posted on March 29, 2001 08:45:10 PM new
I think that two separate school class hours should be spent each day by every student kneeling on a personal size towel facing east and recited prayer to Allah.
posted on March 29, 2001 10:39:16 PM new
I am s devout Christian and a die-hard American from a coal-miner & farmer background. I think that religion should be completely outlawed from any public school campus. Our kids are sent to school to learn the facts - just the facts and perhaps, how to put it all together to good use.
What my kids are NOT sent to school for is to pray, before, during, or after. Not before a test or a school game. Religion shold not be practiced on any level at a public school.
Instead, religion is a real-world education, so I want there to be a curriculum about all the different world's religions. I not only want Islaam and Judaeism discussed along with Christianity, and even including Hinduism and Bhuddism, but also Taoism, Zen, Pagan, Satanism, Amerindian religions as well as eskimo and Austrailian Aborigional belief systems. I also want included the notions of Agnosticism and Atheism. Then, my kids would have a REAL religious education!
So, what is wrong with that? Is Christianity too weak a religion that any competing beliefs will cost them their members? If Christianity can not stand the test of world religions, then maybe we shold be rethinking about how we interpret Christianity.
posted on March 29, 2001 10:58:29 PM new
Thanks James, I hoped that it would.
I have not seen any push for prayer in schools by any organized religious grouping other than Christian ones.
With the number and multiple character of the christian sects, sometimes variously termed cults, depending on from where they are viewed, I doubt that I would care to entrust the spiritual upbringing of any child of mine to the vagaries of the beliefs, with rilvalries and biases, to anyone outside of my chosing, particularly outside of my home.
But no mention of complete religious access to the publically provided facilities are mentioned as a condition to be applied to all sects, only to the particular ones voiced so loudly and continually.
I can only conclude that those who make prayer in school an agenda of political rebellion are either simply attempting to carve out a position of power or are incapable of seeing to their own religious 'business' either out of laziness or out of confusion as to what to do, or out of questionable faith.
It doesn't seem very Christian to be muddling in the politics of Romans.
posted on March 30, 2001 12:54:51 AM new
The Guidelines quoted give students the right to practice their religion, as long as they do it without disruption, or disturbance to others.
I would think that saying grace over one's lunch is acceptable, as long as it only involves thanking God for one's meal. If it involves thanking Gord for one's meal and fervently hoping that all the sinners in the room will come to acknowledge the wonder of God, then I think that is going to be seen as offensive. Praying for one's own well-being is OK, but praying that others will see the "light" is not.
The guidelines specifically say:
"Generally, students may pray in a nondisruptive manner when not engaged in school activities or instruction, and subject to the rules that normally pertain in the applicable setting. Specifically, students in informal settings, such as cafeterias and hallways, may pray and discuss their religious views with each other, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other student activities and speech. Students may also speak to, and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics. School officials, however, should intercede to stop student speech that constitutes harassment aimed at a student or a group of students."
and
"The right to engage in voluntary prayer or religious discussion free from discrimination does not include the right to have a captive audience listen, or to compel other students to participate. Teachers and school administrators should ensure that no student is in any way coerced to participate in religious activity."
Freedom to practice religion, freedom to express religious views... just no freedom to impose their religion on others.
posted on March 30, 2001 01:06:13 AM new
Personally I question what is behind the curtain on this insight of slick hillie. (As in the wiz of oz.)
Remember when photographs were taken of bill and hilliary around the time their marriage was on the rocks due to the affair with monica, showing their romantic side? Some think it was staged -a photo op.
posted on March 30, 2001 02:18:10 PM new I was trying to ask others why, if they are so opposed so any religion being in the schools, they don't seem to have a problem with this threads subject.
IF this is still the topic, my thoughts are:
There is a difference between adults choosing to attend a function where prayer that they are comfortable with will be held AND children being forced to attend a 'function' (i.e., School) they they are requried to attend where there will be prayer that they may or may NOT be comfortable with.
It seems to me that you think there is some connection with not wanting organized prayer in school with not wanting prayer ANYWHERE. That isn't the case. The point about seperation of church and state is that: No one can be forced by the government to worship in a way they don't want to.
How hard is that to understand?
Prayer happens everywhere.....I hit my knees in the middle of a highway when I drove up and saw my fathers car ramed half way up a telephone poll. That means I prayed on state property. The difference between that and FORCED BY THE STATE prayer in the school is that *I* chose how and where to pray.
posted on March 30, 2001 03:26:31 PM new
Hello lotsafuzz - I've decided to give up as I don't seem to be able to make my point clearly enough to be understood.
This has *nothing* to do with forcing anyone to do *anything*. Many keep bring that up and saying they don't understand why I can't see that. They speak to the issue of an adult choosing, vs a child being forced. Can't compare the two. Apples and oranges. I'm speaking about an adult choosing to pray in a government building and a child being allowed to do the same in a government (run-overseen) building. Why is it okay to practice one's religion (be adult or child) in any public place. Either it is okay for both, or not allowed for either.
