Teachers forced to 'hide in closets' to pray

[nebula]

Shiloh - Do you have any ideas as to why Axx isn't answering me?

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh - Do you have any ideas as to why Axx isn't answering me?

Because he cannot actually tie this case to the 14th Amendment. It is easier to ignore your question, but then he will deny he was ignoring you even though you have asked him more than once.

The 14th Amendment only guarantees equal protection for everyone regardless of religious view. It does not mean that public religious expression is as Axxman put it, "legally discriminating." The liberal schtick is that if you pray to Jesus publicly at a highschool football game, then you are discriminating against everyone else who isn't Christian. Axx is tying this to the 14th Amendment, but it simply doesn't apply to taht issue, nor to the issue at hand, which is teachers praying privately on school grounds.

He won't or can't answer because the answer torpedoes his attempt to make this a 14th Amendment issue.

[OneLight]

All this talk about the law. If one feels led to pray, pray! God will care for you as you obey Him.

[nebula]

Well, I might be without internet access for a few days - we'll see - so if Axx finally does answer, I apologize in advance for not responding quickly.

[nebula]

Hurray - limited access today!

~~~~~~

Anyway, I was reading a book that made an interesting point.

How do we overcome the enemy? "By the blood of the Lamb, and the word of our testimony, and [we]do not love our lives so much as to shrink from death."

If the enemy can prevent us from either of these, he's got us caught.

What we see happening here is the enemy silencing "the word of our testimony."

Think about it.

[Axxman]

Shiloh - Do you have any ideas as to why Axx isn't answering me?

LOL...because i have a life outside of the internet. It will take me approximately 28 years (at my current pace) to reach your post total.

It should also be noted that I did respond to you. You replied that you were "still lost." The fact that you are "still lost" on the issue isn't my problem, nor does it require a response....my responses to Shiloh are readable by everyone and I would hope that anyone who is lost in the convo would read the comments being made by those engaged in the topic. It certainly shouldn't indicate to you that I am dodging your "lostness" or that my answer to your "lostness" will somehow make me look bad. Quite literally its not that hard to figure out. Nearly every case having to do with this issue involves the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court has for decades incorporated specific rights into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment that specifically deal with this issue.

[nebula]

** Why is it that everyone concerns themselves with my post count except me? * *

Anyway, your responses to Shiloh didn't answer my question. And I was hoping you'd be curteous enough to respond in some way without my having to provoke you like I did.

Now you can repeat over and over "it just is" all you like, but "it just is" does not explain to me how

"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."

has been used by the Supreme Court to relate to teachers and religion.

Just repeating that they do use it does not clarify to me how teaching and how religion actually fit under or into this ammendment.

[Axxman]

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

Oh...there have been...and I will cite them...but it has been fun watching you bury yourself...hehe.

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.

Actually, yeah it does tie into the equal protection clause. Get your wiki-skills ready....

In Cantwell v Connecticut, the Supreme Court incoporated the free excercise clause into the 14th Amendment. It has used that decision to do so repeatedly since then.

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.

In the Abington Township School District v Schempp, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling in Engle v Vitale in which the Court ruled that the sanctioning of a prayer by the school amounted to a violation of the Establishment Clause. In upholding that ruling the court added that Schempp's 14th Amendment rights had been violated because the school was conducting "a religious exercise", and "that cannot be done without violating the 'neutrality' required of the State by the balance of power between individual, church and state that has been struck by the First Amendment."

While your reading wiki...don't skip this part..."Over the previous two decades, the Supreme Court, by incorporating specific rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, had steadily increased the extent to which rights contained in United States Bill of Rights were applied against the states."

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

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.

McCollum v Board of Education...Reynolds v United States....Everson v Board of Education...Torcaso v Watkins...Wallace v Jaffree...Lee v Weisman...Allegheny County v. ACLU

Enjoy! All of these cases show a clear connection between the free excercise clause and the 14th Amendment. You may want to look up the Lemon test or the newly established Coercion test.

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.

You should write fiction...lol. I would have thought that you would actually take the time to read the court order. First, the court order doesn't reference "anytime they are on campus"...or especially private time in a bathroom. The court order doesn't reference private prayer. The court makes 5 very specific orders:

1. They cannot endorse or promote religion during school sponsored events.

2. They cannot plan, promote, or otherwise sponsor religious baccalaureate services.

3. They cannot hold school-sponsored events at religious venues when alternative venues are reasonably available.

4. They cannot promote their personal religious beliefs and proselytize students in class or during school-sponsored events and activities.

5. Otherwise unconstitutionally endorsing or coercing religion.

Nope...nothing about private time on the toilet there, or breaks. Its also pretty specific that it applies to school related/sponsored activities. Furthermore, this order was given only after the School officials admitted in writing to the court (submitted by their attorneys) that they were guilty...and asked the court to enter a preliminary injunction pending a final consent order and settlement with the plaintiffs. Based on the admission of guilt, the judge did as was requested by the defendants and issued the preliminary injunction.

[Axxman]

Anyway, your responses to Shiloh didn't answer my question. And I was hoping you'd be curteous enough to respond in some way without my having to provoke you like I did.

Now you can repeat over and over "it just is" all you like, but "it just is" does not explain to me how

"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."

has been used by the Supreme Court to relate to teachers and religion.

Just repeating that they do use it does not clarify to me how teaching and how religion actually fit under or into this ammendment.

Read my response to Shiloh...lol.

[nebula]

Thanks you for the specifics, Axx. It still doesn't make sense to me how they got from A (the ammendment) to C (the ruling on religion), but hey.....

Anyway, if you would share your thoughts on this, please?

~~~

Anyway, I was reading a book that made an interesting point.

How do we overcome the enemy? "By the blood of the Lamb, and the word of our testimony, and [we]do not love our lives so much as to shrink from death."

If the enemy can prevent us from either of these, he's got us caught.

What we see happening here is the enemy silencing "the word of our testimony."

Don't you think?