Prayer in Schools

Remove all ads!

NOG, censors step in before a show is aired. The courts only step in after someone is charged with breaking a specific law. Unlike countries like Japan, we do not have a system of formal judicial review in which the judicial system reviews new legislation before it is passed. The Supreme Court is not a censor.

 

That all depends on the step censorship is applied in. It's still censorship, even if only after the bill is passed and enacted.

 

LOL! Implacable as ever. What are you bucking against?

Short version:
Drew is right and you are wrong.

Long version:
Analogies are your weak spot it seems. It's not as if the general principle of judicial review in itself is something very difficult to grasp. Drew already pointed out the aspect of timing - that aside, another aspect that makes censorship quite distinct from judicial review is initiative.

• A censor has his own authority to censor and acts on his own initiative.
• A court has to be asked to intervene; they can't act on their own initiative.

 

You know, I know DR will get angry again but here goes:
censor:

None of those definitions mention either a particular time in the process of creation, nor an independant authority that acts on their own volition.

 

Neither does this description

Hint: It's implicit.

The term you want to look up is Judicial review in the United States

 

Tell me, Ragusa, the censorship of books, videos, and music under Hitler, did it only apply to things that were newly made? Did anything that was already around survive?

 

Cut the Nazi crap.

A censor is a part of the executive branch. They enforce censorship laws. Do censors act on their own initiative when they see, say, immoral acts being shown on TV, or inconvenient things are being published? Yes, they do, much like the cops when they see a crime being committed. They decide when and how to act. They do not need to be asked to be asked by a private citizen or another government body to take measures. Censors act on their own authority. Now it can be different in some countries, but that is the general principle.

The point is this: In contrast, can the supreme court without anyone bringing his case to it declare a law unconstitutional? No, it can't. Before they can do so they need a case first. They can't just grab or seize a case, or invent one - the case (i.e. call for a decision) needs to be brought to court by a party. A law can be blatantly unconstitutional - unless it makes way to the supreme court they court can do very little about it.

And there's the difference, in a gross simplification: Censor = active, court = passive.

On a personal note, no lawyer will accept the misplaced, misleading and misguided equation of a court decision with censorship. Especially with the connotation of censorship it's just too silly.

 

Ragusa, you seem to be thinking that I'm refering to a particular government program, and saying that it's actually the Supreme Court. I'm not. I'm saying the kind of job being done is of that type. Whether it be done by the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, or the Judicial branch is irrelevant. Whether it be done automatically for all, on personal initiative, or only on challenge is also irrelevant. Censorship is censorship whether it's done by a government organization or a private entity, whether it's done by an internal group or an external group, whether it's done voluntarily or mandated, whether it's automatic, initiative-based, or challenge-based. Publishers of books have the power of censorship. TV channels have the power of censorship. Tal has the power of censorship. Now in common political useage it has developed a bit of a bad name, but let's be honest, there's tons of censorship every day that you and I probably agree with, such as cutting out x-rated scenes from movies going onto TNT or Sci-Fi. That's not even a case where the original usage of the term is out-dated and no longer in use, it's seen all over the place. There's a big move in the movie and video-game industry for self-censorship.

 

To the contrary, it is essential. In this case it make the difference between censorship and exercise of decision authority by a judge.

If to you the exercise of legal authority by a judge is censorship, or 'effectively censorship', well, enjoy your dream world. I mean, it is blatantly obvious where you're coming from - them poor, persecuted, pious folks were not allowed to pray, ergo, any regulation or verdict that has that effect must be censorship. Well, that ain't so

Huh, huh. Don't tell me that censorship has gotten, somehow, a bad name. You use the term censorship precisely because of that negative connotation. You disapprove of the decision against the two teachers. And you don't like that particular act of what you like to (wrongly) call censorship so painting it in darkest colours only serves to flesh out your point - the accusation that these poor, persecuted, pious folks were censored by the court, more, censored by the court in an unconstitutional way!

That's so silly it isn't even funny any more.

 

This is my problem with you. Let me be clear, so I make sure you get it. YOU ARE WRONG. I used "censor" because it described the type of action (the removal of objectionable material, no matter what reason it is objectionable). Actually, in this case, the "objectionable material" would be the ban on prayer, not the presence of prayer. In essense, censorship would help my side, and is what I'm arguing for.

 

If censorship is punishing someone for saying something or preventing someone from saying something then the examples below are also cases of censorship:

Then Gates was censored by Crowley when he was arrested for yelling on his porch. A man who yells fire in a crowded theatre is censored when he is arrested and punished because of that. When someone tells about you that you have sex with animals and is then sentenced for defamation he is being censored. When a scammer vocally sells his snake oil, and he is arrested for that, he is also being censored because he is prevented from speaking. Censors, censors, everywhere! Scary!

Functionally all of that can be called censorship under your definition. You misuse the term so that it becomes for all practical purposes meaningless. Basically, you torture your case under the rubric of 'censorship', never mind what the term's mainstream meaning is. When someone points out the folly of that use to you then you simply insist, that you, uh, have poor research skills, and no time, and anyway, that the others are, must be, certainly wrong. It's a lame excuse for being sloppy and lazy.

