[excon]

There is nothing intolerable about what i said

Hello Sold:

Dude. You're telling people who don't agree with you to leave the country. I think it's QUITE intolerant, myself. I actually have to snicker that you think it isn't.

It's OK if you don't want to be tolerant, but to say they've got to leave, That's being tolerant is actually rather... I can't even think of a word that quite expresses it... But you get my drift... Or maybe you don't. Nahhhh, you probably don't.

excon

[RubyPitbull]

The difference is, they are student-led; they don't require a teacher participate. Got two Hindu kids? They can form a Hindu club. Many clubs can be formed (with 2 participants up to 100) and can meet in one large room under the supervision of one teacher; since the teacher doesn't participate, they can supervise multiple groups. When I was in school we formed a writing club, the teacher who sponsored us "supervised" us by coming in every 20 mins or so to make sure we weren't breaking anything. Maybe that's not the way it's SUPPOSED to be done, but if that's acceptable, why couldn't one teacher supervise three clubs in three different rooms?

But beyond that, the key is that the clubs are OPEN to all religions, and from what I've read, the school cannot allow ONE and refuse ANOTHER. It's either allow them all, or allow none, as it should be. It doesn't mean a club has to be formed for each religion, just the OPTION for the club to be formed.

I don't know if all school guidelines across the country are the same. It appears from one of the young posters above, that she does have a Prayer Club in her school. Maybe they include any religions that want to join? I don't know. But, I would imagine if it is Christian based, they probably allow anyone to join and those that are not Christian have decided they don't want to participate. If the other religions don't want to form one, that is also their prerogative. I think the key legal issue is in leaving it open for any student to join.

P.S. Are we saying the same thing? I am not sure. LOL! But it kind of sounds like it.

[Soldout]

I am sorry I didn't notice that in your post Jillian. Yes, teachers cannot participate, but as it stands now, the rules are that a teacher must be willing to sponsor & supervise it.


Soldout, once again you are not paying attention to what is being said. I think many of us here on this thread don't have a problem with prayer clubs. The problem the majority of us have is with prayer being an integral part of the academic curriculum. There are disagreement on this thread regarding the intention and interpretation of the Constitution.

One of the principle reasons this country was founded was to allow freedom from religious oppression. So, in keeping with your last sentence, if you don't like what is occurring in this country, why don't you consider moving, instead of asking non-Christians to do so. Tolerance for others is something that appears to be severely lacking in your statement.

Just in case you did not see this response, here it is. This is what I am trying to explain..
There is nothing intolerable about what I said if read the context of what I was responding to. I was responding to someone who said they should not allow Christians to form prayer clubs because that would mean they would have to accommodate every single religion which would not be physically imposible. So I said if the Christians and other major religions like Islam form these groups, the other smaller religions should not take any offense because the religions that would be represented have make up a much larger percentage of the population. So no I am not intolerent, but I just don't believe they should stop prayer for 1000 people just because 3 people are not going to be represented.

You are right, this country was founded on the princliple of religious freedom and I have no problem with that what so ever. But one thing you have to realise is that this country was founded by Christians and the more than 76% of the population is Chrisitian. So as much as there is freedom of religion people have to come to terms with the fact that is a predomantaly christian population. So obviously Christianity is going to be more prominent, so those who are offended by that can go to a country that has a higher percentage of people who worship what they do. So I don't have a problem with religious freedom, I just have a problem when people who represtent fractions of the population try to dictate how things should happen and stop Christians from doing what they have historically been able to do in this country.

[Soldout]

Hello Sold:

Dude. You're telling people who don't agree with you to leave the country. I think it's QUITE intolerant, myself. I actually have to snicker that you think it isn't.

It's ok if you don't want to be tolerant, but to say they've got to leave, THATS being tolerant is actually rather...... I can't even think of a word that quite expresses it..... But you get my drift.... Or maybe you don't. Nahhhh, you probably don't.

excon

All I am saying is those who can't tolerate Christianity being the more dominant religion in the US (due to its larger percentage representation) can leave and go where Christianity is not so prominent, call that intolerant if you want to but I think that is a logical solution to those who are uncomfortable with Christianity being more prominent.

