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

[Jester]

Conquistadors were not the only Europeans that considered indigenous non-European people animals. It had more to do with power and politics than Christ, and even then the Catholic churches land grabs, money grabs, and political maneuvering around The Holy Roman Empire had very little to do with Christian values.

Not many Conquistadores were involved in Autos-da-Fe. They weren't generally a super religious lot. No, that can be laid at the doorstep of the missionaries - obviously, overtly, dogmatically Christians, doing it all the name of the good lord. At least in much of colonial Latin America, they were often performed when there was no political motive at all - indeed, the encomenderos were generally quite miffed that their labour force was being alienated by excessive violence for no reason but religion.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm sure there are other ways to arrange for the community to provide a fair and equal education to all of its children.

Really? Because I can't think of any for any community bigger than a hamlet or a commune.

And *I* expect the Spanish Inquisition, always. Part of the reason I support the second amendment.

--Pete

[eppie]

What I'm trying to assert it that the answer to harmony (in this case between Christian and non-Christians) is not discord. One problem is the attitude of smugness (on both sides) of approaching the topic as if you know the right answer. Another is that people have forgotten how, or never learned how to debate with civility. Another problem is that people refuse to listen to the opposing side.

It is very simple, I don't want people telling my child that there is a god and that it is the god of the bible, I also don't want people to tell him there is an Allah, Buddah, God of thunder or whatever. I want him to have classes on different religions and world views of people in the world.
I will raise him to have an objective view of everything. The whole difference with having a religious upbringing is that it is not just telling 'I think there is a God etc.etc.' but that because of that the child should do all kinds of things that you think please that God.
For the rest; we are not having a discussion about the existence of God here, we are discussing teaching children things.

I know many a theologian who would make the same claim for faith and morality.

Faith in yourself or your parents and morality are good things......but this is something else as religion. Or do you consider atheist to have no morals?

I enjoyed my courses on comparative world religions (FWIW, they were extremely anti-christian). But, here is where you insult religious people by equating their belief system to "brainwashing". :P If they are religious, then they've become mentally compromised, and incapable of independent thought. In fact, they are shunned for many jobs because they might be mouth breathing, addle pated, automatons subservient to the psychosomatic suggestions of some clergyman's Sunday sermon.

I don't equate their belief system as brainwashing.....it is when they push this system on children as it being the one and only truth that it becomes brainwashing.

I reject your prejudiced view. I would agree that there are some well publicized extreme cases, like Jim Jones, or David Koresh, where religion is abused as a means to "brainwash" the sheep. I believe the aim of true theologians is to find the truth, or to seek enlightenment, not to create a herd of sheep.

Brainwashing is when people don't even consider a different truth and this is not only the case with these religious sects. I know many people in Italy (also my own age) that are absolutely flabbergasted to hear that there are people not believing in God. In Holland where the Christian Democrats are since 100 years the biggest political force, only because they have their base of religious followers. And I am sure in the US this is the same. The example of it being very difficult for a non christian presidential candidate to be elected is a consequence of a form of brainwashing.

Theologians are scientist right? Because the clergy for sure wants to create a herd of sheep.

[Frag]

It occurred to me, sitting here having breakfast, exactly how far outta right field the school officials were. I was sent to a catholic high school for Jr. & Sr. years (for discipline, not religion) and this would have never have happened there. Even there, the only time religion was brought up was in religion class, or when we went to church (which wasn't required), and this was with nuns and priests teaching my classes.

~Frag:blink:

[kandrathe]

It occurred to me, sitting here having breakfast, exactly how far outta right field the school officials were. I was sent to a catholic high school for Jr. & Sr. years (for discipline, not religion) and this would have never have happened there. Even there, the only time religion was brought up was in religion class, or when we went to church (which wasn't required), and this was with nuns and priests teaching my classes.

~Frag:blink:

It depends on the school and the community. For the passionate "Born Again" crowd they take literally the statement by Christ, "Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there I am."

Thinking as they do then, who wouldn't want the spirit of Christ in the classroom, or at your meetings.

[kandrathe]

Did a person with some authority over you perform these ceremonies?

Sometimes, yes. Then again, as you might guess, I'm pretty firm when it come to my personal right to believe and live my life the way I see fit. I attribute it to time when I was 17 and I realized everything I was taught about life and religion by the adults was superficial tripe, and I had to reassemble my belief systems on sound foundations.

