Damn religious people

[Enadail]

I predict that they won't do any time. They lead a prayer in front of adults at a meeting, not in front of kids. I should think their first amendment rights will come into play here.

If they just lead prayer after school, while not acting as representatives of the school, I have no issue. If it was during school I have an issue, and if they were acting as representatives of the school at the time, I doubt they'll do any time, but they should act more responsibly... as representatives, the rules might not be strictly binding, but it leads to negative results.

[Katganistan]

There are many people who are religious due to family/social reasons, but understand that it's bullshit. So I take it you're one of them?

I believe that there's a good deal to learn from the Bible; being good to each other isn't a bad idea, not killing or stealing from one another is a good idea, et cetera. Being in fellowship with people with similar beliefs and ethics is good too, though people shouldn't be stupid enough to assume that religion is the ONLY way to tell who's got similar ethics and beliefs.

But I eat shellfish, wear mixed fiber clothes, eat bacon, and have been known to work on Sundays if need be.

I guess I see it as a guideline for living a good life -- a means, rather than an end.

I concede that religion teaches some good things (depending on the religion), but I don't think you really need religion to know those things. But, I'll spare you a debate and say I don't care what religion you are.

I don't believe that anyone NEEDS a religion, nor do I think everyone should follow MY religion, nor do I have problems with people of other faiths or no faith at all.

[Katganistan]

There are many people who are religious due to family/social reasons, but understand that it's bullshit. So I take it you're one of them?

I believe that there's a good deal to learn from the Bible; being good to each other isn't a bad idea, not killing or stealing from one another is a good idea, et cetera. Being in fellowship with people with similar beliefs and ethics is good too, though people shouldn't be stupid enough to assume that religion is the ONLY way to tell who's got similar ethics and beliefs.

But I eat shellfish, wear mixed fiber clothes, eat bacon, and have been known to work on Sundays if need be.

I guess I see it as a guideline for living a good life -- a means, rather than an end.

See, now, this is where my fundamental beef with most religions comes in.

There's some good lessons in the Bible, I'll grant you that. For example,the notion of how idle hands are the devil's playground; this is a lesson that has been taught in other cultures and faiths, like in Aesop's fables of the grasshopper and the ants. There's a reason these lessons are taught...they're GOOD ones!

Yet, for whatever reason, people are able to grasp the message and learn the lesson of the fable of the grasshopper and the ants, without feeling compelled to insist that there literally are talking grasshoppers and talking ants and we'd all best start living in anthills and start milking aphids or else we're all going to burn in Hell.

Precious few people seem able to deal with religious texts the way we deal with any other texts. That is to say, be able to read a book, recognize the good bits, identify the less good bits, and hold both in your head at the same time without exploding or stoning somebody for being a witch or whatever.

Except, Bottle, I'm perfectly able to do that. See my criticism of Creationists above.
The people who inform others that they are going to hell haven't any idea of what they're supposed to be doing. They tend to skip over the "love your neighbor as yourself" bit in favor of getting all self-righteous and holier-than-thou, and frankly I don't have any time or patience for that type either. I think Phelps is a perfectly horrible person, and the hatred that he and his followers spew is nauseating.

[Katganistan]

I predict that they won't do any time. They lead a prayer in front of adults at a meeting, not in front of kids. I should think their first amendment rights will come into play here.

If they just lead prayer after school, while not acting as representatives of the school, I have no issue. If it was during school I have an issue, and if they were acting as representatives of the school at the time, I doubt they'll do any time, but they should act more responsibly... as representatives, the rules might not be strictly binding, but it leads to negative results.

I have an issue with school led prayer as well, except under very strict circumstances -- such as a Christian club which meets on the students own time, that they are willing participants in. I don't think it should be done with the student body as a whole, because you have all kinds of beliefs and some would find it quite offensive.

[Kirav]

I'm a Catholic, and was raised as such (I won't repeat my whole agnosticism and conversion story). My family said grace at home, with relatives, or while visiting or recieving other Catholics. However, we did not say grace when eating in public, or when visiting or recieving non-Christians.

