"It’s Dangerous for Children To Know Atheism Exists," Says Illinois State Legislator

[Unknown24]

I'm surprised no one has posted this already.

http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/04/04/its-dangerous-for-children-to-know-atheism-exists-says-illinois-state-legislator/

Outspoken atheist Rob Sherman, who (with his daughter) filed a lawsuit that eventually put a stop to the Mandatory Moment of Silence, was back in the Illinois General Assembly on Wednesday.

He was there arguing Governor Rod Blagojevich’s $1,000,000 grant to the Pilgrim Baptist Church — which was given to them via the more secular Loop Lab School. (Shadiness all around.)

Anyway, he got into an exchange with Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago).

You won’t believe what she said (emphasis is mine):

Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy — it’s tragic — when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.

I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?

I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous–

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court—

Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.
According to Davis, atheism is destroying the state.

Corrupt or misguided politicians have nothing to do with it, of course…

As Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune puts it, “consider what the outcry would have been if a lawmaker had launched a similar attack on the beliefs of a religious person.”

If that happened, you might have actually heard about this story by now. It would be playing on news stations everywhere. But since the attack is on atheists, this is likely the first time you’ve read anything about it.

Not enough for you? Listen to the audio of the exchange (MP3) (http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/davis.mp3).

Infuriating, isn’t it?


I'm pissed. :mad: Any1 else pumped about this bullshit?

EDIT:

Forgot to also put this up. Its a video about the issue. It starts at about 1:28 within the clip.

Video of Countdown with Keith Olbermann for Tuesday, April 8 - Monique Davis Worst Person in the World. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24020314#24020314)

[Dayve]

I'd like it if somebody pointed out to her that nobody has ever been killed in the name of Atheism and no wars have ever been waged in the name of Atheism.

I'd also like to point out to her that Atheism has never tried to hold back medical science from finding cures for life-threatning illnesses.

If she wants to talk about something that's dangerous to society and dangerous to children, hehe... lets talk about religion.

[kazuri]

How is it dangerous for children to know atheism exists?

All children are atheists until they are 'taught' by their parents.

[Dayve]

How is it dangerous for children to know atheism exists?

Duh, because Atheists are totally immoral, eat babies, steal, murder, lie, cheat and worship the devil. :rollseyes

[RatedM]

The fact that this shit exists so much in every day life is the reason I've stopped caring. The misinformation and rationalizations people make about atheism pisses me off and I just can't care anymore except think about their idiocy and move on with my life.

[Unknown24]

The fact that this shit exists so much in every day life is the reason I've stopped caring. The misinformation and rationalizations people make about atheism pisses me off and I just can't care anymore except think about their idiocy and move on with my life.

Hmmm..... you gotz a point there...

[Awesome-o]

*In court later that day*
Davis: Your honour, I think it would be best to take a short recess in order that the prosecution has time to properly cook babies for consumption.

[RatedM]

*In court later that day*
Davis: Your honour, I think it would be best to take a short recess in order that the prosecution has time to properly cook babies for consumption.

I think the prosecution should have made the request, seriously. It would have pointed out the humor and stupidity in Davis's claims.

[Daucus Karota]

d no wars have ever been waged in the name of Atheism.

The Seven years War In Europe was started by an Atheist who decided to take a promenade into Saxony

:p



I keed, I understand what you meant!;)

[TFS]

She has a point that it's ridiculous to try and ban a mandatory moment of silence in which children are not forced to do anything besides be quiet...like they would be forced to be anyway if that minute was devoted to a lesson.

But she went about making that point in a very ignorant way.

Requiring kids to observe a moment of silence is not endorsing any religion. it can be used for prayer, self-reflection, gathering one's thoughts, planning the rest of the day to one's self, or any number of silent activities, very few of which have to do with religion.

She also has a point about the guns in that there are much more important things to be spending government time and taxpayer money on dealing with than legislating on the constitutionality of requiring people to be quiet for a minute in school.

[Mr. Grimm]

We should start a fund to buy a small island nation for these types to go and run for a while. See how a genuine theocracy turns out. I'd be inclined to say just let the US slide into a theocratic state but they have too many big stompy armys what make us Canadians go squish to let that happen.

[vtsquire]

She has a point that it's ridiculous to try and ban a mandatory moment of silence in which children are not forced to do anything besides be quiet...like they would be forced to be anyway if that minute was devoted to a lesson.

Think, for one minute, about this as an adult. Is it a just act to force any person to do anything? No. How then does it become a just act to for force silence upon anyone at the expense of their freedom to communicate? It doesn't.

But she went about making that point in a very ignorant way.
Im glad that you can see that ignorance is, by it's very definition, ignorant. I would hope that you dont presume that the ends justify the means.

Requiring kids to observe a moment of silence is not endorsing any religion.

It doesnt matter if it's a religious code or not. Any kind of censorship still emposes a violation of the right to speak upon students.

it can be used for prayer, self-reflection, gathering one's thoughts, planning the rest of the day to one's self, or any number of silent activities, very few of which have to do with religion.

When silence is mandated, vocalism is considered a crime. Why should any person be punished or even be under the slightest impression that they may be punished for speaking during the wrong hour?


She also has a point about the guns in that there are much more important things to be spending government time and taxpayer money on dealing with than legislating on the constitutionality of requiring people to be quiet for a minute in school.

What is more important that freedom?

[Spike Lee]

She has a point that it's ridiculous to try and ban a mandatory moment of silence in which children are not forced to do anything besides be quiet...like they would be forced to be anyway if that minute was devoted to a lesson.

But she went about making that point in a very ignorant way.

Requiring kids to observe a moment of silence is not endorsing any religion. it can be used for prayer, self-reflection, gathering one's thoughts, planning the rest of the day to one's self, or any number of silent activities, very few of which have to do with religion.

She also has a point about the guns in that there are much more important things to be spending government time and taxpayer money on dealing with than legislating on the constitutionality of requiring people to be quiet for a minute in school.

If that is the intent of the having a moment of silence, then yes, it can be banned. That is one the key points brought up in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District.

[TFS]

If that is the intent of the having a moment of silence, then yes, it can be banned. That is one the key points brought up in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District.

It's meant for the children to use it however they want as long as they are quiet.

I myself had to do it every day in high school. Never once did I pray. I always went over what books I would need to take home that day and my plans for that evening in my mind.

No one said it HAD to be for religious anything. It can be, by choice, but does not at all have to be.

Think, for one minute, about this as an adult. Is it a just act to force any person to do anything? No. How then does it become a just act to for force silence upon anyone at the expense of their freedom to communicate? It doesn't.

Im glad that you can see that ignorance is, by it's very definition, ignorant. I would hope that you dont presume that the ends justify the means.


It doesnt matter if it's a religious code or not. Any kind of censorship still emposes a violation of the right to speak upon students.



When silence is mandated, vocalism is considered a crime. Why should any person be punished or even be under the slightest impression that they may be punished for speaking during the wrong hour?



What is more important that freedom?

If it was perpetual silence, you'd have a point. But it's a definite, predetermined short time period. It is not an infringement on rights. Quit trying to be all dramatic about it.

[Spike Lee]

It's meant for the children to use it however they want as long as they are quiet.

I myself had to do it every day in high school. Never once did I pray. I always went over what books I would need to take home that day and my plans for that evening in my mind.

No one said it HAD to be for religious anything. It can be, by choice, but does not at all have to be.




But if the intent to pass it through was to allow people to pray then it is up in the air. Technically, they can say it's for this or that but if their intent is to give people the choice to pray instead, then it is questionable.

[TFS]

But if the intent to pass it through was to allow people to pray then it is up in the air. Technically, they can say it's for this or that but if their intent is to give people the choice to pray instead, then it is questionable.

The choice is for anything that is quiet. One of the original interests might have been for prayer, but those that sought this had the foresight to make it something open for everyone to do their own thing and not force anyone to do any one particular thing.

There's nothing wrong with that. Quite honestly, when it comes to non-organized individual prayer, it doesn't even need to be quiet. I know people who would just pause in a hallway between classes, when it's noisy as hell, say a quick prayer, and move on.

Banning this would not eliminate prayer from schools in the form that it occurs in this designated time span anyway, but it's a step closer to prohibiting people from doing anything religious at all in public places, and that is actually just as dangerous as forcing people to participate in religious activity. Making the choice available is the most constitutional way to do it. Forcing it or barring it altogether are both equally unconstitutional.

[Spike Lee]

The choice is for anything that is quiet. One of the original interests might have been for prayer, but those that sought this had the foresight to make it something open for everyone to do their own thing and not force anyone to do any one particular thing.

There's nothing wrong with that. Quite honestly, when it comes to non-organized individual prayer, it doesn't even need to be quiet. I know people who would just pause in a hallway between classes, when it's noisy as hell, say a quick prayer, and move on.

Banning this would not eliminate prayer from schools in the form that it occurs in this designated time span anyway, but it's a step closer to prohibiting people from doing anything religious at all in public places, and that is actually just as dangerous as forcing people to participate in religious activity. Making the choice available is the most constitutional way to do it. Forcing it or barring it altogether are both equally unconstitutional.
Or you can just go on about your bussiness and not bother. Sure its just one minute but if it is made for the purpose to a have students pray then it is up for debate. I personally don't have a problem with it, in fact, I like the idea. So long as legally, they don't say its to allow kids to pray, well then its totally legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_v._Jaffree

[TFS]

Or you can just go on about your bussiness and not bother. Sure its just one minute but if it is made for the purpose to a have students pray then it is up for debate. I personally don't have a problem with it, in fact, I like the idea. So long as legally, they don't say its to allow kids to pray, well then its totally legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_v._Jaffree

It can be used for anything that is quiet. Prayer is quiet, as are many other things.

