| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Dana" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2003 06:31:37 PM |
| Object: |
Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200308\CUL20030815b.html
Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion'
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 15, 2003
(CNSNews.com) - As American students prepare to return to school during the
next month, a national legal watchdog group is calling on school officials
around the country to uphold the Constitution in the classroom and not
censor student religious expression.
The Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville, Va.-based civil liberties
organization, sent a memorandum to more than 15,000 public school
superintendents warning of potential violations of students' rights over
zero tolerance policies and misunderstandings over "the separation of church
and state."
John Whitehead, president of the institute, said the mailing was meant to
"raise awareness as well as fuel debate on the continuing vitality of our
first liberties."
The group said it noted an increase of instances of censorship of religious
expression by public school administrators in recent months.
Attorneys for the institute filed suit in July on behalf of a Bible club
that was not allowed to meet in a school district in Punxsutawney, Pa. A
federal appeals court ruled in favor of the Bible club last month, holding
that the school district violated both the federal Equal Access Act and the
First Amendment.
The 1984 Equal Access Act prohibits public schools from discriminating
against student groups based on the religious, political, philosophical or
other content of the group's speech.
Moreover, the act requires that schools grant religious student groups
official recognition under the same conditions they grant recognition to
non-religious student groups.
The institute also filed a lawsuit on behalf of Rachel Honer, who was not
going to be permitted to sing "He's Always Been Faithful" at her graduation
ceremony in Winnecone, Wis., because of the song's reference to God. School
officials eventually agreed to let Honer sing the song.
Family policy groups also are concerned with what they see as strong
opposition to any mention of God in a public forum.
Many school boards feel threatened by potential lawsuits if they allow
religious activity in the classroom, said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for
Concerned Women for America.
"Clearly, a public school student can pray anytime he or she wants to pray
silently or to meet with other students before or after school, or during
lunchtime, to pray together, and nobody can stop that because that is the
individual's right to both speech and religious expression," LaRue said.
The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the Establishment Clause can
occur when a public school teacher begins the school class with prayer,
legal analysts said.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and
State, said, however, that it was rare to encounter a school district
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
"I think that the major issue, when we're looking at school prayer these
days, is one of parental rights and parental authority," Boston said.
"Parents are the ones who should decide what religion, if any, their
children are exposed to. It's not the job of school officials, teachers,
principals or administrators to promote religion before young people,"
Boston added.
Most disputes nowadays center on prayers at graduation, prayers before an
assembly or the rights of students to form religious or non-religious clubs.
"I think that we are moving toward a consensus, or at least an
understanding, that school-sponsored prayer is not appropriate," Boston
said.
In February, the Department of Education issued an update on what is
constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary
schools.
School districts that allow censorship of student religious expression
jeopardize their federal education funding under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965.
As a condition of receiving funds under this act, education agencies are
required to certify to their state educational agency they have no policies
that prevent or deny participation in constitutionally protected prayer.
"The Supreme Court has made it very clear that neither students nor teachers
leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate," LaRue said.
--
"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our
rights, and the rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States
(1801-1809)
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Scaife Funded Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
17 Aug 2003 02:03:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:31:37 -0800, "Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote:
a national legal watchdog group is calling on school officials
around the country to uphold the Constitution in the classroom and not
censor student religious expression.
The Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville, Va.-based civil liberties
organization,
It's no more a civil liberties organization than you are, Buttmaster
It's a rightwing, Scaife funded ***** organization....not the sort of thing at all
worried about "civil liberties".
---------------------------------------------------
ladies use my tongue for your pleasure
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=
63j187%24nji%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=226>
swm very oral will orally worship any female that wishes to be worshipped.
will kiss and lick your feet and butt .
might be wiling to be your toilet paper if you
are that aggressive
.
|
|
|
| User: "Otis" |
|
| Title: Re: Scaife Funded Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
17 Aug 2003 10:55:48 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 01:03:02 -0600, wrote:
STILL WAITING!
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/218/region/State_to_reduce_welfare_benefiP.shtml
State to reduce welfare benefits for 16,000
By Associated Press, 8/6/2003 13:08
BOSTON (AP) The state will reduce welfare benefits to 16,000
recipients on Sept. 1 due to budget cuts approved by the Legislature
in June, according to the state Department of Health and Human
Services.
"We fundamentally disagree with the complaint filed today and will
defend vigorously against it."
- B.J. Clinton, July 1, 2000
I have accepted a five-year suspension of my law license, agreed to pay a $25,000 fine to cover counsel fees, and acknowledged a violation of one of the Arkansas model rules of professional conduct
because of testimony in my Paula Jones case deposition. The disbarment suit will now be dismissed.
In this consent order, I acknowledge having knowingly
violated Judge Wright's discovery orders in my deposition in that case.
I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully
and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I
did not fully accomplish this goal and that certain
of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false.
-William Jefferson Clinton.
-Jan 19, 2001
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Scaife Funded Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
17 Aug 2003 07:00:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:55:48 -0400, Otis <otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 01:03:02 -0600, wrote:
STILL WAITING!
------------------------------------------------
otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com
--"I only wish I had the juice of POTUS".
(Mouth open, I presume?)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
17 Aug 2003 09:47:09 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana "Strawman" Raffaniello" quoted:
For a change, something useful:
"Clearly, a public school student can pray anytime he or she wants to pray
silently or to meet with other students before or after school, or during
lunchtime, to pray together, and nobody can stop that because that is the
individual's right to both speech and religious expression," LaRue said.
Of course. This is the way it is, despite pissing and moaning of the
radical religious right which insists that prayer has been taken out of
the schools.
So long as a student doesn't disrupt school activities, s/he may pray all
the time. Not paying attention to coursework won't benefit them, however.
