Jail Time for Praying?

[mwd0818]

Hello, All 50 states allow 18 year men to join any arm forces...they also may to sent to war to fight and die for us...


This means any soldier in any arm force (USA) should be allow to DRINK, SMOKE, and GAMBLE...IN ALL 50 STATES...

if 18 YEARS OLD IS CONSIDER AN ADULT....GO TO JAILS AS ONE and not as juvnile?

Than any 18 years soldier...should be allow in ALL 50 STATES...TO SMOKE,DRINK AND GAMBLE IF THEY WISH TOO...

and all 50 STATES...should treat them as such...an adult!1

Aloha,.

I don't necessarily see where this has anything to do with the discussion, but to your earlier point. I agree with the separation of Church and State, and do find it interesting to have paid chaplains in the Armed Services. I don't discount their use and need, but I do find it interesting and have no problem with my tax dollars paying for their existence. Of course, there is an element of "volunteerism" in that, and that is a critical distinction.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

These comments are what happen when people think in terms of protected classes rather than equality.

I'm agnostic, maybe atheist, and I don't feel disprected when people of any religion pray around me. I'm even in an organization that has prayers as part of its rituals and ceremonies.

Maybe it's because I don't have a vested interested in keeping people from praying (although they should follow court orders) and I don't care if they believe, or do not believe as I.

I do not understand where people get the idea what laws against prayer in school are to 'keep people from praying'. Nobody cares if people pray.

The intent of such laws is to keep the government from taking on the appearance of promoting an official state religion, or promoting one religion over another. That's all.

You want to pray? Pray. But if you're a teacher, and you make the students rise and bow their heads, and then you say your prayer, you're wrong. That's not about protecting certain classes, that's about protecting civil liberties.

It isn't about keeping people from praying. It's about not giving the appearance that the government has an 'official' religion.

I don't care what people believe, either. But I don't want them cramming whatever their belief system (or lack of same) happens to be down the throats of children entrusted to their care to obtain an education.

 

[Andrew Green]

I don't see a problem.

He was charged with disobeying a court order, not praying.

I can walk down a public street just fine, nothing illegal. Although if a court orders me to stay 200m from someone on that streets house doing so is a crime and I can be charged for 'walking down the street'

He agreed to a court order that came about because he had been pushing his religious beliefs on students, which is wrong. He violated that court order and is going to pay for doing so.

On a personal level he is free to pray all he likes, just not to push that prayer on his students. Because of his past behavior he is probably more restricted then he was before, as in the case with someone not being allowed to walk down a street because of a restraining order.

 

[crushing]

I don't care what people believe, either. But I don't want them cramming whatever their belief system (or lack of same) happens to be down the throats of children entrusted to their care to obtain an education.

It looks like we are in agreement.

 

[blindsage]

These comments are what happen when people think in terms of protected classes rather than equality.

I'm agnostic, maybe atheist, and I don't feel disprected when people of any religion pray around me. I'm even in an organization that has prayers as part of its rituals and ceremonies.

Maybe it's because I don't have a vested interested in keeping people from praying (although they should follow court orders) and I don't care if they believe, or do not believe as I.

Is this a criticism of my statement? I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

EDIT: I guess it is a criticism since you negged me for it. Still not sure what the point of your criticism is, and where you come up with lazy assumptions about protected classes vs. equality.

 

[crushing]

Is this a criticism of my statement? I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

EDIT: I guess it is a criticism since you negged me for it. Still not sure what the point of your criticism is, and where you come up with lazy assumptions about protected classes vs. equality.

Now that you tossed it up here, wasn't I clear enough in my private comment in the disapproval of your post? I assume that's what "negged" means. I do regret taking the bait you threw up in this thread.

"The horror!" and all.

 

[blindsage]

Now that you tossed it up here, wasn't I clear enough in my private comment in the disapproval of your post? I assume that's what "negged" means. I do regret taking the bait you threw up in this thread.

"The horror!" and all.

Yes, it's obvious you disapprove of my post. What I'm asking is for clarification on the statement:

"These comments are what happen when people think in terms of protected classes rather than equality."

It' a bold statement, and wild assumption. This, specifically, is what I'm asking about. What 'protected classes' are you referring too? And what in my statement infers to you that I'm focused on anything but equality?

 

[Carol]

I wonder what the result would have been if the students were Muslim, Hindu, etc???

While I don't know all the details, I think this has less to do with the type of religion, and more to do with the proper legal channels being followed.

In the past when (say) Muslim students were permitted to pray in public schools, it was because a group of them banded together and requested accommodation, which the school granted.

It is reading to me as if the people in question did not ask for, or receive, accommodation for their prayers, they simply went forward with their actions.

 

[crushing]

It' a bold statement, and wild assumption. This, specifically, is what I'm asking about. What 'protected classes' are you referring too? And what in my statement infers to you that I'm focused on anything but equality?

Bold and wild?

All those poor Christians being persecuted by having to respect others and their beliefs. The horror.

Were you not making a backhanded comment about the political power that Christians wield in America? Your comment in context of the thread and especially with the dramatic and sarcastic (assumed) addition "The horror", make it appear that you are ok with placing limitations on Christian prayer, perhaps because they are such a powerful political force and perhaps deserve to be put in their place, especially after disrespecting the court order (others and their beliefs).