[kazuri]

There is no need for a 'quiet time' in school. Schools are already bad enough, they dont need to be wasting any MORE time doing nothing.

[vtsquire]

If it was perpetual silence, you'd have a point. But it's a definite, predetermined short time period. It is not an infringement on rights. Quit trying to be all dramatic about it.

Please don't make the mistake that thinking a temporary violation of the right to speak is not a violation. If you are required to go to school (lest you tempt truancy and in some places wind up getting your parents locked up), then required to be silent for say.... a whole week at that school, you are being compelled to forfeit your right to communicate. The first amendment doesnt say congress shall make some laws, it say congress shall make NO laws abridging the freedom of speech. But these kids arent being told to shut up for a week, or even a day, so who decides how long is too long? Whom do you suggest be the one to tell other people how many hours of the day they may speak? It is nobody's right to do this in the first place, and that's the bloody point. Maybe you'd be cool with someone having that power over you, but that's no reason to impose it upon others, especially children. Let's also not forget that the very point of a school is to help students learn and that inherent in this goal is education through conversation. This policy does nothing to increase the educational opportunities of a student and actually imposes limits upon them. It's a self-defeating and ironic policy that runs completely contradictory to the purpose of going to school in the first place.

If that's not enough for you, add up the actual monetary cost. 1 minute a day times 20 students times 180 school days a year, that's 60 hours a school-year, 7 and a half school days, that you're paying a teacher their hourly wage to SPECIFICALLY NOT TEACH. This policy is then a mandate that student's not be taught for more than a week out of every school year. At $50 an hour, that's $3000 per teacher, per year, that is being spent to ensure that a teacher specifically not teach. 30 teachers per school, that's $90,000 per school. 500 schools? that's 45 million dollars spent to ensure silence and not teaching. Way to go!

[Awesome-o]

They are discussing schools and say it is dangerous for kids to know about a certain philosophy? Scandalous.

[vtsquire]

Are you seriously suggesting that teachers telling their students to be quiet is an infringement on their First Amendment rights?

When a student or students are disruptive to the classroom, thereby suspending the educational rights to listen or talk of the other students, it is permissable to remove the student(s) from the class or ask him/her/them to be quiet. Without any such cause to do so, it is indeed unconstitutional. There was a case in the California courts back about 1991 or so regarding a teacher who didn't like a certain student and would regularly tell him to "shut up." To this day, people still ask if a teacher is allowed to say that. As it turns out, yes. However, it is the context of the situation which determines whether the teacher acted within their protected realm of academic freedom. There's also a few supreme court cases that apply specifically to education prior to college and they regularly maintain the highest amount of protection for students of their 1st amendment rights while balancing the responsibilities of the school to protect the students.

[TFS]

Please don't make the mistake that thinking a temporary violation of the right to speak is not a violation. If you are required to go to school (lest you tempt truancy and in some places wind up getting your parents locked up), then required to be silent for say.... a whole week at that school, you are being compelled to forfeit your right to communicate. The first amendment doesnt say congress shall make some laws, it say congress shall make NO laws abridging the freedom of speech. But these kids arent being told to shut up for a week, or even a day, so who decides how long is too long? Whom do you suggest be the one to tell other people how many hours of the day they may speak? It is nobody's right to do this in the first place, and that's the bloody point. Maybe you'd be cool with someone having that power over you, but that's no reason to impose it upon others, especially children. Let's also not forget that the very point of a school is to help students learn and that inherent in this goal is education through conversation. This policy does nothing to increase the educational opportunities of a student and actually imposes limits upon them. It's a self-defeating and ironic policy that runs completely contradictory to the purpose of going to school in the first place.

So you're saying people should be allowed to talk during tests then too?

If people don't want to adhere to the rules of public schools, they can find a private one or home-school.

If that's not enough for you, add up the actual monetary cost. 1 minute a day times 20 students times 180 school days a year, that's 60 hours a school-year, 7 and a half school days, that you're paying a teacher their hourly wage to SPECIFICALLY NOT TEACH. This policy is then a mandate that student's not be taught for more than a week out of every school year. At $50 an hour, that's $3000 per teacher, per year, that is being spent to ensure that a teacher specifically not teach. 30 teachers per school, that's $90,000 per school. 500 schools? that's 45 million dollars spent to ensure silence and not teaching. Way to go!

And a minute of just quiet self-reflection or planning silently to one's self about the rest of the day is actually a good idea, helps ease a little bit of stress, helps slow things down a bit and keep people from being overwhelmed. If anything it actually DOES teach people the importance of stopping to smell the roses, if you will...to mind the importance of taking a pause to let things sink in and regain one's focus. A minute of this can drastically increase productivity.

[vtsquire]

So you're saying people should be allowed to talk during tests then too?

I am saying it's unconstitutional to forbid speaking that is not disruptive to the educational rights of other students. It's an interesting question that you pose and I absolutely am of the view that a teacher can take measures to avoid cheating by the students such as... I dunno... not giving them all the same test.

If people don't want to adhere to the rules of public schools, they can find a private one or home-school.

Well, there's a problem with that. Here in California, home-schooling just got forbidden by tthe courts. Thankfully this will come under review and probably(hopefully) be struck down as unconstitutional. In the mean time, parents can be locked up for not sending their kids to a private or public school. Not kidding. A private school, being private thus denying any right to be there in the first place, can indeed require a concession of rights as a condition of enrollment. It sucks, but it's true. Public schools on the other hand, are considered an entitlement from government by virtue of being tax funded (an extension of congress) and thus they cannot require a concession of rights in order to attend. Now, given public school's status as not just an entitlement in California but now a requirement for anyone unable to afford paying both the compulsary taxes for school and the funds to attend a private school (I call this the double tax), a policy such as this in California would not only require students to be in certain places at certain times, but that they must check their constitutionally protected rights at the door, lest they or their parents be punished. This is the antithesis of what government is designed to do.

To wit: "We hold these truths to be self-evident [...] That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
And...

"The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution [...] Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech"


And a minute of just quiet self-reflection or planning silently to one's self about the rest of the day is actually a good idea, helps ease a little bit of stress, helps slow things down a bit and keep people from being overwhelmed. If anything it actually DOES teach people the importance of stopping to smell the roses, if you will...to mind the importance of taking a pause to let things sink in and regain one's focus. A minute of this can drastically increase productivity.

It's possible, I concede that. However, this policy has not been consented to by the public, it is a violation of the right to free speech, it specifically limits the ways in which a student may learn for more than 7 schools days out of the year and financially speaking, it would be into the billions of dollars nation-wide to accomplish what congress has no constitutional power to do in the first place. If you want a policy like this, do it right, draft up an amendment. A government official should know better.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Assuming we don't bomb our selves into oblivion, how long do you think it will take, in this age of amazing scientific and technological advancement, for the rest of the population to slowly wake up from their fairy tales and abandon their mythology based beliefs? Athiesm seems to be growing exponentially amongst the youthful generations... I think maybe in like 300-400 years, people will look back on Christianity, Judiasm and Islam, with the same attitude that we now look back on Zues, Hercules, and Ra the sun god, today.

[Dayve]

Assuming we don't bomb our selves into oblivion, how long do you think it will take, in this age of amazing scientific and technological advancement, for the rest of the population to slowly wake up from their fairy tales and abandon their mythology based beliefs? Athiesm seems to be growing exponentially amongst the youthful generations... I think maybe in like 300-400 years, people will look back on Christianity, Judiasm and Islam, with the same attitude that we now look back on Zues, Hercules, and Ra the sun god, today.

That will happen in the west soon, the religious being a minority i mean.

Islam and Judaism in the east however, that'll take millenia. Muslims and Jews are still stuck in the dark ages where religion is concerned, they're absolute fanatics. They refuse to question the logic of their insane beliefs, and if they never question it they can never be free of it.

Besides, can you see Jews existing without their religion? Their entire being is held together by their religion... they'll never stop being deluded.

[SouthernPatriot]

Atheism IS dangerous, not only to children but to everyone. The Atheist lifestyle is an immoral one...they have no moral compass.

A small example of famous Atheists:
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler (Yes, he WAS an Atheist!)
Mao
The Columbine Killers

And like I said, that's a very small example of a very big list.

[18C]

Atheism IS dangerous, not only to children but to everyone. The Atheist lifestyle is an immoral one...they have no moral compass.

A small example of famous Atheists:
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler (Yes, he WAS an Atheist!)
Mao
The Columbine Killers

And like I said, that's a very small example of a very big list.

Remember the Crusades? Remember the Christians sack of Constantinople where they killed countless CHRISTIANS and looted all of what they could? Oh yeah, and remember the Inquisition where millions of innocent people were tortured for days until they either accepted Christianity or were killed?
Not to mention the Irish terrorists fighting over Christianity... again.

Should I go on?

[Jenovah]

Atheism IS dangerous, not only to children but to everyone. The Atheist lifestyle is an immoral one...they have no moral compass.

A small example of famous Atheists:
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler (Yes, he WAS an Atheist!)
Mao
The Columbine Killers

And like I said, that's a very small example of a very big list.

Are you saying I lack a moral compass because I don't believe in god?

I sincerely hope you're joking, otherwise I have lost a bit more faith in humanity..

However, seeing as though you're giving examples, let me introduce you to this man! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante_Pavelic)

I bear no ill will towards people who believe in god, be they Christians, Muslims or Jews. Just so we're clear on that.

[Awesome-o]

David Hume made a very compelling argument for the origin of moral judgements. Atheism doesn't need codified moral values, all it needs is emotion.

Also, FUCK CAUSALITY!

[_Joe]

I'm surprised no one has posted this already.

http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/04/04/its-dangerous-for-children-to-know-atheism-exists-says-illinois-state-legislator/



I'm pissed. :mad: Any1 else pumped about this bullshit?

