Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer

Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer (Page 7)
Thread Tools
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 08:59 AM
 
I can't help but imagine how this conversation would be exactly the same if it was a Muslim student praying at a school function. The only difference is that the Liberals would be defending the Muslim's right to do so, while the Conservatives would be calling for laws to stop it.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 09:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I can't help but imagine how this conversation would be exactly the same if it was a Muslim student praying at a school function. The only difference is that the Liberals would be defending the Muslim's right to do so, while the Conservatives would be calling for laws to stop it.
I wouldn't. I already explained that. Absent an amendment to the Constitution, I don't think we could do anything about it even if we wanted.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 09:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
So if the grand dragon was also a school principle you'd have no problem with him leading those present at a graduation ceremony in chanting racist slurs and hatred?
I'd have a problem with HIM doing the leading. If a racist student chose to do so however, I don't know how it could be stopped if you were actually following the Constitution.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 10:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I wouldn't. I already explained that. Absent an amendment to the Constitution, I don't think we could do anything about it even if we wanted.
Perhaps not you, but the whole Ground Zero Mosque issue comes to mind here and the efforts to prevent Muslims from building a religious centre in an area where many other religious centres have been allowed.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 10:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
The only difference is that the Liberals would be defending the Muslim's right to do so...
I don't think so.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 11:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
In order for anyone's free exercise to be protected, everyone must have the freedom to be free OF other people's religion.
No, it doesn't, and you've yet to forward a compelling argument as to why this should be the case, or that the founders intended to shield people from things they seemed to freely allow. The difference between participation and tolerance has already been explained to you as well. We have a right to participate in that which is protected. We have no right to keep others from participating in a way that just requires the tolerance of others. Otherwise, we have no real right to that thing.
Firstly, "explaining to me" gives the impression that you think I'm stupid-let's just skip right past that and go to the meat of the issue, shall we?

How can I "freely practice" if your practice involves something that contradicts, such as a situation where I want to worship with my wife sitting beside me in public, while your beliefs prohibit public prayer, or mixed prayer or both? In Saudi Arabia, where there is absolutely NO religious tolerance, men with canes go through the streets at prayer time and beat people who are not actively on the way to the mosque or on their prayer rug-whether the people they accost are actually Saudi citizens or not. I worked with a US citizen of Hispanic heritage who was twice beaten by these people because he "looked Arab." In order to coexist, we must agree to get along and let each other worship in different ways. This is tolerance, and it is a fundamental concept of the Republic. While the US has not always been good at enforcing this concept, it has always been in place.

In practical terms, "religious tolerance" comes down to the majority "allowing" the minority to practice their own religious beliefs. See this Wiki page on Toleration, which quotes some very interesting scholarly works on the issue. Functionally speaking, we in the US are only just recently getting into step with the concept of tolerance of others' religions; there are still echos of a societal shunning of Jews, conflicts between Catholics and Protestants. I should also note that the state has significantly limited the practice of certain religious acts, such as polygamy in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Here, one facet of that religion is held to be "intolerable" for whatever reason the state gives, and it is prohibited by law.

("Participation" in a religious activity can mean many things. Having someone's "hellfire and brimstone" sermon wash over you may be wonderful for you, but awful for me; if I have to sit through that sermon in order to receive some service, benefit or otherwise participate in a gathering, then I have to "participate" in that sermon, whether I want to or not.)

More to my point, in order for me to demand that MY OWN beliefs to worship the way I wish to be protected, I MUST ACCEPT that others' beliefs must also be protected. I put my life on the line for over 23 years of active duty military service for precisely that point: as in the statement misattributed to Voltaire, "I do not agree with a word you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." Or, for that matter, to believe the way you wish. The issue at point here is not belief, but public practice, which is a greatly different thing.
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
For instance, the KKK has the right to march and have a parade on government property if others are afforded the same right. They have the right to do this, but have no right to force others to participate and I have no right to complain that my rights were violated because my free exercise has not been protected due to my not liking the expression of rights in question.

"Rights" are secured for not only the things we don't have a problem with that others might choose to do, but also things we find objectionable and don't like. It doesn't just go one way and never has.
I never suggested there was some "one way" protection. Civil tolerance often means accepting that others have the right to state their beliefs, whether we find them acceptable or not. I am all for letting the Klan march down Main Street, because it has the effect of demonstrating to both them and the rest of society how their ideas are received. On the other hand, there is no legal means to force anyone to attend their marches-those that do are generally there to voice their lack of respect for the Klan's ideas. Their march has no impact on MY freedom to state my ideas in public.

