Political & Elections

Cartera · Guru

Judge bans prayer at graduation

BigG · Guru

"because they are attention whores"

Bingo!

They are one with Westboro Batist Church and the other fringe nutcases.

Screw peoples feelings, I want what is right in my mind!

Catera's denial of any place for religion in public life is at variance with many thousands of years of custom and practice.

Do you think adulation of intellectual excellence will motivate and inspire most people to build great civilizations?

-- Edited by BigG on Monday 27th of June 2011 01:24:20 PM

Tom1944 · Senior Member

zoosermom- I believe they should continue with the renaming of the street and the atheists can back off. I do believe that if there were seven atheists that were killed in the firehouse and their families also proceeded to have the street named something that signified that pov there would be similar outrage form religious people.

What would change my opinion is if any of the 7 families did not want an overtly religious message I think the others would have to respect that.

zoosermom · Senior Member

The street was going to be renamed anyway, because that is what has happened thousands of times since 9/11. The city government and, I guess, its citizens, have chosen this method of memorialization. So it's not a question of money, it's a question of whether the name chosen should have personal meaning to the families of the dead or not.

Cartera · Guru

The problem is where does it stop - once the door is open? People are only concerned with themselves in the moment. The law has to anticipate the future. What if in an attack a group of devil worshippers are killed? Do their families get to to name the street "The Devil's Way"? "The Devil's Way" would stop at the corner at "Praise Allah Lane" and "Joseph Smith Circle." Results like this lead us to the obvious conclusion that, when the government renames a street, it stays away from religious symbols.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

I am not religious at all and I see no problem with a street named Seven in Heaven Way or St Nicholas Avenue. I would bet many if not most atheists or agnostics also could care less. I bet it is more likely the atheist is using this to gain attention no differently than a minister that wants to burn a Koran not really because they can but because they are attention whores.

BigG · Guru

Who said anything about a "War on Christianity"?

I was suggesting that ALL people of faith band together against the Atheists.

Since almost all "public funds" come from people of faith why shouldn't there be public funds expended to support their world view?

Secularists/Atheists simply want their own way with what is predominently everybody elses's money and resources.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

BigG wrote:

But to deny any "nod" to peoples' faith, whatever it might be, is the exclusive paradigm of the religious fanatic, including Atheists.

Most secularists and atheists aren't against "any nod to peoples' faith", just publicly-funded nods.

I suppose you could find some extremist cases in order to make it seems as though your hysterical hand-wringing over a suppposed War on Christianity is legitimate, but most secularists' demands are quite reasonable. Secularists won't, for example, demand that prayer be taken out of parochial schools; they just demand that it be taken out of public schools.

BigG · Guru

If the firefighters had been predomiently Muslim and the families were in agreement with a Muslim memorial, I would support their right to have that.

Same for Jewish, Native American or Wiccan observances.

But to deny any "nod" to peoples' faith, whatever it might be, is the exclusive paradigm of the religious fanatic, including Atheists.

Who is harmed by the memorial?

Of course considering the birth and suicide rates of Atheists, the problem will be corrected by evolution.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

BigG wrote:
Perhaps we should just go straight to the "Second American Revolution" since the current judicial structure is so easily perverted to enforce Atheism as the official state religion.

Removing Christianity's status as "special snowflake religion" is tantamount to state-sponsored atheism?

Ridiculous.

BigG · Guru

Perhaps we should just go straight to the "Second American Revolution" since the current judicial structure is so easily perverted to enforce Atheism as the official state religion.

zoosermom · Senior Member

There is a similar kerfluffle currently going on here. The street in front of a firehouse in which 7 members died on 9/11 was renamed "7 In Heaven Way" and a group of atheists is protesting and threatening to sue in order to get the signage removed.