In that instance prayer would certainly be detrimental to the interest of
accomplishing learning in the subject matter of the class.
The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the Establishment Clause can
occur when a public school teacher begins the school class with prayer,
legal analysts said.
Right again.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and
State, said, however, that it was rare to encounter a school district
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
Thank goodness.
"I think that the major issue, when we're looking at school prayer these
days, is one of parental rights and parental authority," Boston said.
You go, Rob!!
"Parents are the ones who should decide what religion, if any, their
children are exposed to. It's not the job of school officials, teachers,
principals or administrators to promote religion before young people,"
Boston added.
As usual, Rob Boston knows what he is talking about.
Most disputes nowadays center on prayers at graduation, prayers before an
assembly or the rights of students to form religious or non-religious clubs.
"I think that we are moving toward a consensus, or at least an
understanding, that school-sponsored prayer is not appropriate," Boston
said.
Y E S !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you Rob Boston!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Religious Right groups often claim Jefferson as an ally in their crusade,
a highly ironic move considering his personal religious views. Jefferson
had grave doubts about the divinity of Jesus and even rewrote the bible,
removing all references to miracles and claims by Jesus to be the Son of
God.
"Similar attempts by the Religious Right to claim Madison as a theological
compatriot are equally ludicrous. According to Madison biographer
Ketcham, much of Madison's schooling was Christian but 'relatively
perfunctory, and he seems never to have been an ardent believer himself.'
Ketcham even refers to Madison as a 'deist.'"
--Robert Boston, in Why the Religious Right is Wrong About
Separation of Church and State, 1994 ISBN 0-87975-834-1
"Rob Boston reminds us that America's most precious safeguard for
religious freedom and conscience, the constitutional guarantee of
separation of church and state, is never safe from the energetic and too
often unprincipled assaults from the Religious Right. This book should
find an audience on every level, from scholars to citizen-activists."
--Gregg Ivers, Asst. Prof. of Government, The American University
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
16 Aug 2003 07:20:57 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200308\CUL20030815b.html
Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion'
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 15, 2003
"Clearly, a public school student can pray anytime he or she wants to pray
silently or to meet with other students before or after school, or during
lunchtime, to pray together, and nobody can stop that because that is the
individual's right to both speech and religious expression," LaRue said.
The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the Establishment Clause can
occur when a public school teacher begins the school class with prayer,
legal analysts said.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and
State, said, however, that it was rare to encounter a school district
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
"I think that the major issue, when we're looking at school prayer these
days, is one of parental rights and parental authority," Boston said.
"Parents are the ones who should decide what religion, if any, their
children are exposed to. It's not the job of school officials, teachers,
principals or administrators to promote religion before young people,"
Boston added.
Absolutely. That's what we've been saying here all along.
"I think that we are moving toward a consensus, or at least an
understanding, that school-sponsored prayer is not appropriate," Boston
said.
Very good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
18 Aug 2003 07:34:29 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
But, when your child becomes valadictorian of his or her class, or wins a
trophy in a sports event, or takes honors at a spelling bee, and is picked
by school officials to give a speech at the appropriate ceremony, should he
be denied the expression of thanks to God for giving him hte strength or
wisdom needed to attain such a position?
When one is speaking publicly, one is wise to consider the audience.
They aren't all that interested in who you wish to thank.
but do we really want to deny a student his expression of faith?
If it were a line or two incidental to something of more general
interest to the audience and thus did not make it seem like a
religious revival witnessing, I suspect that it would not be much of
an issue.
Isn't such a denial the same
violation the rest of us might feel by being exposed to the expression? The
speech of the student is private speech,
Not when the student is given the platform by the school.
The trouble comes with who is praying, and who is leading the prayer.
Another issue is, is the profession of faith by a student a prayer, or is it
merely an expression of faith? Where do we draw the line between protecting
the rights of the listeners and protecting the rights of the speaker?
When the government is providing the platform and audience for the
speaker, it is not private speech.
Is it right that I alone can limit what everybody else listens to?
The only constraint on government in this regard is in matters
religious, so the limit on government sponsored speech is only on
religious speech.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
19 Aug 2003 01:03:04 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
But, when your child becomes valadictorian of his or her class, or wins a
trophy in a sports event, or takes honors at a spelling bee, and is picked
by school officials to give a speech at the appropriate ceremony, should he
be denied the expression of thanks to God for giving him hte strength or
wisdom needed to attain such a position?
When one is speaking publicly, one is wise to consider the audience.
They aren't all that interested in who you wish to thank.
but do we really want to deny a student his expression of faith?
If it were a line or two incidental to something of more general
interest to the audience and thus did not make it seem like a
religious revival witnessing, I suspect that it would not be much of
an issue.
Isn't such a denial the same
violation the rest of us might feel by being exposed to the expression? The
speech of the student is private speech,
Not when the student is given the platform by the school.
The trouble comes with who is praying, and who is leading the prayer.
Another issue is, is the profession of faith by a student a prayer, or is it
merely an expression of faith? Where do we draw the line between protecting
the rights of the listeners and protecting the rights of the speaker?
When the government is providing the platform and audience for the
speaker, it is not private speech.
Is it right that I alone can limit what everybody else listens to?
The only constraint on government in this regard is in matters
religious, so the limit on government sponsored speech is only on
religious speech.
Well, in a k12 setting, admins can, I believe, prohibit speech they
believe will cause a substantial disruption of the school's educational
mission. Not that that would likely apply in this case tho one can
imagine a student attempting to stir things up given the platform
and an audience at graduation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
16 Aug 2003 08:50:55 PM |
|
|
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308161719370.17139-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200308\CUL20030815b.html
Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion'
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 15, 2003
"Clearly, a public school student can pray anytime he or she wants to
pray
silently or to meet with other students before or after school, or
during
lunchtime, to pray together, and nobody can stop that because that is
the
individual's right to both speech and religious expression," LaRue said.
