Wyoming school district lifts ban on kids praying in school

OntarioVanMan · Dec 21, 2015

Good ruling IMO
Wyoming school district lifts ban on kids praying in school

The decision came after a group of students decided to pray over their food during lunch time at Glendo High School in Glendo,Wyoming. After the lunch period, the school`s principal confronted one of the students and told her that the students were not allowed to pray during lunch because they were pushing their religion on other students.The three students argued that such prayer is legal and constitutional. After further discussion the school district`s attorney concluded that the students' prayer did not violate federal law and that students should be able to pray before meals.

The First Amendment protects the right to pray in a non disruptive manner not just in private but in public as well.

JohnWC · Dec 21, 2015

What we need to see more of

OntarioVanMan · Dec 21, 2015

JohnWC said:
What we need to see more of

sounds like a case where a few students sat at a table and said Grace before their meal...

JohnWC · Dec 21, 2015

I give thanks to

cheri1122 · Dec 26, 2015

As I understand it, students are free to pray as they wish - it's just the school that is prohibited from promoting or endorsing any religious activity. [I believe they should teach it, though, as in comparative religion classes].
The question is, how do people feel about students whose religion is not Christian praying in the cafeteria?

OntarioVanMan · Dec 28, 2015

cheri1122 said:
As I understand it, students are free to pray as they wish - it's just the school that is prohibited from promoting or endorsing any religious activity. [I believe they should teach it, though, as in comparative religion classes].
The question is, how do people feel about students whose religion is not Christian praying in the cafeteria?

are you embarrassed to seeing a Muslim pull out a prayer carpet in a corner of a room?....Why would a couple people saying Grace at a meal be any different?....or a Catholic making the sign of the cross?....or a store I wanted to go to is closed Friday at sundown? People should be able to practice their religion as they please, just because it differs from mine doesn't make it wrong or improper...Prayer does NOT belong on the classroom....IMO.....

Ragman · Dec 28, 2015

OntarioVanMan said:
are you embarrassed to seeing a Muslim pull out a prayer carpet in a corner of a room?....Why would a couple people saying Grace at a meal be any different?....or a Catholic making the sign of the cross?....or a store I wanted to go to is closed Friday at sundown? People should be able to practice their religion as they please, just because it differs from mine doesn't make it wrong or improper...Prayer does NOT belong on the classroom....IMO.....

I always prayed I didn't get caught cheating.

cheri1122 · Dec 29, 2015

OntarioVanMan said:
are you embarrassed to seeing a Muslim pull out a prayer carpet in a corner of a room?....Why would a couple people saying Grace at a meal be any different?....or a Catholic making the sign of the cross?....or a store I wanted to go to is closed Friday at sundown? People should be able to practice their religion as they please, just because it differs from mine doesn't make it wrong or improper...Prayer does NOT belong on the classroom....IMO.....

Embarrassed? Not a bit, I've seen people cross themselves and do their rosary beads, a prayer rug wouldn't be any different, IMO.
I totally agree that prayer doesn't belong in a classroom, or any government sponsored place, because it puts the government in a position of seeming to 'endorse' a particular religion, or be forced to accommodate them all - and there's just too many for that to be reasonable.
I do think that students should be taught comparative religion, though - they need to learn about other people and ways. Ignorance is what they're there to correct, lol.

OntarioVanMan · Dec 29, 2015

cheri1122 said:
Embarrassed? Not a bit, I've seen people cross themselves and do their rosary beads, a prayer rug wouldn't be any different, IMO.
I totally agree that prayer doesn't belong in a classroom, or any government sponsored place, because it puts the government in a position of seeming to 'endorse' a particular religion, or be forced to accommodate them all - and there's just too many for that to be reasonable.
I do think that students should be taught comparative religion, though - they need to learn about other people and ways. Ignorance is what they're there to correct, lol.

Yep....I am all for learning about religions and all.....just not endorsing one over the other....

cheri1122 · Dec 30, 2015

OntarioVanMan said:
Yep....I am all for learning about religions and all.....just not endorsing one over the other....

In Boise, Idaho, City Council has long preceded meetings with a prayer, led by a guest speaker. When a Buddhist was the guest recently, half a dozen members [all Republicans, FWIW] remained outside in protest, refusing to even listen to the prayer.
All those who demand freedom of religion need to consider the fact that it includes other religions, as well, or it's meaningless.

Turtle · Dec 30, 2015

There's a difference, of course, in freedom of religion and forcing others to participate, as the freedom from religion is just as valid. If the half dozen who remained outside didn't want to participate, so what? They certainly have that right. If the City Council (and the city of Boise) is comprised chiefly of Christians, there is no need or reason to accommodate minor religions at the City Council meetings. If one of the City Council members is a Buddhist , there's no reason not to accommodate them, as well as the Christians. People have a right to exercise their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion, or not exercise it as they see fit, whether they are regular citizens or members of government. They just can't force others to do likewise, is all.

greasytshirt · Dec 30, 2015

Turtle · Dec 30, 2015

Should schools be teaching and espousing religion or dogma? Of course not. Should students be able to exercise their First Amendment rights on their own time in a school building? Well, yeah.

cheri1122 · Dec 30, 2015

Turtle said:
There's a difference, of course, in freedom of religion and forcing others to participate, as the freedom from religion is just as valid. If the half dozen who remained outside didn't want to participate, so what? They certainly have that right. If the City Council (and the city of Boise) is comprised chiefly of Christians, there is no need or reason to accommodate minor religions at the City Council meetings. If one of the City Council members is a Buddhist , there's no reason not to accommodate them, as well as the Christians. People have a right to exercise their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion, or not exercise it as they see fit, whether they are regular citizens or members of government. They just can't force others to do likewise, is all.