I don't know if a lot of people know this, but most (and possibly all) NYC residents who were lost that day have had the blocks of their residence re-named in their honor or, in the case of municipal workers, the block of their employment. The families of the firemen in question were involved in the choice and present at the ceremony, but this is still a huge controversy. Thoughts?

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Perhaps you are right, nbachris.

Of course, it happens with elections, too. Millions of people voted for a man with little experience because they had HOPE for change and had faith that he would be a good President and change the world.

There are plenty of people who are delusional. Some are voters. Some are religious.

Your mileage can vary.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

SamuraiLandshark wrote:
There are billions in the world that believe in something greater than what they can see or rationalize.

You can believe in things that are greater than what we can see or rationalize and STILL scoff at ridiculously primitive fairy tales, and the tribal mythologies that have been built upon them.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

BigG wrote:
The big conceptual leap is not between Jew and Christian, or Hindu and Moslem, or even between Buddist and Wiccan. The biggest conceptual gulf exists between those who arrogantly suppose that all they know is all there is and "people of faith".

To assume (and even promote the idea) that the baseless mythology that you believe in is somehow true and that everybody else's baseless mythology is false...

THAT is the greatest arrogance of all.

catahoula · Guru

I have a hard time distinguishing between those who are arrogant in their faith and those who sue to stop any public expression of it. By anyone, no matter how meekly they do it. They're both pretty much a pain in the butt.

I'd also guess that if you polled the public, rather than leaving it to be argued creatively in the courts, you'd find there is a significant segment of the population that (like me) doesn't believe, but doesn't feel threatened by those who do.

I mean, face it... they've been losing for years.

-- Edited by catahoula on Monday 6th of June 2011 08:24:37 PM

Cartera · Guru

I honor and respect people more for what they do than what they believe.

Most of my family is uber religious. I honor, respect and love them, except for the arrogant ones who believe everyone who doesn't believe as they do will burn in hell. That is the ultimate definition of arrogance. I may still love them, but I don't have respect for that belief. They have no honor or respect for anyone who doesn't believe just as they do. What I believe and what they believe is no more valid than those who believe in reincarnation or those who believe that they don't know enough to believe anything. We are all equal in our ignorance. Some just don't believe it.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

To some of us, it is an opinion. To others, it's not. It's a matter taken on faith.

Herein lies the problem.

Do you honor and respect those who don't believe in religion or those that do? There are more "believers" in the world than unbelievers. There are billions in the world that believe in something greater than what they can see or rationalize.

Cartera · Guru

arrogantly suppose that all they know is all there is and "people of faith".

What about the arrogant "people of faith?" Since none of us really know any more than the other about what is real and what is not about religion, it would seem the only truly wise choice is to be agnostic. It really should be the great equalizer. No matter what we believe, it is nothing more than an opinion.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Yes, Big G. You are the winner of this argument.

BigG · Guru

"My D graduated from a Catholic high school and we are as Protestant as it gets. There were also Jewish and abaya-wearing Muslims in her school. It was all good."

The big conceptual leap is not between Jew and Christian, or Hindu and Moslem, or even between Buddist and Wiccan. The biggest conceptual gulf exists between those who arrogantly suppose that all they know is all there is and "people of faith".

pima · Guru

Nobody will ever take it on. It would be career suicide. Standard is salute sharply.

I must say "promoting" is ill used regarding the military within this connotation. They are not "promoting" religion, however, they are "supporting" it.

Promoting to me, equates to selling a product, in other words, religion. Supporting means to me, that they are allowing it.

Honestly, as a military wife who has to use fingers and toes to count the dead military service members that I was given the honor to know personally. I will say one thing. Death has an impact on those left behind. So does war. This is why they traditionally turn to religion. Some go overboard.

When someone you know intimately dies after a moment's notice, you are left questioning why. You look for a bigger answer. Military members usually find solace in believing in G*D.

You can't survive being in the military without accepting/rationalizing that there is a bigger picture. Thus, they don't promote it, they support it, because they understand that premise.

