Students suspended for praying

[Oh Hamburgers!]

tmr, i am a fan of jay sekalov, but even he could not win this one, because the school was clearly within its rights. there is no precedent on which he could get the courts to rule otherwise.

No, the school was definitely in the wrong on this one, as they usually are.

Would you mind elaborating as to why? There is a lot of evidence in this thread that suggests the school was clearly within its rights.

[Guest Biblicist]

Eliyahuw,

You are also saying that we do not need to obey the laws or rules of the world since we are Christians. That is not Biblical either. The students were clearly disobeying the authority placed over them. Not exactly a good witness to the Lord. He obeyed the authorities placed over him, even unto death.

Romans 13:1-7 1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Explain to me how this is separation of church and state. Since Christ is the head of the church and God institutes authority figures, i.e. governing authorities. Matthew 22:21 does not separate Church and State. That is taken out of context, they were talking about taxes, which by the way Christians should also do without question. Again, Christ was telling us to obey the authorities He has placed over us.

Separation of Church and State isn't even in the Constitution. It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists.

On the contrary the school was violating the law. The students were not. THey are constitutionally protected from the school.

The students violated God's law, His rules for proper conduct. This is God's Word and as such is beyond contestation.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Well, first I must say that I am glad you brought another side of the issue here. The thing is, both sides tell very different stories.

MSNBC says the students were warned, www.columbian.com says the students were warned, the article at www.oregon.com was a very positive depiction of the students, but even it said the students were warned several times before suspensions were met. The article from www.lifesite.net shows a relatively even keel in reporting the information, we get both sides of the issue. Again, the authorities involved have been stated to report that the students were being a physical obstruction, and refused to relocate to a room.

There are always two sides of an issue, but I would rather take the ones that are a bit less biased, and don't have an agenda being intentionally appealed to. I believe the article you posted does indeed have an agenda to it, and is quite biased.

Liberty Counsel

NEWS RELEASE

Contact: PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT - 800-671-1776

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 2, 2007

Twelve Students Receive 10-Day Suspension for Praying Before School

Vancouver, WA - Today twelve high school students at Heritage High School were suspended for ten days for gathering to pray before school.

To be fair, the students were actually suspended because of obstruction and repeated refusal to acquiesce to the requests of the school authorities. That is the specific reason for the suspension. The students were not suspended because they were praying, they were technically suspended for creating a disruption. This is true.

Liberty Counsel is providing legal assistance to the students who were suspended.

A few weeks ago, the students tried to start a prayer club, but the school's vice principal, Alex Otoupal, would not let them meet in a private room.

This I haven't seen on other reports, so honestly I don't know how authentic this claim is.

The students gathered in the cafeteria before school to pray, but a Satanist student went to the school office and complained.

First off, how does anyone know who the student was who complained? Things like this are usually kept confidential, your name isn't given when you bring a matter up with the principal. Secondly, from my knowledge reading other reports, claiming this student to be a satanist not only doesn't matter, but is unfounded. One of the 16 year old prayer circle members commented that she felt the only people who didn't like the circle were "pagans", but that is her speculation. Besides, satanists and pagans have the same rights as any other student, the fact the "complainer" is being slandered upon is a direct appeal for emotional bias.

As a result, Vice Principal Otoupal told the Christian students they could not pray in the cafeteria but would have to go outside. After the students insisted on praying in the cafeteria because of inclement weather, Otoupal suspended them for ten days.

So again we see that the students were asked to move and refused to comply.

Anita L. Staver, President of Liberty Counsel, commented: "It is absolutely outrageous that the school allowed one Satanist student to exercise a heckler's veto over the other students' speech. This situation underscores the ignorance of school officials regarding the constitutional rights of students."

Staver concluded: "Most of the students who were suspended are immigrants from Russia. We must show them that America is still the land of the free. School officials must immediately reverse the suspensions."

