Teachers forced to 'hide in closets' to pray

[nikki1]

Blessings, Axxman

School teachers are public employees. The court has repeatedly ruled that public employee's are bound by the 1st Amendment. In Adler v Board of Education, the Court said, "You have a constitutional right to say and think as you will, but you have no constitutional right to work for the government." Because of the 14th Amendment...everyone is entitled to equal protection by this law.

As public employees, school teachers do not lose their Constitutional freedoms behind the school door. Did you read my post #41 above? Jay Sekulow, Constitutional Law Attorney writes I think there's an absolute misunderstanding of what the law is with regard to prayer at school events. Interestingly, in 1969 in the Tinker case, the Supreme Court held that "students [nor] teachers shed their constitutional rights . . . at the schoolhouse gate."

This was settled once and for all in the Tinker Case in 1969. What they do on their own time inside the school building is their business, and yes they are allowed to pray. They are allowed to say grace, and do not have to hide in a closet to do so. They are allowed to read the Bible.

"You have a constitutional right to say and think as you will, but you have no constitutional right to work for the government." Because of the 14th Amendment...everyone is entitled to equal protection by this law.

Link

I read about the Irving Adler case at the above link. I don't see what you are saying ref. the Fourteenth Amendment. Why don't you put up your link that you are claiming the Fourteenth Amendment? I would like to see what it says.

Axxman, the fourteenth amendment has nothing to do with religious equal access, which simply means all religions have the same rights; that if muslim students are given permission to meet and use a school or college room or facility to meet for whatever purposes on their free time, then Christian students have the same rights. The equal access laws cover discrimination. That's "equal access" in a nutshell.

Equal Access Act and The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

The Supreme Court held, in Widmar v. Vinvent, that when colleges allowed student groups to use their facilities they could not discriminate against student religious groups. [FN10] In other words, Christian students have to be allowed to use a meeting room on campus with the same restrictions applied to any other student group. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is not violated when a government entity, such as a public university, treats all groups the same, without attempting to censor religious speech. The Mergens Court quoted from Widmar extensively as they explained why secondary students have the right to have religious clubs on their campus.

More at link

[irishcowboy]

Thank Goodness that there are still some schools and school districts that even have TEACHER PRAYER MEETINGS....

and there are many that still participate in the MEET AT THE POLE....

mike

[nebula]

I was merely answering a question.

I'm sure - but it was confusing to the debate. That's why I asked.

I think taking God out of the classrooms is turning the youth of this country into spoiled, rotten little tyrants, who have no respect for their parents or any authority. Tell a child they're an animal long enough (evolution) and they'll act like it.

I think it's sickening how our educational system is making God out to be something so awful you can't even talk about Him on school property.

[nebula]

I'll ask again -

OK, I looked up the 14th amendment, and I am not seeing what you are saying, Axx.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Its right there...section one of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by securing "the equal protection of the laws" for every person. That would include religious discrimination. In a 1979 consultation on the issue, the United States commission on civil rights defined religious discrimination in relation to the civil rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You still have me lost Axx - what does any of this have to do with a teacher praying while in school?

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Dec 15 2009, 09:10 PM)

There is no law that requires that we have to trot out a religious leader to pray to every known diety at a highschool football game or other public event.

Correct. The law has been effectively established that no one, from any religion, is to be trotted out to pray to any deity. That is the power of the 14th amendment. If the Federal court applies a ruling to ONE person...it effectively applies to ALL people under the "equal protection of laws."

You are mistating the facts and ignoring the actual point I was making. According to you, if we have a prayer to Jesus, we are discriminating against everyone else who is of another religion. You are further misapplying "equal protection." Equal protection pertains to protecting to the rights of all people that they will not be denied employment, education, or any benefits the government offers on the basis of their religion. It has nothing to do with the issue you are applying it to in this thread.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Dec 15 2009, 09:10 PM)

It pertains making sure that equal rights are protected under law. It does not in any way support the position that a person praying at school is depriving someone else of equal protection under law.

I don't believe I have ever claimed otherwise.

Not in those words, but you are the one who tried to apply this issue to the 14th amendment and tied praying at school with the notion that it was discriminatory and violated the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause.

I only made the point that the 14th amendment includes religious descrimination...among the various other laws that the federal gov;t has established using the 14th amendment.

Yes, but "religious discrimination" as defined in the 14th Amendment is far different than how you have been applying that concept in this thread.

I think that history is on my side in that claim as the 14th amendment is roundly used in these types of cases. The federal gov't has ruled on these types of cases before, they have used the power of the 14th amendment to do so, and once they use the 14th amendment it provides the same legal standard equally to all. I personally don't see why that is so confusing....

Yet, you cannot, when asked, cite any of those the rulings.

Frankly, I don't think you really have a grasp on this type of situation. The OP pertains to teachers praying on their own, in a private setting. While on campus, they not allowed to even appear to be praying, on their breaks or even at a private function if the function is held on campus. The 14th Amendment simply protects people from be descriminated against on the basis of their religion. It does not include in its definition of discrimination, teachers praying privately to themselves on their lunch break. So no, I doubt the 14th Amendment has been "roundly used" in these types of cases. This type of case is just a matter of Christian teachers being bullied.

