Louisiana atheist vilified for objecting to prayer in public school

[wuliheron]

Politics is the personal. I had to teach my children to hide the fact they are half Jewish and agnostic. I hope this kid sues the pants off the school.

 

[polarmystery]

As Christopher Hitchens says, "Religion is immoral"

 

[1prophet]

I bet if the prayer was a muslim one people would have a different opinion.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

That would be OK, since it would be considered a multicultural educational experience.


If this is no big deal here in a blue state,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7-I9Qp3d4Y

Why should people fear a prayer at graduation in a red state were the students will be exposed to no more prayer since they are permanently leaving the school?

 

[Doppel]

So in other words most students wanted a prayer, this guy who didn't made a big fvcking stink about it and tried to ruin it for everybody. That's why he's vilified, not because he simply sat there during the prayer and doodled on a notepad. Tough sh*t.

 

[Vette73]

Yep this gonna cost the school a bit of money.

Leaking his name and "role" is the direct reason he has issues and threats. So you can tie a direct link between the 2 which means the school is in trouble. Depending of who did it they could be arrested as well.

 

[Double Trouble]

I don't understand why the school had the prayer at all. The court rulings on this issue are pretty consistent and clear. I think a moment of silence is perfectly reasonably though, let each person decide if they want to pray or not, and if so, to whatever entity they believe in.

The threats of physical violence and all that are absurd, but other than that, he deserves whatever scorn he gets from the community. He was within his rights to object to the prayer, but that doesn't mean the people in the community don't have a right to scorn him and make him an outcast. As long as no laws are broken, they are free to ostracize him for taking away something they value. Just like freedom of speech, the fact that you have the legal right to say something doesn't mean you are free from repercussions for doing so.

 

[Murloc]

So...what does the US have to do with it? It's backed by pretty much every country in the world....

Seriously, your anti US agenda gets boring after a while. It's like you take every little scrap you can find and link the US to it just so you can prove some point that you do not like the US.

you have to admit that in the US religion has way more importance. It's not about anti-US or pro-US, it's just that in some parts of your country religion is lived in the same way as arab fundies do. This doesn't happen in most of Europe.

Also the school is wrong because it should not officially put something religious in the program. School should promote inclusion of minorities, not exclusion.
If a student wants to publicy read a prayer personally, do it. You know, if there's some space for public comments for students during the ceremony, then it's okay, but there must be a timer and the teacher should just act neutral and laical.

That said, this guy was really stupid.
If everyone around you is an integralist religious nut and you don't approve, just ignore it and move to somewhere else when you can get a job.
Also if his parents are religious, he's even more stupid to do something like this.
Self-preservation is more important than activism. People who escaped oscurantist shitholes didn't do so by being stuck-up assholes.

 

[Double Trouble]

Yep this gonna cost the school a bit of money.

Leaking his name and "role" is the direct reason he has issues and threats. So you can tie a direct link between the 2 which means the school is in trouble. Depending of who did it they could be arrested as well.

I don't see a direct link between the two at all. Those who make threats are clearly violating the law, but it's not at all clear that his actions (threatening to sue etc) have some sort of legal protection in terms of being private/secret or anything like that. In fact, had he brought in the ACLU his name and actions would have been public knowledge regardless.

 

[Vette73]

I don't see a direct link between the two at all. Those who make threats are clearly violating the law, but it's not at all clear that his actions (threatening to sue etc) have some sort of legal protection in terms of being private/secret or anything like that. In fact, had he brought in the ACLU his name and actions would have been public knowledge regardless.

No he did not bring in the ACLU at first. He wrote an e-mail and said it was illegal. The school asked its people and they agreed, it was illegal. The school then leaked his name knowing it would cause a issue for him and even a current teacher attacked him.

There is a direct link between his information being leaked and the attacks on him. The people leaking it knew what would happen and that is criminal.