My right to worship as I wish CAN BE impacted by others' religious practices, as I illustrated earlier. Where my beliefs and yours conflict, we must find a way to get along. We cannot come to blows over our beliefs-that is legally called "assault and battery" (assuming we start by calling each other names and escalate to threats before the fisticuffs). A strong example of where groups of differing beliefs come into conflict is the Catholic/Protestant strife seen in Northern Ireland; though the practices of the two groups are extremely similar, both sides have committed murder and mayhem on religious grounds. More locally, courts have found that an employer who forces an employee to attend the employer's church as a requirement for employment violate the employee's First Amendment rights to freely worship as they choose.
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Court decisions over the years have supported "keep YOUR religion out of MY kids' education," whatever that religion is. Schools enforcing any particular religious belief in any way is a form of religious discrimination against a minority group, whatever that smaller group's beliefs are.
Again, we aren't talking about that here, I don't think. I believe this debate is about allowing individuals who are asked to speak to do so without abridging their Constitutional rights.
The thread started precisely about that point. In order to "participate in" their graduation, EVERY student had to also "participate in" the valedictorian praying at length at a school function, implying that the school endorses her religion over others and particularly that the school endorses religious practices over secular practices. I have repeatedly asserted that this was a bad thing to allow because this practice infringed on (or had the potential to infringe on) the beliefs of people who were there to participate in a secular high school graduation.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I can't help but imagine how this conversation would be exactly the same if it was a Muslim student praying at a school function. The only difference is that the Liberals would be defending the Muslim's right to do so, while the Conservatives would be calling for laws to stop it.
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I don't think so.
Have you been to Dearborn MI lately?
45/47
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Have you been to Dearborn MI lately?
Are the Muslims in Dearborn leading prayers in schools?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Are the Muslims in Dearborn leading prayers in schools?
Close enough.
Public schools grapple with Muslim prayer / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
Schools elsewhere in the country have made decisions quietly, such as allowing Muslim students to avoid strenuous exercise while they're fasting. In Dearborn, Mich., schools offer students the option of eating hot dogs and chicken nuggets made with meat that has been slaughtered in accordance with Islamic law. The Dearborn district, where at least 1 in 3 students is of Middle Eastern descent – some of which are Muslim – also schedules two days off during the Islamic holiday of Ramadan.
In San Diego (from the same article)
The San Diego district took special action regarding the timing of recess because "the Muslim faith requires specificity of prayer obligations ... that most other religions do not," Mr. North says. He denies reports that a new recess was added specifically to address the religious needs of the Muslim students.
Catholics pray the Angelus at 6am, noon, and 6pm. There are more Catholics in San Diego than Muslims. I am unaware of any public school that accommodate recitation of the Angelus.
45/47
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Close enough.
There's nothing "close" about any of that. I asked if Muslims were leading prayers in school, and they aren't. Accommodating religious practices is entirely different from making them a mandatory part of school functions for everyone. Quit being deliberately obtuse.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
A strong example of where groups of differing beliefs come into conflict is the Catholic/Protestant strife seen in Northern Ireland; though the practices of the two groups are extremely similar, both sides have committed murder and mayhem on religious grounds.
Incorrect Glenn. The Troubles are to do with territorial claim over a land (Irish reunification vs the status quo), not religion. It just so happens that, coincidentally, one side is Catholic and the other Protestant. Catholics have no problems on mainland Britain and Protestants have no problem in the ROI.
The Troubles would have died out years ago had it not become "Red vs Blue" and your British-hating New Yorkers hadn't been funding things.

So your example is completely invalid. Now if you'd mentioned "Palestine", you'd have a good strong example.

(Odd that you fatties are involved in both of these conflicts in some way, no?)
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'd have a problem with HIM doing the leading. If a racist student chose to do so however, I don't know how it could be stopped if you were actually following the Constitution.
Perhaps I'm starting to lose track of who is saying what in this thread. Do we have a unanimous opinion that students can say what they like but staff should avoid religious topics now? Its starting to look that way to me.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Incorrect Glenn. The Troubles are to do with territorial claim over a land (Irish reunification vs the status quo), not religion. It just so happens that, coincidentally, one side is Catholic and the other Protestant. Catholics have no problems on mainland Britain and Protestants have no problem in the ROI.
The Troubles would have died out years ago had it not become "Red vs Blue" and your British-hating New Yorkers hadn't been funding things.

