Muslim Workers Walk Off Job Over Prayers

[granny2young]

Other cases dealing with religion in schools:

1940 Supreme Court rules that a public school may require students to salute the flag and
pledge allegiance even if it violates their religious scruples. (Minersville v. Gobitis,)

1943 Court overturns Gobitis but is broader in its scope. No one can be forced to salute the
flag or say the pledge of allegiance if it violates the individual conscience. (West Virginia State
Board of Education v. Barnette)

1948 Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause
and therefore unconstitutional. (McCollum v. Board of Education)

1952 Court finds that release time from public school classes for religious instruction does not
violate the establishment clause. (Zorach v. Clausen)

1962 Court finds school prayer unconstitutional. (Engel v. Vitale)

1963 Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional. (Abington School District
v. Schempp)

1963 Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.
(Murray v. Curlett)

1968 Court says the state cannot ban the teaching of evolution. (Epperson v. Arkansas)

1980 Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional. (Stone v.
Graham)

1985 Court finds state law enforcing a moment of silence in schools had a religious purpose and
is therefore unconstitutional. (Wallace v. Jaffree)

1987 Court finds state law requiring equal treatment for creationism has a religious purpose and
is therefore unconstitutional. (Edwards v. Aquillard)

1990 The court rules that the Equal Access Act does not violate the First Amendment. Public
schools that receive federal funds and maintain a "limited open forum" on school grounds after
school hours cannot deny "equal access" to student groups based upon "religious, political,
philosophical, or other content." (Board of Education v. Mergens)

1992 Court finds prayer at public school graduation ceremonies violates the establishment
clause and is therefore unconstitutional. (Lee v. Weisman)

1993 Court says that school districts cannot deny churches access to school premises after-hours, if the
district allowed the use of its building to other groups. (Lamb's Chapel et al. v. Center Moriches Union Free
School District)

[Sky]

granny2young said:

Sky, you should already have figured out by now I am not going to respond and play the good vs. evil game with you. I chose to live for God and will not waiver. We all know which side you are on, you have made that pefectly clear many times. We do not harass you and post on every thread about your disbelief, so why must you try to torture us with our belief? I will leave you and every other nonbeliever out there with this thought: Just because YOU don't believe it, don't make it not true.

You don't know crap g2y and you certainly don't know what I do or don't believe because I have never said. You are assuming things you want to believe because it soothes you over inflated ego and allows you to thump your version of Christanity in the face of those who you think should believe what you do.

Even the dates you posted DOES NOT SAY prayer was removed from the public school system. Thank you kindly for making the point abundantly clear!!!

[granny2young]

I profess I am a Christian and I am shoving down your throat? That is the problem with christians that wittzo was saying. They LET nonbelievers hush them and that is why we are slowly losing our rights.

As far as the schools, a professor was recently fired for having his students read a christian-based novel. A teacher was fired because she opened her class with prayer, a judge was santioned because he had the Ten Commandments in his court room, the ACLU sued the Pontotoc school system and WON because of prayer in school, and the list goes on and on. Yes, prayer has been taken out of schools.

[granny2young]

1962 Court finds school prayer unconstitutional. (Engel v. Vitale)

[wittzo]

granny2young said:

1962 Court finds school prayer unconstitutional. (Engel v. Vitale)

I did a quick little check on Snopes.com before I realised I was wasting my time fighting on the Internet...
I discovered that there is no clear cut "banning" of prayer in schools, but if school prayer is unconstitutional, that makes it illegal. Therefore, it's it's illegal, surely the schools can and will ban it if they are called to do so. So logically, school prayer is banned.

I'm going to have to use the Drew Carrey method of judging, G2Y:100 points, Sky:50 points, Slitherin:20 points...

[Sky]

granny2young said:

I profess I am a Christian and I am shoving down your throat? That is the problem with christians that wittzo was saying. They LET nonbelievers hush them and that is why we are slowly losing our rights.

As far as the schools, a professor was recently fired for having his students read a christian-based novel. A teacher was fired because she opened her class with prayer, a judge was santioned because he had the Ten Commandments in his court room, the ACLU sued the Pontotoc school system and WON because of prayer in school, and the list goes on and on. Yes, prayer has been taken out of schools.

NO IT HAS NOT!!! The governments ability to LEAD school prayer has been ruled unconstitutional NOT A STUDENTS ABILITY TO PRAY!!!!

