AP: First Amendment cited by both sides in school board prayer dispute

[Mister Happy]

http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2283447

First Amendment cited by both sides in school board prayer dispute

NEW ORLEANS Both sides in a federal lawsuit over prayers during meetings of the Tangipahoa Parish School Board have cited First Amendment rights in arguing their cases.

U-S District Judge Ginger Berrigan of New Orleans will decide the issue. She received written arguments from both sides yesterday.

The issue before the federal court is whether prayers during School Board meetings that request guidance from "God" and "Jesus Christ" violate the First Amendment of the U-S Constitution.

The American Civil Liberties Union is representing a parent who contends that prayers typically used to open board meetings violate the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state -- part of the First Amendment.

School board members contend free-speech rights also contained in the First Amendment give them the right to have prayer at their meetings. The board contends its prayers are no different from invocations that open sessions of the U-S Congress, Louisiana Legislature and other public bodies across the state.

[Mister Happy]

What kind of parent is so disturbed by a prayer that they feel the need to get lawyers and sue a school board?

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by Mister Happy

What kind of parent is so disturbed by a prayer that they feel the need to get lawyers and sue a school board?

The kind who feels just strongly enough that the rights they and their children are given shouldn't be violated.

[Mister Happy]

Personally I think it is selfish for one person to try to force a large group of people to change their behavior on his account. Not to mention asking the taxpayers to foot the bill for a lawsuit over it.

I think calling it a violation of rights is a bit extreme. It's a prayer. It's harmless.

Can't he just come late to the board meeting and skip the prayer or something?

I doubt his child goes to the school board meeting with him.

[Ignatius J.]

When you think about it the king was really just as good as congress. I mean he wasn't Hurting anyone now was he?

Why have a revolution anyway?

[codeorama]

If you want to pray, do so at chruch or on your own, schools are for learning, not religion.

What if your child's teacher was a muslim or some other religion that you don't approve of, do you still want them leading your child in prayer?

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

The kind who feels just strongly enough that the rights they and their children are given shouldn't be violated.

Actually, it's because he has an agenda like Michale Newdow did in California. His (Newdow's) daughter is a Christian and so is her mother. His daughter's "protection" was never the issue. He had an agenda to change the Pledge.

Listening to a prayer is not a violation of one's rights, unless they choose to be violated. No one is asking <i>them</i> to pray. They can sit there with their eyes wide open and smile, if they want to. Or, just sit there and scribble on a paper. Do what you want. No one is making them pray. This is silly.

The First Amendment is being grossly distorted today and this is just another example of it. It says nothing about keeping religion out of public schools or any other government-run organization. That was not the intention of our Founding Fathers.

We are still "One Nation Under God."

[codeorama]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

Listening to a prayer is not a violation of one's rights, unless they choose to be violated. No one is asking <i>them</i> to pray. They can sit there with their eyes wide open and smile, if they want to. Or, just sit there and scribble on a paper. Do what you want. No one is making them pray. This is silly.

If they want to have a moment of silence or give them a moment to pray on their own, in their own way, I have no problem with that, but again, do you really want someone from another religion teaching or leading your child in prayer?

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

Actually, it's because he has an agenda like Michale Newdow did in California. His (Newdow's) daughter is a Christian and so is her mother. His daughter's "protection" was never the issue. He had an agenda to change the Pledge.

Listening to a prayer is not a violation of one's rights, unless they choose to be violated. No one is asking <i>them</i> to pray. They can sit there with their eyes wide open and smile, if they want to. Or, just sit there and scribble on a paper. Do what you want. No one is making them pray. This is silly.

The First Amendment is being grossly distorted today and this is just another example of it. It says nothing about keeping religion out of public schools or any other government-run organization. That was not the intention of our Founding Fathers.

We are still "One Nation Under God."

