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

[blu]

we have student and teacher led prayer at our school. Blu you are welcome to join us.

isn't it a christian school?

nope, public school. Of course we don't start every class with a prayer or anything like that, but there are certain times that prayer happens, and there is a group that eats lunch together every day and the teachers who are in the group do take their turn leading the prayers.


oh and the answer to your question is that congress shall pass NO law prohibiting the free practice of religion, that includes for state employees.

right they are free to do it on their own or in front of groups in which everyone consents. that doesn't include a classroom unless the parents of all the kids and/or all the kids themselves pre-agree to it

 

[Samson]

For christssakes people....I'm so fucking glad I answer the question in the OP so that poking of a freakin' board moron can take precedence to the interesting debateable point:

Were the states coercing students into praying or Bible reading?

Murray v. Curlett legal definition of Murray v. Curlett. Murray v. Curlett synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

this link right?

The Schempp ruling involved two cases: its namesake and Murray v. Curlett, 228 Md. 239, 179 A. 2d 698 (Md. 1962). The Schempp case concerned a 1949 Pennsylvania law that forced public schools to start each day with a reading of ten Bible verses (24 Pa. Stat. § 15-1516). The law did not specify which version of the Bible should be used—for instance, it could be the Catholic Douay text or the Jewish version of the Old Testament. But local school officials only bought the Protestant King James Version. Teachers ordered students to rise and recite the verses reverently and in unison, or, as in the Abington School District, students in a broadcasting class read the verses over a public-address system. Teachers could be fired for refusing to participate, and pupils occasionally were segregated from others if they did not join in the daily reading.

in this case they were certainly forced into bible reading/reciting/etc and were forcefully segregated for not following along

did I read the wrong case?

That's it, and as you see, the case is Abington School District v. Schempp. I like to refer to it as "The Schempp Case" because I can easily remember that Schempp is my least favorite of the Three Stooges.

At any rate, it answers the question of how teacher led prayer in public schools is consitutional (in the opinion of the one, odd, supreme court justice Stewart), who;

1. Didn't think students were forced, or coerced to do anything,


2. Thought that individuals right to practice their religion (a consitiutional right) superceeded the "seperation of church and state" doctrine that is more or less an interpretation of the Treaty of Tripoli (arguably a much less official document that the Constitution).


IMHO, its "supremely naive" to think students in school are not at all coerced to believe what their teachers believe, as this is sorta the fundamental purpose of having a teacher.

On the other hand, the constitution protects individual citizen's rights to practice their religion, anywhere, at anytime they fucking want to. There's no law that says PUBLIC SERVANTS are strictly prohibited from practicing their religion in Public Places, because lawmakers are gutless idjots.

 

[Care4all]

If an atheist/agnostic school principal expressed views that christianity/judaism/islam are nonsensical belief sets based on dogma, stupidity, ignorance, and an archaic desire to explain that which we currently cannot explain over the morning announcements they would most certainly catch the outrage of the religious parents.

As a government actor school teachers and administrators should maintain a nuetral role in regards to religion while at school. I dont care if Coach Bob from your schools routinely leads a prayer in your church but he should not do it while at school as an employee/actor of the government.

Why?

Is the coach making laws concerning, (concerning is old English for 'respecting') an Established Church/or an establishment of religion? The coach has no legislative power? He can make no State or Federal law concerning an Established Church or an Establishment of religion, he's a football coach, not any kind of government elected official who can 'make law'??

Wouldn't the government be restricting or prohibiting him from his right to prayer, by telling him he can not say a prayer in the public square? (And I am talking about a coach that says a prayer himself, before a game, and not forcing any of his players to say it.)



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Why is the first part always argued without any itty bit of consideration to the second part of the religion clause in the first amendment? There is no deference given to the first part of the clause over the second part in the constitution?

I think the WHOLE clause should be argued as one unit...it was meant as one unit...that's all i'm saying...

one could make the argument that the coach, choosing to say a prayer before a game is his RIGHT, and one could argue that the government is to make no law prohibiting him from that right, no?

And also, imho, one could argue, that the coach is not in a position of government that can make law that concerns or respects an establishment of religion, thus his actions are not in any way breaking the first part of the religion clause in TFA, can they not?

Care

 

[Samson]

If an atheist/agnostic school principal expressed views that christianity/judaism/islam are nonsensical belief sets based on dogma, stupidity, ignorance, and an archaic desire to explain that which we currently cannot explain over the morning announcements they would most certainly catch the outrage of the religious parents.