If this were happening to Muslim teachers in the US, you would be sticking up for the teachers.

School teachers are public employees. The court has repeatedly ruled that public employee's are bound by the 1st Amendment. In Adler v Board of Education, the Court said, "You have a constitutional right to say and think as you will, but you have no constitutional right to work for the government." Because of the 14th Amendment...everyone is entitled to equal protection by this law.

Yes, School teachers are public employees. That does not mean they surrender their rights at the door. There is no law that prohibits anyone from praying or assuming a posture of prayer on school grounds. There is no law that says teachers are required to expunge all evidences of religious conviction while on campus. If teacher wears a religious symbol or prays before they eat their lunch, or prays private to themselves on their lunch break, there is no violation of the 14th Amendment taking place.

The 14th Amendment does not really speak to this issue.

[MorningGlory]

Yes, School teachers are public employees. That does not mean they surrender their rights at the door. There is no law that prohibits anyone from praying or assuming a posture of prayer on school grounds. There is no law that says teachers are required to expunge all evidences of religious conviction while on campus. If teacher wears a religious symbol or prays before they eat their lunch, or prays private to themselves on their lunch break, there is no violation of the 14th Amendment taking place.

The 14th Amendment does not really speak to this issue.

This goes back to the root of the problem here; we have freedom OF religiion, not FROM religion. Christians are simply believing the rubbish that they can't pray on school grounds. YES THEY CAN; they simply can't require anyone else to do so. No American can be denied the freedom to worship as they see fit; they just BELIEVE that nonsense. I, for one, would never obey such stupid rules. And, yeah, if these people were muslims being denied the right to pray to 'allah', all heck would break loose and the P.C. crowd would break their necks to defend them.

[nikki1]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Dec 15 2009, 09:10 PM)

There is no law that requires that we have to trot out a religious leader to pray to every known diety at a highschool football game or other public event.

Correct. The law has been effectively established that no one, from any religion, is to be trotted out to pray to any deity. That is the power of the 14th amendment. If the Federal court applies a ruling to ONE person...it effectively applies to ALL people under the "equal protection of laws."

You are mistating the facts and ignoring the actual point I was making. According to you, if we have a prayer to Jesus, we are discriminating against everyone else who is of another religion. You are further misapplying "equal protection." Equal protection pertains to protecting to the rights of all people that they will not be denied employment, education, or any benefits the government offers on the basis of their religion. It has nothing to do with the issue you are applying it to in this thread.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Dec 15 2009, 09:10 PM)

It pertains making sure that equal rights are protected under law. It does not in any way support the position that a person praying at school is depriving someone else of equal protection under law.

I don't believe I have ever claimed otherwise.

Not in those words, but you are the one who tried to apply this issue to the 14th amendment and tied praying at school with the notion that it was discriminatory and violated the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause.

I only made the point that the 14th amendment includes religious descrimination...among the various other laws that the federal gov;t has established using the 14th amendment.

Yes, but "religious discrimination" as defined in the 14th Amendment is far different than how you have been applying that concept in this thread.

I think that history is on my side in that claim as the 14th amendment is roundly used in these types of cases. The federal gov't has ruled on these types of cases before, they have used the power of the 14th amendment to do so, and once they use the 14th amendment it provides the same legal standard equally to all. I personally don't see why that is so confusing....

Yet, you cannot, when asked, cite any of those the rulings.

Frankly, I don't think you really have a grasp on this type of situation. The OP pertains to teachers praying on their own, in a private setting. While on campus, they not allowed to even appear to be praying, on their breaks or even at a private function if the function is held on campus. The 14th Amendment simply protects people from be descriminated against on the basis of their religion. It does not include in its definition of discrimination, teachers praying privately to themselves on their lunch break. So no, I doubt the 14th Amendment has been "roundly used" in these types of cases. This type of case is just a matter of Christian teachers being bullied.

If this were happening to Muslim teachers in the US, you would be sticking up for the teachers.

School teachers are public employees. The court has repeatedly ruled that public employee's are bound by the 1st Amendment. In Adler v Board of Education, the Court said, "You have a constitutional right to say and think as you will, but you have no constitutional right to work for the government." Because of the 14th Amendment...everyone is entitled to equal protection by this law.

Yes, School teachers are public employees. That does not mean they surrender their rights at the door. There is no law that prohibits anyone from praying or assuming a posture of prayer on school grounds. There is no law that says teachers are required to expunge all evidences of religious conviction while on campus. If teacher wears a religious symbol or prays before they eat their lunch, or prays private to themselves on their lunch break, there is no violation of the 14th Amendment taking place.

The 14th Amendment does not really speak to this issue.

