Going to jail for PRAYING?

[Haiku]

Well, you would need to read ALL of my words posted on this thread to understand where I am coming from...and maybe even then you still won't.

 

I have read them all, and I still don't get it.

 

I am deeply committed to my religious faith. But it does not diminish me or my faith to refrain from leading other people in my prayers.

 

Tara

[Jen500]

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

 

BTW I agree with you on this. Our jails are already overcrowded.

[PineFarmMom]

Heather, what would you do if your son's teachers or principal started leading a non-Christian prayer for their class every day?

 

You know, this whole topic brought to mind a situation in my sister's kids' school here in TX. About 2 years ago, a Muslim group came and spoke at an assembly in the middle school, talking up the Muslim beliefs, basically "evangelizing" from a Muslim perspective, etc. This had NOT been cleared with the parents, so the parents didn't even have the the foreknowledge and choice to remove their children from it that day. Parents were furious. I don't even think that made national news...weird how this small prayer is getting such news coverage. :001_huh: The principal was fired, because none of the parents trusted her after that. I was actually surprised that even happened.

[mommaduck]

Again, was this luncheon for adults and a few students just happened to present? This luncheon was held where? (I'd like to see a legal source on this one since no one can agree)

 

 

Middle of the school day, at school, at a luncheon for adults and students...no, absolutely not.

 

Middle of the school day, off school property, with adults (even if a few students were there for whatever reason)...not as big a deal.

 

Off school property...tough cookies, they can do what they want.

[monk17]

You can't hold up your religious book in this country and declare that it's above the law. It's pretty straight forward, there's no Christianity in our constitution. You can dislike that and work for a change within our system but it simply is not there. We have a wall of separation between Church and state. Get a constitutional amendment or have a revolution but within the dictates of the law that's how it is.

 

After you've been warned and still break the law you should go to jail.

[mommaduck]

Our faith does come before the law. And like Daniel and the 3 Hebrew Youths, we are willing to go to jail for it if the law demands that we break with our faith in any area. We are to obey the law in as far as it does not cause us to disobey Gd.

 

You can't hold up your religious book in this country and declare that it's above the law. It's pretty straight forward, there's no Christianity in our constitution. You can dislike that and work for a change within our system but it simply is not there. We have a wall of separation between Church and state. Get a constitutional amendment or have a revolution but within the dictates of the law that's how it is.

 

After you've been warned and still break the law you should go to jail.

[PineFarmMom]

Our faith does come before the law. And like Daniel and the 3 Hebrew Youths, we are willing to go to jail for it if the law demands that we break with our faith in any area. We are to obey the law in as far as it does not cause us to disobey Gd.

 

:iagree:

[Murphy101]

Nothing to do but hold various sick kids so I might as well join this conversation.

 

The 10 commandments should not be in any American court area. They are not the law of the land and thus have no place there. and not all tax payers adhere to it. That and I would prefer a catholic version be used. ;)

 

I think anyone can pray anywhere and they don't have to keep silent either. If this guy had simply said grace over his meal or shared a grace with a fellow Christian - fine. If he LED a prayer OVER the group without being asked by the group - not fine. That would have been intrusive bc he knew good an well that some wouldn't appreciate it.

 

If it was church grounds then bets off bc of course they can pray at church.

[mommaduck]

Nothing to do but hold various sick kids so I might as well join this conversation.

 

The 10 commandments should not be in any American court area. They are not the law of the land and thus have no place there. and not all tax payers adhere to it. That and I would prefer a catholic version be used. ;)

 

I think anyone can pray anywhere and they don't have to keep silent either. If this guy had simply said grace over his meal or shared a grace with a fellow Christian - fine. If he LED a prayer OVER the group without being asked by the group - not fine. That would have been intrusive bc he knew good an well that some wouldn't appreciate it.

 

If it was church grounds then bets off bc of course they can pray at church.

 

:iagree:I can agree with this post.

[Ravin]

One thing I can't help wondering is why so many people seem to think losing one's job is a lesser penalty than a couple of weeks' jail time.

[Jen500]

One thing I can't help wondering is why so many people seem to think losing one's job is a lesser penalty than a couple of weeks' jail time.

 

Well, it can be much harder to get a job w/a criminal record.

[KidsHappen]

.

 

Heather,

 

I am not easily offended but in the situation I described with my dd in the FL school system below, yes, I was offended and deeply so. It did feel hostile. The teachers and administration had been to told not to continue to promote Chrsitianity at school and they defied a court order to do so even though they knew that they were offending non-Christians and driving a wedge between children and their parents.

 

Perhaps, instead of looking at this as a Christian who believes that only kind thoughts were intended, try to look at it from the point of view of a parent whose child's school administration was repeatedly telling your child that there was NO God and and undermining their parents beliefs to the contrary. And then continuing to tell your child that publicly many times after receiving a court order to stop. It would be very hard to not interpret this as hostile.