When Protestants visited, we would repeat the Prayer Before Meals, and they would pray silently, and when we visited Protestants, we would pray silently while they said grace in whatever fashion they saw fit.

Good man. If people would show just this amount of tolerance for other people's beliefs, we'd be much better off. I wonder why so many people have such trouble with the whole "just avoid deliberately annoying other people" concept.

Thanks!

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I predict that they won't do any time. They lead a prayer in front of adults at a meeting, not in front of kids. I should think their first amendment rights will come into play here.

If they just lead prayer after school, while not acting as representatives of the school, I have no issue. If it was during school I have an issue, and if they were acting as representatives of the school at the time, I doubt they'll do any time, but they should act more responsibly... as representatives, the rules might not be strictly binding, but it leads to negative results.

I have an issue with school led prayer as well, except under very strict circumstances -- such as a Christian club which meets on the students own time, that they are willing participants in. I don't think it should be done with the student body as a whole, because you have all kinds of beliefs and some would find it quite offensive.

Religious schools exempted from this of course.

[Tunizcha]

Religious schools exempted from this of course.

Has anyone here seen Jesus Camp?
If not, you absolutely must see it, it's available on Youtube.
It blew my mind. How these children are indoctrinated disgusts me to no end.
I found a video that highlighted key parts of the movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

[Yootopia]

Has anyone here seen Jesus Camp?

Uhu. It was closed down, mind.

[Lycandom]

by The Alma Mater » Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:08 pm
You do realise that by suggesting evolution states we come from monkeys, you yourself fall in this category ?
You also realise that many claims of creationists have in fact BEEN tested, and examined ? Sadly, many (but not all) creationists seem unwilling to accept if aspects of their belief are shown to be wrong.
Then again, no doubt some noncreationists think exactly the same.
Those are hypotheses. Theories already are quite thoroughly tested, which you know due to describing the scientific method.
Although it is indeed true that some get disproven over time when new evidence shows up.

If you think you grasp evolution so much better than I why don't you just tell me what exactly we came from as human beings?
Or you can just go here: http://www.becominghuman.org/node/interactive-documentary or here: http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html or http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm.

This actually shows that you don't even understand what you believe in and then you are coming here telling me you understand perfectly what I believe in...I don't think so.

You can't TEST whether God or an Intelligent Designer exists. You just can't there is no way. Just like you can't test how the Big Bang happened. You just can't. So at some point someone has to stand up and say you live your way and let me live my way.

by Treznor » Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:09 pm
And you really don't have a clue why this fails as science, do you?
...Don't me on this, but I think it may have something to do with those pesky dinosaur fossils in museums around the world that they can't explain the way through scripture.

I'm quoting you sorry, just so everyone knows what I'm talking about. I don't because I guess it is only science if it doesn't go against what science is currently saying.

Dinosaurs don't mean anything. I'll tell you why...everybody read this section right -----> THE BIBLE DOESN'T STATE EVERYTHING THAT EVER HAPPENED. NOR DOES IT STATE EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED THEN. IT IS NOT AN ALMANAC OR AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. IT IS AN ACCOUNT OF EYEWITNESSES.

by Tunizcha » Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:13 pm
"If your twenty-year-old son still believes in Santa Claus because he read a book about Santa visiting and presents magically appeared on Christmas morning when he was a child, would you praise him for having faith in the face of overwhelming evidence or call him an idiot?"
Religious texts do not qualify as evidence.

First, I would never tell my child they are an idiot. Secondly, Santa Claus actually did exist. He was St. Nicholas and he did present gifts to the children of orphanages periodically throughout his life. He was a humanitarian and was immortalized as a character in children's imaginations. The story of Santa Claus is actually a story to help foster imagination and BELIEF in children.

Once again, none of scientific evidence points to their being no God. There is no overwhelming evidence. None. Zip. Zilch. No where does anything say there is no God. You can't prove that and no one ever will. It is impossible. Science says this happened, but it doesn't say why or how or what happened to make it happen, or how everything started. It also doesn't say God didn't do it.

