Talk:Classroom prayer

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Liberal bias?

Since when is describing the topic "liberal bias". Philip J. Rayment 22:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Phillip, it kinda stuns me that you would ask this question. This is Conservapedia, a wiki where you are a senior administrator, and it's been clear for over a year now that liberal bias is whatever ASchlafly says it is. I mean, what did you think? AliceBG 22:38, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh... Phillip. Feebasfactor 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not sure what these comments refer to, but the substance of this topic needs to be clear and up-front, not relegated to an obscure link at the end that most people will not bother clicking.--Aschlafly 23:55, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

It refers to the fact that in your eagerness to spin, you seem to have eliminating any explanation of the actual topic of the article.
I understand it wasn't as ideological as the current version, but what part of the collaborative, previous version was liberally biased, specifically?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 00:14, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
It obscured the truth. Many people could read the version you reference and come away completely clueless about how classroom prayer does not exist due to censorship of it.--Aschlafly 00:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, okay, but people can read your version and come away completely clueless about what classroom prayer is. Can you at least re-add the definition of the term and the description of its common manifestations, please?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 00:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy, could there be some kind of compromise? Where the current version is kept - detailing the truth about censorship, etc. - but the explanatory paragraphy defining the topic (from the previous version) is at least added at some point in the article. Feebasfactor 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It's self-evident what "classroom prayer" is. If anyone feels otherwise, then feel free to add a footnote in the entry defining it as group prayer in a classroom.--Aschlafly 10:20, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
There's two problems with this.
  • First, it's not self-evident, especially to people not intimately familiar with the situation in the United States. It could be any one or more of the following (and this list may not be exhaustive):
    • A time for students to pray silently in a classroom.
    • A student praying out loud in a classroom.
    • A teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
    • A chaplain or religious education teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
    • A group praying together in a classroom, led by a student.
    • A group praying together in a classroom, led by a teacher.
    • A group praying together in a classroom, led by a chaplain or religious education teacher.
* Second, being self-evident is not a reason for not explaining it, just like dictionaries don't skip words that everyone should know and American encyclopedias still list the capital of America even though everyone knows what it is.
The description should be at the beginning, even if it's a brief one and there's a more detailed one later on. I've often criticised Wikipedia's ID article for not being an article about ID, but about what's wrong with ID (supposedly). We should not repeat the same mistake. Encyclopedia articles should start of explaining what something is first.
Philip J. Rayment 11:03, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Philip, your multiple variations have insignificant differences. All your variations are prohibited in government schools, and censored by liberals.
If you'd like to propose a concise definition for a footnote, as I have above, then I'd be in favor of that. But I'm against anything that obscures, displaces, or dilutes the more fundamental point.--Aschlafly 11:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
I have to say that it seems a bit strange to me to relegate a description of the actual subject of the article to a footnote, while the entirety of the body of the article is devoted to ideological argument. But I guess if you're willing to unilaterally overrule others and really don't see the problem, there's not much we can do. You own this site, after all.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 12:51, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
The primary job of an encyclopedia is to explain what something is, not the current political situation surrounding it. while all that information is necessary, it should come second to a clear explanation of the subject. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
No, they are not insignificant differences at all. Even some liberals here have expressed a willingness to allow the first one, for example, and is the first one really illegal (in the U.S.)? Also, I'm pretty sure that although a teacher leading prayer would not be allowed here in Oz (although possibly not actually illegal), a religious education teacher would be allowed to.
Also, putting it in a footnote is not what any other encyclopaedia would do, and does not answer the point of my analogy with Wikipedia's ID article.
Philip J. Rayment 23:15, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Reversion explained

In addition to inserting a typo, the edit that was reverted also included non-encyclopedic bias like saying this is "controversial".--Aschlafly 14:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

