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

[--Pete]

Hi,

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'.

Well, it is a little more complicated than that. The founding fathers ranged from men who were undoubtedly religious to those who were, at the least, free thinkers.

At the end of the nineteenth century, science was still in its infancy and the only established world view required some form of supreme being. In Europe and America, Christianity was the only belief system recognized as a religion. And in many parts of Europe, especially in the South, Catholicism was still the only recognized form of Christianity (it was these circumstances that made it easy for Pascal to decide on his wager -- had he not only to chose whether to believe in the Catholic God, but which god to believe in, he might not have passed it off so lightly). Throughout Europe, religious wars were still ongoing or, at least, recent memory.

It is in this atmosphere that the founding fathers established the concept of freedom of religion. That they might not have meant it as liberally as some do today is not their fault -- they lived in their milieu, we in ours. But, to their credit they did establish the concept, and to our nation's credit, the concept has been expanded (albeit sometimes grudgingly) to non-Christians and even to non-theists. We're not perfect in that, as in much else. But neither have we had quite the persecutions and intolerance that is the hallmark of religious history in Europe. Unfortunately, there are those who seem to think that one of the greatest glories of this nation is wrong. They also believe they have god on their side.

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,
Well, it is a little more complicated than that. The founding fathers ranged from men who were undoubtedly religious to those who were, at the least, free thinkers.

At the end of the nineteenth century, science was still in its infancy and the only established world view required some form of supreme being. In Europe and America, Christianity was the only belief system recognized as a religion. And in many parts of Europe, especially in the South, Catholicism was still the only recognized form of Christianity (it was these circumstances that made it easy for Pascal to decide on his wager -- had he not only to chose whether to believe in the Catholic God, but which god to believe in, he might not have passed it off so lightly). Throughout Europe, religious wars were still ongoing or, at least, recent memory.

It is in this atmosphere that the founding fathers established the concept of freedom of religion. That they might not have meant it as liberally as some do today is not their fault -- they lived in their milieu, we in ours. But, to their credit they did establish the concept, and to our nation's credit, the concept has been expanded (albeit sometimes grudgingly) to non-Christians and even to non-theists. We're not perfect in that, as in much else. But neither have we had quite the persecutions and intolerance that is the hallmark of religious history in Europe. Unfortunately, there are those who seem to think that one of the greatest glories of this nation is wrong. They also believe they have god on their side.

--Pete

Pete, I completely agree with you. My rant was not so much aimed at the founding fathers but more to those who take their view to literally. (the right to bear arms (I know many people here are in favour and I don't want to discuss that) is also a more oldfashioned point that is taken over directly from the constitution as it was written in the beginning. Of course more than half of americans agree with it, so it should remain a right, but the fact of it being legal in the first place is because of the literal reading of a piece of paper that was written in a time when there was no electricity, sewer systems, evolution, and as you say it science was in its infancy.


Further of course it is not just an American thing; in the south of europe things are probably more extreme (even though there is freedom of religion and speech in the constitution).

[Crusader]

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).

Well, yea, all countries (expect perhaps Vatican City, dunnow about them, but they do have 100% Christians as a population, unsurprisingly) have freedom of religion in Europe. But the dechurching is proceeding at a steady pace in all European countries. Here in the Netherlands it's proceeding at a high pace in most regions, and we see that a few pockets of heavy religious communities remain. But even in traditionally religious countries like Italy dechurching is taking place.

However, We will always have Christianity influence our culture, as it has been part of it for millenia, thus a lot of aspects are taken over. Although we're thankfully rid of some of the more barbaric aspects of Christianity like the literal eye for an eye (by killing murderers, etc) and the unequality of men and women.

[eppie]

Well, yea, all countries (expect perhaps Vatican City, dunnow about them, but they do have 100% Christians as a population, unsurprisingly) have freedom of religion in Europe. But the dechurching is proceeding at a steady pace in all European countries. Here in the Netherlands it's proceeding at a high pace in most regions, and we see that a few pockets of heavy religious communities remain. But even in traditionally religious countries like Italy dechurching is taking place.

However, We will always have Christianity influence our culture, as it has been part of it for millenia, thus a lot of aspects are taken over. Although we're thankfully rid of some of the more barbaric aspects of Christianity like the literal eye for an eye (by killing murderers, etc) and the unequality of men and women.

You can't ignore the difference between the north and the south of europe. Altough in the Netherlands we have some villages in which the social pressure of being non-protestant is very high this is a very small factor. In Italy, Spain, Greece but also Poland etc. it is still a big social problem to not be a christian. And this clearly influences the way these countries are governed. Of course things are also changing in the south but we are talking about a whole different timeline here.

