I would like to hear how teacher led prayer in public schools is constitutional

[Annie]

So far SCOTUS has chosen to remain silent on 'moment of prayer.' firstamendmentcenter.org: Religious Liberty in Public Schools - topic

The above is one of the links I originally posted. I've given the cached version here.

So you can see, the Virginia moment of silence was ruled Constitutional by the District Court, and the 4th Circuit agreed, saying it was OK. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the case, so right now the law in the 4th Circuit is that moments of silence are Constitutional.

For the time being. Like I said, I'm a former teacher in parochial school, I've absolutely no problem with kids praying. I do however have a problem if I found my public school teacher(s) leading my kids in prayer, especially if I disagreed with what they are 'praying for.' With my ideas of what is 'worth praying for,' I'm guessing others might disagree. Seems a very good idea to keep this kind of thing out of public schools, IMHO. I can see a convergence of problems with political and prayer issues. Shocking, no?

 

[Steerpike]

For the time being. Like I said, I'm a former teacher in parochial school, I've absolutely no problem with kids praying. I do however have a problem if I found my public school teacher(s) leading my kids in prayer, especially if I disagreed with what they are 'praying for.' With my ideas of what is 'worth praying for,' I'm guessing others might disagree. Seems a very good idea to keep this kind of thing out of public schools, IMHO. I can see a convergence of problems with political and prayer issues. Shocking, no?

I don't have a problem with a moment of silence if there is no coercion to use it for religious reasons. Classroom prayer led by the teacher or another school official is a problem. If students want to gather on their own in an empty room during lunch or whatever for bible study or prayer, I don't have a problem with that either. It's just a matter of the school keeping out of it.

 

[ConHog]

"But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret."

seems pretty unambiguous to me.

I happen to agree with you, maineman. But many Christians do not share that view. It's a good example of how even Christians disagree among themselves over how best to exercise their faith, let alone the members of minority religions. To some, participating in public prayer of this sort would even be considered sinful.

So tell me, how is mandatory government prayer that forces a child to do something he or she would consider sinful respecting that child's right to exercise? Going back to first principles, isn't that the whole problem with Establishment in the first place? Government using its power to force individuals to say, do, or observe practices that counter their own personal beliefs?

Christians who think that they can ignore the words in red are kidding themselves. Jesus said, "whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret". He didn't qualify that in any way. Prayer is meant to be a private and personal communication.

Yes yes, Jesus wanted us to hide our Christianity.

You're no Christian.

 

[goldcatt]

Are you suggesting that being asked to stand quietly while others pray for 2 minutes is a sanction?

In which situation? The teacher led prayer scenario? Yes. Because it is government forcing a religious point of view on a captive minor child. The harm is implied, to both student and parent.

In the coach situation? It depends on the facts. Which is why it's more of a gray area. For example, is the child played less than others (or not at all) because of his or her refusal to participate in this prayer? Is participation a requirement to be part of the team at all? Is the coach instigating or allowing the student to be ridiculed, harassed or hazed for not participating? How old are the students? Is this prayer something the coach does in an official capacity and requires the entire team to be present even if it is against their beliefs, or a private thing he does and students are allowed to attend or not attend at their choosing? It gets trickier.

The rules for minors are different from those for adults, since there are additional factors at play. So context matters - quite a bit.

You're being ridiculous. If a person is quiet and respectful during a prayer then no one else need know whether they prayed or not. Or are you suggesting that those who don't wish to participate have a right to disrupt those who wish to?

It's not ridiculous at all when you look at what's being protected, and why. Also at the age and impressionable nature of most children who form that captive audience in the public school system. My six year olds aren't exactly capable of sitting there quietly and not absorbing what is being said - which may well be a direct conflict with what I, as their parent, teach them at home and in my chosen place of worship. That is government forcing religious teachings on my children against my will and in a situation where I have no recourse.

What I'd like to know is why I, a liberal, am arguing for less government control over parents' and individual rights and you, a conservative, are arguing for more? What principle is at stake here for you that the usual conservative belief in less government power over the individual is superseded in the case of organized prayer?

 

[del]

"But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret."

seems pretty unambiguous to me.

