NoGodBlog.com

It's the religious bible thumpers we have as judges that permit such idiocy in our public, government schools which are *supposed* to be secular; because of our secular legal document, the Constitution.

I'm sure we can push it further up the chain and get a real ruling going on. So many stupid people in this country.

Dave,
Dispatch the lawyers. Thank you.

I'm not so sure Judge Cavanaugh was unbiased in this matter from the comments he made about showing respect and the possible equating of looking at one's shoes and bowing on'es head in prayer.

I agree that prayer is in no way secular.

The article states the coach is no longer going to join in prayer with the team, but will only bow his head or take a knee when the students engage in prayer.
It also states that the parent of a sudent threatened a lawsuit last fall if the prayer tradition continued, so some student must not be in agreement with the practice. Peer pressure, especially among members of a team is very strong.

It is fine for the coach to pray silently, and unobtrusively. But as a representative of the school, and thus, the state, I think he was out of line for bringing this legal action. It should have been brought by the students and their families who wanted to participate.

As I've stated before...one reaps what they sow.

I believe we're witnessing the pendulum begin it's swing the other way. America is tired of ONE person pushing their views on the majority.
Everyone better pray that another Supreme Court justice doesn't retire within the next 2 years...

Actually this ruling make lots of sense. Why would any state employee only give up one of five rights stated in the First Amendment?

Under state law, as the prevailing party in a lawsuit, Riccio is now entitled to ask that the court order East Brunswick Public Schools to pay his costs and legal fees. Riccio said he is considering making such an application.

I'm sure this is going to bother many on this board...

Anyone know how much Barry Lynn pulls in for his position? I wonder if he's ever had a real job...?

phreed,
I have a new stock answer for you:
EVOLVE OR FUCK OFF.
If you must know, the latest demographic #'s I've heard is that the proportion of atheists are GROWING in the US of A, from 8% to 15%. (sorry, it was on local radio and I'm still looking for the link) Now, I wouls assume that you would see thi growth in the 18-34 age bracket, since attendance to religious services had been declining up until 9-11.
You see, that's a real-world phyical example of Darwin's theory.
So I say to you again:
EVOLVE...
OR FUCK OFF!!!

Oh and Dave,
By dispatching the lawyers, I meant in the way Mr. Burns tells Smithers to "release the hounds"!
Perhaps dipatch was the wrong word...

godless77

phreed,
I have a new stock answer for you:
EVOLVE OR FUCK OFF.

Its novel, but something more substantive is what usually persuades. When I see comments as such, it only deflects anti-intellectual perception of atheist; not to mention a barbaric superior evolvement syndrome that I thought we got over decades ago.

I believe we're witnessing the pendulum begin it's swing the other way.

Really? It's all in your perspective I suppose.

America is tired of ONE person pushing their views on the majority.

All of America? Are you including non-christians in that statement? Who is this one person you are referring to?

Everyone better pray that another Supreme Court justice doesn't retire within the next 2 years...

A lot of hoping and wishing, maybe. Praying, definitely not. Hope you understand. ;-)

phreedm

America is tired of ONE person pushing their views on the majority.

Couldn't that be said of Bush with his veto of legislation that had at least 60% of popular support?

I didn't read this article thoroughly, but is the setup that people in positions of authority can participate in prayer if it's lead by students and could be considered a form of social pressure to conform to religious standards? While I don't think prayer is in any way secular, I'm not sure that coaches being allowed to participate in student led prayer is a constitutional infringement and I'm not sure that it's a slippery sloap to forced prayer. In other words, I'm not so sure that there's a clear connection to coaches participating in student led prayer to making the whole team pray. As long as there is choice, I don't have a problem with it. Am I misunderstanding on some fundamental level?

sloap = slope... d'oh!

phreedm

As I've stated before...one reaps what they sow.

Uh-huh. And you keep sowing the seeds of antagonism.

America is tired of ONE person pushing their views on the majority.

I would also like to know who this ONE person is.
From this side of the street, it feels like it's many people who wear crosses , who are pushing their views on the minorities.

phreedm
Sorry, some of my comment got left off for some reason...

As I've stated before...one reaps what they sow.

Uh-huh. And you keep sowing the seeds of antagonism.

America is tired of ONE person pushing their views on the majority.

I would also like to know who this ONE person is.
From this side of the street, it feels like it's many people who wear crosses , who are pushing their views on the minorities.

Under state law, as the prevailing party in a lawsuit, Riccio is now entitled to ask that the court order East Brunswick Public Schools to pay his costs and legal fees. Riccio said he is considering making such an application.



I'm sure this is going to bother many on this board...

What bothers me about it is that the article mentioned that the school district is already strapped.
Borden and Riccio certainly have the right under state law to make the district pay the legal fees. If Borden wants to bite off his nose to spite his face, he should go ahead and encourage his lawyer to push for it. I'm sure that when cutbacks have to be made, the football coaches will be retained, and they'll fire less important teachers, like in the English, Math and Science departments.

