OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 59
Muslim prayers in schools
So accommodation for the Muslims doesnt seem to violate the Constitution's prohibition against government establishment of religion. But accommodations to Christians and Jews somehow would.
Anyone know how this works?
And lets not forget this is going on:
Not too surprisingly:
While at the same time NOT accommodating that which WAS traditionally accounted for before.
It would seem to me that several things are becoming clear:
The removal of the majoritys religion from public schools as not to offend was a sham.
Now any religion can be somehow accommodated except the majoritys
The ACLU has, by their inaction in these cases, moved from being suspected of Christian bigotry to it being proven. Well defend anyone who is not Christian and go after anyone that is
I have no problem with any school setting aside a place for kids to pray on their own.
But if they're setting aside a place for Muslims, they should be ready to set aside a place for every and any religion.
Good in theory, but they can run out of spaces to set aside rather quickly. There's a lot of religions out there.
Allowing prayer in schools isn't the first and last step on the slippery slope to becoming some kind of Talibanesque mideval theocracy.
Thoughts?
A San Diego public school has become part of a national debate over religion in schools ever since a substitute teacher publicly condemned an Arabic language program that gives Muslim students time for prayer during school hours.
Carver Elementary in Oak Park added Arabic to its curriculum in September when it suddenly absorbed more than 100 students from a defunct charter school that had served mostly Somali Muslims.
After subbing at Carver, the teacher claimed that religious indoctrination was taking place and said that a school aide had led Muslim students in prayer.
Among the critics is Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel with the nonprofit, Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center devoted to defending the religious freedom of Christians.
He said he's against double standards being used, such as when there is a specific period for Muslim students to pray and not a similar arrangement for Christians.
Carver's supporters noted that Christianity and other religions, unlike Islam, do not require their followers to pray at specific times that fall within school hours, when children by law must be in school. Amid the controversy, the district is studying alternatives to the break to accommodate student prayer.
Capitalizing on what it considers a precedent-setting opportunity created by the Carver situation, the Sacramento-based Pacific Justice Institute has offered to help craft a districtwide Daily Prayer Time Policy.
]In a letter, the religious-rights organization urged the district to broaden its accommodations to Christians and Jews by setting aside separate classrooms for daily prayer and to permit rabbis, priests and other religious figures to lead children in worship on campuses.
A lawyer representing the district said those ideas would violate the Constitution's prohibition against government establishment of religion.
So accommodation for the Muslims doesnt seem to violate the Constitution's prohibition against government establishment of religion. But accommodations to Christians and Jews somehow would.
Anyone know how this works?
And lets not forget this is going on:
The uproar over Carver comes as schools across the country grapple with how to accommodate growing Muslim populations. In recent weeks, the University of Michigan's Dearborn campus has been divided over using student fees to install foot-washing stations on campus to make it easier for Muslim students to cleanse themselves before prayer.
Not too surprisingly:
The San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations supports the Carver program.
Our country is transforming demographically, religiously, said Edgar Hopida, the chapter's public relations director. Our country has to now accommodate things that are not traditionally accounted for before.
While at the same time NOT accommodating that which WAS traditionally accounted for before.
It would seem to me that several things are becoming clear:
The removal of the majoritys religion from public schools as not to offend was a sham.
Now any religion can be somehow accommodated except the majoritys
The ACLU has, by their inaction in these cases, moved from being suspected of Christian bigotry to it being proven. Well defend anyone who is not Christian and go after anyone that is
I have no problem with any school setting aside a place for kids to pray on their own.
But if they're setting aside a place for Muslims, they should be ready to set aside a place for every and any religion.
Good in theory, but they can run out of spaces to set aside rather quickly. There's a lot of religions out there.
Allowing prayer in schools isn't the first and last step on the slippery slope to becoming some kind of Talibanesque mideval theocracy.
Thoughts?