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

[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