Prayer in schools? Aww, crap...

[IRG CommandoJoe]

First off, I was under the assumption it was a relatively small group of students just quietly praying on the grass like I described before. He never specified the number of students in a circle. However, because (now that I re-read it) it got news coverage, it would have had to be pretty big, so I guess it was grandstanding. I agree it's your right to protest an assembly on public property. But then again it is the right of the rest of the public to assemble on public property as well.

[Durandal]

No doubt that if a cult of Wicca wanted to perform a spell in front of a court house that involved burning a Nativity Scene, Christians would scream religious persecution.

Wow, religious tolerance, as long as you're a certain religion ... what a new idea.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't think that we should be openly mocking people who pray, but only because it is making fun of someone's beliefs. After all, we don't like it when people make fun of science. However, I do think that it is okay to try to debate them in a reasonable manner, or to ask that they pray privately instead of in public. Certainly if they are doing it in the middle of a school, or in another public place, it can be very intrusive into the lives of other people.

[Uther]

They are well within their rights to assemble peaceably and hold a prayer meeting, privately of course, with no one being forced or coerced into participating/watching. Now, commandering the PA system would definitely be well into a grey area, but private prayer is private prayer.

You may believe that they're grandstanding and it's in bad taste, but, well, free speech is free speech.

Now, if you can demonstrate they're intimidating someone or otherwise interfering in the learning environment, then you have a case. But I don't think you can.

I do understand where people are coming from when they object to this. We're all afraid of the kids in Christown Louisiana intimidating and belittling the two Jewish kids who go there. But holding a private prayer meeting just doesn't cross the line.

The atheists and Wiccans can hold their meetings too, and if anyone interferes, I'll kill him myself.

And mocking people is hopelessly juvenile. Grow up.

[Master of Ossus]

They are well within their rights to assemble peaceably and hold a prayer meeting, privately of course, with no one being forced or coerced into participating/watching. Now, commandering the PA system would definitely be well into a grey area, but private prayer is private prayer.

You may believe that they're grandstanding and it's in bad taste, but, well, free speech is free speech.

In order to exercise this right, they must notify the authorities within a reasonable amount of time prior to their group, so that the authorities may have time to assemble the necessary police and other emergency facilities to handle the crowd. Unless they had evidence that the assembly was not going to be peaceful, however, they cannot be denied the right to assembly, so long as they notify everyone beforehand.

[AdmiralKanos]

I don't think that we should be openly mocking people who pray, but only because it is making fun of someone's beliefs.

Why is it wrong to make fun of someone's beliefs? We've just had an invasion by a bunch of donkey-fucking white supremacists; no one hesitated to make fun of their beliefs.

After all, we don't like it when people make fun of science.

But we don't accuse them of immorality for doing so; we simply point out how stupid and ignorant they are, demolish their arguments, and reduce them to whining crybabies.

However, I do think that it is okay to try to debate them in a reasonable manner, or to ask that they pray privately instead of in public.

By arranging for a public spectacle, they threw "reasonable manner" to the winds.

Certainly if they are doing it in the middle of a school, or in another public place, it can be very intrusive into the lives of other people.

They're trying to be intrusive. Do you think it's some kind of accident?

[Master of Ossus]

I think that there is more middle ground here than appears, initially. I think that if we just asked them to leave, and they did not do it, then we would have a much better case against them to involve the authorities.

You're right, though, they do appear to be attempting to be intrusive, but to immediately attack them without taking the neutral ground, first, would look bad if the authorities at this school finally had to get involved.

[AdmiralKanos]

I think that there is more middle ground here than appears, initially. I think that if we just asked them to leave, and they did not do it, then we would have a much better case against them to involve the authorities.

True. I would point out, however, that if the aforementioned inbred white-supremacist donkey-fucking group held a public rally on the front lawn of the school, they would be kicked off in seconds. The right to public assembly does not necessarily entail the freedom to do this whenever and wherever you please.

You're right, though, they do appear to be attempting to be intrusive, but to immediately attack them without taking the neutral ground, first, would look bad if the authorities at this school finally had to get involved.

