NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481427,00.html

Apparently not talking for a minute in the morning is a violation of separation of church and state.

Granted, requiring the teacher to instruct students on the meaning of prayer might be going a bit too far.

the reason for instituting a moment of silence is to squeeze a bit of prayer into school without the supreme court noticing it.

they noticed it.

Students have every right in the world not to talk for a minute. No-one can stop them from silently contemplating God or imploring Him to reveal the right answers on the algebra quiz, any time they so feel moved.
For a teacher to instruct them when the proper time to do this is? That is entirely different.

If it's to be reflection, let it BE reflection. Stop the fucking 'oh we need to make space for prayer in school'. No, no we don't. There are many other moments during the day outside of school where personal prayer can be enjoyed.

This exercise would be better done with specific non-spiritual guidance...as in, 'what are some of the conflicts you may experience today and how will you react to them'.

This is school, n'est pas? We are encouraging some sort of learning? Moments of silence with no clear purpose other than 'um go pray or like, not if you aren't into it' is frankly speaking, bad teaching. Do we really want to force our educational professionals to engage in that?

It's called the fucking Student Prayer Act. They really thought no one would notice?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481427,00.html

Apparently not talking for a minute in the morning is a violation of separation of church and state.

If you're going to try and feign innocence about it just being about 'not talking for a minute' you might not want to give it a name like Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act.

Sorta gives it away...

It's called the fucking Student Prayer Act. They really thought no one would notice?

Curse your marginally faster fingers...

Curse your marginally faster fingers...

It was also a shorter post.

If you're going to try and feign innocence about it just being about 'not talking for a minute' you might not want to give it a name like Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act.

Sorta gives it away...

That is, admittedly, somewhat less than subtle.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481427,00.html

Apparently not talking for a minute in the morning is a violation of separation of church and state.

Don't you get tired of mischaracterizing issues?

Here is a pdf of the U.S. District Court opinion (http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2009/Sherman%20Decision%201-21-09.pdf) for anyone who cares about truth.

Here is the ACLU's summary (http://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/2009/01/federal_distrit_court_strikes.shtml) of this decision, which clear explains why the law was struck down:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois applauded the decision today of the federal district court to strike down a statewide law that coerced children to pray as part of an organized activity in our public schools. In the words of Judge Robert W. Gettleman's decision: "the teacher is compelled to instruct her pupils, especially in the lower grades about prayer and its meaning..."

The court also found that the legislative intent in passing the law was to encourage organized prayer in the schools. On the floor of the General Assembly, sponsors repeated equated the moment of silence in school with the prayers recited each day before the General Assembly convenes. Moreover, the court held that the statue improperly "demonstrates an official preference for those religions that practice silent prayer over those that do not."

As the courts long have recognized, it is not the role of government (including public schools) to tell children when and how to pray. Religious exercise is a matter for students and parents, not politicians and school officials.

Students remain free to pray on their own, in a non-disruptive manner, throughout the school day. As Judge Gettleman recognized in his decision, public school students in Illinois do not require the permission of the General Assembly to engage in this constitutionally protected activity.
(emphasis added)

Finally, this decision should come as no surprise as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar "moment of silence" law in Wallace v. Jaffree (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=472&page=38), 472 U.S. 38 (1985).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481427,00.html

Apparently not talking for a minute in the morning is a violation of separation of church and state.

What if being noisy is part of your religious beliefs?

Hmm.... I like that. *writes it down*

Don't you get tired of mischaracterizing issues?

Nope.

Nope.

This is either a laudable willingess to admit you have no rebuttal to Cat's information, or possibly

the worst retort ever.

This is either a laudable willingess to admit you have no rebuttal to Cat's information, or possibly

the worst retort ever.

Truly up there with the greats such as "nuh-uh", "no YOU'RE stupid!" and "I know you are but what am I?"

Once again, I fail to understand how letting people silently observe their own religion is a violation of separation of church and state. It imposes religious observance on no one, it merely requests a small courtesy wherein a group is permitted their silent observance while others think their own thoughts, if indeed, they are capable of thought.

Truly up there with the greats such as "nuh-uh", "no YOU'RE stupid!" and "I know you are but what am I?"

I'm so tired of you quoting Dershowitz.

Once again, I fail to understand how letting people...
OF COURSE we "let" people do anything silently in their heads at any time (how could we possibly stop that, anyway?)
The question is, should we order kids to do this?

Once again, I fail to understand how letting people silently observe their own religion is a violation of separation of church and state. It imposes religious observance on no one, it merely requests a small courtesy wherein a group is permitted their silent observance while others think their own thoughts, if indeed, they are capable of thought.

Well, then, lets also set aside public resources and time, or a "courtesy" as you call it, while I do all the things that are important to me, and every one else can sit silently.

Read the decision. People can pray at school if they want, but forcing me to stop doing what I was there to do (listen to the instructor, talk to the teacher, read aloud, listen to other students discuss ideas, you know, become more educated) takes away my right to be in school while I'm at school.

Excercising your belief is fine. Expecting everyone else at a publicly funded place to be quiet (i.e., stop doing actual school stuff) while you do it is less fine. I can be with my own thoughts any time I want, I don't need a "special time" to do it, and I certainly don't need to force everyone else to be quiet while Im doing it.

You have the right to pray. You do not have the right to force me to be silent while you pray, especially since I'm not attending school for the privilege of being forced to sit quietly while you do it.

does anyone else notice that whole thing is taking HOURS and Months to debate over a period of time that lasts ONLY ONE MINUTE. I take longer to fart for heaven's sakes! honestly. I bet most of the kids are so sleepy and busily trying to finish last night's homework in the morning that they don't even care. And how stupid must people think their children are to think that one minute of being quiet is somehow going to change their views on religion and God and gods forbid anyone actually take time to even think about a different point of view from their parents or themselves! that would lead to OPENMINDEDNESS and where would that lead us?

It imposes religious observance on no one, it merely requests a small courtesy

Calling it a "courtesy" is euphemistic. It's an imposition. ALL MUST BE SILENT!

wherein a group is permitted their silent observance while others think their own thoughts, if indeed, they are capable of thought.

Now what exactly is the point of statements like these?

OF COURSE we "let" people do anything silently in their heads at any time (how could we possibly stop that, anyway?)
The question is, should we order kids to do this?

Since it isn't about one particular religion, but about respecting all religions, why not? Separation of church and state isn't about getting rid of religion, it's about acceptance of all religions or lack of religion. If atheists and agnostics (and I'm an agnostic) start using this as a weapon to eradicate religion, they are, in a sense, attempting to establish non-religion, which goes as much against the Bill of Rights as establishing a particular religion. And since parents these days seem Hell bent on not teaching their children respect for others, it's then left to the schools to teach it.

does anyone else notice that whole thing is taking HOURS and Months to debate over a period of time that lasts ONLY ONE MINUTE. I take longer to fart for heaven's sakes!

Well, gee, Muslim prayers only take a few minutes. And forcing kids to do them won't really make them muslim. I mean, who cares, right? So we'll do that for minutes 2-5.


honestly. I bet most of the kids are so sleepy and busily trying to finish last night's homework in the morning that they don't even care.

Then it truly would be a waste of time to have the minute, wouldn't it?

And having been a teacher, an attentive student actually can learn a lot in a minute.


And how stupid must people think their children are to think that one minute of being quiet is somehow going to change their views on religion and God and gods forbid anyone actually take time to even think about a different point of view from their parents or themselves! that would lead to OPENMINDEDNESS and where would that lead us?

And of course, certainly, those kids praying are going to be thinking about a "different point of view", not praying to the same belief they had yesterday, right?

Openmindedness is great. You might find that it comes from actually spending time talking and interacting with other people and beliefs, not being forced to sit silently while others practice their beliefs.

If atheists and agnostics (and I'm an agnostic) start using this as a weapon to eradicate religion...
Who the fuck is talking about "eradicating" religion? As you have been told repeatedly, you can pray all you like, any damned time you like-- BUT I DON'T NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT AND DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT. All that you are after here is imposing yourself upon the unwilling: and you have no right to do that.

Calling it a "courtesy" is euphemistic. It's an imposition. ALL MUST BE SILENT!

Now, now, Trostia. You're being discourteous.

This is either a laudable willingess to admit you have no rebuttal to Cat's information, or possibly

the worst retort ever.

No, the worst retort ever would have been: "Your mom doesn't get tired of mischaracterizing issues."

Since it isn't about one particular religion, but about respecting all religions, why not? Separation of church and state isn't about getting rid of religion, it's about acceptance of all religions or lack of religion. If atheists and agnostics (and I'm an agnostic) start using this as a weapon to eradicate religion, they are, in a sense, attempting to establish non-religion, which goes as much against the Bill of Rights as establishing a particular religion. And since parents these days seem Hell bent on not teaching their children respect for others, it's then left to the schools to teach it.

If you haven't already, you might want to review the information Cat posted.

It fully supports the right for people to individually pray in school, and makes NO attempt WHATSOEVER to eradicate religion.

It simply says that making your religious activity something that stops the whole school, forcing everybody to sit silently while you do it, steps directly on the equal rights of everybody else.

Once again, I fail to understand how letting people silently observe their own religion is a violation of separation of church and state. It imposes religious observance on no one, it merely requests a small courtesy wherein a group is permitted their silent observance while others think their own thoughts, if indeed, they are capable of thought.