Comment from: godless77 [Member] • http://the-atheist-prophet.blogspot.com/
phreed,
I have a new stock answer for you:
EVOLVE OR FUCK OFF.
If you must know, the latest demographic #'s I've heard is that the proportion of atheists are GROWING in the US of A, from 8% to 15%. (sorry, it was on local radio and I'm still looking for the link) Now, I wouls assume that you would see thi growth in the 18-34 age bracket, since attendance to religious services had been declining up until 9-11.
You see, that's a real-world phyical example of Darwin's theory.
So I say to you again:
EVOLVE...
OR FUCK OFF!!!


Godless, what is your point? Evolve or fuck off? You don’t even have an education. In a scientific world you are useless. Atheists don’t want your stupid ass. You have nothing to offer. If you went to China they would harvest your organs. I have a degree and a meaningful career. What do you have, high blood pressure, high body fat? What do you have to offer our world? Evolutionists believe that people are only here to use up the world’s resources as quickly as possible before they die. That is it. No philosophy, nothing. In a truly scientific world you are worthless. Godless, I say fuck you and your fairy friends. I also say learn who Darwin is and what his beliefs were. His belief in evolution which has not been proven did not change his belief in God. The death of his daughter did that. His daughter’s death made him agnostic not atheist. You see, you tell other people to evolve but you have no intelligence. You are a contradiction.
You want to find out what our atheist population is and you can’t find it. You are an idiot. If anyone is interested, go to the United States state department site.

To the guy that said atheists have a superiority complex, I am confused. All of the atheists I have known were dirty punk rockers, out of shape nerds, and fags. When did you guys feel superior?

In closing,

Godless you stupid piece of shit, fuck you and all atheists.

If the coach wants to prey it’s his business. If the players want to prey it’s their business. If the majority of the team or school wants to prey, it’s their purgative. They are not going to let one stupid atheist kid who has been brain washed by his parents not allow them to prey. As long as the coach or school does not force them to join, it’s okay. Once you let one or two people decide the freedoms of the majority, we cease to live in a democracy. Does that sink in? Or, do you think I have the right to San Francisco for allowing people to be openly gay in the Castro district because it offends me. If I don’t like it I can leave or not participate. If a few people don’t want to participate in prayers that’s fine, but the majority is not going to suffer.


Stop acting like a bunch of hypocrites and deal with it.

Javier, you sound frantic and afraid.

Sweet! The entertainment is here!

Javier, it pretty obvious what your doing here. I don't think anyone is buying it. It's so juvenile it's laughable.

Javier

Godless you stupid piece of shit, fuck you and all atheists.

You pray to Jesus with that dirty mouth of yours? You need to remember who you represent when you communicate with others. No wonder atheists detest Christians.

Everybody
Please don't feed the troll!!!

Karen wrote:
Everybody
Please don't feed the troll!!!

Good advice. I was going to comment on one or two things, but really, it wouldn't be worth the effort.

I haven't read the article, but I agree with Spanders: I don't see how a coach/teacher/etc volontarily participating in a volontary student-led prayer would lead to forced prayer any more or less than if it were just the students doing it.

Symok (Lover of Knowledge)

Symok sad:
I haven't read the article, but I agree with Spanders: I don't see how a coach/teacher/etc volontarily participating in a volontary student-led prayer would lead to forced prayer any more or less than if it were just the students doing it.

It's called ostracism. If you don't participate, how can you be part of "the team"?
Oh javier, you did exactly what I thought you would do; show that you are incapable of evolving.
Thank you for proving my point.

Symok
I think that the coach's, or any other school representative's participation in the activity seems to put the official stamp of approval on the whole deal---which would be a violation of the establishment clause.

Also, if only the students are involved, it is clear that it is a student-led activity.

It has been my experience that once a school official becomes involved, the student leadership takes a back seat and sometimes disappears completely.

A Atheist said:
When I see comments as such, it only deflects anti-intellectual perception of atheist; not to mention a barbaric superior evolvement syndrome that I thought we got over decades ago.
As you can see, the barbarians are those like javier.
I only sought to provoke their true emotional state with a simple, catchy slogan. It usually works, and I'm not disappointed with the results.
You see what the response was with our lab trollrats, do you not?

Godless, you are an idiot.
Karen do you know with the establishment clause. I don't think you know what it is. If you do, you are using it out of context. So please explain how the establishment clause pertains to this.
I'm dying to hear your imagination in action.

godless77

You see what the response was with our lab trollrats, do you not?

I saw the response. It was disappointing. The problem is that sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish witch one is the lab trollrat.

