School Prayer

[IndyPirate]

Hey, I haven't posted here in awhile and I'm not even sure if I'm in the correct section but I'll put it here anyways.

There has been controversy in several states lately about school prayer/moment of silence laws. Many of my Christian brethren would like prayer to be mandatory in public and I've gotta ask: WHY????

Let's put aside the Constitutional arguments for now. Why would you trust the government with anything concerning religion? The government already has it's hands in too many pots and ruins everything that it touches. Why would you want the government teaching children about religion, especially when there is no guarantee on which religious beliefs they end up teaching? If you open the door to one religion every other religion will want to walk through it. Plus I don't want the government telling my daughter exactly how and when she has to pray.

It is safer and saner for everyone involved if religion was over here and the government was waaaayyy over there. And never the twain shall meet.

 

[Washington]

There has been controversy in several states lately about school prayer/moment of silence laws. Many of my Christian brethren would like prayer to be mandatory in public and I've gotta ask: WHY????

Because some folk need the psychological reinforcement that comes from knowing their government is in agreement with their beliefs. Many can't stand the idea that their government isn't sanctioning their faith; the idea that if they have to pay for their government then it darn well better support their religion. Or some such nonsense.

 

[Jade Margery]

*joins the beating of a dead horse*

Before this gets weird, with horror stories of kids not allowed to pray or even say their god's name or something like that, it should be pointed out that no one is really stopping kids from praying in school if that is what they INDIVIDUALLY want to do. In fact, if a group of the little buggers gets together at lunch and has a prayer circle, that is infringing no rights. Teachers can pray too, by themselves or with their colleagues or, probably, with a student who comes to them and asks to pray. But a teacher cannot lead a whole class in prayer, nor can a prayer be read over the loudspeaker or incorporated in the school's newspaper or anything like that. The line is drawn where one uninterested in participating is forced to participate, or give up time from their education to listening to religious affirmation that they may not believe in or even find offensive.

And Washington, I mean no disrespect, but it bugs me when people on either side of an argument try to explain the motives and intentions of the other side. You cannot really know how religious people feel about this unless they tell you so themselves, so it is better not to assume since we assume incorrectly more often than not and that leads to unfriendly attitudes. It is as bad for you to say "Many can't stand the idea that their government isn't sanctioning their faith" as it is for a fundie to say "Many godless people can't stand the morality of Christ and think disbelief gives them license for unethical behavior".

So, as to the answer of WHY??, I don't know.

 

[IndyPirate]

Thank you for your post.

*joins the beating of a dead horse*

Before this gets weird, with horror stories of kids not allowed to pray or even say their god's name or something like that, it should be pointed out that no one is really stopping kids from praying in school if that is what they INDIVIDUALLY want to do. In fact, if a group of the little buggers gets together at lunch and has a prayer circle, that is infringing no rights. Teachers can pray too, by themselves or with their colleagues or, probably, with a student who comes to them and asks to pray. But a teacher cannot lead a whole class in prayer, nor can a prayer be read over the loudspeaker or incorporated in the school's newspaper or anything like that. The line is drawn where one uninterested in participating is forced to participate, or give up time from their education to listening to religious affirmation that they may not believe in or even find offensive.

I agree that the current compromise is best for everyone. People are allowed to practice their religion as long as it doesn't distract others, isn't infringing on anyone else's rights and as long as it isn't a government employee doing the leading.

Out of curiosity, is the bolded part up there true? I haven't seen any court cases that have ruled either way on that particular subject.

 

[Jade Margery]

I don't know if it is or not. But I do know that there was a christian athletes group at our school, or something like that, and I know that a couple of our teachers were pretty religious, although they never talked about it in class. I don't see anything wrong with a student organization being about a religion, or using the school's space for such (though only when it is not in use for other educational purposes), and it would not surprise me at all if some of the more religiously minded students talked or prayed with the aforementioned teachers if they needed someone to confide in or get help from.

Perhaps there are no cases about it because no one minds or would want to stop it. Figure as long as it's not taking up class time it would be fine.

 

[wanderingone]

Hey, I haven't posted here in awhile and I'm not even sure if I'm in the correct section but I'll put it here anyways.

There has been controversy in several states lately about school prayer/moment of silence laws. Many of my Christian brethren would like prayer to be mandatory in public and I've gotta ask: WHY????

