Gov. Rick Perry violates the religious rights of children

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

vol_scouter writes:

Here students were prevented from praying on school grounds before school started:

http://faithandthelaw.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/adf-prepared-to-defend-students-prevented-from-praying-in-see-you-at-the-pole-event/

 

I've stated before that "see you at the pole" is legal, and that the ACLU also says it's legal:

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=188951&p=10

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewAllPosts.asp?userID=1102&p=142

 

This group was allowed to have a group discussion on the oval plaza of the US Supreme Court but were told to leave when they bowed their heads in prayer:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4285408/when-is-prayer-illegal/

 

Well, they're being treated like anyone else; it's illegal to demonstrate on the steps of the US supreme court. A lot of people have been arrested for that over the years. The steps of the supreme court aren't like public sidewalks, they're more like the supreme court building itself. The chief justice can pretty much change this if he wants to, since the rules concerning the supreme court building have to be approved by him, so maybe you should berate Roberts for his inhospitality.

 

By the way, vol_scouter, if my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

 

Did you somehow miss this in my last message? Maybe I didn't write it enough, and you somehow didn't see it.

If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

[Tampa Turtle]

I saw arrests at the Supreme Court while my family was visiting. Pro-Life group waited for TV cameras stepped off sidewalk and was promptly arrested. Stay on the sidewalk and you can pray all you want...

 

By the way if you visit the Supreme Court the cafeteria is pretty good--reasonably priced and apparently the "Supremes" do not like anyone else messing with their BLT's or soup. Pelosi screwed up the congressional cafeterias...

[SeattlePioneer]

Interesting that the Supreme Court has little tolerance for those who might "Occupy the Supreme Court" but doesn't mind providing endless restrictions for those who might want to control the occupation of any other place or institution in the United States.

 

When it's their own turf though, they get it.

[Tampa Turtle]

Maybe so but the supreme court building seemed pretty vulnerable to attack. Not like a lot of the other Federal buildings.

 

Also they had a bomb threat that day. Security Guard said it happens all the time.

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

http://www.seattlepi.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=entertainment&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Occupy+Wall+Street%22

[OldGreyEagle]

Personally I am working on what relgious body declares a "christian saint"

[Jay K]

I was sitting in Fifth Grade one day, when the teacher came in and said "The Supreme Court has said that we can't pray in school anymore." It wasn't like we prayed all the time, but we did on occasion. I remember thinking "That's stupid." I STILL think so.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I think it's stupid to have government employees like schoolteachers to lead other people's children in prayer; that's a violation of the students' religious rights. And who seriously wants government employees to tell anyone to pray?

 

Of course, students can still pray in school, so it's possible your teacher got it entirely wrong; but that depends on exactly what your teacher said.

[SeattlePioneer]

I think most human beings have a suscetibility towards venerating various things, which I at least associate with religion.

 

The Pledge of Allegiance would be an example of a secular prayer.

 

ML King Jr. is an example of a person who was CLEARLY a religious leader. But liberalism finds that awkward, so it claims he is a secular figure and has declared his birthday to be a secular holiday --- no different than celebrating the birthday of Jesus. ML KIng Junior is the patron saint of American liberalism.

 

The American left tends to meet for church on picket lines ---see the OWS movement at prayer pretty much any time these days. "Do this in remembrance of me" --- smoke medicinal marijuana --- it's a sacrament!

 

The educated establishment has converted the constitution into a secular religion, in my opinion. And that includes the Supreme Court as the 12 apostles, and all the littler judges and lawyers who tend to take a pew in that church.

 

If it is VENERATED, it's probably a religion, in my view. And if it's supported by the government, it's a state supported religion.

 

I don't think you can avoid that, but conventional religions should be controlling that impulse towards ever more powerful state religions by being able to compete politically with them. No surprise that the Supreme Court no longer wants that kind of competition and regularly patrols the hall of government to exclude competetive forces from challenging the primacy of the state supported religions. The Supreme Court has been vacuuming the competition of conventional religion with the secular religion of government from the public square for decades now.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Can't teach math, either:

http://i.imgur.com/NiYcQ.jpg

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

So the school prevented people from praying at the flag pole no matter you view point. Thus, you are wrong.

 

A small group of people bowing their heads in prayer is not a protest or demonstration - it is Free exercise of religion.

 

So you must support these people because you support the First Amendment?

[Scoutfish]

Having had time toi think about this post since my first comment(s)..I kinda sort have an inkling of a thought about something:

 

I'm kinda thinking ( to an extent) that Perry isn't so much making a statement about religion in schools , so much as making a statement about his own stupidity or inability to understand.