If any of the members of the Council are non Christian, they have long demonstrated the kind of tolerance and respect for others that their Christian colleagues couldn't manage, because they [the non Christians] have never protested by refusing to enter the room until it's over. I don't believe that simply being present constitutes 'participation' - that would seem to imply a bit more agency in the process, IMO. I've sat through many prayers & religious services I don't agree with, but felt no need to announce. Don't they say God knows what's in their hearts?
Aaaand, a new poll proves it: people believe in their own freedom of religion, but others? Not so much. something like 85% say "mine is good", while 65% say "other religions shouldn't be protected". Rather impressive, that they don't see the hypocrisy, lol.

Turtle · Dec 31, 2015

cheri1122 said:
If any of the members of the Council are non Christian, they have long demonstrated the kind of tolerance and respect for others that their Christian colleagues couldn't manage, because they [the non Christians] have never protested by refusing to enter the room until it's over.

Surely you aren't suggesting that those who went outside should have been forced to remain for the prayer, or worse, that they be criticized or condemned because they chose to go outside, are you? Like I said, people have a right to exercise their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion, or not exercise it as they see fit.

cheri1122 said:
I don't believe that simply being present constitutes 'participation' - that would seem to imply a bit more agency in the process, IMO. I've sat through many prayers & religious services I don't agree with, but felt no need to announce. Don't they say God knows what's in their hearts?

I have, too. I have the same ability to sit there politely and ignore what people are saying, whether it be religious in nature or anything else. That doesn't mean that I think others who lack that ability should be forced to hear something they do not wish to hear. If they don't want to sit there and participate, be it actively or passively, I'm fine with that.

cheri1122 said:
Aaaand, a new poll proves it: people believe in their own freedom of religion, but others? Not so much. something like 85% say "mine is good", while 65% say "other religions shouldn't be protected". Rather impressive, that they don't see the hypocrisy, lol.

Well, as a hypocrisy aficionado, I can tell you that that's not really hypocrisy. First, it's 82% and 61%, and it wasn't "other religions," it was Muslims specifically on the 61% end. Jews and even Mormon fared far better than Muslims. Because of this country's intertwined history with Christianity and Christians (chiefly founded and populated by, and evolved with largely the same morality), and because of the history Holy War battles between Christianity and Islam, it's more a case of survival and preservation than it is hypocrisy. Then, you have the phenomena where whatever you choose to believe, whether it's in God and Jesus, or in absolutely, positively no God at all, you're going to take the position that that's the only right way to believe and that others should believe likewise, and that your belief should be protected and not taken away from you. .Top that off with virtually every major religion teaching its adherents to be distrustful of non-believers, of believers of other religions, to be intolerant of them, and in many cases, to just flat kill them, and you have an us versus them mentality that only Bengals and Steelers fans can truly appreciate.

OntarioVanMan · Dec 31, 2015

cheri1122 said:
In Boise, Idaho, City Council has long preceded meetings with a prayer, led by a guest speaker. When a Buddhist was the guest recently, half a dozen members [all Republicans, FWIW] remained outside in protest, refusing to even listen to the prayer.
All those who demand freedom of religion need to consider the fact that it includes other religions, as well, or it's meaningless.

Well if those council members are uncomfortable about "sitting thru a Buddhist prayer" they should leave if they feel that strongly...surely that is a right as well....one should not feel compelled to to listen because there goes freedoms out the window....its a 2 way street. Personally in this situation I would just sit still and show some respect for other peoples religion and customs....but MY choice...

cheri1122 · Jan 1, 2016

Non Christians have sat quietly through Christian prayers for a very long time, without complaining of feeling "compelled to participate", but when the shoe is on the other foot, it's a different story. I call that hypocrisy, whatever the justification.
It doesn't matter whether the other religion is Muslim, Buddhism, or Pastafarianism - freedom of religion means one is no better [or worse] than another. If it doesn't, it means nothing at all. Christians in the US have enjoyed a long period of feeling like the only religion that matters, because: majority. But the demands for religious freedom are coming from other perspectives, now, and the responses are enlightening.

OntarioVanMan · Jan 1, 2016

cheri1122 said:
Non Christians have sat quietly through Christian prayers for a very long time, without complaining of feeling "compelled to participate", but when the shoe is on the other foot, it's a different story. I call that hypocrisy, whatever the justification.
It doesn't matter whether the other religion is Muslim, Buddhism, or Pastafarianism - freedom of religion means one is no better [or worse] than another. If it doesn't, it means nothing at all. Christians in the US have enjoyed a long period of feeling like the only religion that matters, because: majority. But the demands for religious freedom are coming from other perspectives, now, and the responses are enlightening.

darn straight its hypocrisy......especially for a people that partly settled this country to escape religious persecution!

Turtle · Jan 1, 2016

Hypocrisy is pretending to have virtuous character, or moral or religious beliefs, or principles, that you don't really have. It is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while in reality concealing your real character or inclinations, especially regarding religious and moral beliefs. Hypocrisy is sham.

It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. For example, if the members of the Boise City Council who went outside during a non-Christian prayer had previously criticized non-Christians for doing the same during a Christian prayer, that would be hypocrisy.

Just because others have sat quietly through Christian prayers in the past doesn't mean you're hypocritical if you choose not to do the same thing. You would have had to previously admonish the non-Christians to quietly sit tight and not to leave during the Christian prayer. You literally have to say one thing, taking the moral high ground, and do another. Refusing to do as the Romans do when in Rome is not hypocrisy. It might be a little rude, but it ain't hypocritical.