EDIT:

Forgot to also put this up. Its a video about the issue. It starts at about 1:28 within the clip.

Video of Countdown with Keith Olbermann for Tuesday, April 8 - Monique Davis Worst Person in the World. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24020314#24020314)

You're pumped about it? What are you going to do, rush the state legislative building over it? Get a grip.


Personally, I don't see a problem with a moment of silent reflection. But for a state legislator to say something like this is irresponsible. It sounds like she is promoting prayer in school, which would be technically illegal for her to do, as a government official. While silent prayer should not be restricted, prayer should not be made mandatory or endorsed by state officials.

[vtsquire]

Atheism IS dangerous, not only to children but to everyone. The Atheist lifestyle is an immoral one...they have no moral compass.

A small example of famous Atheists:
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler (Yes, he WAS an Atheist!)
Mao
The Columbine Killers

And like I said, that's a very small example of a very big list.

I don't want to put any words in your mouth, so I'll ask. Are you a Christian? Do you view yourself and others as posessing original sin and thus incapable of being good people without living under a threat of eternal punishment?

[_Joe]

Atheism IS dangerous, not only to children but to everyone. The Atheist lifestyle is an immoral one...they have no moral compass.

A small example of famous Atheists:
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler (Yes, he WAS an Atheist!)
Mao
The Columbine Killers

And like I said, that's a very small example of a very big list.

Are you suggesting we should not let anyone be an atheist?

[Stanky105]

Atheism IS dangerous, not only to children but to everyone. The Atheist lifestyle is an immoral one...they have no moral compass.

Orders directed to you from an invisible magical being, who happens to change given your geographic location at birth, on threat of hellfire forever and forever and forever is not morality.

[BlueQuarter]

Its true...

[_Joe]

Orders directed to you from an invisible magical being, who happens to change given your geographic location at birth, on threat of hellfire forever and forever and forever is not morality.

Morality is arguably relative. What I consider IMMORAL is breaking the law, which is what this legislator is doing by promoting prayer.

[Dayve]

Atheism IS dangerous, not only to children but to everyone. The Atheist lifestyle is an immoral one...they have no moral compass.

A small example of famous Atheists:
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler (Yes, he WAS an Atheist!)
Mao
The Columbine Killers

And like I said, that's a very small example of a very big list.

Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic.

As for the rest of the people, they didn't kill because they were Atheists, they killed because of their political ideals and generally because they were mad.

I would like to add, although you'll dismiss it outright, that religion has been causing death and misery for thousands of years, most of all Christianity.

Morals don't come from religion, they come from empathy, which is something most people are born with. Most people stop and think how they would feel if what they're about to do were being done to them before they do something questionable. They'll make the same decision whether they're religious or not.

[SouthernPatriot]

I don't want to put any words in your mouth, so I'll ask. Are you a Christian? Do you view yourself and others as posessing original sin and thus incapable of being good people without living under a threat of eternal punishment?

Yes, I am a Christian. Everyone is born with the unholy condition known as sin...but we can overcome sin by living by Christ's teachings. However, that doesn't mean we can REALLY overcome sin...we just try the best that we can.

Are you suggesting we should not let anyone be an atheist?

Oh of course not, everyone has the choice to be a rebel if they want to. :bigwink:

Remember the Crusades? Remember the Christians sack of Constantinople where they killed countless CHRISTIANS and looted all of what they could? Oh yeah, and remember the Inquisition where millions of innocent people were tortured for days until they either accepted Christianity or were killed?
Not to mention the Irish terrorists fighting over Christianity... again.

Should I go on?

The Crudades were self-defense against Islamic aggression...kind of what we're seeing in the present time. Some things just never change, eh?

[kazuri]

Atheism IS dangerous, not only to children but to everyone. The Atheist lifestyle is an immoral one...they have no moral compass.

Are you sure we shouldnt really be scared of the people who have to act good because they are scared of a punishment?

Instead of the people who are good, because they realize the should treat others as they themselves want to be treated?

Oh of course not, everyone has the choice to be a rebel if they want to.

Everyone is born an atheist, we arent the ones rebelling, you are.

[_Joe]

Oh of course not, everyone has the choice to be a rebel if they want to. :bigwink:

So do you think the promotion of prayer in public schools is constitutional?


Are you sure we shouldnt really be scared of the people who have to act good because they are scared of a punishment?

Instead of the people who are good, because they realize the should treat others as they themselves want to be treated?

I'm not exactly arguing against you, but I just wanted to say that that is one big misconception about Christianity. It is not the fear of punishment, but the embracing of the teachings of God and the choice we make to love Him that encourages us to avoid sin.

That said, I am also an American, and I can't STAND IT when my constitution is violated by elected officials.

[SouthernPatriot]

So do you think the promotion of prayer in public schools is constitutional?


Yes, I believe there should be prayer in schools but it shouldn't be mandatory. If you don't want to join in, you don't have to.

[kazuri]

Yes, I believe there should be prayer in schools but it shouldn't be mandatory. If you don't want to join in, you don't have to.

What about ritualistic chantings? so long as it was optional of course.

[_Joe]

Yes, I believe there should be prayer in schools but it shouldn't be mandatory. If you don't want to join in, you don't have to.

But for a public official to use their influence over citizens (students in this case) to promote religion is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, is it not?

Also, what would you say if the teacher was promoting atheism?

[SouthernPatriot]

What about ritualistic chantings? so long as it was optional of course.

It should be allowed, abet optional.

[SouthernPatriot]

Also, what would you say if the teacher was promoting atheism?


I would say give him a talk, and if he continues to promote atheism, then fire him.

[Awesome-o]

The Crudades were self-defense against Islamic aggression...kind of what we're seeing in the present time. Some things just never change, eh?

That's Christian propagated bs. The moors in Iberia were being repulsed and the attacks on pilgrims were because they were building roads through Turkish holy lands.

Don't fall into the trap. Although there were atrocities committed on both sides (as with pretty much all wars) the Christians' in the crusades were horrendous. For example: When sieging cities for the venetians it was common practise to capture farmers/people from the surrounding area and catapult them into the city.

[_Joe]

It should be allowed, abet optional.

The Supreme Court of the United States would disagree with you, and HAS disagreed with you on several occasions.


I would say give him a talk, and if he continues to promote atheism, then fire him.

Ok, so now you are discriminating against him for his religious beliefs? That is unconstitutional as well...

[psychomonkey62]

Duh, because Atheists are totally immoral, eat babies, steal, murder, lie, cheat and worship the devil. :rollseyes

Ah, you are part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy as well?

[SouthernPatriot]

Ok, so now you are discriminating against him for his religious beliefs? That is unconstitutional as well...

Are you claiming that Atheism is a religion?

[vtsquire]

Yes, I am a Christian. Everyone is born with the unholy condition known as sin...but we can overcome sin by living by Christ's teachings. However, that doesn't mean we can REALLY overcome sin...we just try the best that we can.

You kind of missed the essence of my question, so I'll try again. You said an atheist lifestyle is immoral... so I ask "why?" Is it that you see people as utterly incapable of being moral persons without being guided by a religion?

[_Joe]

Are you claiming that Atheism is a religion?

To discriminate against someone because they aren't religious is trying to make them religious, and that is a violation of the Establishment Clause, is it not?


You see, despite the fact that atheists lack a religion, you can't force or compel them to adhere to one. It is their right to not believe. Any action by the state or an employer to do so is an attempt to make them adhere to a religion, or at least penalize them for not doing so, and that is a violation of our rights.

[Dayve]

Ah, you are part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy as well?

Yeah, i'm an Atheist... and according to the god warrior in the thread i'm immoral and dangerous. Nevermind the fact that i've never had a single fight in my life, never fought in any wars, oppose the wars my nation is involved in right now, never stolen anything except candy and pencils from school when i was a child, etc.

Oh and this one time an old guy who used to live in the next street to me collapsed in the street just when i happened to be walking by and i put his arm around me and practically carried him home.

Of course i boiled a baby or two for lunch afterwards...

[_Joe]

Of course i boiled a baby or two for lunch afterwards...

You sound sarcastic there, I thought all atheists actually ate babies..... ;)

[Stanky105]

I'm not exactly arguing against you, but I just wanted to say that that is one big misconception about Christianity. It is not the fear of punishment, but the embracing of the teachings of God and the choice we make to love Him that encourages us to avoid sin.

Do you think sin is relative?

[_Joe]

Do you think sin is relative?

I like to think of it as, it is not relative to me, but in theory it is. When speaking about perception, sin is definitely relative, even within a religion. Personally speaking, however, I see sin as anything that harms others or one's self, either physically, emotionally, or materially. While the perception of others may be different from my perspective, that doesn't change the fact that I think my idea of sin is correct.

I can still understand that other people have different ideas about sin while being secure in my own theory about it.

[Dayve]

I like to think of it as, it is not relative to me, but in theory it is. When speaking about perception, sin is definitely relative, even within a religion. Personally speaking, however, I see sin as anything that harms others or one's self, either physically, emotionally, or materially. While the perception of others may be different from my perspective, that doesn't change the fact that I think my idea of sin is correct.

I can still understand that other people have different ideas about sin while being secure in my own theory about it.

Harming oneself or somebody else is way too open to be dismissed as sin outright.

Eating a Big Mac would be a sin, it's very bad for you. Driving a large gas guzzling car would be a sin, it's harmful to the earth which in turn is harmful to everybody living on earth.

[_Joe]

Harming oneself or somebody else is way too open to be dismissed as sin outright.

Eating a Big Mac would be a sin, it's very bad for you. Driving a large gas guzzling car would be a sin, it's harmful to the earth which in turn is harmful to everybody living on earth.

Well, that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic, so let's not get into another one of those discussions.