Religious texts don't qualify as evidence do they? Well, what about all those eyewitness accounts that we read in history class should we disbelief those? They were in books or journals before being reproduced in textbooks. They were written by someone in the time trying to copy down history. Should we discount them? No one can prove that those things happened to those people. Should we assume everyone is a liar or just the people that are convenient for you?

by Bottle
See, now, this is where my fundamental beef with most religions comes in.
There's some good lessons in the Bible, I'll grant you that. For example,the notion of how idle hands are the devil's playground; this is a lesson that has been taught in other cultures and faiths, like in Aesop's fables of the grasshopper and the ants. There's a reason these lessons are taught...they're GOOD ones!
Yet, for whatever reason, people are able to grasp the message and learn the lesson of the fable of the grasshopper and the ants, without feeling compelled to insist that there literally are talking grasshoppers and talking ants and we'd all best start living in anthills and start milking aphids or else we're all going to burn in Hell.
Precious few people seem able to deal with religious texts the way we deal with any other texts. That is to say, be able to read a book, recognize the good bits, identify the less good bits, and hold both in your head at the same time without exploding or stoning somebody for being a witch or whatever.

Where do you think he got his stories from?

You just don't get it. Did you even read any religious texts? The Bible doesn't say that if you don't do everything in the Bible you will go to hell. You know what it says is there is such a thing as repenting. You can sin, but you can't:
1. Sin with the intention to say your sorry later. That means you knew it was wrong when you did it, but thought to yourself I'll be sorry later and reap the benefits.
2. Sin and then not be sorry for doing it. You did something wrong, if you're not sorry, you're just a bad person anyway.
3. Sin and then repent, but do the same thing again. You shouldn't repeat sins, but nowhere does it say that also automatically deems you to be a resident in Hell.

So, we are using something that happened in one place in the like the 1600s to prove that religion is no good. Right. Okay.

Well, it is a book of eyewitness accounts, so no it isn't a fable like you like to think. We believe all the other eyewitness accounts we find, why not this one? Oh, right, because it is religious. That's it.

Besides, it says in the Bible that all Christians will endure condemnation and hardship in their lives.

Also, you are picking and choosing what you want to believe in stories. I'm not sure Aesop meant for you to take his lessons and twist them for yourself. You can't ignore the other parts of the Bible just because you don't agree with them. You can't pick and choose. Sin is sin and good is good. There is no picking and choosing.

You want everyone to think that it is just a book or just a story, but it isn't, so we won't. That's oppression. I won't believe what you want me to.

Everyone has the right to believe what they want. You can't take it away and you won't. Don't act like you can be a dictator and tell me what to believe. Religion should not be removed, banned, or silenced out of your eyesight. No matter where you are from, it is wrong to tell people what they can believe.

[Treznor]

You can't TEST whether God or an Intelligent Designer exists. You just can't there is no way. Just like you can't test how the Big Bang happened. You just can't.

Well, you got this half right, anyway.

by Treznor » Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:09 pm
And you really don't have a clue why this fails as science, do you?
...Don't me on this, but I think it may have something to do with those pesky dinosaur fossils in museums around the world that they can't explain the way through scripture.

I'm quoting you sorry, just so everyone knows what I'm talking about. I don't because I guess it is only science if it doesn't go against what science is currently saying.

Dinosaurs don't mean anything. I'll tell you why...everybody read this section right -----> THE BIBLE DOESN'T STATE EVERYTHING THAT EVER HAPPENED. NOR DOES IT STATE EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED THEN. IT IS NOT AN ALMANAC OR AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. IT IS AN ACCOUNT OF EYEWITNESSES.

In other words, you really don't understand why checking the Bible as a source for scientific claims doesn't work. Many of the claims of the Bible are supernatural. That is to say, when we go back to check those claims we can't find any evidence that they ever happened (unlike the building of the pyramids in Egypt and the Sumerian Empire). So when you say claims are checked against the Bible for validity before they're accepted or not, this fails basic science.

