NationStates Jolt Archive


Prayer At School

One-O-One
05-02-2009, 07:40
Is it the place?

At school today we were doing a leadership exercise with my whole Year (or Grade, what have you) and lunch was provided. The teachers did there thing, talked a bit, and then another teacher gave thanks for the food, as addressed to the entire audience.

Is this ethical in a secular state run school?

Oh, and, about 12 people out of 190 said "Amen" at the end, if you're interested.
Trostia
05-02-2009, 07:43
Gave thanks for the food to God?

Was it just spoken under his/her breath, or announced for all attending to hear?
Blouman Empire
05-02-2009, 07:44
Meh hardly matters what exactly was said?

Sometimes giving thanks for the food may just be thanking those that helped to provide the food, the cooks, the parents the government and the people who in the past have ensured that your country is safe and you are able to attend school and eat these meals while others don't have the same opportunity.

*Awaits for people to say dem damn Christians are indoctrinating ours chill'n*
One-O-One
05-02-2009, 07:48
Gave thanks for the food to God?

Was it just spoken under his/her breath, or announced for all attending to hear?

It was fully addressed to the audience.
Barringtonia
05-02-2009, 07:48
Find the weirdest religious pre-meal custom you can find, convert to that religion and see if you are allowed to do whatever it is prior to eating.
One-O-One
05-02-2009, 07:50
Meh hardly matters what exactly was said?

Sometimes giving thanks for the food may just be thanking those that helped to provide the food, the cooks, the parents the government and the people who in the past have ensured that your country is safe and you are able to attend school and eat these meals while others don't have the same opportunity.

*Awaits for people to say dem damn Christians are indoctrinating ours chill'n*

Dem damn Christians are forcing their religion down our kids throats. If it's religious, I feel it really doesn't have a place. Most people seemed pretty bemused.
Trostia
05-02-2009, 07:56
It was fully addressed to the audience.

Sounds inappropriate. I'm not sure it's entirely "unethical," perhaps those teachers simply don't believe in separation of church and state or do not believe that their prayer is a violation of that rule.

Or they could be evil. Pure, unadulterated evil. You should always beware of this possibility, given such evidence from movies like The Faculty or that one episode of The X-Files with the Devil-worshiping small town high school staff, who gets evilly killed by another Devil-worshiping teacher who has more Devil-worshiping brownie points and gets away scot free at the end of the episode, much to Mulder and Scully's chagrin.
Barringtonia
05-02-2009, 07:59
Or they could be evil. Pure, unadulterated evil. You should always beware of this possibility, given such evidence from movies like The Faculty or that one episode of The X-Files with the Devil-worshiping small town high school staff, who gets evilly killed by another Devil-worshiping teacher who has more Devil-worshiping brownie points and gets away scot free at the end of the episode, much to Mulder and Scully's chagrin.

Mulder & Scully clearly need the assistance of some pesky kids.
Trostia
05-02-2009, 08:05
Mulder & Scully clearly need the assistance of some pesky kids.

Didn't you see that episode? They had it. But the kids were abused, mind-raped, murdered in Nightmare Fuel Unleaded ways by the Devil and his followers, and/or Devil-worshiping themselves.

So they didn't prove to be much help. Moral of the story: Sometimes kids help, other times they just commit suicide before your eyes due to evil satanic mind control magic committed by kindly old high school science teachers.
Querinos
05-02-2009, 08:10
So long as no one is forced, or intimidated to pray and it's kept as an individual's prayer then I see nothing wrong.
Blouman Empire
05-02-2009, 08:12
Dem damn Christians are forcing their religion down our kids throats. If it's religious, I feel it really doesn't have a place. Most people seemed pretty bemused.

Well you said only 12 said Amen, so it was hardly shoved down your throat. The food on the other hand...
greed and death
05-02-2009, 08:14
Its a a thin line between church state violation and just following tradition.

for the next one put ina request for a hindu prayer and see if they do it.
One-O-One
05-02-2009, 08:15
Well you said only 12 said Amen, so it was hardly shoved down your throat. The food on the other hand...

Yeah, that was a bit of a exaggeration, but addressing it to the audience...it still gives me a damn uncomfortable feeling.
Bouitazia
05-02-2009, 08:17
I would rather they did not.
But I would be okay with it if everyone could do their own thing, or not as it might be.
Barringtonia
05-02-2009, 08:19
Moral of the story: Sometimes kids help, other times they just commit suicide before your eyes due to evil satanic mind control magic committed by kindly old high school science teachers.

How easily we forget such basic truths.
Ripped Abs
05-02-2009, 08:19
As long as he didn't force anybody to pray with him or to say amen at the end then whats the problem. It was one mans decision and those who said amen at the end went along with it, those who didn't, didn't. Now had he told everybody to bow their heads and close their eyes then he would have been in the wrong, other wise i see no issue
One-O-One
05-02-2009, 08:33
As long as he didn't force anybody to pray with him or to say amen at the end then whats the problem. It was one mans decision and those who said amen at the end went along with it, those who didn't, didn't. Now had he told everybody to bow their heads and close their eyes then he would have been in the wrong, other wise i see no issue

*She

I would've been fine if she had done it by herself, but to over one hundred people who she didn't know the views of? A tad presumptuous.
Blouman Empire
05-02-2009, 08:38
*She

Does this belong in the "Why do people think I am a "he"" thread? :)
NERVUN
05-02-2009, 08:59
Since she was a teacher, she had no place performing a public prayer.
Anti-Social Darwinism
05-02-2009, 09:04
*Waits for Muravyets to arrive.*
Cabra West
05-02-2009, 10:35
Is it the place?

At school today we were doing a leadership exercise with my whole Year (or Grade, what have you) and lunch was provided. The teachers did there thing, talked a bit, and then another teacher gave thanks for the food, as addressed to the entire audience.

Is this ethical in a secular state run school?

Oh, and, about 12 people out of 190 said "Amen" at the end, if you're interested.

Gave thansk to whom? The cooks? In that case it's perfectly ok.
The Mindset
05-02-2009, 11:07
Gave thansk to whom? The cooks? In that case it's perfectly ok.

