The Australian Constitution does not prohibit prayer or religious education in schools.
Section 116 says simply:

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion

The USA constitution and 1st amendment in particular also do not make a separation between Church and State. That is found in 'letter' written by Jefferson to a Baptist minister, and is taken out of context and given a reversal of meaning to support cases in US courts used to supress religion in public life.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Jeffersons letter cannot be understood correctly without reference to the one he is responding to! The separation mean't by Jefferson was for non interference in religious matters by the state.. as requested by the Danbury Baptists.

An informative discussion of the US situation is found here.

http://www.oneplace.com/common/player/oneplace/CustomPlayer.asp?bcd=7/3/2008&url=http://swn.edgeboss.net/wmedia/swn/oneplace/wm/ffd/ffd20080703.wax&MinTitle=Focus+on+the+Family&MinURL=http://www.oneplace.comhttp://www.oneplace.com/ministries/focus_on_the_family/&MinArchives=http://www.oneplace.comhttp://www.oneplace.com/ministries/focus_on_the_family/archives.asp&Refresh=&AdsCategory=MINISTRY.FOTF&Show_ID=132

There is no legal or consitutional reason why a state school cannot implement voluntary (heart) participation in public prayer at assemblies or graduations.
If their elected and appointed officials agree, then it should be ok.
No 'law' was created in this process. But to deny free prayer would be to make a law prohibiting, and be unconstitutional.

The main point of this thread is about 'mis-use of the constitution' not so much 'prayer in schools'.

Dear Polycarp,

Politicians will be politicians...

Wasn't it the Howard Government's initiative to provide 90 million dollars over 3 years to fund chaplains in private and public schools?
(For those that wanted it).

And even though religion has been separated from the
Government since Federation. The following website:

http://www.indopedia.org./Separation_of_church_and_state.html

tells us that,"The Australian Parliament still holds prayers at the start of each sitting day (and has since Federation). While these
prayers are technically optional, almost all Members of Parliament
attend them."

As Ian Robertson confirms in his book, "Sociology,"
"In practice, civic affairs and religion have long been closely intertwined...for example, in the US, the Pledge of Allegiance declares that the country is one nation "under God." Its coins declare, "In God we trust." Religion is an element in oaths of office, party conventions, court room procedures, and indeed nearly all formal public occasions..."

The same may be said for Australia. The boy scouts give a "God and country" award And our politicians must always pay at least lip service to religious belief. Their sentiments are usually sufficiently broad to be acceptable to almost everyone.

Polycarp

As pointed out by Foxy, we enjoy a longheld and successful separation of church and state in Australia and for good reason.

If you want prayers in schools take your pick from any number of religious schools and attend one of them. Most of them I'm sure have prayers at assemblies and plenty more in the way of religious indoctrination, totally irrespective of the fact that taxpayer money funds them, and that most taxpayers would probably object to their money being spent on sectarian observance if they were asked.

Government schools have always allowed religious teaching on a regular basis and have now had religious chaplains foisted onto them. What more do you want? Prayers at assemblies? 'Voluntary participation'? What claptrap. What do those who don't want to 'voluntarily participate' do? Cover their ears? Get up and walk out?

Leave state schools to continue the secular tradition that has served both them and the country well, and stop looking for some obscure constitutional loophole to allow churches to further infiltrate our public schools.

Polycarp (unfortunate etymological choice of nom deplume)
That aside a constitutional Lawyer may disagree with your interpretation on the grounds of convention. A compulsion by any other name is a law in effect.
But I agree that access to prayer in secular schools should be allowed but like all other options it should be by specific opt in option.
Then there’s the practical issues like which version of Christianity?
Then because we are a secular state in fairness why not all religions say Islam, Hindu, Buddhist and Scientology etc.
Next where would these prayers take place?
In some good or reasonable sounding ideas fail the practicality test.
The only fair practical thing is to preclude all.
As already offered if a Christian educational regime is so important then this would be a personal choice over and above that which is reasonably supplied by the state and should be at the chooser expense. It should neither be expected nor demanded. Appart from this statistics show that "faith"(aka religion is a declining priority in community life. Shrinking church attendences etc

This would indeed be a problem, I think.

>>Then there’s the practical issues like which version of Christianity?<<

According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) there are around 38,000 versions of worship that come under the heading of "Christianity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

But Polycarp tells us:

>>The main point of this thread is about 'mis-use of the constitution' not so much 'prayer in schools'.<<

So where is the evidence of this "mis-use"?

>>...to deny free prayer would be to make a law prohibiting, and be unconstitutional.<<

Excuse me, but how does denying free prayer (whatever that means) constitute the creation of a law?

Parliaments create laws. The rest of us simply abide by them, or break them.

If Polycarp is suggesting that when a school forbids a religious assembly it is breaking the law, that's well and good, and should be tested in court.

But describing such an action as "making a law prohibiting"?

I don't think so.

Or am I missing something very simple here?

All 38,000 versions of Christianity admire and recite the Lord's prayer as does many Parliaments, Counsils and schools. This has been a unifying social factor in Western societies.

