Jump to content

Menu

Going to jail for PRAYING?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 380
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kind of reminds me of Daniel. Although Daniel was praying at his home. I do think jail time is over the top!

 

But as a Christian, I try to see this from the side of those that are not. If the major religion in this country was something other than Christian, I would not want my dc to be subject to hearing prayers to a deity that I didn't believe in.

 

I agree with you Heather though jail time is absurd. All the other things you mentioned would be more appropriate to the "crime." They didn't break a law but rather a consent decree. Someone w/a law background would have to jump in and explain what that is and why going against it should result in jail time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_decree

 

I think the issue will be that it was judicially ordered so the people are violating a judge's orders. Judges don't look kindly on that. Contempt of court can result in jail time also ....

 

Ahh, I missed that. So this must be another offense. They must have known what they were getting into then, and should face the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm... sticky wicket. As state employees, they violated the judge's orders. Sounds like the admin knew of the rule and yet decided to ask the other teacher to pray anyways... which is contempt. I guess this is a battle he chose to do and lose his job over it. Jail time is extreme. But that is what is happening.

 

Personally, as a Christian, I see where he is coming from. But as a former public school employee, I don't see where he has the right as a state employee to do this. I recall so many conferences where we were told we can't preach our beliefs in the classroom, no religious jewelry, no bible on the desk, etc. Lawsuit!! Again, it sounds like this is a battle the 2 employees want to wage for their beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/17/florida.school.prayer/index.html

 

They violated a district policy, so suspend them, fire them, whatever you feel good about doing...but jail time? Seriously?

 

It's not for violating district policy. It's for violating a court order. They've been praying over kids for a long time. People complained. Everyone in America that pays taxes is not Christian. They wouldn't stop. They were taken to court and a the judge issued an order specifically prohibiting them from praying during public school activities. They both knew they were breaking court order. I would be very, very offended if someone exposed my children to their personal religious beliefs during a public school activity. I hope they spend a few weeks in jail.

Edited by tdeveson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not for violating district policy. It's for violating a court order. They've been praying over kids for a long time. People complained. Everyone in America that pays taxes is not Christian. They wouldn't stop. They were taken to court and a the judge issued an order specifically prohibiting them from praying during public school activities. They both knew they were breaking court order. I would be very, very offended if someone exposed my children to their personal religious beliefs during a public school activity. I hope they spend a few weeks in jail.

 

:iagree:

 

And I would not be celebrating if they got away with it. Then again, this is one of the reasons I choose to homeschool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They were cleared of all charges! WOO HOO!

 

I don't find that anything to cheer about. If someone is ordered by a judge not to do something, and they do it anyway, they should be held in contempt. I don't care if the issue is praying or anything else.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm just wondering who would've turned them in if everyone was consenting?

 

And I wonder how many "consenting" people there were politely holding their tongue, or silently steaming over their overbearing peers. I wouldn't have turned them in, but I would have mentally put them on the list of "people I try not to work with" because my workplace (a state job) gets just unbearable with wars if religion or politics comes into it. I personally find it distracting when I can't get to the charts because the hospital pastor is laying on hands in the nurses station (this has happened to me) or when I battle with a pastor who won't give my patient a bible without "screening" them first "because there are so many dark things in the OT" (this second incident I did complain about). Nor am I happy when people scream and do happy dances when their candidate, one I think is full of snake oil, wins. We need to work together, and not bring in more reasons to be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find that anything to cheer about. If someone is ordered by a judge not to do something, and they do it anyway, they should be held in contempt. I don't care if the issue is praying or anything else.

 

Tara

 

Well, I guess we just differ on this one. I think our overcrowded prisons should be saved for actual criminals...you know...people who do things that harm others. So yes, I am celebrating that no one's tax dollars will be spent incarcerating two men for praying. ymmv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess we just differ on this one. I think our overcrowded prisons should be saved for actual criminals...you know...people who do things that harm others. So yes, I am celebrating that no one's tax dollars will be spent incarcerating two men for praying. ymmv.

