Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah

[sarge87]

Wow, people trying to work religion into schools...shocking. :sarcasm Is it any different for non-christian kids to be forced to hold their hand over their hearts and say the Pledge of Allegiance (one nation under god)?

musta been cali us freakin' liberals

You are joking right?

I don't know where you went to school, but anyone who couldn't say the Pledge of Allegiance because of religious reasons was not required to do so. I live in a community where there is a small congregation of Jehovah's Witness students that went to my school, and they didn't say the Pledge of Allegiance or attend Christmas pageants. Nobody thought none the less of them, and they weren't penalized for it. It was against their religion and it was respected.

By the way, public tax money is being used at the University of Michigan to install foot baths for Muslim students for daily prayers. Separate workout schedules for public use facilities on Ivy League campuses are being enforced for Muslim women, because it is against their religion to be seen in public without their traditional garb. Taxpayers are funding a Muslim 'charter school' in Minnesota and most probably know nothing about it. LINK

I find it amazing that the same secularists scream 'separation' if a Christian symbol is displayed on public grounds, but in the interest of tolerance, the same does not apply to others. Then again, the loudest voices for tolerance are the usually the most intolerant.

I know that the "Pledge" is not forced everywhere, but it is definately forced in many places. Here are a few examples. One was forced to stop making the kids say it, but they tried.....

Forced to say pledge #1

HOLY $HIT!!!!!

Virginia Law requiring it: a debate

Florida students forced

Illinios Govenor requires pledge

I am as much against the foot bathes as I am about having any religion in public schools. Keep Buddha, Jehova, Zues, Ala, Jesus, and the rest at the dinner table and in the houses of worship where they belong. Actually, keep them in the "Outdated Concept" section at the library.

I agree that in the USA, most church/state debates and arguments are over Christian symbols and practices. I believe this is the case because of the large population of Christian faithful here (compared to other religions). More confrontation is bound to happen. Secularists adhere to non-admittance of any and all religious/spiritual subject matter (if they do not, than they are not secularists). Only a crazy P.C. driven moron would argue in favor of church and state, only to contradict themselves by excluding one religion.

I think it's a little harsh to say keep religion in the outdated concept section of the library. Many people hold religion as a guide for their lives to try to achieve something better than themselves. It's the people who use religion as a weapon are the ones that bastardize the whole concept. I personally left a church because the Pastor would not officiate a burial of a member of the church who was homosexual. I knew the family personally, and I saw no reason for this. My view is that we're all God's children. Having said that, I'm tolerant of his lifestyle, and I would not advocate violence against him or others like him. Most people confuse tolerance with acceptance. I would say that I don't accept his lifestyle as normal, but I don't need to use religion as a weapon, because that is unconscionable. Most people who are religious are very tolerant of others, and have a whatever-floats-your-boat attitude. It's the kooks like Rev. Phelps and the link you found that really piss me off. They give all religious people a black eye. It's like the reporter that covers a story in a rural area. Do they find the normal articulate person to interview? No, they find the village idiot with his beer stained wife beater T-shirt, who couldn't put together a sentence with a see-n-say, to be the spokesman for the whole town.

The states that you have listed on your links have provisions for religious and personal objections written into their Pledge laws. The institutions that violated such provisions should be taken to task. The ACLU in many cases have tried to strike down many of the pledge laws. They use the argument that compelled speech is against the 1st amendment. It's a good debate to have. The question I have is, where is the ACLU in the examples that I gave? If a High School graduate utters a religious word in a commencement speech, the ACLU is kicking in the front door with a lawsuit before the mortarboards hit the ground. I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt, but they seem to be politically selective in whose 'Liberties' they chose to litigate.

 

[Redman]

Wow, people trying to work religion into schools...shocking. :sarcasm Is it any different for non-christian kids to be forced to hold their hand over their hearts and say the Pledge of Allegiance (one nation under god)?

musta been cali us freakin' liberals

You are joking right?

I don't know where you went to school, but anyone who couldn't say the Pledge of Allegiance because of religious reasons was not required to do so. I live in a community where there is a small congregation of Jehovah's Witness students that went to my school, and they didn't say the Pledge of Allegiance or attend Christmas pageants. Nobody thought none the less of them, and they weren't penalized for it. It was against their religion and it was respected.

