posted on March 29, 2001 02:50:10 PM new
No Linda...it is different because it is her choice.
I realize that that difference is extremely difficult for some people to comprehend.
I want my choice for myself...I do not want a choice legislated for me. I want the government to keep it's nose out of my sex life, my reproductive life, my family as well as other things that should be personal choice in a nation touted as the land of the free. I want to choose for myself. I want you to choose for yourself...but I don't want you to choose for me...that would be forcing your belief down my throat.
Free chice is important...those that are against it want to legislate their beliefs thus forcing them on others. This is not right. Even God believes that we as human's have the right to choose...why then shouldn't our fellow man.
Choice Linda...it is what freedom is made of. To take away choice is to take away freedom. It does not matter what party, what nationality, what color you are. I am sorry if I cannot explain it in simple enough terms so that I can be understood. Perhaps someone else can.
Choice is freedom...freedom is choice.
No one can stop another from praying at school or most any where else. It cannot be done. And no one can force another to believe just because prayers are said in school. Religious freedom means one has a right to choose whom they pray to or if to pray at all.
posted on March 29, 2001 02:52:06 PM new
I have yet to see any evidence that there is a problem about prayer in school in a student's own time, not "school-led", but individual prayer. Or bible-reading.
I don't have a problem with Hillary praying in her own time, on government premises, just like I wouldn't have an issue about any of my work colleagues praying during breaks. I don't have a problem with kids gathering with other like-minded kids and praying together, and I haven't seen anyone else having an issue with that either.
But if you want the principal, or a teacher to get up in front of a school assembly and lead Christian prayers, yeah, I DO have a problem with that.
The "not allowed to pray" brigade seem to be very selective about how they present the issue. Facts please... evidence, please.... of chlldren being punished/expelled for having a quiet reading of the bible, or quiet prayer in the playground or library...
posted on March 29, 2001 03:01:20 PM new
"Guess we're just seeing this through different lenses. To me, when an opposing view is shared, the person who appears to just be sharing their (different) views/opinions receive veiled insults about their intelligence, ability to understand, etc."
Well, Linda I've very rarely seen that. What I have seen is posters who make assertions of truth, challenge others to refute them, and then refuse to logically discuss them. There is a very distinct difference between simply stating an opinion and asserting a truth to be argued, not to mention an unwillingness to distinguish between fact and opinion.
"I think it's human nature, when one feels they are being attacted (or insulted) to become defensive. I also don't see others expressing their opinions as shoving their beliefs down peoples throats. They're just disagreeing."
"Shoving their beliefs down people's throats" was not what I said or even closely related to it. What I said was:
I have seen people become irrationally defensive when others disagree with their religious beliefs and the points of argument usually develop when others assume positions that would directly or indirectly impose their beliefs on others.
If people wish to simply state their religious beliefs that is fine and calls for no response; however, when one advocates an idea like teaching religion or allowing the public expression of religion in schools that is an idea which affects others. It then becomes a point for legitimate argument because it is a political idea, not a merely personal one. And if one attempts to support arguments through vague generalities, then he or she should expect to be challenged. It is in fact a quite ordinary occurence anytime that a group of people with differing viewpoints discuss or debate a subject.
This thread has not made any sense since the beginning.
To compare a voluntary religious breakfast at the Senate with a required religious time at school is absurd.
And then, to use Hillary Clinton's attendance at the voluntary religious breakfast is inappropriate and insensitive.
I hope, Linda, that you can understand the
difference now.
posted on March 29, 2001 04:25:54 PM new
092350235203 efakdkdfgeo4itokdkdvkdvz
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ edited by RedWhiteBlue on Mar 29, 2001 04:56 PM ]
posted on March 29, 2001 05:13:33 PM newI don't remember reading where any poster advocated required or forced religion in any school?
YES!!!!!!!
