Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on April 10, 2010, 09:33:34 AM
-
Sort of a complicated scenario. I don't support mandated prayer in public schools, but student-led prayer is a little different. Can still be very thorny because of peer pressure.
Indiana School Fighting to Keep Prayer at Graduation
By Jana Winter - FOXNews.com
An Indiana public school board is not giving up its school prayer without a fight.
In a rare decision, Greenwood High School is fighting to keep its years-long tradition of holding a student-led prayer during graduation ceremonies.
"For us to just kowtow and just say, 'Yes, sir. Sorry, sir,' well, we're not going to do that," said school board president Joe Farley. "This board is prepared to take on the courts."
In September, members of Greenwood's senior class gathered in the auditorium to vote on whether to include a prayer in their graduation ceremony. The majority of students voted in favor of the prayer. Eric Workman, this year's top-ranked student and expected valedictorian, voted against it.
Last month, hoping to quash the tradition permanently before his May 28 commencement, Workman, now 18, filed a lawsuit with the backing of the Indiana branch of the ACLU against the school district and the high school principal.
This is just one of many similar instances of school-prayer-related controversy unfolding in districts across the country; in almost every case, prayer in school has come up short.
-- In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that students at a Texas public high school could not vote to approve holding student-led prayers over the public address system during school football games.
-- In 1992, a Supreme Court ruling outlawed prayers by clergy at public school graduations.
-- Non-denominational prayer has also been deemed unconstitutional.
"A lot of these schools, to avoid lawsuits or fights, will settle or change their practices," said Charles Haynes, senior scholar for the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center in Washington, D.C., referencing a case in Florida last year in which a complaint by a student immediately resulted in an apology and reversal in school policy district-wide.
Last month, student-led prayer offered daily through the public address system at Alabama's Alexandria High School stopped after a student questioned its legality.
"A lot of school districts take the path of least resistance," Haynes said.
The Greenwood school board president says he's well aware of what has transpired in other districts. But he said the board, with the support of the community, is prepared to spend tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a formal ruling from the courts. The school is expected to present its arguments in Indiana's federal Southern District at the end of the month.
"I think one of the reasons why people go along with the flow is you're dealing with a student and taxpayers' money. Then the ACLU gets involved and they're expecting the school to pay for everything, and you don't want to put the funds at risk. But there just comes a time when you just have to stand up," Farley said.
Ken Falk, Workman's lawyer and the ACLU's legal director in Indiana, said he's surprised that anyone would fight back against such strong case law.
"You cannot have people's rights depend on majority rule — that's the whole purpose here — the majority cannot vote to establish religion," he said. "It's pretty straightforward. That just isn't allowed."
But it may not be that cut and dried.
Haynes said the school's case here sounds like a long shot because student election of school prayer is a specific issue that the court has ruled unconstitutional.
But there are efforts underway, he said, to keep looking for cases to refine the law and push it in the other direction, where students would decide whether or not to have a prayer.
Some states, including Texas, have passed laws that say that students who have primary control over speech and are chosen to speak using neutral criteria may not be censored if they say something either religious or nonreligious.
"I think eventually the Supreme Court will uphold that model, but it hasn't yet," Haynes said. "That's the only way we'll probably see student prayer at graduation."
Haynes thinks this is an uphill battle, but not impossible. "The court has changed," he changed. "There now may very well be five votes that say if students want to do this, they can do this."
Joe Farley's district could be in position to lead the charge.
"Their desire is to have an injunction so that not just this year but in the future this won't be allowed to happen or anything that could be construed as anything religious," Farley said. "We've had this tradition for a long time, for as long as I can remember, so we want to wait for a judicial decision and then we'll decide how to proceed."
Judy L. Woods, an attorney from Bose McKinney & Evans, which is representing the school district and principal, said:
“It is a difficult issue and one that the school system stakes seriously, and we want to do what the law requires but we also want to respect that there are a variety of viewpoints out there.
“There is a very fine line in these cases between free speech and freedom of religion clauses, and we’ll be looking at both of those.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/05/indiana-school-fighting-school-prayer/
-
Unless he can prove student lead prayer causes direct, tangible, real harm the tiny tit should STFU.
Eliminating frivolous law suits would save money and time for important shit.
-
Unless he can prove student lead prayer causes direct, tangible, real harm the tiny tit should STFU.
Eliminating frivolous law suits would save money and time for important shit.
Anytime somebody is forced to pray or forced to listen to some prayer about a non-existent, mythical God, it's harmful.
-
If students want to pray before graduation they can get togerther somewhere and do it but why should eveyone have to sit there and listen to it.
-
As a Christian, I can't get on board with this. Straw Man has it right...forcing people to listen to your beliefs in a public forum isn't right. You want to pray at school/graduation then go to private school.
-
Anytime somebody is forced to pray or forced to listen to some prayer about a non-existent, mythical God, it's harmful.
I disagree. I think that is true in most cases when kids are involved in a state-controlled entity (like public school) when they are a captive audience.
Not necessarily true when you're dealing with adults.
-
Anytime somebody is forced to pray or forced to listen to some prayer about a non-existent, mythical God, it's harmful.
Anyone so gay/lame that they cannot endure a display of faith without emotional scarring should commit suicide. Nature hates weakness and we'd all be better served without their DNA in the gene pool.
