Mo. Drama Teacher Resigns in Play Flap

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060318/D8GE1GLO8.html ^

[Lunatic Fringe]

The school accommodated Mrs. O'Hair's child. She wasn't satisfied.

You are incredibly ignorant of this case.

Not only did the school refuse to accomodate William Murray's request to be excused from compulsory school prayer, he was LOCKED into the classroom by the principal when he tried to leave.

And most schools up until the beginning of the 20th Century used the King James Bible as a standard English Textbook. So what?

Again, tradition does not make something constitutional. Most trains up until the beginning of the 20th century were segregated by race.

[P-Marlowe]

You are incredibly ignorant of this case.

I'm afriad it is you, lunatic, who are mistaken.

Read the case. The school district accomodated him by allowing him to leave the classroom if he so chose. It's in the first couple of paragraphs of the case. If they locked him in the classroom, then they didn't need any Supreme Court case to determine the illegality of the law. He could have simply sued for false imprisonment.

[Lunatic Fringe]

William Murray claimed when he tried to leave the classroom after being "excused" from the mandatory prayer, that the principal locked the door and refused to let him leave. Is it true? I don't know, I wasn't there. He also claimed to have been physically abused by his fellow classmates when he tried to leave. I don't know if this is true either, but it would not surprise me. You and I both remember how kids and peer pressure can be in high school.

And your solution, "he could have simply sued for false imprisonment," does not address the underlying unconstitutional promotion of religion by a government institution. Christians have been pissed off for years that they no longer have influence over public schools, and this case with the drama teacher in Missouri is an example of their attempts at subtle influence over school policies.

[socialismisinsidious]

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling" or maybe "The school is falling, the school is falling" (said in best girlie man voice, while running with hands in the air)

What a lot of hogwash you guys spout. Afraid of competition and the free market....interesting.

Hate to break it to you but right now in my government school funding is tied to property taxes...oh horrors, the poor are going to be left out in the cold!..wait you already used that argument against school choice and me taking MY money with me...shoot. How warm do you think the 'poor kids' schools are when funding is linked to property?

School choice would give every child a choice of which school to attend (why shouldn't we be able to choose between neighboring government schools if another could better meet our child's needs?) and (their) tax money (no matter the amount) would be tied to the child. But wait, you think that government schools are doing such a great job by not having to be competitive (despite your own ACT/SAT stats--but why let facts get in the way) so why bother.

[durasell]

As I've said numerous times, folks should be able to educate their kids the way they see fit and/or can afford.

[P-Marlowe]

William Murray claimed when he tried to leave the classroom after being "excused" from the mandatory prayer, that the principal locked the door and refused to let him leave. Is it true? I don't know, I wasn't there. He also claimed to have been physically abused by his fellow classmates when he tried to leave. I don't know if this is true either, but it would not surprise me. You and I both remember how kids and peer pressure can be in high school.

How about we read the facts as recited by the court?

I. The Facts in Each Case

The Facts in Each Case: . . . No. 119. In 1905 the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City adopted a rule pursuant to Art. 77, Sec. 202 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. The rule provided for the holding of opening exercises in the schools of the city, consisting primarily of the "reading, without comment, of a chapter in the Holy Bible and/or the use of the Lord's Prayer." The petitioners, Mrs. Madalyn Murray and her son, William J. Murray III, are both professed atheists. Following unsuccessful attempts to have the respondent school board rescind the rule, this suit was filed for mandamus to compel its rescission and cancellation. It was alleged that William was a student in a public school of the city and Mrs. Murray, his mother, was a taxpayer therein; that it was the practice under the rule to have a reading on each school morning from the King James version of the Bible; that at petitioners' insistence the rule was amended [1] to permit children to be excused from the exercise on request of the parent and that William had been excused pursuant thereto; that nevertheless the rule as amended was in violation of the petitioners' rights "to freedom of religion under the First and Fourteenth Amendments" and in violation of "the principle of separation between church and state, contained therein.... " The petition particularized the petitioners' atheistic beliefs and stated that the rule, as practiced, violated their rights "in that it threatens their religious liberty by placing a premium on belief as against non-belief and subjects their freedom of conscience to the rule of the majority; it pronounces belief in God as the source of all moral and spiritual values, equating these values with religious values, and thereby renders sinister, alien and suspect the beliefs and ideals of your Petitioners, promoting doubt and question of their morality, good citizenship and good faith."

The respondents demurred and the trial court, recognizing that the demurrer admitted all facts well pleaded, sustained it without leave to amend. The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed, the majority of four justices holding the exercise not in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, with three justices dissenting. 228 Md. 239,179 A.2d 698. We granted certiorari. 371 U.S. 809, 83 S.Ct. 21, 9 L.Ed.2d 52.

