Atheist Teen Forces School to Remove Prayer

There is no doubt the reaction is worse. In the end it is just a banner, and she is just a kid.

 

The constitution says govt shall stay away from religion, period. The constitution doesnt say govt should just stay away from religious practice that is offensive.
I dont get this accusation of her being intolerant. She simply enforced her constitutional right.
On the social effects of her action, first, many here agree with it. Second, the sort of negative response to atheists due to her action is precisely, IMHO, the prejudice to be fixed in this country. Over the years, too many practices with ovet or covet religious implications repugnant to the constitution has gotten into our system. Aside from this is a slippery slope, it also gives a sense of entitlement for that kind of practices. Govt stays away from religion means just that, regardless whether its offensive. Those who say she should chill is precisely why she shouldnt. For that, I commend her action.

 

That is rather disturbing. Is a bizarre way people who are threatning her and calling her evil are simply justifying her actions in the first place.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

That applies to congress and to public office - but definitely doesn't cover this scenario. So you can't claim constitutional rights or anything here.

The question is this. Does the school by having this banner up establish a religion for the school or make it a test for attendance in any way shape or form.

You could argue either way. Meaning its not clear.

For me, I look at what was written and see it as a universal truth - that anyone, including atheists can embrace. But I think I don't appose the decision of the courts. I think they were right in their decision.

What I am bothered by is the decision to even push back against this banner - whose value is far beyond that of religion or god. It's a great message to kids, and a disservice to take such wisdom away.

That said, the reaction against her is shameful - threats and calling her evil is quite disturbing.

 

The message of the banner is of no consequence. It's the school action that is at issue here.
As for the meaning of constituion, the sole arbitration of the interpretation of the constitution lies with the supreme court. The juriprudence embodied in Enengel, schempt
wallace, lee, doe, umambigiously established that school prayer is impermissible in public school.
If this is just attendance reminder, then remove all the religious implication. There is no need using a super nature for thar purpose. In all likelihood, this is not the purpose intended by the school, because else it would have esaily complied with Jessica or aclu'S request.

 

This isn't an issue of school prayer. They are not meeting every day praying in front of the banner. It's just a banner than hangs there as a cultural legacy and part of the history of the school for 40+ years.

You can't just doctor someone's creation. It was in fact a gift to the school.

And while the supreme court is charged with interpreting the constitution, interpretations change and their current history regarding separation of church and state isn't clear in this instance (and many others).

 

However you want to call it, its not the label that matters. Its the corercive effect of the banner that underlies this line of courts rulings.

I am not so sure I uderstand your last sentence rearding constitution. I think your statement holds true to any common law system. Is it possible to interpret the constitution under the logics of originalists? But Many of us would agree with that as alreay espoused repeatedly here.

 

I meant .... is it possible? sure, but many of us would not agree.

 

It's a murky area. Even constitutional lawyers would agree.

I am all for taking religion out of school. No moment of prayers, no intelligent design, nothing like that.

But in this instance, I just can't see how things are being taken to an extreme with this banner. It's a bit much. This is about principle over substance. A technicality. There is no coercion going on here.

That said, the threats against the girl are shameful and despicable. The right reaction would be to try to understand why she has a problem with a banner that has such a great message - beyond the fact that "heavenly father" and "amen" are used.

It does sounds like she has something against Christianity more than anything.

 

And this is equal to slavery?

Rocket River.

 

You have to love the fact that on one hand you have folks whining with "why does she care? It's not a big deal". While on the other hand, this kid has been the focus of more venom from theists than even I imagined someone would get for upholding their right to be free from religion in a government funded institution.

So it obviously is a big deal to a lot of folks

 

Controversial, maybe, but I dont see how it is murky. The direction the court is going is pretty clear that school should stay away from messages with religious overtone however slight it may be. I am

The ruling has to stand on the coercive effect of the banner, though. While the reaction is pretty nasty, there is freedom of speech. You may not find the banner coerces one to religion. Indeed, whether it is coercive depends one's ssubjective sensitivity, but many of us found the girl is reasonable in claiming she felt coerced by the banner. The court agreed.

 

You are not getting the point. Is it equal to slavery? Is it equal to blacks having to sit at the back of the bus? What about a private company deciding they do not want to hire blacks? A school not wanting blacks? What about taking down a sign at a water fountain that says "colored" or "negro".

I understand your point, concerning the possible will of the minority being pressed on the majority..... just really think it out and consider the consequences... that same line of thinking has justified many things that people would now agree are wrong.

I am not telling you what to think, just be aware that it is a slippery slope.

 

I come from A semi religious family, my mom is catholic and goes to sunday mass. I myself, believe in god but am not of a certain faith.

i wouldnt have raised a fuss, but lets be real: there is a "moment of silence"' and not a "moment of prayer" for a reason.

Seperation between church and state.

Doesnt get much clearer than that.

the school should have known better, the girl was in the right and thats why the school had to cover the banner.

there shouldnt be a debate here, this is what private school is for.

 

Every time i see this thread, i read the title as Atheist Team....

and i think, wait, we're a team now? I thought the whole point was to remain steadfast iconoclasts...

But i digress.

Carry on.

 

I haven't read the thread but good for her.

It is amazing that in 'the year of our lord 2012' people are still fighting with words, stones, guns or bombs over a bunch of dang fairy tales.

Nor Jesus nor Allah nor Mohammed nor Yahweh nor Buddha nor Vishnu nor Moses nor Zeus nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster would appreciate these fights, debates, arguments or wars at all as they entirely miss the point of peace, love and understanding.

On second thought Yahweh probably would. He always was a jealous baby.

 

Oh, and Zeus too. But he and Yahweh are pretty much the same.

Religious freedom, y'all. Holla!

 

Attention w****...Little Miss Look at Me, Look at Me!

 

I am Australian, we have a different constitution (obviously), but my question is: according to the USA constitution does my right to free speech become null & void if I choose to freely speak about religion?