School Prayer

[Joachim]

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

Sounds fair no?

What if it's a Catholic school?

 

[clarksided]

I hope the Supreme Court takes the Texas case and reiterates its ban on moment of silence laws.

 

[TeddyKGB]

No Christian has ever been prevented from praying anywhere ever. No Christian student can be prevented from praying with or without a moment of silence.

 

[Smidlee]

One of the reasons why prayer should be mandated in public schools is these kids are going to need one super big miracle in order to pay for all this financial mess we are passing on to them.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Indypirate
Just to say it is a very good question and well put OP!

I cant disagree with you, but I might still go for the prayer all the same... its got me thinking

 

[b&wpac4]

One of the reasons why prayer should be mandated in public schools is these kids are going to need one super big miracle in order to pay for all this financial mess we are passing on to them.

Excellent. I shall show the students how to correctly pray to Allah and point out that this is the absolute only correct way to pray.

 

[seashale76]

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).

Congress has made no law establishing a religion, and we're certainly not taxed for it. The point is, any attempt to make the First Amendment seem like something it isn't is a flagrant abuse of the Constitution itself. Individuals who work for the government are still allowed their religious rights and freedoms, and when they're not, it's a problem. If people want to push a no and/or anti-religion stance then they need to get a new amendment added.

 

[Beanieboy]

What if it's a Catholic school?

I went to a private Jr. College that was Lutheran. My cool teacher, Mr. A, used to pray before every class, and before tests, say, "God, well, have mercy on them. They try...." It was a real conversation, a sincere request to bless us and help us remember, etc.

That made sense. It was a religion affiliated school.

I would have had a huge problem with it, though, if some teacher thought it his place to lead the class in prayer at the U of Minnesota, because it is public.

What I don't understand is why that is so hard to understand.
We talk about the importance of school prayer. Is there one public, non-religion oriented business that asks that people be led in prayer to Jesus before working? Does Target say, "Dear Jesus, herp us ring up er tertles for the glery orv yer nerm"?

Why is that? Is prayer for kids? Do parents think public teachers should be teaching their children religious tradition, or pray with them, because they don't do it themselves over cereal in the morning?

 

[b&wpac4]

Congress has made no law establishing a religion, and we're certainly not taxed for it. The point is, any attempt to make the First Amendment seem like something it isn't is a flagrant abuse of the Constitution itself. Individuals who work for the government are still allowed their religious rights and freedoms, and when they're not, it's a problem. If people want to push a no and/or anti-religion stance then they need to get a new amendment added.

Do you agree that public schools should not have teachers stand in front of the class and teach Christianity as unshakable fact to unduly influence children who come from families who practice other religions?

 

[seashale76]

Do you agree that public schools should not have teachers stand in front of the class and teach Christianity as unshakable fact to unduly influence children who come from families who practice other religions?

It's simply not part of any public school curriculum. Teachers who stick to the curriculum don't offend anyone. (Who would have time to deviate anyway?) The fact is, religion is already taught in public schools from a here is what world religions believe and the history, etc. perspective (and everyone still gets offended- atheist, christian, whatever by how it is taught and presented). However, when we have people drumming up offenses because a teacher was reading a bible (silently) while students were also silenty reading books of their choice, that's being oppresive. And what if someone perhaps saw one of their teachers praying during their planning period and chose to be offended? Would you say, oh, they're a public employee, they can't be seen by the public to have any religion as that's somehow breaking the First Amendment?

 

[b&wpac4]

It's simply not part of any public school curriculum. Teachers who stick to the curriculum don't offend anyone. (Who would have time to deviate anyway?) The fact is, religion is already taught in public schools from a here is what world religions believe and the history, etc. perspective (and everyone still gets offended- atheist, christian, whatever by how it is taught and presented). However, when we have people drumming up offenses because a teacher was reading a bible (silently) while students were also silenty reading books of their choice, that's being oppresive. And what if someone perhaps saw one of their teachers praying during their planning period and chose to be offended? Would you say, oh, they're a public employee, they can't be seen by the public to have any religion as that's somehow breaking the First Amendment?

