| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"buckeye" |
| Date: |
11 Jan 2008 05:23:33 AM |
| Object: |
14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
11.15.07
Mandatory Moment of Silence Blocked!
http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/11/15/mandatory-moment-of-silence-blocked/
01.10.08
Dawn Sherman Featured in the Chicago Tribune
http://friendlyatheist.com/
The court decision
http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/Gettleman071115.pdf
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 09:07:29 AM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:68048125-08c5-4f0d-af14-424abd371a2c@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 13, 9:32 am, LibertySR <Libert...@nospam.net> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
I'm not sure I know what you're getting at here, Josh. Yes, there's a
case to be heard but at the end of the day the judge chose to take
issue
with the vagueness of the law not with the introduction of religious
terminology.
Repeating, his reasoning may or may not be sound, but there is a
separate Constitutional argument to be made against the law.
Perhaps, yet he chose not to make it. Why do you suppose that is?
He might have thought the mandatory aspect changed the analysis.
I'm still not sure why he chose to put a hold on this law an leave the
other active.
There is no other law. The original law has been changed to its
current form.
No, the decision specifically mentions that the injunction leaves the
previous law in place.
I re-read it, and did not find that statement. Can you quote it?
Josh Rosenbluth
----
He cannot.
The original law was amended, not superseded.
He is also misinformed on several other aspects of the ruling, including an
earlier assertion that the ruling was based on "vagueness" and the ruling
was not based on constitutional reasons.
The ruling is narrow, constitutional, and precise --- the amendment made
participation mandatory and thus was a violation of the first amendment.
Previous court rulings on laws similar to the original, voluntary
participation law let them stand as constitutional --- although this is
truly shaky ground and a slippery slope. Witness what happened here as once
given an inch the religionists try to take a mile. And the sneaky way they
did it, by amending a law that had already passed review.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 10:09:40 AM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
----
He cannot.
The original law was amended, not superseded.
He is also misinformed on several other aspects of the ruling, including an
earlier assertion that the ruling was based on "vagueness" and the ruling
was not based on constitutional reasons.
Rubbish. Vagueness was the principle reason given and the
constitutional issues all stem from the concern about its vagueness.
The first set of reasons given are specifically about vagueness (it's
literally the title of the first section in the Discussion portion of
the document). Further on, the first sentence in the Establishment and
Free Exercise section reads:
"The **vagueness*** of the the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act
creates yet another possible constitutional problem–potential
violations of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution." (emphasis
added)
The vagueness **creates** the second set of constitutional concerns for
the judge. It could not be more clear.
The ruling is narrow, constitutional, and precise --- the amendment made
participation mandatory and thus was a violation of the first amendment.
You're the one appearing to be misinformed. The court made no such
ruling. It did say such a ruling was likely. There is a difference.
Previous court rulings on laws similar to the original, voluntary
participation law let them stand as constitutional --- although this is
truly shaky ground and a slippery slope. Witness what happened here as once
given an inch the religionists try to take a mile. And the sneaky way they
did it, by amending a law that had already passed review.
And here we see again what I believe to be the main objection to the
law, i.e. that it might lead to more. I suspect the judge felt the same
way. But since there is no "thin end of the wedge" doctrine he could
use to legitimately impose the injunction he elected to warp the
vagueness doctrine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 08:37:04 PM |
|
|
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:87SdnfuvWup_qhfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
----
He cannot.
The original law was amended, not superseded.
He is also misinformed on several other aspects of the ruling, including
an earlier assertion that the ruling was based on "vagueness" and the
ruling was not based on constitutional reasons.
Rubbish. Vagueness was the principle reason given and the constitutional
issues all stem from the concern about its vagueness.
The first set of reasons given are specifically about vagueness (it's
literally the title of the first section in the Discussion portion of the
document). Further on, the first sentence in the Establishment and Free
Exercise section reads:
"The **vagueness*** of the the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act
creates yet another possible constitutional problem–potential violations
of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution." (emphasis added)
The vagueness **creates** the second set of constitutional concerns for
the judge. It could not be more clear.
The ruling is narrow, constitutional, and precise --- the amendment made
participation mandatory and thus was a violation of the first amendment.
You're the one appearing to be misinformed. The court made no such
ruling. It did say such a ruling was likely. There is a difference.
Previous court rulings on laws similar to the original, voluntary
participation law let them stand as constitutional --- although this is
truly shaky ground and a slippery slope. Witness what happened here as
once given an inch the religionists try to take a mile. And the sneaky
way they did it, by amending a law that had already passed review.
And here we see again what I believe to be the main objection to the law,
i.e. that it might lead to more. I suspect the judge felt the same way.
But since there is no "thin end of the wedge" doctrine he could use to
legitimately impose the injunction he elected to warp the vagueness
doctrine.
In this you are wrong. This is not a "future crimes" violation.
It is actual reality --- the original law passed constitutional muster.
Unhappy with that law, religionists _amended it_ to broaden its scope and
effect.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
19 Jan 2008 08:37:17 AM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
And here we see again what I believe to be the main objection to the law,
i.e. that it might lead to more. I suspect the judge felt the same way.
But since there is no "thin end of the wedge" doctrine he could use to
legitimately impose the injunction he elected to warp the vagueness
doctrine.
In this you are wrong. This is not a "future crimes" violation.
It is actual reality --- the original law passed constitutional muster.
Unhappy with that law, religionists _amended it_ to broaden its scope and
effect.