By the way, public tax money is being used at the University of Michigan to install foot baths for Muslim students for daily prayers. Separate workout schedules for public use facilities on Ivy League campuses are being enforced for Muslim women, because it is against their religion to be seen in public without their traditional garb. Taxpayers are funding a Muslim 'charter school' in Minnesota and most probably know nothing about it. LINK

I find it amazing that the same secularists scream 'separation' if a Christian symbol is displayed on public grounds, but in the interest of tolerance, the same does not apply to others. Then again, the loudest voices for tolerance are the usually the most intolerant.

I know that the "Pledge" is not forced everywhere, but it is definately forced in many places. Here are a few examples. One was forced to stop making the kids say it, but they tried.....

Forced to say pledge #1

HOLY $HIT!!!!!

Virginia Law requiring it: a debate

Florida students forced

Illinios Govenor requires pledge

I am as much against the foot bathes as I am about having any religion in public schools. Keep Buddha, Jehova, Zues, Ala, Jesus, and the rest at the dinner table and in the houses of worship where they belong. Actually, keep them in the "Outdated Concept" section at the library.

I agree that in the USA, most church/state debates and arguments are over Christian symbols and practices. I believe this is the case because of the large population of Christian faithful here (compared to other religions). More confrontation is bound to happen. Secularists adhere to non-admittance of any and all religious/spiritual subject matter (if they do not, than they are not secularists). Only a crazy P.C. driven moron would argue in favor of church and state, only to contradict themselves by excluding one religion.

I think it's a little harsh to say keep religion in the outdated concept section of the library. Many people hold religion as a guide for their lives to try to achieve something better than themselves. It's the people who use religion as a weapon are the ones that bastardize the whole concept. I personally left a church because the Pastor would not officiate a burial of a member of the church who was homosexual. I knew the family personally, and I saw no reason for this. My view is that we're all God's children. Having said that, I'm tolerant of his lifestyle, and I would not advocate violence against him or others like him. Most people confuse tolerance with acceptance. I would say that I don't accept his lifestyle as normal, but I don't need to use religion as a weapon, because that is unconscionable. Most people who are religious are very tolerant of others, and have a whatever-floats-your-boat attitude. It's the kooks like Rev. Phelps and the link you found that really piss me off. They give all religious people a black eye. It's like the reporter that covers a story in a rural area. Do they find the normal articulate person to interview? No, they find the village idiot with his beer stained wife beater T-shirt, who couldn't put together a sentence with a see-n-say, to be the spokesman for the whole town.

The states that you have listed on your links have provisions for religious and personal objections written into their Pledge laws. The institutions that violated such provisions should be taken to task. The ACLU in many cases have tried to strike down many of the pledge laws. They use the argument that compelled speech is against the 1st amendment. It's a good debate to have. The question I have is, where is the ACLU in the examples that I gave? If a High School graduate utters a religious word in a commencement speech, the ACLU is kicking in the front door with a lawsuit before the mortarboards hit the ground. I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt, but they seem to be politically selective in whose 'Liberties' they chose to litigate.

You are correct, it was a little harsh to say keep religion in the outdated concept section of the library. I will try to more tolerant of what I feel is not normal.

I completely agree with your second part. The ACLU as a concept is a good one, but the concept gets lost behind some of the wackos that are part of it. Wow, does that situation sound familiar "a good concept overshadowed by wackos."

 

[HuskersNow]

HOLY $HIT!!!!!

That link is pretty funny but I think that it is fake.

 

[Redman]

My favorite part of that page....

 

[AZ4NE1]

HOLY $HIT!!!!!

That link is pretty funny but I think that it is fake.

:yeah

At least I hope so..But then, are Jerry Springer audience members just pretending to be morons?

The best Satire is the one that keeps making you wonder if it's satire?

Most people who are religious are very tolerant of others

Didn't that make a top 100 list of Oxymorons somewhere?
It's a Bumpersticker http://www.amazon.com/Oxymoron-43-Religiou...r/dp/B0002U809Q

 

[T_O_Bull]

Just so tired. Leave it at home and yor place of worship.

 

[DaveH]

must be a different country because that would be against the seperation of church and state thing in the US

That's gotta be the most misinterpreted thing ever.