Science doesn't care who said what, or when, or what authority is claimed for those sources. Science only cares what can be tested and observed. It's been over seventy years since Einstein published his theory of General Relativity, and we're still testing it. It's been over three hundred years since Isaac Newton explained gravity, and we're still testing that. We don't simply accept Newton's claims because Newton said it, we conduct experiments all the time to further our understanding. The best experiments don't assume that Newton was right or wrong, they only check the results and match them against a proposed hypothesis.

This is science. It assumes no source is absolute, but checks its data before it forms conclusions. When you form your conclusions before you check your data, your theories tend to get invalidated upon review.

[Tunizcha]

You can't TEST whether God or an Intelligent Designer exists. You just can't there is no way. Just like you can't test how the Big Bang happened. You just can't. So at some point someone has to stand up and say you live your way and let me live my way.

Carl Sagan once told a little anecdote that I find very fitting for this part. A friend of yours says he has found a dragon in his garage. He walks you in there, but you see nothing. You inquire on this, and he says it's invisible. So you ask to sprinkle flour on the ground, so it's footsteps will appear. He says that won't work, since it's ethereal. You say that you could measure the heat if it breathed fire, like a dragon. He says that won't work, since the fire is heatless. So you conclude that either the dragon is there, or something has gone wrong with your friend.

Just because you can't measure God to see if he exists or not doesn't mean you should imply that he does.

Dinosaurs don't mean anything. I'll tell you why...everybody read this section right -----> THE BIBLE DOESN'T STATE EVERYTHING THAT EVER HAPPENED. NOR DOES IT STATE EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED THEN. IT IS NOT AN ALMANAC OR AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. IT IS AN ACCOUNT OF EYEWITNESSES.

You do know that no one who wrote the New Testament had never met Jesus, right (besides Paul, whose symptoms mirrored those of a stroke or a heart attack more than a holistic experience)? They were not eyewitnesses, they were probably at least a decade or so in proximity of eyewitnesses. Even then, we do not know the mental state of these individuals, nor do we know the intelligence of these individuals.

Which I why I prefer science over history, since science is stable, reproducible, dependable. History is inaccurate, skewed, exaggerated, often biased. History inferred through scientific data however...

First, I would never tell my child they are an idiot. Secondly, Santa Claus actually did exist. He was St. Nicholas and he did present gifts to the children of orphanages periodically throughout his life. He was a humanitarian and was immortalized as a character in children's imaginations. The story of Santa Claus is actually a story to help foster imagination and BELIEF in children.

Once again, none of scientific evidence points to there being no God. There is no overwhelming evidence. None. Zip. Zilch. No where does anything say there is no God. You can't prove that and no one ever will. It is impossible. Science says this happened, but it doesn't say why or how or what happened to make it happen, or how everything started. It also doesn't say God didn't do it.

Religious texts don't qualify as evidence do they? Well, what about all those eyewitness accounts that we read in history class should we disbelief those? They were in books or journals before being reproduced in textbooks. They were written by someone in the time trying to copy down history. Should we discount them? No one can prove that those things happened to those people. Should we assume everyone is a liar or just the people that are convenient for you?

First, I would not call my child an idiot either. I'm not arguing whether Santa Claus was real, I already knew he existed. The story is taught to children so that they believe that they are part of the story, and once they learn that it was false, it helps them learn the difference between fact and fiction. It's the same reason we read fairy tales to children and we encourage them to read.

Yes, we can not prove God exists because we cannot measure God by any scientific means.
So let me give you a little philosophy.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus

And to the mentioning of eyewitnesses. There are eyewitnesses of the Loch Ness Monster, the abominable snowman, Big Foot, Sasquatch, etc., etc. Eyewitnesses are not an infallible evidence. Studies have shown that certain chemicals can stimulate areas of your brain that contain certain memories, often erasing them. Like I said, history is unaccountable. Not to mention the burning of books the Church saw threatening to them throughout the years.