[Crusader]

Well yes my friend, not everyone can be as enlightened as us, after all.:rolleyes:

*Ducks for cover*

[kandrathe]

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 referring 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.

And... Vice versa. That is part and parcel of free speech, and freedom of expression. You get Maplethorpe, Sex Pistols, Abu Izzadeen, and all the other expressions the bulk of society has found objectionable enough to attempt to suppress.

I remember on many of the debates we've had about kids on here, that the common advice was to not shield them from the world, but to teach them how to cope with the world. That was in relation to sex education as I recall. How is this not shielding the kids from something that is pretty mainstream in the culture? Now you are going to say their little impressionable minds will be confused?

[kandrathe]

...and the topic of this whole kerfuffle.

For Pete; Yes, I read the whole article and some other background articles, and the case at the ACLU site. There were some students at these events that were "adult" events. And, yes, this school seems to be almost entirely if not 100% "Christian" and embracing the methods of the faculty and administration. But, last time I checked, Pace, Florida is not a state, and Florida is not imposing these rules on Pace. How is this a constitutional problem? What I mean by the tactic failing is that now in Pace, which seems to wholeheartedly embrace the situation, you set the community against the justice system. The result will be martyrdom for the ones who oppose the rule of law, and heroes behind which a movement will grow.

[Jester]

I remember on many of the debates we've had about kids on here, that the common advice was to not shield them from the world, but to teach them how to cope with the world. That was in relation to sex education as I recall. How is this not shielding the kids from something that is pretty mainstream in the culture? Now you are going to say their little impressionable minds will be confused?

Robert Mapplethorpe and the Sex Pistols don't work for the government. Nobody is telling the pious folk of Pace, Florida, that they can't have their god, or even that they can't completely dominate the local culture (which, one gets the impression, they do.)

All the ACLU is saying, and I think all that Pete is saying, is that they can't constitutionally promote their religion while under the aegis of a public school.

But, last time I checked, Pace, Florida is not a state, and Florida is not imposing these rules on Pace. How is this a constitutional problem? What I mean by the tactic failing is that now in Pace, which seems to wholeheartedly embrace the situation, you set the community against the justice system. The result will be martyrdom for the ones who oppose the rule of law, and heroes behind which a movement will grow.

I don't understand what you mean by Pace not being a state. They're not *a* state. But their public schools are an extension of *the* state - and are therefore bound by constitutional rules. If this was a private school, nobody would care - this would be as normal and as legal as a stroll down the street. But this is not a private school.

The rule of law is far more than crude majoritarianism. If there are to be rights, then they are *rights*, not suggestions. Martyrs be damned, the individual is protected. Surely this is an argument that a libertarian couldn't help but agree with?

-Jester

[eppie]

And... Vice versa.

No, no, no.....I think every atheist knows that certain words or acts are being perceived as hurtful by religious people.....this happens every day. My point was exactly that for the oposite (non religious people being oppressed or disrespected by religious people) there is hardly any recognition. And let me stress it again that this is absolutely not a US problem....this happens worldwide and for centuries already.

I remember on many of the debates we've had about kids on here, that the common advice was to not shield them from the world, but to teach them how to cope with the world. That was in relation to sex education as I recall. How is this not shielding the kids from something that is pretty mainstream in the culture? Now you are going to say their little impressionable minds will be confused?

Sex education is important for people to become a sane member of society. Children can have classes in religion (explaining them about the differences and why some people believe this, and others believe that) but brainwashing is something else. Religion is a powerful tool to mentally handicap people for the rest of their lives when you start 'teaching' it to them as children and this should be realized by adults especially the ones that work with children.

[Vandiablo]

because you didn't close your quote properly I can't respond to the other post, so I'm doing it here.

What I mean by the tactic failing is that now in Pace, which seems to wholeheartedly embrace the situation, you set the community against the justice system. The result will be martyrdom for the ones who oppose the rule of law, and heroes behind which a movement will grow.

This "tactic" is defending the Constitutional rights of an oppressed minority. And while Christians are not currently burning non-believers at the stake, I can still see the hatred that fuels the fires.

Even if the entire state of Florida were of one denomination, including all the people of Pace, even if all the kids were true believers, it is still not right to lead prayers of that denomination in a public school.

(Unfortunately the movement is already here, but that's another thread.)

[--Pete]

Hi,

All the ACLU is saying, and I think all that Pete is saying, is that they can't constitutionally promote their religion while under the aegis of a public school.

Yes, thank you. Between you and Van, you've addressed all I would have said and better than I would have said it.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Robert Mapplethorpe and the Sex Pistols don't work for the government. Nobody is telling the pious folk of Pace, Florida, that they can't have their god, or even that they can't completely dominate the local culture (which, one gets the impression, they do.)

It seems to me that in this community religious expression is normal.

