Previous 21 - 30 Next
The facts about what some inidividuals said on the internet? People on the internet are rarely representative of their demographic. If people got their image of Christians from a selection of their blogs and comments chosen to 'prove' they think what you say they do, you could make it seem like Christians hold any position you want.
Secularism is government neutrality towards religion. The USSR oppressed religion, and Germany oppressed a particular religion, though it was fine with Catholics and Lutherans. Government oppression of religion is just as much a departure from secularism as government promotion of religion. If you want an example of a 'secular paradise', look at the USA.
Secularism is government neutrality towards religion. Whether government privileges religion or oppresses it, it departs from political secularism. And if I wrote a blog whenever a Christian said something mean to me, or quoted Christians from various comment sections, I could easily make it seem as though Christians are rabidly persecuting atheists in America. Heck, I could do that just from Townhall comment sections. But maybe that's not the most honest place to get 'evidence' for what's happening in the real world. In fact, that's where I would look if I wanted to make the contention knowing it isn't really true, didn't have any real world evidence, but wanted to create the impression I'm right.
You might have been hard put to find a school that would do it, unless it had some kind of rule forbidding singing in the hallways while walking between classes, which seems unlikely. The hallways are noisy anyway between classes, so I don't see how it would be disruptive, as long as you didn't keep on singing loudly when you walked into the classroom.
I just looked up the Communist Manifesto, and can't find anything in it about not allowing kids to pray in school.
That's the core of why I think Chase has a case. This 'Seminar' period is pretty wide open. Singling out one of the many groups meeting at that time because it's religious could have put the school on the wrong end of the lawsuit.
Although I think Chase has a case, he doesn't have a right to use the room in defiance of the school authorities. It belongs to the school. If they don't have any courses that include learning ABOUT Islam, along with other world religions, including Christianity, then they're being miseducated.
I assume that's sarcasm?
Usually, I would be in agreement, Willie, but this 'Seminar' period is so wide open, I think it may be a valid exception to the usual rules regarding allowing a religious group to meet during 'instructional time'. If pretty much every other group of students can meet for almost any purpose, and that's what it looks like, I don't see how the school can legitimately single out the religious group. I think Chase has a chance of winning this, and that the school administrators made the wrong call.
District lawyers aren't misinformed. Giving a religous group their own room during instructional time is iffy, at best...but not necessarily illegal if it isn't blocking some other group from using the room, IMHO. If they need the room for something else, I don't see whay they'd make a church-state thing, I'd think they'd just tell the students they need the room for something else.
The kids can pray quietly in any classroom they want, but the Constitution doesn't grant them a room of their own in a government school during instructional time. It DOES guarantee them the opportunity to have an extracurricular club for the purpose if the school has any other extracurricular clubs. That said, if the room would otherwise go unused, this may be allowable.
Previous 21 - 30 Next