Something I've never understood, if prayer is so important to your children why can't you do it with them before school, or after, or instruct them to do it quietly on their own? Why does it have to be at school? Why do the other kids have to stop what they're doing? What part of the scripture points to it having to be done at school, what part dictates that it be led or even endorsed by that institution? How is it not using an institution for indoctrination when there is nothing stopping someone from praying on their own, or before or after school, and the only thing these laws do is compel other students to accommodate them with their school time?

What part of the scripture points to it having to be done at school, what part dictates that it be led or even endorsed by that institution?
When you pray, do not pray in front of others, in order to be seen by them, as the hypocrites do: they have their reward.

If you haven't already, you might want to review the information Cat posted.

It fully supports the right for people to individually pray in school, and makes NO attempt WHATSOEVER to eradicate religion.

It simply says that making your religious activity something that stops the whole school, forcing everybody to sit silently while you do it, steps directly on the equal rights of everybody else.

Get back in character!

I really can't believe that people exist in the world that care so much about something so hugely trivial that they would actually go through the hassle of filing a lawsuit against the school. I'm not saying that the lawsuit is wrong, but... don't you have anything better to do?

Get back in character!

CToaN and his crime solving pals, Thelma, Daphne, Fred, and Scooby, hold the supposed "Ghost of Ayn Rand", while the bewildered sheriff tries to understand their explanation.

Fred: You see, Sheriff, there really was no Ghost! Somebody was just trying to scare people away from nationstates general because its been losing money, sort of like an old amusement park!

Sheriff: But, but the ghost...I saw it!

Daphne: Actually, the illusion of our so-called "Ghost" was accomplished with nothing but a crank flashlight, a macintosh, and six kilograms of pistachio pudding. Like so!

Sheriff: Then who is...

CToaN then grabs the mask off of the "Ghost of Ayn Rand" revealing (highlight to reveal):

Guest star Jerry Reed

I really can't believe that people exist in the world that care so much about something so hugely trivial that they would actually go through the hassle of filing a lawsuit against the school. I'm not saying that the lawsuit is wrong, but... don't you have anything better to do?

the ACLU defends the constitution. That is what they do.

I really can't believe that people exist in the world that care so much about something so hugely trivial that they would actually go through the hassle of filing a lawsuit against the school. I'm not saying that the lawsuit is wrong, but... don't you have anything better to do?

I know. Some people are obsessive about the founding principles of their society, the gradual erosion of which can be caused by the aggregation of "trivial" matters.

Why does Nanatsu no Tsuki keeping bringing up the British Economy?

the ACLU defends the constitution. That is what they do.

Notice the pattern? ACLU? That's what they do? Sounds like a conspiracy of the eternal [is suddenly deeted by Frisbeeteria]

Something I've never understood, if prayer is so important to your children why can't you do it with them before school, or after, or instruct them to do it quietly on their own? Why does it have to be at school? Why do the other kids have to stop what they're doing? What part of the scripture points to it having to be done at school, what part dictates that it be led or even endorsed by that institution? How is it not using an institution for indoctrination when there is nothing stopping someone from praying on their own, or before or after school, and the only thing these laws do is compel other students to accommodate them with their school time?

Actually, I believe Jesus said exactly the opposite. He seemed that praying in public because it's in public was kind of a dickheaded thing to do. I'm paraphrasing of course. ;)

When you pray, do not pray in front of others, in order to be seen by them, as the hypocrites do: they have their reward.

Yep, that's it. I like my version better. ;)

CToaN then grabs the mask off of the "Ghost of Ayn Rand" revealing (highlight to reveal):

Guest star Jerry Reed
who mutters, "And I would have got away with it, too, if it weren't for..."

the ACLU defends the constitution. That is what they do.

I wasn't referring to the ACLU, I was referring specifically to the father filing the law suit.

I know. Some people are obsessive about the founding principles of their society, the gradual erosion of which can be caused by the aggregation of "trivial" matters.


Yeah, that possible slippery slope is so scary, it's not like that slippery slope of erosion of the constitution hasn't already happened with the government practising daily in hugely unconstitutional practices that affect huge amounts of people, I lie awake thinking about it.


Why does Nanatsu no Tsuki keeping bringing up the British Economy?

Because that is what this thread is about. Seriously? When did I ever mention anything to do with the law, or lawsuits, or the constitution?

http://i37.tinypic.com/66lnja.jpg

Once again, I fail to understand how letting people silently observe their own religion is a violation of separation of church and state. It imposes religious observance on no one, it merely requests a small courtesy wherein a group is permitted their silent observance while others think their own thoughts, if indeed, they are capable of thought.

With all due respect, you fail to understand because you have failed to take even minimum effort to read why the courts have ruled as they have.

No one's fault but your own.

I wasn't referring to the ACLU, I was referring specifically to the father filing the law suit.

Yeah, 'cuz if your child is being forced to participate in a religious activity in violation of the U.S. Constitution by the local school district, you should just let it go. It's not like religious liberty is a backbone of our Republic or anything.

does anyone else notice that whole thing is taking HOURS and Months to debate over a period of time that lasts ONLY ONE MINUTE. I take longer to fart for heaven's sakes! honestly. I bet most of the kids are so sleepy and busily trying to finish last night's homework in the morning that they don't even care. And how stupid must people think their children are to think that one minute of being quiet is somehow going to change their views on religion and God and gods forbid anyone actually take time to even think about a different point of view from their parents or themselves! that would lead to OPENMINDEDNESS and where would that lead us?

Perhaps you should be outraged at those that continue to waste time and effort violating the clear provisions of the First Amendment and trying to destroy religious freedom.

Yeah, 'cuz if your child is being forced to participate in a religious activity in violation of the U.S. Constitution by the local school district, you should just let it go. It's not like religious liberty is a backbone of our Republic or anything.

Sure, it's easy to make things seem really important as long as you word it right.

Sure, it's easy to make things seem really important as long as you word it right.

Meh.

The man's daughter was being forced into a religous observance everyday in violation of the Constitution. How is that unimportant? What "word" would make it so?

EDIT: I also don't see why you would condemn the plaintiff for protecting the Constitution rather than castigating those idiots that keep trying to push religion in violation of the First Amendment. Don't [I]they have something better to do with their time and effort?

No one actually followed it, you know. They'd have the "moment of silence" and everyone would just keep talking.

No one actually followed it, you know. They'd have the "moment of silence" and everyone would just keep talking.

1. And you know this "fact," how? And how are you sure this was the case everywhere in Illinois all the time?

2. How does that make the law any more palatable?

Meh.

The man's daughter was being forced into a religous observance everyday in violation of the Constitution. How is that unimportant? What "word[ing]" would make it so?


Because it's too vague. It means that a child being forced to recite 10 passages of the Bible and declare Jesus as his saviour and atheists as demons every day, instead of learning about science, is just as bad as a minutes silence, where the child is free to do as he pleases, and is not compelled to pray or perform any religious activity.

Sure, it's easy to make things seem really important as long as you word it right.A different wording would not make it any less important to those who care about the first amendment.

Meh.

The man's daughter was being forced into a religous observance everyday in violation of the Constitution. How is that unimportant? What "word" would make it so?

EDIT: I also don't see why you would condemn the plaintiff for protecting the Constitution rather than castigating those idiots that keep trying to push religion in violation of the First Amendment. Don't [I]they have something better to do with their time and effort? This. ^^

Because it's too vague. It means that a child being forced to recite 10 passages of the Bible and declare Jesus as his saviour and atheists as demons every day, instead of learning about science, is just as bad as a minutes silence, where the child is free to do as he pleases, and is not compelled to pray or perform any religious activity.In the words of Judge Robert W. Gettleman's decision: "the teacher is compelled to instruct her pupils, especially in the lower grades about prayer and its meaning..."I'm guessing you skipped that part?

Because it's too vague. It means that a child being forced to recite 10 passages of the Bible and declare Jesus as his saviour and atheists as demons every day, instead of learning about science, is just as bad as a minutes silence, where the child is free to do as he pleases, and is not compelled to pray or perform any religious activity.

Um. Saying it violates the Constitution (which it does) doesn't mean that it is as bad as some worse violation, only that it is still unacceptable.

And the "not compelled to pray or perform any religious activity" rather begs the question. One of the points here is that the moment of silence WAS a religious activity -- one that excluded some religous activities in favor of that preferred by the authorities.

While I do not agree with a state legislature imposing prayer in the classrooms, I do see benefit if an individual teacher or school decided that there be a moment of silence. I would encourage it amongst my students, as a way to clear their heads so they can think critically about the topics we are studying. How they spend those first three minutes would be up to them.

side question.

if they had 'a moment of silence' every day, but did not force the teachers to follow this
In the words of Judge Robert W. Gettleman's decision: "the teacher is compelled to instruct her pupils, especially in the lower grades about prayer and its meaning..."
would you support it?

CAN children be silent for more than 5 seconds to begin with?

While I do not agree with a state legislature imposing prayer in the classrooms, I do see benefit if an individual teacher or school decided that there be a moment of silence. I would encourage it amongst my students, as a way to clear their heads so they can think critically about the topics we are studying. How they spend those first three minutes would be up to them.
There is nothing wrong with moments of silence (Though good luck on getting that to work. I swear the ONLY way I could get my kids to shut up is if I super glued their mouths shut), it just has to be done in such a way so that it is not primarily for a religious purpose. This one failed, but I have seen ones that were just for focusing on the day in whatever method the student chose.

