President Trump to issue new guidance asserting students' right to pray in schools

[Guitar's Cry]

Sorry, but the Constitution says nothing about the separation of Church and state, you need to re read (assuming you once read it) the first amendment.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

 

[pearl]

Sorry. the First amendment SPECIFICALLY states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the FREE EXPRESSION of religion, or of the right of people to peaceably assemble, or the right of free speech.

Because there was to be no state religion. There is also a freedom from religion.
What some really want is the right to publicly force 'one' religion on all.

 

[dianaiad]

But they were allowed.

What part of 'call the cops' did you miss? They were NOT allowed.

What they were not allowed to do is make a spectacle of their prayer.

What, quietly standing in a group and quietly praying, in a manner that didn't harrass, block or annoy anybody who didn't have his/her own agenda? They made considerably less noise and 'spectacle' than the pep squad or the band or the kids trying to drum up members for their rocket club.

And that's exactly what they DID to do.

And you know this, how? You weren't there. You are assuming a great deal.

That's what a lot of Christians seem to want to do, these days.
And I gave you some very good reasons why, but you aren't considering those. A school is publicly own property, and is under no obligation to provide meeting places for students or anyone else outside the bounds of their educational mandate.

Which would be fine, if those kids had been asked to meet outside the school...there is a crematory next door, with trees and a nice gazebo only a hundred feet away. But they weren't told to 'take it elsewhere." They had the cops called on them and told that they COULD NOT have private voluntary prayer next to the parking lot. This, even as the same school allocated two classrooms for the use of Muslim students to pray, or do the 'sallah.' (I am probably using the wrong grammar for that...sorry)

I understand the classroom allocation. Without them, Muslim students are quite literally kept from doing something that is vital to them; central to their beliefs. Quite a few Muslim students, before that, had to drop out of school so that they could practice their religion. Now YOU might think that's just fine and dandy. I don't...so I applaud the idea of the separate classrooms. Muslim students do not HAVE to use them, but they are there if they wish to do so.

What I do NOT understand is this thing about denying kids the right to have voluntary prayer, quietly, before school starts, at a common meeting place (for all groups, not just them).

Nobody has to participate.

To do so is a privilege being offered on behalf of the whole community (that pays for the facility). So if some members of the community object to this extended privilege, then it should and will logically be revoked, as after all, praying is not what the community pays for the school to facilitate.

I see. So if some members of the community object to a meeting of an American Atheist youth group that is devoted to the local secular soup kitchen, you would be fine with the school throwing THEM out, even though they allow the stamp club to meet for the same purpose?

And children do not have the right of freedom of speech, or of freedom of assembly, while in school or on school grounds.

Don't they?

Well, Tell that to the Democrats and other left wing types. It seems that they (and perhaps you) believe that the First Amendment ACTUALLY reads "freedom of speech as long as the speaker agrees with me."

 

[dianaiad]

Because there was to be no state religion. There is also a freedom from religion.
What some really want is the right to publicly force 'one' religion on all.

there IS no 'freedom FROM religion." No wording to that effect, anywhere. There is to be no state religion.

Yes, some really want to publicly force one religion on all. that's what the First amendment is about, to PREVENT that.
...and some want to publicly force their opinion OF religion on all.

In fact, I utterly fail to see the difference, practically, in a state theist religion....and having the state decide that NO religion is allowed. Either way, anybody who disagrees with that opinion is punished.

There are two ways to handle 'separation of church and state." One is to deny access to public property, etc., to ANY theist (while, please note, allowing such access to anti-theist atheists) And the other is for the state to pretend that religion simply doesn't exist, and that religious groups should be treated just like any other non-profit group, allowed or denied access according to criteria that have NOTHING to do with religion.

the first means (locally, anyway) that the Baptists who run the best homeless shelter in town are not allowed to post fund raising flyers for it anywhere on public property, while the local cannabis club is allowed to advertise their 'buy our cannabis and for every dollar you spend, we'll donate $.50 to the local animal shelter" flyers.

The second would allow both, subject to rules regarding size and composition of the display. You know....8.5 X 12 flyers for both.

