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

[JakeStarkey]

Lonestar, you simply have no logic, you have no respect for the Constitution, and you have no respect for others' beliefs.

What in heavens name is wrong with you?

 

[DiveCon]

Lonestar, you simply have no logic, you have no respect for the Constitution, and you have no respect for others' beliefs.

What in heavens name is wrong with you?

one could say the very same about you
and they DO

 

[Rezonator]

I am growing weary of these "where in the Constitution does it say?" arguments.

Maybe, then, you're just weary of the Constitution. Your arguments seem support that conclusion.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that police have to advise a suspect of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel prior to questioning him - yet that is the law of the land and it is based on the 5th, 6th and 14the Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Yes, it is based on specific mandates of the Constitution. And federal government involvement in education is based on nothing in the Constitution.

[Cue flock of "general welfare" loons]

Nah, but do "cue laugh track" when you post.

Jake, I think if science could find a way to collect all the substance of your posts, there might be enough for a fart. A small fart, but a fart nonetheless.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now that is finally an attempt, an effort at humor. Not effective yet, but please keep trying.

 

[Rezonator]

What are you trying to say here? Public schools are government entities.

Where in the Constitution does the federal government have the enumerated power to establish public schools as government entities, or have any enumerated power over education at all? (Hint: it doesn't.)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Anyone else notice that this poster answered his own question without knowing it?

I think anyone with a whisper of intellect noticed right away that the reductio ad absurdum of your mental mishap is that the federal government has the power and right to establish public whorehouses as government entities and public meth labs as government entities.

It's got to be something in the water in California. No, wait, I know what it is: public schools. That explains it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rezonator has a fallacies manual but simply has failed to recognize the internal inconsistency in his analysis.

 

[Steve Hanson]

Rezanator has a right to an opinion, no matter how wrong. And, no, he is not a judge of the Constitution.

I second his opinion. I believe he is correct.

 

[Rezonator]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Then there are those with idées fixes and platitudes.

He cannot get by his erroneous assumption that public schools are not governmental agencies.

Going through that sentence is like going through a Klein bottle.

In the first place, no public school is a federal government institution, and your entire discussion has been couched in terms of federal restrictions on public schools. Public schools are state institutions, not "agencies," mostly governed by a state agency called a Department of Education—state level.

Nothing in the Constitution denies states or the people the right or power to establish institutions for education, which rights and powers would be rightly determined by the several state constitutions, legislatures, and citizens.

The pathos in your arguments is that you are fervently arguing against the First Amendment Establishment clause when you argue for the federal government to take any position whatsoever in regard to the presence or absence of religion in an institution of education, whose creation and operation is solely the province and jurisdiction of the several states and the citizens of those states.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That's Congress—the federal lawmaking body. It has absolutely no Constitutional authority whatsoever for governing or mandating education, and it is absolutely forbidden by the First Amendment from making laws governing religion and its free exercise.

So what possible foundation do you bring for any scrap of your idées fixes and platitudes?

 

[frazzledgear]

please explain this to me because it baffles my mind

Before or after the intent of the 1st Amendment was bastardized with the bullshit court ruling that elevated atheism to "religion" status? That ruling changed the way government operated from then on because since government was constitutionally obligated to remain neutral BETWEEN the religions, by elevating atheism -the lack of any religious beliefs -to "religion" status, meant forcing government to pretend neutrality between ALL religions on one side -pitted against atheism on the other. The founders created a government that would encourage religious beliefs of its citizens, but without choosing a religion for them -and TOLERATING the existence of atheists. Insisting government maintain a "neutrality" between ALL religions and any religious belief on one side with atheism on the other -is actually impossible for government to do in case you didn't know that. Which is EXACTLY why the left wanted the court to give the lack of any religious belief a "religion" status! A government that was neutral between all religions on one side pitted against atheism on the other side is NOT what the founders intended nor is it what they created! And it isn't the government we had until the 1960s when Madeleine Murray O'Hare sued on behalf of her son claiming his constitutional rights were being violated by merely witnessing hearing others exercise their own constitutional rights! (The fact this same boy grew up to be a devout Christian minister who opposes the outcome of this lawsuit is something I find to be poetic justice and I hope it ate at her like a cancer all her remaining miserable days before she was murdered by someone who was as big an atheist as she was). Isn't it amazing that this country was doing it all wrong for the first 140 years? Wouldn't you think the founders would have noticed that right off the bat if they had all been doing it wrong? LOL But it is conservatives who have no respect for our Constitution? You are kidding, right? Because it wasn't conservatives who bastardized our Constitution bubba -it was the LEFT which views it as a flawed document getting in the way of THEIR political agenda because it limits their ability to create the massive, socialist/communist control-every-aspect-of-everyone's-life government they love far more than they do freedom! FREEDOM and liberalism are INCOMPATIBLE because liberals cannot get the system they love most without destroying the VERY freedoms our Constitution was written in order to protect.