Larry
My point exactly. If the it was, as you agree, constitutional for a
public official (a teacher) to impose a moment of silence or prayer on a
class under the old law, why is it unconstitutional for a state
legislature to do it? Either way its local government-imposed MOS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
19 Jan 2008 06:19:33 PM |
|
|
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:muydnU-PVbCAlg_anZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
And here we see again what I believe to be the main objection to the
law, i.e. that it might lead to more. I suspect the judge felt the same
way. But since there is no "thin end of the wedge" doctrine he could use
to legitimately impose the injunction he elected to warp the vagueness
doctrine.
In this you are wrong. This is not a "future crimes" violation.
It is actual reality --- the original law passed constitutional muster.
Unhappy with that law, religionists _amended it_ to broaden its scope and
effect.
Larry
My point exactly. If the it was, as you agree, constitutional for a
public official (a teacher) to impose a moment of silence or prayer on a
class under the old law, why is it unconstitutional for a state
legislature to do it? Either way its local government-imposed MOS.
You seem to have a disconnect here.
The original law made it optional for a teacher to led a MOS.
Constitutional.
The amended law made it mandatory.
Unconstitutional.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
19 Jan 2008 06:29:17 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:muydnU-PVbCAlg_anZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
My point exactly. If the it was, as you agree, constitutional for a
public official (a teacher) to impose a moment of silence or prayer on a
class under the old law, why is it unconstitutional for a state
legislature to do it? Either way its local government-imposed MOS.
You seem to have a disconnect here.
The original law made it optional for a teacher to led a MOS.
Constitutional.
The amended law made it mandatory.
Unconstitutional.
What precedent that supports that distinction?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
19 Jan 2008 12:21:55 PM |
|
|
LibertySR wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
And here we see again what I believe to be the main objection to the
law, i.e. that it might lead to more. I suspect the judge felt the
same way. But since there is no "thin end of the wedge" doctrine he
could use to legitimately impose the injunction he elected to warp
the vagueness doctrine.
In this you are wrong. This is not a "future crimes" violation.
It is actual reality --- the original law passed constitutional
muster. Unhappy with that law, religionists _amended it_ to broaden
its scope and effect.
Larry
My point exactly. If the it was, as you agree, constitutional for a
public official (a teacher) to impose a moment of silence or prayer on a
class under the old law, why is it unconstitutional for a state
legislature to do it? Either way its local government-imposed MOS.
You have yet to address the expansion of the law prior to when the
legislature made it mandatory.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 09:59:38 AM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:32 am, LibertySR <Libert...@nospam.net> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
I'm not sure I know what you're getting at here, Josh. Yes, there's a
case to be heard but at the end of the day the judge chose to take issue
with the vagueness of the law not with the introduction of religious
terminology.
Repeating, his reasoning may or may not be sound, but there is a
separate Constitutional argument to be made against the law.
Perhaps, yet he chose not to make it. Why do you suppose that is?
He might have thought the mandatory aspect changed the analysis.
That's just it; the old law was no less mandatory from the perspective
of the students -- the ones alleged harmed in the suit. If this moment
of silence causes harm (think about that statement) then does it make a
difference whether the legislature mandates it or whether that authority
is given to a public employee?
I'm still not sure why he chose to put a hold on this law an leave the
other active.
There is no other law. The original law has been changed to its
current form.
No, the decision specifically mentions that the injunction leaves the
previous law in place.
I re-read it, and did not find that statement. Can you quote it?
"Further, without an injunction, plaintiff and other pupils will suffer
irreparable harm in the possible violation of their Establishment and
Free Exercise Clause rights. That harm, of course, greatly outweighs
any harm to Illinois schools should this court deny the preliminary
injunction, because teachers and school districts would merely resume
their activities as conducted before the statute took effect in October."
I understand the "activities" conducted before the statute took effect
to be the teacher-initiated mandatory moment of silence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 03:32:40 PM |
|
|
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote:
I understand the "activities" conducted before the statute took effect
to be the teacher-initiated mandatory moment of silence.
Whereas I suspect that the law was passed because most teachers were
ignoring their supposed option to have a moment of silence, and the
legislature hadn't really intended it to be optional, but expected
that most teachers would "take the hint" that passing the original
measure had provided.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 07:50:16 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote:
I understand the "activities" conducted before the statute took effect
to be the teacher-initiated mandatory moment of silence.
Whereas I suspect that the law was passed because most teachers were
ignoring their supposed option to have a moment of silence, and the
legislature hadn't really intended it to be optional, but expected
that most teachers would "take the hint" that passing the original
measure had provided.
lojbab
I suppose that's possible. But it doesn't make the law unconstitutional
as a result.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 08:33:00 PM |
|
|
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:87SdnR-vWupFIhfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote:
I understand the "activities" conducted before the statute took effect
to be the teacher-initiated mandatory moment of silence.
Whereas I suspect that the law was passed because most teachers were
ignoring their supposed option to have a moment of silence, and the
legislature hadn't really intended it to be optional, but expected
that most teachers would "take the hint" that passing the original
measure had provided.
lojbab
I suppose that's possible. But it doesn't make the law unconstitutional
as a result.
It most certainly does.
It amazes me that no one is even trying o look at this from a teacher's
perspective.
Being forced by statute to lead a MOS is a violation ofthe teachers' first
amendment rights.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 04:45:05 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:87SdnR-vWupFIhfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote:
I understand the "activities" conducted before the statute took effect
to be the teacher-initiated mandatory moment of silence.