And your solution, "he could have simply sued for false imprisonment," does not address the underlying unconstitutional promotion of religion by a government institution.

That is not in the constitution. Never was.

[zook]

As you know, the First Amendment is interpreted as barring schools from promoting religion in any sort of sectarian way.

[Lunatic Fringe]

I'm sure your one little paragraph does not encompass all the facts of the case.

And the Constitution clearly states in the First Amendment that Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. The Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to provide these same protections to its citizens.

Since Congress is prohibited from making laws that promote religion through government institutions, states are also prohibited.

Also, Engel v. Vitale clearly stated that school prayer is unconstitutional, whether or not students were permitted to opt-out of participation. The case was settled years ago, and I feel no need to argue its points again.

[durasell]

It should be noted that school prayer was originally phased out at the insistance of the evangelicals who feared the influx and influence of Catholic students.

[P-Marlowe]

I'm sure your one little paragraph does not encompass all the facts of the case.

Those are the ONLY relevant facts upon which the court based it's decision.

Since Congress is prohibited from making laws that promote religion through government institutions, states are also prohibited.

Congress is not so prohibited. It is merely prohibited from making laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohbiting the free exercise thereof.

Also, Engel v. Vitale clearly stated that school prayer is unconstitutional, whether or not students were permitted to opt-out of participation. The case was settled years ago, and I feel no need to argue its points again.

But that is not what the constitution says. It is an eisegesis of the constitutional language. Such an interpretation of the language of the constitution is neither necessary nor reasonable.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Congress is not so prohibited.

Well I think there's your problem right there. So your belief is that Congress IS permitted to promote religion? I think your personal beliefs are getting in the way of clear thinking.

Let's time travel 300 years into the future, and there is an Islamic majority in Congress. Do you still believe Congress is permitted to promote religion? Or just YOUR religion?

[P-Marlowe]

Well I think there's your problem right there. So your belief is that Congress IS permitted to promote religion?

Promote religion in general. You betcha. Establish a religion, no way.

Let's time travel 300 years into the future, and there is an Islamic majority in Congress.

If by some quirk of fate there is an Islamic majority in Congress 300 years from now, I doubt very seriously if there will still be a constitution.

Do you still believe Congress is permitted to promote religion? Or just YOUR religion?

If I am in a school district that is largely Islamic or Buddhist, and that school district thought it expedient to have Islamic or Buddhist scripture reading or prayers at the beginning of the school day, I would probably ask for my children to be excused during the ceremony. Congress starts their sessions with prayers. No one is required to participate, but Congress votes on who gives the prayers. Why not schools?

[stands2reason]

Are you talking about Siddharta Gautama? THAT Siddharta????
That's the Buddha himself.

[P-Marlowe]

Are you talking about Siddharta Gautama? THAT Siddharta???? That's the Buddha himself.

That's the one. It was REQUIRED reading in my Junior year High School English class.

[Mr. Silverback]

I imagine homosexuals look at a lot of things as homosexual. It doesn't mean they actually are homosexual or that acclaimed Christian leaders should give those arguments any credence.

Boy, you have really bad reading comprehension. The capital letters that follow are not shouting, but are placed there to help you see the wortds: The "acclaimed Christian leaders" DID NOT THINK SPONGEBOB WAS A GAY CHARACTER. The character was being used in a film that was a springboard to pro-gay classroom propagandizing. That was the objection.

[Alouette]

when they needed to kill someone in the play, they'd go to the local prison, get a condemned inmate, and execute them on the stage as part of the play.

That has to be an urban legend. Actors were very proud of their death scenes, which they performed over and over again.

[fr_freak]

That's the problem for you--Freepers using their brains. I smell banjo music.

Wow. That's an incredibly intelligent contribution that you've just made to this whole discussion. I thank you, and bow down before your superior intellectualism.

By the way, if you can smell music, your brain might be wired wrong. Or maybe the LSD hasn't worn off yet. Either way, perhaps you should have yourself checked.

[fr_freak]

Thank you, minutegal. I'm glad to see someone else pick up on that little tidbit. I was getting a little worried about that.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Aha! We find out a bit more....

She also took issue with Enderle's explanation of the dispute by posting an online response to a letter he had written to The Fulton Sun newspaper.

That blog entry apparently angered Enderle and members of the Fulton school board, said DeVore, who after the "Grease" dustup was told by administrators that her annual contract might not be renewed.

So the Superindendent took his case public, then got pissed when the teacher did the same???