quote:Today, there are organized prayer groups in public schools. In some schools, like minded individuals gather around the flag every morning and pray.
If the gathering of students around the flag every morning was a large majority of the students-- say 95%; and students who didn't participate felt ostracized and outcast; would the non-participating students have the right to do, legally?
I mean, I suppose they could sue the school, legally-- but would they have a case?
Could a teacher participate in the gather-round-the-flag prayer?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it depends on whether it is a school sponsored function or not. If it is before school and everyone just gathers and does it I think the actions are legal. Teachers probably fall under the same thing, if they are not acting as a representative of they school they should be ok.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The school sanctioning is the issue. Kids wanna pray, let them pray. As long as they're not causing a disturbance of any kind in the process of the school day, no problem.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think they'd have any leg to stand on legally.
As for a teacher participating, that's a tricky one. In the ideal case, I don't think there should be a problem with it, but you're opening yourself up to a whole mess of problems there.
At the Air Force Academy a few years back, cadets who didn't go to one of the conservative christian churches in Colorado Springs were overtly treated worse than those who did. I think a version of this is one of the potential problems with having teachers participate in something like this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I know in my high school all formally sanctioned clubs and groups had to have a teacher sponsor (or two.) This included the Falcon Christian Fellowship (we were the Falcons.) (The FCF included anyone who wanted to join, regardless of beliefs, and most of the members were either Baptist, Methodist, or Mormon, although there were quite a few Catholics and some Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Episcopalians and a few non-denominational Christians, too. I'm aware of at least one atheist member who joined because he liked the debate while he ate his lunch. They did things like hold debates on abortion or SSM with both sides represented by club members and have religious leaders of all faiths from the community come speak with them-- and they opened and closed with prayer. One or more teachers was always in attendance and often helped conduct or lead the group.) Anyway, I'm told that having a teacher sponsor is mandated by the district; I know at least one school in the district had a prayer circle club that was sanctioned by the school.
There were, of course, unauthorized groups and clubs as well, and no one stopped them from meeting in the public spaces of the school; some even got teachers to let them use their rooms during lunch (although officially the principal or vice principal could come in and kick them out if he wanted to since they weren't a chartered club.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: At the Air Force Academy a few years back, cadets who didn't go to one of the conservative christian churches in Colorado Springs were overtly treated worse than those who did.
posted
I believe that the big worry is abuse by those leading the groups.
If the teacher, the principal, or the school board decide that Shinto believers are blessed, and those who are too stupid to believe in Shinto are too stupid to get good grades no matter how they do on tests, well, then you have a problem of Separation of Church and State.
I knew a co-worker who was doing a graded internship at a TV studio. The producer of one of the church shows refused to give him a grade unless he was Baptized.
I believe that having teachers lead prayer groups would be ok if definitive punishments were contractually agreed upon if bias against non-believing students was ever proven.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the legal fear is separation of church and state issues and where it would lead from there. More practically, I think the fear is what will happen to the kids who don't participate. School is like a shark tank at times, and such an obvious display of some kids being noticeably different from everyone else is like chumming the waters.
In that sense, whether or not the school sanctions the event or whether or not the teacher goes seem less relevent. That deals with the legal side and fears sure, but not the practical side. If 95% of the kids decide to get together of their own free will, regardless of what the school wants, that still leaves a vulnerable 5% behind. I think if protecting that 5% is the chief concern, then they shouldn't be allowed to organize around the flag.
However I don't think that's the chief concern. Freedom of speech, of religion and of assembly I think guarantees those kids the right to peaceably assemble of their own free will without the school's blessing. I do think that it'll be the school's responsibility to make sure there aren't any reprisals against those that do not attend, and if there is a considerable backlash against non-attenders, then I think some action could be taken against the group, but it'd have to be more than a few isolated incidents. That part is harder to hypothetically nail down.
quote:I believe that having teachers lead prayer groups would be ok if definitive punishments were contractually agreed upon if bias against non-believing students was ever proven.
I think I agree with this. In a sense, a prayer group wouldn't be any different than any other club. So a teacher leading them in prayer wouldn't be any different than a teacher being an advisor to the French Club or the Model UN. Religion gets special scrutiny, which I think is part of my inherent hesitation to agree with that statement, but logically I think it works just fine.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I believe that the big worry is abuse by those leading the groups.