Our Father who is in heaven
(Father = giver of life, heaven = perfect spiritual realm)
Holy be your name
(Holy = pure Name = character)
Thy kingdom come
(kingdom = place where God rules)
thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread
(an acceptance of our mortality and dependence upon a fertile earth)
Forgive us our debts
(An acwledgement of our failures to live pure lives)
As we also have forgiven our debtors.
(We recognise we must also forgive those that offend us by their actions or attitudes)
Lead us not into times of testing.
Deliver us from the evil
(the things that would destroy)

This prayer identifies the highest responsibility of purity in personal and social life. Such values are highly violated by cultures that neither accept or practise the values identified

Pedicles,
There are two keys here convention and by default. The issue argument is complex but much hinges on the “other” law that made by judicial interpretation, (involving precedents, convention etc.) If prayer were permitted it might be argued as setting a precedent and there by legal, and in “effect” a law. If the high court determined that the intent of the Constitution was Secular (not playing religious favourites). Then a constitution al Lawyer might also argue that the prayers of one religion in schools are a religiously prejudicial act against others therefore breaching the secular intent of section(s) of the constitution and other legislation. The only options would be to ensure equal time to all a practical impossibility.
As for an expensive High court challenge and the probable destabilizing effect it would have…. For a discretionary choice? That allows a minority dictate is W.O.E. and Money that could be used to address more practical issues.
I doubt that there is any misuse of the constitution in not supporting religion in public life for the above and many other reasons.
Foxy.
You are correct to a point but there are Secular options that are valid too as is an Affirmation in Court. Additionally most polis is prisoners of public appearance. In some seats what is an emotional issue may swing a seat. I know several MPs who have experienced the temporary “Canberra conversion”.
Pilo.
Not true! not all “Christian” flavours share the Lord Prayer, it is a New Testament inclusion.
My point was to point out how impractical equal time would be and what to do with non atheist Students?
Allowing Prayers into schools would be seen by some as backdoor prophesizing to the naïve. A breach of duty of care, family rights etc.
Finally Religion has never been nor should be viewed as a universal unifying factor. In fact more people have died and more division has been caused by trying to enforce this than any other single cause in history

Let me see if I understand you correctly here examinator.

>>The issue argument is complex but much hinges on the “other” law that made by judicial interpretation, (involving precedents, convention etc.) If prayer were permitted it might be argued as setting a precedent and there by legal, and in “effect” a law.<<

Let us start from a point that says that conducting a religious assembly in school is illegal.

A school conducts such an assembly.

In which universe can this be deemed a "precedent", and in which dimension in that universe can this precedent possibly become in "effect" (to use your signage) a law?

A parallel would be that I commit a burglary, and by committing it I set a precedent, and suddenly burglary becomes legal. I think not.

If we now turn our attention to the situation where conducting a religious assembly in school is deemed permissible, there can by definition be no problem.

The only situation left is that no-one has yet decided whether conducting a religious assembly is lawful or unlawful. In such situations, it is quite normal for some willing patsy to perform the act in question, and see how it plays out in court.

Our entire taxation system, for example, seems to work this way and this way alone - the law is unclear, someone treads the line, and the entire matter is thrashed out in the courts.

It's an imperfect system, of course, caused by badly drafted legislation. But one thing may be said for certain, and that is that in committing the act, a precedent is indeed established; but this precedent cannot be said to automatically cause the act concerned to suddenly become legal.

Which seems to be what all the fuss is about.

Or do I still miss the point?

As Foxy pointed out.... we do have a long standing 'convention' (Examinator) of prayers before parliament.

Bronwyn, of course what you say is quite true.. one can attend a Church school, but while that's true, I'm trying to dig around on this issue of separation of Church and State and seeking to demonstrate that there is no such thing at the constitutional level only a wall between particular denominations and Government.

I'd go further.. the closeness of faith and state has been mercilessly hijacked by a small number of people.. 10 familes to be exact, which took a case 'Engle vs Vitale' that pretty much decimated prayer in schools.
http://www.wakeupamerica.org/html/1962Supreme.html

Pericles.. the point about parliament making laws to advance a particular religion was in a historical context of Protestant/Catholic struggle and it really meant 'denomination'...and of Christian only.

There is no need for a particular 'denominatonal' flavor to prayer in schools. The issues which divide (amicably in most cases) the various mainstream traditions are not such as to prevent easily agreed prayer in a school context.

I submit that it would be quite lawful and constitutional for a state school to 'choose' to have voluntary prayer at assemblies. By voluntary, I do mean 'not being required to participate at the heart or vocal level'.. presence would be required if the school authorities agreed along with the parents representative body.
I'm really saying "reverse the outcome of engle vs vitale"

The social impact after this case, is said to be very measurable by a number of indicators.
-Teen pregnancy
-STDs
both of which skyrocketed after this decision.. it has been graphed.

I find the arguments here increasingly impenetrable. I am either extremely stupid, or the discussion is being conducted at a level that goes 'way over my head.

Polycarp explains:

>>I'm really saying "reverse the outcome of engle vs vitale"<<

i.e. we should somehow preempt a situation in Australia where religious assemblies of any kind in schools were ruled to be specifically illegal.

