An article in the Albany Times Union promotes a controversy brewing in local schools in upstate New York. A controversy in that schools are willing to close their doors during Christian and Jewish religious holidays - but not Muslim holidays.
Tucked away within the article is a supporting statement from Jay Worona, counsel for the New York State School Board Association (NYSSBA), in which he promotes a possible alternative to canceling classes. Worona states, "One request we have seen is for a room during Ramadan for students to pray in, and many districts are attempting to provide those."
What the reporter fails to note is that Worona, who apparently is in favor of separate prayer rooms for Muslim students, opposes the inclusion of a display containing the Ten Commandments in New York schools.
Interesting. A prayer room for Muslim students. What happened to the separation of religion and education, church and state? Or did that only apply to the assault on Christianity in our schools, the elimination of nativity scenes, the conversion of labels such as 'Christmas Break' to 'Winter Break', or the deletion of the phrase 'under God' from our Pledge of Allegiance?
More to follow...
Despite the Times Union's in-depth article looking at discrimination against the Muslim religion by New York school districts, they fail to look into the background of someone providing a key statement of support.
While Worona and the NYSSBA promote the inclusion of Muslim prayer rooms, they thankfully have not forgotten to fight the good fight when it comes to keeping religion out of schools. In fact, they actually made an interesting case for religious exclusion a few months ago.
In regards to a case involving the posting of the Ten Commandments in school districts in Lewiston, NY, Worona said the following: 'Even though there are secular aspects to the Ten Commandments... there are impressionable minds that may take such a display as a school's sponsorship of religion'.
And a Muslim prayer room wouldn't strike any impressionable minds as sponsorship of religion?
Today's media and schools - ever tolerant, except when it comes to conservative Christian values.
Photo Credit: Times Union




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
That's really not a fair
September 18, 2009 - 10:18 ET by bdshepherdThat's really not a fair argument. The article is about holidays on Christian and Jewish religious holidays, but not on Muslim ones. So the context of the prayer room suggestion is that, instead of a holiday, they give Muslim students a place to pray.
I think a better, and more appropriate, response would be to just let students take a day off on their religious holidays, but it's not like this guy is proposing to have permanent prayer rooms/mini-mosques in schools.
If a school is going to be out for religious holidays (beyond the big national holidays like Christmas, Easter, etc.), then it should be out for all religious holidays.
I disagree with the dude on the Ten Commandments issue, but don't see how that is at all relevant here.
The article does go forth
September 18, 2009 - 10:33 ET by Rusty WeissThe article does go forth and explain that students with religious needs are able to take the day off, without penalty for doing so. What is wrong with allowing the students to do that? Nothing, in my opinion. And it seems clear that the decision to take days off for religious holidays is based on how the school will function on such days (can they get enough substitutes, will there be enough staff). Currently, the number of Muslim students does not dictate the need for a day off according to sources in the article, so they implement a rule saying there is no problem if you take that day off for religious purposes.
But why the over-the-top need to place a prayer room in schools? Reverse this a bit, and picture the school board recommending a prayer room for students on Good Friday. The lawsuits would pour in almost immediately, as students of other religions would be offended at such a notion.
Herein lies the Ten Commandments issue. You can't post a moral code on a sign in your school, but you can have a large room where students gather to pray? And is that room going to stay closed every day with the exception of holidays? Of course not, it will become a prayer specific room.
The point being, if the Commandments can not be displayed purely because they are religious in nature, then a room for prayer can not be allowed because it too is purely religious in nature.
My $0.02 anyway.
Rusty
I missed in the article
September 18, 2009 - 10:44 ET by bdshepherdI missed in the article that attendance was already optional those days, which does change the issue.
It's still not really an apples to apples, though, because of Islam's strict prayer requirements (at least as to Christianity, don't know enough about Judaism to say). Good Friday may be a day of reflection and worship, but it's not a sin if you fail to pray X times a day at specific times or whatever.
I would have a problem if, as you suggest, those rooms are actually dedicated prayer rooms instead of just using whatever room is otherwise empty on that day. It just doesn't sound to me like that is what is proposed.
This sounds cruel and
September 18, 2009 - 10:58 ET by motherbeltThis sounds cruel and racist but I'm going to say it.
Muslims have a choice to live in a place where the entire country is run according to their religious tenets.
