Florida Principal, Athletic Director Could Go to Jail for Prayer Before Lunch

[windcatcher]

I suspect you would not give the same consideration to a Muslim teacher leading students in prayer at lunch. But this isn't a case of a teacher simply praying before a meal at lunch. If you read all the realted stories regarding this incident, it's a matter of numerous school staff actively displaying their religion in an excessively boastful manner. Scripturally, those folks are akin to pharisees. Legally, they very likely violated Amendment I of the Constitution. It's Christians like these that make it more difficult for the rest of us to engage in genuine faith, and we should be admonishing them righteously, not just defenging them blindly.

I see you know so much from where you live.

Frank Lay was in my HS graduating class. The luncheon which they attended (he and Freeman) was an adult meeting. This happened here just 10 miles from where I live.

But I suppose you know more than I do.

Also...... you think you read minds?
Spooky!
That's what you're saying about me....... but you are wrong..... I will defend the rights of others to exercise their liberty as I would expect others to defend my own rights. I'm also adult enough to let someone know, face to face, if I disagree... and if it is important enough to make an issue and let them know..... or be adult, quiet, and forgive. I also have the decency to know that there are some regional differences and customs, more ingrained in the community and culture.... which aren't mine to change .... unless there is something inherently evil and sninster and in need of change.

We need real Christians.... willing to stand and be counted..... and to know the difference between honoring God and honoring man. Our youth are loosing their lives to disease, drugs, war, and violence.... having already had what little faith that home and church tried to introduce destroyed by theories of evolution, humanism, and relative morality replacing the God given code of absolute laws. Is there no one to set the example? If some of them have questions about life and death, sin and forgiveness..... is it loving, kind, and fair to possess the truth but to refuse to respond with the water of life? But..... alas.... within the Christian community are as many cowards and compromisers, and whimps... and men with lace on their panties.... and girls ruling in pants.... that it is rare to find someone with a clear enough identity to be targeted as a Christian.

This man is just and if there is a thread of brotherhood to any responding on this board... it should be to pray for him in this situation..... and to recognize that those who are against him are coming against Jesus Christ in him..... and pray for them, even as Jesus said we were to do..... to pray for those who persecute us. (After all..... they are in need of God's love and forgiveness... and they have many of the same weaknesses and needs that is common to our human experience.)

 

[Johnv]

Frank Lay was in my HS graduating class. The luncheon which they attended (he and Freeman) was an adult meeting. This happened here just 10 miles from where I live.

My information was strictly based on what was in the links to the story. The story doesn't give details. The stories do, however, say that the school district entered into a settlement agreement, resulting from a suit that involved claims of school personnel not respecting boundaries consistent with Amendment I. Whether intentional or not, Frank Lay's actions violated that settlement agreement.

I will defend the rights of others to exercise their liberty as I would expect others to defend my own rights.

Then I gotta give you credit for consistency, and in that realm, I concur with you. There is, however, no shortage of people here who are inconsistent on the topic of religious protections and Amendment I.

We need real Christians.... willing to stand and be counted..... and to know the difference between honoring God and honoring man. Our youth are loosing their lives to disease, drugs, war, and violence....

But you said this was a private lunch, not a school lunch involving school youth.

But..... alas.... within the Christian community are as many cowards and compromisers, and whimps... and men with lace on their panties.... and girls ruling in pants.... that it is rare to find someone with a clear enough identity to be targeted as a Christian.

So if someone thinks these guys were wrong, they're wimps? That's as unrighteous as KJVO's telling NIV readers that they don't believe the bible. But hey, what do I know? A few years ago, someone told me that if I wasn't street preaching or door knocking, I wasn't preaching the Gospel.

This man is just and if there is a thread of brotherhood to any responding on this board... it should be to pray for him in this situation..... and to recognize that those who are against him are coming against Jesus Christ in him..... and pray for them, even as Jesus said we were to do..... to pray for those who persecute us.

This is not a case of someone being "persecuted". This is a case of someone violating a settlement agreement. And, as I noted earlier, if you read all the stories involved, it's a matter of numerous school staff actively displaying their religion in an excessively boastful manner, likely violating Amendment I. Scripture calls those folks pharisees. Such people should rightly be admonished. If rightly admonishing a brother qualifies a person as being a wimp, Paul was the biggest wimp in the NT.

