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

[ConHog]

Not impressed with your anecdotes. How about you presenting some evience?

I'd like to see that evidence too.

hmmm another example of "if it isnt on the internet, it didnt happen"

Another example of "you are saying stuff we don't agree with, so shut it"

 

[bodecea]

I'd like to see that evidence too.

hmmm another example of "if it isnt on the internet, it didnt happen"

Another example of "you are saying stuff we don't agree with, so shut it"

Actually, just the opposite...DON'T shut up...give us links to these things you speak of.

 

[DiveCon]

hmmm another example of "if it isnt on the internet, it didnt happen"

Another example of "you are saying stuff we don't agree with, so shut it"

Actually, just the opposite...DON'T shut up...give us links to these things you speak of.

again with the "if it isnt on the internet, it didnt happen" fallacy

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Amendment I

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

but george, HOW is it unconstitutional based on the precise words in the constitution for the first amendment?

Is the coach or teacher choosing to say a prayer, 'Congress making a law respecting or concerning an established religion'?

Is forbidding such action of a coach or teacher or any individual in the public square, undermining the second part of the religion clause in the first amendment....if not, then why not?

Children in school are a true captive audience. They cannot leave, they cannot walk away, they are taught from Day One to listen to and obey their teachers. A high school senior may not be affected, but a first grader? A fifth grader? A seventh grader at that probably most awkward stage of life? From maybe a Jewish, Hindu, Muslim or atheist home? Being led in most likely Christian themed prayer (even if Christ is not mentioned) by a respected authority figure could be not only confusing, but would undermine the parents' right to school their minor children in religious matters as they see fit.

That's a far different situation than simply saying a prayer in the public square, where even the children are free to walk away. And it's different from an after school religious club, at which attendance is voluntary. It's the fact that in a public school during school hours the children are literally forced to sit and pay attention that's the problem.

O'Connor was right, a moment of silence would be appropriate. Teacher led prayer is not.

But at what point does one teach children tolerance and respect for other people's religious beliefs, instead of teaching them intolerance?

I am just playing Devil's advocate here....

And if Public school is not the Public square, what is?

I am not really speaking to mandatory prayer in schools....mandatory would mean it was made law or regulated, but more in the lines of Coaches, saying a prayer, before a high school football game....type thing.....this has been done for at least a century, but NOW it is supposedly not ok? What changed in the constitution to make this not okay now?

And again, where in the first amendment does it say what you expressed as your opinion?

What I am reading is CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.....how the heck is a coach saying a prayer before a football game CONGRESS MAKING A LAW?

Do the words in the constitution and the first amendment mean NOTHING and it can be twisted to mean anything? I just don't see how it fits or rather how the coach saying a prayer before a football game, is breaking the actual first amendment words?

There should never be any mandatory school prayer. Nevertheless, I think that the schools should allow some time for a child to pray or read the bible if they would like to.

 

[Samson]

Children in school are a true captive audience. They cannot leave, they cannot walk away, they are taught from Day One to listen to and obey their teachers. A high school senior may not be affected, but a first grader? A fifth grader? A seventh grader at that probably most awkward stage of life? From maybe a Jewish, Hindu, Muslim or atheist home? Being led in most likely Christian themed prayer (even if Christ is not mentioned) by a respected authority figure could be not only confusing, but would undermine the parents' right to school their minor children in religious matters as they see fit.

That's a far different situation than simply saying a prayer in the public square, where even the children are free to walk away. And it's different from an after school religious club, at which attendance is voluntary. It's the fact that in a public school during school hours the children are literally forced to sit and pay attention that's the problem.

O'Connor was right, a moment of silence would be appropriate. Teacher led prayer is not.

But at what point does one teach children tolerance and respect for other people's religious beliefs, instead of teaching them intolerance?

I am just playing Devil's advocate here....

And if Public school is not the Public square, what is?

I am not really speaking to mandatory prayer in schools....mandatory would mean it was made law or regulated, but more in the lines of Coaches, saying a prayer, before a high school football game....type thing.....this has been done for at least a century, but NOW it is supposedly not ok? What changed in the constitution to make this not okay now?

