‘Unconstitutional’: Critics Slam FL Bill Allowing Prayer at School Events
- Posted on January 19, 2012 at 9:51am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Florida State Senator Gary Siplin (Photo Credit: TBO.com)
Florida State Senator Gary Siplin, a Democrat representing Orlando, is on a mission to bring prayer back to public schools. The lawmaker has proposed a bill that would make it legal for students to lead prayer. Yes, in public schools.
The proposal would enable school districts to decide if they want to allow the religions practice at school events. Currently, students are permitted to pray on an individual basis, though the group-led prayer being proposed is obviously quite different. Siplin, likely realizing the controversial nature of the bill, has explained that no student would be mandated to participate.
“It is completely voluntary,” he said. “But we do not want any influence from the principal, the counselor, the dean, the coach or parents.”
The proposal would change the current dynamic, which does not allow student-led prayer at school-sponsored events, by “allowing the use of an inspirational message, including prayers of invocation or benediction, at secondary school commencement exercises or any other noncompulsory student assembly.”
To the surprise of some atheists and groups that espouse an intense adherence to the separation of church and state, the developments are troubling. Already, the bill has attracted bi-partisan support in committee. Within its text there are restrictions laid out to determine what, exactly, the prayer should look like — restrictions that aren’t enough to curb criticism, though.
According to the bill’s text, it “…is not intended to advance or endorse any religion or religious belief.” PNJ.com provides the proposal’s parameters for the prayer. It must be:
- Directed by the student government of the school.
- Led by students, with no direction by school personnel.
- “Non-sectarian and non-proselytizing in nature.”
The American Civil Liberties Union has come out strong against the proposal, writing the following in a letter posted its web site:
The bill they are considering, Senate Bill 98, would let school districts overrule the objections of religious minorities and organize school-sponsored prayer under the banner of student government. Under the bill, school officials would be able to skirt the Constitutional protections of religious liberty by letting students actually vote on what kind of prayers the school will allow and conduct.
Religious expression is an individual liberty and shouldn’t be put to a vote like a Prom King or Homecoming Court. SB98 would give schools free reign to make students feel like outsiders in the classroom, alienated from their peers, or compelled by peer pressure to engage in religious practices that go against their own beliefs.
The Anti-Defamation League has mirrored these statements, calling the bill ”unnecessary, divisive and unconstitutional.” ADL attorney David Barkey, who has testified against the bill, said, “It is setting schools up for costly litigation.”
An identical bill has been introduced in the Florida State House by Rep. Charles Van Zant, a Republican from Keystone Heights.
While Siplin is confident about the bill’s chances, it seems critics are prepared to enter into legislative and court battles, if needed. This story comes on the heels of a prayer mural dispute in Rhode Island and a New York City ban on public schools for worship use by churches.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 590 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (196)
schroeder123
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:20amIf Mosques can blast their obnoxious prayers over the loud speakers , all over the neighborhood. I think it is only fare to have a little prayer in school. No one is forcing you to do it.
Freedom from government owned religion, forcing you to do what you don’t want. That is in the Constitution. Not…”you can’t pray anywhere.” Freedom. USA
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:45amMosques blast their anti-Christian message out of speakers. Jews blast their anti-Christian message out over the airwaves. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column
Report Post »TheJeffersonian
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:05pmMosques praying is the same as churches praying, and is irrelevant to the issue. The issue here is school-sponsored prayer, which is considered under American law to be a government endorsement of religion. Would you then support school-wide Muslim prayer for students, if that were what they voted to enact?
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:16pmThe power rests in localities. The Constitution was written you affirm that principle. The 14th Amendment was not a repeal of the 1st or the 10th Amendments. If congress meant to repeal those amendments, they would have done so, just like they did using the 21st to repeal the 18th.
Report Post »RIGEL_ORION
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:33pmPerhaps technology is the answer. Within a couple years, every phone will be a smart phone, capable of playing any webcast. With an infinite amount of url’s available, what’s the harm in a school group allowing any and all student groups to broadcast a prayer, message, word of the day etc. during a designated time period? Anyone can tune into to what they want for the 10 minutes, but they must keep it at a respectable level. The administration’s only role would be to identify any bullying or harassment resulting from a webcast choice and deal with it harshly.
With no religion selected, endorsed or restricted – this technology would effectively neuter the ACLUs case in keeping any and all prayer out of school.
Report Post »red_white_blue2
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:56pmYes, correct and thank you..a smart person who actually read, learned, and understands the Constitution..no state sponored religions, but religion is fine to express whenever, however you want. This separation of church and state perversion that the left has cooked up over the years is absolutely disgusting!
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 1:49pm@jeffersonian,
You all keep confusing the freedom of teachers or students to pray with “state sponsored” religion. There is a HUGE difference and what you’re talking about is actually Unconstitutional. Teachers, students, Janitors, parents, politicians are ALL free to pray and even lead others in prayer. However, when the fed or state takes over Churches, doctrine and God’s word is replaced with state sponsorship or control that is dangerous.
Please stop confusing with acts of praying with “state run” religion!
Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 2:36pmcessna152, you emphasized the word ‘no’ when you should have emphasized the word ‘congress.’ Congress has made no law establishing a religion, which is why it should not even be a constitutional issue. States have the right to decide matters of religion via the 10th Amendment.
Report Post »Fact is, the government literally has the right to promote religion, just doesn’t have the right to establish a religion. As you know, there were state religions when the Bill of Rights was adopted and passed. So clearly, the states had that right per the founders and authors of the Constitution.
Wise guy anti-Christians invented the separation clause 160 years after the founders wrote that Constitution. If it was really present, it would not have taken so long to find.
BigPawz
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 3:23pmWhy all the hubbub about praying to God in schools? Why are those filthy muslims allowed to pray to Satan and the Christians not allowed to pray to God? I’ll guarantee you one thing…every day there is a test in the schools, there are kids praying to God.
Report Post »turkey13
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 4:52pmThe ACLU has agreed that they won’t contest the ruling if the school requires all females – students and teachers alike, to wear Burkas while on school campus.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 5:02pmTurkey13, since the leadership of the ACLU is predominately Jewish and reminiscent of a temple board meeting per Rabbi Daniel Lapin, I doubt your claim. This is a Jewish led anti-Christian movement.
Report Post »Spiritglogal
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 7:36pmthe Jeffersonian,
Report Post »You mentioned Muslims praying as if it were a hypothetical. In fact, they are already given space in (some, maybe even many) public schools, during the school day, to pray, at least during Ramadan, if not at all times for those who choose. So then, if that is already the case, why not allow other students to pray?
The idea of disallowing a church to meet in a (unused on weekends) public school building for prayer and services is ludicrous. What are they afraid of? It might “rub off” and make them Christian? It doesn’t work that way. If any other business – and probably other than CHRISTIAN religious organization – wanted to rent the space on a Sunday, I can’t see as they would be denied. It’s money in their pockets. They’ve been doing it for years. NOW it becomes a matter of separation of church and state? Ridiculous!
Amos37
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 7:48pmThe best thing about the True God is that you can pray to Him continuously, as we are supposed to, and don’t need to get down on a rug and ****.
