Prayer in Schools

Remove all ads!

I am listening, Ragusa. I'm just disagreeing with you.

 

Well, you're wrong.

 

This is precisely how I feel on the subject. I couldn't sum it up any better and there is no reason to even expand on it. Well said.

---------- Added 0 hours, 10 minutes and 51 seconds later... ----------

What if a teacher was muslim and according to his faith was expected to follow such a strict regiment. Would that be allowed?

Even some Christian sects practice fervant prayer. That is kneeling before God etc.

I

And ignore the tenants in their Quran? By changing their religious views for man made authority?

 

As I said, we don't just hold different, equally valid views, on which we 'just disagree'. You're wrong. Look, I took the time and consulted a US constitutional law book. I found you the relevant passage from a pertinent US Supreme Court decision. What I wrote to the best of my knowledge describes the legal situation in the US today. A relatively reasonable one for that.

While you are certainly sincere, the problem is that you disagree with reality, NOG. You just appear to dislike it.

Holding that a particular view reflects reality while it does not, that's ignoring reality and living in illusion or delusion. That could be the reason for your intransigence here. Evangelicals have long embarked on a Quixotic quest to change America, so that isn't exactly surprising.

 

Ragusa, that's a load of bs and you know it. What you provided from the court of law was:

So, we know it is forbidden to "coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which `establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.'" Great, I'm not saying they should. What I'm saying is that a teacher saying a prayer over his/her meal, on their own does nothing to coerce support, or participation in religion, nor does it establish a state religion.

I'll agree 100% that if these people had stood up in class and ordered everyone to stand and recite the Lord's Prayer, they would be vastly out of line. That's not what happened though. THAT is the reality that you are ignoring.

 

No. Even when they are opening the lesson with a private prayer in their official function as a teacher (i.e. during classes, or a school event) it is a violation of the separation of Church and State. The forum (i.e. public (i.e. state) platform) idea strikes again.

Understand, or try to, that when they use their forum, they're using state power, and that in itself is a potential coercion, because their use of the forum for the purpose of religious exercise suggests preferential treatment that is endorsed by the state.

Coercion doesn't mean the teacher puts a metaphorical gun to a pupils head and demands him to pray. Coercion can be tacit. The coercive effect lies not in the act (here, religious exercise) itself, but the implications of it to be understood as being school (i.e. state) endorsed - with all the implications and sanctions of crossing teacher (i.e. school (i.e. state) derived) authority in case of non compliance.

 

Prayer is a private affair, it is something personal. It is fine if you're in the privacy of your own property, or in an appropriate place of worship or within a gathering of like faithed people.

If a teacher feels the need to pray in a class, or while they are on duty, then that is where the problem lies - why should teaching time, time where a teacher is paid to teach - be spent on personal religious reflection? Teachers get enough breaks where they can spent time alone in a teachers room or a multifaith chapel if the grounds contain one for prayer and reflection.

Equating open prayer to a homosexual saying "yes, I'm gay" is also a bit daft, in my opinion. Saying you're gay is the equivalent of saying you're christian. Praying in class is openly expressing personal beliefs on the class, more equivalent of a homosexual describing their ideal partner, perhaps with a bit of dopey-expressioned daydreaming, depends on the prayer you're comparing it to!

 

If they open their lesson (which students must attend or be punished), as part of their official function, then yes, that is an abuse of power. Again, though, that's not what happened.

I do, but again, there is a balance between that and their own right to express their religion. Your case of law pointed out one position that the court has taken on that and it was, to be honest, a very conservative one. Other courts have taken other positions, usually somewhat less conservative. Sometimes extremely less, sometimes even more.

If your teacher says they're going out for a smoke, or if you see them smoking (presumably off campus durring their break), does that amount to state endorsement, or coercion, toward students smoking? If a teacher mentions his husband, even during class, does that amount to coercion to homosexuality? Or if he mentions his wife, toward heterosexuality?

