God in school: Mine Okay, yours not okay

[_ajax18]

In the context of publicly-funded schools, yes. In the context that a school mandated "prayer time" should not be allowed in a publically funded school, yes. Both of those are an establishment of religion by a government entity, which is expressly forbidden by the exclusion clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution

If the founding fathers really had this in mind when the constitution was written, why did we have prayer in school for so long. I mean clearly there was prayer in school during the time of the founding fathers.

[_Mr. Coffee]

If the founding fathers really had this in mind when the constitution was written, why did we have prayer in school for so long. I mean clearly there was prayer in school during the time of the founding fathers.

We also used to permit the sale and ownership of other human beings in the time of the founding fathers. And your point is what?

Let me clue you in on something... I do not want a single cent of my tax dollars to be spent on religion. A publicly funded school is NOT a church. You are there (hopefully) to learn the required material, not to pray to the Magic Sky Pixie of your choice. You want your kids to pray in school? Then shell out the money for a private religious school and let my childern recieve an education in subjects that are actually useful in life.

Just in case you're one of those clueless funditards like the one mentioned in the OP, the motto of the United States of America is not "In God We Trust". It is "Novus Ordo Seculorum".

[_Some Schmo]

When I got home from work last night, the news on TV was covering this story, and I got to hear the woman saying this stuff in court. She was practically in tears, and it seemed like a totally disingenuous attempt to persuade the judge to her way of thinking through gross emotionalism. It was absolutely disgusting.

Someone should perform some Satanic witchcraft on her sorry ass. I want to throw up any time someone suggests we need god back in schools, when what we need is the very opposite: reality.

[_Gazelam]

What I'm worried about is that if she suceeds how will this effect the quality of the Quidditch recruiting? I mean if kids don't know that they can play, how can we see the players that really shine?

stupid muggles.

[_Jersey Girl]

What I'm worried about is that if she suceeds how will this effect the quality of the Quidditch recruiting? I mean if kids don't know that they can play, how can we see the players that really shine?

stupid muggles.

:-)

[_Jersey Girl]

In the context of publicly-funded schools, yes. In the context that a school mandated "prayer time" should not be allowed in a publically funded school, yes. Both of those are an establishment of religion by a government entity, which is expressly forbidden by the exclusion clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution

If the founding fathers really had this in mind when the constitution was written, why did we have prayer in school for so long. I mean clearly there was prayer in school during the time of the founding fathers.

And there still is prayer in school. I don't understand your point.

Jersey Girl

[_ajax18]

Just in case you're one of those clueless funditards like the one mentioned in the OP, the motto of the United States of America is not "In God We Trust". It is "Novus Ordo Seculorum".

I wouldn't classify myself as one of the fundamentalist Shades mentioned above, but maybe you'd think different. I've never heard of "Novus Ordo Seculorum. What's that mean? New order Secularism? Is it some new new atheist system of ethics?

My point is that the founding fathers did not have the idea of forbidding prayer in school in mind when they wrote the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. So when you say that the Constitution explicity prohibits it, I'd tend to believe you're misinterpreting the document. Whether or not you agree with slavery or other things that the founding fathers obviously either agreed with or didn't consider is a separate issue to my point.

Why do you people have to insult a persons intelligence when he chooses to be close minded or simply disagrees. People are dealt different decks in life. I don't consider someone immoral because he's stupid. I don't consider him of less than average mental capacity if he chooses to be narrow minded. Maybe a better criticism would be close minded or insensitive.

Using words like, funditards, seems to do nothing more than demonstrate your own lack of intelligence and ability to truly identify the persons issue.

Your point about not wanting your tax dollars to go to religion is understandable. The only problem I see with atheism is not lack of evidence but the void it leaves. You do a great job at disproving religion, but you don't do much in offering a powerful and efficient system to motivate people to live more ethically. If all you have to offer is courts and laws, that is a very weak system indeed and in my view will not motivate people to live ethically very well at all. At least it doesn't motivate me.

[_Jersey Girl]

ajax,

Let me ask you a question. If there were to be public school sanctioned prayer, how would you suggest a school system go about facilitating that?

Jersey Girl

[_ajax18]

ajax,

Let me ask you a question. If there were to be public school sanctioned prayer, how would you suggest a school system go about facilitating that?