So, you could've fixed the typo. On to your second point, you could've removed that instead of removing the entire block. Furthermore, if there is controversy over it, as is shown by the article's mentions of court cases over the subject, it is controversial by definition. DannyRedful 14:17, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
If you have no further objections, I will reinsert the block with the changes you've... Without the things you're not a big fan of. DannyRedful 14:19, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I agree -it seems remarkable to deny that the issue has been controversial when that's the entire thesis of the article, no? Even for those who fully support classroom prayer, they are confronted with the concept of controversy four words into the article. It is clearly a controversial issue, so say so. StatsFan 14:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Saying something is "controversial" is a liberal way to attempt to legitimize opposition. Such claim has no place in a well-written encyclopedia devoted to presenting the truth.
The reverted definition of "classroom prayer" was also inaccurate. Classroom prayer is exactly what its terms mean: prayer in the classroom.--Aschlafly 14:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Saying it's controversial is a way to legitimize your side? You might want to reword that.
Alright. I assume hallways, gymnasiums, cafeterieas, and other areas of the school are therefore exempt from this definition? I'm only trying to help your side here, dude. No need to get defensive. DannyRedful 14:26, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Why can't an encyclopedia that looks to present the truth acknowledge the controversy in some issues between different sides without endorsing any of them? If there was no controversy we'd either have prayer in public schools or not, with no complaints about the status quo from anyone. --DinsdaleP 14:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "controversial" - it is a term used simply to describe an issue where there is controversy, and in itself carries no judgement either way. Controversy either exists, or it doesn't. Affirmative Action is controversial, gun control is controversial, abortion is controversial, displaying the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse is controversial, polygamy is controversial, teen sex education is controversial, versions of the Bible are controversial, the Latin Mass is controversial - almost anything can be said to be controversial if there are loud voices in opposition. StatsFan 14:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Saying something is "controversial" is meaningless and only designed to confuse or legitimize opposition. Some people think that it is "controversial" whether Jesus actually existed. Would any credible scholar begin an entry about Jesus by saying His existence is controversial? Of course not.--Aschlafly 14:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Would any credible scholar begin an entry about Jesus without first describing who and what Jesus is? DannyRedful 14:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, since a search on the word "Controversy" within Conservapedia returns eight articles, I guess there's some work to be done cleaning up all that liberal bias. --DinsdaleP 14:51, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Sorry but saying the word is"designed to confuse or legitimize opposition" is completely factually incorrect. Take an argument in which no liberals have an opinion - Young Earth Creationism vs. Old Earth Creationism - neither side is liberal, but is there controversy? Is there controversy over the location of the Ark? StatsFan 15:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
There's even controversy about who really wrote the book of Revelation, John of Patmos or another John. Maybe in your world the word "controversial" is a meaningless tool used by liberals to confuse, but everywhere else it has a pretty basic definition. -- Aaronp
You've shown us liberal uses of the word to try to legitimize a liberal view, now let's see if you use the word to discredit a liberal view. How about a prominent liberal saying that the theory of evolution is "controversial"? Does liberal Wikipedia describe it as "controversial"?--Aschlafly 15:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
To be blunt, Andy, you're not getting it: Controversial is not a word used to legtitimize either side. Now then, if you're so sorely unsatisfied with my attempt to put the horse before the cart, perhaps you have an introductory paragraph in mind that describes the issue? If you do, I'd like to see it. DannyRedful 15:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
No, Danny, you're in denial. I answered your questions, now you answer mine: Does liberal Wikipedia call the theory of evolution "controversial" in its introductory paragraphs? I haven't even bothered to look, and I await your answer.--Aschlafly 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Does the use of the word in Wikipedia for a specific article have anything to do with whether it has a legitimate purpose here? --DinsdaleP 15:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
You continue to dodge and weave, but you won't answer the question I asked you - is there "controversy" between the YEC and OEC camps? StatsFan 15:47, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(Attempt at unindenting again) Actually Andy, I've asked three questions and made a variety of statements. You've yet to answer a single one my of my questions. I suggest doing so before you demand I respond to your question. However, I will respond nonetheless: What do Wikipedia's word choices have to do with it? You've said time and time again that this is not Wikipedia and that WP policies do not apply here. Had you not, I could have pulled out WP:POINT on your reversion of my legitimate statements.

In conclusion, Andy, it would be best if you exit this tangent and return to the original issue: How in the seven layers of the Stygian wastes is Classroom Prayer not controversial if there are two sides battling valiantly for their view to rule? DannyRedful 15:57, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) In all seriousness, ASchlafly, is there a context in which it would be appropriate to tell a student that topic "X" is controversial? There are many examples where the term applies without it having to be about confusing or legitimizing the opposition. Two quick examples - "Should the Mets fire Willie Randolph?", and "Did the use of poor-quality steel make a difference in the sinking of the Titanic?". Also, what would be the proper word to describe many of the debate topics here on CP, like "which day is the Sabbath Day?", where reasonable people disagree? --DinsdaleP 15:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

If saying an article is controversial is a liberal trick than how come at the top of the talk page of the Barack Obama article there is a note stating "Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism" ClydeMorris

Reversion Explained

I don't think Britain mandates classroom prayer. I have an open mind about this but would be very surprised if there is any evidence to support the insertion. Hence the reversion.--Andy Schlafly 20:55, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'classroom' prayer, but all schools in England & Wales have a legal obligation to provide "a daily act of collective worship" that is ""wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character" [1] [2] [3]