I was 24 and 9 months pregnant with DS1 when death knocked on our door. Bullet was scheduled to be in that plane. I was 9 months pregnant with DS 2 when death knocked again (82nd AB crash at Pope), Bullet was on the green ramp. Death has knocked on our door often. I am not religious because of the military. I am because I decided that I needed to believe in something bigger than me, and that means G*D.

I needed to find some sort of peace to accept and understand. Religion is where I found it. I would never impose it on anyone, I am just trying to explain and illustrate why you might find it more prevalent in the military. Right or wrong.

-- Edited by pima on Monday 6th of June 2011 11:02:13 AM

-- Edited by pima on Monday 6th of June 2011 11:04:21 AM

Cartera · Guru

The military definitely oversteps its bounds with regard to promoting religion, but few want to take it on.

pima · Guru

I recall it was last yr or maybe 2 yrs ago that a college student sued BC. BC is a jesuit college and has crosses in the class room, the student wanted them all removed. I actually found that hysterical, because nobody forced the kid to go to the college. Just as it is true for private schools.

I know many parents who are not catholic and send their kids to parochial schools. They accept and acknowledge that this was their choice, and they had to make a concession if they wanted their child to attend that school.

I have a jewish MIL, and we are Catholic, so I have always been sensitive to religious prayers, especially if they say the name of JC, since jews don't believe he was the messiah. Believe it or not I feel it shouldn't be there from my POV, but I also accept and respect other people's desire to have it. I think it comes down to how much it matters to you personally. If matters a lot you will not let it go, if you don't care, you roll with it.

I hope their kids are not going into the military. Every military function begins with an invocation from a Chaplain, and that includes things like military balls (women in gowns) to change of command ceremonies to going into battle. I mean isn't that a church and state separation issue too? Are they going to sue the Army? Most AD members probably attend at least 4 of these functions a yr., a lot more in one yr than a family with 2 kids will deal with as parents of hs graduates.

Ask bus, how many in the course of her military career she heard a prayer in front of hundreds of AD members. I only attended functions like balls, change of commands, promotions, etc. I have 5 people, and 2 pets. Count all of our fingers, toes, paw pads, and I still would have beaten that number in the 20 yrs Bullet served.

OBTW, it is not just those functions, spouses have monthly coffees, and there are some very religious commanders, who open and close the meeting with in JC's name. You feel like a hostage because you sure as heck are not going to approach them about it being offensive to you personally. That would be called career suicide.

-- Edited by pima on Monday 6th of June 2011 08:13:34 AM

zoosermom · Senior Member

Even within a religious high school, would you say that 100% of the students believe in the same thing?

My D graduated from a Catholic high school and we are as Protestant as it gets. There were also Jewish and abaya-wearing Muslims in her school. It was all good.

She graduated from a public college last week and the ceremony started with a long prayer from the local Baptist minister, it was deeply religions and, dare I say, quite Protestant. Nothing non-sectarian about it. I was actually very surprised.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

I agree. But none of those uses specified by either you or samurai broach problems of Separation of Church and State the way religious services on public property do.

busdriver11 · Guru

Think of all the schools that allow kids to spend their evening freak dancing, while not enforcing drug and alcohol policies at the dance. Now there's an offensive use of school facilities.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Even within a religious high school, would you say that 100% of the students believe in the same thing?

In our part of the world, most of the private schools are Catholic. I doubt that every student or parent worships the same way or even has a prescribed religion at all. Should only the doctrine of the school dictate what the ceremony is?

Three of the worlds religions all hold some of the main central tenets. Each has veered in different directions, but they hold many things in common. Yet, they are very different.

If you look at a list of those who believe in a specific religion, Christianity has over 2 billion followers. Islam has 1.5 billion. Hindus have another 900 million or so.

Atheists make up another billion. Judaism doesn't even compare to these numbers, with only 14 million believers.

