I am as opposed to school-sponsored religion as anyone, but this is absurd. How disgusting is it that an organization that supposedly exists to fight for civil liberties is attempting to have people jailed for exercising their own civil liberties?
Mr. Staver said the district also agreed to forbid senior class President Mary Allen from speaking at the school's May 30 graduation ceremony on the chance that the young woman, a known Christian, might say something religious.
"She was the first student body president in 33 years not allowed to speak," he said.
And:
Quote:
The criminal charges, which carry up to a $5,000 fine and a six-month jail term, originated with a Jan. 28 incident in which Mr. Lay, a deacon at a local Baptist church, asked Mr. Freeman to offer mealtime prayers at a lunch for school employees and booster-club members who had helped with a school field-house project.
Mr. Staver said no students were present at the event, which was held on school property but after school hours.
"He wasn't thinking he was violating an order," he said. "Neither did the athletic director. He was asked to pray and so he did."
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
i got mixed feelings on this one Gris. the teachers handbook sounds pretty over the top, and by one version of the event in question, it sounded like students were present. if that's the case, it wasn't an innocent violation, it was deliberate disobedience of a settlement agreement.
on the other hand, it might be an innocent foul-up.
i'd really like to see more of the facts, and know more of the background.
hopefully, the judge exhibits a little common sense, and maybe just the scares the bejeeses out of the guy, if it wasn't a flagrant violation of the settlement agreement.
i am, however, particularly disturbed by the use of the term "a known christian". that term torqued me just more than a little (after all, i have friends who are "known christians". heck, my wife is a "known christian"). its use is attributed to defense counsel...was he just parroting a phrase used by the ACLU in the prior litigation(i'm angry), or did he deliberately use it in hopes of stirring up public sentiment in favor of his client and against the ACLU?(he has my admiration, devious bugger)
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 3:05:25 PM by pissant
Parents in the Alameda, Calif., school district who have been told their children will be required to undergo a controversial homosexual instruction program have sued the district to protect their children from the indoctrination.
The action was filed this week by Pacific Justice Institute, which said it will defend the parents' rights to remove their children from such programs. WND earlier reported when the district was accused of violating federal law for approving a mandatory homosexual curriculum for children as young as 5 – without allowing parents to opt out of the lessons.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ... Hmmm, so let me get this straight.....God is out and Gays are in?
i got mixed feelings on this one Gris. the teachers handbook sounds pretty over the top, and by one version of the event in question, it sounded like students were present. if that's the case, it wasn't an innocent violation, it was deliberate disobedience of a settlement agreement.
on the other hand, it might be an innocent foul-up.
i'd really like to see more of the facts, and know more of the background.
hopefully, the judge exhibits a little common sense, and maybe just the scares the bejeeses out of the guy, if it wasn't a flagrant violation of the settlement agreement.
i am, however, particularly disturbed by the use of the term "a known christian". that term torqued me just more than a little (after all, i have friends who are "known christians". heck, my wife is a "known christian"). its use is attributed to defense counsel...was he just parroting a phrase used by the ACLU in the prior litigation(i'm angry), or did he deliberately use it in hopes of stirring up public sentiment in favor of his client and against the ACLU?(he has my admiration, devious bugger)
Oh, I have no doubt that there might've been a pretty blatant violation. It's basically a matter of which attorney you choose to believe.
I just think it's a shame that it comes to this. Criminal charges over a prayer?!? I don't care if the teacher got up and led the class in a recital of the Lord's Prayer, this is over the top. The main reason I favor so-called "separation of church and state" is that #1, I don't want anyone at a school teaching my kids Christian beliefs (I've seen enough on TBN to know that my kids would be better off learning the Gospels in a setting of my choosing). And I certainly don't want someone of some other religion putting pressure on them. And I realize it works both ways. But if there was, say, a Muslim teacher at my kid's school leading my kid in a prayer to Allah, that might upset me, but I'm sure not going to seek for him to be tried and potentially face jail time.
I mean, good grief, our ancestors came here in search of religious tolerance for stuff like this?!?
So there were some students present at an after-school dinner and the principal asked someone to say the blessing for the food. I'm sure that really bruised some little guy's psyche and warranted criminal charges.
I'm not aiming my frustration at you, boysda. Just seems like we could see a little more tolerance out of the group that's always clamoring for tolerance.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
I am going to go way out on a limb here and give a opinion. The ACLU are a bunch of liberal fags. If she wanted to give a anti christian statement they would carry her up there.
I'm not aiming my frustration at you, boysda. Just seems like we could see a little more tolerance out of the group that's always clamoring for tolerance.
i understand completely. you're one of the most tolerant people on this board. (of course, that's a lot like having the smallest feet at the clown convention).
as DLG said, i just want a little more info. did the parties agree that a violation of the settlement could result in criminal charges? was this sort of activity specifically discussed and contemplated by the parties? was the settlement a consent decree? if so, any knowing violation is contempt of court, and the guy's basically being charged with disregarding a court order, not the actuial praying.
First of all, I don't think they are being threatened with criminal charges for leading a prayer, etc. The problem seems to be the alleged violation of a settlement agreement arrived at in a previous court case. If you feel you should be allowed to have prayers in school, then you don't agree to refrain from doing so. This may be a subtle difference but try to keep it in mind. When you make an agreement, an honest person will stick to it.
As far as the class president, a "known Christian" not being allowed to speak, that's a puzzle. I am a known observant Catholic and there were no reservations about me giving the valedictory address. There has to be something lurking behind this, some information that is not in the Washinton Times report.
It is pretty clear though that prayer at school functions is just not allowed any more, likewise teaching religion in the school classroom. People who do so, do so at their own risk.
I do know that like most parents, I don't want my daughter taught some teacher's version of Christian beliefs in class, if we send her to a public school. And I certainly don't want her taught creationism as an alternative to evolution, etc., in science class. If the Catholic schools can teach evolution, public school teachers should be able to go along with the standard educational program.
There are schools that follow a fundamentalist Christian educational program. People who wish to teach that way should take teaching positions at those schools. When you take a teaching position you are expected to follow the school's educational program. When you agree to take that job, you should keep your word.
We don't believe in polypropylene
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
This is pathetic