No, we shouldn't think that every eyewitness is a liar. I'm just saying that we should take those accounts with a grain of salt. Be skeptical.

[Lycandom]

How does the Large Hadron Collider test HOW the Big Bang happened. It COULD have happened that way, but there is no way to test the IT DID happen that way. Just a theory. The LHC hasn't proved any of that yet. It doesn't work properly right now. The Big Bang Theory even if true is not inconsistent with religion. The first proposal of the BBT was dismissed by skeptics as religious mumbo-jumbo, partially because it was created by a Catholic priest. Now, the BBT is wielded as a weapon to disprove religion.

by Treznor
In other words, you really don't understand why checking the Bible as a source for scientific claims doesn't work. Many of the claims of the Bible are supernatural. That is to say, when we go back to check those claims we can't find any evidence that they ever happened (unlike the building of the pyramids in Egypt and the Sumerian Empire). So when you say claims are checked against the Bible for validity before they're accepted or not, this fails basic science.
Science doesn't care who said what, or when, or what authority is claimed for those sources. Science only cares what can be tested and observed. It's been over seventy years since Einstein published his theory of General Relativity, and we're still testing it. It's been over three hundred years since Isaac Newton explained gravity, and we're still testing that. We don't simply accept Newton's claims because Newton said it, we conduct experiments all the time to further our understanding. The best experiments don't assume that Newton was right or wrong, they only check the results and match them against a proposed hypothesis.
This is science. It assumes no source is absolute, but checks its data before it forms conclusions. When you form your conclusions before you check your data, your theories tend to get invalidated upon review.

Religion and science aren't the same thing and I never said that. There is no historical event referenced in the Bible that has been proven to be untrue. There are many historical events in the Bible that have been proven to be true. The supernatural elements are based on faith and cannot be proven. As for Newton, he did believe in God. Newton wrote often about a clockmaker of the universe. He believed in an impersonal God that designed the universe. Even though he is a respected scientist maybe we should take a second look at him, he could have had a delusional disorder.

by Tunizcha
Carl Sagan once told a little anecdote that I find very fitting for this part. A friend of yours says he has found a dragon in his garage. He walks you in there, but you see nothing. You inquire on this, and he says it's invisible. So you ask to sprinkle flour on the ground, so it's footsteps will appear. He says that won't work, since it's ethereal. You say that you could measure the heat if it breathed fire, like a dragon. He says that won't work, since the fire is heatless. So you conclude that either the dragon is there, or something has gone wrong with your friend.
Just because you can't measure God to see if he exists or not doesn't mean you should imply that he does.

Well in Sagan's most famous book Contact a group of scientists contact aliens, but they can't get anyone who hasn't seen the alien to believe that it happened. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean the person is crazy. Everyone has their own beliefs about the universe and you are fooling yourself if you think you can declare any religious belief illegitimate.

You do know that no one who wrote the New Testament had never met Jesus, right (besides Paul, whose symptoms mirrored those of a stroke or a heart attack more than a holistic experience)? They were not eyewitnesses, they were probably at least a decade or so in proximity of eyewitnesses. Even then, we do not know the mental state of these individuals, nor do we know the intelligence of these individuals.
Which I why I prefer science over history, since science is stable, reproducible, dependable. History is inaccurate, skewed, exaggerated, often biased. History inferred through scientific data however...

History is part of how we understand the world. You can't have science without history because every subject has a past. Paul was not present during the death of Jesus. He converted after Jesus died. The rest of the disciples were present at the time of Jesus' death. The truth of the stories is what matters not when they were recorded.

It also depends upon what religion you practice whether you believe the writings were written by the people who were there or later or rewritten or copied.

