I've never been religious so it was always awkward when we had a team prayer, plus most of my team were christfags.

if the coach isn't involved, and there's no consequence for a player choosing not to take part, I think it's fine. otherwise, get that shit out of here.

I don't mind no prayer at all though; school isn't really the place for it.

In oder to better understand what was happening it should be known that the prayers were read on the loud speaker buy a student body "Chaplin". There was no consequence for not partaking and the prayer was of a nonsecular variety

>>4921334
I don't think you're using "nonsecular" right, but a prayer over the loudspeaker is bullshit. Public school, mang.

>>4921318
lol I used to mumble the prayer because I never knew it

No prayer in school, that includes it's athletics. Unless you want to do it on your own or go stand around the flagpole.

>>4921351
your probably right, What i mean to say is that it didnt put down or bash any other religion and, to my knowledge, it wasnt overtly Christian. However if anyone knows what actually was said it would help if you could post it

>>4921384
it doesn't matter. prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. period.

also the word you wanted was "non-denominational"

The problem is that my assignment is to defend the school district. If i agree with the court it doesn't matter. Unfortunitly the defense lost and religion is always a touchy subject

Get the fuck back to /new/

>>4921448
argue that the ruling infringes on the right to freedom of religion (even though it doesn't)

there isn't really a good defense for the school district.

ps do your own homework

If my tax dollars pay for it, get any religious activity the fuck out of it

i just asked to get opinions, and I respect yours and everyone else's. Thanks for the bit of advice

>>4921485
I know man, no one's mad. The thing is, the school district was in a position with no possible defense that would pass constitutional muster. Your assignment is pretty tough because no matter what, you're going to lose the argument.

I figure my only hope is to base my defense on the whole "freedom OF religion vs freedom FROM religion" idea. I'm hoping most of the kids assigned as judges in my case side with me. It would be a shame for the court to go with such a bias'ed opinion but w/e its highschool.

before yall scream underage, i am 18.

As long as the non-religious students were free to not take part, the christfags can pray as much as they want

The Constitution guarantees:
1. free speech
2. freedom of PUBLIC assembly
3. freedom of PUBLIC expression
4. that CONGRESS (with no mention of other branches of government as the power to make that decision is left with the states) cannot support NOR DENY religion, nor the FREE EXERCISE thereof.

Sure is liberal liars raping the Constitution of what it really says.

>>4921417

No it's not. What's unconstitutional are the illegal rulings against it based on idealizations of what liberals want the American public to be.

God I hate liberals. You fuckers don't know your history. Google search Jefferson's letters from the year 1808 (the year he wrote "separation of church and state," which is noticable AFTER the Constitution was written. What he said that is that God is int he hearts of men, not government, and there must be a separation so government cannot tell people what they have a right to believe in; because he didn't want America to be like Europe where the official religion of the state is what the public was forced to follow so people are free to choose their beliefs and choose to celebrate their beleifs on public grounds without fear of govwernment persecution.

Quit lying, liberals. Some of us actually read the Constitution as well as the Jefferson letters, so you can't lie to everyone.

>discussing religion and politics on /sp/

>>4921515
freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. a public school cannot be leading prayer services. that's just silly.

>>4921524
dude. I don't care if some faggot christian wants to pray in the stands. A student leading a pre-game prayer over the loudspeaker is unconstitutional. get over it you fucking pancake. Nobody in this thread said some faggot christian can't pray silently or quietly in class on his or her own time. We're talking about organized prayer here. Now get the fuck out, conservative fuckface, people with brains are talking.

ps. Jefferson was a deist, stfu.

>unconstitutional

Does that mean that it goes AGAINST the Constitution and thus should be illegal, or does it mean that the Constitution just doesn't have anything to do with it and thus it would not be a protected issue (and therefore up to state and local authorities to decide whether it should be allowed)?

>>4921563
the former

From wiki:

The Court held that the policy allowing the student led prayer at the football games was unconstitutional. The majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens depended on Lee v. Weisman[2]. It held that these pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer" are not private, but public speech. "Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval."

I'm changing my mind, the school district has an alright case. If it were just a thing where the Christian players went off and had a prayer it would be fine, but it wasn't.

>>4921572
I think the school district was on the side of the christians, mang

>>4921563
It means it goes against the separation of church [religion] and state. Because it was a public school, it violated the constitution. BUT, this is a declaratory judgment, meaning that, although out highest court says you cannot do this - it is all about self enforcement. So if one non-religious person takes offense to players prayer before or after the game, the school will have to shut it down.