Our Constitution actually demands that it is no business of government's at all if people choose to pray or not -or when or where. It required the CORRUPTION of the 1st Amendment to get a government that constantly monitors the religious practices of others, ORDERS them to stop praying or practicing their religion and PUNISHES them if they refuse -which is EXACTLY what the founders intended to prevent in the first place. And it could ONLY happen by PRETENDING the lack of any religious beliefs was actually a "religion". Whether citizens pray or don't pray is none of the government's business which is supposed to have ZERO authority to order anyone either to pray or NOT pray. But since it is now government's business and it can and does order people to stop praying and punishes them if they refuse, it means government is no longer neutral at all and pretending it can remain neutral between all religions on one side and atheism on the other is a lying ass FARCE! It is why our founders required it remain neutral only between REAL religions and didn't given atheism religion status in the first place! If an atheist isn't being forced to join a religion or being forced to pray -his rights have been fully upheld. His rights aren't supposed to come with an additional "right" to use the force of government to restrict when I may exercise my OWN RIGHTS! It required corrupting the Constitution to get that one.

Before the corruption of the 1st Amendment, government was not allowed to interfere with the free exercise of religion -which included praying believe it or not. Whether people prayed or didn't pray at any given time was NOT considered government business at all or at any time - but a matter of FREE CHOICE. The 1st Amendment was written with the specific intention to forbid government from monitoring, overseeing, regulating, interfering with -or PUNISHING people for their religious activities. Yet here we have a government that both ORDERS people to stop praying and PUNISHES them if they refuse -the VERY thing our founders intended to prevent -and that included interfering even with a child's religious free exercise since for religious people that is considered part and parcel of just living out their day as is THEIR right too. Which is why praying in schools was a matter of routine practice before, during and after the Constitution was written. And guess what? All those kids weren't of the same religion even then because Christianity was NEVER considered to be a single religion but DOZENS of different religions. You bozos sure seem to understand that if government orders people to pray what a real violation of their constitutional rights that would be. But while people like you would be quick off the blocks spotting that violation, you all DELIBERATELY turn a blind eye to the fact that when government orders people to NOT pray is the exact same constitution violation of the exact same magnitude! Government has NO right to order you to pray or to order me NOT to pray! It isn't government's business AT ALL -just like government has no role in monitoring, regulating or threatening me with punishment for expressing my political opinions! It isn't government's business what, when or where I choose to express my political opinions and it isn't government's business when, where or if I choose to exercise the other part of my 1st Amendment rights either! NONE OF ITS BUSINESS whether I pray or NOT, where or when - none of its business what political opinions I have! This is all PROTECTED speech under the 1st amendment -not just SOME of it! Or maybe you think free speech rights is limited to speech addressed only to a human being? Where does it say THAT? Government may neither reward NOR punish ANYONE for how they exercise their rights in this way. Believe it or not, ordering teachers and children NOT to pray on the grounds that doing so on publicly owned property is some kind of constitutional violation and government endorsement of a religion is the CORRUPT bastardization of our Constitution and an OBSCENITY! But THAT is something the left just doesn't believe counts as a violation at all because it is a right THEY place no real value on in the first place and if THEY don't value that right for themselves, then they insist it the value someone else may place on it doesn't matter at all. As long as participation in prayer is voluntary and anyone who wants to leave at that time may without any negative consequences -then EVERYONE'S rights are protected -including those of the atheist who should NEVER have the right to restrict when I may exercise my OWN rights by using the force of government against me when that is SPECIFICALLY forbidden in the Constitution! And before doing that tired old sob story bullshit about "confusing" or "offending the feelings" of the child of atheists who the left believes would somehow be irreparably harmed if exposed to hearing others exercise their 1st Amendment rights -GET REAL. As a parent I had to constantly correct and/or explain some of the very real bullshit teachers were spewing out in school all the time. Having my child exposed to different opinions, different religious beliefs and just different ways of doing just about anything -whether I personally think it is wrong or not -is a WAY OF LIFE in this country, something children should learn to deal with early on. I expect my child to learn how to handle it very early on without a phony fainting spell as if merely hearing others exercise their 1st Amendment rights in a way he or his parents do not do will somehow DESTROY his potential as a human being in this country and leave him a ruined hulk of a human being. This is just more of the left insisting some speech is just "too dangerous" to allow others to hear at all -and will always start off by insisting it is necessary to at least protect those precious, innocent children from being exposed to it as much as possible! But just the religious kind of speech, never the anti-religious kind -just like in public schools it is conservative political figures and opinions that are mocked and ridiculed by teachers, and the only political speech they think children should be protected from hearing, much less truly understanding at all, right? The left ALWAYS gets their foot in the door to controlling and limiting speech the same way every time -by FIRST insisting it is precious children who must be protected from knowing everyone isn't an identical robot who all think and act alike and don't all uniformly embrace the leftist agenda in its entirety after all until they reach some unknown age where they will have the "maturity" to deal with that shocking discovery. The desire to restrict free speech is ALWAYS on the leftist agenda because a people who can hear free speech inevitably reject THEIR agenda for the lies and misery producing hell when it is put into full practice. The most murderous, brutal, inhumane regimes in modern history have all been leftist -something children are certainly "protected" from learning in public schools.

