In Tangipahoa Parish here in Louisiana, the teachers and adminstrators continue to pray in school. This infuriates the ACLU who has continually taken the School Board to court to stop them from praying.
In addition, the ACLU cites a prayer it says was recently given at Amite High School, over a loudspeaker, at an awards banquet. The prayer ended with the words "In Jesus' name we pray," violating the ban; the principal of the school sat silently by.
So, if they didn't say "In Jesus' name" the ACLU wouldn't have had a problem with prayer? I guess it would have been OK if the prayer ended with "In Allah's name."
The ACLU has a solution to this problem: get rid of the people who pray.
"The consent judgment is repeatedly violated by these individuals because they do not believe anything will happen to them," the ACLU said in its Wednesday court filing. "Their refusal to comply with the consent decree should and must result in their removal from society." (emphasis added)
Isn't this the same group that supports criminals? And illegal aliens? So, the American Civil Liberties Union must consider everyone Americans, thus worthy of protection, except Christians.
How do they intend to remove these horrible, vicious offenders from society? By sending them to jail.
Teachers and administrators in Tangipahoa Parish continue to violate a court-imposed school prayer ban, according to the ACLU, which Wednesday asked a federal judge to send them to jail.
Ok, maybe they violate a prayer ban in school. But jail? They are teachers. Wouldn't a fine be an effective punishment, considering the fact that they don't make a lot of money? Unless the ACLU considers these people felons.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - francisco68
Quite right, Dana. How dare these unAmerican Civil Libertarians shake their fingers at any attempt to change the intellectual, excellent educational and religious system of the fine state of Louisiana? This is almost enough to have the great states of the southern religious confederacy declare secession from the parts of America that would defend something as Yankee and unChristian as the Constitution.
Imagine freedom and education running wild in the great states of the Confederacy?. Soon freedom would run wild, children would learn to read words and numbers a little and it would detract from Jesus. If illiteracy in English was good enough for Jesus; it is surely good enough for Louisianians.
Not only that but those ACLU'ers might even want to marry our womenfolk!. Just think of that!.
Pray on. Bury the books and lynch all the non literal bible thumpers. The time of education is almost over. Prayer will triumph!
2 - gonzo marx
which part of violating a Federal Court Order doesn't Dana here comprehend?
typical of this kind of Argument..i'll just point out one example..
Dana sez...
*So, if they didn't say "In Jesus' name" the ACLU wouldn't have had a problem with prayer?*
essentialy correct...it is the denominational Aspect that makes it so clear a Violation of the court Order...it is FAR less offensive when such a benediction is non-denominational..and would have been much more difficult to so easily prosecute
the very next sentance is a shining example of the fallacious "Logic" used so often by some folks..
Dana sez..
*I guess it would have been OK if the prayer ended with "In Allah's name."*
nope..you "guess" wrong..it would have been the EXACT same Violation of the Ruling...
how difficult is this Issue, really?
folks don't go into a church and start teaching evolution, or history, or trigonometry...no one wants a Sunday School class to open it's curriculum to the "alternative" view of Buddhist or Judaic teaching...
every other religious denomination that resides in this Nation easily deals with the Rules and Laws of our Constitution and Society with the sole Exception of the "Fundamentalist/Evangelical" sects
maybe it's just me...oh yes..me and the Constitution...
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
3 - Matthew T. Sussman
Francisco68, that was hands down the most civilized, mature, salient comment I've read all day. What a great way to make your point clear: strike some low blows to a state in the South.
This is a microcosm of why the nation is currently polarized.
4 - RealCon
Once upon a time in Nazi Germany teachers and administrators continued to pray in school. This infuriated the Gestapo who then took the School Board to Nazi court to stop them from praying.
In addition, the Gestapo cited a prayer it says was recently given at Berlin High School, over a loudspeaker, at an awards banquet. The prayer ended with the words "In Jesus' name we pray," violating the ban; the principal of the school sat silently by.