CAN children be silent for more than 5 seconds to begin with?
Nope

CAN children be silent for more than 5 seconds to begin with?

yep.

in involves a Nintendo DS...

or a television...

:D

I know of no religion, not even any atheistic persuasion, which forces anyone to talk or make noise nonstop. Since they are going to be quiet for classes anyway, this should be a non-issue. A minute of silence is something people should learn to observe for a variety of reasons.

Furthermore any rational person would wonder if maybe the judge who ruled on the issue did not insert some bias into the ruling which significantly mischaracterizes the bill's intentions.

side question.

if they had 'a moment of silence' every day, but did not force the teachers to follow this

would you support it?
Virginia has a moment of silence, too. They do not, however, have the part you quoted, which may be why no one has filed a complaint: even though it's pretty clearly an attempt to make school more prayerful, there's no actual religion talk. At least, that I know of.

Also, while I agree with the unconstitutionality of the Illinois law, I don't mind a minute of people being quiet at all. It's very pleasant to hear no noise.

As long as the government doesn't force a student to pray to a Christian God, its fine.

Virginia has a moment of silence at the beginning of everyday.
We do indeed! Are you from the Commonwealth?

I know of no religion, not even any atheistic persuasion, which forces anyone to talk or make noise nonstop. Since they are going to be quiet for classes anyway, this should be a non-issue. A minute of silence is something people should learn to observe for a variety of reasons.

Furthermore any rational person would wonder if maybe the judge who ruled on the issue did not insert some bias into the ruling which significantly mischaracterizes the bill's intentions.


With a name like the Student Prayer Act, it really seems like there's only one way to characterize it in the first place.

Once again, I fail to understand how letting people silently observe their own religion is a violation of separation of church and state. It imposes religious observance on no one, it merely requests a small courtesy wherein a group is permitted their silent observance while others think their own thoughts, if indeed, they are capable of thought.


It isn't. ORGANIZING the moment of silence and suggesting it might be used for prayer is what is the problem.

If students choose to pray before their noontime meal, that's one thing. It's another if I walk into the cafeteria and lead them in saying grace.

As long as the government doesn't force a student to pray to a Christian God, its fine.


We do indeed! Are you from the Commonwealth?
I am. Judging by your name, I assume you are, too.

When you pray, do not pray in front of others, in order to be seen by them, as the hypocrites do: they have their reward.
Matthew 6:5-6 :)

CToaN and his crime solving pals, Thelma, Daphne, Fred, and Scooby, hold the supposed "Ghost of Ayn Rand", while the bewildered sheriff tries to understand their explanation.

Fred: You see, Sheriff, there really was no Ghost! Somebody was just trying to scare people away from nationstates general because its been losing money, sort of like an old amusement park!

Sheriff: But, but the ghost...I saw it!

Daphne: Actually, the illusion of our so-called "Ghost" was accomplished with nothing but a crank flashlight, a macintosh, and six kilograms of pistachio pudding. Like so!

Sheriff: Then who is...

CToaN then grabs the mask off of the "Ghost of Ayn Rand" revealing (highlight to reveal):

Guest star Jerry Reed
"And I'd have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids and their dog!"

Sure, it's easy to make things seem really important as long as you word it right.
Would you agree to a child being forced to participate in a three-hour religious observance at school?
Because if we posit that the school year is roughly 180 days long, 180 minutes = 3 hours of worship.

I am. Judging by your name, I assume you are, too.

You're a sharp one. Whereabouts?

I still don't see a problem with a moment of silence to do or think about whatever you wish. Perhaps there is a problem with emphasizing that you can pray. The kids with religion already know how to pray (I'd say most religions have prayer or meditation of some sort). I don't think it is a problem if not much emphasis is put on what you do during that time. I think that this policy should be changed, but not entirely done away with.

I recall a thread a while back about some students getting a failing grade because their teacher forced them to pray (for social studies I believe.)

the general concensus here was "there's no harm since it's for class".

anyone else remember that thread?

You're a sharp one. Whereabouts?

You're not a precocious young girl needing conformation of Santa Claus (yes, Virginia) from Cooper, Michigan (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=cooper,+michigan&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&split=0&gl=us&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=title)?

CAN children be silent for more than 5 seconds to begin with?Absolutely. It's called automatic failure for talking during a test. Yes, believe it or not, our teachers actually do fail people for talking during the test. (No "warnings" in our classes. Ugh.)

Lets save our moments of silence for home shall we? The silence sure cant hurt there and im sure the Parents could use the break anyway.

o.o If it would have "let people" use the quiet time to reflect on their activities, then why did they call it the "Student Prayer Act"? And why then are they required to instruct about prayer's meaning? We don't see much talk in chemistry about homeopathy, but like homeopathy, prayer is superstitious, so why force the favoritism of one form of non-science over other forms of non-science on them?

The name of the act and instructing students on *how to prey* seem to be violations, but the idea itself, namely that there should be a few minutes of times set aside every day for students to engage in prayer if they want to, is not a bad one.

I don't understand why the name of the act is in question.

The name of the act and instructing students on *how to prey* seem to be violations, but the idea itself, namely that there should be a few minutes of times set aside every day for students to engage in prayer if they want to, is not a bad one.

But, if we don't teach them that, how will they ever survive in the wilderness?

The name of the act and instructing students on *how to prey* seem to be violations, but the idea itself, namely that there should be a few minutes of times set aside every day for students to engage in prayer if they want to, is not a bad one.

If this weren't a typo, it would scare the ghost of Eminent Russian American Philosopher Ayn Rand.

The name of the act and instructing students on *how to prey* seem to be violations, but the idea itself, namely that there should be a few minutes of times set aside every day for students to engage in prayer if they want to, is not a bad one.
In and of itself it doesn't sound like a bad idea, but isn't it still a favoritism of one superstition over others? I mean, you don't see them setting aside time in chemistry labs for people who believe in homeopathy to play with dilution...

But, if we don't teach them that, how will they ever survive in the wilderness?

DAMN YOU, GALLO! Damn your sharp eyes, your superior wit, and your faster fingers!

Damn!

A related question - how do your local public schools handle Muslim prayer times when they conflict with class times?

It's been a long time since I was at school and, when I was, there were no Muslims attending (probably because they were, for the most part, Catholic schools).

In my last job there was a religious Muslim who used one of the meeting rooms for his prayers. As a courtesy we organised meetings at other times.

I don't understand why the name of the act is in question.Student Prayer Act.

...Come on. The government of the states, or the federal government (for that matter), can make no law respecting religion, at all.

Student Prayer Act.

...Come on. The government of the states, or the federal government (for that matter), can make no law respecting religion, at all.

People have many different interpretations of those words. As was, I have no doubt, the original intention.

The point is the act is not the Student Christian Prayer Act, or the Student God Prayer Act, it is simply the Student Prayer Act. It isn't specifying a single religion over another, so they aren't even playing favorites.

The instructing how to pray is too much, but the act in itself I don't have a problem with.

In and of itself it doesn't sound like a bad idea, but isn't it still a favoritism of one superstition over others? I mean, you don't see them setting aside time in chemistry labs for people who believe in homeopathy to play with dilution...

It's not the same thing because 86% (according to one source) of people worldwide are religious. Is it fair to deny religious people one or two minutes or prayer? The alternative is actually more discriminatory because people have to ask for the time to prey ... what happens if their not Christian and the teacher is a total dick. IMHO it's better to give everyone the right to have a few minutes to themselves - it's their choice what they use it for.

Just so everyone understands - people are looking to pray, not prey.

Just so everyone understands - people are looking to pray, not prey.

Oh good you cleared that up. I though that it a sort of silent ritual killing... my mistake.

DAMN YOU, GALLO! Damn your sharp eyes, your superior wit, and your faster fingers!

Damn!

Even after death, you fall behind my friend. You just don't have it. Perhaps if you became more familiar with some of your own works, you might catch up...

People have many different interpretations of those words. As was, I have no doubt, the original intention.

The point is the act is not the Student Christian Prayer Act, or the Student God Prayer Act, it is simply the Student Prayer Act. It isn't specifying a single religion over another, so they aren't even playing favorites.

The instructing how to pray is too much, but the act in itself I don't have a problem with.Originally posted by The United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.And, by extension of the 14th amendment, this applies to the state governments as well.
The problem is that the government cannot make any law that has to do with religion. None. Nothing. It's unconstitutional.

And, by extension of the 14th amendment, this applies to the state governments as well.
The problem is that the government cannot make any law that has to do with religion. None. Nothing. It's unconstitutional.

Ahem.

I refer you to Justice Scalia's majority decision in the landmark case "ACLU vs. Faith-Based Sniper Rifle Manufacturers Trade Association".

Ahem.

I refer you to Justice Scalia's majority decision in the landmark case "ACLU vs. Faith-Based Sniper Rifle Manufacturers Trade Association"..../totally not catching the reference here.
...If there is one. :(

The problem is that the government cannot make any law that has to do with religion. None. Nothing. It's unconstitutional.
That's one interpretation, certainly. But it isn't the one that most people take.