 

In my entirely PS school career prior to college, I never once heard a teacher give their stand on or tell their beliefs regarding religion even if directly asked and this was way back when it was more acceptable to do so and in the deep south where pretty much everyone was Christian and proud of it. If all of my teacher would refrain from it in that social context then certainly teachers should be even more capable in today's multi-cultural society.

 

I am sorry but when you have people in a position of power in a school setting defying a court order to pray to/over/around/with children then yes, it can be interpreted as hostile and if it is proven that they have broken the law then they should be punished accordingly. As I stated in post below, incarciration seems extreme and I do believe prison space should be reseved for dangerous criminals but other punishments could have been administered.

[mommaduck]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17160

During a luncheon to honor those who contributed toward the public school's athletic Field House, Principal Lay reportedly asked Freeman to offer a blessing for the meal. Students were not present at the time of the blessing.

[lionfamily1999]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17160

At this point, I'm pretty sure you could have a quote from the judge saying it was held on church property (oh wait, I DID) and it wouldn't matter.

 

No one cares that this incident was completely separate from what got them the court order. No one cares that it was in a different venue with different people. They just want these guys strung up, period.

 

The Bible is above the law. Period. If you push Christians to choose they will side with God. Making laws that infringe upons people's rights to exercise their religion are EXACTLY what the wall of separation was supposed to prevent.

[mommaduck]

Exactly.

[PineFarmMom]

At this point, I'm pretty sure you could have a quote from the judge saying it was held on church property (oh wait, I DID) and it wouldn't matter.

 

No one cares that this incident was completely separate from what got them the court order. No one cares that it was in a different venue with different people. They just want these guys strung up, period.

 

The Bible is above the law. Period. If you push Christians to choose they will side with God. Making laws that infringe upons people's rights to exercise their religion are EXACTLY what the wall of separation was supposed to prevent.

 

Very well said!!!:iagree::iagree:

[monk17]

Our faith does come before the law. And like Daniel and the 3 Hebrew Youths, we are willing to go to jail for it if the law demands that we break with our faith in any area. We are to obey the law in as far as it does not cause us to disobey Gd.

 

That's your choice, but don't complain when you go off to jail. We're not a Christian Theocracy. I think the gentleman knew the consequences and wanted to spark some righteous anger in the community.

[Murphy101]

Correction:

the bible/church is above UNJUST law

 

just laws tend to not cause a problem with religion

 

if the law is saying that bc they are teachers they cannot pray at work - that is unjust

 

if the law is saying that they cannot LEAD prayers during school events or set required student time/functions aside for prayer - that is reasonable.

[mommaduck]

That's your choice, but don't complain when you go off to jail. We're not a Christian Theocracy. I think the gentleman knew the consequences and wanted to spark some righteous anger in the community.

I think you missed the actual issue.

 

NO STUDENTS. ON CHURCH PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE JUDGE (unless someone can show me COURT RECORDS stating otherwise...I've been looking). The ONLY thing it had connection with the school is that it was a prayer over a meal that was in Thankfulness for a new building. Heavens, we pray for schools, students, teachers, politicians, etc in churches everywhere. Is that now forbidden?

 

And btw, I'm GLAD this is not a Theocracy! At the same time, we are supposed to have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion (in case you didn't get that the last half dozen times it was mentioned in the thread).

[Mrs Mungo]

Looks to me as if there is a lot of disagreement on where it was and who was present. I think this local religious newspaper probably has it most right:

 

http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/10782.article

 

Pace High School principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman were charged with criminal contempt of court at risk of jail time and a fine after Rodgers cited them with violating a court order stemming from a mealtime blessing last winter at the school.

The blessing, a short “Christian” prayer by both men’s admission, occurred when Lay asked Freeman to pray before a lunchtime gathering Jan. 28 in a newly constructed field house at the high school where about 30 boosters were invited to celebrate the completion of the new athletic facility.

Rogers said the prayer, occurring just nine days after she had issued a temporary injunction against such activity, still appeared to be spontaneous and not a willful violation of her order. Lay and Freeman, along with witnesses who testified on their behalf, said they believed because the event was for adults it fell into a different category and was exempted from the types of school-sponsored activities in which prayer was expressly forbidden.

One of four witnesses testifying for the government against Lay and Freeman, Simpson said she believed the district should admit liability to the ACLU when there are complaints to “avoid legal fees,” and said she was “totally shocked” when Lay asked Freeman to pray at the lunch to which she was an invited guest.

Simpson said she did not indicate to anyone there, however, it would be inappropriate to pray—even as a board member—but testified she called the district superintendent’s office and the district’s attorney to report Lay’s actions after returning home.

“I have made the statement, that’s when he should have been suspended,” Simpson said, under cross-examination. Emphasizing there were culinary arts students serving a meal in the room, it was still unclear after her testimony whether Simpson believed it was the presence of students which caused Lay and Freeman to violate the judge’s order or the act of praying.

