Talk:School prayer
Is it not secular?
Andy,
Is it not a secular culture keeping government and religion apart? Not an atheistic culture as you claim.--JBuscombe 13:13, 1 January 2008 (EST)
- "Secular" means public, and reflects public beliefs, as in saying the Pledge of Allegiance, reciting a prayer during the beginning of a congressional session, or swearing in a new president through use of a Bible. Public schools are more properly described as atheistic, where religion is affirmatively censored.--Aschlafly 13:17, 1 January 2008 (EST)
- "Secular" means separate from religion. It does not imply public. Also there is no prohibition of prayer in school. That is also protected by the first amendment. Students can pray any time without disrupting the school. What the critics are against is being forced to attend the prayer or the prayer being led by an authoritative figure like teacher. So it is not atheistic , just secular.--JBuscombe 13:22, 1 January 2008 (EST)
- Also how would you feel if you are forced to sit through a Muslim prayer led by the teacher every day? Now, do you get the point? --JBuscombe 13:26, 1 January 2008 (EST)
- There is a prohibition on prayer in public school, and it is deceitful to pretend otherwise. The prayers that start legislative sessions through the United States cannot be said to start the schoolday or a class in public school.--Aschlafly 13:38, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Not necessarily - the dawn, sunset, and dusk ones would probably not be during the school day, unless one was boarding/homeschooling. Also, in an avowedly liberal school over here in the UK, I can pray whenever I want, so long as it doesn't disrupt teaching. --JOwen
Although I essentially side with Andy on this issue, I was going to say that I don't agree with him on the definition of "secular". However, in checking my facts, it appears that Andy is closer to the truth that anyone here has given him credit for, even if the particular way he expressed it is not exactly right.
- OneLook gives the meaning as "concerning those not members of the clergy", although I don't know which dictionary it got that from.
- Merriam-Webster gives one of the definitions as "not ecclesiastical or clerical", and gives secular courts as an example.
- The Online Etymology Dictionary says that the word started off (in 1290) as meaning '"living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state"'.
It appears that the word, which I'd say started in a society that was Christian, did not originally mean "without religion", but "not part of the religious establishment". The secular courts example above illustrates this. A secular court was distinct from a church court. It had to do with which authority (church or state) controlled it; it was not to do with whether or not religion was involved. Religion (i.e. Christianity) was involved regardless. That is, the state, although distinct from the church still recognised the church as a co-equal authority.
In modern times, it has come to mean "without religion" as one of its most-commonly-used meanings (particularly by atheists and the like), but this appears to not be an original meaning, and so Andy is justified in making the comment that he does.
Furthermore, and this is where I agreed with him anyway, any state that excludes religion is not religiously neutral, but is taking sides, with the atheists. I don't believe that Andy's gripe is that schools don't have to have prayer, but that they are not allowed to have prayer (and we're not talking about students silently or privately praying). If the state allowed, but didn't enforce school prayer, they would be religiously neutral. But if they ban it, they are no longer being religiously neutral.
Philip J. Rayment 07:59, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Bible study paragraph
This paragraph wasn't about prayer, but it's still good for an article about the Bible and public schools:
From 2004 to 2006, a public school banned Bible study by children ... during recess. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. Larue did, according to her deposition. In that sworn statement, Larue said she briefly informed Summa of a parental complaint about the Bible study, and Summa then instructed her to end the practice, citing fear over "separation of church and state." Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess, according to the deposition."[1]
Jinxmchue 18:18, 27 January 2008 (EST)
- You are drawing a hairsplitting distinction that is not worth making. Bible study is often associated with prayer, and if Bible study is banned, then prayer is also. In borderline cases, we leave material in the entry because it is informative. We disfavor censorship of valuable information.--Aschlafly 20:15, 27 January 2008 (EST)
- Well, then maybe we need to have the article renamed to "Religion in public schools" and formatted with headings about prayer and the Bible, because there are lots of incidents where students simply reading the Bible have been chastised. Jinxmchue 21:23, 27 January 2008 (EST)
- I think changing the title is a good idea (although I have a problem with the term "public schools" (see that link). "Religion in schools" has broader application than "School prayer". Philip J. Rayment 02:18, 28 January 2008 (EST)
- Well, then maybe we need to have the article renamed to "Religion in public schools" and formatted with headings about prayer and the Bible, because there are lots of incidents where students simply reading the Bible have been chastised. Jinxmchue 21:23, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Query
Hi guys, I have a query. Firstly, as a Non-US citizen, I dont want to discuss whether or not prayer in school should be legal/illegal but I am wondering why it is such a big issue. In my school we had the lords prayer before a school assembly and those who were not religious (or of other religions) did not have to participate but we certainly did not have to have prayer before the start of each day. The reasons being is that people who want to pray would certainly pray before school with their family. Surely also a teacher can pray for/with his class either before the school day or lead those students in prayer who wish to privately. I think it is the parents who instill values and religion and should not be the realm of the government or school. Unless of course it is a catholic/sunday school/what-have-you that the parents have choosen to send their children to. MetcalfeM 20:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)