Who said anything about attacking them? I would just stand there and point out that their God is a mass-murderer. Repeatedly. That's not attacking them; that's just exercising my individual right to free speech, not to mention pointing out an indisputable fact.

[Uther]

If that's the law, Ossus, then that's the law and they should have followed it. But does a public prayer meeting fall under the category of 'demonstration'?

And call God a mass-murderer all you want (as hopelessly puerile as that is.)

[Kahlis]

uhhhhh what a cute bunny

Just watch out.

Individually, some are, some aren't. Institutionally, they are.

By definition, yes.

Institutionalized religion is just that: mechanized, routinized, physical pseudo-'righteousness.'

"Appeal to ridicule" fallacy. Perhaps you should try actually finding a point somewhere and then presenting it.

Fine, I'll explain myself.

The reaction in this thread was to some arbitrary group of Christians out on the lawn praying before class. Since we didn't know the details of the situation, the problem wasn't that there was intrusive preaching so much as an organized group of Christians in a prayer circle. Yes, by implication we know that it was a pretty large group, but that implication wasn't really seized upon by folks before Wong pointed it out.

So, some of you folks might find a public Christian prayer circle offensive. Oh well. If you want to make a genuine point about the matter and try to persuade others in the process, go right ahead. If you're just going to sit around and make fun of them, go right ahead. Just the latter is often going to drive folks away and help to ostracize yourself. If I walk into the middle of a WTO protest and point out what nonsense I think it is by trying to be as much of an ass as possible, I shouldn't be surprised when they want to crucify me.

Motivation is irrelevant. Their actions are more than enough justification for our derisive comments.

On the contrary, motivation is the single-most important issue at hand. Your motivation will tell you who you are and what you seek after. Your motivation will show up in how you life your life and where you're heading towards. Note that motivation is a very different animal than the feel-good 'intention' we hear all the time in politics, as it is the genuine measure of why you are living your life. If your motivation is to attract attention and grandstand, you're going to find ways to make that happen. If your motivation is to genuinely spend some time with God as a group, you're going to also find ways to make that happen.

Actions are also essential as a person can lie about their motivation, but the two are connected and they do have a causal relationship goin for 'em.

Now, even if your criteria was only their actions, what possible reason do you have to get so agitated? Because they were praying in [gasp] public? How dare they demonstrate who they are in front of everyone else, after all. See, that's the fundamental short-circuit we got here. I'll use myself as an example:
Prayer is, fundamentally, a part of who I am. It isn't something I intentionally force on people nor shove in their face any more than the way I laugh when I'm hanging out with some friends. The difference is that nobody makes a big deal about how I laugh, while whining about my praying in public is forseeable. Why though? Both are simply different parts of who I am, so why is that I am supposed to totally deny one part and have freedom with the other? Why should there be this dichotomy in a culture that emphasizes tolerance as its main moral value?

Take this web board as an example. It is part of many of you to rant and flame most anything that has to do with Christianity. In fact, many of you make it a point to go out of your way to constantly berate and attack Christianity as a whole and by implication those that subscribe to it. My reaction? So be it. That is who you are, and you have every right to be that way. I'm not going to condemn you, nor am I going to whine and moan about how offensive you're being and how you're forcing your unChristianity upon those that aren't. And yet, that is the moral of tolerance that you preach and expect, but entirely fail to act out. You expect to recieve 'tolerance' while at the same time talk about the crazy things you could do to mock those whom you expect tolerance from.

At least, that has been my perception, and I may very well be wrong. Talking about asinine behaviour like you do doesn't give me much faith though.

[EDIT: Reading through again, there's really only one point I need to mention instead of the diatribe above]
Mike-
Currently, I go to the University of Puget Sound here in the Seattle area of the US. There's an on-campus Christian group by the name of Lighthouse that meets Tuesday nights for worship and fellowship in a building called the rotunda. It meets right next to the student center, in a very public and well-frequented place.

Do you consider that intrusive and an example of Christians forcing their beliefs on others?

Alas.. 'peace.

[AdmiralKanos]

On the contrary, motivation is the single-most important issue at hand. Your motivation will tell you who you are and what you seek after.

