NationStates Jolt Archive

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the a case from New Jersey brought by a high school football coach who wants to pray with students. SCOTUS's non-decision leaves in place a lower court order upholding a school district's ban on employees leading or joining in student prayer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had upheld the ban in Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick (http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063890p.pdf) (pdf).

Here are two articles on the matter:

Ban on a type of prayer in school allowed to stand (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154/03-02-2009/20090302122010_67.html)
By JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Coach Marcus Borden used to bow his head and drop to one knee when his football team prayed. But the Supreme Court on Monday ended the practice when it refused to hear the high school coach's appeal of a school district ban on employees joining a student-led prayer.

The decision on the case from New Jersey could add another restriction on prayer in schools, advocates said.

"We've become so politically correct in terms of how we deal with religion that it's being pretty severely limited in schools right now, and individuals suffer," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization that focuses on First Amendment and religious freedom issues.

But Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said some parents had complained about Borden leading prayers before the East Brunswick, N.J., school district ordered him to stop and banned all staff members from joining in student-led prayer.

"The bottom line is people in positions of authority, like a coach, have to be extremely careful about trying to promote their ideas, or implying that if you don't pray, you may not play," Lynn said.

The high court without comment refused to reconsider the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision upholding the ban.

The district established the ban in 2005 after parents complained about Borden, coach at East Brunswick High School since 1983, sometimes leading prayers at the Friday afternoon team pasta dinner or in the locker room before games. Borden said he wanted to show respect for the students engaged in prayer by bowing his head silently and dropping to one knee.

The district, Borden argued, was violating his free-speech rights by ordering him to stop action he called secular signs of respect. After the ban, the coach stood at attention for the remainder of the season while the students prayed.

Judge D. Michael Fisher, writing for the Philadelphia appeals court, said Borden's past action of leading the prayers made his head-bowing seem inappropriate. "A reasonable observer would conclude that he is continuing to endorse religion when he bows his head during the pre-meal grace and takes a knee with his team in the locker room while they pray," Fisher said.

Messages left for Borden and lawyer Ronald Riccio were not immediately returned Monday.

"With teachers and students, individual expressions are being limited. There's just a concept out there that religion doesn't belong in schools," said Whitehead, whose group acted as co-counsel for Borden. He said he does not know what Borden would do now.

School employees should avoid looking like they're endorsing religion in any way, said Lynn, whose group represented the school district.

"Coaches are not supposed to be promoting religion; that's up to students and parents and pastors," Lynn said.

The Supreme Court ended school-sponsored prayer in 1962 when it said directing that a prayer be said at the beginning of each school day was a violation of the First Amendment. The justices reaffirmed the decision in 2000 by saying a Texas school district was giving the impression of prayer sponsorship by letting students use loudspeakers under the direction of a faculty member for prayers before sports events.

The case is Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick, 08-482.

---

Americans United Lauds Supreme Court's Refusal To Hear N.J. Football Prayer Case (http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10333&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241)
Supreme Court Action Protects Religious Neutrality Of Public Schools, Says AU's Lynn
Monday, March 2, 2009

The U.S. Supreme Court made the right call today in refusing to hear a case from New Jersey dealing with a high school football coach who wants to pray with students, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Without comment, the justices announced that they will not hear an appeal of Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick, a challenge brought by high school football coach Marcus Borden. The high court’s decision leaves in place a lower court order barring Borden from involvement in his students’ religious activities.

“A coach’s job is to teach kids how to play a sport, not promote religion,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “This case is a firm reminder that parents, not school personnel, are the rightful decision-makers when it comes to children’s religious upbringing.”

Borden claimed he merely wanted to show respect while players prayed by bowing his head and going down on one knee. But the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that Borden’s actions would be seen by students as official promotion of religion, given his 23-year history of organizing and leading prayer for students.

The Supreme Court struck down coercive forms of school-sponsored prayer in 1962 and declared mandatory Bible reading in schools unconstitutional the following year. Since then, the court has ruled uniformly that public schools cannot sponsor religious activities.

Americans United says the court record clearly showed that Borden had long been promoting worship activities among students. He often personally led pre-game prayer and for 14 years brought in a chaplain to pray with players prior to team meals. He later began assigning students to lead the devotions.

Borden discontinued these activities after school officials insisted because they had received complaints from parents.

After a U.S. district court ruled in Borden’s favor, Americans United offered to represent the East Brunswick Public Schools pro bono. AU Assistant Legal Director Richard B. Katskee argued the case before the 3rd Circuit and won a ruling there on appeal.

Said Katskee, “Children have a clear right to attend public schools without religious pressures being brought to bear by school personnel. Coach Borden was out of bounds, and the courts were right to blow the whistle. I hope that other coaches and school personnel learn a lesson from this.”

“Public school officials simply may not engage with students in religious activity,” said East Brunswick Board of Education President Todd Simmens. “Consistent with this law, the Board of Education and district officials have, throughout this case, made certain that no school employee supervises or otherwise participates in any type of prayer with our students. Needless to say, the Board is pleased that, in this case, the courts have reaffirmed this long-standing constitutional principle.”

In addition to Americans United, the school district is also represented by Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC.

I am heartened by this decision. What say you NSG?

In before "Liberal activist judges are oppressing Christians!"

In before "Liberal activist judges are oppressing Christians!"

That would suggest that our Good Christian Ex-President was a Liberal who appointed Liberal Judges to the Supreme Court.

:D :D :D

Thank God! :)

Thank God! :)

No! No!

No! No!

Stop oppressing him!

Stop oppressing him!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/113/297576372_5e32cd5d3c.jpg

I miss timewarps...

So do I...

To quote KoL:

In before "Liberal activist judges are oppressing Christians!"

I miss timewarps...

To quote KoL:

In before "Liberal activist judges are oppressing Christians!"

Solid choice. Given several recent decisions, I rather like this court.

(without reading the links, and skimming the op) Hmm, so students can get a teacher/coach in trouble by leading a prayer group and having them join in(at least in New Jersey), thats nice to know.(silly insecure parents)

I'm trying to figure out how going to one knee and bowing your head is a 'secular' sign of respect.

