Hi y'all - go for it Angelia. I'm right behind you (metaphorically, of course.)
On Sep 15, 10:28 am, "Angelia Stinnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's descriminary when praying children pray and non religious children do > not, singling out the non religious and sets them up for possible abuse from > teachers and other students. > > It's unconstitutional when there is a paper trail that proves its purpose > was to maintain the provocation of gods in schools. However, it would be a > hell of a case to argue in Tennessee with all the Jesus toting politicians. > The moment of silence is what's left of school prayer, as a result of > lawsuits. When one statute is overruled, the he-haws pass another one in > state legislation. > > It's going to take me 5 years, but I am going for a law degree and intend to > change a few things at the Capital. I intend to be the most hated woman in > Tennessee....with a body guard. > > > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You are articulate and thought-provoking, Angelia. The strongest > > parts of your column deal with the blatant silliness of the "moment of > > silence" you described. The practice doesn't sound effective; it is > > fraught with potential for misuse; and it exposes the school to > > unnecessary litigation. > > > I'm not convinced by your legal argument, though. A moment of silence > > is not unconstitutional on its face. The Supreme Court case Wallace > > v. Jaffree (1985) struck down an Alabama law, but only because the > > state legislature blatantly tried to endorse prayer. The Court said, > > "The legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools is, of > > course, quite different from merely protecting every student's right > > to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of silence > > during the schoolday." > > > So, the Court specifically affirmed that a moment of silence can be > > "appropriate" - even if it involves prayer. Now, there may be > > something else about the Tennessee law that would make it fail a > > constitutional test, but I doubt the case is as open-and-shut as your > > column suggests. A moment of silence may be bad policy, but it's not > > necessarily unconstitutional or discriminatory. That case has not > > been made. > > > Aaron- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