-
Anyone so gay/lame that they cannot endure a display of faith without emotional scarring should commit suicide. Nature hates weakness and we'd all be better served without their DNA in the gene pool.
How many prayers dooes someone have to sit through to be non lame/gay. I assume we have to let all the major religions give a prayer and then someone from the agnostic/atheist camp will have to get up there and say you only have yourself to thank
-
How many prayers dooes someone have to sit through to be non lame/gay. I assume we have to let all the major religions give a prayer and then someone from the agnostic/atheist camp will have to get up there and say you only have yourself to thank
Someone who disbelieved strongly wouldn't be affected by their silliness on any level. I'm actually not for school prayer but don't see any reason why one person's lack of faith should be imposed on others, especially when that one person can sit silently for a few minutes.... longer if you're talking about black people, LOL!
An atheist shouldn't have to give words (in the scenario you described) unless it's purely an exercise in ego or they can admit feeling left out.
-
Someone who disbelieved strongly wouldn't be affected by their silliness on any level. I'm actually not for school prayer but
don't see any reason why one person's lack of faith should be imposed on others, especially when that one person can sit silently for a few minutes.... longer if you're talking about black people, LOL!
An atheist shouldn't have to give words (in the scenario you described) unless it's purely an exercise in ego or they can admit feeling left out.
you don't see why one persons lack of faith should be imposed on others but you have no problem if another persons faith is imposed on others?
-
you don't see why one persons lack of faith should be imposed on others but you have no problem if another persons faith is imposed on others?
Faith, by definition, cannot be imposed upon non-believers. :)
People just should be so gay about simple crap to get attention.
Economy dying, people losing everything, a war and tons of other important crap going on and we've got courts tied up with stupid crap like this because someone ends up feeling a little bad. Boo Friggen hoo, people! Move to Somalia for a few years and they'd be happier than shit to be in America and occasionally have to sit through some idiot's boring prayer for a few minutes.
-
Faith, by definition, cannot be imposed upon non-believers. :)
People just should be so gay about simple crap to get attention.
Economy dying, people losing everything, a war and tons of other important crap going on and we've got courts tied up with stupid crap like this because someone ends up feeling a little bad. Boo Friggen hoo, people! Move to Somalia for a few years and they'd be happier than shit to be in America and occasionally have to sit through some idiot's boring prayer for a few minutes.
lol. Preach! :)
-
Faith, by definition, cannot be imposed upon non-believers. :)
People just should be so gay about simple crap to get attention.
Economy dying, people losing everything, a war and tons of other important crap going on and we've got courts tied up with stupid crap like this because someone ends up feeling a little bad. Boo Friggen hoo, people! Move to Somalia for a few years and they'd be happier than shit to be in America and occasionally have to sit through some idiot's boring prayer for a few minutes.
. Why again should prayer be allowed and if allowed how many different religions are going to be allowed? I assume at the very least we'd have to also include Muslim, Jewish and Hindu prayers if there is at least one student who wants it and the non-religious types would have to beoffered some equivalent opportunity, perhaps to give thanks for those who they think helped rhem to graduate........or people can just do all that in private or outside of the public school event
-
. Why again should prayer be allowed and if allowed how many different religions are going to be allowed? I assume at the very least we'd have to also include Muslim, Jewish and Hindu prayers if there is at least one student who wants it and the non-religious types would have to beoffered some equivalent opportunity, perhaps to give thanks for those who they think helped rhem to graduate........or people can just do all that in private or outside of the public school event
Because Atheism isn't a religion, FFS!! :) How can you actively observe not believing in something?!
Long as Muslims, Hindus, Jews or anyone else keeps it short I'm OK. I'd rather not be bored by their observance but wouldn't feel in any way empowered by limiting it.
I'm of a mind that religion (or a lack thereof) should be a private matter but we're not talking about me, LOL!
We're basically asking several important questions and you're intentionally mucking it up with stupid questions, err I meant rhetoric. :) Stop being so intellectually lazy, dammit! :P
-
Because Atheism isn't a religion, FFS!! :) How can you actively observe not believing in something?!
Long as Muslims, Hindus, Jews or anyone else keeps it short I'm OK. I'd rather not be bored by their observance but wouldn't feel in any way empowered by limiting it.
I'm of a mind that religion (or a lack thereof) should be a private matter but we're not talking about me, LOL!
We're basically asking several important questions and you're intentionally mucking it up with stupid questions, err I meant rhetoric. :) Stop being so intellectually lazy, dammit! :P
. Non-belief in a super natural deity is the mirror opposite of belief in one. If non-believers have to sit patiently and respectfully while belivers give thanks to their favorite god then belivers can do the same while non-believers give thanks to whever they feel owes thanks. Why the lack of tolerance for non-believer.........
Of course the simple solution is to do your prayers somewhere else. I'm sure your god will still get the message
-
. Non-belief in a super natural deity is the mirror opposite of belief in one. If non-believers have to sit patiently and respectfully while belivers give thanks to their favorite god then belivers can do the same while non-believers give thanks to whever they feel owes thanks. Why the lack of tolerance for non-believer.........
Of course the simple solution is to do your prayers somewhere else. I'm sure your god will still get the message
The simplest solution is still STFU, but we can't advocate that in America because someone's feelings would get hurt, LOL!
Since you're unwilling to address the bigger issues it's safe to say there's no actual harm in the practice.
