Federal judge orders jail for those praying at texas graduation ceremony

[CADsortaGUY]

You may want to educate yourself on SCOTUS rulings from the past with concern to public schools.

You may want to read what I've posted. A ruling about a specific incident does not in fact establish a freedom FROM religion. I have already stated that I don't care if they force schools to not schedule a prayer, but it doesn't mean that people suddenly have freedom FROM it. In fact, the ruling this thread is about still won't stop words from being said.

lol, at the people who think the gov't is going to/ can protect them FROM any/all religious speech.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Since the issue for most lefties seems to be that since public money is being used for the school, it should not be allowed. Then perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to refund the taxpayers of students who wish to pray the amount of money that they pay in local/state/federal taxes that go to the public schools? Let them use that toward a private school.

Since we clearly have freedom of religion, and the schools seem to be able to prevent that from being exercised, why should the government be able to take your money to fund something that limits your rights?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Jail time seems a bit extreme...

Don't we have enough people in jail already without placing people in there for using "religious words?"

This ruling is fucking obscene. For one thing, it is unconstitutional, it violates freedom of religion, and free speech. If they want to ban the school from holding a prayer that's fine and dandy, but to threaten students with jail for praying is fucking ridiculous.

Reading comprehension fail.
It is the school officials who are under threat, not the students.

There is no freedom FROM religion you twit.

Yes there is.
The government is secular. That is legally mandated.
In its prohibition from being religious there is an arena of freedom from religion.

 

[brandonb]

Since the issue for most lefties seems to be that since public money is being used for the school, it should not be allowed. Then perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to refund the taxpayers of students who wish to pray the amount of money that they pay in local/state/federal taxes that go to the public schools? Let them use that toward a private school.

Since we clearly have freedom of religion, and the schools seem to be able to prevent that from being exercised, why should the government be able to take your money to fund something that limits your rights?

Very good point. *claps*

 

[JockoJohnson]

Since the issue for most lefties seems to be that since public money is being used for the school, it should not be allowed. Then perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to refund the taxpayers of students who wish to pray the amount of money that they pay in local/state/federal taxes that go to the public schools? Let them use that toward a private school.

Since we clearly have freedom of religion, and the schools seem to be able to prevent that from being exercised, why should the government be able to take your money to fund something that limits your rights?

That sounds like school vouchers, and vouchers are bad. They might let people go to better schools and then the shitty schools would suffer because of less money going to them.

Although the refund would be better than a school voucher. This way, some wacko fuck can't go and claim that the voucher would be used for a...wait for it....religious education.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I'm British, i don't have a Mama, (isn't that what the slave mother were called? Love how you use your words from that time, it was a great time for the US, right) i had a Mum, i have not heard from her in 30 years.

Does that suffice as an answer or do i have to degrade you further.

I am not in the mood for fun at all right now, so just stay away unless you really have something to say, ok?

(still can rhyme unintentionally, it seems).

Dropping the race card. Nicely played sir, nicely played. The ultimate sign of a person who knows they're wrong and is intellectually inferior to their opponent.

There's a big X in the upper right hand corner of the window you are using to view this page. If you are so out of control that you can't act like a civilized human being I suggest you click it. That is, if you knuckles aren't too bloodied from dragging them everywhere.

 

[soulcougher73]

I had the 8 years of Roman Catholic grade school and the 4 years of Roman Catholic High School. Haven't been to a church since except for funerals and weddings.

BTW, you said a majority of people, not specifically Texas. I really can't argue with you about Texas. But for the most part, I don't think a majority would have a problem. I won't say a small minority either...there will be a good bit of ignorant people just not happy with Muslim or Jew but I have some faith in America that if they allow a student to say a Christian prayer that they could tolerate a Muslim or Jewish prayer. Maybe I am just too much of an optimist.

You are regarding this at least.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Reading comprehension fail.
It is the school officials who are under threat, not the students.



Yes there is.
The government is secular. That is legally mandated.
In its prohibition from being religious there is an arena of freedom from religion.

What part of the copied text from the OP don't you understand:

Should a student violate the order, school district officials could find themselves in legal trouble. Judge Biery ordered that his ruling be “enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official (sic) and their agents.”

So if a student violates the order, the school officials get arrested. So the students are still discouraged from saying anything because school officials will get in trouble.

Edit: Oops, I guess I shouldn't expect a serious response.

 

[JockoJohnson]

You are regarding this at least.

Yes, I know that there are plenty of close-minded religious people but would hope that they aren't all like the ones shown on TV.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Reading comprehension fail.
It is the school officials who are under threat, not the students.



Yes there is.
The government is secular. That is legally mandated.
In its prohibition from being religious there is an arena of freedom from religion.