Report Post »wildbill_b
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:11pmWhat the Constitution and founders say on the matter. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/separation-of-church-and-state/
Report Post »RABMAN1
Posted on January 20, 2012 at 1:21amAmen to that!! So many people miss that simple point Shroeder123. There is NOOO such thing as “seperation of church and state” anywhere in the Constitution; just can’t have gov. sponsored religion, if so you are then a theocracy not a Republic.
Report Post »Speak2Truth
Posted on January 20, 2012 at 1:26pmThe US Constitution absolutely protects freedom of religious expression.
It is the SOVIET Constitution that says, “In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.”
The ACLU was created by Communists like Roger Baldwin to manipulate our courts to advance the Communist agenda in this country (look it up). They’re twisting our laws and courts to impose the Soviet relationship between church and state while eradicating our First Amendment protections.
To understand what our First Amendment really means, bear in mind Thomas Jefferson and the other founders personally approved the establishment of an Episcopalean church right inside the US Capitol building and they attended services there. That’s what the First Amendment means. Freedom of religious expression even in government buildings and schools,
Report Post »sapper
Posted on January 20, 2012 at 6:42pm@ the jerk
obviously the moniker fits. Might I add that Jew refers to descendents of the tribe of judah and that the proper term for israelis as a whole is HEBREWS. There were 12 tribes of Israel…..good luck figuring out which modern folks are jews. You IDIOT!
Report Post »ltb
Posted on January 20, 2012 at 10:54pmA Democrat sponsored the bill? Nice. Maybe there‘s hope they’ll take their party back from the communists who infiltrated it during the past few decades.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:19amWhat the hell are you atheist afraid of?
So you don’t participate, big deal. If any Christian kid made fun of you or bullied you for this, then let me be the first to say, “Shame on them”.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:53ama Christian Theocracy replacing the Constitutional Republic we now enjoy.
Report Post »DirectlyUnPCman
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:37pmNot even close Encinom. What a dumb comment. And you really think you are enjoying a republic right now? Barely, and soon, maybe not at all.
Report Post »RIGEL_ORION
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:41pmEncicom,
That’s just a stupid comment. The first thing authorized for printed by the U.S. Congress was the Holy Bible. Considering there was also prayer in schools at that time it must have been a miracle that kept society from falling head over heels into a Christian Theocracy.
Report Post »snufy
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:48pmEliminating God from schools is the real problem. The Bible teachs us right from wrong. The Constitution does NOT call for seperation of church and state, rather it calls for the state to not proclaim a single church over another. That’s why the pilgrims left England…To get away from the Church of England. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits prayer in school or government places. But, you heathen lefties can’t let facts interfere with your muddled thinking. It’s obvious you never have read the Constitution.
Report Post »Brainmuffin
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:54pmThey are afraid they might begin to believe.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 2:45pmRead it and weep: http://www.pilgrimhall.org/ThanxProc1789.htm
Report Post »JRook
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 3:18pmNot surprising that the majority of comments both for and against assume the prayers would be Christian oriented. So from a practical implementation standpoint how would Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.be scheduled to present their prayers. Fundamental question is not whether students would be required to participate but whether they would be required to remain in the room and listen.
Report Post »capnbrit
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 4:27pmEveryone needs to just ignore anything ENCINOM says. It’s a waste of time.
Report Post »Troll Patrol
Posted on January 20, 2012 at 3:40am@Encinom
Troll Patrol is advising readers to ignore you!
Troll: one who posts a deliberately provocative, false or misleading comment with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
Tempus fugit.
Report Post »sapper
Posted on January 20, 2012 at 6:47pm@ encinom
No actaully what you are trying to do is promote and force on the rest of us the religions of atheism and secular humanism. There is no such thing as separation of church and state. When I attended public school we had a bible study group on campus, we prayed before football games, I carried a Bible to class daily and kept it in plain sight on my desk in each class.
Report Post »randy
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:16amTo the surprise of some atheists and groups that espouse an intense adherence to the separation of church and state, the developments are troubling.
Haha….. Poor, Poor Atheists.
Maybe this will start a groundswell of support like “Christian Groundswell Orlando”, Christian Groundswell Austin, Christian Groundswell New York, Christian Groundswell Detroit, Too late for Christian Groundswell San Francisco. :) People need to start this all over the country to take our schools back….. Tie up the courts and break the ACLU’s piggy bank! Start challenging just like the “Evil LIttle Thing” did last week.
This Government can’t force religion on anyone, and this Government can not deny religion in or outside schools!
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:16amSo, when is The Blaze gonna do a story on Jim Tomes in the Indiana Senate who introduced SB251?
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2012&session=1&request=getBill&doctype=SB&docno=0251
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 2:47pmSo when is the Blaze going to teach history?
http://www.pilgrimhall.org/ThanxProc1789.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/america.html
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 4:55pmNon sequitor much?
Report Post »The UFP
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:14amChurch refers to religion & indoctrination. I don’t think the Democratic or Republican Religions should be allowed in public schools. Those religions indoctrinate & harm much more than Churches.
Government run entities should not be allowed to indoctrinate students. They should not force information about sexual orientation on students and they should not force Religion on students.God is a part of our foundation and our structure is built from the foundation up. Church and religion should not dominate public schools, However, God is a part of our foundation, therefore passionate and misguided efforts cannot remove him, no matter how hard people try. We should not have debates over God being a part of the structure, because that is not His place.
Prayer IS NOT indoctrination.
Those that do not want their children to believe in God, may want to teach their children to substitute the name God with Father while at school and then that is a morality issue between their families, not mine. The lesson that a logical atheist teaches their child of compliance will be valuable to them as adults. The lesson of not being offended by diverse points of views will allow a child to seek whole truths as they age, communication should be taught to all students over compromise. This fight is one of compromise. We can do this, but not that… Logic needs to return in order to balance emotion. Love will be found when it does.
The United Foundational Party – Secure in our beliefs.
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on January 20, 2012 at 8:00amPublic Schools have been indoctrinating students for a very long time. Case in point homosexual activism/gay friendly schools-Heather has two mommies and all that. But before the schools began pushing the Gay agenda they were used to “militate students away from religion”the humanist would tell.
Report Post »Otherwise you may some valid points.
rx4nv
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:08amIf no school official is allowed to encourage or participate, then why is the American Civil Liberties Union so upset. Don’t they always fight for the right of the individuals to have freedom of speech and expression? They would fight tooth and nail if a group of students rose up and demonstrated against the poor nutrition standards of the school lunch and the school tried to shut them up. They are taking separation of church and state too far. THEY ARE COMPLETE HIPOCRITS
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:55amBecasue they school officals are tell the Students to vote for pray. Its a sham and a clear attempt by Florida to disregard the Constitution.
Report Post »Tom K
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:07pmYou are correct. If the majority of the students want to “ occupy ” a Christian position on prayer in their school and at school activities, the A.C.L.U. and the A.D.L. must back off. We have almost lost our Great Country with creaping socialism/progressivism/communism and America is waking up. We will take our country back one small step at a time. God Bless America !
Report Post »boundforglory
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:26pmWhat would happen if all the christians in any school stood up and asked the ACLU to back them to keep their rights to freedom of religion. If there was a puplic school with around a 75% christian populice and wanted to keep their rights, would the ACLU back them? ATTENTION ATHEISTS, QUIT TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS!!
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:07am“The Anti-Defamation League has mirrored these statements, calling the bill ”unnecessary, divisive and unconstitutional.” ADL attorney David Barkey, who has testified against the bill, said, “It is setting schools up for costly litigation.””
