Since the 1960s, the Supreme Court has declared government-led or student-led prayer in school unconstitutional, evidenced by cases such as Engel v. Vitale and Wallace v. Jaffree. Yet, over 60% of Americans in recent years have declared that they support school prayer.

Supporting School Prayer:

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible."
-George Washington, 1796

The issue at hand is a majority vs. minority problem. Those supporting the return of prayer to public schools claim it will reduce violence, drug use, teenage pregnancy, and other problems that have increased since the 1960s. They also say that school prayer would encourage morality, and that America has a long history of reciting prayers in school. America was founded by Christians on Christian values, and the Founding Fathers would have supported prayer in public schools.


Against School Prayer:

"…the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…"
-Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the US Senate 1797

Those opposed to school prayer claim it is a violation of their First Amendment's establishment clause (the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). They claim that, by leading prayer in schools, the government has established religion. Students are already free to privately pray at home, in their temples, in the halls of school, during class, during breaks, and before and after school, and thus the government is not infringing on their ability to practice their religion. Religion should be a private subject--it is not the responsibility of the government to indoctrinate children.

-----

One solution proposed to the conflict would to allow nondenominational prayers or prayers from different religious sects. The problem with this is that thousands of groups will each want prayer time. One day might be a Catholic prayer, the next day, a Baptist, the next day, Mormon, the next day, Orthodox Jewish, the next day, Shi'ite Muslim, the next day, Pastafarian...

Another solution proposed is the "moment of silence". While it is nondenominational, it allows a quiet moment for each student to pray, meditate, or daydream as he or she wishes, which cuts into instructional time.


Do you support or oppose school prayer? Why or why not?

I'm not sure what Washington thought of the Bible, but I think it's quite clear that one if it's main messages is that man cannot rule man, only God can rule man.

First off, how the hell is a prayer supposed to do this?

We were pretty much forced to fold our hands and pray for the food at kindergarten, which is partially the reason I've turned out to become the heathen I am today. I think I just mumbled some stuff rather than actually praying, cause, well, it's against my beliefs and stuff. I don't think we had any prayers when I started school, but we had to go to church beforee every Christmas in primary school.
If people want to pray, sure, let them do so. But it shouldn't be organised or encouraged by any authorities, it should be an individual thing.

Are you sure they ruled against student led prayer?
I thought it was only faculty led prayer that was against the rules.

I hate that no one is allowed to say anything because you have to be sensitive not to "offend" anyone who may disagree with you. I'm going to take a wild guess that 95% of times that people claim to be offended, they actually aren't. They just want to make problems for everyone else.

THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS

Personally I think the answer to all our problems lies in this. No student should be forced to participate in any prayer in school, just as congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, but neither shall the government ban it from schools, prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Let the people decide.

I oppose school prayer. There's absolutely no way that it could do anything beneficial. For the most part, I think it would just increase problems with discrimination because every day, everyone would be reminded of everyone else's beliefs.
I know that it makes me uncomfortable knowing that some of my friends think I deserve to go to hell, and I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way. I don't believe in hell, but it's the principle of the thing. I don't want people I care about to think I'm evil because I don't believe in their big man in the sky, and I don't want to be reminded that they do.

Santa Fe ISD v. Doe. Students and teachers cannot lead prayers, but students may pray voluntarily by themselves/on their own time, not over a PA system.

To clarify (not for you Vrael, for everyone else): Prayer isn't banned in schools, students can privately pray whenever they want. Teachers cannot require it, nor can a student lead a prayer at a public event, such as an assembly or football game.

Subjective. People who believe in prayer would argue otherwise.
Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you should just ignore their beliefs 100%. Discrimination lies in lack of understanding/acceptance of others beliefs... I can't even ... I don't know. This is the weirdest argument I have ever read.
If someone wants to hold an offensive belief, let them offend people. Doing otherwise is limiting free speech beyond reason.

I go to a private school, so there's prayer all the time.

Just leave it out of the graduation ceremony

Which is equally subjective.
Some people assume that, unless they're told otherwise, everyone has the same religious beliefs as them, and they get upset when they learn someone doesn't. Since you go to a private school where this probably doesn't come up all that often, I can see why you wouldn't understand this point.
I didn't say they can't believe what they want, I said I don't want to hear about it all the time. I am a proponent of the idea that people can believe whatever they want, as long as they aren't pricks about it, because no one likes a prick.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 24 2011, 12:29 am by FatalException.

Your wording is ambiguous. At first I thought you were claiming that there are people who only know of the existence of one religion, and are upset when they find out there are others.

I still don't understand how lack of acceptance is a reason to not allow religion in schools. To me it seems that the reciprocal would be true, that we should expose children to religion so that it is a natural flow to accept new ideas. Ideally, anyway.
I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying had nothing to do with thinking about beliefs. It was about the right to an individual to display their beliefs regardless of others' (or other's? always got this wrong) feelings.