>cannot support NOR DENY religion, nor the FREE EXERCISE thereof.

>Implying anyone was suggesting that religions weren't allowed to pray

Nice strawman

>>4921579
Oh. Well, you know what I mean

>>4921572
student led prayers are fine, there are rules now that any agent of the state (school staff) cannot be in the huddle during the prayer

>>4921589
FREE EXERCISE thereof doesn't apply to school(state)-sanctioned activities.

nice try

>>4921524
Instead of paraphrasing the constitution, why don't you quote it verbatim?

"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 peaceable to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

In other words, the government cannot endorse a religion, nor can it condemn one. Because public schools are government institutions, prayer is allowed if it is a private matter and no one is forced to participate.

Now i dont think they have much in common but would have Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004, 4 years later),the case where "Under god" in the pledge was questioned as unconstitutional, effect the outcome of this case?

> people are free to choose their beliefs and choose to celebrate their beleifs on public grounds without fear of govwernment persecution.

Of course they are, however this was something officially sanctioned by the school and student body and pursuant to a school policy.

I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it were an Islamic prayer they were giving.

>Some of us actually read the Constitution as well as the Jefferson letters,

You may have read them, but you certainly didn't understand them if you think public school-organised prayer is constitutional

>>4921656
>expecting a conservative to read
>expecting a conservative to be honest

>>4921669
>be a judgemental faggot
>call yourself "worldly"

>>4921660
Didn't it not affect anything because that dude didn't have custody of his daughter and his suit was thrown out?

>>4921660
Under god was ruled "ceremonial deism." Basically they said ehhhhh it's been around forever and it's not really hurting anyone or doing anything actively so fuck it.

I disagree with the ruling but I think it's totally different form the prayer case anyway

Is it a private school? If so, no, they are perfectly fine

Is it a public school? Maybe not, but I could understand both sides. You're not FORCED to pray. (If you are...that's a fucking problem.)

>>4921524
You sir are a moron.

>>4921663
>I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it were an Islamic prayer they were giving.

Good ass point sir. In fact, i might go as far as to say that that changed my opinion on the matter somewhat. But I also think that it might depend on if that prayer was delivered in English or not

>>4921705
So you're ok with financing (through your taxes) public schools that have organized prayer? Even if the prayer is not of your religion?

>>4921735
Why not? It's better to keep kids from being exposed to religion?

>>4921735
Like I said, I don't have a problem. Unless it's forced; then it's very, very wrong.

I live in bible belt alabama, and they don't have student led prayer before games. They just have a moment of silence after the national anthem.

>>4921739
>implying banning prayer in public schools is the same thing as keeping them from being exposed to religion

religion is personal bro, do it on your own time, not through the state.

>>4921735
In your opinion what makes it organized prayer.
Student elected the individual who read it and the students voted whether or not they should have the prayer. It seems like most of the blame would fall on the students and not the school board, shouldnt it?

>>4921762
the manner in which the prayer is read is what gives it the appearance of being official. I agree that the blame falls on the students but that doesn't make it any more constitutional.

>>4921755
That's a decent argument. I understand some people might be angered, but even so, it's not like they're forcing the children to profess their undying love for Jesus or Allah or anything.

>>4921775
It doesn't matter whether or not they're forcing anyone, it gives the impression of the school endorsing (a) religion.

In Westside School District v. Mergens (1990) a student was denied the right to start a bible study club because a staff member could not sponsor it. in an 8-1 decision the Supreme Court held that the club could hold their meetings, however their sponsor could not be paid; this would truly be an endorsement of religion.

Doesn't this set an important precedent? The school wasn't paid for the use of the loud speaker, therefor, according to this, they weren't endorsing it

>>4921796
I personally don't see anything wrong with that. However, I'm baised since I went to a lutheran school and was subjected to this willingly. It was a great place.

>>4921842
uhh actually the school would be endorsing it by letting the kid read prayers over it for free.

if the kid had to pay for (buy) airtime, then it's "the following views are those of the presenter and not necessarily of this channel"

>>4921843
Before you jump on, "Well then of course you do cause you're a christian", I think all religions teach the same basic "morals". There's nothing wrong with that at all.

Religion doesn't belong in public schools. Get over it. It alienates children who aren't religious. And it almost vilifies children who are a different religion. Not to mention it's unconstitutional.

