This is a can of worms that the school boards did not want to open. In Dearborn we have schools that are well over half Muslims. Should we be calling prayers 5 times a day.? Or should your religion be at home where it belongs. If you have a personal relationship with your god keep it that way. If you feel the need to hold hands and make a display of your praying in public it is about something else. We also have Jewsish students shouldn’t they get to pray too, or is that reserved for the Christians.
A lot of this comes down to respect and knowledge of beliefs other than your own. Kids that want to form a bible study group have a right to do so just as much as those who want to form a GLBT club. People should not be teased or ostracized for being gay, religious, atheist, or a Bush supporter.
What I do not understand for the life of me, is why anyone thinks that having teacher-led prayer in school, or invocations before sporting events, is a good idea. Any meaningful prayer is going to require the school to make a choice of what religious belief to espouse and that is clearly a violation of the establishment cause, common sense, and basic courtesy. Do conservative Christians never think they may someday be in the minority where they live and go to school? There are many places where Catholics or Muslims are the majority. In Portland I would not be surprised if some schools drew from neighborhoods that had a majority of non-believers.
I imagine that many Christians on this board would be offended if the Hail Mary, a Muslim prayer, or a Jewish prayer was used. I don’t think reading a verse from Richard Dawkins over the PA every morning would be acceptable either.
And what purpose is being served? If you think that each day must be started with prayer, then do it at breakfast before school.
Who said anything about giving up constitutional protections? I know that if I move to a town consisting of nothing but people that I know hate me, then when they taunt me, blackball me, and otherwise act all spooky, they don’t have to raise a fist to scare my kids. It doesn’t take sending a bunch of goons to commit statutory offenses to make my life miserable. And they don’t have to refuse to buy from me on account of being a redskin; they can refuse to buy from me on account of they don’t like me.
What I’ll kindly do, for my part, is keep ad hominems in the Pit.
Oh, that’s right. She refused to pray before a game and revealed she was an atheist. She was kicked off the team. Then (“coincidentally”) after that the school officials trumped up an excuse that she stole another girl’s shoes. Although she says she just borrowed them, and returned them, and the girl she borrowed them from thanked her.
A year later, she was allowed back on the team. This time she again refused to say the pre-game, on-court prayer. When the Pledge of Allegiance was recited, she followed along, except she omitted the “under god” part. She was suspended the next day. Supposedly she threatened a team member, but she denies this. I’ve searched and been able to find any cites saying that she did actually threaten the other player.
Of course, in the first thread about this in the Pit, you jumped all over this shoe-stealing allegation as soon as it was raised. Funny that the two times she was kicked off the team, a year apart, both times it was immediately after she refused to join the group prayer. Odd coincidence. :rolleyes:
First of all, he wasn’t falsely charged with a crime. He was found not guilty of the charges. Second, he is a lifelong very hard atheist who believes that “Religion and government use fear to control.” He describes Hardesty as a mob of lawless gun toters who hate Yankees, liberals, and atheists. I don’t think he’s an idiot (despite how he writes), so how could he have done any appreciable due diligence on the town where he moved his family and his business without uncovering at least some part of this:
This is a town of 300 people! It’s not like there was a small patch of evil hiding in an otherwise pristine place. How could he miss it?
(The above quotes are from his Democratic Underground post linked elsewhere.)
Maybe he thought he was living in America in the 21st century.
Back to the OP…
I’d agree with most of the earlier posters and, as far as I understand it, with current legislative and judicial precedent.
Students praying in school, nondisruptively (either on their own time or silently) = no problem.
Student prayer groups, nondisruptive (before/after school, during lunch or free periods) = no problem.
Student prayer, individual or group, at extracurricular activities = no problem.
None of these would include prayer solicited, led, encouraged, or mandated by teachers or administrators. Any school involvement = problem.
If teachers or administrators want to pray, they can do it on their own time, but not when they are functioning as representatives of the school (whether actually in school or at school-related functions). Obviously, if they’re praying privately and without making a show of it, there’s no reason anyone would know to complain, so that would slide. (IOW, a silent, private prayer over lunch probably not a problem. Leading a “team prayer”, definitely a problem.)