My personal view is that prayer sessions, or religious assemblies of any kind, do not have an automatic right to be imposed upon a school. However, if there is a unanimous view that some time should be dedicated to such activities, I cannot see any particular harm in it.

It does take on a different perspective however when its imposition on the school day causes separation or alienation of some school attendees. Any activity that divides kids into groups of participants and non-participants has the potential to create unnecessary tensions, and when these tensions are of a religious nature, history tells us that it will probably end badly.

But to me the most disturbing element to Polycarp's post is the assumed corollary:

>>The social impact after this case, is said to be very measurable by a number of indicators. -Teen pregnancy -STDs both of which skyrocketed after this decision.. it has been graphed.<<

Quite frankly, I find the conclusion that the ruling in Engel vs Vitale resulted in "skyrocketing" incidence of teen pregnancy and STDs to be one of the most laughable statements yet posted on OLO.

Engel vs Vitale was ruled upon in 1962. As I recall, there were many other factors in play in that decade, far more influential on the teen psyche than a twenty-two word morning classroom ritual.

But it does at least serve to make extremely clear the perspective of the writer.

Pericles,
Yes you did miss my point. The over all points were:
The issue is too large and complex for 350 words. It requires several point of law to be run. It is difficult to know at which level of explanation to stop at in this environment. Especially when I’m a big picture thinker…not always good. Apologies.

When I initially said that it was a law by default I was speaking metaphorically.
I used the word both a legal sense (a decided by court PRINCIPLE of law not necessarily a comparable case.) and a common sense (That if we agree to one religious group then there is a logical base for the next group to claim access).

The Tax system is based on a law/ amendment to the tax act and regs then comes the objection, board review and sometimes a test case to clarify the law.
To go from the board review to the Supreme courts and then High court for appeal or of constitutional Law interpretation. Running a case here is very different than other courts.

The issue proposed by Polycarp assumes that a test case could get that far. First the case would need to address local state laws with a specific problem. If the case hung on his “Constitutional question” which I doubt that it could then and only then could the issue go to the High court who would make the determination.

His subsequent argument about only 10 people are to blame and 1 1962 US decision on the surface is ludicrous rather he clearly misunderstands the nature of the legal issue. The quantum leap to the consequences he claims is absurdly dogma based and devoid of any credibility.

Aust courts don’t necessarily follow decisions from US Court unless it on a principle of law and then it may need to be tested here.
Some old case law from England is applicable here.

I doubt that testing this law is either in the interest of the community and would survive the lower courts polycarp and ilk should worry more about his soul than everyone else’s

Dear Pericles

You said:

<However, if there is a unanimous view that some time should be dedicated to such activities,
I cannot see any particular harm in it.>

to which I reply.. "exactly" :)

Thats rather my point.

Examinator...

The issue of 'which religion' is more relevant than which denomination.. as
denomination would not really be much of an issue among Christians.
I suspect the only potential for assertiveness would come from
those of catholic tradition if they were in the mould of Webby et al.
"we are the only true Church" kind of thing.

The issue of 'which religion'...ahh.. now there we have a most interesting subject.
It touches on the history of the country.. and connects with the
idea of culture and identity as much as anything.
I don't hold the view that 'Human Rights' law does..
I am a 'cultural historicist' if there is such a thing.

For me, the only 'religion' admissable would be Christianity.
(a kind of pan mainstream denominational type)
But then, I wouldn't seek to push that too far, specially not
to the point of laws which seek to dictate belief.

In all honesty, I think we have passed the point of being able to
salvage any vestige of true 'Christian' identity in Australia.
We did once have that, even though not all would have confessed to
being Christian.
Now..I think we will have to just go down and down until we see our
true state and recognize our need of Grace..

Reference to the courts and the Engle vs Vitale case is just a
recognition on my part that national culture, can be impacted by
a very small tail trying to wag an exceedingly large dog.

On the 'measurable indicators' let me rephrase..
There is a noticable coincidence' between the rates of increases
and that decision.

Well, it's good to see you back in your new persona, Boaz/Polycarp. A slight improvement on the old one - a more subdued tone, lighter on the capital letters - but the same old topics, spelling mistakes and funny faces ;)

Plus, of course, the odd wild assertion that - even when exposed - you will defend to the death.

B/P: >>The social impact after this case, is said to be very measurable by a number of indicators. -Teen pregnancy -STDs both of which skyrocketed after this decision.. it has been graphed.<<

examinator: >>The quantum leap to the consequences he claims is absurdly dogma based and devoid of any credibility<<

B/P: >>On the 'measurable indicators' let me rephrase.. There is a noticable coincidence' between the rates of increases and that decision.<<

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, B/P. Check it out.

Incidentally, the new handle is interesting too. Tell me, how did you choose it?

I've always maintained that 'people' are not the issue Pericles.

"issues" are.

On the nick.."look it up" you might find it educational.

on the latin? aaah.. yes I see your point.

My position is that there is a definite connection between the increasing incidence of the various indicators and the decision of the 'gang of 10'.. but the connection is not direct as much as it is part of a flood of values abandonment which occurred around that time.

I was 13 in 62 and saw it all.