 

I can agree with that, but there's a big difference between cheering the lack of jail time and celebrating the fact that they were cleared of all charges when it appears they've admitted to doing what they were accused of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thikn it's kind of rediculous to forbid people from praying. I remember tons of times people prayed at public events and those who didn't want to participate just stood there quietly, head unbowed. no big deal. But if the judge ordered it, than the offense was against the judge, not praying. (not saying they should or shouldn't have done it anyway. Don't know enough about the case)

 

Can I throw another wrench into the discussion? From the article, "But the American Civil Liberties Union, whose lawsuit led to the consent decree, maintains students have a right to be free from administrators who foist their personal religious beliefs on them." Ok. Sure, at a public school, the public has been pretty clear that it wants a secular education. I'm all for local areas choosing what goes on in their local schools. (Though we seem to be moving away from that.) But this statement just kinda urks me a little. Going to a mostly liberal public school, I can't even tell you how many teachers ridiculed my beliefs or told me I only believed them because my parents told me to. They were free to foist their personal beliefs against religion on me. They did it with great frequency. Maybe I should have known enough to take out a lawsuit against them, but I just sat quietly and took it because it was school and I had to be there and they were often teachers I liked! and I didn't know what else to do. So, ok, leave religion to the parents. But for goodness sake, it goes both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess we just differ on this one. I think our overcrowded prisons should be saved for actual criminals...you know...people who do things that harm others. So yes, I am celebrating that no one's tax dollars will be spent incarcerating two men for praying. ymmv.

 

First of all, I don't quite see it as harmless.

 

And furthermore, being in contempt of court - because it doesn't "harm" others - is OK?

 

How do you feel about folks who consume illegal drugs in the privacy of their own home? Should they be jailed?

 

Does it make a difference to you that these folks are Christian? Would you have the same opinion is they were Muslim? Wiccan?

 

Citizens of all faiths & atheists are spending their tax dollars on these people's salaries. If they can't fulfill their jobs, they should leave. I think it's reasonable to spend a few more tax dollars to emphasise the importance of rule of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yes, I am celebrating that no one's tax dollars will be spent incarcerating two men for praying. ymmv.

 

I guess I misunderstood you. I took you to be saying that you were happy that they were cleared of all charges. I don't want tax money spent to incarcerate people who are not dangerous. Neither do I want people who violate a judge's orders to be given a pass.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they did is criminal and they should go to jail. No two ways about it.

 

Bill

 

Criminal? So this rates right up there with murder and theft, huh? Usually I agree with you, Bill...not this time. If someone prayed a Muslim prayer over my Christian son, I would see it as kindness from them - that they extended a Christian into their prayers. I would not see it as "crime."

 

I understand that the court had ordered them not to do it. I know state employees are not supposed to show preference to a religion in particular...but I also know that, in this country, we have religious freedom. I think that praying for a child is much different than trying to convert a child or having a mass revival right there at lunch. They were blessing the meal, not committing murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreeing with those saying that it was about breaking a court order that they were well aware of, not about the prayer.

 

If a parent ignores a court order to pay support, they end up with several sanctions against them, including possible jail crime.

 

Contempt of court *is* a jail time offense. If it were a restraining order (which in a sense it was) against a stalker, folks would be yelling for jail time.

 

Breaking a judge's orders is just that, and worthy of punishment. That they got off is something shameful in my eyes. Its basically said that the judge's orders are meaningless. If they can't stand in the face of a non violent act, how can they be taken seriously when safety is at risk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.earnedmedia.org/libc0917.htm

 

They were cleared of all charges! WOO HOO!

 

I'm trying to figure out how they were cleared.

 

From the CNN article:

The ACLU filed suit last year against the school district in northwest Florida on behalf of two Pace students who alleged that "officials regularly promoted religion and led prayers at school events," according to an ACLU statement.

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.

Lay was a party in the initial lawsuit, and his attorney was among those approving the consent decree, according to the organization. In addition, the court required that all district employees receive a copy.

(Bold mine)

 

The principal should have taken his stand in the initial case. He agreed, via his attorney, to the terms of the consent decree. What happened to "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No.'" ? If he didn't agree, he should not have consented.

 

The teacher was given a copy of the decree and was also bound by it. I can see his taking a stand in this case since it does not appear that he could have done so in the initial case, but I can't see the principal's argument here.

Edited by Tutor
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a terrible example these men set for their students. They picked a battle that wasn't worth fighting, and disrespected both the law and non-Christian students (and parents). Whoo-hoo. Heroes. :glare:

 

What if the prayers had been Muslim prayers or a pagan blessing?