Why don't they live there? Because they want the best of both worlds. We are not obliged to supply it to them.
Do you know that American soldiers in Saudi Arabia are not even allowed to wear a cross, as it offends Muslims? Female American soldiers are required to dress according to Muslim custom when off base?
I am thouroughly sick of the attitude that when we go to their countries, we have to repect their customs; and when they come to our country......we have to respect their customs!
The restrictions on the
September 18, 2009 - 11:37 ET by bdshepherdThe restrictions on the military are a purely strategic decision. Whether or not you agree with that decision, it is not because anyone cares about Saudi feelings in the abstract and is just trying to be politically correct and/or sensitive.
I was in the military for many years, the first few of those in Psychological Operations (Psyops), and I can tell you that there are sound, mission-oriented reasons for those restrictions. As distasteful as it may be to you, telling a soldier not to wear a cross is really not much different than telling that same soldier to risk his life on patrol.
Applying those same restrictions to civilians would be outrageous -- and I am outraged at the hostility and discrimination against so many in the Muslim world -- but as for soldiers . . . not so much.
On your other point, I agree that if Muslims or anyone else wants to live in the US, they need to adapt to us and our ways. That said, I'd rather accomodate them in minor ways to keep them in the public school system than push them into homeschooling or going to Muslim-only schools, which would probably lead to more radicalization and danger down the road.
"The restrictions on the
September 18, 2009 - 15:35 ET by ckc1227"The restrictions on the military are a purely strategic decision.
Whether or not you agree with that decision, it is not because anyone
cares about Saudi feelings in the abstract and is just trying to be
politically correct and/or sensitive."
Nonsense. There is no doubt part of the reason was because of Saudi feelings on the issue. You'd have to be completely naive to believe otherwise. Saudi feelings without a doubt played a role in that decision.
I'm a little late getting
September 19, 2009 - 08:39 ET by motherbeltI'm a little late getting back her, and I see that ckc said pretty much what I think.
It is absolutely in order not to offend Muslims. During Desert Shield, they had to move Thanksgiving dinner offshore on a ship, because the Saudi government wouldn't allow the celebration.
We obviously disagree. I think your assessment of "mission-oriented" reasons for placating the Saudis is simply "It's in the interest of our mission to not offend the Saudis."
If the Saudis are happy to accept the presence of our military there for their security, they should accept our religious customs as well. No one is forcing Saudis to participate.
Do you realize that a large
September 18, 2009 - 11:58 ET by CamelopardalisDo you realize that a large number of Muslims in the US are AMERICAN-BORN, like me? The largest majority within the Muslim community are African-Americans, so please, enough of the 'If they don't like it here let them go back to where they came from' attitude.
Secondly, I and most other Muslims do not dictate the laws in most Muslim countries. Hey, I think it's wrong too that Christians are so restricted in Saudi Arabia, but you have to realize that the Saudi government practices a form of Islam that is extreme by most Muslims' standards. I couldn't live there either.
Late response, I know,
September 19, 2009 - 08:41 ET by motherbeltLate response, I know, sorry.
I appreciate your dilemma, but somewhere, sometime, your parents or grandparents decided to come and live here. I'm not saying anyone should "go back where they came from." I'm saying that people choose where to live. Your parents or grandparents obviously had other reasons, which overrode their desire to live in a Muslim country.
All of my grandparents came here from Italy. That meant that I had to live where I was born (here). Choices have consequences.
That's all I'm saying.
The problem with just
September 18, 2009 - 13:03 ET by mamabearThe problem with just letting them leave school is that, as someone else mentions below, Ramadan is a rather long holiday. They end up being penalized for their religion because they miss school-- I know it's easy to think of a day off as just a big bonus, but missing significant amounts of school would put those kids at a disadvantage in realtion to their peers.
Providing accomodations that allow them to practice their beliefs and still attend school sounds like an eminently reasonable thing, and I agree with bdshepherd that it seems strange to compare that accomodation to a display promoting one particular religion.
No matter what you call it, Christian kids still get Christmas off to be with their families, and it seems entirely fair to try and give Muslim kids the chance to follow their own religious practice despite the fact that they don't close school for their holidays.
Muslims don't need to miss
September 18, 2009 - 13:10 ET by CamelopardalisMuslims don't need to miss school for Ramadan; that would be too impractical. The holiday issue deals with the day after the month of Ramadan (Eid-ul-Fitr) which is a celebratory day.
