Poll: School District about to Get Sued

[Extraintrovert]

Erm...that's a fairly basic morality lesson. It's the entire premise of the "Who you are in the dark" thing. Public displays can be very different than how we conduct ourselves in private, but the passage was stating that what we do in private is far more important than what we do in public. It's not saying that prayer outside of our own homes is bad, but it's saying that it's pointless if we're only doing it to put on a show for our peers.

Yeah, I realise that now. Maybe next time I'll actually bother to read something before getting on my high horse again. Unlikely, considering any lessons I learn I forget in the next day or so. Anyway, thanks for telling me.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Yeah, it's 'against establishment of religion by law'.

No one is making a law saying you have to pray. Did you read the article??

Did you? Really? Because the law is pretty simple.

Legal precedent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v._Weisman

To quote Justice Kennedy:

There are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools [...] What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy

What the school tried to do was illegal. The student asked that they conform to the law and when they backed down, they defamed him in the local paper, which lead to ostracism from his family.

The law is on his side.

I missed the part in this instance where a Rabbi was giving the graduation invocation and handing out pamphlets on composing prayers for civic occasions. /sarcasm

Regardless, having the law on your side doesn't make him less an ass. Just like the shit head who broke into someones house, injured himself, and won money from the owners. Or that 'woman' who spilled hot coffee on herself and sued the people who gave her hot coffee.

Besides, the 'people' on that angry atheist website want to sue them (after the school promptly changed the way they have been doing things for years) if the valedictorian even mentions God in her speech!!

The argument being made is one left ambiguous in Lee v. Weisman. The Supreme Court did not say whether or not a student could lead a prayer at graduation, and blocked a case asking this question in Florida a couple years back. However, several lower courts have made decisions going either way. I'm siding with the kid if there's a court case. If anything is emotionally distressful, that rehearsal was. If it's a preview of the actual graduation, it's not looking good for them. My school got pissed for a lot less at my graduation. This could be taken as the school endorsing their actions.

I looked up the actual town's newspaper to see if it's legit. There's nothing mentioned yet about the potential lawsuit concerning the speech.

http://www.bastropenterprise.com/features/x2132687894/Student-challenges-prayer-at-Bastrop-graduation

There are more to those cases than you think:

The thief case is an urban legend. There are some laws which state an owner can be held liable, but only because landowners used to lay traps in their yards which could maim people. They're mostly used now to protect from things like people leaving shotguns on their lawn next to a daycare. Most cases coming from this by actual criminals are thrown out; although, one man's family managed to win some money after the thief was electrocuted on an illegal trap.

The hot coffee was valid. McDonald's served coffee which literally caused third-degree burns over the plaintiff's body, I believe, 6-8% of her body, in 2-7 seconds and required skin grafts. She also asked McDonald's to foot her medical bills, something they did in the past with several hundred other complaints they received regarding the same issue, and they refused. The case had to deal with companies being liable for their products. That sound a lot better than the "Some moron sued McDonald's over hot coffee" that's been floating around the Internet. Two sides to every story.

Overall, I'm pretty disturbed that asking for someone to respect your Constitutional rights is a bad thing. Not speaking up is much worse, in my opinion. The kid didn't say yet if he plans to sue over a student led prayer. Although, the ACLU has done it in the past and won. That this stuff goes on is a poor reflection on the United States. It seems everyone loves rights except when they work.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Couldn't they get around all of htis headache by calling for a moment of silence?

They didn't want to get around it, they wanted a public Christian prayer with the official support and sanction of the school as an organisation.

Okay, that's nice- I was just stating that there could be a compromise reached instead of them getting sued into oblivion.

You can't "compromise" on something that's already happened. The school violated their duties under the Constitution. The time for compromise would have been before they did that, not afterwards.

 

[Caligulove]

It's not prayer itself, it's any sort of school-sanctioned prayer, wherein the school is therefore favoring a religion over the other beliefs that its students and its faculty hold. People can pray to themselves all they want to about anything, really, even out loud- the problem lies with a Publicly funded school endorsing a time for prayer, even lead by the faculty then no, that violates the separation of church & state, the fact that a majority of the school population adheres to the same denomination of the same religion does not factor into it.

The girl who lead everyone is a fucking hypocrite, saying that "she respects everyone's beliefs" then goes on to disrespect anyone with differing beliefs by leading the entire school in The Lord's Prayer. She doesn't care about others beliefs, she'll do whatever she thinks some god wants her to do and she apparently doesnt care about the financial health of her school which is about to get a huge lawsuit filed against it, possibly bankrupting it. Oh yes.. well played, masterfully played, even! You showed them how tolerant and christ-like you are by not giving a shit about other people's beliefs.