What Newdow did or didn't do has no bearing on this case, this man, or his motives. I'm sure you know that. Not to mention, of course, you have no way of knowing whether Newdow was truly concerned with his daughter's welfare. But its irrelevant to this case anyway.

Like code said, will you be happy when Wiccans demand their equal time? Will you feel that those are upset should just pipe down and go with the flow?

Since others are talking (praying), why must the dissenters be silent? Would you object if they also spoke aloud, perhaps another religious passage or a favorite poem, while the other students said a prayer?

Let them all have a moment of silence to reflect upon whatever they wish.

[Thiebear]

School board members contend free-speech rights also contained in the First Amendment give them the right to have prayer at their meetings. The board contends its prayers are no different from invocations that open sessions of the U-S Congress, Louisiana Legislature and other public bodies across the state.

The Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

How this got turned into: I will sue you if you Pray to open a School Board meeting is in Trial Lawyer 101...

Legally they should be allowed to SAY whatever they want: You take the moment of silence...

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by codeorama

If they want to have a moment of silence or give them a moment to pray on their own, in their own way, I have no problem with that, but again, do you really want someone from another religion teaching or leading your child in prayer?

I just put on a video about bears for my children to watch. In the video it mentioned how that polar bears <i>evolved</i> from brown bears 250,000 years ago. It also told what the <i>native Americans</i> thought about bears, including all their various superstitions and religious connections. It also mentioned what the <i>Hindus</i> thought about the bear and the <i>Chinese</i> (i.e. eating parts of the bear gives wisdom, etc.). Now I don't believe these things at all, and we tell out children that they are not true. Bears didn't evolve, they were created. Wearing bear teeth around your neck on a chain will not give you wisdom or tell you how to find berries in the woods, and eating bear-paw-soup won't impart a bear's wisdom to you. <i>Our kids know what is right and wrong based upon what we teach them.</i> They know that the video is wrong. But it was my <i>choice</i> to let them watch something that I knew was different from what they believed. (See??? And all you anti-homeschooler folk think that we just shelter our kids from reality. No prayer in public school? Who's sheltering now?) Did I make them stay in the room and watch? No. Could they read a book while the video is playing if they wanted to? Yes. They are not FORCED to watch the video. It's their <i>choice.</i> It's the same in the public schools. No one is making the children pray. If they want to sit there and pick their nose they can.

Do you think that ALL the Redskins players are Christians? That would be highly unlikely. Yet, Joe Gibbs leads the <i>entire</i> team in prayer before every game and even at other times. Is he "forcing" the players to be Christians or to pray? No. They don't have to participate at all. We all have a free will.

To answer your question, if I knew that a Muslim teacher was offering prayers to Allah in his class where my kid is, I would simply show my kid why Islam is not the true religion and why he does not need to participate in that prayer. It's pretty simple.

Having said that, I would be all for having a moment of silence. It's middle ground and it would be giving those children that actually want to pray (why are they never considered in this debate?? ) a chance to pray. I could take the opposite position and cry that the atheist is given a privilege that my praying child doesn't have. My child is being discriminated against.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by JimboDaMan

Since others are talking (praying), why must the dissenters be silent? Would you object if they also spoke aloud, perhaps another religious passage or a favorite poem, while the other students said a prayer?

Let them all have a moment of silence to reflect upon whatever they wish.

Because there is no indication that any student was allowed to speak, religious or non-religious. We are talking about a teacher leading them in prayer. Are you saying that it's ok for a student to stand up and voice his opinion out loud in the classroom every time he hears something he doesn't agree with? Wow!!! Code's a school admin. I bet he doesn't agree with that.

If students were permitted to speak out and pray, then the other students should have the right to say something also. But I'm not promoting that. I'm saying if it is done it should be by a teacher or admin.

I don't have a problem with a moment of silence. But as I understand it now that is not standard policy. So the Christians are getting discriminated against, right? They could make that argument. They have a right to pray just as much as the atheist has a right to choose not to pray.