...
I knew a co-worker who was doing a graded internship at a TV studio. The producer of one of the church shows refused to give him a grade unless he was Baptized.
I believe that having teachers lead prayer groups would be ok if definitive punishments were contractually agreed upon if bias against non-believing students was ever proven.
Sorry, I don't understand the reference to a producer of a church show not wanting to give him a grade unless he was Baptised.
Many Christian faiths have different beliefs regarding Baptism; some do it for infants, some do it in their teen years, some do it for adults, some do it once, some do it many times. How could this one person justify forcing his belief on the nature and procedure of Baptism onto someone else?
More that the underlying withholding of a grade which is certainly unethical, and might constitute extortion or blackmail. It is a spiritual matter that is not within this producer's realm of responsibility.
Care to tell us how this matter turned out?
Also, to the side issue of teachers leading clubs, I don't think they do LEAD clubs. They supervise clubs and make sure they don't get to rowdy or out of order.
posted
My first test for this would be : How would Christian groups respond if atheists or Muslims were doing the same thing. If they don't agree with that, then it's out without any further discussion.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: The school sanctioning is the issue. Kids wanna pray, let them pray. As long as they're not causing a disturbance of any kind in the process of the school day, no problem.
I'm with you. Student-initiated non-disruptive religious activities are perfectly legal.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:How would Christian groups respond if atheists or Muslims were doing the same thing. If they don't agree with that, then it's out without any further discussion.
I don't think that's a fair standard. Many Christian groups advocate going far beyond what is permissable. I think it is a mistake to treat this as a us versus them situation and use their standards instead of the established, objective ones that aren't set up to favor any one religion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How could this one person justify forcing his belief on the nature and procedure of Baptism onto someone else?
Seriously? I mean, you have lived in the world long enough to type reasonably coherently, and yet you don't understand the existence of narrow-minded bigots? Or perhaps you just don't want to admit the existence of bigots sharing your own faith?
Me, I'm all for Christians gathering in large groups. It makes them so much easier to identify for when the Revolution comes.
Legally, I'm not convinced it is actually possible for a teacher to attend a student-organised event on school grounds purely in their private capacity. I believe - Dag would know better - that there are some Supreme Court rulings saying that what's important is the appearance of official school sanction to an average student, and that a teacher attending or officiating is always going to look like school approval just because these are authority figures, and few people recognise that sharp a distinction between 'hats'. To take a more adult example, if you boss shows up at your barbecue, he is presumably there purely in his private capacity, but you wouldn't treat him exactly like you do your other co-workers.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Found a bunch of info here: ADL I thought this was pretty interesting and relevant
quote: What are the rights retained by school authorities under the EAA? School officials have the right to monitor club meetings to ensure compliance with provisions of the EAA. School authorities can "maintain order and discipline on school premises" and may prohibit club meetings which "materially and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school." School officials have the duty of protecting the "well-being of students and faculty." School officials should require religious clubs to follow the same rules as all other student clubs, including adherence to any nondiscrimination policy.
School authorities may establish time, place and manner regulations applicable to club meetings, provided that the restrictions are uniform and nondiscriminatory. School officials have the right to close the limited open forum at any time by prohibiting all non-curriculum related clubs from meeting on school premises, thus ending the school's obligations under the EAA. 66
What are the restrictions and obligations placed upon the school, its agents and employees by the EAA? School personnel, including teachers, may not initiate, sponsor, promote, lead or participate in religious club meetings. However, school personnel may be required to monitor club meetings. 20 USCA §4071.
May outsiders attend meetings? Outsiders, such as clergy members, may not initiate club meetings. Outsiders "may not direct, conduct, control or regularly attend activities of student groups." 67 Outsiders may occasionally attend club meetings if invited by the students and if the school does not generally prohibit such guests. However, school officials may totally forbid non-school persons from attending all student club meetings. 68
posted
I don't have a problem with the praying, but I think gathering around the flag is kind of weird. Maybe I've been hanging out with too many Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I almost feel like engaging KoM with dialogue his ridiculous, violent fantasies. But then I realize it's not worth it.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, to the side issue of teachers leading clubs, I don't think they do LEAD clubs. They supervise clubs and make sure they don't get to rowdy or out of order.
