Didn't the disciples praise God constantly? We're told to bless our food. We're not supposed to pray to get glory from other people, but we can praise God every day, every where. In the Psalms it says to tell others the wonders of God, to praise God to others. Whether or not praising God is a prayer is, I guess in the eye of the beholder, but there are instances when going into a closet to pray would not work out well.

Don't do it. You're talking crazy! Where's a nifty white jacket when you need one? :lol:

I would have never believed that people in a public school would do HALF of what they were doing to get the original court order. After reading the charges brought before, building on church property wouldn't surprise me at all.

It leaves a lot of room. I don't even choose our week off until we're in the month, lol. That way, right around the time I start to burn out, or something comes up, we're free to take off. Glad I could help :)

Maybe I misread it, but why would they have a dedication somewhere other than the place they're dedicating?

Thanks for the link, it explains the situation a little better. That, even from a Christian pov, is rediculous and definitely crosses all kinds of lines. I understand the court order. And that explains why it was dropped. What in the world are they doing with a field house on church property? Lines aren't even blurred at that point, it makes it impossible for anyone to be in the right. I mean, if they have this at a church then what happens when the members of said church decide to preach or pray on their own property??? That is a mess. That irritates me. We have the right to pray aloud. There are people that believe that prayer must be spoken. I would never dream of interrupting someone mid prayer to tell them to think good thoughts and shut their yap. That evens verges into freedom of speach, imo. Imo, that's too far too. Prayer around the flag pole, the Christian Athletes, those are school clubs and perfectly legal. As long as no one is being coerced there isn't an issue. That idea that the ACLU puts forth concerns me because, imo, it steps over all sorts of boundaries meant to protect religion from government envolvement. Many people are defined by their religion. It's not something they put on and take off. For those people, their religion is a part of who they are.

Yes and the group praying were made of consenting adults. Students might have gone, but the group praying were consenting adults. Again, according to the article, I wasn't there.

Yes, but the charges brought NOW are from a different set of circumstance.

We took off July and take off one week a month. I plan our schedule on the week off and clean house then... I'd go nuts without it (the time off) and by going year round I've found we do more moving forward than reviewing, not to mention it's more realistic in terms of teaching him how real life works. Granted, not many people get a week off a month, but who gets an entire season off?!?

How could I forget Fresh Air??? NPR needs to be added to this poll. That way I can pick one and see the results, lol.

From what the article said, the people praying were consenting adults. They weren't saying 'everyone bow your head' (or so it was portrayed in the article), they weren't requiring people not in the group to repeat the prayer. A group of people can pray in public too. They can do so out loud, they can do so together. They can even stand up and join hands. It's their right to do so. If they had coerced someone I guess the charges would not have been dropped.

Oh, This American Life too

Public prayer is perfectly legal and it does not have to be silent. Forcing someone to bend their religion due to their position is against the Constitution. If they were not coercing, requiring, or mandating that prayer, if it was a prayer in which the participants were willing/consenting, then it does not violate the separation of church and state. If the previous ruling said, as it says in the article, that they are PROHIBITED from participating in or starting a prayer then, imo, that judge ruled contrary to the Constitution and violated their rights as American citizens. If it was, indeed, a group of consenting people praying over a meal then what was the problem in the first place? You don't have to pray silently, there are some that believe prayer MUST issue from the mouth. As long as you are not forcing someone else to pray you are well within your rights.

Right, I don't have a copy of the court order, just the article to go by ;) If it is worded that way, then the ACLU is on the wrong side, imo.

At least you wouldn't have to worry about ds being on the naughty list for the rest of his life ;) I'm not assuming your son is nefarious or anything, for all I know he's happy just seeing her. Maybe I should hush now :)

Sometimes your child becomes a problem child and if you dare point out they're bored, and maybe if they could try to engage your child with more interesting classes or just give them harder work then dc would behave, they read you the riot act for having put them in that position. Oh and you get lessons on how they cannot cater to one child and advanced kids do not qualify for special ed.:glare:

It's just safer for all involved (legally). Maybe she could come up with a parent? Lol, that sounds like buckets of fun, but at least then she'd have a guardian with her.

(Quoted from the article, I added the bold :) ) "Both parties approved the consent decree put in place January 9 under which district and school officials are "permanently prohibited from promoting, advancing, endorsing, participating in or causing prayers during or in conjunction with school events," the ACLU said." They're prohibited from participating in or causing prayers. As a Christian, I see that as a situationg wherein I would be forced to choose God over man. I would feel, in that situation, that it was my responsibility (both as a Christian and as an American) to pray, be it over food or for guidance. That would be a violation of the order, if it's worded as it was in the article, but (as an American) I would be glad to go to court and demand my rights back. Even if I am a school official (I'm not, but for the sake of argument ;) ), I have the right to pray. Now, I'm not trying to say they can coerce or induce others to do so, but if they want to bless their food, then they're well within their rights.

There's plenty of threads on here that I read, but would not post an answer on (I'm getting better ;) ). I get more news from the hive than anywhere else. If Patrick Swayze's death wasn't posted here I wouldn't have know :(

Wait the few months, then have the visit. Really, it's just safer that way. You could get a signed permission slip from her parents and that still won't protect you if they say anything "happened." Especially if they're bf/gf and the things that could happen could result in life long problems for ds.

:iagree: Then tear up the floorboards and FIND THE LOOT! (How's the new baby? Every time I see your smiling face I think, oh how's the weather going! :lol:)

But by the time she's done it's back to work :lol: The real secret is to only glance at anyone else's responses and then just post away ;)

It's time to break out the pry bars and tear down some walls! You could be rich :) No kidding, plastic pirate boxes aside, there could be some loot under the stairs!

Maybe not. At first I was informed, when I complained to the principal (for pete's sake I should've been safe for that sort of treatment from the faculty at least), he informed that religion was not allowed in school and I was lucky they hadn't given me detention for being rude.:glare: Activist that I am, I started bringing my Bible to school and blessing every meal I sat down to... I even wore the Christian junk t-shirts. When he complained, I pointed out it was my right as an American citizen, thank you very much. The middle road has become so narrow it seems almost impossible to find anymore. Either people feel like they're being coerced into silence (contrary to their rights per the Constitution) or they feel like they're being forced to listen (again, contrary to their rights). I don't know what the answer is. If these guys are blessing meals and not demanding every head bowed, then I don't see the problem. If they're forcing the people to repeat the prayer or take part, then I get it. Yes, I understand there was a court order, but where does the court get off telling someone they can't pray at all? I would understand if it said they could not induce or coerce others into praying with them, but not allowing them to pray at all? That seems to go to far, imo. As a Christian, I would see that as putting me in the position where I have to choose which authority I listen to, God or man.

That sounds very bizarre and I would not let them near my home. I'd call Charter and offer to get a restraining order against their company if they continue to trespass onto my property, not to mention harassing us. As for needing to access your house for email, unless he left a disc or his computer, I can't imagine what your house has to do with his email. He could go to the library and access it, assuming he paid his bill. Sounds like they're casin' the joint, so to speak.