As a government actor school teachers and administrators should maintain a nuetral role in regards to religion while at school. I dont care if Coach Bob from your schools routinely leads a prayer in your church but he should not do it while at school as an employee/actor of the government.

Why?

Is the coach making laws concerning, (concerning is old English for 'respecting') an Established Church/or an establishment of religion? The coach has no legislative power? He can make no State or Federal law concerning an Established Church or an Establishment of religion, he's a football coach, not any kind of government elected official who can 'make law'??

Wouldn't the government be restricting or prohibiting him from his right to prayer, by telling him he can not say a prayer in the public square? (And I am talking about a coach that says a prayer himself, before a game, and not forcing any of his players to say it.)



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Why is the first part always argued without any itty bit of consideration to the second part of the religion clause in the first amendment? There is no deference given to the first part of the clause over the second part in the constitution?

I think the WHOLE clause should be argued as one unit...it was meant as one unit...that's all i'm saying...

one could make the argument that the coach, choosing to say a prayer before a game is his RIGHT, and one could argue that the government is to make no law prohibiting him from that right, no?

And also, imho, one could argue, that the coach is not in a position of government that can make law that concerns or respects an establishment of religion, thus his actions are not in any way breaking the first part of the religion clause in TFA, can they not?

Care

Care, you clearly put a lot of thought and consideration into this post (who the heck knew that "'concerning' is old English for 'respecting'").

So I'd like to respond in an equally thoughtful and considerate way:

Roses are Red,
Violets are Blue,
Chickens are stupid,
And rdean is too.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Children have a limited amount of time a day attending school.

During that time, they need to be learning and studying so they will be prepared for what the world offers them.

Teaching mysticism and the occult is a disgraceful waste of tax payers money.

Can it be put in terms more simple than that?

Really?

Does prayer have the power to heal? Scientists have some surprising answers.
Information on the power of prayer on MedicineNet.com

It drives me crazy when people post these "sources".

Quote from the articles: "as separate studies conducted at Duke, Dartmouth, and Yale universities show. Some statistics from these studies".

So I go and look and look and I can't find a mention of these "studies" anywhere else except this article. Shit.

Why did you leave so quickly rdean?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The right doesn't care about the constitution.

Then please explain to me how this applies to a teacher in a school.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

its about teacher led pray in front of a classroom or other congregation where not every kid (or their parents depending on age) gets to pick if they attend or not.

teachers are free to practice religion (pray) silently if they wish before meals or whenever else they want.

Ah, so what you want us to explain is not how it's Constitutional, but how it coincides with YOUR BELIEFS about the Constitution. Got it.

Show me the place where the Constitution talks about teachers, schools - and by the way, whose idea is it to prevent school choice? - or specifies that "free to practice religion" is "praying silently".

 

[Care4all]

If an atheist/agnostic school principal expressed views that christianity/judaism/islam are nonsensical belief sets based on dogma, stupidity, ignorance, and an archaic desire to explain that which we currently cannot explain over the morning announcements they would most certainly catch the outrage of the religious parents.

As a government actor school teachers and administrators should maintain a nuetral role in regards to religion while at school. I dont care if Coach Bob from your schools routinely leads a prayer in your church but he should not do it while at school as an employee/actor of the government.

Why?

Is the coach making laws concerning, (concerning is old English for 'respecting') an Established Church/or an establishment of religion? The coach has no legislative power? He can make no State or Federal law concerning an Established Church or an Establishment of religion, he's a football coach, not any kind of government elected official who can 'make law'??

Wouldn't the government be restricting or prohibiting him from his right to prayer, by telling him he can not say a prayer in the public square? (And I am talking about a coach that says a prayer himself, before a game, and not forcing any of his players to say it.)



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Why is the first part always argued without any itty bit of consideration to the second part of the religion clause in the first amendment? There is no deference given to the first part of the clause over the second part in the constitution?

I think the WHOLE clause should be argued as one unit...it was meant as one unit...that's all i'm saying...

one could make the argument that the coach, choosing to say a prayer before a game is his RIGHT, and one could argue that the government is to make no law prohibiting him from that right, no?

And also, imho, one could argue, that the coach is not in a position of government that can make law that concerns or respects an establishment of religion, thus his actions are not in any way breaking the first part of the religion clause in TFA, can they not?

