Hypocrisy

People have the right to pray in school. What's to stop any student from quietly praying to themselves before, during or after class? What's stopping them from praying before eating lunch?

Nothing.

The problem starts when you have some sort of sanctioned 'pray time' during school. That I don't agree with at all. School is a public institution, given to us by our government and payed for by our taxes. As such, leave religon out of it. Leave prayer, as a school activity, out of it.

Well, a lot of schools ARE doing organized "pray times' for Moslem students. A lot of schools in the Portland, ME, Detroit and Orlando areas, where there are large Moslem populations, not only arrange private areas for prayer and washing but actually allow Imams to come in from the local Islamic centers to lead prayers several times a day. They are also, in many cases, assisting these imams by "rounding up" all the Moslem students for the prayer sessions. That is NOT right. I'm sure if a Rabbi or an RC Priest went into a public school and tried to gather all the Jewish or Catholic students like that they'd be hauled off to jail.

I couldn't agree more David. If the parents of these kids want prayer and religion to be a part of the school day they should create a privately funded parochial school. Public schools should not be allowing this at all. The same goes for any religion. There are plenty of religious private schools. That's one needy god if he can't let these people go 8 hours without prostrating themselves to him. "Screw thy math class! Kneel before me right now!"

I just have to add another note of absurdity to this idea that public schools should practice an "all or nothing" policy when it comes to religion.

Currently most school systems cater to the majority Christian and Jewish traditions in this country by operating on a seven-day schedule (a week), and giving days off to all students for the Sabbath (a.k.a. the weekend). You're not suggesting that we eliminate this religious accomodation, are you?

It makes sense to me that in a majority Muslim population, public schools are willing to adjust their schedule to allow the students to observe their religious practices. All the same, no religion should be allowed to interfere with classes in session. This seems to be a smart accomdation to the needs of the students, though I hope it was the mosque who paid for the extra facilities at the school and not taxpayers.

Thats a bit of a stretch. Definitely in the same ballpark as "grasping for straws".

-AP

The term for it is reductio ad absurdum. I'm pointing out that removing all religious influence from the public realm in the name of "protecting" us from it would get pretty silly if taken to its "logical" conclusion.

Sooner or later any kid is going to run into a situation where she is different from others. She may have to put up with going to recess for a bit longer while other students go to pray. She may go to a church on Wednesday evening, and miss out on a soccer game because of it. Or her parents may have her pulled out of a health class because they feel it is their religious duty, and not the school's, to educate her about sex and death.

There are lots of times where a public institution needs to make room for religious life. It's a balancing act. We need to keep in mind, in our zeal to avoid establishing a religion, that we also should not infringe on the rights of all to practice one.

So, my opinion where public school is concerned, is that religions have no business having students do anything including prayer, which disrupts the classroom. And schools have no business saying what religious activities go on outside of class. If a school has voluntary activities such as clubs, religious clubs have just as much a right to be there as any other. If students have prayer times during the day, such as muslims do, they need to be excused from class in order to do so. If there are a large number of students who do so it makes sense to adjust the schedule so it can happen without disrupting their class participation. If a student objects to being taught a particular subject on religious grounds, they also need to be excused from doing so.

No doubt some kids will feel left out, if all their classmates go out to say a prayer. But as long as no one pressures them into doing the same, it is not establishment of religion. "Feeling comfortable in all public situations" is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Freedom to practice one's religion is.

I agree with you Ananda. I believe strongly in individualism, and I don't think students or people in the public square should be restricted from self expression.

That said, what I do have a problem with is when the school or the public square gets accomadating to the point of favoritism or promotion of religion. If a school lets moslem students know that there's an ampty classroom they're welcome to use when they'd like to pray, that's great. But if the school puts up flyers advertising prayer meetings there, then I have a big problem with that. If students want to bow their heads and pray silently before a football game, no problem. When the school broadcasts that prayer over the PA system, big problem.