[NeedKarma]

Yes, really now... lol I am not going to believe some BS you got off the internet that was writen by an athiest with serous wishful thinking..lol I could also find a web sit that says the opposite of that. So if the website comforts you, good for you. :D

Here is the source, I probably should have linked to that first:
The Graduate Center, CUNY

[jillianleab]

I don't know if all school guidelines across the country are the same. It appears from one of the young posters above, that she does have a Prayer Club in her school. Maybe they include any religions that want to join? I don't know. But, I would imagine if it is Christian based, they probably allow anyone to join and those that are not Christian have decided they don't want to participate. If the other religions don't want to form one, that is also their perogative. I think the key legal issue is in leaving it open for any student to join.

P.S. Are we saying the same thing? I am not sure. LOL! But it kinda sounds like it.

I think we are saying the same thing... sort of! :)

It's my understanding that if a school allows student-led religious clubs (prayer, scripture reading, book study, whatever) they must allow ANY religion to form a similar club. So if the Christians in the poster's school have a prayer club, the Muslims can form a Qu'ran study club. It's my understanding it's not joining the SAME club, but forming a NEW club for your denomination, and the school can't say, "You can't form this because you aren't x,y,z religion". So if the Hindus want a club, they can have one, same with the Satanists, the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists - everyone gets a club if they want one.

Maybe the prayer club the poster is talking about is different - maybe it is open to ALL religions, and they take an afternoon to pray to each denomination who is a member, I don't know. My GUESS is that it is a Christian prayer club, and if another denomination wants to pray as well, they would start their own club.

[RubyPitbull]

I agree Jillian. I believe the key to getting around any legal barrier would be to "welcome all." Of course a Hindu won't want to join, but they are free as well to start their own club. Most clubs usually occur after school hours are over. So, kids can either join a club, participate in an after school sports activity, go to the library to study.. or go home.

[miykle]

That's great, really. If kids didn't have prejudices about who went where--more power to 'em!

But--did kids in the 50s have to deal with suicide bombers primarily from one religion? If they had chosen to go to a buddhist or hindu or Russian orthodox "priest" in the days of big, bad, anti-communism, would they have been labeled commie bastards by their peers?

Did we not ? We had the good old boys USA and USSR holding each other by the throat threatening to exterminate every living creature on the planet just to prove who had the biggest you kmow what's, these maniacs today with their po guns don't even come close to total anihilation which we faced in the fifties and sixties.


Also--and really this idea isn't THAT bad an idea--what about those who are from extremely small religions? My religion is less than one percenet of the world's population--does my kid just have to sit quietly with the atheists because the likelihood of a Wiccan priest or priestess going to a school is so slight? Or in a small town, where there may be a school of 204, and 199 are Christian (let's just say there's about 4 different denominations dividing them about equally), 1 is Jewish, 1 is Muslim, 1 is Pagan, 1 is Hindu, and 1 is an atheist. Are you going to still have separate classes for those 5 kids? or will they just all be lumped together as "other"?

What I was getting at was that the whole thing was taken out of the hands of the teachers and the schools and put in the hands of the priests or religious teachers negating all arguments simlpy be leaving it up to the students to decide if they wanted to go or not, provision was made for those who didn't want to go to any religios instruction, no big deal was made about it thats just how it was, but then it only takes one or two petty minded individuals to sour the whole pot doesn' it??


I'm truly not trying to be facetious here--but trying to understand how it might work.

It worked because people allowed it to work "without Prejudice" and we had at least 10 different nationalities at our school, many refugees form europe who's parents had escaped WW2 but to us they were all just people. Australians just accept, we even like Americans.....


I like Ruby's post about the Prayer Clubs--THAT is a great idea, as long as it's led by a student and not a teacher.

Start a club it then becomes an issue and then a clique and then a gang why not just let religion have a set time per week with representatives from denominations and allow the kids to decide for themselves "without prejudice" why is it hard.?

Blessings <M>

[NowWhat]

Because people that don't believe or whatever still have a problem with it. It is what it is.

I think the compromise would be to have a prayer group/club - whatever you want to call it. Sometimes you have to take what you can get.

I think a lot of times, this is a reason things don't get worked out. If one person/group doesn't get EXACTLY what the want - then they keep fighting. Failing to see the compromise.
Here you have people that are against prayer in school saying that they wouldn't necessarily have a problem with a prayer club but that doesn't seem to be enough. No, we want something manditory, have it this way or that way. Etc...
Let's meet in the middle here.

[RubyPitbull]

Mikle, if I remember correctly you are in Australia. The problem in the U.S. is a Constitutional one. Although some people on this thread disagree, the majority recognize that we have a clearly defined separation of church and state. The state oversees the public school system. So, religion instruction is not allowed to be a part of the public school curriculum. Until a group chooses to challenge the constitution by sueing the government, and winning that lawsuit, it won't change. Allowing religious based clubs is the most practical solution.