Academically, it would be hard to prove a direct connection..
intuitively, it's easy.

and who is this 'BOAZ' character? is he perchance someone who for you provides meaning in life? 0_^

BD/Polycarp

Yes, I agree with Pericles, you are a slightly improved version! And by the way I must complement his /her deductive skills!

I can only shake my head at how sad it must be to hate what you've become so badly that you have to reinvent yourself. Or maybe you were told to do so by the OLO editors. Either way, you're a very mixed-up person BD.

I will engage with the new persona however. Confusing though it might be. In a way I miss the old BD; at least with him you knew where you stood. Your absence by the way was extremely noticeable; I had wondered where you'd got to.

The trouble is, BD/PC, when you try to disguise hatred and bigotry in civilised dress, the niceties of the presentation are soon lost in the awfulness of the content. A quick skim of your new posting history soon reveals the same old pet themes and the same old divisive style. Stirring up the pot and then sinking in the boot. You've gone straight into stirring the pot; it will be interesting to see how long you refrain from sinking the boot! Not long is my bet.

I should have spotted it myself. Why would anyone but BD (or BD in disguise) want to start an obscure constitutional debate about forcing prayers into public school assemblies?

Polycarp, do you support gay marriage? The Australian Constitution did not exclude gay people from marriage until 2004, at which time both political parties deprived them of that right.

As for prayer in school, you would have to be an idiot to not see the intentions behind such a plan. Pericles made a good point point on this.

I think the real question that should be asked is, "why is a prayer at home before school not good enough?" This question reveals the deceitful intentions of those who ask for such laws.

I agree with Bronwyn than it is BOAZ...

Dear Bronwyn... I had to smile so many times reading your post..

Stirring the pot... I understand John Wesley used to preach on SIN for 3 days solid at his open air meetings (to which 10s of 1000s flocked) before he spoke about forgiveness, love and grace. I hardly think Wesley would have throttled back on the need to repent just because he began speaking about love and grace.

and.. you miss BD ? aaah...

Steel.. I don't support gay marriage.. not in the slightest.
I more than "don't support" it..I would actively oppose it. (No Bron, -no boot this is an emotion neutral political statement...:)

I would do so for the same reasons advocates of such a lifestyle choice would advance it... "democracy".

The "Gang of 10" showed how they could impose their will on the whole of American Educational life.. not a small feat by any means.

One problem with OLO is that it's most difficult to be 2 people at the same time or perhaps more that people confuse a principled stand for emotional hate.

As the wise and all knowing (not to mention humble :) BD used to say.."I am a member of democracy but also a Christian".. and sometimes the actions of opposing or supporting political issues can be confused with being a 'bad/good' Christian. It depends a lot on how Biblical is the understanding of the critic about the meaning of 'Christian'.

The example raised by Steel is one. "Gay Marraige".

It is probably difficult for the reader to fathom the real world feeings of a typer here..but reading words which go against the cherished hope of some people can be read as 'lacking compassion'...even 'hate', whether it is intended so or not.

In reality it has nothing to do with compassion but everything to do with principles of morality one adheres to.

Prayer in schools under the present socio political climate would not happen. If our society experienced serious revival though..it could and should come (voluntarily).

Carn B/P, admit it.

You're secretly quite thrilled that you have been recognized, aren't you?

But to be honest, you should have stayed away a little longer than your farewell at 9.51 p.m. on 24th, and your new "hallo" at 6.01 the next morning. (I'm ignoring the couple of tidying-up posts, so as not to draw attention to any potential duplicity of representation - you are of course forgiven in advance).

A longer sabbatical would have enabled you to reinvent yourself a little more completely.

>>The "Gang of 10" showed how they could impose their will on the whole of American Educational life.. not a small feat by any means<<

Your tendency to see conspiracy against you and your religion at every turn is still the most obvious of your many hallmarks.

It was most certainly not the will of ten people that was imposed "on the whole of American Educational life", B/P.

Read the judgement again. The entire subject under discussion is not the will of ten people, but whether the First Amendment had been breached.

"..we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government"

If there is a conspiracy, B/P, then it is as old as the First Amendment itself, which came into force on 15th December 1791.

And to refresh your memory, here it is again:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note also that it talks about what the government can and cannot do. It says nothing about what individuals or groups of individuals may or may not do.

Have a great day. Both of you.

The further we can keep primitive religious philosophies away from innocent young minds the better

Those advocating religious instruction usually do so in praise of the velvet glove of Christian goodness, love, compassion and generosity. What's always left out is reference to the iron fist of intolerance, misogyny, bigotry and homophobia, coupled with the indoctrination and brutalisation of young children that is likely to follow.

Telling small children that, if they don't believe in the gods of the Christian church, when they die they'll rot in hell, scares the bejesus out of them and warps their minds forever. Giving people acccess to schools to promote this philosophy is a dreadful thing to suggest. Then of course there is the dressing up, the guilt and the blood drinking rituals that come with the philosophy, all designed to lock kids in for life.

In past times if you didn't agree with this philosophy you were either locked up or burnt at the stake.

The Christian churches in their varied forms claim to speak on behalf of the god who doesn't believe in many of the things most of us stand for; democracy, (did anyone out there get to vote for Ratzinger or Pell), equal rights for women, equal rights for homosexuals, birth control, sex before marriage, euthanansia ...