I agree...it is great the way it is now...there is no forced or required religion or prayer in public school now. It is a personal thing. It is right...there is choice...
posted on March 29, 2001 05:36:36 PM new
Okay you two Guess I'm not going to convince you that these restrictions against students freedom of religion *are* happening.
There have been many articles and some court cases, because schools haven't allowed before, after, during school practicing of religious rights.
Do a search on google. Search words prayer in school. You'll see I'm not trying to pull the wool over your head.
Two other USA Today articles, which have to be bought (paid for in order to read the whole article) state in the first paragragh you can read: (Do a search for USA Today, then on their search type in prayer in school) One article says, "Nothing in the constitution prohibits any public school student from praying at any time, before, during or after - then continues to say...."That hasn't kept nervous or ill-informedschool officials from overreacting. USA Today 6-00
USA Today - Title is: Religious group wants to meet in public school. 2-27-01
There is a wave of lawsuits about this issue, in school districts and in states....some making their way to the US Supreme.
From the US Supreme Court decisions
where students also weren't allowed to have religious meetings on the campus.
US Supreme Court - Where cases were brought because schools wouldn't allow these religious meetings.
# 454 US 263
# 508 US 384
# 496 US 226. One of these was a college in Missouri where religious meeting were being held, then the college decided they didn't want them to continue. Case was heard by the US Supreme court and they decided that since other school groups met on the campus, they could continue meeting there also.
I also tried to find a recent one (with the last couple of weeks) where a student wasn't allowed to say his prayer before eating his lunch meal in the school cafeteria. I did read it though.
Here's (below URL) a girl who was told by her school she couldn't wear her pentacle (symbol of Wiccans) while in school. I read another that the same thing happened to who wasn't allowed to wear her rosery in school for the same reason.
posted on March 29, 2001 05:52:51 PM new
As we can see in this thread, no one is advocating that religion be forced or required.
However, many are advocating that the right to practice their religion should be limited. We have gone from some saying that organized prayer should be banned to the last post where kids should not be allowed to pray in school at all.
posted on March 29, 2001 06:02:14 PM new
Antiquary - On the 'shove them down their throats' - I apologize if you thought I was referring to your words. I did not mean my words to come across that you said that....but others have...many times.
GrannyFox - I have tried to explain that I wanted to hear the views of others. I'm not having any trouble at all understanding what you've shared. That's the way of politics. Before 1960 prayer was allowed in schools, because people wanted change it happened. Now it seems that the other side is starting to rally and fight back....for their rights. Freedom to practice their religion. Time will tell if things will stay the same or not.
Here's a URL by the Secretary of State. A letter from Clinton. It's my belief that this was written as so many religious people were feeling their right to freedom of religion was being denied. Clinton sent this letter to the school boards. It is addressed 5-30-98 In it he supported students' rights to voluntarily practice their religious beliefs, including prayer in schools (not during school). He present guidelines for the schools to hopefully, be able to reach a happy medium, where most wouldn't feel their 'rights' were being ignored. http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html
Mivona, sorry I didn't make it back to Borillars thread with these URLs. Dinner called.
If a student chooses to pray before eating...no one can stop them. If they choose to pray loudly they are infringing on another persons rights. Prayer is voluntary, what you call God is voluntary. But you still have to respect other peoples rights too. With rights come responsibility...in this case the responsibility to respect other religions as well as the choice to be agnostic.
You mentioned several cases...in the judicial branch...not the legislature. Different branches...will be intresting to see the outcome considering what the Supreme Court has shown of itself recently.
Over zealous school officials are another topic...there are many...and they are over zealous about a number of issues...each with their own agenda. Hilary cannot possibly be responsible for all of these too.
Now I am really gonna singe some eyebrows...I bet Hilary prayed in the White House too. And know what?...I bet Laura Bush does too.
posted on March 29, 2001 06:20:28 PM new
Well, Linda, I guess I'm missing your point again. these restrictions against students freedom of religion *are* happening.