Blessings, shiloh357

Well put

[Axxman]

You are mistating the facts and ignoring the actual point I was making. According to you, if we have a prayer to Jesus, we are discriminating against everyone else who is of another religion. You are further misapplying "equal protection." Equal protection pertains to protecting to the rights of all people that they will not be denied employment, education, or any benefits the government offers on the basis of their religion. It has nothing to do with the issue you are applying it to in this thread.

Unfortunately, your argument is not with me...it is with the Supreme Court who has consistently used the 14th Amendment to rule in these types of cases. I have no power to rule that equal protection works in both directions. Equal protection can pertain to protecting for, and protecting from...the Supreme Court has ruled this way and has incorporated the 1st Amendment into the 14th Amendment for decades. And there is every likelihood that they will do it again in this case.

Not in those words, but you are the one who tried to apply this issue to the 14th amendment and tied praying at school with the notion that it was discriminatory and violated the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause.

Negative, I don't think thats what I said at all. The 14th merely applies the law equally. Whatever laws are passed by the Federal gov't on the issue of religious discrimination...the 14th amendment makes sure that everyone is equally protected by that law. That is why the vast majority of these cases go through the 14th Amendment.

Yes, but "religious discrimination" as defined in the 14th Amendment is far different than how you have been applying that concept in this thread.

I'm sorry...are you claiming that there is a definition of "religious discrimination" in the 14th amendment?

Yet, you cannot, when asked, cite any of those the rulings.

Hehe...you were the one bragging on your wiki-skills. I thought maybe you could just log into "the internets" and utilize "the google" to figure this whole thing out.

Frankly, I don't think you really have a grasp on this type of situation. The OP pertains to teachers praying on their own, in a private setting. While on campus, they not allowed to even appear to be praying, on their breaks or even at a private function if the function is held on campus. The 14th Amendment simply protects people from be descriminated against on the basis of their religion. It does not include in its definition of discrimination, teachers praying privately to themselves on their lunch break. So no, I doubt the 14th Amendment has been "roundly used" in these types of cases. This type of case is just a matter of Christian teachers being bullied.

Really...because it seems to me the entire article starts off with explaining that the ruling applies to teachers who are acting in an "official capacity" at "school events." Teachers have NOT been in any trouble for praying on their own, or in a private setting. No teachers have even gotten in trouble for praying privately during their lunch break...no teachers have even hidden in a closet to pray...lol. I think I have a fairly good grasp of this situation and am not falling for the sensationalistic reporting that WND is known for.

I will agree that they are being bullied. Thats what the ACLU does...they throw everything at the wall and hope that something sticks. They are a dispicable organization that does nothing to promote justice...especially where religion is concerned.

If this were happening to Muslim teachers in the US, you would be sticking up for the teachers.

First of all that is an ugly thing to say! Secondly, it is a lie that goes against everything that I believe in or have said in this thread. Third, not even the ACLU would stick up for the muslim teachers...so much for who has a grasp on the situation. I love muslims...get over it.

[nebula]

No response?

What's with this?

[Guest shiloh357]

Unfortunately, your argument is not with me...it is with the Supreme Court who has consistently used the 14th Amendment to rule in these types of cases.

There have been no rulings in these types of cases. If there were you could cite them.

Negative, I don't think thats what I said at all. The 14th merely applies the law equally. Whatever laws are passed by the Federal gov't on the issue of religious discrimination...the 14th amendment makes sure that everyone is equally protected by that law. That is why the vast majority of these cases go through the 14th Amendment.

Yeah it is how you represented this situation. You have tried to tie this to the equal protection clause and it doesn't apply here at all.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Dec 17 2009, 11:09 AM)

Yes, but "religious discrimination" as defined in the 14th Amendment is far different than how you have been applying that concept in this thread.

I'm sorry...are you claiming that there is a definition of "religious discrimination" in the 14th amendment?

The 14th Amendment protects people from being denied their civil rights as well as the right to employment, education, housing, etc. on the basis of religion. For that reason, the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with this particular case. That is why you cannot produce a Supreme Court ruling on case like this one.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Dec 17 2009, 11:09 AM)

Yet, you cannot, when asked, cite any of those the rulings.

Hehe...you were the one bragging on your wiki-skills. I thought maybe you could just log into "the internets" and utilize "the google" to figure this whole thing out.

No. YOU are the one who said the ruling exists. Produce it. You made the assertion; it is up to you to back it up.

Really...because it seems to me the entire article starts off with explaining that the ruling applies to teachers who are acting in an "official capacity" at "school events." Teachers have NOT been in any trouble for praying on their own, or in a private setting. No teachers have even gotten in trouble for praying privately during their lunch break...

More accurately, the ruling states that teachers are to assume an "official capacity" anytime they are on campus. That means if they step on campus to go to use the toilet, they are considered to be in an official capacity. The ruling states that they are NOT to pray, even privately to themselves nor are they to even appear to be praying such as bowing their heads, folding their hands, etc. As long as they are on campus, for any reason, school-related or not, they are not allowed to pray, even on their breaks, as that would violate their "official capacity.