Muslim Prayer Coming to a School Near You

[Abbey Marie]

The prayer requirements for Christians doesn't involve a rug and facing toward Mecca. Allowing the Muslims to leave the classroom to attend to their prayers prevents disruption for the remaining students.

What if other children walk by and see those children praying?! Gasp! Surely as much a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state" as a nativity in the town square, no?

[jimnyc]

What if other children walk by and see those children praying?! Gasp! Surely as much a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state" as a nativity in the town square, no?

And since the article doesn't say Catholics can't pray, so we assume they can, the school won't mind of course when the Christian kids get on bended knee and fold their hands right their in class, so long as they pray to themselves, then give the sign of the cross. Since that would/should be allowed, then I would say the Muslim kids should certainly be allowed to pray as well.

[aboutime]

Jafar you need to understand that Christian means Christ like, a follower of Jesus Christ the Son of the God of Abraham. The New Testament of the bible is the prescribed reading and was the correction for many of the traditions preceding it.
Jesus did away with things like an eye for an eye , stonings for adultery etc.
Previous to his coming man ruled by his own law/traditions but he was sent to show the way and to be the sacrificial lamb.

Your constant references to the Old testament about "christians" is either ignorance on your part or high deception . And possibly a combination of both..

Tyr. Forget it. Telling jafar he needs to do anything is useless. He has been brainwashed, and nothing any of us can say to him will do any good.
It's nothing but BARKING AT THE MOON when it comes to not only jafar, but several others here.
They have one agenda here.
Cause as much hate, and discontent as possible to incite the same kind of hatred they PRACTICE so well.

[logroller]

No, a Christian should be able to pray how and when they want, it has nothing to do with any testament. And if you allow an accommodation to leave class for prayer for one, you should allow for all.



But they are given an accommodation of leaving the classroom, no other religion is allowed this accommodation.

For one, not all Muslims are given the accommodation. And second, has any other religion asked for such an accommodation? It seems rather petty to complain that another is being accommodated if all one needs to do is ask. I they are refused, then it's unfair treatment and I would oppose that.
Religious accommodation is by no means exclusive to Muslims. My mom had a Jewish employee that routinely, year after year, would use way more than his ample provision of personal days for holy days. He was not only a burden to admin but to his coworkers as well. He would threaten lawsuits on the basis he was persecuted and, guess what, they simply paid him out two years salary plus full retirement just to be rid of him. Their is a large Sikh population where I live and the schools offers vegetarian meals to accommodate them. Has anyone ever worked a job that doesn't pay overtime on December 25? Easter Sunday? Most do. has anyone ever been paid overtime on a Jewish holy day? A muslim holy day? Have your kids' schools not had vacations that coincided with those Christian holy days? Is this not an accommodation for Christians? there was a Supreme Court ruling that allowed a seventh day Adventist the right to have sabbath on Saturday. Is that not an accommodation to a Christian? I could go on and on. Are there antichristian examples? sure there are; but there's innumerable examples of pro-Christian accommodations. I think people are having trouble seeing the forest for the trees; we have a society designed around Christianty. Naturally, less accommodation for Christians is necessary. Now as I said, if and when Christians are not allowed to leave and pray and Muslims are, then you have a salient point; but if not, then this is just arguendo, an argument for argument's sake.

[Marcus Aurelius]

...It seems that the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christians until it serves a useful purpose to uphold what is written in there....

your double standard in this is mind numbing.

You repeatedly claim certain parts of the Qur'aan are not meant to be followed now, when it serves your purpose, now you accuse Christians of doing the same thing?

Dumb ass.


In any case, the Old Testament was REPLACED by the New testament, but it is not irrelevant. If it was, then that would mean the scriptures about the coming of Jesus Himself were irrelevant. Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that i have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them". Jesus fulfills both the "Law" (the Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible where all the law stuff is) and the "Prophets" (the books in the old testament relating to the prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah). He fulfilled the Prophets by making true all the prophesies that were made about the Messiah. He fulfilled the Law by sacrificing himself to atone for our sin, eliminating the need for repeated ritual sacrifices which were required in Jewish law.