Javier,
If you pray, then how come you can't spell the word?
Oh that's right, you've chosen to NOT evolve.
See this is what you don't understand. Evolution is a necessity for survival of a species. Sure, the way we categorize species does not reflect that, but if Darwin's studies of Galapagos' comparisons with the related species in South America prove anything is that evolution is an adaptation to environment. I.E. opposable thumbs and bipedalism were adaptations from primate to human because the new species (of the same genus) because the new adaptation could not survive if it did not make these adaptations.
And this is why you xinas are doomed.
You are incapable of the adaptation to the modern world.
Neanderthal that you are, pumping dumbells all the time.

A-Atheist:

Its novel, but something more substantive is what usually persuades.

I'm pretty sure you're new here. Most of us here try to get along w/most xtian posters, & if approached w/some degree of respect, most here return it. Constant bombardment from such as phreddy & mr. I-have-a-degree-&-2%-body-fat wears thin the nerves & skin.

When I see comments as such, it only deflects anti-intellectual perception of atheist; not to mention a barbaric superior evolvement syndrome that I thought we got over decades ago.

Stick around for a few months: I guarantee you'll be shocked at some of the things xtians post here.
& then WE get accused of being intolerant.
It sets the teeth on edge, it does.

Jack-oier said:
Evolutionists believe that people are only here to use up the world’s resources as quickly as possible before they die.
Wrong. That's the messianic, apocalype obsessed christians who do this.
You know them. They're your PASTORS and CLERGY.

It's really better not to respond to the troll. He will talk to himself without any responses. If we talk back, he takes over the entire blog.

Starve the troll.

karen:

Starve the troll.

Hey, I say anyone who wants trollboy gone, should email David.

RA
Last time I emailed Dave about the subject, he just posted a comment here admonishing us not to feed the varmints. My guess was he expected us to act like the grownups we are.
If we do ignore the misspelling little sh*t, and he still causes trouble, maybe then we can appeal to Dave to expel him. But if we can't ALL quit feeding him, maybe we deserve to have him around. :P

A-Atheist,
RA is right. It doen't take very long for some neanderthal fucktard like Javi to grate on you.
You will find that they're flat out unreasonable. So you end up getting snarky.
Then you find out they have NO sense of humor!
After that, you end up defending yourself on a website that's suppoed to be dedicated to Atheism, for Atheism.
And they do it because they fear us and what we represent in their narrow view of the world.
Think about this; what do the x-tinas think the end of the world means to them? Is it the actual end of the world?
No. It's the end of their global dominance with lies, propaganda and fairy tales.
Humanity IS evolving. The existence and durability of science is proof itself.
Evolution is knowledge, which is the foundation of science.
Javier can't even compreehnd this without threatening someone.
Like a neanderthal.
And he is normal for the trollrats we get on here.
They're our little science experiment.
Go run the treadmill javi. Look at that wheel go! Whheeee!

I certainly don't want to feed the troll, but this is just hilarious:

"If the coach wants to prey it’s his business. If the players want to prey it’s their business"

Javier probably says the same thing about those Catholic kiddie fiddlers. It's their business if they want to "prey".

Nodster said:
Javier probably says the same thing about those Catholic kiddie fiddlers. It's their business if they want to "prey".
I aaume you really mean molested.
I'm confused though. Is molestation condoned by the church or not?
Oh wait, that would mean they'd have to PRACTICE what they preach.
Never mind...

Karan,The trollrats will attack us anyway. I mean, you didn't say anything antagonistic and javi-poo did a number on you.
So. we might as well have some fun with our labrat before they get banned or whatever...

godless77
javi's attack on me was bait to try to get me to stoop to his level, which I ignored. Later, he made an appeal to try to get me to explain a controversial issue---also bait, which I will also ignore.
"Having fun" with him only encourages him to stick around a d keep trying to get a rise out of any and everyone.

Putting him down requires no skill, so what fun is there in that? It's somewhat amusing watching him trip over himself all the time. But it was ever so much more pleasant when he left for about a week. We were able to converse uninterrupted by drivel till he found his way back..

Starve him, I say! Starve him!!!

Actually, I think gluttony is the answer. Feed him until he explodes, and ends up trolling truckstops for gay sex.

Comment from: Tommy_godLess

Who is this one person you are referring to?

Hmmm...did you read the article?

The parent of an East Brunswick High School student threatened to sue the district last October if it did not prevent Borden from praying with the football team. As a result, the district restated its school-prayer guidelines. Other districts in Middlesex County followed suit shortly thereafter.

In just about everyone of these cases it boils down to ONE person. Take the cross in San Diego. One atheist.

I believe you're all misunderstanding my commments. I've stated many times it's AA's tactics. Using the courts to force their views (typical liberal move) instead of trying to educate and be positive...

I want to put in my two cents worth on the subject of "Secular Prayer". Dave says there is no such thing. I disagree. I remember right after the Ninth Circuit decision on god in the pledge case, Sen. Hatch said on the news that there was no constitutional violation of the establishment clause when one says a secular prayer.