 

In public settings, let's just not go there. Let's allow our religion to be displayed in our behavior, in how we treat others. "Preach always, if necessary use words."

 

But what the guys in the article did.... wow. Just wow. I'm a Christian and I'm horrified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they wouldn't be going to jail for praying.

They'd be going to jail for violating a court order.

That should have the subject line of this thread.

:iagree: But there's this narcissistic line of thinking I've observed among the few Christians who pull this kind of stunt that says "Whatever WE do is above the law."

 

(I'm a Christian. I love Christians. I am not bashing them - or myself. I'm highly critical of certain stupid acts, though.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090918/ARTICLE/909181057/-1/NEWSSITEMAP

 

This link is to an article in the Sarasota, FL local newspaper. (Accordingly, this is not a "partisan" news source.)

 

The judge ruled that no violation of the court order occurred.

 

Since a number of us in this thread agree that the law should be observed, we can relax, knowing that the official authority has ruled, publicly, that no breach of the court order took place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to follow up upon another question raised by this thread. Some have said that prison should be reserved for those that cause harm. So those that use drugs in their own homes should not be imprisoned? Those that drink and drive several times but luckily don't hit anyone or anything should be let off the hook?

 

I don't agree that this is a rationale that should always be followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So those that use drugs in their own homes should not be imprisoned?

 

If you do drugs in the privacy of your own home and harm no one else, you should not be imprisoned.

 

Those that drink and drive several times but luckily don't hit anyone or anything should be let off the hook?

 

I am far more a fan of house arrest than I am of incarceration. Just because someone is not sent to jail doesn't mean they are off the hook. Suspended license, inability to procure car insurance, impounding of that car, and house arrest are all reasonable consequences that don't involve either jail time or being "let off the hook."

 

I don't agree that this is a rationale that should always be followed.

 

I don't really see the situations your proposed as analogous.

 

Tara

Edited by TaraTheLiberator
formatting issue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Criminal? So this rates right up there with murder and theft, huh? Usually I agree with you, Bill...not this time. If someone prayed a Muslim prayer over my Christian son, I would see it as kindness from them - that they extended a Christian into their prayers. I would not see it as "crime."

 

Yes, it is criminal. They willfully violated a Consent Decree. That gets one jail time anywhere in the Union.

 

Is "contempt of court" on par with murder? Certainly not.

 

But pushing ones religious beliefs on children from a position of authority in a public school is very wrong. It is coercive, and the court made a clear ruling that it must stop. The school administrators, in their arrogance, violated that order, and violated the trust of the parents of the school and the students entrusted to their care.

 

Their behavior was clearly criminal. And they should face the consequences of their deliberate violation of a court order.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Criminal? So this rates right up there with murder and theft, huh? Usually I agree with you, Bill...not this time. If someone prayed a Muslim prayer over my Christian son, I would see it as kindness from them - that they extended a Christian into their prayers. I would not see it as "crime."

 

Yes, it is criminal. They willfully violated a Consent Decree. That gets one jail time anywhere in the Union.

 

Is "contempt of court" on par with murder? Certainly not.

 

But pushing ones religious beliefs on children from a position of authority in a public school is very wrong. It is coercive, and the court made a clear ruling that it must stop. The school administrators, in their arrogance, violated that order, and violated the trust of the parents of the school and the students entrusted to their care.

 

Their behavior was clearly criminal. And they should face the consequences of their deliberate violation of a court order.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But pushing ones religious beliefs on children from a position of authority in a public school is very wrong. It is coercive, and the court made a clear ruling that it must stop. The school administrators, in their arrogance, violated that order, and violated the trust of the parents of the school and the students entrusted to their care.

 

I'm a deeply committed, very conservative Chrisitian.

 

And I couldn't agree more, Bill.

 

My dc don't go to public school. But, they do go to story time at the local public library. If their story time teacher decided to pray over the children, without consent from me personally, I'd be livid. LIVID. I don't care if she's Christian, Muslim, Pagan, whatever. No one has the right to pray, out loud, with my children without my consent. Neither do they have the right to 'teach' them about any religion without my consent. Frankly, no one has the right to my child, in any way shape or form, without my consent. By signing my children up for storytime, I don't give consent for whatever the teacher wants to teach my child. I give consent to what is in the description published about storytime; 'games, songs, crafts', etc.