- (Reply from a non-US citizen!) In America all prayer that is in any way "endorsed" by the school (including implicitly) is effectively illegal. This includes the Lord's Prayer at an assembly, prayer by a teacher (whether in class or not), prayer by anyone during class time, and even prayer by a student at any gathering sanctioned by the school, it seems. There's video online of a student acknowledging God (not actually praying) in her graduation speech (I think it was, or something like that) having the microphone turned off by the school because of that. It's not so much that prayer is not endorsed or encouraged, but that it is banned (or censored, if you like). That is, if the teacher wants to pray, and the student have no objection, the teacher is still not permitted to. Philip J. Rayment 20:42, 3 March 2008 (EST)
- Well put, Philip. MetcalfeM, it's called censorship when something is permitted to be said only at home, or only in special place. Liberal concepts like evolution are not censored in the classroom. Why is prayer censored there?--Aschlafly 20:46, 3 March 2008 (EST)
That I understand. While I wouldnt agree with a teacher leading a prayer in class for the whole class regardless of belief or parents wishes I would certainly agree that it is not right for a blanket ban to be imposed. I mean, I am not religious however if I was part of a school sports team and some of my team members wished to have a prayer circle, while I may not join them, I wouldn't care. Each to there own I say. MetcalfeM 21:17, 3 March 2008 (EST)
- You are censoring the teacher or coach with respect to prayer, but not with respect to their expressing liberal views. Why do you support such censorship?--Aschlafly 21:28, 3 March 2008 (EST)
I support no censorship. Did you not read my post? I dont think it is a teachers responsibility to lead my children in prayer. That is my responsibilty. However if a teacher wishes to pray with the religious students of his/her class then fine, go right ahead. But on their own time (5 mins before class starts maybe?) not my childrens time. Also, if the coach wants to pray with his team, go right ahead, but I wouldn't join the prayer circle and shouldn't have to be exposed to it. But I have no problem whatsoever with a prayer being said as long as it is done respectifully to others beliefs (and vice versa). MetcalfeM 21:36, 3 March 2008 (EST)
- I did read your post, and reread it. You said, "While I wouldnt agree with a teacher leading a prayer in class for the whole class ...." That's called censorship of the teacher. There is no other (logical) way to describe it. You're likely fine with the teacher leading the class on evolution or his views about a political candidate. But, oh no, NOT prayer. That's censorship, plain and simple. You're fighting logic, not me, to deny it.--Aschlafly 21:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Excuse me Ashlafly, I didnt mention evolution or politics once! "However if a teacher wishes to pray with the religious students of his/her class then fine, go right ahead. But on their own time (5 mins before class starts maybe?) not my childrens time" How is this censorship of the teacher? MetcalfeM 21:55, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Okay, there's two issues here. One, should a teacher be prevented from praying where no student objects or students have the choice of opting out? On that, it appears to me that Andy and MetcalfeM both agree that the teacher should be allowed to.
The second issue is whether or not a teacher should be allowed to pray in a situation where the students object and can't opt out. MetcalfeM says that they should not be allowed to in that case. Andy thinks that they should. Andy is trying to say that MetcalfeM is being inconsistent in believing that a teacher should not be allowed to pray in that circumstance, yet believe that a teacher should be allowed to put other views to the class, such as political or evolutionary. Now MetcalfeM is being in consistent if he thinks that, but he hasn't said that he does, so it's premature to accuse him of that. And I would not be at all surprised if MetcalfeM says that teachers should not be allowed to put political views. Similarly, I would be surprised (but it's still possible) that MetcalfeM thinks that teachers should not promote evolution.
But regardless what MetcalfeM thinks, the real point is that in America (and other places, although perhaps not so rigidly), teachers are banned from promoting or even implicitly endorsing a Christian view (praying in class is hardly forcing a view on people), yet are required to promote (explicitly endorse) the anti-Christian view of evolution (for example). That is a glaring inconsistency, rationalised only on the false claim that one is "religious" and the other is "science".
Philip J. Rayment 22:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Nice clarification Phillip! Yes I do believe that it is fine for a teacher to pray with students if they agree etc etc as you pointed out. I also dont think that teachers should push political beliefs unless asked directly what the think. Same with relgious beliefs. As for evolution, well, I think that evolution should be taught in science class however I am a bit divided on creation being taught alongside. To be honest I haven't given it a lot of thought but if pressed I could say that it would be an idea to teach the holes in evolution? Maybe let students make their own minds up? Its a thorny issue which, to be honest, I dont really want to debate. Thanks for your clarification though Phillip. You aussies aint all bad you know! MetcalfeM 22:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)
- Thanks Philip, that seems like a fairly rational assessment. It does often seem like there is a double standard in these issues that is not often recognized. Feebasfactor 22:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)