Whereas I suspect that the law was passed because most teachers were
ignoring their supposed option to have a moment of silence, and the
legislature hadn't really intended it to be optional, but expected
that most teachers would "take the hint" that passing the original
measure had provided.
lojbab
I suppose that's possible. But it doesn't make the law unconstitutional
as a result.
It most certainly does.
It amazes me that no one is even trying o look at this from a teacher's
perspective.
Being forced by statute to lead a MOS is a violation ofthe teachers' first
amendment rights.
The state has the authority to dictate what is taught and how its taught
in their public schools so long as they don't violate the Constitution
in doing it. Telling a teacher what they can or cannot say while on
the job is not a violation of their 1st amendment rights; it's a
condition of employment. It's rather stunning that this isn't obvious
to you.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 06:57:06 PM |
|
|
"LibertySR" <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vMWdnf4xSNxveBbanZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:87SdnR-vWupFIhfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote:
I understand the "activities" conducted before the statute took effect
to be the teacher-initiated mandatory moment of silence.
Whereas I suspect that the law was passed because most teachers were
ignoring their supposed option to have a moment of silence, and the
legislature hadn't really intended it to be optional, but expected
that most teachers would "take the hint" that passing the original
measure had provided.
lojbab
I suppose that's possible. But it doesn't make the law unconstitutional
as a result.
It most certainly does.
It amazes me that no one is even trying o look at this from a teacher's
perspective.
Being forced by statute to lead a MOS is a violation ofthe teachers'
first amendment rights.
The state has the authority to dictate what is taught and how its taught
in their public schools so long as they don't violate the Constitution in
doing it. Telling a teacher what they can or cannot say while on the job
is not a violation of their 1st amendment rights; it's a condition of
employment. It's rather stunning that this isn't obvious to you.
It most certainly is a violation of first amendment rights if it forces a
teacher to participate in a religous ritual .
Larry
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 06:59:58 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vMWdnf4xSNxveBbanZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
It amazes me that no one is even trying o look at this from a teacher's
perspective.
Being forced by statute to lead a MOS is a violation ofthe teachers'
first amendment rights.
The state has the authority to dictate what is taught and how its taught
in their public schools so long as they don't violate the Constitution in
doing it. Telling a teacher what they can or cannot say while on the job
is not a violation of their 1st amendment rights; it's a condition of
employment. It's rather stunning that this isn't obvious to you.
It most certainly is a violation of first amendment rights if it forces a
teacher to participate in a religous ritual .
Ditto, the students. Thus, looking at it from the teacher's perspective
doesn't change the analysis.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
15 Jan 2008 09:03:20 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:u-KdnYAbSeYWmBHanZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vMWdnf4xSNxveBbanZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
It amazes me that no one is even trying o look at this from a teacher's
perspective.
Being forced by statute to lead a MOS is a violation ofthe teachers'
first amendment rights.
The state has the authority to dictate what is taught and how its taught
in their public schools so long as they don't violate the Constitution in
doing it. Telling a teacher what they can or cannot say while on the
job is not a violation of their 1st amendment rights; it's a condition of
employment. It's rather stunning that this isn't obvious to you.
It most certainly is a violation of first amendment rights if it forces a
teacher to participate in a religous ritual .
Ditto, the students. Thus, looking at it from the teacher's perspective
doesn't change the analysis.
Actually, it does.
It is "optional" for the students --- religionists cannot tell what they are
thinking _yet_. Students can sit and daydream about their lunch, if they
want. They can not participate in any way excspt keeping hteir mouths
shut --- as they are already required to do.
Teachers, OTOH, must interrurpt or postpone their academmic dutied and
supervise an activity that undoubtly is religious for _some- students.
For a teacher wh does not believe in prayer of a god, this is a violation.
Larry
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
16 Jan 2008 01:31:44 PM |
|
|
On Jan 15, 10:03=A0pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:u-KdnYAbSeYWmBHanZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <Libert...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vMWdnf4xSNxveBbanZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
It amazes me that no one is even trying o look at this from a teacher'=
s
perspective.
Being forced by statute to lead a MOS is a violation ofthe teachers'
first amendment rights.
The state has the authority to dictate what is taught and how its taugh=
t
in their public schools so long as they don't violate the Constitution =
in
doing it. =A0 Telling a teacher what they can or cannot say while on th=
e
job is not a violation of their 1st amendment rights; it's a condition =
of
employment. =A0It's rather stunning that this isn't obvious to you.
It most certainly is a violation of first amendment rights if it forces=
a
teacher to participate in a religous ritual .
Ditto, the students. =A0Thus, looking at it from the teacher's perspecti=
ve
doesn't change the analysis.
Actually, it does.
It is "optional" for the students --- religionists cannot tell what they a=
re
thinking _yet_. Students can sit and daydream about their lunch, if they
want. They can not participate in any way excspt keeping hteir mouths
shut --- as they are already required to do.
Teachers, OTOH, must interrurpt or postpone their academmic dutied and
supervise an activity that undoubtly is religious for _some- students.
