School Prayer...

[Timshel]

BLAH BLAH BLAH. I stated that a 'non-denominational' prayer, led by a school official who volunteered to do it, not as a part of the regular classroom itinerary, with students who voluntarily participate, shouldn't be unconstitutional and should be protected under the 1st Amendment.

See? I am not DEMANDING this, I am not saying this SHALL be the law! I am stating MY position on the matter, and I have given my explanation for why I hold this position. I have backed my position with the Constitution, and rights spelled out in black and white.

No, you have not. Requiring that the prayer be non denominational is clearly a prohibition on the free exercise of religion.

Yes, dixie has argued that, like every freedom, there are restrictions and lines we can't cross.

You have failed to give any clear indication of what those restrictions should be or why your restrictions are Constitutionally acceptable.

Now, I can easily find where people have the right to the religious expression of prayer, but I am having a hard time finding where people have the right to not hear someone else praying.

And you whine about your argument being mis-characterized. No one has argued any such thing. No one is arguing a teacher cannot pray. We are discussing whether they may lead others in prayer. The concern has nothing at all to do with anyone being free from hearing the prayer.

 

[Timshel]

The building doesn't have Constitutional rights. You wouldn't think I would have to point this out, but apparently that is where you seem to be stuck. We can deny Constitutional rights if they infringe on more important Constitutional rights of other people, not buildings. The reason I mentioned "non-denominational" prayer, is because a denominational prayer might infringe on the religious beliefs of someone voluntarily participating, therefore, infringing on their Constitutional rights to freedom of religion. That would be the only Constitutional issue regarding voluntary extracurricular prayer.

What? So, if someone gives a prayer I don't agree with at Thanksgiving I have had my Constitutional rights violated? That's ridiculous. And you accuse me of arguing for some right to be free from the sounds of prayer?

 

[Timshel]

Again...READ WHAT IS WRITTEN....

a denominational prayer might infringe on the religious beliefs

Not Constitutional rights....

He said...

The reason I mentioned "non-denominational" prayer, is because a denominational prayer might infringe on the religious beliefs of someone voluntarily participating, therefore, infringing on their Constitutional rights to freedom of religion.

 

[Timshel]

Teachers and Administrators have clear guidelines....

they are not to participate, lead, author, or even express religious views while acting in their capacity as Teachers or Administrators...

otherwise, they enjoy the same right of free speech as you do, even on school property or in a government building.......

If thats not the way it is, its the way it should be

I didn't see any posts that conflicted with this, but then I certainly could have missed something....


ps...the same should hold true about political views also....but it obviously doesn't, the liberal indoctrination of school kids goes on...

Dixie has argued that teachers and administrators have a right to lead prayers among the students.

 

[Timshel]

Really ? Show me where, exactly, does the First Amendment specifies age as a factor in getting free speech....?
What age does one need to achieve before acquiring free speech ?
How about this crap about government buildings....is that in the First Amendment too...?
And what "laws" is Congress making by all this, you know the part about "Congress shall make no law"....

I so nice to have a learned lawyer school us on the Constitution...

Common law has long held that children have a limited capacity to consent. That throws the "voluntary" nature of any prayer into question. That's no true with Congress.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, you have not. Requiring that the prayer be non denominational is clearly a prohibition on the free exercise of religion.

First of all, I have not made any requirement of prayer, much less whether it should be denominational or not. I did mention 'non-denominational' in my argument, because I can see where an argument against a specific denominational prayer might infringe upon the individual religious rights of a voluntary participant in the prayer, who is not of the specific denomination.

You have failed to give any clear indication of what those restrictions should be or why your restrictions are Constitutionally acceptable.

No, I have been very clear in what I believe those restrictions can be. If exercising your Constitutional freedoms impedes or denies another citizen their Constitutional freedoms, a determination has to be made as to which is the most pertinent and fundamental. This is why we do not have the "Free Speech" right to yell "fire" in a theater, our freedom of speech right doesn't trump the right of the individuals in the theater to be protected from harm. When your rights interfere with the rights of others, it can be restricted or regulated as to not interfere, that is basically how I see it, and how I think the Justice system sees it in general.

And you whine about your argument being mis-characterized. No one has argued any such thing. No one is arguing a teacher cannot pray. We are discussing whether they may lead others in prayer. The concern has nothing at all to do with anyone being free from hearing the prayer.

I really do think that Jarhead IS arguing that teachers can not pray! That, by accepting the job as a teacher, they are hereby denied their Constitutional right to express their religious beliefs, because they represent the school. That a prayer can't be uttered in a government building because (I guess) it violates the government building's right to separation of church and state? I'm really not clear on WHY he thinks these things, or you either, for that matter... you won't clarify it.

Show me something in the Constitution which prohibits a voluntarily initiated and participated in prayer, in a (STATE) school building! I don't think it's there... I've looked! There is no right to not hear prayers, there is no right to not be exposed to people praying! Sorry! Wish I could help you guys out there, but that right simply isn't found in my copy of the Constitution!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Common law has long held that children have a limited capacity to consent. That throws the "voluntary" nature of any prayer into question. That's no true with Congress.

And virtually anything (except handing out condoms and arranging abortions), requires the school to obtain authorization from the parent for any voluntary event on the campus. Therefore, a legal guardian has consented to the volunteering in writing and on file at the office. That sufficiently answers the "voluntary" nature.

 

[Jarod]

Stop being ignorant. IF the prayer were Catholic, you don't see how that might infringe on the religious beliefs of a Baptist? This is why I said "non-denominational" because a "denominational" prayer may infringe on religious beliefs not of that denomination. I wasn't trying to establish any huge point with that, just recognizing the Constitutional rights of others, and trying to take that into consideration with my viewpoint. If the group happened to be the Student Baptist Leadership Council, perhaps a "non-denominational" prayer is not needed?

Congress begins each session with a non-denominational prayer... it's not denominational because that would show favoritism toward one specific denomination.... I can't believe I am actually having to explain this to an adult!

Not if the prayer were voluntary...
What if your belifes are athist.... Would not then any prayer be infringing on your belifes...?

 

[Timshel]

First of all, I have not made any requirement of prayer, much less whether it should be denominational or not. I did mention 'non-denominational' in my argument, because I can see where an argument against a specific denominational prayer might infringe upon the individual religious rights of a voluntary participant in the prayer, who is not of the specific denomination.

Okay, then they can say anything they like in their prayer like "death to the infidels" etc..

No ones rights are violated by hearing a prayer they don't like. That's ridiculous.

No, I have been very clear in what I believe those restrictions can be.

Clear as mud.

If exercising your Constitutional freedoms impedes or denies another citizen their Constitutional freedoms, a determination has to be made as to which is the most pertinent and fundamental.

This is nothing but vague nonsense.

This is why we do not have the "Free Speech" right to yell "fire" in a theater, our freedom of speech right doesn't trump the right of the individuals in the theater to be protected from harm. When your rights interfere with the rights of others, it can be restricted or regulated as to not interfere, that is basically how I see it, and how I think the Justice system sees it in general.

The standard is that the speech is directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action. The court did not just mention some vague crap about it interfering with the rights of others. Sure, that is the basis for the standard but the standard is clear. You don't offer a clear standard just vague nonsense.

I really do think that Jarhead IS arguing that teachers can not pray! That, by accepting the job as a teacher, they are hereby denied their Constitutional right to express their religious beliefs, because they represent the school. That a prayer can't be uttered in a government building because (I guess) it violates the government building's right to separation of church and state? I'm really not clear on WHY he thinks these things, or you either, for that matter... you won't clarify it.

I gave my argument. It is that of the courts and if you are so ignorant of that then I do not know why you are bothering to attack it.

There is a very real danger that students will feel compelled to participate in the voluntary prayer. Further, there is a real danger that the students will be compelled. To protect the students from this threat to their first amendment rights teachers/administrators are not permitted to lead them in prayer in activities related to school.

 

[Timshel]

And virtually anything (except handing out condoms and arranging abortions), requires the school to obtain authorization from the parent for any voluntary event on the campus. Therefore, a legal guardian has consented to the volunteering in writing and on file at the office. That sufficiently answers the "voluntary" nature.

We are not talking about going on a field trip. We are talking about a fundamental and cherished right.

