I think you are misunderstanding the difference between constitutional rights and allowed activities. Displaying a cross in school was an allowed activity for years and years. Same thing with public prayers. If you believe saying a prayer over the intercom is a constitutional right, what would be your reaction if Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and others wanted their "constitutional right" honored and observed. Do you want this?:
Monday: Christian prayer
Tuesday: Hindu prayer
Wednesday: Muslim prayer
Thursday: Jewish prayer
Friday: No prayer (agnostics and atheists)
The misunderstanding is yours: did Christians have a right to pray in School then? Do they now (and in view are the authority figures, not the students, who can still pray individually and in groups)?
It's not a matter of Constitutional Right, it is a matter that a pattern once seen in America...is gone.
And that this impacts religious views and religious practice is incontrovertible.
From an article meant to do exactly what you are doing, that is, defend the
New Order, we can see, if we look, the differences of then and now. The Green will be "The New School Prayer, followed by the commentary (in blue) meant to dismantle the argument presented in the "Prayer."
Note-"What the Law says" (in blue) is the argument against the view that anything has changed, or that anything has been lost. My own comments will be in black and white.
"THE NEW SCHOOL PRAYER"
Now I sit me down at school,
Where praying is against the rule.
What the laws say:
Praying in school is not against the law. In fact, the U.S. Constitution guarantees students the right to pray in public schools; it is a protected form of free speech. A student can pray on the school bus, in the corridors, in the cafeteria, in their student-run Bible club, at the flagpole, sports stadium, and elsewhere on school grounds. They can even pray silently before and after class in the classroom. They are not allowed to pray solely Christian prayers as an organized part of the school schedule. However, they may be able to hear or read prayers from a variety of religious traditions and inspiring statements from secular sources. Prayers cannot solely be from a single religious faith group.
They obscure the facts from the beginning. I would like to see the School where a Teacher can lead a class in school.
Now our Poster in this post is arguing against prayer being led by the authority figure, but what he misses also is that in Early America this was simply common practice. Because many early Americans had something that is also lacking in America today, that is, fear of God, religion was a part of the training methods used.
So the primary point of this post is not to debate whether teachers should lead children in school or integrate Biblical values and the Bible into their teaching, it is whether they once did.
And they did.
And that is gone.
While I agree that those of other religions have the right to practice their own beliefs, that does not change the fact that
it was not other religious groups that founded this country.
For this great nation under God,
Finds mention of Him very odd.
What the laws say:
This is also untrue. On average, Americans are quite religious. Church attendance is higher than in any other industrialized nation. Attendance in the US is twice that of Canada and four times that of many European countries. However, in order to preserve the separation of church and state, there are a few restrictions on prayer in government facilities -- including public schools.
I would agree, so, if the article argues, this is a very religious nation...why has the school system changed so dramatically? And they do not define what "a few restrictions" means. The religiosity of America outside the school (and outside America) is not the point, it is what has happened in schools that is in view.
If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
What the laws say:
Bible passages can be recited in class during the study of comparative religions. But they would have to be balanced by passages from other religions and statements from ethical movements.
What they miss is the fact that the condition for being allowed to cite Bible Passages is dependent on others.
That is freedom of expression? That is not restrictive?
Absurd.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now
What the laws say:
As noted above, individual students are quite free to pray throughout their public school building and throughout their school day.
Our hair can be purple, orange, or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
This is true, but again...that is not the point. The point is that once Biblical values were a core element in American Schools. That was due to the importance of the Bible and it's teachings to Early America.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
What the laws say:
As noted above, students are free to pray almost anywhere in school.
Almost anywhere. Why
almost? Isn't that a little like
sort of pregnant?
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
What the laws say:
It is true that, according to the Golden Rule, Christians should not perform acts which offend other people. Also, Matthew 6:6 does discourage Christians from engaging in public prayer. But the main reason for restriction on school prayer is the principle of separation of church and state.
So you have freedom of religion only if you're actions do not offend someone else. Is that actually freedom? I mean, we know how offensive it is to pray for people, better not do that in the hall, someone might get offended.
And Matthew 6:6 discourages public prayer? No it doesn't...it discourages hypocrisy. Maybe if whoever had written this article was familiar with the Bible...they would have noticed that Christ not only prays in Public very often, immediately following His teaching against hypocritical prayer for the benefit of glory...
He publicly teaches His Disciples how to pray.
Folks, this is the result of secular liberals, and even religious liberals who have no understanding of the Word of God. This is the kind of arguments we hear from these kind of people.
They obscure the big picture with apologetics designed to justify their anti-biblical nature.
Continued...