I'm glad SCOTUS let this one stand, teachers (and coaches too) have NO business getting involved in promoting any religious or non-religious views during school events/time.

So do I...


Last edited by Heikoku 2; Today at 03:13.

(*whistles*)

The court seems to have made an apt ruling in this case.

Good on em. Just say no to prayer in schools.

Last edited by Heikoku 2; Today at 03:13.

(*whistles*)

I wanted to make a joke. *Shrugs*

Hang on WTF?

I would understand if the teacher was making the students pray before a game but if some students want to pray before the game why shouldn't the coach be allowed to also engage in it?

And some people wonder why the US is strange?

meh.

Hang on WTF?

I would understand if the teacher was making the students pray before a game but if some students want to pray before the game why shouldn't the coach be allowed to also engage in it?

And some people wonder why the US is strange?

Yeah, I would say that is the coach's prerogative. As long as he is not the one leaing it or did not solicit a student to lead it there is no problem. The burden of proof lies with the parent or student who made the complaint to prove that happened. I do not agree with this court's ruling, but there are more important evils for God-fearing Americans to combat at this time:mad:. Bernie Madoff comes to mind...

After being pegged on the head with one of those Vhs tapes the Christian group threw in High School...

I can honestly say, Religion is a danger to the Student's safety, lol...

Hang on WTF?

I would understand if the teacher was making the students pray before a game but if some students want to pray before the game why shouldn't the coach be allowed to also engage in it?

And some people wonder why the US is strange?

the very fact that students complaining to their parents is what started this issue suggests that this was not a wholly voluntary activity.

The fact is, whenever an authority figure engages, solicits, or instigates an activity, those who are under his authority can feel compelled to join along.

The argument of "if it's voluntary, what's the problem?" always fails in issues like this, because it's always BECAUSE OF COMPLAINTS that the issue arises in the first place.

the very fact that students complaining to their parents is what started this issue suggests that this was not a wholly voluntary activity.

The fact is, whenever an authority figure engages, solicits, or instigates an activity, those who are under his authority can feel compelled to join along.

The argument of "if it's voluntary, what's the problem?" always fails in issues like this, because it's always BECAUSE OF COMPLAINTS that the issue arises in the first place.

Let me get back to you when I am in less of a "rag on everyone" mood but...

Ok so it suggests it was not a wholly voluntary activity, but this court ruling will now apply throughout (I would say the US but since this was a lower court ruling than perhaps NJ?) regardless of if students are just doing it and we are now saying that the staff member can't join in or even simply be quiet about it (bowing the head or just shutting up). As for complaints, fuck man if we changed the world because of every little complaint the world be a lot more fucked up then it is.

Let me get back to you when I am in less of a "rag on everyone" mood but...

Ok so it suggests it was not a wholly voluntary activity, but this court ruling will now apply throughout (I would say the US but since this was a lower court ruling than perhaps NJ?) regardless of if students are just doing it and we are now saying that the staff member can't join in or even simply be quiet about it (bowing the head or just shutting up). As for complaints, fuck man if we changed the world because of every little complaint the world be a lot more fucked up then it is.

And if we allow for lack of separation between Church and State, the end result will tend to be similar to, if not outright, heretics and witches being burned at the stake.

And if we allow for lack of separation between Church and State, the end result will tend to be similar to, if not outright, heretics and witches being burned at the stake.

You say that like its a bad thing...:p

Let me get back to you when I am in less of a "rag on everyone" mood but...

Ok so it suggests it was not a wholly voluntary activity, but this court ruling will now apply throughout (I would say the US but since this was a lower court ruling than perhaps NJ?)

It was validated by the 3rd circuit, which makes it law in New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania.

regardless of if students are just doing it and we are now saying that the staff member can't join in or even simply be quiet about it (bowing the head or just shutting up).

You're right. It says that employees of the state can not join in in prayer sessions when they're on the job. I don't see anything wrong with that.

As for complaints, fuck man if we changed the world because of every little complaint the world be a lot more fucked up then it is.

I agree, so let's compromise. We'll only agree to change things based on complaints that raise legitimate constitutional grievances, ok?

If staff want to lead prayer, join a private religious school. However, in the interests of ensuring that children have the right to religious self-determination, we must be on guard against even the appearance of interference

You say that like its a bad thing...:p

Not all of us are Harry Potter Wizards who use flame protection and get caught and burned for the tickles. :p

I agree, so let's compromise. We'll only agree to change things based on complaints that raise legitimate constitutional grievances, ok?

*Raises hand*

Teacher Art, such as this precise one?

*Drools a little, to add to the effect of "retarded kid"*

"Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church."

Let me get back to you when I am in less of a "rag on everyone" mood but...

Ok so it suggests it was not a wholly voluntary activity, but this court ruling will now apply throughout (I would say the US but since this was a lower court ruling than perhaps NJ?) regardless of if students are just doing it and we are now saying that the staff member can't join in or even simply be quiet about it (bowing the head or just shutting up).

No, this isn't that broad a ruling, because they're only saying the school has the right to stop teachers being part of student prayer groups. They're not saying the school MUST do so.

It was validated by the 3rd circuit, which makes it law in New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania.

Cheers, man.

You're right. It says that employees of the state can not join in in prayer sessions when they're on the job. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I don't see anything wrong with them joinng in, or even just being silent if students choose to say a prayer. As long as the staff member isn't making students pray or exculding them from school activiies if they either opt-in or opt-out from it then what is the problem?

I agree, so let's compromise. We'll only agree to change things based on complaints that raise legitimate constitutional grievances, ok?

Neo, ple-ase

Not all of us are Harry Potter Wizards who use flame protection and get caught and burned for the tickles. :p

Showing you have read the book there, H2.

Good on em. Just say no to prayer in schools.

Just say no to prayer, full stop.

Just say no to prayer, full stop.

I dunno, some of those crazy pagan prayers can involve nudity. Say yes to nudity!

I dunno, some of those crazy pagan prayers can involve nudity. Say yes to nudity!

