Florida Court, Teachers don't have First Amendment Rights

[mskafka]

Florida Pastor to Defy Prayer Ban | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Really? It's a violation of the Constitution? Where? In the so called "Separation of Church and State that is NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUION??

So, according to the court, Teachers don't have first amendment rights. Thank you liberals!

I can't agree with you although I would like to, samurai. The teacher can pray at any free time she has from the children. Just as anyone from a completely different faith can do their praying in private when they have the chance. Freedom to pray is not restricted, just not appropriate with the students.

What are you basing this on? The Only thing the Constitution even says on the matter is the "Congress shall make no law regarding the Establishment of Religion" How that turns into you can't prey the kids might see you, I will never know.

I hope that teachers don't "prey". Mary Kay Letourneau knows where one goes when that happens.

 

[Spud]

I agree with the OP here. If an Imam wants to go and pray next to a school flagpole he should have every right, hell, in keeping with the 1st, a neo-Nazi group should be able to hold rallies around the flagpole.

 

[jillian]

Florida Pastor to Defy Prayer Ban

A standoff over prayers at a school flagpole is looming between a longtime Baptist preacher and a Florida public school system.

Ron Baker, the pastor of Russell Baptist Church in Green Cove Springs, said he plans to keep on praying, regardless of what happens.

“Did you ever think that in America you’d be in trouble for praying at the flag?” Baker told Fox News. “It’s disturbing.”

Baker was referring to a legal opinion submitted by the Clay County School Board’s attorney and published in Jacksonville.com. The attorney determined that a series of prayers on the grounds of four schools was a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The attorney further declared that the prayers were a clear endorsement of religion and Christianity.

“It is a violation of the United States Constitution for a teacher, school administrator or other school district employee to join in a prayer session during their work time,” wrote J. Bruce Bickner in a story that appeared on Jacksonville.com.

Florida Pastor to Defy Prayer Ban | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Really? It's a violation of the Constitution? Where? In the so called "Separation of Church and State that is NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUION??

So, according to the court, Teachers don't have first amendment rights. Thank you liberals!

If a "teacher" can't go 8 hours without public prayer, that teacher should be working in parochial school.

This isn't anything new. If it was a muslim teacher being told no prayer in school and ranting and raving about it, you'd be shrieking about creeping sharia law.

 

[The T]

Florida Pastor to Defy Prayer Ban | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Really? It's a violation of the Constitution? Where? In the so called "Separation of Church and State that is NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUION??

So, according to the court, Teachers don't have first amendment rights. Thank you liberals!

I can't agree with you although I would like to, samurai. The teacher can pray at any free time she has from the children. Just as anyone from a completely different faith can do their praying in private when they have the chance. Freedom to pray is not restricted, just not appropriate with the students.

Show me where it says that in the Constitution?

THAT is your personal opinion, NOT the Constitution.

So, show me where that is in the Constittution.

I wasn't aware a Teacher was "Congress" which is the ONLY body I see restricted in any way by the First Amendment.

First Amendment revisited:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Looks pretty clear cut to me. The teacher and the students are citizens that have this right regarless where such actions take place. No one is forcing other students to take part.

/Story.

The Court is dead wrong.

 

[jillian]

I can't agree with you although I would like to, samurai. The teacher can pray at any free time she has from the children. Just as anyone from a completely different faith can do their praying in private when they have the chance. Freedom to pray is not restricted, just not appropriate with the students.

Show me where it says that in the Constitution?

THAT is your personal opinion, NOT the Constitution.

So, show me where that is in the Constittution.

I wasn't aware a Teacher was "Congress" which is the ONLY body I see restricted in any way by the First Amendment.

First Amendment revisited:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Looks pretty clear cut to me. The teacher and the students are citizens that have this right regarless where such actions take place. No one is forcing other students to take part.

/Story.

The Court is dead wrong.

it would be so nice if you knew anything about the constitution.

 

[The T]

Show me where it says that in the Constitution?

THAT is your personal opinion, NOT the Constitution.

So, show me where that is in the Constittution.

I wasn't aware a Teacher was "Congress" which is the ONLY body I see restricted in any way by the First Amendment.

