Prayer in schools? Aww, crap...

[White Cat]

That is not your stance. Your stance is that the government should actively suppress religion in public places, because to do otherwise is to support it.

No, they should bar religious practices on government institutions, which are not public places in the sense that a street corner is. Government institutions are places where the government directly functions,

The government directly functions in the construction and regulation of street corners.

where government employees work

Many government employees (policemen, contruction workers, etc.) work on street corners.

and where large amounts of tax money go.

The government spends a lot of tax money building and maintaining street corners.

To not allow any religious group special access to those facilities for religious practices is necessary to preserve the wall between church and state.

I still haven't seen any convincing argument that religious (and atheist) groups should be allowed on street corners, but not on school grounds.

[Ryoga]

[RantMode]

For pete's sake, you mealy-mouthed little asspirate (no offense, Alyrium ). Can't you tell the difference between a fucking government institution and a city street? No, wait, that would be giving your partially-dehydrated brain cell too much credit.

Do you see government officials holding office on street corners? Do judges pronounce sentences there? Is legislation passed there? NO, FUCKWAD.

I can't believe this even has to be explained to you.
[/RantMode]

EDIT: Still getting the hang of the size code.

[Lagmonster]

Many government employees (policemen, contruction workers, etc.) work on street corners. The government spends a lot of tax money building and maintaining street corners.

You have no idea how to define 'public place'. The school is 'public property', meaning the entire citizen body pays for its upkeep through taxes. That does not give you the right to wander ONTO public property and behave as if it were your own. You are subject to the rules that govern that property. If you don't like it, you are free to protest, lobby, vote, or petition for any changes you like. That's your right as a citizen. You do not automatically get the right to blatantly ignore rules that you think are unfair to yourself or your specific cultural or religious group. Schools, unlike street corners, have rules prohibiting religious education or religious activity. Until you, through the activities of a responsible citizen, change that, that's the drill.

I still haven't seen any convincing argument that religious (and atheist) groups should be allowed on street corners, but not on school grounds.

You don't need to be convinced for it to be a valid argument. Schools are designed to present an education to students, and most school boards have long-winded requirement lists of what they may and may not teach, and on what constistutes an acceptable ENVIRONMENT conductive to the furthering of that education. I know. I've attended discussion boards examining board policy. That environment must be very careful to control religious or social pressure, because religious and social pressure does have a serious impact on your education. When a PUBLIC (read: they CANNOT endorse any one religion) school is allowing or endorsing religious gatherings, they are essentially allowing for an environment for religious education and indoctrination. Again, you have the right as a citizen to get involved and try to change things, but you do not have the right to decide what rules you should and should not follow. Until further notice, one of the rules governing the public school grounds is: No Religion.

[White Cat]

My, my.

[RantMode]

Do you see government officials holding office on street corners? Do judges pronounce sentences there? Is legislation passed there?

None of those things happen around school flagpoles, either.

The school is 'public property', meaning the entire citizen body pays for its upkeep through taxes.

Just like street corners.

Schools, unlike street corners, have rules prohibiting religious education or religious activity. Until you, through the activities of a responsible citizen, change that, that's the drill.

Again, you have the right as a citizen to get involved and try to change things, but you do not have the right to decide what rules you should and should not follow. Until further notice, one of the rules governing the public school grounds is: No Religion.

You seem to be arguing about legality (the way the laws are) here; I have been arguing about morality (the way the laws should be).

I'm not sure how Canada's laws are, but I recall reading several years ago that the U.S. courts had ruled that if a school allows chess clubs and the like to meet on school grounds, they must allow religious groups to do the same.

[White Cat]

Look at my last couple posts, I regret jumping into a semantic debate over whether a street corner is analagous to a schoolyard, and would like to apologize to Durandal, Ryoga, and Lagmonster for that. Getting back to the "bigger picture," I'd like to restate my original position from waaaaay back on page four:

Any group of students should be allowed to meet on school grounds and express/promote their views on whatever subject they desire (Christianity, Satanism, atheism, politics, computers, chess, etc.) with the following restrictions: 1) they don't disrupt other students by being too loud; 2) they don't block pedestrian or vehicular traffic; 3) they don't interfere with normal school activities (eg. gathering aroud the flagpole during an official ceremony, or meeting in a classroom when a class is scheduled there); and 4) possibly some other stipulations which I can't think of right now.

If there is a conflict between two groups over an area (eg. the Bible club and the chess club both want to use Room 21 at 3:00pm), then it should go to whoever got there first or whoever signed up for it first.

Note the all of the above applies to student gatherings of any kind; it does not give preferential treatment to any religious or non-religious group. It is also applicable to gatherings of the general public in other public areas.

Darth Wong rightfully pointed out that giving rights to a religious groups that non-religious groups don't have would be establishment of religion, but he apparently missed where I said that atheist groups (and computer/chess/whatever ones) must have the same rights as religious ones.

Does anyone still feel that the rules I described above are unfair and/or immoral?