That, in and of itself, is not forcing a teacher to participate in a
religious ritual. It forces the teacher to accommodate the Free
Exerice of religion by the students (see Jaffree). If on the other
hand the moment of silence encourages prayer, then that is prohibited
because teacher and student alike.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
16 Jan 2008 02:52:38 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4326db36-1262-4199-abae-1c212b989253@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 15, 10:03 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:u-KdnYAbSeYWmBHanZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <Libert...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vMWdnf4xSNxveBbanZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
It amazes me that no one is even trying o look at this from a
teacher's
perspective.
Being forced by statute to lead a MOS is a violation ofthe teachers'
first amendment rights.
The state has the authority to dictate what is taught and how its
taught
in their public schools so long as they don't violate the Constitution
in
doing it. Telling a teacher what they can or cannot say while on the
job is not a violation of their 1st amendment rights; it's a condition
of
employment. It's rather stunning that this isn't obvious to you.
It most certainly is a violation of first amendment rights if it forces
a
teacher to participate in a religous ritual .
Ditto, the students. Thus, looking at it from the teacher's perspective
doesn't change the analysis.
Actually, it does.
It is "optional" for the students --- religionists cannot tell what they
are
thinking _yet_. Students can sit and daydream about their lunch, if they
want. They can not participate in any way excspt keeping hteir mouths
shut --- as they are already required to do.
Teachers, OTOH, must interrurpt or postpone their academmic dutied and
supervise an activity that undoubtly is religious for _some- students.
That, in and of itself, is not forcing a teacher to participate in a
religious ritual.
Actaully, it does.
It forces the teacher to particpate, evn though it may be passive
particpation, in a religioous ritual. The teacher MUST acknowledge the
existencce of a god and the valifity of prayer.
It forces the teacher to accommodate the Free
Exerice of religion by the students (see Jaffree).
The students, as individuals, are free to exercise their religious fredoms
as they want. But the organized group MOS is not "free", but officially
snactioned and mandatory (at least passive particiaption is required). And
it most certainly IS NOT neutral to religions, becuase those whose prayers
include oral worship or physical activity, from Muslims to wiccans to
Orthodox Jews to native americans to ..., are denied _their__ freedom t
pray.
It is a cover for christanity.
If on the other
hand the moment of silence encourages prayer, then that is prohibited
because teacher and student alike.
If the moment of silence is not to encourage prayer, then why is it there?
Those who would pray anyway can do it at their convenience. Forgetful kids
can be prompted by their parents.
It is at the margins, the easily influenced, the the "fallen" mebers, etc,
that this has its power.
Larry
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
16 Jan 2008 04:44:02 PM |
|
|
On Jan 16, 3:52=A0pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4326db36-1262-4199-abae-1c212b989253@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 15, 10:03 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:u-KdnYAbSeYWmBHanZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <Libert...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vMWdnf4xSNxveBbanZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
It amazes me that no one is even trying o look at this from a
teacher's
perspective.
Being forced by statute to lead a MOS is a violation ofthe teachers'=
first amendment rights.
The state has the authority to dictate what is taught and how its
taught
in their public schools so long as they don't violate the Constitutio=
n
in
doing it. Telling a teacher what they can or cannot say while on the
job is not a violation of their 1st amendment rights; it's a conditio=
n
of
employment. It's rather stunning that this isn't obvious to you.
It most certainly is a violation of first amendment rights if it forc=
es
a
teacher to participate in a religous ritual .
Ditto, the students. Thus, looking at it from the teacher's perspectiv=
e
doesn't change the analysis.
Actually, it does.
It is "optional" for the students --- religionists cannot tell what they=
are
thinking _yet_. Students can sit and daydream about their lunch, if they=
want. They can not participate in any way excspt keeping hteir mouths
shut --- as they are already required to do.
Teachers, OTOH, must interrurpt or postpone their academmic dutied and
supervise an activity that undoubtly is religious for _some- students.
That, in and of itself, is not forcing a teacher to participate in a
religious ritual.
Actaully, it does.
It forces the teacher to particpate, evn though it may be passive
particpation, in a religioous ritual. The teacher MUST acknowledge the
existencce of a god and the valifity of prayer.
That does not logically follow. It requires that teacher accept that
1) students have a right to Free Exercise and 2) the court decision
that this specific MOS is an instance of Free Exercise rather than a
sanctioning of religion.
The students, as individuals, are free to exercise their religious fredoms=
as they want. But the organized group MOS is not "free", but officially
snactioned and mandatory (at least passive particiaption is required). And=
it most certainly IS NOT neutral to religions, becuase those whose prayers=
include oral worship or physical activity, from Muslims to wiccans to
Orthodox Jews to native americans to ..., are denied _their__ freedom t
pray.
Maybe so, but that analysis (whether it is Free Exercise or sanctioned
religion) applies equally to teachers and students. If the (case-by-
case) fact finding is that the MOS is an accommodation of Free
Exercise, then there is nothing special about the teachers which
prohibits the MOS.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
16 Jan 2008 08:25:16 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e4c421a1-7efa-47d1-b80a-8518e2de913d@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 16, 3:52 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4326db36-1262-4199-abae-1c212b989253@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 15, 10:03 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:u-KdnYAbSeYWmBHanZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <Libert...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vMWdnf4xSNxveBbanZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
It amazes me that no one is even trying o look at this from a
teacher's
perspective.
Being forced by statute to lead a MOS is a violation ofthe teachers'
first amendment rights.
The state has the authority to dictate what is taught and how its
taught
in their public schools so long as they don't violate the
Constitution
in
doing it. Telling a teacher what they can or cannot say while on the
job is not a violation of their 1st amendment rights; it's a
condition
of
employment. It's rather stunning that this isn't obvious to you.