###

Staver is a lawyer defending the case, of COURSE she is going to look at the school negatively. I don't see any counter-quotes that give reasons why the suspensions were given, because they are ommited from this article. Now, while there may be some controversy on what actually happened, this is by far the most pro-student article I have read, and it is filled with emotional appeal bias. There are many many other more even articles (who's websites I have linked above, but I'm sure there are more) who state that the children were being moved because they were being an obstruction, and were asked to stop several times. Most of the articles I have seen even mentioned that the children were offered a room, but refused. Now, this article does not mention those things, and it is one of the only ones. That leads me to believe this article is actively attempting to show only one side of the issue, namely the side in defense of the children. I don't trust it considering there are about 6 other articles that oppose this one.

This is a made up idea of yours, as no where does the article say the students were blocking any area. Furthermore, the praying students can do as they wish on their free time in the commons area or cafateria, just as the non praying students can do as they wish on their free time in the commons area. Additionally, the praying students have just as much right to say the non-praying students were a disruption to them.

Maybe the article that you posted doesn't mention that the students were blocking any area, but that is because it had a biased agenda, which I have attempted to prove to you. Read the OP's article, and read almost every other one. They show that the students were being a physical obstruction in the public area by making a large prayer circle. And again, please read our examined sections of the constitution, both LadyC and I have posted the same thing, and made it easy to pull out the important parts. They can be found on pages 7 and 8 of this thread. Essentially, schools can impose rules that affect religious activity if the religious activity is:

a) infringing the rights of the others in the area

b) is being disruptive

c) is treated in a neutral manner; ie the punishment is done with secular, not religious reasoning.

Now let's look at this, and compare it to the Tinker case which you seem to love so much, and let me show you how these two cases are NOT similar in that they both deserve to be allowed.

a) In the Tinker case, the armband wearing children were not infringing the rights of others in the area. They were merely doing exactly the same thing as every other student, but they were wearing a black armband. That's it.

a2) In this current case, the students were holding hands in a large circle in the public area, and were speaking and creating a large obstacle. Several students complained.

b) In the Tinker case, the students were not being disruptive, because they weren't changing their daily routine or actively showing off their armbands, or speaking in front of the class about joining the anti-war protest

b2) In this current case, the students were creating an obstacle, were being a distraction, and were asked repeatedly to relocate but failed to comply. That sounds like being a disruptive to me!

c) Both sides were punished in the same way at this point, so this one is moot.

But I hope you can see that Tinker only LOOSLY applies to this case, in that the school punished the students for expression. But there are many more disruptive circumstances to this case compared to the Tinker case. If the students were praying together at a table, I would be up in arms just as you are. But they were standing up, creating a large circle with 11 or 12 people. They were asked to move, and they didn't. Quite simply, they deserved what they got; they could have been talking about the latest videogame in a circle like that, and still, they would have gotten punished after refusal to move.

Is this enough information?

[Guest LadyC]

in light of the info from liberty council, it would appear that there IS a case. if the info is correct. don't get me wrong, i'm not accusing them of intentionally misleading, but it is their job to represent the students, and they are reporting based on what the students who were suspended are saying.... and i have my doubts as to whether the students would willingly disclose all pertinent information.

other news articles have stated that the group was offered a classroom, was encouraged to register as a club, were given the brochures from the school that provided the appropriate info regarding being non-obstructive/non-disruptive... and that MANY other students (not just one satanist) were complaining because the prayer group was not being held to the same rules and regulations that other groups were required to abide by in terms of assembling.

media is always biased, and so are attorneys representing clients. this is why we have courtrooms, jurors, judges who can sort through the claims of each side, weigh the EVIDENCE that each side produces, and make a fair ruling.

i will be interested in following this case. IF the school has no evidence to support what they have told the media, the students may very well win this case. however, if the school can prove that they did offer them a classroom, suggest they register as a club, and were given warnings about obstructing student traffic, then the students haven't got a prayer, no pun intended... because the law is clear on this issue. what remains to be seen is whether the school administration can provide evidence that they were within the law... and if they were, the necessary documentation is easily at hand.