Let's put aside the Constitutional arguments for now. Why would you trust the government with anything concerning religion? The government already has it's hands in too many pots and ruins everything that it touches. Why would you want the government teaching children about religion, especially when there is no guarantee on which religious beliefs they end up teaching? If you open the door to one religion every other religion will want to walk through it. Plus I don't want the government telling my daughter exactly how and when she has to pray.

It is safer and saner for everyone involved if religion was over here and the government was waaaayyy over there. And never the twain shall meet.

I agree there's no need for public prayer at school, or in many places, since we're not meant to be boastful about prayer and it seems to me it's just a performance when we demand such silliness as ministers leading a prayer at a football game. Besides, nobody can tell you NOT to pray. If you want to say a prayer then surely you also are of the belief you're not required to stand or sit or kneel or fold your hand or close your eyes or speak out loud.... surely you can pray without needing everyone around you to know it.

That said... have there been recent prayer in school issues in the news?

 

[Washington]

And Washington, I mean no disrespect, but it bugs me when people on either side of an argument try to explain the motives and intentions of the other side.

To each his own.

You cannot really know how religious people feel about this unless they tell you so themselves, so it is better not to assume since we assume incorrectly more often than not and that leads to unfriendly attitudes.

And how do you know that "religious people" have not expressed just such a notion to me? Seems you're the one who's now making an assumption just as egregious as the one you're accusing me of. And, as a matter of fact, I have heard at least two people who have in effect said that the government owes them its support of their religion (Christianity).

It is as bad for you to say "Many can't stand the idea that their government isn't sanctioning their faith" as it is for a fundie to say "Many godless people can't stand the morality of Christ and think disbelief gives them license for unethical behavior".

Which may be true. And I fail to see where the "bad" comes into play here. What I have said is true, although the "many" may be overstating the situation---I certainly have no data to back it up.

 

[Jade Margery]

*pat pat pat* Chill, brother. Chill. Like I said, no disrespect.

Comments can easily be misconstrued by the listener--what they meant and what you 'in effect' took from it may be different. Opinions are best when heard from the source instead of secondhand, especially when referring to a large group of diverse people. Figure that 'many' probably means more than half, and then it gets to sounding like a generalization and a stereotype, even if you didn't mean it that way.

If you have some church sites professing that opinion, by all means bring them forward, but an unsupported claim will only breed frustration and annoyance. Do you, as an agnostic, hear a lot of folks telling you what you do or don't think without having any idea what you actually do? I do, at least. Better not to do the same if one can help it, I think.

 

[IndyPirate]

I don't know if it is or not. But I do know that there was a christian athletes group at our school, or something like that, and I know that a couple of our teachers were pretty religious, although they never talked about it in class. I don't see anything wrong with a student organization being about a religion, or using the school's space for such (though only when it is not in use for other educational purposes), and it would not surprise me at all if some of the more religiously minded students talked or prayed with the aforementioned teachers if they needed someone to confide in or get help from.

Perhaps there are no cases about it because no one minds or would want to stop it. Figure as long as it's not taking up class time it would be fine.

I suppose it would be alright if the teacher did it on personal time and not as a representative of the school. That can be a very blurry line though.

I agree there's no need for public prayer at school, or in many places, since we're not meant to be boastful about prayer and it seems to me it's just a performance when we demand such silliness as ministers leading a prayer at a football game. Besides, nobody can tell you NOT to pray. If you want to say a prayer then surely you also are of the belief you're not required to stand or sit or kneel or fold your hand or close your eyes or speak out loud.... surely you can pray without needing everyone around you to know it.

Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

That said... have there been recent prayer in school issues in the news?

The Moment of Silence laws in Illinois and Texas have been in the news lately. Illinois had to change theirs since it was ruled unconstitutional. Texas's was ruled constitutional even though there wasn't much of a difference in the laws. Go figure.

http://www.pjstar.com/homepage/x599203663/House-approves-voluntary-moment-of-silence
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/6313787.html

 

[Jade Margery]

I suppose it would be alright if the teacher did it on personal time and not as a representative of the school. That can be a very blurry line though.

Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

The Moment of Silence laws in Illinois and Texas have been in the news lately. Illinois had to change theirs since it was ruled unconstitutional. Texas's was ruled constitutional even though there wasn't much of a difference in the laws. Go figure.

http://www.pjstar.com/homepage/x599203663/House-approves-voluntary-moment-of-silence
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/6313787.html

Not to take things too frivolously, but they are arguing about a minute out of a school day... during which time I think the students would probably be drawing, writing, reading, or frantically trying to get their homework done, if my memory of highschool is a fair judge. This is a little off topic, but does anyone else get the feeling our legislators just have too much time on their hands?

 

[Washington]

*
Do you, as an agnostic, hear a lot of folks telling you what you do or don't think without having any idea what you actually do?

You're the first in some time.

 

[IndyPirate]

Not to take things too frivolously, but they are arguing about a minute out of a school day... during which time I think the students would probably be drawing, writing, reading, or frantically trying to get their homework done, if my memory of highschool is a fair judge.

I honestly don't have a problem with Moment of Silence laws (most of the time). I was just using those stories as an excuse to start this thread and complain.

This is a little off topic, but does anyone else get the feeling our legislators just have too much time on their hands?

And yes, our legislators obviously have too much time on their hands. We should give them a second job doing something useful like digging ditches.

 

[Ectezus]

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

Sounds fair no?

 

[seashale76]

Kenneth Roberts v. Kathleen Madigan and Adams County School District No.50

Supreme Court- June 29, 1992: Chose not to look at the decision of the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which essentially decided that a teacher wasn't allowed to read his own bible silently to himself during silent reading time, because they claimed it somehow violated the First Amendment.

Yeah, if that's not allowed, then I'm sure a child asking a teacher to pray with them after school is going to go over real well.

 

[Jade Margery]

*sigh* I don't agree with that. Reading is reading, y'know? I think our country is a little too litigious for it's own good, and we tend to make big deals out of nothing. A case like that couldn't have come up if someone didn't bring it forth, so I wonder what their problem was?

 

[Maren]

Kenneth Roberts v. Kathleen Madigan and Adams County School District No.50

Supreme Court- June 29, 1992: Chose not to look at the decision of the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which essentially decided that a teacher wasn't allowed to read his own bible silently to himself during silent reading time, because they claimed it somehow violated the First Amendment.

Yeah, if that's not allowed, then I'm sure a child asking a teacher to pray with them after school is going to go over real well.

Actually, this portrayal of the decision is not accurate, the teacher was not reading the Bible "on his own time", rather, he was reading the Bible during class time. Rather, as part of his job of teaching reading, Mr. Roberts had a 15 minute silent reading period -- this would be class time -- and that during this period Mr. Altman would frequently read from the Bible. From altlaw.org:

Frequently, the book Mr. Roberts chose to read silently was the Bible, which he kept on his desk throughout the school day. Mr. Roberts never read from the Bible aloud nor overtly proselytized about his faith to his students. Mr. Roberts also displayed a poster in his classroom that read, "You have only to open your eyes to see the hand of God." The trial court found that, in context, Mr. Roberts' Bible reading, the poster, and the presence of two Christian books in Mr. Roberts' classroom library created the appearance that Mr. Roberts was seeking to advance his religious views.

Further, the appeals court agreed with the trial court, "Mr. Roberts' conduct, in the context of a fifth-grade class full of impressionable children, had the purpose and effect of communicating a message of endorsement of religion in a manner that might reasonably be perceived to bear the imprimatur of the school." This seems to me to make it clear the problem is that it was done during class time, not on his own time.

 

[seashale76]

Actually, this portrayal of the decision is not accurate, the teacher was not reading the Bible "on his own time", rather, he was reading the Bible during class time. Rather, as part of his job of teaching reading, Mr. Roberts had a 15 minute silent reading period -- this would be class time -- and that during this period Mr. Altman would frequently read from the Bible. From altlaw.org: Further, the appeals court agreed with the trial court, "Mr. Roberts' conduct, in the context of a fifth-grade class full of impressionable children, had the purpose and effect of communicating a message of endorsement of religion in a manner that might reasonably be perceived to bear the imprimatur of the school." This seems to me to make it clear the problem is that it was done during class time, not on his own time.

Read again. My portrayal of the decision was accurate. I never stated it occurred outside of the school day. Many schools encourage and even insist on silent reading times during class, where the teachers are also encouraged to read. He should have been allowed to read the bible. He was not praying or speaking of his religion to the children and it certainly wasn't a violation of the First Amendment.