The Establishment clause prevents the gov't from establishing a religion. It does not prevent you from being exposed to religion. How anyone makes the leap from there to being free FROM is beyond me. It just doesn't logically work nor would it realistically work.

Can I not wear a t-shirt with "GOD" or "AMEN" on it in a "public" place? Come on people - wake the hell up. There is no "freedom from" - just a guarantee that the gov't won't force a particular religion on you. Hearing words or a prayer isn't forcing anything on you any more than other speech is. Sheesh.

 

[soulcougher73]

Where did I elude to that?

Seriously? Your whole post eluded to that. I swear to fuckibg god some of you are really fucking stupid, and i dont even believe in a god but im going to swear to him anyways.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm British, i don't have a Mama, (isn't that what the slave mother were called? Love how you use your words from that time, it was a great time for the US, right) i had a Mum, i have not heard from her in 30 years.

Does that suffice as an answer or do i have to degrade you further.

I am not in the mood for fun at all right now, so just stay away unless you really have something to say, ok?

(still can rhyme unintentionally, it seems).

I forgot you limeys use Mum. That being said does your Mum know you're on the internet.

 

[silverpig]

The Establishment clause prevents the gov't from establishing a religion. It does not prevent you from being exposed to religion. How anyone makes the leap from there to being free FROM is beyond me. It just doesn't logically work nor would it realistically work.

Can I not wear a t-shirt with "GOD" or "AMEN" on it in a "public" place? Come on people - wake the hell up. There is no "freedom from" - just a guarantee that the gov't won't force a particular religion on you. Hearing words or a prayer isn't forcing anything on you any more than other speech is. Sheesh.

That's all fine. I don't have a problem with people who want to wear a shirt like that, or pray in public. However, it cannot happen that a religious ceremony happen at a publicly funded, government sanctioned event.

If the church wants to have a prayer event in the next field before the graduation, I'm all for it. If you're walking down the sidewalk and hear it, no big deal. If you're at the school function with a school official presiding and he says "let us pray"... that's something else.

 

[Atreus21]

"As we have observed before, there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools. Our decisions in [Engel] and [Abington] recognize, among other things, that prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. The concern may not be limited to the context of schools, but it is most pronounced there. What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy."

If Kennedy indeed wrote that, then he's foolish.

In practice, what this actually means is that the machinery of the State has been mobilized to prevent any religious expression on public property for the benefit of the nonbeliever or dissenter, which is EXACTLY the kind of theocratic activity that liberals tend to go to great lengths to prevent, except that it's merely a theocracy of nonbelievers.

You can either have religious expression at public places, which in the liberal view is a violation of the establishment clause, or no religious expression at public places, which in the conservative view is a violation of the free exercise clause.

I think it was werepossum in the other thread who had it right. The only solution is for government to get out of education, because any policy they use in its administration is seen as government-sponsored indoctrination.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That's all fine. I don't have a problem with people who want to wear a shirt like that, or pray in public. However, it cannot happen that a religious ceremony happen at a publicly funded, government sanctioned event.

If the church wants to have a prayer event in the next field before the graduation, I'm all for it. If you're walking down the sidewalk and hear it, no big deal. If you're at the school function with a school official presiding and he says "let us pray"... that's something else.

This is quite fair in my book.

Now if a student gives thanks to God, their parents, or the Little Pony of their choice in their speech they should have that right.

 

[fskimospy]

If Kennedy indeed wrote that, then he's foolish.

In practice, what this actually means is that the machinery of the State has been mobilized to prevent any religious expression on public property for the benefit of the nonbeliever or dissenter, which is EXACTLY the kind of theocratic activity that liberals tend to go to great lengths to prevent.

That's the exact opposite of theocracy, and its the only rational policy. Once you start having government property/time/resources used for the promotion of religion, then you have to start refereeing which religion is getting the most time, the most promotion, etc... etc. By FAR the best solution is to keep religion where it belongs, in the hearts and minds of individuals and private organizations.

It's the same thing with taxing churches, I for one am glad we exempt all religions from taxation. Not because it doesn't piss me off that incredibly valuable real estate is frequently consumed by religious institutions, but the alternative of involving the government in refereeing that is so much worse than just leaving them be. The cure is worse than the disease.

 

[JockoJohnson]

_____________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpig
That's all fine. I don't have a problem with people who want to wear a shirt like that, or pray in public. However, it cannot happen that a religious ceremony happen at a publicly funded, government sanctioned event.

If the church wants to have a prayer event in the next field before the graduation, I'm all for it. If you're walking down the sidewalk and hear it, no big deal. If you're at the school function with a school official presiding and he says "let us pray"... that's something else.
_____________________________
This is quite fair in my book.

Now if a student gives thanks to God, their parents, or the Little Pony of their choice in their speech they should have that right.