I also have a problem with any religious symbols being displayed on public taxpayer funded property. Holiday lights and garlands are fine... nativity scenes, uhhhh no. The fundamentalists in Alabama didn't want Roy Moore's ten commandments monument in the courthouse because it promoted fair application of the law... they wanted it there as a territorial marker. I believe things like that are hostile to people of other belief systems and just plain don't belong in the public square, except maybe printed on someone's t-shirt.

I don't believe in allowing people to sustain the myth that they live in a world surrounded by people just like them. Part of that is teaching respect for the public square, and the true meaning of public.

I guess you and I are pretty much on the same page, Chip!

Allowing students to go and pray - fine.
Requiring students to sit through prayers in class - not ok.

Having a student run religious activity outside of class times - fine.
Having the school itself post religious messages or run such activities - not ok.



LOL, this case is a good example of how tightly we walk that balancing act. I imagine it would have been fine if the judge had simply put a big plaque in his private chambers.

Wouldn't it have been hilarious if instead of taking it down, he had been required to "complete" his monument to the origins of the justice system? Add in the Code of Hammurabi, the Domesday Book, the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and just for good measure, why not the Analects of Confucius, the other 200 or so Jewish commandments, etc., etc.

Do you know the history of this monument? You seem to think its just this Judges own personal thing, there were 10 of them handed out by some org, I myself am a bit fuzzy on the details, but they were presented to the courthouses as a gift. The ACLU has since had them all removed but this one and maybe 1 or 2 others which the wherebouts are unknown.

Go ACLU, once again great job defending our rights....

JV

Well, I personally think we should have six day school weeks like they do in other nations - and not have school vacations which reflect a no longer relevant farming schedule, for that matter. The school week reflects the work week for most of us professional types, rather than being Sabbath motivated, itself. I have no problem myself in having to take fridays off, as well as saturday and sunday, so that moslems may be accommodated, too.

I call that "hand waving".

-AP

I really don't give a damn where it came from. It was a blatant religious symbol that had no business being in a government building, It served no purpose other than to promote christianity. The whole notion that the ten commandments are the basis of western law is absurd, unless oxen coveting is still a big problem in Alabama. "But they're taking GOD out of the law!" Oh shut up!

the monument isnt hurting anyone.

it isnt shoving religion in anyones face,youre not forced to ead it or believe it in anyway because its there.

sure it serves no purpose but neither do any decorative objects.

the monument is basically just decoration,just cause its religious in natue means nothing.

no where in our constitution or laws is there anything thats says everything and anything having to do with religion has to be removed from anything having to do wit government.

hey how about we go tear down all the crosses at the arlington national cemetary?

or burn all our money due to the reference to god.

how about we go and tar various buildings apart in DC and some other cities because they have religious icons or inscriptions on them?

there are thousands of government buildings and facilities with icons and such that are religious in nature.

why is i that all of a sudden these are hurting someone?

why should they be torn down or removed just cause they are religious?

its all being driven by atheist htred for religion.

many atheists have become more fanatic in their anti religion than any religious person is about their religion.

Spoken like a true Christian. It's hurting everyone it offends who is not a Christian, oh, like me for example. I don't pay tax money to support your religion. Proselytize in your church, not in public courthouses.



Fine, then let's go ahead and install the giant neon cross on top of the white house, shall we?



It promotes christianity. period. Therefore it belongs on church property, or nowhere at all. It DOES NOT belong in a public court that's supposed to equally represent everyone, not just christians.



Okay, then I'm sure you won't mind if I install a giant swastika on your front lawn. It's only decorative.



It's called the establishment clause. Look into it some time.

[

The phrase "In God We Trust" does NOT belong on our money, and I will fight tooth and nail to have it removed while I'm still alive, along with the "One nation under god" line that was inserted into the pledge of allegiance. Stop cramming your religion down everyone else's throat!!!!!! What is so (#*$(@#*$(@* hard to understand about that?!!!! It's offensive, exclusionary, and just plain WRONG!!!!!!!