The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the Establishment Clause
can
occur when a public school teacher begins the school class with prayer,
legal analysts said.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church
and
State, said, however, that it was rare to encounter a school district
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
"I think that the major issue, when we're looking at school prayer these
days, is one of parental rights and parental authority," Boston said.
"Parents are the ones who should decide what religion, if any, their
children are exposed to. It's not the job of school officials, teachers,
principals or administrators to promote religion before young people,"
Boston added.
Absolutely. That's what we've been saying here all along.
No it has not. Your side feels that the school should force a paticular
belief on the students, like secular humanism, with it's gay is normal, and
sally has two mom's BS.
"I think that we are moving toward a consensus, or at least an
understanding, that school-sponsored prayer is not appropriate," Boston
said.
Very good.
Which is what we have been saying all along.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arne Langsetmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
16 Aug 2003 10:25:29 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308161719370.17139-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200308\CUL20030815b.html
Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion'
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 15, 2003
"Clearly, a public school student can pray anytime he or she wants to
pray silently or to meet with other students before or after school, or
during lunchtime, to pray together, and nobody can stop that because that is
the individual's right to both speech and religious expression," LaRue said.
The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the Establishment Clause
can occur when a public school teacher begins the school class with prayer,
legal analysts said.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church
and State, said, however, that it was rare to encounter a school district
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
"I think that the major issue, when we're looking at school prayer these
days, is one of parental rights and parental authority," Boston said.
"Parents are the ones who should decide what religion, if any, their
children are exposed to. It's not the job of school officials, teachers,
principals or administrators to promote religion before young people,"
Boston added.
Absolutely. That's what we've been saying here all along.
Just a word of clarification. Americans United said this. The
jihadists
like Focus on the Family and Concerned Women of America, of course,
oppose this understanding, and file suit just as diligently if their
precious little munchkins aren't allowed to witness their faith in
front of the whole school and tell the other little daemons that
they're going to burn in hell if they don't kiss Jaaayyyzzzzuuusss's
butt.
Same with the loony crew that thinks the Ten Commandments plastered
on everything is the sure-fire cure to all social ills.
No it has not. Your side feels that the school should force a paticular
belief on the students, like secular humanism, with it's gay is normal, and
sally has two mom's BS.
Nonsense, of course. There is no religion of secular humanism.
And I doubt that any more than one in a thousand of the little
munchkins would be able to name a _single_ secular humanist if
their graduation depended on it. Dana's mistake (and that of his
fundy buddies) is to mistake reality for "secular humanism".
There's nothing wrong with teaching kids about the real world.
Dana's buddies would rather they be taught about a vicious
sky pixie that would commit the ultimate genocide because he
(supposedly) got irritated at what _he_ had created. Kind of
makes it easier when you try to get the kids to go off and
get themselves killed for someone's campaign photo-ops.
As for Dana's ardent fight against perversion, he'd rather the
kids be taught Biblically proper and accepted sexual practises
such as these:
-------------------------------------------------
ladies use my tongue for your pleasure
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=
63j187%24nji%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=226>
swm very oral will orally worship any female that wishes to be
worshipped.
will kiss and lick your feet and butt .
might be wiling to be your toilet paper if you
are that aggressive
-------------------------------------------------
One thing to be said for it, I guess; low risk of pregnancy.
But you'd still have to use a condom (or perhaps even a
garbage bag) with Dana Raffaniello in the vicinity.
"I think that we are moving toward a consensus, or at least an
understanding, that school-sponsored prayer is not appropriate," Boston
said.
Very good.
Which is what we have been saying all along.
Huh? Getting confused, "ButtMaster"? Half your posts are these CRW
nutcases that are hell-bent on getting prayer back in the schools
as a sure-fire cure for all that ails the country (including
terrorist attacks).
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
16 Aug 2003 10:47:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Arne Langsetmo wrote:
Dana wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308161719370.17139-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200308\CUL20030815b.html
Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion'
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 15, 2003
"Clearly, a public school student can pray anytime he or she wants to
pray silently or to meet with other students before or after school, or
during lunchtime, to pray together, and nobody can stop that because that is
the individual's right to both speech and religious expression," LaRue said.
The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the Establishment Clause
can occur when a public school teacher begins the school class with prayer,
legal analysts said.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church
and State, said, however, that it was rare to encounter a school district
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
"I think that the major issue, when we're looking at school prayer these
days, is one of parental rights and parental authority," Boston said.
"Parents are the ones who should decide what religion, if any, their
children are exposed to. It's not the job of school officials, teachers,
principals or administrators to promote religion before young people,"
Boston added.
Absolutely. That's what we've been saying here all along.
Just a word of clarification. Americans United said this. The
jihadists
like Focus on the Family and Concerned Women of America, of course,
oppose this understanding, and file suit just as diligently if their
precious little munchkins aren't allowed to witness their faith in
front of the whole school and tell the other little daemons that
they're going to burn in hell if they don't kiss Jaaayyyzzzzuuusss's
butt.
Same with the loony crew that thinks the Ten Commandments plastered
on everything is the sure-fire cure to all social ills.
I understand that. I'm just amused that Dana posted it as if it were
news of some kind.
No it has not. Your side feels that the school should force a paticular
belief on the students, like secular humanism, with it's gay is normal, and
sally has two mom's BS.
Nonsense, of course. There is no religion of secular humanism.
And I doubt that any more than one in a thousand of the little
munchkins would be able to name a _single_ secular humanist if
their graduation depended on it. Dana's mistake (and that of his
fundy buddies) is to mistake reality for "secular humanism".
There's nothing wrong with teaching kids about the real world.
