|
Grex > Agora46 > #92: Keep your religion off your private property! | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 20 new of 185 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 166 of 185:
| 
Sep 17 16:52 UTC 2003 |
That's why I capitalized Religion, to distinguish the philosophy in religion
from the business of Religion. It is the latter that is "separated" from
the State in the first amendment.
|
gull
|
|
response 167 of 185:
|
Sep 17 17:49 UTC 2003 |
Re #165: There are no schools that have banned people from praying.
What's not allowed is a publicly lead prayer. In a school environment
anything like that becomes effectively required.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 168 of 185:
|
Sep 17 21:06 UTC 2003 |
I don't agree that it "becomes effectively required," but I do understand the
sentiment. Banning publicly led prayer is a violation of the 1st Amendment's
protection of free exercise. And we are never going to agree on that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 169 of 185:
|
Sep 17 22:06 UTC 2003 |
That's right. There are legal limits to "free exercise" and publicly lead
prayer is as inflammatory as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. There
are many other examples of legal limits on "free exercise". Live with it.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 170 of 185:
|
Sep 17 22:13 UTC 2003 |
I do. Doesn't I mean I have to like it. I live with lots of wrongnesses.
This is just one more.
|
gull
|
|
response 171 of 185:
|
Sep 18 14:23 UTC 2003 |
Re #168: Let's take Christianity out of the picture for a moment. Let's
say that the principal of the local public school started reading a
prayer to Allah over the public address system at the beginning of class
each day. Wouldn't you see that as him unfairly imposing his religious
views on students who weren't Muslim?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 172 of 185:
|
Sep 18 17:54 UTC 2003 |
It wasn't the example of the principal leading prayer that I was
considering, because I _do_ consider that crossing the line into the
"required" zone. I was thinking more of a student-organised event, where
all participants were physically present, led by students. Students,
specifically including the BMOC, do not have the authority to carry it
into the "required" zone.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 173 of 185:
|
Sep 18 18:54 UTC 2003 |
I have no problem with student led prayer in such a circumstances, as long
as the event is solely for those wishing to participate in such prayer,
and that the venue and scheduling processes are available to any student
led events. This is the same as the use of school facilities for student
organizations.
|
bru
|
|
response 174 of 185:
|
Sep 18 20:29 UTC 2003 |
Not if the school were mainly muslim...
But why do they ban kids congregating in a room for a prayer session?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 175 of 185:
|
Sep 18 20:37 UTC 2003 |
Why not if the school is mainly muslim? The same principles and laws apply.
I don't think kids are banned from congregating in a room for a prayer session
so long as it does not interfer with the class schedules which occupy the
school day. They should be able to congregate on their own time after school
hours.
|
other
|
|
response 176 of 185:
|
Sep 18 20:40 UTC 2003 |
The logic behind banning a gathering of kids in a room for a prayer
session is that if a school declines to ban such activity, then the
school puts itself in the position of having to differentiate between a
legitimate religious session and something that isn't, but makes itself
appear to be. The school faces serious potential legal liabilities for
selectively barring groups from access that it offers to other groups,
and at the same time, if the school declines to select, then it opens
itself up to other liabilities should something untoward happen on school
property under the guise of a religious meeting.
The banning of all such activity by individual institutions is not
mandated by government, it is mandated by prudent practice in light of
the current state of the legal system.
That's why they ban kids congregating in a room for a prayer session (in
those places that do it).
(russ slipped in)
|
other
|
|
response 177 of 185:
|
Sep 18 20:40 UTC 2003 |
err, rcurl, not russ. Sorry!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 178 of 185:
|
Sep 18 21:09 UTC 2003 |
I think the issue arises for Muslim students because their religion
prescribes prayer at fixed hours of the day, some of which would occur
during school hours. This came up in the New York school system in 2001,
when they concluded that students could pray so long as they did not
disturb classes nor require a special room for the purpose. This is
discussed at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_praf.htm
Public schools function in the US under the US Constitution, which
supercedes an infinity of possible particular individual preferences,
wishes, and practices. Just as the schools can ban smoking, they can ban
religious exercises that disturb classes or require special accomodations,
so long as all students are treated equally in this respect.
Ultimately, of course, some individuals may not want to follow US law
in these regards and have chosen to have their own schools. This has been
true since the nation was founded, and is accomodated by all public school
systems with respect of educational requirements.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 179 of 185:
|
Sep 18 21:15 UTC 2003 |
When I was in Kuwait, I went to an Indian school. However, the majority of
the class was Muslim. They never took time off to pray at the prescribed time.
The only thing they did different from the rest of us was go to Religion
Studies class, instead of attend our "Moral Science" class. (Their class
focussed on Islam and the Quran, the Morla Science class focussed on ethics
and honest living)
I don't think that working people also prayed 5 times a day. The only place
I noticed that the 5 time a day rule applied was on TV. They would interrupt
the broadcast to put the prayer on.
I guess the prayer 5 times a day seems to be more theoretical than practical.
You would see people praying sometimes (like the shopkeepers in a back-room),
but it wasn't that evident.
(I don't know how the school would have handled it if the students did want
to pray. I never heard of such a case. For all I know, these students could
have been praying silently all those years :P )
|
tod
|
|
response 180 of 185:
|
Sep 18 21:32 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
oval
|
|
response 181 of 185:
|
Sep 19 14:42 UTC 2003 |
i don't get angry at satan either.
|
tod
|
|
response 182 of 185:
|
Sep 19 19:06 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 183 of 185:
|
Sep 19 19:20 UTC 2003 |
1. thou shall not fart in here
nor light them with a match
elsewhere, it's bogus.
|
tod
|
|
response 184 of 185:
|
Sep 19 19:30 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 185 of 185:
|
Sep 19 22:01 UTC 2003 |
I wouldn't call the bible "literary art", but it is literature. Whereever it
is appropriate to have books it would not be inappropriate to have a copy of
a bible (or the koran, or the Rubaiyat....).
|