[Unknown24]

So I'm assuming that most of you think atheism is NOT dangerous to children, correct? The discussion kind of veered off topic...

[_Joe]

So I'm assuming that most of you think atheism is NOT dangerous to children, correct? The discussion kind of veered off topic...

Speaking as a philosophical theorist, no, it isn't dangerous to children. As a Catholic I think it is dangerous to everybody, but in more of a spiritual sense, and not necessarily in a material sense.

[PsiRedEye22]

Speaking as a philosophical theorist, no, it isn't dangerous to children. As a Catholic I think it is dangerous to everybody, but in more of a spiritual sense, and not necessarily in a material sense.

And it is absolutely fine that you feel that way. That is a totally decent opinion to have. I am glad you aren't a nut.

[YoungMasterGold]

I'm surprised no one has posted this already.

http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/04/04/its-dangerous-for-children-to-know-atheism-exists-says-illinois-state-legislator/



I'm pissed. :mad: Any1 else pumped about this bullshit?

EDIT:

Forgot to also put this up. Its a video about the issue. It starts at about 1:28 within the clip.

Video of Countdown with Keith Olbermann for Tuesday, April 8 - Monique Davis Worst Person in the World. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24020314#24020314)

She's a silly person. In fact, they're both silly people. I really don't see the point in protesting the minute of silence in schools. Or am I missing somethin here? How the hell does a minute of silence really affect the rights of atheists?

[Jenovah]

I would say give him a talk, and if he continues to promote atheism, then fire him.

But promoting christianity is fine because of some arbitrary decision?

If I recall correctly the US is secular, therefore I think it's appropriate that people should not advocate any religions in school, that should be left to the parents.

I don't really have any problem with prayer though, nor do I have any problem with kosher-meals in the cafetaria or anything like that. As long as it doesn't go any further than that I see no harm in it.

[vtsquire]

Or am I missing somethin here?
Yes.

How the hell does a minute of silence really affect the rights of atheists?

Abridging the freedom of speech affects the rights of everyone, atheists included.

[Awesome-o]

Give students who wish a moment of silence a moment of silence, don't force everyone else to comply. However, try to educate the kids who don't wish to be silent that yelling in the other kids faces would be rather disrespectful behaviour and if they want to carry on a conversation to do it outside the class.

Forcing beliefs upon people is stupid however trying to encourage mutual respect is. At my school we have a very diverse student body (98 countries I think) and we pride ourselves on our differences. When the Muslims are fasting people try not to eat in front of them. Simple school policy: respect.

[YoungMasterGold]

Yes.


Abridging the freedom of speech affects the rights of everyone, atheists included.

I don't see how requesting a minute of silence in honour of the dead is "abridging the freedom of speech" of anyone. It's a minute of bloody reflection, not a lifetime of serve some random person's god, for crying out loud.

[_Joe]

Yes.


Abridging the freedom of speech affects the rights of everyone, atheists included.

A minute of silence is not a violation of the rights of atheists. That is where this man is wrong. It IS arguably a violation to promote religion, as this legislator seems to be doing. A moment of silence still occurs at my old HS, and there is no way legally to force the schools to stop doing that.


Also, the man appealing to the legislator IS an atheist, but his daughter who he cites in his lawsuits is actually a Christian.

[vtsquire]

I don't see how requesting a minute of silence in honour of the dead is "abridging the freedom of speech" of anyone. It's a minute of bloody reflection, not a lifetime of serve some random person's god, for crying out loud.

It's not a request, it's a mandate, and that's the whole problem. A mandate orders people to do things and makes it punishable if you do not comply. This kind of policy is not within the powers of government to create or enforce. In fact, it's explicitly forbidden by the first amendment. "Congress shall make NO law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." Not laws that abridge it for a short time, not just a few laws, not just laws that abridge it in a big way... NONE whatsoever. A public school and it's employees are an extension of congress and are thus bound to uphold this constitutional amendment, not disregard it when it doesnt suit their personal opinions. To embrace a policy such as this is essentially to say "to hell with the rules which are specifically designed to secure the rights of the people... and we can punish anyone who doesn't follow our policy." Government does not have this authority and Monique Davis should know better than to try imposing that upon children.

[_Joe]

It's not a request, it's a mandate, and that's the whole problem. A mandate orders people to do things and makes it punishable if you do not comply. This kind of policy is not within the powers of government to create or enforce. In fact, it's explicitly forbidden by the first amendment. "Congress shall make NO law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." Not laws that abridge it for a short time, not just a few laws, not just laws that abridge it in a big way... NONE whatsoever. A public school and it's employees are an extension of congress and are thus bound to uphold this constitutional amendment, not disregard it when it doesnt suit their personal opinions. To embrace a policy such as this is essentially to say "to hell with the rules which are specifically designed to secure the rights of the people... and we can punish anyone who doesn't follow our policy." Government does not have this authority and Monique Davis should know better than to try imposing that upon children.

What is SO important that it must be said during that few seconds of silence and no other time?

[vtsquire]

What is SO important that it must be said during that few seconds of silence and no other time?

It doesn't matter.

[Bergs]

It doesn't matter.

What matters is what the person is alleging and that is that it is a violation of rights to free exercise of religion. It's not. Make the free speech argument wntil your face turns blue if you want, but thats not the claim here.

[vtsquire]

What matters is what the person is alleging and that is that it is a violation of rights to free exercise of religion. It's not. Make the free speech argument all you want, but thats not the claim here.

If I were to argue the unconstitutionality of this coming from the religion clause, it's still pretty evident. Let's first note that this mandatory moment of silence is not argued by it's authors to accomodate any biological need. It is not for excercise, it is not for food, it is not to use the bathroom. It is a mandatory minute of the day for personal reflection and/or praying according to the text of the bill itself and it's authors. The intent is clear. It's assistance to religion is therefore not incedental and the bill is an accomodation for religions by design. Well, which religions? The ones that can be finished in under a minute, that's which ones. If you can satisfy your religious needs in this minute, the school has made an accomodation for you. If you cannot, the school has not made an accomodation for you. In short, the policy makes an accomodation for one set of religions and not another. The establishment of religion clause of the first amendment prohibits congress from preferring, endorsing or accomodating any religion(s) over others. This policy would indeed do that, and by intent.

[Bergs]

If I were to argue the unconstitutionality of this coming from the religion clause, it's still pretty evident. Let's first note that this mandatory moment of silence is not argued by it's authors to accomodate any biological need. It is not for excercise, it is not for food, it is not to use the bathroom. It is a mandatory minute of the day for personal reflection and/or praying according to the text of the bill itself. It's assistance to religion is therefore not incedental and the bill is an accomodation for religions by design. Well, which religions? The ones that can be finished in under a minute, that's which ones. If you can satisfy your religious needs in this minute, the school has made an accomodation for you. If you cannot, the school has not made an accomodation for you. In short, the policy makes an accomodation for one set of religions and not another. The establishment of religion clause of the first amendment prohibits congress from preferring, endorsing or accomodating any religion(s) over others. This policy would indeed do that by it's design.

No it doesn't. That is simply an incredible reading. You could not find a judge in all of the country that would agree with that reading. First of all, legislatures are entitled to a substantial degree of deference by the courts. Actions of legislatures in general are submitted to so long as they do not expressly or impliedly by operation violate rights and have a rational basis behind them. It clearly does not violate a constitutional prohibition on respecting established religion as it is designated as a moment of silence for private reflection AND/OR prayer. It respects no establishment of religion as the language demonstrates a disposition to yield to the individual's choice of activity and speculates that it could be used for prayer. Prayer being a undefined concept that can generally be interpreted as any request of authority. See "Prayer for relief." If a reasonable person could use that time period to reflect on anything else, then it in no way respects an establishment of religion. Not to mention that I have always found the reading of "establishment of religion" as meaning anything religious was in no way what the framers intended.

And rationale basis essentially means that there is a reason. It doesnt even have to be a good one. That the legislature deems it appropriate to have a moment for silence is enough of a rationale basis. The courts do not need to require it be intended for a bathroom break or any other biological function. You may not agree with it and I can't say that I do either, but its not unconstitutional. Its merely an issue for the legislature to determine and court action against it is inappropriate.

[vtsquire]

No it doesn't. That is simply an incredible reading. You could not find a judge in all of the country that would agree with that reading.

The supreme court agreed with me back in 1985.
Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)
At an early stage of this litigation, the constitutionality of three Alabama statutes was questioned: (1) 16-1-20, enacted in 1978, which authorized a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools "for meditation"; 1 (2) 16-1-20.1, enacted in 1981, which authorized a period of silence "for meditation or voluntary prayer"; 2 and (3) 16-1-20.2, enacted in 1982, which authorized teachers to lead "willing students" in a prescribed prayer to "Almighty God . . . the Creator and Supreme Judge of the world." 3 [472 U.S. 38, 41]

Held:

Section 16-1-20.1 is a law respecting the establishment of religion and thus violates the First Amendment. Pp. 48-61

(a) The proposition that the several States have no greater power to restrain the individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does Congress is firmly embedded in constitutional jurisprudence. The First Amendment was adopted to curtail Congress' power to interfere with the individual's freedom to believe, to worship, and to express himself in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience, and the Fourteenth Amendment imposed the same substantive limitations on the States' power to legislate. The individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. Moreover, the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. Pp. 48-55.

(b) One of the well-established criteria for determining the constitutionality of a statute under the Establishment Clause is that the statute must have a secular legislative purpose. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612 -613. The First Amendment requires that a statute must be invalidated if it is entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion. Pp. 55-56.

