Author Topic: Judge Blocks Prayer at High School Graduation. Students still prayed. (Read 13894 times)

Winston Smith · « **Reply #25 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:20:30 PM »

Fistful in post #26:

Quote

How would that differ from the current situation?

Well my good friend blackburn once said in post #24

Quote

legal status and tax benefits

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #26 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:24:18 PM »

Quote from: Winston Smith

Well my good friend blackburn once said in post #24

Quote

legal status and tax benefits

Yes, what about it?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #27 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:38:03 PM »

The First Amendment does not imply that government can make no accomodation for or recognition of religion. In fact the opposite is true. The First Amendment does not guarantee that you will never experience a minor inconvenience due to someone else's religion. How the devil can you invoke the First Amendment against making you wait a few minutes so other people can pray? Of all the unnecessary folderal going on in these stupid, over-hyped events, why should a short prayer, of all things, get the axe?

The prayers uttered at events like these are generally quite milque-toast. There can be no sense in comparing them to "a speech decrying religion." This sort of prayer in no way impugns or villifies atheists. They may be offended, if they choose, but how many are offended when the prayer is disallowed?

Allowing prayer is not "government support."

Quote from: Nightfall

the ceremony and belief in "God" are unrelated.

Obviously, the majority of parents at the school in question have a different opinion. While it is not a religious occasion, it is normal for Christians to wish to ask God's blessings on such a proceeding and to pray for the graduates.

Quote from: Nightfall

Again, we're not talking about precluding anyone from exercising their beliefs.

You may want to rephrase that. Obviously, the Judge's ruling precludes something, whether you agree with him or not.

Strings · « **Reply #28 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:41:35 PM »

>How would that differ from the current situation?<

Fistful, you're trying to start an arguement here. You KNOW that he's refering to "gay marriage" (and gods, do I HATE that phrase!)...

Winston Smith · « **Reply #29 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:44:54 PM »

Quote

Allowing prayer is not "government support."

This website would argue otherwise:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=support

Quote

supÂ·port Pronunciation (s-pÃ´rt, -prt)
tr.v. supÂ·portÂ·ed, supÂ·portÂ·ing, supÂ·ports
1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
....
8. To endure; tolerate

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #30 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:48:07 PM »

Actually, my point really isn't about homosexual marriage. I thought Blackburn's proposal was close to what we already have. You can get a legal marriage, you can get a relgious marriage, or you can have both. I know he was talking about homosexual marriage, but I'm not.

Oh, forget I said anything.

Is there another phrase you prefer, Hunter Rose?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #31 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:52:48 PM »

So the government should not endure or tolerate prayer?

Strings · « **Reply #32 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:56:38 PM »

>I thought Blackburn's proposal was close to what we already have. You can get a legal marriage, you can get a relgious marriage, or you can have both.<

Right... so long as you're heterosexual. Anyone outside that parameter need not apply

>I know he was talking about homosexual marriage, but I'm not.<

It's actually related, since most ojections to "gay marriage" are based on religious beliefs...

>Oh, forget the whole thing.<

Why? We can't have friendly discussion on it?

Oh... time to shock fistful (and I'm sure some others here) a bit: I like what these kids did. Of course, I also get a kick out pc supporters being told to take an aeronautical fornication at a perpendicular piece of perforated pastry... :neener:

Winston Smith · « **Reply #33 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:57:35 PM »

Quote

So the government should not endure or tolerate prayer?

The government should not be publically supporting religion at all, much less a specific type or even a specific denomination when the prayer takes place using the government's resources, aka time and money at public functions.

Strings · « **Reply #34 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:58:36 PM »

"civil union". And it shouldn't just be a question of "John and Mary", or "Bruce and Jimmy". To my mind, ANY group of consenting adults that wish to enter into such an arrangement should be allowed, and recieve the same benefits under the law...

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #35 on:** May 22, 2006, 09:09:24 PM »

Quote from: Winston Smith

Quote

So the government should not endure or tolerate prayer?

The government should not be publically supporting religion at all, much less a specific type or even a specific denomination when the prayer takes place using the government's resources, aka time and money at public functions.

The government owns time now? And how much money was spent on prayer at previous graduations? I'm afraid you will have to find some other way in which religion would be "supported" in this instance. Perhaps it would be "supported" if the principal or superintendent said the prayer, but that is not what I'm talking about.

My earlier question remains.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #36 on:** May 22, 2006, 09:12:31 PM »

Quote from: Hunter Rose

To my mind, ANY group of consenting adults that wish to enter into such an arrangement should be allowed, and recieve the same benefits under the law...

What if such people are not sexually or romantically involved? What if they are relatives, who just happen to live together? They would be allowed also?