As I have been saying all along, the anti-Christian movement has never changed. It has been Jewish since the crucifixion. The ADL is not Arab, it is Jewish. The ACLU is not Arab, it is Jewish… at least according to Rabbi Daniel Lapin, where he described its leadership as being reminiscent of a temple board meeting.
You place this along side the Jewish Marx, Alinsky, Piven, Soros, Sunstein, Stern, Emanuel, Sanders… and Bloom, and you will see a pattern unfolding before your very eyes. Recognizing patterns, and the truth, is not antisemitic. It is analytical deduction.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 2:42pmYeah, the true Beckerheads, the Anti-Semetics and teh Bigots have come out to play.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 2:55pmAgain, name calling because these facts run counter to your desires and beliefs. Everything said is true, and deceivers hate the truth.
Report Post »tzion
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 3:53pmAll you have proven is that there are Jews who don’t understand the Constitution. You specifically look for Jews just to say that Jews support this. True the ADL is a Jewish organization, but there are plenty of Christians and atheists in the ACLU. Obama isn’t Jewish, that student in the mural incident wasn’t Jewish, the Atheists putting up signs everywhere while attacking Christians who do the same aren’t Jewish etc. You can find Jews everywhere smackthejerkdown, on both sides of almost every issue. Why do you only ever mention those who are either on the left or are antizionists? Afraid of admitting that not all Jews are Marxists? That not everyone who supports Israel is socialist? If you want to attack the ADL, go ahead. But don’t go implying that every Jew supports what the ADL is doing.
Report Post »Troll Patrol
Posted on January 20, 2012 at 3:45am@ Encinom
Troll Patrol is advising readers to ignore you!
Troll: one who posts a deliberately provocative, false or misleading comment with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
Tempus fugit.
Report Post »fidelcashflo44
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:02amSchools should be places of education, not an endorsement of proveably ineffective and superstitious nonsense like prayer.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:10amCongress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise there of 1st .
Report Post »The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 10th amendment
Using those two constitutional rights It the people’s choice to pray or not to pray at school events.
And any judge’s ruling against it would be unconstitutional and call into question the oath the Judge swore upon.
rush_is_right
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:14amyou sure want them to be indoctrination centers for your hellish atheist faith though dont’ you?
Report Post »RIGEL_ORION
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:56pmBut they aren’t centers of education. Less than half the day is dedicated to actually attempting to educate students with the knowledge that is the basis for them attending school in the first place.
Perhaps it would be easier for you to understand the benefits of prayer if we removed the term from your bigoted wheelhouse. Let‘s call it introspective meditation instead and see if we can’t get you to chill out about this. A few minutes of quiet to sort through ones thoughts and focus energy is never a bad thing – regardless of where or to whom those thoughts are directed.
We’ll all make you a deal though. We’ll never attempt to open up avenues for young people to express themselves religiously at school again, just as soon as you agree to keep out all of the social engineering messages the gay, green, anti-capitalist lobbies continually try to insert into the curriculum.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 2:55pmsmithclar3nc3 is correct. READ the First & Tenth Amendments.
First: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise there of.”
Tenth: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Congress has no right to establish a religion (which is not the case b/c this is happening at the state level, which, under the Tenth, the Federal gov’t has no right to intercede in), or limit the free practice there of (meaning, the banishment of prayer from school is what’s really unconstitutional here).
Like it or hate it (which I know you do), you have no right to banish prayer from school, court, or (GASP!) even Capitol Hill.
Everyone has a right to pray in his religious tradition (or not, as the case may be) so it’s not even establishing a state religion, but let’s be crazy and say Florida decided to make Christianity its state religion. It would still be entirely Constitutional, because there’s a difference between a state religion and a State religion.
I don’t expect you to understand the difference, but I suggest you look at state religions at the time of the establishment of the Constiutution and the decades after the Bill of Rights were ratified. Yes, “small s” states had state religions well into the 19th Century.
It’s only been this way since 1948 and IMO we need to get back to practi
Report Post »wildbill_b
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 3:17pm@smithclar3nc3
Report Post »And any judge’s ruling against it would be unconstitutional and call into question the oath the Judge swore upon…………….Absolutely correct. Any time the judge fails to support the Constitutions original intent, they become criminals and usurpers. Now take a look at 99% of federal “law” and court decisions “upholding” it. The “law” is not law at all, http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/supremacy-clause/, and the Courts are acting criminally, by NOT nullifying “Unconstitutional” acts of Congress. If more people knew this, more judges would be charged with the crime and even more would be recalled. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/enumerated-powers-of-federal-courts/ Peace.
smithclar3nc3
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 4:19pmWILDBILL,
Report Post »You are correct as well the federal courts system including the DOJ are complicit in any Unconstitutional actions taken by Congress or the President himself. The system in place currently allows politicains to pick their own guards by allowing idealogs to appoint . I also feel that as supreme court judges are appointed by a single person the people should have the right to remove them if any of their rulings fall in the question of ideology over constitutionality. Gingrich is dead on when he said we need to have the power question federal judge s on their ethics and the constututionality of their rulings. The court system has become the whipping arm of the liberal progressive government and needs to be brought down a couple pegs.
912er
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:55am“The bill they are considering, Senate Bill 98, would let school districts overrule the objections of religious minorities …”
This is what democracy looks like…
Report Post »Nepenthe
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:07amYes that is what democracy looks like.
It is not what a constitutional republic looks like.
Report Post »rx4nv
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:10amThis bill would not allow the school to over-rule anyone, it would allow the students to be free to express their religion if they so desire and not be told what to do by atheists.
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on January 20, 2012 at 8:10amThe twice passed Northwest Ordinance -Article III Religion,Morality, and Knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind,schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. “Fundamental law governing education. Reflects a sermon preached May10,1787 by Elizur
Report Post »Goodrich- The Principles of Civil Union and happiness considered and recommended. ” The Ordinance was passed and signed into law by the same Congress that pressed and adopted the Bill of Rights.
” No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation,state or national,because this is a religious people,”Church of the Holy Trinity v. the U.S.29 Feb.1892 decided.Both law adopted when we were a Constitutional republic. There can be No unconstitutional prayer-period.
popeyebedford
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:55amWhat nonsense. We should have never been disallowed to pray in the first place. I say just pray it is your God given right and the Federal Government cannot take it away….
Report Post »fidelcashflo44
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:03amIf you want your education to be mixed in with the teachings of superstition and fictional fairy tales, send your kid to a private religious school where that nonsense is acceptable.
Report Post »Nepenthe
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:06amYou have never been disallowed to pray at school.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:07am“We should have never been disallowed to pray in the first place.”
Who’s the “we” in this comment? Students are still allowed to pray in school. It just can’t distract, or use school property or events (ie, at a football game over the loudspeakers, a student cannot lead a prayer; for a religious, student-led club, prayer is fine).
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:14am“If you want your education to be mixed in with the teachings of superstition and fictional fairy tales, ”
it already is…that fictional racist atheist fairy tale known as evolution.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 2:50pmhttp://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/america.html
“The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.” George Washington
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
“I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.” Benjamin Franklin
James Madison stated, “The belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good, is essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man.”
