Officials ordered to stop prayer at schools

[Chris_]

Officials ordered to stop prayer at schools

A federal judge has ordered the Santa Rosa County School District to stop promoting religion and prayer in the classroom and at school events.

U.S. District Court Judge Casey Rodgers ruled Friday after school officials admitted allegations in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

*snip*

Rodgers' order prohibits employees from:

 Promoting prayer at school-sponsored events, including graduation.

 Planning or financing religious baccalaureate services.

 Promoting religious beliefs to students in class or during school-sponsored events and activities.

 Holding school-sponsored events at churches

*snip*

The lawsuit said the two Pace High School students are offended by the district's support of prayer at school events — including graduation — because it promotes religious beliefs they do not subscribe to and fails to respect their religious choices and beliefs.

"The students were relieved the court upheld their First Amendment rights in December, and school officials would not be allowed to subject them to others' religious views," said Brandon Hensler, ACLU of Florida director of communications

So now the majority must, by court order, be subject to the religious views of the minority.  Nah, no agenda there.      Just the typical mantra from the Anti Christian Lawyers Union.

MORE

[Splashdown]

Public schools, for the most part, are sewers. And I just did a disservice to sewers.

[djones520]

Teachers and staff at Pace High School preaching about "Judgment Day with the Lord."

Teachers and staff offering Bible readings and biblical interpretations during student meetings.

The school admitted to these practices.  I'll be just fine with the school doing this, when they also do it with the Koran and Torah.

Nothing at all in that lawsuit that prevents the students themselves from praying, just makes the Congressionally funded school stop preaching one religion, over another.

I hate to say it, but I think the ACLU was in the right on this one.

[Chris_]

The school admitted to these practices.  I'll be just fine with the school doing this, when they also do it with the Koran and Torah.

Nothing at all in that lawsuit that prevents the students themselves from praying, just makes the Congressionally funded school stop preaching one religion, over another.

I hate to say it, but I think the ACLU was in the right on this one.

That was my point.  The did in fact select one religion over another. 

...because it promotes religious beliefs they do not subscribe to and fails to respect their religious choices and beliefs.

Where exactly does the Constitution say that we have the right to not be offended, or the right not to be exposed to views we don't agree with?  Those students were not forced to pray or participate in something they did not agree with.

[Eupher]

That was my point.  The did in fact select one religion over another. 

Where exactly does the Constitution say that we have the right to not be offended, or the right not to be exposed to views we don't agree with?  Those students were not forced to pray or participate in something they did not agree with.

That's true, but apparently the court was convinced that the practice of holding prayer was, in fact, tacit and/or implicit direction by the school staff toward those students to either participate in prayer or (worst case scenario here) that they be looked at as pariahs for not participating.

I'm offended all the time by decisions such as this and feel it's entirely misplaced efforts by the ACLU and other moonbat organizations to dismantle our core beliefs. And I also feel that these kinds of things gradually whittle away those intangibles that we used to accept as face value.

But the court doesn't acknowledge "feelings" or whether or not I or the plaintiffs were "offended" (despite what the briefs say). The court focuses on the law.

I'm not seeing anywhere in the story that says that any particular religion was being touted over another. It looks to me like the lawsuit stated that religious views, irrespective of religion, should not be espoused or supported in publically funded schools. I don't disagree with that.

[Splashdown]

That's true, but apparently the court was convinced that the practice of holding prayer was, in fact, tacit and/or implicit direction by the school staff toward those students to either participate in prayer or (worst case scenario here) that they be looked at as pariahs for not participating.

I'm offended all the time by decisions such as this and feel it's entirely misplaced efforts by the ACLU and other moonbat organizations to dismantle our core beliefs. And I also feel that these kinds of things gradually whittle away those intangibles that we used to accept as face value.

But the court doesn't acknowledge "feelings" or whether or not I or the plaintiffs were "offended" (despite what the briefs say). The court focuses on the law.