I happen to agree with you, maineman. But many Christians do not share that view. It's a good example of how even Christians disagree among themselves over how best to exercise their faith, let alone the members of minority religions. To some, participating in public prayer of this sort would even be considered sinful.

So tell me, how is mandatory government prayer that forces a child to do something he or she would consider sinful respecting that child's right to exercise? Going back to first principles, isn't that the whole problem with Establishment in the first place? Government using its power to force individuals to say, do, or observe practices that counter their own personal beliefs?

Christians who think that they can ignore the words in red are kidding themselves. Jesus said, "whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret". He didn't qualify that in any way. Prayer is meant to be a private and personal communication.

so anyone praying during a sunday service is *ignoring* jesus.

i knew you weren't too bright. i didn't think your density approached that of a black hole, though.

 

[maineman]

I happen to agree with you, maineman. But many Christians do not share that view. It's a good example of how even Christians disagree among themselves over how best to exercise their faith, let alone the members of minority religions. To some, participating in public prayer of this sort would even be considered sinful.

So tell me, how is mandatory government prayer that forces a child to do something he or she would consider sinful respecting that child's right to exercise? Going back to first principles, isn't that the whole problem with Establishment in the first place? Government using its power to force individuals to say, do, or observe practices that counter their own personal beliefs?

Christians who think that they can ignore the words in red are kidding themselves. Jesus said, "whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret". He didn't qualify that in any way. Prayer is meant to be a private and personal communication.

Yes yes, Jesus wanted us to hide our Christianity.

You're no Christian.

please don't insult me and show your own stupidity. Jesus wanted us to display our faith and our works for all the world to see. He wanted us to spread the good news of his resurrection all over the world. However, he wanted the act of PRAYER to be a solitary, personal and private event.

 

[ConHog]

In which situation? The teacher led prayer scenario? Yes. Because it is government forcing a religious point of view on a captive minor child. The harm is implied, to both student and parent.

In the coach situation? It depends on the facts. Which is why it's more of a gray area. For example, is the child played less than others (or not at all) because of his or her refusal to participate in this prayer? Is participation a requirement to be part of the team at all? Is the coach instigating or allowing the student to be ridiculed, harassed or hazed for not participating? How old are the students? Is this prayer something the coach does in an official capacity and requires the entire team to be present even if it is against their beliefs, or a private thing he does and students are allowed to attend or not attend at their choosing? It gets trickier.

The rules for minors are different from those for adults, since there are additional factors at play. So context matters - quite a bit.

You're being ridiculous. If a person is quiet and respectful during a prayer then no one else need know whether they prayed or not. Or are you suggesting that those who don't wish to participate have a right to disrupt those who wish to?

It's not ridiculous at all when you look at what's being protected, and why. Also at the age and impressionable nature of most children who form that captive audience in the public school system. My six year olds aren't exactly capable of sitting there quietly and not absorbing what is being said - which may well be a direct conflict with what I, as their parent, teach them at home and in my chosen place of worship. That is government forcing religious teachings on my children against my will and in a situation where I have no recourse.

What I'd like to know is why I, a liberal, am arguing for less government control over parents' and individual rights and you, a conservative, are arguing for more? What principle is at stake here for you that the usual conservative belief in less government power over the individual is superseded in the case of organized prayer?

That isn't the case at all. You are arguing about YOUR alleged rights, and I am saying what about everyone elses. You don't have a right to freedom to not see other people being religious. It's not a right. Neither do you have the right to tell me I can't pray in front of your kids. I however DO have a right to my religion.

The government is obligated not to interfere with religion either way, that means that in this case they MUST err on the side of protecting an actual right. Namely my right to practice my religion, and yes that means a witch doctor or gasp even a Muslim has the same rights as me.

 

[Annie]

You're being ridiculous. If a person is quiet and respectful during a prayer then no one else need know whether they prayed or not. Or are you suggesting that those who don't wish to participate have a right to disrupt those who wish to?

It's not ridiculous at all when you look at what's being protected, and why. Also at the age and impressionable nature of most children who form that captive audience in the public school system. My six year olds aren't exactly capable of sitting there quietly and not absorbing what is being said - which may well be a direct conflict with what I, as their parent, teach them at home and in my chosen place of worship. That is government forcing religious teachings on my children against my will and in a situation where I have no recourse.