“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” – Northwest Ordinance 1789
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 2:52pmSamuel Adams wrote a letter on October 4, 1790 to his cousin John Adams, who was vice president of the United States: “Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity and universal philanthropy, and in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country; of instructing them in the art of self-government… in short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system. Knowledge apart from God and His truth is little better than complete ignorance, because the most important aspect of education is the imbuing of moral principles. All education is religious – it imparts a basic set of principles and ideals, a worldview. How the youth are educated today will determine the course a nation takes in the future.”
Report Post »Registered Republican
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:51amApparently people don’t know their constitution… This says that they are allowing prayer in public school… It is not saying they are forcing prayer in public school… If it said they were forcing prayer in public school than it would be government establishing one religion over the other… It is the Atheist people who are forcing prayer out of public schools that are unconstitutional because they are establishing their religion over another by forcing it out, rather than saying you don‘t have to pray if you don’t want to!
Report Post »afishfarted
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:58amSo he says he doesn’t want authority figures to influence the kids decision. I guess the kids are only supposed to be influenced on liberal issues.
Nice bill, gutless comment
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:05am“ It is not saying they are forcing prayer in public school”
As per relevant SCotUS opinions, making a prayer non-mandatory or vaguely worded still violates the Establishment Clause. Please research Engel v Vitale (1962). Furthermore, Santa Fe Independent School Dist v Doe (2000) says that even student-led prayer using school property (ie, loudspeakers) violates the Establishment Clause.
I don’t think this bill will fly Constitutionally. The only hope that it might is if it allows an equal opportunity for all religions to participate, doesn’t use school property, and is only led by students. And I’m not sure that it meets all those criteria.
Report Post »Nepenthe
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:06amPrayer was never outlawed in schools.
Report Post »ConservativeInOhio
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 3:04pmActually, if the State Mandated prayer in school, that is NOT unconstitutional. The constitution says that CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. It also prohibits CONGRESS from prohibiting the peaceful assembly of the citizens.
However, these restrictions apply to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not the states. This is the US Constitution, not the Florida Constitution. In this case, it has no bearing and therefore this law CANNOT be deemed unconstitutional. But with the number of liberal judges on the bench, don’t think for a minute that this will be judged fairly and in context with the Constitution.
Report Post »wildbill_b
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 3:27pm@ Locked………..Wow it is my lucky day. I have read them. Guess what? First the court rebuts itself. Secondly, you make the horrible mistake of thinking that the Supreme Court can alter the Constitution by its opinion. Only lawyers and paralegals actually believe the Supreme Court is God.
This should help with your erroneous claim that Scotus has the power to make such a ruling
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/enumerated-powers-of-federal-courts/
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/separation-of-church-and-state/
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/supreme-court/
I suggest that you start at the beginning and read what the Founders TOLD you to read for the final word on what the Constitution means and does. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the FEDERALIST papers, ah heck with it, I got the whole list in their words here for you http://www.lojack12.com/Constitution/ Peace
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 4:48pm@Wildbill
“Only lawyers and paralegals actually believe the Supreme Court is God.”
Not sure if such an accusation is true, but I completely agree that the Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter of Constitutional meaning. As does just about anyone who works with law. As… that’s kind of the basis of our legal system.
While I appreciate the blogs you posted, I have no issue understanding your problem with the current legal system. My issue is that you (and other posters with the same view) wax poetic about how things should work in your view, but not how they do work in reality. It then seems that such posters (not yourself in particular, but others in this topic) ignore specific cases, or deny them as “overreach” or “irrelevant” or “unconstitutional” and refuse to admit that when the highest court in the US decides constitutionality… that’s how it will stand.
So I can see validity in the ideals you posit, but at the same time I point out that just working with ideals ignores the hundreds of years since the Constitution was formed. The Constitution is obviously still relevant (as are the Federalist Papers), but they also have over two centuries worth of legal precedent since they were created that are just as relevant in our common law system.
Report Post »UnreconstructedLibertarian
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:42amDoes anyone else see the irony in this statement by the ACLU?
“Religious expression is an individual liberty and shouldn’t be put to a vote like a Prom King or Homecoming Court. SB98 would give schools free reign to make students feel like outsiders in the classroom, alienated from their peers, or compelled by peer pressure to engage in religious practices that go against their own beliefs.”
Is this not exactly what they have encourged to be done to Christian children? I‘m sure they don’t understand that this is the perfect argument AGAINST them.
I want to remind you folks, once again, that the 1st Amendment is a limitation upon the United States Congress – it does not limit the states. If you examine the legal arguments made by the ACLU and ADL in their successful cases in other states, they cite the various State constitutional laws that mirror the 1st Amendment – not the 1st Amendment itself. I haven’t looked at the Florida constitution, but I’d bet that this proposed law is unconstitutional according to their own, and not the US Constitution.
I am supportive of these FL legislator’s positions. However, a mere change in statute will not get the job done – they need to amend their state’s Constitution appropriately.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:58am“I want to remind you folks, once again, that the 1st Amendment is a limitation upon the United States Congress – it does not limit the states.”
Cough… the 14th amendment would like to have a word with you on this. It extends the US Constitution’s protections to all state agencies as well; and where the States would conflict with the US Constitution, according to the 9th amendment the US Constitution reigns supreme.
I really feel like some folks only read the Bill of Rights and forget we have all the other amendments…
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:12amLocked, cough again. Reading comprehension tells us that there is no conflict. The Constitution was erected against an over-reaching federal power grab. It limited the federal government. It said that the federal congress can make no law, leaving that decision to the states. Perhaps you coughed right over the 10th Amendment?
Report Post »RIGEL_ORION
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:13amYou’re mistaken on this one. The constitution and bill of rights significantly limit the powers of the Federal government. However, the rights are universal and must be respected by all States of the Union.
If you want to take the word ‘Congress’ as somehow limiting the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Congress, that would also free up the states to censor the press, ban public demonstrations of any kind and declare Islam as the state religion. Using these powers a governor could create a small dictatorship within his/her state.
No, the 1st Amendment applies to all, from Federal to Municipal. I for one am glad it does.
However, where a stacked court got it wrong in the 1950s was to deem that the purpose of the 1st amendment was to keep religion out of government. That wasn’t the fear of the founders. It was the government taking control of religion as a means of controlling the populace. (see Anglican Church)
If the study of constitutional law had still been in practice, rather than case law precedent, this mistake would surely have been corrected. But under case law precedence, this ruling was allowed to become the basis on which other decisions would be made, with each ruling more removed from the Constitution. A great example of this is Roe v. Wade. This ruling had no constitutional basis. It was based on a stretch of a ruling that was based on another reach of a judicial ruling.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:19am@The_Jerk
“Reading comprehension tells us that there is no conflict.”
Apparently you have difficulty reading, then? Or more likely you just conveniently ignored the entire concept of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, applied through due process in the 14th amendment?
These ideas aren’t new; incorporation has been around for over 120 years.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:35amLocked, not so fast. The post civil war 14th Amendment not written to over-ride the Bill of Rights.
‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’
As you can see, no life, liberty, or property is deprived by the states allowing prayer. And, the new black citizens, for which the 14th Amendment was written, were given the same 10th Amendment protections as all other citizens… which means that they enjoy the same protections, from the federal governments over-reaching power.