I'm not seeing anywhere in the story that says that any particular religion was being touted over another. It looks to me like the lawsuit stated that religious views, irrespective of religion, should not be espoused or supported in publically funded schools. I don't disagree with that.

I read the comments after the article. Some were saying that school is not the place for their children to be taught morality. I whole-heartedly agree. So let's take out sex ed, "conflict resolution" classes, and multi-cultural bullshit and focus on actually educating the students in those public schools.

Oh. The libs probably didn't mean THAT kind of morality.

 

[Sam Adams]

The U.S. Constitution should be amended to promote Christianity, since it is the only true religion. Jesus Christ is the Lord of the nations, including this one. The government should encourage everyone to become Christians.

Problem solved.

[Eupher]

The U.S. Constitution should be amended to promote Christianity, since it is the only true religion. Jesus Christ is the Lord of the nations, including this one. The government should encourage everyone to become Christians.

Problem solved.

Sorry, Sam, but that just ain't gonna happen. There are a lot of people practicing different religions who claim their religion is the only "true" religion. Claiming that only Christianity is the only true religion and putting that in the Constitution is so far out there it's crazy.

I happen to be a practicing Presbyterian and as an elder of the church, I am ordained and called to exercise leadership in my faith. Certainly, that requires being an avowed Christian, which I am.

But there is no way your proposal would ever be adopted.

Separation of church and state - I think that was a basic tenet of the Federalist Papers, though not specifically put into the Constitution.

But the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution is pretty well firmed up. Ain't goin' anywhere.

[MrsSmith]

You've got to wonder...if Christianity is NOT the one true religion, then why do the ACLU and courts work so hard to shut down public support for it, while approving of "cultural classes" that teach any other religion?

[thundley4]

You've got to wonder...if Christianity is NOT the one true religion, then why do the ACLU and courts work so hard to shut down public support for it, while approving of "cultural classes" that teach any other religion?

Very good point. H5

[Sam Adams]

Sorry, Sam, but that just ain't gonna happen. There are a lot of people practicing different religions who claim their religion is the only "true" religion. Claiming that only Christianity is the only true religion and putting that in the Constitution is so far out there it's crazy.

I happen to be a practicing Presbyterian and as an elder of the church, I am ordained and called to exercise leadership in my faith. Certainly, that requires being an avowed Christian, which I am.

But there is no way your proposal would ever be adopted.

Separation of church and state - I think that was a basic tenet of the Federalist Papers, though not specifically put into the Constitution.

But the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution is pretty well firmed up. Ain't goin' anywhere.

I am a presbyterian elder, too. Yes, I know what the US Constitution says. So, let's change it. As Christians, we know that not all religions are equal, so why have a Constitution that pretends they are? The US Constitution should be based on reality.

I know that's an impractical suggestion, but that's exactly the sort of suggestion the old Scottish Covenanters (presbyterians all) would have wanted, and fought to get. Prayer and hard work can accomplish more than we dream possible.

Maybe this country is so broken it is time to start over. Let's quit trying to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[rubliw]

I am a presbyterian elder, too. Yes, I know what the US Constitution says. So, let's change it. As Christians, we know that not all religions are equal, so why have a Constitution that pretends they are? The US Constitution should be based on reality.

I know that's an impractical suggestion, but that's exactly the sort of suggestion the old Scottish Covenanters (presbyterians all) would have wanted, and fought to get. Prayer and hard work can accomplish more than we dream possible.

Maybe this country is so broken it is time to start over. Let's quit trying to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

You should give pause to reflect on what actually led Jefferson and the founders of this country to posit the "wall of separation".  One of the most striking and brilliant ideas in political philosophy, if I do say so myself.

Religion is never benevolent when it has any form governmental power.... and have been unrelenting wellsprings for human misery and destruction when they have mingled to deeply....  even Christian empires.  History bears this out... repeatedly.  For all our sakes, I don't think we need to repeat it again if we can help it.

Not sure whether to  or to  here.

