Prayer in Schools

[Edouard]

In 1962 a Supreme Court Case was presented in New York at the State level. I am currently in a Political Science class whereas this topic arose and of course as most instructors, he is very liberal in his beliefs. (With that said.) The court case was based on the premise that a family did not want their child to be FORCED into praying. At the time there was a rule that anyone who did not want to participate could leave the room. Obviously this measure was not deemed notable as a solution before the courts due to possible persecution from fellow classmates. I am curious as to what your thoughts are on the actual subject of whether or not prayer should be allowed in the schools like it was in 1962 sponsored by the schools.
The ruling was 8 to 1. If you agree or disagree I am curious as to your case argument.

Just interested.

 

[1watchman]

God says: "them that honor Me, I will honor"; so, a school or government that seeks to honor God will be shown mercies. God looks on the heart, and He knows what is in the heart of administrators, politicians, and individuals under their control. One in school can ignore the mandates, and just pray to God in silent and not stir up protests and trouble with "Caesar" (Lk. 20:25).

 

[goxfiles]

I'm not opposed to it. In some European countries like Scandinivia this is still a practice, so it's not exactly out of the ordinary.

 

[Edouard]

1watchman: I know what scripture says: but is it right to force others something they may believe is wrong?

How in turn would this affect the Constitution and its Amendments?

 

[BryanW92]

In 1962 a Supreme Court Case was presented in New York at the State level. I am currently in a Political Science class whereas this topic arose and of course as most instructors, he is very liberal in his beliefs. (With that said.) The court case was based on the premise that a family did not want their child to be FORCED into praying. At the time there was a rule that anyone who did not want to participate could leave the room. Obviously this measure was not deemed notable as a solution before the courts due to possible persecution from fellow classmates. I am curious as to what your thoughts are on the actual subject of whether or not prayer should be allowed in the schools like it was in 1962 sponsored by the schools.
The ruling was 8 to 1. If you agree or disagree I am curious as to your case argument.

Just interested.

No one should be forced to pray. No one should be stopped from praying.

So, the question is: should there be a teacher-led prayer at a specific time in school? I say that there shouldn't. But, a teacher should not be prohibited from praying with a student. And people are who are "offended" at the mention of God or Jesus or upon hearing a prayer need to grow up and stop looking for reasons to be offended.

 

[BryanW92]

How in turn would this affect the Constitution and its Amendments?

Let's look at the actual amendment, as opposed to the wording that we are led to believe it contains:

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.

Note that there is no actual "separation of church and state" in there. But, there is a clause regarding prohibiting the free exercise of religion (i.e. Congress can't do that.). Also note that there is a clause on "abridging the freedom of speech" and prayer IS certainly speech, and another clause on "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", and coming together in prayer IS certainly a peaceable assembly. (Keep in mind that it has been determined that inappropriate contentography and flag burning ARE free speech and are protected, and a Nazi rally is declared to be peaceable assembly and is protected. Why is prayer more prohibited by our governments that inappropriate contentography, flag burning, and nazi rallies??)

In the main body of the Constitution is the duties and responsibilities of the various branches of government. Notably, it is NOT the job of the court to make laws. They are the people who are charged with only declaring a law unconstitutional. So, Congress has to actually make a law (i.e. "students must pray in school") before the SCOTUS can shoot it down, but all it can do is declare that specific law unconstitutional and not make a new law (i.e. "separation of church and state").

So, from a purely constitutional perspective, there is nothing legal that the government can do to make you pray or make you stop, and a school teacher is not Congress and does not "make laws".

 

[Sammy-San]

Praying in school is not unconstitutional. It's only unconstitutional if teachers ( who are being paid by taxpayer money) encourage or promote prayer in schools, or if the schools require prayer.

 

[goxfiles]

Let's look at the actual amendment, as opposed to the wording that we are led to believe it contains:

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.

Note that there is no actual "separation of church and state" in there. But, there is a clause regarding prohibiting the free exercise of religion (i.e. Congress can't do that.). Also note that there is a clause on "abridging the freedom of speech" and prayer IS certainly speech, and another clause on "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", and coming together in prayer IS certainly a peaceable assembly. (Keep in mind that it has been determined that inappropriate contentography and flag burning ARE free speech and are protected, and a Nazi rally is declared to be peaceable assembly and is protected. Why is prayer more prohibited by our governments that inappropriate contentography, flag burning, and nazi rallies??)

