Judge bans moment of silence

[vraiblonde]

Answer the damn question and quit dodging!

Good luck with that.

 

[vraiblonde]

The same thing could be said about the rightists....for example: just follow the President and do what he says because he's the President and that's what we're supposed to do.

Who says that, genius? Name one person - just one.

You won't find one single rightie on these forums that hasn't criticized Bush and follows him lock, stock and barrel.

 

[Pete]

Kind of like Giuliani supporters thinking Ron Paul said we deserved to be bombed

Its not a leftwing position, some people just feel that Religion should be a private matter, its only an issue when Public instances of Religion are questioned that causes the debate.

I agree again, it is a private matter. You have a brief moment of silence to privately do whatever you want. You can pray to Zurg, Moondalla, God, Allah, your big screen TV, a Goat, -OR- you can think about ass, boobs, the multiplication tables, if the teacher realizes they have a booger hanging out of their nose, the significance of global warming, the Monroe Doctrine, why a zebra is not really a horse, why they put locks on the doors of 7-11's if they are open 24/7/365.

But see no one knows because it is "silent" and no one knows what you are thinking about ot doing.

 

[Cowgirl]

Who says that, genius? Name one person - just one.

You won't find one single rightie on these forums that hasn't criticized Bush and follows him lock, stock and barrel.

No need to get touchy.

Sure, now republicans are coming out against Bush...but for a long time after 9/11, that was the mentality.

I'm not trying to start a political debate, I'm just saying how both republicans and democrats say the same things about each other.

 

[Pete]

ok fine, my ass is not chapped

other than that, i dont see the ten minutes being a big deal. If its as worthless as you agree with me on, then get rid of it.

If its not a religous 10 minutes of prayers, as the Believers on here have stated, and its as worthless as you agree with me on, then get rid of it

Why keep it? It has no benefit, by removing it the students can still pray to pass a test, or that the pastor will stop touching them whatever, and it is another ten minutes that can be used for the intended purpose of School, education!

Ding, we have our answer, finally.

Nuckle, I am sorry that you were molested by a pastor. I think it is terrible and I now understand why you loathe religion, or the opportunity to practice it for a brief moment privately in the morning in school.

I hope you can find help to allow you to cope with the trauma of being molested.

 

[This_person]

I have no problem with INDIVIDUAL thinking. But that isnt what is being discussed.

Actually, it's exactly what's being discussed. The district's policy only included the potential that students could use the time for prayer as one in a list of things they could use it for.

If they took it off of the list, would that change the rest of the list? Would that change the Constitutionality of it?

You want to pray, take a moment of time to rethink or whatever, then do it on your time, your argument is mixing someone taking their own time to do something with a structured practice.

A structured practice of giving the kids a quiet time, not a structured practice of prayer.

If there is a moment of prayer... er silence at the beginning of the day, do students still say a prayer during the final exam in their 5th period class?

That's really up to them. If there's a moment of silence at the beginning of the day and the kid thinks about where his term paper is, so he knows where to find it in his locker before 4th period class, was that prayer? Would that be against the rules? What if she thinks about organizing her thoughts for her first period speech/debate class? Like most of us would, it's like coming in early (buses don't usually pick kids up early to get someone to school on time to reflect on what they're going to do) before a big presentation? Would this violate prayer? Of course not. Is it what was stated/implied as ONE of the possible functions of the time? YES.

Yes - then the moment of prayer/silence is uneccesary because the students can still offer their prayers when they need it, not just in the beginning of the day.

If it were only for prayer, you would be right. Since it's not, you're not. :shrug:

thats what my argument is, the fact that they have this 10 minutes of prayer/silence in the beginning of the day. There isnt a need for it, when the student needs to pray/rethink they do it when they need it ON THEIR OWN TIME.

I go back to my "psyching yourself up" idea above - the bus won't get kids to school ten minutes early on those days they need it to prepare mentally for a test (clear their mind of other outside thoughts, etc), or to organize their thoughts for a speech/presentation, or to try and figure that algebra problem out, or to say thanks to God for being in a school instead of on the streets in Chicago. All of these things are necessary ways for different people to start the day, and they're all part of the intent of the policy.

 

[vraiblonde]

Kind of like Giuliani supporters thinking Ron Paul said we deserved to be bombed

Ron Paul clearly implied that we brought 9-11 on ourselves, and explained exactly why he felt that way. I didn't need Rudy Giuliani to point it out to me - I caught it right after Paul said it.