Besides, your suggestion would create a burden for the school (maintaining records on the religious views of students/parents) that is not related to the purpose of the school. Also, it tends to violate the rights to privacy of students/parents. I certainly do not wish to share my religious views with school personnel.

This creates a bunch of hassle and pitfalls for something that is not necessary to school or the free exercise of religion.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Not if the prayer were voluntary...
What if your belifes are athist.... Would not then any prayer be infringing on your belifes...?

If you were Atheist, you wouldn't likely be participating in a voluntary prayer. I can't think of a possible scenario where an Atheist would volunteer to participate in any prayer, regardless of denomination, can you?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Okay, then they can say anything they like in their prayer like "death to the infidels" etc..

No ones rights are violated by hearing a prayer they don't like. That's ridiculous.

I never said someones rights were violated. I only mentioned non-denominational as a matter of decorum. It would be considered inconsiderate to say a Baptist prayer to a group of Catholics, it would be inappropriate to say a Muslim prayer in a group of Christians. A non-denominational or 'generic' prayer, doesn't delineate a religious belief in particular, and is universal among most recognized religions. Those participating in a voluntary 'group' prayer, would not be offended by context of a prayer not related to their specific denomination.

I agree with you, we do not have the right to not hear a prayer we don't like. That is why I continue to have trouble understanding the basis for your argument.

The standard is that the speech is directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action. The court did not just mention some vague crap about it interfering with the rights of others. Sure, that is the basis for the standard but the standard is clear. You don't offer a clear standard just vague nonsense.

There is nothing vague in what I said, it may be a bit oversimplified, but that is because of the audience. I have to simplify things or Jarhead can not understand them. Yes, most of the time, the court determines which "right" is more fundamental, more legitimately claimed, more foundational to our inalienable rights as citizens. Whenever two rights conflict, that is generally the criteria used to settle it, and if you want to say they put it some other way, that's fine, the point is, the courts determine which right applies all the time. But in this particular argument, you still haven't established what right is being violated and by whom? Voluntary means the participants and initiators weren't coerced or forced to do something, they are merely expressing their freedom of religion. So how does that act violate the right of someone else?

I gave my argument. It is that of the courts and if you are so ignorant of that then I do not know why you are bothering to attack it.

Well, if you have indeed presented your argument, it is without basis. You have not given any basis for what you believe, and it is simply your opinion of how the Constitution should be interpreted.

There is a very real danger that students will feel compelled to participate in the voluntary prayer. Further, there is a real danger that the students will be compelled.

Oh really? There is a real danger students might want to exercise their freedom of religion? Yes, we must prevent this at all costs! We wouldn't want to compel them to do any sort of thing like that!

To protect the students from this threat to their first amendment rights teachers/administrators are not permitted to lead them in prayer in activities related to school.

AGAIN.... Why do you keep presuming we are talking about activities related to school, when NO ONE has made that argument here? You keep saying you are talking about voluntary prayer, but if it is related to school and being led by a teacher, it isn't voluntary anymore, it is part of the curriculum. The line has been crossed then! I stand with you in denouncing any such a thing! Are you getting any of this through your thick obtuse skull?

 

[Minister of Truth]

I took Ed Law last summer and discovered that recent WA Supreme Court ruling allows teachers to lead prayer in a Bible Study Club, but that is merely a club activity, of course.

Also, apparently Bible Studies Clubs in general had been banned in the state, and it took a Court ruling in like 2002 to bring them back. I actually remember one starting up all of the sudden in high school. The members would sometimes set up booths before school and hand out fortune cookies with Bible verses in them.

 

[Timshel]

I never said someones rights were violated. I only mentioned non-denominational as a matter of decorum.

Yes, you did.

The reason I mentioned "non-denominational" prayer, is because a denominational prayer might infringe on the religious beliefs of someone voluntarily participating, therefore, infringing on their Constitutional rights to freedom of religion.

I agree with you, we do not have the right to not hear a prayer we don't like. That is why I continue to have trouble understanding the basis for your argument.

I have explained the basis for my argument numerous times now.

