Two days ago, according to the NCSE, Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved Amendment 2 which protects the right of citizens to pray and express religious beliefs, which was already the case because of the US Constitution. However, the Amendment will have other effects that were not mentioned at the voting booth. For example, “no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs.” What do you think THAT is going to lead to?


  1. #1 Tomato Addict
    August 11, 2012

    A lot of kids are going to start saying the algebra is against their religion.

  2. #2 MikeMa
    August 11, 2012

    MO students will quickly lower the average employability of graduating seniors in the state. It should be a huge red flag for high tech firms looking to open offices in the state.

  3. #3 Michelle Belmont
    August 11, 2012

    Sure, but then you fail “Science” class. I’m sure your Sunday school class will give you an A. Just put that on your college application.

  4. #4 Phil
    August 11, 2012

    No more calculus!!

  5. #5 Drivebyposter
    August 12, 2012

    Well the “math is against my religion” angle is probably not something anyone will take very seriously.

    But what about people whose religion excludes the teaching of women? Or the teaching of any principles of human health because all healing is done by gourd?

  6. #6 Richard Simons
    August 12, 2012

    Sure, but then you fail “Science” class.

    If you are not compelled to take the evolution component of a science course, then you can’t be failed for refusing to do it.

  7. #7 Left Coast Bernard
    Encinitas, CA (near San Diego)
    August 12, 2012

    What happened to “teaching the controversy”?

  8. #8 Daniel J. Andrews
    August 12, 2012

    Can you refuse to take a class if it is taught by a woman? Some people have some pretty strong beliefs that woman shouldn’t be telling a man (even a boy) what to do (t’aint natural, Bible says so).

    In addition to skipping evolution, what about skipping geology?

    Or any biology class that isn’t about evolution but mentions it (e.g. island biogeography, ring species, bacterial and viral evolution seen in real time).

    Or physics if you’re talking about relativity (see Conservapedia article that confuses moral relativity with Einstein’s theories of relativity)?

    I hear set theory has come under attack by a rather extreme sub-sub-section of fundamentals (not that set theory would be taught in grade schools).

    But what about if you’re Muslim and you’re taught something that is against your religion but embraced by Christian fundamentals and Tea Party-types? Will the TP folks embrace your right to not participate in the assignments?

    Bet it won’t take long before we see the hypocrisy in action….what the law should have said is you have the right to not participate in any assignments that violate fundamentalist deep-south Christian beliefs–religious beliefs other than Christian are not covered by this law. At least then they would be honest.

  9. #9 Nick Theodorakis
    August 12, 2012

    I’m not sure about algebra, but apparently some seem to have a problem with set theory:

  10. #10 Anders Andersson
    Paris (France)
    August 14, 2012

    Bonjour; While the problem analysed by this article is worth consideration, it is possibly only a fraction of the dilemma we are facing: The real question is who should decide what students, whatever their age, are to learn? If you look back at French school books for children dating back to the forties, many facts possibly most facts have proven to be wrong or fallacious or tendentious . While it would seem non objectionable that children and students learn numbers, algebra and mathematics, even that statement can be questioned. When we were young adults we had the feeling that some subjects were safe and free of underlying obscure axioms, now, when we are becoming older adults we discover that nearly all subjects contain unknown unknowns; Who is entitled with the responsibility of teaching subjects as being free of axioms and postulates? If the axioms and postulate are exposed, are we going to end up in the position of the snake eating its tail? (Ambabelle, Paris)