You simply took a reconstruction Amendment and misused it. Shame on you for depriving all of our citizens from their Constitutionally protected rights.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:42am@The_Jerk
“You simply took a reconstruction Amendment and misused it. Shame on you for depriving all of our citizens from their Constitutionally protected rights.”
Before going further into the conversation, remind me: are you one of the folks on here who does no believe in judicial review? If so I think that’ll pretty much just stop the argument; the legal system of the US, the opinions of the SCotUS, and… well, reality as it works currently all agree with what I’ve said. But if you don’t believe the courts have the ability to interpret the Constitution, then we’ll be at an impasse.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:03pmLocked: “Before going further into the conversation, remind me: are you one of the folks on here who does no believe in judicial review? If so I think that’ll pretty much just stop the argument; the legal system of the US, the opinions of the SCotUS, and… well, reality as it works currently all agree with what I’ve said. But if you don’t believe the courts have the ability to interpret the Constitution, then we’ll be at an impasse.”
Locked logic: In short, I’m correct because I say that I am correct. And, you are wrong because I say that you are wrong. Words have no meaning, unless I say that they do. And, I will tell you the meanings of those words.
Now ,don’t talk to me unless you adhere to these rules.
Fact is, the 1st and the 10th Amendments speak for themselves. Manipulators later took the 14th Amendment, which was written for the new black citizens, and used it for a different purpose and agenda. You are one of those Constitutional masseuses.
Report Post »RIGEL_ORION
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:15pm@Locked
I’m sure it was a slip of the tongue, but the role of the courts was never defined by the Founders as the interpreters of the Constitution. The interpretation only comes into play when there is a conflict between laws or there is a case that falls somewhat out of the original scope of the law. At that point the judge must interpret which law would have precedent or determine how it would apply to a unique case.
This interpretation only carries weight until the legislature clarifies/resolves the conflict between laws and/or expands the law to apply to the new unique case.
I half wonder if the reason why old laws simply fall into disuse, but are never repealed is because of all the interpretation and precedent that have been built into these laws over time. Removing a law also removes everything attached to it. The result of this could effectively put case law on its ear.
For instance, in the town where I grew up, there is a law against a woman having sex in the back of an ambulance. If caught, only the woman’s name is required to be listed in the local newspaper for her offense. This law obviously is not needed today, yet has never been repealed.
Report Post »UnreconstructedLibertarian
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:39pmExcellent discussion.
True, the interpretation presented of the 14th amendment is a “reconstructionist view”. If you are awake enough to realize the facts of our current national dilemma, this view is (and was) the true seed of destruction. Its the best example of how the plight of slaves was used to push a separate and insidious agenda.
The overwhelming fact, and the deeds of the Federal Government prove this much better than any of their words, is that they desire the “Universal Power” over the people. Once the check and balance of your state’s ability to stand up for the rights of its citizens is gone – the Federal government is truly unchecked.
Do you really want the Federal government to be the sole protector of your 1st or 2nd amendment? When they finally do become such, they’ll simply take it away at their pleasure for their sole purpose. Look around at the precendent being set; health care, food safety, SOPA, PEPA, NDAA.
If the assumption that the US Constitution is universal is true, why do we have ANY firearms laws? I’m infringed on my right to own a fully automatic weapon, some weapons banned by specific make by federal statute. These laws are clearly unconstitutional by any interpretation of the 2nd amendment – but yet they exist. The same regarding the 1st amendment, tell me that any interference with religion at all does not violate, “free excercise thereof”?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:57pm@The_Jerk
“In short, I’m correct because I say that I am correct. And, you are wrong because I say that you are wrong. Words have no meaning, unless I say that they do. And, I will tell you the meanings of those words.
Now ,don’t talk to me unless you adhere to these rules.”
Not at all; I’m not making up definitions here. Judicial review, incorporation, and separation of church and state are all part of the large legal jargon that makes up the judiciary. As said, some of these are hundreds of years old (judicial review), some are over a century old (separation of church and state) and others are more recent (no state-sponsored prayer). However, none of them are surprising to anyone who understand how our legal system works.
I’m not making up the rules of the game: I’m simply relating the facts. If you don‘t like how it’s played, there is a clear process for changing them (namely, the constitutional amendment process).
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 1:02pm@Rigel_Orion
Very true. It’s overly broad to say “there can never be student-led prayer because of Santa Fe” and write off this legislation. However, the case would need to be made much clearer: the prayer couldn’t be done using school property, or at school events (both conditions from the Santa Fe decision). But if the writing was changed to exclude those, then obviously Santa Fe would not apply to it any more.
This, of course, is assuming that this bill passes and then makes it to the SCotUS, and is then overturned using Santa Fe’s precedence. A lot of things could happen between now and then.
(Sorry if this shows up twice, somehow it didn’t get attached to this thread last time).
Report Post »UnreconstructedLibertarian
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 1:23pmThanks to all responders, its one of the most constructive discussions I’ve read here in a long time.
However, I earnestly urge you all to actually read those decisions and the ACLU briefs associated. I did not realize my own error until reading an article here on the Blaze regarding a prayer incident at a local football game. I actually read the ACLU brief. I’ve read many since. The media spin is very decieving. All these briefs cite the respective State constitutions as they regard to the 1st Amendment, and more often than not the State’s provision is broader than the US Constitution.
Additionally, the SCOTUS decisions were upholding the State’s own Constitution and that it did not violate the US Constitution. The media reports it to be a 1st Amendment victory, when it was actually a victory for the State’s own constitutional provision and the 10th Amendment.
Read any of those cases for yourself. My original statement stands. The Federal government is well aware of the facts those of us who have disagreed with the “Reconstructionist View” are correct on, but have relentlessly attempted to educate the truth of the Constitution away. Why? So, when they choose to finalize its destruction – you’ll agree to it, because its what you’ve been taught. All the while, the functional truth of the matter has been easily reviewable in our own time.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 1:35pmLocked, in the 1925 ruling, Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court began ignoring its predecessors and precedents. The Court reasoned that one of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States. 1925 was 138 years after the adoption of the Constitution and nearly 60 years after the passing of the 14th Amendment.
In the context of religion, the Court’s first and most abusive reinterpretation began in a 1940 Supreme Court ruling, Cantwell v. Connecticut. Here, the Court applied the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment to the states. Again, religion was a State matter. State courts were, and are, completely capable of handling the issue.
The next landmark ruling came down in 1947. In the case, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court applied the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment to the states. In the context of the “separation of church and state,” the Court’s foundational reinterpretation of the Constitution was complete.