What I'd like to know is why I, a liberal, am arguing for less government control over parents' and individual rights and you, a conservative, are arguing for more? What principle is at stake here for you that the usual conservative belief in less government power over the individual is superseded in the case of organized prayer?

That isn't the case at all. You are arguing about YOUR alleged rights, and I am saying what about everyone elses. You don't have a right to freedom to not see other people being religious. It's not a right. Neither do you have the right to tell me I can't pray in front of your kids. I however DO have a right to my religion.

The government is obligated not to interfere with religion either way, that means that in this case they MUST err on the side of protecting an actual right. Namely my right to practice my religion, and yes that means a witch doctor or gasp even a Muslim has the same rights as me.

Hmmm, seems to me that you have a point, IF you are not a public school teacher or coach for that matter. I agree with you about the state not having the right to interfere with your right to pray, but not in leading my children in your beliefs. What if Rev. Wright volunteered to coach? I KNOW I'd not want my kids exposed to his beliefs. Same with David Duke.

At the same time,either or both of them might well be kick-ass teachers or coaches. However, I do want some parameters on what they might expose my kids to.

 

[goldcatt]

You're being ridiculous. If a person is quiet and respectful during a prayer then no one else need know whether they prayed or not. Or are you suggesting that those who don't wish to participate have a right to disrupt those who wish to?

It's not ridiculous at all when you look at what's being protected, and why. Also at the age and impressionable nature of most children who form that captive audience in the public school system. My six year olds aren't exactly capable of sitting there quietly and not absorbing what is being said - which may well be a direct conflict with what I, as their parent, teach them at home and in my chosen place of worship. That is government forcing religious teachings on my children against my will and in a situation where I have no recourse.

What I'd like to know is why I, a liberal, am arguing for less government control over parents' and individual rights and you, a conservative, are arguing for more? What principle is at stake here for you that the usual conservative belief in less government power over the individual is superseded in the case of organized prayer?

That isn't the case at all. You are arguing about YOUR alleged rights, and I am saying what about everyone elses. You don't have a right to freedom to not see other people being religious. It's not a right. Neither do you have the right to tell me I can't pray in front of your kids. I however DO have a right to my religion.

The government is obligated not to interfere with religion either way, that means that in this case they MUST err on the side of protecting an actual right. Namely my right to practice my religion, and yes that means a witch doctor or gasp even a Muslim has the same rights as me.

What you are arguing for is the right of a government agent, a public school teacher, to basically also teach the children in his or her classroom how to pray. What I am arguing for is the right of every individual parent to choose how their own children will be taught to pray with no government interference of any type.

Students in school can pray individually at any time they see fit, so long as they are not disrupting other students. How does the teacher telling them what to pray at a certain specified time advance the free exercise of religion or the right of parents to school their children in religious matter as they see fit?

Again, I would see no problem with a moment of silence (I saw that District Court case, I disagree - and SCOTUS has signalled in dicta in the past that they would probably disagree as well. Time will tell). What I have a problem with is any situation where a government agent as authority figure is telling captive children what, when and how to pray. That's way too much government control to be acceptable under the test of either parental rights or exercise. And frankly, I wouldn't think the schools would want the potential liability either. It's a lose-lose.

 

[ConHog]

It's not ridiculous at all when you look at what's being protected, and why. Also at the age and impressionable nature of most children who form that captive audience in the public school system. My six year olds aren't exactly capable of sitting there quietly and not absorbing what is being said - which may well be a direct conflict with what I, as their parent, teach them at home and in my chosen place of worship. That is government forcing religious teachings on my children against my will and in a situation where I have no recourse.

What I'd like to know is why I, a liberal, am arguing for less government control over parents' and individual rights and you, a conservative, are arguing for more? What principle is at stake here for you that the usual conservative belief in less government power over the individual is superseded in the case of organized prayer?

That isn't the case at all. You are arguing about YOUR alleged rights, and I am saying what about everyone elses. You don't have a right to freedom to not see other people being religious. It's not a right. Neither do you have the right to tell me I can't pray in front of your kids. I however DO have a right to my religion.

The government is obligated not to interfere with religion either way, that means that in this case they MUST err on the side of protecting an actual right. Namely my right to practice my religion, and yes that means a witch doctor or gasp even a Muslim has the same rights as me.