Tolerance is something all religions could do better but has very little relevance to this discussion.
But you are being immensely hypocritical because this opinion is 100% contrary to all the silliness spewed about healthcare reform on GetBig. All the greater good nonsense goes out the window when there's any chance of libs being inconvenienced.
-
The simplest solution is still STFU, but we can't advocate that in America because someone's feelings would get hurt, LOL!
Since you're unwilling to address the bigger issues it's safe to say there's no actual harm in the practice.
Tolerance is something all religions could do better but has very little relevance to this discussion.
But you are being immensely hypocritical because this opinion is 100% contrary to all the silliness spewed about healthcare reform on GetBig. All the greater good nonsense goes out the window when there's any chance of libs being inconvenienced.
. An even simplier solution would be to pray somewhere else.
-
Anyone so gay/lame that they cannot endure a display of faith without emotional scarring should commit suicide. Nature hates weakness and we'd all be better served without their DNA in the gene pool.
This is comedy at its finest coming from someone who cries like a bitch when Hugo deletes one of his posts.
The prayer isn't the issue. The issue is we're teaching kids that it's ok to force others to listen or partake in a fairy tale. At what point does it end?
Forcing others to participate or listen to another's religious participation isn't tolerance - it's the very definition of intolerance.
And a "short" period of time is about as relative as it gets.
-
. An even simplier solution would be to pray somewhere else.
Not believing somewhere else or being secure enough to not give a damn would be equally easy.
Skip,
No one gives a shit a shit about Yugo's faggotry beyond how amusing the monthly meltdowns and repeated bald faced lies are.
Someone secure in their shit isn't threatened by situations like that. If at a party and people are doing drugs I wouldn't take any. Some things are just that simple. I read all manner of stupid or gay crap on here and have never even considered thinking bodybuilding was a sport. :)
-
Skip,
No one gives a shit a shit about Yugo's faggotry beyond how amusing the monthly meltdowns and repeated bald faced lies are.
Someone secure in their shit isn't threatened by situations like that. If at a party and people are doing drugs I wouldn't take any. Some things are just that simple. I read all manner of stupid or gay crap on here and have never even considered thinking bodybuilding was a sport. :)
Being threatened is not the issue. Teaching kids that it's ok to force others to listen to or partake in another's beliefs is the issue. Where does the line get drawn? And you're right it is simple - they should do their fucking prayers without affecting the lives of others.
-
Being threatened is not the issue. Teaching kids that it's ok to force others to listen to or partake in another's beliefs is the issue. Where does the line get drawn? And you're right it is simple - they should do their fucking prayers without affecting the lives of others.
People always try to censor things that make them uncomfortable. It's better to teach our kids "once and a while you have to shut up and get along with people" than "keep whining and eventually someone will accommodate you".
Again, there is no line. Whatever line exists (beyond yelling fire in a crowded movie theater) is a matter of political climates and not some absolute right or wrong. Even if there is a line, yours would be different from mine.
If someone wanted to enact a law saying you must pray, say the pledge, or follow a state religion... that's another story. Having laws changed every few years according to majority whim or to silence a loud minority is far more dangerous our rights end up getting eroded.
-
I agree with drkaje for the most part. Much of the complaining we hear about prayer and religion is just plain dumb. Most of them need to just shut the heck up already.
I think it's a different story when kids are involved. It's much more difficult for a kid to deal with peer pressure. Plus they don't have the option of just not going to class. They could possibly be ostracized if they choose to leave the room. I don't think voting helps at all. Way too much pressure. That's not right IMO.
That said, we have to keep in mind that prayer and Christianity are part of the fabric of our society. Part of our history. Something practiced by the overwhelming majority of the country. While we do have to accommodate all beliefs and nonbeliefs, we don't have to censor prayer and religion from public life to cater to a handful of hypersensitive extremists.
-
I agree with drkaje for the most part. Much of the complaining we hear about prayer and religion is just plain dumb. Most of them need to just shut the heck up already.
I think it's a different story when kids are involved. It's much more difficult for a kid to deal with peer pressure. Plus they don't have the option of just not going to class. They could possibly be ostracized if they choose to leave the room. I don't think voting helps at all. Way too much pressure. That's not right IMO.
That said, we have to keep in mind that prayer and Christianity are part of the fabric of our society. Part of our history. Something practiced by the overwhelming majority of the country. While we do have to accommodate all beliefs and nonbeliefs, we don't have to censor prayer and religion from public life to cater to a handful of hypersensitive extremists.
no problem
just keep it out of public school and/or public school events
-
no problem
just keep it out of public school and/or public school events
Wrong. President Clinton clarified that kids do not have to check their faith at the school house door. Read up on the "Revised Religious Guidelines for America's Public Schools."
-
Wrong. President Clinton clarified that kids do not have to check their faith at the school house door. Read up on the "Revised Religious Guidelines for America's Public Schools."
go back and read your first post on this thread
no group prayers at school functions
if a kid wants to pray on his own that's fine
-
Why am I not surprised. ::) Try and educate yourself.