>>4921843
well, constitutionally, schools and other govt institutions are not allowed to endorse a particular religion, or to endorse religion over no religion.

by allowing a student group to read a prepared prayer over the loudspeaker as a planned event prior to an official school activity, they were (tacitly) endorsing religion.

>>4921862
the function of a school isn't to teach morals

>>4921868
That's fair enough.

>>4921862
>he still believes in god in a modern world

lol, it's not the year of our lord 1476, bro.

>>4921882
What is the function of a school, then? Of course a big part of school is learning morals. If that was true, there wouldn't be any punishments at all; if even a school at that.

>>4921885
That's a brilliant argument! Poke fun at my personal beleifs! How evolved of you!

>>4921860
good point, I guess I agree. But for the sake of argument do you reckon there is anyway I can spin that around for the defense?

>>4921894
the function of a school is to educate. an argument can be made for punishments (misbehavior negatively affecting the learning experience of other children) without bringing morals into it

>>4921903
>believe in god
>imply somebody else is "unevolved"

>>4921915
No it can't. Morals and values like responsibility and respect of others are integral in school.

>>4921862
This is flawed though. Assuming the 3 major Abrahamic religions do promote good morality (I would object to this, but that's another argument), it doesn't matter.

I'm guessing you wouldn't like it if they read prayers from a religion which had its first 3 commandments as:
1. Rape everyone in sight
2. Steal everyone's shit
3. Kill people that piss you off

If you object to that, you have to object to all of them

>>4921918
>make a snide comment
>completely miss the sarcasm
Oh yeah, and christians can beleive in evolution, bro.

>>4921894
The function of a school is to LEARN. To have your brain worked out. So that you may look at things objectively, question everything, and enjoy absorbing knowledge. Morals don't enter the picture at all outside of "if you're bad you get detention"..

But you wouldn't know that because you were forced to go to a christian school. You're now kind of an outcast with a stunted view of the world.

>>4921922
I don't think schools are meant to instill morals and values. That is the job of the parents, the churches, and other community figures.

I believe that your argument about punishments is flawed because you don't need to bring morals into the picture to justify punishing a student for misbehaving.

That said, morals and values can easily be taught without relying on religion to do so.

>>4921931
Now thats one very slippery slope.

>>4921931
But they don't, so why object?
It's impossible to have a school that doesn't endorse nor leave a religion alone.
You're going to get a christian, and an atheist, and a muslim, a buddhist, whatever. They're always going to inject their fath (or lack thereof) into their interections with students.

>>4921945
The idea is that morals are pretty much defining what's right and wrong; and those pretty black and white ones are taught in school.

I could very well be in error; I'm a studying accountant, not a lawyer.

>>4921964
Not everyone feels the need to push their ideals on someone else. That's a christian specialty.

>>4921983
Ok, but you don't need religion to teach morals.

Also I want to make it clear that you are debating with at least 2 anon.

>>4921945
This is the correct opinion, but generally speaking, a lot of ultra-religiousfags argue that you CAN'T teach morals and/or values without teaching religion.

>>4921956
Hmm, I realise that now. What my point was supposed to be was that you can't say "I don't care if there's public school organised prayer, as long as it's from religion a, b, or c." Because therefore you're establishing religions a, b and c as the only allowed ones, which is unconstitutional.

If that still sounds like a slippery slope argument, I don't care, it's still valid

>>4921964
I think that's a pretty weak argument. How do you know what a teacher of any faith (or not) will do?

It is possible to be a Christian and teach evolution without saying LOL GOD DID IT.

A good teacher (and there are many) teaches without making their religious views known. Or even guess-able.

If I was back in school and they started saying prayers over the PA system, I would straight up walk out of whatever place I was in. I'm usually a timid guy but putting religion in schools really rustles my jimmies.

I don't get why religious folk (Christians) get so fucked up over prayer in schools. If they started saying Islamic prayers in school, they would totally flip shit, but Christian prayers are okay? They justify this by saying that the US is a Christian nation, but if that were the case, why didn't the founding fathers put that in the constitution? Did they just forget?

Also,

>ym ecaf when religious people believed in fairytales near me

>>4921994
>ultra-religiousfags being wrong

got any other breaking news?

>>4922016
My favorite part of super Christian wackos trying to argue that the US is a Christian nation (it's not) is they then SHIT BRICKS screaming about liberals or whoever else they're afraid of revising history, as though they themselves aren't the biggest culprits.

