Prayer out of schools?

Post Reply New Topic

You shouldn't have to. Freedom of religion doesn't extend so far as to allow intrusion into other people's lives. I could claim my religion requires me to sacrifice your life otherwise. The laws are not unreasonable. Student have the right to pray before a meal if that prayer does not disrupt others.

Now if another student doesn't like the fact that a fellow student is silently folding his hands, bowing his head and praying silently, too bad. That's his right.

If he's dancing around the table banging a tambourine, he still has the right to do that too, but not in public school.

If you really feel that somebody sitting within eyeshot of you saying a prayer quietly without forcing it on you is offensive, don't you think that's being a little oversensitive?

To insist they stop though, is worse than oversensitivity. It's invasive. If you could stop me from praying quietly in school, what's to stop you from claiming that my doing so at home offends you?

The laws (here) are not unreasonable, and do not force anyone to put up with anything they can't easily tolerate.

IOW, they can claim freedom of religion all they want, but if their practices violate other people's rights, too bad for them too. Claim it all you want, somewhere else.

Mandatory prayer still goes on in many Primary Schools here in the UK. I am strongly opposed to it, as, people should be given a choice in what religionn they believe in.

In America, prayer in public schools is not forbidden unless it would otherwise be mandated by by the school system of one of its employees.

In other words, if a student or school employee feels the need to pray alone and quietly (such as before an exam or a meal), then he or she may do so without fear of arrest, but for a school employee to mandate prayer is to risk arrest and/or dismissal.

Yeah, that too. ^^^ These days, they would most likely be suspended pending termination immediately in public or publicly funded schools.

They ARE publically funded schools in the UK.

Last I knew you could also offer prayer to students; my second American History teacher would intone a blessing in Latin over anyone who asked for it before a test (I always said yes, not out of any particular faith but because the blessing sounded eight kinds of bad ass).

And if you see what Dawkins (and most other secularist humanists) wants, he wants this to end. The problem is, this would cause massive, united outrage across the UK, from the national Protestant churches, to the Roman Catholics, to Jewish schools, to Muslims, to parents, politicians, the Daily Mail-type media that can't see why this is being done and the benefits that it would bring. Also, there are parts of the UK where religion still has an almost overwhelming grip on shaping and segregating people - most starkly in Northern Ireland.

Ahhh, Xtian love......it's just wonderful isn't it!

Was he making a show of it, or just sitting quietly with his hands clasped? I wasn't kidding about the ACLU - they can, and have, gone to bat for kids who were prevented from praying for themselves.

Just like your freedom to swing your arms ends at another person's face, so your freedom of religion ends when it begins to impact mine. It doesn't matter if your religion requires proselytization; if you interrupt me in my required silent-communion-with-god (or whatever), you've strayed past your allowed freedom. Likewise, you don't get to torture and mutilate animals for your religion even if painful animal sacrifice is 'required.'

What do you consider "freedom from religion"? Nobody being forced to pray? No public indication that anyone is religious at all?

I am aware of that. I'm speaking only of the U.S. I have no idea what the laws or situations are elsewhere.

No-one being forced to pray, people keeping their public religion and their private selves separate - so, for example, I might agree with people wearing crosses, or crescents, or Stars of David. If people actually ask about your religion, then by all means, give them a potted history. Otherwise, though, in general, religion should be kept out of public life as much as possible (exceptions should be made for people privately praying unobtrusively, though, I'd suggest). I think with religion (and more widely) we need to bring in a set of standards that people can stick to. I don't want to be bothered by Christians foisting their crap on me, proselytising and getting in my face or, for example, refusing to serve me contraceptives, or them hassling gay people (these two are almost unheard of in most of mainland Britain, although Christianity-influenced homophobia remains a problem elsewhere).

I pulled this one out as an exception because I think it is important to differentiate between what one is "allowed" to do religiously, and what one is "required" to do by non religious entities.

What if the person refusing to serve you contraceptives subscribes to beliefs that prohibit him/her from doing so?

IMHO, we must have not only freedom from religion, but freedom of religion as well. While I agree that we all have the right to not be intruded upon by other's religious practices, we don't have the right to force other's to violate their own principles either.

On that note, if I were personally working at a job that required me to do anything that violates my beliefs, the solution is to find another job, or not take the job in the first place.

There was an interesting case nearby here recently involving contraceptive distribution. The hospital, originally a Catholic institution later taken over by a secular administration, but still staffed mostly by Catholics, was sued for refusing to distribute contraceptives. What made this case rather interesting is that the history of the hospital was Catholic, now run by a secular administration, and was by this time also receiving public funding.

The basis of the government's case against them was, in essence, "distribute or lose your funding."

The hospital's response (in press reports) was, "We can't be forced to."

What I found stupid about the whole thing was that nobody was "forcing" the hospital to distribute contraceptives. They were simply being told if they didn't do it, they wouldn't get the funding. So what's the problem? If your belief is that strong about something like this, don't do it, and, in effect, turn down the funding.

Why go to the press crying your religious freedom is being infringed upon?

Seems in that case the money was more important than the principle.

They're in the wrong job then. Anyone who is ordered by their book or their other teachings not to do something that is an integral part of the job either should work their way around it (like Muslim owners of takeaway places that will serve ham on pizza, and very good it is too) or reject the job. Either navigate your way around it or find something else. Don't impose your values on other people who just want condoms, or 'toys', or gay magazines, or alcohol, or ham, or cigarettes, or anything else.

As I indicated above, I am in complete agreement with you.