Seems quite clear from the fact that people responded with "amen" that it wasn't directed at the cook.
Ifreann
05-02-2009, 11:43
Twas a bit sill of the teacher to presume that the assembly would have any interest in "giving thanks" with her, but it's a far cry from mandatory prayer in schools on pain of being fired out of a cannon into the sun.
Dumb Ideologies
05-02-2009, 11:48
What I'd do is gulp down my drink immediately afterwards, get up, stumble around a bit, then shout in a slurred voice "PRAISE BE! its a miracle, its been turned to wine", before then faking collapse and passing-out. But thats just me.
greed and death
05-02-2009, 12:08
Seems quite clear from the fact that people responded with "amen" that it wasn't directed at the cook.

only 12 out of 190 did. seems the majority felt it was for the cook not god.
no reason to punish a teacher for a few fundamentalist students.
Peepelonia
05-02-2009, 13:39
Is it the place?

At school today we were doing a leadership exercise with my whole Year (or Grade, what have you) and lunch was provided. The teachers did there thing, talked a bit, and then another teacher gave thanks for the food, as addressed to the entire audience.

Is this ethical in a secular state run school?

Oh, and, about 12 people out of 190 said "Amen" at the end, if you're interested.

Did you meant to use the word ethical? Only I can't see any ethics in this situation at all?
Galloism
05-02-2009, 13:43
Seems quite clear from the fact that people responded with "amen" that it wasn't directed at the cook.

"Amen" means "I am in agreement." So, it could have been directed at the cook.

Unlikely, though.
Hotwife
05-02-2009, 14:53
Well you said only 12 said Amen, so it was hardly shoved down your throat. The food on the other hand...

I was permanently scarred by eating school food. I'm sure you can all relate...
Blouman Empire
05-02-2009, 14:54
What I'd do is gulp down my drink immediately afterwards, get up, stumble around a bit, then shout in a slurred voice "PRAISE BE! its a miracle, its been turned to wine", before then faking collapse and passing-out. But thats just me.

Where were you in my school days?
Blouman Empire
05-02-2009, 14:55
I was permanently scarred by eating school food. I'm sure you can all relate...

I wasn't quite scarred that may be because I flicked the peas at people, untill one hit the teacher in the head. That is where I developed my modding, dish washing and sweepig skills.
Dumb Ideologies
05-02-2009, 15:02
Where were you in my school days?

Burning down churches, probably.
Blouman Empire
05-02-2009, 15:08
Burning down churches, probably.

Oh and I hope you are joking here.

I had to deal with dickheads, smart arses with their esoteric jokes and then other people like myself who just had fun and pulled pranks on other students and to a much greater extent the teachers, either that or just created hell.
Sarkhaan
05-02-2009, 15:10
Sounds inappropriate. I'm not sure it's entirely "unethical," perhaps those teachers simply don't believe in separation of church and state or do not believe that their prayer is a violation of that rule.
It really does not matter what the teacher does or does not "believe". Teachers are agents of the state, and as such, are not permitted to endorse any one religion while acting in their professional capacity.

IE, teachers should know that it is never appropriate for them to lead a prayer for the entire school.
Neo Art
05-02-2009, 15:11
It really does not matter what the teacher does or does not "believe". Teachers are agents of the state, and as such, are not permitted to endorse any one religion while acting in their professional capacity.

IE, teachers should know that it is never appropriate for them to lead a prayer for the entire school.

I think Trostia was more taking issue with the use of the word "ethical"
Sarkhaan
05-02-2009, 15:17
I think Trostia was more taking issue with the use of the word "ethical"
meh. some of us just rolled out of bed. Give the coffee time to work.
Neo Art
05-02-2009, 15:18
meh. some of us just rolled out of bed. Give the coffee time to work.

I've been up for 3 hours now, no excuses!
Sarkhaan
05-02-2009, 15:26
I've been up for 3 hours now, no excuses!
Don't make me come over there. I'm not a very happy person without my coffee.
Ashmoria
05-02-2009, 15:33
Is it the place?

At school today we were doing a leadership exercise with my whole Year (or Grade, what have you) and lunch was provided. The teachers did there thing, talked a bit, and then another teacher gave thanks for the food, as addressed to the entire audience.

Is this ethical in a secular state run school?

Oh, and, about 12 people out of 190 said "Amen" at the end, if you're interested.
what country do you live in?

i dont like the idea of forcing captive audience to listen to a teacher say grace. its taking advantage of her position of authority.
Blouman Empire
05-02-2009, 15:36
what country do you live in?

i dont like the idea of forcing captive audience to listen to a teacher say grace. its taking advantage of her position of authority.

IIRC he is a Kiwi, shouldn't matter maybe only 12 said Amen because they were the only ones who knew what the hell he was on about when he said thank you for the fish and chips. :D
Ashmoria
05-02-2009, 15:40
IIRC he is a Kiwi, shouldn't matter maybe only 12 said Amen because they were the only ones who knew what the hell he was on about when he said thank you for the fish and chips. :D
lol

its suprising that there were 12 who were still paying enough attention to know that an amen was appropriate.
Blouman Empire
05-02-2009, 15:44
lol

its suprising that there were 12 who were still paying enough attention to know that an amen was appropriate.

haha that's a good point it did comprise of students.
Neo Art
05-02-2009, 15:54
Don't make me come over there. I'm not a very happy person without my coffee.

oooh, someone wants to be the top today!
Sarkhaan
05-02-2009, 15:59
oooh, someone wants to be the top today!
Damn right. And you can call me "Sir".
Neo Art
05-02-2009, 16:22
Damn right. And you can call me "Sir".

Well I don't want to go back in the box, so alright. But, afterwards, promise you'll be gentle?
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 17:10
*Waits for Muravyets to arrive.*
Why? Do you have that money you owe me?

What I'd do is gulp down my drink immediately afterwards, get up, stumble around a bit, then shout in a slurred voice "PRAISE BE! its a miracle, its been turned to wine", before then faking collapse and passing-out. But thats just me.
Well, I am fairly certain that would have prevented teacher-led public prayer from ever being attempted again. :D

Actually, I believe somebody did that at my high school once, but not in response to any public prayer -- just because. It was an art school. There was always something going on in the cafeteria.