I found that statement coming from a Republican very illuminating. What in the world is a "Secular Prayer"? A prayer to a secular god? If a christian prayer is to the christian god and a jewish prayer is to the jewish god, then a secular prayer must be to a secular god.

So the next question is where do we find this secular god and which organization prays to him/her? I went to the most holy of all holies. The US$. And sure enough, I saw that trusting the secular god was our national motto.

Obviously, the Holy US$ is our secular god. And who prays to the Holy US$. I don't know, just about everyone I know.

Who prays to the christian god? Well, I never heard of a single christian minister, priest, reverend, etc. who did. Everyone I ever heard of prays only to the Holy US$.

Why else would every single religious organization in the US and everywhere else in the universe demand that everything they do and everything they own be conducted tax free? Why because the only god they worship is the Holy US$ or the Golden Calf or the Holy British Pound, etc, etc, etc.

So yes Dave, there is a Secular God, not only is there such an animal, but I establish that the Secular God is the one and only god worshiped in this nation. I mean really, what else would a Republican worship -- but money and all the power it buys.

Using the courts to force their views (typical liberal move) instead of trying to educate and be positive...

Another misconception of the 3 branches propagated by talk radio idiots. The courts determine constitutionality, legislation doesn't.

Segregation was righted by court force, while legislation was fighting for the status quo.

Do I really need to go over this w/ you again?

Seriously phreedm,

What is it you despise about the judiciary having a check on legislation?

"Educate"? Phreedy, would that be the same education that the church has been SOOO enthusiastic about since pre-dark ages? In fact, it was the church's "enthusiasm" about education that prompt some folks to conclude (including myself) that the chuch actually caused the dark ages by witholding literacy. So much for education. Anyway, back to the topic. So the whole team "preys" now? I wonder if it will help their record. And exactly what will the losing team say to god? Perhaps a little "Guess Who" quote would be good locker room fodder...

(screaming) "And where was god!!??"

mxracer652, I can theorize that in the early 80's, god favored Aliquippa over Ambridge :(

preedm

I believe you're all misunderstanding my commments. I've stated many times it's AA's tactics. Using the courts to force their views (typical liberal move) instead of trying to educate and be positive...

I think this is a blatantly silly statement. The courts rule on a question of law. One cannot use a court to 'force' any view unless it is the law of the land.

It matters not one hoot whether the law or ruling in question is seen as 'liberal' or 'conservative'. In fact those terms are each only relative to the observer. What one person might deem prgressive, another might consider regressive.

Give it up phreedm, it's a lost cause.

I just keep wondering how all the students and teachers would feel if and when a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. joins the team. Will they be cool with this student leading the prayer?

How about when the atheist leads it? My "secular" prayer includes this: "the monarch of the skies will be dethroned -- the flames of hell will be extinguished. Pious beggars will become honest and useful men. Hypocrisy will collect no tolls from fear, lies will not be regarded as sacred..." (source: somewhere on the net, author unkown to me).

After all, that student will have the same right to share his prayer with everyone else.

I really want to continue to challenge these things this way. Ok, prayer is ok, well, we get the right to voice our view also. It has to be all inclusive, where everyone gets a chance, or they WILL be in violation of our laws.

I recently applied to our city council to lead the "opening prayer" for their council meetings. They recently passed a resolution restricting what could be said - I guess a few wonderful ministers took it a bit too far! I haven't heard back from them yet...the response will be intersting. I plan to use the "prayer" above.

Will they ever stop? It seems Americans want to be like the muslims. Pretty soon you'll everyone carrying carpets with them so they get down on their knees with a wide open mouth and pray every 30 mins to the billion dollar church "God"

What happen to praying in church, before meals, the simple old days.

These folks now want to pray before they sit on the toilet, brush there teeth, drive the car to work, before they start class, hell why don't they just sit home and pray all day.

I wish these idiots put all their energy to something more productive.

World peace, end hunger, fight for something for the better of mankind.

Excuse the bad grammer, was up late watching evil heavy metal bands...lol

Once you let one or two people decide the freedoms of the majority, we cease to live in a democracy

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this country has never been a Democracy. We live in a constitutional Republic. A true Democracy will always fail due to majority rule. Unfortunately, it is human nature to make decision based on personally benefits and not the benefits to society. On the other hand I feel Phree. Has a point about AA needing to concentrate more on education than lawsuits. I feel that suing over religious displays on public lands and some school prayer instances tends to embolden the religious right. Look at how outraged most people were when they shut off that valedictorian’s microphone during her speech. Sometimes I think that this may have a negative effect. I wonder how many individuals were rightfully questioning their faith until they read about some of these lawsuits. I can imagine many then become more entangled in Christianity. I think that legal action needs to be kept to major violations and not ones that can be considered resting in gray areas. If we concentrate on education, eventually you wouldn’t have to worry about the displays because most people would find them laughable.