In the main body of the Constitution is the duties and responsibilities of the various branches of government. Notably, it is NOT the job of the court to make laws. They are the people who are charged with only declaring a law unconstitutional. So, Congress has to actually make a law (i.e. "students must pray in school") before the SCOTUS can shoot it down, but all it can do is declare that specific law unconstitutional and not make a new law (i.e. "separation of church and state").

So, from a purely constitutional perspective, there is nothing legal that the government can do to make you pray or make you stop, and a school teacher is not Congress and does not "make laws".

It's worth noting that technically, this provision only applies to the federal government. The Framers never intended this article to be used to strike down the laws of individual states (I.e individual states are free to require school prayer, but Congress cannot require this on the whole US). Activist judges put an end to this by "incorporating" the Bill of Rights to affect the states, but this was not what was originally intended.

 

[tremble]

No one should be forced to pray. No one should be stopped from praying.

So, the question is: should there be a teacher-led prayer at a specific time in school? I say that there shouldn't. But, a teacher should not be prohibited from praying with a student. And people are who are "offended" at the mention of God or Jesus or upon hearing a prayer need to grow up and stop looking for reasons to be offended.

I find myself agreeing with this. But I also have a slightly different perspective. Jesus taught his followers not to make a verbal show of prayer. Standing in front of a group and reciting prayers certainly falls within that category. This is especially true when they demand the right to be heard by others.

People can be ordered not to speak their prayers for the sake of others hearing, but then again, does that order really contradict the spirit of prayer? No, it doesn't. In fact, it's rather agreeable with what Jesus said about silent prayer. (Matthew 6:1-8)

No one can stop us from praying silently to God. No one can stop students from gathering in a meeting to discuss what they want to pray about and then all silently praying together in unity. They can do that anywhere they choose and no one can stop them without becoming "thought police".

In this way everyone can get along. There is no more reason to fight. Christians can make peace with those they live around simply by taking Jesus at his word.

But, when it comes to siding with Jesus or siding with religious tradition, it's usually the tradition that wins out and so the fighting continues. Christians spoil their witness with the world by fighting for something which isn't even necessary.

It's like two children fighting over the volume of the TV. One wants it turned down because he's not watching it anyway, while the other wants it turned up. The parent suggests that the TV kid should use headphones and then turn the volume up as loud as he wants, but he insists that he has the right to hear the TV without headphones.

 

[tturt]

Today - I would wonder which god/G_d and Lord they were praying to.

 

[Edouard]

I would like to throw a wrench in this discussion if I may.
The court did rule that prayer in school was in violation of the Constitution due to the First Amendment: 8 to 1 vote.

My Argument: Clarence Darrow (lawyer) in Tennessee fought for Evolution to be taught in the school systems (Darwinism) rather than Creation. Even today teachers depending on the county and state you are in - bound to teach this theory but no Creationism/Intelligent Design - is this not an enfringement on my First Amendment. After all - Prayer is aligned to those of us who Believe in God who created the universe. And Science is being taught in the schools.

Second Argument: It takes as much faith to not acknowledge the existence of God as it does to acknowledge Him. Both are based on a bias.

Thoughts?

 

[BryanW92]

Second Argument: It takes as much faith to not acknowledge the existence of God as it does to acknowledge Him. Both are based on a bias.

Thoughts?

I agree completely with that statement. It takes a hard-core atheist to not pray when you get a cancer diagnosis. You might feel guilt for not believing up until then, but your secret prayer is always something like, "if you're real, then please...."

 

[dragongunner]

I would like to throw a wrench in this discussion if I may.
The court did rule that prayer in school was in violation of the Constitution due to the First Amendment: 8 to 1 vote.

My Argument: Clarence Darrow (lawyer) in Tennessee fought for Evolution to be taught in the school systems (Darwinism) rather than Creation. Even today teachers depending on the county and state you are in - bound to teach this theory but no Creationism/Intelligent Design - is this not an enfringement on my First Amendment. After all - Prayer is aligned to those of us who Believe in God who created the universe. And Science is being taught in the schools.

