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

[bodecea]

No grounds exist whatsoever to stop the mosque legally or constitutionally, period. AllieBaba, a fascist of the far right, is making a claim without any support. Let's see it, Baba Looey.

you just proven AB right
LOL
what a fucking moron

Show us where Jake says the protesters don't have a constitutional right to protest....

 

[bodecea]

Not even in a voluntary club? They do sometimes have meetings during school you know

That should be acceptable, before or after school hours...they have "Meet at the Flagpole" prayer thingees around here....about 1/2 hour before school starts.

which is basically what i said
not in the classroom
and by that i mean that the room is no longer a "classroom" after school hours

True... my daughter's Middle school used to rent out their classrooms, etc. to a local church while they were building their new sanctuary....no problems there.

 

[AllieBaba]

What they do is say thing like "oh sure, I guess you don't mind walking on the constitution if it's about ISLAM".

Implying of course that it's unconstitutional to not want the mosque there. Or implying that anybody is even saying they don't have a right to build a mosque there.

 

[Steerpike]

the thing to remember is that there are two religion clauses in the first amendment - the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

In my view, the establishment clause prevents teachers or other school officials from compelling students (in any way) to pray or make other religious observances.

But, the free exercise clause should keep the school from preventing students and/or teachers from praying, outside of class time but even during school hours, so long as the acts are voluntary.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sorry, leading voluntary prayer isn't compelling, as long as they are not penalized if they don't take part.

 

[Steerpike]

Sorry, leading voluntary prayer isn't compelling, as long as they are not penalized if they don't take part.

You obviously need to read my post again. You've misread it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Most likely.

 

[bodecea]

What they do is say thing like "oh sure, I guess you don't mind walking on the constitution if it's about ISLAM".

Implying of course that it's unconstitutional to not want the mosque there. Or implying that anybody is even saying they don't have a right to build a mosque there.

True...but you said that we have said it was unconstitutional for you to PROTEST the "mosque" "at" ground zero...

And we are STILL waiting for you to show us where anyone said THAT.

 

[bodecea]

Sorry, leading voluntary prayer isn't compelling, as long as they are not penalized if they don't take part.

Not ... during ... school ... time. Who's business is it for a secular public school to lead prayer voluntarily or not?

 

[Steerpike]

Sorry, leading voluntary prayer isn't compelling, as long as they are not penalized if they don't take part.

Not ... during ... school ... time. Who's business is it for a secular public school to lead prayer voluntarily or not?

As long as it is voluntary the government shouldn't be able to prevent it. It would have to be outside of 'class time' when there is a captive audience. But if a teacher and students want to go into a room and read the bible at lunch, the government has no more business stopping them than it would have forcing them to do it.

 

[bodecea]

Sorry, leading voluntary prayer isn't compelling, as long as they are not penalized if they don't take part.

Not ... during ... school ... time. Who's business is it for a secular public school to lead prayer voluntarily or not?

As long as it is voluntary the government shouldn't be able to prevent it. It would have to be outside of 'class time' when there is a captive audience. But if a teacher and students want to go into a room and read the bible at lunch, the government has no more business stopping them than it would have forcing them to do it.

That, I don't see a problem with...til the day some student says that he was peer pressured into going into that room at lunch.

 

[Steerpike]

Peer pressure is not a constitutional issue. The peers are other student. Private individuals. It only becomes a problem when the government (teachers in this case) do the pressuring.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Peer pressure is exactly the issue, Steerpike. No one has the right to pressure anyone about religion in a tax-supported educational institution. Yes, if you come up to me, I tell you I don't want to hear it, and you still insist that I should consider coming to prayer with you, you are in violation. No way around it. The proper way to handle it is to put you under a stiff insurance bond.

 

[DiveCon]

Peer pressure is exactly the issue, Steerpike. No one has the right to pressure anyone about religion in a tax-supported educational institution. Yes, if you come up to me, I tell you I don't want to hear it, and you still insist that I should consider coming to prayer with you, you are in violation. No way around it. The proper way to handle it is to put you under a stiff insurance bond.

you still have the choice to say NO

 

[Steerpike]

Peer pressure is exactly the issue, Steerpike. No one has the right to pressure anyone about religion in a tax-supported educational institution. Yes, if you come up to me, I tell you I don't want to hear it, and you still insist that I should consider coming to prayer with you, you are in violation. No way around it. The proper way to handle it is to put you under a stiff insurance bond.

In violation of what? Not the Constitution.

 

[George Costanza]

Peer pressure is not a constitutional issue. The peers are other student. Private individuals. It only becomes a problem when the government (teachers in this case) do the pressuring.