And again, where in the first amendment does it say what you expressed as your opinion?

What I am reading is CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.....how the heck is a coach saying a prayer before a football game CONGRESS MAKING A LAW?

Do the words in the constitution and the first amendment mean NOTHING and it can be twisted to mean anything? I just don't see how it fits or rather how the coach saying a prayer before a football game, is breaking the actual first amendment words?

There should never be any mandatory school prayer. Nevertheless, I think that the schools should allow some time for a child to pray or read the bible if they would like to.

Actually, a child praying or reading the bible is OK in public school.

A TEACHER, or any other educator may NOT lead prayer, or lead a bible reading in a public school.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But at what point does one teach children tolerance and respect for other people's religious beliefs, instead of teaching them intolerance?

I am just playing Devil's advocate here....

And if Public school is not the Public square, what is?

I am not really speaking to mandatory prayer in schools....mandatory would mean it was made law or regulated, but more in the lines of Coaches, saying a prayer, before a high school football game....type thing.....this has been done for at least a century, but NOW it is supposedly not ok? What changed in the constitution to make this not okay now?

And again, where in the first amendment does it say what you expressed as your opinion?

What I am reading is CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.....how the heck is a coach saying a prayer before a football game CONGRESS MAKING A LAW?

Do the words in the constitution and the first amendment mean NOTHING and it can be twisted to mean anything? I just don't see how it fits or rather how the coach saying a prayer before a football game, is breaking the actual first amendment words?

There should never be any mandatory school prayer. Nevertheless, I think that the schools should allow some time for a child to pray or read the bible if they would like to.

Actually, a child praying or reading the bible is OK in public school.

A TEACHER, or any other educator may NOT lead prayer, or lead a bible reading in a public school.

Then we agree.

 

[Samson]

illinois has a law requiring a moment of silence in public schools. Pretty sure it is being challenged in court at the moment. A number of other States have them.

I don't think so:

Illinois Moment of Silence in Schools Ruled Unconstitutional - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Illinois Moment of Silence in Schools Ruled Unconstitutional

Thursday , January 22, 2009



ADVERTISEMENT

CHICAGO —

A federal judge has ruled that a state law requiring a moment of silence in public schools across Illinois is unconstitutional, saying it crosses the line separating church and state.
"The statute is a subtle effort to force students at impressionable ages to contemplate religion," U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman said in his ruling Wednesday.

The ruling came in a lawsuit designed to bar schools from enforcing the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act. It was filed by talk show host Rob Sherman, an outspoken atheist, and his daughter, Dawn, a high school student.

Gettleman's ruling was not a surprise. He had already ruled in favor of Sherman in two previous decisions.

As passed by the Illinois General Assembly, the law allows students to reflect on the day's activities rather than pray if that is their choice and defenders have said it therefore doesn't force religion on anyone...

I don't think there should be any 'moments of silence' proscribed by schools. The students though have every right to pray, silently before tests, lunch, what have they. It's their 'time' to use as they see fit.

I would be offended if my kids in a public school were led in prayer or some form of during the school day by teachers or administrators. Now if my kids were in parochial school of my choosing, different kettle and fish.

Can religion be addressed in school? Yes. I posted two good links in early part of this thread.

DA-AMN

Well, things have changed since I taught in Texas, only 6 years prior tro this ruling.

Its more than a little extraordinary to consider that the legislature, representatives of the people of Illinois, would believe that some official spiritual time may benefit public schools in Illinois, yet One Atheist can find One Judge to interpret the intent as a subtle effort to force students at impressionable ages to contemplate religion.

Now, just the mere suggestion that you meditate for a minute is FORCING RELIGION DOWN AN ATHEIST'S THROAT???

For christssakes......Talk about abuse of judiciary. This is a prime example

 

[Care4all]

i don't want any teacher of today saying a prayer in school and forcing kids to join in, BUT where in the first amendment, does it say this is unconstitutional?

 

[Samson]

i don't want any teacher of today saying a prayer in school and forcing kids to join in, BUT where in the first amendment, does it say this is unconstitutional?

It doesn't matter.

The Constitution wasn't written to spell out every freakin' detail, so we have a Supreme Court decide for us what it says.