Dude, have you SEEN some of those pagans. I can assure you the ones who want to get their kit off and usually the ones who really really shouldn't.

Dude, have you SEEN some of those pagans. I can assure you the ones who want to get their kit off and usually the ones who really really shouldn't.

Maybe I've just seen some unrealistic movies... and I have known personally one nymph who was a pagan. I hope she got her kit off, for everyone's sake.

I cannot see why this would have been such a problem if say, the coach had simply bowed his head or was silent during that time, as a sign of respect. What he did probably deserves only a warning... as other teachers probably do far worse things than pray with students. Hell, I went to public school and one of my teachers prayed with me...during school hours in the school! And neither my parents nor I ever had a problem with that, and we are far from fundamentalist! Ditto with the teacher in my case.

Showing you have read the book there, H2.

Sorta. I read it in TVTropes, Power Perversion Potential IIRC.

I cannot see why this would have been such a problem if say, the coach had simply bowed his head or was silent during that time, as a sign of respect. What he did probably deserves only a warning... as other teachers probably do far worse things than pray with students. Hell, I went to public school and one of my teachers prayed with me...during school hours in the school! And neither my parents nor I ever had a problem with that, and we are far from fundamentalist! Ditto with the teacher in my case.

Just because you didn't have a problem with it doesn't mean it's legally OK. And from a legal perspective, students participating in school athletics are considered to be under the power of the school, and a coach is considered like any other teacher.

So a coach praying with students during a game is legally identical to a teacher praying with a student during school hours. He's a school employee charged with caring for students during school events. That makes him a teacher during school hours.

What if athletics were not under the power of the school (Park Board, or Chamber of Commerce for instance) or if the LP had its way and there was separation of education and state? Just posing a theoretical possibility (one which might not be too bad, actually).

Also this is an instance of picking your battles wisely, if the worst that happens in a district is that the school coach joins in on a student led prayer, consider yourselves lucky!

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the a case from New Jersey brought by a high school football coach who wants to pray with students. SCOTUS's non-decision leaves in place a lower court order upholding a school district's ban on employees leading or joining in student prayer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had upheld the ban in Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick (http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063890p.pdf) (pdf).

...

I am heartened by this decision. What say you NSG?
This would certainly fit any definition of "endorsement of religion". But the real test of whether praying before football games helps will come this fall. Will the team's losses increase from the 4-4 record during the 2008 season? Will the lack of prayer and divine intervention hurt?

-snip-OP


This is ridiculous. I believe in wiping church out of the government too, but the pre-game prayer is a tradition that I used to even go through back in highschool as a football player. I wasn't even religious, if anything I was as devout an athiest as you were gonna find, but I prayed for my team mates in hopes that we'd all come through okay and noone would be hurt. Dunno what I was praying to, but its just a tradition. I am much more religious now, as I've grown older, yes. But I feel that there are some things that need to be left alone. If you, as a player in the locker room, don't want to hear a prayer, then I guess you don't have to participate. But I felt comforted by it.

Edit: one more thing, I had a buddy who was and is still an athiest, and used to routinely chastise people who did believe for being stupid. And yet he would lead the pre-game prayer. Just...its stupid to ban something like that.

I call this Secularization en masse.

What if athletics were not under the power of the school (Park Board, or Chamber of Commerce for instance) or if the LP had its way and there was separation of education and state? Just posing a theoretical possibility (one which might not be too bad, actually).

If the activity is not under the power of the state then...it's not under the power of the state and the constitution doesn't apply, what's your point?


Also this is an instance of picking your battles wisely, if the worst that happens in a district is that the school coach joins in on a student led prayer, consider yourselves lucky!

So your argument is that we should accept a school actiing illegally, as long as it's not too bad an illegality?

I happen to find any violation of the supreme law of the land to be egregious.

This is ridiculous. I believe in wiping church out of the government too, but the pre-game prayer is a tradition that I used to even go through back in highschool as a football player. I wasn't even religious, if anything I was as devout an athiest as you were gonna find, but I prayed for my team mates in hopes that we'd all come through okay and noone would be hurt. Dunno what I was praying to, but its just a tradition. I am much more religious now, as I've grown older, yes. But I feel that there are some things that need to be left alone. If you, as a player in the locker room, don't want to hear a prayer, then I guess you don't have to participate. But I felt comforted by it.

Edit: one more thing, I had a buddy who was and is still an athiest, and used to routinely chastise people who did believe for being stupid. And yet he would lead the pre-game prayer. Just...its stupid to ban something like that.

Are you under some strange impression that students are prohibited from praying? If so, then I suggest you cure yourself of that misapprehension.

"we've always done it that way" is no excuse for breaking the law.

This would certainly fit any definition of "endorsement of religion". But the real test of whether praying before football games helps will come this fall. Will the team's losses increase from the 4-4 record during the 2008 season? Will the lack of prayer and divine intervention hurt?

And if it DOES hurt, does this invalidate all past wins due to cheating by divine intervention?
:D

This is ridiculous. I believe in wiping church out of the government too, but the pre-game prayer is a tradition that I used to even go through back in highschool as a football player. I wasn't even religious, if anything I was as devout an athiest as you were gonna find, but I prayed for my team mates in hopes that we'd all come through okay and noone would be hurt. Dunno what I was praying to, but its just a tradition. I am much more religious now, as I've grown older, yes. But I feel that there are some things that need to be left alone. If you, as a player in the locker room, don't want to hear a prayer, then I guess you don't have to participate. But I felt comforted by it.

Edit: one more thing, I had a buddy who was and is still an athiest, and used to routinely chastise people who did believe for being stupid. And yet he would lead the pre-game prayer. Just...its stupid to ban something like that.
One can't circumvent the Constitution (or indeed any law) simply because something is traditional or comforting.

So, Neo Art, you oppose the right to students freely exercising their religious rights during a school event? Would you be opposed to a teacher, before the students show up, saying a quick prayer to a higher power to give him/her the wisdom to be an effective teacher?

So, Neo Art, you oppose the right to students freely exercising their religious rights during a school event? Would you be opposed to a teacher, before the students show up, saying a quick prayer to a higher power to give him/her the wisdom to be an effective teacher?