 

[bennychico11]

must be a different country because that would be against the seperation of church and state thing in the US

That's gotta be the most misinterpreted thing ever.

God bless America

 

[HUSKER 37]

 

[bennychico11]

what i think is interesting is that all of us are actually discussing this openly...especially considering most of us are from the midwest.

I'm interested to see how things progress in the next 50 years. I know organized religion is still extremely prominent, but think of what we'd be chatting about 50 years in the past on this forum if this was brougt up...(and if the internet was around)? Most people here would be surprised that a school would even teach something other than Christianity.

 

[hskrmama]

I have a problem with "under God" taken out. Yes I'm a Christian, don't always act or think like it, but I am. My children are raised Christian, so why, if they believe in God, can't they say they do or pledge allegiance to him and the Country that they live in, because Under God is in the pledge, just because it offends someone. It offends me that they can't. So who is right and who is wrong. I say it's been there for years, and should remain there. If the kids don't want to say then don't, but there isn't a good reason to not Pledge Allegiance to the country that is giving you the freedom to choose to not say Under God!

 

[HUSKER 37]

I have a problem with "under God" taken out. Yes I'm a Christian, don't always act or think like it, but I am. My children are raised Christian, so why, if they believe in God, can't they say they do or pledge allegiance to him and the Country that they live in, because Under God is in the pledge, just because it offends someone. It offends me that they can't. So who is right and who is wrong. I say it's been there for years, and should remain there. If the kids don't want to say then don't, but there isn't a good reason to not Pledge Allegiance to the country that is giving you the freedom to choose to not say Under God!

Part of me agrees with you.

Knowing what I (Think I) know now or what God has chosen to reveal to me, things like the pledge of allegiance do tend to stick out as possibly being wrong.

I guess it depends on the purpose for having a pledge in the 1st place.

It's possibly effective for keeping kids in line and hopefully will stay with them later on to be good soldiers (citizens)...Although I tended to just say the memorized words without giving it much thought.

But you also have to realize it's possibly a tool to "brainwash?" people at a young age to be conformists.

I used to consider myself a Christian just because it's what was expected of me, but I've come to realize it's primarily a Religion..And God would not be a member of ANY Religion.

It's easy to keep doing the pledge primarily because it's always been done, and I doubt not doing it would greatly benefit anyone..It's just that you probably should acknowledge that just because it pays tribute to God and Country it's not necessarily all good.

 

[AR Husker Fan]

Well...

Bear in mind a couple of points:

1. The words "under God" were not introduced into the Pledge until 1954. Prior to that, the words did not appear. So, it isn't a case that the phrase was always a part of the Pledge.

2. The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag is an oath of loyalty to the country.

3. In many schools, the Pledge is required; i.e., compulsory.

4. Schools are agents of the Government.

When you add all that up, in those cases in which a school requires the Pledge, what is really happening is that the Government is requiring that its citizens make a loalty oath. That, in and of itself, is fine. However, the Constitution dictates that the Government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If someone is required by the Government to recite the Pledge - including the phrase "under God" - then the Government is either establishing a religion (by favoring a phrase that most interpret as referencing the Judeo-Christian diety) or prohibiting religion (by forbidding someone from either substiting their diety or making no mention of a diety at all).

Both extremes are unconstitutional. That is, no one may be required recite the pharse "under God"; likewise, no one may be prohibited from using another diety or making no mention of any deity.

For most people, the phrase is not a problem - the majority of this country defines themselves as "Christian". But for those who do not, it is clearly understandable that they view the inclusion of that phrase as an attempt by the Government to impose a specific religious belief on them - something that is unconstitutional.

 

[bennychico11]

2. The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag is an oath of loyalty to the country.

:yeah I agree 100%...especially with #2. And I think that's what we're starting to forget when this whole debate about the "Under God" statement in the pledge comes up. Removing it does not change the meaning of the pledge. It does not change what we are trying to teach children about the oath to our country.

no one may be required recite the pharse "under God";

Freudian slip?? Did you mean 'farce'?? as in "a foolish show; mockery; a ridiculous sham"

sorry, my anti-religious side is showing

 

[bennychico11]

regarding the original post...looks like a similar thing happened not too far from us:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3164811&page=1

you can find videos on You Tube of the team all in prayer on the court with her standing outside the group saying the Pledge of Allegiance