This is how a people living in real freedom handle having their child in a classroom where the teacher is leading prayers. If all students are of the same religion as the teacher -then no one's rights are being violated at all if the teacher leads them in a prayer. I have no problem if parents want the teacher to inform them of that fact so they can opt their child out of it if they want -without any fanfare or fuss or negative consequences to any child whose parents prefer they be in another room during prayers. If there are students of different religions, then making sure whatever prayer is being said is inclusive enough to be applicable to those religions as well is necessary, even if it means adding a prayer for that purpose. To respect everyone's rights you must be MORE inclusive, not less so -otherwise you respect NO ONE'S rights at all! Which is really what the left wants when it comes to the 1st Amendment anyway! The left is allergic to REAL freedom -believing they are only "free" when those who believe differently and hold different political opinions from their own are considerably less free than themselves to be able to show or reveal that.

If there are atheist students sitting in that class -there is no such thing as a "right" to force others to stop exercising their rights just because it is right they have no use for and are not exercising it themselves. If they aren't being forced to participate and even have the option of leaving the room if they want -then their rights have been upheld and so have the rights of those who wish to pray. EVERYBODY'S rights upheld. YOUR right to not pray at all cannot be used to justify forcing others to forfeit THEIR right entirely -but that is exactly what has happened in this country.

ENOUGH of this stupid pretense that merely HEARING others exercise their rights somehow violates the rights of another person. Gee, if the founders believed that one, striking free speech off the list entirely would have been top of the list. It was -but to PROTECT it, not restrict it. And with that FREEDOM comes the understanding it means you WILL hear speech you disagree with, that you WILL find objectionable and even repugnant. TOUGH SHIT -that is life in this country, DEAL WITH IT! Whether what you are hearing is political speech or religious speech, it was ALL intended to be PROTECTED SPEECH and by the very same amendment. The way government shows TRUE neutrality is to BUTT OUT of trying to control ANYONE'S practice or lack of practice of religion -just like we sure understand it must butt out on trying to control how and when others may express their political opinions. THAT one you get, right? But are just lost when it comes to grasping the concept that the very same amendment protecting that right also protects religious speech -because my free speech rights don't just apply to speech addressed to another human being! Prayer is religious SPEECH -which is also PROTECTED SPEECH! Does government have the authority to order teachers to only express certain political opinions and threaten them with the loss of their job if they refuse to stop expressing the "wrong" political opinions? THAT one you understand I bet, right?

You claim to not understand why anyone wouldn't believe government's proper role isn't monitoring and controlling when people are and are not praying. I'm curious then -do you think teachers should be ORDERED to not form voluntary prayer groups outside the presence of students if they so choose before school commences in the morning for shared prayer that no students will witness and is entirely voluntary -and be threatened with the loss of their job and livelihood if they refuse to stop praying together in the morning? Because that is the result of corruption of the 1st Amendment with federal government ORDERING teachers to NOT pray on the threat of losing their job and livelihood in very real court cases. I can show you exactly where the right for them to pray without government interference is -you show me where the Constitution gives government the authority to order them to stop praying and threaten them with the loss of employment and their livelihood unless they stop. Government didn't get that authority in the Constitution -it required CORRUPTION by another branch of government to figure out a way of getting around the 1st Amendment. The idea the 1st Amendment ever gave government the authority to monitor, regulate, control and punish people for their practice of the religious faith when it actually specifically forbids any such thing is what SHOULD baffle you -but tellingly doesn't at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Then there are those with idées fixes and platitudes.