(c) The record here not only establishes that 16-1-20.1's purpose was to endorse religion, it also reveals that the enactment of the statute was not motivated by any clearly secular purpose. In particular, the statements of 16-1-20.1's sponsor in the legislative record and in his [472 U.S. 38, 39] testimony before the District Court indicate that the legislation was solely an "effort to return voluntary prayer" to the public schools. Moreover, such unrebutted evidence of legislative intent is confirmed by a consideration of the relationship between 16-1-20.1 and two other Alabama statutes - one of which, enacted in 1982 as a sequel to 16-1-20.1, authorized teachers to lead "willing students" in a prescribed prayer, and the other of which, enacted in 1978 as 16-1-20.1's predecessor, authorized a period of silence "for meditation" only. The State's endorsement, by enactment of 16-1-20.1, of prayer activities at the beginning of each schoolday is not consistent with the established principle that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion. Pp. 56-61.

[_Joe]

The supreme court agreed with me back in 1985.
Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

That was teachers leading willing students in prayer. That is a state official supporting and endorsing religion in school on school time. Big difference from the case here, where no teachers are leading prayers, the students aren't even allowed to pray out loud.

[vtsquire]

That was teachers leading willing students in prayer.

*sigh* that was section 16-1-20.2 "enacted in 1982, which authorized teachers to lead "willing students" in a prescribed prayer to "Almighty God . . . the Creator and Supreme Judge of the world."

After recalling section 16-1-20.1, "enacted in 1981, which authorized a period of silence "for meditation or voluntary prayer", the supreme court stated very explicitly that "Section 16-1-20.1 is a law respecting the establishment of religion and thus violates the First Amendment."

[YoungMasterGold]

It's not a request, it's a mandate, and that's the whole problem. A mandate orders people to do things and makes it punishable if you do not comply. This kind of policy is not within the powers of government to create or enforce. In fact, it's explicitly forbidden by the first amendment. "Congress shall make NO law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." Not laws that abridge it for a short time, not just a few laws, not just laws that abridge it in a big way... NONE whatsoever. A public school and it's employees are an extension of congress and are thus bound to uphold this constitutional amendment, not disregard it when it doesnt suit their personal opinions. To embrace a policy such as this is essentially to say "to hell with the rules which are specifically designed to secure the rights of the people... and we can punish anyone who doesn't follow our policy." Government does not have this authority and Monique Davis should know better than to try imposing that upon children.

The hell? So school authorities don't have the right to tell members of the student population to be quiet or get punished? Is that really your argument here? Or is it that the school authorities can't tell students to be quiet only when it comes to smbolically honoring the dead with a minute of silence?

[Bergs]

The supreme court agreed with me back in 1985.
Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

No it didnt. You're presentment of that case is completely wrong. Quoting the opinion itself demonstrates that. Yes, the Supreme Court specifically struck down section 16-1-20.1, "enacted in 1981, which authorized a period of silence "for meditation or voluntary prayer", but the reasons for striking it down were that any such legislation had to have a secular purpose and that section 16-1-20.1 did not have any secular purpose. The Court made that ruling based on the statements of 16-1-20.1's sponsor in the legislative record and in his [472 U.S. 38, 39] testimony before the District Court which indicated that the legislation was solely an "effort to return voluntary prayer" to the public schools. Moreover, the legislative intent was confirmed by 16-1-20.2, authorizing teachers to lead "willing students" in a prescribed prayer, and the other of which, enacted in 1978 as 16-1-20.1's predecessor, authorized a period of silence "for meditation" only. The legislative history in Wallace v. Jaffree demonstrates that there was no secular purpose for passing 16-1-20.1 considering its predecessor which is further confirmed by statements by the bills sponsor and the succeeding statute.

None of that legislative intent and no supporting statute is on the record in this case. The cases are easily distinguishable.

[vtsquire]

The hell? So school authorities don't have the right to tell members of the student population to be quiet or get punished?

School officials are an extension of congress, as are members of city council, police, etc. As a whole, do members of congress have any rights at all insofar as their capacity as a representative of government? No. None. Not one, not a few, not a lot, none at all. As citizens, as humans, yes. Not as a representative of government though. Where's my proof? Look at The Constitution. You'll find that congress has Powers (with a capital P) and that "the people" have Rights (with a capital R). In the capacity of being representatives of government or congress, school authorities have no rights at all. They have responsibilities and powers, but no rights. Ergo, they certainly have no right to tell the student body to "be quiet or get punished"... they have no rights at all. What's more important than that is that as representatives of congress or government, they have a legal obligation to recognize, protect and secure the rights of "the people." There cannot be any confliction of Rights here since school officials have no Rights whatsoever when they (as their job demands) act as representatives of congress and they are actually required to uphold the Constitution.

Is that really your argument here? Or is it that the school authorities can't tell students to be quiet only when it comes to smbolically honoring the dead with a minute of silence?

A moment of human solidarity is a special thing and I appreciate it. That said, it is not the Right of any person to force that silence upon another and certainly not the Right of government (since it has no Rights in the first place) to force silence upon any of "the people" under the presumption or threat of punishment.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html This is a text copy of the constitution with original capitalization preserved. Notice two things: 1) Powers and Rights are capitalized and 2) Powers are only ever associated with government/congress and Rights are only ever associated with the people. This distinction is also a long-standing and upheld position by the Supreme Court based upon the context surrounding the authorship and subsequent ratification of the Constitution.

[Bergs]

Your entire post is based on the fact that he said right instead of power. School administrators have the power to tell students to be quiet. Minors, particularly in the school setting, have rights but they are afforded substantially less protection and schools are given much broader power to abridge certain rights with the school's purpose and interest in a safe education friendly environment in mind. If there is a legitimate educational purpose, broadly defined, such as the specialness of a moment of human solidarity (your language), a school has the power to do it.

And they arent extensions of Congress. They are creations of the people with some legitimate goal of state in mind. The Bill of Rights is incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment and the states, local governments, and all their instrumentalities are bound by it. But they are not extensions of the federal government.

[YoungMasterGold]

School officials are an extension of congress, as are members of city council, police, etc. As a whole, do members of congress have any rights at all insofar as their capacity as a representative of government? No. None. Not one, not a few, not a lot, none at all. As citizens, as humans, yes. Not as a representative of government though. Where's my proof? Look at The Constitution. You'll find that congress has Powers (with a capital P) and that "the people" have Rights (with a capital R). In the capacity of being representatives of government or congress, school authorities have no rights at all. They have responsibilities and powers, but no rights. Ergo, they certainly have no right to tell the student body to "be quiet or get punished"... they have no rights at all. What's more important than that is that as representatives of congress or government, they have a legal obligation to recognize, protect and secure the rights of "the people." There cannot be any confliction of Rights here since school officials have no Rights whatsoever when they (as their job demands) act as representatives of congress and they are actually required to uphold the Constitution.

Then, how exactly are teachers able to mete out punishment to students who refuse to be quiet in their classes? In all the schools I've ever heard of, the faculty can demand silence from the student body during classes and assemblies; according to your argument, though, no teacher should be able to do that. Does that rule also apply to government funded libraries? Hell, would a school librarian be "abridging the freedom of speech" of student by demanding silence in the library?


A moment of human solidarity is a special thing and I appreciate it. That said, it is not the Right of any person to force that silence upon another and certainly not the Right of government (since it has no Rights in the first place) to force silence upon any of "the people" under the presumption or threat of punishment.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html This is a text copy of the constitution with original capitalization preserved. Notice two things: 1) Powers and Rights are capitalized and 2) Powers are only ever associated with government/congress and Rights are only ever associated with the people. This distinction is also a long-standing and upheld position by the Supreme Court based upon the context surrounding the authorship and subsequent ratification of the Constitution.

At the momentI'm not sure I can comment on the distinction between Power and Rights in the American constitution and it's application to school faculty. However, to get back to the crux of the argument, do you feel that a teacher asking for quiet during a class is enroaching on her student's rights in an unconstitutional manner?

Your entire post is based on the fact that he said right instead of power. School administrators have the power to tell students to be quiet. Minors, particularly in the school setting, have rights but they are afforded substantially less protection and schools are given much broader power to abridge certain rights with the school's purpose and interest in a safe education friendly environment in mind. If there is a legitimate educational purpose, broadly defined, such as the specialness of a moment of human solidarity (your language), a school has the power to do it.

Oh, excellent points. I think I may have used the wrong terms.

[vtsquire]

Your entire post is based on the fact that he said right instead of power. School administrators have the power to tell students to be quiet.

The question is "why?" and I will address this in just a moment.

Minors, particularly in the school setting, have rights but they are afforded substantially less protection and schools are given much broader power to abridge certain rights with the school's purpose and interest in a safe education friendly environment in mind. If there is a legitimate educational purpose, broadly defined, such as the specialness of a moment of human solidarity (your language), a school has the power to do it.

They have the power to suggest, no coerce. Also, it should be mentioned that rights supercede powers. Powers are derived from the right of the people to consent, not the other way around.

And they arent extensions of Congress. They are creations of the people with some legitimate goal of state in mind. The Bill of Rights is incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment and the states, local governments, and all their instrumentalities are bound by it. But they are not extensions of the federal government.

If it was true that schools are not an extension of congress, schools would not be forbidden to make policies respecting an establishment of religion and this discussion would be moot. The supreme court has consistently held that a public school is indeed an extension. I hate to appeal to authority like that, but it just so happens that the most important constitutional scholars this nation has ever known agree with me not just on this point, but exlicitly so in Wallace v. Jaffree.

Then, how exactly are teachers able to mete out punishment to students who refuse to be quiet in their classes? In all the schools I've ever heard of, the faculty can demand silence from the student body during classes and assemblies; according to your argument, though, no teacher should be able to do that.