 

[windcatcher]

My information was strictly based on what was in the links to the story. The story doesn't give details. The stories do, however, say that the school district entered into a settlement agreement, resulting from a suit that involved claims of school personnel not respecting boundaries consistent with Amendment I. Whether intentional or not, Frank Lay's actions violated that settlement agreement.

Then I gotta give you credit for consistency, and in that realm, I concur with you. There is, however, no shortage of people here who are inconsistent on the topic of religious protections and Amendment I.

But you said this was a private lunch, not a school lunch involving school youth.

So if someone thinks these guys were wrong, they're wimps? That's as unrighteous as KJVO's telling NIV readers that they don't believe the bible. But hey, what do I know? A few years ago, someone told me that if I wasn't street preaching or door knocking, I wasn't preaching the Gospel.

This is not a case of someone being "persecuted". This is a case of someone violating a settlement agreement. And, as I noted earlier, if you read all the stories involved, it's a matter of numerous school staff actively displaying their religion in an excessively boastful manner, likely violating Amendment I. Scripture calls those folks pharisees. Such people should rightly be admonished. If rightly admonishing a brother qualifies a person as being a wimp, Paul was the biggest wimp in the NT.

1)An agreement with the court and a group is not the same as an agreement with one person. The court made an agreement with the school board. The principal of the school is an employee of the board but not a member of it.

2)The lucheon was adults..... parents of high school kids and community sponsors..... Note.... parents..... not kids..... and high school kids.... not little children, innocent, impressionable, and without problems or life experience.

3)A person who is a good role model to parents is also a role model to youths.

4) Pharisees are like those in Jesus day who were self righteous and judgemental........ like Frank Lay is already judged by your posting and the posting of others on the BB as being guilty..... yet he hasn't even had his day in court.... but its coming. Is he guilty? None of you posting here have heard sworn testimony...... because even the court hasn't heard it yet.... yet you've judged him guilty. Those of you who have done so..... should consider if you were in his shoes... how would you wish fellow Christians to regard you? Guilty before trial......??????? What shame some of you should feel for judging ahead of knowledge..... and accepting the laws of man over the rule of God.

Chances are, a real gentleman and fellow Christian will loose his job just short of his retirement because he dared to pray..... and a group of fellow believers will laugh and clap that they were right and he was guilty...... not because he stole, or killed anyone, or lied, or profaned the Sabbath, or coveted, or lusted after another..... for no crime, no harm to anything or anyone, and for none other than he prayed.

Personally, I wish I had his guts! And personally, as a woman and as a Christian.... I admire any man who takes the stand he has..... and consider that it doesn't take much less to count you all as panty laced, yellow back, spineless whimps! Some can talk a good talk..... but how do you stand and where do you walk?........and are you manly enough to pray like Frank Lay, or is it more important to be pc..... and allow our government and courts to continue this one sided sham?

If we all stood together, we could get somethings changed back..... but we don't stand together because too many of us are already compromised and inconsistant in our loyalties and have no idea what is faithful, good and true.....and there stand.

 

[Revmitchell]

I suspect you would not give the same consideration to a Muslim teacher leading students in prayer at lunch.

Based on what?

But this isn't a case of a teacher simply praying before a meal at lunch. If you read all the realted stories regarding this incident, it's a matter of numerous school staff actively displaying their religion in an excessively boastful manner.

Boastful manner? What does that mean?

Scripturally, those folks are akin to pharisees.

The pharisees were lost. Are you suggesting these are lost as well?

Legally, they very likely violated Amendment I of the Constitution.

Not likely

It's Christians like these that make it more difficult for the rest of us to engage in genuine faith, and we should be admonishing them righteously, not just defenging them blindly.

Who is defending them blindly? I have never known her to ever do such. Maybe you should repsond carefully rather than out of your blind emotion. You apparently have not read enough of her posts. And you accusation of her is unfounded. And knowing Matt Staver personally he would never take up a case that fit your personal description. If Matt is involved they have not acted improperly.

 

[Revmitchell]

Never Make a Deal With the Devil About Prayer


Three Florida school employees will go to federal court on September 17 to see if they'll be thrown behind bars. The reason? Prayer. Their school made a deal with the ACLU to stop praying and this ridiculous situation proves that you can't make a deal with the devil.