What you are arguing for is the right of a government agent, a public school teacher, to basically also teach the children in his or her classroom how to pray. What I am arguing for is the right of every individual parent to choose how their own children will be taught to pray with no government interference of any type.

Students in school can pray individually at any time they see fit, so long as they are not disrupting other students. How does the teacher telling them what to pray at a certain specified time advance the free exercise of religion or the right of parents to school their children in religious matter as they see fit?

Again, I would see no problem with a moment of silence (I saw that District Court case, I disagree - and SCOTUS has signalled in dicta in the past that they would probably disagree as well. Time will tell). What I have a problem with is any situation where a government agent as authority figure is telling captive children what, when and how to pray. That's way too much government control to be acceptable under the test of either parental rights or exercise. And frankly, I wouldn't think the schools would want the potential liability either. It's a lose-lose.

Please list EVERY case you are aware of of a teacher trying to teach kids how to pray in a public school setting.

Like I said , the OVERWHELMING number of these cases are initiiated over someone who is mad because the school has a CHristian club that people can either participate in or not.

As I also said, last school year we had a guy complain to our board and threaten to sue because he saw a Bible sitting on the seat of a teacher's car in the faculty parking lot.

This isn't about "you're forcing my child to be a Christian" it's about "You god damned Christians need to shut up and keep that shit in your houses" and we don't have to. the first applies to us to as much as you hate to admit it.

 

[konradv]

That isn't the case at all. You are arguing about YOUR alleged rights, and I am saying what about everyone elses. You don't have a right to freedom to not see other people being religious. It's not a right. Neither do you have the right to tell me I can't pray in front of your kids. I however DO have a right to my religion.

The government is obligated not to interfere with religion either way, that means that in this case they MUST err on the side of protecting an actual right. Namely my right to practice my religion, and yes that means a witch doctor or gasp even a Muslim has the same rights as me.

What you are arguing for is the right of a government agent, a public school teacher, to basically also teach the children in his or her classroom how to pray. What I am arguing for is the right of every individual parent to choose how their own children will be taught to pray with no government interference of any type.

Students in school can pray individually at any time they see fit, so long as they are not disrupting other students. How does the teacher telling them what to pray at a certain specified time advance the free exercise of religion or the right of parents to school their children in religious matter as they see fit?

Again, I would see no problem with a moment of silence (I saw that District Court case, I disagree - and SCOTUS has signalled in dicta in the past that they would probably disagree as well. Time will tell). What I have a problem with is any situation where a government agent as authority figure is telling captive children what, when and how to pray. That's way too much government control to be acceptable under the test of either parental rights or exercise. And frankly, I wouldn't think the schools would want the potential liability either. It's a lose-lose.

Please list EVERY case you are aware of of a teacher trying to teach kids how to pray in a public school setting.

Like I said , the OVERWHELMING number of these cases are initiiated over someone who is mad because the school has a CHristian club that people can either participate in or not.

As I also said, last school year we had a guy complain to our board and threaten to sue because he saw a Bible sitting on the seat of a teacher's car in the faculty parking lot.

This isn't about "you're forcing my child to be a Christian" it's about "You god damned Christians need to shut up and keep that shit in your houses" and we don't have to. the first applies to us to as much as you hate to admit it.

Not impressed with your anecdotes. How about you presenting some evience?

 

[bodecea]

What you are arguing for is the right of a government agent, a public school teacher, to basically also teach the children in his or her classroom how to pray. What I am arguing for is the right of every individual parent to choose how their own children will be taught to pray with no government interference of any type.

Students in school can pray individually at any time they see fit, so long as they are not disrupting other students. How does the teacher telling them what to pray at a certain specified time advance the free exercise of religion or the right of parents to school their children in religious matter as they see fit?

Again, I would see no problem with a moment of silence (I saw that District Court case, I disagree - and SCOTUS has signalled in dicta in the past that they would probably disagree as well. Time will tell). What I have a problem with is any situation where a government agent as authority figure is telling captive children what, when and how to pray. That's way too much government control to be acceptable under the test of either parental rights or exercise. And frankly, I wouldn't think the schools would want the potential liability either. It's a lose-lose.

