Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I actually wonder what qualifies as "damage"?

Maybe they thought that praying involves kneeling and that their knees would be damaged beyond repair.

[Platapus]

I thought this was overturned?

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I thought this was overturned?

Correct:
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/03/136934...on?ft=1&f=1016

Hallelujah!
Pun intended.

[Skybird]

If it is a public school, the state has to make sure not to propagate or support any religion in the public space. It's called secularism, and is based on the 1st amendement:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [...]

People' freedom ends where they practice it at the cost of the freedom of others, hence: keep away religion from state-run institutions and the communal public space. Leave it to the private sphere of the individuals.

That is where personal belief in the divine belong anyway. What is between you and your God, is your intimate business only for which nobody else must care. Where you claim the public sphere for your belief, you are supressing others, and turn from religion to politics.

[Bakkels]

Foxnews. Sorry, but don't you think they just might have overstated some tiny little things in the article?

Anyway, old news the ban is already lifted:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13757903

In the story it says
"The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Christa and Danny Schultz, who said watching their son receive a diploma this weekend would amount to forced religious participation. The Castroville parents argued that traditions such as invocation and benediction excluded their beliefs."

Now that's a whole different description of their argument then the one in the first article. Amazing how Fox applies its own interpretation on things like this.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

People' freedom ends where they practice it at the cost of the freedom of others, hence: keep away religion from state-run institutions and the communal public space. Leave it to the private sphere of the individuals.

Sorry but no. In my country the religious have a right to freely exercise their religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [...]

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Sorry but no. In my country the religious have a right to freely exercise their religion.

In your country as well as mine they cannot excersise tgheir relgion in the courts, rewriter laws because their relgions demands them to be so and so, they cannot rule the curriculum of schools and universities, they cannot sacrifice humans becasue their religions demand them to do so, and if they enter the property of a private person for baptising him agauinst his will, insome states this poerson has the right to shoot them dead right on place.

In your country other people not sharing the beliefs of a group also have rights. For example to stay free and untouched from said religion.

Else you would not be a democratic republic (on paper), but a religious theocracy in reality).


A persons relation he has to what he/she beoieves him, is a matter of the heart. It is intimate, private, and personal. Keep it there, in the private. Where you claim yur relgion demands you baptise others and to crusade for your deity and to soread the dogma, you are political, and you are nbot about spiritual developement, but earthl power-mongering, wanting to control others.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In your country as well as mine they cannot excersise tgheir relgion in the courts, rewriter laws because their relgions demands them to be so and so, they cannot rule the curriculum of schools and universities, they cannot sacrifice humans becasue their religions demand them to do so, and if they enter the property of a private person for baptising him agauinst his will, insome states this poerson has the right to shoot them dead right on place.

In your country other people not sharing the beliefs of a group also have rights. For example to stay free and untouched from said religion.

Else you would not be a democratic republic (on paper), but a religious theocracy in reality).


A persons relation he has to what he/she beoieves him, is a matter of the heart. It is intimate, private, and personal. Keep it there, in the private. Where you claim yur relgion demands you baptise others and to crusade for your deity and to soread the dogma, you are political, and you are nbot about spiritual developement, but earthl power-mongering, wanting to control others.

And nowhere does it say the religious have to hide their religious practices from your sight, yet you keep demanding they do so. Sorry, not gonna happen.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If it is a public school, the state has to make sure not to propagate or support any religion in the public space. It's called secularism, and is based on the 1st amendement:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [...]

People' freedom ends where they practice it at the cost of the freedom of others, hence: keep away religion from state-run institutions and the communal public space. Leave it to the private sphere of the individuals.

That is where personal belief in the divine belong anyway. What is between you and your God, is your intimate business only for which nobody else must care. Where you claim the public sphere for your belief, you are supressing others, and turn from religion to politics.

this.