All the ACLU is saying, and I think all that Pete is saying, is that they can't constitutionally promote their religion while under the aegis of a public school.

And, I would agree that some of what the officials at Pace High School are doing is over the line. One objection I have is the one size fits all community standard which tries to force the same ethic that is applied in the Bronx NY to that in East Podunk, Florida. This is why laws should be local.

I don't understand what you mean by Pace not being a state. They're not *a* state. But their public schools are an extension of *the* state - and are therefore bound by constitutional rules. If this was a private school, nobody would care - this would be as normal and as legal as a stroll down the street. But this is not a private school.

The government unfortunately dominates the education arena, and when it comes to schools, we mostly only have public options. If Pace High School had the option of going private and being able to survive, I'd bet they jump at the chance to be free from the kind of outside interference they've attracted.

The rule of law is far more than crude majoritarianism. If there are to be rights, then they are *rights*, not suggestions. Martyrs be damned, the individual is protected. Surely this is an argument that a libertarian couldn't help but agree with?

I do agree. However, who needs to be protected and from what? Dangerous thoughts? Fear of those who venerate a peace loving guy who was killed by his own people with Roman assistance? Who gets to choose which thoughts are dangerous thoughts? In the libertarian world, we believe in the protection of property, and life, and the right to be left the heck alone if we so choose (liberty). I don't think the Constitution ever guaranteed you would be free from having to hear what other people think. I believe we are guaranteed the freedom to say what we want, even (and especially) if that is religious expression.

I think it is arbitrary to even say that a President, or a governor, or a Senator, or a teacher, or school administrator, or dog catcher cannot at any time express themselves religiously. I agree that requiring course work, or classes, or compulsory prayer is crossing the line. Having to witness someone else doing it is not crossing the line, no matter how annoying it is, it is a part of allowing people to be free.

[kandrathe]

Sorry. I was late for work when I did wrote that. Quote closed properly.

[kandrathe]

No, no, no.....I think every atheist knows that certain words or acts are being perceived as hurtful by religious people.....this happens every day. My point was exactly that for the opposite (non religious people being oppressed or disrespected by religious people) there is hardly any recognition. And let me stress it again that this is absolutely not a US problem....this happens worldwide and for centuries already.

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.

Sex education is important for people to become a sane member of society.

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

Children can have classes in religion (explaining them about the differences and why some people believe this, and others believe that) but brainwashing is something else.

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.

Religion is a powerful tool to mentally handicap people for the rest of their lives when you start 'teaching' it to them as children and this should be realized by adults especially the ones that work with children.

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.

[kandrathe]

Although we're thankfully rid of some of the more barbaric aspects of Christianity like the literal eye for an eye (by killing murderers, etc) ...

Funny you might mention that one which is a Judaic law from like 10th century BC. It is actually meant to be a limitation of what is appropriate punishment, rather than a measure of what is required.

Prior to that particular "common law" the punishment for most things was... a horrible death. The limitation of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" was to advise Judges to apply reasonable punishments that befit the crimes. It was meant to be a restriction on the extent of retaliation.

Anyway, I think it is funny to see how the former limits to unrestrained barbarity are considered barbarity.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It seems to me that in this community religious expression is normal.

So what? I'm sure there are a lot of 'normal' activities of that community which they do not perform in public.

One objection I have is the one size fits all community standard which tries to force the same ethic that is applied in the Bronx NY to that in East Podunk, Florida. This is why laws should be local.

For spitting on the sidewalk, I agree with you. For spitting on religious freedom, I think it's good we've got it in the Bill of Rights. Follow your logic and Jim Crow would be alive and well throughout the South.

The government unfortunately dominates the education arena, and when it comes to schools, we mostly only have public options. If Pace High School had the option of going private and being able to survive, I'd bet they jump at the chance to be free from the kind of outside interference they've attracted.

The government did not always dominate the educational arena. But, because the free market failed, communities decided to share the cost and the benefits of a public education. Pace, Florida, could abolish property taxes and school levies and charge the families of the students directly for their education. Of course, many people could not afford it, others would rather spend the money on pizza and beer. And those of the 'wrong' type would probably not be allowed -- but that's OK, they're inferior pagans anyway.

Hmm. Pace, Florida. 1861. Forget, hell. Why leave the union when you can just ignore it?

However, who needs to be protected and from what?

I do, from the Spanish Inquisition.

Fear of those who venerate a peace loving guy who was killed by his own people with Roman assistance?

And in whose name Spain was purged of a culture, thousands of 'infidels' were killed in the Middle East, whole populations were massacred in South and Central America, the Auto da Fe was invented, six million (give or take) Jews were sent up the chimney? Scared? I'm petrified.