It really does not matter what the teacher does or does not "believe". Teachers are agents of the state, and as such, are not permitted to endorse any one religion while acting in their professional capacity.

IE, teachers should know that it is never appropriate for them to lead a prayer for the entire school.
This. ^^ If the country has separation of church and state, then the teacher was in the wrong.

I think Trostia was more taking issue with the use of the word "ethical"
I think "ethical" is the appropriate word. Let's assume this school does not permit prayer in school in accordance with separation of church and state. If that is the rule, and the teacher knows it and knows that she is bound by that rule as an employee of the state (in a state-run school), then her choice to violate that rule could be seen as professionally unethical.

But then you open up the whole can of worms as to which ethic should rule in such a situation and why.

lol

its suprising that there were 12 who were still paying enough attention to know that an amen was appropriate.
Maybe her prayer was more an expression of despair. :D
Peepelonia
05-02-2009, 18:11
I think "ethical" is the appropriate word. Let's assume this school does not permit prayer in school in accordance with separation of church and state. If that is the rule, and the teacher knows it and knows that she is bound by that rule as an employee of the state (in a state-run school), then her choice to violate that rule could be seen as professionally unethical.

But then you open up the whole can of worms as to which ethic should rule in such a situation and why.


Perhaps profesionly unsound, but there is no question of ethics to be answerd here.
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 18:17
Perhaps profesionly unsound, but there is no question of ethics to be answerd here.
I disagree for the reasons I stated. Professional ethics are still ethics. I am not making a suggestion as to what the answer would be, but I stand by my view that it is legitimate to examine the ethics of the teacher's action.

Depending, of course, on the situation in the school/country where she works.
Hydesland
05-02-2009, 18:18
If I was there I would probably suffocate, since she was clearly trying to force religion down my throat. What an evil, incredibly selfish woman, this sort of expression is one of the most offensive things you can say!
Hebalobia
05-02-2009, 18:27
Since she was a teacher, she had no place performing a public prayer.

I agree, the teacher is in a position of authority and technically represents the state.

What is meant as an option can easily be misinterpreted by children as something they MUST do or participate in.

This is dangerous ground and such actions should be strongly discouraged.
Knights of Liberty
05-02-2009, 18:32
IL's mandatory 2 minutes of silent prayer time...er, sorry, I mean "moment of silent reflecion" was just declared unconstitutional.

Muwhaha.
Peepelonia
05-02-2009, 18:33
I disagree for the reasons I stated. Professional ethics are still ethics. I am not making a suggestion as to what the answer would be, but I stand by my view that it is legitimate to examine the ethics of the teacher's action.

Depending, of course, on the situation in the school/country where she works.

So then what you mean is the legality of what she did?

Otherwise what does it matter ethiclay what country she is in?
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 18:41
So then what you mean is the legality of what she did?

Otherwise what does it matter ethiclay what country she is in?

No. What I mean is the ethics, just like I said.

The country matters because the rules in a given country will affect the ethics of her action.

The ethics of her action. Not the legality of it.
Peepelonia
05-02-2009, 18:52
No. What I mean is the ethics, just like I said.

The country matters because the rules in a given country will affect the ethics of her action.

The ethics of her action. Not the legality of it.

Then you and I must understand differant things of the word ethics.

Would you say that ethics is not dependant one ones country of origin, or the law of the land, or even the culture one has been brought up in?
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 19:13
Then you and I must understand differant things of the word ethics.

Would you say that ethics is not dependant one ones country of origin, or the law of the land, or even the culture one has been brought up in?
Your question is vague and overbroad and has too many points in different directions. I suggest you think about what I wrote. Take two or three days to do that. Then sleep on it. Then write a better question. If I'm no longer interested in explaining to you what my words mean, then I'm sure someone else will be.
Peisandros
05-02-2009, 19:20
Ain't nothing wrong with a damn prayer here and there. Then again I'm Catholic and went to a Catholic school -- but I don't see why, if a teacher wants to pray for his/her class or something in a secular school, that should be a problem.. It isn't hard to respect (read ignore) it and being able to respect different religions is important for later in life..
Peepelonia
05-02-2009, 19:29
Your question is vague and overbroad and has too many points in different directions. I suggest you think about what I wrote. Take two or three days to do that. Then sleep on it. Then write a better question. If I'm no longer interested in explaining to you what my words mean, then I'm sure someone else will be.

Meh! vauge he says, and then ask me to take two or three days to digest his words in order to understand them.

Ohh you are a one aintcha!
Peisandros
05-02-2009, 19:31
It's not too tricky a question I would say Peep, except that you misspelt 'on', which makes it a tad confusing, heh.
Netherwood
05-02-2009, 19:37
What the hell is wrong with saying thanks for the food. The teacher can't help it you guys are a bunch of pricks with a hatred towards anything religious. Saying thanks over the food sounds perfectely normal to me in fact I wish my teachers would have done that instead of forcing atheïsm down MY throat.
Knights of Liberty
05-02-2009, 19:40
What the hell is wrong with saying thanks for the food. The teacher can't help it you guys are a bunch of pricks with a hatred towards anything religious. Saying thanks over the food sounds perfectely normal to me in fact I wish my teachers would have done that instead of forcing atheïsm down MY throat.

Not endorsing a religion does not equal forcing atheism down your throat, mighty prayer warrior. Prayer in schools has been consistantly struck down, and teachers leading prayer in secular schools is unconstitutional.


God what a terrible arguement.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
05-02-2009, 19:42
What the hell is wrong with saying thanks for the food. The teacher can't help it you guys are a bunch of pricks with a hatred towards anything religious. Saying thanks over the food sounds perfectely normal to me in fact I wish my teachers would have done that instead of forcing atheïsm down MY throat.

Thers is NOTING wrong with what you propose. What's wrong is your attitude. There's also NOTHING wrong if someone doesn't feel like praying. God, accoridng to what YOU believe and are preaching, created US with something you must know by now. Something called "free will".
Peisandros
05-02-2009, 19:47
Thers is NOTING wrong with what you propose. What's wrong is your attitude. There's also NOTHING wrong if someone doesn't feel like praying. God, accoridng to what YOU believe and are preaching, created US with something you must know by now. Something called "free will".