"Classroom prayer" means, obviously, "prayer in the classroom." No, Britain does not have that or require it. The links you provide, even if adhered to, would be a general prayer-around-the-flagpole sort of thing. It doesn't mean classroom prayer.--Andy Schlafly 23:30, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
Well then, given your definition of Classroom prayer, then classroom prayer is mandatory in England & Wales, as the law requires that the service take place within the school which, given the numbers involved (the average secondary school in England & Wales has between 1000 and 2000 pupils), almost always means that the service takes place in the theatre (a classroom for Drama). The service consists of:
  • a lesson drawn from the bible
  • the singing of one or more hymns
  • communal prayer

with such services lasting 20 mins or so. The service will be given by either the head of the school or the head of the respective years attending the service, depending on how many simultaneous services the school holds. I know this because like nearly every other person in England and Wales, when I attended school I had to attend these services twice a week, as required by law. The one thing these services aren't are 'prayer-around-the-flagpole' sorts of things, as there aren't that many schools in England & Wales that have accessible flagpoles, and nobody would want to stand around one for 20mins in inclement weather whilst the service is being carried out.--DanHutchin 10:14, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Dan, you're far too literal. By "prayer-around-the-flagpole sort of thing" I obviously mean prayer that is separate and removed from classroom instruction. Your further posting confirms that fact. There is no praying at the beginning of a class, as Isaac Newton would do to inspire his scientific discoveries.--Andy Schlafly 10:25, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
No, you're right that there isn't prayer at the beginning of every lesson, it would be massively disruptive to the lessons and schooling if there were prayers 8-10 times a day (consider, before prayers could start those not involved because they had a different faith would have to be removed from the classroom, the prayer would have to be held, then those outside the classroom would have to take their places again. As a standard lesson in secondary school is 30 mins long you would lose at least 5 mins of that lesson time on each and every lesson). Instead there is prayer, sermon and hymns at the beginning of every schoolday, a far more sensible solution.--DanHutchin 12:20, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Wondering about something

The article says "Most private schools, even religious schools, imitate government and do not allow classroom prayer. Some Christian institutions, including many Catholic schools, do allow teacher-led prayers at special school events, such as school assemblies, school sporting events, and graduation exercises, but rarely allow it in the classroom." I wonder if this is a regional thing? I have had kids in Catholic school, and they prayed often. They prayed at the start of school, and at the start of each class (so 7-8 times a day), and they often held mass on holy days. Every assembly and meeting open with prayer. The students pray before lunch. This is true for many of the schools in my area, including a Protestant school I'm familiar with. Even the local religious preschools pray at mealtime. Are there areas where this is not the case? Do we have enough information to generalize one way or the other? I'd love to hear from others what the situation is in their area. --Hsmom 13:00, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Classroom prayer is very rare in formal school, even in Christian or Catholic schools (both of which, by the way, are diminishing in market share). Often people opposed to it confuse a prayer outside of the classroom, as at an outdoor or assembly event, with classroom prayer. Classroom prayer is significant because it recognizes the connection between knowledge and faith, and liberals fight tooth and nail to censor it. Thank God for homeschooling, which has it.--Andy Schlafly 13:16, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Its not the teachers place to lead classroom prayer, it amounts to indoctrination into the teachers faith. Would you accept an athiest sitting before your children and tellng them christianity is false? For those who wish to pray nothing should be done to stop them, but teachers should always keep their religiouse (and political) views private from their pupils.--Smottram101 19:12, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

The content and spelling of your statement looks to me like that of an atheist. Suppose everyone in the class wants to pray. Atheists still object, because they're really motivated by a desire to censor expressions of faith.--Andy Schlafly 21:53, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
Athiests are bad spellers? HectorJ 22:00, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
Atheists tend to have slightly higher math/science skills -- the "scientific wannabes" -- but lower verbal skills. When someone misspells "religious", as Smottram101 did above, it's a telltale sign.--Andy Schlafly 22:42, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

So i added an e at the end of religious, i'm an athiest? That generalisation is stupider than me miss spelling religious in the first place, there are probably as many exeptions to that claim as there are people on the planet. My point was that it is the role of a teacher to make their students aware of different views, and allow them to decide. When a teacher is leading prayer, with the pupils having to take part or not, they put their view first. It would be just as bad for a teacher to prevent their puils from praying if they chose to do so. Allowing room for religion in schools, but not having any particular view be officially sanctioned, is the way it worked at my school, and everyone was perfectly happy with the policy. --Smottram101 12:58, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

"It is the role of a teacher to make their students aware of different views, and allow them to decide." Do you think schools should present to their students differing views on the origin of life, particularly intelligent design? --Ben Talk 10:14, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

Yes, different views on the origin on life should be presented, how exactly i'm not sure, that'd be something for the school to decide, but they certainly should be covered. --Smottram101 11:37, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

You never answered my point: "Suppose everyone in the class wants to pray." Are you going to?--Andy Schlafly 12:25, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

No i wouldn't, but i wouldn't do anything to stop them from praying either, and would remain respectful and quiet while they did so. I don't want to censor anyones faith anymore than i want anyone to force a faith upon me. --Smottram101 12:48, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