Some of these people are just itching to get into schools to tell children that the earth is only 5000 years old.

It's a primitive, fascist philosophy that dates back to the time when god so loved that world that he drowned everyone except Noah and his family; to Moses who carried the sixth commandment in one hand while he killed 3000 of his parishioners with the other.

Putting religion into schools is just another marketing and public relations exercise by the members of this largely boys own theocracy.

If people want to study philosophy let them do it in university. In the meantime, let's not suffer young and impressionable minds to put up with this stuff.

Frank_Blunt

Polycarp.
I am still bothered by your sweeping assumptions .about there being one central theme in Christian prayer is nonexistent. There are many examples that come to mind. e.g.
-Religious society of friends (Quakers) all their prayers are done in silence:
-The 7th Days believe that mainstream denominations especially the Catholics are trying to take over all religion. Hence they scorn the Ecumenical councils.
-The Copts, Marinites and the orthodox churches have their variations on a theme.
NB. The Lords Prayer was introduced in the New Testament. There are still community denominational bias’ out there even among the nominal Christians. The one growing group you seem to ignore is the no religion in short would be less agreement than you think.

My tentative thoughts towards the origins of morals include that they are refinements of biological (evolutionary) influence. e.g. The Wild beast if low birth numbers will tend towards defending the female and their young.

The biggest bug bare about Christian fundamentalists is that (for their own reasons) deliberately misquote the Theory of evolution.
- Evolution never said we evolved from apes. It says in essence we evolved from a common ancestor ….a big difference.
- That Evolution is about the survival of the fittest. This phrase came from a Contemporary Astronomer, Fundamentalist Christian and competitor for head of the premier Science association. It says about survival of the most adaptable.
Why is evolution still a theory? Because while it explains a lot it because there are too many variable and too much time (10 s of thousands of yeas and the simular numbers of species) … It can’t be adequately (scientifically) tested to the standard level of confidence.

Religion and national identities are the most superficial, changed and cause of wars.

Languages, cultures and identities change over time and some aspects tend to become less important and disappear. It could be argued that not all changeis for the better though.

Frank_Blunt

'Telling small children that, if they don't believe in the gods of the Christian church, when they die they'll rot in hell, scares the bejesus out of them and warps their minds forever.'

It just happens that tens of thousands totally disagree with you. The godless schools have been loosing kids at the rate of knots. The schools that honour God are growing dramatically and dare I say finishing a lot higher up academically and morally as your beloved godless schools. Funny isn't it that so many godless people have to put up with godly education in order to get the results they want for their kids. People are voting with their feet leaving the godless zoos in droves. At least Mr Rudd is smart enough to see it.

Hopefully a day will come when the failed secular schools will be totally empty. It might take a few more secularist to eat humble pie and admit they have failed before this happens.

Hi Examinator...

all those things you said are true at some time or other.
but I won't get sidetracked onto evolution at this point.

Even Frank, as he so bluntly puts it.. is correct in some of what he says in my view.

But what he gives one name to, we might call 'sin'....which needs to be repented of.

The idea of children being taught that if God is King of your life and heart in Christ that the world will suddenly go down the gurgler is invalidated by history. It was this very thing which overtook Rome in spite of it's most monstrous efforts.

The Lords prayer is something that every denomination could agree with.. no if's buts or maybe's.

It is a beautiful prayer too...

But the 'gang' of 10 did (contrary to Pericles assertion) gain a court victory which saw prayer thrown out, and the most regrettable thing of it all (and which Pericles himself demonstrated) is that the 1st ammendment did nothing whatsoever to exclude prayer from schools per se.

It was the 14th amemendment which was used to greater effect from my rather quick reading of the judgement..and even that was misused as far as I can see.

Often..judgments depend on the judge as much as anything.

Noting the 5/4 split in the court and how hysterical Democrats get when the incumbents try to appoint an 'unknown' quantity to the supreme court.. it goes without saying that a judgement can reflect the Judges socio political views more than 'evidence & justice'.

We put the judges in power who will give us the decisions WE want from them... right? :) (where 'we'=vested political interest)

Runner, people aren't dragging their children out of public schools because they're godless, they're sending them to private schools because they perceive the overall standard of education is better.

For one thing the private schools have more freedom to sack incompetent teachers. They have better conditions for their staff (code for more holidays); more money to purchase teaching aids and sporting equipment; ovals, courts, gyms and pools; they attract a better clientele.

The boards and managers of private schools insist that their teachers take sport after school and on Saturday morning, run the debating and the school musical; take students on camps and field trips - places where the real education takes place.

So ask yourself this question; if you could afford it, would you rather your child go to St Peters College or Elizabeth Boys Tech School?

Of course the discipline and the results in private schools are better. If you're forking out 10 Grand a year for your child's education you want to see some results for your investment - from your child and their teachers.

If parents know their children have to put up with a bit of god-bothering to get a decent education, then that's the price they're prepared to pay. Plus of course, most of them know that if their children are smart enough, as most of them are, they'll see through the nonsense. That's why churches are empty. Regretably it's something you have to put up with to get a decent education.