Who's opposing students' rights? Certainly not Neo. Students have the right to pray on their own already, and no one's talking about taking this away.
All the court (and I assume Neo) are saying is that an agent of the state, whether this is a teacher or a coach, can not lead a student prayer nor take part in it.

A few points of clarification (followed by a lengthy recital of relevant facts of the case):


The coach's employer (the School District) told him to stop leading prayer or participating in prayer.


The coach sued his employer claiming he had a constitutional right to lead and/or participate in school prayer.


The federal appeals court denied the coach's claim and upheld the policy of the School District.


The coach in question has been leading prayer since 1983. He has fought tooth and nail against School District rules against his activities.


Establishment of religion concerns aside it would be pretty extraordinary to hold that school prayer is a right that teachers may engage in despite school district policy.


Additionally, the federal court of appeals correctly held that the coach's actions were an endorsement of religion:
Likewise, Borden’s past conduct “signals an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.” Id. For twenty-three years, Borden led the team in a pre-game prayer in the locker room. During that same period of time, Borden orchestrated a pre-meal grace for his team. He originally had a chaplain conduct the pre-meal grace. This practice changed only after school officials asked him to stop; then he had the chaplain write the grace and he selected seniors on the team to recite it. Additionally, during at least three seasons, Borden led the team in the first prayer of the season. Both of these activities, the locker room preparations and the pre-game meals, were school-sponsored events. As in Duncanville, Borden’s involvement in prayer at these two activities – as a participant, an organizer, and a leader – would lead a reasonable observer to conclude that he was endorsing religion.

...This history of Borden’s prayers with the football team leads to a reasonable inference that his current requested conduct is meant “to preserve a popular ‘state-sponsored religious practice’” of praying with his team prior to games. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 309 (citing Lee, 505 U.S. at 596).

...We find that, based on the history of Borden’s conduct with the team’s prayers, his acts cross the line and constitute an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Although Borden believes that he must continue to engage in these actions to demonstrate solidarity with his team, which is perhaps good for a football team’s unity, we must consider whether a reasonable observer would perceive his actions as endorsing religion, not whether Borden intends to endorse religion. A reasonable observer would have knowledge of Borden’s extensive involvement with the team’s prayers over the past twenty-three years during which he organized, participated in, and led prayer. Based on this history, we hold that a reasonable observer would conclude that Borden is showing not merely respect when he bows his head and takes a knee with his teams and is instead endorsing religion.

Without Borden’s twenty-three years of organizing, participating in, and leading prayer with his team, this conclusion would not be so clear as it presently is. We agree with Borden that bowing one’s head and taking a knee can be signs of respect. Thus, if a football coach, who had never engaged in prayer with his team, were to bow his head and take a knee while his team engaged in a moment of reflection or prayer, we would likely reach a different conclusion because the same history and context of endorsing religion would not be present.


For further illumination of the issue, here is more on the factual background of the case:

Factual Background:

1. 1983-2005 (Pre-litigation)

Marcus Borden is the head football coach at East Brunswick High School (“EBHS”), and he has held that position since 1983. During his tenure at EBHS, Borden engaged in two pre-game prayer activities that occurred (1) at the team dinner; and (2) while taking a knee in the locker room.

As part of the pre-game activities for the EBHS football team, the team ate a pasta dinner together at approximately 3:00 p.m. on game day in the high school cafeteria. In addition to the team, parents and other guests, including the cheerleading squad, were present. Prior to the time Borden coached the team to 1997, a local minister, Reverend Smith, said a pre-meal prayer. However, in 1997, the athletic director told Borden that Reverend Smith could not continue to say the prayer. Instead, Reverend Smith wrote a prayer that the students took turns reading. Then, in 2003, Reverend Smith retired, and Borden did not continue to have the students read Reverend Smith’s prayer. Borden instead began a new tradition: he said the prayer prior to the first pre-game dinner of the 2003, 2004, and 2005 seasons. For the subsequent weeks of those seasons, Borden asked those attending the dinner to “please stand,” and chose a senior player to say a prayer.

In addition to the prayer before the team dinner, Borden led his team in a prayer immediately before the game. Prior to taking the field, Borden and his assistant coaches asked the players to take a knee in the locker room. The team gathered in
front of the chalkboard or dry erase board on one knee, and at that time, Borden discussed the tactics and strategy for that particular game. Following that discussion, Borden led the team in a prayer.
*snip*

The team participated in this tradition for twenty-three seasons, beginning when Borden became the coach of the EBHS football team in 1983 and continuing until the 2005 football season.

On September 26, 2005, Jo Ann Magistro, the Superintendent of the East Brunswick School District (“School District”), received a complaint from a parent about the prayer at the team dinner. The parent told Magistro that she thought it was inappropriate that Borden requested that everyone stand for the prayer and that he bowed his head during the prayer. Over the course of that week, two other parents complained to Magistro about the prayer. One of the complaining parents had a son on the team, and the parent told Magistro that her son felt uncomfortable during the prayer and feared that the coach would select him to say the prayer.

Although Magistro did not contact Borden herself, the EBHS principal and athletic director contacted Borden about these complaints. They told him not to lead the team in prayer, and he responded that he did not lead them in prayer. At the team dinner on September 30, 2005, he continued the prayer traditions in the manner described above. It was alleged that he told the students that if they felt uncomfortable during the prayer, they could wait in the restroom until it was over. Following that game, Magistro received several more complaints.

On October 6, 2005, the School District’s counsel, Martin Pachman, advised Magistro and the East Brunswick Board of Education (“Board”) regarding Borden’s conduct, stating that a coach for the school could not lead, encourage, or participate in student prayer. Magistro met with Borden the next day, October 7, 2005, and told him that all prayer needed to be student initiated, including the selection of which student would recite the prayer. At that time, Borden asked her if he could continue to say the pre-game prayer in the locker room. In response, Magistro contacted Pachman, who answered Borden’s questions. At the end of the conversation, Magistro asked Pachman to provide clear guidelines on faculty participation in student prayer.