Please list EVERY case you are aware of of a teacher trying to teach kids how to pray in a public school setting.

Like I said , the OVERWHELMING number of these cases are initiiated over someone who is mad because the school has a CHristian club that people can either participate in or not.

As I also said, last school year we had a guy complain to our board and threaten to sue because he saw a Bible sitting on the seat of a teacher's car in the faculty parking lot.

This isn't about "you're forcing my child to be a Christian" it's about "You god damned Christians need to shut up and keep that shit in your houses" and we don't have to. the first applies to us to as much as you hate to admit it.

Not impressed with your anecdotes. How about you presenting some evience?

I'd like to see that evidence too.

 

[goldcatt]

That isn't the case at all. You are arguing about YOUR alleged rights, and I am saying what about everyone elses. You don't have a right to freedom to not see other people being religious. It's not a right. Neither do you have the right to tell me I can't pray in front of your kids. I however DO have a right to my religion.

The government is obligated not to interfere with religion either way, that means that in this case they MUST err on the side of protecting an actual right. Namely my right to practice my religion, and yes that means a witch doctor or gasp even a Muslim has the same rights as me.

What you are arguing for is the right of a government agent, a public school teacher, to basically also teach the children in his or her classroom how to pray. What I am arguing for is the right of every individual parent to choose how their own children will be taught to pray with no government interference of any type.

Students in school can pray individually at any time they see fit, so long as they are not disrupting other students. How does the teacher telling them what to pray at a certain specified time advance the free exercise of religion or the right of parents to school their children in religious matter as they see fit?

Again, I would see no problem with a moment of silence (I saw that District Court case, I disagree - and SCOTUS has signalled in dicta in the past that they would probably disagree as well. Time will tell). What I have a problem with is any situation where a government agent as authority figure is telling captive children what, when and how to pray. That's way too much government control to be acceptable under the test of either parental rights or exercise. And frankly, I wouldn't think the schools would want the potential liability either. It's a lose-lose.

Please list EVERY case you are aware of of a teacher trying to teach kids how to pray in a public school setting.

Like I said , the OVERWHELMING number of these cases are initiiated over someone who is mad because the school has a CHristian club that people can either participate in or not.

As I also said, last school year we had a guy complain to our board and threaten to sue because he saw a Bible sitting on the seat of a teacher's car in the faculty parking lot.

This isn't about "you're forcing my child to be a Christian" it's about "You god damned Christians need to shut up and keep that shit in your houses" and we don't have to. the first applies to us to as much as you hate to admit it.

If you are arguing in support of teacher led prayer, then the principles involved apply whether there have been a flood of recent cases or not. It is not acceptable and was ruled unconstitutional for a reason, actually several reasons, and those reasons are valid whether a teacher or school district is dumb enough to violate the rulings or not.

Or is a law less valid to you simply because it is not often broken?

Yes, there are cases that are pretty much idiocy. I haven't seen any person in this thread try to claim a glimpse of a Bible in a teacher's private property should be considered Establishment. That's absurd. But when you argue for teacher-led prayer in the public schools what you are arguing, whether you want to couch it in those terms or not, is the right of one point of view to dictate to all others whether, when, what and how to pray using the public schools as a vehicle.

Or maybe the teacher isn't a Christian at all. Or maybe he or she is Catholic and you are Protestant, or vice versa. Maybe he or she is Fundamentalist and you are Episcopalian. Or Mormon. Or Quaker. Or Church of Christ. See the dilemma here? Even the majority will not hold, and the students who disagree with the prayers from that particular teacher will have their own right of free exercise without government interference removed as they are forced by the power of the State to sit through, participate in and absorb prayer from a government authority figure that is contrary to their own beliefs. That element of force is one of the basic elements in any definition of Establishment - and exactly why the Establishment clause exists.

Beyond that it gets more gray as you get into areas where the issues of force and agency aren't as clear cut, but you (hopefully) see the problem here. And that doesn't get to any of the other problems, just the nature of exercise vs. establishment.

 

[ConHog]

Please list EVERY case you are aware of of a teacher trying to teach kids how to pray in a public school setting.

Like I said , the OVERWHELMING number of these cases are initiiated over someone who is mad because the school has a CHristian club that people can either participate in or not.