Strings · « **Reply #37 on:** May 22, 2006, 09:14:33 PM »

>What if such people are not sexually or romantically involved? What if they are relatives, who just happen to live together? They would be allowed also?<

Sure: if that's their wish, why not? Perhaps add something similar to the concept of "common law marriage" (live together for x years, you qualify as married)...

Stand_watie · « **Reply #38 on:** May 22, 2006, 09:45:54 PM »

Quote from: Hunter Rose

>What if such people are not sexually or romantically involved? What if they are relatives, who just happen to live together? They would be allowed also?<

Sure: if that's their wish, why not? Perhaps add something similar to the concept of "common law marriage" (live together for x years, you qualify as married)...

I'm all in favor of taking the state out of 'marriage' and turning it over to the churches or unchurches of the participants. Certainly my widowed grandmother and her live-in daughters of fifty plus years have as much right to be considered a family for legal purposes as most of what are now legally thought of as 'families' do.

My largest concern on the issue would be the 'pandora's box' scenario from the increased burdens on civil courts. Maybe we need to go to a legal system that makes parties suing (for divorce, custody, inheritance, etc) have to bear all court costs and have the civil system be completely paid for by fees. I don't expect to find many feminists arguing for that system though.

Guest · « **Reply #39 on:** May 23, 2006, 01:50:02 AM »

Really?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #40 on:** May 23, 2006, 03:35:59 AM »

I generally support legislation that would make it easier for two or more people to make legal arrangements concerning inheritance, powers of attorney, hospital visitation, etc. There is no reason, however, to equate this to marriage.

I cannot see how our current desire to expand the definition of marriage will not result in the legal recognition of polygamous marriages. I wonder what stance our modern feminists will take on this issue. And I wonder how long it will be before we begin to question why consenting fourteen-year-olds or 12-year-olds should not also be allowed to marry, or enter civil unions. If the left supports these ideas, then so will the feminists. They sold women out on abortion and no-fault divorce, which hurt women; they'll do the same on other issues.

Edited to add: By feminists, I mean the "leaders" of modern-day feminism, the Jesse Jacksons of the women's rights movement who use this cause only as a cover for extreme leftism.

Stand_watie · « **Reply #41 on:** May 23, 2006, 04:49:32 AM »

Quote from: Barbara

Really?

I'm not sure if that question is directed towards me. If it is I would say that my definition of 'feminists' regarding that post was with the quotation marks around it.; IE "women are more likely to be poor and therefore, making it more costly to sue is unfair to women", as opposed to the belief that women and men should be treated equally by the system.

SteveS · « **Reply #42 on:** May 23, 2006, 04:54:15 AM »

Quote from: fistful

SteveS, I can't think of the cases of the top of my head, either, but so long as students are having chess clubs and other extracurricular activities, prayer and bible study are also allowed by current law and by the Constitution itself. I'm not sure how this applies to school-wide events, though.

If you give me until tomorrow, I think I can find the case. IIRC, it was from Texas and dealt with a student initiated prayer at a foot ball game. As for clubs, there is a federal law that says that any school that receives federal money and has extrcurricular activities has to allow religious groups.

Quote

Allowing prayer is not "government support."

The question should focus not on support, but establishment of religion, which is forbidden by the Constitution. It is only relatively recently that any kind of support = establishment. There are plenty of early examples of gov't support of religion (Congressional chaplain, gov't money being used to build religious schools on Indian reservations).

Personally, I wouldn't want to attend a graduation ceremony that had hours of prayer, but I don't believe that a short prayer rises to the level of an "establishment."

Quote

My largest concern on the issue would be the 'pandora's box' scenario from the increased burdens on civil courts.

There was an article in one of the local papers that pointed out that family law cases accounted for 2/3 of all circuit court filings in Michigan last year.

Desertdog · « **Reply #43 on:** May 23, 2006, 06:32:13 AM »

Quote

So the government should not endure or tolerate prayer?

The Supreme Court, the House of Representives and the Senate all open their sessions with prayer.

Strings · « **Reply #44 on:** May 23, 2006, 09:33:09 AM »

>I generally support legislation that would make it easier for two or more people to make legal arrangements concerning inheritance, powers of attorney, hospital visitation, etc. There is no reason, however, to equate this to marriage.<

All of those issues are automatic for a spouse.

>I cannot see how our current desire to expand the definition of marriage will not result in the legal recognition of polygamous marriages.<

Again, fine. Of course, I'm gonna add a small requirement here: said family MUST be able to support itself...

>I wonder what stance our modern feminists will take on this issue.<

Most that I know are fine with it. remember Paint your Wagon?