Later that day, Magistro sent Borden a memorandum and attached the guidelines provided by Pachman. Magistro stated that she recognized Borden’s disappointment, but she expected him to comply with the guidelines, and “[n]ot to comply will be viewed as insubordination.” The attached guidelines, which stated that they were not “exhaustive or final,” were as follows:

“1. Students have a constitutional right to engage in prayer on school property, at school events, and even during the course of the school day, provided that:

A. The activity is truly student initiated; and

B. The prayer activity does not interfere with the normal operations of the school district. This would mean that, for example, if a student or a group of students wish to engage in a prayer before or after their meal in the cafeteria during their lunch period they would have a right to do so, provided that the activity in which they are engaged does not disrupt the normal operation and decorum of the other students eating in the cafeteria. Also, if student athletes on their own decide to hold a prayer huddle before a game, after a game, or during half-time, they have a right to do so.

2. Neither the school district nor any representative of the school district (teacher, coach, administrator, board member, etc.) may constitutionally encourage, lead, initiate, mandate, or otherwise coerce, directly or indirectly, student prayer at any time in any school-sponsored setting, including classes, practices, pep rallies, team meetings, or athletic events.

3. Representatives of the school district, as referenced above, cannot participate in student-initiated prayer. That very issue was decided by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision cited with approval by the United States Supreme Court and is, therefore, the operative law of the land at this time. To quote the Court, ‘If while acting in their official capacities (school district) employees join hands in a prayer circle or otherwise manifest approval and solidarity with student religious exercises, they cross the line between respect for religion and endorsement of religion,’ and such conduct was prohibited.”

That same evening, Borden resigned, effective immediately, and he did not attend the football game scheduled for that evening. However, on October 17, 2005, Borden withdrew his resignation and agreed to abide by the School District’s policy for the remainder of the 2005 season.

*snip*

Following the issuance of the October 7 guidelines and the Board’s statement on October 20, Borden conducted himself in accordance with the School District’s new policy for the balance of the school year, notwithstanding the litigation he instituted on November 21, 2005.

2. 2006-Present

Prior to the 2006 football season, Borden sent an email to Sergio Garcia and Randall Nixon, the co-captains of the team for the 2006 season, requesting that they ask the players whether they would like to continue the tradition of praying at the team dinner and prior to the game. In his email request, he told the co-captains that “[w]hatever the players decide to do is fine with me.” He asked the captains to pass on the players’ response and to ensure him that they spoke with all of the players on the team. Nixon’s response indicated that the players voted to continue both the pre-meal and pre-game prayer. Following the grant of summary judgment in his favor in this case, Borden stood and bowed his head during the prayer before the meal, and remained on one knee during the pre-game prayer.

So, Neo Art, you oppose the right to students freely exercising their religious rights during a school event?

No. That is not what Neo is saying. Nor is it the opinion of myself or the federal courts.

Would you be opposed to a teacher, before the students show up, saying a quick prayer to a higher power to give him/her the wisdom to be an effective teacher?

Again, no. Entirely different question than the case at hand.

So, Neo Art, you oppose the right to students freely exercising their religious rights during a school event? Would you be opposed to a teacher, before the students show up, saying a quick prayer to a higher power to give him/her the wisdom to be an effective teacher?

I'll merely repeat what I said earlier: Are you under some strange impression that students are prohibited from praying? If so, then I suggest you cure yourself of that misapprehension.

Students are free to pray, if they wish. A teacher, on his own time, is free to pray, if he wishes.

What he can't do is, as a teacher, during school hours, participate in prayer with his students. Any such time will inherently be infused with coercive elements, and is improper.

So, Neo Art, you oppose the right to students freely exercising their religious rights during a school event? Would you be opposed to a teacher, before the students show up, saying a quick prayer to a higher power to give him/her the wisdom to be an effective teacher?
This is something I have never understood. Why do some people, every time a prayer/school issue is raised, conflate state-paid agents of the public school system leading religious practice as a part of a school activity with
individuals practicing their own religions privately and on their own?

Is that conflation based on a fundamental failure to understand the concept of separation of church and state? Or a failure to understand the difference between official and personal? Or is it because there are no valid arguments against keeping religion out of public schools, and so they have to turn the debate into an attack on personal belief because it's the only angle they have?

So, Neo Art, you oppose the right to students freely exercising their religious rights during a school event? Would you be opposed to a teacher, before the students show up, saying a quick prayer to a higher power to give him/her the wisdom to be an effective teacher?

Do...do you read the words on the page?

This is something I have never understood. Why do some people, every time a prayer/school issue is raised, conflate state-paid agents of the public school system leading religious practice as a part of a school activity with
individuals practicing their own religions privately and on their own?

Is that conflation based on a fundamental failure to understand the concept of separation of church and state? Or a failure to understand the difference between official and personal? Or is it because there are no valid arguments against keeping religion out of public schools, and so they have to turn the debate into an attack on personal belief because it's the only angle they have?

are you saying you're in favor of raping babies? You sick fuck...

What he can't do is, as a teacher, during school hours, participate in prayer with his students. Any such time will inherently be infused with coercive elements, and is improper.

On school property... you missed a part.

At my high school, we got around that with the booster club for your particular activity.

Go to a dinner, paid for by the boosters (i.e., private money on non-school property). At that point, even the teachers were free to lead us in prayer.

We handed out awards, etc., at those dinners.

On school property... you missed a part.

At my high school, we got around that with the booster club for your particular activity.

Go to a dinner, paid for by the boosters (i.e., private money on non-school property). At that point, even the teachers were free to lead us in prayer.

We handed out awards, etc., at those dinners.

well I did say "during school hours". If he's hanging around with student during school hours he better be on school property. If not, what the hell is he doing with students?

well I did say "during school hours". If he's hanging around with student during school hours he better be on school property. If not, what the hell is he doing with students?

I believe I was thinking of the football game, which is usually played after school hours, but is still on school property. So, no teacher-led prayer.

I believe I was thinking of the football game, which is usually played after school hours, but is still on school property. So, no teacher-led prayer.

well, the case of school athetics are...tricky. It's a school sponsored event, that makes it "school time", even if it's "after hours".