[RubyPitbull]

You are right, this country was founded on the princliple of religious freedom and i have no problem with that what so ever. But one thing you have to realise is that this country was founded by Christians and the more than 76% of the population is Chrisitian. So as much as there is freedom of religion people have to come to terms with the fact that is a predomantaly christian population. So obviously Christianity is going to be more prominant, so those who are offended by that can go to a country that has a higher percentage of people who worship what they do. So i dont have a problem with religious freedom, i just have a problem when people who represtent fractions of the population try to dictate how things should happen and stop Christians from doing what they have historically been able to do in this country.

Hopefully you saw my post #200 stating that I didn't see your follow up post.

I do realize that the founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian, although there were many different faiths within that framework. Episcopalian/Anglican made up the majority.

I don't think the problem is people being offended by Christianity being the majority religion. But, the constitution is set up so that the rights of the minority are protected. The minority cannot "dictate how thing should happen" and they aren't trying to stop Christians "from doing what they have historically been able to do" (not quite sure what that encompasses. I hope nothing illegal). I think the problem here is that the minority resent being told they have no rights because another group is the majority.

[De Maria]

mikle, if I remember correctly you are in Australia. The problem in the U.S. is a Constitutional one.

I disagree. Its an interpretation problem.

Although some people on this thread disagree, the majority recognize that we have a clearly defined separation of church and state.

I agree. We who believe Religious children should be permitted to pray in Public School believe in the ENTIRE Constitution. We believe in the "separation of church and state" clause of the Constitution as well as the "freedom to worship" clause of the Constititution. .

The "separation of church and state" clause prohibits the government from establishing a national church. But, permitting children of every faith to pray in Public School as directed by their parents is not an establishment of a particular church and definitely not the establishment of a national church..

The state oversees the public school system. So, religion instruction is not allowed to be a part of the public school curriculum.

This has nothing to do with religious instruction but with the free exercise thereof.

Until a group chooses to challenge the constitution by sueing the government, and winning that lawsuit, it won't change. Allowing religious based clubs is the most practical solution.

Not so. All that needs to be challenged is the court ruling. We are not suing to change the Constitution. We are suing to overturn the interpretation of the Court.

Coffee and donuts is good on this side. ;)

Sincerely,

De Maria

[RubyPitbull]

LOL DeMaria! As I said, there are some who disagree. I didn't know if you wanted me to point you out to anyone. I figured you can do that just fine on your own. And you have! LOL. I also didn't have the time to get into the nitty gritty and specifics of it all. Simple is better In my opinion.

Not so. All that needs to be challenged is the court ruling. We are not suing to change the Constitution. We are suing to overturn the interpretation of the Court.
Coffee and donuts is good on this side. ;)

Ah, so you have finally divulged your plan! Okay, good luck with that! I will be waiting with the C & D! See you on the courthouse steps (I'll not only be the one with the C & D but a big picket sign as well. I will figure out a way to include your name here on it, so you will be sure to not miss me.) ;)

[Synnen]

I'd just like to point out that I didn't think that CLUBS should be stopped because we wouldn't have one for every religion. If there aren't enough people in one particular religion that want to participate in a club, so be it.

What I found offense at was the idea that MANDATORY religious time in a public school would very likely ONLY be good for Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

Nearly every other religion has such small following statistically that my kids would be lumped in with atheists, Satanists, Deists, Hari Krishnas, and Followers of Zeus. Seriously--I'm not paying tax dollars for a program that pretty much will automatically single my kids out for not being part of the "in" crowd religiously. And I'm sure as HELL not going to convert.

If you want your kids to pray at school--freedom of religion allows to the do so quietly, and freedom of assembly allows them to create a club.

Why do they have to do it on time that could be better spent learning how not to type like this:

Hi I'm 13 n I tink I mite be pregnunt mi boyfriend n me had sex 2x yest, n 2x mon am I pregunt r should I dump him because I tink he cheats on me with my little sis whoz onle 10 hlp!! I really love him. Ktnxbi.

