Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
School visit to mosque decried - The Boston Globe
WELLESLEY — Wellesley’s school superintendent apologized yesterday for allowing middle school pupils to participate in a prayer service during a field trip to a Roxbury mosque last spring.
The apology to parents was made after a group that has been critical of Islamic Society of Boston Community Center — New England’s largest mosque and Muslim cultural center — released a 10-minute video featuring footage of Wellesley pupils bowing their heads during a prayer service
Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said her organization will investigate what happened with the Wellesley schoolchildren.
“If, as the video produced by this organization purports to show, public school children were indeed asked to take part in or observe a prayer service at a mosque, it would be deeply problematic, as would any invitation to public school children to participate in a prayer service at any church, temple, or other religious house of worship,’’ Rose said in a statement last night.
The group, Americans for Peace and Tolerance, received the footage from a mother of one of the pupils, its director, Dennis Hale, said yesterday. The woman, whom they would not identify, went on the May 27 trip as a chaperon for her son’s sixth-grade class, he said.
Quote:
Superintendent Bella Wong said yesterday that allowing the children to participate in the prayer service was a mistake, and apologized to parents in a letter.
Five middle schools participated in the Muslim midday prayer at the mosque, she said. Some can be seen in the video imitating some of the movements.
“It was not the intent for students to be able to participate in any of the religious practices,’’ Wong said. “The fact that any students were allowed to do so in this case was an error.’’
A community center spokesman said no one from the organization asked the pupils to participate in the prayers.
If they had been prevented from praying that would a violation of the 1st amendment. Even though they were at a school function. They should not be ordered to pray or ordered not to pray by any government entity. They should be able to participate or abstain at there own free will.
However, the Supreme Court differs with my opinion.
From 1962 to 2006, someone from both sides of the isle has continually proposed the School Prayer Amendment
It is lobbied against by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. School Prayer Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I firmly believe in separation of church and state. No church in schools, no religious text study ect ect. However the road goes both ways, in this instance if the school had prevented the students from the action the state would be controlling religion hence forming the connection.
The prayer was not school related. The kids were not forced to participate. If a child chooses to pray in school and dose not threaten or cohere others to participate the child should not be prevented them from doing so.
In the same respect that the religious right dose not understand get up and change the channel if you find a TV show offensive. The ACLU dose not understand if you don’t want to participate in individual prayer walk away. I find it absurd that a group that defends a person’s right to burn a flag dose not defend a person’s right to free will prayer. Major double standard.
However as I said Th Supreme Court differs from my opinion. So Superintendent Bella Wong was right in apologizing for allowing it to happen because she has to follow the letter of the law. Her opinion has no weight on the Supreme Court's decision.
If they had been prevented from praying that would a violation of the 1st amendment. Even though they were at a school function. They should not be ordered to pray or ordered not to pray by any government entity. They should be able to participate or abstain at there own free will.
However, the Supreme Court differs with my opinion.
From 1962 to 2006, someone from both sides of the isle has continually proposed the School Prayer Amendment
It is lobbied against by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. School Prayer Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I firmly believe in separation of church and state. No church in schools, no religious text study ect ect. However the road goes both ways, in this instance if the school had prevented the students from the action the state would be controlling religion hence forming the connection.
The prayer was not school related. The kids were not forced to participate. If a child chooses to pray in school and dose not threaten or cohere others to participate the child should not be prevented them from doing so.
In the same respect that the religious right dose not understand get up and change the channel if you find a TV show offensive. The ACLU dose not understand if you don’t want to participate in individual prayer walk away. I find it absurd that a group that defends a person’s right to burn a flag dose not defend a person’s right to free will prayer. Major double standard.
However as I said Th Supreme Court differs from my opinion. So Superintendent Bella Wong was right in apologizing for allowing it to happen because she has to follow the letter of the law. Her opinion has no weight on the Supreme Court's decision.
The case law you cited revolved around forced prayer and forced Bible reading.
Were the children in this case forced, or required, to particpate? If not, you're comparing apples to oranges and the school has nothing to apologize for.
The case law you cited revolved around forced prayer and forced Bible reading.
Were the children in this case forced, or required, to particpate? If not, you're comparing apples to oranges and the school has nothing to apologize for.
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962),
"The Court rejected the defendant's arguments that people are not asked to respect any specific established religion; and that the prayer is voluntary. The Court held that the mere promotion of a religion is sufficient to establish a violation, even if that promotion is not coercive. The Court further held that the fact that the prayer is vaguely worded enough not to promote any particular religion is not a sufficient defense, as it still promotes a family of religions (those that recognize "Almighty God"), which still violates the Establishment Clause"
Abington Township School District v. Schempp (consolidated with Murray v. Curlett), 374 U.S. 203 (1963),
'During the first trial in federal district court, Edward Schempp and his children testified as to specific religious doctrines purveyed by a literal reading of the Bible "which were contrary to the religious beliefs which they held and to their familial teaching" (177 F. Supp. 398, 400). The children testified that all of the doctrines to which they referred were read to them at various times as part of the exercises. Edward Schempp testified at the second trial that he had considered having his children excused from attendance at the exercises but decided against it for several reasons, including his belief that the children's relationships with their teachers and classmates would be adversely affected'.
The district court ruled in Schempp's favor, and struck down the Pennsylvania statute. The school district appealed the ruling, and while that appeal was pending, the Pennsylvania legislature amended the statute to allow children to be excused from the exercises upon the written request of their parents. This change did not satisfy Schempp, however, and he continued his action against the school district, charging that the amendment of the law did not change its nature as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Due to the change in the law, the Supreme Court had responded to the school district's appeal by vacating the first ruling and remanding the case back to the district court. The district court again found for Schempp. The school district appealed to the Supreme Court again, and, on appeal, the case was consolidated with a similar Marland case launched by Madalyen Mury
The district court ruling in the second trial, in striking down the practices and the statute requiring them, made specific findings of fact that the children's attendance at Abington Senior High School was compulsory and that the practice of reading 10 verses from the Bible was also compelled by law. It also found that:
The reading of the verses, even without comment, possesses a devotional and religious character and constitutes in effect a religious observance. The devotional and religious nature of the morning exercises is made all the more apparent by the fact that the Bible reading is followed immediately by a recital in unison by the pupils of the Lord's Prayer. The fact that some pupils, or theoretically all pupils, might be excused from attendance at the exercises does not mitigate the obligatory nature of the ceremony for . . . Section 1516 . . . unequivocally requires the exercises to be held every school day in every school in the Commonwealth. The exercises are held in the school buildings and perforce are conducted by and under the authority of the local school authorities and during school sessions. Since the statute requires the reading of the 'Holy Bible,' a Christian document, the practice . . . prefers the Christian religion. The record demonstrates that it was the intention of . . . the Commonwealth . . . to introduce a religious ceremony into the public schools of the Commonwealth. (201 F. Supp., at 819; quoted in 374 U.S 203 (1963)
Please read the links I provide as I hate to sit and cut and past and have to remove links. Thats alot of work
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
