School Prayer...

[Taichiliberal]

Ironic that Jarod starts this thread with bullshit and no one corrects him....and how the lefties conveniently forget about their own trying essentially do the very same thing numerous times...the amendment was to allow voluntary prayer, not school led or school mandated or school authored...
Just FYI:

Sen. Byrd introduces amendment allowing school prayer

By The Associated Press

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16832

Editor's note: Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W. Va., introduced in the House on May 4 an amendment identical to Byrd's, the Associated Press reported.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd introduced a proposed constitutional amendment on April 27 to allow — but not require — prayer in public schools and extracurricular events.

Byrd said the First Amendment was never intended to bar voluntary expressions of religion. The relevant part of the amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

"In my opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of these clauses. Instead, they have focused only on the first clause, which prohibits the establishment of religion, at the expense of the second clause, which protects the right of Americans to worship as they please," Byrd said in a speech to the Senate.

"It seems to me that any prohibition of voluntary prayer in school violates the right of our school children to practice freely their religion. And that's just not right," Byrd said.

Byrd, D-W.Va., offered similar proposals in 1962, 1973, 1979, 1982, 1993, 1995 and 1997.

Well, Jarod was wrong to single out Reagan.....but as the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right. This should clear things up for you:

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/livenow?id=7115498


Since 1962, the Supreme Court's rejection of school prayer has rested upon its interpretation of the First Amendment. That interpretation has hardly varied, even in the face of public outrage, political opposition, and scholarly criticism. The court's decisions have remained largely consistent across several cases for four decades.

As one of the constitution's most powerful and sweeping guarantees of freedom, the First Amendment is generally thought to contain two contrasting principles with respect to religion. These are announced in the opening words of the amendment, which contains two clauses: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In constitutional law, the first clause is referred to as the Establishment Clause, and the second as the Free Exercise Clause.

In school prayer cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly given the Establishment Clause precedence. From the earliest case, Engel v. Vitale, the Court has held that public school prayer is "wholly inconsistent" with the Establishment Clause. The majority opinion went out of its way to stress that the Court did not oppose religion itself. Instead, the opinion stated that "each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance."

 

[NOVA]

Other than commercials and weather reports what...?

We know all about the SC decisions....whats your point?

 

[NOVA]

Jarod was going on about mandatory prayer and school led prayer....

It was to be voluntary and in the end, only a moment of silence and nothing even aloud...

 

[Taichiliberal]

No one claimed that it was spelled out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that a generic Roman Catholic prayer is mandatory in the home room of all educational institutions before classes begin.

Unless I missed that post...you're the only one that came up with that nonsense....
\\\not in the opening post or any thereafter

Read post #62, it contains the link to the opening post. Last time I checked, Roman Catholics were also considered "christians".

You seem to have a serious grudge against me....and it's clouding your cognative reasoning skills. Get a grip man. Discuss the issue at hand, if you can!

 

[NOVA]

Read post #62, it contains the link to the opening post. Last time I checked, Roman Catholics were also considered "christians".

You seem to have a serious grudge against me....and it's clouding your cognative reasoning skills. Get a grip man. Discuss the issue at hand, if you can!

And so are numerous others sects...dozens in fact....No one picked Catholics or in particular "Roman" Catholics .....only you....

well...whatever, You're never wrong on any level, right...

------------Byrd's proposed amendment reads, "Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendment to this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer in a public school, or to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer at a public school extracurricular activity."

Byrd said the amendment would not permit a school to advocate a particular religious message.

Forget about the SC's ruling for a minute....

Is Byrd wrong ?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's not the issue at hand....the issue at hand is an orchestrated prayer session mandated by either the teacher and/or condoned by the principal in a public school system for a particular class or entire student body. Here's an excellent site review that explains in detail the situation:

I don't need to read an ABC News story to know the "situation", I understand it completely.

Seems you Libtards have this unexplainable block in your brain that is prohibiting you from comprehending the difference between "mandatory" and "voluntary." You all continue to formulate an argument against mandatory established and required school prayer, and I don't recall that being proposed by Reagan or anyone in recent memory. Voluntary school prayer is quite a different matter, and the thing that makes it different is the fact that it is not mandatory. I know that must be really hard for you to grasp, but it's like the total opposite.

 

[Taichiliberal]

And so are numerous others sects...dozens in fact....No one picked Catholics or in particular "Roman" Catholics .....only you....

well...whatever, You're never wrong on any level, right...

------------Byrd's proposed amendment reads, "Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendment to this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer in a public school, or to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer at a public school extracurricular activity."

Byrd said the amendment would not permit a school to advocate a particular religious message.

Forget about the SC's ruling for a minute....

Is Byrd wrong ?

You seem to have a serious issue with long established definitions. Roman Catholics ARE christians. If you feel otherwise and can prove it, then hop a red eye to the Vatican and demand an audience with the Pope!