It most certainly is a violation of first amendment rights if it
forces
a
teacher to participate in a religous ritual .
Ditto, the students. Thus, looking at it from the teacher's
perspective
doesn't change the analysis.
Actually, it does.
It is "optional" for the students --- religionists cannot tell what they
are
thinking _yet_. Students can sit and daydream about their lunch, if they
want. They can not participate in any way excspt keeping hteir mouths
shut --- as they are already required to do.
Teachers, OTOH, must interrurpt or postpone their academmic dutied and
supervise an activity that undoubtly is religious for _some- students.
That, in and of itself, is not forcing a teacher to participate in a
religious ritual.
Actaully, it does.
It forces the teacher to particpate, evn though it may be passive
particpation, in a religioous ritual. The teacher MUST acknowledge the
existencce of a god and the valifity of prayer.
That does not logically follow. It requires that teacher accept that
1) students have a right to Free Exercise
--- No, it does not. Teachers can, and do, recognize the students' right to
the fee exercise oftheir religion. They do not, for example, see a student
praying before an exam and then unterrupt him becauswe of theat. They do
not prevent students from saying grace before lunch. readin g religious
tomes in free period. or the like.
and 2) the court decision
that this specific MOS is an instance of Free Exercise rather than a
sanctioning of religion.
--- there seems to be a lot of confusion about that.
The students, as individuals, are free to exercise their religious fredoms
as they want. But the organized group MOS is not "free", but officially
snactioned and mandatory (at least passive particiaption is required). And
it most certainly IS NOT neutral to religions, becuase those whose prayers
include oral worship or physical activity, from Muslims to wiccans to
Orthodox Jews to native americans to ..., are denied _their__ freedom t
pray.
Maybe so, but that analysis (whether it is Free Exercise or sanctioned
religion) applies equally to teachers and students.
--- Again, no
Again, the student has a (tiny) ability to completely ignore the event (but
in reality, the pressure to conform is termendous), but the teacher does
not. Speaking as a teacher in that position, and for other teachers I knew
put in that position, it is not neutral to religion.
And again, as you seem to acknowledge, it si not neutral to sect, which is a
clear violation of the forst.Bapptists ccan particiapte, Jews cannot.
Catholics can take afvantage of hte mOS, muslims cannot. Methodists can
enjoy the moment, Buddhists cannot.
If the (case-by-
case) fact finding is that the MOS is an accommodation of Free
Exercise, then there is nothing special about the teachers which
prohibits the MOS.
--- The frst is far more than free exercise, and free exercise is not a
function of he MOS.
One more tmie. A christian is perfectly free to take ANY minute of the day
to say a silent praryer. No restrictions whatsoever. Setting aside a
specific moment is the OPPOSITE of free exercise. It is teffectively elling
ewven thosewho want to pray that they must do it NOW. It is the government
interfering with relifious ritual.
Larry
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
17 Jan 2008 07:54:57 AM |
|
|
On Jan 16, 9:25=A0pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Maybe so, but that analysis (whether it is Free Exercise or sanctioned
religion) applies equally to teachers and students.
--- Again, no
Again, the student has a (tiny) ability to completely ignore the event (bu=
t
in reality, the pressure to conform is termendous), but the teacher does
not. Speaking as a teacher in that position, and for other teachers I knew=
put in that position, it is not neutral to religion.
That distinction (teachers are required, students are "only" heavily
pressured) has repeatedly been found by the Court to have no legal
basis (i.e., heavy pressure is legally the same as required).
Thus, if a court finds as a matter of fact that a particular MOS
effectively endorses religion, it is unconstitutional from either the
student or teacher perspective.
On the other hand, if a court finds as a matter of fact (whether you,
a teacher or student agree with it or not) that a particular MOS does
not endorse religion, it is constitutional from either the student or
teacher perspective.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
17 Jan 2008 08:22:13 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:99646ed1-35a8-4f40-9607-9f311d6b429e@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 16, 9:25 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Maybe so, but that analysis (whether it is Free Exercise or sanctioned
religion) applies equally to teachers and students.
--- Again, no
Again, the student has a (tiny) ability to completely ignore the event
(but
in reality, the pressure to conform is termendous), but the teacher does
not. Speaking as a teacher in that position, and for other teachers I knew
put in that position, it is not neutral to religion.
That distinction (teachers are required, students are "only" heavily
pressured) has repeatedly been found by the Court to have no legal
basis (i.e., heavy pressure is legally the same as required).
Thus, if a court finds as a matter of fact that a particular MOS
effectively endorses religion, it is unconstitutional from either the
student or teacher perspective.
On the other hand, if a court finds as a matter of fact (whether you,
a teacher or student agree with it or not) that a particular MOS does
not endorse religion, it is constitutional from either the student or
teacher perspective.
Except that the courts have a history of "winking" at endrsements of
religion, from the "under god" to "in god we trust" to invocations starting
congress or court sessions to "christmas" holidays to ...
Whether this is from a desire to head off social unrest to beliefs of hte
majority to adeterminatin tha the "harm" is minimal I don;t know.
But from the side of the aggrieved, it is notminimal harm, is not justified
from a historical perspective, and just inflamnes the issue.