Perhaps I am not expressing it well - the pastor that has spoken isn't angry that he doesn't have carte blanche to write or say what he wants. He is a non-denominational Christian pastor and has always been very good at helping promote all faiths, not just Christianity. His concern has been specifically the wording that he has to use when speaking - it seems less and less theological and more and more secular.

High schools have events that are not strictly educational all the time and cross all kinds of lines that may offend people. Honestly, I was offended when the Young Americans singing group came to campus to use our facilities for three days, take our students money for fees to participate in the program, while also financially supported/boarding the Young Americans. A worthy group of talented students, but they also used campus resources - and made money off of it, and will continue to do so for years to come.

There are talent shows and assemblies, community meetings and all kinds of other uses of schools all the time.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Poetsheart - A Baccalaureate IS a religious celebration. I am confused - you don't think it belongs in a graduation ceremony...but it isn't. It's separate.

Thanks for clearing that up, samurai. I understand that attendance is voluntary, but if it involves belief-specific ritual, doctrine, deity or prayer, it automatically is designed to cater only to a specific segment of the graduating population, in which case, I can understand how others might feel alienated. If it is financed by a belief-specific group of parents for the benefit of their own children, then it is a private service, which should be held in a private venue. If it is held in a public venue (public school facility, for instance), that could be problematic, as its funding is no longer entirely private. I don't know the specifics of the case you mentioned in your post. I understand the frustration of the pastor who has enjoyed carte blanche in the past. It must seem somehow capricious on the part of the powers that be to suddenly place so many restrictions upon his service.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Poetsheart - A Baccalaureate IS a religious celebration. I am confused - you don't think it belongs in a graduation ceremony...but it isn't. It's separate. Now there is virtually no detectable religion of any sort in it, mainstream or otherwise - that is my point. Our school doesn't pay for this service, it is optional, and paid for by the parents involved.

I suspect that within the next few years there will simply be no more Baccalaureate for the seniors in the school, whatsoever.

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

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Sunday 5th of June 2011 05:24:10 PM

pima · Guru

Again, I agree with busdriver, if that was their only intention the judge than went too far.

That being stated, an old cliche comes to mind, becareful of what you wish for.

busdriver11 · Guru

" We simply wanted to stop district-sponsored prayers -- the ones that have been specifically listed in the program and delivered at the school's invitation and with school sponsorship."

If that is true, then it sounds like the judge went way further than they had intended with his ruling.

Cartera · Guru

The Judge wanted to stop a student led prayer so he used all the words that one might come up to get around that ruling. The intent was to stop the prayer, however. It was not to stop people from talking about their religion. That was clear from the ruling.

According to the family of the child seeking the order, they have tried for 3 years to work with the school on coming up with a compromise for graduation. Here is the portion of their statement -

We went to court only as a last resort. Our family has been trying for the past three years to persuade the district to craft a more inclusive graduation program, but district officials have been entirely unresponsive and sometimes hostile.It was not our intention to remove all voluntary references to God from the program or to prohibit students from talking about their personal religious views. We simply wanted to stop district-sponsored prayers -- the ones that have been specifically listed in the program and delivered at the school's invitation and with school sponsorship.

busdriver11 · Guru

"The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz. Their son is among those scheduled to participate in Saturday’s graduation ceremony. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.

Among the words and phrases banned by Judge Biery are “amen,” “prayer,” “join in prayer,” “bow your heads,” or "in [a deity's] name we pray." He also ordered that the words “benediction” and “invocation” be removed from the graduation program. “These terms shall be replaced with ‘opening remarks’ and ‘closing remarks’,” he decreed.

Judge Biery warned that the ruling is “enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official [sic] and their agents.”

Is this incorrect? Were these words made up by the media? Were the students supposed to ignore what the ruling actually said, determine what the real intent was, and not pay attention to those remarks about being "enforced by incarceration?"