But, if they didn't say "In Jesus' name" the Gestapo wouldn't have had a problem with prayer. It would have been OK if the prayer ended with "Heil Hitler."
So the Gestapo had a solution to this problem: get rid of the people who pray.
And they did.
5 - gonzo marx
see...now RealCon here is taking the mushrooms instead of just a little smoke and kool-aid
nice to see you trot out the "nazi" card as often as you can to attempt to shore up your fallacious parable
it was amusing tho, in a twisted and sick kind of way...
let's try and walk you thru the difference between our Constitutions seperation of Church and State provision and how a Federal Court Order works under a Society governed by the secular Rule of Law...
nah...you just enjoy ignoring silly things like that so you can type "nazi" some more...
by the way..you owe me for a tub of popcorn..
{8^P~~~~~~~~~
Excelsior!
6 - RealCon
Ah yes-- gonzo -- at least you offer more of a challenge than some I know.
How did you find out I eat mushrooms - I eat them because they are brain food -- How about taking some mushrooms in place of the popcorn… Popcorn has very little nutrition.
Now to the point --
First of all the Nazis of the world have not all gone away -- there are always groups looking to destroy existing civilizations -- groups like the ACLU.
Let’s review the facts:
The First Amendment says -- 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.
Now where does the First Amendment say that someone cannot pray in a public place?
Just the opposite is true. It says “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise (of religion), or abridging the freedom of speech…”
The First Amendment says nothing about not being able to pray in a public place or speak any name wherever a person is located --. I looked… and looked… and looked -- but I couldn’t find anything in the Constitution concerning whose names we can mention and whose names we cannot mention in public.
Are there other names can we not evoke in public? Do we have to check with the ACLU Gestapo before speaking a name to see if is politically correct before we say it? I thought we got past 1984 -- Oh yes -- I forgot that we did -- but big brother is now the ACLU.
7 - gonzo marx
ummm..i think the place you are getting confused is that a school is a "public place"
not so..it is a governmental institution (not counting private or religious schools, of course)
no one was being impacted upon in public..instead, what the Courts had found was that the Rights of those who were NOT "christians" were being infringed by it on school grounds
what i always like to use to see if something passes the "smell test" in thse issues is change "Jesus's name" for "in Satan's name"...or even "in Juju the elephant god's name"....would the folks that wanted to pray over the loudspeakers freak out if equal time was offered to these admittedly minority Faiths?
and that is the nut of the matter that so many of these evangleical/fundamentalist type keep missing out on..they want to be able to force THEIR god on others, but refuse to allow anyone else to speak up about any other viewpoint of Faith
hence why we, as a Society, have the seperation of Church and State...it is to protect the Minority in their religions from the tyranny of the Majority
i hope that helps explain it to ya
i'm still waiting for my $2 for the tub of popcorn
Excelsior!
8 - aacool
Godwin's Law strikes again! Or some corollary thereof
9 - DaveH
The court order itself is at fault, and I do not know a sincere and dedicated practicioner of any faith who would rather disobey a secular judge than go against the tenents of their faith. It is an order begging to be disobeyed.
What I don't understand is the fervor with which people fight these kinds of things. So, big deal, there was prayer, and Jesus' name was mentioned. No one was forced to pay attention at all, much less pray along. The argument that this was "forcing" a particular religious sect on them is ludicrous. You could use the same argument to say that the corner store is forcing their philosophy of secularism (and, when it comes down to it, religion is just a specialized form of philosophy) on the devout person of faith who walks in and is "forced" to listen to Rock-and-Roll playing on the store radio.
That particular order needs to be thrown out; it's absurd. And anyone who gets their knickers in a twist over a recitation of someone else's faith needs to get over it. If their own beliefs are so threatened by such a silly thing, they should be questioning it, not lashing out at every contrary expression.