Dana's buddies would rather they be taught about a vicious
sky pixie that would commit the ultimate genocide because he
(supposedly) got irritated at what _he_ had created. Kind of
makes it easier when you try to get the kids to go off and
get themselves killed for someone's campaign photo-ops.
"I think that we are moving toward a consensus, or at least an
understanding, that school-sponsored prayer is not appropriate," Boston
said.
Very good.
Which is what we have been saying all along.
Huh? Getting confused, "ButtMaster"? Half your posts are these CRW
nutcases that are hell-bent on getting prayer back in the schools
as a sure-fire cure for all that ails the country (including
terrorist attacks).
I don't think he reads half of what he copies and pastes. I enjoyed
the lightning strike one tho, which he abandoned quickly after
learning about the many lightning strikes on Christian churches
and preachers.
Guess God thinks the same of gays as he thinks of Christians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
17 Aug 2003 12:00:57 AM |
|
|
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308162042440.30910-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Arne Langsetmo wrote:
Dana wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308161719370.17139-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200308\CUL20030815b.html
Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion'
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 15, 2003
"Clearly, a public school student can pray anytime he or she wants
to
pray silently or to meet with other students before or after
school, or
during lunchtime, to pray together, and nobody can stop that
because that is
the individual's right to both speech and religious expression,"
LaRue said.
The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the Establishment
Clause
can occur when a public school teacher begins the school class
with prayer,
legal analysts said.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of
Church
and State, said, however, that it was rare to encounter a school
district
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
"I think that the major issue, when we're looking at school prayer
these
days, is one of parental rights and parental authority," Boston
said.
"Parents are the ones who should decide what religion, if any,
their
children are exposed to. It's not the job of school officials,
teachers,
principals or administrators to promote religion before young
people,"
Boston added.
Absolutely. That's what we've been saying here all along.
Just a word of clarification. Americans United said this. The
jihadists
like Focus on the Family and Concerned Women of America, of course,
oppose this understanding, and file suit just as diligently if their
precious little munchkins aren't allowed to witness their faith in
front of the whole school and tell the other little daemons that
they're going to burn in hell if they don't kiss Jaaayyyzzzzuuusss's
butt.
Same with the loony crew that thinks the Ten Commandments plastered
on everything is the sure-fire cure to all social ills.
Little arnie is getting all upset that people are ctahing on to what the
left is doing, and are not going to put up with it much longer. The left's
dicrimination and harasment against the religious is coming to an end.
I understand that. I'm just amused that Dana posted it as if it were
news of some kind.
As joni speaks just to hear/see her thoughts.
No it has not. Your side feels that the school should force a
paticular
belief on the students, like secular humanism, with it's gay is
normal, and
sally has two mom's BS.
Nonsense, of course. There is no religion of secular humanism.
There sure is. Even Dewey said that secular humanism is a religion. And the
humanist manifesto claims it is a religion. Dewey went on to say that public
education would be the best method in forcing this belief on society. So
Arnie your noted denial is noted once again.
And I doubt that any more than one in a thousand of the little
munchkins would be able to name a _single_ secular humanist if
their graduation depended on it. Dana's mistake (and that of his
fundy buddies)
I do not know any fundies. Hell I do not even go to any organized church. I
am just not intolerant of the religious as you and joni and others like you
seem to be.
is to mistake reality for "secular humanism".
There's nothing wrong with teaching kids about the real world.
The public schools have no reason to teach the children that homosexuality
is normal, nor is it the schools place to hand out condoms. Schools should
only be used to teach language, science, math, history, and civics.
"I think that we are moving toward a consensus, or at least an
understanding, that school-sponsored prayer is not appropriate,"
Boston
said.
Very good.
Which is what we have been saying all along.
I don't think he reads half of what he copies and pastes. I enjoyed
the lightning strike
The one you could not refute where the gays said it was caused by people
praying to God to strike the station.
We noticed how quick you ran away from that one. Care to answer now how the
gays can claim it was caused by people praying to God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
17 Aug 2003 12:03:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308162042440.30910-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Arne Langsetmo wrote:
Dana wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308161719370.17139-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200308\CUL20030815b.html
Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion'
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 15, 2003
"Clearly, a public school student can pray anytime he or she wants
to
pray silently or to meet with other students before or after
school, or
during lunchtime, to pray together, and nobody can stop that
because that is
the individual's right to both speech and religious expression,"
LaRue said.
The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the Establishment
Clause
can occur when a public school teacher begins the school class
with prayer,
legal analysts said.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of
Church
and State, said, however, that it was rare to encounter a school
district
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
"I think that the major issue, when we're looking at school prayer
these
days, is one of parental rights and parental authority," Boston
said.
"Parents are the ones who should decide what religion, if any,
their
children are exposed to. It's not the job of school officials,
teachers,
principals or administrators to promote religion before young
people,"
Boston added.
Absolutely. That's what we've been saying here all along.
Just a word of clarification. Americans United said this. The
jihadists
like Focus on the Family and Concerned Women of America, of course,
oppose this understanding, and file suit just as diligently if their
precious little munchkins aren't allowed to witness their faith in
front of the whole school and tell the other little daemons that
they're going to burn in hell if they don't kiss Jaaayyyzzzzuuusss's
butt.
Same with the loony crew that thinks the Ten Commandments plastered
on everything is the sure-fire cure to all social ills.
Little arnie is getting all upset that people are ctahing on to what the
left is doing, and are not going to put up with it much longer. The left's
dicrimination and harasment against the religious is coming to an end.
I understand that. I'm just amused that Dana posted it as if it were
news of some kind.
As joni speaks just to hear/see her thoughts.
No it has not. Your side feels that the school should force a
paticular
belief on the students, like secular humanism, with it's gay is
normal, and
sally has two mom's BS.
Nonsense, of course. There is no religion of secular humanism.