It's not the same thing because 86% (according to one source) of people worldwide are religious. Is it fair to deny religious people one or two minutes or prayer? The alternative is actually more discriminatory because people have to ask for the time to prey ... what happens if their not Christian and the teacher is a total dick. IMHO it's better to give everyone the right to have a few minutes to themselves - it's their choice what they use it for.

What part of their religion requires that prayer time to happen while at school, why it has to be sanctioned by the school, and why everyone else has to stop what they're doing while you do it?

Originally posted by The United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

They also can not impose any law which prohibits free exercise of religion... and legally they don't but in practice they prevent free exercise (and also for that matter freedom of speech) within schools. One can easily argue that legislating private-time specifically to be used by religious students for *prayer* (got it right this time) is simply protecting their right to practice their religion.

It's not the same thing because 86% (according to one source) of people worldwide are religious. Is it fair to deny religious people one or two minutes or prayer? The alternative is actually more discriminatory because people have to ask for the time to prey ... what happens if their not Christian and the teacher is a total dick. IMHO it's better to give everyone the right to have a few minutes to themselves - it's their choice what they use it for.
I'm not sure if being religious necessarily involves believing in prayer, but 86% of people worldwide believing in something doesn't make it true. If 86% of people worldwide believed in invisible fire-breathing dragons, are we supposed to accomodate them?

Also, why couldn't they pray during recess?

But, if we don't teach them that, how will they ever survive in the wilderness?
farming. it's also a Vegan agenda!

A related question - how do your local public schools handle Muslim prayer times when they conflict with class times?

It's been a long time since I was at school and, when I was, there were no Muslims attending (probably because they were, for the most part, Catholic schools).

In my last job there was a religious Muslim who used one of the meeting rooms for his prayers. As a courtesy we organised meetings at other times.
I believe it was ruled by some of the Muslim priests that prayer may be skipped during school. but there are some Muslim Private schools that have prayer time.

Also, why couldn't they pray during recess?

they do. but most students pray in class just before a test/exam.
:D

What part of their religion requires that prayer time to happen while at school, why it has to be sanctioned by the school, and why everyone else has to stop what they're doing while you do it?

Now who's presuming a specific religion?

Your right in the case of Christians that they (we) do not have to pray at specific times except perhaps for meal times (and we only should). Muslims on the other hand have to pray much more often (5 times I think ???). It is however customary among many Christians to pray more often. I'm sure that most religious people of many persuasions would welcome the time...

They also can not impose any law which prohibits free exercise of religion... and legally they don't but in practice they prevent free exercise (and also for that matter freedom of speech) within schools.

The decision specifically says kids can pray in school if they want. But forcing everybody else to stop doing what they're doing and be silent while you pray is the problem.


One can easily argue that legislating private-time specifically to be used by religious students for *prayer* (got it right this time) is simply protecting their right to practice their religion.

But that's the thing: time that is on the school's public budget, in the public school's building, on the public's taxpayer funded time is not "private-time".

To make everyone else be required to be silent while the religious student prays imposes a public effect of the religious students private beliefs and enacts them on public time in a public building while children are supposed to be getting a public education into something other than sitting silently.

Students can pray all they want at school, the decision acknowledges that. But forcing everybody else to stop doing what they are there to be doing, with public time and money, isn't okay.

It's not the same thing because 86% (according to one source) of people worldwide are religious. Is it fair to deny religious people one or two minutes or prayer?

The decision does not deny students the right to pray and in fact says they can pray all they want. Forcing everybody else to be quiet so they can pray is the problem.


The alternative is actually more discriminatory because people have to ask for the time to prey ... what happens if their not Christian and the teacher is a total dick. IMHO it's better to give everyone the right to have a few minutes to themselves - it's their choice what they use it for.

People have the right to a "few minutes to themselves". They have hundreds every day.

But while they're at school, on public money, time, and resources, setting some of that aside for a religious purpose, especially to a religious practice that is not shared by all religions (silent prayer), takes away the rights of everyone else.

I'm not sure if being religious necessarily involves believing in prayer, but 86% of people worldwide believing in something doesn't make it true. If 86% of people worldwide believed in invisible fire-breathing dragons, are we supposed to accomodate them?

Also, why couldn't they pray during recess?

86% of people bend over backwards to accommodate you. Why not show the same courtesy. It's not as though your being asked to believe in fire breathing dragons - only to tolerate a few minutes of your day being wasted in honor of <insert_chosen_diety/>.

That's one interpretation, certainly. But it isn't the one that most people take.No, but it's the one that was taken by the Constitution, and that's what matters. The Constitution is (As of now.) meant to protect the rights of the people. (Before the 14th, that was a different story. But, we're after the 14th.)

They also can not impose any law which prohibits free exercise of religion... and legally they don't but in practice they prevent free exercise (and also for that matter freedom of speech) within schools. One can easily argue that legislating private-time specifically to be used by religious students for *prayer* (got it right this time) is simply protecting their right to practice their religion....What? They're doing nothing wrong legally, but they're still...doing something illegal?

Now who's presuming a specific religion?

Your right in the case of Christians that they (we) do not have to pray at specific times except perhaps for meal times (and we only should). Muslims on the other hand have to pray much more often (5 times I think ???). It is however customary among many Christians to pray more often. I'm sure that most religious people of many persuasions would welcome the time...

Great, you found a single religion that has a specific time for prayer. Now, tell me why everyone has to stop what they're doing for it and why the school itself has to oversee it.

86% of people bend over backwards to accommodate you. Why not show the same courtesy. It's not as though your being asked to believe in fire breathing dragons - only to tolerate a few minutes of your day being wasted in honor of <insert_chosen_diety/>.Religion does not necessarily involve belief in a supreme being.

farming. it's also a Vegan agenda!

They just want the plants to suffer. They hate plants!

86% of people bend over backwards to accommodate you. Why not show the same courtesy. It's not as though your being asked to believe in fire breathing dragons - only to tolerate a few minutes of your day being wasted in honor of <insert_chosen_diety/>.
And how are 86% of the people bending over backward to accommodate him?

I know of no religion, not even any atheistic persuasion, which forces anyone to talk or make noise nonstop. Since they are going to be quiet for classes anyway, this should be a non-issue. A minute of silence is something people should learn to observe for a variety of reasons.

Furthermore any rational person would wonder if maybe the judge who ruled on the issue did not insert some bias into the ruling which significantly mischaracterizes the bill's intentions.

Mischaracterizes the bill's intentions? "The Student Prayer Act" isn't about prayer?

Please feel free to actually read the decision (http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2009/Sherman%20Decision%201-21-09.pdf) and point out where it is irrational.

As long as the government doesn't force a student to pray to a Christian God, its fine.

The name of the act and instructing students on *how to prey* seem to be violations, but the idea itself, namely that there should be a few minutes of times set aside every day for students to engage in prayer if they want to, is not a bad one.

People have many different interpretations of those words. As was, I have no doubt, the original intention.

The point is the act is not the Student Christian Prayer Act, or the Student God Prayer Act, it is simply the Student Prayer Act. It isn't specifying a single religion over another, so they aren't even playing favorites.

The instructing how to pray is too much, but the act in itself I don't have a problem with.

It's not the same thing because 86% (according to one source) of people worldwide are religious. Is it fair to deny religious people one or two minutes or prayer? The alternative is actually more discriminatory because people have to ask for the time to prey ... what happens if their not Christian and the teacher is a total dick. IMHO it's better to give everyone the right to have a few minutes to themselves - it's their choice what they use it for.

That's one interpretation, certainly. But it isn't the one that most people take.

They also can not impose any law which prohibits free exercise of religion... and legally they don't but in practice they prevent free exercise (and also for that matter freedom of speech) within schools. One can easily argue that legislating private-time specifically to be used by religious students for *prayer* (got it right this time) is simply protecting their right to practice their religion.

*sigh*

Let's be clear. As already noted, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has both an Establishment Clause ("no law respecting an establishment of religion") and a Free Exercise Clause ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). Together these Clauses mandate a separation of Church and State.

In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''

As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Please note that government cannot aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

Non-believers are also protected by the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. As SCOTUS explained in in Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html ), 472 U.S. 38 (1985) (emphasis added):

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.

Would you really argue against that sentiment?

See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/577.html ), 505 US 577 (1992) ("The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference."); Torcaso v. Watkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488#495), 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) ("We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person `to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs"); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=330&page=15#15), 330 US 1, 18 (1947) (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers").

... especially to a religious practice that is not shared by all religions (silent prayer), takes away the rights of everyone else.

No I don't think it takes away from the rights of everyone else at all. I think you may be playing devils advocate here but do you really think a few minutes wasted of your time wasted is all that big a deal? IMHO protecting the rights of children who *want to* pray is more important than saving a few minutes. Besides If my memory serves me correctly public schools are hardly shining examples of efficiency.

As for your first point. I think the restriction of only allowing silent prayer isn't right. I know a few Muslims who don't exactly pray silently - although they aren't particularly loud. Any form of quiet self directed prayer should be acceptable.

86% of people bend over backwards to accommodate you. Why not show the same courtesy. It's not as though your being asked to believe in fire breathing dragons - only to tolerate a few minutes of your day being wasted in honor of <insert_chosen_diety/>.