Look, we even have a presidential candidate runnning on passing an
amendment ot the constituion to bring it more in line with the bible,
constant attempts t bring religion into the classrooms, either by posting
the 10 commandments, teaching hte bible, prayers (student lead to give a
cahet of being constiutional) at school events ranging from football gammes
to graduation, or teaching creationism, religion creeping into government
meetings in the form of prayers to jesus, and even now a federal
administration that rises church based cahrities to government status and
hires on hte basis of faith.
I know it sounds pparanoid, but you must admit that proselytizing is a core
part of the majority of christian faiths, and thus compromise and respect
are NOT to be expected.
Larry
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
18 Jan 2008 07:54:04 AM |
|
|
On Jan 17, 9:22=A0pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:99646ed1-35a8-4f40-9607-9f311d6b429e@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 16, 9:25 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Maybe so, but that analysis (whether it is Free Exercise or sanctioned
religion) applies equally to teachers and students.
--- Again, no
Again, the student has a (tiny) ability to completely ignore the event
(but
in reality, the pressure to conform is termendous), but the teacher does=
not. Speaking as a teacher in that position, and for other teachers I kn=
ew
put in that position, it is not neutral to religion.
That distinction (teachers are required, students are "only" heavily
pressured) has repeatedly been found by the Court to have no legal
basis (i.e., heavy pressure is legally the same as required).
Thus, if a court finds as a matter of fact that a particular MOS
effectively endorses religion, it is unconstitutional from either the
student or teacher perspective.
On the other hand, if a court finds as a matter of fact (whether you,
a teacher or student agree with it or not) that a particular MOS does
not endorse religion, it is constitutional from either the student or
teacher perspective.
Except that the courts have a history of "winking" at endrsements of
religion, from the "under god" to "in god we trust" to invocations startin=
g
congress or court sessions to "christmas" holidays to ...
Whether this is from a desire to head off social unrest to beliefs of hte
majority to =A0adeterminatin tha the "harm" is =A0minimal I don;t know.
But from the side of the aggrieved, it is notminimal harm, is not justifie=
d
from a historical perspective, and =A0just inflamnes the issue.
Look, we even have a presidential candidate =A0runnning on passing an
amendment ot the constituion to bring it more in line with the bible,
constant attempts t bring religion into the classrooms, either by posting
the 10 commandments, teaching hte bible, prayers (student lead to give a
cahet of being constiutional) at school events ranging from football gamme=
s
to graduation, or teaching creationism, religion creeping into government
meetings in the form of prayers to jesus, and even now a federal
administration that rises church based cahrities to government status and
hires on hte basis of faith.
I know it sounds pparanoid, but you must admit that proselytizing is a cor=
e
part of the majority of christian faiths, and thus compromise and respect
are NOT to be expected.
Your reply has nothing to do with the debate as to whether the legal
analysis is different when viewed from the teacher, versus the
student, perspective.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
18 Jan 2008 06:01:11 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9f726eb6-67bd-4827-9df2-868655527d8b@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 17, 9:22 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:99646ed1-35a8-4f40-9607-9f311d6b429e@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 16, 9:25 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Maybe so, but that analysis (whether it is Free Exercise or sanctioned
religion) applies equally to teachers and students.
--- Again, no
Again, the student has a (tiny) ability to completely ignore the event
(but
in reality, the pressure to conform is termendous), but the teacher does
not. Speaking as a teacher in that position, and for other teachers I
knew
put in that position, it is not neutral to religion.
That distinction (teachers are required, students are "only" heavily
pressured) has repeatedly been found by the Court to have no legal
basis (i.e., heavy pressure is legally the same as required).
Thus, if a court finds as a matter of fact that a particular MOS
effectively endorses religion, it is unconstitutional from either the
student or teacher perspective.
On the other hand, if a court finds as a matter of fact (whether you,
a teacher or student agree with it or not) that a particular MOS does
not endorse religion, it is constitutional from either the student or
teacher perspective.
Except that the courts have a history of "winking" at endrsements of
religion, from the "under god" to "in god we trust" to invocations
starting
congress or court sessions to "christmas" holidays to ...
Whether this is from a desire to head off social unrest to beliefs of hte
majority to adeterminatin tha the "harm" is minimal I don;t know.
But from the side of the aggrieved, it is notminimal harm, is not
justified
from a historical perspective, and just inflamnes the issue.
Look, we even have a presidential candidate runnning on passing an
amendment ot the constituion to bring it more in line with the bible,
constant attempts t bring religion into the classrooms, either by posting
the 10 commandments, teaching hte bible, prayers (student lead to give a
cahet of being constiutional) at school events ranging from football
gammes
to graduation, or teaching creationism, religion creeping into government
meetings in the form of prayers to jesus, and even now a federal
administration that rises church based cahrities to government status and
hires on hte basis of faith.
I know it sounds pparanoid, but you must admit that proselytizing is a
core
part of the majority of christian faiths, and thus compromise and respect
are NOT to be expected.
Your reply has nothing to do with the debate as to whether the legal
analysis is different when viewed from the teacher, versus the
student, perspective.
Run and hide.
Yes, it does, you just cannot see it.
Larry
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 03:45:08 PM |
|
|
On Jan 13, 10:59=A0am, LibertySR <nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:32 am, LibertySR <Libert...@nospam.net> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snip>
I'm not sure I know what you're getting at here, Josh. =A0Yes, there'=
s a
case to be heard but at the end of the day the judge chose to take is=
sue
with the vagueness of the law not with the introduction of religious
terminology.
Repeating, his reasoning may or may not be sound, but there is a
separate Constitutional argument to be made against the law.