Edit: removed part about content that has already been moderated

As for prayer in schools, I agree a legal change was required. The law specifically attacked the ability to create a situation in which students were socially obligated to act out a belief system that was not necessarily their own, or otherwise, stand out.

I also think that Christian morals are incredibly useful to society, they would instruct respect for the body (avoid drug use), promote having sex only after marriage (reduce teenage pregnancy), and attack other social problems (for instance, theft). Though I must emphasize that the existence of benefits is no justification for coercing such conformity.

Just a small note: the existence of hell is scripturally indeterminate, if you're interested... http://www.crivoice.org/dead.html (also make sure you know how to interpret revelations: http://ntrevelation.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-to-read-revelation.html)

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Nov 24 2011, 3:42 pm by jjf28.

That pic is so fuckin funny and so fuckin true. Rofl at all the cognitive dissonant ppl reporting it.

I think it's stupid.

Schools are for education, not promoting the Judeo-Christian religions. Prayer is just that, promoting a particular form of worship for a particular kinds of religions. The mention of God is itself selective to only Christianity, and leaves out Islam and Judaism (since they refer to their creator in a different manner-- Christianity is the only religion to refer to their deity as "God").


It doesn't matter what it would have reduced. It doesn't matter what the founders would think (they were mostly deists, republicans can't weasel their way out of this one). And it doesn't matter what we have been doing for such and such. Nor does it matter what the majority says. These are all logical fallacies, appeals to X, specifically (except the second).

The first (what it would result in) is an appeal to consequence. This is faulty reasoning because reasoning doesn't rely on whether or not the conclusion is favorable or not, but whether the argument is sound.

The second (what the founders would think) is irrelevant. It's a sort of red herring type of thing. What matters are the laws they made and how they're interpreted by the supreme court. And not that it matters, pretty sure they would not approve because why include a clause of separation of church and state if you don't personally believe that's the right thing to do?

The third (what we have been doing for awhile) is an appeal to tradition. Just because we have been doing something for a long time doesn't make it right (or true). Slavery isn't thought of to be correct, despite its long tradition. Nor is burning witches. Or human sacrifices. While we're on this topic, I'll point out that "under God" was not in the original pledge of allegiance (was added in 1860s iirc, after the civil war). "In God we trust" was added to coins soon after too, and it wasn't until the 1950s (or thereabouts) that this was added to paper money. There is no mention of God or any deity or supernatural power anywhere in the constitution or its amendments (save the clause about separation of church and state, ironically).

The fourth's error (what the majority of America thinks) really strikes the heart of democracy, but it is nonetheless inescapable. It's an appeal to the majority (or appeal to popularity). If 99% of people think the Earth is flat, it doesn't make it true. Yes. That many people can be wrong (and often are).

---

There is really no sound argument for prayer in schools. They are all based on faulty reasoning brought about by the Christian majority and Christian power trying to push their beliefs into the government. They've been succeeding too. Which is utter bullshit. The nation was founded on religious freedom, and the founders clearly created the separation clause to protect that freedom.

Anyone that thinks America's government should be based on anything but secular morality is a complete moron. If you love your religion so much move to a country that endorses it, or found your own. America isn't about your religion. It's (or should be) about freedom, and if other people worshiping how they want to worship bothers you, maybe America isn't for you.

I find that the schools are doing a fabulous job with 'the moment of silence'.
They went from being a full minute long to being between 5 and 10 seconds long.

I am all for an individual's right to practice their religion, but the purpose of attending school is to better one's self in an educational aspect. Really, to go out of the way to perform a School Prayer each day is just that: to go out of the way.
I do not want to say that 'they are wasting time', but they are not exactly speeding up the learning process either.

There are moments in the school day where a student will have down-time to pray if they want. They can execute their belief then.

Religious people are good folks, they tend to accept unlogical bullshit, or at least one of its parts, they help people by providing support to them, they punish other people sometimes, they help giving presents and accumulating money for children, they want to love everyone just as Jesus Christ summed up for them as the main commandment is love your god and love other people as you love yourself.
So fuck them, or just stroke their genitals, thats a language everyone understands.

Let's found a nation for Christians! We could put it right around the city where Jesus lived. Oh wait, the last time that happened it didn't go over so well.
I hereby claim the moon!

Agreed

As for teaching about religion in schools. This is a problem area. The majority of literature taught in schools has references to the Bible, which are supposed to be understood by the students. It's not annoying when they tell people that religion can't be forced onto people. It is annoying when they try to remove every last trace of a belief system in the name of "fairness".

"Sorry Susie, we don't teach Shakespearre anymore because he was a Christian."

At my school, if anyone prays, I haven't seen them. Usually people just go about their work for the 10 allocated seconds. Some even talk.

What happens when you mix religion and government? Iran.

Also, I'm surprised no one has brought up a relevant argument in support of school prayer.

Religion can be in schools, but promoting a certain sect above the others would not be right. It goes back to the OP, where every sect, no matter how small, would want prayer time.

No, because people have a freedom to have a lack of religion as well.

You should include a poll that asks the same question as the original post: Do you support or oppose School Prayer?