I've never been discriminated against because I did or did not participate in ceremonies, but then again, as I stated I don't make a fuss about them and give people the freedom to revere what they like. But, then again, no one has asked me to pledge undying love to Kaonohiokala either. But, say I had to start every meeting at work with some ceremony to the Sun god, it would be annoying and get a little tiresome. I understand that.

[kandrathe]

Very significant authority, to be exact. Even if that's not what a principal is, that's not what I thought he was, when I was a kid.

In my grade school, the principle had an unnatural attraction to young boys, so I avoided him. In high school, I never saw the principle much, except at school events. The vice principle was in charge of discipline, so yes, I saw him quite often. :)

[kandrathe]

...And this crime is even more dasterdly to take place in the schools where the target group are individuals who have not fully formed their ideas and philosophies. There is no challenge of higher enlightenment here just conformity and ostracization.

Ah, the dasterdly crime of asking a fellow known Christian to say grace at a meal. Heinous! Crucify him! You mean alleged ostracization. There is no evidence of any ostracization or any requirement subject to ostracization. It would be helpful if you could point at someone other than the overtly Christian children of overtly Christian parents as victims here. One of my teachers was an Amway salesman, another was a dope addict, another bought us beer and partied with us and another dated under aged girls on his track team. I think there are other dangers in our schools than saying grace before meals.

I'm not ready for thought police, even for school children. It is the parents responsibility to determine those places that are safe for their children, whether that be a school, an after school event, a youth organization, surfing the internet or their chosen place of worship. When you give the government to power to shape a childs mind, then you run into these problems. When you give that power to their parents, then the parent has to appropriate responsibility to determine how to filter the world.

Now, in other conversations here, I've heard that parents can't be trusted to shape the minds of their own children.

The other solution... If you don't like small town ways, then move to the city. If you don't like Mormon life styles, then stay out of parts of Utah.

[Jester]

It would be helpful if you could point at someone other than the overtly Christian children of overtly Christian parents as victims here.

I can certainly imagine some ways in which that information would be of use to some of the more zealous inhabitants of Pace, Florida. There's a reason people don't often speak up against their community culture, which makes it all the more crucial that the freedom from religious establishment is enforced, regardless of whether it is popular in the community.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

It occurred to me, sitting here having breakfast, exactly how far outta right field the school officials were. I was sent to a catholic high school for Jr. & Sr. years (for discipline, not religion) and this would have never have happened there. Even there, the only time religion was brought up was in religion class, or when we went to church (which wasn't required), and this was with nuns and priests teaching my classes.

As one who went to Catholic school from first grade through high school, I both agree and disagree with you. I agree that overt religious practice is minimized. But everything is slanted to Catholicism. There are many subtle forms of indoctrination. For example, in history books used in Catholic schools, the excesses of the church are minimized, and the reformation is referred to as the 'protestant rebellion'.

Then again, I went to high school in Georgia, where we studied the 1861-1865 War of Northern Aggression. :lol:

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

I can certainly imagine some ways in which that information would be of use to some of the more zealous inhabitants of Pace, Florida. There's a reason people don't often speak up against their community culture, which makes it all the more crucial that the freedom from religious establishment is enforced, regardless of whether it is popular in the community.

-Jester

Which was actually the first point I stated, conveniently overlooked or ignored by Kandrathe.

[kandrathe]

Which was actually the first point I stated, conveniently overlooked or ignored by Kandrathe.

Not ignored. But, just as I don't wait at red lights at 3am in the middle of nowhere when the roads are empty... Giving a public meal prayer in front of a small number of Christian children with the assent of their parents doesn't seem like much of a crime.

The Constitution doesn't protect you from religion, it protects you from being coerced by the State into converting to a State sponsored religion. For example, if say Christians were immune from paying taxes. Or, if only Christians were allowed to vote. Or, if you needed to recite a creed before being recognized as a citizen. Or, if as it was recently in Europe, the clergy were appointed by the crown and all citizens were required to register at their local parish.

What is happening at Pace is not county policy (and therefore subject to their discipline BTW), and it is not Florida policy. Therefore, there is no risk of the imposition of a State religion. What I see is the ACLU stepping into a community (which is admittedly beyond the norm) to make a point. However, the result will be to turn the 10,000 otherwise quiet Christian citizens of Pace into 10,000 Christian political activists with a grudge.