The original national motto was E Pluribus Unum, which means "from many, one." A beautiful sentiment which perfectly illustrates the melting pot nature of this country. But in the 1950's while everyone was busy freaking out about making sure no one mistook us for those godless commies, the knights of columbus lobbied congress to change the motto to something more judeo-christian. It might as well read "screw atheists." As an atheist who has to pay taxes to support shit like that, I resent it big time. Things like that, and fundamentalist christians trying to isntall ten commandments monuments in public buildings everywhere is arrogant, and inconsiderate in the extreme.



Good idea. If I had my way congress would not be allowed to open session with a prayer.



No there aren't, because people like me try and keep people like you in check. But where religious icons have been installed in public government buildings you can believe that I and others like me will fight to have them removed... every last offensive one.



We'll be right over to install a monument to Allah in your local courthouse. Surely you won't mind. It's not like it hurts anyone.



Because more than just christians pay for those buildings. They don't belong to Christians and their territorial markers are NOT welcome!



On the contrary, it's all in response to christian hatred for all things non-christian.



Get used to it. We're sick to death of having to put up with your crap.

I'm sorry, but if a group had wanted to put, say for instance, a satanic monument right NEXT to that harmless christian monument, would you still say the same? It wouldn't be shoving religon in anyones face, and it would be just decoration ....

lol,no i wouldnt mind,im not offended by other religions,and im sure no one is thoguh atheists claim to be offended by it simply to fuel their anti religious crusade.



depends on the monument i sppose,satanic religions tend to have some very graphic symbols and such but something rather tame i wouldnt care personally.

though a satanic symbol people will not like because it directly promotes evil,besides,satan worshippers are such a miniscule minority that it would be pointless,wether you like it or not america is christian,and its christian morality and integrity that has brought this country to where it stands today.




actually there are,go driving around in DC even,you'll find many dozens of government buildings with religious icons on them.




how is it being there costing tax money?




um no,that is MY front lawn,my personal property so no,but you are welcome to put it on your own front lawn,no law against it,though i imagine you wouldnt get a very nice response to it from many people.

You know I love you, Chauncey, but this just SCARES me. First off, the country isn't America, it's the United States of America. There are north and south Americas, and a lot of coutnries on both that aren't us.

But more importantly, the USA is NOT a Christian county - as much as some people wish it were. As a Jew who is old enough to remember being required to sing "Jesus Loves Me" right after The Pledge of Allegiance in first grade, I can see why you might think it was and will be again. But although it may not have been their intent, the Founding Fathers really did protect us from a State Religion - and where they might have meant "denomination" they failed to write it thusly and so we are not Christian.

We are, instead, an Agnostic nation, legally obligated not to pretend we know who G-d is, or even if there is a G-d. We are a nation where, constitutionally, it is equally valid to be Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Wiccan. And while it's true that we non-Christians have to sometimes fight the majority for these rights, it is not true that they are not Constitutionally guaranteed.

Bhodi "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine" Silverman

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wether you like it or not america is christian,and its christian morality and integrity that has brought this country to where it stands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was the scariest thing I've heard all day.

Normally I would have a reply to you Chauncey ... but I really don't think I need to this time.

hey i never said that the country is only christian.

i never said there should be laws repecting christians over others.

i simply am saying the US is a christian country because the majority of the US is christian.

and the country was aswell built by a population that has always been a christian majority.

why is that scary?




lol, you know what i mean so thats all that matters,and besides we are the only country that calls ourselves americans.

i also doubt anyone would have it any other way.

No, that's not what you said. That's not what you said at all.

Well, a perhaps better way to have said it would be to say that this (the United States) is essentially a Judeo-Christian nation. Like it or not, more people believe in God than believe in flying saucers (though it is pretty damn close) and amongst that whopping number of faithful types, you have to walk a long way before you run across a Buddhist or sun worshipper.

ok,so then what did i say?

obviously you know what i said better then i do some how,so what did i say?


fact:america has always been majority christian.

so by that you can easily say that it was christians that built america mostly,though plenty of people from all faiths have played a large part in it as well.

that doesnt make the american government christian or anything,just means that the people who built this country over the years did so on their christian morals.

now ofcourse not everything tese christians did was good,like stealing indian land and slavery,but thats only a small part of what america is.