There is nothing vague in what I said, it may be a bit oversimplified, but that is because of the audience. I have to simplify things or Jarhead can not understand them. Yes, most of the time, the court determines which "right" is more fundamental, more legitimately claimed, more foundational to our inalienable rights as citizens. Whenever two rights conflict, that is generally the criteria used to settle it, and if you want to say they put it some other way, that's fine, the point is, the courts determine which right applies all the time. But in this particular argument, you still haven't established what right is being violated and by whom? Voluntary means the participants and initiators weren't coerced or forced to do something, they are merely expressing their freedom of religion. So how does that act violate the right of someone else?

No, the court does not decide between competing individual rights. The court typically decides based on whether the state has a legitimate interests in limiting some act and whether the state's actions violate individual rights.

Oh really? There is a real danger students might want to exercise their freedom of religion? Yes, we must prevent this at all costs! We wouldn't want to compel them to do any sort of thing like that!

No, we do not want to compel them to engage in prayer??? Are you confused over what this means?

AGAIN.... Why do you keep presuming we are talking about activities related to school, when NO ONE has made that argument here? You keep saying you are talking about voluntary prayer, but if it is related to school and being led by a teacher, it isn't voluntary anymore, it is part of the curriculum. The line has been crossed then! I stand with you in denouncing any such a thing! Are you getting any of this through your thick obtuse skull?

The body of law we are discussing is all related to school activities. There has been no limit placed on what teachers can do in their personal lives. We are talking about activities related to school. Further, you argued that teachers may lead prayer in school whenever they liked.

WinterBorn asked...

When would the voluntary, school employee led prayer take place?

You answered...

Whenever the volunteer principals involved felt compelled. That is the beauty of it not being 'established and mandatory', it can be done at any time.

If you changed your mind, fine. There is no point in lying about what you have argued or what we have been discussing.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes, you did.

No I didn't, and someone besides me even pointed out how you are taking something I said out of context. I apologize if you took what I said to mean that, it wasn't the intention.

I have explained the basis for my argument numerous times now.

Well, not really you haven't, because so far, the basis for your argument against voluntary prayer in schools, is based only on the fact that you would have to view people praying or hear them, and nothing more. You've not shown where such an act violates or infringes on the Constitutional rights of anyone else. I am still waiting!

No, the court does not decide between competing individual rights. The court typically decides based on whether the state has a legitimate interests in limiting some act and whether the state's actions violate individual rights.

Sometimes they do decide based on this, when the case calls for it. I haven't said otherwise, but you must be smart enough to understand, the court doesn't always have the same case, and often uses a wide range of determining factors, depending on the specific case. This technique spawned the phrase, "on a case by case basis." In some instances there are two parties, one claims the other has violated some Constitutional right, to which they claim to have the Constitutional right to do. The court is charged with determining which right is most important, which right carries more weight... Like, you have the right to free speech, but someone else has the right to life, so your right to speech can't usurp their right to life, it is of more fundamental importance than another person's right to speak freely.

I don't know why this is being debated really, because so far, you've not established who's rights are being violated in this particular scenario.

No, we do not want to compel them to engage in prayer??? Are you confused over what this means?

No, I know what it means, I am trying to find something in the Constitution that says we are prohibited from compelling people to engage in prayer. I understand we can't force people to pray, and we can't mandate they pray, but to "compel" someone, is quite different. It's like encouraging or suggesting, not demanding or mandating.

If you intended to use "compel" in the more forceful sense, how does it apply to VOLUNTARY prayer? To be clear, I am not talking about voluntary prayer that is forced or mandated, just so we have that understood.

The body of law we are discussing is all related to school activities. There has been no limit placed on what teachers can do in their personal lives. We are talking about activities related to school. Further, you argued that teachers may lead prayer in school whenever they liked.

WinterBorn asked...

You answered...

If you changed your mind, fine. There is no point in lying about what you have argued or what we have been discussing.

Well, I think you are having trouble with the context again. WB asked WHEN would this voluntary prayer take place? I felt as if that were a trick question, because a VOLUNTARY prayer wouldn't necessitate a scheduled time. My answer reflected my suspicions about the question itself.