I'm not crazy about people talking about their religion all the time, especially in publicly supported institutions. But I'm alot less crazy about using the government to enforce---by threat of incarceration or other sanctions---what people can say. So much better for the school to request a copy of the speakers remarks, tell them the school rules, and if they don't follow them, suspend them, delay their graduation, or give them some other clearly laid out punishment.

Cartera · Guru

I don't really think that stopping children, through the threat of jail time from, "using overtly religious phrases such as “amen” or “God bless you,” at a graduation ceremony protects the constitution, should even remotely be compared to the civil rights struggle, or should be offensive or alarming to anyone.

Come on - that was never the issue. No one was ever going to be stopped from saying anything they wanted about their religion, or "God bless you" or "Hail Mary." The only thing proscribed was for them to lead everyone in prayer.

That is exactly what happened at the graduation. There is a picture of everyone in the stadium standing and bowing their heads in prayer.

I didn't read the lower court's opinion where jail time was mentioined but he may have just been reading the boiler plate language that goes along with violating a court order. The penalty has to be spelled out.

Edited to add - "God bless you" may have been interpreted as a prayer in the original ruling so can't say that for sure. However, the speakers could talk about how God played an important lives in their lives and thank him.

-- Edited by Cartera on Sunday 5th of June 2011 11:13:21 AM

-- Edited by Cartera on Sunday 5th of June 2011 11:18:36 AM

busdriver11 · Guru

I don't really think that stopping children, through the threat of jail time from, "using overtly religious phrases such as “amen” or “God bless you,” at a graduation ceremony protects the constitution, should even remotely be compared to the civil rights struggle, or should be offensive or alarming to anyone. If a child wants to mention Allah, their wiccan beliefs, or give thanks to the Agua Buddah of Scientology, so be it. I sincerely doubt that Americans United are that protective of the constitution. I suppose they are probably within the group that has contempt for the constitution, but love to pull it out and hold it up as a shield when they find some way to use it to support their position. Though I do admit to understanding the paranoia. You let a little in, and before you know it, we're back in the days of the Salem witch trials. But this sounded unreasonable, and I feel less comfortable with the heavy hand of the government controlling some harmless words of children than the possibility that a few may be offended.

I'm glad you broke free of your religious chains, poetsheart, and hope you have found a way to either deal with or stay away from those people entirely. That would be hard to get away from if that is how you were raised. I stay away from extremists and fundamentalists everywhere I have lived. As soon as I detect it, I steer clear, there are always others to hang out with. I'm okay with the extreme coffee connoisseurs, though.

Cartera · Guru

The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

We should be able to hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time, without diminishing either. The country was founded on religious freedom. I don't think the civil rights struggle diminishes that. I think the Second Amendment doesn't apply to individual handgun ownership, but while our opinions are valuable, they don't comport with those of the Supreme Court. I have not read the opinion of the Circuit Court in the Castroville case, but on its face, it seems to fly in the face of Supreme Court rulings on school prayer. Perhaps there is a distinction in there.

BigG · Guru

Rosa Parks did not use the power of the state to keep other people from sitting where they wished.

That purile and pathetic attempt to co-op the Civil Rights struggle is offensive.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

I vote, I pay taxes, I sit on juries. I am willing to fight and die for my faith, not just go whining to a Federal Judge that I have been "dissed".

Cartera · Guru

Here's a story that wraps it all up. This is what happened at the graduation. I am quoting the remarks of a state representative at the ceremony. The rest of the story is linked below. Give 'em an inch.

“The judge of all judges commands us to pray,” state Rep. John V. Garza, R-San Antonio, said during his remarks to the crowd, adding that his own daughter invoked God while graduating last year. “I still cringe thinking some left group would complain or file a lawsuit ... I thank God that all is well this evening and none of us will be thrown in jail.”