And said free will can be used to not listen to the prayer. It isn't as if the teacher is saying OMGZ BECUM A XTIAN.. No, far from that. A simple prayer hurts no one.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
05-02-2009, 19:48
And said free will can be used to not listen to the prayer. It isn't as if the teacher is saying OMGZ BECUM A XTIAN.. No, far from that. A simple prayer hurts no one.

Neither does not wanting to pray. The thing goes both ways.
Peisandros
05-02-2009, 19:51
Neither does not wanting to pray. The thing goes both ways.

And how about the teachers freedom of speech?
Netherwood
05-02-2009, 19:53
Well what I see here is some teacher who cares a lot about the well-being of the people he's having dinner with and says a short prayer or something over the food, something which only a retard would find offensive.

It's kind of like that thread about people finding it offensive when the nurse offers to pray for a patient.

And this is the last thing I'm going to say on this as I don't feel like having to type anymore on this simple "problem" and I've seen how most threads on NSG about Christianity detoriate in endless threads of 40 pages or so and I don't feel like participating.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
05-02-2009, 19:53
And how about the teachers freedom of speech?

And what about the students' rights to have their wishes respected?

Besides, I don't see where, in the argument, are we saying the teacher has no right to say a prayer. But her students also have a right to not listen to her if they don't want to.
Peisandros
05-02-2009, 19:57
And what about the students' rights to have their wishes respected?

Besides, I don't see where, in the argument, are we saying the teacher has no right to say a prayer. But her students also have a right to not listen to her if they don't want to.

They are not being forced to listen. And I agree, hence why I said it's easy to ignore earlier on.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
05-02-2009, 19:58
They are not being forced to listen. And I agree, hence why I said it's easy to ignore earlier on.

Then why are we arguing if we recognize that boths sides have rights?
Exilia and Colonies
05-02-2009, 20:00
Then why are we arguing if we recognize that boths sides have rights?

Because the Teacher also has responsibilities not to take advantage of impressionable minds to push their own agenda?
VirginiaCooper
05-02-2009, 20:07
Because the Teacher also has responsibilities not to take advantage of impressionable minds to push their own agenda?

Since when did giving thanks for a meal become "push[ing] [an] agenda"?
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 20:44
Meh! vauge he says, and then ask me to take two or three days to digest his words in order to understand them.

Ohh you are a one aintcha!
I didn't want to rush you, since you seemed to having so much trouble with simple sentences. :p
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 20:46
And how about the teachers freedom of speech?
Has anyone actually bothered to post what the rule or law in the place where this happened is?
Nanatsu no Tsuki
05-02-2009, 20:46
Because the Teacher also has responsibilities not to take advantage of impressionable minds to push their own agenda?

I am well aware of that. I was checking if Peisandros and I were on the same page there.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
05-02-2009, 20:47
Since when did giving thanks for a meal become "push[ing] [an] agenda"?

I know you just didn't ask such a simplistic question. You're better than that.
The Cat-Tribe
05-02-2009, 20:49
Is it the place?

At school today we were doing a leadership exercise with my whole Year (or Grade, what have you) and lunch was provided. The teachers did there thing, talked a bit, and then another teacher gave thanks for the food, as addressed to the entire audience.

Is this ethical in a secular state run school?

Oh, and, about 12 people out of 190 said "Amen" at the end, if you're interested.

It is my (perhaps mistaken) understanding that this occurred in New Zealand and it my further understanding (based on little more than a cursory google search) that New Zealand does not have an formal separation of church and state. (Although it appears the New Zealand Bill of Rights does establish freedom of religion in a way that, to me, logically includes a separation of church and state, I have no knowledge of how these provisions have been interpreted and/or applied). Thus, this prayer may well have been legal.

I think you correctly identify the problem as one of ethics, however. I believe the separation of Church and State to be an important ethical principle necessary to the success of any truly free society. Separation of Church and State is not just some legal technicality of the U.S. Constitution, but an ethical principle well established in modern ethical thought.

A government official entrusted with the instruction of children should not use her power over a captive audience and endorse any particular relgious viewpoint.

As long as he didn't force anybody to pray with him or to say amen at the end then whats the problem. It was one mans decision and those who said amen at the end went along with it, those who didn't, didn't. Now had he told everybody to bow their heads and close their eyes then he would have been in the wrong, other wise i see no issue

If I was there I would probably suffocate, since she was clearly trying to force religion down my throat. What an evil, incredibly selfish woman, this sort of expression is one of the most offensive things you can say!

Ain't nothing wrong with a damn prayer here and there. Then again I'm Catholic and went to a Catholic school -- but I don't see why, if a teacher wants to pray for his/her class or something in a secular school, that should be a problem.. It isn't hard to respect (read ignore) it and being able to respect different religions is important for later in life..

What the hell is wrong with saying thanks for the food. The teacher can't help it you guys are a bunch of pricks with a hatred towards anything religious. Saying thanks over the food sounds perfectely normal to me in fact I wish my teachers would have done that instead of forcing atheïsm down MY throat.

And said free will can be used to not listen to the prayer. It isn't as if the teacher is saying OMGZ BECUM A XTIAN.. No, far from that. A simple prayer hurts no one.

And how about the teachers freedom of speech?

They are not being forced to listen. And I agree, hence why I said it's easy to ignore earlier on.

Since when did giving thanks for a meal become "push[ing] [an] agenda"?

All of the above are grouped as the usual type of apologetics for what is clearly an official endorsement of a religious viewpoint in violation of the freedom of religion and conscience of the captive audience of students. Particularly as this involves a school setting where the teacher is a government authority educating children, it is inappropriate for that government power to be used in support of a religious viewpoint.

That the students in question did not spontaneously bleed from their ears is not a justification for a teacher endorsing a specific religion or religion over non-religion.