It seems the reason they were not held in contempt was because the event was not intended for students, it was intended for adults. There were students present but the event was not *for* them.

 

 

 

Daniel was forbidden from praying under the law, at all, including in his own home. There is no comparison to that and school officials proselytizing to school students under their authority (the original complaint included school officials talking to students about judgment day, etc, not innocuous prayers).

Edited September 20, 2009 by Mrs Mungo
typo

[mommaduck]

Looks to me as if there is a lot of disagreement on where it was and who was present. I think this local religious newspaper probably has it most right:

 

http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/10782.article

 

It seems the reason they were not held in contempt was because the event was not intended for students, it was intended for adults. There were students present but the event was not *for* them.

 

 

 

Daniel was forbidden from praying under the law, at all, including in his own home. There is no comparison to that and school officials proselytizing to school students under their authority (the original complaint included school officials talking to students about judgment day, etc, not innocuous prayers).

 

Thank you, Mrs Mungo, for that article.

 

In regards to Daniel, he was brought up with the statements that "if it's against the law then a person should be in jail" as though the law is never excessive. Also to show that there are times where a person's faith is placed above the law. Consequences, yes. But when it comes to a matter of faith, a person may very well choose to suffer legal consequences over spiritual ones.

[KidsHappen]

At this point, I'm pretty sure you could have a quote from the judge saying it was held on church property (oh wait, I DID) and it wouldn't matter.

 

No one cares that this incident was completely separate from what got them the court order. No one cares that it was in a different venue with different people. They just want these guys strung up, period.

 

The Bible is above the law. Period. If you push Christians to choose they will side with God. Making laws that infringe upons people's rights to exercise their religion are EXACTLY what the wall of separation was supposed to prevent.

 

 

 

I was not addressing this case. I specifically stated with regards to the case concerning my dd which I posted below. I was commenting on the general concept not the particulars of this case, the reason being is that I am not sure anyone really knows exactly what happened in this case, particularly anyone in this thread. I have read several different reports on this so far the only thing that I am sure of is that some administrators prayed somewhere and someone complained. I have no idea exactly where this tooks place (school property on church grounds?), or who was present (adults only but student present?). I have yet to read a complete report that made any sense or answered all the questions. So I have not saw fit to comment on this case. I was only commenting on continuing problems with PS systems in the state of FL and why parents may have a problem with it. It is possible that these on going problems are feeding into the controversy in this case.

[Spy Car]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17160

 

I think you missed the actual issue.

 

NO STUDENTS. ON CHURCH PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE JUDGE (unless someone can show me COURT RECORDS stating otherwise...I've been looking). The ONLY thing it had connection with the school is that it was a prayer over a meal that was in Thankfulness for a new building. Heavens, we pray for schools, students, teachers, politicians, etc in churches everywhere. Is that now forbidden?

 

 

The article you linked to makes it clear this event was at Pace High School (a public school) not a church. And this article, from a local source, shows that a School Superintendent swore under oath that children that children were present at the event on campus.

 

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/lar...pensacola.htm

 

You can stick your finders in your ears if you choose, but the situation is pretty clear.

 

Bill

Edited September 20, 2009 by Spy Car

[asta]

Our faith does come before the law. And like Daniel and the 3 Hebrew Youths, we are willing to go to jail for it if the law demands that we break with our faith in any area. We are to obey the law in as far as it does not cause us to disobey Gd.

 

Wow. Just, wow.

 

This just goes so beyond this thread, I'm not quite sure what to say.

 

How about: I live in a Republic that was created by a handful of guys who were identified as Episcopalian/Anglican (31 - one who was a Deist), Presbyterian (16), Congregationalist (8), Quaker (3), Catholic (2), Methodist (2), Lutheran (2) and Dutch Reformed (2) who all insisted upon the separation of church and state?

 

Where do you live?

 

 

a

[lionfamily1999]

Correction:

the bible/church is above UNJUST law

 

just laws tend to not cause a problem with religion

 

if the law is saying that bc they are teachers they cannot pray at work - that is unjust

 

if the law is saying that they cannot LEAD prayers during school events or set required student time/functions aside for prayer - that is reasonable.

You're right. Sorry, I overstepped it. We are to bow to our leaders, as they have been appointed by God. The Bible is above the law, but we are required to be just under the law, until it becomes unjust. Thanks for the reminder.

I was not addressing this case. I specifically stated with regards to the case concerning my dd which I posted below. I was commenting on the general concept not the particulars of this case, the reason being is that I am not sure anyone really knows exactly what happened in this case, particularly anyone in this thread. I have read several different reports on this so far the only thing that I am sure of is that some administrators prayed somewhere and someone complained. I have no idea exactly where this tooks place (school property on church grounds?), or who was present (adults only but student present?). I have yet to read a complete report that made any sense or answered all the questions. So I have not saw fit to comment on this case. I was only commenting on continuing problems with PS systems in the state of FL and why parents may have a problem with it. It is possible that these on going problems are feeding into the controversy in this case.