First Amendment revisited:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Looks pretty clear cut to me. The teacher and the students are citizens that have this right regarless where such actions take place. No one is forcing other students to take part.

/Story.

The Court is dead wrong.

it would be so nice if you knew anything about the constitution.

Words mean things. Those words are clear cut. It is YOU twisting things as USUAL.

 

[rdean]

Florida Pastor to Defy Prayer Ban

A standoff over prayers at a school flagpole is looming between a longtime Baptist preacher and a Florida public school system.

Ron Baker, the pastor of Russell Baptist Church in Green Cove Springs, said he plans to keep on praying, regardless of what happens.

“Did you ever think that in America you’d be in trouble for praying at the flag?” Baker told Fox News. “It’s disturbing.”

Baker was referring to a legal opinion submitted by the Clay County School Board’s attorney and published in Jacksonville.com. The attorney determined that a series of prayers on the grounds of four schools was a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The attorney further declared that the prayers were a clear endorsement of religion and Christianity.

“It is a violation of the United States Constitution for a teacher, school administrator or other school district employee to join in a prayer session during their work time,” wrote J. Bruce Bickner in a story that appeared on Jacksonville.com.

Florida Pastor to Defy Prayer Ban | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Really? It's a violation of the Constitution? Where? In the so called "Separation of Church and State that is NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUION??

So, according to the court, Teachers don't have first amendment rights. Thank you liberals!

If you want to live in a right wing religious theocracy. Go to Iraq. Republicans are proud of what they did there.

 

[jillian]

it would be so nice if you knew anything about the constitution.

Words mean things. Those words are clear cut. It is YOU twisting things as USUAL.[/QUOTE]

there are over 200 years of constitutional scholarship. and people who have spent lifetimes studying don't agree on the INTERPRETATIONS. And you think *you* know more than they do.

I think that's a joke.

 

[Navy1960]

I can't agree with you although I would like to, samurai. The teacher can pray at any free time she has from the children. Just as anyone from a completely different faith can do their praying in private when they have the chance. Freedom to pray is not restricted, just not appropriate with the students.

Show me where it says that in the Constitution?

THAT is your personal opinion, NOT the Constitution.

So, show me where that is in the Constittution.

I wasn't aware a Teacher was "Congress" which is the ONLY body I see restricted in any way by the First Amendment.

First Amendment revisited:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Looks pretty clear cut to me. The teacher and the students are citizens that have this right regarless where such actions take place. No one is forcing other students to take part.

/Story.

The Court is dead wrong.

T while I respect your opinion, the Courts may or may not be wrong until such time as someone mounts a challenge and all previous decisions on the matter are overturned then in the matter both according to the State constitution and the US constitution as seen by the USSC there is a wall between church and state and as a school can be considered as a public place, financed by taxpayer dollars the school is well within its rights, its one of the reasons why I suggested that the courts are the best place to sort this out.

Article III. L2
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

 

[jillian]

Show me where it says that in the Constitution?

THAT is your personal opinion, NOT the Constitution.

So, show me where that is in the Constittution.

I wasn't aware a Teacher was "Congress" which is the ONLY body I see restricted in any way by the First Amendment.

First Amendment revisited:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Looks pretty clear cut to me. The teacher and the students are citizens that have this right regarless where such actions take place. No one is forcing other students to take part.

/Story.

The Court is dead wrong.

T while I respect your opinion, the Courts may or may not be wrong until such time as someone mounts a challenge and all previous decisions on the matter are overturned then in the matter both according to the State constitution and the US constitution as seen by the USSC there is a wall between church and state and as a school can be considered as a public place, financed by taxpayer dollars the school is well within its rights, its one of the reasons why I suggested that the courts are the best place to sort this out.

Article III. L2
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

I think you are, as always, extraordinarily civil and informed. However, my response to tommy was based on the fact that this issue has been addressed by the Court, if not directly, then with matters of sufficient similarity so as to give us an idea of the types of precedent that will apply. I would be shocked if suddenly the court reversed itself on this issue. they've been pretty firm about no prayer in public school.

 

[bodecea]

I can't agree with you although I would like to, samurai. The teacher can pray at any free time she has from the children. Just as anyone from a completely different faith can do their praying in private when they have the chance. Freedom to pray is not restricted, just not appropriate with the students.