As for the question of the teacher's freedom of speech, the teacher is there in a specific job capacity that involves limits on that teacher's freedom in exchange for money and power.
VirginiaCooper
05-02-2009, 20:57
We are too afraid of religion here in the US. Separation of church and state has been taken too far.
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 20:59
Assuming that this did happen in New Zealand and assuming that the church/state situation in New Zealand is as TCT suggests, then once again TCT has summed up my views perfectly. *+1 basks in TCT's glow*

The ethics issue hinges on whether the teacher exploited her position of authority over the students in order to involve them in an exercise of her religion, whether they were willing or not. The fact that she may not have succeeded in involving more than a few of them is beside the point.

Depending on what New Zealand's rules governing religion in schools are, that will further affect the question of whether her action was ethical or not, because it is my view that (A) if the law or SOP permits teachers to lead prayers in public schools, then her action is a matter of personal ethics in regards (1) freedom of religion for the students as well as the teacher and (2) the power imbalance of the teacher/student relationship, or else (B) if the law or SOP prohibits teachers from leading prayers in public schools, then the ethical question becomes a matter of professional ethics as well as personal ethics, inasmuch as she would have violated the regulations of her profession.

That was my thinking on the matter.
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 21:00
We are too afraid of religion here in the US. Separation of church and state has been taken too far.
I disagree. I don't fear religion. I fear the combination of religion and government, and I think the separation is too often breached in the US.
The Cat-Tribe
05-02-2009, 21:04
We are too afraid of religion here in the US. Separation of church and state has been taken too far.

Examples of exactly how separation of Church and State: (1) shows a fear of religion and/or (2) has "been taken too far"?

Perhaps you are unaware that separation of Church and State was endorsed by our Puritan ancestors and is, at heart, about protecting each individual's freedom of religion. It is, in fact, quite arguable that the degree to which the U.S. is so religous compared to many other nations is because of the separation of Church and State.
Hydesland
05-02-2009, 21:08
All of the above are grouped as the usual type of apologetics for what is clearly an official endorsement of a religious viewpoint in violation of the freedom of religion and conscience of the captive audience of students.

Or, maybe I really really really couldn't give a shit, and find it baffling that people do. Yes, it's technically wrong to break a safeguard that is there for a reason, just like stealing a penny sweet, but I don't think it's newsworthy.
The Cat-Tribe
05-02-2009, 21:11
Or, maybe I really really really couldn't give a shit, and find it baffling that people do. Yes, it's technically wrong to break a safeguard that is there for a reason, just like stealing a penny sweet, but I don't think it's newsworthy.

If you really didn't give a shit about a violation of ethics and freedom, perhaps you wouldn't post defenses of it. Saying "it doesn't really matter" is just another (rather duplicitious) way of saying "It's OK."
The blessed Chris
05-02-2009, 21:13
If you really didn't give a shit about a violation of ethics and freedom, perhaps you wouldn't post defenses of it. Saying "it doesn't really matter" is just another (rather duplicitious) way of saying "It's OK."

Hardly. It's simply that there really are more important things to concern oneself with than a somewhat oblique, abstract educational issue.
The Cat-Tribe
05-02-2009, 21:15
Hardly. It's simply that there really are more important things to concern oneself with than a somewhat oblique, abstract educational issue.

Again, characerizing a violation of the freedom of religion of some 190 students as "a somewhat oblique, abstract educational issue" is to take a position on the question at issue.

Further, the OP clearly requested our opinions on whether the teacher's conduct was ethical. If you don't care whether it was ethical or not, fine. Just say so. But don't pretend that by dismissing the ethical question you aren't opining on it.
VirginiaCooper
05-02-2009, 21:16
Examples of exactly how separation of Church and State: (1) shows a fear of religion and/or (2) has "been taken too far"

The very fact that we are having this discussion shows a fear of religion. A schoolteacher prays in front of a group of students and we attack her. If that's not fear, I don't know what is. The strongest indicator of religion has always been and will always be the religion of one's parents. The religion of one's schoolteacher is rather low on that list, I would imagine.

As for how it has been taken too far, I think Michael Sandel has some insights into that.

http://books.google.com/books?id=raHvqM1puPsC&pg=PR12&vq=religion&dq=michael+sandel&lr=&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0
Holy Cheese and Shoes
05-02-2009, 21:21
If it's anything like the UK, there's religious freedom but also something along the lines of "acknowledgement of the Christian tradition in society". At least when I was in school.... It was, I think, a sort of appeasement/compromise to the traditionalists who were part of the policy-making establishment at the time.

That basically means that you're allowed to have some Christian themes, but if you don't want to take part, you can get a note from your parents to excuse you.

As most children are half asleep in assemblies, and just hungry at lunchtime, I never knew anyone to pay much attention anyway.
The Cat-Tribe
05-02-2009, 21:22
The very fact that we are having this discussion shows a fear of religion. A schoolteacher prays in front of a group of students and we attack her. If that's not fear, I don't know what is.

Actually, it shows a respect for the religious freedom of everyone of the 190 students present. Your position could just as easily be characterized as fear of religion -- particularly religious views that aren't yours.

As for how it has been taken too far, I think Michael Sandel has some insights into that.

http://books.google.com/books?id=raHvqM1puPsC&pg=PR12&vq=religion&dq=michael+sandel&lr=&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0

Actually, I've read that book. Care to point to an example from it that supports your argument?
Hydesland
05-02-2009, 21:25
If you really didn't give a shit about a violation of ethics and freedom

Yeah, just like stealing a penny sweet is a violation of essential of property rights that hold our society together. Oh wait, we're not even talking about legality here, simply a violation of subjective ethics and freedoms (which you crudely state as fact).


, perhaps you wouldn't post defenses of it. Saying "it doesn't really matter" is just another (rather duplicitious) way of saying "It's OK."

I'm not defending anything. I said I don't give a shit, and it's not newsworthy.
The blessed Chris
05-02-2009, 21:25
Again, characerizing a violation of the freedom of religion of some 190 students as "a somewhat oblique, abstract educational issue" is to take a position on the question at issue.

Further, the OP clearly requested our opinions on whether the teacher's conduct was ethical. If you don't care whether it was ethical or not, fine. Just say so. But don't pretend that by dismissing the ethical question you aren't opining on it.

