When it comes to Prayer 76% of Americans Don't Give a **** About the Constitution

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And no I wouldn't send my imaginary children to a Muslim school in the first place, this isn't a conceivable problem in Western countries.

You think so?

Allah in the Cafeteria: Inside the school prayer scandal at Valley Park Middle School

 

[McBell]

Maybe SCOTUS has too much power to interpret things that are not really there. Certainly no one should be forced to pray but no one should stop someone from praying who wants to do so. The court would not allow a law that stopped Muslims from wearing their traditional clothing. Only Christians are prevented from doing things because the courts are not against religion only against Christianity.

Ah, the martyr.
So how many high school football games start with an Islamic prayer?

Interesting that you have to count the hits and ignore the misses to be the martyr.
Not the least bit impressive, but interesting none the less.

 

[JoStories]

Or, taken another way, it's an admission of how inefficacious prayer actually is.

I agree. IMO, most prayer that seems to come to fruition is nothing more than the person working toward that end. And if it does not work, then they tend to say it was God's will. All of which seems to say to me it is nothing more than wishful thinking. It can be amazing what the body can do to make prayer seem to 'work'. For most, it is mostly positive thinking to effect positive change. Nothing wrong with that really. But one should be able to see how this is not proven but rather just the mind changing things to make it seem as though it worked.

 

[First Baseman]

A bad ruling? So your in favor of mandated time for Muslim prayer in America's public schools then, and want the constitution amended so each day every American child must spend 15 minutes either praying to Allah or quietly watching their classmates do so?

Uh... what?

 

[First Baseman]

Please read the OP Carefully. If nothing registers read post 23 and post 54.

No it can't. The best that could happen would be repeal of an amendment, which would have to happen by the introduction of an amending amendment, as the 21st Amendment did, which has to be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.


.

Yes, it can. The SCOTUS can have a similar case before it and rule totally opposite the way they did before, saying the previous ruling was in fact unconstitutional.

 

[Demonslayer]

Uh... what?

You said the SCOTUS made a bad ruling. I assumed by that you meant they made a bad ruling when they ruled that public schools could not sponsor prayer during school hours. Was that a correct assumption?

If so, my question to you was, would you support prayer in public school if the prayers were Islamic? In other words, if the SCOTUS made a 'good ruling' and allowed a 15 minute prayer session each morning, is that only a good ruling in your eyes if the prayer session is Christian only prayers? Would you be OK with your kids sitting quietly for 15 minutes while the rest of the class got down on the prayer mat and said the Fajr and the Dhikr?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Uh... what?

That would be the implication of allowing Christian prayer in public schools - the First Amendment clearly indicates that laws advantaging one religion over another are illegal so if you want Christian prayers you have to accept prayers to other deities as well. All religions must be represented equally so if you have prayers for one then prayers for all others must be allowed too.

If you are not okay with religious prayers other than your own then you are arguing for Christian privilege - which would be breaking the law (having the privilege, not arguing for it).

 

[metis]

Maybe SCOTUS has too much power to interpret things that are not really there. Certainly no one should be forced to pray but no one should stop someone from praying who wants to do so. The court would not allow a law that stopped Muslims from wearing their traditional clothing. Only Christians are prevented from doing things because the courts are not against religion only against Christianity.

That's absolutely false and this was not involved in their decisions as there has been far more Christians on the SCOTUS than there have been non-Christians and atheists.

The real issue on this topic that the court was dealing with is what is called "a captive audience". Therefore, a single person praying on his/her own is put on a different level than an organized prayer during school hours or at a school function.

 

[First Baseman]

You said the SCOTUS made a bad ruling. I assumed by that you meant they made a bad ruling when they ruled that public schools could not sponsor prayer during school hours. Was that a correct assumption?

If so, my question to you was, would you support prayer in public school if the prayers were Islamic? In other words, if the SCOTUS made a 'good ruling' and allowed a 15 minute prayer session each morning, is that only a good ruling in your eyes if the prayer session is Christian only prayers? Would you be OK with your kids sitting quietly for 15 minutes while the rest of the class got down on the prayer mat and said the Fajr and the Dhikr?

Well, they have made a lot of bad rulings. I could deal with a 15 minute moment of silence while each student prayed silently in his or her own way or just be quiet and respect those who do wish to pray if you don't. Now that is constitutional.