Show me where it says that in the Constitution?

THAT is your personal opinion, NOT the Constitution.

So, show me where that is in the Constittution.

I wasn't aware a Teacher was "Congress" which is the ONLY body I see restricted in any way by the First Amendment.

First Amendment revisited:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Looks pretty clear cut to me. The teacher and the students are citizens that have this right regarless where such actions take place. No one is forcing other students to take part.

/Story.

The Court is dead wrong.

When you are elected president, you can nominate other crazies such as yourself for the Supreme Court.

 

[Navy1960]

First Amendment revisited:



Looks pretty clear cut to me. The teacher and the students are citizens that have this right regarless where such actions take place. No one is forcing other students to take part.

/Story.

The Court is dead wrong.

T while I respect your opinion, the Courts may or may not be wrong until such time as someone mounts a challenge and all previous decisions on the matter are overturned then in the matter both according to the State constitution and the US constitution as seen by the USSC there is a wall between church and state and as a school can be considered as a public place, financed by taxpayer dollars the school is well within its rights, its one of the reasons why I suggested that the courts are the best place to sort this out.

Article III. L2
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

I think you are, as always, extraordinarily civil and informed. However, my response to tommy was based on the fact that this issue has been addressed by the Court, if not directly, then with matters of sufficient similarity so as to give us an idea of the types of precedent that will apply. I would be shocked if suddenly the court reversed itself on this issue. they've been pretty firm about no prayer in public school.

Thank you jillian, my personal take on the matter be it this case or any other dealing with a seperation of church and state is two-fold. One is if one were to look at the original framers of the constitution it is clear that many if not all of them were deeply spiritual men and even in Washingtons first address to the nation, I dare say he rarely seperated God from his many thoughts on the direction of this nation. Having said that , over the years, various courts have held there is a separation between church and state, and even some have defined those to mean schools. The constitution to me at least is an all inclusive document, in that the until such time as those previous rulings are overturned and a new standard established, then the current one is to be respected. The founder's did provide a mechanism by which we can address these issue's and as suggested, that is be best place to do it.

Washington;

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

George Washington: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

 

[jillian]

T while I respect your opinion, the Courts may or may not be wrong until such time as someone mounts a challenge and all previous decisions on the matter are overturned then in the matter both according to the State constitution and the US constitution as seen by the USSC there is a wall between church and state and as a school can be considered as a public place, financed by taxpayer dollars the school is well within its rights, its one of the reasons why I suggested that the courts are the best place to sort this out.

Article III. L2
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

I think you are, as always, extraordinarily civil and informed. However, my response to tommy was based on the fact that this issue has been addressed by the Court, if not directly, then with matters of sufficient similarity so as to give us an idea of the types of precedent that will apply. I would be shocked if suddenly the court reversed itself on this issue. they've been pretty firm about no prayer in public school.

Thank you jillian, my personal take on the matter be it this case or any other dealing with a seperation of church and state is two-fold. One is if one were to look at the original framers of the constitution it is clear that many if not all of them were deeply spiritual men and even in Washingtons first address to the nation, I dare say he rarely seperated God from his many thoughts on the direction of this nation. Having said that , over the years, various courts have held there is a separation between church and state, and even some have defined those to mean schools. The constitution to me at least is an all inclusive document, in that the until such time as those previous rulings are overturned and a new standard established, then the current one is to be respected. The founder's did provide a mechanism by which we can address these issue's and as suggested, that is be best place to do it.

Washington;

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

George Washington: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

There is no question that many of them were spiritual. There is also no question that many were deists, not christians. They understood, having lived through the heavy hand of the church of england, that there was a place for church and a place for government. They believed, as near as I have been able to tell from everything I have read, that government should stay as far from church as possible. Hence the First Amendment. In order to effectuate that, they believed church should also stay as far from government as possible. How could one exist without the other? This seems to have been the basis of most of the Court's decisions on the subject.

The test for me is always, if someone of a religion to which you do not subscribe was the one imposing their beliefs on your children, would it be ok with you? That is why my first response on this subject pointed out to TPS that if a muslim were the one demanding public muslim prayer in school, would she still be so demanding that the desire be accommodated?

