• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why the need to pray in the classroom?

joko104 said:
Disguised or not, the actually discussion topic of this thread is simply:

"I hate freedom of speech by religious people, even if they are silent!"

Messages attacking known practice of virtually all religious people - ie praying - and claiming they should be punitively required to 100% hide their religion from anyone and everyone even when they are FORCED to be in school - is attacking religion and religious people....

...is no different than claiming gay students may have a right to be gay - as long as no one knows it and they never say anything about it to anyone or do anything to indicate they are gay.

Mandating no prayer - even personal and silent - is for many people mandating being atheist - because their religion requires prayer in all things. To demand they do not even silently pray is to demand they openly and falsely display and express they are atheists. Accordingly, people on this thread are demanding that all school children openly practice atheism instead of their actual religious beliefs.

BTW, since you believe showing religious belief is wrong, they why are YOU trying to ram YOUR "Christian" belief ways down everyone's throat? Pure hypocrisy, isn't it?

I am not Christian. But I do not demand they hide unseen and unheard like some on this thread do. They can silently prayer all they want and do not have to hide it from anyone. They also can wear huge "JESUS SAVES" on their shirts, crosses around their necks, and carry a gold leaf Bible under their arm. And if between classes some of them want to huddle and say a prayer - outloud - they can do that too. Can ask other students in the hall "are you saved?" or any and all other free speech and free speech rights everyone else has.
Click to expand...

Just to be perfectly clear on this, I never endorsed the view you seem to think that some in this thread have.
 
head of joaquin said:
Read the law review article, understand the state of the law, don't just rely on cheap googles and report back in:

America' public school students, it may be said, do not shed their rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate1—except when they are in the classrooms or the hallways.2 At least, that is the way today' revisionists would rewrite Justice Fortas' forty-yearold pronouncement in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.3 Tinker— still rightly recognized by many as a sweeping declaration of First Amendment rights for young people— may stand (at least in some jurisdictions) for the empty proposition that as long as the government acts somewhere in the vicinity of reasonableness, it may freely, without fear of reprisal, regulate the content of student speech.4
Click to expand...

head of joaquin said:
Read the law review article, understand the state of the law, don't just rely on cheap googles and report back in:

America' public school students, it may be said, do not shed their rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate1—except when they are in the classrooms or the hallways.2 At least, that is the way today' revisionists would rewrite Justice Fortas' forty-yearold pronouncement in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.3 Tinker— still rightly recognized by many as a sweeping declaration of First Amendment rights for young people— may stand (at least in some jurisdictions) for the empty proposition that as long as the government acts somewhere in the vicinity of reasonableness, it may freely, without fear of reprisal, regulate the content of student speech.4
Click to expand...


From 1993 (restrictions on Freedom of Religion/Separation of Church and State, 1st Amendment):
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 124 L.Ed.2d. 352 (1993): The Court held that a school district that opened its classrooms after hours to a range of groups for social, civic, and recreational purposes, including films and lectures about a range of issues such as family values and child-rearing, could not deny access to a religious organization to discuss the same, permissible issues from a religious point of view. Whether or not the classrooms were public fora, the school district could not deny use based on the speaker's point of view on an otherwise permissible topic.
Click to expand...

From 1982:
Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)

The issue was whether the First Amendment prohibits a local school board from exercising its discretion to remove library books from school libraries, that the board characterized as “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy.” 457 U.S. at 857. The students of those schools sued, claiming the removal of books violated their First Amendment rights. In a plurality opinion, three justice of the U.S. Supreme Court stated that students had a First Amendment right to receive ideas and information as a necessary predicate to their meaningful exercise of the rights of speech, press, and political freedom. Another justice concurring in the judgment wrote that the state had no authority to deny access to ideas for political reasons
Click to expand...

Bethel School District v. Fraser – (1986) The Court decided that the school district had the right to discipline a student for lewd or obscene speech.
Click to expand...
<---Note that the SCOTUS did not rule that the student had no right to free speech, but only that the school had a right to discipline him for exercising it (and hence, the right is not excluded).

Lee v. Weisman – (1991) It was determined that the invitation of a clergy member to give a benediction at a public school graduation was not a violation of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Cases that haven't reached SCOTUS:
Judge Rules in Favor of Michigan Student's Right to Wear Anti-War T-Shirt to School | American Civil Liberties Union
PA Court Says School's Punishment for Internet Speech Violated Student's Rights | American Civil Liberties Union


In summary: Your original claim was false and you've provided nothing to prove it true.
 
tessaesque said:
From 1993 (restrictions on Freedom of Religion/Separation of Church and State, 1st Amendment):


From 1982:


<---Note that the SCOTUS did not rule that the student had no right to free speech, but only that the school had a right to discipline him for exercising it (and hence, the right is not excluded).



Cases that haven't reached SCOTUS:
Judge Rules in Favor of Michigan Student's Right to Wear Anti-War T-Shirt to School | American Civil Liberties Union
PA Court Says School's Punishment for Internet Speech Violated Student's Rights | American Civil Liberties Union


In summary: Your original claim was false and you've provided nothing to prove it true.
Click to expand...

Hey look, you googled!