I'm implying that while this might give the ACLU a righteous feel good rush, in the long run they are galvanizing the opposition as actively their opposition. It just becomes a battle cry for the Right.

[Jester]

Giving a public meal prayer in front of a small number of Christian children with the assent of their parents doesn't seem like much of a crime.

As I pointed out earlier, the charge was contempt of court. This was for violating an earlier agreement imposed by the court for much more full-blooded violations of the constitution. If the only thing that had ever happened was that someone blessed their food, we wouldn't have heard about it. But that is far from the case here. (I would also point out that the court decided that the prayer was a harmless slip, not a deliberate violation. This is the rule of law, not arbitrary persecution.)

The Constitution doesn't protect you from religion, it protects you from being coerced by the State into converting to a State sponsored religion. For example, if say Christians were immune from paying taxes. Or, if only Christians were allowed to vote. Or, if you needed to recite a creed before being recognized as a citizen. Or, if as it was recently in Europe, the clergy were appointed by the crown and all citizens were required to register at their local parish.

The establishment clause creates a barrier between church and state - the government must remain utterly neutral in matters of religion. This includes all its functions, from the military through to the schools. Public education is constitutionally required to be free from anything that resembles an official religion - including school administrators at school-organized gatherings offering overtly Christian blessings for meals.

What is happening at Pace is not county policy (and therefore subject to their discipline BTW), and it is not Florida policy. Therefore, there is no risk of the imposition of a State religion.

This is just wrong. Public schools are bound by the constitutional restrictions on the government - at any level. If this were not the case, the courts would not have sided with the ACLU in the original decision.

What I see is the ACLU stepping into a community (which is admittedly beyond the norm) to make a point. However, the result will be to turn the 10,000 otherwise quiet Christian citizens of Pace into 10,000 Christian political activists with a grudge. (...) I'm implying that while this might give the ACLU a righteous feel good rush, in the long run they are galvanizing the opposition as actively their opposition. It just becomes a battle cry for the Right.

The ACLU's very reason for existence is to intervene at times like this. If they backed down every time there was some risk of angry bigots getting pissed off, they might as well just close up shop. Defending gay people stirs up homophobia. Defending immigrants stirs up xenophobia. Defending racial minorities stirs up racism. Why exactly should the ACLU back down, and not their opponents?

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Religious freedom is something else than the freedom to force your believes on other people,

Thus spake the idiot.

Back to lurking, it hasn't improved since I last visited.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

The establishment clause creates a barrier between church and state - the government must remain utterly neutral in matters of religion.

Let me play devil's advocate and look at the actual source. Now, the establishment clause actually says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . It does *not* impose the barrier you mention, nor does it require that utter neutrality. Indeed, in the USA, religion is given preferential treatment in many ways, not least in the matter of tax status.

Also of importance is that, in contrast with the remainder of the Bill of Rights, the restriction is specifically on 'congress' . Combined with the Tenth Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."), it would seem to imply that the individual states have the right to establish religions. Considering that a number of the states were indeed founded as religious entities, that interpretation is likely.

To arrive at the 'barrier' and the 'neutrality' of which you speak is a processes initiated by the establishment clause and developed over two centuries of state and local laws and court decisions at all levels. Although the ideal is not yet reached, it is much closer than it was even a few decades ago when blue laws were still prevalent throughout the Bible belt. Much of the ACLU's job isn't so much to gain new freedoms as it is to prevent the erosions of freedoms already gained. Eternal vigilance is indeed the price of liberty, and the enemies from within are much more dangerous than those from outside.

--Pete

[Jester]

Well, unless the fourteenth amendment has gone into hiding, the states are bound by the establishment clause as well. (Hey, that's called the "Incorporation Doctrine" - thanks, Wikipedia!) And it is quite clear that there were some founding fathers, including Madison-the-framer, who interpreted the establishment clause to mean a total separation of church and state, although clearly not everyone has followed in that tradition.

So, while it is certainly the case that the first amendment has not always been followed to the extent that it should be, it seems clear to me that the strong reading is the correct one, even in terms of the original intent, and that it is binding on state governments in that form since the Civil War.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

It is very simple, I don't want people telling my child that there is a god and that it is the god of the bible, I also don't want people to tell him there is an Allah, Buddah, God of thunder or whatever. I want him to have classes on different religions and world views of people in the world.