There sure is. Even Dewey said that secular humanism is a religion. And the
humanist manifesto claims it is a religion. Dewey went on to say that public
education would be the best method in forcing this belief on society. So
Arnie your noted denial is noted once again.
And I doubt that any more than one in a thousand of the little
munchkins would be able to name a _single_ secular humanist if
their graduation depended on it. Dana's mistake (and that of his
fundy buddies)
I do not know any fundies. Hell I do not even go to any organized church. I
am just not intolerant of the religious as you and joni and others like you
seem to be.
is to mistake reality for "secular humanism".
There's nothing wrong with teaching kids about the real world.
The public schools have no reason to teach the children that homosexuality
is normal, nor is it the schools place to hand out condoms. Schools should
only be used to teach language, science, math, history, and civics.
"I think that we are moving toward a consensus, or at least an
understanding, that school-sponsored prayer is not appropriate,"
Boston
said.
Very good.
Which is what we have been saying all along.
I don't think he reads half of what he copies and pastes. I enjoyed
the lightning strike
The one you could not refute where the gays said it was caused by people
praying to God to strike the station.
We noticed how quick you ran away from that one. Care to answer now how the
gays can claim it was caused by people praying to God.
That one is easy, at least for those with three-digit IQs. Some
gays are religious and fall for the same God lightning nonsense you
fall for.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
17 Aug 2003 12:53:32 AM |
|
|
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308162201290.30910-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308162042440.30910-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Arne Langsetmo wrote:
Dana wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308161719370.17139-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200308\CUL20030815b.html
Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion'
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 15, 2003
"Clearly, a public school student can pray anytime he or she
wants
to
pray silently or to meet with other students before or after
school, or
during lunchtime, to pray together, and nobody can stop that
because that is
the individual's right to both speech and religious
expression,"
LaRue said.
The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the
Establishment
Clause
can occur when a public school teacher begins the school class
with prayer,
legal analysts said.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of
Church
and State, said, however, that it was rare to encounter a
school
district
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
"I think that the major issue, when we're looking at school
prayer
these
days, is one of parental rights and parental authority,"
Boston
said.
"Parents are the ones who should decide what religion, if any,
their
children are exposed to. It's not the job of school officials,
teachers,
principals or administrators to promote religion before young
people,"
Boston added.
Absolutely. That's what we've been saying here all along.
Just a word of clarification. Americans United said this. The
jihadists
like Focus on the Family and Concerned Women of America, of course,
oppose this understanding, and file suit just as diligently if their
precious little munchkins aren't allowed to witness their faith in
front of the whole school and tell the other little daemons that
they're going to burn in hell if they don't kiss Jaaayyyzzzzuuusss's
butt.
Same with the loony crew that thinks the Ten Commandments plastered
on everything is the sure-fire cure to all social ills.
Little arnie is getting all upset that people are ctahing on to what the
left is doing, and are not going to put up with it much longer. The
left's
dicrimination and harasment against the religious is coming to an end.
I understand that. I'm just amused that Dana posted it as if it were
news of some kind.
As joni speaks just to hear/see her thoughts.
No it has not. Your side feels that the school should force a
paticular
belief on the students, like secular humanism, with it's gay is
normal, and
sally has two mom's BS.
Nonsense, of course. There is no religion of secular humanism.
There sure is. Even Dewey said that secular humanism is a religion. And
the
humanist manifesto claims it is a religion. Dewey went on to say that
public
education would be the best method in forcing this belief on society.
So
Arnie your noted denial is noted once again.
And I doubt that any more than one in a thousand of the little
munchkins would be able to name a _single_ secular humanist if
their graduation depended on it. Dana's mistake (and that of his
fundy buddies)
I do not know any fundies. Hell I do not even go to any organized
church. I
am just not intolerant of the religious as you and joni and others like
you
seem to be.
is to mistake reality for "secular humanism".
There's nothing wrong with teaching kids about the real world.
The public schools have no reason to teach the children that
homosexuality
is normal, nor is it the schools place to hand out condoms. Schools
should
only be used to teach language, science, math, history, and civics.
"I think that we are moving toward a consensus, or at least an
understanding, that school-sponsored prayer is not
appropriate,"
Boston
said.
Very good.
Which is what we have been saying all along.
I don't think he reads half of what he copies and pastes. I enjoyed
the lightning strike
The one you could not refute where the gays said it was caused by people
praying to God to strike the station.
We noticed how quick you ran away from that one. Care to answer now how
the
gays can claim it was caused by people praying to God.
That one is easy, at least for those with three-digit IQs. Some
gays are religious and fall for the same God lightning nonsense you
fall for.
And again you show that you have no idea of what you are talking about.
Where have I ever said I think that God would use lighting to strike down a
group/person/thing that I felt was wrong or un-religious. And don't try to
say it is because I believe the Bible to be inerrant, as I do not. The bible
was written and reinterpreted over the centuries by men. Not that I am
knocking the bible or those that really do believe it is the spoken word of
God, I just do not believe that myself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
17 Aug 2003 01:00:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308162201290.30910-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308162042440.30910-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Arne Langsetmo wrote:
Dana wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308161719370.17139-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200308\CUL20030815b.html
Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion'
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 15, 2003
"Clearly, a public school student can pray anytime he or she
wants
to
pray silently or to meet with other students before or after
school, or
during lunchtime, to pray together, and nobody can stop that
because that is
the individual's right to both speech and religious
expression,"
LaRue said.
The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the
Establishment
Clause
can occur when a public school teacher begins the school class
with prayer,
legal analysts said.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of
Church
and State, said, however, that it was rare to encounter a
school
district
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
"I think that the major issue, when we're looking at school
prayer
these
days, is one of parental rights and parental authority,"
Boston
said.