***** Off Topic *****

I was listening to Sean Hannity (I know, Know) Last week and he was at his “Freedom” Fest. There was an individual there that commented that we need to back Israel, because the US and Israel are the only two countries whose founding documents and a covenant with God. I nearly choke on my drink. Apparently, he is part of a movement that is attempting to prove the US is a Christian nation, by using historical quotes. Here is their site http://www.americandestiny.com/our_story.htm this kind of stuff is what I feel we need to be fighting against. The misinformation groups like this spreads harms the secularity (not sure if that is a word) more than a two bit high school football coach.

Solider

Who were you watching ? Did you head out to a show ? Unholy Alliance ?
Ozzfest ? Just wondering if we have the same taste in music ?

phreedm

In just about everyone of these cases it boils down to ONE person. Take the cross in San Diego. One atheist.

Yes, one person, but not the SAME person. And there are many, many more of us who have the same objections. Sadly, many still feel too threatened to make their views known openly.

If the tables were turned, would you feel comfortable with us saying that it always come down to ONE Christian who wants to pray publicly?

It would be wonderful if AA could spend its time, energy and resources on education, instead of constantly trying to stem the tide of oppression. In what ways could you envision that happening where you wouldn't feel threatened?

Phreedm,
I was simply asking for a clarification on your statement of "America is tired of ONE person pushing their views on the majority." To me this sounded more of a general statement than just a reference to the article. Sometimes meaning gets lost from our brains to our written words, so I asked for clarification on what you meant, since what you wrote was not clear to me. In return it sounds like I'm being accused of not reading the article? Hmmm. Is that right, or should I ask for clarification on that? :-)

In just about everyone of these cases it boils down to ONE person. Take the cross in San Diego. One atheist.

It only takes just one person to stand up and ask for the right thing to be done. I don't see this as being an issue, even if I don't necessarily agree with the position.

Using the courts to force their views (typical liberal move) instead of trying to educate and be positive...

Did I mis-read the article or did the (religious) coach sue the school district?

"In a court ruling with national implications, East Brunswick High School football coach Marcus Borden won his lawsuit against the school district yesterday, and will now be permitted to participate in team prayer."

Looks like both sides are doing it. So I must disagree with the "typical liberal move" assertion.

How dare this coach use the courts to force his views (typical conservative move) instead of trying to educate and be positive...

How dare people ask the courts to interpret the law! We should just get rid of the courts.

Yes, that is extremely thick sarcasm.

I can theorize that in the early 80's, god favored Aliquippa over Ambridge

I think they both got screwed, and I've lived in both zip codes.

I did have an opportunity to work in Greenville...but turned it down.

Comment from: godless77 [Member] · http://the-atheist-prophet.blogspot.com/
Nodster said:
Javier probably says the same thing about those Catholic kiddie fiddlers. It's their business if they want to "prey".
I aaume you really mean molested.
I'm confused though. Is molestation condoned by the church or not?
Oh wait, that would mean they'd have to PRACTICE what they preach.
Never mind...




Hey atheists are homosexual pedaphiles and rapists. Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacey, Ted Bundy, etc. etc. etc..... Jeffery Dahmer found God after he was in prison not when he was druging underage boys and having sex with their corpse.

Godless I like how you used the eight grade definition of evolution. If you went to school past the sixth grade, you would know that Darwin's evolution theory is not used any more by evolutionists in its traditional sense because it is wrong.

Do you even know how Darwin thought evolution occured? If my arms were to short to reach an apple, my arms would stretch and grow to reach it.
It's funny, you're talking about evolving and your still stuck in ancient evolutionary theories.

If you people are so smart, why don't you correct guys like this.

After god led Jeffery Dahmer through the pearly gates, he turned and said, "Who's next?"

Javier cried out, "Pick me, pick me!"

Alas poor javier, he sees neither the irony nor humor in the word play concerning prey versus pray.

When he writes

If the coach wants to prey it’s his business. If the players want to prey it’s their business. If the majority of the team or school wants to prey, it’s their purgative.

it conjures up images of xian figures preying on defenceless students. I'm sure he meant pray but unfortunately his grasp on the Queen's English has once again failed him miserably and endowed him with the appearance of a fool.

HZ
The aforementioned fool is endowed with much more than just the appearance thereof.

what's a purgative?

what bulimic does.

Oh, and an FYI for Peter....



I've always referred to it as the ALMIGHTY, ALL POWERFUL, ALL KNOWING DOLLAR! ALL HAIL

Bones
A "purgative" helps you throw up when you've consumed too much after "preying".

I think it's something bulimics do--binge then purgatively purge.

Karen-your answer is definetly superior to mine.