I believe we are guaranteed the freedom to say what we want, even (and especially) if that is religious expression.

If that were the case here, I'd agree with you. But this wasn't a private conversation (like we're having here). It wasn't an individual saying grace, to himself (silently or aloud), in accordance with his beliefs. It wasn't a call for a 'moment of reflection' in which everyone could offer whatever prayer they wanted to (although, as an atheist, I find those to be an imposition -- I'll damned well reflect when I want to and not when some pious jerk says to). It was A PUBLIC PRAYER, PROPOSED BY ONE GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL AND INTONED BY ANOTHER AT A GOVERNMENT SPONSORED PUBLIC NON-SECTERIAN FUNCTION. Excuse me for yelling, but this point has been made repeatedly and you seem to be incapable of hearing it.

I think it is arbitrary to even say that a President, or a governor, or a Senator, or a teacher, or school administrator, or dog catcher cannot at any time express themselves religiously. I agree that requiring course work, or classes, or compulsory prayer is crossing the line. Having to witness someone else doing it is not crossing the line, no matter how annoying it is, it is a part of allowing people to be free.

They didn't just 'have to witness someone else doing it'. THEY HAD TO PARTICIPATE OR BE OSTRACIZED. That is the problem. That religious expression was, in effect, forcing the religious beliefs of those two administrators on all present.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

For spitting on the sidewalk, I agree with you. For spitting on religious freedom, I think it's good we've got it in the Bill of Rights. Follow your logic and Jim Crow would be alive and well throughout the South.

I see a difference between allowing free expression of religion, and imposing laws of segregation.

The government did not always dominate the educational arena. But, because the free market failed, communities decided to share the cost and the benefits of a public education.

I don't think private education failed. I think America had a crisis and the government stepped into the void to resolve issues of fair and equal access, and to enforce mediocrity. Of course, the government only resolves our problems by first dipping their hands into our pockets. But, this is really the confounding of the founders. What started as an exercise of implementing a government based upon "negative liberty" was replaced with one based upon "positive liberty". I think it is a false notion that the state can set things right, deliver equality, delivery quality, and a cost effective solution. That is not to say that "Judgement" is not needed.

Pace, Florida, could abolish property taxes and school levies and charge the families of the students directly for their education. Of course, many people could not afford it, others would rather spend the money on pizza and beer. And those of the 'wrong' type would probably not be allowed -- but that's OK, they're inferior pagans anyway.

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

I do, from the Spanish Inquisition.

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise! ...Surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no...

And in whose name Spain was purged of a culture, thousands of 'infidels' were killed in the Middle East, whole populations were massacred in South and Central America, the Auto da Fe was invented, six million (give or take) Jews were sent up the chimney? Scared? I'm petrified.

Wow. That is quite a long laundry list. Well let see. The holocaust was not a Christian endeavor. 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. Oh, and you want to go back to the Crusades. Why not Charlemagne or Constantine? We can sweep together every power hungry dictators misuse of and misinterpretation of a poor carpenters plea for people to love each other more.

That religious expression was, in effect, forcing the religious beliefs of those two administrators on all present.

I hear you. Did anyone actually file a complaint? Was it a victimless crime? Let's say I was at a public ceremony (in Duluth) and I suddenly found that a holy man was solemnizing the event, but it was an entirely different religion than mine, I would have two options; remain calm and let them honor the event in their way, or walk away. This has happened to me, and will probably continue to happen to me. I choose to remain solemn, listen and learn from the event. I've attended Hindi ceremonies, Jewish ceremonies, Buddhist ceremonies, Catholic ceremonies, Naturist ceremonies, Native American ceremonies, and while I was often an outsider, I never felt awkward being there or ostracized for not being "one of them". Atheists sometimes come off like they are saying, "Keep your damn joo joo away from me." Which you can understand would be somewhat off putting for most anyone.

[DeeBye]

I've attended Hindi ceremonies, Jewish ceremonies, Buddhist ceremonies, Catholic ceremonies, Naturist ceremonies, Native American ceremonies, and while I was often an outsider, I never felt awkward being there or ostracized for not being "one of them".

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

[Chesspiece_face]

I hear you. Did anyone actually file a complaint? Was it a victimless crime?

And therein lies the threat of systematic oppression, the idea that because nobody complains about it obviously they must not be being oppressed. And yet when athiests actually do stand up and complain about it they are derided as being whiney and soft skined.

Of course it wasn't a victimless crime. The crime is perpetrated on every youth present irrespective of their own personal beliefs. It is a crime because it corrupts all the standards you yourself claim to support of challenging and promoting self thought in our youth and it does so by circumventing critical thinking about these issues and supplanting it with implied religious authority and legitimicy. 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.

[SwissMercenary]

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

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.