Let me make as clear as I know how. There are two very important rights involved in a discussion such as this. The first is the right to speak. The second, and most often overlooked, is the right to listen. To quote the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So...
to paraphrase someone far more intelligent than myself "when we censor, we deny ourselves the right to listen to what a person may say. We have therefore made ourselves into prisoners of our own action." It is by this rationale that a teacher may then, by a power granted by the people (who compose the only body with rights to express) to the government to not silence a disruptive student, but remove his or her infringement upon the rights of other students to listen and learn. It is that teacher's obligation, as an extension of congress, to do this. This may be an impression to "please be quiet" or a removal from the class or any other way in which to secure the most pertinent rights.

Does that rule also apply to government funded libraries? Hell, would a school librarian be "abridging the freedom of speech" of student by demanding silence in the library?

That's a bit of a nebulous question in that it ignores context, but I will try to answer. In terms of absolutes, it would be constitutional for a librarian to demand silence of a specific individual in a library only when said librarian came to the undeniable conclusion that this individual was infringing upon the educational rights of others. It is not constitutional to demand absolute silence from anyone at any time simply because of location. To do so would deny person A the right to speak and person B the right to listen. Libraries are (ideally) for learning, communication is a mode of education and it is not within any power of government to stop or prevent that.

At the moment I'm not sure I can comment on the distinction between Power and Rights in the American constitution and it's application to school faculty. However, to get back to the crux of the argument, do you feel that a teacher asking for quiet during a class is enroaching on her student's rights in an unconstitutional manner?

If a student is disruptive and thus infringing upon the rights of other students to listen to a lecture, the teacher has a power (and indeed a responsibility) to ensure that one student does not infringe upon the rights of 20 others.

No it didnt. You're presentment of that case is completely wrong. Quoting the opinion itself demonstrates that. Yes, the Supreme Court specifically struck down section 16-1-20.1, "enacted in 1981, which authorized a period of silence "for meditation or voluntary prayer", but the reasons for striking it down were that any such legislation had to have a secular purpose and that section 16-1-20.1 did not have any secular purpose.

Please, demonstrate for the class how "meditation or prayer" is signifigantly different than "personal reflection or prayer."

[Bergs]

The question is "why?" and I will address this in just a moment.


They have the power to suggest, no coerce. Also, it should be mentioned that rights supercede powers. Powers are derived from the right of the people to consent, not the other way around.


If it was true that schools are not an extension of congress, schools would not be forbidden to make policies respecting an establishment of religion and this discussion would be moot. The supreme court has consistently held that a school is indeed an extension. I hate to appeal to authority like that, but it just so happens that the most important constitutional scholars this nation has ever known agree with me not just on this point, but exlicitly so in Wallace v. Jaffree.

Appeal to authority all you want, thats how you support your argument, but you need to do it the right way and you are wrong in your reliance on that case. It is substantially different from this one as I explained above. None of the legislative history is present nor are supporting statutes that demonstrate the intent. Absent explicit evidence that it is intended solely to support prayer in the school, the Court will defer to the legislature.

Furthermore, as I already said, students do not leave their rights as persons under the Constitution at the school door but school administrators are given far more authority to restrict certain rights than the government is given over the general populace. The school administrators derive their power to do so from the consent of the people who direct them to educate their children. That consent allows them to do things to an extent that the government at large may not.

Nor is a school, or a local government, or a state an extension of Congress. Congress is a branch of the federal government. A state is a seperate sovereign. A state and its institutions are not in anyway extensions of the federal government. They are subject to certain limitations on government that are embodied in the Constitution but that in no way means that they are an extension.

Please, demonstrate for the class how "meditation or prayer" is signifigantly different than "personal reflection or prayer."

Reread the part of the case you posted. Because the language was similar is irrelevant, what matters is why it was struck. It wasnt struck down because it said prayer. It was struck down because the legislative history, the testimony of the bill sponsor, and the existence of two statutes, one that was passed prior to the law in controversy and said the same thing absent the word prayer and one that was passed subsequent and built on the prayer part of the statute to allow teachers to lead students in prayer, showed that it was solely intended to establish religion. As far as I know, no legislative history exists to demonstrate the unconstitutional intent of this law and no accompanying statutes indicate otherwise. Absent any intent showing a lack of secular purpose, the court will defer to the legislature. The similarity of the language in of itself is nothing.

[vtsquire]

Appeal to authority all you want, thats how you support your argument, but you need to do it the right way and you are wrong in your reliance on that case. It is substantially different from this one as I explained above. None of the legislative history is present nor are supporting statutes that demonstrate the intent. Absent explicit evidence that it is intended solely to support prayer in the school, the Court will defer to the legislature.

See the subject of this thread.

Furthermore, as I already said, students do not leave their rights as persons under the Constitution at the school door but school administrators are given far more authority to restrict certain rights than the government is given over the general populace.

I think you've made a kind of a long-winded oxymoron. Not to be insulting, just hear me out. Students don't leave their rights at the school gates. We agree upon this, it's been said by the court, we agree... good. How then does anyone recieve authority to restrict a right which is constitutionally protected? You need an amendment to do that, otherwise it's unconstitutional. That's my point. Without an amendment to explicitly state this, you must defer to the right of the people.

The school administrators derive their power to do so from the consent of the people who direct them to educate their children. That consent allows them to do things to an extent that the government at large may not.

Federal law supercedes state law. It is our federal agreement within the constitution that there exists a right to speak and that congress shall make no law abridging it. States, as a condition of being a part of the union, must adhere to this.

Nor is a school, or a local government, or a state an extension of Congress. Congress is a branch of the federal government.

Umpty three rulings of the supreme court kindly disagree.

A state is a seperate sovereign. A state and its institutions are not in anyway extensions of the federal government. They are subject to certain limitations on government that are embodied in the Constitution but that in no way means that they are an extension.

And government (states, being a part of the union and subject to the constition) happens to be limited in that it shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

edit: so you can see where im coming from, not that I agree with his sermon-esque style, I suggest watching Michael Badnarik's class on the constitution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpUXGOqO1r0 Part one of 42. Yeah, 42... jeez.

[Bergs]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm

Justice Roberts, writing for a five to four majority, found that schools have the right to discipline students who present messages that conflict with stated anti-drug policies, even where the evidence of disruption of school activities (a fact that seemed critical in Tinker) might be absent.


But it is also the case that school administrators have a far greater ability to restrict the speech of their students than the government has to restrict the speech of the general public.

You are simply wrong.

Umpty three rulings of the supreme court kindly disagree.

No they don't. They agree that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill or Rights to the states. That doesnt mean that the states and their instrumentalities are an extension of Congress!!! State governments with executive, legislative, and judicial branches are not extensions of the federal legislative branch!

See the subject of this thread.
The statements of that dope are not legislative history. Legislative history is things like committee reports, committee hearings, floor debates, and histories of actions taken regarding the legislation at the time of its enactment. What some dopey legislature said after the fact cannot by itself constitute legislative history that can be used to substantially determine legislative intent.

Michael Badnarik is a politician who advocates a type of interpretation. He is not an authority on the actual interpretation of the Constitution.

[vtsquire]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm





You are simply wrong.


That falls, imo, into the realm of responsibility to ensure to a safe school environment. I do not contend that it's a constitutional ruling though. The court has made the occasional mistake of upholding policies such as the sedition act where we derive our mistaken assumption that one simply cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.


No they don't. They agree that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill or Rights to the states. That doesnt mean that the states and their instrumentalities are an extension of Congress!!!

Another oxymoron. Look, I don't want to condescend... so I will state this as honestly as I can. What may come off as rude or condescending is honesty. The 14th amendment requires states to uphold a constitutional standard in order to secure the rights of the people. On this, we agree. Insofar as that, the states are verboten from infringing upon the constitutionally protected rights of anyone. Correct? Correct. Ergo, the states shall make no law respecting an establishement of religion or deprive citizens of the right to speak freely. This is an extension of the definition of congress within the scope of the first amendmment. This is what I mean when I say that schools are therefore (since they are established by the states) an extension of congress. States shall not do this. It is constitutional policy. If you want to change it, have an amendment.

State governments with executive, legislative, and judicial branches are not extensions of the federal legislative branch!

"congress shall make no law" Does it say which congress? No. Does it say the federal congress? No. Does it say state congress? No. In the context of history, this applies to all states and the 14th amendment applies to any person regardless of state when it says No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

The freedoms of speech and religion are immunities from government. That's the whole reason they were codeified. It was confused in that time and had to be re-affirmed by the 14th constitutional amendment. The point of any amendment is to state what should be clear.

The statements of that dope are not legislative history. Legislative history is things like committee reports, committee hearings, floor debates, and histories of actions taken regarding the legislation at the time of its enactment. What some dopey legislature said after the fact cannot by itself constitute legislative history that can be used to substantially determine legislative intent.

I would say you have a rather dry understanding of history.

[Bergs]

That falls, imo, into the realm of responsibility to ensure to a safe school environment.

No, it doesnt, read the rest of the cases on that website, I cited that one because it was the most recent and allows to greatest infringement of students rights as following that ruling schools are no longer required to demonstrate a disruption to the educational mission. It had nothing to do with safety.


Another oxymoron. Look, I don't want to condescend...

Well then allow me to be. You have now used oxymoron wrong twice and you have an incredibly simplistic understanding of the constitution.

The first amendment didnt apply to the states when it was written. The states are in no way shape or form extensions of a branch of the federal government.


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

The freedoms of speech and religion are immunities from government. That's the whole reason they were codeified.

Yeah, and the underlined language in the 14th Amendment applied them to the states. That does not make the states an extension of Congress.

I would say you have a rather dry understanding of history.
And I would say you have no understanding of what the purpose of legisaltive history is nor the appropriate application of it. The difference is I am right.

[vtsquire]

The articles of confederation were for shit for not limiting government enough, the constitution was enacted to fix this and even that wasnt enough, so we got the bill of rights. How then does the constitution or any state, imposed via the 14th amendment, not have the clear and distinct goal of forbidding any state or federal institution from imposing upon the right to free speech or religion? Honest question, im off to bed, ill read more tomorrow.

