US Court upholds 10 Commandments on public land

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, if it's between classes, why can't the teacher go to the teacher's lounge?

 

TheScout, if the founders disagreed with MvM, they could have changed the constitution, but they didn't. LOL

[evmori]

Merlyn,

Maybe because the teacher lounge is on the other side of the building & there isn't time. Why should they have to?

[OldGreyEagle]

Now Boys (Ed and Merlyn) do you two think you could let others play for awhile?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Because they're state agents acting in their official capacity Ed. I doubt teachers can smoke in their classrooms between classes but they can go outside and smoke. And if they don't have enough time to pray or smoke between classes, they'll have to wait for a longer break.

[OldGreyEagle]

Now I can see that merlyn was composing his reponse in the time I made my previous post so Cie l'vie (I think). But could you start arguing with other people rather than just between yourselves

[evmori]

OGE,

I'd love it if someone else would chime in!

 

Merlyn,

And because they are "state agents acting in their official capacity" means they can't pray? Isn't that a direct violation of the 1st Amendment - freedom of speech & religion?

[GernBlansten]

Ed, did it occur to you that the rest of us may not feel your argument worthy of a response?

 

Ok, I'll take the bait. Yes Ed, they can pray. Morning, noon and night. Before, during and after class. They have never been restricted from it. Personal prayer is your right. What they can't do is lead a prayer with the students in a public school setting. What they can't do is give religious instruction to the students in a public school setting. What they can't do is use their power over the children to promote any religious beliefs.

 

If you know of a case that a teacher was restricted from personal prayer, cite it.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, I already answered that question, you just can't learn things.

[scoutingagain]

OK. Ed, teachers have the same right to pray as an individual as students do. However, while a student may be able to lead other students in a voluntary prayer, teachers and administrators may not do so. As Merlyn stated, in thier role as a teacher, they are acting as an agent of the government and must obey restrictions placed on the government by the constitution as interpreted by the courts, who are appointed by our elected representatives.

 

 

SA

[evmori]

Thanks

[FScouter]

You're welcome.

[Rooster7]

Merlyn,

 

I hate to go back two days and three pages (whatever it was), but I have to comment on the absurdity of your premise for ruling out a moment of silence for students to meditate or pray (or whatever else they may chose to do in silence). Your assertion being Muslims want to pray at multiple points during the day. Therefore reserving one time during a schooldays (vice multiple times) for a moment of silent mediation/prayer is prejudicial against them. Moreover, establishing a single moment of silent mediation/prayer is supportive of any/all religions that would endorse such an idea. Thus, given the aforementioned, the state-run school would be establishing a religion.

 

To illustrate how silly of a notion this is consider this:

 

Tomorrow, I create my own religion. I assume thats acceptable to you. In my faith, one must eat one meal at noon each day. Some non-religious folks call it lunch. Regardless, because it is now my religious practice to eat this meal, the public schools can no longer serve lunch at noon. Why? Because it would be a tacit endorsement of my faith, and would constitute the establishment of a religion.

 

Im sure you have some great rationalization to justify one (lunch) and not the other (moment of silence), but I dont see how you can.

 

Now, there be may some other reason to argue against a moment of silence (although I personally would like to see it become a practice), but separation of church and state is a huge stretch.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Rooster7, lunch wasn't created as a 'cover story' to advance a religious practice; in contrast, 'moment of silence' advocates suddenly appeared after repeated attempts to have prayer in schools were rejected. The proposed laws and/or advocates of laws often refer to prayer, too. But if that's the reason, why don't they advocate for moments of silence during the times muslims are supposed to pray? I say it's because these advocates only care about christian prayers.

 

And if adding one moment of silence is OK, why not add 3 or 4? Is there something wrong with that?

[skeptic]

So, how does the recent "Day of Silence" fit in with this discussion/argument? It was the declaration and tacit approval in many schools that no one should talk last Friday to honor the boy apparently killed, at least in part, due to his sexual preference. Is this "silence" an infringement on the rights of those who believe certain choices should not be publicly acceptable? Is it okay to have a "day of silence" to recognize the "rights" of a small segment of society, but not allow similar allowance for the rights of larger segments of society?

 

Inquiring minds want to know!

[Rooster7]

Merlyn writes:

Rooster7, lunch wasn't created as a 'cover story' to advance a religious practice; in contrast, 'moment of silence' advocates suddenly appeared after repeated attempts to have prayer in schools were rejected.

 

What powers do you possess that enables you to decipher the unspoken motives of others? Regardless, its the impact/outcome on the collective group that should drive the Constitutionality of such matters, not the motivation of specific individuals or subgroups. For example, if I believe I have a religious right to procreate, the federal government shouldnt hinder my access to public health care. They should not be questioning my motives or how I came to the door of a public clinic. Its my business, not theirs. To think otherwise is inane and insane. This is the Big Brother mentality at its worst. And sadly, its the mentality that quite a few liberals seem to be adopting today. By your reasoning, if one can prove that an individual gains a religious benefit by some government sponsored event, facility, practice, etc., then the government has a duty to cease its participation in such an event, facility, practice, etc. This brings me back to my original argument (keeping in mind that its the extremes of an argument that proves or disproves its validity). So if one person can claim that lunch is their religious right then by your reasoning, the public schools should stop serving lunch.

 

Merlyn adds: And if adding one moment of silence is OK, why not add 3 or 4? Is there something wrong with that?

 

Because as a practical matter, interrupting the school day multiple times for moments of silence would be counterproductive to the collective group. On the other hand, one can argue that starting the day on a moment silence will allow/encourage the collective group (regardless of individual motives or desires to pray, meditate, or whatever else one can do during a moment of silence) to start the day more focused and committed. Some will scoff at that notion I dont.