ACLU threatens, students still recite prayer

[Alcott]

Do you condemn the actions of Martin Luther King when he refused to obey civil authorities?

Personally, no I do not.

Do you judicially? intellectually? scripturally? normatively? morally? exceptionally? universally?

And scripture proscribes nothing-- in support of, or in prohibition of-- what goes on in public schools. Nor private schools either.

BINGO! We have a winner!!!

All that would appear to mean is arguing either side of this is equally valid scripturally.

 

[rbell]

I'm not sure why folks would have any trouble understanding this case.

This isn't about a school official endorsing a prayer, religion, etc. These guys wanted to ban any student from individually expressing his or her faith. This is so patently anti-first amendment, that one must engage in a year's worth of yoga just to contort one's self into making it about anything else.

 

[BigBossman]

If folks want prayer in school, go to a private school. The public ones belong to everyone, not just Christians.

That wasn't the case prior to 1962.

 

[Andy T.]

I'm not sure why folks would have any trouble understanding this case.

This isn't about a school official endorsing a prayer, religion, etc. These guys wanted to ban any student from individually expressing his or her faith. This is so patently anti-first amendment, that one must engage in a year's worth of yoga just to contort one's self into making it about anything else.

Agreed. Yet according to some, "we've come a long way" here in the U.S., and we have discarded such evil practices like slavery...and allowing kids to pray in school.

 

[BigBossman]

And, last time I checked, the First Amendment allows the students to express their faith.

Or is that wrong?

Students are permitted to lead prayer & other religious activities.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

That wasn't the case prior to 1962.

So Jews, atheists, etc. who paid taxes for schools didn't have a stake? Incorrect.

 

[Revmitchell]

No you didn't. You saw me making the case that just because something was done in the past, doesn't make it right.

It was right by the founding of this country and more importantly in the eyes of God. It was done because this country was founded on Christian Biblical principles.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

It was right by the founding of this country and more importantly in the eyes of God. It was done because this country was founded on Christian Biblical principles.

Then why is the Constitution a completely secular document. You'd think they would have included that.

Reconstructionism is a false premise.

And why are many Christians so upset if they cannot impose their prayers on everyone else. Jesus said that is all the reward they get. Rather it is better to go into your closet and pray so that your father in heaven hears.

 

[Revmitchell]

Then why is the Constitution a completely secular document. You'd think they would have included that.

You contradict yourself. Recently in another thread you made the case that other writings of the founders give insight as to their intent in the constitution. You mentioned Jefferson's letter to the Baptist church speaking of the wall of separation between the church and state. But you conveniently ignore other writings such as the declaration of independence which clearly mention God.

You also ignore their very obvious actions such as one of the very first actions of congress was to fund the printing of Bibles.

Reconstructionism is a false premise.

You would do wellto remember this.

And why are many Christians so upset if they cannot impose their prayers on everyone else.

This is a false accusation of any of them. No one wants to impose anything on anyone.

Jesus said that is all the reward they get. Rather it is better to go into your closet and pray so that your father in heaven hears.

Yet a false accusation as to the motives of Christians who hold to the founding of this country.

 

[daybreak]

If folks want prayer in school, go to a private school. The public ones belong to everyone, not just Christians.

If Congress can pray, why can't school children?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

If Congress can pray, why can't school children?

Who said they can't? Anyone may silently pray to whatever god they desire at any time. What is illegal is for the public school to give the appearance of endorsing any particular religion, or religion over no religion.

 

[windcatcher]

Who said they can't? Anyone may silently pray to whatever god they desire at any time. What is illegal is for the public school to give the appearance of endorsing any particular religion, or religion over no religion.

How does one or several children choosing to pray become representative of a school endorsement of religion?

 

[rbell]

How does one or several children choosing to pray become representative of a school endorsement of religion?

Bingo...we have a winner.

There was no endorsement by the government. The kids had a right...given by God, and recognized by the First Amendment...to engage in this speech if they so choose. And yes...that does mean that there are However, that's not enough for some segments of our society (the ACLU is full of this type): they want the absence of religious expression.

If one cannot see the (obvious) distinction here between kids acting out of their own convictions vs. an official school endorsement, then there's not much we can do.

 

[BigBossman]

So Jews, atheists, etc. who paid taxes for schools didn't have a stake? Incorrect.