-
This ranks right up there with people offended by "Merry Christmas" or "God Bless you" after a sneeze. :)
-
This ranks right up there with people offended by "Merry Christmas" or "God Bless you" after a sneeze. :)
who get's offended at that
I don't even think this thread is about being offended
The info in Bums initial post includes cases where the SC has ruled on this issue (or very similar circumstances)
Interesting though that the school would choose to spend tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars for a case they have almost no hope of winning
What a f'ng waste of money
-
This ranks right up there with people offended by "Merry Christmas" or "God Bless you" after a sneeze. :)
I'm sure those are on the hit list of Michael Newdow and other paranoid anti-religious extremists. ::)
-
I'm sure those are on the hit list of Michael Newdow and other paranoid anti-religious extremists. ::)
I guess the Supreme Court ruled against it because they were offended and also because they were anti-religious extremists
::)
-
who get's offended at that
I don't even think this thread is about being offended
The info in Bums initial post includes cases where the SC has ruled on this issue (or very similar circumstances)
Interesting though that the school would choose to spend tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars for a case they have almost no hope of winning
What a f'ng waste of money
It isn't a waste of money because our collective rights are all threatened by extremism.
Also, teaching kids to give up every time someone cries over nonsense sends the wrong message to everyone. Unless, of course, you think whoever yells the loudest in an argument is right. :)
-
It isn't a waste of money because our collective rights are all threatened by extremism.
Also, teaching kids to give up every time someone cries over nonsense sends the wrong message to everyone. Unless, of course, you think whoever yells the loudest in an argument is right. :)
what extremism?
The SC has multiple rulings on this issue and it's pretty cut and dried
the real issue is not allowing religious practices to creep into the public system
-
what extremism?
The SC has multiple rulings on this issue and it's pretty cut and dried
the real issue not is allowing religious practices to creep into the public system
SC rulings are ultimately a result of confirmations that follow presidential nominations. There's no reason to take comfort in any rulings beyond them being consistent with one's political views. I'm going out on a limb but will guess the Supreme Court used the same constitution in Plessy v. Fergusen and Brown v. Board of Education and came up with pretty different opinions.
I do realize the appointments are lifetime. The process is so political because politicians want someone there who will interpret laws how they see fit, which isn't always right.
-
SC rulings are ultimately a result of confirmations that follow presidential nominations. There's no reason to take comfort in any rulings beyond them being consistent with one's political views. I'm going out on a limb but will guess the Supreme Court used the same constitution in Plessy v. Fergusen and Brown v. Board of Education and came up with pretty different opinions.
I do realize the appointments are lifetime. The process is so political because politicians want someone there who will interpret laws how they see fit, which isn't always right.
so you're saying the POTUS picks justices in order to have them legislate from the bench?
I thought the justices were supposed to be independent
Did our current Chief Justice say he is just there to call balls and strikes?
-
so you're saying the POTUS picks justices in order to have them legislate from the bench?
I thought the justices were supposed to be independent
Did our current Chief Justice say he is just there to call balls and strikes?
Yes they do!!
Libs want someone who will keep Rove V. Wade intact and not declare mandating health insurance unconstitutional or a violation of state's rights. Repubs want the opposite. :)
-
Yes they do!!
Libs want someone who will keep Rove V. Wade intact and not declare mandating health insurance unconstitutional or a violation of state's rights. Repubs want the opposite. :)
wow - finally some honesty from someone on the right on this topic
so you're saying that we do want and expect our judges to legislate from the bench
There is no doub that the current court is doing that very thing and it's all in favor of the Corporations and not the "mythical little guy" (again - a quote from our current Chief Justice)
Hey little guys - you're all a myth - just like Bigfoot.
-
wow - finally some honesty from someone on the right on this topic
so you're saying that we do want and expect our judges to legislate from the bench
There is no doub that the current court is doing that very thing and it's all in favor of the Corporations and not the "mythical little guy" (again - a quote from our current Chief Justice)
Hey little guys - you're all a myth - just like Bigfoot.
I'd prefer people with a history of fairness without being overly creative. Hopefully people like that would stay limit the power of Govt and protect our rights. That being said, I'm not nearly educated or informed enough to have suggestions.
-
I'd prefer people with a history of fairness without being overly creative. Hopefully people like that would stay limit the power of Govt and protect our rights. That being said, I'm not nearly educated or informed enough to have suggestions.
but you do believe that POTUS picks judges specifically to legislate from the bench?
did I misunderstand you on that point?
-
but you do believe that POTUS picks judges specifically to legislate from the bench?
did I misunderstand you on that point?
I'm probably not alone in being convinced the suggestions are based upon voting expectations.
This may not make much sense but... I'm more intrigued in how judges rule when rights collide. On a larger level it would be what are actual rights versus beliefs people/politicians have simply gotten enough power to legislate.
-
I'm probably not alone in being convinced the suggestions are based upon voting expectations.
This may not make much sense but... I'm more intrigued in how judges rule when rights collide. On a larger level it would be what are actual rights versus beliefs people/politicians have simply gotten enough power to legislate.
so when POTUS says things like their is no litmus test and Congress people say they don't want judges to legislate from the bench they are all just lying?
They lying right to our face and they actually mean the opposite of what they say?
-
so when POTUS says things like their is no litmus test and Congress people say they don't want judges to legislate from the bench they are all just lying?
They lying right to our face and they actually mean the opposite of what they say?
Politician = professional liar.
They're all whores, IMO.
-
People always try to censor things that make them uncomfortable. It's better to teach our kids "once and a while you have to shut up and get along with people" than "keep whining and eventually someone will accommodate you".
