For 30 Pieces of Silver St. Johns County, FL School Board Denies Student Led Prayer. Citizens Speak Out!

[TOMapleLaughs]

I might be generalizing and combining recent thread developments, but It should be fairly easy to defend against a lawsuit conjured up by a group of autistics.

[Wetcoaster]

I agree but....does the US Constitution really prohibit school and public prayer?

[Heretic]

This is the part that I don't understand:

"Ahlquist claimed that its presence was offensive to non-Christians and that it violated her civil rights.".

Offensive? Okay. I find it offensive when people use Jesus Christ as a swear word or God.

I find vulgar language of any kind offensive.

I'm sure many other people are the same.

Yet you never see anyone asking to have it "removed" from public schools.

What about the rights of children to go to a public school free from vulgarity?

[Heretic]

Yes, if such activities are not in accordance with the case law established by the US Supreme Court.

/topic/343674-for-30-pieces-of-silver-st-johns-county-fl-school-board-denies-student-led-prayer-citizens-speak-out/#entry11326242">http://forum.canucks.../#entry11326242

[Wetcoaster]

Yes, I read that - it didn't say it was in the constitution.

[Heretic]

Yes it does. Article 1.

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

This is the part that I don't understand:

"Ahlquist claimed that its presence was offensive to non-Christians and that it violated her civil rights.".

Offensive? Okay. I find it offensive when people use Jesus Christ as a swear word or God.

I find vulgar language of any kind offensive.

I'm sure many other people are the same.

Yet you never see anyone asking to have it "removed" from public schools.

What about the rights of children to go to a public school free from vulgarity?

[Heretic]

According to this: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

"Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause:

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This statement is simple and straight-forward, and applies to all offices in the entire United States, both state and federal. The clause simply means that no public position can be required to be held by any one of any religious denomination. It would be unconstitutional for there to be a requirement that the President by Lutheran, or even for the mayor of a small town to be Christian. Likewise, it would be unconstitutional for a law to forbid a Jew or Muslim from holding any office in any governmental jurisdiction in the United States. (This having been said, it should be noted that several state constitutions do have a religious test — specifically, they deny office to anyone unwilling to acknowledge God or a Supreme Being.)"

[Heretic]

A: Get your knickers out of a twist...you like George Carlin right? You remember the one he did about how there's no bad language? No words that have ever been uttered were bad all on their own...if you remember he said it's the context in which the words are being used that makes them good or bad. And I 100% disagree with you on that...because as long as I can remember all the public schools here in NC have prohibited any swear words being worn on t-shirts in school. I know because I was suspended twice for wearing a White Zombie tee that on the back read "I went to HELL and all I got was this Crummy T-shirt"...so you would be incorrect on that assumption.

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

Exactly!!!!!!!!

So how can an atheist teenager be "offended" by The Lords Prayer?

If you don't like George Carlin - don't watch him.

If you don't like The Lords Prayer - don't read it.

Simple solution eh?

[Wetcoaster]

This is the part that I don't understand:

"Ahlquist claimed that its presence was offensive to non-Christians and that it violated her civil rights.".

Offensive? Okay. I find it offensive when people use Jesus Christ as a swear word or God.

I find vulgar language of any kind offensive.

I'm sure many other people are the same.

Yet you never see anyone asking to have it "removed" from public schools.

What about the rights of children to go to a public school free from vulgarity?

[Wetcoaster]

Article 1?

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch

http://www.usconstit...net/xconst.html

[Wetcoaster]

Exactly!!!!!!!!

So how can an atheist teenager be "offended" by The Lords Prayer?

If you don't like George Carlin - don't watch him.

If you don't like The Lords Prayer - don't read it.

Simple solution eh?

[Heretic]

Because the Lords Prayer as it is sectarian violates that atheist student's constitutional freedom. That's just the way it is. George Carlin and unconstitutional prayer are two wildly different things. One is dealing with freedom of speech...the other is dealing with the freedom of religion...I'm certainly entitled to my freedom from religion as much as you are (hypothetical, since you don't live here..but bear with me) the freedom to practice your own religion. The problem starts when you begin proselytizing and praying in public around those that don't share your beliefs.

[Wetcoaster]

Yes, and I'm fine with that.

But the first amendment is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing there says prayer is unconstitutional...

So which constitutional freedom is violating that atheist?

[Heretic]

Nope. As the US Supreme Court has been clear that is not a solution. I set out the case law above and if you read the Ahlquist case that "solution"(argument) was conclusively dealt with by the court.

[Wetcoaster]

Ok, that's starting to make sense (sorry, I'm not going to pretend that I know the law like you do - cause I don't).

Her being "offended" has nothing to do with it, and that was what I was keying on.

It's more to do with the "public" school being run by the Government and the Government must be neutral when it comes to religion.

Like I said before, I agree that it shouldn't be in the school(s).

But her own statement "described herself as an activist working toward the removal of religious references from government" shows me she's on a crusade, and that she wasn't offended at all - she just wanted it removed.

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

Ok, that's starting to make sense (sorry, I'm not going to pretend that I know the law like you do - cause I don't).

Her being "offended" has nothing to do with it, and that was what I was keying on.

It's more to do with the "public" school being run by the Government and the Government must be neutral when it comes to religion.

Like I said before, I agree that it shouldn't be in the school(s).

But her own statement "described herself as an activist working toward the removal of religious references from government" shows me she's on a crusade, and that she wasn't offended at all - she just wanted it removed.

[Wetcoaster]

K i know this is hogwash...I know quite a few religious people...several Christians, a few Buddhists...the rest of the people I talk to are Humanists...who want all religious references gone from our government. The "In God We Trust" motto on the money is a violation of the US Constitution...as is the "under god" in the pledge...both of whom were only added in the 1950s. We are sick and tired of people's religion being shoved in our face everyday...not only by the religious themselves but the subtle reminders such as what I just described. It really gets to be a nuisance after about 30 years of dealing with this kind of crap. I'm with her on this..it's not that religion itself offends me...it's inconsiderate religious people who like to publicly practice their religion with no regard for the rights of others around them who aren't keen on the whole god trip...understand?

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

WC...just wondering on this...but if they disallowed the Commandments from the school because they wished to separate church and state...then why in the world would they allow them on property belonging to the state government? doesn't that violate the "church and state" reasoning cited for the prohibition of it from the school? I should think having it on the grounds of a governmental building would violate that much more than a school...