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Medina-Valley-graduates-hear-prayers-aplenty-1410195.php#ixzz1OPu8z4zR

Cartera · Guru

But if you are living in an area where everyone is highly religious and you feel threatened and uncomfortable by it, and you have the ability to do so, you should get out of there. Suing the school for such trivia is not brave, getting the judge to declare that those who say the wrong thing can go to jail is not being selfless and strong. It is purely selfish.

By your definition, you know who else was really selfish? Rosa Parks - She was on the bus. It was just downright selfish and trivial of her to care where she sat - certainly not brave.

The original ruling, which was overturned, allowed the individual speakers to thank God or any other deity. They could wear religious garb, make the sign of the cross - do whatever they wanted on stage. They just couldn't do something along the lines of "Let us all stand and bow our heads in prayer to thank the Lord, Jesus Christ" The Court of Appeals ruling allows this so now the speakers can lead the group in a prayer. The restriction left standing is that the school can't use the words "benediction" or "invocation."

-- Edited by Cartera on Sunday 5th of June 2011 08:29:39 AM

Poetsheart · Senior Member

A Baccaluareate, if it entails a religious "sermon," has no place whatsoever in a secular graduation ceremony. Religious rituals belong in parochial ceremonies. Why is it only acceptable if it reflects "mainstream" religious beliefs (in other words, those with which you personally are comfortable)? If it invoked the name of a Hindoo diety, or Allah, or Scientology beliefs, many who are offended by what they see to be "political correctness" run amok would not be as accepting.

A child offering a prayer or thanks to God in a graduation ceremony....I can't possibly equate that with forcing non-believers into involuntary religious ritual.

Insomuch as "prayer" is a religious ritual, and in the context of a secular graduation ceremony, offered up on behalf of all assembled, it is forced participation on the part of those who do not believe, especially if they are strongly belief disinclined.

I have either been an agnostic or atheist all of my life. I have moved at least ten times in my adult years, and lived for five years in the bible belt. If at any event, someone wanted to offer a prayer, if anyone asked if people could bow their heads for a moment of prayer, I would be happy to do it. I don't have to say a prayer, it is respecting others beliefs.

To be quite honest with you busdriver, I was raised in a very religious household (have lived most of my life in one or another bible belt state), and was, until about a decade ago, heavily involved in a controling Christian cult. I no longer attend religious services of any sort, and now hold very private and personal views on God and religion in general. I don't become distressed when asked to bow my head in prayer, either, but I do understand how others might, especially if the God to whom they are being asked to pray is not the God in whom they believe, if indeed they believe in any God/god at all. Some people are offended by the very idea of God, and feel infringed upon when God is being foisted upon them. They might quite rightly feel that their beliefs are being disrespected. I personally have a very high tolerance for short improtu prayers in groups and at meetings, but I always feel sorry for those assembled who may believe something altogether different from the doctrine being promoted. In a pluralistic society such as our own, it should not be assumed that any one God is the de facto deity, acceptable to all assembled.

Most importantly, however, is the integrity of the Constitution, which protects the free will exercise of religion, and conversely, guards against the conpulsion to do so. It is that compulsion which is at issue here.

busdriver11 · Guru

I have either been an agnostic or atheist all of my life. I have moved at least ten times in my adult years, and lived for five years in the bible belt. If at any event, someone wanted to offer a prayer, if anyone asked if people could bow their heads for a moment of prayer, I would be happy to do it. I don't have to say a prayer, it is respecting others beliefs. When people asked me to visit their church, I merely declined. I don't think it is offensive that others might want to bring me into their religion and save my soul, it is very kind and thoughtful (though hopeless). A child offering a prayer or thanks to God in a graduation ceremony....I can't possibly equate that with forcing non-believers into involuntary religious ritual. My God, think of all the crap that schools force children to listen to. Now many of the years of wasted time listening to incompetent teachers should be illegal. The paranoia about religion is over the top. I understand it, because there is the fear that if you let just a little bit creep in, that it can take over and be all encompassing. But if you are living in an area where everyone is highly religious and you feel threatened and uncomfortable by it, and you have the ability to do so, you should get out of there. Suing the school for such trivia is not brave, getting the judge to declare that those who say the wrong thing can go to jail is not being selfless and strong. It is purely selfish.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Our family isn't religious, but I was pretty upset attending my oldest son's Baccalaureate. I actually helped organize it along with several other senior parents. We knew the pastor who was speaking because our kids played water polo together in high school. He told me before the ceremony that he has been doing this for several years at Baccaluareate, and that in recent years he has been restricted by our school administration in what he can say, how to lead the prayer, who to pray to, etc. I was surprised, because this event is totally optional - a way to keep religion and the grad ceremony somewhat separate.