It don't matter how you tell the lie g2y, it's still a LIE to say prayer has been removed from the public school system.

I am not a non believer g2y, I just don't believe in your lies.

A teacher fired for leading her class in prayer....hmmm!! THAT EQUALS GOVERNMENT LED PRAYER WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! A judge was fired for refusing to remove the ten commandments from his courtroom which defied a court order. The Judge knew the law and decided to break it anyway and you think because it's God related he should be allowed to defy the law? That is YOUR problem with YOUR brand of Christanity.

Are you willing g2y to allow the Star of David to hang along side the 10 commandments? Are you willing to allow a Budda to be placed along side the 10 Commandments? Are you willing to allow the Catholic version of the 10 Commandments to hang along side your version of the 10 Commandments? If not, you are indeed the hypocrite and the liar because all of the Jews, Buddists, and Catholics are Christians too, just not your version of Christian.

[granny2young]

I am so sick to death of your personal attacks on me because I believe in God. TF, I swear this problem must be dealth with, and quickly. We have lost people on the forums and will continue to lose them because they are hounded in the ground and their opinion ridiculed.

I am moderator of this section of the forum and I am warning you to stop it. I am not a liar because I believe in ONE GOD and Iwill not stand for me, or anyone else to be called such names, so I suggest you take a step back and lay off before yet another thread is locked because of it.

End of Discussion.

[Sky]

Ninety percent of America's youngsters attend public schools. These students come from homes that espouse a variety of religious and philosophical beliefs. Given the incredible diversity of American society, it's important that our public schools respect the beliefs of everyone and protect parental rights. The schools can best do this by not sponsoring religious worship. This principle ensures that America's public schools are welcoming to all children and leaves decisions about religion where they belong with the family.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been vigilant in forbidding public schools and other agencies of the government to interfere with Americans' constitutional right to follow their own consciences when it comes to religion. In 1962, the justices ruled that official prayer had no place in public education.

This decision is widely misunderstood today. The court did not rule that students are forbidden to pray on their own; the justices merely said that government officials had no business composing a prayer for students to recite. The Engel v. Vitale case came about because parents in New York challenged a prayer written by a New York education board. These Christian, Jewish and Unitarian parents did not want their children subjected to state-sponsored devotions. The high court agreed that the scheme amounted to government promotion of religion.

In the following year, 1963, the Supreme Court handed down another important ruling dealing with prayer in public schools. In Abington Township School District v. Schempp, the court declared school-sponsored Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's Prayer unconstitutional.

Since those rulings, a myth has sprung up asserting that Madalyn Murray O'Hair, a prominent atheist, "removed prayer from public schools." In fact, the 1962 case was brought by a group of New York parents who had no connection to O'Hair, and the 1963 case was filed by a Unitarian family from the Philadelphia area. O'Hair, at that time a resident of Baltimore, had filed a similar lawsuit, which the high court consolidated with the Pennsylvania case.

It is important to remember that in these decisions the Supreme Court did not "remove prayer from public schools." The court removed only government-sponsored worship. Public school students have always had the right to pray on their own as class schedules permit.

Also, the Supreme Court did not rule against official prayer and Bible reading in public schools out of hostility to religion. Rather, the justices held that these practices were examples of unconstitutional government interference with religion. Thus, the exercises violated the First Amendment.

Nothing in the 1962 or 1963 rulings makes it unlawful for public school students to pray or read the Bible (or any other religious book) on a voluntary basis during their free time. Later decisions have made this even clearer. In 1990, the high court ruled specifically that high school students may form clubs that meet during "non-instructional" time to pray, read religious texts or discuss religious topics if other student groups are allowed to meet.

The high court has also made it clear, time and again, that objective study about religion in public schools is legal and appropriate. Many public schools offer courses in comparative religion, the Bible as literature or the role of religion in world and U.S. history. As long as the approach is objective, balanced and non-devotional, these classes present no constitutional problem.

In short, a public school's approach to religion must have a legitimate educational purpose, not a devotional one. Public schools should not be in the business of preaching to students or trying to persuade them to adopt certain religious beliefs. Parents, not school officials, are responsible for overseeing a young person's religious upbringing. This is not a controversial principle. In fact, most parents would demand these basic rights.

A passage from the high court's ruling in the 1963 Pennsylvania case sums up well the proper role of religion in public education.

Justice Tom Clark, writing for the court, observed, "Nothing that we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistent with the First Amendment." Clark added that government could not force the exclusion of religion in schools "in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion."