 

[This_person]

Or they realize that their isnt an effective way to embrace all religions (not just the Christian one) and since you cant fairly devote equal treatment there shouldnt be a hint that the School System is favoring one type.

Actually, while I don't see how this is a religious moment of prayer, it's about as equal as you can get - because it does not in any way promote religion, let alone one religion over another.

 

[vraiblonde]

No you didnt, you caught what Giulliani said Ron Paul stated, there is a difference. If you read the transcript or watched what Ron Paul actually said there is no way you could argue that.

Well, thanks for telling me what I did and didn't hear and what I did and didn't think.

 

[This_person]

Go back to my posts, i was responding to BCP wondering when students could pray in school. Your mixing my response to BCP with responses about the Time of Prayer/Silence.

That's certainly possible, and if I did I apologize.

By saying this, are you saying that you have no problem with a moment of silence at school, just sanctioned prayer? Seeings as a moment of silence has nothing specifically to do with only prayer, that would seem to be what you're saying.

 

[This_person]

And I and others agree that its not an effective use of the schools time. We are arguing the merits of that.

Keeping it so that students can pray isnt justified, since the students can pray all day, during class, before tests etc.

And I and others agree that if it were being kept just "so that students can pray", that would be unjustified. Since it's not in this case, and since there are legitimate purposes for it (see my previous posts for other things to do with the time, legitimate, useful things to do with the time), it is a worthwhile thing to keep (and emulate in other schools)

 

[This_person]

I dont have a problem with the moment of silence to be used however (so pete can focus on whether someones ass is chapped) or including prayer (because then its a private matter) if it was effective. but it really isnt, its nothing more than 10 minutes thats just wasted.

If that's where we disagree, then I'd say we're doing fine.

 

[vraiblonde]

Your welcome, i learned from you

how's that shoe fit?

They call that something - a straw man?

 

[ylexot]

I'm fine with getting rid of the moment of silence, but that would be a function of the legislature. I think that the court's decision that it is unconstitutional is stupid.

 

[Novus Collectus]

...
In your atheistic mind the mere thought that someone can believe that there is a supreme being and might worship to one has you in the uber-paramoid class of fanatics fearing that you will be made to comply, which is not the case and never has been. The moment of silent reflection or prayer has you feverent and fanatically crying that your rights are being infringed while you seek to infringe upon others ability to freely exercise their religious beliefs. Why is it that you as a non-believer and your rights hold supreme to all others that happen to believe?

You pissed me off! I am an atheist but I repeatedly defended the rights of the students to pray in school. You abviously do not want to recognize that I defend the rights of students to be able to pray when they want because it does not fit in your bigotted view of atheists.
Removing the moment of silence infringes on no one's rights and students can still pray all they want. Keeping the moment of silence as the intent to pray where all must participate violates rights.
Some rights are at the very least "possibly" violated, but the removal of the moment of silence DOES NOT violate anyone's rights. Why are so many people fervently defending the moment of silence? Becuase they want some form of organized school prayer kept in the schools and there is no other reason for the cause to have advocates.
Removing the moment of silence is like the school system making recess one minute shorter, but we would never hear the same people whining about how that extra minute must stay because it provides students an extra moment of "relection" on the rest of the afternoon.
Come on people, just how stupid and naive do you think we all are? There is no other purpose for the moment of silence than for keeping an organized prayer in some form in the schools.

 

[vraiblonde]

There is no other purpose for the moment of silence than for keeping an organized prayer in some form in the schools.

How is it "organized" prayer if there is no direction? All they did was have a moment of silence. If you consider that to be "organized" then I hate to see what your DayRunner looks like.

 

[ylexot]

How is it "organized" prayer if there is no direction? All they did was have a moment of silence. If you consider that to be "organized" then I hate to see what your DayRunner looks like.

It's probably blank

 

[This_person]

How is it "organized" prayer if there is no direction? All they did was have a moment of silence.

I have to agree. It's not organized anything but quiet for teacher and student alike to use as they see fit. Why, they could use it to come up with reasons NOT to believe in God! Heaven forbid (pun intended).

 

[godsbutterfly]

The "Moment of Silence" is approximately One Minute long. They don't give 10 minutes or even 5.

 

[Novus Collectus]

of course not, Jesus did not need ammo.