It is not realistic to believe that all the people in the Bible who had visions had mental disorders. Many writings from the period include claims of visions so those people also can not all realistically have a mental disorder. There is no scientific support for Dawkins' claims that religious people have a delusional disorder. Many scientists' actually refute his claims of delusion, such as Freeman Dyson, who said it was "stupid" for Dawkins to make claims like that about religion. Dawkins is writing his book as an anti-theist not as a scientist, using his own "science" claims. Dawkins' background isn't in human behavior or neuroscience. He is coming to a conclusion according to his preconceived notions of atheism (which is not the scientific method).

So let me give you a little philosophy.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
Epicurus

I've heard this argument a hundred times. You don't want God to destroy evil, evil is a representation of human choice. You would not want to live in a world where God made you perfectly good. In essence, your self would be destroyed. He is a benevolent God who gives us free will. The argument is false because people don't really want a world without choice.

And to the mentioning of eyewitnesses. There are eyewitnesses of the Loch Ness Monster, the abominable snowman, Big Foot, Sasquatch, etc., etc. Eyewitnesses are not an infallible evidence. Studies have shown that certain chemicals can stimulate areas of your brain that contain certain memories, often erasing them. Like I said, history is unaccountable. Not to mention the burning of books the Church saw threatening to them throughout the years.
No, we shouldn't think that every eyewitness is a liar. I'm just saying that we should take those accounts with a grain of salt. Be skeptical.

You do not understand what skepticism is.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

– Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

Skepticism takes no position. It merely questions. So atheism is not skepticism and too many people make that easy mistake. Plus agnosticism is boring. So instead people prefer to attack religion as untrue because being a dispassionate disbeliever is uninteresting.

[Spectorland]

Still, religious people of all denominations are pains in my ass...

[Spectorland]

As George Carlin said, "This country is full of nitwits and assholes."

Assholes can be of the religious variety too.

[Spectorland]

They can be, of course, of many varieties.

[Shutupsville]

you know you could just edit one post right?

[Spectorland]

I was not aware of that.

I am not aware of how.

[Shutupsville]

I was not aware of that.

I am not aware of how.

in the upper right corner of the post there is a little button that says edit...

[Spectorland]

Oh OK.

Thank you.

[Daistallia 2104]

Speaking of Religious People, has anyone heard about the case of the Principal and Athletics Director going on trial for Criminal Charges because they said a prayer at a school? Prison Time and the loss of their retirement Priveleges (an accumulated 70 years of service between both of them) from the School because they said a prayer. Justice has been served?

Source?

Uh yeah. I'm going to say it's that thing called the News.

Hi, welcome aboard. Just a friendly nate: if you make posts about something in the news or factual information and don't provide a source, we will call BS on you. Here's why...

School brass facing prison time for luncheon prayer (CNN) -- Two Florida school administrators face contempt charges and possible prison time for saying a prayer at a school luncheon.
Pace High School enacted a decree in January banning officials from promoting religion at school events.

Frank Lay, principal of Pace High School, and Athletic Director Robert Freeman are accused of violating a consent decree banning employees of Santa Rosa County schools from endorsing religion.

They face a non-jury trial September 17 before U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers. The statute under which they are charged carries a maximum penalty of up to six months in prison, subject to sentencing guidelines.

Attorneys defending Lay and Freeman call it outrageous that the two are being prosecuted for "a simple prayer." But the American Civil Liberties Union, whose lawsuit led to the consent decree, maintains that students have a right to be free from administrators foisting their religious beliefs on them.

Still, an ACLU representative said the organization never suggested that people should go to jail for violating the decree.

The ACLU filed suit last year against the district on behalf of two Pace students who alleged that "school officials regularly promoted religion and led prayers at school events," according to an ACLU statement.

Both parties approved the consent decree put in place January 9, under which district and school officials are "permanently prohibited from promoting, advancing, endorsing, participating in or causing prayers during or in conjunction with school events," the ACLU said.

Lay was a party in the initial lawsuit, and his attorney was among those approving the consent decree, according to the organization. In addition, the court required that all district employees receive a copy.

On January 28, "Lay asked Freeman to offer a prayer of blessing during a school-day luncheon for the dedication of a new fieldhouse at Pace High School," according to court documents. "Freeman complied with the request and offered the prayer at the event. It appears this was a school-sponsored event attended by students, faculty and community members."