How is what he was doing related to Congress making a law establishing a religion? (You do realize this was put in because colonies such as Virginia did have an official state religion that was taxed, do you not?) I do see how their ruling prohibited his own free exercise thereof though.

First Amendment (For Reference):

I. 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

 

[Beanieboy]

Matthew 6
5 “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6 “But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

To have their reward in full, and be seen by men.

 

[lawtonfogle]

*joins the beating of a dead horse*

Before this gets weird, with horror stories of kids not allowed to pray or even say their god's name or something like that, it should be pointed out that no one is really stopping kids from praying in school if that is what they INDIVIDUALLY want to do. In fact, if a group of the little buggers gets together at lunch and has a prayer circle, that is infringing no rights. Teachers can pray too, by themselves or with their colleagues or, probably, with a student who comes to them and asks to pray. But a teacher cannot lead a whole class in prayer, nor can a prayer be read over the loudspeaker or incorporated in the school's newspaper or anything like that. The line is drawn where one uninterested in participating is forced to participate, or give up time from their education to listening to religious affirmation that they may not believe in or even find offensive.

And Washington, I mean no disrespect, but it bugs me when people on either side of an argument try to explain the motives and intentions of the other side. You cannot really know how religious people feel about this unless they tell you so themselves, so it is better not to assume since we assume incorrectly more often than not and that leads to unfriendly attitudes. It is as bad for you to say "Many can't stand the idea that their government isn't sanctioning their faith" as it is for a fundie to say "Many godless people can't stand the morality of Christ and think disbelief gives them license for unethical behavior".

So, as to the answer of WHY??, I don't know.

Do you have the right to comment on the other side if you have seriously tried to, and have good reason to believe you have succeeded, in understanding them and/or you use to be on the other side?

 

[Jade Margery]

Do you have the right to comment on the other side if you have seriously tried to, and have good reason to believe you have succeeded, in understanding them and/or you use to be on the other side?

I s'pose you have the 'right' to comment on anything you like, this being an anonymous forum on the internet, so long as you don't break any of the rules. I just don't think it's very... um, good word... polite? Wise? Friendly? Conducive to mature discussion? None of the above but maybe a combination. Assuming you know something about the way other people think is just a dangerous habit to get into. We all have to make assumptions about things just to live and interact in the world, and about people too, but we should be ready to let go of those assumptions if they are proven wrong. Stating them with matter-of-fact phrasing to the people you're assuming about is just a good way to accidentally insult someone or start a little flame fight. Even having been on the 'other side' or doing a lot of research and study isn't going to give you any more than your personal experience and a general idea. For example, a person who feels that they were once gay but changed to straight might assume that all other gays could become straight too, they just don't want to. In reality, what the other folks want or are is their business and probably too complicated to sum up in a single sentence. (Everyone please do not make this into another gay thread, it's just the first example that came to mind)

I try not to make generalizations, but in a different thread quite a while ago I started a post with 'You Christians..." and went on to say something I was quite certain was true. With the very next reply a Christian poster pointed out that I was way off from her point of view, and it was a pretty humbling experience. I probably still do stuff like that from time to time but I try not to.

I guess it's also that stating how you think a group of people think or feel can make them feel like you don't want to know what's really going on because you already think you know. 'Least, that's how I feel when someone says something like that to me, and it's not a good feeling. Better to let folks articulate their own ideas and arguments without erroneously filling in the blanks before they get a chance. One can do well enough with one's own opinion and supporting sources.

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

AAAAAND to get back on topic and make this post feel a little more relevant, it seems to me like the teacher shouldn't have put up a poster, and maybe not have had the other christian books available to the kids (if available they were) but if the class is going to be sitting there reading for fifteen minutes and the teachers generally read during this time too, I don't see why a bible is any worse than a romance novel or a book on evolution if they aren't sharing it with the class. (Whether or not a teacher should be reading during paid school hours is, I suppose, up to the school. I wasn't allowed to read at my job, even when things were slow, but maybe elementary schools have different rules?)

And Seashale, it is relevant because the public school system is firmly linked to the government. The laws about how it is run are created by the legislature, and as a government institution charged with the education of the country's diverse youth (trying to balance the wills of millions of parents, teachers, principals, and administrators all at once without anyone getting offended because they might raise a huge stink that hits the media like a ball of fecal material striking an oscillating machine) they must abide by the constitutions of their states (which all have some kind of freedom of/from religion rule, at least the one's I've read have).