Well, in our school, it depended on the club. Some were entirely student-run and had a teacher sit in the back reading and eating lunch; others had the teacher do a fair amount of the conducting and provide significant guidance and direction.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't have a problem with the praying, but I think gathering around the flag is kind of weird.
I was on FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes) staff all four years in high school. We'd meet once a week in either the student break room or in a teacher's room if they didn't care. We'd have donuts , some OJ or whatever. And normally some student would have a short devotional- sometimes we did bring in guest speakers (especially our first two years when we were new at the stuff). Our average over the 4 years was depending on the year a range of 10-30 for a school that is 6-12 grades of about 300-350 students.
See You at the Pole is a national event that happens every year in September. It was always our biggest turnout- we'd get some music, sing a few songs and just stand around and pray. Prayer for our country's leaders that they make the right decisions, for our school, for the student body, the teachers. Just whatever. Any student that wanted to pray out loud could. Normally that's when our principal would come out and she'd pray for a couple of minutes in between different students.
We had to have teachers- we had different sponsors who would were better or worse. We had two co-sponsors for a two year period and they basically left us to organize everything, and in a bind they'd help us out. (Like if someone who was supposed to give a devotional didn't show up one of them would give one instead).
But the whole praying at the flag thing- that's a pretty normal event.
EDIT TO ADD: Apparently 'normal' is too strong of a word. So I revise my previous sentence too: "But the whole praying at the flag thing- that's a fairly common event that takes place in both private and public schools across the United States once a year in an organized, albeit student-led event called See You at the Pole.
posted
I agree with that, but Shawshank did say that SYatP was a national event, which I think goes a bit further than high school anecdote.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Also KoM I was giving my history of dealing with things like prayer in school. Not just a response to the question of praying around flag poles.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was in high school, there was a moderately large group of Protestant kids who had their own prayer group. While they got mocked and ridiculed a lot, they never sought to "get" the people mocking them, nor did they pressure anyone into joining the group.
All they cared about was having a chance to meet and pray.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: I almost feel like engaging KoM with dialogue his ridiculous, violent fantasies. But then I realize it's not worth it.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I agree with that, but Shawshank did say that SYatP was a national event, which I think goes a bit further than high school anecdote.
Believe it or not, but normal also != 'they do it in the US'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How could this one person justify forcing his belief on the nature and procedure of Baptism onto someone else?
How? Simple. Some people are idiots.
Some people like to revel in what little power they have.
Even some Christian people.
Or some of those claiming to be Christian.
How did it work out? My friend refused. The producer realized that he could not legally, and to some extent morally not give the grade, so he did, late and reluctantly.
Good thing it was a "Pass/Fail" grade (or Present /Absent and my friend had proof that he was present.)
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't think that's a fair standard. Many Christian groups advocate going far beyond what is permissable. I think it is a mistake to treat this as a us versus them situation and use their standards instead of the established, objective ones that aren't set up to favor any one religion.
I agree, which is why I said it's the first step. If the Christians wouldn't agree with whatever it is being done by another group, it automatically fails. Even if they do agree to it on those grounds, we still have to look at it objectively.
I just think that many Christian groups want to be able to do things they clearly wouldn't allow other religions to do, and if that's the case, they don't have a leg to stand on.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just think that many Christian groups want to be able to do things they clearly wouldn't allow other religions to do, and if that's the case, they don't have a leg to stand on.
I agree with the first part, but I wrote to disagree with the second part. It doesn't matter that they don't want to follow the rules. Other people are still obligated to follow the rules in regards to them. That's one of the big reasons why we have rules.
In a perfect world (and in a majority of cases in this one), Christians would still have to follow these rules towards other people as well. As it is, the cases where they get away with not doing so are defects in the system, not an indication that this is in any way right.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, they are. Example: a muslim congregation wanted to build a new mosque in a town where I lived. A group of christians protested the city issuing the building permits. According to Mighty Cow's criteria, that would mean that christians shouldn't be allowed to build churches in that neighborhood, whereas Squicky is pointing out that the right of the group to build their building (assuming it complies with zoning regulations, etc.) should be respected regardless of who would or wouldn't object to a parallel group of a different religion doing the same thing.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While christian groups certainly have the right to meet and pray, I have a hard time with "see you at the pole" because it's designed intentionally to create a gauntlet that other students have to pass through. I don't know what responsibility the school has to deal with it though.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Practically no one regularly walked by our flagpole to get into the school, it was by the SIDE of the main entrance and there were three others that were regularly used as well. Almost all the schools around here are the same way. So I had never thought of that.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I agree with that, but Shawshank did say that SYatP was a national event, which I think goes a bit further than high school anecdote.