"Muslims don't need to
September 19, 2009 - 07:33 ET by mamabear"Muslims don't need to miss school for Ramadan; that would be too
impractical. The holiday issue deals with the day after the month of
Ramadan (Eid-ul-Fitr) which is a celebratory day."
That's an important clarification, thanks!
"No matter what you call
September 18, 2009 - 15:03 ET by ckc1227"No matter what you call it, Christian kids still get Christmas off to be with their families"
So do non-practicing kids....and Muslim kids.....and Jewish kids....and Wiccans.....and atheists....and agnostics.....and Bhuddists....and Hindus...etc, etc, etc. They aren't forced to go to school while the Christian kids get time off. So, if you're going to accomodate Muslims with special treatment during Ramadan, or any other holiday, you have to accomodate everyone. Otherwise, you are discriminating against non-Muslims.
"it seems entirely fair to try and give Muslim kids the chance to follow their own religious practice"
Then we have to be fair and give Buddhists the chance to do the same; and Hindus, and Wiccans, and Jews, and New Agers, and Native Americans. Atheists, Agnostics, and unaffiliated folks too....why should they be punished/discriminated against simply because they don't embrace a particular religion?
Here's the most important point, IMHO....the USA is 78% Christian, 0.6% Muslim. If you want preferred treatment as a practicing Muslim, move to a Muslim country, or go to a Muslim private school. If the schools tried to accomodate every religion there is, they would never get anything done. They can barely teach kids properly now.
Actually, many school
September 18, 2009 - 15:32 ET by CamelopardalisActually, many school districts, including the ones in Los Angeles (LAUSD) and in NYC do give days off for Jewish holidays (days that everyone takes off), and Jews make up at most 2% of the population. Muslims are just asking for two days off during the school year (to celebrate two one-day holidays), not the whole month of Ramadan (the article is misleading, I know).
Jews: 1.7% of the
September 18, 2009 - 16:11 ET by ckc1227Jews: 1.7% of the population, Muslims: 0.6% of the population.
That's 3 times as many Jews as Muslims, and it's likely greater in LA and NY, which have the two largest Jewish populations in the world outside of Israel.
And yet, despite being vastly outnumbered by Jews and Christians in that school district in question, the Muslims want 2 religious holidays observed, whereas the Jews get one....Yom Kippur, and Christians get one....Christmas.
Oh, by the way...at 0.7%, there are more Buddhists in this country than Muslims. Hindus and New Agers are right behind, at 0.4%. If we're going down that road, they should all get their 2 days too.
Sure, any legitimate
September 19, 2009 - 07:41 ET by mamabearSure, any legitimate religion should be provided reasonable accomodation in school. Kids HAVE to be there, so we should make sure that their presence doesn't interfere with their religious practice.
I still don't see this as preferential treatment for anyone. Give kids rooms to use for prayer when they need it, offer a bagged lunch on fast days that kids can take home and eat after dark, etc.
The happy thing about our great country is that the percentage who practice a particular religion doesn't affect their rights. I don't care if this country ends up being 99.9% Christian, and neither does the Bill of Rights.
WTH???
September 19, 2009 - 08:29 ET by motherbeltGive kids who can't eat lunch a bagged lunch to take home and eat after dark?
What purpose would THAT serve? Their parents (who are also fasting during the day) don't prepare food after dark?
You're going a little overboard here.
There are students who get
September 19, 2009 - 12:22 ET by mamabearThere are students who get their only square meal of the day from their school. Some schools are even offering breakfast these days because it helps students concentrate and their parents either can't or won't fix them something at home.
If you are one of those students AND you aren't allowed to eat during the day on certain holidays, that seems pretty harsh. I'm not saying make them extra food or give them more meals that anyone else, just pack it so they can eat it later. I was just trying to think of other accomodations that could come up when talking about trying to make sure that religion and school interact compatibly, and neither gets in the way of the other.
Ramadan
September 18, 2009 - 10:44 ET by ricklailRamadan last for 28 days. It runs from new moon to new moon. As a matter of fact it ends tomorrow. Is it fair to allow Muslims 28 days to pray but deny Christians? It won't matter for the next 2 years because Ramadan will fall when they are out of school.