The court's ruling suggested simply that a student's family, not government, is responsible for decisions about religious instruction and guidance. There was respect, not hostility, toward religion in the court's ruling.

Justice Clark concluded, "The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church, and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality."

Some critics of the high court's rulings have suggested that these church-state rulings have no precedence in American history. On the contrary, the decisions are the logical outcome of a debate that has been under way in our country for many decades.

Public education for the masses, as conceived by Horace Mann and others in the mid 19th century, was intended to be "non-sectarian." In reality, however, schools often reflected the majority religious view a kind of nondenominational Protestantism. Classes began with devotional readings from the King James Version of the Bible and recitation of the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer. Students were expected to take part whether they shared those religious sentiments or not.

Catholic families were among the first to challenge these school-sponsored religious practices. In some parts of the country, tension over religion in public schools erupted into actual violence. In Philadelphia, for example, full-scale riots and bloodshed resulted in 1844 over which version of the Bible should be used in classroom devotions. Several Catholic churches and a convent were burned; many people died. In Cincinnati, a "Bible War" divided the city in 1868 after the school board discontinued mandatory Bible instruction.

[Sky]

I didn't call you a liar for saying you believe in God g2y!! I said, telling people prayer has been removed from the public school system is a lie and you telling it makes you the one lying.

[BillyBob]

Sky said:

Gotta love the propaganda being spewed here.

Please name those schools and or companies please.

You are really something, Sky. Why do we foolish ones even respond to you? I only bother for others that might read your junk and believe it. You talk about people spewing propaganda and call them liars, and then you cry repeatedly about how YOU are constantly flamed? What gall! You are the major flamer on this board, as everybody knows.

So your going to make me work to prove the obvious? OK. I've already mentioned UNC at Chapel Hill. I'll let you research it for yourself to see if you can disprove my statement that they had tried to REQUIRE a Muslim indoctrinationof incoming freshmen, while they are currently being sued because of their refusal to allow a Christian fraternity UNLESS that fraternity commits to all sorts of un-Christian policies.

I don't have time at the moment, but I'll be back later with more examples of schools and companies, if someone else has not already provided it in abundance.

[Gregasauraus Rex]

Personally I would not mind seeing Rev. Henry Shelton of St James Catholic Church come into the classroom and lead the kids in reciting the Rosary as well as hearing confession The reality is that this is a multicultural society and if we start sponsoring one view in class we should allow other views as well. It reminds me of an old beer coomercial where they had the football team doing the various religeous rituals to satisy everyone or remember a Krusty the Clown Christmas sketch of a Christmas special trying to indluce everyone.

[Sky]

BillyBob said:

You are really something, Sky. Why do we foolish ones even respond to you? I only bother for others that might read your junk and believe it. You talk about people spewing propaganda and call them liars, and then you cry repeatedly about how YOU are constantly flamed? What gall! You are the major flamer on this board, as everybody knows.

So your going to make me work to prove the obvious? OK. I've already mentioned UNC at Chapel Hill. I'll let you research it for yourself to see if you can disprove my statement that they had tried to REQUIRE a Muslim indoctrinationof incoming freshmen, while they are currently being sued because of their refusal to allow a Christian fraternity UNLESS that fraternity commits to all sorts of un-Christian policies.

I don't have time at the moment, but I'll be back later with more examples of schools and companies, if someone else has not already provided it in abundance.

Saying that prayer has been removed from the public school system is a LIE!!! Anyone who tells it repeats the LIE!!!

[BillyBob]

Gotta go, but quickly, part of the point you are missing, Sky, is that it is not only the government, but the schools and companies themselve that are trying to ban all aspects of any public display of Christianity. Examples later. And you suffer from the same delusion that the modern Supreme court does. The first Amendment was adopted to protect the states and their citizens from the federal government, as the founding Fathers wre correctly afraid of what the centalized federal government might become. Hence the first amendment saying CONGRESS shall pass no law respecting ( regarding, IMO) nor or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. You, like the demented, enslaving modern courts, are now calling a Mississippi school teacher "Congress", saying that she can not lead prayer.

The Supreme court did not always feel this way.

John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation , to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, p. 365.

[Sky]

The reality is that this is a multicultural society and if we start sponsoring one view in class we should allow other views as well.