To me this is *only* about the subject of church and state. Only....nothing else.
I challenge anyone to find where my words speak to forcing anyone to do anything.
If one believes in the concept of keeping church and state separate, they how can they *only* want to see this separation applied to our schools and not to our total government? Hillary (or anyone) meeting for prayer in government offices, seems to me to be a violation of the issue of separation of church and state, just like some here feel that by children practicing their 'right' to practice their religion in a public (government run) place (school). But those same people who have no objection to religious meetings being held in a government owned building, do object to *any* form of church in school.
Don't know how to say it any other way.
To me, you either believe in a total separation of church and state, or you don't. How can people justify that it's okay for some to use government buildings to practice their religion, but they same is not allowed to our children (who wish to).
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 30, 2001 03:29 PM ]
posted on March 30, 2001 03:37:52 PM new
LindaK...
You have not shown any contemporary evidence that children are not allowed to pray in school. A very clear link was posted which gave government guidance that was to permit students to pray in their own time, to gather with other like-minded students around the flag-pole, to be able to read and study any religious text they chose, to wear any religious items they wished.
Just where are children not allowed to pray?
The only provisos on the behaviour is that it must not impact on anyone else. You have a right to pray in school as long as it is not disruptive. You do not have the right to preach at others in doing so.
posted on March 30, 2001 04:02:44 PM new
Mivona - I have provided proof that students aren't being allowed the same right that Hillary and others have to meet to practice their religion. If you choose not to read them, that is your choice.
I am the one that provided you with the URL for the guidelines that you post. They were offered to show the suggestions that Clinton offer to help the school districts reach decisions on how to both allow students to practice their religion while in school, and on it's grounds. This is not working/happening in many cases. If you choose not to believe that, that is your right. But the proof I offered is there if you choose to read it. Why do you think so many cases have ended up in the US Supreme court, *if* these rights were being allowed?
You might go far in clearing your own thinking if you stop putting words and thoughts into the mouths and minds of others according to your perceptions, already shown to be biased and foggy at best as you have with:
"just like some here feel that by children practicing their 'right' to practice their religion in a public (government run) place (school). But those same people who have no objection to religious meetings being held in a government owned building, do object to *any* form of church in school".
You have no idea what I or anyone else thinks, objects, or feels, and have no standing to voice those things for others.
It is you who seems unable to grasp the what is quite clear to so many difference between choice and enforced action. If Hillary choses to join a prayer group being held in an governmental office, or children chose to gather at the swingset on public school grounds to genuflect before Bob the almighty it doesn't make any difference whatever in the law of the land.
Yet on and on you go with this tiresome and misguided chain of thought, jealously possessive of it as though you feel that it is so original that you deserve a royalty fee.
What is illegal is the setting aside curriculum hours, or minutes, specifically for required religious activity, including prayer, in schools.
As far as prayer goes, I do believe that intonations aloud are not necessary to God, so ANYONE may pray privately wherever they are and for however long they like. I'm sure that in schools such activity by students will simply be called daydreaming.
Perhaps you could tell me the context and details of the kind of prayer you would like to see in schools that are not allowed at present?
I don't know what else you want me to read... it is clear from the government that personal prayer IS allowed... that collective voluntary prayer IS allowed... that religious text reading in one's own time cannot be disallowed by a school... that the wearing of religious garments and symbols IS allowed...
Just what is it that is NOT allowed? Where? By who? If you give me links, I will look at them.
posted on March 30, 2001 04:34:23 PM new
Capriole - While I watch and read other news I do love Fox News. Fastest growing cable news. Grew 150 % in just one year, so I'm not alone. No Spin Zone. Fair and Balanced. They tell/report a story and you decide where you stand, after you have heard two different (one Democrat and one Republican) guests debate.
They report on issues that 'left' slanting news agencies won't touch...maybe out of fear or influence from their owners.
Slate ( the URL you posted) has many times put Fox News down. O'Reilly in particular. Michael Kinsley told many, what O'Reilly felt were lies, in an article he wrote for Slate. O'Reilly called him a coward as he invited him many times to come on his show and be challenged on the lies he wrote. Wouldn't do it. Just recently, finally did. O'Reilly called him on each and everyone of his lies, explained why and how what he wrote wasn't true. Brought the truth to the surface real quick.
I believe the reason Fox News has grown in popularity is mostly because of Bill O'Reilly. He challenges the issues and wants the powerful to answer, whether they are a Democrat or a Republican. He seems to be for the 'little guy'.
posted on March 30, 2001 04:40:51 PM new
Linda_K: Ok, let me try to understand this again, because I have obviously missed your point:
Your issue is NOT about organized school prayer. (Just to make my side clear: When I say forced prayer I am speaking of organized school prayer....for example, having students pray for X minutes sometime during the day and/or having some kind of 'led' prayer). If I understand you, this is a non issue in what you are discussing. Is that correct?