Semper suprene nitens
OBAMACARE: If it ain't good enough for my Congressman then it ain't good enough for me.
"If a school is going to be
September 18, 2009 - 14:21 ET by ckc1227"If a school is going to be out for religious holidays (beyond the big
national holidays like Christmas, Easter, etc.), then it should be out
for all religious holidays."
Other than those two national holidays, what other religious holidays are schools out for? In fact, are schools even out for those two holidays specifically? Easter is on a Sunday, so there is no school that day. Any time off that occurs at that time is usually a week before or after for Spring break....not for Easter. It's the same for Christmas. Schools take off 1-2 weeks during this time for Winter break.
other holidays
September 18, 2009 - 18:16 ET by jon_torlinDon't forget MLK Day, Good Friday, and Labor Day. Most schools are closed on those days too or let out early.
I'm not too sure about Memorial Day, though my office is typically closed on that day as well.
What was the term, Banker's holiday or something like that?
-Jon
Doesn't Good Friday get
September 19, 2009 - 08:33 ET by dvdaughtryDoesn't Good Friday get lumped in with the Easter break?
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Simple answer.....
September 18, 2009 - 10:26 ET by adamsmithThere's a simple answer,....get rid of Public Schools altogether....No teachers' unions might result in kids actually gettng an education...The government screws up everything they touch, our children are too important of a resource for that to happen to...
Yikes!
September 18, 2009 - 10:29 ET by Darwin AkbarI knew this Jay Worona many years ago...and am related to him by marriage! I'll ask one of his other cousins to kick his buttt during Rosh Hasonah brunch.
Islam and the left
September 18, 2009 - 10:47 ET by slickwillie2001There is a virtual alliance between radical islam and the far left in the West. It makes no sense on the surface, because we still assume that the far left champions classical small-L liberalism. The fact however is that they don't. The objectives of the far left are now based on Alinskyan accumulation of power and that looks more like fascism than liberalism.
Actually, the article is about ...
September 18, 2009 - 10:56 ET by SentryDanActually, the article is about double standards. Time off for Christian or Jewish Holy Days but not Muslim Holy Days, that would be a double standard. Allowing a place for Muslims to pray but not for Christians or Jews, that would be a double standard. Allowing display of Muslim holy items but not the Ten Commandments, that would be a double standard.
The problem with the thinking is that there is a so called "seperation of Church and state" while none exists in the Bill of Rights. The idea of "seperation" is pushed by secularists (atheists, if you prefer). Atheism is a religion becasue it is something one believes in and follows devotedly. And the 7th Federal Court of Appeals ruled as such on Aug 20, 2005.
Atheists have been pushing their religion on the rest of us since the late 1940s and the courts have helped. They are in the minority but have succeeded in supressing the will of the majority. They are trying to get atheism as the national religion by demonizing everything Christian or Jewish.
Remember folks, Freedom isn't Free. It was bought with the blood and sacrifice of the men and women who are serving and who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces.
For those who fought for it, Freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know.
Also remember folks, that the way to SUPPORT THE TROOPS is to support their mission. Anyone who says that they support the troops but don't support their mission is lying about supporting the troops. And if you want to know, yes I do have a dog in the fight, he is a United States Marine.
As an atheist, I have to
September 18, 2009 - 13:18 ET by mamabearAs an atheist, I have to disagree.
The only reason atheists are the ones pushing separation of church and state is because Christianity, as the majority belief in the US, hasn't realized its importance.
But think about how much lower the stakes are for an atheist! If the state ever forces me to worship in a certain way, the consequence for me is an annoyance. I do something that I believe is meaningless. It upsets me, because I think that it violates my rights, but I don't believe in an eternal soul that would be jeopardized by those actions.
But what would be the consequence for you if the state, say, prevented you from worshipping in a way that you thought was integral to your spiritual health? Damnation? It might not be that extreme for everyone, but I'm sure some people would be worried about that.
I have to think that the only reason christians as a whole don't promote the separation of church and state is because they assume that they will always, as long as the US exists, be in the majority and therefore won't ever be oppressed by their own government. They may be right, or they may not. But I also find it strangely at odds with the conservative mistrust of government, which seems to accept all too readily that government can do things that the majority of its citizens don't want, but then feels no need to protect itself from any future encroachment in the area of religion.