Care

Care, you clearly put a lot of thought and consideration into this post (who the heck knew that "'concerning' is old English for 'respecting'").

So I'd like to respond in an equally thoughtful and considerate way:

Roses are Red,
Violets are Blue,
Chickens are stupid,
And rdean is too.

hahahahahahahahahahaha! silly goose!

 

[Cecilie1200]

For the love of God (you should excuse the expression), could we please draw a distinction between "good idea/bad idea" and "Constitutional/Unconstitutional"? All this twaddle about "Well, why should a teacher be doing that?" makes my head hurt.

I realize that it's kneejerk lib think to say, "I don't like that, I think it's bad to do that, therefore it must be Unconstitutional", but that's not how it works. Something can be completely within a person's Constitutional rights to do, and still be an incredibly bad choice of action.

 

[Samson]

For the love of God (you should excuse the expression), could we please draw a distinction between "good idea/bad idea" and "Constitutional/Unconstitutional"? All this twaddle about "Well, why should a teacher be doing that?" makes my head hurt.

I realize that it's kneejerk lib think to say, "I don't like that, I think it's bad to do that, therefore it must be Unconstitutional", but that's not how it works. Something can be completely within a person's Constitutional rights to do, and still be an incredibly bad choice of action.

We did draw a distiction: The Supreme court ruled on The Schempp Case, and decided teachers will not lead prayer in school. Until an amendment is made to the constitution clarifying the point, the courts opinion stands.

 

[xotoxi]

I don't think optional, teacher-led prayer, after school or during lunch or something like that is a Constitutional problem, personally.

optional is fine assuming the kids are able to make the decisions on their own or the parents make it for them if they are too young

Sure. Otherwise, it wouldn't be optional.

That is, unless the kids were able to make the decisions to participate.

 

[rdean]

I know that I don't want a single cent of my taxpayer money used to expose children to "mysticism" and the "occult".

I have no supernatural beliefs in witches, pastors or spirits and frankly, it's insulting and offensive that anyone would challenge my intellect with such nonsense.

Keep it out of schools.

If you want to create houses of voodoo for "chants" to non existent, imaginary beings, fine. Do it. Who cares. Just don't expose me or my kids or grand-kids to it. That's NOT your place.

 

[ConHog]

I know that I don't want a single cent of my taxpayer money used to expose children to "mysticism" and the "occult".

I have no supernatural beliefs in witches, pastors or spirits and frankly, it's insulting and offensive that anyone would challenge my intellect with such nonsense.

Keep it out of schools.

If you want to create houses of voodoo for "chants" to non existent, imaginary beings, fine. Do it. Who cares. Just don't expose me or my kids or grand-kids to it. That's NOT your place.

Too bad, the first amendment GUARANTEES me my right to practice my religion, even if your kids are around. PERIOD. You don't get to say "not around me"

 

[Samson]

I know that I don't want a single cent of my taxpayer money used to expose children to "mysticism" and the "occult".

I have no supernatural beliefs in witches, pastors or spirits and frankly, it's insulting and offensive that anyone would challenge my intellect with such nonsense.

Keep it out of schools.

If you want to create houses of voodoo for "chants" to non existent, imaginary beings, fine. Do it. Who cares. Just don't expose me or my kids or grand-kids to it. That's NOT your place.

Jaysus, rdean, the court ruled against religion in schools half a fucking century ago.

Did you lose your perscription again?

 

[Samson]

I know that I don't want a single cent of my taxpayer money used to expose children to "mysticism" and the "occult".

I have no supernatural beliefs in witches, pastors or spirits and frankly, it's insulting and offensive that anyone would challenge my intellect with such nonsense.

Keep it out of schools.

If you want to create houses of voodoo for "chants" to non existent, imaginary beings, fine. Do it. Who cares. Just don't expose me or my kids or grand-kids to it. That's NOT your place.

Too bad, the first amendment GUARANTEES me my right to practice my religion, even if your kids are around. PERIOD. You don't get to say "not around me"

WTF is your point? To make a fuckin' non sequitur remark that has no context to a discussion about TEACHERS IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL practicing their religion?

****I know, you're trying to get poor rdean's panties all wadded up, but I wondered if he was so stupid that he'll bite even after I've posted this****

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I know that I don't want a single cent of my taxpayer money used to expose children to "mysticism" and the "occult".