Believe it or not, but normal also != 'they do it in the US'.
No offense but, don't you think that's kind of a stupid point since we're talking about the US legal system, US schools, and the issues of religion and its place in American society? On an issue such as this, normal outside of national boundaries I think has little relevence.
But hey, nice try on the whole "Americans think the world revolves around themselves" track! That chestnut never gets old.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw: Actually, what I'm saying is that any time Christians want to do something, they should ask themselves if they would be OK with another religious group or atheist group doing the same thing. If their answer is no, then they shouldn't do it either.
Sort of the same thing, but more as a preemptive measure.
I do agree with your example too though. If the Christians won't let anyone else do something, they shouldn't either.
What's good for the goose and all.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I semi-agree with that. The problem is there are cases where they should realize "We wouldn't want people to do that to us, so we shouldn't do that to them." and ones where the better response is "They want to do something that we think we should be allowed to do, so we really have no choice but to let them."
If we're talking about treating members of other religions as second-class citizens, we're in the first case, but if we're talking about organizing an informal prayer group, we are clearly in the second.
The model, they get to do what we get to do, is the same, but in one case this restricts what the Christians do and in the other it permits things that other people will do.
Of course, this is predicated on these Christians accepting the principle that what we get to do they get to do, which isn't something they're exactly clamoring to do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: No offense but, don't you think that's kind of a stupid point since we're talking about the US legal system, US schools, and the issues of religion and its place in American society? ...
Erm, maybe you could inform us earlier in each thread that may or may not deal exclusively with issues as it related to Americans.
I must have accidentally thought this topic was relevant to us since we issues with 'School Prayer' and everything in the OP seems potentially relevant but thats probably a common mistake.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The OP was dealing with the legality of school prayer in American schools.
Why would the law or common practices of any other country be relevant?
I'm not saying that this isn't the place to talk about school prayer world wide, but such a discussion doesn't have any bearing on the question in the OP, which is what I was addressing. My main point to KoM was that disputing a national standard in reference to the OP is perfectly fine for this thread, and trying to play the "Americans are ignorant" card was out of place and doesn't make sense.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
When I first heard about his, it was just a few schools who were doing it. The thrust of the article was that such spontaneous or organized pray was not against the law or against school rules as long as the students were organizing it and not the school.
I suspect the Christian right saw this as a way to get pray back into school and latched on to it and started organizing and promoting it.
Going back to the original question, about 95% of the students gathering to pray and the other 15% not.
I don't see that the minority students have any legal recourse as long as their rights to form similar groups were not being impeded.
However, if the minority whined that the majority got to use the flag pole and they didn't. That would strike me more as the minority trying to deny the majority. More of a 'if I can't have it nobody can'.
As long as the school was willing to accommodate the minority in forming their group and finding an appropriate place to meet. I think their rights are being respected.
Further, on another level, the minority could complain that the majority was simply making them feel bad, for what every reason. To that I say, tough sh**. The world and life don't come with a guarantee that you can go through life and never feel uncomfortable.
Just as we don't allow the tyranny of the majority to oppress the minority, I think we sometimes forget that the minority does not have the right to oppress the majority.
quote:To that I say, tough sh**. The world and life don't come with a guarantee that you can go through life and never feel uncomfortable.
While this is true, school does come with a rather stronger set of protections, both because the people going there are kids and therefore more vulnerable, and because they are not there by choice.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I look at political discussions like this I can see in my imagination the various arguments as major military campaigns, with assault formations, feints and fronts opening and closing, with pretty colored arrows showing me what is going on, all from a perspective that those on the actual field are too involved in to see.
Take, for example, the idea that Liberals are fighting Prayer in School because they don't want to be bothered listening to other people pray. This strawman created by the pro-prayer people has become so powerful that the anti-prayer people believe it, and use it.