Maybe you can explain it to me!
Sorry, mamabear, that time ...
September 18, 2009 - 14:01 ET by SentryDanMamabear that time is already upon us. In California, it has already happened, http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/Pastor-Dave-San-Diego-Permit.htm. Although that decision was reversed, it doesn't mean it will be reversed the next time it happens.
Remember folks, Freedom isn't Free. It was bought with the blood and sacrifice of the men and women who are serving and who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces.
For those who fought for it, Freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know.
Also remember folks, that the way to SUPPORT THE TROOPS is to support their mission. Anyone who says that they support the troops but don't support their mission is lying about supporting the troops. And if you want to know, yes I do have a dog in the fight, he is a United States Marine.
Right. That's ridiculous,
September 19, 2009 - 07:28 ET by mamabearRight. That's ridiculous, crazy. My question is, why don't you see the connection between that type of religious interference and the exact same thing that could happen if we put the ten commandments in our courthouses or have public schools lead specific types of prayer?
"Maybe you can explain it
September 18, 2009 - 14:04 ET by ckc1227"Maybe you can explain it to me!"
I think it's called the 1st Amendment.
I'm talking about defending
September 19, 2009 - 07:31 ET by mamabearI'm talking about defending the 1st amendment by promoting the separation of church and state, and I'm hoping someone can explain to me why most Christians don't seem to make the connection.
mamabear
September 19, 2009 - 08:03 ET by FeynmanFanThe first amendment was written to prohibit the government from passing laws respecting an established religion or prohibiting the exercise of religious beliefs. It was pretty clear at the time that the purpose was to break the strong hold that the Church of England had over people. The fact that references to a higher power appear in the founding documents seems to make it clear that the people who drafted the first amendment weren't trying to eliminate any reference to that higher power; they wanted to prevent the government from forcing people to participate in a particular religion.
I don't think that a reference to the 10 Commandments, for example, is a violation of the First Amendment because it doesn't compel anyone to do anything. It's recognizing the judo-christian principles upon which the country was founded.
I suppose that an extreme interpretation of the First Amendment would result in references to God and a creator being removed from the Declaration of Independence, and that's clearly not what the Founding Fathers intended.
Whether a person's personal beliefs include a higher power is their business, and should neither be subject to coercion from the government nor used to coerce others to conform to their beliefs through, say, the elimination of references to God from all public activities.
Jefferson said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". and that seems like a good thought to live by. To me it's just as important to respect other's religious beliefs as it is to have them respect yours.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
I agree, I don't think the
September 19, 2009 - 12:49 ET by mamabearI agree, I don't think the founding fathers intended to create a secular nation, but I do believe they intended to create a secular government in order to ensure that Christians would always be free to worship in the way that they chose.
God hasn't been eliminated from all public activities. God has been eliminated from activities that involve secular authority, and that is for the protection of all people who believe in that god, but choose to worship him in different ways.
You aren't defending
September 19, 2009 - 10:47 ET by NL207You aren't defending anything. You are attacking the very basis of Liberty in America.
It appears to me that what you are actually doing is trying to impose YOUR religion, Atheism, upon a state that was conceived upon the notion that all men are endowed with inalienable rights by their creator, a supreme diety. Your beliefs directly conflict with this premise. If there is no God, then there must also be no inalienable rights conferred upon Man by God. This same logic applies to the concept of right and wrong. Morality itself becomes subject to human whim, a dangerous concept to my way of thinking. Human history is littered with the dire consequences of human attempts to redefine right and wrong.
The specious claim that the First Amendment demands the state be Atheist is contrary to everything our founders wrote about it. Their other writings make clear the Founders intended only to prevent Congress from imposing a National religion upon the states and the people. Given that Maryland, South Carolina and Massachusetts all had official religions in the early years of our country, I would even put forward the argument that the Founders did not even intend to abridge the various state governments from establishing religions within their borders as long as they refrained from imposing this religion upon all citizens.
I get that separation of
September 19, 2009 - 13:06 ET by mamabearI get that separation of church and state is nice for atheists. Certainly it saved me a lot of youthful angst-- I didn't have to be the only kid in the room who didn't bow their head during school prayer. Even though I was and am vastly in a minority, I didn't have to feel like I was different because no one ever forced me to make it obvious.