I have a question, and it may not be all that sound, but will mention it anyway and hope for thoughtful answers.

If such institutions, such as education, were originally in the realm of family and the church in our culture, and not under the jurisdiction of the state, wouldn't the origins of public education be an intrusion and violation by the state of the separation principles?

In other words, does separation of church and state work both ways, so to speak?

bones,

what's a purgative?

from dictionary.com

Purgative adj.
Tending to cleanse or purge, especially causing evacuation of the bowels.

I guess it is something a xian coach would do after preying on a team of students.

Of course it might, just might, be an illiterate fool's attempt at writing prerogative.

Tim
SOCAS should work both ways, in answer to the rephrasing of your question.

The original question is cumbersome and I'm not sure I understand it, or that it means what you rephrased it as.
Could you try again?

I like Karen's definitionn the best. That's kinda how I feel when I pray......





tgleeson:
I think it works both ways. Private religious schools must meet minimum state standards, but I'm unaware of other curriculum restrictions.

I'm aware of a few "unaccredited" private religious schools that operate outside state standards. I was told by one parent that her daughter must take standardized tests to verify her progress. She also indicated that Katie will have a completely different process to apply for college, since her high school records are from a non-accredited school.

tgleeson@eoni.com,

If I understand you question correctly you are asking: if we accept that schools in the US were originally founded and managed by churches, then at what point and by what law did the government take over their direction?

Please correct me if I am misstating your case.

Is the premise valid? Did the church originally control education? I don't know to what extent this is true. Certainly the church controlled a fair proportion of education.

Secondly, the church still controls a fair portion of the educational institutions in the US.

Third, Even if the church did have exclusive control in days of old, there is nothing to prevent the state from providing secular educational institutions that complement or compete with the church establishments.

In short, were it a take over of religious schools by the state, you might well have a point, but since it at least appears to be two parallel tracts I suspect the question is moot.

Karen,

Thanks, let me try again, and rephrase the question.

If such institutions as education were in the domain of privacy which I believe to be the case in the origins of our society, was the intrusion by the state to make education public a violation of the separation principles when that occurred? In other words, do the separation priciples restrict government intrusion in private affairs as well as private intrusion in public affairs? (Not sure the rephrase is any better)

Tim
I don't think I could answer any better than HeatheNZ did. See especially his third point and the conclusion to his comment.

Churches certainly have the right to establish educational institutions based on their principles. But they don't have exclusive rights to education itself.

HeathNZ

I am not sure either, as to the extent of Church control of education, but do think it was very significant since public education didn't exist.

Is it a violation of separation when the government tells a private school what standards it demands, when it coerces private individuals who pay for private schooling to fund public schools as well? Just wondering your thoughts?

****OFF TOPIC ******** HUMOR***

anyone need a giggle?




Stolen headline:

Church camp shuts down after outbreak of gastroenteritis bring a whole new meaning to holy crap

http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2006/07/27/news/wyoming/f2762ba12eed1a4b872571b70003e5d9.txt

Karen,

I apprecite HeatheNZ response as well.

But, who decides when something is indeed exclusively private (as was education originally)or something is public. Isn't that what separation is all about? Wasn't the original decision to make educaton public a gross power grab by the Gov. and a violation of separation?

Change of subject.

I saw that the latest Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines religion as: (paraphrase) Any strongly held ideology that explains existence.

I find it interesting that it doesn't mention the notion that one must believe in God or Gods. What do you think?

prey that was a typo. The conversation in here is lacking intelligence. It is pointless to carry on conversation with people who are unarmed to engage in a mental battle.

Who in here is endanger of a heart attack when they have sex?
I would like to speak with you because you would know what you are talking about since you have the problem. Do you have a form of angina, an arrhythmia, a damaged valve, let me know. I would like to discuss this with you.

Most of these things can be fixed or managed to where they are no longer a significant threat. It really depends on how far your healthcare provider will go to protect you.

Anyways, if you want to talk about it feel free to leave me a message.

Secular prayer? Now there's an oxymoron I haven't heard before. Good one!
I thought prayer had been banned from public schools, no matter who is leading it.

For the record, I agree with the court's decision on this one. All the court is saying here is that the coach is allowed to silently acknowledge the prayer. Whether or not said-prayer is valid in the first place is a DIFFERENT issue.

There's a huge difference between the coach leading a prayer, or perhaps requiring others to be in the student-lead prayer, etc.

Oh, and I always hate the slippery-slope shit. Judge an issue by the facts at hand, not what such a ruling could potentially be. For example, allowing gay marriage does not necessarily mean that polygamy or animal-marriage will be legal next.

Bones
I feel bad for all the kids.
Guess the adults forgot to "prey" for holy water. Lots of "preying" to the porcelain gods.


Tim
I don't know who decides. But something that is supposedly for "everyone" would be a public commodity, by definition, I'd think.