As I also said, last school year we had a guy complain to our board and threaten to sue because he saw a Bible sitting on the seat of a teacher's car in the faculty parking lot.

This isn't about "you're forcing my child to be a Christian" it's about "You god damned Christians need to shut up and keep that shit in your houses" and we don't have to. the first applies to us to as much as you hate to admit it.

Not impressed with your anecdotes. How about you presenting some evience?

I'd like to see that evidence too.

Evidence of what? I asked for a link to every case you have heard of where a teacher tried to force a child to pray.

There is no link to the guy who threatened to sue over the Bible, he was told to fuck off and go ahead and sue. Apparently he couldn't find a lawyer dumb enough to take the case b/c there was never any suit filed.

Here you go, as just one example

The STUDENTS voted to have a prayer and one student decided to sue... That's disgraceful

No 2 Religion - Just Say No!: Indiana High School Sued Over Graduation Prayer

Here's another, where a school was sued because they allowed religious get together

Fla. School District Sued over Prayer Constraint | Christianpost.com


You people need to read the COTUS. You have NO right to tell me I can't practice my faith, even on public land, even if I'm a government employee.

 

[ConHog]

What you are arguing for is the right of a government agent, a public school teacher, to basically also teach the children in his or her classroom how to pray. What I am arguing for is the right of every individual parent to choose how their own children will be taught to pray with no government interference of any type.

Students in school can pray individually at any time they see fit, so long as they are not disrupting other students. How does the teacher telling them what to pray at a certain specified time advance the free exercise of religion or the right of parents to school their children in religious matter as they see fit?

Again, I would see no problem with a moment of silence (I saw that District Court case, I disagree - and SCOTUS has signalled in dicta in the past that they would probably disagree as well. Time will tell). What I have a problem with is any situation where a government agent as authority figure is telling captive children what, when and how to pray. That's way too much government control to be acceptable under the test of either parental rights or exercise. And frankly, I wouldn't think the schools would want the potential liability either. It's a lose-lose.

Please list EVERY case you are aware of of a teacher trying to teach kids how to pray in a public school setting.

Like I said , the OVERWHELMING number of these cases are initiiated over someone who is mad because the school has a CHristian club that people can either participate in or not.

As I also said, last school year we had a guy complain to our board and threaten to sue because he saw a Bible sitting on the seat of a teacher's car in the faculty parking lot.

This isn't about "you're forcing my child to be a Christian" it's about "You god damned Christians need to shut up and keep that shit in your houses" and we don't have to. the first applies to us to as much as you hate to admit it.

If you are arguing in support of teacher led prayer, then the principles involved apply whether there have been a flood of recent cases or not. It is not acceptable and was ruled unconstitutional for a reason, actually several reasons, and those reasons are valid whether a teacher or school district is dumb enough to violate the rulings or not.

Or is a law less valid to you simply because it is not often broken?

Yes, there are cases that are pretty much idiocy. I haven't seen any person in this thread try to claim a glimpse of a Bible in a teacher's private property should be considered Establishment. That's absurd. But when you argue for teacher-led prayer in the public schools what you are arguing, whether you want to couch it in those terms or not, is the right of one point of view to dictate to all others whether, when, what and how to pray using the public schools as a vehicle.

Or maybe the teacher isn't a Christian at all. Or maybe he or she is Catholic and you are Protestant, or vice versa. Maybe he or she is Fundamentalist and you are Episcopalian. Or Mormon. Or Quaker. Or Church of Christ. See the dilemma here? Even the majority will not hold, and the students who disagree with the prayers from that particular teacher will have their own right of free exercise without government interference removed as they are forced by the power of the State to sit through, participate in and absorb prayer from a government authority figure that is contrary to their own beliefs. That element of force is one of the basic elements in any definition of Establishment - and exactly why the Establishment clause exists.

Beyond that it gets more gray as you get into areas where the issues of force and agency aren't as clear cut, but you (hopefully) see the problem here. And that doesn't get to any of the other problems, just the nature of exercise vs. establishment.