It was meant for those that kept repeating and rerepeating posts made earlier. It doesn't matter what actually happened, it doesn't matter where it happened. As far as this case goes, to those that think they deserved jail time the realities of the case don't matter. The differences, and even the reasons behind the judge dropping the charges don't matter. That's all.

 

Sorry if it seemed I was attacking you. It was not meant that way.

Daniel was forbidden from praying under the law, at all, including in his own home. There is no comparison to that and school officials proselytizing to school students under their authority (the original complaint included school officials talking to students about judgment day, etc, not innocuous prayers).

There is a comparison when people are told they are not allowed to pray at all. The way the order was worded, in the articles I've read, that is exactly what they did. They said these people could not pray there, period. For people that believe we should bless our food before eating it, this would be putting us in a similar, albeit on a smaller scale, situation as the one Daniel faced. Especially if you take into account the admonishment that we should every moment of the day, prayers of praise and thanks as well as prayers for wisdom and guidance.

 

I agree with the reason for the court order, but I think it went too far. They had completely trampled over the freedoms of the kids with the original handbooks and stances. The response, though, went too far in the other direction, imo.

Edited September 20, 2009 by lionfamily1999
Spelling error.

[Heather in Neverland]

Heather, what would you do if your son's teachers or principal started leading a non-Christian prayer for their class every day?

 

I would be very surprised as I am the principal and this is a Christian school. :D But, honestly, if my son were attending a public school and his teacher led a non-christian prayer every day we would take other factors into consideration before reacting such as:

 

- is there rabid proselytizing going on? Then we would leave.

 

- do we feel it is a great school in every other way and it is just the prayers that bother us? we would not join in the prayer but we would continue there

 

- is the demographic make-up of the school such that this prayer would be common to most others and we are the minority? then we hand a hint of what we were getting ouselves into and we would deal with it or leave. I wouldn't try to change everyone else; I would just look for more like-minded people elsewhere. But I prefer to go the peaceful route when possible.

[Jen500]

I would be very surprised as I am the principal and this is a Christian school. :D But, honestly, if my son were attending a public school and his teacher led a non-christian prayer every day we would take other factors into consideration before reacting such as:

 

- is there rabid proselytizing going on? Then we would leave.

 

- do we feel it is a great school in every other way and it is just the prayers that bother us? we would not join in the prayer but we would continue there

 

- is the demographic make-up of the school such that this prayer would be common to most others and we are the minority? then we hand a hint of what we were getting ouselves into and we would deal with it or leave. I wouldn't try to change everyone else; I would just look for more like-minded people elsewhere. But I prefer to go the peaceful route when possible.

 

I meant in the school situation you are in now. :D Would you still react the same way?

[monk17]

I think you missed the actual issue.

 

NO STUDENTS. ON CHURCH PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE JUDGE (unless someone can show me COURT RECORDS stating otherwise...I've been looking). The ONLY thing it had connection with the school is that it was a prayer over a meal that was in Thankfulness for a new building. Heavens, we pray for schools, students, teachers, politicians, etc in churches everywhere. Is that now forbidden?

 

And btw, I'm GLAD this is not a Theocracy! At the same time, we are supposed to have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion (in case you didn't get that the last half dozen times it was mentioned in the thread).

 

Sorry everything I read said it was on school property. But what is really being discussed here is not the specifics of this case. The real issue is to what degree Christianity should be allowed in secular schools. How much should an individuals belief's be allowed to filter into the school system. We're pretty clear here, it's a separation of church and state. The court has held not at all. If you feel strongly enough about your faith to commit civil disobedience then be ready for the consequences.

 

Debates on what the founding fathers wanted or how religious a country this really was before the revolution could really start a food fight. What is undeniable is that we separate church and state. You can't hide under the guise of religious freedom for any act that you want to commit. The Branch Davidians tried that and it wasn't a successful defense.

 

Really the capitalizations are not needed, I'll read your post.

[mommaduck]

Sorry everything I read said it was on school property. But what is really being discussed here is not the specifics of this case. The real issue is to what degree Christianity should be allowed in secular schools. How much should an individuals belief's be allowed to filter into the school system. We're pretty clear here, it's a separation of church and state. The court has held not at all. If you feel strongly enough about your faith to commit civil disobedience then be ready for the consequences.

 

Debates on what the founding fathers wanted or how religious a country this really was before the revolution could really start a food fight. What is undeniable is that we separate church and state. You can't hide under the guise of religious freedom for any act that you want to commit. The Branch Davidians tried that and it wasn't a successful defense.

 

Really the capitalizations are not needed, I'll read your post.

Good grief...please read between that post and the one before your's and you will find that we've moved beyond this debate.

 

Oh, and it is about this specific situation. The specifics are what is at play here and is what affects the judgment of the court.

