Seperation and Right to Religion

[Proteas]

------------------------

Confusion surrounds teachers, prayer on school property
Posted: Oct 12, 2011 10:11 PM CDT Updated: Oct 13, 2011 11:14 AM CDT
Reported by Jonathan Martin - email

PLEASANT VIEW, TN (WSMV) -

There are new questions about how far teachers can go when it comes to showing their faith in front of students.

Local teachers were told Wednesday they could show up for a community prayer event, but limits were placed on how they could take part. There was added confusion, because it happened after school hours, but on school property.

With a crowd like you would expect to show up for a football game, those in the stands at the event at Sycamore High School said they came to worship.

"To share the love of God with everyone in the community," student Benjamin Rogers said.

But some teachers at the Cheatham County school say they received mixed messages about the community prayer event.

They say at first, administrators made it clear they could be written up if participated, but later said they were told they could come but not lead prayer or speak to the crowd.

One teacher set to talk Wednesday was pulled from the program.

"I feel like they are private citizens and it's on non-instructional time, and they should be able to, as a citizen of Cheatham County, be able to come and worship freely," student Naomi Parker said.

Dr. Timothy Webb, director of Cheatham County Schools, says he is OK with teachers bowing their heads and closing their eyes, but feels anything more could be violating the law. The school district is under a federal court order after the ACLU sued over religious activity at school.

"As a state employee, we have to be careful about the influence we assert over our students," teacher Beth Stokes said.

"I think if its on their personal time, they should be able to speak their mind. If they want to talk, they should be able to talk," parent Cindy Perry said.

Some teachers attending Wednesday say while they may not agree with the rules, they will follow them but wish the lines drawn were clear.

And since the court order, three teachers in Cheatham County have been reprimanded for leading prayer at school.

The superintendent says there was no one from the district watching to see if teachers led prayer, but says any reported violations would be investigated.

Copyright WSMV 2011. All rights reserved.

http://www.wsmv.com/story/15681773/confu sion-around-teachers-and-prayer-on-schoo l-property

-------------------

Now, that's what's going on in Cheatham County. Here in Sumner County, just up the road from me in Westmoreland, TN (which is kind of like saying "just up the road from Mayberry in the town of Dog Patch"), 4 coaches are in trouble for bowing their heads during a student lead prayer at a football game (click). They didn't lead the prayer, they didn't vocalize anything, they just bowed their heads. They were not "disciplined," they were just "educated on the district policy" after which they were asked to sign off stating that they acknowledged said education.

read; their boss chewed them out and it went on their work record.

I have a question for you all;

Doesn't disallowing these teachers and coaches from even acknowledging prayer violate their constitutional right to freely practice the religion of their choosing? Or am I missing something, here?

[Korriken]

Given that there is no law stating that you can't bow your head for a prayer, I'd say the administration would have their collective asses kicked for being douchebags.

It's kinda sad when a group like the ACLU can bully people into submission.

Personally, if some psychopath decided to wage a war on them I wouldn't even bat an eye.

[Yorik]

This event shouldn't have been on school property in the first place.

[Iron-Hampster]

if students aren't forced to show up, then, why is it a problem if religion is practiced somewhere on school property.

[Camarohusky]

At 11/4/11 09:30 PM, Yorik wrote: This event shouldn't have been on school property in the first place.

That's easier said than done. In many communities, even large ones, schools are the only venue capable of holding events like this. I mean, where else are you going to find a large room with a ton of seats but a gym, or an outdoor venue with a large amount of seating but a stadium?

Even then, allowing some groups to hold event of public lands and others not on the basis of religion is just as sticky, if not stickier a situation as this.

At 11/4/11 09:27 PM, Korriken wrote: It's kinda sad when a group like the ACLU can bully people into submission.

The ACLU actually would side with the teachers here.

At 11/5/11 12:51 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: if students aren't forced to show up, then, why is it a problem if religion is practiced somewhere on school property.

So long as all community groups are allowed equal access to the facilities, and no one is forced (directly or indirectly) to attend, then it should be considered private and not-affiliated with school.