Precisely how are schools preventing students' "freedom of religion"? The link you provided was to a court case regarding whether a school district had the right to refuse the use of their buildings to a group or groups, and what criteria can be used to determine such right of refusal. Exactly how this affects any students right to practice their religion is not pointed out. The argument was made that since the school made their campus available to other groups for meeting, that it should also be made available to the prayer group suing for access. Whether this prayer group has access to the campus for meeting does not at all impact any members right or ability practice "freedom of religion". Because a school district or academic organization may choose not to make their building available for religious instruction, before, during or after hours, does not impede ANYONE's practice of religion. As for your mention of the boy "who was not allowed to say a prayer before eating his lunch in the school cafeteria, you provided no link to a court decision or pending case, so I have no idea about what the true circumstances were. I would wonder how anyone could *know* that he was reciting a prayer before his meal, unless perhaps he insisted on jumping on the lunch table to shout it out to all the kids assembled,in which case he might be considered disruptive, and that may be what THAT was about. See if you can find the link.
As for appropriate clothing in school, I know that there have been issues that have come before the courts, most notably I remember reading about the practice of Sikh youths wearing their ceremonial swords to school which violated the schools "zero tolerance" policy. I don't remember the outcome of that one, but some of this is just plain common sense. Again, you did not provide a link to the cases involving Wiccan symbols or rosary, which would be interesting should you be able to provide the specific links. You stated there was a reason, but didn't say WHAT the reason WAS. Many children wear crosses, and a court fairly recently upheld the right of US postal workers to wear jamulkes (sp?)at their workplace. So if you can find them, I would be interested in reading those particular news stories.
posted on March 29, 2001 06:26:37 PM new
[i]As we can see in this thread, no one is advocating that religion be forced or required.
However, many are advocating that the right to practice their religion should be limited. We have gone from some saying that organized prayer should be banned to the last post where kids should not be allowed to pray in school at all.
inside
You have twisted what was said here. Since prayer and practicing one's religion is not forbidden by law at the present time, it is obvious that forced prayer is the objective of those looking for change.
Helen did advocate no prayer in school.
I do think that prayer that is organized prayer should be banned. As Jesus said...give onto ceasur the things that are ceasur's, and onto God the things that are God's. Public school is government sponsered and the time spent there is for a government provided education. I could not choose that my children were provided a realistic protrayal of history...they received what the government wanted them to get. I provided the rest...I also provided their religious and their sex education.
However, a quiet prayer to God cannot be banned. A private worship between you and this greater being cannot be controled. It is not enough for some though...they want to make all listen to a private communication, without respect for others at all. This is because these people are sure their way is the only right way...it needs to be forced upon all, by law. It needs to be forced upon all, by loudness, by public display.
Fine...but let the prayers include the Moslems, the Jews, the agnostics, the Hindus, the Catholics, the non-WASP, the Seventh Day Adventists, The Baptists, the varios Cults and everyone...not just a small group. And none of it should be organized by anyone but students. Or allow quiet worship by each and actually get a little of the other three Rs in. I know what I think is right.
posted on March 29, 2001 06:26:44 PM new
If I recall correctly, the court upheld the girl's right to wear her pentacle in school, just as other students were allowed to wear crosses and other religious symbols.
Personally, I believe that private prayer in school is fine. Group prayer in school or at public events is not fine. I don't want other beliefs imposed upon me.
I believe that Wiccans probably have more problems with harassment at school because of their private beliefs than Christians do, but I guess that isn't as fun to talk about.
posted on March 29, 2001 06:29:12 PM new
Katy, here's one:
The District Court of New Jersey has allowed a Medford Township elementary school to censor its students' speech based on its religious content. After participating in an elementary kindergarten class project of making posters "depicting things for which they were thankful," an elementary school student in the Medford Township school district (known as Z.H. in court documents) had his drawing of Jesus removed from its place on the wall among the other drawings of his class, and rehung in a less prominent area. Another teacher later forbade Z.H. from reading a story called "A Big Family," which is an adaptation of the story of Jacob and Esau from Book of Genesis, when other students were allowed to read books of their own choosing.
