ACLU vs Santa Rosa County School District
I was recently asked by a reader to comment on the Frank Lay incident at Pace High School. I am sure many of you have no idea what I am talking about so I have included links to news articles at the bottom of the post (please note ; the links to pnj.com may go “dead” as they archive the stories and then require payment before reading). However, before commenting on Frank Lay and his actions specifically, I want to wait for his case to go to trial later this week (Sept 17?) and then I will post on that.
In this post, I want to talk about the general issue that was raised. The ACLU filed suit against the Santa Rosa County School District (specifically Pace High School) for promoting religion at school and school-sponsored events. The case went before a judge where the district admitted that there were some violations occurring and the district requested to be allowed to self-correct these violations. The judge agreed and the district outlined their plan to correct these violations. This was presented to the judge and was approved—this is the “consent decree.”
There is a lot of misinformation in the news both locally and nationally about what this means exactly. School officials are not prohibited from ever praying, even when away from school. They are prohibited from leading in prayer while acting in the capacity of a school employee or official. In other words, if they are being introduced as an employee or representative of the school board, they are not allowed to promote religion. However, if a teacher at Pace High regularly attends church and is simply being asked to lead in prayer as a fellow member of that church, then they are free to do so.
Should Christians be fighting “to keep prayer in schools,” as this is being heralded? That seems to be the underlying sentiment here in the county. I think that the consent decree accomplishes things that I am not opposed to as a Christian. This is because the decree does not prevent students from practicing their religion while at school; it simply works to prevent teachers and faculty from proselytizing. I don’t think many Christians in the county have stopped to ask themselves some important questions. For example, it’s all honky-dory now because we currently have a Christian principal at Pace High School. What about in five years? What if a Muslim is assigned as the next principal at Pace High School? Are we still going to be rallying around that principal when he leads prayer with our students to Allah? Will there be community fund-raisers to pay for his/her legal fees? I think not.
I don’t want there to be a principal leading in religious matters (such as prayer) be it Christian or otherwise. This measure serves to protect Christians as well, and we are undermining that very protection by thumbing our noses at the court decision.
That is just my two cents on the matter. What do you think, do you support the decision made? Why or why not?
Related articles:
Please note there are many other articles out there, these are just a small sampling.
In this post, I want to talk about the general issue that was raised. The ACLU filed suit against the Santa Rosa County School District (specifically Pace High School) for promoting religion at school and school-sponsored events. The case went before a judge where the district admitted that there were some violations occurring and the district requested to be allowed to self-correct these violations. The judge agreed and the district outlined their plan to correct these violations. This was presented to the judge and was approved—this is the “consent decree.”
There is a lot of misinformation in the news both locally and nationally about what this means exactly. School officials are not prohibited from ever praying, even when away from school. They are prohibited from leading in prayer while acting in the capacity of a school employee or official. In other words, if they are being introduced as an employee or representative of the school board, they are not allowed to promote religion. However, if a teacher at Pace High regularly attends church and is simply being asked to lead in prayer as a fellow member of that church, then they are free to do so.
Should Christians be fighting “to keep prayer in schools,” as this is being heralded? That seems to be the underlying sentiment here in the county. I think that the consent decree accomplishes things that I am not opposed to as a Christian. This is because the decree does not prevent students from practicing their religion while at school; it simply works to prevent teachers and faculty from proselytizing. I don’t think many Christians in the county have stopped to ask themselves some important questions. For example, it’s all honky-dory now because we currently have a Christian principal at Pace High School. What about in five years? What if a Muslim is assigned as the next principal at Pace High School? Are we still going to be rallying around that principal when he leads prayer with our students to Allah? Will there be community fund-raisers to pay for his/her legal fees? I think not.
I don’t want there to be a principal leading in religious matters (such as prayer) be it Christian or otherwise. This measure serves to protect Christians as well, and we are undermining that very protection by thumbing our noses at the court decision.
That is just my two cents on the matter. What do you think, do you support the decision made? Why or why not?
Related articles:
Please note there are many other articles out there, these are just a small sampling.
Labels:
Bad Christianity,
Culture
|
I completly agree. We can't expect them to show favortism to christianity.
From Mat, I moved this comment from Symbols: Anarchy to here.
I tend to agree with you sir. There are so many shirts, signs, and bumper stickers that people have lost sight of the real issue like you said. Everyone wants to "support frank lay" but if he was mohammed they would burn him at the stake. I personally dont think the majority of the community is fighting to protect free speech, they are fighting to promote their agenda. In this case i might agree with them but wld they be willing to spend their hard earned money to support everyones freedom of speech? I highly doubt it and from where i sit thats hypocrisy. Im very anxious to see how the community is going to react when theyare found guilty.