Prayer in Schools

Remove all ads!

Actually no. I could explain (again) but you wouldn't understand. Let's let this rest, even more so as this bickering how your definition of censorship does not meet what a court does leads nowhere.

Is that an attempt at a lame joke on your part?

I personally find that quite a smug, galling, impertinent and patronising thing to read from you of all persons. You hold the questionable view that the consent decree was unconstitutional and defend it with nothing but stubbornness, assertions and the occasional aberration to Merriam-Websters. Considering that you should have long gotten off your lazy ass to provide some, any 'evidence' yourself. It took me a mere 15 minutes to find all those links. You spend hours more on posting. But, if I recall rightly, you don't do research because you suck at it and have no time anyway? How very funny. But you thank me for, for the first time, providing 'some evidence'? Yikes!

That's the case.

If he sat around praying the rosary - a-ok. If he wears a cross around his neck - so what? If he sits down, crosses his heart and prays and then eats - I couldn't care less. As long as he does it for himself, or privately in an empty classroom or somewhere else private - swell. If he prays in a voluntary prayer class for pupils - great. But not on School Events or during classes, or, say, as a team prayer before a match in athletics.

Listen to this man's sermon and you can see how he came to face a court order like that: This is about someone so gung-ho for Jesus that he wants to pray all day, in school, with the pupils and wants to beat the Muslims in the prayer department by praying more often and he wants to witness to everybody all day long - well that must be hard to reconcile with school duty. And indeed it was. Pace High School under Lay was a strongly religious environment, and many of the things Lay and his staff did were violations of the establishment clause. The severity of the court order reflects the intensity of Lay's violations of the establishment clause. In view of that, yes, the court had not just every right but no other choice but to put an end to that by means of a court order or consent decree. Rule of law and all that ...

You could do far worse than delving into enemy territory and look up the ACLU's page on the case - Does v. Santa Rosa County School District: Top 5 Myths and Facts.

 

No, actually I think all of us simply read the initial article and interpreted it correctly. You simply chose to interpret the article in the narrowest manner that fit your personal beliefs. There is a difference -- we always had the correct story and enough evidence.

 

So you seriously believe that a prayer is as inappropriate as cussing? Or that a kid walking in would be damaged by just inadvertently seeing a teacher pray? You have got to be kidding me. No way that one would pass a freedom of religion test.

 

I would tend to agree. A teacher praying when he isn't teaching is well within the confines of his constitutionally protected free speech. That said, he may still get in trouble with the school system if he's using his entire free period for prayer. Free periods aren't just for rest, after all. Your typical teacher still has work to do during that time.

 

Responsable, yes, but not exercizing authority, and not considered 'goofing off' for not working. And I have talked to HR managers. Meal and break times are legally required for anyone who spends a certain amount of time at work straight or more. If your boss expects you to work durring those times, and you don't want to, he's breaking the law. Now, I can understand if there's a deadline or a project that's almost done when you may be reasonably expected to 'bite the bullet' and work through lunch to get things done. That's not a 'required work lunch', though. That's meeting a deadline. Also, note that teachers have neither of those requirements.

Anyone who's walking by.

And this is why it shouldn't be a problem. If the teacher has taken reasonable steps to not force their religion onto others, then they should be free to pray as long as their other duties (teaching class, grading papers, etc.) allow for it. If someone walks in on them, the teacher is not 'forcing religion' on anyone. That person voluntarily walked in and can voluntarily walk out. It may be considered polite for the teacher to wrap it up so they can tend to the business of the (likely) student, but to claim the teacher is violating the Seperation of Church and State is ridiculous.

Blades, there's a difference between duty vs break and standing rules of conduct. Swearing would be a punishable offense even after hours, provided students are around. It's also not constitutionally protected. Prayer is something else entirely.

Actually, I looked all over the place (I told you my search skills were terrible) and found nothing more detailed than the original link I posted to start this all off. I didn't find any court documents, or official responses, or articles talking about any other than the original consent decree. And as for being 'smug, galling, impertinent, and patronising':

Well, it seems we may both be guilty of that, so let's call it even, shall we?

Ok, then, I think we're in agreement. Thanks.

 

Bull****. The only evidence needed was in the article. The individuals in question held a public prayer during an official school event -- a prayer that everyone in attendance was forced to observe prior to eating. This was not one man praying to himself before a meal, but a state official conducting an organized prayer. You have already conceded that this would be improper behaviour from a school official during an official school function and it is clear from the article that this is exactly what happened. That you refused to acknowledge that niggling little detail -- written as plain as day within the article -- for a full 10 pages of useless yammering does not in any way constitute a lack of evidence on the part of Ragusa.