 

[icaritos]

"...emotionally distressing on anyone who isn't a Christian?" Really? This kid is the worst kind of Atheist: the kind who hyperventilates at the thought that someone nearby might be thanking God on one of the biggest days of their lives.

1.) Live in Bible-Belt
2.) School assembles for prayer
3.) Every single student besides you is praying

At what point can this not lead to emotional distress?

At the point that you simply stand with everyone else and wait for the prayer to conclude. You don't need to say a thing. Hell, it's the same for the pledge of allegiance. If something prevents you from saying it, you simply stand out of respect for everyone else.

You know what's also emotionally distressing? Demanding that your Bible Belt school cut out every mention of "God" under the threat of legal action.

So he's a hero to you, even if he's hated by his community? And all because he was unreasonably demanding that his constitutional rights be followed to the letter rather than the spirit of the law? I can only imagine how ecstatic you get when WBC pickets military funerals. After all, they're reviled by the community, but they're celebrating freedom of speech. They must be heroes!

Using this logic we shouldn't enforce speed limits either because they're hated by the community.

...wait, what? Since when has general consensus been that speed limits are a bad idea?

Is there a rule like "godwin's law" for comparing someone trying to uphold the law to the WBC?

Most likely, yes, though in this case my issue was with your love for him as a result of him pursuing a goal that was almost universally reviled by those around him, and without any of the nobility that characterized similar efforts during the Civil Rights movement.

Majority rule is not always correct. There are a ton of examples that clearly illustrate that (earth is flat, zeus causes thunder, burning witchs is a-ok are just a few examples).

When the founding fathers decided to make the U.S. a secular country, it wasn't out of empathy towards the non-religious but rather to protect the religious. It stands as a matter of fact that religions are mutually exclusive, that is if my god is true, yours is false. If I go to heaven, you burn in hell. By sponsoring any specific religion state wise, you deny and openly condemn any other religion that diverges from their beliefs.

Saying that they should offer prayers to all religions is ridiculous, there are far too many of them to account for. The moment of silence that they had decided upon was by far the best solution, giving time for self-reflection and religious prayer while maintaining neutrality. However they broke that for some ridiculous rant, defying the 14th amendment.

Saying "just stay quiet and let them pray" is not a fair solution, and in fact goes against the religious freedom the American flag is so fond of proclaiming.

 

[DSQ]

I dunno, as long as I wasn't forced to pray. Also as long as the school wasn't spending a tun of money on it somehow.... The thing I don't like about pray in school is it ostrsizes people who don't wanna pray.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Student who complained is a dick. What did he/she/it expect when they called the superintendent and threatened to call the ACLU if the school didn't make changes to the graduation ceremony?

"...emotionally distressing on anyone who isn't a Christian?" Really? This kid is the worst kind of Atheist: the kind who hyperventilates at the thought that someone nearby might be thanking God on one of the biggest days of their lives.

This man is a hero.

Not because he got prayer taken out of a ceremony, but because he stood up for his constitutional right to be free from Religion.

You added two new letters there. It's freedom 'of' religion, not freedom 'from.' The kids aren't being forced to go to church the day of graduation.

Actually, it's more along the lines of "The government of the United States shall not make any law endorsing a particular religion..." Christian prayer in a government institution? Sounds like an endorsement to me.

That assumes that public schools are run by "government,"

They are. The government controls the money public schools get and can control what they may do.

Way to not read the rest of my post. Hell, you didn't even pull a complete sentence for the out-of-context quote.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Erm...that's a fairly basic morality lesson. It's the entire premise of the "Who you are in the dark" thing. Public displays can be very different than how we conduct ourselves in private, but the passage was stating that what we do in private is far more important than what we do in public. It's not saying that prayer outside of our own homes is bad, but it's saying that it's pointless if we're only doing it to put on a show for our peers.

Yeah, I realise that now. Maybe next time I'll actually bother to read something before getting on my high horse again. Unlikely, considering any lessons I learn I forget in the next day or so. Anyway, thanks for telling me.

And knowing is half the battle!

 

[Thaa'ir]

I don't know...I used to be a very devout Catholic, but I remember that when a band mom started a prayer at the end of the year banquet, it made me really uncomfortable.