Bottomline: Tinker is virtualy defunk and doesn't protect any substantive First Amendment rights anymore in light of subsequent rulings. Hence the law review journal's conclusion.

And to circle back to the offending post: Tinker does not protect the "right" of school kids to pray in class in any context that appears government sponsored (and in fact never did before it was eroded).
 
Last edited:
head of joaquin said:
The empircal organization of knowledge based on methodological naturalism in order to make useful predictions about things we care about, like curing diseases and building bridges that don't fall down.

What do you consider science to be?

I can't wait to hear this.
Click to expand...

I gave even a shorter version and asked about the definition of religion. We have silence alone so far.
 
head of joaquin said:
Hey look, you googled!

Bottomline: Tinker is virtualy defunk and doesn't protect any substantive First Amendment rights anymore in light of subsequent rulings. Hence the law review journal's conclusion.

And to circle back to the offending post: Tinker does not protect the "right" of school kids to pray in class in any context that appears government sponsored (and in fact never did before it was eroded).
Click to expand...

And yet your claim is still patently false.
 
PHP:
tessaesque said:
And yet your claim is still patently false.
Click to expand...

You can keep pretending Tinker isn't defunk. And I'll keep pretending to listen, as will any legal scholars.
 
DDD said:
I gave even a shorter version and asked about the definition of religion. We have silence alone so far.
Click to expand...

Religion is a belief that there is a metaphysical reality of some kind, that there is a being or beings in that metaphysical reality, and that reality can interact with this physical reality humans are in.
 
head of joaquin said:
No, I would say that the actual topic is: leave religion totally out of school since it's both bad for religion and bad for civil society.

I agree with that. I don't want my religion in schools or public arenas. It only diminishes it and causes conflict with other religions.

By the way there is no first amendment rights in school -- you're aware of that, correct? Every court case says so.
Click to expand...

Then the courts are wrong. Law and courts do not dictate my ethics. Do they dictate yours?
 
RepublicanMcDuc said:
Just to be perfectly clear on this, I never endorsed the view you seem to think that some in this thread have.
Click to expand...

OK. I'm not really pointing at anyone.
 
joko104 said:
Religion is a belief that there is a metaphysical reality of some kind, that there is a being or beings in that metaphysical reality, and that reality can interact with this physical reality humans are in.
Click to expand...

In short a position that cannot be verified empircally, since in this universe, there is no metaphysical reality, only a physical one.

As a Christian I have to wonder why you appear to want to reduce religion to banal empiricism, used to build bridges and cure disease?
 
head of joaquin said:
You can keep pretending Tinker isn't defunk. And I'll keep pretending to listen, as will any legal scholars.
Click to expand...

Your original claim was that there are no 1st amendment rights in school. You actually said no first amendment rights. The information I've provided proves that claim wrong.

You can make NEW claims all day, but that doesn't negate the fact that your original claim was patently false.
 
joko104 said:
Then the courts are wrong. Law and courts do not dictate my ethics. Do they dictate yours?
Click to expand...

yeah, yeah, yeah, the courts are wrong. So now we need to cede judicial powers to tea partiers on the internet. No thanks, our system works pretty well, even if it doesn't support your crank theories every time.
 
tessaesque said:
Your original claim was that there are no 1st amendment rights in school. You actually said no first amendment rights. The information I've provided proves that claim wrong.

You can make NEW claims all day, but that doesn't negate the fact that your original claim was patently false.
Click to expand...

I bet you just keep posting like this!

Didn't read the law journal article, did you?
 
head of joaquin said:
I bet you just keep posting like this!

Didn't read the law journal article, did you?
Click to expand...

I don't have to read the law journal article. The claim that no first amendment rights exist in school is provably false. Your little law journal article is not a supreme court decision (the most recent of which acknowledge the existence of first amendment rights inside of schools for minor students.

But if you want to keep submitting posts that reject the fact that your statement is patently untrue that's fine. Go right on ahead, man.
 
What harm does prayer do? You act like Christianity is the chicken pox. Religion is GOOD for society.

RepublicanMcDuc said:
Whenever the subject of prayer in public schools is discussed, someone usually suggests alternatives to teacher-led prayer such as moments of silence or allowing students to pray out loud at the beginning of the day.

My question is simple. Why can't this be done on the students' own time before the school day? There is nothing stopping a student (or a group of students) from saying a prayer as they head to class. What difference does it make?

My own take is that the main reason behind this desire is to provide the praying students with a captive audience. If students of other faiths and non-believers are forced to witness the prayers, then maybe they will be influenced and possibly convert.

But that might not be fair. Perhaps there is an entirely different motivation or reason behind it all. I'm willing to listen.

By saying all of this, I don't intend to criticize those who think a certain way. I just want to have a better understanding of that thinking.
Click to expand...
 
joko104 said:
Religion is a belief that there is a metaphysical reality of some kind, that there is a being or beings in that metaphysical reality, and that reality can interact with this physical reality humans are in.
Click to expand...

We weren't talking about you but since we are here. The difference between science and religion (as taught in secondary education Philosophy even) is that science first finds data and then posits a statement/belief on top of that. Religion first believes on the metaphysical and then tries to find data to support the initial belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom