Student gets ostracized for refusing to pray - Page 60

On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying"

On May 28 2011 07:12 Taku wrote:

Yes...yes he did. I'm under the impression he wasn't amused by the fact that a prayer was put forward but a *student* as part of the ceremony which was widely approved of by the rest of the student body. The prayer was not put into the schedule by any school official as far as I know. If this is not a fact then tell me now.

On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:

No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them.

Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... ....................................

On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen.

On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen.

On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen.

On May 28 2011 07:14 Bibdy wrote:


What's your point? It's still written, quite explicity, in the first amendment that the state shouldn't favour any particular religion. If a student wanted to do it on their own, that's fine. The moment the school promotes it, it's breaking the first amendment.

On May 28 2011 07:20 Severedevil wrote:

The student tried to stop the school from organizing an officia group prayer, yes.

That is not the same as trying to stop people from praying.

On May 28 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote:


Blind speculation. He talked to the school, in private, to take the prayer out of the ceremony. They agreed. That would have been the end of it, until the incident was leaked out, the community caught wind, and decided to act on their self-righteousness.

On May 28 2011 07:19 Birnd wrote:



Pure speculation about his motivations and intentions

On May 28 2011 07:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:




...

Okay he reported it so it wouldn't happen but he actually wanted it to happen. How much sense does that make?

On May 28 2011 07:20 Taku wrote:

I still fail to see how printing a student-suggested activity is promotion. Granted, it may be endorsement of it as a school-acceptable activity but its not like the school brought in a pastor to lead the prayer or anything. Honestly I think the guy has conducted himself poorly during this whole affair. I don't have anything against him standing up for what he believes in, but the way he's gone about it is kinda dickish imo, there was probably a much less confrontational way to do so.

On May 28 2011 07:23 Bibdy wrote:


You're assuming there was vindictiveness behind it, as opposed to not wanting to have state-endorsed religion forced down his throat.

On May 28 2011 07:24 travis wrote:
GGTemplar, this is sad.

He reported it so that school endorsed prayer would not happen. This does not mean that personal prayer cannot happen. There could still be a period of silence for personal prayer.

On May 28 2011 07:20 Taku wrote:

I still fail to see how printing a student-suggested activity is promotion. Granted, it may be endorsement of it as a school-acceptable activity but its not like the school brought in a pastor to lead the prayer or anything. Honestly I think the guy has conducted himself poorly during this whole affair. I don't have anything against him standing up for what he believes in, but the way he's gone about it is kinda dickish imo, there was probably a much less confrontational way to do so.

On May 27 2011 13:37 garlicface wrote:
Everyone in the story reacted too strongly to what he did, but it seems like he was just trying to be a smartass. Come on, threatening to get a "traditional" prayer cancelled?

On May 28 2011 07:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


No, I'm assuming he didn't want it to happen. He didn't want it to happen. He reported it to stop it from happening.

How can you try to argue against the idea that he didn't want it to happen?

On May 28 2011 06:48 Belial88 wrote:
Why do people think government sponsored prayer is against the constitution? Does no one read the damn thing anymore, so annoying.

It states clearly in the 1st Amendment that the government cannot make law in regards to religion - there is no law about prayer in schools, first off. This is more about free speech, and the school is, at least constitutionally, free to say whatever they want without inciting violence.

There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church and state, no where does it say that. It says *congress*, specifically, cannot impede or respect the establishment of religion. States are free to do what they like, and respecting religion and respecting an establishment like a specific church are totally different things.

I am an atheist, but it really bothers me when people try to ban prayer. If you don't like it, don't pray. No one is forcing you to pray.

Sorry to hear what has happened to this guy though, but it's a christian country and people are idiots. There's a lot of blame to go with who leaked his name.

Those rulings were two landmark Supreme Court decisions, Engel v. Vitale [1962] and Abington School District v. Schempp [1963] (which included the well publicised case of Murray v. Curlett), establishing the current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in schools. Following these two cases came the Court's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman [1971]. This ruling established the so-called "Lemon test" which states that in order to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment any practice sponsored within state run schools (or other public, state sponsored activities) must:
1.Have a secular purpose;
2.Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
3.Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

On May 28 2011 07:27 Bibdy wrote:


Okay, so apparently I need to repeat myself.

You're ASSUMING his INTENTIONS BEHIND IT. Not the actual act itself.

On May 28 2011 07:24 rycho wrote:


what exactly was "dickish" about what he did? according to the article, all he did was contact the superintendent and tell him that the prayer shouldn't happen - which is true, its unconstitutional.