Most parents are conditioned only to see the velvet glove, and to my knowledge, there aren't many private schools that advertise the iron fist in their prospectus. But it's there, a phantom (code for holy spirit), lurking in the background, like the unseen guest (code for the remains of Jesus of Nazareth) that used to have a place at every tea table.

As for World Youth Day, treat your kids to a day out at Rose Hill. They'll have more fun and could come away with bit of extra pocket money.

Polycarp>".. I don't support gay marriage.. not in the slightest.
I more than "don't support" it..I would actively oppose it. (No Bron, -no boot this is an emotion neutral political statement...:)

Polycarp>"I would do so for the same reasons advocates of such a lifestyle choice would advance it... "democracy"."

Perhaps secularists and gay people should begin advocating for the outlawing of religion, or for it's significant reduction? Considering your deliberate, meaningful intolerance toward gay marriage, I think that would be a more than an appropriate response.

I made a thread before that religion is child abuse. There is a great case to make for this... particularly when the church has harboured and protected child rapists across the world and threatens children with punishments as indicated very finely by Frank_Blunt

Careless as ever with your research, B/P.

>>It was the 14th amemendment which was used to greater effect from my rather quick reading of the judgement..and even that was misused as far as I can see.<<

The Fourteenth amendment was invoked here to ensure that the State conformed to the requirements of the First, i.e.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Merely ensuring the State didn't wriggle out of its responsibilities.

>>.. it goes without saying that a judgement can reflect the Judges socio political views more than 'evidence & justice'<<

The bench has also been thoroughly right-leaning on a number of occasions since 1962, B/P. Plenty of opportunities to right this egregious wrong, if anyone had felt sufficiently strongly about it.

But the point is that there is no impediment in their constitution to the private conduct of religious rituals; only those imposed by the government - including, thanks to the Fourteenth amendment, State Government.

Verstehen?

Pericles...

<The Fourteenth amendment was invoked here to ensure that the State conformed to the requirements of the First, i.e.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.">

In reality it was invoked to ensure that a false interpretation of the 1st was imposed.

Here is some very very interesting material

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXN24q4Y1z8&feature=related

Don't mind the speakers baby face..he has plenty of good things to say.

What is often not realized though, is how the outcome of this case discriminated directly against millions of Americans who also have protection under the law and consitution...

It is too easily assumed that the Constitution and the cited amendments simply mean 'my way' for those who don't want school prayer.. no..the shoe is on the other foot.. the mis-use of those amendments has had the opposite effect against the status quo..and your 'right leaning' comment says it all....

It's not about what the amendments say, but how particular judges of particular political/religious flavor decide to interpret them.

Hmm..that reminds me of another rather lengthy thread. "interpet"

There is this kind of 'default' attitude among those who do not wish to fit in with the majority that the various amendments are a blank cheque for them alone to re-write the issue of 'rights'.

Nope..I totally disagree and hope that others join this 'crusade' :)

Boaz, this is silly.

>>In reality it was invoked to ensure that a false interpretation of the 1st was imposed. Here is some very very interesting material..."

If you have a point to make, just make it. What was the "false interpretation" that you claim was imposed, enforced by the Fourteenth Amendment?

I have told you dozens of times that I am not going to watch stuff on YouTube - especially now that Viacom is going to get ahold of the details of everyone who has ever watched one.

But that's not the silly bit - can we stop this Polycarp business. It is a crap monicker anyway, even more pretentious than your last.

Come on, out of the closet with you. Face the music like an honest Christian.

Notice his use of the word 'crusade'.

A crusade against secular principles of our society.

A crusade to make Australia a theocracy, in all but name, through law-making.

If you look at who is driving religion, it is the core extremists who hold the power in their churches.

The 'velvet glove' as Frank_Blunt put it is used to gently sway moderates and secularists and lull them into a sense of security, much as a criminal or murderer might smile to avert suspicion and hide motive.

Steel's on the right track.

Let's ask groups of people involved in public life whether they're prepared to base their professional activities on faith.

It wouldn't be those working in the hospitals and surgeries. Their treatments are evidence-based, not faith-based. We don't need more quacks.

And how would you train these people? Universities would love running faith-based medicine 101!

And a faith-based law degree. What elements of law would you include in that? Mosaic Law where you kill people who disagree with you; Catholic law, in which blasphemy, homosexuality and birth control are criminal offenses? Taliban law?

What about a faith-based CSIRO, or ANSTO, or the ACCC. Or better still a faith based Police Department. They could go around locking people up for dropping papers, on the pretext that god doesn't like people dropping papers.

The scientists working out at Tidbinbilla could focus on astrology instead of astronomy and keep searching the heavens for heaven!

The word 'faith' is code for things we can't prove, for things that don't exist, for things harking back to the myths, legends and superstitions of primitive cultures. It's also code for 'control by the few.' And of course it would be based on the faith of one select group of people, not the faiths of many people.

In a pluralist society we let people have faith in what ever they want to have faith in. What we need to protect ourselves from is the faith of any one group of people dominating us.

Steel is right, the crusaders just want to drag us back to a boys own theocracy where those in power can get their kicks from dominating the rest of us.