[Burning_Ember]

Quite frankly, hamburg, you are the one showing bigotry against Christianity, as your history here from your posts reveal. You go out of you way to defend any issue that will go against the Word of God and Christianity in general, and you jumped into this thread to trump up charges against these Christian kids to make them appear guilty. Anyone who would convict Christian kids for praying without knowing the law and both sides of the story speaks for itself, and I think you are on a witch hunt here against Christianity. I really don't care whether you think my source is bias or not, because any knowledgeable person will recognize my source to be a reliable one.

With that said, I only posted what I did to point out your bias toward Christianity, and I will not oblige you with another fruitless debate playing word games with you, because I do not believe you are familiar with the law or details to even debate this issue, as you have again shown by your lastest comments.

Hamburgers is Christian. I'm confused how he is on a witchhunt against/s bigoted against Christianity.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Awww, c'mon Tmrfiles, we were all having a nice respectful debate until you resorted to ad hominem

I shouldn't even be responding to this post because it is mostly an insult of my character and not a debate on the issue, but I wanted to make a few points.

You go out of you way to defend any issue that will go against the Word of God and Christianity in general, and you jumped into this thread to trump up charges against these Christian kids to make them appear guilty.

I based my information off of the OP's article. You brought up a different article that said things contrary to the first article, so I then went and looked up about 5 different articles pertaining to the same event, and noticed that the majority of them sided with the OP's article, and not necessarily to your article's depiction of the event. True, it is possible that yours might be right, but the majority of the articles I have seen go against the idea that the students were innocent to the charges. Odds dictate that your article is less true to the events than the other articles, at least based on the first 6 articles that popped up for me on google. Could you at least agree that, based upon the OP's article, the children are guilty of causing a disruption and an obstruction?

Anyone who would convict Christian kids for praying without knowing the law and both sides of the story speaks for itself, and I think you are on a witch hunt here against Christianity.

I agree, knowing both sides of an issue is extremely important, in any given situation. I have looked at several articles on this case, I have looked at the constitution, and I have looked at the school board laws. All of these sources of information have led me to believe the school had a right to suspend these students, and that the students were suspended because they were being an obstruction and a distraction, not because they were praying.

I really don't care whether you think my source is bias or not, because any knowledgeable person will recognize my source to be a reliable one.

I disagree that any knwledgeable person will recognize the source to be reliable. It was from www.thelightinadarkworld.wordpress.com, a christian website. (article: http://thelightinadarkworld.wordpress.com/...on-act-of-2007/ ) Of course a website based off the spread of christianity will take the side of the children! It would be like me going to "www.publicschoolsaregreat.com" to find research backing up the school's decision! I'm sorry, but bias, even from a Christian site with positive values and goals, is still bias, and it obstructs truth.

I have also given my explanation for why I felt the article was biased. If you disagree with my reasoning, feel free to dispute my responses to it, but I feel I am right.

With that said, I only posted what I did to point out your bias toward Christianity, and I will not oblige you with another fruitless debate playing word games with you, because I do not believe you are familiar with the law or details to even debate this issue, as you have again shown by your lastest comments.

Word games? See here, I looked at the law. I looked at sites that had the article on them. I looked at the details I found about the school board, about what the law dictates, I have and others have gone over the supreme court cases relevant to the situation at hand. I have drawn my conclusion from all of these sources. Currently, from what you have said it seems clear that you have drawn your conclusion on the ONE biased web source you posted. How can you claim I have no familiarity with the issue when you have been basing your entire theory off of the idea that the school was out to get the students, and that your article must be the accurate assessment of the situation?