He cannot get by his erroneous assumption that public schools are not governmental agencies.

Going through that sentence is like going through a Klein bottle.

In the first place, no public school is a federal government institution, and your entire discussion has been couched in terms of federal restrictions on public schools. Public schools are state institutions, not "agencies," mostly governed by a state agency called a Department of Education—state level.

Nothing in the Constitution denies states or the people the right or power to establish institutions for education, which rights and powers would be rightly determined by the several state constitutions, legislatures, and citizens.

The pathos in your arguments is that you are fervently arguing against the First Amendment Establishment clause when you argue for the federal government to take any position whatsoever in regard to the presence or absence of religion in an institution of education, whose creation and operation is solely the province and jurisdiction of the several states and the citizens of those states.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That's Congress—the federal lawmaking body. It has absolutely no Constitutional authority whatsoever for governing or mandating education, and it is absolutely forbidden by the First Amendment from making laws governing religion and its free exercise.

So what possible foundation do you bring for any scrap of your idées fixes and platitudes?

Fail. You are not a constitutional expert. SCOTUS and the states and the Congress disagrees with you. You certainly have the right to disagree, but it in this case it is only a whisper at the bottom of a well.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lonestar, you simply have no logic, you have no respect for the Constitution, and you have no respect for others' beliefs.

What in heavens name is wrong with you?

Per the Constitution, I can pray whenever and where ever I choose. If a student body chooses to pray, they are exercising their Constitutional right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If it is voluntary, non-coercive, and unanimous.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If it is voluntary, non-coercive, and unanimous.

No one is ever forced to participate in prayer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False and you know it. Peer pressure is always applied to those who may be lagging. One of the most insidious examples is the comment, "Well, come on, you can be quiet and think good thoughts during the prayer." We had a gal on the school board who arguing that way, and she was defeated in the next election.

Anyone can pray together as long as it is voluntary, non-coercive, and unanimous.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

False and you know it. Peer pressure is always applied to those who may be lagging. One of the most insidious examples is the comment, "Well, come on, you can be quiet and think good thoughts during the prayer." We had a gal on the school board who arguing that way, and she was defeated in the next election.

Anyone can pray together as long as it is voluntary, non-coercive, and unanimous.

Show me one instance where a person was forced to pray.

Your "peer pressure" argument is lame, I can pressure you into drinking moonshine, but the choice is still yours to make or I could hold you down and pour it down your throat leaving you no choice.

 

[bodecea]

False and you know it. Peer pressure is always applied to those who may be lagging. One of the most insidious examples is the comment, "Well, come on, you can be quiet and think good thoughts during the prayer." We had a gal on the school board who arguing that way, and she was defeated in the next election.

Anyone can pray together as long as it is voluntary, non-coercive, and unanimous.

Show me one instance where a person was forced to pray.

Your "peer pressure" argument is lame, I can pressure you into drinking moonshine, but the choice is still yours to make or I could hold you down and pour it down your throat leaving you no choice.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

The Supreme Court doesn't find the peer pressure argument so lame.

and this:

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=12727

 

[JakeStarkey]

But Lonestar believes he knows better than SCOTUS, doncha know?

 

[bodecea]

But Lonestar believes he knows better than SCOTUS, doncha know?

Cause he's smart. Just ask him.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

But Lonestar believes he knows better than SCOTUS, doncha know?

I know that I am free to exercise my Constitutional right to pray when and where I see fit. And if you have a problem with that you're free to fuck off!

I have bodumbass on ignore in case your responding to her post. She's nothing but a troll and never has anything to offer in a debate.

 

[George Costanza]

Before or after the intent of the 1st Amendment was bastardized with the bullshit court ruling that elevated atheism to "religion" status?

I know it is hard for authoritarian, Christian fundamentalists to do this, but I want you to try. Put yourself in the shoes of an atheist. I know, I know . . . but try.

You have a grade school child. You are just as interested in raising your child as an atheist, as your neighbor, a devout Christian, is in raising his child in the Christian faith. Your child comes home and says, "Dad, in my class, they spend five minutes every morning, praying to this God you say does not exist. I don't know what to do."

I suspect you would be upset - just as upset as your neighbor, the devout Christian, would be if his son came home and told him they spent five minutes in his class every morning, talking about why there is no God.

I am sure that atheists believe just as strongly in their belief system as Christians do in theirs. And certainly there is no one who can presume to say which belief system is better, at least not to any objective degree. So I do not view the First Amendment protecting atheism from governmental establishment of religion as a "bastardization" of the First Amendment. Quite the opposite - that is precisely what the First Amendment is FOR.