Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[JimL]

You must be having one of your episodes.

Yes, you're hilarious CP.

[Sparko]

Allow, or insist on? Nothing stops students having a moment of silent prayer before/during/after the school day, and nothing ever has. The problem only starts when that moment of prayer is enforced on students who don't pray.Perfectly acceptable.

Perhaps the teachers should stop lessons for a few minutes five times per day. The Islamic students can use these breaks in teaching to lay out their prayer mats and bow towards Mecca. The other students who don't want to bow to Mecca would just have to sit quietly and meditate or pray to their own deities during these breaks.

well they don't have to do it 5 times a day, since the 5 times is spread over the whole day. But I think they do have a noon prayer time and an afternoon one that might coincide with school time. I have no problem letting them take time to do their prayers and allowing other students equivalent time to do their worship, or stare at the wall and play with their phone in the case of atheists. Pretty sure they can work the prayer time into school breaks.

[Roy]

It is the same thing. Do you think that congress takes a vote on how to open each session? No. It has been the standard procedure since the beginning. There is no choice. It's the way it is.

That's simply not true. I think congress chose to appoint chaplains, chose to start sessions with prayers,* and if they wanted to could choose not to.

According to Wikipedia, some early congressional sessions did not start with prayers; that was proposed in 1787 by Ben Franklin, but no official vote was recorded.

[Roy]

well they don't have to do it 5 times a day, since the 5 times is spread over the whole day. But I think they do have a noon prayer time and an afternoon one that might coincide with school time. I have no problem letting them take time to do their prayers and allowing other students equivalent time to do their worship,...

Not allowing. Insisting on. Do you have a problem with the other students having to stare at the wall while the Muslims pray?

Pretty sure they can work the prayer time into school breaks.

If school prayer was worked into school breaks this discussion would never have happened.

[Sparko]

Not allowing. Insisting on. Do you have a problem with the other students having to stare at the wall while the Muslims pray?If school prayer was worked into school breaks this discussion would never have happened.

You are straining at gnats Roy and it shows.

[seer]

Yes, and that was written by Thomas Jefferson who at that time owned some 200 slaves. Our creator is not necessarily our god and many of the founders didn't approve of the language used at the time. But what they did agree on was that Government and religion were to be separate.

The point is Jim, our very founding hinged on a religious principle. That is not secular. And what the Founders considered "separate" is not necessarily what you think is separate - after all they used tax dollars to support the Christian religion and many states, like here in New England, had tax supported churches. They certainly would not had any problem with school prayer.

[Roy]

No they are not. you can't even keep your argument straight.

No, you're misunderstanding it.

A monument of the ten commandments is not a facility required for religious observance, so is not needed to satisfy the freedom of religion clause in the constitution.

A monument of the ten commandments outside a courthouse links the law of one particular religion to the laws of the US, which is one step closer to establishing that particular religion - so any statute proposing such a monument contravenes the establishment clause.

[Roy]

You are straining at gnats Roy and it shows.

You are ignoring the point, and it shows.

There is a distinct difference between allowing students to pray in their own time vs insisting they attend prayer sessions. Crossing that line has been seen as a violation of the establishment clause. Deliberately blurring that line, as you and seer are doing, prevents any resolution.

[Sparko]

You are ignoring the point, and it shows.

There is a distinct difference between allowing students to pray in their own time vs insisting they attend prayer sessions.

Show of hands. How many people think I am the one "ignoring the point" and that Roy is NOT picking nits in order to force his view on the matter by claiming that school prayer was compulsory while excusing congress for exactly the same situation and claiming it was "voluntary"?

[Roy]

Show of hands. How many people think I am the one "ignoring the point" and that Roy is NOT picking nits in order to force his view on the matter by claiming that school prayer was compulsory while excusing congress for exactly the same situation and claiming it was "voluntary"?

The point you are ignoring is that congresspeople make their own rules while students do not.

[seer]

Show of hands. How many people think I am the one "ignoring the point" and that Roy is NOT picking nits in order to force his view on the matter by claiming that school prayer was compulsory while excusing congress for exactly the same situation and claiming it was "voluntary"?

Roy nit picking? Isn't that his middle name?

[Roy]

It is a simple, clear and unambiguous line.

Students should be allowed to pray or to attend religious services. This is the freedom of religion clause.
Students should not be compelled to pray or to attend religious services. This is the establishment clause.

[seer]

Students should not be compelled to pray or to attend religious services. This is the establishment clause.

Except it is not.

[Sparko]

It is a simple, clear and unambiguous line.

Students should be allowed to pray or to attend religious services. This is the freedom of religion clause.
Students should not be compelled to pray or to attend religious services. This is the establishment clause.

and we keep telling you that they never were compelled, and a simple prayer is not a religious service. But you want to keep splitting hairs until you can say that just being in the classroom means it is compulsory. Even when we said they didn't have to be in the classroom and could leave if they wanted.

and the constitution never mentions anything about compulsion either! It talks about congress making laws. You are picking nits till you can somehow make your point. As you always do. It gets pretty tiresome.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Roy]

and we keep telling you that they never were compelled,

You're telling me that they were compelled, but you will stretch the point to ridiculous extremes in order to avoid stating that outright, such as pretending that school prayer wasn't compulsory because homeschooling was an option. Furthermore, checking the background to some of the relevant court decisions shows that regardless of your own personal experience, many students definitely were compelled.

and the constitution never mentions anything about compulsion either! It talks about congress making laws.

Laws that compel students, like the previously cited statute from Alabama.

The ones picking nits here are the ones trying to claim that school prayer wasn't compulsory because the students didn't have to recite the prayer along with the teacher.