And what is the likelihood of anyone being able to raise a child from zero to 18 without this happening?

I will raise him to have an objective view of everything. The whole difference with having a religious upbringing is that it is not just telling 'I think there is a God etc.etc.' but that because of that the child should do all kinds of things that you think please that God.

You have a naive notion of what modern religious people believe. It really has little to do with pleasing, and more to do with redemption.

For the rest; we are not having a discussion about the existence of God here, we are discussing teaching children things.

Which I believe you as a parent should be in full control.

Faith in yourself or your parents and morality are good things......but this is something else as religion. Or do you consider atheist to have no morals?

No. Morality does not spring from faith, and many religious people are far from being moral. Morality, ethics, and good character come from a sound and stable upbringing, but fundamental to morality is a code of what is "correct" behavior and what is "incorrect" behavior. There is an overlap in that most religions also embody a code of conduct. For example, I adhere to a Buddhist code of conduct even though I'm not a practicing Buddhist.** I just value it for the wisdom embodied within it.

I don't equate their belief system as brainwashing.....it is when they push this system on children as it being the one and only truth that it becomes brainwashing.

Without learning the discernment of truths from nonsense we all would become victims of the first hustler to come along. Teach your children critical thinking.

Brainwashing is when people don't even consider a different truth and this is not only the case with these religious sects. I know many people in Italy (also my own age) that are absolutely flabbergasted to hear that there are people not believing in God. In Holland where the Christian Democrats are since 100 years the biggest political force, only because they have their base of religious followers. And I am sure in the US this is the same. The example of it being very difficult for a non christian presidential candidate to be elected is a consequence of a form of brainwashing.

Sounds like many people I know, whether it be politics or on the job. I really can't tell those who are brain washed from those that are just pig headed.

Theologians are scientist right?

theos - God, ology - the study of... So, no not a scientist since any God worth their salt is not measurable or quantifiable.

Because the clergy for sure wants to create a herd of sheep.

No, I don't agree. There are all kinds of people in the world, so there are probably some misguided ones that seek to subjugate others I guess. Clergy may picture themselves as shepherds of the flock of sheep, but that doesn't mean they desire them to be like sheep. Shepherds usually herd sheep and goats around keeping them safe, feeding them from fresh green pastures, and bringing them to clean water. They are responsible caretakers. In those ancient stories and writings it was meant metaphorically, that if you should find a person who is lost, hungry, thirsty or cold you should do something about it, just as a shepherd tends a lost sheep. But, as with all written wisdom that has been translated and mistranslated over the eons, some megalomaniac would interpret that to mean literally clergy should have a shepherds level of control over their congregation. It drives me crazy when people over interpret or misinterpret things, or when they try to read hidden meanings into things that at face value are direct and clear.

**
Edit: On second thought, perhaps because I choose to follow the Buddhist code of conduct that makes me a Buddhist. I don't know.

[Chesspiece_face]

But, just as I don't wait at red lights at 3am in the middle of nowhere when the roads are empty... Giving a public meal prayer in front of a small number of Christian children with the assent of their parents doesn't seem like much of a crime.

And yet, if you were to be sent a ticket in the mail because you were caught on a traffic cam you would be equally as guilty of breaking the law as if you did the same thing in broad daylight with a cop sitting at the intersection.

Just as there is no "But judge! It was the middle of the night in BFE!" defense, there's also no "We're all christians here and you can geeeeyyyyit out" defense. Ironically though there is a "We're all christians here and you can geeeeyyyyit out!" offense. It's called private or homeschool.

[eppie]

Thus spake the idiot.

Back to lurking, it hasn't improved since I last visited.

Occhi

O I'm sorry. But I guess I got that coming after having to correct your italian so often, occhi d'angelo:)

[eppie]

theos - God, ology - the study of... So, no not a scientist since any God worth their salt is not measurable or quantifiable.

First, I know what it means, I just find it strange that you mention theologians instead of priests.

And theologians are scientists, just like a professor in French language or law is a scientist....it doesn't have to be quantifiable te be science.

A theologian also doesn't have to be religious, it is somebody that studies religion (of course most of them are religious)