10 - Dana
I think that the scariest part of this whole article is the fact that the representative of the ACLU wants to have the violators "REMOVED FROM SOCIETY."
11 - RealCon
Gonzo -- let’s go through it again…
The First Amendment does not say that “a governmental institution” (such as a school) is exempt from the restriction that there shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech…”
Remember -- the Founders were basing the First Amendment on the Church of England being the state religion at that time. The Founders -- who prayed openly at meetings (just the way the Congress does today) did not want the church and the state to be one and the same as it was in England -- it had nothing to do with prayer in school.
Praying is school does not even come close to being prohibited by the First Amendment -- to the contrary -- praying is also protected speech.
How does prayer differ from any other protected speech? And how does the First Amendment distinguish “protected speech” from “unprotected speech?
The Founders had no problem with what is now being called “illegal praying” -- for almost 200 years public schools in this country started the school day with prayer.
And NO Constitutional Amendment has ever been passed to change the original INTENT.
And where in the Constitution does it mention “the separation of Church and State“? I can’t find those words.
To the ACLU -- you want to change the Constitution? Do it the way the Constitution says -- by Constitutional Amendment!
Gonzo - You rely on “what the Courts had found”… But where was it found and who found it?
For almost 200 years no one had “found” it -- and then suddenly, one day, as if by “divine revelation“, one of the Supremes was “converted” and “saw the light” as if by a “miracle“!. (Oops -- I shouldn’t say those words -- I’m conversing on a medium built by our government and someone might be offended).
Of course, “what the Courts had found” is NOT in the First Amendment. I would like someone to show me where it is.
Just the opposite is true. The Constitution only says “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise (of religion), or abridging the freedom of speech…” The restriction is on CONGRESS to make NO LAW.
And Congress has made no law to “establish a religion.” The problem is that the Supremes stepped in and they made the law -- what the Constitution says the Congress cannot do -- the Supremes did. That’s called “judicial activism”.
And I’m not sure your "smell test" works.
If some idiot wanted to invoke "in Satan's name"...or even "in Juju the elephant god's name"... over the loudspeakers of a school -- it is more likely that instead of “freaking out”, everyone would have a good laugh -- I doubt that anyone would call the ACLU.
Again -- If the ACLU wants to change the Constitution -- there is a way to do it -- it’s called Constitutional Amendment…
I hope that clarifies the issue.
12 - Dana
By demanding that religion be kept out of our public schools, we are actually denying our children the full scope of writings of our Founding Fathers. Why? Because some of those illustrious and forward thinking men's best speeches were fraught with heavily religious sentiments. George Washington, in his farewell address, states, "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
13 - gonzo marx
as to the Founders...have some nice reads of their own writings in period..
you will find quite a few...some might even say the vast Majority, were Deists not Theists..
Franklin's famous "I have doubts about the Divinity of Christ" wonderfully expresses the sentiment...some of Jefferson's writings covering his own Beliefs ..but still recognizing that as part of the Society at that time it was prudent for him to attend Sunday Services...
all very typical of Freemason's during the "Enlightenment" who were wrestling with these very Issues within the context of the "Age of Reason" dawning..
i stand by my words as to the "smell test"...next time you are thinking about prayer in our schools or other governmental institutions just ask yourself if exchanging the word "Jesus" to "Buddha" or even "Satan" would change your mind about it..
i tend to disagree with RealCon about such an example only eliciting a giggle...it has been my experience, both personally and in reading our Nation's History, that the outcome would be far different..
remember Salem?
but , you get the Idea...
Excelsior!
14 - Shark
How 'bout this compromise:
Let the inbred Christian hypocrites in Bumfuque Louisiana actually PRACTICE WHAT THEIR BOY JESUS PREACHED?