 

[goldcatt]

i don't want any teacher of today saying a prayer in school and forcing kids to join in, BUT where in the first amendment, does it say this is unconstitutional?

The word "Establishment". There have been many definitions of Establishment over time, but they all center around exactly what we're talking about here with teacher-led prayer: government forcing a particular religion or religious observance on citizens irrespective of their actual beliefs.

It's not quite the same as telling people, for example, they must pretend to be Christian to be a full citizen. But it's still forcing students to sit through a religious observance whether they believe in it or not, backed by the power of the State. It's that "force" element that matters.

If it's voluntary, knock your socks off.

 

[Samson]

i don't want any teacher of today saying a prayer in school and forcing kids to join in, BUT where in the first amendment, does it say this is unconstitutional?

The word "Establishment". There have been many definitions of Establishment over time, but they all center around exactly what we're talking about here with teacher-led prayer: government forcing a particular religion or religious observance on citizens irrespective of their actual beliefs.

It's not quite the same as telling people, for example, they must pretend to be Christian to be a full citizen. But it's still forcing students to sit through a religious observance whether they believe in it or not, backed by the power of the State. It's that "force" element that matters.

If it's voluntary, knock your socks off.

I taught Physics and had one student, a senior, who carried around a bible and would read it after he'd completed the work I'd give him. I'm generally a pagan, but I must admit that the guy made an impression.

 

[goldcatt]

i don't want any teacher of today saying a prayer in school and forcing kids to join in, BUT where in the first amendment, does it say this is unconstitutional?

The word "Establishment". There have been many definitions of Establishment over time, but they all center around exactly what we're talking about here with teacher-led prayer: government forcing a particular religion or religious observance on citizens irrespective of their actual beliefs.

It's not quite the same as telling people, for example, they must pretend to be Christian to be a full citizen. But it's still forcing students to sit through a religious observance whether they believe in it or not, backed by the power of the State. It's that "force" element that matters.

If it's voluntary, knock your socks off.

I taught Physics and had one student, a senior, who carried around a bible and would read it after he'd completed the work I'd give him. I'm generally a pagan, but I must admit that the guy made an impression.

Pagan, eh? That explains a few things.

Seriously, good for him. It's not something I would do personally, but from what you describe his commitment sounds impressive. And exactly the kind of thing free exercise was intended to cover.

 

[LuckyDan]

i don't want any teacher of today saying a prayer in school and forcing kids to join in, BUT where in the first amendment, does it say this is unconstitutional?

The word "Establishment". There have been many definitions of Establishment over time, but they all center around exactly what we're talking about here with teacher-led prayer: government forcing a particular religion or religious observance on citizens irrespective of their actual beliefs.

It's not quite the same as telling people, for example, they must pretend to be Christian to be a full citizen. But it's still forcing students to sit through a religious observance whether they believe in it or not, backed by the power of the State. It's that "force" element that matters.

If it's voluntary, knock your socks off.

"Voluntary" is the key word. It's difficult for me to believe an atheist or agnostic could truly feel offended in the presence of someone praying, or even feel odd. They generally consider themselves intellectually superior. ​

Some in our society hsve so secularized themselves, so divorced themselves from any sort if spirituality whatsoever, that simply mentioning words like God or prayer strikes them as some sort of meaningful religious statement.​

And wasn't prayer, and public acts of religious affirmation, a part of life in the 1790s? Odd that the very people who wrote the extablishment clause seemed unworried by the public praying happening all around them.​

The courts have seemed intent on removing all religious activity of any type from the public square, which is a type of enforcement, is it not?​

Indeed, it could be added that the Court has almost
succeeded in establishing a new religion: secular humanism.”​

- Robert Bork

 

[goldcatt]

i don't want any teacher of today saying a prayer in school and forcing kids to join in, BUT where in the first amendment, does it say this is unconstitutional?

The word "Establishment". There have been many definitions of Establishment over time, but they all center around exactly what we're talking about here with teacher-led prayer: government forcing a particular religion or religious observance on citizens irrespective of their actual beliefs.