As you can see, your historical analysis is flawed. It took the court 160 years to find ‘the separation of church and state.’ Are we to assume it took that long to find that wisdom? As an aside, it should be noted that there was a mass immigration of Jews from eastern Europe during the 19th century, and they brought with them their communism. Baruch and Brandeis led the way. And, look at Frankfurter’s unethical involvement with Brandeis.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 2:59pmAll the first Amendment says is that Congress can not establish (create or institute) a Religion. That is to say, that they can’t create the Church of America, and dictate creeds, doctrines, masses, baptisms, and mandate adherence and attendance thereto, nor can they elect bishops and initiate ministries. Likewise, through the fourteenth amendment, State, counties, and cities, can not create the Apostolic Church of Montgomery County and dictate and mandate acceptance or adherence to any form of worship, nor can they choose deacons, and obligate citizens to participate in their services. In addition to this actual and original meaning and interpretation, Congress and States can not interfere in, restrict or limit those Religions and Congregations already established and created by private Citizens.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 3:18pmThis does not, however, in any way, shape, or form, limit or restrict Congress or the States to recommend or promote Religion or other Faith based actions, initiatives, values, or principles. As in the Declaration of Independence, adopted by the Several State Delegates, a Creator and Divine Being was acknowledged and referred to as the Supreme Judge. In the Articles of Confederation the Delegates acknowledged the influence the Great Governor of the World had in the hearts of our legislators. In the Constitution, the Delegates acknowledged the religious overtone our Society held by the inclusion of “in the Year of Our Lord”, as within other legal texts. If their intent was to distant themselves from such notions, and to separate their Governmental service and work, from such beliefs, they would obviously not have included, recognized, and refereed to them in our most Organic Laws and Texts. In deed, most every President since our Founding, has proclaimed and recommended a Day of Prayer, wherein we thank the Author of our Liberty, and grantor of our Blessings. http://www.pilgrimhall.org/ThanxProc1789.htm
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 5:33pmMy God colt1860 you are a dunce. “Year of our lord” is not an affirmation of religion, but a formal way of recording the date at that time.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:33pm@encinom You’ve taken my statement out of context. “In that time” religion was highly respected and greatly followed in public or private. “In that time” the founding fathers held prayers and church services in the Capitol building. “In that time” Presidents would recommend and proclaim national days of prayer and fasting. “In that time” they understood that the Constitution didn’t restrict any of that. The fact that today most liberals or atheists would have an absolute tantrum, if “in the year of our lord”, for whatever reason, was added in a Government d o c u m 3 n t just goes to show you how corrupt and ignorant folks have become, they don’t understand the intent of the founding fathers, nor do they understand the original meaning of the Constitution.
The father of the Constitution, James Madison, said it best, “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, ba5tardized form of illegitimate government.”
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on January 20, 2012 at 3:29pmLocked seems to believe what No Court from 1868–1940 (Cantwell) seems to have seen.True Thomas Cooley in 1880 suggested the 14th “might” be construed to apply the Bill of Rights to the States–but as Judge Hand noted in Jaffree v. Mobile County there is credible reason to question the Constitutionality of the 14th Amendment.I cannot believe the carpetbaggers intended to subvert the Bill of Rights and all that history when they wrote the 14th Amendment.
Report Post »USPATRIOT101
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:40amEver wonder why most politicians kids go to private schools? Did you know that most have a religeous foundation?
Report Post »RIGEL_ORION
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:43amMakes you wonder if the freedom to have your children taught a Christian moral foundation in school isn’t another big reason why voucher programs are so vehemently fought against by Progressives.
If you believe in God and that he created the Earth and gave man dominion over the plants and animals, you are much less likely to fall for the various ploy’s of the Left to take more and more of your freedom. The climate change cabal needs you to believe that the sky is falling so that you will willingly place yourself in chains.
Belief in God short circuits the green ‘sky is falling’ crisis. After all, God wouldn’t have created a piece of crap planet with ecosystems as fragile as an egg balancing on its end – where one extra particle of carbon would lead to a cataclysmic series of events ending life as we know it. In fact, resource usage would have been anticipated and redundant systems put in place to accommodate it.
That‘s why Progressive’s act as though they are living out a scene from Deliverance whenever God could enter the public square. Their goals and messages cannot exist in the same space
Report Post »southernhart
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:29amSo if it was a bunch of muslims, would they be allowed to throw down their prayer mats and go at it? Would anyone have something to say about that?
Report Post »piper22
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:36amWhen or when will the ACLU learn the Establishment Clause was intended to prevent a “Church of the United States” with the President as it’s head–just as King George was the head of the Church of England?
Report Post »Ballot_Box_Revolution
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:43amI do…..I say fine let them get their mats out and pray……same as Christians….The only problem is that Muslim mat prayers is scheduled, and needs props. If they can do it without disrupting class then i say go for it……do it at lunch, do it between classes……go for it.
Is it unconstitutional to ALLOW prayer?? No infact the words say “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof;” Can it be any plainer?
Report Post »RIGEL_ORION
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:59amThat’s a great question Southern. However, I think the answer to your question is yes. The government can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
If a student is required by law to attend school and then is subsequently not allowed to drop down the mat and exercise his/her religion while at school – then the state is in violation of the 1st amendment.
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:29amFor those that missed it in other posts, re that judge in RI – he is indeed a liberal activist who has committed Judicial misconduct and ethics, Civil Rights violations: http://caught.net/caught/lagu.htm
Re church and state – never meant to keep religious “things” out of public places, etc. – only meant that the Govnt. could not legislate a religion for the nation…
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …,” (Thomas Jefferson)
Re this probably a scheme by the Dems/libs to allow Muslims/Islam to infiltrate more in our public schools, etc. – yes, that makes sense. They are already teaching Islam here in some schools under the guise of “multiculturism” studies…having students do chants, etc. in some cases.
Report Post »And yes, they would be able to have prayer also and not be unconstitutional too — any religion.
And yes, “atheism” is a religion also….which they teach via their indoctrination re gays, teaching Darwin’s evolution and not allowing “creationism”, etc. but no one seems to fight that one.
Re prayer (Christian) – it might have been better not to try to get prayer back in schools, even though it is our right. One can pray SILENTLY – and if you want a group to do it – you could simply all agrree to do that, silently, at a certain time or something – wouldn’t bother anyone. You don’t have to say it out loud. Now we’ll have this to contend with…oh well…….
singleparent
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:28amI don’t think they got the memo.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLqs_ph_8wA
Report Post »mike_trivisonno
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:26amAs long as they are not praying to the Allah deity, everything is just fine.
Report Post »TheJeffersonian
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:09pmAllah is Adonai is Elohim is Yahweh. They’re the same god, from the same Old Testament. By asking them not to pray to “the Allah deity” you’re also asking them not to pray to the Christian god.
Report Post »Gita
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:25amIMHO I believe that whatever the hidden agenda is of the democrat proposing this bill does not matter. The bottom line is prayer brings light into the darkness and and all evil is exposed in the light. May God bless America!
Report Post »barber2
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:24amSeems like a very strange move coming from a Democrat. Is this just another underhanded Lefty tactic aimed to cause division, anti-religious dissension, and to waste tax dollars ? Occupy the judicial system and get this dude publicity ? Democrats are desperate to win Florida in 2012. Do not trust the 99% Big Lie Democrat Party and their Chicago -styled politics…
Report Post »cemerius
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:21amAmerican Civil Liberties Union ha ha ha!!! What do a bunch of ivy league America hating lawyers do to protect the Civili Liberties of the majority?? It’s all about the minorities and their freedoms? I would love an America where people are judged by their character and NOT the color of the skin or what government “box” they have been segregated to!! We are supposed to be Americans end of story we are NOT Mexico, Canada, or Cuba but AMERICANS!!! We ALL have the right to puruse happiness! Affirmative action and athiest (with agendas) are counter America…..what is difference with athiests FORCING thier non-religion on people as to people forcing their religions onto others!
Report Post »Whatever your religous beliefs are TELL ME what is wrong with the 10 commandments? Pick one and tell me WHY IS IT WRONG? If the purple monster from alpha centary dropped it into moses hands I would still believe that what they say is a PERFECT basis for law and community living together!
