Separation of Church and State?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481427,00.html

CHICAGO ? A federal judge has ruled that a state law requiring a moment of silence in public schools across Illinois is unconstitutional, saying it crosses the line separating church and state.

OK, beyond the letter from Jefferson, how is it unconstitutional?
the First amendment prohibits the United States Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

How does a ruling prohibiting silence, uphold this? Seems like the ruling is more unconstitutional than the moment of silence.

2

The ruling is 100% correct. Although “separation of church and state” is not found in the Constitution, that is how the Supreme Court has interpreted the EC clause since 1947. It is entirely justified - keeping religion out of government helps both entities. The government has aboslutley no business in promoting religion, especially in the public school forum.

This is the most unique forum because it inhernetly involves millions of public school students, forced to attend (for all intents and purposes, they are forced), who are extremely impressionable. On top of that, religious endorsement does not comport with the state’s compelling government interests, which is essentially to ensure that public school students, upon graduation, can adequately contribute to society and contribute in our government.

This is accomplished by making them take classes like history, science, literature, government/civics, social studies, etc. Religion does not fit.

Besides all of that, the majority has no business imposing religion on others, especially in this particular forum.

In addition, “The “teacher is required to instruct her pupils, especially in the lower grades, about prayer and its meaning as well as the limitations on their 'reflection,”’ Gettleman ruled.”

That right there is the biggest blow to the Illinois law. For anyone to suggest that this is merely a moment of silence, and was not motivated in any way to promote school prayer, they are fooling themselves. The people who pass these laws are Christian, and are always trying to find ways at incorporating religion into the classroom.

Obviously they know that if they pass a law which states “all public school teachers shall, each morning, lead their students in daily prayer” it would be struck down. So, they pass “moments of silence” statutes instead. However, they are usually so stupid as to have something in the law itself which is highly suggestive that the legislatures really want students to pray during this time.

Btw, this ruling in no way interferes with a student’s ability to pray during school hours, on school property, as long as it is nondisruptive.

For example, any student can pray to themselves at their lockers in between classes. They can also get together during lunch and pray before they eat. They can even pray in their classrooms, before the lecture begins. This is the individual’s constitutional right. When the government, however, promotes or endorses religion or especially, religious exercise, you have a constitutional violation.

3

How is silence unconstitutional?

4

Wouldn’t the time in school be better spent teaching the kids something? Silence, they can do at home, no teacher or school required.

5

[quote]Sloth wrote:
They should reintroduce the moment of silence as a means to quite down restless children, preparing them for instruction. The children would be free to pray, or to recall what they went over the last time class met, or whatever.

No instruction given as to what they should be thinking during the silence, of course. Let’s see them strike down silence as unconstitutional. I’d make them do it.

How come two people have said essentialy the same thing I did, yet turned and argued with me?

7

[quote]Sloth wrote:
One of the biggest problems in the schools I attended was the lack of silence among students. Why not have a brief silence to focus the students on the fact that it’s time to come together, end the chit-chat and fidgeting around, and be ready to focus?[/quote]

The schools I attended had this nifty technological device called “a bell” that would ring to indicate the start and the end of a class. I was apparently also very lucky to have classmates that understood that the bell ring meant “stop the chit-chat and listen.”

They must’ve been specially gifted or something, the classes generally quieted down in seconds.

Maybe the jungle marsh schools you attended could supply the teachers with a laddle and a large metal pot to replicate the bells’ function.

[quote]They should reintroduce the moment of silence as a means to quite down restless children, preparing them for instruction. The children would be free to pray, or to recall what they went over the last time class met, or whatever.

No instruction given as to what they should be thinking during the silence, of course. Let’s see them strike down silence as unconstitutional. I’d make them do it. [/quote]

After the bell rings, if they don’t quiet down and sit at their desk, you can send them off to the principal’s office, where they can pray at their leisure while they wait their turn to see him.

No need to waste everyone’s time simply because a few kids are slow on the uptake.

9

[quote]pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
Wouldn’t the time in school be better spent teaching the kids something? Silence, they can do at home, no teacher or school required.

Time management has nothing to do with the First Amendment.[/quote]

Time management is required if you wish to teach kids as much material as possible - and teach it well - in the available time.

11

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
One of the biggest problems in the schools I attended was the lack of silence among students. Why not have a brief silence to focus the students on the fact that it’s time to come together, end the chit-chat and fidgeting around, and be ready to focus?

The schools I attended had this nifty technological device called “a bell” that would ring to indicate the start and the end of a class. I was apparently also very lucky to have classmates that understood that the bell ring meant “stop the chit-chat and listen.”

They must’ve been specially gifted or something, the classes generally quieted down in seconds.

Maybe the jungle marsh schools you attended could supply the teachers with a laddle and a large metal pot to replicate the bells’ function.

They should reintroduce the moment of silence as a means to quite down restless children, preparing them for instruction. The children would be free to pray, or to recall what they went over the last time class met, or whatever.

No instruction given as to what they should be thinking during the silence, of course. Let’s see them strike down silence as unconstitutional. I’d make them do it.