Irrelevant. We judge people by their actions, not their motivations. Motivations are debatable and subjective (in this case, I believe their motivation was to create a public spectacle; they could have easily done their prayer in a hundred less conspicuous places than a big grouping on the lawn), but actions are indisputable and objective.

Now, even if your criteria was only their actions, what possible reason do you have to get so agitated? Because they were praying in [gasp] public? How dare they demonstrate who they are in front of everyone else, after all. See, that's the fundamental short-circuit we got here.

Good for you. Do you feel that this "logic" should also apply to the white-supremacists if they want to gather in a big group and "show us who they are" on school property every day?

I'll use myself as an example: Prayer is, fundamentally, a part of who I am.

Sophistry. It is still an action; it is possible to be who you are and not pray in a particular place at a particule time.

It isn't something I intentionally force on people nor shove in their face any more than the way I laugh when I'm hanging out with some friends.

Then why do you defend people who are shoving it in our faces with public spectacles on taxpayer-funded property?

The difference is that nobody makes a big deal about how I laugh, while whining about my praying in public is forseeable. Why though? Both are simply different parts of who I am, so why is that I am supposed to totally deny one part and have freedom with the other? Why should there be this dichotomy in a culture that emphasizes tolerance as its main moral value?

Strawman fallacy. You're allowed to pray in public. But you're not allowed to conduct group prayer services on taxpayer-funded property.

Take this web board as an example. It is part of many of you to rant and flame most anything that has to do with Christianity.

No, it is an action, deliberately undertaken. Don't play games.

In fact, many of you make it a point to go out of your way to constantly berate and attack Christianity as a whole and by implication those that subscribe to it. My reaction? So be it.

Good, since this web board is private property and we can say whatever the fuck we want. It is NOT public taxpayer-funded property. Is this distinction getting through to you at all?

You expect to recieve 'tolerance' while at the same time talk about the crazy things you could do to mock those whom you expect tolerance from.

Why is it "crazy" to point out an indisputable fact, such as "Your God is a mass-murderer"? Who fears the truth?

At least, that has been my perception, and I may very well be wrong. Talking about asinine behaviour like you do doesn't give me much faith though.

Faith is overrated.

[Kahlis]

Irrelevant. We judge people by their actions, not their motivations. Motivations are debatable and subjective (in this case, I believe their motivation was to create a public spectacle; they could have easily done their prayer in a hundred less conspicuous places than a big grouping on the lawn), but actions are indisputable and objective.

All well and good except for a couple things.

We are constantly intruding into each others' lives. The very act of "being who I am" forces myself into other peoples' lives, though we usually don't see it that way. My roomate 'sexiling' me from my room last year is just as much intrusion as the way I laugh as me praying in an open and public place. If intrusion alone is your criteria for being upset, you're going to be constantly upset about a great many thing.

If intrusion and personal distaste are your criteria, then we're getting somewhere. I don't know exactly what is going on inside your head and so I won't speculate, but intrusion alone isn't enough.

Good for you. Do you feel that this "logic" should also apply to the white-supremacists if they want to gather in a big group and "show us who they are" on school property every day?

1. White supremacists rarely have that much courage.
2. Hey, my stomach gets a sick feeling on the inside just thinking about the opinions of these folks, but what gives me the authority to keep them from saying what's on their mind in the presence of others? I know that I don't have that right, and as sickening as it is, they do have that right to assemble.

Sophistry. It is still an action; it is possible to be who you are and not pray in a particular place at a particule time.

Likewise for laughing. 'Cept people don't really get upset about the way you laugh, eh?

Then why do you defend people who are shoving it in our faces with public spectacles on taxpayer-funded property?

On that basis, a Christian prayer group is as offensive as a march for peace.

There's more to your criticism, or your position is inconsistent. Let's hear it.

Strawman fallacy. You're allowed to pray in public. But you're not allowed to conduct group prayer services on taxpayer-funded property.

Rrreeaaalllyyy?

Remind me to sic the police on the next Bar Mitzvah celebration I see in a local park.

No, it is an action, deliberately undertaken. Don't play games.

I am hardly playing games. I simply don't like making judgements on other peoples' lives.