Perhaps, yet he chose not to make it. =A0Why do you suppose that is?
He might have thought the mandatory aspect changed the analysis.
That's just it; the old law was no less mandatory from the perspective
of the students -- the ones alleged harmed in the suit. =A0If this moment
of silence causes harm (think about that statement) then does it make a
difference whether the legislature mandates it or whether that authority
is given to a public employee?
=46rom a legal perspective, I think so. Each public employee can apply
the statute in a different manner, and thus challenges would be only
against each application, not facially against the statute. Again, I
think the better argument is the one used in Jaffree (the 2003
amending words endorse religion, the fact it is mandatory plays no
role), but I don't know enough about the law to say that the vagueness/
mandatory argument is out of bounds.
I'm still not sure why he chose to put a hold on this law an leave th=
e
other active.
There is no other law. =A0The original law has been changed to its
current form.
No, the decision specifically mentions that the injunction leaves the
previous law in place.
I re-read it, and did not find that statement. =A0Can you quote it?
"Further, without an injunction, plaintiff and other pupils will suffer
irreparable harm in the possible violation of their Establishment and
Free Exercise Clause rights. =A0That harm, of course, greatly outweighs
any harm to Illinois schools should this court deny the preliminary
injunction, because teachers and school districts would merely resume
their activities as conducted before the statute took effect in October."
Did the judge make a typo? Did he mean to say "any harm to Illinois
schools should this court *grant* the preliminary injunction (Illinois
only suffers harm if the injunction is granted)"?
I understand the "activities" conducted before the statute took effect
to be the teacher-initiated mandatory moment of silence.
Assuming we correct the typo, we are back to an as-applied versus
facial challenge per above. Apparently, the judge feels the statutory
mandate is what makes the difference.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 07:58:48 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Perhaps, yet he chose not to make it. Why do you suppose that is?
He might have thought the mandatory aspect changed the analysis.
That's just it; the old law was no less mandatory from the perspective
of the students -- the ones alleged harmed in the suit. If this moment
of silence causes harm (think about that statement) then does it make a
difference whether the legislature mandates it or whether that authority
is given to a public employee?
From a legal perspective, I think so. Each public employee can apply
the statute in a different manner, and thus challenges would be only
against each application, not facially against the statute. Again, I
think the better argument is the one used in Jaffree (the 2003
amending words endorse religion, the fact it is mandatory plays no
role), but I don't know enough about the law to say that the vagueness/
mandatory argument is out of bounds.
Not sure I agree. Under a different set of circumstances a suit could
be filed against the state for giving teachers leeway in a clear
violation of the establishment clause. For example, if the new law read
"Teachers may at their own discretion lead their class in a verbal
prayer of their own choosing to our Christian God" I don't think the
latitude given the teachers would amount to much. The law would be
struck down before the ink dried (and should be).
I'm still not sure why he chose to put a hold on this law an leave the
other active.
There is no other law. The original law has been changed to its
current form.
No, the decision specifically mentions that the injunction leaves the
previous law in place.
I re-read it, and did not find that statement. Can you quote it?
"Further, without an injunction, plaintiff and other pupils will suffer
irreparable harm in the possible violation of their Establishment and
Free Exercise Clause rights. That harm, of course, greatly outweighs
any harm to Illinois schools should this court deny the preliminary
injunction, because teachers and school districts would merely resume
their activities as conducted before the statute took effect in October."
Did the judge make a typo? Did he mean to say "any harm to Illinois
schools should this court *grant* the preliminary injunction (Illinois
only suffers harm if the injunction is granted)"?
Can't be sure, but I think not. I'd wager the decision was carefully
prepared given the publicity it was bound to receive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 07:28:25 AM |
|
|
On Jan 13, 8:58=A0pm, LibertySR <nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Perhaps, yet he chose not to make it. =A0Why do you suppose that is?
He might have thought the mandatory aspect changed the analysis.
That's just it; the old law was no less mandatory from the perspective
of the students -- the ones alleged harmed in the suit. =A0If this mome=
nt
of silence causes harm (think about that statement) then does it make a=
difference whether the legislature mandates it or whether that authorit=
y
is given to a public employee?
From a legal perspective, I think so. =A0Each public employee can apply
the statute in a different manner, and thus challenges would be only
against each application, not facially against the statute. =A0Again, I
think the better argument is the one used in Jaffree (the 2003
amending words endorse religion, the fact it is mandatory plays no
role), but I don't know enough about the law to say that the vagueness/
mandatory argument is out of bounds.
Not sure I agree. =A0Under a different set of circumstances a suit could
be filed against the state for giving teachers leeway in a clear
violation of the establishment clause. =A0For example, if the new law read=
"Teachers may at their own discretion lead their class in a verbal
prayer of their own choosing to our Christian God" =A0I don't think the
latitude given the teachers would amount to much. =A0The law would be
struck down before the ink dried (and should be).
Because it fails the Lemon test, which is a facial test and does not
depend on being mandatory. Maybe the vagueness test requires a
mandatory component for a facial challenge.
I'm still not sure why he chose to put a hold on this law an leave =
the
other active.
There is no other law. =A0The original law has been changed to its
current form.
No, the decision specifically mentions that the injunction leaves the=
previous law in place.
I re-read it, and did not find that statement. =A0Can you quote it?