>And I wonder how long it will be before we begin to question why consenting fourteen-year-olds or 12-year-olds should not also be allowed to marry, or enter civil unions.<

That's the same arguement that the antis use against gun owners: "YOU have to accept restrictions because this groups of people that aren't even allowed to engage in this activity are a problem". Show me where a person under 16* has been allowed to legally enter into a legal contract, THEN we can discuss this idea...

*I place the age at 16 to cover the event of an emancipated teen: if they're ressponsible enough to be on their own, they're an adult

Desertdog · « **Reply #45 on:** May 23, 2006, 11:30:04 AM »

Quote

I place the age at 16 to cover the event of an emancipated teen: if they're ressponsible enough to be on their own, they're an adult

IIRC, an emancipated teen now has all the rights, privileges and reposnibilities of an adult

gaston_45 · « **Reply #46 on:** May 23, 2006, 03:48:16 PM »

So fistful, would you still be supportive if there were a bunch of Hindus that wanted to do their left path ceremony to celebrate graduation ( a huge orgy basically)? It is, afterall, their form of prayer. I also somehow doubt you would be this supportive of the whiccan, judging from your other thread on "converting the heathen". Just because your sacred cow is on the side of the majority in this case doesn't mean it won't be in the minority next year.

Again, it is a graduation from a secular school, not semenary, catechism, religious boarding school, etc, keep religion out of it. There is nothing stopping them from praying before or after. Heck, they can even pray right in the middle of the darn thing... silent prayers work just well as audible ones right?

As far as it being insulting to call something that fits the definition of superstition straight from the webster's dictionary a superstition, if it fits the definition then it is that. I don't do pc just because someone's feelings may be hurt, if I did I would be a liberal. I am not a liberal.

It would be technically incorrect to call athiests god haters because they cannot hate something they claim does not exist. Can you call them that? Sure, why not, they will just laugh at you probably.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #47 on:** May 23, 2006, 08:57:37 PM »

So you want to compare "a huge orgy" to a two-minute prayer where everybody keeps their clothes on? If Hindus or Wiccans have a short, simple, non-confrontational ceremony similar to a boilerplate graduation prayer, then I suppose I would have to bear with it in a majority-Hindu or Wiccan community. That's what I get for being an odd-ball. I already would have to bear with a lot of other stuff that offends or disgusts me in public schools, so it would not be unexpected. Such is life in a diverse society.

Quote

Just because your sacred cow is on the side of the majority in this case doesn't mean it won't be in the minority next year.

My side is in the minority much of the time. Christian students are frequently told not to bring Bibles to school, not to pray quietly to themselves before they eat, etc. It is not legal, but it happens. The ironic part is that this happens because Christianity is mistakenly viewed as a majority or a dominant view, while those of other minority religions are treated with kid gloves and even applauded for their adherence to a less conventional point of view.

Quote

Again, it is a graduation from a secular school, not semenary, catechism, religious boarding school, etc, keep religion out of it.

Your opinion that prayer is only appropriate at a religious school is just that; your opinion. Why should prayer be out of place just because the school is not overtly religious? I said it before, and it's still true: "Why not let the students, the school, the teachers, the administrators and parents decide what is necessary or desirable in their ceremony? While it is not a religious occasion, it is normal for Christians to wish to ask God's blessings on such a proceeding and to pray for the graduates." As it inconveniences no one, there is not sufficient cause to interfere with it.

Quote

It would be technically incorrect to call athiests god haters because they cannot hate something they claim does not exist.

It would be "technically incorrect" to label all religion (or just Christianity) as superstition. It does not fit the definition you provided. More to the point, such derision is corrosive to our discussion. I am not saying you should be PC, just that dismissiveness is counterproductive.

Winston Smith · « **Reply #48 on:** May 23, 2006, 09:06:11 PM »

Quote

Why not let the students, the school, the teachers, the administrators and parents decide what is necessary or desirable in their ceremony?

Because the rights of the minority are protected.

For example, if the majority of people voted to shoot all of group x, then you'd say it was wrong regardless of the majority opinion.

And in this case the right to have the government not concern itself with the establishment of religion is being violated, although the majority agreed on it.

"Cut. and. dried. That. is. it." - Al Pacino, Heat

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #49 on:** May 23, 2006, 09:08:37 PM »

Quote from: Blackburn

Quote

I cannot see how our current desire to expand the definition of marriage will not result in the legal recognition of polygamous marriages.

I have no desire to expand the definition of marriage. In fact, I'm content to leave control over marriage to the 'church' as a collective generalization.

So people wishing to engage in normal, monogamous, heterosexual marriages should apply for "civil unions," instead of marriage licenses?

News:

Author Topic: Judge Blocks Prayer at High School Graduation. Students still prayed. (Read 13894 times)

Strings

Strings

Strings

Strings

Guest

Strings