Good, since this web board is private property and we can say whatever the fuck we want. It is NOT public taxpayer-funded property. Is this distinction getting through to you at all?

Hey, I've been a mod on a webboard before. I am well aware of how it goes and I respect that.

Why is it "crazy" to point out an indisputable fact, such as "Your God is a mass-murderer"? Who fears the truth?

'Strawman', and you know it.

Look on the main page for this subforum and tell me how many threads are topics devoted to 'critically analyzing' Christianity or creationism without any real impetus other than an extreme joy in picking apart God/Christianity. There's more going on than just pointing out 'facts.'

Hey, if I am coming across as overly argumentative, I apologize. Last thing I want to be. I wish you a good evening and 'later.

[Iceberg]

No doubt that if a cult of Wicca wanted to perform a spell in front of a court house that involved burning a Nativity Scene, Christians would scream religious persecution.

And rightly so. Desecrating the symbols of a religion is a form of religious persecution.

I tend to get rather edgy regarding these "prayer as performance art" things. Reminds me rather uncomfortably of those pharisees that Jesus talked about, the ones who wore long tassels on their robes, carried on as if they were in great suffering when they fasted, prayed on street corners and so forth...

[Spanky The Dolphin]

First off, I was under the assumption it was a relatively small group of students just quietly praying on the grass like I described before. He never specified the number of students in a circle. However, because (now that I re-read it) it got news coverage, it would have had to be pretty big, so I guess it was grandstanding. I agree it's your right to protest an assembly on public property. But then again it is the right of the rest of the public to assemble on public property as well.

From what I know and have seen (yes, they're doing it in Iowa, too) is that they stand in a circle around the school flag pole holding hands. It makes them look like they're praying to the flag.

[His Divine Shadow]

True. I would point out, however, that if the aforementioned inbred white-supremacist donkey-fucking group held a public rally on the front lawn of the school, they would be kicked off in seconds.

Now see, thats the problem, if I where in charge they would have been shot and burned for fuel in a powerplant.

[Darth Wong]

All well and good except for a couple things.

We are constantly intruding into each others' lives. The very act of "being who I am" forces myself into other peoples' lives, though we usually don't see it that way. My roomate 'sexiling' me from my room last year is just as much intrusion as the way I laugh as me praying in an open and public place. If intrusion alone is your criteria for being upset, you're going to be constantly upset about a great many thing.

Sophistry. Your roommate paid money to rent half of that room. He has the right to do whatever he wants in that half. This is entirely different than misuse of public taxpayer-owned property.

If intrusion and personal distaste are your criteria, then we're getting somewhere. I don't know exactly what is going on inside your head and so I won't speculate, but intrusion alone isn't enough.

How many fucking times do I have to mention the fact that it was the front lawn of a school before you get it through your thick skull? Do whatever the fuck you want on your own private property, but there are rules for what you can and cannot do on a schoolyard.

Good for you. Do you feel that this "logic" should also apply to the white-supremacists if they want to gather in a big group and "show us who they are" on school property every day?

1. White supremacists rarely have that much courage.
2. Hey, my stomach gets a sick feeling on the inside just thinking about the opinions of these folks, but what gives me the authority to keep them from saying what's on their mind in the presence of others? I know that I don't have that right, and as sickening as it is, they do have that right to assemble.

Not on a schoolyard.

Then why do you defend people who are shoving it in our faces with public spectacles on taxpayer-funded property?

On that basis, a Christian prayer group is as offensive as a march for peace.

There's more to your criticism, or your position is inconsistent. Let's hear it.

A Christian prayer group on a schoolyard is far more offensive than a march for peace. A desire for peace is inter-denominational, inter-faith, or no-faith. A Christian prayer group is none of those things.

Rrreeaaalllyyy?
Remind me to sic the police on the next Bar Mitzvah celebration I see in a local park.

As long as I'm allowed to burn crosses in that same park, that's fine. But since they would never let me burn a cross on the front lawn of a schoolyard, they shouldn't let these idiots do their public prayer spectacle either.

I am hardly playing games. I simply don't like making judgements on other peoples' lives.

