Students suspended for praying

[spiritman]

http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/03...7news112402.cfm

I'm not sure if this is the same incident or not; but I was listening to the radio about a simular incident in which the student that complained was a satanist. We are truely living in the last days.

[Guest LadyC]

school = federal government.... schools have rules, like any other part of life. whether you are in a federal building or a courthouse or a school or anything else, there are guidelines to follow. schools restrict students right to free speach, freedom of expression, yada yada yada on a daily basis in order to prevent chaos.

Again, you're missing the point.

* The student group is not a club - it is a gathering of students

* Because it is not a club, it is merely students gathering to do whatever

* The school MUST now forbid all other students from gathering in the commons in a percieved group

That is the simple point of the law. Would you like me to start quoting these decisions to you?

you can quote all you like. are the other students creating an obstruction by forming in groups? it doesn't matter whether the group is a 'club', it matters that it is a student led group, registered or not.

do you not understand how large a space 11 students standing in a circle holding hands is taking up? they do NOT have a constitutional right to obstruct the flow of pedestrian traffic. sorry, but you're simply wrong on that. they have the right to peacably assemble. obstructing others is not a peaceful assembly. they have a right to BE in the commons, not to create an obstacle course there. they even have the right to sit around and talk or pray or whatever they want to do, but not if they are blocking the path of others. it is creating havoc. the students involved haven't decided whether or not they are willing to register as a student led group, which tells ya where their priorities are, and those priorities are NOT glorifying God. their priorities is getting their name in print and further causing a stink.

the school has not discriminated against them. the school has broken no laws. the students were violating all sorts of regulations and i'd go so far as to say safety standards. they were PREVENTING other students from doing what they needed to do, which is to arrive at their morning class on time without having to make a detour around a bunch of arrogant self centered kids who could care less about setting a Christian example, and while using God as an excuse to further their bad behaviour.

now if you can show me just ONE SINGLE instance in which that school allowed any other group, registered or otherwise, to disrupt movement of other students trying to gain access to their classrooms, or to lunch tables in the commons, or whatever, and i'll concede the point. the fact is, that isn't the case here.

these students are wrong, and they're giving God a bad reputation. if they want to do something to honor their heavenly Father, then they need to focus on Him and not on themselves.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

LadyC, I think that for the record it sounds like A.K. is agreeing that it shouldn't have been done, but the issue he is bringing up is legally he feels there was no founding for what the school did. I am arguing that you lose certain rights as soon as you step into a school in order to allow the system to function, while A.K. is argueing that you do not lose certain rights.

Now, I'll agree that in a loose sense, you do not lose your rights. You can do things without getting criminally charged, such as practice freedom of speech etc, but you will still get punished in the system. The fact is that you can do things in real life that you can't do in school. IE you can wear drug paraphenalia (probably spelt that wrong) on the streets on your shirt, but you can't in school. That simple fact tells me that you don't have the same rights. I mean, you won't be charged criminally, but you won't be allowed to wear that shirt. You will be punished in the system, but not punished in a court of law.

Same thing here. These students were obstructing an area for other students, and were asked to stop because they were being a distraction, but they refused. They were not criminally charged, but they were suspended from the system which made the laws. So in a way, their rights were violated, but in a way they weren't, because they were given the right to do it, they just had to deal with the consequences.

[Guest Biblicist]

Sounds to me as if the school was only enforcing the rules they put forth, which by the way we are to obey, unless it goes against God's word.

They were not in any way being prejudiced against those praying students. They were enforcing discipline upon disobedient students. Sad that those students were being a pretty bad witness by disobeying the rules of their school. At least the article didn't read "Radical Christian students disrupt hall flow during school hours with unsanctioned prayer circle."

My son's school offers a time before school every Wednesday for Christian students to come to one of the classrooms, with a teacher, for prayer, Bible study and discussion. The school also sponsors, through the Christian group, outings for the Christian students.

There are proper ways to go about this sort of thing. And obviously these students had not been taught the proper way, nor had they learned the verses that tell us to obey those whom God has placed in authority over us. Parents, teachers, government.

[Guest LadyC]

hamburger, i know AK agrees that the students were going about things wrong.

but my argument is that no, the school did not violate any constitutional laws. the constitution allows students the freedom of speach, the freedom to worship, and the freedom to assemble. the constitution does NOT say they can do this "in the commons", or "while creating an obstacle path" or "at the expense of others".

the school was more than willing to accomodate them, made suggestions and offers to the students which they refused, all out of selfishness.

if the school had told them they could not assemble to pray on the school grounds, that would be one thing. or if the school had told them they were not allowed to ever step foot in the commons, that would be something too. but those are not the case.

the school did not forbid them from praying on school grounds, just that they do so in a part of the school grounds where it was not obstructing others.

the school did not forbid them from being in the commons, they simply instructed them not to prevent free use of the commons to other students.

no laws, constitutional or otherwise, were violated.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

hamburger, i know AK agrees that the students were going about things wrong.

but my argument is that no, the school did not violate any constitutional laws. the constitution allows students the freedom of speach, the freedom to worship, and the freedom to assemble. the constitution does NOT say they can do this "in the commons", or "while creating an obstacle path" or "at the expense of others".

the school was more than willing to accomodate them, made suggestions and offers to the students which they refused, all out of selfishness.

if the school had told them they could not assemble to pray on the school grounds, that would be one thing. or if the school had told them they were not allowed to ever step foot in the commons, that would be something too. but those are not the case.

the school did not forbid them from praying on school grounds, just that they do so in a part of the school grounds where it was not obstructing others.

the school did not forbid them from being in the commons, they simply instructed them not to prevent free use of the commons to other students.

no laws, constitutional or otherwise, were violated.