Attorneys from Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group helping defend Lay and Freeman, said in a written statement that attendees included booster club members and other adults who helped the field house project, all "consenting adults."

In a February 4 letter to district Superintendent Tim Wyrosdick in which Lay acknowledged the incident, he said that although past football booster club members "and other adults associated with the school system" were at the luncheon, culinary class students were in charge of food preparation and serving.

Lay wrote that he asked Freeman to bless the food "for the adults. ... I take full responsibility for this action. My actions were overt and not meant to circumvent any court order or constitutional mandate."

In response, Wyrosdick noted in a letter to Lay that in a meeting, the principal had admitted that "you are, and were at the date of this incident, aware of the court injunction and aware that this type of action is not permissible under the injunction."

Wyrosdick recounted telling Lay that the prayer was not appropriate.

"This note is to share with you written instructions to avoid this type of action," the superintendent said. Both letters are in the public court file.

"It is a sad day in America when school officials are criminally prosecuted for a prayer over a meal," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the law school at Liberty University, founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. "It is outrageous and an offense to the First Amendment to punish a school official for a simple prayer."

Liberty Counsel said it is challenging the consent decree, maintaining that it "unconstitutionally infringes on the rights of teachers, administrators and students."

The ACLU, according to the Liberty Counsel statement, has begun "to go against individual employees." The organization said that neither man "willfully violated any orders of the court."

"We're not going after individuals," said Glenn Katon, director of the Religious Freedom Project for the ACLU of Florida. "We're just trying to make sure that school employees comply with the court order."

The ACLU did not request the criminal contempt charges against Lay and Freeman, he said; the judge initiated them after seeing a reference to the incident in a motion. And the ACLU is not involved in the criminal proceedings, he said.

"We certainly never suggested that anyone go to jail," Katon said.

Lay is not facing jail time for praying, he said, but for violating a court order.

"The moral of this story is, for us, this is about the students' right to be free from teachers and school administrators thrusting upon the students their religious beliefs," Katon said. "They keep talking about the religious rights of the administrators, but the administrators and the principals don't have any right to trumpet their religious beliefs in a school setting."
advertisement

Neither Lay nor Freeman has been placed on leave, according to the school district.

Pace is about 10 miles north of Pensacola, Florida.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/17/Florida.school.prayer/

Note that:
1) There was already a court order in place.
2) The court order was there to protect students under the establishment clause.
3) The two parties were aware of the court order.
4) The suit was brought for violation of said court order.

Claiming "hey, these two guys are going to jail just for saying a prayer!" is BS.

[Secruss]

G-d forbid that your relatives be Christian.

Oh wait...

[Tunizcha]

I understand what the ACLU did to the School Administration and I support their efforts, but they went way too far. I think all the Administration should have faced was a small reprimand and possibly a small fine, but that's it.

[Enadail]

I understand what the ACLU did to the School Administration and I support their efforts, but they went way too far. I think all the Administration should have faced was a small reprimand and possibly a small fine, but that's it.

... for violating a court order? How did they go too far? They felt someone was breaking the establishment clause (which they seemingly were). The pair in question then continued to violate a court order. They received a reprimand the first time. How many chances should we give them?

[Tunizcha]

I understand what the ACLU did to the School Administration and I support their efforts, but they went way too far. I think all the Administration should have faced was a small reprimand and possibly a small fine, but that's it.

... for violating a court order? How did they go too far? They felt someone was breaking the establishment clause (which they seemingly were). The pair in question then continued to violate a court order. They received a reprimand the first time. How many chances should we give them?

My bad (I hate that phrase, but I'm using it for sake of expediency), I thought I had caught the gist of the entire article and stopped reading before I got to that little tidbit.

[Enadail]

My bad (I hate that phrase, but I'm using it for sake of expediency), I thought I had caught the gist of the entire article and stopped reading before I got to that little tidbit.

Eh, it happens.