Check it out:
God's Non-literal, very fucking specific, unimpeachable, infalliable WORDS to His sheep:
~NEXT!
xxoo,
Shark (flushing a Bible down his toilet and phoning Newsweek at this very moment)
15 - Shannon
I'm with Shark. If prayer is a vital part of your life, then go about it on your own time. Personally, I think most kids need to concentrate on learning how to read, write and reason during their schoolday, judging from their supreme lack of abilities in all three (when I was teaching a history 101 class at the local university).
Prayer and schools don't mix. Not because we're oppressing you (which is of course the tack most Christians instantly take when something like this comes up) -- drop the martyr complex already -- but because school is school and church is church and until someone figures out how to get Jesus to do my math homework, I don't think the two need to be combined to increase the efficacy of either.
16 - Temple Stark
I'm willing to side with DANA here, except I have this horribly nagging doubt that his quote from the ACLU Court filing was taken completely out of context.
For instance, the school district agrees with them (that violations of court orders are a no no) ::A lawyer for the school board said the latest allegations would be "thoroughly investigated" and "disciplinary actions" would be taken if they hold up. "It's a personnel matter," said A. Kirk Gasperecz. "It's an employee not doing what they are supposed to be doing."
And that this is a decades long battle. Violations of multiple court orders? Again, isn't this to be frowned on? And don't people who do so repeatedly often end up in prison? Agree or not, it apears to be the law, and should be followed.
The ACLU has supported Nazis and Jews freedom of speech and expression. I think you'll find its not really a partisan thing with them; more a constitutional thing.
The fuller pciture does wonders for your argument Dana.
17 - sydney
Man o Man, I'm sick of these Christian wack jobs. Dana, honestly I wish you would get lost.
>>By demanding that religion be kept out of our public schools, we are actually denying our children the full scope of writings of our Founding Fathers. Why? Because some of those illustrious and forward thinking men's best speeches were fraught with heavily religious sentiments. George Washington, in his farewell address, states, "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." <<
-- no one is suggesting we can't make reference to the teachings of our founding fathers.
The reasons why we dont pray in school are clearly above your level of thinking. I mean that in all honesty -- I'm not trying to insult.
Also, your original post says something along the lines of 'if the prayer ended in "in allahs name we pray", it would be alright' .... Don't bring islam into this because it has nothing to do with it.
18 - Matthew T. Sussman
Congress prays before each session. Should we lock them all up too?
And if a congressman so happens to be an atheist, does he stand up and say "Hey you can't do this because I disagree with it?" Even atheists have some form of faith. They believe in something, even if it's luck or self-actualization. So while they pray, think about that.
Nobody's above sitting in thought during prayer or meditation. Why can't we all just get along and do it in our own ways when we're together?
When I went to Catholic school I did not directly believe in the Hail Mary or Lord's Prayer or even the communion, but I respected their intentions and went along with it.
Are we saying public school cannot have the same respect?
And sydney, calling people "Christian wack jobs" is petty and unnecessary. You don't have to go along with the religion, but belittling it is not the mature route to go.
19 - sydney
"Congress prays before each session. Should we lock them all up too?"
-- No but We should put an end to the praying (assuming this is true...but I don’t think it is..). It's inappropriate for reasons I don’t feel like getting into because we already had this discussion at BC a few weeks ago.
"When I went to Catholic school I did not directly believe in the Hail Mary or Lord's Prayer or even the communion, but I respected their intentions and went along with it."
-- Well if you were in a catholic school than naturally you would go along with their prayers. I'm not saying Catholics can't pray in their own private schools. However, I am opposed to it in public schools, which receive public funding.
"And Sydney, calling people "Christian wack jobs" is petty and unnecessary. You don't have to go along with the religion, but belittling it is not the mature route to go."
-- Actually, I do go along with the religion for the most part. I am a Christian. But I like to call people wackjobs when they act crazy or like a bigot. That’s why I called him that name.
20 - RealCon
Gonzo - The issue here is solely a legal issue. The issue is what does the Constitution say -- not what we think it ought to say.