As for the original decision, I'd have to look it up. Not really familiar w/it.

Is it a violation of separation when the government tells a private school what standards it demands, when it coerces private individuals who pay for private schooling to fund public schools as well?

You asked HZ these Q's, but I'll ring in. As to standards, the govt has to let the private schools know what their students will be competing with, and what expectations will have to be met when they go to institutes of higher learning, or if they transfer at any time from private to public institutions. There has to be some level of consistency across the board for students to receive an on par education. We're talikng about minimum standards here. Privatized schools can add whatever they desire. It's like building codes. Would you object to the govt. enforcing the same building codes on churches, or do you want to let churches be built to any standards?
I don't see it as a violation of SOCAS.
I'm not certain, but I don't think the govt. has any involvement in education within the Amish community. They are a self-contained
community, and tend to stay that way. See the difference?

As for coercing the funding of public schools, I assume you mean by paying taxes.
Public schools are for everyone. They are built for you whether you choose to use them or not. Just as roads are.
If you choose to bypass the public school and pay to go to a private school, that is your choice. You are not being coerced into anything. You never know if someday you might need that public school.

Educating the general populace is good for the country as a whole. Paying taxes to provide education is worth it avoid having uneducated masses unable to self-support. That is why everyone pays for public schools-even folks with no kids, even folks whose kids are all grown, even folks who pay to have their kids go to private schools.

Tim,

Regarding the imposition of educational standards.

It's my understanding that the standards set are requirements to be accredited by the state.

As Bones stated earlier, she is aware of a few non-accredited religious schools. I assume this means that they have chosen not to abide by the state standards. This of course causes issues when assessing the academic performance of graduates from such institutions.

So it's not so much an imposition of standards as setting a minimum bar to be considered equivalent to a state school. The decision to play ball is dictate by the priorities and perceptions of the prospective students (or their parents).

Tim

Wasn't the original decision to make educaton public a gross power grab by the Gov. and a violation of separation?

The question as stated is demonstrably a misrepresentation of the current situation by virtue of the fact that both private and public education have, and continue to, exist side by side.

Lightning: homosapien/non homosapien marriage is a moot point, because a legal contract between the two is not recognized due to insufficient mental capacity. Contracts involving minors or those deemed mentally incompetent are also not recognized. I don't know why the gay marriage=pedophilia/b_eastiality crowd doesn't recognize this.

sorry, for feeding the beast....

prey that was a typo.

Exactly the same typo in three consecutive sentences. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

The conversation in here is lacking intelligence.

and were javier to take his comments to a xian fundy site it would raise the average intelligence level of both sites considerably.

Tim
I couldn't find the definition you were talking about in Merriam Webster online.
Do you have a link, or can you cut and paste the actual definition rather than a paraphrase?
I find it hard to believe that it would be limited to "Any strongly held ideology that explains existence."

mxracer652:

Lightning: homosapien/non homosapien marriage is a moot point, because a legal contract between the two is not recognized due to insufficient mental capacity. Contracts involving minors or those deemed mentally incompetent are also not recognized. I don't know why the gay marriage=pedophilia/b_eastiality crowd doesn't recognize this.

Exactly, one single different facet totally changes the issue. That's why a court ruling should always be specific to only the specific facts for the specific case.

Allowing this coach to silently join the prayers does not mean suddenly teachers can lead school prayer. Similarly, the silently-praying coach cannot now force other kids to join in.

Tim,

Religion is a loaded term that to some extent is contextual. Take the following definitions from dictionary.com

Religion:
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Given the above one could legitimately call baseball or fishing a religion. Of course, in the context of discussions of the supernatural this is not a useful definition. Likewise when discussing a religious baseball fan it's not very useful to restrict one' self to a definition concerning demons, angels and gods.

Karen, the PA Amish schools are subject to the state's requirement of number of days a student must attend, length of their school day, as well as when a student's education is complete. I don't know if the state has any control over curriculum. However, I do know that Amish children are not taught English at home. They learn English at school. If you speak to an Amish toddler, chances are s/he will not be able to respond unless they're particulary ambitious and pick up a smattering of English on their own. This is not forbidden.

Thank you all for your responses regarding the separation issue.

It still seems somewhat arbitrary as to what and who gets violated in the separation issues. Most of the above reasons for public education were pragmatic ones and not based on philsophic consistency regarding the separation concepts. Certainly one can easily discredit our public schools (pragmatic argument)in that they are failing--look who the masses elected for president.

Also, it seems like most of the "good for society" arguments send a red flag to me, just as a Christian would argue praying in school is "good for the society".

It would be nice to have better evidence and reason on both sides of the education and religious separation issues, don't you think?

Tim -- "Separation" refers to church and state. Check your first amendment -- something to the effect of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The state(s) can support schools, libraries, highways, etc., but not churches.