 

[JasonKaotic]

In my primary school you had (and they still have to) pray with the rest of the school every Monday and Friday in assembly. Which is weird along with being annoying, seeing as England is mostly an Atheist country. Along with that they bring this priest in constantly, this christian painter who goes on and on about christian stories, etc etc. And also, in RE, which is supposed to just teach you about different religions, they just went on and on about biblical stuff and how factitious it is. It's just really, really fucking annoying. Not because it's religious, but because they're trying to force religion onto people.
*shivers*
But it is wrong. It's one of the countless ways people try to force religion into kids' heads while they're still naive. Religion should be a decision, not something you're told to believe in.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

That assumes that public schools are run by "government," which I assume are bland, blob-like entities that subsist on paperwork and taxes. Even public schools are run by local citizens, and thus are going to be inevitably colored by whatever region they're located in. 'The government' didn't think a prayer would be appropriate in the ceremony. Students and administrators did.

Administrators and staff of public schools are employees of the government, they are therefore bound by the state and federal constitutions. There is no way around this, what the school administration did was constitutionally wrong.

Not according to the Bill of Rights. If anything, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" makes it sound the other way around.

It seems like a lot of people don't realize that "separation of church and state" was an effort to keep religious establishments from being manipulated by the government, not the other way around. Of course, that means that laws can't be based on religious beliefs because they need to be applicable to people of various other beliefs, but yeah.

 

[Ensiferum]

Yes it's okay and should be permitted. Public schools are funded by taxpayers, therefore taxpayers should have the right to practice their beliefs, and their children should also have the right to practice their beliefs, in public schools and other publicly funded places. The same thing goes for kids not being allowed to bring bibles to school or whatever. This is just another example of the government forgetting who they work for; us. That's not to say people should be able to do whatever they want, but when it comes to restricting basic freedoms, such as freedom of religion, people should be allowed to make their own decisions about practicing their beliefs on school property.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Not according to the Bill of Rights. If anything, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" makes it sound the other way around.

It seems like a lot of people don't realize that "separation of church and state" was an effort to keep religious establishments from being manipulated by the government, not the other way around. Of course, that means that laws can't be based on religious beliefs because they need to be applicable to people of various other beliefs, but yeah.

The overwhelming body of precedent disagrees with you. Overt religious acts or displays by employees of the government acting in their official capacity have been repeatedly rules as violating the establishment clause. You do not have a leg to stand on here.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Yes it's okay and should be permitted. Public schools are funded by taxpayers, therefore taxpayers should have the right to practice their beliefs, and their children should also have the right to practice their beliefs, in public schools and other publicly funded places.

So why should only the Christians be allowed to practise their beliefs? Because that is the situation which occured. One set of beliefs was given primacy, all others were ignored. That is the problem.

 

[Wintermoot]

yes I,m a atheist and I don,t mind it that people want to pray it,s called "FREEDOM OF RELIGION"

 

[Mallefunction]

A school should never lead a prayer even if people aren't being forced into it. Separation of church and state after all. People are free to pray to their hearts content on their own, but a school should neither condemn nor condone any religious acts.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Majority rule is not always correct. There are a ton of examples that clearly illustrate that (earth is flat, zeus causes thunder, burning witchs is a-ok are just a few examples).

Okay...and? You're invoking 'slippery slope' logic if you're taking those examples and using it to call into question the validity of any majority opinion.

When the founding fathers decided to make the U.S. a secular country, it wasn't out of empathy towards the non-religious but rather to protect the religious. It stands as a matter of fact that religions are mutually exclusive, that is if my god is true, yours is false. If I go to heaven, you burn in hell. By sponsoring any specific religion state wise, you deny and openly condemn any other religion that diverges from their beliefs.

Not the way I remember it. The parameters for entry into the various forms of afterlife generally have to do with morality, not with believing highly-specific things. It probably helps to follow the religion (since it generally states what those morals and values are), but I don't see the usual characterization of a kind and loving God condemning everyone who happened to be reading a slightly different version of the same general story.

Saying that they should offer prayers to all religions is ridiculous, there are far too many of them to account for.

That's fortunate, because I never suggested they do that.

The moment of silence that they had decided upon was by far the best solution, giving time for self-reflection and religious prayer while maintaining neutrality. However they broke that for some ridiculous rant, defying the 14th amendment.

I can't help but feel like if the kid had simply asked for something like a moment of silence, it might've actually yielded results. Structure a sound argument around it, appeal to a diversity of beliefs, etc.

Instead, he threatened the superintendent with action from the ACLU. Is it really surprising that things didn't go over well?

Saying "just stay quiet and let them pray" is not a fair solution, and in fact goes against the religious freedom the American flag is so fond of proclaiming.

...wait, what? Hang on, let me get this straight: allowing others to pray out of respect for their beliefs despite not having them yourself is a violation of American religious freedom...but threatening legal action if those same people don't keep their prayers to themselves is not?