I have no supernatural beliefs in witches, pastors or spirits and frankly, it's insulting and offensive that anyone would challenge my intellect with such nonsense.

Keep it out of schools.

If you want to create houses of voodoo for "chants" to non existent, imaginary beings, fine. Do it. Who cares. Just don't expose me or my kids or grand-kids to it. That's NOT your place.

We have been through this same BS before

Does prayer have the power to heal? Scientists have some surprising answers.
Combat Zone Tax Exclusions - Military Benefits - Military.com

Your next reply will be that you can't find anything on the information from the link anywhere but from the link used. I will then come back and post the information that you said you can't find. then you run away.

 

[Cecilie1200]

For the love of God (you should excuse the expression), could we please draw a distinction between "good idea/bad idea" and "Constitutional/Unconstitutional"? All this twaddle about "Well, why should a teacher be doing that?" makes my head hurt.

I realize that it's kneejerk lib think to say, "I don't like that, I think it's bad to do that, therefore it must be Unconstitutional", but that's not how it works. Something can be completely within a person's Constitutional rights to do, and still be an incredibly bad choice of action.

We did draw a distiction: The Supreme court ruled on The Schempp Case, and decided teachers will not lead prayer in school. Until an amendment is made to the constitution clarifying the point, the courts opinion stands.

You should know by now EXACTLY how much respect I have for people who answer "Show me in the Constitution" with a citation of a court decision. I'm not known for being imprecise in my word choices, so if I had wanted a court case, rest assured, I would have asked for it very specifically.

 

[Samson]

For the love of God (you should excuse the expression), could we please draw a distinction between "good idea/bad idea" and "Constitutional/Unconstitutional"? All this twaddle about "Well, why should a teacher be doing that?" makes my head hurt.

I realize that it's kneejerk lib think to say, "I don't like that, I think it's bad to do that, therefore it must be Unconstitutional", but that's not how it works. Something can be completely within a person's Constitutional rights to do, and still be an incredibly bad choice of action.

We did draw a distiction: The Supreme court ruled on The Schempp Case, and decided teachers will not lead prayer in school. Until an amendment is made to the constitution clarifying the point, the courts opinion stands.

You should know by now EXACTLY how much respect I have for people who answer "Show me in the Constitution" with a citation of a court decision. I'm not known for being imprecise in my word choices, so if I had wanted a court case, rest assured, I would have asked for it very specifically.

Ok, then I'll assume you know that the Constitution can be interpreted many ways, and that the framers anticipated this, and therefore enabled a third, judicial, branch of government the power of checks and balances.

 

[George Costanza]

The right doesn't care about the constitution.

Then please explain to me how this applies to a teacher in a school.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I'm sure someone has already covered this, but . . .

It applies to a teacher in a PUBLIC school. PUBLIC schools are GOVERNMENTAL agencies. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion by THE GOVERNMENT.

If a teacher in a PRIVATE school wants his/her children to open with a prayer every morning, they can do so.

The distinction has to do with who runs the school. If it's the government, i.e., a public school, Constitutional prohibitions and guarantees apply. If it's private, they don't (subject to certain limitations not applicable to this discussion).

But you knew this.

 

[George Costanza]

Well, it applies to the schools (public ones) as an arm of the local government via the 14th amendment. Before the 14 amendment and incorporation, it didn't apply to the States, much less the schools.

Congratulations. you got the right answer, now for the tricky part.

How is a teacher, who is not empowered to make laws, violating either the 1st or the 14th amendments by praying in a classroom?

Ah, I see you did know it. Suspected as much. On to Phase 2:

Police don't make laws. Yet, if they violate the Constitution in making an arrest, the case gets thrown out. Not so with private security guards, who are not agents or arms of the government.

 

[George Costanza]

please explain this to me because it baffles my mind

The burden is yours to prove. How is it unconstitutional? What religion is established by praying to God in a public school?

While you're at it, how is daily prayer in Congress, led by a chaplain, unconstitutional?

No particular religion - but the prayer is generally directed to a "God." There are folks who do not believe in God, regardless of which religion is used to gain access to Him. These people are called atheists. I believe the concept of God (or the equivalent for the particular religion) is common to all organized religions. Hence, forcing public school children to pray would be unconstitutional because it establishes a God-based concept which would run counter to atheism.

There are also religions which do not pray to "God" as such. I doubt that many (or any) proposed prayer sessions in public schools take these religions into account and, even if they do, it would still run counter to atheism.