Prayer in Schools

Remove all ads!

You will note that I edited my post. Please line out why the consent decree was unconstitutional, because I don't see why.

PS: Your response to 8people shows that you still don't understand the concept of forum and its implications. I suggest you re-read the passages on forum before answering the question about constitutionality. The two points are closely related, and you can't correctly answer the question of constitutionality without having understood forum.

 

Nethertheless, it's still an agreement bound by law.

You're also making assmuptions based on the article then. Do you know any other articles that give a clearer picture?

Students could be held accountable within the school without being taken to a court, the staff answer further up the chain. Just because they're brats doesn't give them the right to push their beliefs on others either, whatever they believe.

Yup, I can read that too, "permanently prohibited from promoting, advancing, endorsing, participating in or causing prayers during or in conjunction with school events,". Not really sure what was so difficult for the men to avoid prayer at a school function. They only had to last a lunch time after all.

 

And the constitution.

Actually, I'm trying not to assume their innocence. I'm just pointing out that you can't use that as evidence of the inappropriateness of their action, since it isn't evidence.

If the students even got a stern talking to, there'd be grounds for a civil suit, much less a disciplinary action like detention. Can you imagine the fallout if a student were given detention for praying?

It's the nature of the order. If a vegetarian were ordered to go home and eat a steak, it would be offensive (and probably illegal on some level). If a doctor were ordered not to tell a patient they had cancer (or AIDS or anything else) when the evidence proved it, it would go entirely against their conscience.

And Ragusa, I understand what a forum is. What I don't understand is how you can say that the gov't must avoid any situation in which their forum may be used to promote or exercise religion. Established legal precedence goes entirely against that. The fact that the FCC can't ban religious broadcasting (since that is also a state-provided forum) is proof. So is the fact that public schools can have religious student groups meet there after school (even ones officiated by teachers).

 

A vegetarian being ordered to go to their private residence and eat something they chose to avoid for medical or moral reason is not comparable to a christian being asked not to pray at work and on duty.

Doctors can only withold information on a life threatening/altering condition if there are grounds to suspect mental instability or the revelation of the condition will cause more harm to the patient.

People were asked to keep their faith to themselves for the duration of their official duty. It's not like they're going to be fed to lions, if a student broke a rule and was given detention, they don't have a case. Rules are there for the benefit of the greater student body - both for the pupils and staff. If praying in class was against the rules - they would be given detention for it. Students are expected to pay attention after all and most would probably be praying for rather unchristian things if it took place mid class

There is a lack of evidence for their innocence, the rule they disobeyed is in clear print, it is the nature of the transgression that remains ambiguous, they broke the rule, how they exactly went about it is unable to be proven given the depth of the article.

 

Actually it is not. The FCC regulates frequency allocation. The mere fact that the FCC gives a license is no state endorsement. It is simply so that you're not allowed to use a frequency without a license. You're also not allowed to drive your car without a driver's license. The fact that authorities issue you a driver's license is not a state endorsement of you driving (i.e. saying you're driving in the name of the state). It merely allows you to drive. The very same way a license by the FCC merely enables religious expression on the air. The FCC does, however, not force citizens to listen to religious broadcasting. EDIT: The FCC's provides access to forum, but doesn't capture the audience. /EDIT

For pupils school is mandatory and school prayer in classes, during dinner or school events is something pupils cannot escape, unlike the average radio listener who can change the frequency if they don't like what they're hearing. Pupils can't just 'tune out' their teacher. They can't opt out of lessons, or obligatory school events.

As a result of that, the FCC example is not proof for what you say, and it's failure to be gives evidence that you do have difficulties handling the concept of 'offering forum' EDIT: in connection (thank you NOG) with a 'captive audience' /EDIT.

No again. That is optional, voluntary. Those who don't like it need not go there. It is ok in school, only because the voluntary nature forces nobody to attend it. EDIT: In these voluntary religious meetings in school the school is providing a forum, but it doesn't amount to a captive audience due to the voluntary nature./EDIT

 

Historically, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution have only been restricted for the direct protection of the people or of society as a whole. For religion, this amounts to things like banning human sacrifices, restricting animal sacrifices (for sanitary reasons), and banning polygamy (which, at the time, was seen as a grave threat to society). For speach, that's things like yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, and issues with the definition of 'speach' (there are similar things with religion, as in cults not being protected). Unless you're claiming that exposure to prayer is either directly harmful to the students, or that it is significantly threatening to the very fabric of society, there is not enough reason to restrict it altogether. Now, if a student disrupts class with loud praying, or fails a test because they were praying instead of paying attention, then they can be punished accordingly, but for disrupting class and failing tests, not for praying. If a student at the event in question (which was hosted and served by the culinary class) had prayed over the meal before hand, and was sanctioned for it, a civil suit would follow in a matter of hours, and the student would probably win. Courts have already ruled on cases similar to this. I remember one in particular (maybe 10 years ago?) where the top student was asked to give a speach, but was banned from mentioning God. When he did (I think it was a he), he was punished. He sued the school and won.

Considering that we aren't actually passing sentence on anyone here, I think it's acceptable to consider multiple situations and judge various outcomes. I'll admit that if the prayer were anything that a reasonable person (i.e. neither a religious nut nor an atheist nut) would see as disruptive, the teacher should be sanctioned accordingly, but if it was a quiet prayer, they should not. My problem is that, at the moment, a teacher in the cafeteria who bows his head, folds his hands, closes his eyes, and mutters to himself, could be arrested and put in jail. That should never be allowed to happen in the US, and any court order that would allow that is blatantly unconstitutional.