The student's mother brought suit against the State and school officials, claiming that such censorship was an unconstitutional violation of her son's rights. However, the court found that the school's actions did not unconstitutionally infringe upon the student's right to freedom of expression, reasoning that despite the fact that the story had no overt religious theme, it could not be read simply because it was from the Bible. The court amazingly expressed concern that, if the teacher were to praise the student for his reading skills, students might interpret such action as an endorsement of the Bible.
Source: C.H. v. Oliva, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (No. 96-2768 D.N.J. Dec. 30, 1997).
---------------------------------------------
Although I originally read this story in the New York Post, I couldn't find it in a site search there so I couldn't link to it.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Mar 29, 2001 06:30 PM ]
posted on March 29, 2001 06:39:48 PM new
But Lisa, those children were only practicing their religion...
I am leaving...I am tired of banging my head against the walls.
My last word on the subject is that I am much more fearful of a religios faction destroying my religios freedom, than I am of any other group. The fundalmentalist Christian religion is the group that most opposes religious freedom or the practice of any religion but their own. I understand that and I understand that it is a central part of their religious beliefs. It truly frightens me.
posted on March 29, 2001 06:42:26 PM new
Thanks James. I remember reading about that same story. Also, I think one of the television news shows (Dateline or 60 Minutes) did a segment on it. Not being a constitutional law expert, I don't know that the actions of the school or the teacher violated the child's constitutional rights, as the court said, but I would have to say that the actions of the school and the teacher were asinine and just plain stoopid. Again, the issue here is not freedom to "practice his religion" since I don't think the school curtailed his ability to practice his religion, but I certainly question their (the school's) plain common sense.
posted on March 29, 2001 06:44:46 PM new
Well then inside, if Helen edited her post, you should do the same, since yours makes absolutely no sense. It is sure to confuse the readers.
posted on March 29, 2001 06:49:48 PM new
Helen, inside thinks that you are saying that students should be banned from praying at school at all, and that you are advocating that that the right to practice their religion should be limited..
He is right. I don't believe that religion
should be practiced at school, grade K-12.
With so many diverse religions in my area,
I just can't understand how it could work
here. And, I don't believe that there is a need for prayer at school.
Helen
Edited to add that I don't believe in
censorship of religious books, art or
literature chosen by the students.
posted on March 29, 2001 07:59:48 PM new
Well Helen, I guess I disagree with you. If a student wants to say a quiet prayer to himself before lunch (or an algebra test!) and he/she is not disruptive to others, I think it is perfectly fine. As long as the schools are not requiring attendance at prayer meetings, nor morning "invocations" at assembly or over the PA, I don't think it is anyone's business what a student does with regard to his/her own religious practices and preferences.
posted on March 29, 2001 08:04:03 PM new
What if your religion requires you to practice it? What if your religion requires you to recite a blessing over food?
Helen, does your belief that religion shouldn't be practiced in school trump someone else's beliefs that require them to practice their religion -- even in school? Obviously, we're not talking about a child creating a disturbance in class or in school. That can't be acceptable simply because disturbances aren't acceptable.
Anything which doesn't infringe on anyone else shouldn't be an issue. Proselytization? That is an invasion of other's space, but for a child to say grace over their lunch if they so choose -- not only is that not illegal, why should it be?
How have we gone from banning state sanctioned religion -- a good thing, as history has proven so aptly for us -- to banning a person's right to practice their religion?
posted on March 29, 2001 08:30:57 PM new
Oh, I agree. In fact it is sure to be challenged and I would surprised if it is upheld as legal. It's possible that an unexpected result of that future ruling may be the minting of money without In God We Trust on it. Won't they feel smart for their efforts then.
Guess I'm not going to convince you that these restrictions against students freedom of religion *are* happening.