Kids learn that lesson every single day just by attending school. Being forced to endure another's religious beliefs is just sending them the message that it's ok to force a belief upon somebody else.
Again, there is no line. Whatever line exists (beyond yelling fire in a crowded movie theater) is a matter of political climates and not some absolute right or wrong. Even if there is a line, yours would be different from mine.
I wasn't referring to a 1st amendment line. I meant at what point does one draw the line for having others force their beliefs on someone else? I don't thing saying "Merry Christmas" or "Bless You" crosses the line. I do think that mandating others either participate in your prayer or be forced to listen to it clearly crosses the line.
Incidentally, I've seen more religious intolerance than that by atheists. "Back in the day", I used to work as a cashier. One day, some douche flipped out because another cashier didn't say "Merry Christmas" to him. Started yelling in the store asking if the cashier was "forbidden" by the company from saying "Merry Christmas". There was no such prohibition, the cashier just didn't say it. Just another religious asshole making an idiot of himself.
If someone wanted to enact a law saying you must pray, say the pledge, or follow a state religion... that's another story. Having laws changed every few years according to majority whim or to silence a loud minority is far more dangerous our rights end up getting eroded.
What laws are being changed every few years? Incidentally, when I took Constitutional Law for my undergrad degree, the majority of anti school prayer cases were brought forth by Jehovas Witnesses (sp?), not atheists.
-
Politician = professional liar.
They're all whores, IMO.
even Sister Sarah?
-
Here are the guidelines for public schools:
Guidelines for Religious Expression in Public Schools
Republished by Marc A. Fey
A letter from the secretary of education in 1999 outlining the religious expression freedom students and teachers have in our public schools.
LETTER FROM THE U.S. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
Dear American Educator,
Almost three years ago, President Clinton directed me, as U.S. Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Attorney General, to provide every public school district in America with a statement of principles addressing the extent to which religious expression and activity are permitted in our public schools. In accordance with the President's directive, I sent every school superintendent in the country guidelines on Religious Expression in Public Schools in August of 1995.
The purpose of promulgating these presidential guidelines was to end much of the confusion regarding religious expression in our nation's public schools that had developed over more than thirty years since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1962 regarding state sponsored school prayer. I believe that these guidelines have helped school officials, teachers, students and parents find a new common ground on the important issue of religious freedom consistent with constitutional requirements.
In July of 1996, for example, the Saint Louis School Board adopted a district wide policy using these guidelines. While the school district had previously allowed certain religious activities, it had never spelled them out before, resulting in a lawsuit over the right of a student to pray before lunch in the cafeteria. The creation of a clearly defined policy using the guidelines allowed the school board and the family of the student to arrive at a mutually satisfactory settlement.
In a case decided last year in a United States District Court in Alabama, (Chandler v. James) involving student initiated prayer at school related events, the court instructed the DeKalb County School District to maintain for circulation in the library of each school a copy of the presidential guidelines.
The great advantage of the presidential guidelines, however, is that they allow school districts to avoid contentious disputes by developing a common understanding among students, teachers, parents and the broader community that the First Amendment does in fact provide ample room for religious expression by students while at the same time maintaining freedom from government sponsored religion.
The development and use of these presidential guidelines were not and are not isolated activities. Rather, these guidelines are part of an ongoing and growing effort by educators and America's religious community to find a new common ground. In April of 1995, for example, thirty-five religious groups issued "Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law" that the Department drew from in developing its own guidelines. Following the release of the presidential guidelines, the National PTA and the Freedom Forum jointly published in 1996 "A Parent's Guide to Religion in the Public Schools" which put the guidelines into an easily understandable question and answer format.
In the last two years, I have held three religious-education summits to inform faith communities and educators about the guidelines and to encourage continued dialogue and cooperation within constitutional limits. Many religious communities have contacted local schools and school systems to offer their assistance because of the clarity provided by the guidelines. The United Methodist Church has provided reading tutors to many schools, and Hadassah and the Women's League for Conservative Judaism have both been extremely active in providing local schools with support for summer reading programs.
The guidelines we are releasing today are the same as originally issued in 1995, except that changes have been made in the sections on religious excusals and student garb to reflect the Supreme Court decision in Boerne v. Flores declaring the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional as applied to actions of state and local governments.
These guidelines continue to reflect two basic and equally important obligations imposed on public school officials by the First Amendment. First, schools may not forbid students acting on their own from expressing their personal religious views or beliefs solely because they are of a religious nature. Schools may not discriminate against private religious expression by students, but must instead give students the same right to engage in religious activity and discussion as they have to engage in other comparable activity. Generally, this means that students may pray in a nondisruptive manner during the school day when they are not engaged in school activities and instruction, subject to the same rules of order that apply to other student speech.
At the same time, schools may not endorse religious activity or doctrine, nor may they coerce participation in religious activity. Among other things, of course, school administrators and teachers may not organize or encourage prayer exercises in the classroom. Teachers, coaches and other school officials who act as advisors to student groups must remain mindful that they cannot engage in or lead the religious activities of students.
And the right of religious expression in school does not include the right to have a "captive audience" listen, or to compel other students to participate. School officials should not permit student religious speech to turn into religious harassment aimed at a student or a small group of students. Students do not have the right to make repeated invitations to other students to participate in religious activity in the face of a request to stop.