Public schools shouldn't be Islamic or Christian or whatever. But they should respect students' rights to be religious if they want to be.

 

[First Baseman]

That would be the implication of allowing Christian prayer in public schools - the First Amendment clearly indicates that laws advantaging one religion over another are illegal so if you want Christian prayers you have to accept prayers to other deities as well. All religions must be represented equally so if you have prayers for one then prayers for all others must be allowed too.

If you are not okay with religious prayers other than your own then you are arguing for Christian privilege - which would be breaking the law (having the privilege, not arguing for it).

Well, you assume quite a lot. Laws prohibiting religion or the practice thereof are illegal. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

 

[metis]

In other words, observing "a moment of silence," where each person can silently pray according to their own tradition, meditate, clear their mind, set intentions, give thanks, give blessings, or simply allow others to do so would be the best fit for what the 1st Amendment states. It would diffuse all of this tribalistic posturing.

Yes, that can be true, but even that can be challenged in terms of what is the intent of those calling for such a moment of silence?

 

[First Baseman]

Yes, that can be true, but even that can be challenged in terms of what is the intent of those calling for such a moment of silence?

The resulting argument against "intent" is simply that students ought to be able to pray if they wish to. If they don't want to then they should respect the rights of those who do wish to. See how that works?

 

[metis]

The resulting argument against "intent" is simply that students ought to be able to pray if they wish to. If they don't want to then they should respect the rights of those who do wish to. See how that works?

Anyone can file a lawsuit for whatever reason they want, and if a group feels that they're "a captive audience" in such cases as these, they have the right to do as such. A court hearing the case would likely ask those who organized the "moment of silence" exactly why they feel this is important, and they better come up with a good answer, especially since schools are here for educational purposes, not meditation or prayer purposes.

 

[metis]

The resulting argument against "intent" is simply that students ought to be able to pray if they wish to. If they don't want to then they should respect the rights of those who do wish to. See how that works?

BTW, nothing stops a student from praying at pretty much any time they want, so your point is moot even for that reason alone. The issue being discussed deals with "organized prayer" with a "captive audience", and the SCOTUS has been pretty consistent on this over the last several decades.

 

[Demonslayer]

I could deal with a 15 minute moment of silence while each student prayed silently in his or her own way or just be quiet and respect those who do wish to pray if you don't. Now that is constitutional.

There's nothing preventing people from praying silently now. There's nothing preventing students from gathering during free periods or after school. Why is it so important we set aside a mandatory 15 minutes?

But they should respect students' rights to be religious if they want to be.

Public schools are full of religious kids and I'm not aware of any disrespect. Public schools respect sports fans and comic book nerds too...it's just that no one demands 15 minutes a day taken away from time spent on math and science to talk about Suicide Squad or the Red Sox.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I could care less about the importance of the Bible, The fact that the constitution has had to be rewritten and amended so many times show just how flawed a document it really is.

I feel the opposite. I think the fact that the document is flexible and amendable so that it may change and grow with the times is one of the most genius things about it.

 

[Demonslayer]

I feel the opposite. I think the fact that the document is flexible and amendable so that it may change and grow with the times is one of the most genius things about it.

This

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Constitution does not forbid prayer in schools. It only says the government cannot "establish" a particular religion like England has the Church of England. Atheist court justices have decided this means no prayer is allowed but that is definately not what the Constitution says.

When has there ever been an atheist on the Supreme Court??

 

[Revoltingest]

I feel the opposite. I think the fact that the document is flexible and amendable so that it may change and grow with the times is one of the most genius things about it.

We should note that the Constitution spells out procedures to amend it.
But what about the Bible? It's supposed to be inerrant, so it never needs
amending. People end up actually believing the Earth is 6000 years old
because it cannot accommodate scientific progress.
About all people can do to cope is decide that it's "poetic".

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Well, you assume quite a lot. Laws prohibiting religion or the practice thereof are illegal. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

You've missed the point completely. We're talking about state endorsement of religion or giving privilege to one faith which is illegal. Nobody is saying students can't pray (how many times do we have to repeat this before it sinks in?) at all; we're saying that public schools (staff, faculty etc) may not lead students in prayer or privilege one religion's prayers over others (i.e. allowing students of one or more faiths time to pray but denying it to others). If the students want to pray out-with learning hours (say during lunch or recess) on their own recognizance then they can.