[monk17]

I would be very surprised as I am the principal and this is a Christian school. :D But, honestly, if my son were attending a public school and his teacher led a non-Christian prayer every day we would take other factors into consideration before reacting such as:

 

- is there rabid proselytizing going on? Then we would leave.

 

- do we feel it is a great school in every other way and it is just the prayers that bother us? we would not join in the prayer but we would continue there

 

- is the demographic make-up of the school such that this prayer would be common to most others and we are the minority? then we hand a hint of what we were getting ourselves into and we would deal with it or leave. I wouldn't try to change everyone else; I would just look for more like-minded people elsewhere. But I prefer to go the peaceful route when possible.

 

So if the school was good enough you would stay? If it were a Muslim school and clearly had the best academics available you wouldn't pull your child out? Two different questions. What if your children were treated a little different because they weren't praying?

[mommaduck]

So if the school was good enough you would stay? If it were a Muslim school and clearly had the best academics available you wouldn't pull your child out? Two different questions. What if your children were treated a little different because they weren't praying?

I'm pretty certain that any parent placing their child into a Muslim school would have already weighed that out and either not have placed their child there or would be fine with it. In this case, it's obvious that the community at large has had traditions established and people are trying to change those traditions (understandably considering gov money...though there was the case of a Muslim charter school receiving public funds and listed as a public charter). Personally, I'd like to see the gov out of religion, out of marriage (and yes, that would mean that gays & lesbians could marry...marriage would be a private matter), out of health care, and out of education.

[Heather in Neverland]

So if the school was good enough you would stay? If it were a Muslim school and clearly had the best academics available you wouldn't pull your child out? Two different questions. What if your children were treated a little different because they weren't praying?

 

I assume if it were a muslim school, I would have already known that before we enrolled. If we were to move to an area that was predominantly muslim (like where we live now) and sent our children to the local schools (which we do not since I am the principal of the school they attend) I would fully expect the muslim culture to infiltrate the schools. Even if the government paid for the school, if the majority of people who work there and attend there are muslim, there is no way their faith would not seep in. So if I found out a teacher who was a particularly devout muslim was praying in class it would not shock me in the slightest. And if it was terribly bothersome to me that this teacher was prayng in front of my children I would send them to a different school. But I wouldn't expect the school to change for me.

 

Yes I know, in America we have separation of church and state, etc. and that is the big difference. But words on a piece of paper do not change who people are. And sure you can sue to get the to stop being who they are in front of you but it really doesn't lend itself well to a harmonious world.

 

I guess you would have to come here and watch christians, muslims, hindus and buddhists coexist fairly peacefully to get what I mean. It's just different than anything I have ever experienced.

[Mrs Mungo]

There is a comparison when people are told they are not allowed to pray at all. The way the order was worded, in the articles I've read, that is exactly what they did. They said these people could not pray there, period. For people that believe we should bless our food before eating it, this would be putting us in a similar, albeit on a smaller scale, situation as the one Daniel faced. Especially if you take into account the admonishment that we should every moment of the day, prayers of praise and thanks as well as prayers for wisdom and guidance.

 

My family and I bless our food before we eat. When in public, we say our blessing to ourselves, especially when in restaurants. I think it extremely possible that I would get thrown out of a restaurant if I made it an announcement to the room. Saying a prayer to myself does not impose on anyone else and would not be in violation of the court order in question.

[mommaduck]

Wow. Just, wow.

 

This just goes so beyond this thread, I'm not quite sure what to say.

 

How about: I live in a Republic that was created by a handful of guys who were identified as Episcopalian/Anglican (31 - one who was a Deist), Presbyterian (16), Congregationalist (8), Quaker (3), Catholic (2), Methodist (2), Lutheran (2) and Dutch Reformed (2) who all insisted upon the separation of church and state?

 

Where do you live?

 

 

a

 

So those that went to jail for homeschooling should have just set everything they believed aside and marched their kids right down to the local public school? Those that went to jail for peaceful protests during the civil rights movement should have just stepped aside and gone back to their segregated neighbourhoods? My ancestors should have just laid down and accepted the stealing of their lands? Yeah, the law of this land is ALWAYS just and right and should be held above ALL things, right? Throughout history people have been persecuted, gone to jail, etc all for continuing to hold to certain things that they believed in even when it became unpopular and/or illegal. Simply because something is law does not make it right. The law used to state that black people were not human, or at least not on the same level as white humans. Gd's law stated otherwise. Which should we have held to be above the other then?

Edited September 21, 2009 by mommaduck

[monk17]

Good grief...please read between that post and the one before your's and you will find that we've moved beyond this debate.

 

Oh, and it is about this specific situation. The specifics are what is at play here and is what affects the judgment of the court.

 

But taking your advice I looked back and evidently the prayer did take place on school grounds and a letter of reprimand was put in the gentleman's file. From the local newspaper:

Pace High School principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman were charged with criminal contempt of court at risk of jail time and a fine after Rodgers cited them with violating a court order stemming from a mealtime blessing last winter at the school.