Um. Government neutrality among religious beliefs doesn't require believers to "bend over backwards to accomodate" non-believers. To the contrary, it treats everyone's religious beliefs the same -- rather than giving preference to the beliefs of some (if if that some is the majority).

86% of people bend over backwards to accommodate you. Why not show the same courtesy. It's not as though your being asked to believe in fire breathing dragons - only to tolerate a few minutes of your day being wasted in honor of <insert_chosen_diety/>.

So, wait, "Hey, could you keep me out of your religious rituals and in the time we both have to be here at this public institution for the sole purpose of education could we focus on the task instead of taking time out of it for your little dance?" is suddenly bending over backwards? The amount then, that the non-faithful tolerate the number of prayers, faith tests, references to god, etc that infiltrate our society makes us down right gymnastic.

No I don't think it takes away from the rights of everyone else at all. I think you may be playing devils advocate here but do you really think a few minutes wasted of your time wasted is all that big a deal? IMHO protecting the rights of children who *want to* pray is more important than saving a few minutes. Besides If my memory serves me correctly public schools are hardly shining examples of efficiency.
What part of "There is nothing stopping students from praying at school" are you having a hard time understanding? NOTHING stops students from praying at school as long as said prayer does not disrupt the school. The problem comes with the school, a state agency, setting aside time for prayer itself. This is not protecting the right of students to pray, this is forcing it on everyone else which is in extreme violation of the first amendment.

No I don't think it takes away from the rights of everyone else at all. I think you may be playing devils advocate here but do you really think a few minutes wasted of your time wasted is all that big a deal? IMHO protecting the rights of children who *want to* pray is more important than saving a few minutes. Besides If my memory serves me correctly public schools are hardly shining examples of efficiency. ...I don't think you understand what you're saying. The government cannot make laws regarding religion, from now until the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution differently. It simply cannot be done legally at this time.

What part of "There is nothing stopping students from praying at school" are you having a hard time understanding? NOTHING stops students from praying at school as long as said prayer does not disrupt the school. The problem comes with the school, a state agency, setting aside time for prayer itself. This is not protecting the right of students to pray, this is forcing it on everyone else which is in extreme violation of the first amendment.This, as well.

No I don't think it takes away from the rights of everyone else at all. I think you may be playing devils advocate here but do you really think a few minutes wasted of your time wasted is all that big a deal?

If its not that big a deal, then I guess its equally unimportant that they would have it as opposed to not have it. Its big enough of a deal to pass a law to get the time, but when points are made as to why its Unconstitutional, its suddenly not a big deal?

And yes, having been a teacher in both private and public schools, every minute with kids counts. Getting them there and getting them interested is hard enough. Giving a minute away and making everyone be quiet for the religious beliefs of some is a "big deal".


IMHO protecting the rights of children who *want to* pray is more important than saving a few minutes. Besides If my memory serves me correctly public schools are hardly shining examples of efficiency.

Then, as has been explained several times, both on this thread and in the published decision, you should note that nobody is stopping those kids who want to pray from praying. The judge even acknowledged that their right to pray is protected. Stopping everybody else from what THEY choose to be doing is what is being struck down.

Again, per the court decision: They can pray all they want, they can't force silence (or some other forced activity or non-activity) on everybody else while they do it.


As for your first point. I think the restriction of only allowing silent prayer isn't right. I know a few Muslims who don't exactly pray silently - although they aren't particularly loud. Any form of quiet self directed prayer should be acceptable.

Yet again, if you read the decision, if a kid wants to pray in school, he or she can.

You just can't force everyone else to set aside their time, silent or otherwise, so you can do it.

Mischaracterizes the bill's intentions? "The Student Prayer Act" isn't about prayer?

Please feel free to actually read the decision (http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2009/Sherman%20Decision%201-21-09.pdf) and point out where it is irrational.













*sigh*

Let's be clear. As already noted, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has both an Establishment Clause ("no law respecting an establishment of religion") and a Free Exercise Clause ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). Together these Clauses mandate a separation of Church and State.

In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''

As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Please note that government cannot aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

Non-believers are also protected by the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. As SCOTUS explained in in Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html ), 472 U.S. 38 (1985) (emphasis added):

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.

Would you really argue against that sentiment?

See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/577.html ), 505 US 577 (1992) ("The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference."); Torcaso v. Watkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488#495), 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) ("We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person `to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs"); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=330&page=15#15), 330 US 1, 18 (1947) (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers").

One of these days I'm going to issue a challenge, something like whether I should go to Carrow's or IHOP citing at least three case precedents. The only reason I don't is because I'm not prepared for the fact that you'll likely succeed...

One of these days I'm going to issue a challenge, something like whether I should go to Carrow's or IHOP citing at least three case precedents. The only reason I don't is because I'm not prepared for the fact that you'll likely succeed...
He probably would too. Even in the oddest of threads Cat Tribes seems to have SOME sort of case law to quote.

*snip*


It's not as though people are being indoctrinated into a particular religion or forced to pray. They can do whatever they want with that time. As I understand it they are merely setting the times aside to allow it, as I haven't actually read the bill - and am neither an expert in American law or an American I can't offer a legal opinion. I do understand what your getting at but I don't think it's all that big a deal.

Shouldn't atheist children have to learn to tolerate the rest of us? It's entirely likely that some of their friends will be the ones praying. I think we all have to learn to tolerate and get along with each other and sometimes to make accommodations for each others idiosyncrasies.

It's not as though people are being indoctrinated into a particular religion or forced to pray. They can do whatever they want with that time. As I understand it they are merely setting the times aside to allow it, as I haven't actually read the bill - and am neither an expert in American law or an American I can't offer a legal opinion. I do understand what your getting at but I don't think it's all that big a deal.

Shouldn't atheist children have to learn to tolerate the rest of us? It's entirely likely that some of their friends will be the ones praying. I think we all have to learn to tolerate and get along with each other and sometimes to make accommodations for each others idiosyncrasies.

Actually, the law specified the time was to be used for prayer and the intention behind the law was to encourage prayer.

The court explained that a simple moment of silence with no reference to prayer would be fine, but the Illinois legislature specifically chose not to pass such a law.

Furthermore, nothing prevents students from praying in school. The question is whether the government should encourage or require them to do so. The latter is both unconstitutional and wrong.

One of these days I'm going to issue a challenge, something like whether I should go to Carrow's or IHOP citing at least three case precedents. The only reason I don't is because I'm not prepared for the fact that you'll likely succeed...

He probably would too. Even in the oddest of threads Cat Tribes seems to have SOME sort of case law to quote.

:D

Actually, people keep recycling some of the same stupid arguments, so I am often able to respond with the same caselaw I've cited before. I'm pretty lazy about it. :wink:

86% of people bend over backwards to accommodate you. Why not show the same courtesy. It's not as though your being asked to believe in fire breathing dragons - only to tolerate a few minutes of your day being wasted in honor of <insert_chosen_diety/>.
How so?

And what about a few minutes of the day being wasted in honour of the invisible dragons by slapping your elbows and chanting the mantra "zeeky boogy doog" or whatever arbitrary superstition was attached to that belief? What people think is true doesn't determine whether it's true or not.

The judge even acknowledged that their right to pray is protected. Stopping everybody else from what THEY choose to be doing is what is being struck down.

I doubt that the students really chose to be there.


Again, per the court decision: They can pray all they want, they can't force silence (or some other forced activity or non-activity) on everybody else while they do it.


So your saying the students should do whatever they want? Great in theory doesn't work in practice. If that were the case everyone would be doing something different. Their already there against their will why not force the little brats to be quiet in honor of moloch or whatever.

Actually, the law specified the time was to be used for prayer and the intention behind the law was to encourage prayer.

The court explained that a simple moment of silence with no reference to prayer would be fine, but the Illinois legislature specifically chose not to pass such a law.

Furthermore, nothing prevents students from praying in school. The question is whether the government should encourage or require them to do so. The latter is both unconstitutional and wrong.

Ahh, I see. So It's not a problem in practice - only in the intention of the law to 'encourage prayer'. And that the time be used for prayer. That part I understand and agree with. You can't force be people to pray and thats not what I was defending ... only allowing time to observe prayer.

To be clear my position is that it should be ok to force quiet time to allow others to pray. Not to force or encourage actual prayer.

Shouldn't atheist children have to learn to tolerate the rest of us? It's entirely likely that some of their friends will be the ones praying. I think we all have to learn to tolerate and get along with each other and sometimes to make accommodations for each others idiosyncrasies.
Maybe when Christians learn to tolerate Atheists. Instead, Christians demonize Atheists, (though tend to back off of Muslims since they're more likely to threaten violence) associating them with Hitler and Stalin, (the former almost baselessly) acting like Christianity has some kind of copyright on the concept of ethics (when it's been around long before Christianity) and now, thanks to the Christian persecution complex, blames everyone else instead.

As Richard Dawkins once put it "[being outspoken is] having an impact that decades of niceness have not"

EDIT: By the way, I and others have already asked you how exactly 86% of the population is bending over backwards to accomodate me, and you still have yet to answer.

I'd like to point out, since no one's answered my question, that with an average of 180 days in a school year, with one minute per day for "silent reflection", we're talking about three hours taken from education for prayer.

And Hayteria, I'd also like to point out that I'm a practicing Christian, tolerate people of other faiths or none at all, don't think that following a religion = being necessarily more ethical, don't demonize atheists, and in fact agree with you that there's no place for organized prayer in the classroom.