I'm not making judgements on other peoples' lives; they can do whatever they fuck they want when they're not on the front lawn of a school. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT? FRONT LAWN OF A SCHOOL!!!

Why is it "crazy" to point out an indisputable fact, such as "Your God is a mass-murderer"? Who fears the truth?

'Strawman', and you know it.

Bullshit. Your God is a mass-murderer. Deal with it.

Look on the main page for this subforum and tell me how many threads are topics devoted to 'critically analyzing' Christianity or creationism without any real impetus other than an extreme joy in picking apart God/Christianity. There's more going on than just pointing out 'facts.'

So? The motivation behind the critiques is irrelevant; if you cannot find a factual or logical error in them, then you have no case for dismissing them or classifying them as invalid. Moreover, they are a red herring to any discussion of abuse of school property.

Hey, if I am coming across as overly argumentative, I apologize. Last thing I want to be. I wish you a good evening and 'later.

You are coming across as knee-jerk defensive, and somewhat irrational. Everyone on this board is argumentative; there's nothing wrong with being argumentative, as long as you can back it up with facts and logic.

[Darth Wong]

No doubt that if a cult of Wicca wanted to perform a spell in front of a court house that involved burning a Nativity Scene, Christians would scream religious persecution.

And rightly so. Desecrating the symbols of a religion is a form of religious persecution.

No it isn't. Desecrating a place of worship is, since it is inherently intimidating. However, if I decide to burn crosses on my own private property, that is not religious persecution. It's a waste of wood, but it's not persecution.

I tend to get rather edgy regarding these "prayer as performance art" things. Reminds me rather uncomfortably of those pharisees that Jesus talked about, the ones who wore long tassels on their robes, carried on as if they were in great suffering when they fasted, prayed on street corners and so forth...

Some things never change. In the last 2000 years, the Christians have become the legalists and money-changers that Jesus once railed against (wealthiest religious group in the world IIRC).

[Kelly Antilles]

However, I do think that it is okay to try to debate them in a reasonable manner, or to ask that they pray privately instead of in public.

Ah, just what I love about sd.net.

WE AREN'T PREJUDICED.
WE MOCK EVERYONE!

I mean that in a very loving way. Truly. You don't descriminate who you bash. You bash everyone, which is great.

[Kahlis]

How many fucking times do I have to mention the fact that it was the front lawn of a school before you get it through your thick skull? Do whatever the fuck you want on your own private property, but there are rules for what you can and cannot do on a schoolyard.

I kept bringing up the points of intrusion and such because you kept making them valid reasons for responding with mockery and anger.

Now that it's clear that your justification is entirely legal, I'm satisfied.

As long as I'm allowed to burn crosses in that same park, that's fine. But since they would never let me burn a cross on the front lawn of a schoolyard, they shouldn't let these idiots do their public prayer spectacle either.

A park is a street corner is a school lawn as far as US law regarding the right to assemble IIRC. You have as much right to burn your cross/flag/whatever as does a Christian prayer group legally, though they'll likely try to pull 'disturbing the peace' on you.

So? The motivation behind the critiques is irrelevant; if you cannot find a factual or logical error in them, then you have no case for dismissing them or classifying them as invalid.

Correct.

Note that I deliberately did not dismiss them or classify them as invalid. You're indirectly accusing me of something that I have not done, nor will do. I merely alluded to their existence as a way to describe the community here. Not as wrong or heretical, but simply to put how this community acts in context of the community that was involved with the prayer group.

More clear? [not that this point matters anyway, but..]

'later

[Darth Wong]

I kept bringing up the points of intrusion and such because you kept making them valid reasons for responding with mockery and anger. Now that it's clear that your justification is entirely legal, I'm satisfied.

Do not distort my position; I never said it was an entirely legal complaint; it is also moral. I am paying taxes for my local school. I am sending my children there. I am not paying for my children to be subjected to religious peer pressure, which is inevitable if people are allowed to be public in their displays of worship. If your kids went to a school where a large contingent of satanists were openly worshipping in the halls and grounds, are you saying it wouldn't bother you?