No one complained about it until 1962. Correct. Why did it go on for so long if it wasn't working? When it was first established, why didn't the Jews, Athiests, Muslims, Hindus, & Bhuddists complain about it? Prayer in our schools was nothing new in 1962. This had been going on since our country was founded. Needless to say our country was founded upon Christian principles, therefore, it would only make sense for there to be prayer in our public schools.

Quite frankly, I don't think it was a Jew that was complaining about prayer. I would almost be willing to bet everything that I had that it was an anthiest. Athiests aren't happy until everyone is miserbale, because they have nothing to live for. They have nothing to look forward to when they die (or so they believe).

 

[daybreak]

Bingo...we have a winner.

There was no endorsement by the government. The kids had a right...given by God, and recognized by the First Amendment...to engage in this speech if they so choose. And yes...that does mean that there are However, that's not enough for some segments of our society (the ACLU is full of this type): they want the absence of religious expression.

If one cannot see the (obvious) distinction here between kids acting out of their own convictions vs. an official school endorsement, then there's not much we can do.

I second your bingo!

The ACLU doesn't stand for LIBERTY, it stands for Anti-Christian.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I second your bingo!

The ACLU doesn't stand for LIBERTY, it stands for Anti-Christian.

Here we go with another one of these guys.


A little research would show you all the cases where the ACLU defended the rights of Christians.

 

[tinytim]

Who said they can't? Anyone may silently pray to whatever god they desire at any time. What is illegal is for the public school to give the appearance of endorsing any particular religion, or religion over no religion.

Wrong....

Nothing in the constitution about "appearance"...

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Wrong....

Nothing in the constitution about "appearance"...

Wrong...check court cases that ruled on intent.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I love it when people shout "WRONG" while they themselves are mistaken. :laugh:

Tim, for example from HERE:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]In general, the Court has demonstrated a willingness to strike down any practices that might be likely to be perceived either as coercive or as a state endorsement of religion. That trend continued with the [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Court's Santa Fe v Doe decision in 2000, which considered the policy of a Texas school district that allowed students to elect students to speak briefly over the PA system before high school football games. Traditionally, the speeches were religious in character--the policy stated that the speeches should solemnize the event and be nonsectarian in nature. The Court found the Santa Fe school policy to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court reasoned that the speeches were at a school-sponsored event, using school facilities, and would be taken by most observers as a school endorsement of the student prayers that were likely to be delivered. The election process ensured, the Court thought, that the religious messages would reflect the religious views of the majority of Students, who in the case were generally Fundamentalist Christians. The three dissenters argued that the school policy was neutral on its face and not a constitutional violation. Nothing in the school policy, the dissenters said, even required that the message be religious in nature.[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[windcatcher]

I love it when people shout "WRONG" while they themselves are mistaken. :laugh:

Tim, for example from HERE:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]In general, the Court has demonstrated a willingness to strike down any practices that might be likely to be perceived either as coercive or as a state endorsement of religion. That trend continued with the [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Court's Santa Fe v Doe decision in 2000, which considered the policy of a Texas school district that allowed students to elect students to speak briefly over the PA system before high school football games. Traditionally, the speeches were religious in character--the policy stated that the speeches should solemnize the event and be nonsectarian in nature. The Court found the Santa Fe school policy to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court reasoned that the speeches were at a school-sponsored event, using school facilities, and would be taken by most observers as a school endorsement of the student prayers that were likely to be delivered. The election process ensured, the Court thought, that the religious messages would reflect the religious views of the majority of Students, who in the case were generally Fundamentalist Christians. The three dissenters argued that the school policy was neutral on its face and not a constitutional violation. Nothing in the school policy, the dissenters said, even required that the message be religious in nature.[/SIZE][/FONT]

You still have not presented an adequate answer to the question.

From this statement of yours...... On what basis can it be presumed that these students' choice to recite the Lord's prayer was the result of coercsion by the state? The state of Florida did nothing to coerc the students behavior. The recent suit by the ACLU, did nothing to coerc the behavior of these students: If you wish to count as provocation of the students in response to the recent court battles in my county with the ACLU.....then it appears to me...... the students gave their own answer to the ACLU's attempts to make the state an agent of restricting their free rights of religious and free speech rights.