The ACLU would also not release his name if he had not wanted it out. Many cases are filed with fake names or not released due to pressure from others that can cause harm.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Pretty much how is should be and how it has been for quite some time. No one is forcing you to pray or even believe in any kind of religion if you don't want so why do annoying atheists try to FORCE the overwhelming majority of people to do things their way. I am not religious at all and many very religious people get on my nerves but it seems that the vocal atheists are the most annoying of all.

So lets get this straight:
1. Having a school sponsored prayer and forcing everyone to pray = not forcing your religion down anyone's throat.
2. Not having a school prayer, Buddhist, Christian or otherwise = Forcing Atheism down people's throats.

EDIT: Its telling that Christians, supposed to be peaceful, non-judgmental and humble, act like this. All of you who support this, have a good long look at yourselves and think whether Jesus would have done the same. As an Atheist, I'm appalled by what so-called Christians do. Do you think by treating this guy the way you do, he will want to rejoin the cult of Christianity? No, of course he wont. Maybe if you were nice to him, offered to talk to him about his concerns, he would see Christians in a better light. But now he hates you, and with good reason.

 

[Double Trouble]

No he did not bring in the ACLU at first. He wrote an e-mail and said it was illegal. The school asked its people and they agreed, it was illegal. The school then leaked his name knowing it would cause a issue for him and even a current teacher attacked him.

Is there some law or rule that says such information (the name of the person) has to remain secret? If so, then I'd agree with you, but I'm not aware of any such regulation. This isn't a medical / privacy issue, to my knowledge the school is under no obligation to keep his request and/or threat to bring in the ACLU a secret.

There is a direct link between his information being leaked and the attacks on him. The people leaking it knew what would happen and that is criminal.

What "attacks" are you referring to? I didn't see anything about any actual attacks. Threatening violence is clearly illegal, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that any violence took place. Also, saying a teacher "attacked" him is hyperbole. The teacher might have made inappropriate remarks, but that's hardly the same as an "attack".

The ACLU would also not release his name if he had not wanted it out. Many cases are filed with fake names or not released due to pressure from others that can cause harm.

Uh, no. If the ACLU actually filed suit they would have to show legal standing in the case, and you can't do that if you don't have someone actually affected by the action (in this case, a student), so his name would have been public at that point.

That's not the issue though. I still haven't seen any evidence that there's any obligation on the part of the school to keep his request/demand secret.

 

[Vette73]

Is there some law or rule that says such information (the name of the person) has to remain secret? If so, then I'd agree with you, but I'm not aware of any such regulation. This isn't a medical / privacy issue, to my knowledge the school is under no obligation to keep his request and/or threat to bring in the ACLU a secret.



What "attacks" are you referring to? I didn't see anything about any actual attacks. Threatening violence is clearly illegal, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that any violence took place. Also, saying a teacher "attacked" him is hyperbole. The teacher might have made inappropriate remarks, but that's hardly the same as an "attack".



Uh, no. If the ACLU actually filed suit they would have to show legal standing in the case, and you can't do that if you don't have someone actually affected by the action (in this case, a student), so his name would have been public at that point.

That's not the issue though. I still haven't seen any evidence that there's any obligation on the part of the school to keep his request/demand secret.

Yes its a privacy issue. The school "leaking" it knew they are violating student privacy laws that protect students. I am willing to bet the local school/city has rules on information that is allowed to be released. Since it was not released but "leaked" that should be a sign it is not correct.

Yes cases are filed under John Doe all the time. Not sure why you think that is not the case as its pretty common to protect those as such in this case.

 

[sao123]

So lets get this straight:
1. Having a school sponsored prayer and forcing everyone to pray = not forcing your religion down anyone's throat.
2. PREVENTING THOSE WHO DESIRE TO HAVE a school prayer FROM HAVING IT, Buddhist, Christian or otherwise = Forcing Atheism down people's throats.

Absolutely it is.

 

[PokerGuy]

So lets get this straight:
1. Having a school sponsored prayer and forcing everyone to pray = not forcing your religion down anyone's throat.

Who was forced to pray? Can you please show where anyone was forced to pray?