Students are allowed to pray all day long if they want as long as they are not doing so in a manner that is disruptive (like yelling "praise Allah" at the top of their lungs in the middle of class).
If a student wants to mutter a prayer before quiet is called for before a test, then they have a Constitutional right to do so for instance.

as far as the rest of your post, you are wrong.
the ACLU was started by atheists for no other reason than to rid the country of anything religious.

When is one allowed to pray in school?

The ACLU defends students' free speech rights in the public schools and defends students' rights to pray in the schools. Additionally, whenever a teacher allows children to choose their own topics for an assignment (such as which book to read, which song to sing, or which topic to study for a presentation), students may choose religious themes - and the ACLU has protected their right to do so. Schools may also offer courses about religion or about the Bible or other religious works.

Public schools themselves should not, however, be in the business of promoting particular religious beliefs or religious activities. While it is permissible for public schools to teach about religion, it is not permissible to promote particular religious beliefs. While public schools should not be leading children in prayers or religious ceremonies, they should be respectful of the religious beliefs of students. Further, public schools should protect children from being coerced by others to accept religious (or anti-religious) beliefs. Public schools should seek to create an environment conducive to learning by all students and not act as vehicles proselytizing for religious or anti-religious beliefs.

The ACLU believes that the religious education of children should be directed primarily by parents, families, and religious communities - and not the public schools.

American Civil Liberties Union : Religion and Belief : Religion and Schools

ACLU of New Jersey Defends Second-Grader's Right to Sing Religious Song (6/5/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEWARK, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.

The Frenchtown Elementary School student, whose initials are O.T., wanted to sing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. School officials refused to allow the student to sing her song, saying it would give the impression that the school favored religion. “O.T.” remains anonymous to protect her privacy.

"There is a distinction between religious expression initiated or endorsed by school personnel, and speech initiated by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including religious expression."

In its brief, the ACLU argued that no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the religious message behind the student's song, and that the school therefore had no right to deny her choice of song.

The talent show was open for anyone from the 1st through 8th grades who wished to play a solo instrument, dance, perform a skit or sing karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits.

"We are dedicated to protecting the right of individual religious expression," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "O.T. has our full support in defense of her right to sing a religious song in the talent show."

The ACLU of New Jersey has participated in other cases involving the right of individual religious expression, including recently helping to ensure that jurors are not removed from jury pools for wearing religious clothing and that prisoners are able to obtain religious literature.

The case, O.T. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, was filed in federal court in Trenton.

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of New Jersey Defends Second-Grader's Right to Sing Religious Song

ACLU of MA Defends Students Punished for Distributing Candy Canes with Religious Messages (2/21/2003)


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NORTHAMPTON, MA -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts today asked a federal district court in Springfield to protect the First Amendment rights of high school students who were disciplined by school officials for distributing candy canes with religious messages just before Christmas.

"Students have a right to communicate ideas, religious or otherwise, to other students during their free time, before or after class, in the cafeteria, or elsewhere," said ACLU cooperating attorney Jeffrey Pyle, the main author of a friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case.

As a high school senior in 1993, Pyle was the plaintiff in a landmark ACLU case that established the free speech rights of secondary school students in the state. Today's case is the first litigation in Massachusetts involving student free speech since Pyle v. South Hadley School Committee was decided in 1996.

In today's case, the court is reviewing whether officials at Westfield High School in Western Massachusetts violated the rights of a student-initiated Bible Club by punishing them for handing out handing out candy canes with religious messages attached. The basis for the discipline is a school rule that prohibits the distribution of all literature that is not related to the curriculum.

The students each received a one-day suspension, which school officials agreed not to enforce after they were contacted by the ACLU of Massachusetts. The students subsequently filed a lawsuit asking the court to order to school not to interfere further with their right to hand out religious information.


In legal papers filed today, the ACLU of Massachusetts argued that the school rule interferes with the free speech rights of public high school students in Massachusetts under both state law and the First Amendment, which protects their speech as long as it does not disrupt the educational process. This principle was firmly established in the Pyle case, which concerned various messages on t-shirts worn by then-high school student Jeffrey Pyle and his brother, Jonathan.

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of MA Defends Students Punished for Distributing Candy Canes with Religious Messages

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Defense of Freedom of Religious Practice and Expression


Oh, and the ACLU was also founded by people who were not atheists. Helen Keller was very religious for instance.