 

Likewise, if the parents of the chilodren who are the subject of this thread do not take time to find out for themselves wether Perry is right or not....well. then I fault them too to some extent.

And by that, I mean that citizens do have a responcibility to make sure what they hear is legit and not misunderstod wether on the part of the citizen or govt representative.

 

For example - thought not the same kind of issue - our pack has a Christmas party at one of our local elementry schools each year.

 

Well, this past year, the county started charging groups for using school property.

 

To be clear, I do think that is a fair idea. I have no issue with a school charging a fee for use of facilities.

 

So anyways, we are planning and comfirming dates and times , etc, and we are told it will cost us $100.00 to use the cafeteria for 2 hours. Not even the whole cafeteria, just the dining facility as we are not using the kitchen.

 

I had remembered the newspaper article announcing that the schools would start charging, but had remembered that youth groups and civic groups were exempt as long as they were not fundraising at the time of use.

 

I just called the County school system a few minute before this post. Turns out that the person we talked to at the local school was wrong. Not maliciously wrong, but just misunderstood policy.

 

Now, I feel as CM, that even though we were told something by a school representative, I was still my duty to check and confirm the validity of the subject matter.

 

And it is going to save us $100.00 in the process too.

 

In the past, I have heard police, fire, EMS, town maint staff, town clearks, librarians, store workers, etc...state what I knew to be incorrect facts and policies.

 

I always made a point of checking to be sure the info I got was correct. On few occasions I would get the run around, but most of the time I could either confirm or dispell the info and would have an authoritve source to substantiate the info.

 

In todays case, I have the name and contacty info of the county dept head who creates and oversees the community use policy.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

vol_scouter writes:

So the school prevented people from praying at the flag pole no matter you view point. Thus, you are wrong.

 

Wrong about what? I've said before people have a right to do this, and I started this thread by pointing out that some ignorant officials unlawfully stop people who are legally praying because they don't understand the law and idiots like Rick Perry aren't helping.

 

So what's the bit I'm wrong about?

 

A small group of people bowing their heads in prayer is not a protest or demonstration - it is Free exercise of religion.

 

I doubt that the security for the US supreme court distinguishes between people praying in protest and people praying for other reasons. Since the marshal for the US supreme court can close any part of it at any time for any reason with no notice, yes, they can tell people to move off the steps when they pray. It doesn't appear the group you linked to ever bothered to file a lawsuit; maybe a lawyer pointed out to them that court security was acting legally.

 

Free exercise of religion doesn't trump everything; you can't insist on praying in the oval office. The US supreme court steps, though they look like a public place, are part of the federal supreme court building and can tell everyone to leave the steps if they want to.

 

By the way, vol_scouter, if my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

 

Did you somehow miss this in my last message? Maybe I didn't write it enough, and you somehow didn't see it.

If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

If my "arguments are not right," quote an argument I've made and point out what is wrong about it.

[CalicoPenn]

Vol - you seem to be proving Merlyn's point - that people just might interpret what Perry said, because he's a Governor, as actual fact and policy when it isn't. The students who were told they couldn't pray at the flag pole were well within their rights and were told the srong thing by the school authorities - but things like that will happen when people try to take even slightly complicated things and simplify it to an idiotic sound bite. The person at the school likely heard just the sound bite from somewhere and created instant policy. Happens all the time.

 

We also are subjected to a media that often doesn't try to ensure that what they print and say are accurate to the actual story. That clip from Fox News about the incident as the Supreme Court is a prime example - while being interviewed, Fox scrolls that the school was told they can't pray yet right from the mouth of the person being interviewed she says the guard told her "I'm not telling you that you can't pray" and goes on further to say the guard told her they just had to do it elsewhere. But because of the way the scroll was written, anyone not paying attention, or too stupid to comprehend anything more than a 4 word sentence, might believe the guard told them to stop praying. An accurate scroll would have read "School told to pray somewhere else". Don't think that makes a difference? Then why do so many people believe that kids can't pray at school? Because they've been told, wrongly, over and over again, by people with their own axes to grind, that kids can't pray at school.

 

Listening further to the woman, she said that they moved down from where they were to the sidewalk in front of the steps and stopped and prayed and weren't bothered. Seems to me they were able to pray after all - just not where they were standing. Should they have been allowed to pray where they were originally standing? Without knowing any history behind why the policy was created (if indeed it is a SCOTUS policy and not just another example of someone misinterpreting the policy), I'd have to say yes they should be allowed to pray there.

 

But just because there are individuals out there that are misinterpreting the rules doesn't mean the rules mean more than they say. Someone saying kids can't pray in schools and stopping kids from praying on their own doesn't make the rule that kids can't pray in school under any circumstances.

[packsaddle]

Trevorum, doth ye protest too much?