Then again, a school official participating in any function on school grounds definitely gives the impression of school support for said function and said function's group.

[Yorik]

At 11/5/11 02:20 AM, Camarohusky wrote: That's easier said than done. In many communities, even large ones, schools are the only venue capable of holding events like this. I mean, where else are you going to find a large room with a ton of seats but a gym, or an outdoor venue with a large amount of seating but a stadium?

How about a church, where this type of event belongs? Churches are often large buildings with lots of seating. Jeez, if you really need an outdoor venue you could easily just move outside to the church parking lot. My church used to do stuff like this. And organizing an event at a park or something isn't as sticky as you make it sound. It's just a matter of calling the right people and maybe raising the money required for the arrangement.

[Camarohusky]

At 11/5/11 03:43 AM, Yorik wrote: if you really need an outdoor venue you could easily just move outside to the church parking lot.

That's not even close to equal. Why spend thousands of dollars erecting seats when you could pay 1/10th of that renting a stadium, that is already suiatable for those needs.

You're missing the other point. If the Church likes the venue, and the school doesn't discriminate on who gets to use it, then there is no reason we should tell either they aren't allowed to.

[Ericho]

I think that is wrong for people to be punished for at least acknowledging prayer. This country has freedom of religion or lack of, so any religious person should be able to at least discuss it as long as every atheist can discuss theirs. Then again, I haven't heard many people discuss atheism in schools, so perhaps there is a double standard. If you are offended by something, then you can simply ignore it, you know.

[Proteas]

At 11/5/11 03:43 AM, Yorik wrote: How about a church, where this type of event belongs?

What about the high-school football games, then? Should they be held at a Church as well, since somebody wants to hold a prayer before the game? That was the other part of this issue; coaches at a football game bowing their heads somehow shows the school district "endorsing" a particular religion. Thanks to the school district and the ACLU, these coaches can't even PARTICIPATE in a prayer lead by a STUDENT because they might get fired for practicing their own beliefs... which is itself a violation of their first amendment RIGHT to freedom of religion.

THANK YOU FOR MISSING THE POINT OF THIS TOPIC.

[Camarohusky]

At 11/5/11 07:32 PM, Proteas wrote: Thanks to the school district and the ACLU, these coaches can't even PARTICIPATE in a prayer lead by a STUDENT because they might get fired for practicing their own beliefs... which is itself a violation of their first amendment RIGHT to freedom of religion.

Again, this is a situation where the ACLU would side with the teachers/coaches.

The real issue here is balancing the rights of teachers and coaches to express their own personal beliefs, and the possibility of these expressions creating a de facto supported religion by a state official. Here the facts weight more toward the former, but a school official doesn't lose their title, authority, and position th eminute they stop performing the act of teaching.

[Yorik]

At 11/5/11 07:32 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/5/11 03:43 AM, Yorik wrote: How about a church, where this type of event belongs?

What about the high-school football games, then? Should they be held at a Church as well, since somebody wants to hold a prayer before the game? That was the other part of this issue; coaches at a football game bowing their heads somehow shows the school district "endorsing" a particular religion. Thanks to the school district and the ACLU, these coaches can't even PARTICIPATE in a prayer lead by a STUDENT because they might get fired for practicing their own beliefs... which is itself a violation of their first amendment RIGHT to freedom of religion.

THANK YOU FOR MISSING THE POINT OF THIS TOPIC.

For starters, no, football games should not be held in church, and shouldn't even have prayer prior to games. What, you really thought I wasn't going to be consistent with my point? No group prayers in public venues that are supposed to be politically neutral. Full stop. This doesn't stop people from praying in any way because everyone is free to pray to themselves if they want to - praying is not a group sport and there's no need to circle jerk each other in public to do it. Nobody's being discriminated against, this is just the way it is.

This event is a "community prayer day." Such a thing has no place in a public school setting, government setting, etc... It is literally unconstitutional, and it would be no matter what the religion was.

[Yorik]

At 11/5/11 11:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/5/11 03:43 AM, Yorik wrote: if you really need an outdoor venue you could easily just move outside to the church parking lot.