It may interesting to delve into what the Founders “thought” or what we now think they “thought“ -- but what is key -- is what they “did”… the “actions” they took… And what was “actually written” is what it’s all about…
I know the Founders have some nice “reads” -- but what they wrote into the Constitution is what matters -- they spent enough time crafting their words to stop second-guessing them now.
Whatever Franklin actually said about the Divinity of Christ -- he obviously didn’t convince enough of the Founders to make it part of the Constitution.
And whatever doubts some of the Founders may have had -- it was not codified in the Constitution -- the “oppressive” majority won the day.
But -- let’s say -- for the sake of argument --- “the vast Majority, were Deists not Theists” -- at least we are making some progress. Then there should be no prohibition of the “Our Father” prayer -- as was recited for almost 200 years in the schools. Wouldn’t Deists at least accept that prayer?
What we have is what Grand Atheist Madlyn Murray O’Hare started in the 1960’s. But wait a minute -- Atheism is a “belief” -- and because there is an Atheistic Society -- they must also have the same constraints as anyone else when they claim their “rights”.
And all well and good for the "Enlightenment" and the dawning of the "Age of Reason". For the Supremes it should make no difference -- they are in the business of deciding law -- not deciding philosophy.
I believe the “smell test” should be not “exchanging the word "Jesus" to "Buddha" or even "Satan" but giving a choice to the group. Is “choice” so bad?
And “Salem” is an aberration that never made it into the new country.
I hope you got the Idea...
I say -- Popcorn for everyone!
21 - Temple Stark
By the way, the Consitution is more than that created in the 18th Century and the later Amendments. Supreme Court decisions are part of the constitution.
22 - Matthew T. Sussman
I wrote a column earlier this year ("Church, state are nation's odd couple") where I said that compromises are needed by both church and state to live in harmony.
And it's a myth that Catholic school receives absolutely no state funding -- it receives a very small portion. They take the same standardized tests as everyone else, right? That's just one example, and I don't know what the percentage of funding is, but they do get a wee bit.
But I've always more political and social establishments should begin meetings with some form of religious observation sort of like a "moment of silence" where the substance of the moment is unique for each person of faith.
In honesty I agree with you by disagreeing with using Christian prayers in a public forum, but there shouldn't be an absence of religion either because as RealCon stated in comment 20, then it's favoring atheism, which is a religion as well.
23 - gonzo marx
heh..
sorry, but we will have to disagree on the smell test..
i feel it is EXACTLY the kind of "choice"..
you see..if you let folks say "Our Father" than you have to Respect other beliefs and allow " O buddha" and "Hail Satan"..
so, to keep "opening Prayers" from covering the 9 billion names of "god" and taking up the entire day..far better to leave it alone...because not allowing all, yet allowing some, would violate the "no establishment of Religion" bit, don't you think?
and yes..it IS a matter of Law...the Supreme Court has made these Rulings...the case in the Original post HAS been decided by a Court with jurisdiction
and, as i have previously stated, the folks in Question ARE in violation of the Law and a Court Order..
simplicity itself..
but thanx for Playing..please try again..
Excelsior!
24 - RealCon
Shark - Very good -- very good…
I see you’ve done some reading of the New Testament.
But in the teachings of Jesus -- taking something out of context is misleading. He was admonishing the Pharisees whom he considered hypocrites:
Check it out:
Speaking to the Pharisees -- “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
His point was that prayer must be sincere -- and one way to ensure this is to pray in solitude -- it doesn’t mean that sincere prayer cannot be made in public.
And for your reference to the “inbred Christian hypocrites” take this advice -- “Judge not, that ye be not judged”
You know nothing about these people… And even if you did -- they have a right in their own remote town to be free of Washington tyranny.
25 - Dana
Sydney,
I thought that we would be able to have an intellectual discussion of opposing ideas without resulting to petty name calling. I am surprised that with your superior intellect that you cannot come up with more perspicacious adjectives to describe your opinion of me. How very, very pitiful.