 

Wow Drew, deja vu all over again.

 

It bore repeating.

 

NOG,
we're not even, not by a long shot, and we're not done. Searching skills one can learn (search string: "how to search the internet"; first find). Leaning back, referring to their terribleness, and doing nothing, is simply a lame excuse that I am not letting you get away with. Accident prone drivers are also not allowed the excuse: "Hey, I can't drive, and everybody knows it!"

Actually it is quite simple to see what you're doing. The two lost their case in court and were sentenced for violating the court order. That is a reality. It cannot be denied, but you still dislike the result. What to do? Change the subject and say that the court order was unconstitutional to begin with! (ie. what must not be, can not be) That's cognitive dissonance and nothing but.

You flatly denied that the prayer was spoken at a school event until I linked you back to the article that you, you yourself, posted that spelled that out quite clearly. You flatly denied the presence of pupils until I twisted your arm. I could go on.

Debating you is like pulling teeth, exhausting for me, and painful for you. Once you put your heart into a cause and rushed to its defence, there is a pattern: You deny everything, and go on the offensive - bicker about words, demand (dis-)proof from others, ask the opponent where he stands on the matter* - and only when there is no other alternative, then you do the inevitable 'Ok, but ...' routine and change the subject to start over again. I got back to the case over and over again because I didn't want to allow you doing that. I loathe disruptive and obstructionist debaters.

In a court the plaintiff has to prove all the facts supporting his claims. What you do is the opposite - you make a claim and demand the others to disprove it! No way - you made the claim that the consent decree was unconstitutional - you back it up.

So far you have not done that. The reference to censorship was again an attempt at changing the subject when you didn't quite get a handle on the constitutionality issue. When you say that the consent decree violates the constitution say why and how. Pertinent question: Which clause did the consent decree violate? Not that you will be able to make the case, but at least you'll provide a structured, more or less reasonable argument.

(* My view on the matter, and I chide myself for actually having replied to that, has no relevance for the correctness of your argument)

 

Definition is almost always a matter of context. For instance, a corporate policy regarding what you can say or not say on the job is censorship, and if the corporate policy is no public displays of praying on the job, then it is not only both censorship and policy, but taken for granted. A literary definition of censorship is very different, which is usually very negative because of the nature of how it is used in the context of publishing and the suppression of free expression, and is never taken for granted. Government censorship is so broad in its application that it has to be taken on a case by case instance.

Usually at some point in a debate both sides have to agree on a definition of terms if the term is crucial for clarity.

 

Perhaps you could quote the 'plain as day' reading? Obviously the connotations you read were not 100% clear to me.

Thanks, I'll look into it.

Y'know, you really don't do psychology well. At all. Don't quit your day job.

When did I deny that prayer was spoken?

When I use a word properly and you blow up at me for 'insulting' someone because I said 'censor', you'd better expect me to bicker about it.

As you and Chandos are so fond of pointing out in religion threads, burden of proof lies on the extreme claim. If you claim something happened, and I claim I don't know one way or the other, you need to prove that it happened. If I were to claim that it never happened, then we may both need to seek proof, but since I'm not making any claims about reality, I can't prove them, can I?

Who started all over again? I asked for one clarification of a point we were already discussing the whole time.

Actually, in the US, the defendant doesn't need to prove anything (not sure how that stands in civil cases) unless they're making a positive defense.

When I don't make any claims, it's hard to back them up. As for the unconstitutional nature of the consent decree, if a complete ban on absolutely all forms of prayer for any school official whenever they're on school property or attending a school function (mandated or not, with students present or not, even on their free time) doesn't obviously violate the Freedom of Religion clause in your eyes, then I honestly don't know how you practice law. Now I'll admit that this case didn't bring up the extremes, and that, apparently, they can't be challenged unless they are, which actually makes sense. That doesn't change that the order steps beyond the scope of reason. Moreso, it seems the ACLU is willing to take it beyond the scope of reason. Thankfully, the courts will have nothing of it. Unfortunately, they decided on a technicality (which admittedly does seem to take precedence) rather than on the meat of the case.

Again, you really don't do psychology well. The 'censor' thing was a completely unexpected sidetrack. I made a simple comparison, expected it to be recognized, and you blew up because you took offense to the word 'censor'. That is what led to us being sidetracked.