I was pretty disheartened hearing the message. He was forced to water down the message so much based on the restrictions to be politically correct, that the result was a completely sanitized event. I wasn't even exactly sure what the point of the ceremony was, anymore. While I applaud the idea of including everyone's beliefs in the prayer, the eventually result was, well, lame. Other non-religious parents, as well as those who are very religious (of several faiths) complained that it was a waste of time and energy.

Younger son graduated the following year. We skipped it and just had a BBQ.

We will also skip it next year, when daughter graduates.

I don't go to church, but I don't think it's going to ruin my life to have someone say a prayer for my kid or her friends and their future. I don't think it's a big deal at all. It obviously is to some kids and their parents.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

My sister and brother-in-law invested considerable amounts of their financial resources to educate their two children in Christian schools, from grades K-12. Their priorities revolved around the desire to have their values and beliefs reflected and reinforced in their children's education in the hours during in which the school stood in loco parentis. When my nephew graduated from his Christian academy last June, the graduation ceremony was saturated in prayer and Christian doctrine. And that was fine. The trustees and school administrators acted well within their Constitutional rights.

But, it is patently Unconstitutional for public/secular institutions of learning to subject non-believers to religious ritual. This nation's founders fled England in order to be free from conpulsory submission to the doctrins and mandates of The Church of England, which is why our founding document is so clear on the issue of free of religion. It doesn't mean the majority get to decide if and when religion is practiced within public functions. After all, those were the prevailing conditions from which our founders fled. I'll bet you wouldn't be so cavalier in poo-pooing the right to be free from conpulsory religious exercise if your Christian child were made to indure a graduation exercise dominated by prayers and recognition of Allah. confuse I have no patience for those who insist that the desires of "the majority" should trump the rights of the minority in matters of Constitutionality. This argument was the basis for school segregation for centuries.

I agree with the Judge's ruling and applaud this boy's brave parents. It's easy to say with the toss of the wrist, that they should "just move", when society so easily facilitates your way of life, thus creating any number of places in which one migh comfortably live. It's another all together when you're statistically more likely to have your rights trampled in any given locality.

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Saturday 4th of June 2011 08:46:50 PM

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Saturday 4th of June 2011 08:49:12 PM

Cartera · Guru

The freedom from the state sanctioning religion is a Constitutional right. It is the Constitution that made that child's desire outweigh the majority. If the majority ruled in these issues of Constitutional import, then schools would still be segregated and cities, counties and states could vote to force people to attend church or pray 3 times a day, whatever the majority in that area wants. Even though the term "slippery slope" is used too often, sometimes it is relevant. This is not equivalent to being teased for wearing mis-matched socks.

pima · Guru

Busdriver, I agree.

As bus, stated it is about priorities. Our priority was to insure the best education, and we were to sacrifice the size of the home, drive 11 yo cars and eat Hamburger Helper to be in the better district. Hiring an attorney to argue what I consider IMPO BS, was not in our checkbook.

This is true BS to me. Than again, obviously Cartera the parents at your school care more about beliefs than their child. Sorry, but that is how I see it. Sure I may hate what is occurring, but it is about the children that day. It is not just your kid. It is all of them. The minute you allow your child or any child to believe they matter more than the whole, is the minute you failed this world as a parent IMPO.