Harassment, bullying, and picking on kids should not be allowed, for any reason. I don’t care if they’re fat, skinny, black, white, purple, Jewish, Christian, atheist, stupid, smart, or anything else. This is one of the few areas that I could almost agree with a “zero tolerance” policy.
School, teacher, or administration encouragement of such harassment and bullying = downright evil.
I’d agree with others that making prayer part of “team building” is probably a bad idea, simply because it’s only “building” if everyone wants to do it; otherwise, it’s divisive. But if it’s the students’ choice, and all students are comfortable with it, that’d be OK. If some students don’t want to participate and ARE NOT HARASSED for their decision, that’s OK too.
Sure, the atheist/Jewish/Muslim/whatever kids in mostly Christian schools may feel some peer pressure or feel left out. Life sucks sometimes. I knew extremely devout Christian kids in my liberal school that felt the same way, because they didn’t “fit in” and didn’t participate in some popular non-school-related activities. The “brainiacs”, the unathletic, the shy - they all have the same problem. There’s always going to be the “cool” and “uncool” kids; they’ll find something to segregate by. You just learn to deal with it; I did and so have many, many others.
What I’m wondering is why Liberal felt the need to hijack this thread, a general debate on the issues, with specifics from the other thread where many of his questions have already been answered. There’s a whole thread on the Smalkowski case already, take it over there if you want to argue details of that situation.
Aside from the fact that I’ve already answered this question in the other thread, you are obviously not very familiar with small towns. They are very good at hiding this sort of thing.
The small-town high school I graduated from had many students who were moved there from the nearby “big town” schools, in order to avoid the supposed rampant drug abuse there.
By the second month of school, I could have gotten you anything (and I do mean ANYTHING) you wanted in the hallway during passing period - and I didn’t even do drugs. Probably 75% of the students had no idea - either through sheer ignorance or willful blindness. Kids came to class drunk, stoned on various substances - no problem, teachers never noticed. Kids passing out in class were sent to the nurse. The usual excuse was that they’d skipped lunch - so the nurse would admonish them to eat better and occasionally offer to let them use her refrigerator to keep lunches in.
The year before I was there, a kid died of an overdose in the parking lot at lunch. The school’s solution? To forbid sitting in your car in the parking lot at lunch.
Despite all this, the school had a tremendous reputation as a “drug free” school, because that’s what people wanted to believe, and kids kept getting transferred there to avoid the “drug-ridden” schools in the next town over. Schools where, yeah, there were some stoners and some drinkers and a few dropping acid. But where the other 90% of the kids knew what was going on and avoided the “hoods”, and where no one ever died of an OD while at school.
But I’m thinking that you’re pretty familiar with willful blindness and refusal to see the obvious, based on what I’ve seen of you today.
I think there is enouigh circumstantial evidence in the behavior of the police, during the period from the altercation through the trial and beyond to provide a reasonable basis to believe they knew that the charge was baseless which fits my definition of “falsely cvharged,” but I will concede that he has not won any case in court in which the police were deemed to have acted improperly.
My point regarding the rest of his comments is that in the heat of anger, a lot of people say things about “how things are” that they may not have said (or even considered) prior to the event that triggered their anger. Divorce trials are filled with the testimonies of grave slights and injustices extending back to the wedding night that were only recalled–or even recognized–the moment after the divorcing partner discovered that the spouse had been unfaithful. Regardless how he views religion, in general, I was curious whether we had evidence that he felt that Hardesty was a bad place prior to the events that led to the current situation.
The town of 1200 I live in takes up a square mile. I live on one side that is mostly country living. Behind my five acres is an Agricultural Society’s horse corral. I say this because two weeks ago I found out that there has been lots of vandalism, teen sex, drug use, etc. in the corral behind my house.
I have lived in this house for over 10 years. I had no clue. Someone new moving in would have less of an idea. It’s not like “good” hangs out the “bad actions here” sign.