Jarod said chrisitians, I mentioned one aspect of Christianity. Post #22 mentions fundamentalist christians. In case you've been asleep for the last 20 some odd years, it's been the various christian folks that have been leading the charge on this issue.

And obviously your reading comprehension is pretty basic....I already said that BOTH Reagan and Byrd were wrong! (hence the phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right).

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/livenow?id=7115498

In school prayer cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly given the Establishment Clause precedence. From the earliest case, Engel v. Vitale, the Court has held that public school prayer is "wholly inconsistent" with the Establishment Clause. The majority opinion went out of its way to stress that the Court did not oppose religion itself. Instead, the opinion stated that "each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance."

 

[NOVA]

You seem to have a serious issue with long established definitions. Roman Catholics ARE christians. If you feel otherwise and can prove it, then hop a red eye to the Vatican and demand an audience with the Pope!

Jarod said chrisitians, I mentioned one aspect of Christianity. Post #22 mentions fundamentalist christians. In case you've been asleep for the last 20 some odd years, it's been the various christian folks that have been leading the charge on this issue.
And I certainly don't think they would be happy with Catholic prayers would they? Christian or not...


Well, I won't beat this dead horse...the readers can judge for themselves


And obviously your reading comprehension is pretty basic....I already said that BOTH Reagan and Byrd were wrong! (hence the phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right).

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/livenow?id=7115498

In school prayer cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly given the Establishment Clause precedence. From the earliest case, Engel v. Vitale, the Court has held that public school prayer is "wholly inconsistent" with the Establishment Clause. The majority opinion went out of its way to stress that the Court did not oppose religion itself. Instead, the opinion stated that "each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance."

Byrd said...

"Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendment to this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary prayer

So what particular words or amendments prohibit voluntary prayer....???

(Of course, not by the school or school officials, as they represent the govenment)

 

[Taichiliberal]

I don't need to read an ABC News story to know the "situation", I understand it completely.

Seems you Libtards have this unexplainable block in your brain that is prohibiting you from comprehending the difference between "mandatory" and "voluntary." You all continue to formulate an argument against mandatory established and required school prayer, and I don't recall that being proposed by Reagan or anyone in recent memory. Voluntary school prayer is quite a different matter, and the thing that makes it different is the fact that it is not mandatory. I know that must be really hard for you to grasp, but it's like the total opposite.

The original post was NOT specifiying voluntary school prayer, (which does NOT require entire student body or class participation, and is not done in a prostelyzing way)

http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/vol11_no4/art2p1.html

so your point about that is moot, you braying jackass. However, the "moment of silence" stuff has just taken a hit

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/01/federal-judge-rules-illinois-school.php

 

[Taichiliberal]

Byrd said...

"Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendment to this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary prayer

So what particular words or amendments prohibit voluntary prayer....???

(Of course, not by the school or school officials, as they represent the govenment)

The original post was NOT specifiying voluntary school prayer, (which does NOT require entire student body or class participation, and is not done in a prostelyzing way)

http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/vol11_no4/art2p1.html

so Byrd's point about that is moot, you braying jackass. However, the "moment of silence" stuff has just taken a hit

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...ois-school.php

 

[NOVA]

Dixie is gone...and we KNOW what the rulings are....we don't need the links...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

How do those words evolve into "a moment of silence being unconstitutional???

 

[NOVA]

Byrd said...

"Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendment to this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary prayer


YOU CLAIM HES WRONG...SO EXPLAIN IT TO ME>>>>

So what particular words or amendments prohibit voluntary prayer....???

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[NOVA]

Ran away huh......probably a case of "brain lock"................

or fear of being pwned again....

.

 

[Taichiliberal]

.

From your link: U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd introduced a proposed constitutional amendment on April 27 to allow — but not require — prayer in public schools and extracurricular events.[/I]

As I pointed out in the last response this is a moot point, as voluntary prayer already exists and was acknowledge as a seperate issue from mandatory school prayer.

[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=593621&postcount=90"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - School Prayer...[/ame]

What Byrd was trying to do in a back handed way is to institute a prostelyzing situation. If certain parties can't function without praying before an school event or classes, then can go to a specific location on the school property to gather and pray...you know, like the venue a church or chapel does. Byrd failed on this issue. As did Reagan.

See, if you'd stop being Dixie's lapdog and stop trying to "get" me, you'd read the information I present, READ the chronology of the thread, COMPREHEND WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON, and then stop wasting time by making a damned fool out of yourself.

Now, whether you like it or not, I'm going to do other stuff....but I'm sure your insipid stubborness and childish need to have the last word will produce a predictable post. Carry on.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie is gone...and we KNOW what the rulings are....we don't need the links...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

How do those words evolve into "a moment of silence being unconstitutional???

Typical of this clown, he's railing about something totally unrelated to the thread topic. Acting like it somehow pertains or has relevance!