 

There are, in fact, some storytime sessions that we have intentionally skipped due to the nature of the holiday being celebrated. I always tell the teacher the week before that we will be absent; she always understsands, since she knows us personally, and knows why we won't be there.

 

It is my experience that even others who call themselves Christian often can hold beliefs that I highly disagree with, and that I wouldn't want taught to my children. So no, I wouldn't be at all comfortable with some school official praying over my children, even if he claimed it to be a 'Christian' prayer. Unless I know him personally, I'm not trusting him with the religious instruction or prayer life of my children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I wonder how many "consenting" people there were politely holding their tongue, or silently steaming over their overbearing peers. I wouldn't have turned them in, but I would have mentally put them on the list of "people I try not to work with" because my workplace (a state job) gets just unbearable with wars if religion or politics comes into it. I personally find it distracting when I can't get to the charts because the hospital pastor is laying on hands in the nurses station (this has happened to me) or when I battle with a pastor who won't give my patient a bible without "screening" them first "because there are so many dark things in the OT" (this second incident I did complain about). Nor am I happy when people scream and do happy dances when their candidate, one I think is full of snake oil, wins. We need to work together, and not bring in more reasons to be different.

That's what I have to wonder, though. The article says it was a group of consenting adults, I'm guessing that's why the charges were dropped, but why consent if you're going to complain later?

 

Why let someone lay hands if you don't want them to, especially if you will (which you didn't) complain later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to follow up upon another question raised by this thread. Some have said that prison should be reserved for those that cause harm. So those that use drugs in their own homes should not be imprisoned? Those that drink and drive several times but luckily don't hit anyone or anything should be let off the hook?

 

I don't agree that this is a rationale that should always be followed.

It depends on who's in their home. It depends on who's in the car and how they're driving.

 

I've known alcoholics that could function, just like everyone else (with bad breath). They weren't a danger on the roads because, fortuneatly or not, they're body had become accustomed to that level of alcohol. If they're driving normally and can pass the various tests (walk a straight line, etc), then I don't think they should be arrested. They're functioning normally, why send them to prison?

 

As far as drugs go, if there are other people involved it becomes harder to say if someone is being harmed. Sure, they're doing drugs in their home, but how did they get those drugs? As long as drugs are illegal, people are going to be hurt by them. Maybe not the users, although that's in the eye of the beholder, maybe not even their families, but somewhere down the line, the kids living in crime riddled neighborhoods where Barbie and Ken go to get their smack are being hurt. The sheer deceptiveness of the whole endeavor causes hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to avoid religion being "pushed" on my children is for them to attend an Orthodox parochial school, or to be homeschooled.

 

In the public schools, a religious worldview that has ended up being called, in general terms, "humanism" (and which is palatable to atheists) concretely "pushes" religion on the children and adults present. No word games -- it is a religious point of view.

 

In numerous other situations, my children and I have somebody else's religious worldview "pushed" on us. Generally it assumes the form of a group prayer, the content of which is fully alien to us, even if the prayer would be labelled "Christian." (Often it is a prayer addressed to some mish-mosh generic "god" which, in my framework, does not even exist to be a problem in the first place.)

 

I don't get bent out of shape over this generic public action, an action which contains scant content to anyone other than the person who is praying aloud. I just read a book, look out the window, pray silently, or whatever. I never would waste my time arguing against the majority culture. (and I speak of both public schools and group meetings) My time is far better spent raising my children in our family's faith, which includes allowing freedom to adherents of other religions.

 

The only time that I did feel angry was when, at my older boys' Montessori school, the children were up on a stage at an end-of-year performance, rotating in some pagan-style dance dedicated to the sun, and intoning some hymn-style song to the earth. My anger in that instance, though, was because the school lacked the wit to ask parents for permission. In that instance, we definitely were "forced" into something we believe wrong.

 

Interesting thought that my children are "in the care" of an outside school. I don't think so. In loco parentis expired as a concept many years ago.

Edited by Orthodox6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I have to wonder, though. The article says it was a group of consenting adults, I'm guessing that's why the charges were dropped, but why consent if you're going to complain later?

 

 

The article does not say it was a group of "consenting adults". It says:

 

...this was a school-sponsored event attended by students, faculty and community members.

 

So the Administrator was pushing his beliefs on students, faculty, and community members without their consent. That is a very serious over-stepping of acceptable practice, and specifically against a Court Order.