[Eupher]

I am a presbyterian elder, too. Yes, I know what the US Constitution says. So, let's change it. As Christians, we know that not all religions are equal, so why have a Constitution that pretends they are? The US Constitution should be based on reality.

I know that's an impractical suggestion, but that's exactly the sort of suggestion the old Scottish Covenanters (presbyterians all) would have wanted, and fought to get. Prayer and hard work can accomplish more than we dream possible.

Maybe this country is so broken it is time to start over. Let's quit trying to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Well, Sam, if I thought your suggestion was correct and in line with what the Founding Fathers envisioned, I'd stand there with you. But I think you're mixing religion and government and the two just shouldn't mix.

Just as I despise most forms of government and consider the entity, in general, to work against my well-being, I don't want it anywhere near where I worship, pray, and otherwise develop my relationship with Christ.

Nope. Wouldn't be right.

[MrsSmith]

You should give pause to reflect on what actually led Jefferson and the founders of this country to posit the "wall of separation".  One of the most striking and brilliant ideas in political philosophy, if I do say so myself.

Religion is never benevolent when it has any form governmental power.... and have been unrelenting wellsprings for human misery and destruction when they have mingled to deeply....  even Christian empires.  History bears this out... repeatedly.  For all our sakes, I don't think we need to repeat it again if we can help it.

Not sure whether to  or to  here.

The problem with a church running a country is that the political leaders then run the church.  As politicians have always been those that will do anything to gain power, allowing them to run the churches is bad for everyone.  We need our Christian leaders to answer to God, not money or power.

Ideally, the church would educate the citizens, who would then vote for the best person for the job of governing.  Where we went wrong was in creating public schools and then allowing the government to break the First Amendment by writing laws destroying the ability of Christians to teach children the truth.

[Sam Adams]

Well, Sam, if I thought your suggestion was correct and in line with what the Founding Fathers envisioned, I'd stand there with you. But I think you're mixing religion and government and the two just shouldn't mix.

Just as I despise most forms of government and consider the entity, in general, to work against my well-being, I don't want it anywhere near where I worship, pray, and otherwise develop my relationship with Christ.

Nope. Wouldn't be right.

It may not be "in line with what the Founding Fathers envisioned," but does that make it wrong? I think the Founding Fathers were fallible, just like the rest of us. Besides, I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned Islamic clergy on the public payroll, either, but they did not do enough to stop it either. That's what you get, though, if you treat every religion equally. Presbyterian chaplain=Islamic chaplain=Wiccan chaplain. Is that what they/you had/have in mind?

[Sam Adams]

Religion is never benevolent when it has any form governmental power.... and have been unrelenting wellsprings for human misery and destruction when they have mingled to deeply....  even Christian empires.  History bears this out... repeatedly. 

That statement is easy to disprove. It makes all the difference in the world what religion government is promoting. If the religion is benevolent, than promoting it is benevolence.

[Eupher]

Yep, it's wrong.

The Founding Fathers were men and thus fallible. But let's not confuse what they set up versus what we have today, okay?

The bastardization of our Constitution has been blatant and seemingly irreversible. There's no question that what we have today pales in comparison to what we had 225 years ago.

Believe me, having ANY clergy on the public payroll goes beyond what we should be looking at. But other men, over the years, have been even more fallible than the FF and have created these things without a backwards glance.

IMHO, putting religion forward in any form goes beyond the role of government. The practice or non-practice of religion is a very private matter between an individual and whatever/whoever god or non-god that he chooses. That's the essence of liberty.

Forcing Christianity on the country as a direct result of hiring some freaking imam to try and convince us that Islam isn't evil isn't the answer - getting Congress to wake up and read the Constitution is.

But I think that's a hopeless proposition anymore. 

[Splashdown]

Establishing Christianity as the state religion? That's crazy. The one religious guy I'd trust with political power refused it flat out. He had more important things to do, like dying for our sins, rising from the dead,  and ascending into heaven. If Jesus didn't think it was a good idea to mix religion with political power, He probably had a pretty good reason.