That's not even close to equal. Why spend thousands of dollars erecting seats when you could pay 1/10th of that renting a stadium, that is already suiatable for those needs.

What the hell are you talking about? You don't need bleachers, or even chairs, for a community prayer event. If everyone really needed a place to sit down you could bring folding chairs. So simple.

[Proteas]

At 11/5/11 08:16 PM, Yorik wrote: What, you really thought I wasn't going to be consistent with my point?

Nope, I was just wondering you even bothered to read what I posted before you did your little post-count+1 not 10 minutes after I made the topic.

Nobody's being discriminated against, this is just the way it is.

If nobody is being discriminated against, then school grounds should be used for school activities only. No more community events, no concerts, nothing. Either everybody gets shafted in this deal, or nobody does.

This event is a "community prayer day." Such a thing has no place in a public school setting, government setting, etc... It is literally unconstitutional, and it would be no matter what the religion was.

Show me where in the Constitution it states that you can't do something like this, and I'll show you where you're dead wrong.

[Camarohusky]

At 11/5/11 08:19 PM, Yorik wrote: What the hell are you talking about? You don't need bleachers, or even chairs, for a community prayer event. If everyone really needed a place to sit down you could bring folding chairs. So simple.

"With a crowd like you would expect to show up for a football game, those in the stands at the event at Sycamore High School said they came to worship."

Sounds like it was a pretty big crowd. Folding chairs only can hold so many people for certain events. Just flat out admit it, school venues are ideal in architecture and layout for any large religious gathering.

The school should allow all groups, so long as they are accompanied by the proper combination of presidential (and Hamilton) protraits.

But that isn't the issue. Whether a church has any reason to use school facilities is their own deal, there appear to be two issues that arise here:

- The line when a school official becomes a lay-person and where that lies.
- Whether schools should allow all groups or deny all groups (except for those that are directly part of the school).

[SmilezRoyale]

As employees of a state agency can it not be reasonably said that they surrendered all of their rights upon seeking employment? The US Federal Government practically owns its marines as property.

[The-universe]

You should be able to practice your religious beliefs in school so long as, it's not mandatory, inhibiting education (e.g. removing you from lessons regularly) or focused purely on one or two beliefs or promoting harm/hatred to oneself or others.

But then again most things relating to this are nebulous at the best of times.

[morefngdbs]

I don't believe I'm for from the mark of saying that my belief in the flying spagetti monster is stronger than my belief in god.

However, when I have no choice but to go into a church, or if ,for example, I am shooting a movie & there are people who have rented us farms , equipment etc & are religious people ( I worked on a film about Amish family)

I see no reason not to be respectful.
I may not pray with them, but bowing your head....taking off (or putting on ) your hat, these in my opinion are signs of respect.

I see nothing wrong with that.
IT seesm the politically 'stupid' (they call themselves 'correct') are just off on another tangent.

[stafffighter]

At 11/6/11 07:52 AM, The-universe wrote: You should be able to practice your religious beliefs in school so long as, it's not mandatory, inhibiting education (e.g. removing you from lessons regularly) or focused purely on one or two beliefs or promoting harm/hatred to oneself or others.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "focused purely on one or two beliefs" Are you saying they can't have a particular purpose to be praying? I can understand it being tricky with "we are for or against this one thing" but what if someone died and they were commemorating them? That would be one belief, wether or not to commemorate people who've passed, in practice.
Where is the line in generality is what I'm asking.

As for this particular event I'm with the "they just bowed their heads" camp. Although, they were warned. That part at the end of the article saying that no one from the school would be watching but reports would be investigated pretty much says "Legally we can't say we're watching, but we're fucking watching." Wait, they didn't lead or vocalize, this isn't even what they were backhandedly warned about.

[The-universe]

At 11/7/11 05:06 PM, stafffighter wrote: I don't quite understand what you mean by "focused purely on one or two beliefs"

An example would be if a school set aside an area/room to which students/teachers can conduct their religious activities they should 'focus purely on one or two beliefs' by whacking a great big crucifix somewhere and assuming everyone's Christian.