Ostensibly, the teacher's conduct was wrong, however, they hardly obliged the students to express personal faith as much as, at worst, perform a perfunctory ritual and public performance. Far greater issues in education than saying grace before a meal I warrant.
VirginiaCooper
05-02-2009, 21:26
Actually, it shows a respect for the religious freedom of everyone of the 190 students present. Your position could just as easily be characterized as fear of religion -- particularly religious views that aren't yours.

I don't have religion. So that's kind of a moot point isn't it? I'm not defending my religion or anyone's religion in particular. Free exercise can go both ways too can't it?

Actually, I've read that book. Care to point to an example from it that supports your argument?

Did you click the link? I even had it conveniently set to go to the exact section I was referencing, so no one would have to search around.
Trostia
05-02-2009, 21:27
I do so enjoy the "I don't care, it's not worth the energy!" argument. Especially when made with such desperate and applied effort.
Hydesland
05-02-2009, 21:33
I do so enjoy the "I don't care, it's not worth the energy!" argument. Especially when made with such desperate and applied effort.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on NSG, seriously. If you think saying 'I don't give a shit' is 'desperate' (desperate for what exactly?), then you must think that it's infinitely more so desperate to equate and ultra-extremely oversimplify an action to an obscenely broad subjective characterisation like 'violating ethics and freedoms'.
The Cat-Tribe
05-02-2009, 21:35
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on NSG, seriously. If you think saying 'I don't give a shit' is 'desperate' (desperate for what exactly?), then you must think that it's infinitely more so desperate to equate and ultra-extremely oversimplify an action to an obscenely broad subjective characterisation like 'violating ethics and freedoms'.

OH NOES!!!! I MADE A SUBJECTIVE STATEMENT OF OPINION!!! THE SHAME, THE SHAME!!! :eek::$
Hydesland
05-02-2009, 21:37
OH NOES!!!! I MADE A SUBJECTIVE STATEMENT OF OPINION!!! THE SHAME, THE SHAME!!! :eek::$

The subjectiveness isn't really the problem. It's your massive simplification into a very vague and broad category, which would make the holocaust and this issue equal in how wrong it is.
The Cat-Tribe
05-02-2009, 21:37
Did you click the link? I even had it conveniently set to go to the exact section I was referencing, so no one would have to search around.

I clicked the linked, recognized the book as one I have read, but re-read the "exact section" you referenced anyway. I ask again, where therein did you think there was an example of separation of Church and State taken too far?
The Cat-Tribe
05-02-2009, 21:39
The subjectiveness isn't really the problem. It's your massive simplification into a very vague and broad category, which would make the holocaust and this issue equal in how wrong it is.

Yes, I clearly equated a teacher leading a prayer to the Holocaust. :rolleyes:

And you clearly equated both as insignificant, but nonetheless worthy of your time to point out and defend how unworthy of your time and energy as a subject. :hail:
Hydesland
05-02-2009, 21:39
Ok, I concede that this story didn't make the news. I was mixing this up with another thread.
Hydesland
05-02-2009, 21:40
Yes, I clearly equated a teacher leading a prayer to the Holocaust. :rolleyes:


Wow, you're really going out of your way to miss the point there.
Araraukar
05-02-2009, 21:49
Well, over here it's quite normal for teachers to say prayer (although less and less do, not for fear of reprisal but rather not being 'true believers') and religion is taught as a class, so that's kinda redundant question to me...

But if you were offended, you should have told them so. Yes, in front of your whole year class. If you didn't do that, you accepted it.
VirginiaCooper
05-02-2009, 21:53
I clicked the linked, recognized the book as one I have read, but re-read the "exact section" you referenced anyway. I ask again, where therein did you think there was an example of separation of Church and State taken too far?

The most notable and obvious point Sandel makes is that religion should not enjoy Constitutional protection. "This way of defending religion liberty puts the right before the good;" in essence worried less about religion as a belief or moral structure and more about religion as an abstract concept - viewing religion as merely a word. Construing religion as a choice - what those who argue for a "personal liberty" approach to securing religious liberty do - is the same as arguing for homosexuality on the grounds that it is a choice. You ignore the special circumstances of those who believe. Religion is not a choice, but rather "essential to their good and indispensable to their identity." There is no distinction between "claims of consciousness [...] and mere preference."

So perhaps it being "taken too far" is not the exact argument I wish to make. I am trying to say that the approach to religion that is normally taken is the incorrect one.

Also, we all know that religion isn't the "hidden curriculum" in schools - heterosexuality is!
Hotwife
05-02-2009, 21:55
OH NOES!!!! I MADE A SUBJECTIVE STATEMENT OF OPINION!!! THE SHAME, THE SHAME!!! :eek::$

Well, I'm constantly castigated for that, so why not you? :p
Kryozerkia
05-02-2009, 22:00
Well what I see here is some teacher who cares a lot about the well-being of the people he's having dinner with and says a short prayer or something over the food, something which only a retard would find offensive.


I see. So then, if someone finds the prayer to be offensive they're a retard? I see. Well, I find your flame offensive. Warned.

In answer to the OP, it does seem to cross the line, especially since it's possible in a group of 190, where only 12 echoed "amen" share the same set of beliefs. If the teacher had kept it quiet there would have been no problem.
Muravyets
06-02-2009, 00:25
The very fact that we are having this discussion shows a fear of religion. A schoolteacher prays in front of a group of students and we attack her. If that's not fear, I don't know what is. The strongest indicator of religion has always been and will always be the religion of one's parents. The religion of one's schoolteacher is rather low on that list, I would imagine.

As for how it has been taken too far, I think Michael Sandel has some insights into that.

http://books.google.com/books?id=raHvqM1puPsC&pg=PR12&vq=religion&dq=michael+sandel&lr=&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0
Nonsense. Separation of church and state protects religion as well as government. The separation allows both to operate freely, without corrupting each other. How does wanting to maintain the free and proper function of religion, without political interference, show a "fear of religion"?
The Cat-Tribe
06-02-2009, 01:07
The most notable and obvious point Sandel makes is that religion should not enjoy Constitutional protection. "This way of defending religion liberty puts the right before the good;" in essence worried less about religion as a belief or moral structure and more about religion as an abstract concept - viewing religion as merely a word. Construing religion as a choice - what those who argue for a "personal liberty" approach to securing religious liberty do - is the same as arguing for homosexuality on the grounds that it is a choice. You ignore the special circumstances of those who believe. Religion is not a choice, but rather "essential to their good and indispensable to their identity." There is no distinction between "claims of consciousness [...] and mere preference."