Obama Snake Oil Co
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:05amIsn’t aethism a form of religion?
Report Post »caleejr
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:17amGreat Point! Atheism (a form of religion that believes in NO GOD) is being Forced on the country.
Report Post »The First amendment does NOT grant rights. The First Amendment is written to address CONGRESS, and the Limits on their law making abilities when it comes to religious establishment OR prohibition, or restricting the press, etc. etc. Those rights were considered INHERENT from our Creator – endowed to us upon our birth. The amendment was an insurance policy to prohibit and limit congress – not to limit or prohibit the People.
let us prey
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:17amSickness?
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:24amIs atheism a form of religion? Of course it is..It is the religion of Satan…and even though Satan knows Father God and Jesus His Son..and he even knows scripture..he is in rebellion.. and these people who refuse to believe in God belong to Satan by default.. God Himself said that if you do not believe in My Son Jesus/Yahshua..then you have no part with me..It is written ithat one day. every one above the earth.(the angels) everyone upon the earth , and everyone below the earth (ones in hell) every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus/Yashuah is Lord..
Report Post »cemerius
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:24amCaleeJr…..Yes, perfectly put! When for instance this article is presented and someone says “it’s unConstitutional” makes me want to slap some sense into them!!! Where in the U.S. constitution does it say it??? “Congress shall make no laws…..“ in context it deals with Henry the 8th forcing the ”Church of England” on his subjects!!! If in George Washington times someone brought up the fact that the 10 commandments were bad they would have starved!
Report Post »mike_trivisonno
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:33amAtheists and their non-god deity, worship the destruction of the religious and spiritual life of others. They practice a form of parasitism that can only survive so long as there are souls to suck and gods to kill.
They are a reprehensible group of people easily manipulated into all manner of inhuman actions.
Report Post »mike_trivisonno
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:35am“Is atheism a form of religion? Of course it is..It is the religion of Satan”
Actually, the “religion” of Satan, is Islam.
Report Post »TheJeffersonian
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:12pmAtheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. One can be an atheist and simply believe that, and nothing more. So an atheist could be a Buddhist or a member of any number of non-deistic religions. Atheism in itself contains no holy texts or teachings that would make it its own religion; it is simply a philosophical position.
Report Post »Obama Snake Oil Co
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 12:40pmBut my point is isn‘t it their belief and aren’t they imposing their belief on me? I am endowed by my creator is correct….but who could have possibly created an aethist? This country was founded by people that believed in our creator. So if I understand it, the aethists don’t want the constitution that is the basis for the creation of America and are thus trying to destroy America? Well, they are doing a good job right now.
Report Post »TheJeffersonian
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 1:44pmIt seems you’re confusing the non-endorsement of religion with endorsement of atheism. The 1st Amendment prohibits governments (like this council in the story) from endorsing one religion (Christianity, in this example). That does not mean they are also endorsing atheism, as that would be counter to the 1st Amendment as well.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 2:40pm“Atheism in itself contains no holy texts or teachings that would make it its own religion; it is simply a philosophical position.”
atheism is a religion, it has its own creation myth, evolution, and its own worldview….which the atheists parrot like mindless democrats.
“That does not mean they are also endorsing atheism, as that would be counter to the 1st Amendment as well.”
obviously they are endorsing atheism, by restricting every other religion but atheism.
Report Post »TheJeffersonian
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 3:49pm@Rush
Atheism as a philosophical position was proposed as early as the 6th century BC, and atheistic religions like Buddhism and some schools of Jainism have existed for millenia. The theory of evolution was first proposed in 1859. To say that atheism is a religion with evolution as its creation myth is to blatantly disregard thousands of years of history. Rag on atheism all you want- it’s as worthy of criticism as anything. But do so without resorting to gross inaccuracies. One can be both atheist and religious, as a half billion Buddhists would remind you, but the idea of atheism itself contains religious texts, no call for organization, and no community.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 11:53amAtheism is no more a religion than “not collecting stamps” is a hobby.
There is no “belief structure” in atheism. Atheism looks at the repeatable/credible evidence provided by various scientific studies. What doesn’t hold up to peer review is rejected, regardless of what phylosophy might have been presented.
For example, is it a religion when a person doesn’t believe in Faeries, ghosts, . . . bigfoot?
Report Post »USPATRIOT101
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:03amScrew the ACLU. They do nothing for American liberty other than deficate on it.
Report Post »what4
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:00amSimple fix…Get gubment out of schools, we would all be better people and smarter too!
Report Post »joe conservative
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:06amCouldn’t agree more. Just look at how the education system in this country has gone downhill since the government got involved. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BVPyIXZzRg
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 9:58amDon’t be fooled. This coming from a Democrat, my suspicions are that it is to allow muslim prayer.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:08amWhy would that be a bad thing? This bill might not be unconstitutional, but opening up student-led prayer solely for one religion most definitely is. “All or nothing” is pretty much the name of the game when it comes to religious displays and actions on government-funded ground.
Report Post »USACommoner
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:08amOMG…wherever did you guys learn to be so darned cynical?? Oh, wait a minute. Never mind. Carry on.
Report Post »JPDevuyst
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:18am@Locked is right. Allowing only for Christian prayer meetings (and only Evangelical Christian prayer meetings maybe?) would certainly be unconstitutional, and if it supported only Evangelical prayer meetings, then it also violates the intent of “separation of church and state” by only allowing one particular denomination (or the magic formula that makes up the “evangelical” formula).
Report Post »let us prey
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:25amA bad thing locked? An enemy invader must never be classified as a religion. You can’t give religion status to I s l a m.
Report Post »mike_trivisonno
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:28am“Why would that be a bad thing?”
Well, for one, it is the often-stated goal of muslims to replace our Constitution and my Bill of Rights with Islam and Sharia.
Or are you ok with living in a Islamic theocracy?
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:41amANONYMOUS : I agree….100 %
Report Post »And away we go… We are right on Gods time table..!
Enter………………….. “ One world Religion”…!
Say it with me… >>>> CHRISLAM <<<< …!!
Locked
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:46am@Mike and Let_Us_Prey
The alternative is allowing no prayer at all. It’s duplicitous to cry “help, help, we’re being repressed” whenever Christians lose out in one of these decisions, and then turn around and go “But keep those filthy Muslims/atheists/pagans out!”
It doesn’t come down to “Christianity is being discriminated against,“ but rather ”I only want my religion represented.” Which is exactly why the courts have been ruling in the way they have: if you can’t play nice with the other kids, no one gets to play.
As for Islam itself, I have no problem with the religion (though as a Christian I obviously disagree on many of their theological points). What I DO have a problem with is fundamentalism. But fundamentalism can be found in any and all religions, and the least we can do as educated and civilized people is to acknowledge there are good and bad people of all faiths and not paint them all with broad strokes.
Report Post »keraz
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:54amLocked, the article doesn‘t say ’Christian’ prayer. It just says ‘prayer.’
I have no problem with this bill at all. There is no such thing a ‘separation of church and state.’ I believe prayer should be allowed in schools as long as ALL religions are included.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:14am@Keraz
I was responding to Mike and Let, who both made disparaging remarks toward Islam. You are quite right in that the bill does not specify a prayer; but the posters here certainly are predisposed to what kind of prayers should or should not be allowed.