So that broad brush you're swinging around? Please stop painting me with it. ;)

To be clear my position is that it should be ok to force quiet time to allow others to pray.No, unless I'm mistaken, that's still illegal. And still wrong.
If you want to pray silently, do it on your own, non-publicly funded time.

I'd like to point out, since no one's answered my question, that with an average of 180 days in a school year, with one minute per day for "silent reflection", we're talking about three hours taken from education for prayer.
Meh, I don't think that really makes much of a difference, given that when class starts sometimes varies and that often there's people coming in late, etc... there's probably other ways to maximize the time used for education, though granted I'm not quite sure what they are...

EDIT: I saw this comment before Kat edited it, so I'm going to edit in my response to her edit...


And Hayteria, I'd also like to point out that I'm a practicing Christian, tolerate people of other faiths or none at all, don't think that following a religion = being necessarily more ethical, don't demonize atheists, and in fact agree with you that there's no place for organized prayer in the classroom.

So that broad brush you're swinging around? Please stop painting me with it. ;)
... fair enough. It's just that I'm bitter towards religion, partly because its influence gets in the way of things like embryonic stem cell research (which has the potential to free me from type 1 diabetes, as well as free many others from worse diseases) and partly because it just seems to have such a chokehold in society (ie. atheists being very distrusted by popular opinion, popular opinion being Christian) and seeing stuff on youtube like "atheism and being butt ugly" doesn't help either. Sometimes hearing moderate Christians claim that something is discrimination against them sounds like a game of good-cop bad-cop, depending on the context, even if it's not as much of one as I percieve it.

On the one hand, I'm almost inclined to ask why you're even Christian in the first place and why you would conform to Christianity in particular if you don't have those kinds of beliefs, but on the other hand that's none of by business and it's off topic anyway. Thank you for reaching out with common ground.

I'd like to point out, since no one's answered my question, that with an average of 180 days in a school year, with one minute per day for "silent reflection", we're talking about three hours taken from education for prayer.Twenty-one hours of my life, down the drain. *sigh*
(I went to a private school that didn't have a moment of silence for four years. To explain the gap.)

Once again, I fail to understand how letting people silently observe their own religion is a violation of separation of church and state. It imposes religious observance on no one, it merely requests a small courtesy wherein a group is permitted their silent observance while others think their own thoughts, if indeed, they are capable of thought.
No one does. If it was just a moment of silence, that would be fine. "compelling" teachers to explain what prayer is and such in conjunction with a moment of silence is not. You can pray silently at any time. A school can mandate a moment of silence. A school cannot mandate a moment of silence and then encourage students to pray.

There is nothing wrong with moments of silence (Though good luck on getting that to work. I swear the ONLY way I could get my kids to shut up is if I super glued their mouths shut), it just has to be done in such a way so that it is not primarily for a religious purpose. This one failed, but I have seen ones that were just for focusing on the day in whatever method the student chose.
Disasters work well. Our school was silent on 9/12/2001 during the moment of silence.

I know of no religion, not even any atheistic persuasion, which forces anyone to talk or make noise nonstop. Since they are going to be quiet for classes anyway, this should be a non-issue. A minute of silence is something people should learn to observe for a variety of reasons.

Furthermore any rational person would wonder if maybe the judge who ruled on the issue did not insert some bias into the ruling which significantly mischaracterizes the bill's intentions.
Any rational person would also read the decision before commenting, and understanding why the decision was made.
Virginia has a moment of silence, too. They do not, however, have the part you quoted, which may be why no one has filed a complaint: even though it's pretty clearly an attempt to make school more prayerful, there's no actual religion talk. At least, that I know of.

Also, while I agree with the unconstitutionality of the Illinois law, I don't mind a minute of people being quiet at all. It's very pleasant to hear no noise.Connecticut has one as well.

As long as the government doesn't force a student to pray to a Christian God, its fine.


We do indeed! Are you from the Commonwealth?
No. It has nothing to do with which god is prayed to, or even if it is a god. They cannot mandate prayer. They cannot force agents of the state to encourage prayer.
Absolutely. It's called automatic failure for talking during a test. Yes, believe it or not, our teachers actually do fail people for talking during the test. (No "warnings" in our classes. Ugh.)You need a warning to remember that you have a test and shouldn't be talking?
And yes, I do fail my students for talking. They have a warning. I told them the first day, and remind them as I hand out the test. That's plenty of warning.

I don't understand why the name of the act is in question.
Because it displays what the intent of the act was.
A related question - how do your local public schools handle Muslim prayer times when they conflict with class times?
Our school set aside a spare room and allowed them to use it when they needed
People have many different interpretations of those words. As was, I have no doubt, the original intention.

The point is the act is not the Student Christian Prayer Act, or the Student God Prayer Act, it is simply the Student Prayer Act. It isn't specifying a single religion over another, so they aren't even playing favorites.

The instructing how to pray is too much, but the act in itself I don't have a problem with.No one has a problem with the act. You can pray all you want.
And yes, they are playing favorites: the law favorited those with a religion that prays over those who do not.



Actually, people keep recycling some of the same stupid arguments, so I am often able to respond with the same caselaw I've cited before. I'm pretty lazy about it. :wink:
You have several page long posts citing dozens upon dozens of cases and thats...lazy?! Even if you are reusing it...

You need a warning to remember that you have a test and shouldn't be talking? No, I've never failed a test.
And yes, I do fail my students for talking. They have a warning. I told them the first day, and remind them as I hand out the test. That's plenty of warning.That's what you're supposed to do, isn't it? I'm not saying that it's wrong.

I barely had half a minute to run to the bathroom today; there's no way I'm wasting a whole one on prayer. My kids could use that minute to learn a new sight word, and it would serve them about 10000 times as well.

Maybe when Christians learn to tolerate Atheists. Instead, Christians demonize Atheists, (though tend to back off of Muslims since they're more likely to threaten violence) associating them with Hitler and Stalin, (the former almost baselessly) acting like Christianity has some kind of copyright on the concept of ethics (when it's been around long before Christianity) and now, thanks to the Christian persecution complex, blames everyone else instead.

As Richard Dawkins once put it "[being outspoken is] having an impact that decades of niceness have not"

EDIT: By the way, I and others have already asked you how exactly 86% of the population is bending over backwards to accomodate me, and you still have yet to answer.

Who beside maybe the vocal minority of cartoon-christians in your own country has demonized you? In answer to your question I'll (annoyingly I admit) pose another - it what material way are you discriminated against as an atheist. Seems to me that in the US you enjoy all the same rights and freedoms as any religious person. If you came to my house there is no way I would make you pray or expect you to agree with me and I think thats the same with the *majority* of Christians. The same is true of Muslims, the majority are pretty normal people but there are a few who go around blowing themselves up and anyone around them and *that* causes a lot of trouble. Its the minority of religious nut jobs who are not tolerant of you (atheists) the majority are pretty easy to get along with.

As far as wasting some time in observance of prayer - I think it's better if its organized at the start of the day rather than at other times because then you don't have students putting up their hands 'excuse me I want to exercise my constitutional right to pray now'. Thats an administrative consideration not a legal one or moral one.

No, I've never failed a test.
That's what you're supposed to do, isn't it? I'm not saying that it's wrong.Seemed like you thought it was inane...though, that could be me reading bitterness into it ;)

I have also failed a girl for talking when I forgot to remind them at the start of the test.

Her argument was "you didn't say it this time!"
My argument was "you signed a form that said it on the first day. My reminder is a courtesy. You knew the rule, and you still fail."

She proceeded to pout for the next week.

1. And you know this "fact," how? And how are you sure this was the case everywhere in Illinois all the time?

Student, of course. ;) Oh, and I don't know about all of Illinois, but I do know about a fair bit.

2. How does that make the law any more palatable?

Oh, I disagree with the law. Pretty much the entire school cheered when we heard that it had been canceled.

Don't be so aggressive, especially against people on your side. <.<

I doubt that the students really chose to be there.

Since they are forced to be there, all the more reason they shouldn't be forced to be there AND THEN be forced to be quiet for other people's religion.


So your saying the students should do whatever they want? Great in theory doesn't work in practice. If that were the case everyone would be doing something different.

They can pray whenever they want, like breaks, recess, lunch, etc. All the free time they have during the day. I've taught in public schools, and there is such time. That whey, they're prayer isn't taking away instructional time from the people who go to school for school, and don't go to school for church.


Their already there against their will why not force the little brats to be quiet in honor of moloch or whatever.

This reasoning makes me want to eat steel.

Seemed like you thought it was inane...though, that could be me reading bitterness into it ;)

I have also failed a girl for talking when I forgot to remind them at the start of the test.

Her argument was "you didn't say it this time!"
My argument was "you signed a form that said it on the first day. My reminder is a courtesy. You knew the rule, and you still fail."

She proceeded to pout for the next week.I just don't normally talk in core classes, unless the teacher ask me to.
I talk in electives, because most of my electives require communication.
But, no, I'm not bitter about teachers doing their jobs. I think we should pay them more for the stuff we (the students) make most of them put up with.

Who beside maybe the vocal minority of cartoon-christians in your own country has demonized you?
Ex-President George Herbert Walker Bush, for one.