I raised my kids when they raised ugly heads re:ME with one statement. Who made you G*d's gift to the world? Oops sorry, I guess that doesn't work in this scenario since they don't believe in religion. I guess the question would be "what made you think you are a gift to the world?"

Tell me, explain to me, what made their needs/desires worth more than the whole? Even if it was 15 kids, that still says their desires outweighed the majority. How is that right?

-- Edited by pima on Saturday 4th of June 2011 05:26:19 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

That's quite funny, Cartera, no offense....but I just knew I was going to get that reaction. So predictable.

Ahem, anyone who has the means to afford a lawyer to bring a lawsuit like this has a couple a bucks to spare. If you feel like a pariah who is so discriminated against, ya really don't have to live in the community for your entire life and raise your family there. People move for far lesser reasons. Sure, sometimes people are stuck in places they don't want to be for short durations of time, but if it's that bad, you really can't change the actions of every single awful person around you, you move. As far as people who live in the ghetto, I don't understand why it is always neccessary to stay there for GENERATIONS. There are very cheap places to live in the country, where people can share apartments and in a normal economy, there is actual work to be had. It may not be where you want to live or what you want to do, but staying in places that put your children and your grandchildren in danger for their entire lives is just plain stupid. You can give all the excuses in the world for it, but not changing a bad situation for decades, if ever, is STUPID. Parents who keep their kids who are being excessively bullied and threatened for any reason, be it racial, homophobic or anything, have either not recognized the extent of the problem or are not putting their kids best interests at the front of their agenda. I can't stand reading story after story of kids who are killing themselves or being brutalized because of bullying, and their parents had the ability, but just weren't willing to take them out of the situation to save them.

It is about priorities. What are you willing to sacrifice, what is meaningful to you. For many people, they wouldn't consider moving their family or their kids to different schools for any reason. I know alot of kids who have sacrificed for the desires of their parents, even my own children.

Cartera · Guru

Goody for you that you have the means to pick up and leave any place where your kids are not completely accepted. Most don't. Just becaue you can't imagine something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist either. If you don't think there are parts of this country in which those who are not ultra conservative and ultra religious are ostracized, then you're very naive. I'm sure the opposite is true too. Do you give the same advice to minorities who are being discriminated against in their neighborhood? Do you tell them to just pack up and leave? If a gay child is ostracized and made fun of, will you tell the parents the kid shouldn't be so sensitive and if he/she is then move?

Because the school agreed to do away with the school sanctioned "benediction" or prayer, the ruling has been overturned so this is moot, but I'm amazed that anyone would really say, in the presence of what could have been state sanctioned unconstitutional behavior, the advice would be - "buck up or leave."

busdriver11 · Guru

I have to call BS on this one too. I can't imagine even noticing or caring if people next to me stood or sat, or prayed, who cares. Plus, if they are really so concerned about being ostracized....well....they surely aren't going about avoiding it now. They are guaranteeing they'll be ostracized from now on. That's what they are doing to themselves purposefully. This is about people taking a stand against religion. Their rights to not be offended outweigh anyone elses right of free speech. I can tell you, if I lived in such an ultra religious community and my kids had to go to a public school that everyone was so religious that my kids felt uncomfortable, I would be outta there. My kids would go to school elsewhere. You really can't expect everyone around you to tiptoe around your feelings, if you feel like you don't fit and you don't like the people you're around, you're free to leave.

Cartera · Guru

I have no problem believing it at all. If a family attending the graduation of my high school had refused to stand and pray when everyone else did, they would have been plenty people there who would have made an effort to ostracize them. Slipping their chairs away or slipping down on the bleachers - our graduation was held in the football stadium - would not have been unexpected. Had there been talk of it beforehand, and there would have been, then the "good" folks would have been ready with a reaction.