[Bergs]

The articles of confederation were for shit for not limiting government enough, the constitution was enacted to fix this and even that wasnt enough, so we got the bill of rights.

The articles of confederation were shit because they were completely dysfunctional. They gave too much power to the states yes, but they were shit because they provided for NOT ENOUGH federal government. There was a complete inability to work together and promote domestic tranquility combined with the threat from abroad from the British that induced the states to create a stronger federal government. It had nothing to do with not limiting government enough, it had everything to do with a dysfunctional federal system due to an imbalance of power between the states and the federal government. The founders thought that republican government was limited by its nature. The federalists who opposed the addition of a Bill of Rights did so on the grounds that these rights were self evident and it was not necessary to enumerate them. They were wrong and its a damn good thing they did, but government was always assumed to be limited to this extent.

How then does the constitution or any state, imposed via the 14th amendment, not have the clear and distinct goal of forbidding any state or federal institution from imposing upon the right to free speech or religion? Honest question, im off to bed, ill read more tomorrow

It does, but its not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. No right has ever been held absolute in every circumstance nor would it make much sense to do so. Every single right is subject to certain legislative restrictions provided that there exists a compelling state interests to do so and that there is a substantial relationship between the legislative action and that interest. You can debate the value of that position all you want, but I am trying to explain how it is, not how it should be. Based on the jurisprudence available, this case doesnt violate the establishment clause and Jaffee does not govern because the facts underlying the law and the reasoning the court used in Jaffee are both absent.

[_Joe]

The articles of confederation were for shit for not limiting government enough, the constitution was enacted to fix this and even that wasnt enough, so we got the bill of rights. How then does the constitution or any state, imposed via the 14th amendment, not have the clear and distinct goal of forbidding any state or federal institution from imposing upon the right to free speech or religion? Honest question, im off to bed, ill read more tomorrow.

Listen, in the case you cited, if the author of the bill had not mentioned bringing religion back into public schools as his reason for enacting the bill, it would STILL BE IN PLACE. You obviously know nothing about constitutional law, aside from what you've read on wikipedia...

[vtsquire]

Listen, in the case you cited, if the author of the bill had not mentioned bringing religion back into public schools as his reason for enacting the bill...

"It's dangerous for children to know atheism exists"

[_Joe]

"It's dangerous for children to know atheism exists"

That wasn't stated in the reasoning for the policy by the creators of the policy. Your argument has failed.

[vtsquire]

That wasn't stated in the reasoning for the policy by the creators of the policy. Your argument has failed.

Last I checked, Monique Davis is one of it's authors. For a woman who takes interest in the safety of children and then goes on to state that it's dangerous for children to know atheism even exists, one can hardly expect that the intent of her writing is not reflective of a personal belief that religion is good and atheism is bad. Also, let's take note that she has since apologized for her remarks citing stress from some information she had learned earlier in the day regarding two students being shot. She apologizd for taking her frustration out on him, but not for actually holding that belief. People do stupid things when they're stressed, but this is akin to saying sorry for getting caught, not showing remorse for committing the crime. To say that she does not have a personal investment or interest in students or children is way off base and if anything, her remark about it being dangerous for children to even know atheism exists is very telling about what she thinks is best for children. We can propose that she has removed her ideals about what she thinks is best for children from this bill, but if we include it, we cannot ignore the fact that like all humans, her personal beliefs and view of the world do indeed affect how she presents that world to others. Amongst many other things, it is for this very reason that prayer shouldn't be legislated at all, let alone in regards to children. Students are already free to pray when they wish, students are already free to be silent if they wish. It is very telling that her bill would transcend from this opportunity to pray or be silent into a mandate of silence in order to allow personal reflection and prayer to go unmolested. It is an authoritarian policy authored in part by a religious person with the expressly written consideration for faith. "Shh. Some of us are praying. You aren't allowed to talk right now." Well fuck you very much.

[_Joe]

Last I checked, Monique Davis is one of it's authors. For a woman who takes interest in the safety of children and then goes on to state that it's dangerous for children to know atheism even exists, one can hardly expect that the intent of her writing is not reflective of a personal belief that religion is good and atheism is bad. Also, let's take note that she has since apologized for her remarks citing stress from some information she had learned earlier in the day regarding two students being shot. She apologizd for taking her frustration out on him, but not for actually holding that belief. People do stupid things when they're stressed, but this is akin to saying sorry for getting caught, not showing remorse for committing the crime. To say that she does not have a personal investment or interest in students or children is way off base and if anything, her remark about it being dangerous for children to even know atheism exists is very telling about what she thinks is best for children. We can propose that she has removd her ideals about what she thinks is best for children from this bill, but if we include it, we cannot ignore the fact that like all humans, her personal beliefs and view of the world do indeed affect how she presents that world to others.

Where did you see she's one of the authors of the law? The source is friendlyatheist.com, so the story didn't contain too much detail. Also, is this actually a law? I was under the impression that it was simply a school policy. And finally, do you think one could demonstrate that this statement, made out of the context of actually creating the law, can be established as a reason for the "law" even being brought up?


EDIT:


Wait, I just re-read the blog post, and have realized that the woman IS one of the ones who gave the funding to the school, but it was given to a secular school. I don't see how the statement and the grant are even related.

This woman has nothing to do with prayer in school.

[vtsquire]

1. Monique Davis is listed as one of the Bill's sponsors on the Illinois site, but I am currently unable to find the page referring to the author of "The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act." A news site I read listed her as a co-author.

2. Well, first up, there's not really even a distinction between school policy and law. School policies are set by the districts as commanded by state law and apply to smaller locales with the state. It's like a county law versus a state law versus a federal law. They're all laws (code, as in civil code, penal code, etc). Secondly, it was passed on the state level and applies to all schools in Illinois.

And finally, do you think one could demonstrate that this statement, made out of the context of actually creating the law, can be established as a reason for the "law" even being brought up?

I don't know that her statement would suffice as a cause for court action by itself, but certainly a statement such as that serves well as evidence that can shed insight into the intented results of authoring, sponsoring and passing such a bill. If the intent is not clearly secular, it's unconstitutional more or less. Hence, while it goes through the courts, the assembly passed an ammended version that is clearly less religious in nature and no longer a mandate. Take from that what you will...

[particlephysics]

every heard of the 1st amendment rights. freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to express religion. Besides by saying someone is not religious like is that you can do anything about cause the Constitution prevents the government from being controlled by a majority religion

[Yuseke]

Yes, I believe there should be prayer in schools but it shouldn't be mandatory. If you don't want to join in, you don't have to.

But then that would bring about the possibilty of discrimination to the people who chose not to join in correct? Kids in school are bullied in school enough, we don't need to willingly give them another reason to be bullied.

Plus....would you be willing to let a Satanist say his prayers right next to a Christian saying his/hers?

[kazuri]

Like I've said before, the schools in this country are bad enough already, every minute counts, and add's up.

I for one, do not wish to be paying tax dollars so some kid can talk to himself.

[_Joe]

1. Monique Davis is listed as one of the Bill's sponsors on the Illinois site, but I am currently unable to find the page referring to the author of "The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act." A news site I read listed her as a co-author.
It would help if you showed us this site, and what this bill is. The original article was only talking about funding given to a secular school.


2. Well, first up, there's not really even a distinction between school policy and law. School policies are set by the districts as commanded by state law and apply to smaller locales with the state. It's like a county law versus a state law versus a federal law. They're all laws (code, as in civil code, penal code, etc). Secondly, it was passed on the state level and applies to all schools in Illinois.
Different schools can have different policies, you realize that, right? The state doesn't micro-manage every school. There are certain things controlled like curriculum and funding, but things like conduct policy, dress code, sports, etc. are all up to the individual schools.

Again, you haven't shown where it says this policy is a law. And even if it was, it would not be a violation of one's freedom of speech, and it wouldn't violate the establishment clause because the legislator in question was not referring to the bill when she said atheism was dangerous.



I don't know that her statement would suffice as a cause for court action by itself, but certainly a statement such as that serves well as evidence that can shed insight into the intented results of authoring, sponsoring and passing such a bill. If the intent is not clearly secular, it's unconstitutional more or less. Hence, while it goes through the courts, the assembly passed an ammended version that is clearly less religious in nature and no longer a mandate. Take from that what you will...

Again, it can be shown that the statement was made WAY out of context, and far away from the "phantom bill that you're presuming exists" to the extent that it can't be used in court as a reason for the bill being passed. In the earlier court case we talked about the bill's author specifically addressed the need for prayer in school during debate on the bill, so it was on the record as being related to that bill. You can't establish that this woman had prayer in mind when she wrote that bill, legally.

Like I've said before, the schools in this country are bad enough already, every minute counts, and add's up.

I for one, do not wish to be paying tax dollars so some kid can talk to himself.

Would you rather they use that time for twiddling with their thumbs in homeroom? :rolleyes:

[vtsquire]

It would help if you showed us this site, and what this bill is. The original article was only talking about funding given to a secular school.

Different schools can have different policies, you realize that, right? The state doesn't micro-manage every school. There are certain things controlled like curriculum and funding, but things like conduct policy, dress code, sports, etc. are all up to the individual schools.

Again, you haven't shown where it says this policy is a law.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?GAID=9&SessionID=51&GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=1463&LegID=&SpecSess=&Session
You can click the bill's status to read through it's entire history. Hell, i'll do it for you.