The blessing, a short “Christian†prayer by both men’s admission, occurred when Lay asked Freeman to pray before a lunchtime gathering Jan. 28 in a newly constructed field house at the high school where about 30 boosters were invited to celebrate the completion of the new athletic facility.

Rogers said the prayer, occurring just nine days after she had issued a temporary injunction against such activity, still appeared to be spontaneous and not a willful violation of her order. Lay and Freeman, along with witnesses who testified on their behalf, said they believed because the event was for adults it fell into a different category and was exempted from the types of school-sponsored activities in which prayer was expressly forbidden.

 

The judge's ruled :"Nevertheless, noting a potential disagreement about whether intent can be inferred from a single isolated incident, and the “extremely high burden of proof†in a criminal case, Rodgers said where there’s “ambiguity†in criminal law, a ruling in the defendant’s favor is appropriate"

 

I'm not sure what point you're making but I always look at these discussions as somewhat open ended unless someone has thrown down a statement for specific discussion and ask that it stay focused . This discussion has taken lots of turns from founding fathers to Native Americans with some Muslim and Hindu thrown in. I've refrained from answering your sarcasm with sarcasm for the sake of civility and because it's something I'm working on.

 

Regards,

 

Mike

[mommaduck]

But taking your advice I looked back and evidently the prayer did take place on school grounds and a letter of reprimand was put in the gentleman's file. From the local newspaper:

Pace High School principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman were charged with criminal contempt of court at risk of jail time and a fine after Rodgers cited them with violating a court order stemming from a mealtime blessing last winter at the school.

The blessing, a short “Christian” prayer by both men’s admission, occurred when Lay asked Freeman to pray before a lunchtime gathering Jan. 28 in a newly constructed field house at the high school where about 30 boosters were invited to celebrate the completion of the new athletic facility.

Rogers said the prayer, occurring just nine days after she had issued a temporary injunction against such activity, still appeared to be spontaneous and not a willful violation of her order. Lay and Freeman, along with witnesses who testified on their behalf, said they believed because the event was for adults it fell into a different category and was exempted from the types of school-sponsored activities in which prayer was expressly forbidden.

 

The judge's ruled :"Nevertheless, noting a potential disagreement about whether intent can be inferred from a single isolated incident, and the “extremely high burden of proof” in a criminal case, Rodgers said where there’s “ambiguity” in criminal law, a ruling in the defendant’s favor is appropriate"

 

I'm not sure what point you're making but I always look at these discussions as somewhat open ended unless someone has thrown down a statement for specific discussion and ask that it stay focused . This discussion has taken lots of turns from founding fathers to Native Americans with some Muslim and Hindu thrown in. I've refrained from answering your sarcasm with sarcasm for the sake of civility and because it's something I'm working on.

 

Regards,

 

Mike

 

Then you will also notice that I thanked Mrs Mungo for her article, which held more weight being local, even though I had requested a legal report to settle the issue. I didn't bring up the other turns...others did. I responded to one as it directly broad brushed myself and others that I know. You will also note, if you've kept up with my posts, that I agreed that prayer should not have been LED BY STAFF if it was on SCHOOL PROPERTY with STUDENTS present (in caps as those are details that make a difference).

 

My post was not sarcastic, btw. It pointed out that we had moved beyond part of the debate. It also stated a disagreement with you on whether specifics of the case mattered. No sarcasm, just two statements of fact.

Edited September 21, 2009 by mommaduck

[Haiku]

I guess you would have to come here and watch christians, muslims, hindus and buddhists coexist fairly peacefully to get what I mean. It's just different than anything I have ever experienced.

 

I think the various religions in America coexist extremely well. It's very, very rare for America to have religious violence, and when we do, it is small, isolated incidents. We do not have religious wars here, and I don't consider the case we are discussing now to be evidence that we don't coexist peacefully.

 

Tara

[PineFarmMom]

My family and I bless our food before we eat. When in public, we say our blessing to ourselves, especially when in restaurants. I think it extremely possible that I would get thrown out of a restaurant if I made it an announcement to the room. Saying a prayer to myself does not impose on anyone else and would not be in violation of the court order in question.

 

Wow! You'd get thrown out?? Where do you live? We pray out loud, as a family, in restaurants all the time. We don't do it to make any points, just to thank God for our food before we eat it.

[Haiku]

We pray out loud, as a family, in restaurants all the time.

 

And Mrs. Mungo was talking about what would happen if she stood up and tried to lead the entire restaurant in prayer. I think this point is repeatedly being misconstrued in this thread. It's not about whether people should be allowed to pray individually or as a family. Of course they should, and no one in this thread has argued otherwise.

 

My take as a non-Christian in a country with a majority of self-proclaimed Christians is that Christians want to turn non-religious events (such as public schools) into Christian events by inserting their prayers into them in a formalized, public way, and they want everyone else to thinks that's just fine.

