Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Center


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Center Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 9:15:37 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

LOL.. i thought so.. did you actually read the article?



No, just the quotes.

I'm an atheist who doesn't give a "good god damn" about the issue. Public religious displays don't bother me in the least.

Debates about whether the nation was founded on Christian principles are ludicrous semantic games that attempt to deny the obvious.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 281
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 9:16:10 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

This is a snippit of an article about the San Diego schools allowing time for islamic prayer in school there. And it seems to be many people's views these days. Religion has withstood many assaults, many aggressors. Yet, instead of this being offered up for debate or comment, we have to worry about words written on a momument. Anythig to divert from what is really happening.



Well, considering the Supreme Court has heard similar cases, as I posted above, I hardly think they would have agreed to hear them if it was not a valid constitutional issue.  And I have little doubt this case will wind its way through the courts and likely end up before them.

But your comment also brings up an interesting point That Irish was making to you.  If the phrase used was Allah Akbar
would you still feel they were just words on a monument?

Because, I guarantee if that were the case you would have Fox News running around the clock with Christian leaders and conservatives like Rep. Lungren screaming their heads off.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 282
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 9:34:46 AM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline
quote:

If the phrase used was Allah Akbar
would you still feel they were just words on a monument?

I would be hopping mad as well, since the proper transliteration is "Allahu Akbar"

Ok, that's enough levity for the time being. I think I agree with willbuer about the nation being founded on christian principles (I say I think because I am not entirely sure where he stands on the particular issue). There is no doubt whatsoever that the nation was founded on such principles, and that the founding fathers came from a christian culture, with all the approrpiate baggage that goes along with that. That being said, it is also beyond a doubt that the US was not founded as a "christian nation", it was founded as a specifically non-religious nation, one where religion had no part in the government makeup, and where government had no part to play in the field of religion.


_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!


Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 283
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 9:43:33 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
I agree, we are not a country founded for religion.

quote:

would you still feel they were just words on a monument?


I have answered that on more than one occassion.

quote:

Well, considering the Supreme Court has heard similar cases, as I posted above, I hardly think they would have agreed to hear them if it was not a valid constitutional issue. And I have little doubt this case will wind its way through the courts and likely end up before them.


But why should it have too. These are kids, wanting only to follow the beliefs their parents have decided is best for them. For a group of children to be denied the right to pray, under any pretense, is, to me, a bit childish on the behalf of the adults. I also dont see a problem with adults joining in, if they so choose too. But thats just me. And that pertains to any religion.

As much as people want to argue the point of this country not being founded on no religion, it is founded on the rights of religion, the rights to pratice their religion, without government interference. seems like the government has its hands in alot of religions.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 284
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 11:36:24 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

If the phrase used was Allah Akbar
would you still feel they were just words on a monument?

I would be hopping mad as well, since the proper transliteration is "Allahu Akbar"

Ok, that's enough levity for the time being. I think I agree with willbuer about the nation being founded on christian principles (I say I think because I am not entirely sure where he stands on the particular issue). There is no doubt whatsoever that the nation was founded on such principles, and that the founding fathers came from a christian culture, with all the approrpiate baggage that goes along with that. That being said, it is also beyond a doubt that the US was not founded as a "christian nation", it was founded as a specifically non-religious nation, one where religion had no part in the government makeup, and where government had no part to play in the field of religion.



You think correctly, we agree on all of your points, with a possible minor exception on the very last comment. Government does have a part to play in the field of religion, which is to ensure that the right to practice (or not practice) a particular religion is not infringed upon.

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 285
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 2:45:02 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
More liars for Jesus:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/article1020144.ece

Wasn't there a commandment about telling lies?

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 286
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 2:50:24 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

More liars for Jesus:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/article1020144.ece

Wasn't there a commandment about telling lies?


...and from that article a quote by a leading light behind the idea......

"I don't believe there's a document in Washington's handwriting that has those words in that specific form," Kemple said. "However, if you look at Washington's quotes, including his farewell address, about the place of religion in the political sphere, there's no question he could have said those exact words."

...in other words, he made it up.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 287
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 3:10:55 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

If the phrase used was Allah Akbar
would you still feel they were just words on a monument?

I would be hopping mad as well, since the proper transliteration is "Allahu Akbar"


I thought someone would point that out. 

I did look it up beforehand, and it seems that while that is the more correct translation the other seems more in common usage, especially in the media, so I used what was more recognizable.

