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

[Steerpike]

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.

Yes, I agree with what you are saying here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Yes, I agree with what you are saying here.

I disagree about a student pressing another student. "Pressing" here implies that one has asked the other and been told no. The matter is closed. Should the first student then continue, the issue becomes one of stalking and a criminal matter.

 

[Steerpike]

Jake, if you think the elements of criminal stalking are met by one student inviting another to a bible study or prayer group, being told one, and then persisting by asking again, you're nuts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake, if you think the elements of criminal stalking are met by one student inviting another to a bible study or prayer group, being told one, and then persisting by asking again, you're nuts.

Ask an attorney.

 

[Steerpike]

Jake, if you think the elements of criminal stalking are met by one student inviting another to a bible study or prayer group, being told one, and then persisting by asking again, you're nuts.

Ask an attorney.

I'm familiar with the elements. Thanks, though. So far you've provided nothing of substance; just throw-away responses like this one. Do you have any knowledge of the subject matter whatsoever?

 

[DiveCon]

Jake, if you think the elements of criminal stalking are met by one student inviting another to a bible study or prayer group, being told one, and then persisting by asking again, you're nuts.

Ask an attorney.

we just had one show you you were wrong,
see George

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have offered the throw a way arguments throughout this discussion.

The matter of state-sanctioned prayer in the public schools is a matter of settled law.

Keep annoying someone who does not want to be annoyed and you are liable to action. You know that.

 

[Steerpike]

You have offered the throw a way arguments throughout this discussion.

The matter of state-sanctioned prayer in the public schools is a matter of settled law.

Keep annoying someone who does not want to be annoyed and you are liable to action. You know that.

You've obviously misunderstood the discussion. I think I'll continue the discussion with George, who clearly knows something about the subject matter. You have no idea what you're talking about, and contrary to what you've said here, I've made substantive posts concerning Constitutionality, none of which you've addressed in the slightest.

 

[Steerpike]

Jake, if you think the elements of criminal stalking are met by one student inviting another to a bible study or prayer group, being told one, and then persisting by asking again, you're nuts.

Ask an attorney.

we just had one show you you were wrong,
see George

It doesn't surprise me that George is an attorney. I'm an attorney also. I've even appeared before a federal appeals court on a Constitutional issue (among other issues), and I've taught Constitutional law.

It was clear from the outset that George is educated on the topic; and it was equally clear that Jake is not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I fully understand the parameters of the issue, and you clearly don't. You talk stupidly again and I will point it out.

 

[Steerpike]

I fully understand the parameters of the issue, and you clearly don't. You talk stupidly again and I will point it out.

If you wish to continue to make a fool of yourself, that is certainly your prerogative.

 

[Kat]

LOL!!! Goodness Jakey...having same sort of problems in this thread too? Tsk Tsk, and you denied that it happens all over the forum. Shame on you old man.
Jakey knows all..and no one else understands but him. wee wee

 

[DiveCon]

I fully understand the parameters of the issue, and you clearly don't. You talk stupidly again and I will point it out.

you are the only one "talking stupidly" here

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hi, Kat. What do you have to offer other than being fascinated with me? But stay, please, and offer. And thanks for your graciousness, Steerpike.

 

[Kat]

Hi, Kat. What do you have to offer other than being fascinated with me? But stay, please, and offer. And thanks for your graciousness, Steerpike.

I was just trying to figure out what you have to point with..

 

[Queen]

Hi, Kat. What do you have to offer other than being fascinated with me? But stay, please, and offer. And thanks for your graciousness, Steerpike.

I was just trying to figure out what you have to point with..

Jake you lucky guy. You attract the 12 year old sparkle girls.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Queen, the sparkle girls really are mature, wondrous divas who are only acting twelve.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

Yes, I agree with what you are saying here.

I disagree about a student pressing another student. "Pressing" here implies that one has asked the other and been told no. The matter is closed. Should the first student then continue, the issue becomes one of stalking and a criminal matter.

Well, I think you are getting a little far afield here. The issue is prayer in public schools, not stalking. I was only using the example of an individual student pressuring another student to join a religious group, as a distinction from a teacher doing so in his/her official capacity. As we now all know (I hope) - the Constitution puts restrictions on schools and the teachers that work for them (they are "the government") but not on individual students acting in a private capacity.

Now, having said that, I suppose if Student A kept hounding Student B about joining a religious group, and B kept telling A to get lost, it could get to a point where a crime would be committed although I'm not sure it would be stalking. The California Penal Code defines stalking as follows:

"Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family"

At least in California, stalking requires both repeated following or malicious harassing AND a credible threat to the other person's safety. Our proselytizing student would not only have to follow B around, he would also have to threaten him with physical harm if he failed to check in for the religious program, whatever it might be.

One would hope it would not go that far . . .

 

[Steerpike]

At least in California, stalking requires both repeated following or malicious harassing AND a credible threat to the other person's safety. Our proselytizing student would not only have to follow B around, he would also have to threaten him with physical harm if he failed to check in for the religious program, whatever it might be.

One would hope it would not go that far . . .

That's right. And many states have a similar requirement. Missouri does not require a credible threat, but it requires an 'intent to harass.' The definition of harass is define by statute as well, and it has some fairly specific requirements. The fact that one is annoying another wouldn't get you there

Also, I'd be interested in seeing someone try to apply a stalking statute to prostelytizing (to get back on topic). Seems like there might be some problems enforcing it against that specific activity.

 

[maineman]

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.

ah.... the old "implying" game.

So... you DON'T have anyone from the left who has said that protest is unconstitutional?

why not just say so?