But I still contend that that isn't what the separation of church and state are about. If there was school prayer, that youthful angst would have been the worst that I had to suffer-- boo hoo, I'm not like everyone else. Big deal. But let's imagine that I am Christian, baptist say or catholic, and I live in Utah. I might have a BIG problem with my kids participating in a school prayer led in complete accordance with the religious beliefs of the majority of Utah-ans and entirely compatible with the god mentioned in the founding documents. Same thing for a mormon living elsewhere in the country.
That is why we can't have institutions of authority endorsing any one religious belief, even if it is the one most people agree with. Someone would have to decide which version we all used, and there would be a lot more than just atheists upset about any choice that was made. And someday Christianity might not be the majority religion in this country. We aren't the same country we were 200+ years ago, and who knows what we'll look like 200 years from now. It is short sighted to suggest that it is okay to have the state promote a certain religion just because it happens to be yours!
And incidentally, I don't think there is any inconsistency between atheism and the foundations of our morality. Because I don't believe in god, I think that humans came up with the moral principles that are associated with religion. Therefore I don't think it is impossible for humans to do a good job of deciding what is right and wrong, because I think that we have already done so. Your perspective is obviously different, but that isn't an argument we can have based on logic because we are working from very different precepts.
" But let's imagine that I
September 19, 2009 - 21:26 ET by NL207" But let's imagine that I am Christian, baptist say or catholic, and I live in Utah. I might have a BIG problem with my kids participating in a school prayer"
There are 50 states to choose from. Move. The Mormons did to get away from the very situation you describe.
"It is short sighted to suggest that it is okay to have the state promote a certain religion just because it happens to be yours"
Yet the Founders did this very thing and erected the First Amendment to prevent the Congress from doing the same.
"I think that humans came up with the moral principles "
The essence of moral relativism. In your world view, morals are human creations. This means men can redefine them. Good becomes evil. Evil becomes good. Any world where morality is subject to the whims and sins of man is hell. In such a world, justice becomes arbitrary, the rule of law is not consistent, the very definiton of injustice.
"And incidentally, I don't think there is any inconsistency between atheism and the foundations of our morality."
By your own admission, the foundations of our morality AND our political system rest upon the proposition that morality and inalienable rights are the product of Diety and therefore NOT MUTABLE BY MAN. How can you claim there is ay consistency between Atheism and and the foundations of America?
Do we really want to live
September 19, 2009 - 22:26 ET by mamabearDo we really want to live in a country where each flavor of religion segregates into their own communities? That seems... sad.
I don't think that a humanistic morality is necessarily arbitrary. You can't imagine a consistent moral code coming from anything other than divine origins, but I think there's another option.
My personal belief is that the fundamentals of morality are part of our evolutionary history. Once we reached the point in our prehistory at which the greatest threat to humans came from other groups of humans, behaviors that maintained the cohesion of large groups became important to our survival and ability to pass on our genes. I think our morality is based on that legacy, including the us-against-them tendency that causes us to relax our rules for behavior based on how different others are perceived to be.
There's nothing arbitrary about that. In fact, infants have been shown to prefer "helpful" actors over hindering ones. They have a sense that cooperation is right and interference is bad before they can walk or talk or understand a word their parents say. I would call that genetic, I would guess you would call it divinely inspired, but in neither case is it arbitrary. My belief system doesn't allow for changing morality willy-nilly any more than yours does.
There is no connection, that's why..
September 19, 2009 - 09:10 ET by Sergeant ROCKWhere in the Constitution is 'Separation of Church and State'? A letter to Thomas Jefferson does not count. Nor, does your animosity towards Christianity.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Explain to me how
September 19, 2009 - 09:14 ET by Jack BauerExplain to me how banning speech defends the 1st Amendment? Most loony leftists don't seem to make the connection.
"separation of Church and state" was a lie
September 18, 2009 - 11:40 ET by RayRayas we have seem it was really just an anti-Christian bigotry all along.
The #1 rule of politically-correct liberals is always the same: whatever is white, male, Christian hetero is the 'oppressor' and everybody else is part of the pet groups which are presumed to be 'victims' and must be coddled
Ray, political correctness ...
September 18, 2009 - 11:46 ET by SentryDanRay, political correctness does not and cannot exist. What would be politically correct for one person, would not be politically correct for another and visa versa. The words "politically correct" and "political correctness" are used by liberals to push their agendas. This has been done to the detriment of the majority.