 

Tara

[Murphy101]

My family and I bless our food before we eat. When in public, we say our blessing to ourselves, especially when in restaurants. I think it extremely possible that I would get thrown out of a restaurant if I made it an announcement to the room. Saying a prayer to myself does not impose on anyone else and would not be in violation of the court order in question.

 

what the blue blazes are you talking about? Where do you live?:001_huh:

 

When we eat out, we do the sign of the cross and say a verbal blessing like always. I'd expected the same when my 1st grade/ker were in school 9 years ago. It's their right to do so. Not asking anyone much less everyone to do it too. We're not "announcing" it or shouting it or claiming to speak for the resturant and I don't think anyone else would think that either.

 

That aside, how a private business runs and what I expect from them is far different from how I expect a tax funded govt entity to do things.

Again, I need more details.

 

They were perfectly within their rights to say any prayer they wanted on their own and they are under no requirement to do it silently either.

 

So if man A asked man B to share a grace and thankful prayer over their meal - fine.

 

If man A took it upon himself to speak unasked for the group and asked man B to preside and lead a prayer of blessing and thanks for the group - not fine.

 

It's not particuliarly clear which it is to me.

 

What is clear is that the judge, who one hopes heard more details than we are getting, decided to dismiss. Most judges are pretty harsh about defying a court order, so I'm inclined to think the first example is what really happened.

[PineFarmMom]

And Mrs. Mungo was talking about what would happen if she stood up and tried to lead the entire restaurant in prayer. I think this point is repeatedly being misconstrued in this thread. It's not about whether people should be allowed to pray individually or as a family. Of course they should, and no one in this thread has argued otherwise.

 

 

 

I didn't get clearly, from her, that that was what she was saying, and I'm still not certain...she'll need to clarify that. Anyone has a right to pray, out loud, in public if they so desire. If anything, that would fall under free speech.

[lionfamily1999]

My family and I bless our food before we eat. When in public, we say our blessing to ourselves, especially when in restaurants. I think it extremely possible that I would get thrown out of a restaurant if I made it an announcement to the room. Saying a prayer to myself does not impose on anyone else and would not be in violation of the court order in question.

That's the difference between what percipitated the original court order and what happened nine days later. They had been leading the school in prayer, what got them back into court was praying over a meal, among adults that wished to take part. Now, if you were at a banquet dinner, like a large friend and family function or a group of peers, and most of you went to the same church and you announced, we're going to bless the food if anyone wants to join us, that would be (imo) appropriate. Whereas demanding that everyone there bow their heads would be out of line.

 

The way the order is worded (at least as it is put in the articles I've read) these men are not allowed to participate in or start a prayer. Which means, they cannot pray. How can you pray if you are not allowed to participate in or start a prayer? The wording does not distinguish between personal prayer and, what they'd gotten into trouble for, forced group prayer.

what the blue blazes are you talking about? Where do you live?:001_huh:

 

When we eat out, we do the sign of the cross and say a verbal blessing like always. I'd expected the same when my 1st grade/ker were in school 9 years ago. It's their right to do so. Not asking anyone much less everyone to do it too. We're not "announcing" it or shouting it or claiming to speak for the resturant and I don't think anyone else would think that either.

 

That aside, how a private business runs and what I expect from them is far different from how I expect a tax funded govt entity to do things.

Again, I need more details.

 

They were perfectly within their rights to say any prayer they wanted on their own and they are under no requirement to do it silently either.

 

So if man A asked man B to share a grace and thankful prayer over their meal - fine.

 

If man A took it upon himself to speak unasked for the group and asked man B to preside and lead a prayer of blessing and thanks for the group - not fine.

 

It's not particuliarly clear which it is to me.

 

What is clear is that the judge, who one hopes heard more details than we are getting, decided to dismiss. Most judges are pretty harsh about defying a court order, so I'm inclined to think the first example is what really happened.

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

And Mrs. Mungo was talking about what would happen if she stood up and tried to lead the entire restaurant in prayer. I think this point is repeatedly being misconstrued in this thread. It's not about whether people should be allowed to pray individually or as a family. Of course they should, and no one in this thread has argued otherwise.

 

Exactly. I specifically said:

if I made it an announcement to the room. Saying a prayer to myself does not impose on anyone else and would not be in violation of the court order in question.

lionfamily 1999 said:

The way the order is worded (at least as it is put in the articles I've read) these men are not allowed to participate in or start a prayer. Which means, they cannot pray. How can you pray if you are not allowed to participate in or start a prayer? The wording does not distinguish between personal prayer and, what they'd gotten into trouble for, forced group prayer.

The injunction forbids school employees from:

promoting, advancing, aiding, facilitating, endorsing, or causing religious prayers or devotionals during school sponsored events,

They may not lead prayers at school-sponsored events. It does not say that they cannot pray for themselves. It does not say they cannot pray on their own time. It does not say they cannot lead prayers away from school sponsored events. It's pretty specific.