At least in this country, with the exception of the theological organisations, if you don't like the powers that be you can stop electing them. There are laws governing the running of governments, companies and organisations that people like Ratzinger and Pell snub their noses at. And you want to give people like this more power?

Heaven protect us from these people.

I'm off to Rose Hill.

The False interpretation of the 1st amendment is outlined very clearly and in detail on the youtube vid.. he who wishes to be informed.. can do the appropriate.

The 1st amendment says 'nothing' about separation of Church and state. What DOES .. is a reference to it in Jeffersons letter.. but the context clearly shows that his intention was to deter government from establishing a 'denomination'... but that Christianity should be the prevailing faith framework.

If you don't wish to view Youtube.. hmm sounds like a lame cop out to me.

The change in the mentality of the supreme court is really something to behold.. how they went from a basing many of their decisions on the Bible..specifically.. to deciding that teaching the New Testament to children without explanation could cause them problems. (I'd agree partly.. 'if your hand sins..cut it off' surely needs explanation.

But that does not mean it is not beneficial for life and education.

The first educational primer for children in America was full to the brim with the Bible.

Once a culture has cut the anchor rope... it drifts.. aimlessly.. as we are doing.

That's a cop-out, Boaz, and you know it.

>>The False interpretation of the 1st amendment is outlined very clearly and in detail on the youtube vid.. he who wishes to be informed.. can do the appropriate.<<

The principle involved here is that you first provide an explanation of your position, then back it up with evidence. Simply saying "go here, do this, look at that" is extremely rude and totally unacceptable.

In a sentence, what was false about the court's interpretation of the First Amendment?

>>The 1st amendment says 'nothing' about separation of Church and state.<<

But it very clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and the Fourteenth states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

And as I mentioned before, the learned judges' summary was that "..we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government"

The First Amendment clearly protects your right to "the free exercise [of religion]", but it simply does not permit government to mandate it.

That is where "separation of church and state" occurs: personal freedom to choose your religion and the right to assemble, coupled with - and strengthened by - freedom from government interference in either.

Which part of this simple logical progression still escapes you?

Just back from a few days on the coast with the kids. How interesting that old Boazy has morphed into a new persona/sock puppet.

I had been thinking that "polycarp" might refer to a multitude of feral noxious fish, but I now see that it's just another pretentious Christian affectation.

Why the pretence, Boazy - and why persist with it now that you've been well and truly busted on this and other threads?

I dunno CJ. If the change in persona was accompanied with a change in attitude and a bit less of the 'holier-than-thou' aura that accompanied the last, then I'd be inclined to support a fresh start.

Though I'm not so sure that's what's happening here.

It seems that between us we may have put paid to Boaz's second career as Polycarp.

I wonder what his next incarnation will be?

Looking out for it will be a little like those "Where's Wally" games...

Pericles.

"Learned Judges"?

"..we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government"

1/ Its a fine line.. between 'making a law' and a school 'deciding' to hold prayers of a pan denominational nature, but..it is a "line".
A school deciding to hold prayers at the beginning of the day at Assembly is nothing to do with 'making a law' and the judges know it.

This was an example of activist judges trying to re-write the constitution for the sake of their own fallen, alienated but intellectual constituency.

2/ No court took that opinion in the past.. why suddenly then? and.. there were plenty of attempts to achievie b4.. but none successful.
Seems to indicate its more about the 'thinking' of the judges than anything objective.

3/ The constitution does not allow the HINDERING of any religion by law either, and preventing prayer is just that!

Even CJ could see this I'm sure.

So, as long as government does not make it a LAW "You will have prayer each day" there is no breach of either the first amendment.. the 14th amendment or our own constitution when a school decides through it's appointed or elected officials to do so.

As long as the students understand that they are not required to participate INwardly if they so choose.
Thus, they are not being made subjec to any law which advances any religion, they are being subjected to a school rule as decided by the school. School rules say nothing about 'inner' convictions only outward behavior.

I think any school which tried to make the students adopt a specifically religious "posture" would be crossing a very important line.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031784/Schoolboys-punished-detention-refusing-kneel-pray-Allah.html

Sorry Boaz, I underestimated your sticking power.

>>A school deciding to hold prayers at the beginning of the day at Assembly is nothing to do with 'making a law' and the judges know it.<<

The case here was not about "a school deciding to hold prayers".

Here's exactly what the judges said.

"The respondent Board of Education... acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day... This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents, a governmental agency created by the State Constitution to which the New York Legislature has granted broad supervisory, executive, and... legislative powers over the State's public school system. These state officials composed the prayer which they recommended and published as a part of their "Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools,"

Please note the key phrase "directed the School District's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud... at the beginning of each school day"

That is quite different from your description of a "school deciding to hold prayers".

I absolutely agree with you that:

>>...as long as government does not make it a LAW "You will have prayer each day" there is no breach of either the first amendment.. the 14th amendment<<

Errrrr... but that is precisely what they were doing.

Which was precisely why it became a Constitutional issue.

>>The constitution does not allow the HINDERING of any religion by law either, and preventing prayer is just that<<

There was no attempt here to prevent prayer itself, Boaz.