See: the crusades (except the first one)
        the Inquisition (mostly)
        Henry VIII and the sacking of the monastaries
        Oliver Cromwell and his persecution of Irish Catholics
        the Salem Witch Trials

I'm happy with just letting us worship God as we see fit--without government intrusion, thank you very much.

[Sam Adams]

Forcing Christianity on the country

Who said anything about that?

[Sam Adams]

Establishing Christianity as the state religion? That's crazy. The one religious guy I'd trust with political power refused it flat out. He had more important things to do, like dying for our sins, rising from the dead,  and ascending into heaven. If Jesus didn't think it was a good idea to mix religion with political power, He probably had a pretty good reason.

See: the crusades (except the first one)
        the Inquisition (mostly)
        Henry VIII and the sacking of the monasteries
        Oliver Cromwell and his persecution of Irish Catholics
        the Salem Witch Trials

I'm happy with just letting us worship God as we see fit--without government intrusion, thank you very much.

You have cherry-picked a few examples, and I would even quibble with one of those. Henry VIII was justified in sacking the monasteries. Puritan New England was a fine place to live, better than our day, with the notable exception of the technological advances we enjoy.

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

If faith is banned in public schools... why show AlBore's slideshow in science classes??

[Chris_]

Ahem......the concept of "separation of church and state" is not specifically a Constitutional mandate.  If memory serves the Constitution stipulates that congress shall pass no law establishing a "State Religion"......

In the instant case, I find it a stretch to relate a school district policy to an act of congress, and I find it a further stretch to relate a prayer at a graduation ceremony as "establishing a State Religion".......

All of this "separation" nonsense spins out of a letter that Jefferson wrote to a Baptist church (I believe) regarding use of a facility, and is largely manufactured out of whole cloth....so to speak.....

Another of those Constitutional "penumbra" things that Liberals and their ilk are so fond of.....

doc

[Eupher]

Who said anything about that?

The tone of your rhetoric is pretty firm, Sam. You started out saying this:

The U.S. Constitution should be amended to promote Christianity, since it is the only true religion. Jesus Christ is the Lord of the nations, including this one. The government should encourage everyone to become Christians.

Problem solved.

Do governments make "suggestions?" Or do governments even "encourage" one? Not in the manner you're talking about. So your basic premise is absurd on its face. But let's take it a step further:

As Christians, we know that not all religions are equal, so why have a Constitution that pretends they are? The US Constitution should be based on reality.

As a Christian, I know what works for me. And I'm happy to discuss that in its own context. The US Constitution, or any Constitution for that matter, can never be based on "reality." It can only be based on law.

Ask anybody who has ever been to court on a matter which seemingly was clear cut and a no-brainer, then some enterprising attorney finds a "t" not crossed or an "i" dotted in the wrong place and the whole decision goes irretrievably against that person. Is that right? Is that just? Not in terms of the guy who lost, but it's the law.  :clueless:

From my perspective, Sam, you're discussing this matter from the standpoint of that same guy who lost the court case. You sound bitter, angry, and resentful (not difficult, given the steady diet of pablum given to us from western culture in compelling us to "welcome" Islam with "open arms" knowing full well that radicals from that "religion" want to destroy us), and those who insist on being angry generally don't present compelling arguments.

Your argument isn't compelling, Sam. It's just plain wrong. The US Constitution cannot and never will subscribe to only one religion - whether that's Christianity, Deism, or the Church of Wicca. It simply ain't gonna happen.

Why beat a dead horse?

[Sam Adams]

The tone of your rhetoric is pretty firm, Sam. You started out saying this:





From my perspective, Sam, you're discussing this matter from the standpoint of that same guy who lost the court case. You sound bitter, angry, and resentful

Huh? What are you talking about?? What "bitter, angry and resentful"?

[Sam Adams]

The US Constitution cannot and never will subscribe to only one religion - whether that's Christianity, Deism, or the Church of Wicca. It simply ain't gonna happen

You have absolutely no way of knowing that.