Cool! Then I think I'm in complete agreement with you on this issue.

[Guest LadyC]

wow, twice in one month, we're on to something LOL.

[apothanein kerdos]

The school MUST now forbid all other students from gathering in the commons in a percieved group

What makes you think the school is applying a double standard in this case?

They may not, in which case, they are justified. However, it is highly implausible that the school forbids groups of students from gathering in the commons of their own free will (i.e. a non-club).

do you not understand how large a space 11 students standing in a circle holding hands is taking up? they do NOT have a constitutional right to obstruct the flow of pedestrian traffic. sorry, but you're simply wrong on that. they have the right to peacably assemble. obstructing others is not a peaceful assembly. they have a right to BE in the commons, not to create an obstacle course there.

This is the problem - obstruction is highly subjective and hardly ever finds its way into Constitutional interpretation. Unless the intention of the students is to disrupt, the law allows them to meet.

How many court cases have you read on this issue LadyC? You tell me I am wrong in the law, so I'm curious.

Now, I'll agree that in a loose sense, you do not lose your rights. You can do things without getting criminally charged, such as practice freedom of speech etc, but you will still get punished in the system. The fact is that you can do things in real life that you can't do in school. IE you can wear drug paraphenalia (probably spelt that wrong) on the streets on your shirt, but you can't in school. That simple fact tells me that you don't have the same rights. I mean, you won't be charged criminally, but you won't be allowed to wear that shirt. You will be punished in the system, but not punished in a court of law.

This is because the speech has intended criminal intent, which was a declaration added to the Tinker decision many years later (in the 90's...cant' think of the case name). However, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion as we are dealing with assembly and not speech. So long as the students are not disrupting a class or forcing people to join in what they are doing, legally they have a right to do what they are doing.

Morally, ethically, and through the Christian view, they are 100% incorrect. Legally, they have the right.

Look, just because you disagree with the practice doesn't mean you can deny the legality of the practice. Have you noticed that here? Why am I the only one saying they have a legal right but are ethically wrong? Instead, those who think they were right in doing what they did, say they have the legal right. Those who disagree, say they don't have the legal right.

That should tell you something.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

This is the problem - obstruction is highly subjective and hardly ever finds its way into Constitutional interpretation. Unless the intention of the students is to disrupt, the law allows them to meet.

But you see the children were told to move several times according to the article, therefore they knew they were being an obstruction, and refused to relocate. Therefore, the intention of the students can be seen to disrupt, because they did not move after told to do so.

This is because the speech has intended criminal intent, which was a declaration added to the Tinker decision many years later (in the 90's...cant' think of the case name). However, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion as we are dealing with assembly and not speech. So long as the students are not disrupting a class or forcing people to join in what they are doing, legally they have a right to do what they are doing.

The reason I felt the issue of free speech was relevant is because you mentioned that students do not lose their rights when entering a school, and I feel that is incorrect Therefore, I used that example to show you that students do lose certain rights when entering a school.

Morally, ethically, and through the Christian view, they are 100% incorrect. Legally, they have the right.

Look, just because you disagree with the practice doesn't mean you can deny the legality of the practice. Have you noticed that here? Why am I the only one saying they have a legal right but are ethically wrong? Instead, those who think they were right in doing what they did, say they have the legal right. Those who disagree, say they don't have the legal right.

That should tell you something.

I understand, really I do. I understand you are not arguing that they were morally correct, I understand that you are arguing about legal issues ONLY. My issue is that while I believe that the students were morally, ethically, and though the Christian view 100% incorrect (as you do), I feel that do NOT have the legal right to do so as well, because as I have said before there ARE certain rights that get bent when you enter a school. Since they were being an obstruction for the passage of other students, and since they were asked repeatedly to move (therefore they knew they were an obstruction) yet refused to move, they were punished because they forfeited their right to congregate.

If I felt that the students were legally allowed to congregate the way they did, I would agree with you that they should have been ALLOWED to do what they did, but it wasn't the CORRECT thing to do. However I disagree with you concerning the legality of the situation.

[Guest LadyC]

AK, it's not necessary to read court cases. we're all quite capable of reading the constitution. and we're all quite capable of understanding that according to the information we were given, they were not being forbidden to congregate. they were being forbidden from creating an obstacle course.