Then you're fine with classroom prayer when everyone in the class wants to pray?--Andy Schlafly 13:29, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

I have no problem with students choosing to pray at any time they wish, so long as it doesn't disturb lessons. My objection is if someone is forced into prayer, or if a teacher is leading it, a teacher should keep their religious views private. There are obvious exceptions, like religious schools or church services, but for the most part a teacher should avoid showing their religious views. --Smottram101 19:30, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

You seem to be back-pedaling now. The reality is that atheists demand censorship of prayer in the classroom, even if everyone wants to do it. The reason is that atheists want to segregate faith from knowledge.--Andy Schlafly 21:27, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

I have been pondering about something recently. At least three referances that I have seen on this article ( 4-6 to be specific) are blogs written by Conservatives and Christians. I was wondering if we could get someone with sociological credit or someone who works primarily in Socialogy, psychiatry, psychology, or any such area. Because if referances should be used, shouldn't they have factual proof to back it up? -Genuine question from the user of the name of Tony411

"Sociology", not "socialogy"; "references", not "referances". And please be substantive in your edits. If you dispute a statement, then please address it substantively.--Andy Schlafly 00:48, 12 January 2011 (EST)
Atheists tend to have slightly higher math/science skills -- when someone is or was an engineer, that is a telltale sign. What aren't you telling us, Andy? BarrySM 16:24, 21 February 2014 (EST)
Atheists tend to be white males having only slightly above-average intelligence. Atheists are often "wannabes", attempting to appear more intelligent than they are.--Andy Schlafly 17:19, 21 February 2014 (EST)

The human rights aspect

I deleted the category:Human rights tag, because it implies that "Teacher-led, state-sanctioned prayer" was a human right - or a matter of human rights. I think this obscures the issue at best, and could even be a liberal caricature of conservative positions. --Ed Poor Talk 13:11, 21 January 2011 (EST)

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. But you're the expert, not me :)--AnthonyDW 13:13, 21 January 2011 (EST)
Before applying the tag, I'd like to see the article clarify just what "classroom prayer" means. In general, it ought to mean any prayer in a classroom. As such, it should be covered by 2 parts of America's First Amendment: freedom of speech, as well as freedom of religion.
On the other hand, state-sanctioned prayer implies that students might have to say "Amen" to a prayer which violates the Establishment Clause. Suppose a Muslim teacher prays an Islamic prayer, and requires each student to kneel prostrate on a carpet facing Mecca? (An extreme case, admittedly, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's commonly held by conservatives that all teachers have an unlimited right to "lead their classes" in prayer. --Ed Poor Talk 13:19, 21 January 2011 (EST)

A right?

Is classroom prayer a right? I believe that prayer, education, and free speech are rights, and Classroom prayer is merely the union of those three rights, so logically is it not a right (despite what the Liberals want) as well? --AnthonyDW 13:12, 21 January 2011 (EST)

The majority of arguments for school sanctioned prayer that are mentioned here is, in my opinion, hypocritical. In a hypothetical situation, if school sanctioned prayer were to be made legal again, and, say, a Wiccan teacher lead a class prayer, it would likely make the news, in which case the members of Conservapedia would probably give the situation a name (such as, "The Wiccan Indoctrination Fiasco") and then proceed to push for either religious discrimination against Wiccans or the re-establishment of the "no school-sanctioned prayer allowed" law. --X. Dulks

A liberal's point of view

Tbh I only came here to debate conservatives, but anyways, You guys dont actually think that the country should sponsor enforced school prayer, right? In any context forcing classroom prayer isn't a good idea, because, obviously, religious minorities exist and they deserve the right not to pray to a god/gods they don't believe exist. And also on the topic of teachers leading school prayer, I am obviously against that as well for the reasons I already mentioned. The only way in which I would support class prayer is in the context of a student's right to pray to themselves in a session not lead by any staff.

So it is the non-believing, atheistic, liberal minority who has to force his religious beliefs on the rest of the class, is that what your saying? Ironic, isn't it. Karajou (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2016 (EDT)
Personally I'm an atheist and I know you guys want to kill us all but not having a state-sanctioned classroom prayer isn't forcing our evil atheist communist nazist agenda on the rest of his class. Not having a classroom prayer isn't bigotry against Christians, it is simply equality for people of all religion. Secularism and militant atheism are two different things; a militant atheist teacher would try to force his atheism on his class, while one who believes in secularism (the USA is a secular state by the way) would just not have any prayer at all. I'm okay with class prayers in inherently religion-based schools though, but in terms of the average secular public school, I wouldn't.
The only thing you said correctly is your admitting you have an "evil atheist communist nazist agenda", and based on your repeated creation of user names involving the N-word, I would have to emphasize your racist "nazist" side of your character. Figures. Karajou (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2016 (EDT)