Note that I deliberately did not dismiss them or classify them as invalid. You're indirectly accusing me of something that I have not done, nor will do. I merely alluded to their existence as a way to describe the community here. Not as wrong or heretical, but simply to put how this community acts in context of the community that was involved with the prayer group.

Already addressed REPEATEDLY; this is private property. The situations are not remotely comparable, so you have introduced a red herring. Stop ignoring the point.

[Master of Ossus]

However, I do think that it is okay to try to debate them in a reasonable manner, or to ask that they pray privately instead of in public.

Ah, just what I love about sd.net.

WE AREN'T PREJUDICED.
WE MOCK EVERYONE!

I mean that in a very loving way. Truly. You don't descriminate who you bash. You bash everyone, which is great.

Well, that's what we all came here to do. Incidentally, Kelly, the two of us are just dying to get in a disagreement. There must be something we disagree on in one of these threads.... I don't think I've ever known someone this long online without yelling at them at least once.

[Kahlis]

Do not distort my position; I never said it was an entirely legal complaint; it is also moral. I am paying taxes for my local school. I am sending my children there. I am not paying for my children to be subjected to religious peer pressure, which is inevitable if people are allowed to be public in their displays of worship.

Specifically, public in their displays of religious worship.

Likewise, I would not pay for my children to be subjected to the peer pressure of getting laid, but I don't have much choice about that, do I now?

The deeper problem here is that you are almost proposing that public displays of personal worship should be either socially or legally condemned, at least as far as public schools are concerned. Now, if it was a local Church marching on the school, I'd understand and sympathize, but this is a group of students. Specifically, high school students who have reached an age where they can decide where they want to go in life and what they want to seek after. At that point in life, you have absolutely no hope of removing peer pressure of any kind, including religious. Moreover, if you don't want your kids to be subject to any Christian peer pressure, you have the option of sending them to a private school (I assume) where such things are prohibited. Same thing for me if I don't want my kids to be subjected to the worldly peer pressure that defines so much of high school. I know where you are coming from and I agree on the moral issue/investment, but to restrict public displays of personal worship in response?

Here in the US, I can cite legal reasons why this is unlikely and illegal (my apologies for my lack of knowledge about Canadian structure):
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#C
The page above cites exceptions to the freedom of speech (now thought of as expression) outlined in the First Amendment, as well as summaries of Supreme Court rulings on the matter over the years. It is also a third-party site (related to the National Endowment for the Arts), thus giving a more neutral perspective.

From it, we can conclude that nothing resembling public, personal display of worship is considered an exception to said freedom, unless it contains exceptions to the freedom of speech (notably defamation, sponsored establishment of religion, incitement of violence, etc).

If you want, I'll give a call to a local high school and find out the details that would be involved in having a public, student-led prayer circle on school grounds as well as any possible restrictions/legal issues. Given that my high school did not have any issues whatsoever with the group that prayed in front of it most days of the year, I expect that there are none and that the law is respected.

As for the moral, the solution is far more complicated. Suffice it to say that neither of us is going to convince the other of his position and both of us have other options for childrens' schooling if we dislike the present system.

'peace

[Darth Wong]

Likewise, I would not pay for my children to be subjected to the peer pressure of getting laid, but I don't have much choice about that, do I now?

Yes, but you don't see people having group sex on the FUCKING FRONT LAWN OF THE SCHOOL! What part of this don't you understand?

The deeper problem here is that you are almost proposing that public displays of personal worship should be either socially or legally condemned, at least as far as public schools are concerned.

That's not a problem; it's an attempt to keep rightfully private things private. The behaviour of organized student groups can be highly coercive by its nature, and all manner of informal groupings are heavily regulated by schools, such as youth gangs (even if they don't commit any crimes while there).

Now, if it was a local Church marching on the school, I'd understand and sympathize, but this is a group of students.

Doesn't make any difference. If they were marching for Nazism, they would get their asses kicked off the goddamned lawn.

Specifically, high school students who have reached an age where they can decide where they want to go in life and what they want to seek after. At that point in life, you have absolutely no hope of removing peer pressure of any kind, including religious.

No, but you can try to mitigate it.

