Two Florida school officials won't go to jail for praying

[kandrathe]

A recent story from CNN caught my eye;<blockquote>"Lay and Freeman could have faced up to six months in prison and fines if convicted. They were accused of violating a consent decree banning county school employees from initiating prayers during school events."

"The tradition of offering prayer in America has become so interwoven into our nation's spiritual heritage that to charge someone criminally for engaging in such a practice would astonish the men who founded this country on religious liberty."</blockquote>Florida school officials won't go to jail for praying

I'm astonished. It is downright amazing to me that in the US, people can seriously be put in jail for praying.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It is downright amazing to me that in the US, people can seriously be put in jail for praying.

No one was put into jail at all. And they weren't even *in danger* of being put in jail for praying. They were in danger of being put in jail for forcing their ignorant superstition on those over whom they had authority. In my opinion, they should get multiple life sentences for child abuse, for violating the first amendment, for contributing to the ignorance and stupidity of the nation, for abuse of their position, and for being assholes in general.

I too can use selected quotes out of context. "But the American Civil Liberties Union, whose lawsuit led to the consent decree, has maintained students have a right to be free from administrators who foist their personal religious beliefs on them."

When are those who want to push their irrational and inane beliefs on the world going to realize that freedom *of* religion can only exist if there is also freedom *from* religion.

(Rest of rant removed.)

--Pete

[DeeBye]

So public school officials directing a prayer in school is okay, but Obama making a speech about staying in school is not?

I love it.

[Vandiablo]

I'm astonished. It is downright amazing to me that in the US, people can seriously be put in jail for praying.

I am disappointed these guys don't even get their wrists slapped. (Thanks Pete for saving me time composing that part.)

I am even more disappointed in the following part of the article:

The case caught the attention of members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, including the caucus' founder, Rep. J. Randy Forbes, R-Virginia.

He and two other lawmakers, Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-North Carolina, and Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Florida, also members of the caucus, wrote a letter in support of the two school administrators, saying that "many of America's Founding Fathers were resolute in their faiths, and the impact of such is evident in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and many of their writings."

First of all, WhyTF does anyone need a "Congressional Prayer Caucus"?? Never mind, never mind, I've already heard the answer whenever I make the mistake of listening to Fox News. (An answer based on fear, ignorance and hatred, BTW, not a historically peaceful combination.)

And more importantly, have these frikkin roundheads ever actually read the Constitution?? Guess what guys!! God isn't in there! Nor is Jesus, nor "the Creator". They framers left God out, and obviously intended to leave God out, because to have put God in would be sanctioning a certain religious view.

The only mentions that come close are:
"Blessings of Liberty" -- sounds godly, but like "goodness" or "cleanliness" God is not necessary
"no religious test" -- like, for instance, thinking that the God of Abraham actually exists
"no establishment of religion" -- like forcing kids to say "under God" every morning
and
"free exercise thereof" -- this is the crux of the wafer so to speak. Let's focus on this one.

The principal and athletic director are free to bless their own meals, and to lead prayers in their own homes or churches, but not to invoke religion in a public school event where they are authorities.

Nobody is trouncing on their exercise of religion -- what is objectionable, and constitutionally illegal in a public school setting, is their trouncing on other people, including kids.

(BTW Pete's coward T. Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, also wrote his own Bible where the "mysticism" (e.g., miracles) was removed because TJ thought it was pure fiction! That's how "resolute" he was!)

And now I shall lead us in a song! Stand up. I SAID, stand up! NOW!

Yes indeed, here we are!
At Saint Alfonzo's Pancake Breakfast
Where I stole the margarine
An' widdled on the Bingo Cards
in lieu of the latrine
etc.

(further lyrics not shown so that The Lounge is not criminal)

Anyone who did not sing along should report to detention. NOW!

-Van
Principal
Franklin Z. Appa School of Crockery

(edit: removed lyrics to respect copyright)
(edit: added TJ comment)

[eppie]

I'm astonished. It is downright amazing to me that in the US, people can seriously be put in jail for praying.

Religious freedom is something else than the freedom to force your believes on other people, especially when they are children. (even though the founding fathers probably had in mind the last thing:))
If they were not reprimanded there would be very little difference between that Florida school and some Iranian or Taliban high school.

Even though we don't notice it as such a lot of religious oppression occurs in the west (in the south of europe, Poland and Ireland the Catholic influence is an example of this. But we tend to be a bit more lenient on these things when they concern christians instead of muslims.


In the US everybody can practice his of her religious believes. But it is a good thing that people keep an eye on abuse of these freedom......keep this in the confines of your house or go to a church....stop bothering other people with it. The Christian influence in politics and daily life is already too strong as it is now.
Still I prefer the US system over eg the dutch system where we have catholic, protestant, muslim etc. schools (I'm talking about elementarry and high schools).

[Quark]

So public school officials directing a prayer in school is okay, but Obama making a speech about staying in school is not?

I love it.

There's a reason I stopped reading these threads.

[Vandiablo]

There's a reason I stopped reading these threads.

Part of God's Plan. :P

[Crusader]

Perhaps we should rename the Lurker Lounge to "Kandrathe's American Political Nonesense club."

[--Pete]

Hi,

One small nit:

. . . but not to invoke religion in a public school event where they are authorities.

I think that should read ". . . not to publicly invoke religion . . ." I believe you agree, from what you said earlier in the post. I mention this because many I've discussed this with have claimed that forbidding prayer in public schools is a violation of the first amendment. My reply is that private prayer is *always* permissible, but if the prayer has to be said aloud it is no longer private.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi, again,

It just occurred to me that that headline is wrong. It should read:

<span style="color:yellow">ALL Florida school officials won't go to jail for praying.