And the problem with that Rex is...those spewing the loudest they are Christian will find some reason to be indignant. They don't want people to understand any religion except theirs or what they find acceptable.

[Gregasauraus Rex]

Amen.

Sky said:

Ninety percent of America's youngsters attend public schools. These students come from homes that espouse a variety of religious and philosophical beliefs. Given the incredible diversity of American society, it's important that our public schools respect the beliefs of everyone and protect parental rights. The schools can best do this by not sponsoring religious worship. This principle ensures that America's public schools are welcoming to all children and leaves decisions about religion where they belong with the family.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been vigilant in forbidding public schools and other agencies of the government to interfere with Americans' constitutional right to follow their own consciences when it comes to religion. In 1962, the justices ruled that official prayer had no place in public education.

This decision is widely misunderstood today. The court did not rule that students are forbidden to pray on their own; the justices merely said that government officials had no business composing a prayer for students to recite. The Engel v. Vitale case came about because parents in New York challenged a prayer written by a New York education board. These Christian, Jewish and Unitarian parents did not want their children subjected to state-sponsored devotions. The high court agreed that the scheme amounted to government promotion of religion.

In the following year, 1963, the Supreme Court handed down another important ruling dealing with prayer in public schools. In Abington Township School District v. Schempp, the court declared school-sponsored Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's Prayer unconstitutional.

Since those rulings, a myth has sprung up asserting that Madalyn Murray O'Hair, a prominent atheist, "removed prayer from public schools." In fact, the 1962 case was brought by a group of New York parents who had no connection to O'Hair, and the 1963 case was filed by a Unitarian family from the Philadelphia area. O'Hair, at that time a resident of Baltimore, had filed a similar lawsuit, which the high court consolidated with the Pennsylvania case.

It is important to remember that in these decisions the Supreme Court did not "remove prayer from public schools." The court removed only government-sponsored worship. Public school students have always had the right to pray on their own as class schedules permit.

Also, the Supreme Court did not rule against official prayer and Bible reading in public schools out of hostility to religion. Rather, the justices held that these practices were examples of unconstitutional government interference with religion. Thus, the exercises violated the First Amendment.

Nothing in the 1962 or 1963 rulings makes it unlawful for public school students to pray or read the Bible (or any other religious book) on a voluntary basis during their free time. Later decisions have made this even clearer. In 1990, the high court ruled specifically that high school students may form clubs that meet during "non-instructional" time to pray, read religious texts or discuss religious topics if other student groups are allowed to meet.

The high court has also made it clear, time and again, that objective study about religion in public schools is legal and appropriate. Many public schools offer courses in comparative religion, the Bible as literature or the role of religion in world and U.S. history. As long as the approach is objective, balanced and non-devotional, these classes present no constitutional problem.

In short, a public school's approach to religion must have a legitimate educational purpose, not a devotional one. Public schools should not be in the business of preaching to students or trying to persuade them to adopt certain religious beliefs. Parents, not school officials, are responsible for overseeing a young person's religious upbringing. This is not a controversial principle. In fact, most parents would demand these basic rights.

A passage from the high court's ruling in the 1963 Pennsylvania case sums up well the proper role of religion in public education.

Justice Tom Clark, writing for the court, observed, "Nothing that we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistent with the First Amendment." Clark added that government could not force the exclusion of religion in schools "in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion."

The court's ruling suggested simply that a student's family, not government, is responsible for decisions about religious instruction and guidance. There was respect, not hostility, toward religion in the court's ruling.

Justice Clark concluded, "The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church, and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality."

Some critics of the high court's rulings have suggested that these church-state rulings have no precedence in American history. On the contrary, the decisions are the logical outcome of a debate that has been under way in our country for many decades.

Public education for the masses, as conceived by Horace Mann and others in the mid 19th century, was intended to be "non-sectarian." In reality, however, schools often reflected the majority religious view a kind of nondenominational Protestantism. Classes began with devotional readings from the King James Version of the Bible and recitation of the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer. Students were expected to take part whether they shared those religious sentiments or not.

Catholic families were among the first to challenge these school-sponsored religious practices. In some parts of the country, tension over religion in public schools erupted into actual violence. In Philadelphia, for example, full-scale riots and bloodshed resulted in 1844 over which version of the Bible should be used in classroom devotions. Several Catholic churches and a convent were burned; many people died. In Cincinnati, a "Bible War" divided the city in 1868 after the school board discontinued mandatory Bible instruction.