Remember folks, Freedom isn't Free. It was bought with the blood and sacrifice of the men and women who are serving and who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces.
For those who fought for it, Freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know.
Also remember folks, that the way to SUPPORT THE TROOPS is to support their mission. Anyone who says that they support the troops but don't support their mission is lying about supporting the troops. And if you want to know, yes I do have a dog in the fight, he is a United States Marine.
PC or not PC, what is the question?
September 18, 2009 - 18:18 ET by jon_torlinI tend to label myself as politically incorrect with a caveat that I'm a repeat offender, especially when I meet new people. It makes for either real interesting conversation or they go the other direction (at least before I do sometimes!).
Sure cuts through the crap sometimes with people though!
-Jon
Lawers are paid and trained
September 18, 2009 - 11:42 ET by Pha PhaLawers are paid and trained liars.
That sounds like a
September 18, 2009 - 12:04 ET by 24enakThat sounds like a reasonable compromise. The room would allow the Muslim students would be allowed to observe their religious holiday and would allow the students to not miss the whole school day.
The school wouldn't make the non-Muslim students observe or pray with the Muslim students, but it allows the Muslim students to observe their religious holiday. That sounds like a fair and reasonable compromise to me.
No. Muslim students should
September 18, 2009 - 13:44 ET by Jack BauerNo. Muslim students should take off the whole month for Ramadan.
The article is misleading.
September 18, 2009 - 14:11 ET by CamelopardalisThe article is misleading. I've never heard of Muslims needing to take off for the whole month of Ramadan, and I'm Muslim. The issue in Albany (and in NYC) is concerning two celebratory days of the year, Eid-ul-Fitr (the day after the month of Ramadan) and another holiday, Eid-ul-Adha, which is later in the Islamic calendar. Muslims want these two days off, but both cities are hesitant.
No Way
September 18, 2009 - 12:22 ET by retspookA separate room for Muslims to pray in the school. Are these administrators crazy or what? When the school systems bans Christianity in the school system there is no way you can allow this to happen. however, I would bet it does happen because we do no want to hurt the Muslim's feelings. I go along with MB's comment. If you have ver been or lived in a Muslim country you would know what she is talking about... Down with the prayer room...
retspook
I don't think the article is
September 18, 2009 - 12:53 ET by CamelopardalisI don't think the article is clear on the issue. When I was in high school and in college, I used classrooms to pray. In high school, I asked for a room and it was given to me to use for a few minutes during the lunch period. In college, other Muslims and I would sign up to use classrooms or study rooms to pray. But neither of these rooms were 'designated' Muslim prayer rooms, we just used classrooms that would have been empty anyway. We didn't display any Muslim items or anything like that; it's just like Christian clubs borrowing rooms for Bible study (which in my schools they were allowed to do).
Santa Rosa decision: "Not Guilty" on all charges!
September 18, 2009 - 14:58 ET by kilrodhttp://www.libertyac...
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
Let Me Guess: The So-Called "War On Christmas" Strikes Again...
September 18, 2009 - 20:46 ET by The7SticksI don't like Muslims getting any preferential treatment anymore than you do, but this isn't going to convince me that a so-called "War on Christmas" is taking place. Don't you think it's a little too early to worry about something like this when summer hasn't even officially ended? Again, I don't like the preferential treatment for the Muslims, but come on. It's too early to be talking about his stuff.
It's never too early. 'Go
September 18, 2009 - 20:51 ET by bigtimerIt's never too early.
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
holidays
September 18, 2009 - 20:55 ET by ozarkianChristmas is different, because it is a culturally American holiday -- has been celebrated by the majority here for generations. Easter, too, tho' we pretend now that it's only spring break.
To suddenly allow whole school districts in America to take off for holidays that are not culturally American would be another step toward shedding our unity as Americans and joining the "one culture is as good as another" gang.
It's these baby steps toward acknowledging others (which really means diminishing our own heritage) that has led us to where we are today. Let's keep our traditions for another generation, if possible, and not be so quick to give them away. We owe it to our children and grandchildren.
Islam is not a religion. As such, if they want a few days off...