I also agree with you that if all faiths have an equal opportunity, it should be fine. However, your comment:
” There is no such thing a ‘separation of church and state.’”
… is false. There is indeed a separation of church and state, as per the Supreme Court’s opinion on the matter. I’m thinking you meant it in the context of the wording of the Constitution, in which case you would be accurate… but as its the legal interpretation of the Constitution that matters, I don’t think the argument has any merit in this discussion. Posit too that the words “electoral college” “immigration” and “marriage” do not appear in the Constitution, but the government still has a role in all of these. The Constitution is the foundation for how our country works legally, but the courts are the arbiter for its interpretation.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:16am“whenever Christians lose out in one of these decisions, and then turn around and go “But keep those filthy Muslims/atheists/pagans out!” ”
yeah whenever christians lose these decisions…the filthy atheists are let in, get a clue.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:17am“As for Islam itself, I have no problem with the religion (though as a Christian I obviously disagree on many of their theological points). What I DO have a problem with is fundamentalism. But fundamentalism can be found in any and all religions, and the least we can do as educated and civilized people is to acknowledge there are good and bad people of all faiths and not paint them all with broad strokes.”
spoken like a true muslim apologist…the old ‘moral equivalence’
yeah fundamnetal christians freed the slaves…fundamental muslims enslave…get a clue.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:26am@Rush_is_right
“spoken like a true muslim apologist…the old ‘moral equivalence’”
Exhibit one of a religious fundamentalist. To the topic at hand: would you allow Muslims to lead prayer in public schools, as per this bill? Do you feel all Muslim religious views should be banned? When you make comments against Muslims, do you differentiate between fundamentalists who attack others and peaceful moderates like the vast majority?
And a basic question: do you realize most Muslims don’t live in the Middle East? Even if every single Muslim in the ME were a fundamentalist, that would be… wait for it… about 20% of the world’s Muslim population.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:33am“Exhibit one of a religious fundamentalist. To the topic at hand: would you allow Muslims to lead prayer in public schools, as per this bill? Do you feel all Muslim religious views should be banned? When you make comments against Muslims, do you differentiate between fundamentalists who attack others and peaceful moderates like the vast majority?”
nice diversion….meaningless to the topic at hand…
uh actually I think islam should be banned because it is incompatible with freedom as we know it..CHARLES MARTEL was right….
the ‘moderate’ muslims go along with the fundamentalists every time….tell me the ‘moderate’ muslim country…..where religious minorities are protected, and there is freedom for all…you cannot.
but I can point to the ‘fundamentalist’ christians like WILBERFORCE…..I think that makes the point.
“And a basic question: do you realize most Muslims don’t live in the Middle East? Even if every single Muslim in the ME were a fundamentalist, that would be… wait for it… about 20% of the world’s Muslim population.”
ok tell us about religious liberty in indonesia…for example…tell us about the no-go areas of france…where the ‘moderate’ peaceful muslims live….uh huh
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:38am@Rush
And how would you reconcile, Constitutionally, discriminating against one religious group in favor or others? I’m honestly interested here: Supreme Court cases to back up your claim. I can do so (and have in this topic), and as the topic at hand (nice try with the ‘nice try at a diversion’ quip, by the by) is the constitutionality of this bill, I figure you must have an iron-clad retort?
Or… you could be a fundamentalist. Which is really what I’m leaning toward.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:50am“And how would you reconcile, Constitutionally, discriminating against one religious group in favor or others? I’m honestly interested here: Supreme Court cases to back up your claim. I can do so (and have in this topic), and as the topic at hand (nice try with the ‘nice try at a diversion’ quip, by the by) is the constitutionality of this bill, I figure you must have an iron-clad retort?”
its rather obvious the supreme court discriminates FOR atheism in virtually every case…limiting the rights of christians, and others, to exercise their freedom of religion.
oh the ‘nice try’ is totally appropriate in this case, you‘ve ignored the difference between ’fundamentalist‘ christians and ’fundamentalist’ muslims….you refuse to acknowledge any difference…as with the follow laughable comment….
Or… you could be a fundamentalist. Which is really what I’m leaning toward.
Report Post »“
rush_is_right
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:56amlocked….I guess you just forget to mention all the ‘moderate’ muslims countries where religious liberty flourishes….and chrsitians and jews live in peace with their muslim masters….er I mean citizens….
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 5:05pm@Rush_is_right
“.I guess you just forget to mention all the ‘moderate’ muslims countries where religious liberty flourishes….and chrsitians and jews live in peace with their muslim masters….er I mean citizens….”
Nope. I just see it as an invalid question. Indonesia has religious freedom in their Constitution, but it‘s a moot point because they’re a secular country, not a Muslim one. India, home of the third-largest Muslim population by country, also guarantees freedom of religion in their constitution… and is secular. France is not a Muslim country either. In the same manner, the US is not a Christian theocratic state, any more than the UK is a Protestant State. But if you WERE going by populations, the majority of countries in the middle-to-southern parts of Africa are overwhelmingly Christian by make-up… but arguably lack rights of freedom.
Obviously, other countries have religious abuses… but we do here in the US as well. Would you argue that the US doesn’t have religion of freedom because of the frequent anti-religious attacks?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 20, 2012 at 9:26am“Nope. I just see it as an invalid question. Indonesia has religious freedom in their Constitution, but it‘s a moot point because they’re a secular country, not a Muslim one”
oh of COURSE they do…they’re so accomodating of christians…
Jakarta (AsiaNews) – “It will no longer be possible to use this church for the weekend functions.” This is the threatening message launched by a crowd of 200 angry Muslims, who last week attacked a domestic church in Pondok Indah Timur, in Bekasi regency, some 30 km east of the capital Jakarta.
uh huh…..
“India, home of the third-largest Muslim population by country, also guarantees freedom of religion in their constitution”
Christian Persecution on the Rise in India; Grim Outlook for 2012
By Luiza Oleszczuk | Christian Post Reporter
Watchdog groups are sounding the alarm on increasing acts of violence against Christians in India at the hands of the country’s Hindu community.
“Would you argue that the US doesn’t have religion of freedom because of the frequent anti-religious attacks?”
our religious freedom is quickly eroding thanks to the supreme court, which you LOVE so, and the gay special rights movement, whose primary goal is to restrict freedom of speech and religion for christians.
Report Post »UBETHECHANGE
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 9:55amDo you think this would open up Islam prayer and prayer rugs for Muslims in schools too?
Report Post »drago
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:04am@Ubethechange
Report Post »This is exactly what this is aimed at. A demonicrat wanting prayer allowed in schools? The only reason for it, is as you say.
RichNGadsden
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:07amThat is not only okay already, and is federally protected by Eric “The Red” Holder. He will personally step in and destroy anybody who tries to stop Muslims from violating the Supreme Court’s 1964 edict.
Report Post »let us prey
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:34amB I n g o
Report Post »singleparent
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:50amIslam is NOT a religion it is a CULT….
Report Post »Mateytwo Barreett
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 10:57amCouldn’t slide that one past you, huh?
Report Post »Nepenthe
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 11:03amNo. The prayer must be non-proselytizing in nature, meaning no religion can be singled out during the prayer. So, there can be a vague mention of a God above, but no mention of Jesus or Allah.
Report Post »