I'm flat saying, unless you can provide a link , I don't believe that any teacher has been stupid enough to try to lead his/her own class in a prayer unless that class was a voluntary religious course. So to make the argument that those are the types of cases that yall are trying to prevent, well that just reeks of dishonesty, especially given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

And yes, we have been advised by our attorney that we should not allow our teachers to carry their Bibles or wear religious wear on school property, even if that is just at a Friday night ball game. I REFUSE to bow to that kind of pressure.

 

[goldcatt]

Please list EVERY case you are aware of of a teacher trying to teach kids how to pray in a public school setting.

Like I said , the OVERWHELMING number of these cases are initiiated over someone who is mad because the school has a CHristian club that people can either participate in or not.

As I also said, last school year we had a guy complain to our board and threaten to sue because he saw a Bible sitting on the seat of a teacher's car in the faculty parking lot.

This isn't about "you're forcing my child to be a Christian" it's about "You god damned Christians need to shut up and keep that shit in your houses" and we don't have to. the first applies to us to as much as you hate to admit it.

If you are arguing in support of teacher led prayer, then the principles involved apply whether there have been a flood of recent cases or not. It is not acceptable and was ruled unconstitutional for a reason, actually several reasons, and those reasons are valid whether a teacher or school district is dumb enough to violate the rulings or not.

Or is a law less valid to you simply because it is not often broken?

Yes, there are cases that are pretty much idiocy. I haven't seen any person in this thread try to claim a glimpse of a Bible in a teacher's private property should be considered Establishment. That's absurd. But when you argue for teacher-led prayer in the public schools what you are arguing, whether you want to couch it in those terms or not, is the right of one point of view to dictate to all others whether, when, what and how to pray using the public schools as a vehicle.

Or maybe the teacher isn't a Christian at all. Or maybe he or she is Catholic and you are Protestant, or vice versa. Maybe he or she is Fundamentalist and you are Episcopalian. Or Mormon. Or Quaker. Or Church of Christ. See the dilemma here? Even the majority will not hold, and the students who disagree with the prayers from that particular teacher will have their own right of free exercise without government interference removed as they are forced by the power of the State to sit through, participate in and absorb prayer from a government authority figure that is contrary to their own beliefs. That element of force is one of the basic elements in any definition of Establishment - and exactly why the Establishment clause exists.

Beyond that it gets more gray as you get into areas where the issues of force and agency aren't as clear cut, but you (hopefully) see the problem here. And that doesn't get to any of the other problems, just the nature of exercise vs. establishment.

I'm flat saying, unless you can provide a link , I don't believe that any teacher has been stupid enough to try to lead his/her own class in a prayer unless that class was a voluntary religious course. So to make the argument that those are the types of cases that yall are trying to prevent, well that just reeks of dishonesty, especially given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

And yes, we have been advised by our attorney that we should not allow our teachers to carry their Bibles or wear religious wear on school property, even if that is just at a Friday night ball game. I REFUSE to bow to that kind of pressure.

You're missing the entire point here.

I'm not even going down that road of specific cases and individual idiots and arguing what somebody supposedly told you under some circumstances in some place and time when we have no idea what if anything was actually said, when or why. Issues of credibility aside you're getting bogged down in the trees and ignoring the forest.

 

[ConHog]

If you are arguing in support of teacher led prayer, then the principles involved apply whether there have been a flood of recent cases or not. It is not acceptable and was ruled unconstitutional for a reason, actually several reasons, and those reasons are valid whether a teacher or school district is dumb enough to violate the rulings or not.

Or is a law less valid to you simply because it is not often broken?

Yes, there are cases that are pretty much idiocy. I haven't seen any person in this thread try to claim a glimpse of a Bible in a teacher's private property should be considered Establishment. That's absurd. But when you argue for teacher-led prayer in the public schools what you are arguing, whether you want to couch it in those terms or not, is the right of one point of view to dictate to all others whether, when, what and how to pray using the public schools as a vehicle.

Or maybe the teacher isn't a Christian at all. Or maybe he or she is Catholic and you are Protestant, or vice versa. Maybe he or she is Fundamentalist and you are Episcopalian. Or Mormon. Or Quaker. Or Church of Christ. See the dilemma here? Even the majority will not hold, and the students who disagree with the prayers from that particular teacher will have their own right of free exercise without government interference removed as they are forced by the power of the State to sit through, participate in and absorb prayer from a government authority figure that is contrary to their own beliefs. That element of force is one of the basic elements in any definition of Establishment - and exactly why the Establishment clause exists.