Exactly. I don't think anyone is arguing that the school officials should be able to pray but rather the students.

 

[thraashman]

If Kennedy indeed wrote that, then he's foolish.

In practice, what this actually means is that the machinery of the State has been mobilized to prevent any religious expression on public property for the benefit of the nonbeliever or dissenter, which is EXACTLY the kind of theocratic activity that liberals tend to go to great lengths to prevent.

You can either have religious expression at public places, which in the liberal view is a violation of the establishment clause, or no religious expression at public places, which in the conservative view is a violation of the free exercise clause.

I think it was werepossum in the other thread who had it right. The only solution is for government to get out of education.

I find it funny that you seem to feel that the attempt by liberals to allow for equality under the law amongst all religions or lack of, is actually an attack on religion. It was conservatives not liberals who attacked the concept of the Muslim cultural center in New York 4 blocks from the former site of the world trade center. It was conservatives not liberals that tried to block a mosque in Tennessee and burned it down when they failed. It's conservatives not liberals got Under God added into the pledge to distinguish us from those godless communists and in effect tried to declare that anyone who was non theistic was no American. It's conservatives not liberals who try to use their religion to oppress homosexual rights.

Funny thing is, I'm very liberal and I'm against this decision. It goes to far. While it is illegal under the Constitution for the school itself to support and establishment of religion by including a prayer, it is not wrong for a student to choose to invoke their religion in a speech that they prepare. The students, even those giving speeches of their own words, are not agents of the state and therefore there is no church and state to separate. And to stop students from choosing to invoke their religion or pray on their own at a function that happens to be a state function is to violate their 1st Amendment rights.

 

[soulcougher73]

If Kennedy indeed wrote that, then he's foolish.

In practice, what this actually means is that the machinery of the State has been mobilized to prevent any religious expression on public property for the benefit of the nonbeliever or dissenter, which is EXACTLY the kind of theocratic activity that liberals tend to go to great lengths to prevent, except that it's merely a theocracy of nonbelievers.

You can either have religious expression at public places, which in the liberal view is a violation of the establishment clause, or no religious expression at public places, which in the conservative view is a violation of the free exercise clause.

I think it was werepossum in the other thread who had it right. The only solution is for government to get out of education, because any policy they use in its administration is seen as government-sponsored indoctrination.

The problem with this is that fundis already have a place to express themselves. Its called church. Thus as a non religous person we can excuse ourselves from hearing it by not going into the church. That covers both sides of it. Fundis get to express themselves and non fundis dont have to be exposed to or hear it. But when you bring it into a public event paid for by the government via taxes you need to leave the religious speak at the door. Since now non fundis will be exposed to it when not asked to me.

Its pretty simple. Religion belongs in you, church, home and private orginizations that want to talk about it. Not government paid for events/schools that cover a whole wide range of people and relgions/athiests.

 

[wayliff]

Hate Jews: check
Wanna kill all Jews: check
Destruction of Israel: check
Think Hitler was misunderstood: check

Well gollee gee i wonder why you love Iran, you even personally told me once you hated me not because of anything else but because i am a Jew.

Chip on shoulder: check

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Chip on shoulder: check

On the money: check

 

[SunnyD]

I have no problem with this. Public school district = government entity = separation of church and state. Only place for religion in public schools (or school in general) is in a historical context: Learning how various religions shaped the world historically. And even then it should be purely elective.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.

I'm wondering how an entire family could be this emotionally damaged and still function in normal society. Irreparably harmed because of a prayer?

Say what you will about church and state and all of that... But how does a judge come to a conclusion like this? Did the judge order a psych evaluation for each member of the family to reach this conclusion?

No reasonable person could ever say that with a straight face. Come on... If you have your reasons for ruling then put them out there... but really, nobody has ever sufered ireparable harm because they had to listen to a prayer. Stupid.

 

[Ape]

Seriously? Your whole post eluded to that. I swear to fucking god some of you are really fucking stupid, and i don't even believe in a god but I'm going to swear to him anyways.

Grade school insults aside I said nothing of the sort. But if you think that if/when all of those faith based funded entities were disappear and no one would notice you are sadly mistaken. It would be a nightmare.

Oh and it's God with a capitol G.

 

[xj0hnx]

I'm wondering how an entire family could be this emotionally damaged and still function in normal society. Irreparably harmed because of a prayer?

Say what you will about church and state and all of that... But how does a judge come to a conclusion like this? Did the judge order a psych evaluation for each member of the family to reach this conclusion?

No reasonable person could ever say that with a straight face. Come on... If you have your reasons for ruling then put them out there... but really, nobody has ever sufered ireparable harm because they had to listen to a prayer. Stupid.

That's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. That kid, and his family must be very weak minded, as well as anyone that thinks hearing a prayer will damage them.