Do you think by treating this guy the way you do, he will want to rejoin the cult of Christianity? No, of course he wont. Maybe if you were nice to him, offered to talk to him about his concerns

He took away something they valued, and they are upset about it. They don't care what he does or doesn't believe.

Basically the guy was a jerk. Good on his parents tossing him out.

 

[pcgeek11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

So you agree that one person out of many hundreds should be able to dictate what is and is not allowed.

How about elections ...? How should we deal with those? If we did it by your link Obama would be out on his ass and we would never have a new president.

It is obvious that well beyond a majority in this case wanted to have a prayer at graduation and one did not. I think the majority should rule without a doubt in this case and most others.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Absolutely it is.

Despite the fact its against the constitution? So, is the constitution atheist?

What if this were a Muslim school? Should they be forced to have a Christian prayer?

He took away something they valued, and they are upset about it. They don't care what he does or doesn't believe.

Basically the guy was a jerk. Good on his parents tossing him out.

And thats the proper, Christian way to respond. When someone takes something from you, you kick his ass, tell him he is going to hell and is worthless. Cos thats what Jesus would do, right? He'd get out his M16 and show this turd who's boss.

 

[pcgeek11]

The court rulings on this issue are pretty consistent and clear.

Actually they are not consistent at all. Congress and the Supreme Court both hold a prayer before they work.

Government sponsored prayer. How is that consistent?

 

[pcgeek11]

So lets get this straight:
1. Having a school sponsored prayer and forcing everyone to pray = not forcing your religion down anyone's throat.
2. Not having a school prayer, Buddhist, Christian or otherwise = Forcing Atheism down people's throats.

EDIT: Its telling that Christians, supposed to be peaceful, non-judgmental and humble, act like this. All of you who support this, have a good long look at yourselves and think whether Jesus would have done the same. As an Atheist, I'm appalled by what so-called Christians do. Do you think by treating this guy the way you do, he will want to rejoin the cult of Christianity? No, of course he wont. Maybe if you were nice to him, offered to talk to him about his concerns, he would see Christians in a better light. But now he hates you, and with good reason.

They were not forcing everyone to pray.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Bible belt don't realize they're in the 21st century.

Or even the 20th or 19th... It's sickening and sad. I am sick and fucking tired of atheists being treated as outcasts. There is no place for religion in public schools. The supreme court has confirmed this, and this kid was just trying to get that point across.
Could a Wiccan come in and do a Wiccan ceremony in celebration of the graduation, Wicca is an established and recognized religion, but I kinda think that'd ruffle some bible pages.

And how can you be more ballsy than taking on these religious fucktards and their insistence to do something that has been struck down multiple times by the supreme court?

Engel v. Vitale (1962)
School initiated-prayer in the public school system violates the First Amendment.
In the New York school system, each day began with a nondenominational prayer acknowledging dependence upon God. This action was challenged in Court as an unconstitutional state establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the government could not sponsor such religious activities

"School Prayer & Bible Reading" (Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 1963)
The Pennsylvania school system complied with a state law requiring that ten verses of scripture be read every day. The readings were without comment and any student could request to be excused. This case came to the Supreme Court at the same time as the Murray v. Curlett case, and the court ruled on them together. In a nutshell, the court's ruling stated that School Prayer and Bible reading were violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In ironic fashion, the court established a secular religion for our school system, thus violating the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
Students may not use a school's loudspeaker system to offer student-led, student-initiated prayer.
Before football games, members of the student body of a Texas high school elected one of their classmates to address the players and spectators. These addresses were conducted over the school's loudspeakers and usually involved a prayer. Attendance at these events was voluntary. Three students sued the school arguing that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A majority of the Court rejected the school's argument that since the prayer was student initiated and student led, as opposed to officially sponsored by the school, it did not violate the First Amendment. The Court held that this action did constitute school-sponsored prayer because the loudspeakers that the students used for their invocations were owned by the school.

http://www.allabouthistory.org/school-prayer.htm

 

[Ancalagon44]

They were not forcing everyone to pray.