You clearly understand the issue, "...as long as government does not make it a LAW".

The court's decision was entirely consistent with their objective, which is to uphold the Constitution's insistence that Governments, Federal and State, can neither mandate participation in religious rituals, nor prevent it.

In the land of the free, this is one very important personal freedom.

TRTL: << If the change in persona was accompanied with a change in attitude and a bit less of the 'holier-than-thou' aura that accompanied the last, then I'd be inclined to support a fresh start >>

Indeed, and the adoption of more reasonable language is welcome, even if it's to promote the same old tedious agenda. Mind you, Boazy seems to be trying to avoid obvious hate-mongering in his new 'born again' persona.

PolyBoazy: << The constitution does not allow the HINDERING of any religion by law either, and preventing prayer is just that!

Even CJ could see this I'm sure >>

Well yes - but as Pericles has pointed out, the situation that's rattled your chain here is one where government authorities issued a direction that schools subject their students to a prescribed prayer, and that certainly contravenes what I understand to be the spirit of that part of the US constitution.

Even old Boazy could see that I'm sure - even if he would be inclined to disingenuously try and disguise this fact. Let's hope that Polypuppet is a little more honest than his prior incarnation.

Faith is the principle that the decisions and actions one takes is best or right - will have the best future outcomes. Both Doctors and lawyers, farmers etc etc all act on the basis of faith in their proceedures. A productive life is based in hope for a better outcome in an unseen future.

Pericles that was a helpful contribution.. certainly added to the debate.

Put that way, I can give it a bit of a nod, but where I depart from the decision is that it does not even by precedent exclude agreed prayer with a voluntary aspect.

Sadly, if you had listened to the youtube series 'America's godly heritage" there is one reference to the 'end game' of all this, where a student is allowed to engage in prayer as LONG as no one knows he is doing so.. even over his lunch... now..I'd need to sus that one out more but the judgement was quoted and I think honestly.

None of these things is about producing a static result... they are always part of a process.

Did you note the incident at the english school?

C.J. Oh wait.. you didn't actually say anything :)

Pericles.. I agree with your last sentence.. taken as a whole..not just the first half.

Bottom line, I seek to highlight the fact that schools CAN indeed make decisions which include voluntary prayer at assemblies without breaking any law.
The sooner they do..... the better.

Philo and Boazy,

"nisi credideritis nin intelligitis" - [Confessions, St. Augustine]

Also,

"... faith may be wherewith it received; but faith it still and not knowledge; persuation and not certaintly." - Locke

And,

The religionists logic of affirmation rests with tacit assent to the belief in a source of all knolwedge. "No intelligence, however critical or original , can operate outside of a fiduciary framework... our [their] liberation from objectivism." [Polanyi]. Herein, the religionist [not only Christians] places conviction ahead of any empirical evidence.

Cheers.

You're getting warmer, Boaz

>>Put that way, I can give it a bit of a nod, but where I depart from the decision is that it does not even by precedent exclude agreed prayer with a voluntary aspect.<<

The court was ruling on a constitutional matter, clearly defined and presented. They determined that the actions by the State of New York in this case were unconstitutional.

Your idea that they might specifically include or exclude "agreed prayer with a voluntary aspect" in the same ruling is to misunderstand the judges remit in situations like this.

They are asked a question to which they are required to answer yes or no.

It is not their job to say "oh yes, and while I am about it here is a list of all the other things you can and cannot do".

>>a student is allowed to engage in prayer as LONG as no one knows he is doing so... I'd need to sus that one out more but the judgement was quoted and I think honestly<<

Look forward to seeing that one.

And I'll bite on this too:

>>Did you note the incident at the english school?<<

A little too broad to get a fix on, Boaz, any help you can give will be gratefully received.

Boazycarp: << C.J. Oh wait.. you didn't actually say anything :)
>>

I did, actually, but you apparently didn't comprehend.

Also, you didn't answer my question: why the duplicity?

The English school.. was a link I thought

here it is again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031784/Schoolboys-punished-detention-refusing-kneel-pray-Allah.html

It has bearing on the case in point actually... but the English constitution...I'm insufficiently familier to know their position but I think the Church of England rules kinda ?

Slim pickin's there, Boaz.

On the face of it, a rather zealous teacher chose a practical demonstration over chalk-and-talk. Insensitive? Possibly. But hardly earth-shattering stuff.

The rest of it is simply a classic beat-up, with a bunch of rent-a-quotes responding to the usual journalistic questions... "So, Mrs Bloggs, I expect you were horrified at what little Johnny was forced to go through..."

Have you ever been ambushed in a media interview Boaz?

I have.

But seriously, one incident, on whose full circumstances we remain in the complete dark, and the world as we know it is coming to an end?

I don't think so.

But back to the point here - do you now clearly understand the difference between the determination of a straightforward issue on the meaning of the Constitution, and the concept of "preventing prayer"?

But hold, we're still missing one, aren't we?

Whatever happened to the "student... allowed to engage in prayer as LONG as no one knows he is doing so.. even over his lunch"?

I'm guessing that will be pretty tame stuff as well. If we ever get to see it.