The statement of principles set forth below derives from the First Amendment. Implementation of these principles, of course, will depend on specific factual contexts and will require careful consideration in particular cases.
In issuing these revised guidelines I encourage every school district to make sure that principals, teachers, students and parents are familiar with their content. To that end I offer three suggestions:
First, school districts should use these guidelines to revise or develop their own district wide policy regarding religious expression. In developing such a policy, school officials can engage parents, teachers, the various faith communities and the broader community in a positive dialogue to define a common ground that gives all parties the assurance that when questions do arise regarding religious expression the community is well prepared to apply these guidelines to specific cases. The Davis County School District in Farmington, Utah,is an example of a school district that has taken the affirmative step of developing such a policy.
At a time of increasing religious diversity in our country such a proactive step can help school districts create a framework of civility that reaffirms and strengthens the community consensus regarding religious liberty. School districts that do not make the effort to develop their own policy may find themselves unprepared for the intensity of the debate that can engage a community when positions harden around a live controversy involving religious expression in public schools.
Second, I encourage principals and administrators to take the additional step of making sure that teachers, so often on the front line of any dispute regarding religious expression, are fully informed about the guidelines. The Gwinnett County School system in Georgia, for example, begins every school year with workshops for teachers that include the distribution of these presidential guidelines. Our nation's schools of education can also do their part by ensuring that prospective teachers are knowledgeable about religious expression in the classroom.
Third, I encourage schools to actively take steps to inform parents and students about religious expression in school using these guidelines. The Carter County School District in Elizabethton, Tennessee, included the subject of religious expression in a character education program that it developed in the fall of 1997. This effort included sending home to every parent a copy of the "Parent's Guide to Religion in the Public Schools."
Help is available for those school districts that seek to develop policies on religious expression. I have enclosed a list of associations and groups that can provide information to school districts and parents who seek to learn more about religious expression in our nation's public schools.
In addition, citizens can turn to the U.S. Department of Education web site, (http://www.ed.gov) , for information about the guidelines and other activities of the Department that support the growing effort of educators and religious communities to support the education of our nation's children.
Finally, I encourage teachers and principals to see the First Amendment as something more than a piece of dry, old parchment locked away in the national attic gathering dust. It is a vital living principle, a call to action, and a demand that each generation reaffirm its connection to the basic idea that is America -- that we are a free people who protect our freedoms by respecting the freedom of others who differ from us.
Our history as a nation reflects the history of the Puritan, the Quaker, the Baptist, the Catholic, the Jew and many others fleeing persecution to find religious freedom in America. The United States remains the most successful experiment in religious freedom that the world has ever known because the First Amendment uniquely balances freedom of private religious belief and expression with freedom from state-imposed religious expression.
Public schools can neither foster religion nor preclude it. Our public schools must treat religion with fairness and respect and vigorously protect religious expression as well as the freedom of conscience of all other students. In so doing our public schools reaffirm the First Amendment and enrich the lives of their students.
I encourage you to share this information widely and in the most appropriate manner with your school community. Please accept my sincere thanks for your continuing work on behalf of all of America's children.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Riley
U.S. Secretary of Education
GUIDELINES FOR RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Student prayer and religious discussion: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit purely private religious speech by students. Students therefore have the same right to engage in individual or group prayer and religious discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activity. For example, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may engage in comparable nondisruptive activities. Local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and other pedagogical restrictions on student activities, but they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against religious activity or speech.
Generally, students may pray in a nondisruptive manner when not engaged in school activities or instruction, and subject to the rules that normally pertain in the applicable setting. Specifically, students in informal settings, such as cafeterias and hallways, may pray and discuss their religious views with each other, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other student activities and speech. Students may also speak to, and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics. School officials, however, should intercede to stop student speech that constitutes harassment aimed at a student or a group of students.
Students may also participate in before or after school events with religious content, such as "see you at the flag pole" gatherings, on the same terms as they may participate in other noncurriculum activities on school premises. School officials may neither discourage nor encourage participation in such an event.
The right to engage in voluntary prayer or religious discussion free from discrimination does not include the right to have a captive audience listen, or to compel other students to participate. Teachers and school administrators should ensure that no student is in any way coerced to participate in religious activity.
Graduation prayer and baccalaureates: Under current Supreme Court decisions, school officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation, nor organize religious baccalaureate ceremonies. If a school generally opens its facilities to private groups, it must make its facilities available on the same terms to organizers of privately sponsored religious baccalaureate services. A school may not extend preferential treatment to baccalaureate ceremonies and may in some instances be obliged to disclaim official endorsement of such ceremonies.
Official neutrality regarding religious activity: Teachers and school administrators, when acting in those capacities, are representatives of the state and are prohibited by the establishment clause from soliciting or encouraging religious activity, and from participating in such activity with students. Teachers and administrators also are prohibited from discouraging activity because of its religious content, and from soliciting or encouraging antireligious activity.
Teaching about religion: Public schools may not provide religious instruction, but they may teach about religion, including the Bible or other scripture: the history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other scripture)-as-literature, and the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries all are permissible public school subjects. Similarly, it is permissible to consider religious influences on art, music, literature, and social studies. Although public schools may teach about religious holidays, including their religious aspects, and may celebrate the secular aspects of holidays, schools may not observe holidays as religious events or promote such observance by students.
