ACLU threatens, students still recite prayer

[rbell]

First of all, the "appearance" argument is indeed problematic and unconstitutional (yes, I'm aware it was a ruling). I view this one like the "health of the mother" clause used in the abortion arguments. The problem is, it can be so widely defined so as to prohibit all religious expression. It's a glorified, "it might look bad" or, "someone might get offended" argument. And since we're talking about large numbers of people, with a statistically significant representation of:

• people that are angry all the time, for no good reason;
• people who strongly feel there is no place, ever, for religious expression, at all;
• people who have "chronically offended" syndrome,

as well as others.

Now, back to the case: It simply cannot be argued that this was an "endorsement" or even that it appeared as such. The gist of the 2000 ruling...a student spoke over the intercom, and committed the horrible crime of speaking of God. Graduation is nowhere near the same thing. In that venue, it is expected and planned that kids will have something to say. Furthermore, it is up to the kids to speak at a graduation. There is simply no "appearance" issue. (not that the argument is any good, anyway)

There really is no other answer here: These students had their first amendment rights trampled on with impunity by school officials. I hope they receive a formal apology.

Random thought: I bet every one of those genius school officials have attended a "diversity workshop" or the like. Sounds like it didn't take. Not that I'm surprised.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Court rulings have the force of law, regardless of who disagrees. That is our system.

But back to the questions everyone ignores...
1. Why do some Christians feel they have to push their personal prayers on others.
2. Why do Jesus words about not praying in public get ignored?

 

[Revmitchell]

Court rulings have the force of law, regardless of who disagrees. That is our system.

But back to the questions everyone ignores...
1. Why do some Christians feel they have to push their personal prayers on others.
2. Why do Jesus words about not praying in public get ignored?

You do err because you do not know your Bible. Jesus, no where in scripture,says not to pray in public. And no one is pushing their prayers on others.

 

[rbell]

Court rulings have the force of law, regardless of who disagrees. That is our system.

But back to the questions everyone ignores...
1. Why do some Christians feel they have to push their personal prayers on others.
2. Why do Jesus words about not praying in public get ignored?

1. I have a young girl who found out at school that a classmate had lost his mother to cancer an hour earlier. She gatherd a group together and led them in prayer. Is that "pushing?" Why the problem with Christians praying? Is it your job to judge their motives? Is talking to God not allowed in a public setting? And did our Constitution not recognize our right to do so?

2. Why do you ignore that Jesus Himself prayed in public?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

1. I have a young girl who found out at school that a classmate had lost his mother to cancer an hour earlier. She gatherd a group together and led them in prayer. Is that "pushing?" Why the problem with Christians praying? Is it your job to judge their motives? Is talking to God not allowed in a public setting? And did our Constitution not recognize our right to do so?

2. Why do you ignore that Jesus Himself prayed in public?

1. That is not the situation we are talking about, and you know it. The Constitutional rights in the First Amendment are not absolute. You cannot threaten to murder the president. And free exercise is limited by the establishment clause.
2. Don't answer a question with a question. I asked first.

 

[rbell]

1. That is not the situation we are talking about, and you know it. The Constitutional rights in the First Amendment are not absolute. You cannot threaten to murder the president. And free exercise is limited by the establishment clause.
2. Don't answer a question with a question. I asked first.

1. Just by saying "rights aren't absolute" doesn't give one the option of trampling one's constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion & speech.

I'll say it...again...there was no official endorsement. These were students, acting on their own. Why is that so difficult to understand???

2. I'm sorry my "answering a question with a question" bothered you. But it's valid. To try and make "Jesus' words about praying in public" into "you can never pray in public" is a misuse (or at least mis-interpretation) of Scripture. My easiest defense of such? Jesus Himself prayed publicly. 'Nuff said. The key: He didn't (and we shouldn't) pray to be heard by men. And that is a matter of the heart for God to judge, not us.

 

[Alcott]

Why do you ignore that Jesus Himself prayed in public?

Don't answer a question with a question. I asked first.

Translation: "Don't show me out with a counterexample of the One who would know absolutely."