So perhaps it being "taken too far" is not the exact argument I wish to make. I am trying to say that the approach to religion that is normally taken is the incorrect one.

Also, we all know that religion isn't the "hidden curriculum" in schools - heterosexuality is!

1. I am glad to see you admit that what you linked doesn't support your "taken too far" argument.

2. It has been a long time since I read Sandel's book, but you don't seem to be getting the gist of the excerpt you linked.

A. Sandel essentially makes an argument against protecting the free exercise of religion. Although separation of Church and State works to protect free exercise, it is more commonly associated with the prohibition on laws respecting an establishment of religion.

B. Do you really agree with Sandel (in the excerpt's argument) that religous liberty is not a good thing?

3. To the extent Sandel is saying that religion is not a choice and/or religious freedom must be predicated on it being the "right" religion, he is simply wrong. Our Founders based their devotion to religious liberty on the experience of history and time has only tended to prove them more correct.
The Cat-Tribe
06-02-2009, 01:08
Wow, you're really going out of your way to miss the point there.

1. No, I am not.

2. You are really going out of your way to attempt "points" on a subject you say isn't worthy of discussion.
Ghost of Ayn Rand
06-02-2009, 01:11
1. I am glad to see you admit that what you linked doesn't support your "taken too far" argument.

2. It has been a long time since I read Sandel's book, but you don't seem to be getting the gist of the excerpt you linked.

A. Sandel essentially makes an argument against protecting the free exercise of religion. Although separation of Church and State works to protect free exercise, it is more commonly associated with the prohibition on laws respecting an establishment of religion.

B. Do you really agree with Sandel (in the excerpt's argument) that religous liberty is not a good thing?

3. To the extent Sandel is saying that religion is not a choice and/or religious freedom must be predicated on it being the "right" religion, he is simply wrong. Our Founders based their devotion to religious liberty on the experience of history and time has only tended to prove them more correct.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, you're claiming that reading a book is equal to a trillion Holocausts.
Trostia
06-02-2009, 01:13
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on NSG, seriously. If you think saying 'I don't give a shit' is 'desperate' (desperate for what exactly?)

I think you are going out of your way to feign apathy when the reality is, and according to what you and others who are similarly "disinterested" you clearly have an opinion on this, it's just you were and are unable to defend it in rational argument. The "Well I don't care anyway" line is a thinly veiled concession desperately attempting to look like something else.

Which amuses me, seriously.

, then you must think that it's infinitely more so desperate to equate and ultra-extremely oversimplify an action to an obscenely broad subjective characterisation like 'violating ethics and freedoms'.

Not at all. See when you have things like "principles," a violation of those principles is a violation and it doesn't matter if the consequences to some violations are not that drastic. Drinking and driving is stupid and dangerous, but if I drink and drive once and nothing bad happens, does that mean it's not? Maybe just look the other way, officer? That'll work, ha.

Violation of ethics and freedoms was done here whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. You seem not to, but then hey, you don't care right?
Hydesland
06-02-2009, 01:19
it's just you were and are unable to defend it in rational argument.

This is just a complete outright lie, which you have not a single shred of evidence for. I have already said that what the teacher did was wrong. I'll say it again, it was wrong. What was bothering me was the mistaken impression I had that this made it to the news media, which I have conceded as being wrong. So now I simply have no interest in the issue, only correcting your bullshit.


Violation of ethics and freedoms was done here whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. You seem not to, but then hey, you don't care right?

When a kid steals a penny sweet, he violates ethics, it is not something a random internet dude needs to be concerned about however. The point was (which I really cannot believe you missed), that calling it 'a violation of ethics', is meaningless, it tells us almost nothing, and is obviously only used to make an action seem worse than it is.
Ghost of Ayn Rand
06-02-2009, 01:22
When a kid steals a penny sweet, he violates ethics, it is not something a random internet dude needs to be concerned about.

I'm Chris Hansen.
Katganistan
06-02-2009, 01:35
Well... if she were saying grace quietly for herself I would have no qualms.

If she were leading the Christian Club (that is, all students volunteered to be there specifically to learn about/practice Christian traditions) I wouldn't have a problem.

I think that she should not have attempted to lead an entire cafeteria through grace.

Ain't nothing wrong with a damn prayer here and there. Then again I'm Catholic and went to a Catholic school -- but I don't see why, if a teacher wants to pray for his/her class or something in a secular school, that should be a problem.. It isn't hard to respect (read ignore) it and being able to respect different religions is important for later in life..
Neither is it hard to keep it to oneself and not impose one's prayer publicly on a disinterested or actively opposing audience.

We are too afraid of religion here in the US. Separation of church and state has been taken too far.
It's not "afraid of religion", it's "respect for others who find it uncomfortable or offensive".
Neesika
06-02-2009, 01:38
Personally, it makes me excruciatingly uncomfortable when, out of the blue, someone decides to start including me in a prayer. I don't mind people praying personally, lowering their head, doing that quiet thing, praying to themselves...whatever...one of the busdrivers on my route will quickly go into one of the bus shelters at a stop and do his morning prayers. No biggie. But the second someone decides to include ME in their prayers, I have a very, very strong urge to object.

Of course it's generally only Christians who do this sort of thing, in North America.
United Dependencies
06-02-2009, 02:55
Mulder & Scully clearly need the assistance of some pesky kids.

actually I believe that it is those meddling kids.
Blouman Empire
06-02-2009, 03:05
And what about the students' rights to have their wishes respected?[/QUOTES]

Who cares about students?

[QUOTE]Besides, I don't see where, in the argument, are we saying the teacher has no right to say a prayer. But her students also have a right to not listen to her if they don't want to.