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 288
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 3:14:07 PM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

The majority of religious displays have been deemed illegal.


quote:

Nativity scenes and the precious baby Jesus will be hard to find on court house lawns.



They arent illegal.

quote:

October 29, 2008 - 9:21 AM
The Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - An activist group says an annual Nativity scene at a state park in north-central Ohio violates the separation of church and state and should be discontinued.
In a letter, the Madison, Wis.-based Freedom from Religion Foundation has asked Ohio Attorney General Nancy Rogers to determine whether Malabar Farm State Park's display is legal. The park is located outside of Mansfield.
The group threatened legal action on behalf of David Russell, a resident of Reynoldsburg in suburban Columbus.
A spokesman for the attorney general says the office is discussing the matter with the agency that runs state parks.
Last year, two parks removed Nativity scenes after Russell and another person asked them to add pagan displays. Gov. Ted Strickland reinstated the manger scenes and refused to add other symbols.


Green Bay wins lawsuit over nativity scene

http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/green-bay-wins-lawsuit-over-nativity-scene-20081008293.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=33911

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104916,00.html





...


Posted Friday, Dec. 21, 2001, at 11:07 AM ET

Crèche Test Dummies
Nativity scenes on public lands are illegal, rules the Supreme Court. Except when they're not.
By Dahlia Lithwick


quote:

Prayer is no longer allowed in public school

quote:


and, so you know, prayer is still allowed, and legal, in schools. it just cant be lead by a school official or teacher. it must be student lead. and they can have it whenever they have free time, provided that other groups are allowed to meet during those times, ie: clubs, sports, student government.


That is true about prayer.  Thank you for the clarification.  However, you obviously missed my point.  Prayer at one time was mandatory.  Then it was expected now it is only allowed behind closed doors.  I do disagree....  A student soccer team is not allowed to start the game with a prayer nor could a student government body begin 'session' with a prayer.  I might be wrong but will assume I am correct until you can come up with some more factsheets.  Prayer is useless and ineffective anywho...
================
Now on with the program.
Oh my god princess someone got her panties in a bunch.  Talk about taking my words out of context

quote:

quote:

Nativity scenes and the precious baby Jesus will be hard to find on court house lawns.



They arent illegal


I sent the tazzy in a tizzy.  Please re-read exactly what I said.  I did mean it as well.  I was simply stating the fact that there was so much hassle associated with pimping the cute baby Jesus out to the public many will think about it.  "will be hard to find".  Talk about jumping to a conclusion because you are so hard pressed to make a point.  Let me unknot them there panties and stick em in your mouth - tape anyone?

Ah, there you go.

**As far as the majority of religious display's such as 'Merry Christmas'.  The fact is the majority of the places are replacing those foolish signs with "Season Greetings".


_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 289
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 3:23:35 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
LOL.. honey, takes more than that to send my.. wait... i dont wear panties.. so much for that!

the thought that you would even put pimping and baby in the same sentence though.... umm... ok.

now, you think you are being cute, and looking for others to help you out in your "cuteness". no thank you, i dont believe you could ever hope to be man enough to put anything between my lips, since you seem to have no problems lowering yoruself to a level no one else has on this thread.

a political debate is not the place to pat a woman on the head when she proves you wrong, and then try and dismiss her because she is a woman and drag others into your attempts. shame. i had some hopes for you.

quote:

There have been about 12 major rulings from US courts dealing with the placement of 'historical' / religious documents as someone mentioned. The majority of religious displays have been deemed illegal. If I recall only 1-2 were allowed to stay. The bible is no longer used in public school's. The phrase 'Merry Christmas' will no longer appear in many places. Nativity scenes and the precious baby Jesus will be hard to find on court house lawns. Military chaplins have become restricted. Prayer is no longer allowed in public school. Despite 16 attempts since the 1800's the US court system has ruled Creationism is not science and rightly belongs in mythology. The vast majority of state sponsored Chaplin's have been fired - one pops up on occasion. "In Jesus' name" is not echoed throughout the halls of Us Congress.


Perhaps you need to reread what you wrote. Your whole post was about what was legal and allowed. I proved you wrong on two points you made.

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 7/22/2009 3:33:16 PM >


_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Esinn)
Profile   Post #: 290
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 3:50:31 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

More liars for Jesus:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/article1020144.ece

Wasn't there a commandment about telling lies?