Beyond that it gets more gray as you get into areas where the issues of force and agency aren't as clear cut, but you (hopefully) see the problem here. And that doesn't get to any of the other problems, just the nature of exercise vs. establishment.

I'm flat saying, unless you can provide a link , I don't believe that any teacher has been stupid enough to try to lead his/her own class in a prayer unless that class was a voluntary religious course. So to make the argument that those are the types of cases that yall are trying to prevent, well that just reeks of dishonesty, especially given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

And yes, we have been advised by our attorney that we should not allow our teachers to carry their Bibles or wear religious wear on school property, even if that is just at a Friday night ball game. I REFUSE to bow to that kind of pressure.

You're missing the entire point here.

I'm not even going down that road of specific cases and individual idiots and arguing what somebody supposedly told you under some circumstances in some place and time when we have no idea what if anything was actually said, when or why. Issues of credibility aside you're getting bogged down in the trees and ignoring the forest.

More like you have no trees, but you want me to see a forest there anyway. This is a non issue. no teachers are forcing kids to pray, PERIOD.

 

[goldcatt]

I'm flat saying, unless you can provide a link , I don't believe that any teacher has been stupid enough to try to lead his/her own class in a prayer unless that class was a voluntary religious course. So to make the argument that those are the types of cases that yall are trying to prevent, well that just reeks of dishonesty, especially given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

And yes, we have been advised by our attorney that we should not allow our teachers to carry their Bibles or wear religious wear on school property, even if that is just at a Friday night ball game. I REFUSE to bow to that kind of pressure.

You're missing the entire point here.

I'm not even going down that road of specific cases and individual idiots and arguing what somebody supposedly told you under some circumstances in some place and time when we have no idea what if anything was actually said, when or why. Issues of credibility aside you're getting bogged down in the trees and ignoring the forest.

More like you have no trees, but you want me to see a forest there anyway. This is a non issue. no teachers are forcing kids to pray, PERIOD.

Nobody said they were.

What everybody else was arguing is why they cannot and should not, or whether they should be able to and why. You know, not individual isolated incidents or personal anecdotes with no backing - actual ideas and principles. If anybody else wants to argue over your tale they can, I'm not. I'm not interested in what somebody may or may not have said to you anecdotally and when, where, how or why.

If you can't argue ideas that's fine, just say so.

 

[ConHog]

You're missing the entire point here.

I'm not even going down that road of specific cases and individual idiots and arguing what somebody supposedly told you under some circumstances in some place and time when we have no idea what if anything was actually said, when or why. Issues of credibility aside you're getting bogged down in the trees and ignoring the forest.

More like you have no trees, but you want me to see a forest there anyway. This is a non issue. no teachers are forcing kids to pray, PERIOD.

Nobody said they were.

What everybody else was arguing is why they cannot and should not, or whether they should be able to and why. You know, not individual isolated incidents or personal anecdotes with no backing - actual ideas and principles. If anybody else wants to argue over your tale they can, I'm not. I'm not interested in what somebody may or may not have said to you anecdotally and when, where, how or why.

If you can't argue ideas that's fine, just say so.

LOL whatever, every time this debate comes up yall try to frame it like like the evil bogeyman Christian is out there FORCING your child to pray. There is no reason to discuss the idea because it's a fallacy, it will never happen. and I'm sick of seeing it,

 

[DiveCon]

Please list EVERY case you are aware of of a teacher trying to teach kids how to pray in a public school setting.

Like I said , the OVERWHELMING number of these cases are initiiated over someone who is mad because the school has a CHristian club that people can either participate in or not.

As I also said, last school year we had a guy complain to our board and threaten to sue because he saw a Bible sitting on the seat of a teacher's car in the faculty parking lot.

This isn't about "you're forcing my child to be a Christian" it's about "You god damned Christians need to shut up and keep that shit in your houses" and we don't have to. the first applies to us to as much as you hate to admit it.

Not impressed with your anecdotes. How about you presenting some evience?

I'd like to see that evidence too.

hmmm another example of "if it isnt on the internet, it didnt happen"