 

[DaGoose]

I can't agree with you although I would like to, samurai. The teacher can pray at any free time she has from the children. Just as anyone from a completely different faith can do their praying in private when they have the chance. Freedom to pray is not restricted, just not appropriate with the students.

Show me where it says that in the Constitution?

THAT is your personal opinion, NOT the Constitution.

So, show me where that is in the Constittution.

I wasn't aware a Teacher was "Congress" which is the ONLY body I see restricted in any way by the First Amendment.

First Amendment revisited:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Looks pretty clear cut to me. The teacher and the students are citizens that have this right regarless where such actions take place. No one is forcing other students to take part.

/Story.

The Court is dead wrong.

Uh-huh. Just like it's clear cut that the 2nd Amendment only refers to a militia.

 

[Navy1960]

I think you are, as always, extraordinarily civil and informed. However, my response to tommy was based on the fact that this issue has been addressed by the Court, if not directly, then with matters of sufficient similarity so as to give us an idea of the types of precedent that will apply. I would be shocked if suddenly the court reversed itself on this issue. they've been pretty firm about no prayer in public school.

Thank you jillian, my personal take on the matter be it this case or any other dealing with a seperation of church and state is two-fold. One is if one were to look at the original framers of the constitution it is clear that many if not all of them were deeply spiritual men and even in Washingtons first address to the nation, I dare say he rarely seperated God from his many thoughts on the direction of this nation. Having said that , over the years, various courts have held there is a separation between church and state, and even some have defined those to mean schools. The constitution to me at least is an all inclusive document, in that the until such time as those previous rulings are overturned and a new standard established, then the current one is to be respected. The founder's did provide a mechanism by which we can address these issue's and as suggested, that is be best place to do it.

Washington;

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

George Washington: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

There is no question that many of them were spiritual. There is also no question that many were deists, not christians. They understood, having lived through the heavy hand of the church of england, that there was a place for church and a place for government. They believed, as near as I have been able to tell from everything I have read, that government should stay as far from church as possible. Hence the First Amendment. In order to effectuate that, they believed church should also stay as far from government as possible. How could one exist without the other? This seems to have been the basis of most of the Court's decisions on the subject.

The test for me is always, if someone of a religion to which you do not subscribe was the one imposing their beliefs on your children, would it be ok with you? That is why my first response on this subject pointed out to TPS that if a muslim were the one demanding public muslim prayer in school, would she still be so demanding that the desire be accommodated?

You know I found some quotes for you from James Madison

1.Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together; [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]



2.An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]

There is also a good book on the subject as well, Thomas Kidd and Matthew Harris, eds., The Founding Fathers and the Debate Over Religion in Revolutionary America. While I tend to believe that many of the founding fathers were very spiritual, they also realized that establishment of a national religion or favoring one over another was not a good thing to do. This said, however, I do believe that they also created the courts to decide on exactly these matters when rights come into conflict with one another.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Show me where it says that in the Constitution?

So, show me where that is in the Constittution.

No sorry, I'M ASKING FOR THE WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION.

That many conservatives and rightists reject the doctrine of judicial review and the Supreme Court’s authority to interpret the Constitution is irrelevant.

You are in the ignorant minority in this regard.

That an exact word or phrase is not in the Constitution does not mean the concept expressed was not an original intent of the Framers.

For example, the words ‘individual’ and ‘self-defense’ are nowhere in the Second Amendment, much less the Constitution, yet I know of no conservative who opposed the Court’s ruling in Heller when it stated there is an individual right to own a gun and a right to self-defense, simply because those words ‘weren’t in the Constitution.’

Isn't pornography free speech?

It is provided it’s not ‘legally obscene.’

Looks pretty clear cut to me. The teacher and the students are citizens that have this right regarless where such actions take place. No one is forcing other students to take part.

/Story.

The Court is dead wrong.

Funny, I’ve never seen ‘The T’ mentioned in Marbury v Madison.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The doctrine of judicial review remains always rooted in the Founders' perceptions and the state constitutions that recognized the principle. Anyone can look these items up if they wish.

DOJR is grounded in Article III of the Constitution.