...and from that article a quote by a leading light behind the idea......

"I don't believe there's a document in Washington's handwriting that has those words in that specific form," Kemple said. "However, if you look at Washington's quotes, including his farewell address, about the place of religion in the political sphere, there's no question he could have said those exact words."

...in other words, he made it up.



i saw that too. according to the government sites, he did kiss a bible, then had a speach later, but those words were never spoken during his inaugural speach.

Transcript of President George Washington's First Inaugural Speech (1789).... http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=11&page=transcript

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 291
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 9:12:17 PM   
Irishknight


Posts: 2016
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
So because a few people did things against your friend (word of mouth is always a better example than a real first had experience) you paint everyone with the same brush. nice

Anyone who feels that religious tyranny is alright... you'd better believe it. Everyone? Nope. The facts are that people attack things they feel threaten their religious beliefs every year and usually end up with a slap on the wrist at most. Sadly, the attacks go against the teachings of the man they claim to be the son of God.
Even the KKK opens meetings with a prayer. Having only the evidence of word of mouth and films from documentaries, I'll have to add "or so I've heard."
Kind of makes me wonder though. Is it like saying grace? "For these (insert racial slur here) we are about to victimize we give thanks to a merciful and loving god."

For the record, I work at a Christian facility that helps troubled youths. There are many wonderful people there who shine as examples of what the religion is supposed to be. None of them try to force their beliefs down the throats of the staff who do not share their faith. That is how it should be.

_____________________________

What man is a man who does not make his world better?


Soldiers died for your right to be ungrateful.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 292
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 9:39:58 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
Im not trying to force anything down anyone's throat. as i have said over and over, it doesnt matter to me if those words are placed or not. The pendulumn keeps swinging. Be careful not to get caught in its downstroke.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Irishknight)
Profile   Post #: 293
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 10:11:06 PM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline
~FR~

Look people, willbuer and I have agreed, by definition that means the topic has been settled!!


_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!


Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 294
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 10:12:39 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
LOL

Golly gee... thanks for pointing that out for me!!

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 295
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 10:12:47 PM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

~FR~

Look people, willbuer and I have agreed, by definition that means the topic has been settled!!



Mmm... I thought that was the definition of hell freezing over....


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 296
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/22/2009 10:16:21 PM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

There have been about 12 major rulings from US courts dealing with the placement of 'historical' / religious documents as someone mentioned. The majority of religious displays have been deemed illegal. If I recall only 1-2 were allowed to stay. The bible is no longer used in public school's. The phrase 'Merry Christmas' will no longer appear in many places. Nativity scenes and the precious baby Jesus will be hard to find on court house lawns. Military chaplins have become restricted. Prayer is no longer allowed in public school. Despite 16 attempts since the 1800's the US court system has ruled Creationism is not science and rightly belongs in mythology. The vast majority of state sponsored Chaplin's have been fired - one pops up on occasion. "In Jesus' name" is not echoed throughout the halls of Us Congress.


Perhaps you need to reread what you wrote. Your whole post was about what was legal and allowed. I proved you wrong on two points you made.


I am still curious about what two points?  I knew the nativity scene was allowed.  I quoted to you where I said it would be difficult to find them(not impossible).  I very strongly disagree that a child in a public school could start a team prayer before a football game, student groups could openly pray prior to a an election of a class president.  I did agree with you that I was wrong about the fact that student groups could meet in private and pray openly as a group.

I made more than 2 points and still fail to see where I was proved wrong.  I could have listed many more examples of how religion is fading from government over the past 50-100 years.  Religion has no place in this country or any other.  Aside from that previous statement we seem to agree on several points.  You want a cookie or a cock in  your mouth for proving 2 points wrong.  Just because I do not tolerate bullshit does not make me more or less of a man.

That is fine my dog has a bone around here, you bring the rope and we are set.

-E


_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 297
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/23/2009 4:24:59 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

~FR~

Look people, willbuer and I have agreed, by definition that means the topic has been settled!!


hehe ...