 

Were the Administrator enjoined from telling his students that "God is a delusion", and he persisted, same deal. He ought to be fired and jailed for Contempt of Court. You can't let your personal convictions place you above the law.

 

These people willfully contravened a Court order. It is not a difficult case to judge.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I have to wonder, though. The article says it was a group of consenting adults, I'm guessing that's why the charges were dropped, but why consent if you're going to complain later?

 

 

The article does not say it was a group of "consenting adults". It says:

 

...this was a school-sponsored event attended by students, faculty and community members.

 

So the Administrator was pushing his beliefs on students, faculty, and community members without their consent. That is a very serious over-stepping of acceptable practice, and specifically against a Court Order.

 

Were the Administrator enjoined from telling his students that "God is a delusion", and he persisted, same deal. He ought to be fired and jailed for Contempt of Court. You can't let your personal convictions place you above the law.

 

These people willfully contravened a Court order. It is not a difficult case to judge.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The judge, the one who gave the original Consent Decree, found after a 10 hour hearing, that the men did not intentionally violate her order. The Washington Times had the following in an article about it,

 

"Glenn Katon, director of the Florida American Civil Liberty Union's religious freedom project, said the judge 'made an honest evaluation of the facts and applied the law. I respect her ruling just as I hope school officials will respect her order prohibiting them from promoting their personal religious beliefs in the classroom and at school events,' he added."

 

Mary

 

ETA: The article also said the prayer was a blessing over the food at at luncheon for school employees and booster club members. There was no proselytizing.

Edited by Mary in VA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thikn it's kind of rediculous to forbid people from praying. I remember tons of times people prayed at public events and those who didn't want to participate just stood there quietly, head unbowed. no big deal. But if the judge ordered it, than the offense was against the judge, not praying. (not saying they should or shouldn't have done it anyway. Don't know enough about the case)

 

Can I throw another wrench into the discussion? From the article, "But the American Civil Liberties Union, whose lawsuit led to the consent decree, maintains students have a right to be free from administrators who foist their personal religious beliefs on them." Ok. Sure, at a public school, the public has been pretty clear that it wants a secular education. I'm all for local areas choosing what goes on in their local schools. (Though we seem to be moving away from that.) But this statement just kinda urks me a little. Going to a mostly liberal public school, I can't even tell you how many teachers ridiculed my beliefs or told me I only believed them because my parents told me to. They were free to foist their personal beliefs against religion on me. They did it with great frequency. Maybe I should have known enough to take out a lawsuit against them, but I just sat quietly and took it because it was school and I had to be there and they were often teachers I liked! and I didn't know what else to do. So, ok, leave religion to the parents. But for goodness sake, it goes both ways.

I have never seen anyone argue otherwise.

 

 

I could see losing their jobs, but jail time? - no. This is in the South where football is nearly a religion and prayer goes hand in hand. Now, that might not be acceptable anymore and I understand that. I think what they did was wrong but I am guessing it wasn't malicious. Aren't there better things to jail people for?

 

If they got off there must be detail we don't know about. After being on a jury I have realized there is a lot more to this stuff than you see in the news. It can be very complicated, even when it looks simple.

As a person who lives in the South and has taught in public schools in the South, I can say that not all of us agree with that.

 

 

That's what I have to wonder, though. The article says it was a group of consenting adults, I'm guessing that's why the charges were dropped, but why consent if you're going to complain later?

 

Why let someone lay hands if you don't want them to, especially if you will (which you didn't) complain later?

As Spy Car pointed out, the article didn't mention "consenting adults." Regardless, I will say that as a teacher in a very conservative, Bible Belt area, it isn't a good feeling to be placed in such a position and feel that publicly you must keep your mouth shut for fear of being ostracized and eventually losing your job. Even adults in a public school setting should not be put in such a position.

 

 

So the subject line should have been something like:

 

"Going to jail for CONTEMPT OF COURT?"

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article does not say it was a group of "consenting adults". It says:

 

...this was a school-sponsored event attended by students, faculty and community members.

 

So the Administrator was pushing his beliefs on students, faculty, and community members without their consent. That is a very serious over-stepping of acceptable practice, and specifically against a Court Order.