So your example is completely invalid. Now if you'd mentioned "Palestine", you'd have a good strong example.

(Odd that you fatties are involved in both of these conflicts in some way, no?)
Coincidence? Thats nonsense. You are correct that it seems to be confined to NI though. Except maybe Glasgow on old firm match days to a lesser extent.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 08:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
There's nothing "close" about any of that. I asked if Muslims were leading prayers in school, and they aren't. Accommodating religious practices is entirely different from making them a mandatory part of school functions for everyone. Quit being deliberately obtuse.
This article from USA today is better. sorry for the long quote.
Some say schools giving Muslims special treatment - USATODAY.com
By Oren Dorell, USA TODAY
Some public schools and universities are granting Muslim requests for prayer times, prayer rooms and ritual foot baths, prompting a debate on whether Islam is being given preferential treatment over other religions.
The University of Michigan at Dearborn is planning to build foot baths for Muslim students who wash their feet before prayer. An elementary school in San Diego created an extra recess period for Muslim pupils to pray.

At George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., Muslim students using a "meditation space" laid out Muslim prayer rugs and separated men and women in accordance with their Islamic beliefs.

Critics see a double standard and an organized attempt to push public conformance with Islamic law.

"What (school officials) are doing … is to give Muslim students religious benefits that they do not give any other religion right now," says Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel at the Thomas More Law Center, an advocacy group for Christians.

Advocates say the accommodations are legal.

"The whole issue is to provide for a religious foundation for those who are observant while respecting separation of church and state," says Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, based in Los Angeles. Many schools accommodate the Christian and Jewish sabbaths and allow Jewish students to not take tests on religious holidays, he says.

Barry Lynn, of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, says however that the law is murky on these expressions of faith. And the American Civil Liberties Union says overt religious symbols like crucifixes are not legal, but whether Muslim foot baths and prayer rugs fall into that category is not clear.

"That's a difficult one, and it's right on the edge," says Jeremy Gunn, director of the ACLU program on freedom of religion and belief in Washington, D.C.

At the forefront of the movement is the Muslim Students' Association, which has formed a Muslim Accommodations Task Force to push for foot baths and prayer rooms. At least 17 universities have foot baths built or under construction, including Boston University, George Washington University and Temple University, and at least nine universities have prayer rooms for "Muslim students only," including Stanford, Emory and the University of Virginia, according to the MSA's website. The association did not return calls seeking comment.

Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, which promotes separation of mosque and state, says he is concerned about the accommodations. "Unusual accommodations for one faith at the cost of everybody else doesn't fall on the side of pluralism," he said.

At George Mason University, non-Muslim students were asked to observe Muslim rules in the prayer area, such as keeping men on one side and women on the other and removing their shoes, according to Broadside, the school newspaper. Alissa Karton, assistant to the vice president for student life, said the article prompted the school to order students to roll up prayer rugs when not in use and move the dividers.

The University of Michigan agreed to install foot baths after talks with the MSA, said Terry Gallagher, director of public relations at the campus. Some Muslims ritually wash their feet before praying five times a day.

Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank, sees the requests as part of a movement to force the public to acquiesce to Islamic law.

"The goal of Islamists is the application of Islamic law," Pipes says.

In the San Diego case, a substitute teacher at Carver Elementary School alleged that teachers were indoctrinating students into Islam. The San Diego Unified School District determined that a teacher's aide was wrong to lead Muslim students in prayer. Carver still has a special recess to allow 100 Muslim students to pray.

The ACLU, which has often sued schools for permitting prayer, says it is waiting to see what kind of policy the school settles on before deciding whether to sue. It says promoting prayers is unconstitutional.

"If you start carving out time in the school day that you would not do but for the need to let students pray, then it begins to look like what you're trying to do is to assist religion," says David Blair-Loy, legal director for the ACLU in San Diego.

Thompson says such conflicts are bound to proliferate. He and other Christians, he says, are preparing to ask for equal consideration such as a Christian prayer recess.