That makes it okay then.

How about, lets allow all schools to have whatever "religious" services they want? Like, I'll start my own school, invite a whole bunch of Christians, and then at graduation I'll give an Atheist "sermon" from The Book of Dawkins (and Hitchens, and Darwin). And everyone will have to listen, Christian or not. How would you feel about that?

 

[pcgeek11]

That makes it okay then.

How about, lets allow all schools to have whatever "religious" services they want? Like, I'll start my own school, invite a whole bunch of Christians, and then at graduation I'll give an Atheist "sermon" from The Book of Dawkins (and Hitchens, and Darwin). And everyone will have to listen, Christian or not. How would you feel about that?

You obviously cannot read very well. The vast majority of the school parents children and teachers wanted a prayer. ONE did not.

Your example is too wrong to even discuss.

 

[Mursilis]

Another article I read about this incident noted that the class valedictorian said a prayer as part of his/her speech. Since the valedictorian is not a school official, should he/she be allowed to say a prayer during the speech?

 

[DominionSeraph]

But one interesting thing is that the Supreme Court seems to contradict itself on this issue. They have ruled in the past that school prayer is unconstitutional, however prayer before sessions of Congress has been ruled constitutional. Not sure what argument they used to justify that the latter is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Congress worships reelection. It has no God but that.

The prayer is pointed inward, not outward on the public. Congress' job is also defined, and the prayer is not a part of it. Its internal social dynamic also has the bulwark of a congressman's right to his vote being backed by law.

The prayer is an expression of religion to government, not the government itself expressing religion.

So it's not the same thing.
The school is expressing religion as an entity. Congress is not.

 

[pcgeek11]

Or even the 20th or 19th... It's sickening and sad. I am sick and fucking tired of atheists being treated as outcasts. There is no place for religion in public schools. The supreme court has confirmed this, and this kid was just trying to get that point across.
Could a Wiccan come in and do a Wiccan ceremony in celebration of the graduation, Wicca is an established and recognized religion, but I kinda think that'd ruffle some bible pages.

And how can you be more ballsy than taking on these religious fucktards and their insistence to do something that has been struck down multiple times by the supreme court?

Engel v. Vitale (1962)
School initiated-prayer in the public school system violates the First Amendment.
In the New York school system, each day began with a nondenominational prayer acknowledging dependence upon God. This action was challenged in Court as an unconstitutional state establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the government could not sponsor such religious activities

"School Prayer & Bible Reading" (Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 1963)
The Pennsylvania school system complied with a state law requiring that ten verses of scripture be read every day. The readings were without comment and any student could request to be excused. This case came to the Supreme Court at the same time as the Murray v. Curlett case, and the court ruled on them together. In a nutshell, the court's ruling stated that School Prayer and Bible reading were violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In ironic fashion, the court established a secular religion for our school system, thus violating the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
Students may not use a school's loudspeaker system to offer student-led, student-initiated prayer.
Before football games, members of the student body of a Texas high school elected one of their classmates to address the players and spectators. These addresses were conducted over the school's loudspeakers and usually involved a prayer. Attendance at these events was voluntary. Three students sued the school arguing that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A majority of the Court rejected the school's argument that since the prayer was student initiated and student led, as opposed to officially sponsored by the school, it did not violate the First Amendment. The Court held that this action did constitute school-sponsored prayer because the loudspeakers that the students used for their invocations were owned by the school.

http://www.allabouthistory.org/school-prayer.htm

SCOTUS got it wrong in their interpretation IMO. Answer why is it OK for SCOTUS and the Congress to hold a prayer before they work, they are both having Government sponsored prayer? They both fail the Lemon Test.

Win me over. Nobody has been able to explain this.

 

[Ancalagon44]

You obviously cannot read very well. The vast majority of the school parents children and teachers wanted a prayer. ONE did not.

Your example is too wrong to even discuss.

So you wouldnt mind if a Muslim school had a Muslim prayer, even if there were Christians in the audience? That would be fine?