It is so easy to then claim that the anti-prayer people are a bunch of simpering greedy fusbuckets who want to deprive others the chance to commune with God.
The real argument against prayer in school is lost. Since there is no real defense against the real argument, the pro-prayer people have diverted the subject, confused the enemy troops into fighting a battle they can not win.
Allow me to try the real argument again.
The fear with prayer in school is not that someone must listen to your prayers. It is that people in authority in a government school will use that authority to force their faith on the students. If 95% of the students are praying, you can say "tough #@$" to the other 5%, but if 95% of the students are praying, and that 5% which does not is forced to pray, especially to pray in ways that are against their faith, then we have a problem.
If 95% of the school administration is Islamic, and they force everyone to pray 5 times each day, if they refuse to serve lunches during Ramadan, and if they refuse to allow the %5 who do not convert to have any privileges, then that is wrong.
If only those who are members of the Christian Athletic Association are allowed onto the team, that is wrong.
If female students are kept from officiating at games, or from student government, because of the religious beliefs of a teacher or administrator that is wrong.
If a portion of your grade that goes to "classroom behavior" is actually a grade on your prayers, that is wrong.
And there is no way to insure that such abuses do not happen. We can't even insure teachers don't sexually abuse students, so how can we insure that during prayer time faithful won't try to indoctrinate the children?
The only way from stopping a de-facto Government Religion being the religion of that government employee--teacher--being forced onto students, is to not allow it in the building in the first place.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The OP was dealing with the legality of school prayer in American schools.
The OP or BlueWizard? I missed BlueWizard's post, but as far as the OP is concerned, I don't see any reference to America.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the original context was rightly assumed to be American School, but the conflict between religion, schools, and secular society certainly exists in other countries.
For example, the somewhat recent ruling that girls attending French school are not allowed to wear head scarfs because the are a reflection of religion.
Personally, I didn't get it. I saw no way that wearing a head scarf could disrupt school or cause any problems at all. I'm also concerned that they did not, and felt no need to, enforce this ban on headwear uniformly. Were boys prevented from wearing baseball caps or berets? I don't think so.
This was a law that singled out a specific religious group and implemented rules specifically regarding them.
To me, this is a clear case of the majority oppressing a minority simply because they had the power to do so.
posted
When I was in high school from '95-'98, in our homeroom in the mornings we were subjected to a daily Channel One broadcast.
They called themselves a news show for teens, but I've felt more honestly informed by the Daily Show. Mostly it seemed to be a platform for a LOT of advertising shown to a captive audience--we were threatened with docked grades unless we watched and listened the show.
There were certainly some mornings where I felt subjected to that. And it certainly wasn't to my spiritual benefit; more the opposite.
However, I'm pretty sure it was to my high school's financial benefit.
I'm more concerned about that kind of bully pulpit in schools, than whether or not some students and teachers chose to pray.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a huge fan of either. Unfortunately, there's no constitutional right to not be sold to. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: I think the original context was rightly assumed to be American School, but the conflict between religion, schools, and secular society certainly exists in other countries.
For example, the somewhat recent ruling that girls attending French school are not allowed to wear head scarfs because the are a reflection of religion.
Personally, I didn't get it. I saw no way that wearing a head scarf could disrupt school or cause any problems at all. I'm also concerned that they did not, and felt no need to, enforce this ban on headwear uniformly. Were boys prevented from wearing baseball caps or berets? I don't think so.
This was a law that singled out a specific religious group and implemented rules specifically regarding them.
To me, this is a clear case of the majority oppressing a minority simply because they had the power to do so.
Just one man's opinion.
steve/bluewizard
The law is against obviously religious items, regardless of the sex of the student or his/her religion. The idea was to stop the current religion-based animosity by removing things that could identify someone as belonging to a certain religion. Bad implementation if you ask me (equality by making us all the same, instead of by instilling respect for diversity), but I just wanted to point out that it's not designed specifically against Islam.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: While this is true, school does come with a rather stronger set of protections, both because the people going there are kids and therefore more vulnerable, and because they are not there by choice.
I agree with all of that except the part where the school offers more protections. Personally, I feel much more aware of my rights and empowered to protect them at my current job than I ever did in school. But mine was a weasely place that didn't really want kids to know all the rules since it would have interferred with enrollment in certain classes.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