"Parents are the ones who should decide what religion, if any,
their
children are exposed to. It's not the job of school officials,
teachers,
principals or administrators to promote religion before young
people,"
Boston added.
Absolutely. That's what we've been saying here all along.
Just a word of clarification. Americans United said this. The
jihadists
like Focus on the Family and Concerned Women of America, of course,
oppose this understanding, and file suit just as diligently if their
precious little munchkins aren't allowed to witness their faith in
front of the whole school and tell the other little daemons that
they're going to burn in hell if they don't kiss Jaaayyyzzzzuuusss's
butt.
Same with the loony crew that thinks the Ten Commandments plastered
on everything is the sure-fire cure to all social ills.
Little arnie is getting all upset that people are ctahing on to what the
left is doing, and are not going to put up with it much longer. The
left's
dicrimination and harasment against the religious is coming to an end.
I understand that. I'm just amused that Dana posted it as if it were
news of some kind.
As joni speaks just to hear/see her thoughts.
No it has not. Your side feels that the school should force a
paticular
belief on the students, like secular humanism, with it's gay is
normal, and
sally has two mom's BS.
Nonsense, of course. There is no religion of secular humanism.
There sure is. Even Dewey said that secular humanism is a religion. And
the
humanist manifesto claims it is a religion. Dewey went on to say that
public
education would be the best method in forcing this belief on society.
So
Arnie your noted denial is noted once again.
And I doubt that any more than one in a thousand of the little
munchkins would be able to name a _single_ secular humanist if
their graduation depended on it. Dana's mistake (and that of his
fundy buddies)
I do not know any fundies. Hell I do not even go to any organized
church. I
am just not intolerant of the religious as you and joni and others like
you
seem to be.
is to mistake reality for "secular humanism".
There's nothing wrong with teaching kids about the real world.
The public schools have no reason to teach the children that
homosexuality
is normal, nor is it the schools place to hand out condoms. Schools
should
only be used to teach language, science, math, history, and civics.
"I think that we are moving toward a consensus, or at least an
understanding, that school-sponsored prayer is not
appropriate,"
Boston
said.
Very good.
Which is what we have been saying all along.
I don't think he reads half of what he copies and pastes. I enjoyed
the lightning strike
The one you could not refute where the gays said it was caused by people
praying to God to strike the station.
We noticed how quick you ran away from that one. Care to answer now how
the
gays can claim it was caused by people praying to God.
That one is easy, at least for those with three-digit IQs. Some
gays are religious and fall for the same God lightning nonsense you
fall for.
And again you show that you have no idea of what you are talking about.
Where have I ever said I think that God would use lighting to strike down a
group/person/thing that I felt was wrong or un-religious. And don't try to
say it is because I believe the Bible to be inerrant, as I do not. The bible
was written and reinterpreted over the centuries by men. Not that I am
knocking the bible or those that really do believe it is the spoken word of
God, I just do not believe that myself.
So then, I guess your purpose in posting was simply to show that
some gays believe in the bible and such.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
17 Aug 2003 02:02:23 AM |
|
|
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308162349500.30910-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
Wrong again. The gays were blaming the lighting strike on the religious,
that is why I posted it.
The gay people from that station claimed it was
because the religious were praying that God strike the station.
PS In the original press release from the gays in this incident, no one
claimed the lightning was a result of religious prayers.
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
17 Aug 2003 02:18:43 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308162349500.30910-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
Wrong again. The gays were blaming the lighting strike on the religious,
that is why I posted it.
The gay people from that station claimed it was
because the religious were praying that God strike the station.
PS In the original press release from the gays in this incident, no one
claimed the lightning was a result of religious prayers.
Wrong.
Solly cholly. It's right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
17 Aug 2003 09:20:46 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Joni Rathbun wrote:
PS In the original press release from the gays in this incident, no one
claimed the lightning was a result of religious prayers.
Wrong.
Solly cholly. It's right.
All he has to do to prove his case is to post verification, right?
Think he understands what verification is all about?
I doubt it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
17 Aug 2003 01:37:56 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
So then, I guess your purpose in posting was simply to show that
some gays believe in the bible and such.
Wrong again. The gays were blaming the lighting strike on the religious,
that is why I posted it.
They wouldn't do that if they didn't believe in God.
The gay people from that station claimed it was
because the religious were praying that God strike the station.
They wouldn't do that unless they believe in God.
So first the
gays mock religion,
When did these guys mock religion? I didn't see anything about that
in the story.
I did see, however, that the woman is part of Godhatefags.com,
an extremist hate website.
and then they say religion is what caused their station
to be struck by lighting.
They wouldn't say that if they didn't believe in God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
17 Aug 2003 02:04:24 AM |
|
|
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308162333200.30910-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
So then, I guess your purpose in posting was simply to show that
some gays believe in the bible and such.
Wrong again. The gays were blaming the lighting strike on the religious,
that is why I posted it.
They wouldn't do that if they didn't believe in God.
This has nothing to do with belief in God. It does have to do with the gays
blaming the religious for this natural act.
The gay people from that station claimed it was
because the religious were praying that God strike the station.
So first the
gays mock religion,
and then they say religion is what caused their station
to be struck by lighting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
16 Aug 2003 10:14:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308161719370.17139-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200308\CUL20030815b.html
Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion'
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 15, 2003
"Clearly, a public school student can pray anytime he or she wants to
pray
silently or to meet with other students before or after school, or
during
lunchtime, to pray together, and nobody can stop that because that is
the
individual's right to both speech and religious expression," LaRue said.
The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the Establishment Clause
can
occur when a public school teacher begins the school class with prayer,
legal analysts said.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church
and
State, said, however, that it was rare to encounter a school district
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
"I think that the major issue, when we're looking at school prayer these
days, is one of parental rights and parental authority," Boston said.