"Further, without an injunction, plaintiff and other pupils will suffer=
irreparable harm in the possible violation of their Establishment and
Free Exercise Clause rights. =A0That harm, of course, greatly outweighs=
any harm to Illinois schools should this court deny the preliminary
injunction, because teachers and school districts would merely resume
their activities as conducted before the statute took effect in October=
.."
Did the judge make a typo? =A0Did he mean to say "any harm to Illinois
schools should this court *grant* the preliminary injunction (Illinois
only suffers harm if the injunction is granted)"?
Can't be sure, but I think not. =A0I'd wager the decision was carefully
prepared given the publicity it was bound to receive.
Then, what does the quoted section mean (I can't parse it unless I
replace "deny" with "grant")?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 04:53:59 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jan 13, 8:58 pm, LibertySR <nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Not sure I agree. Under a different set of circumstances a suit could
be filed against the state for giving teachers leeway in a clear
violation of the establishment clause. For example, if the new law read
"Teachers may at their own discretion lead their class in a verbal
prayer of their own choosing to our Christian God" I don't think the
latitude given the teachers would amount to much. The law would be
struck down before the ink dried (and should be).
Because it fails the Lemon test, which is a facial test and does not
depend on being mandatory. Maybe the vagueness test requires a
mandatory component for a facial challenge.
Maybe? I think you're grasping at straws here, Josh.
I think if the penalties associated with the MOS were more clearly
defined so as to address the vagueness concerns that this judge somehow
would have found for the plaintiff. Just a hunch...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 06:58:07 PM |
|
|
"LibertySR" <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0tudnRmoErWadRbanZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jan 13, 8:58 pm, LibertySR <nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Not sure I agree. Under a different set of circumstances a suit could
be filed against the state for giving teachers leeway in a clear
violation of the establishment clause. For example, if the new law read
"Teachers may at their own discretion lead their class in a verbal
prayer of their own choosing to our Christian God" I don't think the
latitude given the teachers would amount to much. The law would be
struck down before the ink dried (and should be).
Because it fails the Lemon test, which is a facial test and does not
depend on being mandatory. Maybe the vagueness test requires a
mandatory component for a facial challenge.
Maybe? I think you're grasping at straws here, Josh.
I think if the penalties associated with the MOS were more clearly defined
so as to address the vagueness concerns that this judge somehow would have
found for the plaintiff. Just a hunch...
And a poor one.
Larry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
12 Jan 2008 10:19:07 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:14:54 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<LradnWxkw4DjehXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:43:22 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<LradnXNkw4CHfRXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com>:
buckeye wrote:
11.15.07
Mandatory Moment of Silence Blocked!
http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/11/15/mandatory-moment-of-silence-blocked/
01.10.08
Dawn Sherman Featured in the Chicago Tribune
http://friendlyatheist.com/
The court decision
http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/Gettleman071115.pdf
Seems to me this more about banning a moment for optional prayer, i.e. a
desire to have freedom **from** religion, rather than one of religion.
You didn't read the court's decision, did you.
Pointless statutes that are written only to placate religious zealots
need to be thrown out regularly. This was one such statute.
Actually, it would appear you did not read the decision. First, the law
wasn't "thrown out." It's implementation is on hold. Additionally, the
reason you cite above for finding for the plaintiff was not the reason
given by the the court for the injunction.
It is on hold because the court is saying that the plaintiff is nearly
certain to win the case. That is why he gave the injunction.
That reason given, a particular application of the vagueness doctrine,
on first read appears to be laughably absurd. The original law on the
books from the 60's appears to be no more precise, yet was not found to
be invalid.
It wasn't just the vagueness doctrine. He also discussed how it violates
the establishment and free exercise clauses.
Aside from that, do you find the original law unconstitutional? i.e.
that a teacher "may observe" a brief moment of silence? From the
militant-atheist's point of view, is there really a difference between
the teacher imposing a moment of silence on his/her classroom vs. the
school system doing the very same thing?
The constitution is not designed to support any particular point of view
about gods or religion. It requires that the government do its best to
balance between free exercise and the prohibition on establishment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
12 Jan 2008 10:38:27 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
It is on hold because the court is saying that the plaintiff is nearly
certain to win the case. That is why he gave the injunction.
I'm please you agree your statement that the law was "thrown out" was an
exaggeration, yet you're still engaging in hyperbole. The judge did not
say the plaintiff was "nearly certain" or anything like it. He used the
phase "established a likelihood." Hardly the same.
That reason given, a particular application of the vagueness doctrine,
on first read appears to be laughably absurd. The original law on the
books from the 60's appears to be no more precise, yet was not found to
be invalid.
It wasn't just the vagueness doctrine. He also discussed how it violates
the establishment and free exercise clauses.
The supposed establishment/free exercise violations (dubious in their
own right) stem from the judge's problems with the lack of specificity
in the law. From that section: "The vagueness of the the Silent
Reflection and Student Prayer Act creates yet another possible
constitutional problem–potential violations of the Establishment Clause
of the Constitution."
Aside from that, do you find the original law unconstitutional? i.e.
that a teacher "may observe" a brief moment of silence? From the
militant-atheist's point of view, is there really a difference between
the teacher imposing a moment of silence on his/her classroom vs. the
school system doing the very same thing?
The constitution is not designed to support any particular point of view
about gods or religion. It requires that the government do its best to
balance between free exercise and the prohibition on establishment.
And how is a law that calls for silence **or** prayer unbalanced?
(Answer: it unbalances an zealous atheist).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