 

eta:

If man A took it upon himself to speak unasked for the group and asked man B to preside and lead a prayer of blessing and thanks for the group - not fine.

 

It's not particuliarly clear which it is to me.

 

What is clear is that the judge, who one hopes heard more details than we are getting, decided to dismiss. Most judges are pretty harsh about defying a court order, so I'm inclined to think the first example is what really happened.

There are zero newspapers that reported it that way. From the local, religious paper I quoted a couple of pages back:

The blessing, a short “Christian” prayer by both men’s admission, occurred when Lay asked Freeman to pray before a lunchtime gathering Jan. 28 in a newly constructed field house at the high school where about 30 boosters were invited to celebrate the completion of the new athletic facility.

One of four witnesses testifying for the government against Lay and Freeman, Simpson said she believed the district should admit liability to the ACLU when there are complaints to “avoid legal fees,” and said she was “totally shocked” when Lay asked Freeman to pray at the lunch to which she was an invited guest.

“I didn’t think about it,” Lynn’s notes reflected Lay’s response to Wyrosdick’s question about why he asked Freeman to pray, in spite of a judge’s order to not pray at school events.

Freeman said since the Feb. 2 meeting with the superintendent, he has understood the judge’s order and the fuller ramifications and has complied, “absolutely,” ending prayer before eating pizza at monthly meetings and offering a prayer at sports banquets.

Citing “old habits,” he testified he did not think beforehand about the order or violating it, that he believed it referenced influencing students, and didn’t recall seeing any in the room.

This is the heart of the matter. There were only a handful of students present, serving food. The event was not intended for students. Those involved believed the injunction involved their influence over students. Therefore, they did not willfully violate the injunction. If this had been a civil case it very easily could have gone the other way. The burden of proof in a criminal case is high. Edited September 21, 2009 by Mrs Mungo
typo

[Spy Car]

That's the difference between what percipitated the original court order and what happened nine days later. They had been leading the school in prayer, what got them back into court was praying over a meal, among adults that wished to take part.

 

From the North West Florida Daily News:

 

"Twelve people testified during the seven-hour trial, including Lay and Freeman, Santa Rosa County Superintendent of Schools Tim Wyrosdick and School Board member JoAnn Simpson.

 

Simpson attended the Pace High field house dedication where the prayer took place Jan. 28.

 

She testified that not only had Freeman offered a blessing over the food, but students were in the room at the time. When asked how she knew that, Simpson responded, “I (did) not bow my head during the prayer.”

 

“Why not?” Assistant U.S. Attorney Randall Hensel asked.

 

“To be totally honest, I was totally shocked because Mr. Lay had been in all our meetings (concerning the injunction),” Simpson said."

 

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/large-20676-administrators-pensacola.html

[mommaduck]

Again a newspaper...could you pull the court record so that we may see what other witnesses had to say?

[Mrs Mungo]

Again a newspaper...could you pull the court record so that we may see what other witnesses had to say?

 

I linked the original injunction that I quoted but not all court documents are necessarily available online, especially right away.

[mommaduck]

I linked the original injunction that I quoted but not all court documents are necessarily available online, especially right away.

Thus we still only know portions. That's my point. But I think you are pretty much on the right track with your summary.

[kalanamak]

live in a religious vacuum.

 

Ahem, as a non-believer, I don't live in a "religious vacuum".

 

I think people should be able to smoke. I don't care to share their smoke. Does this mean I live in a tobacco vacuum?

 

That said, I think we *have* to live in peace with people of other religions, or else live with witchhunts and wars. But I do think Church and State should not hold hands, especially not on my tax dollar.

 

BTW, for any who wanted to gut the ACLU over this, their representative said jail was the last thing on their minds. For me, additionally, it would be especially unwise to make martyrs of anyone.

[Erica in PA]

If this case were anywhere near as clear cut as you are portraying it, I seriously doubt that the judge would have plainly ruled that he did *not* in fact violate the court order by his actions.

 

ETA: I have also read quite a few articles covering this case, and there are clearly conflicting accounts of whether there were students present, or how many. It sounds to me from most of the articles that this was an event on school property, but not during school hours, and was not primarily for students, but for fundraisers and community members. From my reading, it appears that this fact was a central reason for the judge's ruling... that it was reasonable to conclude that the two men in question did not perceive prayer in this situation to violate the standing order, because students were not present.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Erica in PA

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

If this case were anywhere near as clear cut as you are portraying it, I seriously doubt that the judge would have plainly ruled that he did *not* in fact violate the court order by his actions.

 

Why not? Locally where I live there are 2 judges that are going to jail for severe corruption. Judges are human too so it is possible that a judge's opinions or beliefs may "color" their judgments IMHO. I do believe that most judges are good BTW and I am not implying that most are not or that this particular judge was not. I am just saying it is theoretically possible that the judgment was affected.