It's not quite the same as telling people, for example, they must pretend to be Christian to be a full citizen. But it's still forcing students to sit through a religious observance whether they believe in it or not, backed by the power of the State. It's that "force" element that matters.

If it's voluntary, knock your socks off.

"Voluntary" is the key word. It's difficult for me to believe an atheist or agnostic could truly feel offended in the presence of someone praying, or even feel odd. They generally consider themselves intellectually superior. ​

Some in our society hsve so secularized themselves, so divorced themselves from any sort if spirituality whatsoever, that simply mentioning words like God or prayer strikes them as some sort of meaningful religious statement.​

And wasn't prayer, and public acts of religious affirmation, a part of life in the 1790s? Odd that the very people who wrote the extablishment clause seemed unworried by the public praying happening all around them.​

The courts have seemed intent on removing all religious activity of any type from the public square, which is a type of enforcement, is it not?​

Indeed, it could be added that the Court has almost
succeeded in establishing a new religion: secular humanism.”​

- Robert Bork

Free exercise is an (almost) absolute individual right. Establishment is an (almost) absolute prohibition on government. Sometimes they clash. But there's a difference between totally secularizing the public square and having a government authority figure lead religious observances in a public school, and a lot of gray area in between.

Religion in the public square, in the form of voluntary acts by individuals such as prayer, is not restricted save by normal forum restrictions and the like. Government displays of religion in the public square invokes the classic plastic reindeer test. Both are a different situation from the public schools where there are additional issues because of the age and nature of the audience.

 

[LuckyDan]

The word "Establishment". There have been many definitions of Establishment over time, but they all center around exactly what we're talking about here with teacher-led prayer: government forcing a particular religion or religious observance on citizens irrespective of their actual beliefs.

It's not quite the same as telling people, for example, they must pretend to be Christian to be a full citizen. But it's still forcing students to sit through a religious observance whether they believe in it or not, backed by the power of the State. It's that "force" element that matters.

If it's voluntary, knock your socks off.

"Voluntary" is the key word. It's difficult for me to believe an atheist or agnostic could truly feel offended in the presence of someone praying, or even feel odd. They generally consider themselves intellectually superior. ​

Some in our society hsve so secularized themselves, so divorced themselves from any sort if spirituality whatsoever, that simply mentioning words like God or prayer strikes them as some sort of meaningful religious statement.​

And wasn't prayer, and public acts of religious affirmation, a part of life in the 1790s? Odd that the very people who wrote the extablishment clause seemed unworried by the public praying happening all around them.​

The courts have seemed intent on removing all religious activity of any type from the public square, which is a type of enforcement, is it not?​

Indeed, it could be added that the Court has almost
succeeded in establishing a new religion: secular humanism.”​

- Robert Bork

Free exercise is an (almost) absolute individual right. Establishment is an (almost) absolute prohibition on government. Sometimes they clash. But there's a difference between totally secularizing the public square and having a government authority figure lead religious observances in a public school, and a lot of gray area in between.

Religion in the public square, in the form of voluntary acts by individuals such as prayer, is not restricted save by normal forum restrictions and the like. Government displays of religion in the public square invokes the classic plastic reindeer test. Both are a different situation from the public schools where there are additional issues because of the age and nature of the audience.

Yeah. Maybe. School prayer is gone forever, in any case. I just don't see the harm. Nor the unconstitionality, so long as one religion isn't advanced over another. Never did.

But what about the "Congress shall make no law... " bit? A local school district can offer a pledge of allegiance and a "Dear God help us to get our minds right so we can learn this crap today. Amen" prayer, can't it? Isn't the proscription on Congress? Not the school district?

 

[goldcatt]

"Voluntary" is the key word. It's difficult for me to believe an atheist or agnostic could truly feel offended in the presence of someone praying, or even feel odd. They generally consider themselves intellectually superior. ​

Some in our society hsve so secularized themselves, so divorced themselves from any sort if spirituality whatsoever, that simply mentioning words like God or prayer strikes them as some sort of meaningful religious statement.​

And wasn't prayer, and public acts of religious affirmation, a part of life in the 1790s? Odd that the very people who wrote the extablishment clause seemed unworried by the public praying happening all around them.​

The courts have seemed intent on removing all religious activity of any type from the public square, which is a type of enforcement, is it not?​

Free exercise is an (almost) absolute individual right. Establishment is an (almost) absolute prohibition on government. Sometimes they clash. But there's a difference between totally secularizing the public square and having a government authority figure lead religious observances in a public school, and a lot of gray area in between.

