CHICAGO – A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the state law requiring a moment of silence in public schools across Illinois is unconstitutional, saying it crosses the line separating church and state.”The statute is a subtle effort to force students at impressionable ages to contemplate religion,” U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman said in his ruling.The ruling came in a lawsuit designed to bar schools from enforcing the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act. It was filed by talk show host Rob Sherman, an outspoken atheist, and his daughter, Dawn, a student at Buffalo Grove High School in suburban Chicago.
I hate moments of silence. They say it’s not coerced prayer because nobody is forcing kids to pray, but the same goes for CHURCH. Nobody forces you to pray in church either. You stand in silence, and you know everyone else is praying, but you aren’t forced to pray. So what’s the difference? Moments of silence include mandatory attendance. Unlike Church, you can’t opt out. You can’t go to the bathroom. You can’t come to school when it’s over. You MUST attend, as a child, away from your parents’ protection, and be reminded every day that although you aren’t praying, EVERYONE else is (at least it appears that way). It’s pure peer pressure, and it’s totally intentional.Prayer is allowed in public school by federal law. Anyone can pray at any time (as long as they don’t force or coerce others to do so, or disturb classes), and they DO. Prayer groups can meet before or after classes and they DO. The only problem is that kids are opting out of going, so they need to force kids into it. They need to push other people’s kids — the kids who DON’T want to go to the volunteer events, to be in a situation where prayer is obvious and pressured, like church, only mandatory. And it’s only target is the kids who don’t want to pray in the first place. Congrats to Rob Sherman on his victory for children.
Now that’s funny!
Don’t including me in your us.
What said: “If you like I will list for you what I find juvenile about it thereby creating an argument yet still not an ad hominem one.”
The author didn’t much give a crap, but I’d be interested in your blow-by-blow analysis.
(Sorry for the dual personas here, but the person for whom I’ve been speaking can’t access this site directly.)
What requested:
“Don’t including me in your us.”
I actually never did. I was talking about free thinkers being the butt of a friendly joke. Everyone already knows you don’t fit in that definition. And skinheads never will. Sorry.
NeoWolfe