Some want to prohibit any theist from being a theist anywhere but behind closed doors for fear of being caught by the cops.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Bigamy is against the law. Not polygamy. Polygamy would be prosecuted as multiple counts of bigamy.

Legality of polygamy - Wikipedia

• United States: Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states as well as federally according to the Edmunds Act . From about 1847 to 1857, in what is now the state of Utah, many Mormons practiced polygamy, which was widely condemned in the rest of the US. The US federal government threatened The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and made polygamy illegal through the enforcement of Acts of Congress such as the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. The LDS Church formally outlawed the practice in 1890, in a document labeled 'The Manifesto'. Small splinter groups from the LDS Church, such as Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Apostolic United Brethren still practice polygamy and awareness has been increased through television dramas such as Big Love and reality shows such as Sister Wives. Among American Muslims, a small minority of around 50,000 to 100,000 people are estimated to live in families with a husband maintaining an informal polygamous relationship.

Polygamy is illegal. Not just bigamy.

But they were allowed. What they were not allowed to do is make a spectacle of their prayer. And that's exactly what they DID to do. That's what a lot of Christians seem to want to do, these days.
And I gave you some very good reasons why, but you aren't considering those. A school is publicly own property, and is under no obligation to provide meeting places for students or anyone else outside the bounds of their educational mandate. To do so is a privilege being offered on behalf of the whole community (that pays for the facility). So if some members of the community object to this extended privilege, then it should and will logically be revoked, as after all, praying is not what the community pays for the school to facilitate.

And children do not have the right of freedom of speech, or of freedom of assembly, while in school or on school grounds.

They in fact do, despite schools saying they don't. Private schools may try this, but they tend not to (this crap is mainly tried in public schools where people exploit the public misunderstanding of the establishment clause). In actual fact, being public means not that they are more separated by the church but that they are more bound by the constitution. It's only because people have let them get away with this nonsense that it continues.

The Constitution protects right to bear arms. Therefore, any public school, as a subset of the government (that's what public means) has the right to protect the right to bear arms. Likewise, telling people they can't speak freely or worship freely is Cold War bull****.

Even if it somehow were not the case, such restrictions would only extend to the teachers, who are employed by the school. The students, on the other hand, are visitors.

Fast Facts: Students' Religious Freedom Rights at School

In general, students have the right to…

1. Express their deeply held religious convictions at school. Students have the right to talk about their religious beliefs, pray, read Scripture and invite other classmates to join them in these activities as long as the actions are voluntary, student-initiated, not disruptive or coercive, and take place during non-instructional time.
   
2. Express their faith-based viewpoint in the classroom. Students are free to respectfully express their religious viewpoint in a classroom discussion or as part of an assignment, so long as the expression is relevant to the subject at hand and meets the requirements given for the assignment.
   
3. Distribute material with religious themes or words. Schools cannot impose an outright ban on religious-themed materials if they already allow students to distribute non-religious materials. But as with any materials, schools can prohibit distribution that is disruptive or interferes with the operation of the school.
   
4. Participate in religious student clubs that have equal access to school facilities, resources and free-speech forums. Under the federal Equal Access Act, faith-based student clubs must be given equal access to all school facilities, resources, and equipment made available to other extracurricular student clubs. This includes access to public address systems, bulletin boards, ability to put up posters, etc. To enjoy these rights, the clubs must be student-led, student-initiated and recognized by the school.
5. Invite outside speakers to religious club activities. As long as the school permits outside speakers, faith-based student clubs can invite speakers to address any topic. If the speaker is featured during non-instructional hours—during lunch or before or after class—then the speaker can address religious themes or share a testimony. But if the speaker is featured during a school event or assembly, then the speaker cannot advance or promote religion. However, the religious club can invite the speaker to follow up a nonreligious speech with an optional religious-themed one during non-instructional hours or at a nearby location after school.
6. Pray at school. Since prayer is private speech, students may engage in prayer at school, so long as it is not school endorsed. That means students can pray on their own and in groups during non-instructional time—as long as it is not disruptive.
7. Depending on school dress code policy, students can wear clothing displaying religious messages. Clothing or jewelry bearing a religious message is treated as speech, and therefore cannot be restricted unless the school can show that it causes a substantial interference with the school’s operation. An exception to this would be if the school has a blanket dress code neutrally banning all messages, religious or otherwise. Clothing messages should also respect school policies that prohibit violent or lewd wording. But schools cannot single out messages on clothing for censorship simply because they happen to be religious, while allowing other messages to go uncensored.
8. Schools cannot cite “separation of Church and State” as a reason to ban student religious expression. Student speech is not the same thing as government, school-endorsed speech, i.e., the “state”. Therefore, courts have made it clear that public schools cannot ban student speech simply because it happens to have a religious perspective.