[miykle]

Ruby Pitbull; That's something I'm not used to factoring into any thing I might ponder, your system is so different to ours, we have no bill of rights or anything like that but we do have a constitution, which can only be changed by a referendum, a country wide vote,and it insures our right to do as we please, within the law of course,but it is not available as a platform for anyone but as a foundation for eveyone, so if I don't like something,say, your doing, providing it's legal, to bad, live with it and get on with your life, but it's not like that with you guys is it??
Blessings <M>

[lobrobster]

But, permitting children of every faith to pray in Public School as directed by their parents is not an establishment of a particular church and definitely not the establishment of a national church..

Hmm. Now I actually have a serious question. It might be a stupid question, but someone please humor me, because I really don't know.

Exactly what does define a church or a place of worship? And couldn't any place where people gather and worship be defined as a church? If so, could De Maria's plan define a school as being a place of worship?

I anticipate De Maria will say no, because they are allowing different religions to pray, but so what? Any praying is considered worship, no? So the public school at least for a period every day would become a place of worship. I think that's a no-no and De Maria and co. really have their work cut out.

[excon]

Hello lob:

Does't matter. Here's the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It's got nothing to do with the building.

excon

[RubyPitbull]

The state oversees the public school system. So, religion instruction is not allowed to be a part of the public school curriculum.

This has nothing to do with religious instruction but with the free exercise thereof.

Mikle, above is integral to the problem (along with the other things DeMaria pointed out). In keeping with the quote Excon has kindly provided, part of the problem that comes into play is: how do you properly separate (or marry, as the case may be ;) ) the freedom to pray where ever and whenever you wish, within the framework of a government run system? DeMaria feels that this is a non-issue due to his (and others) interpretations of the constitution. The U.S. Judicial system, in deciding how to interprete that clause, relies not only on the amendment, but the federalist papers (documents written by the founding father that gives us more info on the intentions behind their words), along with the rulings in prior cases. Now, from what DeMaria wrote in earlier posts, it appears that he would like to establish a general prayer session as part of the curriculum. The problem for him (and others) will be in getting the courts to overturn previous rulings on that same issue. Those previous rulings don't allow for it. So, they will need to present a very cohesive argument showing how the rulings against it were faulty and why they should be overturned.

Mikle, I don't know how your constitution, and system works so I can't comment on how much alike or different ours are from yours. Here, anyone can challenge the laws in place (through a lawsuit filed with the court system). Depending on how the paperwork filed is written, the case will either be heard, or thrown out.

BTW, our voting is done through our representatives in Washington. We elect those representatives. Of course, they don't always vote the way we ourselves might vote on a particular matter, but in theory, all the elected officials are supposed to be a good (smaller) representation of the general population's stance on matters. They vote among themselves and certain laws get passed, or rejected. There is a lot more to it and it is too much for me to get into here, but it is a system that was put into place with the intention to ensure everyone has a voice. The majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority. (Although that too is a part of what DeMaria feels is a matter of interpretation, from what I remember of his earlier posts).

So, IMO, if people want to a more formalized group prayer (currently students are allowed to pray where ever or when ever they like, as long as it doesn't interfere with class time) prayer clubs are a good alternative to the current system in place.

You might want to go back to the beginning of this thread and read the responses from people. Interesting stuff. The original purpose behind Kelly posting was due to an incident in her school. Most of us here, I believe, agree (although many here didn't write a response to it) that the school's response was an overreaction and inappropriate.

[juiceboxx]

I think it's okay and those who don't feel they should participate don't have to do it.
I mean my high school dose it we even have sessions after school...

[De Maria]

Hmm. Now I actually have a serious question. It might be a stupid question, but someone please humor me, because I really don't know.

Exactly what does define a church or a place of worship? And couldn't any place where people gather and worship be defined as a church? If so, could De Maria's plan define a school as being a place of worship?

I anticipate De Maria will say no, because they are allowing different religions to pray, but so what? Any praying is considered worship, no? So the public school at least for a period of time every day would become a place of worship. I think that's a no-no and De Maria and co. really have their work cut out.

As I understand it, the government is prohibited from making any law which establishes a religion. That means, they can't say, "Hey Lob, from now on you and everyone else have to pray to the Cookie Monster."

At the same time, the government must guarantee the free exercise of any religion to which you adhere. That means, they can't say, "Hey Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or any other religious people, if you think you're gonna pray, forget about it. We won't permit you to exercise your religion."

And since "atheists" do not exercise a religion, per se, they fall under the "make no law...prohibiting the free exercise" clause. The government must guarantee their right to exercise or not to exercise any religion. Therefore, they can't say, "Hey Lob, pick a god or else."

Sincerely,

De Maria