After the bell rings, if they don’t quiet down and sit at their desk, you can send them off to the principal’s office, where they can pray at their leisure while they wait their turn to see him.

No need to waste everyone’s time simply because a few kids are slow on the uptake.

[/quote]

We haf one of them there bell thangs two! Yet, still restless and talkative chidren. However, if a school decides a bell, or minute of silence, or both could be used, why not? And, I’m not all that worried about the academic debate. I’m interested if silence can be held unconstitutional.

12

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Time management has nothing to do with the First Amendment.[/quote]

Spoken like a true bureaucrat. Why force the teachers to do more work in less time? If the kids would just learned faster, they’d have time to pray.

If our Churches were bastions of knowledge and learning and/or if our schools were out-educating the rest of the world’s schools with hours to spare, I might agree.

Unfortunately, both our schools and our Churches are slipping. I think the ‘separation of church and state’ gets misconstrued to the ‘mutual exclusion of church and state’, but, in this case, it’s the blind leading the blind, morally and intellectually.

BTW- Sherman also brought the case to remove ‘under God’ from the pledge of allegiance. He lost that case. King Solomon couldn’t have done a better job.

13

If a teacher can’t demand students remain silent for 1 minute, are they in the wrong for asking them to remain silent (unless called upon) for duration of the class?

Oh, or this:

“Students, please remain silent as I take a minute to gather my thoughs for the lecture I’m about to give.” Sneaky, sneaky.

15

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
Wouldn’t the time in school be better spent teaching the kids something? Silence, they can do at home, no teacher or school required.

One of the biggest problems in the schools I attended was the lack of silence among students. Why not have a brief silence to focus the students on the fact that it’s time to come together, end the chit-chat and fidgeting around, and be ready to focus?

They should reintroduce the moment of silence as a means to quite down restless children, preparing them for instruction.

The children would be free to pray, or to recall what they went over the last time class met, or whatever. No instruction given as to what they should be thinking during the silence, of course. Let’s see them strike down silence as unconstitutional. I’d make them do it. [/quote]

that would be fine if there was no religious overtone.

16

We always a “moment of silence” in highschool. I for one enjoyed it and I think it was rarely used even individually for prayer. Has doesn’t violate anyone’s religious rights in any way, unless of course your religion forbids you from staying silent a whole minute.

The people saying teachers should use that time to teach sound like they’ve never been in a classroom. Being a good teacher is far more than shoving as many textbook pages as possible down kids throats. NOT TO MENTION IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A MOMENT OF SILENCE.

Schools are about socialization, discipline, learning manners, lots of things. 1 single minute where things can be quiet so everyone can reflect on the day is beneficial to everyone.

17

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If a teacher can’t demand students remain silent for 1 minute, are they in the wrong for asking them to remain silent (unless called upon) for duration of the class?

Oh, or this:

“Students, please remain silent as I take a minute to gather my thoughs for the lecture I’m about to give.” Sneaky, sneaky.[/quote]

As I read it, the issue was more around the requirement to teach the young kids what to do in the silence than the silence itself.

18

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How is silence unconstitutional?[/quote]

Silence is not unconstitutional. It’s not our fault that legislatures are too stupid when it comes to attempts at promoting prayer in public schools.

As was stated in the article, the law apparently forced teachers, especially those who taught young students, about how they can spend the time praying.

If you can’t understand how that is an example of the government trying to promote religious exercise in schools, I don’t know how else to explain it.

I wouldn’t be opposed to a law requiring a moment of silence if it wasn’t so plain that it was an attempt at getting children to pray in schools.

19

[quote]pushharder wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
…Although “separation of church and state” is not found in the Constitution, that is how the Supreme Court has interpreted the EC clause since 1947…

Big fuckin deal. The Supreme Court also ruled against Dred Scott in 1857 by a seven to two margin, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States.[/quote]

I don’t think its practical to assume that just because the Court has fucked up in the past in other circumstances that we should do away with the separation of church and state, if that was what you were implying.

Besides, even if the Court didn’t have this interpretation, it would still be wrong to have the government promoting religion in the public school system. One may not think this particular statute was wrong, but if we allow these seemingly “harmless” practices, it is going to lead to more and more instances of religious endorsement in this forum.

As already noted, students already have the constitutional right to pray during their own time even on school property. Plus they can pretty much pray whenever they’d like outside of school to begin with. There is a clear line, and the government crosses it whenever they endorse religion.

20

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If a teacher can’t demand students remain silent for 1 minute, are they in the wrong for asking them to remain silent (unless called upon) for duration of the class?

Oh, or this:

“Students, please remain silent as I take a minute to gather my thoughs for the lecture I’m about to give.” Sneaky, sneaky.

As I read it, the issue was more around the requirement to teach the young kids what to do in the silence than the silence itself.[/quote]

Exactly. As I understand the law to be, there’s nothing stopping a legislature from adopting a secular moment of silence law. However, it seems as if they are too stupid to do this because they always seem to do something which indicates their true intent, which is to promote prayer in public schools.