The Santa Rosa County School District is in an area of northern Florida where people uphold traditional values and customs. One of those customs is the widespread use of prayer at all sorts of public events -- including school events. Then the ACLU came in, filed a federal lawsuit to stop the pernicious influence of students hearing people pray.

After a few months, the school board caved when the legal bills started mounting. The ACLU has an almost unlimited budget because it can be reimbursed for bringing these "civil rights" lawsuits, but the school district must pay out-of-pocket. Desperate to end the lawsuit, school officials signed a deal written by the ACLU, which the federal judge assigned to the case then issued as a court order.

Then two things happened. First, some school employees and adult volunteers gathered for a lunch after school hours, and the principal, Frank Lay, had the athletic director, Robert Freeman, offer a prayer before the meal. Second, some students were present at an awards banquet when a clerk, Michelle Winkler, asked her husband (who is not a school employee) to offer a prayer.
The ACLU ran to U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers, who issued a contempt citation against all three officials. The judge referred the matter to the U.S. attorney in northern Florida (appointed by Barack Obama), who is now prosecuting all three for criminal contempt, which could carry six months in jail and a $5,000 fine.


More Here

 

[gb93433]

We need real Christians.... willing to stand and be counted..... and to know the difference between honoring God and honoring man. Our youth are loosing their lives to disease, drugs, war, and violence.... having already had what little faith that home and church tried to introduce destroyed by theories of evolution, humanism, and relative morality replacing the God given code of absolute laws. Is there no one to set the example?

This is happening in churches because they want to replace sound doctrine with the latest fad developed by some guru in an office in another city when people already have a Bible. In the book Right From Wrong by Josh McDowell he states that it is much worse than most think and that is in our churches right now.Sometime listen to the messages "Right From Wrong' at http://www.discipleshiplibrary.com/josh_mcdowell.php

 

[SeekingTruth]

Why is it that some on this Board seem to take a perverse pleasure when another Christian finds himself facing prosecution (persecution would be a better word) simply because he was exercising his faith? It is sad to see this occur over and over. It is NEVER wrong to place God's law and one's love of God above that of a hedonistic and godless government. Those who do this should ask forgiveness from the God they claim to love but seem to relegate to second class status at every opportunity. It is little wonder this nation is facing trials and hardship today. All that is left is to ask God to have mercy.

 

[Johnv]

Why is it that some on this Board seem to take a perverse pleasure when another Christian finds himself facing prosecution

No one is doing so. Christians are not exempt from adhering to rules and regulations, whether it's an issue of personal faith or secular practice. If these men committed a violation, then they need to accept the penalty thereby. That's up to the legal system to determine, not the populus to decide.

It is NEVER wrong to place God's law and one's love of God above that of a hedonistic and godless government.

This isn't a case of God's law vs man's law. God's law does not require a person to pray in public before secular crowds of associates.

 

[Revmitchell]

We should never, never be inhibited from praying in public. Never and such nonsense is indefensible. See this is what happens to people with liberal mind sets. They get more and more secular and more and more away from God. Sad

 

[FlyForFun]

No one is doing so. Christians are not exempt from adhering to rules and regulations, whether it's an issue of personal faith or secular practice. If these men committed a violation, then they need to accept the penalty thereby. That's up to the legal system to determine, not the populus to decide.

Actually, the "legal system" answers to "We the People."

This case is being pushed due to prayer -- if the previous settlement had enjoined school faculty not to say "Hot Dog," the ACLU would be siding with defendants.

 

[webdog]

No one is doing so. Christians are not exempt from adhering to rules and regulations, whether it's an issue of personal faith or secular practice. If these men committed a violation, then they need to accept the penalty thereby. That's up to the legal system to determine, not the populus to decide.

If God's law overrides man's law, even an agreed to settlement is moot. They used bad judgement in agreeing to the settlement, and man's law is thrown out since it clearly overrides God's in this case.

This isn't a case of God's law vs man's law. God's law does not require a person to pray in public before secular crowds of associates

No, but whatever is not of faith is sin. If they are feeling guilty about the settlement, or feel led to pray even after the settlement, God's law still overrides man's. It is a gross injustice in any case to not allow anyone to pray in public...and no judge should have allowed such an agreement to take place as it clearly violates the constitution.

 

[Johnv]

Again, this is neither a case of "God's law vs man's law", nor is it a case of "whatever is not of faith is sin".