Pinhead #1 poses an absurd question...
It is proven his question is absurd...
He continues by insisting that Reagan proposed his absurdity...
It is proven he doesn't know what he's talking about...
He argues that MANDATORY means VOLUNTARY!
It is proven beyond any doubt, he has no clue of what he's talking about...

Pinhead #2 enters and tries to save Pinhead #1...
He argues that MANDATORY means VOLUNTARY!
Is called for the second time in the debate on the stark difference...
Argues that the thread topic is regarding MANDATORY prayer!
An absurd and ridiculous argument that no one has made!

Then he wants to jump over and change subjects!
...QUICK, before we realize how "clever" he has been here!

 

[Jarod]

Ironic that Jarod starts this thread with bullshit and no one corrects him....and how the lefties conveniently forget about their own trying essentially do the very same thing numerous times...the amendment was to allow voluntary prayer, not school led or school mandated or school authored...
Just FYI:

Sen. Byrd introduces amendment allowing school prayer

By The Associated Press

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16832

Editor's note: Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W. Va., introduced in the House on May 4 an amendment identical to Byrd's, the Associated Press reported.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd introduced a proposed constitutional amendment on April 27 to allow — but not require — prayer in public schools and extracurricular events.

Byrd said the First Amendment was never intended to bar voluntary expressions of religion. The relevant part of the amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

"In my opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of these clauses. Instead, they have focused only on the first clause, which prohibits the establishment of religion, at the expense of the second clause, which protects the right of Americans to worship as they please," Byrd said in a speech to the Senate.

"It seems to me that any prohibition of voluntary prayer in school violates the right of our school children to practice freely their religion. And that's just not right," Byrd said.

Byrd, D-W.Va., offered similar proposals in 1962, 1973, 1979, 1982, 1993, 1995 and 1997.

Byrd's amendment was different than the one Reagan proposed. Byrds allowed volentary school prayer, just so it was not led by school employees. Reagans Amendment allowed prayer to be led by school employees as a part of the scheduled day!

 

[Jarod]

Dixie is gone...and we KNOW what the rulings are....we don't need the links...




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

How do those words evolve into "a moment of silence being unconstitutional???

They did not, that is merely a Con lie!

 

[Jarod]

We get into fine little points here but Ill address what is constitutional and what is not...

If a group of students get together and form a club that prays before or after the school day.... COOL and perfectly constitutional.

If a teacher gets a group of kids together during school and encourages them to pray at assembly or during morning break... UNCOOL and not constitutional.

The basic test is... "Is the Government promoting religen?"

1. If a school employee encourages prayer he is promoting religen.
2. If prayer is encouraged by a school during a moment of silence religen is being promoted.
3. If a time is set aside during the school day for volentary public prayer.. close to the line, but to me its encouraging it again!
4. If recess is allowed where some kids, on there own, or encouraged by a non-school employee decide to pray... COOL and constututional.

Does anyone disagree, or are we playing semantics and we all agree....?

 

[leaningright]

They did not, that is merely a Con lie!

Do you deny that there are those who oppose this? Do you deny that there are those who have brought into question publicly the constitutionality of students granted the opportunity to "observe a moment of silence?" Think about it carefully for a minute.



To go a little further on the subject of this thread, I am already on record that I am not in favor of public prayer except at church or in my home. But I will tell you this...there are still several schools in my county who have a public, "Christian" prayer before sporting events, at graduations and such. All of the schools in the area have a "gather at the pole" day where a prayer is said. All of them still have a Baccalaureate service (conducted by some sort of "Christian" preacher) at the end of the year...attendance voluntary of course but still on school property. My point is that there are still sections of the country who would fight you tooth and nail if you tried to take those things away from them in the name of "separation" of church and state. Right or wrong, that's the way a lot of folks feel. Social conservatism may be waning in a lot of areas and softening in a lot of ways, but like it or not, it is still strong within a pretty good size segment of our society...so much so that many don't care what the SC rules.

 

[Canceled2]

We get into fine little points here but Ill address what is constitutional and what is not...

If a group of students get together and form a club that prays before or after the school day.... COOL and perfectly constitutional.

If a teacher gets a group of kids together during school and encourages them to pray at assembly or during morning break... UNCOOL and not constitutional.

The basic test is... "Is the Government promoting religen?"

1. If a school employee encourages prayer he is promoting religen.
2. If prayer is encouraged by a school during a moment of silence religen is being promoted.
3. If a time is set aside during the school day for volentary public prayer.. close to the line, but to me its encouraging it again!
4. If recess is allowed where some kids, on there own, or encouraged by a non-school employee decide to pray... COOL and constututional.

Does anyone disagree, or are we playing semantics and we all agree....?

You have the test wrong. The modern test is: if the government promotes a specific religion, or one religion over another in schools. I say modern because that was not what used to be meant. It was a given that schools used to have prayer every day before classes began. Used to teach the bible etc. Obviously the Constitution was not challenged until the last century.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with (Un Constitutional) a moment of silence that allows for those so inclined to pray to the God, higher power, fairy godmother of their choosing.