Students who participate in after school sports are still considered IN SCHOOL while they're there, even if the school is closed, even if they're off site.

It is good the court is looking forward with their rulings

Thus, if a football coach, who had never engaged in prayer with his team, were to bow his head and take a knee while his team engaged in a moment of reflection or prayer, we would likely reach a different conclusion because the same history and context of endorsing religion would not be present.

I don't see anything wrong with them joinng in, or even just being silent if students choose to say a prayer. As long as the staff member isn't making students pray or exculding them from school activiies if they either opt-in or opt-out from it then what is the problem?
Simple enough, if your boss decides to donate to a charity and holds a drive in your office and publicly drops a hundred into the box in front of you all, and then states that any other donations are, of course voluntary, but appreciated; what would a reasonable person conclude? That your boss endorses this charity? Yes. Perhaps that same person would feel some pressure to donate to the United Chicken Liberation Front as well because, hey, your boss just did and is standing right there. The boss didn't say do it. He didn't say if you do it you get x, but the pressure is still there.

This goes with students, when you're a teacher or coach, you have a large amount of influence on your students. I don't have to frame things as an order to my kids to get them to do something.

Furthermore, by just bowing my head and joining in the prayer, I have removed myself as a neutral party. What if one of my students is really uncomfortable with this student lead prayer? He or she could be of another religion or atheist, it doesn't matter. But because his or her teammates or classmates are doing it, peer pressure comes into play. If I, as the teacher, also participates, that student will not feel comfortable in telling me about their discomfort. After all, I have shown myself to be a part of it.

Teachers just should not, during a school sponsored event or instruction time, when we're on the clock in other words, show any preference for any religion or non-religion. Doing so just opens up a huge can of worms and makes it just that much harder for us to fulfill our primary function of teaching.

On school property... you missed a part.

At my high school, we got around that with the booster club for your particular activity.

Go to a dinner, paid for by the boosters (i.e., private money on non-school property). At that point, even the teachers were free to lead us in prayer.

We handed out awards, etc., at those dinners.
Any time a teacher is not on the clock is of course ok. Booster dinners are not school sponsored events nor are they instruction time. A teacher there is a private citizen and enjoys full protection of the Constitution.

After seeing the case in full, I understand perfectly. This would be grounds for a reprimand or dock in pay, so it is the coach that is at fault by taking it to the courts.

The circumstances were different with me, though, as I initiated and it was during an off hour (I technically did not have class at that time) so it did not disturb the education process, in fact it enhanced it for me. I was going through some tough stuff, and asked God to help me through. The teacher merely asked, after I started, if they could say one on my behalf. Said teacher was familiar with the whole separation of church and state thing, so it was broached as carefully as possible. I said no problem, we're both Christians. My parents did not question that. What they did question however was the school holding an assembly where a Christian rap group called "DoC" (Disciples of Christ) performed a concert with strong Christian overtones...school board went along with it seeing no objections.

By the way, Neo Art, I assume you do realize that "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the US constitution. As I understand the establishment clause, saying "under God" in the pledge is not necessarily unconstitutional as it affirms the fact that only about 1% (or in my hometown about less than .03%) deny the existence of some sort of higher power or governing force ruling/creating the cosmos in some fashion. "God" or "Divine Providence" is what we call it. This is not to say the constitution is a christian document, which it is not. We are not necessarily a Christian nation, but we sure are a religious nation. It is just reaffirming a fact. To be called an athiest or cynic is almost an insult in America. It does not establish any one religion, but it recognizes that religion, whether one likes it or not, plays a very important role in American society and that is not about to change anytime soon.

By the way, Neo Art, I assume you do realize that "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the US constitution. As I understand the establishment clause....
"Separation of church and state" is how the Establishment Clause was understood BY THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT. That carries more weight than how you, personally, understand it.

EDIT: I have found that James Madison, author of the Establishment Clause, didn't actually use the phrase "separation of church and state" to describe its purpose. The phrase he preferred was "total separation of church and state".

By the way, Neo Art, I assume you do realize that "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the US constitution.
Not if you want to get technical (that is: not in those exact words). But see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

As I understand the establishment clause, saying "under God" in the pledge is not necessarily unconstitutional as it affirms the fact that only about 1% (or in my hometown about less than .03%) deny the existence of some sort of higher power or governing force ruling/creating the cosmos in some fashion.

I'm sure it's more than that. But due to the stigma carried by the word "atheist", and the discrimination faced by those who own up to it (in some places), such people often use terms like "unaffiliated" or "nonreligious" instead.

well I did say "during school hours". If he's hanging around with student during school hours he better be on school property. If not, what the hell is he doing with students?

Field trip?

By the way, Neo Art, I assume you do realize that "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the US constitution. As I understand the establishment clause, saying "under God" in the pledge is not necessarily unconstitutional as it affirms the fact that only about 1% (or in my hometown about less than .03%) deny the existence of some sort of higher power or governing force ruling/creating the cosmos in some fashion. "God" or "Divine Providence" is what we call it. This is not to say the constitution is a christian document, which it is not. We are not necessarily a Christian nation, but we sure are a religious nation. It is just reaffirming a fact. To be called an athiest or cynic is almost an insult in America. It does not establish any one religion, but it recognizes that religion, whether one likes it or not, plays a very important role in American society and that is not about to change anytime soon.

You dont live here, do you?

You dont live here, do you?

On the contrary, he does, but in a small town rather than a large city, or in Southern New England/Appalachia/the Deep South/the Southwest/the Midwest rather than California/the Pacific Northwest/the Mid-Atlantic/Northern New England.

On the contrary, he does, but in a small town rather than a large city, or in Southern New England/Appalachia/the Deep South/the Southwest/the Midwest rather than California/the Pacific Northwest/the Mid-Atlantic/Northern New England.

That would explain the "it is an insult to be called an athiest" crap.

That would explain the "it is an insult to be called an athiest" crap.

I'm from a place like that. (My parents raised me differently, obviously.)