This is why Trump is advising them about this, rather than pushing for laws. Because there are ALREADY laws protecting the rights of students. Teachers, may not as much, but students have a great deal of rights provided they don't disrupt education (like loudly praying to Mecca five times a day, rather than simply bending over and quietly reciting prayers during those times).

 

[PureX]

What I do NOT understand is this thing about denying kids the right to have voluntary prayer, quietly, before school starts, at a common meeting place (for all groups, not just them).

You are working very hard, and are very determined not to understand. This is clear from your posts.

So if some members of the community object to a meeting of an American Atheist youth group that is devoted to the local secular soup kitchen, you would be fine with the school throwing THEM out, even though they allow the stamp club to meet for the same purpose?

The school is owned by the public, and maintained for the purpose of providing a specific educational curriculum to the public's children. Any other purpose the school may choose to facilitate is a privilege being offered at the public's expense and is subject to the public's approval. So long as you keep refusing to recognize the public's right to reject these religious displays on public property, and at the public's expense, you will continue to imagine that your cause is a "victim" of some sort.

 

[shmogie]

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Jefferson had an opinion. His opinion is not included in the Constitution. Nor was his opinion part of Am

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Jefferson's opinion is found no where in the Constitution. His letter was was written because the church leaders feared government involvement in their church, not the opposite. He was affirming the establishment clause.

If his opinion was the opinion of the government, it wasn t enforced that way for 150 years. Rather negligent by the government.

Actually the term has been coopted to mean exactly what he did not mean. He meant for the free exercise of religion, the government could not intrude.

Now it is used to DENY the free exercise of religion. Now the government violates the first amendment and denies rights granted under the first amendment.

 

[sojourner]

The White House said the president will welcome a group of students of Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths to the Oval Office as he issues the updated guidance affirming constitutional protections for expressions of religion in public schools. In taking the action, Grogan said the president will be updating guidance that hasn’t been adapted since 2003.

Grogan pointed to the case of a group of middle school students in Texas who were repeatedly told not to pray in their school cafeteria during lunch break by the school principal, a decision that was later reversed by school district officials, to highlight why the updated guidance is needed.

Speaking at a Miami church in early January, Trump hinted that the action would be made official today -- Jan. 16.
"Very soon, I’ll be taking action to safeguard students and teachers’ First Amendment rights to pray in our schools," Trump said. "They want to take that right along with many other ones."

In addition to the rights of students, Grogan said the administration will take steps to make sure the federal government is being consistent in not discriminating against organizations because of a religious designation, with nine government agencies set to release proposed rules.

In amplifying the president’s message, the Department of Education is set to send a letter to state education secretaries reminding them of students’ protected First Amendment religious rights.

President Trump to issue new guidance asserting students' right to pray in schools

Now if he would only work to affirm our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

 

[pearl]

In fact, I utterly fail to see the difference, practically, in a state theist religion....and having the state decide that NO religion is allowed. Either way, anybody who disagrees with that opinion is punished.

Rather in the opening of a school day, or a community meeting, when public prayer is offered in such a setting, it speaks for the entire community, which is made up of differing religions and non believers who do not consent to the affiliation of the one offered.

 

[dianaiad]

You are working very hard, and are very determined not to understand. This is clear from your posts.

You are the one who is neglecting to read what actually is written in those posts. For instance, the part about where those students WERE NOT ALLOWED to meet by the flagpole. Cops were called.