Jersey Girl

I don't know. I probably wouldn't because the whole contention thing kind of ruins the purpose of prayer for me. I have enough of my own doubts about prayer though I still find myself doing it, perhaps out of utter depseration more than anything. I'm not sure if those prayers meet the criteria sufficiently to earn an answer or not, but I guess it becomes a reflex and I get to a point where I'll take help from anywhere I can possibly get it.

That wasn't my point. My point was that I think saying that the Constitution and Bill of Rights expressly prohibit prayer in school is a misinterpretation of the document. I think a part of interpreting what is written is to understand who is writing it and what their background is.

[_Mr. Coffee]

I've never heard of "Novus Ordo Seculorum. What's that mean? New order Secularism?

It means "New Secular Order".

Is it some new new atheist system of ethics?

No. It's a reflection of the founding father's wish that government remain seperate from religion. They firmly believed that the state has no buisness either establishing or enforcing any religion. While some of them were deeply religious men, they were all firm secularists when it came to politic philosophy.

Don't believe me? Try reading the Federalist Papers sometime.

My point is that the founding fathers did not have the idea of forbidding prayer in school in mind when they wrote the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. So when you say that the Constitution explicity prohibits it, I'd tend to believe you're misinterpreting the document.

And I tend to believe that you know jack and s*** about either the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the intent of the framers when they wrote both documents.

A publicly funded school is a government institution, i.e. it is part of the government. Therefore, as part of the government, it cannot constitutionally enforce religion on the students. That is precisely what a school mandated prayer time is. It is forcing religion on the students, which makes it an establishment of religion, which makes it unconstitutional.

Whether or not you agree with slavery or other things that the founding fathers obviously either agreed with or didn't consider is a separate issue to my point.

I was responding to what was either an intentional strawman arguement or you demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject.

Why do you people have to insult a persons intelligence when he chooses to be close minded or simply disagrees.

It's not a mere case of "well, I disagree". You are trying to say something that clearly is not true in saying that either the framers had no intent to keep religion out of government institutions or that enforced prayer in schools is somehow constitutional.

I don't consider someone immoral because he's stupid. I don't consider him of less than average mental capacity if he chooses to be narrow minded. Maybe a better criticism would be close minded or insensitive.

What the hell does morality have to do with the discussion, Ajax? I'm talking about constitutional law, not arbitrary moral creeds.

Using words like, funditards, seems to do nothing more than demonstrate your own lack of intelligence and ability to truly identify the persons issue.

Wow... That is the stupidest damned thing I've read on this site to date.

So in your little narrow world view, using bad words or calling people names somehow invalidates someones arguments or makes them less intelligent? What are you, friggin' 12?

Your point about not wanting your tax dollars to go to religion is understandable. The only problem I see with atheism is not lack of evidence but the void it leaves.

Hey look! Fresh red herring for sale!

What the hell does my lack of religion ahve to do with the arguement, Ajax? Once again, I am arguing about the constitutional validity of religion in schools (there isn't any validity) and here you go making little red herrings and strawmandering up the topic.

Please, tell me exactly what "void" would be left by teaching useful subjects like math, science, history, english, foriegn language, art, or even PE instead of teaching useless religious b***s****ery?

You do a great job at disproving religion, but you don't do much in offering a powerful and efficient system to motivate people to live more ethically.

As if christians in general, or Mormons in particular do a good job of living by a reasonable ethical framework? I've seen more lying, hypocritical, uncompassionate, criminal, and dishonest behavior out of your supposedly morally superior religion then I ever have out of a secularist. Hell, at least when an atheist b***s***s you he doesn't try to make excuses about how he was following the word of the Magic Sky Pixie.

If all you have to offer is courts and laws, that is a very weak system indeed and in my view will not motivate people to live ethically very well at all. At least it doesn't motivate me.

Really now? Ok, then show your evidence for why secular law is not a deterent to crime?

Also, since laws don't motivate you, I invite you to go and break a few (try some minor ones at first like speeding). I'm sure the nice men and women with the badges and firearms will be more than happy to provide a motivation for you not to repeat that behavior again.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Please do not use the "S" word, or any of its variants, in the Terrestrial Forum.]