From where I live now, where people couldn't care less, I can travel less than fifty miles by train and be back in a place where people think that way. The US can be somewhat provincial in that respect.

By the way, Neo Art, I assume you do realize that "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the US constitution. As I understand the establishment clause, saying "under God" in the pledge is not necessarily unconstitutional as it affirms the fact that only about 1% (or in my hometown about less than .03%) deny the existence of some sort of higher power or governing force ruling/creating the cosmos in some fashion. "God" or "Divine Providence" is what we call it. This is not to say the constitution is a christian document, which it is not. We are not necessarily a Christian nation, but we sure are a religious nation. It is just reaffirming a fact. To be called an athiest or cynic is almost an insult in America. It does not establish any one religion, but it recognizes that religion, whether one likes it or not, plays a very important role in American society and that is not about to change anytime soon.

The forum's TOS must require at least one post in any thread on this topic that makes the inane bolded statement and the related absurdities. Here is my standard answer:

1. The phrase, "separation of Church and State" it is a useful shorthand for the Establishment Clause that SCOTUS has adopted from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. This the Court first explained 130 years ago in Reynolds v United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 US 145, 162-164 (1878) (emphasis added):

Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.

The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In 1784, the House of Delegates of that State having under consideration 'a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion,' postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested 'to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly.'

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a 'Memorial and Remonstrance,' which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated 'that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,' was not within the cognizance of civil government. Semple's Virginia Baptists, Appendix. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, 'for establishing religious freedom,' drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. 1 Jeff. Works, 45; 2 Howison, Hist. of Va. 298. In the preamble of this act (12 Hening's Stat. 84) religious freedom is defined; and after a recital 'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,' it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States.' Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff. Works, 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. 1 Jeff. Works, 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three-New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia-included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

2. 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.'

3. Finally, although the particular phrase from Jefferson's letter of a "wall of separation of Church and State" is commonly cited, the concept and the language of separation of Church and State was commonly used by other Founding Fathers. James Madison (the author of the First Amendment), in particular, repeatedly referred to and advocated a "perfect separation" of Church and State. Here are just a few examples (emphasis added):

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

The forum's TOS must require at least one post in any thread on this topic that makes the inane bolded statement and the related absurdities.

We have to make you guys earn your keep somehow, dont we?

As I understand the establishment clause, saying "under God" in the pledge is not necessarily unconstitutional as it affirms the fact that only about 1% (or in my hometown about less than .03%) deny the existence of some sort of higher power or governing force ruling/creating the cosmos in some fashion. "God" or "Divine Providence" is what we call it. This is not to say the constitution is a christian document, which it is not. We are not necessarily a Christian nation, but we sure are a religious nation. It is just reaffirming a fact. To be called an athiest or cynic is almost an insult in America. It does not establish any one religion, but it recognizes that religion, whether one likes it or not, plays a very important role in American society and that is not about to change anytime soon.

Some additional comments:

1. The Establishment Clause is not a popularity contest. It matters not how many people agree with a state endorsement of religion. It is still forbidden.

2. I doubt your statistics and I doubly doubt that those that believe in "the existence of some sort of higher power or governing force ruling/creating the cosmos in some fashion" agree on what such power or force is or how it should be worshipped -- making your point rather irrelevant.

3. Separation of Church and State is not antithetical to religion. To the contrary, it is designed to make for both better government and religious freedom. The U.S. is a religious nation more because of, rather than despite, the First Amendment.

By the way, Neo Art, I assume you do realize that "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the US constitution. As I understand the establishment clause, saying "under God" in the pledge is not necessarily unconstitutional as it affirms the fact that only about 1% (or in my hometown about less than .03%) deny the existence of some sort of higher power or governing force ruling/creating the cosmos in some fashion. "God" or "Divine Providence" is what we call it. This is not to say the constitution is a christian document, which it is not.
Uh-huh...but WHICH "god"?

We are not necessarily a Christian nation, but we sure are a religious nation. It is just reaffirming a fact. To be called an athiest or cynic is almost an insult in America.
If that is even true, it is not evidence that we are religious nation. It is evidence that we are bigoted nation.

It is perfectly possible to be religious without thinking that atheism is so horrible that "atheist" is an insult. Also "atheist" and "cynic" are not synonyms, nor is it impossible to be cynical and religious at the same time. Using other people's beliefs as an insult is the kind of thing bigots do.

It does not establish any one religion, but it recognizes that religion, whether one likes it or not, plays a very important role in American society and that is not about to change anytime soon.
No, actually, it establishes just what it says it does -- that government will not establish an official religion nor favor one religion over another or religion over irreligion. I.e., it separates government from religion.

By the way, Neo Art, I assume you do realize that "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the US constitution. As I understand the establishment clause,

You do realize that phrase was utted by the two gentlemen that are most responsible for the Constitution? I will let President Madison comment for you:

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).


saying "under God" in the pledge is not necessarily unconstitutional as it affirms the fact that only about 1% (or in my hometown about less than .03%) deny the existence of some sort of higher power or governing force ruling/creating the cosmos in some fashion. "God" or "Divine Providence" is what we call it.


No. It is talking about the Christian God. Especially when it says Under God rather then under god. Ask yourself this. Would you accept if it we changed to Under Allah?

You do know it was never part of the original pledge right?

This is not to say the constitution is a christian document, which it is not. We are not necessarily a Christian nation, but we sure are a religious nation. It is just reaffirming a fact.

The people arguing this are not arguing for the sake of all Religions. Even so. They are wrong. Freedom should be affirming. Freedom to worship or not worship as we see fit.

To be called an athiest or cynic is almost an insult in America.

Only to a Christian.

True Cynics are highly prized as they tend to speak about the hypocracies of religous people.

It does not establish any one religion, but it recognizes that religion, whether one likes it or not, plays a very important role in American society and that is not about to change anytime soon.

No the argument is about Christianity.

I find your (collectively speaking, of course) knowledge of constitutional law enlightening. I will ponder carefully on what has been said here. Yes I am an American, socially conservative/economically socialist in political oreintation, btw, and a devout Christian. I speak like I do because my theological understanding does directly affect my political views. The principles I hold dear, besides a belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent creator of the cosmos, are life, liberty, equality, and reciprocity. I am glad you have been willing to put up with me in this debate as long as you have.