No, unless I'm mistaken, that's still illegal. And still wrong.
If you want to pray silently, do it on your own, non-publicly funded time.

Indeed. There's NOTHING stopping children from praying if they want to. I've had kids ask me if we can say a prayer or grace before snack time. My answer is always, "Of course you can--quietly to yourself."

Why not solve this democratically? It don't think forcing kids to be quiet is infringing on their constitutional rights (as long as you don't *force* them to pray) but I think that you've ( GAR & CT ) managed to argue that it isn't really necessary (dont really buy the wrong part). Seems to me that an issue like this with two viable alternatives should be decided by the will of the people... What do you think?

Ex-President George Herbert Walker Bush, for one.

Well that guys just an asshole.

Why not solve this democratically? It don't think forcing kids to be quiet is infringing on their constitutional rights (as long as you don't *force* them to pray) but I think that you've ( GAR & CT ) managed to argue that it isn't really necessary (dont really buy the wrong part). Seems to me that an issue like this with two viable alternatives should be decided by the will of the people... What do you think?

So, just decide by majority, right?

Great. Great way to solve Constitutional issues. Would've made the civil rights era much less turbulent. In fact, we could've skipped those years altogether.

I mean, what risk could there be to some groups if the majority could impose its will by vote, especially on religious and social issues...

Steel.

Well that guys just an asshole.

Yeah, but seriously, he has many, many, many people that think he's completely right, and you asked for an example.

RE: GW bush.

Well I guess I stepped into that one myself.

So, just decide by majority, right?

Great. Great way to solve Constitutional issues. Would've made the civil rights era much less turbulent. In fact, we could've skipped those years altogether.

I mean, what risk could there be to some groups if the majority could impose its will by vote, especially on religious and social issues...

Steel.

I don't mean that the constitutional issue itself be put to the public. It seems to me there are two issues.

1. That the law as it was written was unconstitutional.

But that law could be rewritten to still allow for quiet time without the language which encourages prayer. IMHO that would be fine, but most people *here* disagree. which brings me to issue 2.

2. Should there be such a law

Assuming the law were rewritten question 2 is what I think should be put to the public.

2. Should there be such a lawNo, but that's my personal opinion on it. Not sure about the legal side.

Perhaps a compromise might be suggested? Say that schools could set aside a few minutes for a so-called silent student free time, where a student could choose to pray if they wish, or do a bit of homework, quick studying, something of that nature instead.

Something valuable educationally, anyway.

Would this be acceptable to all parties?

On the one hand, I'm almost inclined to ask why you're even Christian in the first place and why you would conform to Christianity in particular if you don't have those kinds of beliefs, but on the other hand that's none of by business and it's off topic anyway. Thank you for reaching out with common ground.
Well, I'll say that I find value in the religion myself, but given that I grew up in NYC, surrounded by different cultures, different belief systems, different cuisines -- and also that I'm educated -- I can recognize that what works for me does not work for everyone. Also, some people don't really practice what they preach -- that whole bit about loving your neighbor as yourself seems to get trampled with some.

I dislike it intensely when other varieties of Christian try to convert me, so I don't try to convert anyone else. I also recognize there is a place for religion, and there is a place for science, and they don't need to be in conflict. I'll take my medical care from a doctor, thank you.

I find Bush's blocking of stem cell research short-sighted and stupid, and am hopeful that with Obama in the oval office, those restrictions will be lifted.

Why not solve this democratically? It don't think forcing kids to be quiet is infringing on their constitutional rights (as long as you don't *force* them to pray) but I think that you've ( GAR & CT ) managed to argue that it isn't really necessary (dont really buy the wrong part). Seems to me that an issue like this with two viable alternatives should be decided by the will of the people... What do you think?

If it is written that religion is not mentioned (not that kids aren't forced to pray, but also that teachers are not compelled to discuss prayer or encourage their students to pray) then it is not unconstitutional.

I agree that it isn't particularly necessary, especially on a day to day basis. I could understand it for things like 9/11, the death of a local community member, etc.

But no, I don't think this issue should inherently be democratically decided. Invites democracy to become tyranny of the majority, as there are many more than just two options, some less constitutional than others.

side question.

if they had 'a moment of silence' every day, but did not force the teachers to follow this

would you support it?

I would support such a proposal, JuNii, for I feel it would be beneficial to the students. Now, I may say a quick prayer to Christ Jesus that he give me the courage, insight, and wisdom to teach the subject matter effectively to the students that were entrusted to my care, but what the students do is their own business.

Well, I'll say that I find value in the religion myself, but given that I grew up in NYC, surrounded by different cultures, different belief systems, different cuisines -- and also that I'm educated -- I can recognize that what works for me does not work for everyone. Also, some people don't really practice what they preach -- that whole bit about loving your neighbor as yourself seems to get trampled with some.

I dislike it intensely when other varieties of Christian try to convert me, so I don't try to convert anyone else. I also recognize there is a place for religion, and there is a place for science, and they don't need to be in conflict. I'll take my medical care from a doctor, thank you.

I find Bush's blocking of stem cell research short-sighted and stupid, and am hopeful that with Obama in the oval office, those restrictions will be lifted.

Katganistan, as a Christian, I agree 100%. I usually run from the Protestant "faith healers" (if I needed an exorcism, I would talk to a RC priest, rather than those of my own tent). Despite my misgivings towards Obama, I do wish him the best of luck and spero he permits embryonic stem cell research.

sorry if this appears as double post.

Ok...I don't believe in a "god" but everyone can take that time to pray to their own religion. I should think it just has to be just for christians...It is a moment of "silence" it's not they are praying out loud to jesus!

Who beside maybe the vocal minority of cartoon-christians in your own country has demonized you?
I don't recall much case of them demonizing me personally, but atheists as a group are demonized. You hear major TV reporters associate atheism with Hitler and Stalin and I don't seem to see much rebutall to that by Christians; or at least those who would say they're Christian.

In answer to your question I'll (annoyingly I admit) pose another - it what material way are you discriminated against as an atheist.
People hold back such advancements as embryonic stem cell research for what seem to mostly be religious reasons; this keeps me trapped with type 1 diabetes much longer than I probably would be otherwise.

Seems to me that in the US you enjoy all the same rights and freedoms as any religious person.
Actually, I'm not even American. You only had to look to the side of the post in the "Location" bit to see that I was Canadian. In any case, I'm not sure if atheists necessarily have the same rights as religious people in the US. What about gay marriage, something that has little reason to be a dilemma outside of religion, not being recognized; (while if I recall correctly straight marriage has certain benefits set up for it) this suggests that religion has enough influence to promote discrimination.

If you came to my house there is no way I would make you pray or expect you to agree with me and I think thats the same with the *majority* of Christians.
Well, making someone pray in a house (and I'd probably be willing to leave if not praying made me unwelcome, though I might be hesitant to depending on such circumstances as how cold it was outside or whether or not I had enough snacks to treat low blood sugar that might arise on the way home) is clearly quite beyond (and far more obvious than) requiring a class to remain silent during a time set up to promote prayer. In any case, how can you be so sure what the "majority" of Christians are like? I don't see much of the moderates distancing themselves from the "extremes"; how are we to know if they disagree with them?

The same is true of Muslims, the majority are pretty normal people but there are a few who go around blowing themselves up and anyone around them and *that* causes a lot of trouble.
Fair enough, but I think the influence of Islam is a key factor in these kinds of problems. Doesn't their afterlife superstition involve "72 virgins" or something like that?

Its the minority of religious nut jobs who are not tolerant of you (atheists) the majority are pretty easy to get along with.
Maybe so, but they need to show more understanding with why atheists (and others who are against mainstream religion) are frustrated with religion's influence if they want to be taken seriously when they claim to be discriminated against. I think Marcus Brigstocke put it best: "the regular religious will probably feel pity for me rather than issuing a death sentence, but they need to realize that they are the power base for the nutters; without their passive support, the loonies in charge of these faiths would just be loonies, safely locked away and medicated..."

As far as wasting some time in observance of prayer - I think it's better if its organized at the start of the day rather than at other times because then you don't have students putting up their hands 'excuse me I want to exercise my constitutional right to pray now'. Thats an administrative consideration not a legal one or moral one.
I don't think they'd need to raise their hands at recess time. o.o

I don't recall much case of them demonizing me personally, but atheists as a group are demonized. You hear major TV reporters associate atheism with Hitler and Stalin and I don't seem to see much rebutall to that by Christians; or at least those who would say they're Christian.
Quite possibly because during the first 25 years of my life when I lived in the US, I never heard the majority of TV reporters doing that.

In any case, how can you be so sure what the "majority" of Christians are like? I don't see much of the moderates distancing themselves from the "extremes"; how are we to know if they disagree with them?
I'm sorry, am I supposed to issue a press release every time someone says something stupid? There's not enough hours in the day. And besides, I have yet to get yours distancing yourself from some of the horrors committed in the name of atheism as well.

Fair enough, but I think the influence of Islam is a key factor in these kinds of problems. Doesn't their afterlife superstition involve "72 virgins" or something like that?
And has nothing at all to do with the long, complex history of the Middle East, power plays, or anything else. Nope, not at all.