[logroller]

What if other children walk by and see those children praying?! Gasp! Surely as much a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state" as a nativity in the town square, no?

Or a solstice festival.
I prayed at school. My kids pray at school. Admittedly I have been blessed to live in a more affluent neighborhood, and I'm thinking such animosity is fed to some degree by socioeconomic challenges. Re: OP, it's in DC and the one standard I saw mentioned was that the kid needed to have high grades and the suggestion was it inspired those who wished to pray to raise their grades. IMO, the idea that religious expression is used as a carrot is problematic. I have no issue with extracurriculars being contingent upon academic/behavioral performance; but should prayer be treated as an extracurricular activity?

[jimnyc]

For one, not all Muslims are given the accommodation. And second, has any other religion asked for such an accommodation? It seems rather petty to complain that another is being accommodated if all one needs to do is ask. I they are refused, then it's unfair treatment and I would oppose that.

You're kidding, right? After the way Christian/Catholic prayers have been denied at every angle inside schools, from graduations, speeches, pictures of Jesus, pre-game rituals, in class prayer... In fact, it's MORE than a rarity if I can find an example of a public school allowing for Christian prayer or an accommodation for a prayer. If it's been beat into everyone around the nation in these schools, that they aren't allowed to have it in any of these circumstances, then why would they even seek an accommodation? - other than when they see one being given to another religion, as in this case. But that's why I say - this school should have NO problem with Christians kneeling in their classes, hands folded and eyes closed, performing their prayers, whether short or up to 10 minutes in the class. If they don't want it in the class, then they should have the same opportunity afforded to them as the Muslim kids.

And even if it were just 5 Muslim kids in the particular school, it's still a religious accommodation. If it's just one kid it's the same, and then should be afforded to all. Having the "right" to pray shouldn't be something one has to earn, low scoring students and high performing alike should be able to say their prayers. Or equally deny it in school to all.

[aboutime]

You're kidding, right? After the way Christian/Catholic prayers have been denied at every angle inside schools, from graduations, speeches, pictures of Jesus, pre-game rituals, in class prayer... In fact, it's MORE than a rarity if I can find an example of a public school allowing for Christian prayer or an accommodation for a prayer. If it's been beat into everyone around the nation in these schools, that they aren't allowed to have it in any of these circumstances, then why would they even seek an accommodation? - other than when they see one being given to another religion, as in this case. But that's why I say - this school should have NO problem with Christians kneeling in their classes, hands folded and eyes closed, performing their prayers, whether short or up to 10 minutes in the class. If they don't want it in the class, then they should have the same opportunity afforded to them as the Muslim kids.

And even if it were just 5 Muslim kids in the particular school, it's still a religious accommodation. If it's just one kid it's the same, and then should be afforded to all. Having the "right" to pray shouldn't be something one has to earn, low scoring students and high performing alike should be able to say their prayers. Or equally deny it in school to all.

Five.

[jimnyc]

Another thought - the idea of a having a prayer over at a graduation, or at a HS football game - was declared unconstitutional. Different, but yet the same. It stemmed from Christianity and Christian prayers. It was so opposed that the courts had to intervene to make that ruling. It's been made clear over the years that any prayer outside of silent prayer was "offensive to some" and not allowed. But here we are with a school making an exception/accommodation for Muslim children.

I've looked around at as many articles as I could find on this story. Some were the same wording (AP stories) and others were written totally different. If the same 'option' were available to Christians, it's odd that they would go out of their way to talk about the accommodation for the Muslims and not mention that it's available to everyone. And not in any of the articles. But there is TON of talk around the net just like we are all having here. If it was equally available to all, one would think the school would have pitched in by now to clear up the misunderstanding!

[jimnyc]

Five.

What does that mean?

[aboutime]

What does that mean?

Hint. FIVE days.

[jimnyc]

Hint. FIVE days.

5 days? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. What's in 5 days?