I would say many didn't considering only 12 said Amen.

Because the Teacher also has responsibilities not to take advantage of impressionable minds to push their own agenda?

I agree with this, shame many teaches push their own agenda onto their students on a whole range of issues.

Not endorsing a religion does not equal forcing atheism down your throat, mighty prayer warrior. Prayer in schools has been consistantly struck down, and teachers leading prayer in secular schools is unconstitutional.

God what a terrible arguement.

The only problem with yours is that you keep talking about how it is unconstitutional, as though the laws of the US apply across the Earth.

As for Illinois silent reflection does that mean teachers can't have meditation times during class?
Peisandros
06-02-2009, 05:51
It is my (perhaps mistaken) understanding that this occurred in New Zealand

You should have just stopped there. Illegal? Lol, no.
Muravyets
06-02-2009, 06:10
You should have just stopped there. Illegal? Lol, no.
Okay, since you're in New Zealand, why don't you tell us what the rules actually are, instead of just laughing at someone for saying something they did not actually say?
One-O-One
06-02-2009, 06:39
The subjectiveness isn't really the problem. It's your massive simplification into a very vague and broad category, which would make the holocaust and this issue equal in how wrong it is.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/exitjmouse/GodwinsLaw_CatPoster.jpg
One-O-One
06-02-2009, 06:41
Well, over here it's quite normal for teachers to say prayer (although less and less do, not for fear of reprisal but rather not being 'true believers') and religion is taught as a class, so that's kinda redundant question to me...

But if you were offended, you should have told them so. Yes, in front of your whole year class. If you didn't do that, you accepted it.

It's not normal for prayers to be said in school, or at least, this is the first time I've come accross it and I've been going for 12 years.
One-O-One
06-02-2009, 06:48
Okay, since you're in New Zealand, why don't you tell us what the rules actually are, instead of just laughing at someone for saying something they did not actually say?

Found this site, and apparently there is no law or ruling in court pertaining to seperation of religion and state.

New Zealand

Is there legislation separating church and state in New Zealand? No. Has there been a constitutional case where the question has been addressed? No. What does the New Zealand Bill of Rights and their Human Rights Act say about separation? Nothing. Is there a reference to separation on the New Zealand Government’s website? No. New Zealand has two national anthems: ‘God Defend New Zealand’ and ‘God Save the Queen.’ That’s not what you would expect from a nation that has separated church and state.

Professor Rishworth, Professor of Law at the University of Auckland, recently wrote that at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding document of New Zealand which formalised the agreement between the British government and the Maori tribes, a French Catholic priest witnessed the signing. He later wrote that a statement was read to the Waitangi assembly which said: ‘the Governor says the several faiths of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome, and also Maori custom, shall be protected alike by him’. Professor Rishworth notes that from this

there may come a point at which it is claimed [the Waitangi Treaty] envisaged a state in which religion would be actively protected, and that a wall of separation was never envisaged.

What Australia and New Zealand have in common is that both are constitutional monarchies with the Queen as our Head of State, and she, of course, is the head of the Church of England in Britain. Like us, New Zealand appointed an Anglican archbishop as Governor-General: Sir Paul Reeves from 1985 to 1990. In an interview in 1998, reflecting on his appointment, he said that in his role as Governor-General, he foresaw he would be able to

… fulfil his clerical vocation in the new position.

Given that we’ve drawn a blank with New Zealand, isn’t it the case that churches don’t get their way in Australia, that the government is in effect secular?
Muravyets
06-02-2009, 06:51
Found this site, and apparently there is no law or ruling in court pertaining to seperation of religion and state.
Thanks. So in that case, in practical application, would it be up to each school or school district (or whatever the organizational units are in NZ) to set acceptable standards? Would that account for why one NZer said it was common but another (you) said you'd never seen it before?
Jhapo
06-02-2009, 06:56
Yeah, that was a bit of a exaggeration, but addressing it to the audience...it still gives me a damn uncomfortable feeling.

Jaja, your freaking out because of a prayer?
Man, the guy is blessing the food, and your freaking out.

That uncomfortable feeling is just the devil trying to make you feel bad about that guy.
Gauntleted Fist
06-02-2009, 07:13
That uncomfortable feeling is just the devil trying to make you feel bad about that guy.Where's the magic sky fairy when that happens? :confused:
One-O-One
06-02-2009, 07:20
Jaja, your freaking out because of a prayer?
Man, the guy is blessing the food, and your freaking out.

That uncomfortable feeling is just the devil trying to make you feel bad about that guy.

I really hope you're joking. If not, lolwut.
One-O-One
06-02-2009, 07:26
Thanks. So in that case, in practical application, would it be up to each school or school district (or whatever the organizational units are in NZ) to set acceptable standards? Would that account for why one NZer said it was common but another (you) said you'd never seen it before?

I'm fairly sure he said he attended a Catholic school, which is most likely Integrated. That means that it gets government funding, but is religious. FYI, my school definately isn't one.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
06-02-2009, 13:13
And what about the students' rights to have their wishes respected?

Who cares about students?

I do, and I'm sure others would too.
Blouman Empire
06-02-2009, 13:27
I do, and I'm sure others would too.

Actually Nanatsu that was a swipe at schools and teachers and how some don't always have the students best interests at heart. It wasn't an attack on your argument.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
06-02-2009, 13:29
Actually Nanatsu that was a swipe at schools and teachers and how some don't always have the students best interests at heart. It wasn't an attack on your argument.

I know this wans't an attack on my argument. But asked me a question and I thought it was polite to answer it.:wink:
Blouman Empire
06-02-2009, 13:32
I know this wans't an attack on my argument. But asked me a question and I thought it was polite to answer it.:wink:

And that's one of the many things I like about you. :)
Muravyets
06-02-2009, 16:18
I'm fairly sure he said he attended a Catholic school, which is most likely Integrated. That means that it gets government funding, but is religious. FYI, my school definately isn't one.
Then I would say his example is not relevant to your OP situation.

But the reason I asked is only to determine whether we are talking about general or personal princples/ethics in the OP situation, or also about professional ethics in terms of the expectations upon teachers in NZ.