Peer pressure is a constitutional issue in the following context: a school decides it wants to impose daily prayer on all students. Each morning, the students are told that there will be a one-minute prayer. They do not have to join in. They can stand silently if they wish, while "the rest of the students" recite the prayer.

The school knows full well what effect this will have on the non-praying students. They will feel peer pressure to join in. Hence, the school is seeking to accomplish in a roundabout way, what they cannot attempt to do directly. In other words, the school is using the peer group pressure they KNOW will exist, in order to force non-praying students to start praying.

A school cannot USE praying students who they know will exert pressure on non-praying students, as a method of forcing prayer on students not otherwise willing to accept it. In other words, teachers cannot indirectly do the pressuring through the medium of one group of students exerting pressure on another group of students.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Peer pressure is exactly the issue, Steerpike. No one has the right to pressure anyone about religion in a tax-supported educational institution. Yes, if you come up to me, I tell you I don't want to hear it, and you still insist that I should consider coming to prayer with you, you are in violation. No way around it. The proper way to handle it is to put you under a stiff insurance bond.

In violation of what? Not the Constitution.

Your comment demonstrates how much you really don't understand about this issue. Go above and reread George Costanza. You need to do some quiet reflection,

 

[Steerpike]

Peer pressure is not a constitutional issue. The peers are other student. Private individuals. It only becomes a problem when the government (teachers in this case) do the pressuring.

Peer pressure is a constitutional issue in the following context: a school decides it wants to impose daily prayer on all students. Each morning, the students are told that there will be a one-minute prayer. They do not have to join in. They can stand silently if they wish, while "the rest of the students" recite the prayer.

The school knows full well what effect this will have on the non-praying students. They will feel peer pressure to join in. Hence, the school is seeking to accomplish in a roundabout way, what they cannot attempt to do directly. In other words, the school is using the peer group pressure they KNOW will exist, in order to force non-praying students to start praying.

A school cannot USE praying students who they know will exert pressure on non-praying students, as a method of forcing prayer on students not otherwise willing to accept it. In other words, teachers cannot indirectly do the pressuring through the medium of one group of students exerting pressure on another group of students.

A lot of assumption of bad intent there. But that's not the context of my point. If some students want to get together in a classroom at lunch to read the bible it shouldn't be a problem, even if a teacher joins them. And it shouldn't turn into a Constitutional violation just because one student may pressure another to join.

 

[George Costanza]

Peer pressure is not a constitutional issue. The peers are other student. Private individuals. It only becomes a problem when the government (teachers in this case) do the pressuring.

Peer pressure is a constitutional issue in the following context: a school decides it wants to impose daily prayer on all students. Each morning, the students are told that there will be a one-minute prayer. They do not have to join in. They can stand silently if they wish, while "the rest of the students" recite the prayer.

The school knows full well what effect this will have on the non-praying students. They will feel peer pressure to join in. Hence, the school is seeking to accomplish in a roundabout way, what they cannot attempt to do directly. In other words, the school is using the peer group pressure they KNOW will exist, in order to force non-praying students to start praying.

A school cannot USE praying students who they know will exert pressure on non-praying students, as a method of forcing prayer on students not otherwise willing to accept it. In other words, teachers cannot indirectly do the pressuring through the medium of one group of students exerting pressure on another group of students.

A lot of assumption of bad intent there. But that's not the context of my point. If some students want to get together in a classroom at lunch to read the bible it shouldn't be a problem, even if a teacher joins them. And it shouldn't turn into a Constitutional violation just because one student may pressure another to join.

No one is saying that teachers who want their students to pray are "bad." But they are misguided, if that is their intent.

I don't see a problem with students and teachers voluntarily getting together to discuss religious matters, pray or to read the Bible, so long as it does not rise to the level of a structured, organized portion of the school day that involves all students being exposed to it.

One student pressuing another student to join a religious group is not a constitutional violation. A student is a private individual - not an agent of the state. A teacher, on the other hand, is an agent of the state, at least when they are at the head of their class, engaged in the normal, teaching routine.

 

[Steerpike]

Peer pressure is exactly the issue, Steerpike. No one has the right to pressure anyone about religion in a tax-supported educational institution. Yes, if you come up to me, I tell you I don't want to hear it, and you still insist that I should consider coming to prayer with you, you are in violation. No way around it. The proper way to handle it is to put you under a stiff insurance bond.

In violation of what? Not the Constitution.

Your comment demonstrates how much you really don't understand about this issue. Go above and reread George Costanza. You need to do some quiet reflection,

Nice non-answer. You clearly have no idea what I would be in violation of. The answer, of course, is nothing.