[Lagmonster]

You seem to be arguing about legality (the way the laws are) here; I have been arguing about morality (the way the laws should be).

The school has a responsibility to maintain an environment that discourages cliques or socially/religiously segregated groups. It's all about the LEARNING ENVIRONMENT the kids get. Each kid gets the same opportunities, free of any religious or social pressure.

Most people realize that religious behaviour is a form of social pressure. Schools try very hard to eliminate social pressure in any of its forms, so that the kids of any faith or culture can attend and intermingle without feeling segregated. Once you leave the school, you're no longer under the jurisdiction of that mandate to provide equal footing for the learning environment, and you're free to explore anything you want, including social, religious and racial segregation if you wish.

[Ryoga]

Look at my last couple posts, I regret jumping into a semantic debate over whether a street corner is analagous to a schoolyard, and would like to apologize to Durandal, Ryoga, and Lagmonster for that. Getting back to the "bigger picture," I'd like to restate my original position from waaaaay back on page four:

Any group of students should be allowed to meet on school grounds and express/promote their views on whatever subject they desire (Christianity, Satanism, atheism, politics, computers, chess, etc.) with the following restrictions: 1) they don't disrupt other students by being too loud; 2) they don't block pedestrian or vehicular traffic; 3) they don't interfere with normal school activities (eg. gathering aroud the flagpole during an official ceremony, or meeting in a classroom when a class is scheduled there); and 4) possibly some other stipulations which I can't think of right now.

If there is a conflict between two groups over an area (eg. the Bible club and the chess club both want to use Room 21 at 3:00pm), then it should go to whoever got there first or whoever signed up for it first.

Note the all of the above applies to student gatherings of any kind; it does not give preferential treatment to any religious or non-religious group. It is also applicable to gatherings of the general public in other public areas.

Darth Wong rightfully pointed out that giving rights to a religious groups that non-religious groups don't have would be establishment of religion, but he apparently missed where I said that atheist groups (and computer/chess/whatever ones) must have the same rights as religious ones.

Does anyone still feel that the rules I described above are unfair and/or immoral?

Not one little bit, so long as you keep your mouth shut when white supremacists or other hate-mongering groups show up.

[Durandal]

Giving rights to any religious/non-religious group for that kind of activity is effectively endorsing them, so I maintain my stance that schools, courthouses and the like be off-limits for any demonstration of religious beliefs.

Also, has anyone ever wondered why these people absolutely must profess their beliefs in a fucking school or courthouse? What undying need are they trying to serve? Why can't they be content to believe what they believe without proselytizing?

Could it be that they want to gain government endorsement? I think so...

[Durandal]

Look at my last couple posts, I regret jumping into a semantic debate over whether a street corner is analagous to a schoolyard, and would like to apologize to Durandal, Ryoga, and Lagmonster for that.

Apologies are not required; you didn't insult any of us. You just jumped in too quickly, something that plenty of the people here are guilty of.

Getting back to the "bigger picture," I'd like to restate my original position from waaaaay back on page four:

I wrote:
Any group of students should be allowed to meet on school grounds and express/promote their views on whatever subject they desire (Christianity, Satanism, atheism, politics, computers, chess, etc.) with the following restrictions: 1) they don't disrupt other students by being too loud; 2) they don't block pedestrian or vehicular traffic; 3) they don't interfere with normal school activities (eg. gathering aroud the flagpole during an official ceremony, or meeting in a classroom when a class is scheduled there); and 4) possibly some other stipulations which I can't think of right now.

If there is a conflict between two groups over an area (eg. the Bible club and the chess club both want to use Room 21 at 3:00pm), then it should go to whoever got there first or whoever signed up for it first.

Note the all of the above applies to student gatherings of any kind; it does not give preferential treatment to any religious or non-religious group. It is also applicable to gatherings of the general public in other public areas.


Darth Wong rightfully pointed out that giving rights to a religious groups that non-religious groups don't have would be establishment of religion, but he apparently missed where I said that atheist groups (and computer/chess/whatever ones) must have the same rights as religious ones.

Does anyone still feel that the rules I described above are unfair and/or immoral?

You're missing the even bigger picture. If a school allows students to form a Bible Club, then that club gets school funding and public money. That is an endorsement of religious beliefs. Same goes for an atheist club. Endorsing religious beliefs of any kind or quantity does not change the fact that religious beliefs are being endorsed. The only way to maintain religious freedom in such institutions is to completely disallow any such demonstrations.

I was, like you, trying to think up restrictions to put on such activities to try and preserve the expressive freedom of the students, but the list of restrictions got so long that it would have <surprise!> disallowed any such activity, anyway. The use of government resources to further religious causes is simply not allowed, and a school resource is anything from a classroom to the blacktop, both of which are school grounds. The only time students can do their Bible Study bullshit is when they are completely off school property and away from school functions.

Again, there is no reason why Christian evangelists must use a school or courthouse to profess their religious beliefs, anyway, other than for the express purpose of gaining the perception of governmental endorsement.