5/31/2007 Senate Passed Both Houses
6/29/2007 Senate Sent to the Governor
8/28/2007 Senate Governor Vetoed
10/2/2007 Senate Placed Calendar Total Veto October 3, 2007
10/3/2007 Senate Motion Filed Override Governor Veto Sen. Kimberly A. Lightford
10/3/2007 Senate 3/5 Vote Required
10/3/2007 Senate Override Governor Veto - Senate Passed 042-009-000
10/4/2007 House Placed on Calendar Total Veto October 10, 2007
10/5/2007 House Motion Filed Override Governor Veto Rep. William Davis
10/11/2007 House 3/5 Vote Required
10/11/2007 House Override Governor Veto - House Passed 074-037-000
10/11/2007 Senate Both Houses Override Total Veto
10/17/2007 Senate Effective Date October 11, 2007
10/17/2007 Senate Public Act . . . . . . . . . 95-0680

And...From the constitution of Illinois, article X, section 2(a)
"There is created a State Board of Education to be
elected or selected on a regional basis. The number of
members, their qualifications, terms of office and manner of
election or selection shall be provided by law. The Board,
except as limited by law, may establish goals, determine
policies, provide for planning and evaluating education
programs and recommend financing. The Board shall have such
other duties and powers as provided by law."

As you can see, the rules for dress code policies are set by the board of education http://www.isbe.state.il.us/homeless/pdf/school_uniforms.pdf

Rules for conduct codes are set on a district level as you can see here. http://policy.cps.k12.il.us/documents/705.5.pdf

And rules for sports are even set on the federal level. See title IX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

Individual school policies must adhere to the codes that preceed them in authority. Any such code that is law... AS THIS ONE IS, cannot simply be legally rejected by a school without court action. It's also true that policies adopted by individual schools are still created by entitities established and funded by the state and thus serve as an extension of congress within the meaning of the first amendment. If this wasn't true, you're essentially saying cops aren't an extension either and thus don't have to respect your 5th amendment rights.


And even if it was, it would not be a violation of one's freedom of speech, and it wouldn't violate the establishment clause because the legislator in question was not referring to the bill when she said atheism was dangerous.

I engourage you to pay attention to what word was struck, what it was replaced with and try to justify it.


You can't establish that this woman had prayer in mind when she wrote that bill, legally.



This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.

No, it wasn't on her mind at ALL!

Would you rather they use that time for twiddling with their thumbs in homeroom? :rolleyes:

I would rather the bill be completely struck down as unconstitutional. If you had been paying attention, you'd know that by now you ignorant twit.

[_Joe]

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?GAID=9&SessionID=51&GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=1463&LegID=&SpecSess=&Session
You can click the bill's status to read through it's entire history. Hell, i'll do it for you.

5/31/2007 Senate Passed Both Houses
6/29/2007 Senate Sent to the Governor
8/28/2007 Senate Governor Vetoed
10/2/2007 Senate Placed Calendar Total Veto October 3, 2007
10/3/2007 Senate Motion Filed Override Governor Veto Sen. Kimberly A. Lightford
10/3/2007 Senate 3/5 Vote Required
10/3/2007 Senate Override Governor Veto - Senate Passed 042-009-000
10/4/2007 House Placed on Calendar Total Veto October 10, 2007
10/5/2007 House Motion Filed Override Governor Veto Rep. William Davis
10/11/2007 House 3/5 Vote Required
10/11/2007 House Override Governor Veto - House Passed 074-037-000
10/11/2007 Senate Both Houses Override Total Veto
10/17/2007 Senate Effective Date October 11, 2007
10/17/2007 Senate Public Act . . . . . . . . . 95-0680
There's no need to get heated over something like this.

And...From the constitution of Illinois, article X, section 2(a)
"There is created a State Board of Education to be
elected or selected on a regional basis. The number of
members, their qualifications, terms of office and manner of
election or selection shall be provided by law. The Board,
except as limited by law, may establish goals, determine
policies, provide for planning and evaluating education
programs and recommend financing. The Board shall have such
other duties and powers as provided by law."

As you can see, the rules for dress code policies are set by the board of education http://www.isbe.state.il.us/homeless/pdf/school_uniforms.pdf
You put up a link to something about a private school, and basically all the State Board of Ed. does is say "you can have uniforms." They generally don't dictate what the dress code is.

Rules for conduct codes are set on a district level as you can see here. http://policy.cps.k12.il.us/documents/705.5.pdf
That's a recommendation, not a command.

And rules for sports are even set on the federal level. See title IX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
Title IX is more of a civil rights thing. To bring that up is taking this entire thread way off topic and demonstrating that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Individual school policies must adhere to the codes that preceed them in authority. Any such code that is law... AS THIS ONE IS, cannot simply be legally rejected by a school without court action. It's also true that policies adopted by individual schools are still created by entitities established and funded by the state and thus serve as an extension of congress within the meaning of the first amendment. If this wasn't true, you're essentially saying cops aren't an extension either and thus don't have to respect your 5th amendment rights.
Well even if it IS a bill, how is it unconstitutional?

I engourage you to pay attention to what word was struck, what it was replaced with and try to justify it.
What are you talking about? Here's what happened, the woman was talking about funding that was given to a secular school and mentioned that "[atheism is dangerous for children]." I agree with you on that, I don't see where anything was "struck," I don't get what this has to do with the bill.


This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.

No, it wasn't on her mind at ALL!
It allows it, it doesn't promote it. And you can't establish that she meant to CAUSE more prayer in public schools.


I would rather the bill be completely struck down as unconstitutional.
Why is it unconstitutional? You still haven't demonstrated that to me.


If you had been paying attention, you'd know that by now you ignorant twit.

Even though this is bannable, I won't report you for it, just out of pity. I've been paying attention, it seems you're on dope or something and can't comprehend what YOU'RE saying.

[chrisvet]

It's dangerous for gov't to play "thought police."

[_Joe]

It's dangerous for gov't to play "thought police."

I agree, but what does that have to do with this case?

[vtsquire]

There's no need to get heated over something like this.

A violation of constitutionally protected rights is certainly something to get heated over.

You put up a link to something about a private school, and basically all the State Board of Ed. does is say "you can have uniforms." They generally don't dictate what the dress code is.

Ugh... learn to read.

"Although school uniforms have long been the norm in private and parochial schools, many school districts in Illinois have adopted dress code or uniform requirements in recent years.

Private schools are not a part of the school districts.

That's a recommendation, not a command.

"Students shall be encouraged to seek assistance from school personnel to prevent or resolve conflicts and to report incidents or activities that may threaten or disrupt the educational environment."

That's a command.


Title IX is more of a civil rights thing. To bring that up is taking this entire thread way off topic and demonstrating that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Title IX is specifically an amendment governing public education. My point stands.

Well even if it IS a bill, how is it unconstitutional?

1. There's no "if" about it. 2. Let me explain this concept called sovereignty. When a person is sovereign in their right, there is no authority to seek to do anything in that regard. Me speaking? I don't need your permission, you don't have the authority to shut me up. I am it, I have the sovereignty. This is what it is to have a right. In other words, I don't need anybody else's permission to speak because I am the sovereign individual. Student's are also sovereign individuals. Every person is. It is the explicitly stated goal (as written in the declaration of independance and the preamble to the bill of rights) that government is established to secure these rights (sovereignty) and that the amendments were added so that there is no mistake about this whatsoever. It wasn't enough to just say that this is government's purpose, so we included it as a part of the supreme law of the land. Ergo, congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech. This is the supreme law of the land. Not some laws, not small abridgements, NO LAWS AT ALL that abridge the freedom of speech. Mandating silence, even for a minute, is an abridgement of the right to free speech. That is not within the scope of powers afforded to the government. In fact, government is explicitly forbidden from doing this in the constitution. That's how it's unconstitutional. It may also fail on the religious ground, but it only has to fail on one for it to be unconstitutional.

What are you talking about? Here's what happened, the woman was talking about funding that was given to a secular school and mentioned that "[atheism is dangerous for children]." I agree with you on that, I don't see where anything was "struck," I don't get what this has to do with the bill.

The law doofus. The word "may" was struck and replaced with "shall."

The law took a moment of silence from being optional to being mandatory.
The law now reads "In each public school classroom the teacher in charge shall observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day."

That's a mandate, not an option.

It allows it, it doesn't promote it. And you can't establish that she meant to CAUSE more prayer in public schools.

*facepalm*

Why is it unconstitutional? You still haven't demonstrated that to me.

I've already explained it. Honestly, if you don't know your rights... how will you stick up for them? Do yourself a favor and read the constitution. IF you already have, read it again. Refreshing one's memories about what rights you actually have can't hurt.


Even though this is bannable, I won't report you for it, just out of pity. I've been paying attention, it seems you're on dope or something and can't comprehend what YOU'RE saying.

Go ahead and report me and see if the mods agree with you. You have my full consent to try. I've done more than enough to explain to the normal person what's happened here and why silencing others is both constitutionally and morally wrong. If you feel the need to silence others, go with it. Or just ignore me. Be ignorant, it's your right to do so. Meanwhile, I'm quite content to know that any view that seeks to supress competition and challenge concedes that it simply does not have the merit to stand on it's own.

[_Joe]

Go ahead and report me and see if the mods agree with you. You have my full consent to try. I've done more than enough to explain to the normal person what's happened here and why silencing others is both constitutionally and morally wrong. If you feel the need to silence others, go with it. Or just ignore me. Be ignorant, it's your right to do so. Meanwhile, I'm quite content to know that any view that seeks to supress competition and challenge concedes that it simply does not have the merit to stand on it's own.

I said I wouldn't report you. I was just letting you know so you don't get banned in another thread for doing the same thing.


I'm going to stop arguing this, because you are pulling shit from your ass and saying "look, I'm right," and the Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me. Also we have a mixer starting in a little while, so bye guys. And no, I'm not going to report you.

[vtsquire]

Well, kudos to you then for engaging in debate without censorship, that's more than can be said for certain other people. I'm not pulling shit from m