Your issue is: If there is to be seperation of church and state there should be NO prayer in government owned buildings and/or property nor on 'government time'. Is that correct?
Seriously, I think we are missing each other here and I'd like to discuss this, but we obviously need a meeting of the mind on the specific topic and/or idea.
Just in case your point is #2, I'd like to add this (as I am on my way out to dinner): The seperation between church and state (to my mind) means:
1) The government can NOT force (i.e., make policy) any religion on the citizens of the US. 2) The government can NOT deny any citizen of the US their choice of religion and/or the ability to practice their religion of choice (granted: The government can and has restricted some aspects of certian religions for health and/or safety reasons). Is that not your understanding?
Also, religious 'clubs' or 'groups' ARE allowed access to school facilities. Yes, there are some individual schools who, for whatever reason....maybe they don't understand the law, have NOT provided access for students. HOWEVER, they have gotten smacked on the hand because the law states that those groups (as well as others) are allowed access to school facilities. Personally, I think the main 'sticking' point in many of the cases has been the idea of what 'access' means.
I really think my above point rings true no matter which specific arguement you are trying to make:
There is NO law that says you can NOT pray on government property (i.e., schools/the Senate floor/whatever). The law says the government can NOT force one to pray. Making a policy that organized school prayer is manditory would, in fact, be making a policy that people MUST worship. Where as, saying one can NOT pray in school/government building would mean the government has made a policy RESTRICTING worship.
posted on March 30, 2001 04:49:12 PM new
krs You have no idea what I or anyone else thinks, objects, or feels, and have no standing to voice those things for others
Not accurate, krs. You're the one not reading what others are posting here on this thread. I asked for opinions, and I got them.
This thread would have just died if no one posted to it. If the thread is bothering you, why not just ignore it?
posted on March 30, 2001 06:18:35 PM new
lotsafuzz - Thanks. My problem is that I can't answer with just a yes or no. It's all intermingled.
"Your issue is NOT about organized school prayer. (Just to make my side clear: When I say forced prayer I am speaking of organized school prayer....for example, having students pray for X minutes sometime during the day and/or having some kind of 'led' prayer). If I understand you, this is a non issue in what you are discussing. Is that correct?"
I, personally, don't believe in *forced prayer or forced meetings*. I do believe children should have the right to meet on school grounds before, after, during lunch at school, or to pray any time, anywhere they wish, without disturbing others. This is their right
The issue is more complicated than that to me though. I can understand how religious people feel 'a moment of silence' during school should be allowed. Not for forced prayer, but so that those who wish to can, and others can have quiet time. Just like in our government. Before all sessions there is either prayer or a time of silence. (On a government owned property - during working time
So, I ask..how do those who don't want the 'moment of silence' during school, then not object to the same thing happening in our government? During their 'work' hours
posted on March 30, 2001 06:28:39 PM new
Your issue is: If there is to be seperation of church and state there should be NO prayer in government owned buildings and/or property nor on 'government time'. Is that correct?
Right. If prayer was not allowed on government time for our Congress, then I could understand it then would make sense to not allow it in the schools, 'during' school time
But on the issue of Hillary and the prayer meeting group. I don't believe this is on government time. This, to me, is the same as children meeting before (etc) school for prayer meetings. Neither are 'on' school or goverment time
posted on March 30, 2001 06:47:53 PM new
1) The government can NOT force (i.e., make policy) any religion on the citizens of the US. Right
2) The government can NOT deny any citizen of the US their choice of religion and/or the ability to practice their religion of choice (granted: The government can and has restricted some aspects of certian religions for health and/or safety reasons). Is that not your understanding? Yes. And they also have the right to practice their religion anytime anywhere. Like before eating a meal, taking a test, etc. anytime
Also, religious 'clubs' or 'groups' ARE allowed access to school facilities. Yes, there are some individual schools who, for whatever reason....maybe they don't understand the law, have NOT provided access for students.That's one of the points I've tried to make here. Some schools have denied the religious this right. Those were some of the US Supreme Court cases I listed. These groups were denied that 'required' right. Think of how many people had their 'right' taken away because they didn't have the money to take their case to court
HOWEVER, they have gotten smacked on the hand because the law states that those groups (as well as others) are allowed access to school facilities. Yes, it has been determined that if they allow others meeting places, they MUST allow same access for the religious
Personally, I think the main 'sticking' point in many of the cases has been the idea of what 'access' means. I agree
So. Does this now make it clearer, at least to you lotsa, why I found it ironic that those who want total separation of church and state in the schools, are not having a problem with the same thing happening in our government? (On or off government/school time.) Or why they cannot see that it seems to currently be okay for our government not to be totally separate from religion, when they demand that it be that way in our schools?
posted on April 6, 2001 10:56:18 AM new
dreamgirl---someone who commits a sin is not allowed to be religious??? I think you need to have a talk with your pastor....
posted on April 6, 2001 05:47:06 PM new
When Jesus comes back I wonder what he will do,he won't be welcome anywhere here in the USA,he just may offend somebody.