[aboutime]

5 days? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. What's in 5 days?

Never mind.

[logroller]

You're kidding, right? After the way Christian/Catholic prayers have been denied at every angle inside schools, from graduations, speeches, pictures of Jesus, pre-game rituals, in class prayer...

In fact, it's MORE than a rarity if I can find an example of a public school allowing for Christian prayer or an accommodation for a prayer. If it's been beat into everyone around the nation in these schools, that they aren't allowed to have it in any of these circumstances, then why would they even seek an accommodation? - other than when they see one being given to another religion, as in this case. But that's why I say - this school should have NO problem with Christians kneeling in their classes, hands folded and eyes closed, performing their prayers, whether short or up to 10 minutes in the class. If they don't want it in the class, then they should have the same opportunity afforded to them as the Muslim kids.

And even if it were just 5 Muslim kids in the particular school, it's still a religious accommodation. If it's just one kid it's the same, and then should be afforded to all. Having the "right" to pray shouldn't be something one has to earn, low scoring students and high performing alike should be able to say their prayers. Or equally deny it in school to all.

No I'm no kidding at all.

Regarding unequal treatment--
Are Christian kids in that school disallowed from leaving class to pray-- yes or no?


If not, then the argument is moot.
To the second point, that of establishment. Do you mean to tell me that a student being excused to leave class and pray is no different than a prayer over the schools PA system? or being led by a teacher? Or a teacher having a crucifix on the wall?
I'm keenly aware of the contextual differences between the examples you offer for comparison. And this has been ruled upon long before our debate here, so just to rehash

in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577. There, in concluding that a prayer delivered by a rabbi at a graduation ceremony violated the Establishment Clause, the Court held that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so, id., at 587. The District argues unpersuasively that these principles are inapplicable because the policy's messages are private student speech, not public speech. The delivery of a message such as the invocation here-on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer-is not properly characterized as "private" speech

So that's the minimum-- is this school establishing a state religion or religious faith by allowing certain students to leave class and pray?
No. A teacher having a religious symbol in plain view or leading a prayer clearly runs afoul of this. I am sympathetic to the argument that kids being excused from class to do something that isn't school-sponsored may run afoul of the pedagological interests; but then I could argue there are innumerable examples, even going to the bathroom, that need not be accommodated. Anyone with any experience with kids knows that some will abuse such privileges; and I dare I say it is a right to use the bathroom. Yet allowed it is....usually.
Interestingly, the 2000 supreme court case that forbid student led prayers over the public announcement system was levied by a Mormon and a Catholic. So this isn't just an issue among non-Christians being aggrieved.
There's a definite difference between a prayer over the public announcement system and kids being allowed to pray. There's a difference between kids being excused to pray and having a designated moment in class to pray. These differences matter, both logically and legally.

As for the one and all, (which is a fair argument) -- what about those kids who don't pray-- should they be forsaken their classroom learning time because other's prefer to pray?
Surely not.

Or should those who wish to pray just bust out their rug and go about it in the middle of a lesson? That would be distracting.

There's a balance between establishment and free exercise that can be found, but not through moot points on Christians being forbidden to do the same as Muslims when the examples of Christian predominance throughout our social character abound. It may be waning to some degree, but what is waning is not the right to express one's beliefs, Christian or otherwise, but rather it is the power to proselytize from the government stage that people have taken issue.

[Missileman]

I don't care if you believe it was a part of history or not. It's in the Bible. I believe it would be more up to a Christian if they decided to follow the past traditions from the bible, as opposed to what an atheist has to tell me. But is funny still, how you would go out of your way to show how it's OK for them to make an accommodation for Muslims, but then go out of your way to show how all things Christian should be separated.

The three daily special times of prayer observance recorded in the Bible (in both the Old and New Testaments) were at: 9 A.M., 12:00 P.M. (Noon), and 3 P.M.

I never said it's not in the Bible. Even your own source says that the NT reference is someone following a Jewish tradition. Bottom line is your arguments that specific prayer times are a Christian tradition aren't true.