September 18, 2009 - 21:02 ET by R D Helm...to wash their camels, while simultaneously attaching remote-control bombs to prepubescent children to detonate in bazaars, let's at least give them the the hottest part of summer to work on their plans, just before God himself sends them to the hottest parts of Hell.
-Dave
I agree with Rush. It's time for Obama to resign.
The United States is sorely deficient in Muslim Prayer Rooms
September 19, 2009 - 00:47 ET by Rush FanAs President Obama has correctly pointed out: [...]"that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."
Forget about the separation of church and state. As one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, we should have a Muslim Prayer Room in every school in the United States.
If countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan and India that have a comparable Muslim population can have Muslim Prayer Rooms in schools, then the United States, with one of the largest Muslim populations in the world, should also have them.
So why are we deficient in Muslim Prayer Rooms? The answer is obvious! As President Obama and his supporters, including Former President Jimmy Carter and Former Comedian Bill Cosby have pointed out, white racist, probably consisting mainly of racist conservative Christians, have prevented schools from installing Muslim Prayer Rooms for their large Muslim student population.
I know President Obama, Democrats, and their supporters in the media would agree with me when I say that these are the same white racist conservative Christians who are against providing health care to the poor and to illegal aliens[CORRECTION] undocumented workers, and who act like Racist Nazis at Townhall meetings and Tea Parties.
------------------------------------------------------
“This guy lies better than Clinton. He says the opposite of what he means better than Clinton. Clinton got away with it.” ~ Rush Limbaugh on Barack Obama
Nonsense! There are no
September 19, 2009 - 01:14 ET by NL207Nonsense! There are no shortage of Muslim prayer rooms in America. There are numerous public institutions across the land that have Muslim Prayer Rooms in them. These rooms usally have bars over the doors and windows are are often known as 'cells' for convenience.
assault on Christianity
September 19, 2009 - 05:02 ET by m1xramThe simple answer is yes, it was only meant for an attack on our country's heritage. The actual meaning of "Separation of Church and State," as written by Jefferson, was to prevent our government from interfering with the Church. The attack occurred in the U.S. Supreme Court, 1947, and was successful. The lie replaced Jefferson's meaning and became law. Refer to Wall Builders.
Before 1947, and several years after, the Bible was used for reading lessons and teaching in school. Sunday Services were held in the Capitol building and twice Congress has ordered Bibles for its citizens. Being "progressive" means forgetting all that.
He has already failed... his country.
This country became great
September 19, 2009 - 07:40 ET by RR GOPThis country became great because of its foundation of Putitanism and Calvinism. I am neither a Puritan nor a Calvinist, but I believe I am smart enough to recognize what does work and what doesn't.
The parts of this country that failed to compete with the Puritan work ethic eventually succumbed because they could not compete...the same is true on a global scale.
We didn't become a great country by closing our shops early and taking siestas, nor in sending our wealth to the Pope, nor stopping to pray five times a day, nor in allowing some kind of Church of England deal to run the show.
Every part of the world that has been run by Islamists or run by the Vatican for extended periods are weak and only survive because they sit on resources they could sell in order to buy the technological fruits of the Euopean Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation.
"Inclusiveness" has its limits, otherwise those things that allow others to be included will be destroyed, and one group will take over that is not inclined to be inclusive. In other words, the machine can be used to destroy itself.
If those of religion X don't like it, they can either go somewhere else that is more to their liking, or if all else fails, homeschool their kids and adjust to the society rather than the other way around.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
sort of on topic...
September 19, 2009 - 08:29 ET by etc67I believe our country is one that allows people of any faith to gather together, including Muslims.
However, Obama did not participate publicly with the National Day of Prayer this May for Christians.
He also had an inscription at Georgetown U, covered (when he was speaking there), that when translated meant Jesus.
My questions are, will he give a speech addressed to Muslims at the capital when they meet this late September?
Will the main stream media (MSM) cover this event more than the 9/12 D.C. rally?
link: http://islamoncapito...
To "allow" is one
September 19, 2009 - 09:33 ET by RR GOPTo "allow" is one thing...but do we want them taking over and making America into a carbon copy of wherever they came from?
Those that "get it" are not the problem. They came here to be Americans, and of course any American can worship or not worship as they see fit. Those that came here or converted to an Asian religion and want to make the United States officially one of those religions are the problem.
Our own tolerance will be our undoing, as the intolerant will take over.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.