Students suspended for praying

[ted]

This thread doesn't have to be closed.

The issue can still be debated and discussed without the personal stuff.

It's easy.

t.

[spiritman]

Hi Everyone,

I was just reading some of your posts on Higher authority, and I was just wondering what your thoughts are on this one. Yes it says in the Scriptures that We should obey our Higher authority. So the questions are. 1. Who is the Highest authority of all. 2. What if Government makes a law that superseeds God's Law, should we throw out God's law and obey the Government?. 4. Does seperation of Chruch and state, superseed, The Great Commission?.

[apothanein kerdos]

Congrats LadyC...you can use Google.

[ 11 ] For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," they were not being prohibited from praying before, during or after school

Irrelevant.

[ 12 ] and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. key words here, on the same terms and conditions that they engage in other speach.... i seriously doubt that these students would gossip about last night's episode of desparate housewives while standing in a circle holding hands.

And here your ignorance of how this law works shows.

What it means is that if students are allowed to congregate and talk in a certain area of the building (i.e. the commons), then the school cannot prohibit prayer from occurring in that place unless they forbid all assembly in that area. This is how it has consistently been interpreted and applied.

Likewise, local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, the school has the authority to impose rules of ORDER, and let's face it, creating an obstacle course DISRUPTS ORDER.

And with this faulty interpretation, you ignore the 1986 Establishment Clause which states that if these restrictions are applied, it must be done so for ALL clubs and ALL students. Oops! Didn't find that in Google?

[ 13 ] but they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against student prayer or religious speech. For instance, where schools permit student expression on the basis of genuinely neutral criteria and students retain primary control over the content of their expression, the speech of students who choose to express themselves through religious means such as prayer is not attributable to the state and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious content. their prayer was NOT being restricted BECAUSE of religious content.

Irrelevant. I'm talking about assembly, not religion.

Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.

Notice the key in this passage - instructional time. When students are in the commons, it is not during instructional time. Again, irrelevant.

it does not apply to the case being discussed in this thread because

1. forming a large circle in a busy common area is probably not incredibly noisy, but it IS DISRUPTIVE and it DOES impinge on the rights of others.

Again, disruptive has to depend on intent and if the school applies that same standard to all students congregating in a certain area. If they do, then these students are in the wrong. However, the mere fact that students are in the commons area places heavy doubt that the school is being fair in what they are doing.

3. there was no prohibition on the students expression of opinion or religion, there was a prohibition on WHERE they were doing it, with evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE with the rights of others. therefore the school requesting the students to move IS permissible under the 1st and 14th ammendments.

So long as they do this with other students, again, 1986 Establishment Clause.

Honestly LadyC, you're debating something you know NOTHING about, and I'm not going to tolerate that. Stop relying on your own interpretation, actually get your nose into a few books on the issue, or the opinions of the Court, sit down, study it for a few months, then come back and talk to me on this issue. Until then, you're just setting yourself up to look like you don't have the slightest clue as to what is going on. I'm not trying to be rude, but I am extremely frustrated. You keep taking things out of context and ignoring how the law works all because you disagree with how the students prayed. You haven't studied this issue, and it shows in how you're debating it. I've actually been through this issue before, I was forced to study it, I've read these opinions almost more than anything else in my studies. All I'm asking is for you to stop Googling stuff, putting it together, and then giving me a "tada!" presentation.

If this school bans students from congregating together in the commons area then they had full right to do what they did with these students who were praying. If not, if they allow students to congregate in that area, then they CANNOT, under US Law, prevent students from praying in a group in that area.

[Guest LadyC]

AK... yes, i can use google. with it i pulled up case law, government websites, and supreme court rulings on my own instead of having you provide the links for me like you so generously offered to do. now quit acting like you're superior.

regarding your comments...

1) very relevent. in fact, it is the only relevant fact.

2) apparently you're as ignorant of how the law works as i am. more so in fact, since you can't seem to grasp the most basic premise of the law. schools have the inalienable right, as i've provided you proof of, to institute rules which are across the board and apply to everyone equally to ensure the rights of others are not being violated, and to ensure that groups of individuals do not obstruct or disrupt others. it wouldn't matter if the group was 'registered' or not. so whether it is a bunch of kids standing in a circle praying and blocking others from getting to class, or a cheerleading squad practicing pyramids, or a bunch of kids discussing the latest episode of grey's anatomy, if they are obstructing or disrupting, they must move. it has been interpreted and applied that way as i have shown in previous posts.

THIS group was not registered. their discipline was not based on the fact they were praying, it was based on the fact that they were causing an obstacle course. the law couldn't be more clear on this, so don't try and pretend i'm the stupid one here, because we both know i'm anything but stupid.

3. that was partially addressed in my above paragraph, but also in a previous post. i honestly don't believe you are lacking in understanding of what equal access laws apply to. i think you're being intentionally obtuse to further the point you want everyone else to believe. the rule does apply equally to all students, and was in force prior to the group starting their prayer circles, according to the reports that they were provided with pamphlets that spelled out to them what the rules were. they were disrupting order. you can't just conveniently decide that THAT part of the LAW does not apply just because the students are christian.

4. they were assembling for a religious purpose, and the whole issue at stake here is that they are screaming religious discrimination because they are christians and were praying. therefore it is not only relevant, it is critical. the students were not being asked to move, or suspended, for praying. they were asked to move and subsequently suspended because they failed to comply to school regulations after repeated warnings.

5. not irrelevant. this was in the morning as students were arriving for class, unless you can show me something indicating that their prayer circle was prior to other students arriving. since other students were making complaints about this group not being held to the same rules as others, and since they were complaining about having to detour, it obviously was at a time when students were trying to get TO their instruction. obstructing the path of others reaching their class is very relevant here.

6. again, the students in question KNEW they were causing a disruption and were unwilling to STOP causing such a disruption. unwillingness to stop indicates to any cognizant person that there was intent.

7. it has already been shown that, according to media reports which may or may not be accurate, but according to the information that we HAVE, all students are held to the same standard.

8. this wasn't about them meeting in the commons area, or about them praying. it was about them being an obstruction to other students in the commons area. you really should try and set aside your personal bias here and recognize what the heart of the issue is. if it was about what you seem to think it is, i'd be 100% on your side.

i find your arrogance refreshing considering we recently agreed on something. it reminds me that you really are the person i've come to know so well on these boards. telling me i know nothing about something when obviously you're taking everything you possibly can out of context just really doesn't surprise me. do you think because you happen to be enrolled in college debate classes that you're the only person who is capable of reading case law and government documents dictating what is allowable and what is not?

however, i'm really surprised, and quite literally laughing my butt off, that you are dissing me for relying on the opinion of the court, considering YOU were the one who was so adamently trying to prove your case earlier by telling me you'd provide me links to.... what was it AK? oh yeah, links to the RULINGS OF THE COURT!

i've been studying little of anything else since i joined this debate yesterday... AND, you have no clue what books i've got on my bookshelf (several about constitutional law in fact), yet you absurdly assume you can suggest i... what AK? oh yeah, read some books and study the issue! nor do you have any idea how many classes in government i've taken or that i was near the top of my class, nor do you have any inkling of how many years of PERSONAL experience i have in dealing with the legislative process... and even more personal experience with the media, but that is rather beside the point.

now, do i have any personal experience with laws regarding religious freedom? no, and i don't pretend to. but i'm not the country bumpkin that you seem to think that i am.

i'm sorry you're frustrated with me. frankly, i'm quite entertained by you this evening! lighten up.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

I am actually grateful for brother Ted's admonition.

Closed.

Peace,

Dave