Too much Christian bashing going on in our country. "Tolerance" to everyone but the Christians. :doh:

[skinsfan51]

To follow up my last post, as for the public schools not being a place for religion, I would like to bring your attention to a little-known Found Father named <b>Benjamin Rush</b>. He wasn't so little known in his day. He was a giant among men. But today he's not mentioned much. I wonder why? Read on and you'll find out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benjamin Rush (1744-1813) a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was considered by his peers to be one of the most prominent of the Founding Fathers, alongside Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. Today, for the most part, he is unknown by most Americans. Read the incredible accomplishments of this very important founding father.

As a physician he had no equal and was called the "Father of American Medicine" because of his numerous medical discoveries.1 He was also called the "Father of American Psychiatry", a statement found on his grave to this day.2

Benjamin Rush was also called the "Father of Public Schools Under the Constituion"3 because he was the first to advance the idea of free public schools,4 and also a pioneer in the opportunity for women's education. He helped Abigal Adam's (John Adam's wife) dream become a reality by establishing the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, one of America's first educational institutions for women.5

He wrote textbooks, formed curriculum plans, crafted educational policies, and helped establish five universities and colleges.6 As the founder of public education in America, listen to his definition of what education should contain:

<b>"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty</b>- - -"7

On March 28, 1787 when Dr. Benjamin Rush proposed his plan for public education in America he wrote:

<b>"Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write - - - (and a)bove all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education</b> - -"8

In another educational proposal he wrote:

<b>"It will be necessary to connect all these (academic) branches of education with regular instruction in the Christian religion."</b>9

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To read more click here: http://www.christianamerica.com/foundingfathers/ben_rush.htm

It will also have the sources cited in this article.

[Thiebear]

When it comes to Teachers "Leading" students in Prayer...

I don't care as long as they keep it positive and they change it to include the major 12 religions and such...

Silence is golden also but it's not really against the law..

They can lead in islam one week

Old Testament the next

Wiccan the Next

Hindu the next

Whats the big deal? Again are you afraid a couple of brain cells might be put to use for things outside of Yugio, or Amanda Vines?

A School board meeting can be started anyway the people on the board and the people that put them on the board please... As long as they are not breaking any rules...

[Henry]

When the school board asks for guidance from Jesus Christ, that is not just a prayer. That is an indication that the school system is Christian-based, that the schools in that county are following the tenants of Christianity when making decisions affecting all the children that attend.

This is not the same thing as pointing out that Christians think that God created brown bears on the sixth day. This is not a discussion of a speific religion, it’s an endorsement of one. Which is a step towards the county (read state) endorsed establishment of one over all others. That is the issue here.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by Henry

When the school board asks for guidance from Jesus Christ, that is not just a prayer. That is an indication that the school system is Christian-based, that the schools in that county are following the tenants of Christianity when making decisions affecting all the children that attend.

This is not the same thing as pointing out that Christians think that God created brown bears on the fifth day. This is not a discussion of a speific religion, it’s an endorsement of one. Which is a step towards the county (read state) endorsed establishment of one over all others. That is the issue here.

Bush mentions god quite a bit.. Does that mean the country is Christian based and he should be forced to stop?

The Supreme Court has the 10 commandments on its ceiling right?

Is the law: Local PTA's and Boards shall not pray to one god above another before a meeting or:

Congress shall pass no LAW?

or has this day and age changed what the current law is so that ANY government agency whatsoever can not mention god in any way shape or form???

It's either cut and dry that its not a law and doesnt count or.

Everyone falls under the umbrella and its messy...

Just a question........

[Mister Happy]

Originally posted by codeorama

If you want to pray, do so at chruch or on your own, schools are for learning, not religion.

What if your child's teacher was a muslim or some other religion that you don't approve of, do you still want them leading your child in prayer?