Student assignments: Students may express their beliefs about religion in the form of homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free of discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such home and classroom work should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school.
Religious literature: Students have a right to distribute religious literature to their schoolmates on the same terms as they are permitted to distribute other literature that is unrelated to school curriculum or activities. Schools may impose the same reasonable time, place, and manner or other constitutional restrictions on distribution of religious literature as they do on nonschool literature generally, but they may not single out religious literature for special regulation.
Religious excusals: Subject to applicable State laws, schools enjoy substantial discretion to excuse individual students from lessons that are objectionable to the student or the students' parents on religious or other conscientious grounds. However, students generally do not have a Federal right to be excused from lessons that may be inconsistent with their religious beliefs or practices. School officials may neither encourage nor discourage students from availing themselves of an excusal option.
Released time: Subject to applicable State laws, schools have the discretion to dismiss students to off-premises religious instruction, provided that schools do not encourage or discourage participation or penalize those who do not attend. Schools may not allow religious instruction by outsiders on school premises during the school day.
Teaching values: Though schools must be neutral with respect to religion, they may play an active role with respect to teaching civic values and virtue, and the moral code that holds us together as a community. The fact that some of these values are held also by religions does not make it unlawful to teach them in school.
Student garb: Schools enjoy substantial discretion in adopting policies relating to student dress and school uniforms. Students generally have no Federal right to be exempted from religiously-neutral and generally applicable school dress rules based on their religious beliefs or practices; however, schools may not single out religious attire in general, or attire of a particular religion, for prohibition or regulation. Students may display religious messages on items of clothing to the same extent that they are permitted to display other comparable messages. Religious messages may not be singled out for suppression, but rather are subject to the same rules as generally apply to comparable messages.
THE EQUAL ACCESS ACT
The Equal Access Act is designed to ensure that, consistent with the First Amendment, student religious activities are accorded the same access to public school facilities as are student secular activities. Based on decisions of the Federal courts, as well as its interpretations of the Act, the Department of Justice has advised that the Act should be interpreted as providing, among other things, that:
General provisions: Student religious groups at public secondary schools have the same right of access to school facilities as is enjoyed by other comparable student groups. Under the Equal Access Act, a school receiving Federal funds that allows one or more student noncurriculum-related clubs to meet on its premises during noninstructional time may not refuse access to student religious groups.
Prayer services and worship exercises covered: A meeting, as defined and protected by the Equal Access Act, may include a prayer service, Bible reading, or other worship exercise.
Equal access to means of publicizing meetings: A school receiving Federal funds must allow student groups meeting under the Act to use the school media -- including the public address system, the school newspaper, and the school bulletin board -- to announce their meetings on the same terms as other noncurriculum-related student groups are allowed to use the school media. Any policy concerning the use of school media must be applied to all noncurriculum-related student groups in a nondiscriminatory matter. Schools, however, may inform students that certain groups are not school sponsored.
Lunch-time and recess covered: A school creates a limited open forum under the Equal Access Act, triggering equal access rights for religious groups, when it allows students to meet during their lunch periods or other noninstructional time during the school day, as well as when it allows students to meet before and after the school day.
Revised May 1998
ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Name: Rabbi David Saperstein
Address: 2027 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 387-2800
Fax: (202) 667-9070
Web site: (http://www.rj.org/rac/)
American Association of School Administrators
Name: Andrew Rotherham
Address: 1801 N. Moore St., Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: (703) 528-0700
Fax: (703) 528-2146
Web site: (http://www.aasa.org)
American Jewish Congress
Name: Marc Stern
Address: 15 East 84th Street, New York, NY 10028
Phone: (212) 360-1545
Fax: (212) 861-7056
National PTA
Name: Maribeth Oakes
Address: 1090 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 289-6790
Fax: (202) 289-6791
Web site: (http://www.pta.org)
Christian Legal Society
Name: Steven McFarland
Address: 4208 Evergreen Lane, #222, Annandale, VA 22003
Phone: (703) 642-1070
Fax: (703) 642-1075
Web site: (http://www.clsnet.com)
National Association of Evangelicals
Name: Forest Montgomery
Address: 1023 15th Street, NW #500, Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 789-1011
Fax: (202) 842-0392
Web site: (http://www.nae.net)
National School Boards Association
Name: Laurie Westley
Address: 1680 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (703) 838-6703
Fax: (703) 548-5613
Web site: (http://www.nsba.org)
Freedom Forum
Name: Charles Haynes
Address: 1101 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: (703) 528-0800
Fax: (703) 284-2879
Web site: (http://www.freedomforum.org)
http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/education/re/A000001467.cfm
-
even Sister Sarah?
If you mean Palin, Yes.
They are all whores.
-
Seems to me that this is the issue at hand.
At the same time, schools may not endorse religious activity or doctrine, nor may they coerce participation in religious activity. Among other things, of course, school administrators and teachers may not organize or encourage prayer exercises in the classroom. Teachers, coaches and other school officials who act as advisors to student groups must remain mindful that they cannot engage in or lead the religious activities of students.
And the right of religious expression in school does not include the right to have a "captive audience" listen, or to compel other students to participate. School officials should not permit student religious speech to turn into religious harassment aimed at a student or a small group of students. Students do not have the right to make repeated invitations to other students to participate in religious activity in the face of a request to stop.
-
Seems to me that this is the issue at hand.
Pretty much.
