Saturday, November 05, 2011

Florida Pastor to Defy Prayer Ban

We read:
"A standoff over prayers at a school flagpole is looming between a longtime Baptist preacher and a Florida public school system. Ron Baker, the pastor of Russell Baptist Church in Green Cove Springs, said he plans to keep on praying, regardless of what happens.

Baker was referring to a legal opinion submitted by the Clay County School Board’s attorney and published in Jacksonville.com. The attorney determined that a series of prayers on the grounds of four schools was a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“It is a violation of the United States Constitution for a teacher, school administrator or other school district employee to join in a prayer session during their work time,” wrote J. Bruce Bickner

Source

Joining in a prayer session is nothing like establishing a church so the legal opinion is absurd

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Telling the staff members that they cannot participate in prayers is indeed a Constitutional question but the assertion that by participating they are in violation of the Constitution is exactly and completely wrong since the Constitution plainly prohibits the creation of laws preventing people from worshiping.

They are trying to use to Constitution to perform a task which is explicitly prohibited in the Constitution.

Bird of Paradise said...

Time to tell the CLAY COUNTRY SCHOOL BOARD and their lawyer to kindly JUMP IN A LAKE

Anonymous said...

I guess if you are a school employee you forfeit your constitutional right to their religious beliefs. People who want Christians to just be silent and "keep their religion to themselves" do not understand that christianity compels us to tell others. This is not meant to judge others or tell others what to do but rather to share what we have been given. If in everyday life you see someone about to be run over by a car you are going to say something. But if someone is going to be run over spiritually, we are to remain silent and not warn them. Faith in Christ without action is then meaningless. Christ taught us to love our fellow man. Is it loving to look the other way when someone is suffering and say nothing?

Anonymous said...

What the first ammendment says...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

The part most liberals wish didn't exist...

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And for you OWS morons...

the right of the people to peaceably assemble

Jonathan Lewin said...

There they all again, the Archie Bunkers parroting one another.

Well, I'll try again. There are no regulations anywhere prohibiting any person from praying in a school, nor should there be. There are no cases on record of anyone anywhere being ordered not to pray in a school, provided that the person has a legitimate reason for being in the school.

What is not permitted, and should not be permitted, is that people use a venue like a school or a sports event and say: "This venue is MINE. You don't have to come here but, if you do, then I will force YOU to participate with me in my prayers."

I am sorry that some people regard this kind of antisocial behaviour as an exhibition of "love". Actually, there is a much higher standard than "loving" your neighbour. You should respect your neighbour and be willing to allow differences in points of view. You should not regard your views as so superior to those of others that you should have the obligation to thrust your views down someone else's throat.

The Golden Rule does not say that, if your back is itchy, you need to go and scratch someone else's back.

You want to pray? Then pray, but don't inflct your prayer on others.

Anonymous said...

Jonathan,

Where in the story did you find something saying that this pastor is forcing people to pray?

And why are you blind to the actions of the people trying to keep this man from praying because it certainly looks to me like they are indeed trying to force a regulation to prevent prayer from happening and people from voluntarily participating.

Is there some other source you have found showing those?

Jonathan Lewin said...

No one has been attempting to prevent that man from praying. No one has ever attempted to prevent anyone from praying - anywhere, in a school or anywhere else.

But the very sharp distinction between praying and inflicting onself on other people is that a person engaged in prayer might not even be noticed to be praying unless one take a careful look. A person who is addressing other people in an act of public speaking is not "praying". Such a person is running a religious service for other people and such a person has the obligation of ensuring that the people who attend the service have come there with the intention to attend it.

I have made myself abundantly clear more than once but this very simple point will not be understood by anyone for whom it would be inconvenient to understand it.

Use the Name, Luke said...

No one has been attempting to prevent that man from praying. No one has ever attempted to prevent anyone from praying - anywhere, in a school or anywhere else.

Read the damned article Jonathan:

"It is a violation of the United States Constitution for a teacher, school administrator or other school district employee to join in a prayer session during their work time,” wrote J. Bruce Bickner

That is bald-faced denial of the ability to pray. Get real! How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when your claims are so OBVIOUSLY counterfactual?

Jonathan Lewin said...

Luke, there is a sharp distinction between praying and setting up or "joining" a religious service. The reason you feel that I am ignoring the facts is that you are giving the word "prayer" the Humpty Dumpty treatment. You are requiring the word to mean what you intend it to mean.

If the man wants to pray, he can pray until his eyes bubble and no one will seek to stop him. But he needs to mind his own business and not drag others into his prayers.

If he wants to set up sessions for others, he can do so on his own turf, not in a school.

Anonymous said...

"Read the damned article Jonathan:"

The only thing damned here is you, Luke. Enjoy hell.

Anonymous said...

Think for yourself. Don’t accept anything at face value. Always ask questions.

Atheism = Indoctrination Failure

Anonymous said...

Luke, there is a sharp distinction between praying and setting up or "joining" a religious service.

Not when it comes to the choice of the individual. A person has the choice to join a group. If that group is praying, who are you to say that is wrong or not allowed?

Your premise of "no one has been attempting to prevent that man from praying," is blatantly false and dishonest on its face.

If you were to say "no one is preventing a person from drinking water," and then limit where and when the person may drink water, you have prevent4ed them from drinking in the time and manner they choose.

Time, place and manner restrictions are viable when there is a disruption or a violation of someone elses rights. In the case of a man praying at a flag pole, there is no disruption of people or traffic. There is no violation of someone elses rights.

Jonathan's point centers around the idea that if someone is offended, they have the right to shut down the legal and protected speech of another person.

There is no law or Constitutional backing for that position, so once again Jonathan shows he is against the law of the land.

Anonymous said...

Jonathan - you are just wasting your time trying to point out logic to the brain-washed religioes. It's true they want to spread their religion because religion acts in a meme or in a corresponding way to a mental virus, ie. compelling the brain-infected victim to infect others even to the point of sacrificing themselves literally (just like a biological parasite upon a host).

Anonymous said...

Jonathan,

I asked because I thought you might have found something more complete but instead you simply confirmed you have an innate blindness.

Anon 4:40 - You mistake your own ideological rigidity for logic.

sig said...

By extension of the attorney's opinion, school officials WOULD be permitted to pray at such events were they not on the clock. So if that is the case, then why do the same schools insist that school officials DO represent the schools while off the clock in such freedom of speech disputes such as Web/Facebook postings, rally attendance, etc.

It's called selective freedom of speech, and it's the bread and butter of the Left.

Anonymous said...

"You mistake your own ideological rigidity for logic.You mistake your own ideological rigidity for logic"

Please use your logic to fully explain the existence of your god. Then we will see who has the "ideological rigidity."

Use the Name, Luke said...

sig,

Don't bother. Evidence and logic has been presented here in the past. Given all the flame bait posted recently, the troll is apparently bored and trying to waste your time.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Oops, correction: My comment is for Anon 2:19, not sig.

::: smacks forehead :::