I agree.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 298
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/23/2009 7:11:08 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

There have been about 12 major rulings from US courts dealing with the placement of 'historical' / religious documents as someone mentioned. The majority of religious displays have been deemed illegal. If I recall only 1-2 were allowed to stay. The bible is no longer used in public school's. The phrase 'Merry Christmas' will no longer appear in many places. Nativity scenes and the precious baby Jesus will be hard to find on court house lawns. Military chaplins have become restricted. Prayer is no longer allowed in public school. Despite 16 attempts since the 1800's the US court system has ruled Creationism is not science and rightly belongs in mythology. The vast majority of state sponsored Chaplin's have been fired - one pops up on occasion. "In Jesus' name" is not echoed throughout the halls of Us Congress.


Perhaps you need to reread what you wrote. Your whole post was about what was legal and allowed. I proved you wrong on two points you made.


I am still curious about what two points?  I knew the nativity scene was allowed.  I quoted to you where I said it would be difficult to find them(not impossible).  I very strongly disagree that a child in a public school could start a team prayer before a football game, student groups could openly pray prior to a an election of a class president.  I did agree with you that I was wrong about the fact that student groups could meet in private and pray openly as a group.

I made more than 2 points and still fail to see where I was proved wrong.  I could have listed many more examples of how religion is fading from government over the past 50-100 years.  Religion has no place in this country or any other.  Aside from that previous statement we seem to agree on several points.  You want a cookie or a cock in  your mouth for proving 2 points wrong.  Just because I do not tolerate bullshit does not make me more or less of a man.

That is fine my dog has a bone around here, you bring the rope and we are set.

-E




No, what you said was they were illegal. You may have meant they would be hard to find, that isnt what you posted.

The majority of religious displays have been deemed illegal. What the hell do you think a nativity scene is?

If I recall only 1-2 were allowed to stay. And I gave examples of where you were wrong.

Prayer is no longer allowed in public school. Another point you were wrong on.

Nativity scenes and the precious baby Jesus will be hard to find on court house lawns. If a nativity scene isnt a religious display, what the fuck is it?

I am still curious about what two points? I knew the nativity scene was allowed. I quoted to you where I said it would be difficult to find them(not impossible). That may have been what you meant, thats not what you said. Try making your points clearer.

I very strongly disagree that a child in a public school could start a team prayer before a football game, student groups could openly pray prior to a an election of a class president. They can in the locker room, not on the football field. And a class president would not deem a prayer for his/her post necessary. If they do, they are intelligent enough to know that at lunch, recess, or after school would be a better time. Again, thats not what you said in your original post, and now your trying to back peddal by twisting words.

but, hey, thats to be expected from you.

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 7/23/2009 7:24:48 AM >


_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Esinn)
Profile   Post #: 299
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 7/23/2009 8:16:08 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
You sent me on a hunt. The following pertains to school prayers from the Dept of Education

http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html#15

quote:

Overview of Governing Constitutional Principles

The relationship between religion and government in the United States is governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which both prevents the government from establishing religion and protects privately initiated religious expression and activities from government interference and discrimination. [ 1 ] The First Amendment thus establishes certain limits on the conduct of public school officials as it relates to religious activity, including prayer.

The legal rules that govern the issue of constitutionally protected prayer in the public schools are similar to those that govern religious expression generally. Thus, in discussing the operation of Section 9524 of the ESEA, this guidance sometimes speaks in terms of "religious expression." There are a variety of issues relating to religion in the public schools, however, that this guidance is not intended to address.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. [ 2 ] Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." [ 3 ]

The Supreme Court's decisions over the past forty years set forth principles that distinguish impermissible governmental religious speech from the constitutionally protected private religious speech of students. For example, teachers and other public school officials may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible, or other religious activities. [ 4 ] Nor may school officials attempt to persuade or compel students to participate in prayer or other religious activities. [ 5 ] Such conduct is "attributable to the State" and thus violates the Establishment Clause. [ 6 ]

Similarly, public school officials may not themselves decide that prayer should be included in school-sponsored events. In Lee v. Weisman [ 7 ], for example, the Supreme Court held that public school officials violated the Constitution in inviting a member of the clergy to deliver a prayer at a graduation ceremony. Nor may school officials grant religious speakers preferential access to public audiences, or otherwise select public speakers on a basis that favors religious speech. In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe [ 8 ], for example, the Court invalidated a school's football game speaker policy on the ground that it was designed by school officials to result in pregame prayer, thus favoring religious expression over secular expression.

Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," [ 9 ] and the Supreme Court has made clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." [ 10 ] Moreover, not all religious speech that takes place in the public schools or at school-sponsored events is governmental speech. [ 11 ] For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," [ 12 ] and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Likewise, local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, [ 13 ] but they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against student prayer or religious speech. For instance, where schools permit student expression on the basis of genuinely neutral criteria and students retain primary control over the content of their expression, the speech of students who choose to express themselves through religious means such as prayer is not attributable to the state and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious content. [ 14 ] Student remarks are not attributable to the state simply because they are delivered in a public setting or to a public audience. [ 15 ] As the Supreme Court has explained: "The proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated," [ 16 ] and the Constitution mandates neutrality rather than hostility toward privately initiated religious expression. [ 17 ]


quote:

Applying the Governing Principles in Particular Contexts

Prayer During Noninstructional Time
Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.

Organized Prayer Groups and Activities
Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, and "see you at the pole" gatherings before school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other non-curricular student activities groups. Such groups must be given the same access to school facilities for assembling as is given to other non-curricular groups, without discrimination because of the religious content of their expression. School authorities possess substantial discretion concerning whether to permit the use of school media for student advertising or announcements regarding non-curricular activities. However, where student groups that meet for nonreligious activities are permitted to advertise or announce their meetings—for example, by advertising in a student newspaper, making announcements on a student activities bulletin board or public address system, or handing out leaflets—school authorities may not discriminate against groups who meet to pray. School authorities may disclaim sponsorship of non-curricular groups and events, provided they administer such disclaimers in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech.

Teachers, Administrators, and other School Employees
When acting in their official capacities as representatives of the state, teachers, school administrators, and other school employees are prohibited by the Establishment Clause from encouraging or discouraging prayer, and from actively participating in such activity with students. Teachers may, however, take part in religious activities where the overall context makes clear that they are not participating in their official capacities. Before school or during lunch, for example, teachers may meet with other teachers for prayer or Bible study to the same extent that they may engage in other conversation or nonreligious activities. Similarly, teachers may participate in their personal capacities in privately sponsored baccalaureate ceremonies.

Moments of Silence
If a school has a "minute of silence" or other quiet periods during the school day, students are free to pray silently, or not to pray, during these periods of time. Teachers and other school employees may neither encourage nor discourage students from praying during such time periods.

Accommodation of Prayer During Instructional Time
It has long been established that schools have the discretion to dismiss students to off-premises religious instruction, provided that schools do not encourage or discourage participation in such instruction or penalize students for attending or not attending. Similarly, schools may excuse students from class to remove a significant burden on their religious exercise, where doing so would not impose material burdens on other students. For example, it would be lawful for schools to excuse Muslim students briefly from class to enable them to fulfill their religious obligations to pray during Ramadan.

Where school officials have a practice of excusing students from class on the basis of parents' requests for accommodation of nonreligious needs, religiously motivated requests for excusal may not be accorded less favorable treatment. In addition, in some circumstances, based on federal or state constitutional law or pursuant to state statutes, schools may be required to make accommodations that relieve substantial burdens on students' religious exercise. Schools officials are therefore encouraged to consult with their attorneys regarding such obligations.

Religious Expression and Prayer in Class Assignments
Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from 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. Thus, if a teacher's assignment involves writing a poem, the work of a student who submits a poem in the form of a prayer (for example, a psalm) should be judged on the basis of academic standards (such as literary quality) and neither penalized nor rewarded on account of its religious content.

Student Assemblies and Extracurricular Events
Student speakers at student assemblies and extracurricular activities such as sporting events may not be selected on a basis that either favors or disfavors religious speech. Where student speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. By contrast, where school officials determine or substantially control the content of what is expressed, such speech is attributable to the school and may not include prayer or other specifically religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker's and not the school's.


Prayer at Graduation
School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation or select speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech such as prayer. Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker's and not the school's.

Baccalaureate Ceremonies
School officials may not mandate or organize religious ceremonies. However, if a school makes its facilities and related services available to other private groups, it must make its facilities and services available on the same terms to organizers of privately sponsored religious baccalaureate ceremonies. In addition, a school may disclaim official endorsement of events sponsored by private groups, provided it does so in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech.


Seems we were both wrong. Students can pray at sporting events, class elections, graduations, ect, inviting others to join in, led by a student, as long as the school does not promote or encourage the prayer. Portions of the above even indicate where it would be best for schools to make disclaimers.

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 7/23/2009 8:17:55 AM >


_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Center Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.133