-
Seems to me that this is the issue at hand.
I guess it comes down to captive audience. Someone may successfully argue social obligations (real or perceived) prevent children from exercising a right to not participate. It's lame enough to work but teaching kids fitting in is more important than common sense still isn't a good thing.
There were probably millions of Germans who thought the holocaust sucked ass but went along just to fit in.
-
If you mean Palin, Yes.
They are all whores.
I know - I didn't think you'd take me seriously
Palin is the true whore
she's in it for the MONEY
-
This has definitely been a good/cool discussion, guys.
When/if this horse moves again let's all beat it some more!! :)
-
The long and short of it, the real reason such controversy exist in our current state is because the nature of the church and state argument has been perverted from its intent.
The original intention of the church and state argument was to prevent a federal sponsored church from being established, that's all it was. It was not to keep government and religion separate. There was no rule against public prayer, not for any religion. For crying out loud, congress printed and issued an official congressional bible to each freshman member until the 1930's.
Here's the simple solution, prayer is freedom of expression, if you don't like it then it's simple, just don't listen, don't pay attention. Every last one of us has been to some function, some event where we were either bored or uninterested, what did we do in those cases, we didn't pay attention, we didn't listen, we probably daydreamed...someone was speaking but during your little daydream I seriously doubt you heard one single word being said. It's not that hard, if you don't like it don't listen but to scoff and bitch about freedom of expression, which prayer is, well that's nothing short of ultimate stupidity and nothing short of bitching just to bitch. What are those that don't like the prayer worried about? Are they worried if they're in the same room that their ears might fall off due to prayer induced leprosy?
-
The long and short of it, the real reason such controversy exist in our current state is because the nature of the church and state argument has been perverted from its intent.
The original intention of the church and state argument was to prevent a federal sponsored church from being established, that's all it was. It was not to keep government and religion separate. There was no rule against public prayer, not for any religion. For crying out loud, congress printed and issued an official congressional bible to each freshman member until the 1930's.
Here's the simple solution, prayer is freedom of expression, if you don't like it then it's simple, just don't listen, don't pay attention. Every last one of us has been to some function, some event where we were either bored or uninterested, what did we do in those cases, we didn't pay attention, we didn't listen, we probably daydreamed...someone was speaking but during your little daydream I seriously doubt you heard one single word being said. It's not that hard, if you don't like it don't listen but to scoff and bitch about freedom of expression, which prayer is, well that's nothing short of ultimate stupidity and nothing short of bitching just to bitch. What are those that don't like the prayer worried about? Are they worried if they're in the same room that their ears might fall off due to prayer induced leprosy?
I agree with much of this. We've had chaplains on the Congressional payroll forever. We have military chaplains paid for by the taxpayers. Many other examples.
One of the problems with state sanctioned prayer in public schools is you have government officials writing/approving prayers.
-
I agree with much of this. We've had chaplains on the Congressional payroll forever. We have military chaplains paid for by the taxpayers. Many other examples.
One of the problems with state sanctioned prayer in public schools is you have government officials writing/approving prayers.
LoL - you think that's the problem with STATE SANCTIONED prayer?
does the magic not work if it written/approved by the state
maybe we need to set up a new government agency to write and approve the prayers
-
LoL - you think that's the problem with STATE SANCTIONED prayer?
does the magic not work if it written/approved by the state
maybe we need to set up a new government agency to write and approve the prayers
This is part of the reason I ignore you so much. I said "one of the problems," not "the problem." ::)
-
This is part of the reason I ignore you so much. I said "one of the problems," not "the problem." ::)
just thinking of it as one of the problems is absurd
-
I agree with much of this. We've had chaplains on the Congressional payroll forever. We have military chaplains paid for by the taxpayers. Many other examples.
One of the problems with state sanctioned prayer in public schools is you have government officials writing/approving prayers.
Oddly, I don't have a problem with most of that. In fact, I've got no problems giving churches a free pass on property taxes. My problem arises when others are compelled to participate or are forced to witness such participation.
-
Oddly, I don't have a problem with most of that. In fact, I've got no problems giving churches a free pass on property taxes. My problem arises when others are compelled to participate or are forced to witness such participation.
I don't have a problem with adults being "forced" to "witness" religious expression. Entirely harmless. This is where I really agree with drkaje. People need to quit crying already.
Nothing in the Constitution says or was intended to say that the public sector should be free of religious expression.
You know how stupid it has become? We had the ACLU fighting to force a state rep to take the fish symbol off his office door. They've been scouring the country looking for historical crosses on government property. It's ridiculous.
-
Oddly, I don't have a problem with most of that. In fact, I've got no problems giving churches a free pass on property taxes. My problem arises when others are compelled to participate or are forced to witness such participation.
No one is ever forced to participate...this never happens. Just because you're in the same room as someone else praying does not mean you are being forced to pray. No one can force anyone to pray, it's not humanly possible.
As for being forced to witness prayer, everyone everywhere is "forced" to witness all sorts of things and ideas they may not agree with...that's the nature of life. You walk into your local WalMart and someone may have on a T-shirt that makes a statement you disagree with or how about this, you see someone wearing a Yankees hat but you're a Red Sox fan, you've now been forced to witness someone supporting the Yankees. No one is forcing you to wear a Yankees hat, no one is forcing you to like the Yankees just because you were in the same room as a Yankee fan.