>>4922006
I agree; in a perfect world this would be true. I can't recall enough of high school to verify this; but I know for damn well college professors make it their second job to instill their own beleifes into you or they dock you points.

>>4921990
>just proved my point

>>4922042
well we're not working with a perfect world.
also I think college is sliiiiiightly different since you have to pay to go but yeah I can understand that irritation.

>>4922035
>>4922035
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html
It's outdated, but there's no way that number has dropped significantly (-20%) enough to make a difference over 10 years. I need to find a better source; google isn't helping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country#Top_twenty-five

Here's the Wikipedia page; which I assume is a bit more up-to-date; but one should still take it with a grain of salt.

>>4922072
>implying that the majority of people being christian makes it a christian nation

are we a white nation, too?

Public schools should not have prayer in public. If a student wants to pray, they can if they want to, but it should be silent. I'm no priest, but I'm pretty sure it says somewhere in the bible not to pray out loud anyway.

>>4922072
What's your point? A large concentration of Christians does not make this a Christian country. That's just the mentality that you all have.

>>4922035

Speaking of revising history:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10141121.stm

>And Thomas Jefferson has been dropped from a list of enlightenment thinkers in the world-history curriculum, despite being one of the Founding Fathers who is credited with developing the idea that church and state should be separate.

It's like fucking Nineteen Eighty-Four. Jefferson has become an unperson in Texas

>>4922067
I told my teacher that I was deterred from taking her seriously after she blatantly endorsed christianity in the class. I'm here to get opposing viewpoints; not viewpoints from the eyes of a singe filter.

>>4922072
I didn't mean Christian nation as in "a lot of Christians live here"

the wingnuts that think we're a "Christian nation" mean that we were founded to be a nation of Christians, based on biblical beliefs.

and that just ain't true.

>>4922090
from the state that brought you Rick 'Let's Secede' Perry

>>4922093
How are you certain it's just because you're not a religious person you don't want to beleive the majority of the country is?

>>4921931
All three of those commandments break break the law.

Imminent lawless action

Look it up.

>>4922091
Ah man, you're so cool.

>>4922091
You upheld the values of the constitution, even though you yourself are a christian.

That is what America is supposed to be about.

wat

>>4922104
it has nothing to do with the number of Christians in the country. the term "Christian nation" refers to a country founded on the belief in Christianity.

>>4922104
Again, what does that have to do with being a country founded on christian beliefs/values? This is what christians claim, not that a majority are christian.

It's shameful that our country is so behind the times. We should be shedding the shackles of religion, not trying to galvanize them.

>>4922117
It's not the values of the constitution; I just want to understand more of the world around me.

Too many people expect right-wing religious folk to be close-minded individuals; I try to prove that wrong to as many people as I can.

>>4922111
If you'd read the thread you would have noticed I admitted that post was far from perfect, and clarified my point. Thanks for playing

>>4922136
So you were saying that you're wrong?

Thanks for showing up. Maybe next time.

>>4922131
Religion is not out-dated bro.
And I could point to the idea that (correct me if I'm wrong) the Protestants came to America to avoid the shackles of the forced religion? One of our countries greatest strengths is that you're allowed to practice ANY religion you want and the government can't say no. I would say that the still high percentage of christians over all else points to either a strong beleif sweeping the nation or a planted seed of the religion.

>>4922163
Sorry, *country's*

>>4922150
It was rather clumsy and unsuccessful at communicating my point, so for the purposes of this argument, yes I was wrong.

My subsequent post, however, remains valid.

>>4922163
I'm not the anon you're replying to but I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

No one is debating the fact that the U.S. has an enormous amount of christians. We also recognize that you are free to believe whatever you want, and we also recognize that the tricornered hat bros came here to tell the church of england to suck a dick.

that said, there are christian nutters in this country that think the country itself was founded on the belief in Christianity, and that is incorrect.

>>4922182
So there is a small group of people that has been misinformed?

This is why there is a 100 post thread?

You guys pay too much attention to stupid people.

>>4922182
Fair enough, but I still think the idea that it's not a Christian nation (founded) is a matter of opinion. You think I'm delusional, and I do you, but it's all good bro.

Well guys, OP here. I've written my brief and i have all of you guys to thank for it. Along with that i enjoyed the conversation/debate very much so. Be good to each other and have a nice day