"Parents are the ones who should decide what religion, if any, their
children are exposed to. It's not the job of school officials, teachers,
principals or administrators to promote religion before young people,"
Boston added.
Absolutely. That's what we've been saying here all along.
No it has not. Your side feels that the school should force a paticular
belief on the students, like secular humanism, with it's gay is normal, and
sally has two mom's BS.
Nope.
"I think that we are moving toward a consensus, or at least an
understanding, that school-sponsored prayer is not appropriate," Boston
said.
Very good.
Which is what we have been saying all along.
lol
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rico" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
19 Aug 2003 09:56:34 AM |
|
|
In article <vk2k29mh3clcac@corp.supernews.com>, "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308161719370.17139-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200308\CUL20030815
b.html
Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion'
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 15, 2003
"Clearly, a public school student can pray anytime he or she wants to
pray
silently or to meet with other students before or after school, or
during
lunchtime, to pray together, and nobody can stop that because that is
the
individual's right to both speech and religious expression," LaRue said.
The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the Establishment Clause
can
occur when a public school teacher begins the school class with prayer,
legal analysts said.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church
and
State, said, however, that it was rare to encounter a school district
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
"I think that the major issue, when we're looking at school prayer these
days, is one of parental rights and parental authority," Boston said.
"Parents are the ones who should decide what religion, if any, their
children are exposed to. It's not the job of school officials, teachers,
principals or administrators to promote religion before young people,"
Boston added.
Absolutely. That's what we've been saying here all along.
"I think that we are moving toward a consensus, or at least an
understanding, that school-sponsored prayer is not appropriate," Boston
said.
Very good.
But, when your child becomes valadictorian of his or her class, or wins a
trophy in a sports event, or takes honors at a spelling bee, and is picked
by school officials to give a speech at the appropriate ceremony, should he
be denied the expression of thanks to God for giving him hte strength or
wisdom needed to attain such a position?
Here is my question that the fundies never seem willing to answer. Is your
God so feeble that he must have a captive audience (school ceremony etc) to
win converts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rico" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
19 Aug 2003 07:24:34 PM |
|
|
In article <vk53o7j4fouo16@corp.supernews.com>, "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is my question that the fundies never seem willing to answer. Is your
God so feeble that he must have a captive audience (school ceremony etc)
to
win converts?
NO, He doesn't need a captive audience to gain converts. Why do you ask?
Then why are you trying so hard to preach in front of a captive audience,
other people's children?
Is your conviction so weak that hearing a STUDENT profess his or her faith a
danger to you?
Yes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rico" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
21 Aug 2003 05:02:25 PM |
|
|
In article <vkaad3agkplp4f@corp.supernews.com>, "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Rico" <rico_001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vk5ftnoi9fuc13@corp.supernews.com...
In article <vk53o7j4fouo16@corp.supernews.com>, "Jeff Strickland"
<beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is my question that the fundies never seem willing to answer. Is
your
God so feeble that he must have a captive audience (school ceremony
etc)
to
win converts?
NO, He doesn't need a captive audience to gain converts. Why do you ask?
Then why are you trying so hard to preach in front of a captive audience,
other people's children?
I am not preaching. I only want to respect the right to free speech that
everybody has,
You do not have that right in school. It has been long established that
children in school do not enjoy all the same rights their parents (adults)
have in the world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
18 Aug 2003 06:46:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308161719370.17139-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200308\CUL20030815b.html
Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion'
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 15, 2003
"Clearly, a public school student can pray anytime he or she wants to
pray
silently or to meet with other students before or after school, or
during
lunchtime, to pray together, and nobody can stop that because that is
the
individual's right to both speech and religious expression," LaRue said.
The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the Establishment Clause
can
occur when a public school teacher begins the school class with prayer,
legal analysts said.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church
and
State, said, however, that it was rare to encounter a school district
seeking to sponsor school prayer.
"I think that the major issue, when we're looking at school prayer these
days, is one of parental rights and parental authority," Boston said.
"Parents are the ones who should decide what religion, if any, their
children are exposed to. It's not the job of school officials, teachers,
principals or administrators to promote religion before young people,"
Boston added.
Absolutely. That's what we've been saying here all along.
"I think that we are moving toward a consensus, or at least an
understanding, that school-sponsored prayer is not appropriate," Boston
said.
Very good.
But, when your child becomes valadictorian of his or her class, or wins a
trophy in a sports event, or takes honors at a spelling bee, and is picked
by school officials to give a speech at the appropriate ceremony, should he
be denied the expression of thanks to God for giving him hte strength or
wisdom needed to attain such a position?
Mentioning God in thanks is acceptable and has already been approved.
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention.
thanks, and perhaps we don't want the school to bring in a pastor to lead
the audience and students in prayer before the ceremony, but do we really
want to deny a student his expression of faith?
The student at the pulpit is not the only student in attendance.
Isn't such a denial the same
violation the rest of us might feel by being exposed to the expression?
Say your thank yous to your God. But forcing others to partake in your
religious rituals is rude and as part of a school function,
unconstitutional.
The
speech of the student is private speech, and does not represent a position
of the school administration, and should be allowed.
Tell the courts, not me.
If the student wants to
praise Satan for his accomplishments, then the audience will be offended,
and the student might even experience rejection as a result of such a
profession, but that is not a matter for government to decide.
I guess you didn't realize that thank yous can be offered.
If my family
was satanic, I am not sure I would want my children to make the expression
of faith to Satan in a public forum, and I would most certainly council them
that it is foolish to give praise to Satan in our society. But, I am not
sure I want the school administration interferring in my religion, and I
would rather be offended by the ignorant profession of faith in satan than
to be protected from it by school policy.
The trouble comes with who is praying, and who is leading the prayer.