... I think I've mentioned Freedom of Religion (in the Constitution, you know), and that banning a reasonable religious activity even in nondisruptive forms violates that freedom about a dozen times in this thread. If you don't want to accept that, then that's your problem, but don't say I haven't argued the point or provided a structured, reasonable arguement.

 

You applied your own personal filter to the article -- that is normal for most people. But then, after hearing a different viewpoint you simply did a mental "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" instead of trying to see the other side. Reread the article objectively and you should see what Drew was getting at.

 

You must have me confused with someone else. For me, religion is a personal experiece, and being able to "prove it" to someone else doesn't matter that much, IMO. That said, I don't believe that politics and religion mix very well, and I view this as a political issue and not a matter of religion.

 

How about this?:

Bolding mine.

How could that be interpreted in any way other than as a prayer spoken out loud with the intention that all in attendance would hear it?

 

Splunge: LA LA LA LA....

 

NOG,

'The consent decree is unconstitutional' is the extreme claim.

Just to get that one clear my friend: You are not the defendant - you are the accuser. You accused the government of committing unconstitutional acts, like in your view issuing 'consent decrees that amount to censorship'. Well, unless the judge was a crook or insane and decided arbitrarily, which is exceedingly unlikely, Lay's and Freeman's opponents have made their case, and successfully. Now, it's your chance to prove them wrong.

Yes, you did that, and about a dozen times you overlooked the establishment clause that puts limit on religious endorsement and religious activities by state organs - for instance public schools and school officials - which is what this case is about.

The consent decree was unconstitutional when the judge wrongly interpreted the limitations that the establishment clause puts on the religious exercise of Public School officials like Lay and Freeman. Happy research

 

My attempts to find an online NOGese to English translator have been futile - kind of like this arguement.

 

No, I recognized it as a possible interpretation many times. I just never assumed it was the only interpretation.

I could have sworn it was you. Sorry.

I take it you infer "offering prayer" to mean "offering" it to the people present? This may be a Christian/non-Christian thing, but in my church, 'offering prayer' means offering it to God, i.e. praying. It doesn't say anything about the volume, publicity, or group-nature of the prayer.

And the pointing out that it violates Freedom of Religion is evidence. The claim that the opposite would violate the Establishment clause is a counter, but more on that later.

Again, you have grossly misinterpreted my position. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but you've done this several times. Please stop. I never accused this consent decree of censorship. I said the Supreme Court acts as a censor for laws (and at times other courts, such as this case). If you want to accuse this consent decree of censorship, be my guest, but don't claim I have when I haven't.

In that case, I can't and don't intend to. As you provided evidence clarifying the nature of the prayer, the case (in my view and the court's) is settled against Lay and Freeman. They were in the wrong.

As noted above, and many, many times in our debate thus far, I never overlooked the Establisment Clause, I simply didn't see it as broad enough to completely ban all acts of prayer as this consent decree did.

So, then, do you agree that, at least in it's wording, the consent decree covers, among other things, issues that go beyond the Establisment Clause and violate the Free Exercise Clause? It sounds like that's what you were saying, but the 'Happy Research' at the end was a bit iffy.

Looking through your Wiki link, it seems the Courts have limited religion in the past over things like mandatory prayer and official prayer at official functions (here either by teachers or students), but not general prayer. On the other side, the Free-Exercise Clause has the general litmus test of "compelling interest", which I referred to earlier, even if I didn't know it was an official policy. So, the question of constitutionality of the issue as a whole comes down to the "compelling interest" test. If you intend to defend the order as a whole, that puts the ball in your court. What is the 'compelling interest' that is served by banning all acts of prayer, even outside of official duties?

 

OK, NOG, I still think you're being incredibly obtuse (have you been taking lessons from Gnarff?), but how about this (I'll repeat the quote from the article):

Why on earth would one person (Lay) ask another person (Freeman) to "offer a prayer" if it wasn't intended to be said out loud for everyone else to hear? If it was to be silent, why wouldn't Lay have just said it himself?

 

Splunge, again, I'm just going by how we use the terminology at our church. The term "offer prayer" can be used to refer to any kind of prayer at all, and shows no standard preference for official, public, or mass prayers. In other words, if I were there, and I quietly leaned over to my friend and asked him to offer prayer, he would likely (knowing of the court order) offer a quiet prayer between the two of us, after everything else was ready and people were starting to eat.