I'm not sure that education was originally "exclusively private," as you claim. Was Thomas Jefferson's University of Virginia supported, at least in part, by taxpayers of Virginia?

Tim,

Certainly one can easily discredit our public schools (pragmatic argument)in that they are failing--look who the masses elected for president.

Not that I disagree with you conclusion, but I feel it's only fair to point out that the Shrub went to Andover High School, which I understand to be one of the most exclusive private high schools in the land.

Will take correction on this as my source is Kitty Kelley.

Incidently the Shrub hated it and was a sub-par student.

cry4turtles
Thanks for the info. I was thinking of curriculum. Length of day and number of days, etc, did not even occur to me, but are certainly something to be considered. School schedules are a hot button item around here, as a matter of fact.

I wonder if the school days and lengths of the year are regulated in part to keep the children from working the farms too much? That seems like govt. interference if so.

And I wonder how well the Amish do with admittance to college? Are their doctors and vets and such not degreed professionals? Or do they venture outside the community for services now?

-look who the masses elected for president.

Elected?
Ahem.
Not the way I remember it...

Tim

Most of the above reasons for public education were pragmatic ones and not based on philsophic consistency regarding the separation concepts.

It may just be my take on it, but it seems to me that SOCAS IS very pragmatic. Not sure what else you were looking for.

Also, it seems like most of the "good for society" arguments send a red flag to me, just as a Christian would argue praying in school is "good for the society".
Well, let the masses go uneducated for a while, and you will have plenty of evidence of the "good" education had been doing. There is no such evidence for prayer.

It would be nice to have better evidence and reason on both sides of the education and religious separation issues, don't you think?

Evidence of what? Reason for what?

Doesn't the government require schooling of children through a certain age? If not at the federal level, at least at the state level. I seem to remember we still have a few truant officers around, and you can still be prosecuted for NOT educating your child (although it rarely happens).

Given this requirement, isn't the government obligated to provide education for all? Without strings, including religious ones?

And, the government has not prevented religious schools from continuing or popping up and replacing the public schools with their version of a well-rounded education. Yes, they must meet standards, but that does leave a lot of room for these shools to focus on other things as well.

To me, it means you are REQUIRED to educate your child, but you can CHOOSE how that child is educated. As for cost, I don't know of one religious school that doesn't offer scholarships for those unable to afford the cost of attending.

As for how to fix the public schools --- two words. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT. The impact of involved parents makes more of a difference than sending millions and millions of dollars into our school systems.

Bones

As for how to fix the public schools --- two words. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT.

RAMEN, sistah! Ramen.

Not to mention, STUDENT and PARENT ACCOUNTABILITY.

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

Ramen, too!

True story of my teaching yesteryear days:

We had one 2nd-grade student who was very behind in her reading. During the teacher-parent meeting, the teacher asked the parent to help the child by reading with her every night.

The parent's response:

"That's your job."

Lighning Lucci

"That's your job."
Sad, but oh, so true.

I have one teacher friend, who if confronted with that statement, would reply, "OK, what time do you want ME to show up at YOUR house and read with YOUR child at HOME at NIGHT?" And she would absolutely go to that kid's house and read. She has shamed several parents into doing more with their kids.

She offered to come early or stay late to teach a 7th grader to read. Even offered to pick him up or drive him home or to come to his house to tutor him for free. The student wanted it, but the parents refused, because if other kids found out, they'd give him a hard time.

Tim,

You do seem a little confused about what exactly the SOCAS separates. Its Religion and State (specifically giving state preference to one religion or religion generally is the establishment clause problem).

This, however, has no bearing on the extent to which the state can regulate "private" activity. They can regulate nearly any conduct (with some important exceptions, obviously). In the coach's case the free exercise of his own religion was the exception being argued. It was not that the school had a right to have the prayer or allow the coach to be involved, etc. It was his personal right to exercise religion. Often your personal freedoms must be limited when you are acting on behalf of the state (or in this case the football team of a state-run school).

Which part of the Constitution trumps the other part? It looks like this judge thinks that, as long as its a silent non-leading acknowledgment (taking a knee) of the prayer, its ok.

Even if I would decide the case differently, I am not too worried about it because it is not getting appealed and will not be very precedential.

Another example of how the SOCAS doesn't stop government regulation of private activity .... the government can claim the land a church sits on (pay the church for it) and sell it to someone else.

Perhaps a nice library?

Semi-related teaching story:

A new teacher I had in 5th grade, required me to get a letter signed by my parents (as proof that they were aware that I hadn't done my homework). I didn't bring the letter for a couple days and she threatened to come to my house (I didn't believe her). When she finally showed up to talk to my parents, I was mortified and did what she said after that. The classes were mixed 5th and 6th grade and every time she threated to show up at someone's house she would use me as an example that she really would.

It worked, everyone believed that she would. It was so