Maybe so, but they need to show more understanding with why atheists (and others who are against mainstream religion) are frustrated with religion's influence if they want to be taken seriously when they claim to be discriminated against. I think Marcus Brigstocke put it best: "the regular religious will probably feel pity for me rather than issuing a death sentence, but they need to realize that they are the power base for the nutters; without their passive support, the loonies in charge of these faiths would just be loonies, safely locked away and medicated..."
So... tell me then... can I blame you for anything Canada has done? I mean, you ARE the passive power base for Canada. You HAVEN'T removed your PM or stopped doing any number of things I find annoying or disgusting. I haven't seen you posting against clubbing seal pups to death here or against Canada's attempt at a land grab up in the Arctic. So it's ok for me to call for a rousing chorus of Blame Canada and include you in it, right?

Ya know, for someone who is saying that he's upset that Atheists are being put into the same box as Hitler and Stalin, you sure seem to be hell bent on doing the same to Christians.

Ya know, for someone who is saying that he's upset that Atheists are being put into the same box as Hitler and Stalin, you sure seem to be hell bent on doing the same to Christians.I'm an atheist, and I feel absolutely no need to corner Christianity, or any other religion, as long as they don't try to force their views on to me. You can worship, and I can do other things while you do. *shrug*

As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools

I'm an atheist, and I feel absolutely no need to corner Christianity, or any other religion, as long as they don't try to force their views on to me. You can worship, and I can do other things while you do. *shrug*
And honestly, that's my point. As a Christian, I see no need to force my views on others. I see no need to even talk about my views unless asked about them or it has suddenly become the topic of discussion (Ala this thread). What DOES get me annoyed is getting suddenly tarred with the same brush as those who DO try to force their beliefs down others' throats, especially if the wielder of the brush is complaining about he is also always being tarred.

What makes it even worse, is that normally I would be on the side demanding that people of all beliefs or non-beliefs be treated equally in society and it is a bit upsetting to suddenly be painted as the enemy because we just happen to share the same religious family group.

As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools
And staring at the celling in the hopes that God has miraculously caused the answers to the test to appear there. :D

Im sorry, but if you want to get together in a group and reflect on the day's activities in the morning...Great...

But, making everyone else do so, across the whole school...Is crap, regardless of the religion involved...


Hell, the groups used to piss me off in Highschool, I was told there was free doughnuts, and, being the fat guy I am, went to get them...turns out it was just a trap to get you in that prayer crap.....Fortunately I never fell for it again, lol....A few times they did make the whole school go, and Ill never forget the time they pelted us in the stands of the gym with VHS Tapes...Me and about four or five other people next to me were pegged directly on the head...hurt like hell...

Perhaps a compromise might be suggested? Say that schools could set aside a few minutes for a so-called silent student free time, where a student could choose to pray if they wish, or do a bit of homework, quick studying, something of that nature instead.

Something valuable educationally, anyway.

Would this be acceptable to all parties?I don't know how it is now, but when I went to school we always had an hour of "study hall", when we were expected to sit quietly and either catch up on our work, or just stare out the window and think about whatever. I neither know nor care how many of the other kids were communing with Jesus, if that's what they were into.

A bit startling, coming across this thread. This is local news for me, and I'd like to add in that it was left up to the school's discretion as to how long said moment was. Three seconds, max, was all we ever got. Needless to say, all of the kids (and a good portion of the faculty) were amused by the controversy over the whole thing, and the school's attempt to please everyone.

At least in public schools, I know study hall is still an option. The one class I saw completely wasted it, though- the teacher couldn't keep order. If anyone had even been suspected of trying to pray, they would have been laughed out. I like the idea of the compromise, though, even if it may not turn out well.

So, counter-proposal: how about a law requiring churches to set aside a few minutes for algebra instruction?

At least in public schools, I know study hall is still an option. The one class I saw completely wasted it, though- the teacher couldn't keep order. If anyone had even been suspected of trying to pray, they would have been laughed out. I like the idea of the compromise, though, even if it may not turn out well.

They took out study hall down here...Sucks balls cause alot of juniors and seniors, like I was, had already taken all the requirements and just had to stay all day for Football and Band...And since there was no study hall, we got stuck in PE for no reason....Really ruined PE cause no one actually wanted to be there...even a Wasted Study Hall wouldve been more efficient...

I'm sorry, am I supposed to issue a press release every time someone says something stupid?
No, but it might help for Christians to be vocal against the "extremes" who they claim are merely the "most vocal" of them...

And besides, I have yet to get yours distancing yourself from some of the horrors committed in the name of atheism as well.
What horrors committed in the name of atheism? I have yet to hear of atheist suicide bombings or atheist terrorist hijackings. Horrors committed BY atheists, maybe, but not in the name OF atheism; instead in the name of dogmatic ideologies (ie. communism) similar to religion and not exclusive to atheism.

And has nothing at all to do with the long, complex history of the Middle East, power plays, or anything else. Nope, not at all.
Don't put words in my mouth. I wasn't implying that other factors weren't involved, but that Islam was a key factor, and that other factors might not have had the same effect if not for the influence of Islam.

I mean, you ARE the passive power base for Canada.
A very, very small fraction of it.

You HAVEN'T removed your PM
I alone can't do that. I voted NDP, (was considering voting Green, actually) but I can't make everyone else do the same. It's a matter of circumstance that I happen to live in the same region, bounded by arguably arbitrary lines, as millions of other people who chose to keep him in power. (Not to mention millions of others who didn't, but have to accept the decision made by those who did)

I haven't seen you posting against clubbing seal pups to death here
Actually, if I ever posted in any topic about the seal hunt (I don't think I've even come across any yet) I'd probably have been posting in FAVOUR of the hunt. It provides jobs to rural Newfoundlanders left unemployed by the collapse of the cod fishery. I suppose they could be kept on welfare, but when Margaret Wente insists that Newfoundland is the biggest welfare ghetto on the face of the Earth, and the SSCS associates themselves with people like her, it makes that sound like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. Besides, seals aren't human. It seems like they tend to get the attention because they're cute animals; you don't seem to see as much public support for the protection of ugly animals...

Ya know, for someone who is saying that he's upset that Atheists are being put into the same box as Hitler and Stalin, you sure seem to be hell bent on doing the same to Christians.
The latter is in response to the former. It's not hypocritical for person A to insult person B and complain about B insulting A if B insulted A first and A was responding to it.

And honestly, that's my point. As a Christian, I see no need to force my views on others. I see no need to even talk about my views unless asked about them or it has suddenly become the topic of discussion (Ala this thread). What DOES get me annoyed is getting suddenly tarred with the same brush as those who DO try to force their beliefs down others' throats, especially if the wielder of the brush is complaining about he is also always being tarred.

What makes it even worse, is that normally I would be on the side demanding that people of all beliefs or non-beliefs be treated equally in society and it is a bit upsetting to suddenly be painted as the enemy because we just happen to share the same religious family group.
So why are you Christian in the first place, then?

... come to think of it, fair enough, you have a point.

normally I would be on the side demanding that people of all beliefs or non-beliefs be treated equally in society
I'm sure you'd like to be perceived that way, but I haven't actually found you to be so. You always come across as mocking and contemptuous when such issues arise.

Im sorry, but if you want to get together in a group and reflect on the day's activities in the morning...Great...

But, making everyone else do so, across the whole school...Is crap, regardless of the religion involved...


Hell, the groups used to piss me off in Highschool, I was told there was free doughnuts, and, being the fat guy I am, went to get them...turns out it was just a trap to get you in that prayer crap.....Fortunately I never fell for it again, lol....A few times they did make the whole school go, and Ill never forget the time they pelted us in the stands of the gym with VHS Tapes...Me and about four or five other people next to me were pegged directly on the head...hurt like hell...
The trick is, eat the jelly donut first. Then, you don't have to hold hands with anyone and you can use the time those suckers are praying to grab bonus donuts...that's when you go after that old fashion that they left behind...

The trick is, eat the jelly donut first. Then, you don't have to hold hands with anyone and you can use the time those suckers are praying to grab bonus donuts...that's when you go after that old fashion that they left behind...
o.o That would be rather cheap to do. I think if they offer you something to get you to do something it would be more appropriate not to take it.

o.o That would be rather cheap to do. I think if they offer you something to get you to do something it would be more appropriate not to take it.

Unfortunately, they had everyone standing around in the Gym eating doughnuts...Then the preachers come out and ask if everyone was enjoying things...and, well, it was all downhill from there, lol....

Some ideas of what to do if you get caught in a sudden and unexpected moment of silence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJMdQaihMpM

:D

o.o That would be rather cheap to do. I think if they offer you something to get you to do something it would be more appropriate not to take it.
First, you're taking that post too seriously. I know, it's the internet, I didn't add a smiley...I have just enough self esteem to not smear jelly gunk on my hand so people won't want to touch me.

Second-
I was an American college student, stupid poor. Clubs offer food to get people to come, I came for the food. It's like a time-share pitch, you come for the free boat, listen to the pitch and decide if you want to buy or just want the boat. I wasn't buying, but I wanted my boat. Made of donuts. My donut boat. Hey, if the club sounded interesting I would totally intend to show up to their next non-pizza meeting. I never did, but I totally intended to...

Unfortunately, they had everyone standing around in the Gym eating doughnuts...Then the preachers come out and ask if everyone was enjoying things...and, well, it was all downhill from there, lol....

The appropriate response is "When's the virgin sacrifice?"