Basically, Ragusa, I'll agree that there are inapropriate actions a teacher can take. I don't agree that an individual prayer which students aren't even invited to participate in, is one of them. Exposure to religion, even in the body of a teacher, does not amount to coercion into it. If it did, then any teacher who ever expressed any political view should be fired. Any teacher that ever expressed any religious opinion, or opinion on right or wrong (aside from legal fact) should be sanctioned/fired.

 

Actually it is exactly what has happened here.

 

Don't confuse the issue with facts, Ragusa....

 

Ragusa, I meant what happened when the officials were arrested for contempt of court. You know, the actual incident we were talking about. I'll agree what prompted the original case was justified, but the resulting court ruling appears to be unconstitutional to me (in that it bans any prayer of any kind by school officials). There is no evidence in any article I've seen that the 'prayer' being offered was anything more than a simple, quite, yet publicly performed (i.e. not hidden in a closet) prayer. Nothing said that students were forced to participate in this prayer, or that it disrupted the event in any way.

 

As a school official they are representing that school, as such as it is a state school they are representing that aspect of the state. It is an understandable complaint even if a potential prison sentence is an extreme punishment for the incident.

 

Ah, but they are also US citizens, with protected rights as US citizens. That is where I say there is a bit of a blurry line: what should be allowed to protect our freedoms and what should be prohibited to prevent gov't endorsement of religion. To me, a simple, quiet prayer, even by someone in a position of gov't authority, is not a violation of anyone else's rights, nor is it establishment of a religion. That same person telling others of different or unconfirmed belief to pray is a violation.

Think about it. A teacher wearing Reebok shoes isn't a gov't endorsement of Reebok, is it? A principal eating Skittles isn't a gov't endorsement of Skittles. What would be inappropriate in those circumstances is forcing those decisions onto others. Why is religion any different? Why is (or isn't, depending on your position) sexuality?

 

You cannot separate the two NOG -- they are directly tied together. Without the first incident, there would be no contempt of court charges. The two combined show a blatant disregard for the court on the part of the school officials.

 

On the contrary, T2, you have to seperate the two. They were seperate incidents. Now, you may argue that, due to evidenced past behavior, it is likely that they acted a certain way in this incident, but you can't say that they must have, simply because in a previous incident they did. If anything, I'd say the previous incident leading to the court order makes it more likely that they acted differently this time.

 

Is the crux of the issue, if people who approved to the rule then simply ignored it, should they be allowed to get away with it? This could apply to any small misdemeanor - however trivial it may seem to a portion of subjects to it.

To me, though I have not read other articles on the event, simply what is linked by Ragusa, it sounds like the prayer of blessing was more than two men having a quiet prayer over their own meals. Alongside:

Indicates that it was not just over their own meals, but the entire food available at the celebratory lunch. Those eating the food would be eating food blessed by a particular person of a particular faith - whether or not they agreed with the sentiment or wished to recieve blessing. However petty the argument is against it, it is still pressing a blessing to potentially unwilling subjects - whether or not they are the same faith.

 

8, I've seen a so-called 'consent order' before. It was essentially a forced mediation with coerced concent (with the judge threatening to side with the other group if you don't agree to his proposal) from both parties. Neither group liked it, and to say they 'approved' of it is, at best, a stretch. I'd bet this is the same.

But you yourself admit that that was just your assumption. The article doesn't say. To me, it sounds alot like the two guys got together and prayed, and someone else, seeing it, took offense.

And yet, that's not the issue. If a student or two had, voluntarily, prayed over the food before it was served, no one could do anything. Even though the student had just 'pressed a blessing to potentially unwilling subjects', they could not be arrested and any disciplinary action for it would have initiated a civil suit against the school. The complaint is that they prayed. Even Ragusa admits that what the court order prohibited was 'prayer'. It flat out said that these people were not allowed to pray.

 

Logically, you can only violate a consent decree obliging you to omit something by committing that something. In a case sanctioning the violation such a consent decree it is thus inevitable that there are two separate incidents.

It is still one problem legally: It is a violation of the consent decree that demanded they not do the things listed there, like prayer in school.

 

One, it isn't a plea agreement (though there is a similarity). Two, it doesn't change that the consent order was unconstitutional.