[Guest LadyC]

tmr, everyone knows that it's a rare thing when hamburger and i agree on anything. however, the comments you directed at him are not only unnecessarily harsh, they're displaying a rather unflattering side of you....

the FACTS ARE that until you posted the press release from the students attorneys, hamburger (and myself) were responding to the information that we had and that had been presented in this thread.

and according to the information we had, HAMBURGER was absolutely CORRECT, regarding the laws and how they would apply under the circumstances of the information we had.

he is NOT showing bigotry towards christians, certainly not in this thread at leaast, NOR is he trumping up any charges. seems to me that the school is the one with trumped up charges being leveled at it, at least until further information is made available and the evidence is provided.

a press release from the attorney of the students does not require any evidentiary support. the attorneys are hired to present the student's side. as such, it is not going to be giving an entirely accurate representation of the facts.

we have provided the law for you. ACCORDING to the media reports, the school administration was WELL within the bounds of the law. and if the school has proper documentation of the events, then the school will win on this one. on the other hand, IF the students can prove their story, they will win.

so rather than pounce on burgerboy, perhaps you might do well to withhold your accusations towards him until the case has gone to trial and the facts from both sides have been presented. because at this point YOU don't know both sides of the story anymore than we do... you are taking the student's side without even considering the possibility that the school was acting legally, so therefore it appears YOU are on the witchhunt.

[Guest LadyC]

i see you're quite free with your criticisms of burger but yet totally disregard my posts, although i totally agree with him on this one, and believe you are being blinded by the words "christian students" to the point that you are flat out refusing to acknowledge that there are two sides to every story and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. nope, you're deciding that because the "christian" students (who were behaving in a decidedly unchristlike manner according to every report other than the press release by their attorneys) said so.

why is that tmr? do you just figure burgerboy is fair game and an easy target because he has some very warped views on other issues like gay marriage and stuff? is that why you're attacking him with both barrels (even though you're shooting blanks at him, arguments with no substance).

is there some reason why you're not making the same accusations at me directly? some reason why you're not calling ME a christian bigot, saying i'm on a witch hunt, and accusing me of trumping up charges?

could it be that over time you've developed a modicum of respect for me, so therefore you aren't willing to level such judgement at me, but since you have no respect for burger, you're willing to belittle and ridicule him?

my apologies to the mods, for getting a little offended at the cheap shots you're taking at hamburger. i'm well aware of the routine, as soon as someone reads my response i'll be reported and i'll get reprimanded.... and the thread may end up locked as a result of my behaviour. but what the heck, it doesn't stink any worse than what i'm seeing displayed here towards burger. maybe it's time to close it anyway, since in one page it deteriorated from a civilized debate to personal warfare.

[Eliyahuw]

Eliyahuw,

You are also saying that we do not need to obey the laws or rules of the world since we are Christians. That is not Biblical either. The students were clearly disobeying the authority placed over them. Not exactly a good witness to the Lord. He obeyed the authorities placed over him, even unto death.

Romans 13:1-7 1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Explain to me how this is separation of church and state. Since Christ is the head of the church and God institutes authority figures, i.e. governing authorities. Matthew 22:21 does not separate Church and State. That is taken out of context, they were talking about taxes, which by the way Christians should also do without question. Again, Christ was telling us to obey the authorities He has placed over us.

Separation of Church and State isn't even in the Constitution. It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists.

On the contrary the school was violating the law. The students were not. THey are constitutionally protected from the school.

The students violated God's law, His rules for proper conduct. This is God's Word and as such is beyond contestation.

Excuse me but the law is fulfilled. We are not under the law but under grace.

[Guest LadyC]

Excuse me but the law is fulfilled. We are not under the law but under grace.

that doesn't excuse bad behaviour, or exempt them from their responsibilities to be GOOD witnesses for Christ, which it doesn't appear crossed their mind.

however, this particular case is a matter that will be examined by the laws of the land... unfortunately, what God has to say bears little relevance in a courtroom anymore. they'll have to account for their actions twice, before two judges.... an earthly one and a heavenly one.