Ragusa, you seem to be confusing a forum and a captive audience. A forum:

Now, since I'll assume you aren't comparing school to an ancient Roman market place, or a court of law or tribunal, only the 'public meeting' and 'medium for open discussion' (such as radio) definitions really work. Those are not forced on the participants in any way.

Now, as for 'captive audiences', a teacher only automatically has these during class. In that setting, I'll agree that it is inapropriate to pray, preach, or the like. Passing them in the hall, or seeing them in the cafeteria, however, does not make the students a captive audience. In those settings, the teacher would have to actively exercise their authority to create a captive audience. I'll also agree that, if they do that and pray/preach/etc, they are also acting inapropriately and should be punished accordingly.

The case in question is a little unclear, as we don't know just how much involvement the students had. Did they prepare and serve the meal, then leave, then the teacher prayed, or did the teacher pray while they served, or beforehand over the food as a whole, or did the students serve and stick around? As I said with 8people, I think it's safe for us to analyze each case, along with how disruptive the prayer may have been. All in all, I don't think the difference in the student's attendence is an issue, but rather the nature of the prayer. A quiet prayer between two people shouldn't be punished in any of the possibilities of student attendence, whereas a large, disruptive prayer should be.

 

NOG,
we appear to be getting somewhere. You sound as if you have done some research. You could have spared us all a great waste of time by doing that a few days ago.

You're right to refer to the captive audience. Looking back you will find that I described just that.

The meaning of forum here is based on the Roman sense of the word; it's the metaphorical 'public square'. Yes, the FCC provides access to forum, but doesn't 'capture the audience'. And yes, in voluntary religious meetings in school the school is providing a forum, but it doesn't amount to a captive audience due to the voluntary nature. That means your original points on the FCC and religious student groups are still just as invalid as before.

No it isn't unclear. Considering that the thing went to court again, it is implausible to assume that none of the pupils or parents did object to that. Actually, it's utterly irrelevant what the students who were present thought; it doesn't matter - the teachers were in violation of their consent decree - that suffices.

 

That should not happen and I can't see how that would happen as the teacher would be on their lunch break and not on official capacity. In the article they were representing their school at a function.

Christianity also has the indulgence of 'simple' prayer, there is very little ritual and paraphernalia associated with it. In simple interest of equal treatment for all religions it is usually safer to simply disallow it while they are in official capacity and ensure sufficient facilities and break allowances for the official to express their faith during the day in comfortable, personal ways.

 

You still don't seem to understand, Ragusa. You said all these things about a forum, but you weren't actually talking about a forum. You were talking about a captive audience. Those are two different (though not mutually exclusive) things.

My whole point is that the State is forbidden from restricting a forum based just on the presence (or absence) of religion, and I used the FCC (among other things) as an example. The FCC provides a forum for religious broadcasting, and is forbidden from restricting that forum based solely on the presence or absence of religion. Likewise, schools provide a forum, but they aren't allowed to restrict that forum based on religion. The sub-category of a captive audience is something else. Schools also provide this, in a more limited manner, and are forbidden from mentioning religion in anything other than a factual, historical/social/philosophical manner.

I imagine a pupil may have objected, or a parent, or a lawyer who was there, or another teacher. Those are all realistic, but to claim that it must have been someone we would classify as 'reasonable', and not an atheistic nut who would put people in jail for closing their eyes before a meal, is not necessarily supported.

And again, Ragusa, I'll tell you that the consent decree, in my eyes, violates the constitution.

But the ruling didn't state "while in official capacity", but rather "during any official school action". Lunch is still school, with all the same rules applied. You can't give a student detention for ignoring a teacher in the supermarket (out of school), but you can for ignoring a teacher in the cafeteria during lunch. The ruling is still in force there.

 

I've done a bit more digging on this.

A local newspaper records the court proceedings

Pray Daily America

The relevant bit from the second link:

NOG, I think you can forget at this stage any notion that this was a quiet prayer between two adults. This 'secular' school seems far more religious than the ones I went to that were run by the Church.

 

Deise, I'd agree with you, but they already got their a**es handed to them in court. I'm hoping they'd have learned something.

Also, I still contend the original order was unconstitutional to begin with.

 

Oh, and have I said that already? You're wrong. Can we start over again?

 

Ragusa, you still haven't really defended it. The best we've come up with is that teachers shouldn't be allowed preach during class. You have yet to really justify the complete banning of religion from schools.

 

He doesn't have to - you have to justify religion's inclusion in secular school.

 

Simple, Freedom of Religion. Banning teachers from praying restricts their freedom to exercise their religion.

Ragusa's counter is that allowing teachers (as State representatives) to exercise their religion in their official duties amounts to State endorsement of religion.

My counter is that one can prevent teachers from enforcing religion without restricting them from exercising it.

Ragusa's counter (if I read it right) is that that's not enough, that simply because they're role models, their actions amount to State endorsement.

My response is that that's BS. A teacher mentioning that they're Christian is not State endorsement. Nor is a teacher quietly praying in the Cafeteria. Nor is a teacher going to church on Sunday (since the above point expands the restriction outside of official duties).

Is that about it?

 

That isn't what "freedom of religion" means, constitutionally speaking.

 

Actually, it is. Well, it's as close as it is to banning it in schools.

The actual Constitution says that "Congress shall pass no law concerning the establishment of a religion, nor banning the free exercise thereof."

Now, since I think we both agree it's not just limited to congressional law, it looks like both the ban on establishment and the ban on banning free exercise extend to schools.

 

DR: ...that's going to go as far as the definition of "right to bear arms."

 

You're probably right. I'll save myself the headache. Thanks, bud.