 

Were the Administrator enjoined from telling his students that "God is a delusion", and he persisted, same deal. He ought to be fired and jailed for Contempt of Court. You can't let your personal convictions place you above the law.

 

These people willfully contravened a Court order. It is not a difficult case to judge.

 

Bill

(From the article) Attorneys from Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group helping defend Lay and Freeman, have said that attendees included booster club members and other adults who helped the field house project -- all "consenting adults."

 

 

Sorry, but I loled at your assertion regarding "God is a delusion." They poured that stuff out when I was in high school and if, as a religious student, you rejected that opinion you were rediculed.

 

 

What does Order of Consent mean? In other words, if as the article stated, this was a group of consenting adults, would that fall under the consent part of the order? I'm curious at to why the name (order of CONSENT) seems directly contrary to what little they say of the actual order (absolutely not, seemingly regardless to consent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been a repeated problem in the state of FL for a very long time. When I lived in Jacksonville in 1990 my oldest dd was in 1st grade. She was not being taught to read, write or add but she was being taught Bible stories, hymns and prayers. Paperwork was sent home to this affect. A group of parents bought charges against the school district. It was proven that the school district condoned of this and admitted as much. They had received a court order to cease and desist and did not. They were also cleared of all charges. I have heard of this happening a few other times since then. I think the fact that the school systems and administrators have never lost a case yet is making them quiet brazen in violating the law. It seems that this part of the constitution is not applicable in the state of FL.

 

I was livid and my children never again attended a FL public school. As a matter of fact, I believe that my older children only attened one additional year of school period while they lived with me. I am not in favor of putting non-violent criminals in jail but neither do I think that they should have been cleared of all charges. I think that at the very least the should have lost their jobs and had their educator's license revoked in that state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That isn't right either.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I don't see it as telling anyone they can't pray at all - - you can certainly bless your own meal, even pray throughout the entire meal if you like. You don't have to command attention and bless everyone's meal; God is going to hear your prayer even if it's silent.

 

If you have a diverse group of people at a meal, and you let the Christians call for prayer, the surely the Muslims, Budhists and so forth should get a call to prayer as well? And then the chicken will be cold, and no one will be happy.

 

Pray over your own meal. Let others do the same, or not. No one is trying to stop that, not in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it as telling anyone they can't pray at all - - you can certainly bless your own meal, even pray throughout the entire meal if you like. You don't have to command attention and bless everyone's meal; God is going to hear your prayer even if it's silent.

 

If you have a diverse group of people at a meal, and you let the Christians call for prayer, the surely the Muslims, Budhists and so forth should get a call to prayer as well? And then the chicken will be cold, and no one will be happy.

 

Pray over your own meal. Let others do the same, or not. No one is trying to stop that, not in the least.

I agree with this (except I don't believe in God).

 

I'm not opposed to people being able to wear Christian jewelry and such to school, and I've yet to attend a school or teach in a school where it wasn't allowed. However, unfortunately, some people truly do not know where to draw the line. For example, in 2008 when I was teaching, I had a 6th grade student who wore a shirt to school that said, "Without Jesus, it's hell." She truly did not understand why it was inappropriate for her to wear such a shirt to school. It was so much a part of her beliefs and upbringing that she truly didn't see how it could be wrong to wear it. These kids grow into adults (like her parents, who also didn't understand why she shouldn't have worn the shirt to school) who don't know where to draw the line with their religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it as telling anyone they can't pray at all - - you can certainly bless your own meal, even pray throughout the entire meal if you like. You don't have to command attention and bless everyone's meal; God is going to hear your prayer even if it's silent.

 

If you have a diverse group of people at a meal, and you let the Christians call for prayer, the surely the Muslims, Budhists and so forth should get a call to prayer as well? And then the chicken will be cold, and no one will be happy.

 

Pray over your own meal. Let others do the same, or not. No one is trying to stop that, not in the least.

(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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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.

 

Yes, I agree with the final bolded sentence. But what you quoted is from the ACLU, not the actual court order; it's in casual, rather than legal, language. If the actual court order can be read in such a way as to prohibit silent prayer over your own meal, I think some law clerk's going to be in a lot of trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with the final bolded sentence. But what you quoted is from the ACLU, not the actual court order; it's in casual, rather than legal, language. If the actual court order can be read in such a way as to prohibit silent prayer over your own meal, I think some law clerk's going to be in a lot of trouble.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...