The school is owned by the public, and maintained for the purpose of providing a specific educational curriculum to the public's children. Any other purpose the school may choose to facilitate is a privilege being offered at the public's expense and is subject to the public's approval. So long as you keep refusing to recognize the public's right to reject these religious displays on public property, and at the public's expense, you will continue to imagine that your cause is a "victim" of some sort.

the 'tyranny of the majority" is what the Bill of Rights was written, mostly, to prevent. Now you are advocating for exactly that; because YOU don't agree with those religious beliefs, you think that you, and those who believe as you do, have the right to force your opinion upon them, and to forbid them from freely expressing their beliefs, to speak freely, and to peaceably assemble...pretty much gutting the first amendment simply because YOU don't like them.

Sorry, but that amendment is very clear; people are supposed to be able to express their religion freely, to speak freely, and to assemble peaceably. No OTHER specific group is given that freedom; there's nothing in the First amendment that specifically says that the local rocket club must be allowed to meet on public property, to speak freely or to assemble, and I submit that the local rocket club is more likely to be louder and possibly more dangerous than pretty much any other group. Yet they are allowed to do so, subject to certain public safety rules.

Religions should be treated EXACTLY the same way, and subject to the same rules.

Just because you don't like them, because your beliefs regarding god are different, doesn't mean that you have the right to prohibit people from expressing their beliefs. Neither you, nor 'the public' nor the STATE. Which is specifically forbidden from doing so.

I notice that you have not addressed the discrepancy between allocating those classrooms for Muslims and allowing a group of students to have a quiet group prayer BEFORE SCHOOL hours next to the parking lot.

BTW, that group had been doing this for most of the school year , without anybody noticing or being bothered, until one atheist decided to complain. One person, who, even though his path was not blocked, his schooling not compromised, no coercion was aimed at him; he was not invited to participate...but he was offended because someone ELSE was doing something HE disapproved of.

 

[dianaiad]

Rather in the opening of a school day, or a community meeting, when public prayer is offered in such a setting, it speaks for the entire community, which is made up of differing religions and non believers who do not consent to the affiliation of the one offered.

Which of course is not what I was talking about, is it?

Tell me...in terms of what I mentioned before about not seeing any practical difference between a state sponsored religion and a state policy that religion and theists not be allowed anywhere, how does this apply?

I agree that mandatory prayer in class is not appropriate.

But forbidding voluntary prayer before school hours where only those interested participate is the same thing, practically, as a state sponsored anti-theism.

Doing so AT THE SAME TIME accomodations are made for another religious group (as it was in this case) is establishing a state approved religion...at least on that school district level.

The solution is not to forbid one and allow the other.
The solution is not to forbid both.
the solution is to show no preference...and allow both.

 

[shmogie]

You are working very hard, and are very determined not to understand. This is clear from your posts.
The school is owned by the public, and maintained for the purpose of providing a specific educational curriculum to the public's children. Any other purpose the school may choose to facilitate is a privilege being offered at the public's expense and is subject to the public's approval. So long as you keep refusing to recognize the public's right to reject these religious displays on public property, and at the public's expense, you will continue to imagine that your cause is a "victim" of some sort.

What part of the free right to practice religion do you not understand?

You pick your little word display for a purely nefarious purpose. Displays are by design for someone to look at. You now that a small group of students praying have no intention of being a display. You are purposely misusing the language to make an erroneous point. Typical lefty tactic.

As long as the students are not disrupting class, class or causing a disturbance, they have the right to practice their religion, any religion, on public school grounds whether you and your fellow travelers like it, or not.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Jefferson had an opinion. His opinion is not included in the Constitution. Nor was his opinion part of Am

Jefferson's opinion is found no where in the Constitution. His letter was was written because the church leaders feared government involvement in their church, not the opposite. He was affirming the establishment clause.

If his opinion was the opinion of the government, it wasn t enforced that way for 150 years. Rather negligent by the government.

Actually the term has been coopted to mean exactly what he did not mean. He meant for the free exercise of religion, the government could not intrude.

Now it is used to DENY the free exercise of religion. Now the government violates the first amendment and denies rights granted under the first amendment.

Hm...maybe he should have reread it (assuming he had read it once).