Moreover, if you don't want your kids to be subject to any Christian peer pressure, you have the option of sending them to a private school (I assume) where such things are prohibited.

After already having been forced to pay taxes for a school which I cannot use because I don't subscribe to the majority religion? What the fuck kind of argument is that?

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#C
The page above cites exceptions to the freedom of speech (now thought of as expression) outlined in the First Amendment, as well as summaries of Supreme Court rulings on the matter over the years. It is also a third-party site (related to the National Endowment for the Arts), thus giving a more neutral perspective.

Freedom of speech only grants immunity from prosecution. It does not grant the ability to say whatever you want whenever and wherever you want. I've made this point over and over. What the fuck part of it are you too goddamned stupid to understand?

As for the moral, the solution is far more complicated. Suffice it to say that neither of us is going to convince the other of his position and both of us have other options for childrens' schooling if we dislike the present system.

In other words, you cannot defend your bullshit logically, but you are unwilling to admit that fact, so you try to waltz away with the "we both have valid points of view" non-answer.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Gonna jump in the band wagon here...........

First off, I find it ridiculous that the students were actually praying to some fictional entity and were commended for it. What does this say to the other students who don't pray? NO ONE has the right to subject other students to such form of peer pressure in public schools. Our tax dollars are used by the government to help pay for the education the students are recieving. It is not used to pay for a place where Christians ( Or any religeons for that matter) can use as a front to push their religeon onto others. If students want to pray on school grounds, they should go to a private school that is not funded by our tax dollars.

[Kahlis]

Yes, but you don't see people having group sex on the FUCKING FRONT LAWN OF THE SCHOOL! What part of this don't you understand?

You appear utterly incapable of understanding the concept of allegory.

Well no frikkin duh the two situations are not the exact same--a child can tell you that without much of a problem.

That's not a problem; it's an attempt to keep rightfully private things private.

And you hold that personal displays of religious worship should be entirely private legally and morally.

Of course, there is no legal justification for said policy and the moral appears to be based more on a desire to be free from the existence of certain lifestyles/belief structures in the world around you than anything else.

The behaviour of organized student groups can be highly coercive by its nature, and all manner of informal groupings are heavily regulated by schools, such as youth gangs (even if they don't commit any crimes while there).

1. Three short words: "Before School Hours."
2. Schools regulate informal groupings, however they do not break up informal groupings without sufficient rationale. The possibility of coercion in an environment mired in it is not usually enough.
3. What, do you think Christian students are going to shut up and not 'coerce' other students about Christianity when they're not gathered in a group in front of the school?

Doesn't make any difference. If they were marching for Nazism, they would get their asses kicked off the goddamned lawn.

I think paraphrasing your point is more effective:

Yes, but you don't see people praying while preaching the mass murder of entire races on the FUCKING FRONT LAWN OF THE SCHOOL! What part of this don't you understand?

---

After already having been forced to pay taxes for a school which I cannot use because I don't subscribe to the majority religion? What the fuck kind of argument is that?

The same argument that quite a few folks of similar mind to yourself make about those of us who have been forced to pay taxes for a school which we cannot use because we don't subscribe to the majority culture?

What, you've never heard it before?

Freedom of speech only grants immunity from prosecution. It does not grant the ability to say whatever you want whenever and wherever you want. I've made this point over and over. What the fuck part of it are you too goddamned stupid to understand?

Enough of the bullshit.

When have I seen you make your point about freedom of speech? What, am I supposed to be clairvoyant? If I don't read your mind, does that make me a frikkin moron?

Gah.

In other words, you cannot defend your bullshit logically, but you are unwilling to admit that fact, so you try to waltz away with the "we both have valid points of view" non-answer.

More like I'm trying to exit this debate so that I can put my mind on more important things, like say, mechanics homework and the like. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of watching a good debater unable to see that his own argument can be paralleled and reversed for those of opposite opinion, yet he would consider such an opinion unjustified and "fucking nonsense."

You want to continue this, then we can. Personally, I don't think you have a valid or consistent view, legally or morally, but I simply don't have the time or psychological willpower to attempt to debate something with no purpose other than to make each other feel more convinced in our own "righteousness" on the matter.

'later