When you use the term according to your personal meaning and your personal arbitrary criteria then what you write becomes simply very difficult to understand and address even for benevolent people-other-than-NOG. It will also garble your arguments for outsiders, and that is amply reflected in your posts. Do yourself and especially us a great favour and use mainstream meanings of words and terms and you'll see that you'll get through life a lot easier.

And as you insist on playing semantics games, when I call you a fool it is not an insult because I chose as my personal definition variant 2 a from Merriam-Webster:

​

 

That's just Ragusa, though. When I call someone a fool, I'm saying he's a dumb-ass.

 

To go back a few posts, no you don't need a lawyer to challenge a case in front of the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court is not like other courts. You don't have two lawyers in a court room arguing their case in front of the SC, and there certainly isn't a jury to decide the verdict. SC cases are so unlike all other cases that trying to compare them is an exercise in futility.

Take the Miranda case (which is why police officers now have to read you your Miranda rights). Not only did Miranda not have a lawyer, he wasn't even present when the SC made their decision, because he was in prison.

 

In the interests of keeping the thread fresh, I'd like to know what damage prayer in school causes. My reasoning is thus:

A whikle back, some yin-yang decided to wander around his town in the buff. Apparently he is glad to display whatever (God / Evolution -- take your pick) gave him. He was, of course, arrested and charged with various offences.

Now, the details escape me, but one thing stuck in my mind -- some of the charges were thrown out because the judge said that the "harm" he was inflicting upon the community had to be actually measurable. It had to be concrete harm of some sort, and not just an argument based on "community values and norms" and some such.

My question is this -- is there any measurable harm that is inflicted upon people when there is school sponsered prayer. Realistically, does hearing a prayer you do not agree with cause you physical pain? Does it damage your ability to think?

Don't misunderstand me, I am not in favor of public prayers at public schools -- those days are done in the Western World -- but for those who pitch a hissy every time a prayer is uttered, really, what wrong has been committed against them, what damage has been inflicted?

I fully expect to see lots of studies from our Googling demons, so have at her, my friends!

 

The problem is simply one of presumable state endorsement if prayer is mandatory, or imposed on a 'captive audience', and the point that America is not to have a state religion. It's actually that simple.

The first ones to complain about mandatory prayer in America were actually Catholics who had to pray Protestant prayers in school in a then largely Protestant America, and were punished for refusing. Then came the non-denominational prayer (and nun and Jesuit schools) and that was settled. Then came Jews and the dance begun again. Jehova's Witnesses also fought successfully against having to do things that their religion forbade, for instance they had to take some major **** for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance (idolatry, in their eyes) in school. Then came the Atheists, and not Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and whatever else ...

When you keep religion out of school altogether you avoid all that and you allow teachers to concentrate on teaching, their actual job, without having to waste time on zealots who want more air time for their particular brand of faith in school (including the teaching of creationism i.e. religion in school). Let's just keep religion in Sunday school, or in voluntary religion lessons or voluntary prayer sessions.

America's reactionary Christians who want to turn back the clock some half a century or two on school prayer need to spend some time in Saudi Arabia with mandatory Muslim prayer in school, and prohibition of anything else, to see the wisdom of that approach. Not going to happen, but still.

 

No actual physical pain LKD, but I don't want anyone pushing their beliefs on my kids. I want them to be able to make that decision on their own, when they are able to make an intelligent and informed decision. Like when they turn 18-21. To force it on them is robbing them of their right of choice. It's pretty much brainwashing them. I would rather have my kids as untainted as possible before they can make an informed choice over belief systems, if they choose a belief system. If they choose to go Daddy's path of Aethism, so be it. I don't want my girls having sex before they are adults either, so I am NOT going to try and give them an early "education" of what it is at age 7-8. We'll wait until they are more mature and intelligent enough to handle it. It's the forcing or pushing of your religion unto others, even worse unto children that is the big issue. It doesn't bother me if someone prays right in front of me, I have already made my informed decision, but DON"T do it in front of my kids or you will be dealing with a very IRATE father.

 

I fail to see the connection between praying and having sex...

 

Aldeth - It's about teaching our kids things when they are too young to understand what is going on. I don't want early sex education and I don't want religion pushed on them. They can learn about those topics and make an informed decision when they are ready, not when a stranger thinks it's ok for them to do so. That decision is the parents sole reponsiblity.

 

OK, now I get it. My thinking was that most people DO have sex before they are 18-21, and as such it would seem like a good idea for them to be somewhat educated on that topic. I'm actually happy that they teach sex ed in schools. As a parent, I don't have a problem with it. I might consider 7-8 a bit early, but certainly by the time a child is 10-12 they should know. I mean, if they hit puberty and they don't know yet, you've waited too long IMO.

 

Me too Aldeth, but I, as the parent, want to make the choices about my kids exposure to those types of topics. Religion, sex or whatever. Your right, once they are teenagers, sex ed shoud start. I was just using it as an example. But I feel the parent should have control over when it starts, not the school. I'm sure it varies from state to state. I don't want the schools pushing religion either. I would prefer exposure to the details of a religion to my kids when they are done with High School and not before.