I can count up how many dozens of times I have posted "extracurricular" in my arguments, and how many times I have stipulated such a prayer wouldn't be part of the regular school itinerary, I think I have included that disclaimer in every single sentence where I've advocated my position, and I can go back and tally those up for you, if you are having trouble understanding context again.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let me take this opportunity to clarify MY viewpoint again... what Dixie believes should be the case, according to the Constitution, and also, what Dixie believes shouldn't be the case:

Dixie believes:

1.) An employee of the government, not acting in their official job capacity, should be able to lead a voluntary non-denominational prayer in a government building or anywhere they so desire.

2.) Such prayer should be restricted to extracurricular activities and not a scheduled event of the regular school day. And it should never be a mandatory requirement.

3.) Such a prayer would not be written or prepared by the school, or any particular religious denomination. Its initiation would be voluntary as well as participation, in all instances.

Dixie doesn't believe:

1.) We should have the Southern Baptist come into school everyday and lead the class in prayer and Bible Study.

2.) We should have Teacher/Preachers who pontificate about their particular religious beliefs to the students.

3.) We should force Atheist heathen children to pray to God for forgiveness before they die and burn for eternity in hell.

4.) We should force Muslim children to pray in particular, to OUR God, because we don't believe in theirs!

5.) We should allow religious organizations to infiltrate our schools and recruit followers.
by brainwashing the kids through mandatory school prayers.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I post this because I know many lazy people won't bother to read the whole thread, they will see where Stringy and Jarhead are making these claims and forming these arguments against things I have never said, and I just wanted to set the record straight.

 

[Timshel]

Let me take this opportunity to clarify MY viewpoint again... what Dixie believes should be the case, according to the Constitution, and also, what Dixie believes shouldn't be the case:

Dixie believes:

1.) An employee of the government, not acting in their official job capacity, should be able to lead a voluntary non-denominational prayer in a government building or anywhere they so desire.

2.) Such prayer should be restricted to extracurricular activities and not a scheduled event of the regular school day. And it should never be a mandatory requirement.

3.) Such a prayer would not be written or prepared by the school, or any particular religious denomination. Its initiation would be voluntary as well as participation, in all instances.

Dixie doesn't believe:

1.) We should have the Southern Baptist come into school everyday and lead the class in prayer and Bible Study.

2.) We should have Teacher/Preachers who pontificate about their particular religious beliefs to the students.

3.) We should force Atheist heathen children to pray to God for forgiveness before they die and burn for eternity in hell.

4.) We should force Muslim children to pray in particular, to OUR God, because we don't believe in theirs!

5.) We should allow religious organizations to infiltrate our schools and recruit followers.
by brainwashing the kids through mandatory school prayers.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I post this because I know many lazy people won't bother to read the whole thread, they will see where Stringy and Jarhead are making these claims and forming these arguments against things I have never said, and I just wanted to set the record straight.

So now the non-denominational is back? Are you sure? Why don't you sleep on it.

Thanks for trying, but I don't think you can convey a clear position until you have formed one.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So now the non-denominational is back? Are you sure? Why don't you sleep on it.

Thanks for trying, but I don't think you can convey a clear position until you have formed one.

I have formed one, and 'non-denominational' never went anywhere, you were just confused on contextual basis again. You are somehow assuming I intend this as some regulated thing, as if we are going to have someone determine if the prayer spontaneously said, was of a Baptist nature or a Catholic nature! It is something so outrageously absurd, that you wouldn't think I would have to defend my comments from someone believing that is what you intended to mean, but here we are! How do you manage to get yourself so lost Stringy?

Let me clarify for you... If someone voluntarily participates in a prayer, and the person praying begins by saying... "Oh Sacred Mother Mary, we come to thee..." and the someone voluntarily participating is not Catholic... I don't propose we have an armed security officer there to insist they continue bowing their head and praying voluntarily. I just keep feeling like I need to clarify my position with you, because you don't seem to really get it. The reasoning for my mentioning "non-denominational" is out of respect for the various denominations of others who may want to participate in the VOLUNTARY prayer. Is there something you are still unclear on?

 

[Taichiliberal]

So now the non-denominational is back? Are you sure? Why don't you sleep on it.

Thanks for trying, but I don't think you can convey a clear position until you have formed one.

 

[Jarod]

So, Im confused, in Dixieland.... is it okay for the principal of Birmingham Middle School to stand up at the basketball game and lead the players in a rousting but volentary chant of "Allah Ackbar!" "Allah Ackbar!"?