I mean, if we're going to engage in yellow journalism, why go half way?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Perhaps we should rename the Lurker Lounge to "Kandrathe's American Political Nonesense club."

I post about one topic every 2 weeks. Without that it may well be "The place that accumulates dust". So, go ahead and ignore the topic, and feel free to post one that is more uplifting and relevant. I've always tried to be forthright, and an anti-sycophant.

I find it newsworthy, as did CNN and others, that people who merely said "grace" before a meal at a school function (and not in front of children) were threatened with possible jail and fines.

[kandrathe]

I think that should read ". . . not to publicly invoke religion . . ." I believe you agree, from what you said earlier in the post. I mention this because many I've discussed this with have claimed that forbidding prayer in public schools is a violation of the first amendment. My reply is that private prayer is *always* permissible, but if the prayer has to be said aloud it is no longer private.

How is praying publicly establishing a State religion? When the action is done spontaneously by individuals, for me, that is personal freedom. When it is mandated or encoded in some rules or laws, then it is establishment. For example, the US Congress opens with a Christian prayer, which is exactly what violates the First Amendment. But, if students, or teachers, or employees on their own express their personal beliefs, then it is part and parcel of exposing your children to "society". Whether that "expression" be Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Atheist, Wikkan, or Satanic. What is wrong with the tactic the ACLU is imposing is that the only remedy is to restrict expression, and eventually the only place you are allowed to express your beliefs (for fear of offending someone else) would be in the privacy of your own home, or place of worship. That is not how I envision religious liberty.

[Frag]

(Rest of rant removed.)

--Pete

How gracious of you to remove the real vitriol.

~Frag:whistling:

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . (and not in front of children) . . .

Others have also asked you this question. Let me join the chorus. Do you actually read the articles you link to?

"But on January 28, "Lay asked Freeman to offer a prayer of blessing during a school-day luncheon for the dedication of a new field house at Pace High School," according to court documents.

"Freeman complied with the request and offered the prayer at the event. It appears this was a school-sponsored event attended by students, faculty and community members." (emphasis mine)

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

How is praying publicly establishing a State religion? When the action is done spontaneously by individuals, for me, that is personal freedom. When it is mandated or encoded in some rules or laws, then it is establishment.

When the praying is done by the principal and the athletic director of a high school, at a school function, then it becomes something other than a spontaneous expression of piety.

For example, the US Congress opens with a Christian prayer, which is exactly what violates the First Amendment.

Yes.

What is wrong with the tactic the ACLU is imposing is that the only remedy is to restrict expression, . . .

Again, do you read what you link to? Nowhere does it say that there was a private prayer. Nowhere have I ever seen the ACLU or anyone else condemning private prayer, or even public prayer by individuals (although, to be fair, there were cases where some students got into trouble by disrupting school functions with loud and long prayers). What is being condemned here is public prayer by authority figures at a public school function.

Aside to Frag: you're welcome. I know how fragile the egos of those that need the crutch and opiate of religion can be, so I held back. I find no great pleasure in beating cripples. :P

--Pete

[Jester]

I find it newsworthy, as did CNN and others, that people who merely said "grace" before a meal at a school function (and not in front of children) were threatened with possible jail and fines.

"Threatened" is not the right word to use. It implies that someone with the power to jail them decided to make a threat of doing so. Suing or accusing someone in a nation with the rule of law is not a threat of jail - it is a legal action.

In this particular case, it sounds as if there was a longstanding issue with religion bleeding into school functions in this area. The majority of students, administrators, and the public clearly strongly support an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into education, and the ACLU is obviously quite touchy about the state of freedom from religion where one faith is so strong. Hence the injunction obtained against the school previously - which included school-sponsored activities - and the topic of this whole kerfuffle.

-Jester

Afterthought: Just to be clear, the charge was contempt of court - for violating the earlier injunction.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . kerfuffle.

Sent me scurrying to M-W, you did. Thanks.:)

--Pete

[DeeBye]

There's a reason I stopped reading these threads.

I can't help reading them. I always tell myself "do not reply do not reply do not reply!", but sometimes I lack the willpower:(

[Vandiablo]

I can't help reading them. I always tell myself "do not reply do not reply do not reply!", but sometimes I lack the willpower:(

At those times when you doubt your own strength, you just gotta ask yerself "WWJD?" -- What Would Jester Debate??

[eppie]

For example, the US Congress opens with a Christian prayer, which is exactly what violates the First Amendment.

And which is a wrong thing to do but try (and we talked about this before) , as a member of congress, to criticize this on suggest to stop that practice.....that is political suicide in a country with 'freedom or religion'.
The founding fathers probably also didn't mean it literally....they probably meant ' your free to express your religion as long as it is some hard-core type of Christianity if you want 'make it' socio-economically'.

That is not how I envision religious liberty.

I think we all agree that people may think or believe what they want. Our difference in opinion is that you don't consider a prayer to be annoying for other people. I personally don't get annoyed quickly but what about church bells, the asking to come to the service in a mosque using loudspeakers, the use of prayer or referiing to God by politicians, the clear influence of religion on law (most clearly abortion and euthanasia but also gay marriage, shops having to stay closed on sundays etc.), religious people trying to influence children, the beeping out of certain words in TV shows and movies...etc.etc.etc. An atheist didn't ask for these things while everything he makes a remark about God not existing he will feel the wrath of the church over him. Religious people often don't seem to realize how much they influence how other people can live their life, and that seeing somebody pray in the open can be just as disturbing for others as using a swearword is for them.