This is a school board meeting not a class. The guy is complaining about what goes on in the school board meeting. I doubt his child was there to witness the highly offensive behavior of people praying.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Mister Happy

This is a school board meeting not a class. The guy is complaining about what goes on in the school board meeting. I doubt his child was there to witness the highly offensive behavior of people praying.

I was referring to the classroom, many people feel that prayer should be in school, I'm against it because even among christians, people have different interpretations, I want my child to learn religion from my family, not from their teachers.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Henry

When the school board asks for guidance from Jesus Christ, that is not just a prayer. That is an indication that the school system is Christian-based, that the schools in that county are following the tenants of Christianity when making decisions affecting all the children that attend.

This is not the same thing as pointing out that Christians think that God created brown bears on the sixth day. This is not a discussion of a speific religion, it’s an endorsement of one. Which is a step towards the county (read state) endorsed establishment of one over all others. That is the issue here.

But by implying this, Henry, you seem to be hinting that this is what the First Amendment was written for: to protect us against a "state endorsed" religion. This is incorrect. America was founded upon Christianity, the Bible and Jesus Christ. To show favortism toward our Nation's roots might be a step, but it's a step back to what we once were, not something that the Founding Fathers desired to protect us against.

The First Amendment is nothing more than a protection against a State <u>Christian</u> Church (read that "DENOMINATION"). In other words, Church of England, or Baptist, or Catholic, etc., and not Islam, Wicca or Mormonism, etc.

To interpret the past by the present is a grave error. To interpret correctly you must go back and put the history in its original context. If you do that the First Amendment is pretty easily understood.

[Mister Happy]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

When you think about it the king was really just as good as congress. I mean he wasn't Hurting anyone now was he?

Why have a revolution anyway?

Are you comparing this guy to our Founding Fathers?

I know you are just trying to protect your precious separation of church and state, but ignore that and look at the core of what is going on here.

Just because someone breaks the law (and there is a question of whether or not a law is even being broken, but I'll assume there is for the sake of this argument), so just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean they need to be prosecuted. Sometimes we just let things go when there is no harm done.

It would be like a cop pulling over a guy for going 1 mph over the speed limit. It would be like calling the cops because a guy that turns 21 on Monday is drinking beer at a tailgate party on Sunday. It would be like saying to the teacher as class was letting out on Friday, "Teacher. You forgot to assign homework."

I hope you get the point. Maybe this is against the law. Maybe, but is it really worth tying up the court, occupying people's time and spending taxpayers money because one guy is offended by a prayer?

[Mister Happy]

Originally posted by codeorama

I was referring to the classroom, many people feel that prayer should be in school, I'm against it because even among christians, people have different interpretations, I want my child to learn religion from my family, not from their teachers.

That is a matter of the curriculum of the school. If all the parents want geometry to be taught in the classroom, the school should be allowed to teach geometry. If all the parents want Christianity to be taught in the classroom, the school should be allowed to teach Christianity. Making a law prohibiting that would also go against the Constitution.

They shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

There should be no law forcing schools to teach religion, and there should be no law prohibiting them from teaching religion.

[Henry]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

But by implying this, Henry, you seem to be hinting that this is what the First Amendment was written for: to protect us against a "state endorsed" religion. This is incorrect. America was founded upon Christianity, the Bible and Jesus Christ. To show favortism toward our Nation's roots might be a step, but it's a step back to what we once were, not something that the Founding Fathers desired to protect us against.

The First Amendment is nothing more than a protection against a State <u>Christian</u> Church (read that "DENOMINATION"). In other words, Church of England, or Baptist, or Catholic, etc., and not Islam, Wicca or Mormonism, etc.

To interpret the past by the present is a grave error. To interpret correctly you must go back and put the history in its original context. If you do that the First Amendment is pretty easily understood.