No, I think those two examples are extreme and shouldn't have happened. What people read, unless it was completely inappropriate for a school setting, should not be used against them in that way. I know someone who read a Quran but wasn't Muslim, he just wanted to know what it said.

 

[keith99]

Excellent. I shall show the students how to correctly pray to Allah and point out that this is the absolute only correct way to pray.

Which way is correct, Shiite or Sunni? Ok it is a flipant question but also a very real issue. I finished reading 'Three Cups of Tea' a book by a mountian climber who ended up the driving force in creating schools in rural Pakistan. At one point he had been taught how to pray, then briefly feared for his safety or at least his project because he realized his teacher was on the 'wrong' side of the Shiite/Sunni divide.

 

[Maren]

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

First, let me apologize, I seem to have misread what you wrote for some reason; you did correctly mention that it was during silent reading time..

I've tried to figure out the best way to answer you here. My problem is, typically people who try to claim that the First Amendment are only about Congress making laws don't care what evidence is presented as their belief about what the founding fathers want is tied into their believe about Christianity. As such, I found most of these "debates" end up being circular as neither person really listens to the other, each having already decided they know the truth.

What I will say is that you are incorrect about Virginia, at the time the First Amendment was written Virginia had religious freedom -- and it is ironic that you used Virginia as your example. In fact, from reading the Federalist Papers and other writings from the framers of the Constitution, it was actually the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom written by Thomas Jefferson, that was the blueprint for religious freedoms in the First Amendment. This is one of the primary reasons other writings of Thomas Jefferson, such as the Danbury Baptist letter that gives us the phrase "separation of Church and State", are used as evidence of what the Founding Fathers intended.

Regardless of what the Framer's intended, what we do know is how the US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment through the years -- and the fact is that it is not (and hasn't ever really been interpreted) as only the laws Congress passes but rather that the government may not appear to encourage any religion. With later amendments that give citizens the same Constitutional protections from state and local government, this has grown to include any governmental official including school teachers.

Now, strictly speaking it appears that the appeals court would have agreed with you -- if the teacher was merely reading a Bible during silent reading time they would not have found a problem -- or so I see from reading the decision. Instead, because he also had a Christian poster in the room, along with Christian books (but not other religious books) in his classroom library, they found that he was promoting his religion. As such they determined that he was in violation of the First Amendment.

As for having the right to practice religion, you are correct that teachers and other government workers are free to practice their religion. What they are restricted from, like most other people in their jobs, is promoting (and openly practicing) their religion while working.

 

[b&wpac4]

Which way is correct, Shiite or Sunni? Ok it is a flipant question but also a very real issue. I finished reading 'Three Cups of Tea' a book by a mountian climber who ended up the driving force in creating schools in rural Pakistan. At one point he had been taught how to pray, then briefly feared for his safety or at least his project because he realized his teacher was on the 'wrong' side of the Shiite/Sunni divide.

Ok, yes, I was going to use a few Jewish prayers as an example, but I have a feeling most Christians would be ok with them in principal, so I went Muslim. LOL

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Well, Germany is not as strict in its separation of church and state as most other western countries. Heck, the churches even collect their tithes via the "church tax"! And you BETCHA that there are crucifixes on the walls of classrooms, especially in predominantly Catholic parts of the country. There's also religious education classes (with philosophy and/or ethics being offered as an alternative in recent years).
I attended Lutheran classes, and even chose it as my subject of choice for part of my final exams.

So, how do I feel about this issue? On the one hand, it seems to me that keeping religion out in the open like that makes it far less... excentric. Fundamentalists are a fringe minority here, and universally regarded as (at the very least) slightly unhinged. Junk mail NEVER contains any religious spam, televangelism is virtually unheard of, and the only people who might end up on your doorstep handing you pamphlets are Jehova's Witnesses.
As religious people don't feel threatened, they don't grow into extremists. And as non-religious people don't feel threatened, either, they don't feel that it's necessary to combat religion. It's a win-win-situation.

On the other hand, there are some rather nasty cases of discrimination in certain parts of germany: muslims mustn't wear headscarfs, but nuns may freely teach in their habit, even at public schools. Religious and/or political symbols are supposedly prohibited, yet the crucifixes on the walls and the little crosses around the neck are somehow exempted from this. Such hypocrisy makes me angry.

