, no less power to pray has been taken from them. Let it be and stop wasting time on trivial things. Prayer is prayer, so what.

Let spend more time figuring out how get a college football playoff...a real one!

Here is what I hate about laws like these. It is largely unspoken, but what the authors of these religious laws usually mean is that they want to protect the right be Christians, not be religious. I'm giving it 2 months before someone is freaking out because Muslims are praying in school.

Freedom of speech (to God).

toosmartforyou,

If you haven't sinned or broken a law, you can cast the stones all you want. It seems you meant "freedoms" and not "rights".

We all sin and we all get pushed to our limits, and yes some of our brothers and sisters submerge below those limits and cause harm to others. But the imperfect have no authority over the imperfect. Joseph Smith was never convicted of a single crime, yet was wrongfully held as a prisoner. Apostles in ancient times, philosophers, historical figures- It does not matter what religion, belief, philosophy, or even the simplest of opinions that you subscribe to. The fact is, there has been someone like you and I in history that has wrongfully been imprisoned. Whether wrongfully imprisoned or whether they truly are guilty of horrible crimes- They are human. They have rights. Their your kids, your parents, your siblings, your family.

We're all in debt for our sins, and our decisions can justify taking away our freedoms. We take freedoms away from criminals, not rights. We are no more justified to infringe rights than for others to infringe ours. If infringing rights were ever justified, freedom for anyone could never exist.

IMO, the purpose of this law is to ensure that those who disagree are shut up. You won't be able to complain about someone being overly in-your-face religious when they start pushing their religion in your face.

The whole thing is a non-issue. Just last week I witnessed an LDS couple say a short prayer in a restaurant before eating their meal. Not one single person made an issue of their prayer. Not one. I expect that's the attitude you'd find throughout the country.

Another problem is that you can almost bet that the law will be applied unequally. Christian religions will get a pass regardless, non-Christian religions will be denied their own freedoms.

A few years ago just after 9/11, a Utah high school teacher, also a Christian Minister, held a prayer circle in his classroom at lunch time to pray for the victims and their families. He was ecumenical about it inviting anyone from any faith to join him. But the ACLU threatened the school with a law suit so the principal asked him to stop the practice. Those who participated told me how peaceful and hopeful it made them feel and how sad they were to have to stop. He did not advocate any religion just to join hand in silent prayer.

Isn't it the case that Missouri kids can already pray privately in school if they want to? Isn't the "war on religion" just a myth? What is happening now, or not happening now, that will change as a result of this law? As usual, DeseretNews readers will have to look elsewhere for any details or answers to the obvious questions.