Jefferson actually had quite a hand in there being a Bill of Rights at all: https://www.google.com/amp/s/consti...ok-at-thomas-jeffersons-constitutional-legacy

So you do agree that the 1st Amendment separates Church and state? Otherwise, how can the 1st Amendment be effective?

 

[shmogie]

Because there was to be no state religion. There is also a freedom from religion.
What some really want is the right to publicly force 'one' religion on all.

Yep, atheism

 

[shmogie]

Hm...maybe he should have reread it (assuming he had read it once).

Jefferson actually had quite a hand in there being a Bill of Rights at all: https://www.google.com/amp/s/consti...ok-at-thomas-jeffersons-constitutional-legacy

So you do agree that the 1st Amendment separates Church and state? Otherwise, how can the 1st Amendment be effective?

The first amendment denies the establishment of a state approved, state sponsored, government religion. That is all it says about religion, other than the RIGHT to practice ones religion freely.

Denial of that right is what the Governent is attempting to do

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The first amendment denies the establishment of a state approved, state sponsored, government religion. That is all it says about religion, other than the RIGHT to practice ones religion freely.

Denial of that right is what the Governent is attempting to do

So, a separation of Church and State, right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't trust Trump to not overstep boundaries and step over what is permitted. Students already have the right to prayer, so there really isn't anything that needs done.

 

[dianaiad]

I don't trust Trump to not overstep boundaries and step over what is permitted. Students already have the right to prayer, so there really isn't anything that needs done.

If students really DID have a 'right to prayer,' I'd agree.

However, as my example has proven, they don't.

.............oh, and telling them that they have a right to believe and think as they wish as long as nobody knows about it (in other words, behind closed doors where nobody can see them) is NOT a 'right to prayer."

I have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT, if I feel the need, to walk down the school hallway, stop, bow my head quietly and say a prayer...perhaps not so loud as to disrupt the classroom I'm passing or to interupt conversations between people passing me by, but mentally or even very quietly...at the conclusion of which I continue on. Are you telling me that I don't have that right?

If the local American Atheists (who are very active here) have the right to pass out flyers in front of the school offices during school hours along with the Spanish club and the Cheerleading squad, but a local Christian group cannot do the same OR meet privately and quietly by the parking lot before school hours, what is that saying about 'state' approval of a position on religion?

In other words, a 'state religion?"

 

[metis]

Trump panders a lot, especially to try to get and keep the Evangelical vote. If one does the research, "gems" like Mussolini, Franco, and, yes, even Hitler did much the same by pandering to Catholics (Mussolini and Franco) and other Christians (Hitler). [read the Wiki articles on them for confirmation of this]

Trump is well known as a "con man", who even brags that he would do almost anything to "seal the deal" in his book "The Art of the Deal". Maybe some should read it for themselves because some here are being "taken for a ride".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Legality of polygamy - Wikipedia



Polygamy is illegal. Not just bigamy.



They in fact do, despite schools saying they don't. Private schools may try this, but they tend not to (this crap is mainly tried in public schools where people exploit the public misunderstanding of the establishment clause). In actual fact, being public means not that they are more separated by the church but that they are more bound by the constitution. It's only because people have let them get away with this nonsense that it continues.

The Constitution protects right to bear arms. Therefore, any public school, as a subset of the government (that's what public means) has the right to protect the right to bear arms. Likewise, telling people they can't speak freely or worship freely is Cold War bull****.

Even if it somehow were not the case, such restrictions would only extend to the teachers, who are employed by the school. The students, on the other hand, are visitors.

Fast Facts: Students' Religious Freedom Rights at School



This is why Trump is advising them about this, rather than pushing for laws. Because there are ALREADY laws protecting the rights of students. Teachers, may not as much, but students have a great deal of rights provided they don't disrupt education (like loudly praying to Mecca five times a day, rather than simply bending over and quietly reciting prayers during those times).

Polygamy is multiple counts of bigamy. Do you understand that? Making bigamy illegal draws polygamy along with it, since bigamy is a kind of polygamy.. It is a somewhat semantic argument, but a point worth noting. If a man were married to 12 women, he would not be charged with polygamy, but with 11 counts of bigamy.