Interesting interpretation. In fact, it's this attitude that the United States was founded by Christians for Christians that makes people so nervous about giving even a little lattitude on things like this, as well as this attitude that somehow Christians are being discriminated against when they are asked to follow the same rules as everyone else. (Which says to me that either you have no idea what real religious discrimination is actually like or you don't care to know, and that doesn't help your cause.)

I have a little bit of understanding of The Constitution and American History myself, and specifically the Revolutionary Era. So at this point I think it best to just use your technique of noting my extensive education on a subject to legitimize my opinion on it, and say that after four years as an American History major and about a dozen subsequent years of reading and studying the subject I do not share your opinion, which as a non-Christian I quite frankly find rather disturbing.

The Founding Fathers were not gods. They knew they weren't perfect, and as such they designed the Constitution to be left open to interpretation by future generations. The document was created to function above the wishes of any one man, or group of men, the founding fathers themselves included, and designed to evolve as society evolved. It was a brilliant concept, which is why it's the oldest working basis of government in existance. Your constant insistance that we maintain your own personal rigid eighteenth century interpretation of this amazing piece of work not only dishonors those who created it, but crushes the spirit upon which it was written. In my opinion.

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by Henry

Interesting interpretation. In fact, it's this attitude that the United States was founded by Christians for Christians that makes people so nervous about giving even a little lattitude on things like this, as well as this attitude that somehow Christians are being discriminated against when they are asked to follow the same rules as everyone else.

I have a little bit of understanding of The Constitution and American History myself, and specifically the Revolutionary Era. So at this point I think it best to just use your technique of noting my extensive education on a subject to legitimize my opinion on it, and say that after four years as an American History major and about a dozen subsequent years of reading and studying the subject I do not share your opinion, which as a non-Christian I quite frankly find rather disturbing.

The Founding Fathers were not gods. They knew they weren't perfect, and as such they designed the Constitution to be left open to interpretation by future generations. The document was created to function above the wishes of any one man, or group of men, the founding fathers themselves included, and designed to evolve as society evolved. It was a brilliant concept, which is why it's the oldest working basis of government in existance. Your constant insistance that we maintain your rigid, eighteenth century interpretation of this amazing piece of work not only dishonors those who created it, but crushes the spirit upon which it was written. In my opinion.

Thank you Henry. You just did what I've been trying to do for about a month now.

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

Because there is no indication that any student was allowed to speak, religious or non-religious. We are talking about a teacher leading them in prayer. Are you saying that it's ok for a student to stand up and voice his opinion out loud in the classroom every time he hears something he doesn't agree with? Wow!!! Code's a school admin. I bet he doesn't agree with that.

If students were permitted to speak out and pray, then the other students should have the right to say something also. But I'm not promoting that. I'm saying if it is done it should be by a teacher or admin.

I don't have a problem with a moment of silence. But as I understand it now that is not standard policy. So the Christians are getting discriminated against, right? They could make that argument. They have a right to pray just as much as the atheist has a right to choose not to pray.

Too much Christian bashing going on in our country. "Tolerance" to everyone but the Christians. :doh:

If you read my post again, I'm advocating a moment of silence, not a moment of cacophony.

Having a person of authority lead the prayer is not a solution, unless that person does something like rotate through all the possible prayers and meditations the kids want to hear. I suppose that would work, but a moment of silence is simpler.

I fail to see how a moment of silence discriminates against Christians any more than it does against Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and anyone else who might enjoy an affirmation of their beliefs. It treats all equally, which is the very antithesis of discrimination.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Mister Happy

That is a matter of the curriculum of the school. If all the parents want geometry to be taught in the classroom, the school should be allowed to teach geometry. If all the parents want Christianity to be taught in the classroom, the school should be allowed to teach Christianity. Making a law prohibiting that would also go against the Constitution.

They shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

There should be no law forcing schools to teach religion, and there should be no law prohibiting them from teaching religion.

Wrong.

School is not for religion. You can have classes that study the history of religions but in a public school system, they are not going to teach a religion, like a chruch would.

And they shouldn't.