IOW, she admits that she took the shoes, but disputes the circumstances, a year after the fact and after she was suspended again from the team for an unrelated incident.
Not exactly what I call a “trumped up excuse”. She admits doing it, after all, but disputes the circumstances. No other evidence seems to be available, besides the fact that the earlier suspension was not overturned, and she doesn’t seem to have raised her atheism as the reason for the suspension then. She does now, after she has been suspended again.
And her previous description of the circumstances of her earlier suspension show that she is not necessarily completely forthright about things. Naturally enough, of course - most people slant their stories in their own favor.
As I mentioned earlier, she does not seem to have used the excuse of her atheism until the second suspension.
But correlation is not causation, as I am sure you realize. Perhaps this person was suspended (the second time) for being an atheist. Or perhaps she is a trouble-maker. Or perhaps she is merely a person who threatens, steals from, and attempts to disrupt her team mates generally.
IOW, the two suspensions could be correlated with two public displays of her atheism. Or they could be correlated with two instances of her bad behavior. The only evidence we have is the timing of her raising the excuse of “they are only picking on me because I am an atheist” after another incident leading to a second suspension.
Some kids are taught a sense of excessive entitlement by their fathers. Some are taught to be trolls. Some fathers use their children as proxies to create controversy because they enjoy the attention.
And a lot of people give automatic credibility to others who mouth the correct slogans.
Regards,
Shodan
And some people are so set in their beliefs that they are willing to accept any unfounded supposition as proof on one side of a debate, while completely ignoring all evidence on the other.
I would only add that some people are so set in their beliefs that they are willing to accept any unfounded supposition as proof on one side of a debate, while completely ignoring all evidence on the other.
What evidence? The 20/20 interview that has convinced you as solidly of Smalkowski’s blame in this situation as solidly as a video convinced Bill Frist of Terry Schiavo’s good health? The diatribe he wrote in his blog after he had been so thoroughly wronged? The latter, particularly, has been addressed several times, notably by tomndebb and redtail23, neither of whom have received a direct response from you. I see no debate happening on your side, only repetition.
Where’s the evidence that she did anything other than not pray? I’d really like to see it now that we are talking about evidence.
I agree entirely. The way I understand it is that the students are allowed to pray. So when the students prayed the teachers also bowed their heads. Somehow the teachers bowing their heads made it wrong. Why? What would you expect them to do, it is the civil thing. As long as the teachers did not organize or start the prayer nothing is wrong. The same thing would happen in any community. Were the teachers expect to flee from the premises in fear? I think a little common sense is in order. In my city in Oklahoma the girl would have never been allowed to play on the boys football team.
I think we have a fundie atheist who is offended for publicity sake. Why else make such a big deal out of nothing. Oh well, the media has to print something negative or no one would listen, read.
And Pam Reynolds was legally dead for two hours. And atheists marched in the streets to get the Bible off a state coin. Tell us another one!
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Is that a confession. Bout time.
This is not about prayer. I do not care if you pray your brains out in church or at home. When you feel the need to publicly chant before games it is something else. It is showing the world how pious you are . It probably would be a crappy prayer anyway. Do you think God grants special abilities to those who publicly chant before games. No, it is about showing off their religion. Just play the damn game.
They are not chanting, they are not showing off their religion, they are engaged in focusing their minds on the positive before the game starts, something nearly all sports teams do in one way or the other. You have no right to judge their actions, they are totally within their rights to do so. Your hate of God is clouding your posts. I have gone to many different churches and synagogues for the purposes of learning. I sat/stood/kneeled quietly through their services. It didn’t hurt me a bit. It is called respecting others’ rights and beliefs. In case you didn’t know that is what this country is all about – freedom. If the girl didn’t want to participate she could have stood quietly or even turned away without saying anything until it was over and then went back to playing ball.
When foreign students in America were in a group saying the Pledge to the flag they stood quietly until it was over. Were they supposed to disrupt the pledge by saying their were from xyz country and they didn’t want the pledge said in their presence.
Get a grip on things. I guess I will never understand the hatred held by atheists for religion and God.