Religion in the public square, in the form of voluntary acts by individuals such as prayer, is not restricted save by normal forum restrictions and the like. Government displays of religion in the public square invokes the classic plastic reindeer test. Both are a different situation from the public schools where there are additional issues because of the age and nature of the audience.

Yeah. Maybe. School prayer is gone forever, in any case. I just don't see the harm. Nor the unconstitionality, so long as one religion isn't advanced over another. Never did.

But what about the "Congress shall make no law... " bit? A local school district can offer a pledge of allegiance and a "Dear God help us to get our minds right so we can learn this crap today. Amen" prayer, can't it? Isn't the proscription on Congress? Not the school district?

It's that pesky 14th, LD. The First is applied to the States through incorporation. And local school districts, in fact all local government entities, are chartered through and derive their authority as delegated responsibiity from the State. So yes, it applies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think we have bigger problems to worry about in our schools.

Didn't really start having those problems until around the time they took prayer out of schools.

Anybody can pray any time in any school provided (1) it does not disrupt the educational process, and (2) it does not coerce or infringe on others.

Prayer, thus, was never taken out of schools.

 

[LuckyDan]

Free exercise is an (almost) absolute individual right. Establishment is an (almost) absolute prohibition on government. Sometimes they clash. But there's a difference between totally secularizing the public square and having a government authority figure lead religious observances in a public school, and a lot of gray area in between.

Religion in the public square, in the form of voluntary acts by individuals such as prayer, is not restricted save by normal forum restrictions and the like. Government displays of religion in the public square invokes the classic plastic reindeer test. Both are a different situation from the public schools where there are additional issues because of the age and nature of the audience.

Yeah. Maybe. School prayer is gone forever, in any case. I just don't see the harm. Nor the unconstitionality, so long as one religion isn't advanced over another. Never did.

But what about the "Congress shall make no law... " bit? A local school district can offer a pledge of allegiance and a "Dear God help us to get our minds right so we can learn this crap today. Amen" prayer, can't it? Isn't the proscription on Congress? Not the school district?

It's that pesky 14th, LD. The First is applied to the States through incorporation. And local school districts, in fact all local government entities, are chartered through and derive their authority as delegated responsibiity from the State. So yes, it applies.

Please. Sounds like a lotta emanatin' and penumbrafyin' if you axe me.

It's that judicial activism is what it is.

 

[goldcatt]

Yeah. Maybe. School prayer is gone forever, in any case. I just don't see the harm. Nor the unconstitionality, so long as one religion isn't advanced over another. Never did.

But what about the "Congress shall make no law... " bit? A local school district can offer a pledge of allegiance and a "Dear God help us to get our minds right so we can learn this crap today. Amen" prayer, can't it? Isn't the proscription on Congress? Not the school district?

It's that pesky 14th, LD. The First is applied to the States through incorporation. And local school districts, in fact all local government entities, are chartered through and derive their authority as delegated responsibiity from the State. So yes, it applies.

Please. Sounds like a lotta emanatin' and penumbrafyin' if you axe me.

It's that judicial activism is what it is.

It's those pesky privileges and immunities of citizenship. Whaddaya gonna do?

 

[LuckyDan]

It's that pesky 14th, LD. The First is applied to the States through incorporation. And local school districts, in fact all local government entities, are chartered through and derive their authority as delegated responsibiity from the State. So yes, it applies.

Please. Sounds like a lotta emanatin' and penumbrafyin' if you axe me.

It's that judicial activism is what it is.

It's those pesky privileges and immunities of citizenship. Whaddaya gonna do?

That's a euphonious little phrase, but what the hell does it mean? Before the 14th there were no privileges or immunities of citizenship?

More like privileges and immunities of being a damn judge all your freakin life and striking down anything you don't like. Some of those guys should have found honest work a loooong time ago.