 

[Belk]

Well, Germany is not as strict in its separation of church and state as most other western countries. Heck, the churches even collect their tithes via the "church tax"! And you BETCHA that there are crucifixes on the walls of classrooms, especially in predominantly Catholic parts of the country. There's also religious education classes (with philosophy and/or ethics being offered as an alternative in recent years).
I attended Lutheran classes, and even chose it as my subject of choice for part of my final exams.

So, how do I feel about this issue? On the one hand, it seems to me that keeping religion out in the open like that makes it far less... excentric. Fundamentalists are a fringe minority here, and universally regarded as (at the very least) slightly unhinged. Junk mail NEVER contains any religious spam, televangelism is virtually unheard of, and the only people who might end up on your doorstep handing you pamphlets are Jehova's Witnesses.
As religious people don't feel threatened, they don't grow into extremists. And as non-religious people don't feel threatened, either, they don't feel that it's necessary to combat religion. It's a win-win-situation.

On the other hand, there are some rather nasty cases of discrimination in certain parts of germany: muslims mustn't wear headscarfs, but nuns may freely teach in their habit, even at public schools. Religious and/or political symbols are supposedly prohibited, yet the crucifixes on the walls and the little crosses around the neck are somehow exempted from this. Such hypocrisy makes me angry.

Huh, I never know that. Helps explain why a friend of mine who was dual citizen German / American. When we meet in Germany she was still going to school there and was very anti religion. I knew it was a fairy religious country but I did not know that extended to the schools as well.

 

[The Nihilist]

No, I think those two examples are extreme and shouldn't have happened. What people read, unless it was completely inappropriate for a school setting, should not be used against them in that way. I know someone who read a Quran but wasn't Muslim, he just wanted to know what it said.

I think I'm going to have to side with the court on the previously cited example of the teacher reading the bible during a silent reading period. That he had a poster that referenced God in his classroom, that he had I think two christian books in his classroom, and that he was reading the bible, combined most importantly with the fact that he was a representative of the government, made the situation inappropriate. Without the poster and books, my understanding is that the court would have gone the other way.

It seems Maren has already addressed this.

 

[b&wpac4]

I think I'm going to have to side with the court on the previously cited example of the teacher reading the bible during a silent reading period. That he had a poster that referenced God in his classroom, that he had I think two christian books in his classroom, and that he was reading the bible, combined most importantly with the fact that he was a representative of the government, made the situation inappropriate. Without the poster and books, my understanding is that the court would have gone the other way.

It seems Maren has already addressed this.

If he was just reading the Bible without the poster, would that be acceptable? How far do we go? Would the reading of any Christian book put him at risk? What about a book like Lolita, which addresses a controversial issue?

The poster I can see being a problem. Reading a book... that's a bit harder for me to go along with.

 

[Belk]

If he was just reading the Bible without the poster, would that be acceptable? How far do we go? Would the reading of any Christian book put him at risk? What about a book like Lolita, which addresses a controversial issue?

The poster I can see being a problem. Reading a book... that's a bit harder for me to go along with.

if this is the case that I recall then this teacher had a long list of complaints against him for inappropriately pushing Christianity and creationism on students. As i recall he was not in trouble for reading a bible in class, that was a story he came up with. I believe the complaint was filed by some parents who where a different denomination from the teacher that he was trying to steer their child towards his own denomination while deriding theirs. it was, in point of fact, a rather egregious breach of his position.

I believe there was a thread about it here. I'll do a search and see if i can find it.

 

[b&wpac4]

if this is the case that I recall then this teacher had a long list of complaints against him for inappropriately pushing Christianity and creationism on students. As i recall he was not in trouble for reading a bible in class, that was a story he came up with. I believe the complaint was filed by some parents who where a different denomination from the teacher that he was trying to steer their child towards his own denomination while deriding theirs. it was, in point of fact, a rather egregious breach of his position.

I believe there was a thread about it here. I'll do a search and see if i can find it.

That makes perfect sense then. If he's acting improperly, he has no case. But, if he was simply reading a Bible or any other religious work, I don't think that should be cause for problems.