The article clearly stated that after the ban, the coach stood at attention (one assumes quietly, since that's part of "at attention") while the students prayed. Everyone saying it's ridiculous that he isn't allowed to remain quiet while they pray or that it violates student rights needs to read the article. Everyone has a right to follow their own religion--they do NOT have a right, when they represent the state, to promote that religion to others. Students may pray. I have students that pray. I may pray. I may NOT pray in front of my students, at least not in a way that is visible and brings religion into the classroom. Quite simple.

This is something I have never understood. Why do some people, every time a prayer/school issue is raised, conflate state-paid agents of the public school system leading religious practice as a part of a school activity with
individuals practicing their own religions privately and on their own?

So what you're saying is, you don't think it's okay for me to have sex with my lesbian lover on the playground during recess, and you think gay people shouldn't have any rights?? You make me sick, Mur.

By the way, Neo Art, I assume you do realize that "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the US constitution. As I understand the establishment clause, saying "under God" in the pledge is not necessarily unconstitutional as it affirms the fact that only about 1% (or in my hometown about less than .03%) deny the existence of some sort of higher power or governing force ruling/creating the cosmos in some fashion. "God" or "Divine Providence" is what we call it. This is not to say the constitution is a christian document, which it is not. We are not necessarily a Christian nation, but we sure are a religious nation. It is just reaffirming a fact. To be called an athiest or cynic is almost an insult in America. It does not establish any one religion, but it recognizes that religion, whether one likes it or not, plays a very important role in American society and that is not about to change anytime soon.

No, they didn't cover the first amendment in law school, sadly. Good thing he has wikipedia.

As for your "1%" theory--no idea where that came from, and it isn't true. Not only do students have a right to not say the pledge, I, as a public school teacher, have the right to say a secular version of the pledge, removing the tacked-on "under God", which I do. I still dislike saying the pledge, but it is a kindergarten standard. If I really felt uncomfortable, I could have another teacher lead it, or make a tape recording, but I make due with just skipping "under God".

And to the last point: We have freedom not only of, but from religion. We are not a "religious nation", we are a nation "with many religious people". There is a difference. Sex plays a very important role in American society and that is not about to change anytime soon, but most reasonable people would not be okay with replacing the pledge of allegiance with a passage from Delta of Venus.

I'm from a place like that. (My parents raised me differently, obviously.)

From where I live now, where people couldn't care less, I can travel less than fifty miles by train and be back in a place where people think that way. The US can be somewhat provincial in that respect.

Redding? *nod*

I find your (collectively speaking, of course) knowledge of constitutional law enlightening. I will ponder carefully on what has been said here. Yes I am an American, socially conservative/economically socialist in political oreintation, btw, and a devout Christian. I speak like I do because my theological understanding does directly affect my political views. The principles I hold dear, besides a belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent creator of the cosmos, are life, liberty, equality, and reciprocity. I am glad you have been willing to put up with me in this debate as long as you have.

Do you only believe in life, liberty, equality and reciprocity because you believe that we are all products of God's creation? Do you only have moral beliefs because God exists for you and tells you to?

"Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church."
Yeah, this one here.
Done before but bears repeatin' now.

Do you only believe in life, liberty, equality and reciprocity because you believe that we are all products of God's creation? Do you only have moral beliefs because God exists for you and tells you to?

I do not appreciate the qualifier "only", but pretty much yes and yes. I could explain further, but its late and I cannot think straight. Btw, this will be my last post on this topic as I can tell I've probably irritated too many people with my comments. If someone wants me to join in a discussion of what our ethics are based upon, I would be more than happy to discuss them there.

I do not appreciate the qualifier "only", but pretty much yes and yes. I could explain further, but its late and I cannot think straight.

I'm not sure how else you wanted me to say it. I wanted to know if God was the sole source of your beliefs. I meant it as "solely", not "merely".

I like solely better, and that is most certainly true, my political beliefs and religious faith are so intertwined that they are near inseparable. Why do you ask?

I like solely better, and that is most certainly true, my political beliefs and religious faith are so intertwined that they are near inseparable. Why do you ask?

Simply because it's easier to understand why people have trouble untangling the law from personal faith when you know that they believe that God is the only reason that things such as liberty and equality do/should exist. I believe that liberty and equality should exist for other reasons, both practical and moral, but not religious, so I don't see God as a necessary or desirable part of government.

I respect other people's right to practice their religion around me and tell me about it, and I expect to be shown the same respect. As long as they do not try to convert me, I will not tell them they are totally wrong in their belief (or at least try in the case of the first part) and try to convert them. However, if they try to tell me I am wrong... Live and let live is my philosophy on such things.

For me morality is religious belief, plain and simple.

Simply because it's easier to understand why people have trouble untangling the law from personal faith when you know that they believe that God is the only reason that things such as liberty and equality do/should exist. I believe that liberty and equality should exist for other reasons, both practical and moral, but not religious, so I don't see God as a necessary or desirable part of government.

Oddly enough, neither did God.

I respect other people's right to practice their religion around me and tell me about it, and I expect to be shown the same respect. As long as they do not try to convert me, I will not tell them they are totally wrong in their belief (or at least try in the case of the first part) and try to convert them. However, if they try to tell me I am wrong... Live and let live is my philosophy on such things.

For me morality is religious belief, plain and simple.
But then, how do you reconcile the idea that non-religious people are allowed to live without having religion imposed on their lives, with the idea that morality comes from religion?

Do you think that secular-minded people should still have to conform to a religious rule in order to be citizens in a moral society?

Are you of the opinion that a secular society is inherently immoral, regardless of HOW its citizens actually live?

Do you separate morality from law at all? If you do, that might mean that you think secular people are immoral, but since they obey the law, it doesn't matter. In that case, then you would be supporting separation of church and state, on the grounds that morality (which comes from religion) is not necessary to a stable, safe and good society as long as it has law (which can be secular and accessible to secular-minded people).