 

[HankD]

The issue of secular humanism is a different topic altogether. On THIS topic, I can't imagine why a Christian parent would be comfortable with the idea of a public school engaging in endorsed religious activities, even if those religious activities coincide with your own faith.

No it is not “a different topic altogether”, it is entirely relevant because it is the underlying philosophy of the ACLU whose hatred against Christianity is evident by their deeds.

It does not matter that the “guilty” men involved were intimidated into signing a “legal” document.

The charges the ACLU brought are totally in line with the basic premise of secular humanism: to convert every non-compliant public school into a temple devoted to the philosophy of John Dewey (the father of Modern Education – so called) a signer of A Humanist Manifesto (1933).

Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.
...
The Council for Secular Humanism promotes rational, human-based viewpoints on important social and ethical issues. In particular, it tackles issues where traditional religion obstructs the right to self-determination, for example, freedom of choice in sexual relationships, reproduction, and voluntary euthanasia. The Council also promotes critical thinking about supernatural and paranormal claims. The Council conducts research, issues statements, and brings together leading thinkers for conferences and seminars.
Found online in the Public Domain at http://www.secularhumanism.org

For this reason these men of God are being persecuted and no other.


One of the tactics of the ACLU is to focus in on a particular valid infraction in order to mandate a general restriction.


I will cede on one point: No one should be required to engage in a "religious activity" if they are of a mind not to, or are of a different faith and should be free to refrain or dismiss themselves.


HankD

 

[Revmitchell]

Bottom line is they have a right to pray. No law has been broken and no one has been convicted. The School board agreed to a settlement simply because they did not have unlimited resources to fight it. The communist organization that attacked them gets compensated by the government for making these attacks on our religious freedoms. Glad to see Matt Staver taking this up.

 

[Johnv]

No it is not “a different topic altogether”, it is entirely relevant because it is the underlying philosophy of the ACLU whose hatred against Christianity is evident by their deeds.

I'm likewise no fan of the ACLU, but if a person did something legally wrong, it doesn't matter if the party is the ACLU or Mother Theresa.

It does not matter that the “guilty” men involved were intimidated into signing a “legal” document.

There's nothing to suggest anyone was "intimidated" thusly.

I will cede on one point: No one should be required to engage in a "religious activity" if they are of a mind not to, or are of a different faith and should be free to refrain or dismiss themselves.

On that I think everyone is in agreement. It's a matter for the courts, not you or I, not the ACLU, and not the ddefendants, to determine if this was the case here.

Bottom line is they have a right to pray.

The right to pray, just like any other right, is not unlimited. It is for the court to decide if they had such a right in this case. If these men did nothign wrong, then they will be found not guilt. If they did something wrong, they will be found guilty, and I'm certain many will not accept that verdict.

 

[RAdam]

Be careful for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, make your requests known unto God.

Man is commanded to pray to God. No settlement, no law, no ordinance put into place by man overrides that command. If man wants to pray, wherever he is, then he should pray. For a Christian to suggest that what these men did is wrong is just shocking to me.

 

[Revmitchell]

The right to pray, just like any other right, is not unlimited. It is for the court to decide if they had such a right in this case. If these men did nothign wrong, then they will be found not guilt. If they did something wrong, they will be found guilty, and I'm certain many will not accept that verdict.

Baloney. ........

 

[RAdam]

If people would read the documents on which this nation was founded they would discover that our founding fathers believed that rights came from God, not the government or the courts.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If people would read the documents on which this nation was founded they would discover that our founding fathers believed that rights came from God, not the government or the courts.

Which God? Weren't many of them Deist? And didn't Jefferson translate the bible to exclude the supernatural? Wasn't Franklin a leacher? Though is it illegal to pray silently? Or did they pray openly over a michrophone at a general assembly? I think there was divergent discussions about this in the article. I see no problem with lunch prayers. However, if a Hindu or a Muslim were to pray open over a michrophone would people here have a problem with that?

 

[webdog]

Which God? Weren't many of them Deist? And didn't Jefferson translate the bible to exclude the supernatural? Wasn't Franklin a leacher? Though is it illegal to pray silently? Or did they pray openly over a michrophone at a general assembly? I think there was divergent discussions about this in the article. I see no problem with lunch prayers. However, if a Hindu or a Muslim were to pray open over a michrophone would people here have a problem with that?

Have you not read the documents?