[Gario]

It's just as unconstitutional for a school to dictate how people practice their religion outside of the public school's authority as it is for people to dictate how others practice their religion within the public school's authority. In the first case, the event was already taking place (that's arguably a questionable circumstance, but a discussion for another time), but a certain group was explicitly told not to participate in one form or another. That's unconstitutional - the state has no right to tell any individual how to practice their own faith. If the party was to use it's position as public teacher to coerce students outside of school into a religion the situation would be different, but people otherwise have the right to do what they want in their own time.

The second case is an issue with private prayer. It's private. If they were leading prayer in a public school, it would be a violation of separation of church and state, but it was private. Stopping people from private prayer is a violation of their right to practice freely.

[kakalxlax]

i hope this explains why they shouldnt

[Gario]

At 11/13/11 03:43 PM, kakalxlax wrote: i hope this explains why they shouldnt

No, that helps establish you don't know what this topic is about.

[kakalxlax]

At 11/13/11 06:11 PM, Gario wrote:

At 11/13/11 03:43 PM, kakalxlax wrote: i hope this explains why they shouldnt

No, that helps establish you don't know what this topic is about.

wow that response was so enlightening...... and yes, but i can see how lesser minds cant make a full interpretation of that picture

[VenomKing666]

I'm not bible savvy but I'm pretty sure somewhere it says you should pray in the confinement of your own home because if you do it in public it makes you a hypocrite or something?

[Warforger]

At 11/13/11 03:43 PM, kakalxlax wrote: i hope this explains why they shouldnt

The picture doesn't make any sense, there's a cross AND a fish symbol, both represent Christianity.

[VenomKing666]

At 11/13/11 10:36 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 11/13/11 03:43 PM, kakalxlax wrote: i hope this explains why they shouldnt

The picture doesn't make any sense, there's a cross AND a fish symbol, both represent Christianity.

Okay there's two christian symbols, but you get the fucking idea right?

[Camarohusky]

At 11/13/11 10:52 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Okay there's two christian symbols, but you get the fucking idea right?

The idea is that the poster doesn't like or even respoect religion which about, let me do the math... ZERO to do with the topic.

Keep your personal views of religion as a whole to the proper thread. Keep this one on subject.

[VenomKing666]

At 11/13/11 11:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/13/11 10:52 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Okay there's two christian symbols, but you get the fucking idea right?

The idea is that the poster doesn't like or even respoect religion which about, let me do the math... ZERO to do with the topic.

Keep your personal views of religion as a whole to the proper thread. Keep this one on subject.

No, the poster shows how religious people endoctrinate their children at a young age and brand call them a "christian child" or a "muslum child" etc. While they are too young to even have opinions on the matter. "Get them young" is their philosophy, quickly before they can think critically.

[kakalxlax]

At 11/13/11 11:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/13/11 10:52 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Okay there's two christian symbols, but you get the fucking idea right?

The idea is that the poster doesn't like or even respoect religion which about, let me do the math... ZERO to do with the topic.

Keep your personal views of religion as a whole to the proper thread. Keep this one on subject.

ok i forgot that NG is flooded with 10 year olders, the poster couldnt be more clear, it states how children can be easily brainwashed, they are impressionable and cant deduce so easily that something told to them isnt true, so they are more likely to become religious if they are exposed to religion (as religion doesnt respond to logic), and then they grow up without the capacity of making logical judgment

so basically, dont make kids stupid exposing them to religion

clear enought?

[VenomKing666]

At 11/14/11 12:08 AM, kakalxlax wrote:

ok i forgot that NG is flooded with 10 year olders, the poster couldnt be more clear, it states how children can be easily brainwashed, they are impressionable and cant deduce so easily that something told to them isnt true, so they are more likely to become religious if they are exposed to religion (as religion doesnt respond to logic), and then they grow up without the capacity of making logical judgment

so basically, dont make kids stupid exposing them to religion

clear enought?

Actually I think it's criticizing the "branding" of children of certain religions. Like some kids of christian parents who are unnacurately called "christian children". The poster just shows it in a litteral way to show how absird it is. I like this poster.