"What you're going to see out there is more of these kinds of cases as the Muslim community tests how far it can go in the public school system," he says. "If this can happen for Muslims, it can happen for Christians and other religions."
45/47
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Perhaps I'm starting to lose track of who is saying what in this thread. Do we have a unanimous opinion that students can say what they like but staff should avoid religious topics now? Its starting to look that way to me.
As long as they don't preach
Student Suspended For Bringing Bible To School Files Suit - San Diego News Story - KGTV San Diego
or wear a rosary (gang attire?)
Free Speech Debate, Student Suspended for Wearing Rosary - ABC News
45/47
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Incorrect Glenn. The Troubles are to do with territorial claim over a land (Irish reunification vs the status quo), not religion. It just so happens that, coincidentally, one side is Catholic and the other Protestant. Catholics have no problems on mainland Britain and Protestants have no problem in the ROI.
The Troubles would have died out years ago had it not become "Red vs Blue" and your British-hating New Yorkers hadn't been funding things.

So your example is completely invalid. Now if you'd mentioned "Palestine", you'd have a good strong example.

(Odd that you fatties are involved in both of these conflicts in some way, no?)
I have just been educated. Thank you. But is it, perhaps, that there was some "us versus them because of their religion" that at least added to the conflict? Perhaps "we don't want to be unified with them because of their religion" and "we're fine with getting together with them because we share religious beliefs?"

Oh, and it was "strong ties to ancestral lands" and similar crap that New Yorkers used to excuse their funneling of funds, weapons, and other assistance into the conflict. Poppycock; it was strictly the New York Irish asserting their religious unity with the recipients of their aid.

Funny thing about Palestine (actually several funny things): there is a strong "they took our land" theme behind the Palestinians, there is no cohesive link among them other than that they are Muslim and not claimed by the surrounding Islamic countries, and they have been "victimized" for so long with so few productive examples of "let them get stuffed, we'll just go ahead and be successful anyway" among them (that get any press, anyway) that is seems the Palestinians are about as amorphous and without real mission as any "people" ever has been. Case in point: Fatah and Hezbollah are using the people they are supposedly "responsible for/to" against themselves, mostly by Hezbollah using their primarily religious focus (they're Shi'a) against the primarily secular Fatah to impose a thinly veiled theocracy in what might one day become the State of Palestine. The Israeli track record is generally (with strong exceptions, of course) pretty much one of not doing much beyond restricting the occupants of their occupied lands to monitored comings and goings, while Hezbollah has used their religious fervor as a recruiting tool to get people to go kill themselves in the process of killing Jewish kids... Kind of almost the antithesis of "religious tolerance," eh? Oh wait-that was the Spanish Inquisition...my mistake.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 09:55 PM
 
I think I already mentioned that a kid who wants to read a bible during their lunch breaks should be a cause for concern for other reasons but it certainly shouldn't be banned.
I don't know anything about gang attire but unless it contravenes a dress code then a rosary should be fine. If the school has a ban on jewellery and everyone is banned then I don't see what the fuss is all about. Its not like a rosary or a cross is compulsory attire for catholics. I see no reason an exception to a jewellery ban should be made. That might be more common in the UK though. Most US schools don't have uniforms right?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2011, 02:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I have just been educated. Thank you. But is it, perhaps, that there was some "us versus them because of their religion" that at least added to the conflict? Perhaps "we don't want to be unified with them because of their religion" and "we're fine with getting together with them because we share religious beliefs?"
No, seriously - religion is just a by-the-way.
A very similar concept would be if the Mexicans in Texas kicked off and wanted reunification with Mexico - it'd have nothing to do with Catholicism being the favoured hispanic flavour and Protestantism being the favoured US flavour, and everything to do with which country's flag they wanted to live under.

There were quite a few Protestants on the Irish side and quite a few Catholics on the British side.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Oh, and it was "strong ties to ancestral lands" and similar crap that New Yorkers used to excuse their funneling of funds, weapons, and other assistance into the conflict. Poppycock; it was strictly the New York Irish asserting their religious unity with the recipients of their aid.
So why weren't the same people asserting religious unity with Catholics everywhere else? It was New York Irish asserting their pro-Irish and anti-British unity with the recipients of their aid, with the anti-British factor being a major portion.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Funny thing about Palestine (actually several funny things): there is a strong "they took our land" theme behind the Palestinians, there is no cohesive link among them other than that they are Muslim
But in this case, religion is the main drive behind the conflict - the Jewish "God gave us this land" vs the muslim adur concept (once a territory is muslim, it must remain muslim for all time, at all costs).
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2011, 09:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
But in this case, religion is the main drive behind the conflict - the Jewish "God gave us this land" vs the muslim adur concept (once a territory is muslim, it must remain muslim for all time, at all costs).
The Spanish (Al-Andalus) are well aware of this. Perhaps there needs to be a two state solution. The question is, where to draw the border?
45/47
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:07 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,