Another issue is, is the profession of faith by a student a prayer, or is it
merely an expression of faith?
Sounds like you aren't very familiar with the laws.
Where do we draw the line between protecting
the rights of the listeners and protecting the rights of the speaker?
If the speaker is an employee of the school district, or is brought in by
the district (either paid or for free) to speak before an audience of
students and/or the public, then the rights of the speaker can be greatly
restricted, and probably ought to be restricted. But, how do we balance the
rights of a student to speak, against the rights of the audience to not
hear? If I insist on my right to only hear what I approve of, then can't I
limit the right of someone else to speak? Is it right that I alone can limit
what everybody else listens to? It is better for everyone that I accept that
I am a corner-case for some reason, and must occasionally hear what I feel
is offensive speech, because this acceptance will mean that my speech will
never be silenced. My speech might be ignored, but it must never be
silenced.
k
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
21 Aug 2003 04:16:05 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <> wrote in message
news:qch8kvghf0sraaus1t55um2v6np62nvh6h@4ax.com...
rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
The constitution does not protect me from religious speech. If you were
standing on the street corner spewing religious speech, there is nothing
I
could do. I am only protected from religious ramblings from government
itself, not from any private citizen.
So you see no differnce between a street corner (where you can walk away)
and a child involved in compulsory education?
I thought it was rather clear that I do. A child involved in
compulsory education must be free from religious speech aided by
governmental action or circumstance.
Bob, he was Replying to me, sometime after you replied to me. His Reply and
yours are at the same level.
You see no difference between
a state organized event (school whatever) and passing by on a street
corner?
I was making precisely that distinction.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
21 Aug 2003 01:27:59 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|I see
Who cares what you see?
What you see, what you think, doesn't matter one single bit as far as the
law is concerned.
Your position is well known, you support what you view as the radical
religious right position on just about every aspect of church state.
Your position is well documented over the past year.
Your opinions are totally unimportant. People respond to you for fun, for
entertainment, They find you amusing.
They don't take anything you say seriously, it is far too easy to trump
everything you type with facts, something totally alien to you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
20 Aug 2003 01:42:16 PM |
|
|
My point is the laws seem to reverse discriminate. The rights of others
to
not hear certain types of speech seem to preclude the rights of those
that
would make the speech. I think it is (or should be) important who is
making
the speech, and what their relationship is to government. If a student
wants
to make speech, then government ought not be required, or feel
compelled, to
restrict the speech on religious grounds. They might want to ensure the
speech that is about to be made is not patently offensive, but mere
religion
is not a patently offensive thing.
According to you. But after years of people trying to cram it down my
throat, I find it quite offensive, worse than a big stinky fart.
If you want to use the government's platform, then abide by the
government's rules or let someone else speak.
So, government can invite Johnny or Suzy to give an address at a ceremony,
but Johnny or Suzy can only speak about things government approves of? Isn't
this government's way of dis-establishing religion, and isn't this
dis-establishment agains the 1st Amendment?
If Johnny or Suzy speaks of religion, is that the same as government
sponsorship? I think not. Yes, I have to sit there and tolerate the
ignorance, but this is far better than allowing government to begin to
silence people for nothing more than religious expression.
If the same school wants to bring in an
official speaker (for whatever reason), then that speaker should not be
making religious speech because that speaker is linked to government via
the
school, and it can be difficult to tell (from the perspective of a
listener)
if that speech is official or not. A student that is speaking is almost
never speaking from an "official" position.
I would never complain that your child said, "I want to thank God for
all
that He has done for me."
It's perfectly legal for them to do so. Why would you complain?
The ACLU makes this sort of complaint all the time. I think this sort of
complaint is unfounded.
I would not even want to deny your child the right
to recite scripture as an example of the power/strength/wisdom/whatever
he
thinks the Lord has bestowed upon him.
They can even do that to a limited degree. I thought you said you were
familiar with the laws here.
What if they wanted to sing a song as the example?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Legal Group Cautions Schools on 'Censoring Religion' |
20 Aug 2003 03:58:11 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you want to use the government's platform, then abide by the
government's rules or let someone else speak.
So, government can invite Johnny or Suzy to give an address at a ceremony,
but Johnny or Suzy can only speak about things government approves of?
That is not the "government's rules". The government's rules are
pretty limited: no respecting an establishment of religion.
Isn't
this government's way of dis-establishing religion, and isn't this
dis-establishment agains the 1st Amendment?
No. Disestablishment is the natural state. Government recognizes no
establishments of religion, therefore they do not come to exist.
If Johnny or Suzy speaks of religion, is that the same as government
sponsorship? I think not.
The courts think otherwise. They have the power to decide, and not
you. Therefore, you are wrong.
I would never complain that your child said, "I want to thank God for all
that He has done for me."
It's perfectly legal for them to do so. Why would you complain?
The ACLU makes this sort of complaint all the time.
Please document this assertion.
I think this sort of complaint is unfounded.
It is not unfounded, but the ACLU would not likely make the same
complaint again, having been overruled once. They recognize the
court's authority, and would at least have the common sense to find a
somewhat different basis for complaint.
I would not even want to deny your child the right
to recite scripture as an example of the power/strength/wisdom/whatever he
thinks the Lord has bestowed upon him.
They can even do that to a limited degree. I thought you said you were
familiar with the laws here.
What if they wanted to sing a song as the example?
It depends:
Finally, even if the assertion seems doubtful to some, courts have
touched on the particular phrase, "God Bless America," and have
expressed doubts that the phrase violates the Establishment Clause.
For instance, in Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified Sch. Dist., (18)
reaching the conclusion that a children's textbook series that had
been alleged to endorse the religions of Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism
did not violate the Establishment Clause, a federal district court
noted that the challenged series did not violate the Establishment
Clause any more than did the singing of "Go | | | | |