Second Argument: It takes as much faith to not acknowledge the existence of God as it does to acknowledge Him. Both are based on a bias.

Thoughts?

Courts get things wrong sometimes......"Seperation of church and state,", the courts got it right the first 2 times, but the 3rd time in the 50's they got it all wrong. They also got the abortion issue wrong too.....don't put faith in men even if its 8 to 1.

When I was in school in the 60's, on certain days we had bible class, and those who wanted leave class to go to that classroom could. No one was ever forced and 1 kids parents didn't want him to go so he didn't, no one cared or persecuted him.

The first schools in America always had the bible for a study. Even old Harvard you had to have a bible course, God was foremost. But that was back when we were a Republic, now we have slipped into democracy which always leads to a nations death, usually by suicide.

Seperation of church and state,

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Separation of Church and State

 

[Jesse2014]

OK this discussion is way out of my level intelligence.

 

[ForJesusChrist]

Prayer is something that cannot wait. If you need to pray, you should. You should not be restricted or feel that you cannot pray. I think that students should be given the opportunity to pray. If the others don't agree, they could leave the room.

God Bless

 

[KrAZeD]

I would like to throw a wrench in this discussion if I may.
The court did rule that prayer in school was in violation of the Constitution due to the First Amendment: 8 to 1 vote.

My Argument: Clarence Darrow (lawyer) in Tennessee fought for Evolution to be taught in the school systems (Darwinism) rather than Creation. Even today teachers depending on the county and state you are in - bound to teach this theory but no Creationism/Intelligent Design - is this not an enfringement on my First Amendment. After all - Prayer is aligned to those of us who Believe in God who created the universe. And Science is being taught in the schools.

Second Argument: It takes as much faith to not acknowledge the existence of God as it does to acknowledge Him. Both are based on a bias.

Thoughts?

While I do not believe in the evolution that is taught, their is truth to what they wanted to teach. Micro evolution does take place. Sadly you can't teach that without leaving all the why/how/what/when's, leading to the current teaching of evolving from apes garbage. It is a base science, though I will always G in favor of teaching creationism/intelligent design.

Though ultimately it was the design of evil to get God out of the picture in every way,shape and form in schools.

It is a violation of your rights, but as you see today the rights of Christians are getting removed everywhere you look.

Also are you aware many schools now have to allow Muslims the ability to pray, and can not interfere with their prayers in school?

Ever ponder how partial sharia law was voted for by democrats in Florida?

 

[BryanW92]

Ever ponder how partial sharia law was voted for by democrats in Florida?

Tell me more about that! I live in Florida.

 

[BryanW92]

It is a violation of your rights, but as you see today the rights of Christians are getting removed everywhere you look.

The way I see this is that Satan is doing God's work right now. Just as Satan foolishly thought that killing Jesus on the cross would end his influence on the world, Satan's attempts to curtail Christianity in America is only helping to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The cultural/nominal Christians will not stick with Christ when times get hard for us. Only the truly convicted Christian will stay the course in the times to come. Oh sure, we'll close a lot of churches in the next 20 years, but the remnant that is left after Satan and his humanists are done will be the real church.

Every Christian needs to be ready to dig in their heels and fight (spiritually more than physically) for their faith. We will each be called upon to sacrifice (jobs, prestige, friends, family, wealth, freedom, and even our lives) and only the real church will be willing to do that. The rest will take the Mark, in whatever form it comes.

 

[Gunny]

Note that there is no actual "separation of church and state" in there. But, there is a clause regarding prohibiting the free exercise of religion (i.e. Congress can't do that.). Also note that there is a clause on "abridging the freedom of speech" and prayer IS certainly speech, and another clause on "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", and coming together in prayer IS certainly a peaceable assembly.

Amen and Amen.

I was a young child when prayer and the Bible were taken out of the public school system. In my humble opinion there has been a massive paradigm shift since prayer and the Bible were disallowed in the public school systems.

 

[gerbilwoman]

I think prayer is good in schools provided no one is telling the children who to pray to or what to believe in.