ACLU Tells Schools To Stop Praying, Or They May Sue

By: Michael Lotfi
100

Tennessee is perhaps best know for country music. “Music City”, as it is known, plays home to the mountain distilled whiskey Jack Daniels (Ole Lady 7 as I like to call it), the Great Smoky Mountains, crazy night life, hot chicken and the buckle of the bible belt. Okay, perhaps not the buckle, but definitely one of the first couple holes.

As reported by the Tennessean,


The ACLU has sent a letter to 135 Tennessee school executives telling them to stop praying at football games. The ACLU of Tennessee reminded school executives that the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times against public prayer.

“Our experience is that many public school administrators and educators struggle with how the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom apply to prayer during their school-sponsored events,” said Hedy Weinberg, the ACLU’s executive director. “Our goal is to make sure that school systems statewide understand these First Amendment guarantees and commit to protecting religious freedom for all students, including athletes, and for their families who attend the games.”

The ACLU was promoted to compose the letter after an East Tennessee football coach publicly endorsed the idea of prayer before football games. However, Weinber hasn’t actually ever received a complaint about prayer before football games.

Weinberg says that the ACLU is prepared to go to court to support families who are “victimized”.

Follow Michael Lotfi on Twitter: @MichaelLotfi

The following two tabs change content below.

Michael Lotfi

CEO, Political Director at BrandFire Consulting LLC
Michael Lotfi is a Persian-American political analyst and adviser living in Nashville, Tennessee. Lotfi is the founder and CEO of BrandFire Consulting LLC. The firm specializes in public and private technology centered brand development, lead generation, data aggregation, online fundraising, social media, advertising, content generation, public relations, constituency management systems, print and more. Lotfi is also the executive state director for the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center, a think-tank focused on restraining federal overreach. Lotfi graduated with top honors from Belmont University, a private Christian university located in Nashville, Tennessee.
Support the Truth In Media Project


"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • https://twitter.com/JordanDJohnson Jordan

    I don’t understand how something like public prayer is offensive. Its not compulsory. In this country, I can call you every name in the book and the law is in my favor but if a group of people want to talk to God outside of a private setting, then God be with them.

    Just let the people pray in peace. They aren’t hurting anyone.

    • Kevin Sereni

      How up-in-arms would everyone be if it was a Muslim prayer?

      • Uma

        nobody would care, thats what religous freedom means the right to pray and practice your religion, not the right to stop people from practicing hahah this is an absolute joke that people cant pray in public, its a different story when its enforced but for people to voluntarily pray in public is protected by religious freedom rights

        • g.johnon

          anyone can pray any time and anywhere. its when prayer is organized to the point of requiring participation from those who would rather opt out, that there becomes a problem.
          if no such requirement, then just much ado about horse crap.

        • Meatbyproducts

          The letter is not stoping people from praying. They are asking that the school stop supporting it and sponsering it. The kids or the family can pray, even the coach can pray. The coach can’t tell the players to pray or even encourage that. That is all.

      • RuthMarie

        Government and the Christian-prayer haters would probably approve of that. I, also, believe that Muslim prayer in public is OK.Anyone should be able to pray in public or private if he chooses.BTW, we allow people to NOT pray in public.Why does it offend them if we do pray?

      • https://twitter.com/JordanDJohnson Jordan

        Kevin, they would be lol but I wouldn’t. If you went to Dearborn, Michigan it might not be uncommon to hear Muslim prayers at school sporting events. Its indicative of the people in that community. I don’t share their beliefs and thats okay. I question if people are more offended at the act of praying or the fact that someone is espousing beliefs they don’t support. Its selfish really.

    • Skrilla Mcskrillerson

      Yes, let the people pray in peace – as individuals. Let’s stop forcing the children of our country to join in. If the coach wants to pray so be it. If he wants to have a moment of silence, great. Forcing children to pray is a huge NO though.

      • KelliAnn

        How is he forcing children to pray? Asking people to pray with you isn’t forcing them. The coach is choosing to pray, before he does, he is stating what he is doing and asking people to join him. Weather you do or not is entirely up to you.

        • Meatbyproducts

          You may not understand how a team works. The coach asks for something and the team responds. Do you want to be the only member of a team that is not joining in? How about the coach leave his beliefs out of the school. Now if the players want to pary that is differnt. But as long as it is not pressured or solicotied by the coach.

      • tjsulz

        Wait.. I missed the part where the coach forced the kids to pray. Did he make each of them verbally recite some prayer or something? I’m pretty sure each of those kids had the right to ignore what he was saying/praying.. from the way it sounds they weren’t forced to bow their heads and close their eyes even. They don’t have to participate in one man’s prayer simply because they are standing around him, any more than you have to participate in a prayer or Bible reading at a wedding or funeral, or if I were praying next to you at a restaurant. Get real people.. you are the ones claiming to fight for people’s rights?!? What a joke…

      • RuthMarie

        Who said he was forcing the children to pray? Last I knew school children could walk out of a classroom if they didn’t want to listen to a prayer. However, here in the Bible Belt (TN) you won’t see many of them do it. Most would probably vote for prayer before classes and games.

      • https://twitter.com/JordanDJohnson Jordan

        Well I can’t speak for you but I’ve never been forced to pray nor seen anyone be forced to pray. Not even in church have I ever been forced to pray. I used to wrestle in high school and before each tournament, we’d huddle in a circle and pray for safety and victory. The entire team participated but it was never mandatory. The coach wouldn’t have benched you if you stood outside the circle. I can’t say it might not have alienated you from the rest of the team for not participating, but no one can control another’s reactions.

        • brentwilliams2

          That’s the whole point though, right? People in places of authority should not be pushing something like this, where not complying could result in alienation. Maybe the guy doesn’t get as many reps or doesn’t get to be a starter. He is coerced into participating because there is a real concern about having fewer opportunities because of his religion (or lack thereof). That’s my biggest concern.

          • https://twitter.com/JordanDJohnson Jordan

            So why don’t we just restrict everyone from even telling what their religious beliefs are in public spaces? Sorta like a DADT situation. That way no one’s feelings get hurt, right? How about we also make it illegal to pass gas in public structures too? My point is we have no control over what others may think of what we do and how they will respond. If the prayer isn’t forced, isn’t violent (in which case it wouldn’t be prayer), and does not include hate speech, then really what is the harm? Don’t want to pray? Don’t pray. If you’d like to pray, feel free to join. Thats all.

          • brentwilliams2

            Jordan, I just told you the harm. Kids are forced to go to school, and by way of having someone in authority pushing a religious agenda, they feel forced to comply or lose opportunities. That is the risk. You may not understand that because it is not you in the position of feeling like you have to comply.

          • https://twitter.com/JordanDJohnson Jordan

            Inviting others to join in prayer is pushing a religious agenda? So what do you think of making kids stand and recite the pledge of allegiance (and I use the word making because I have been forced to at least stand for the pledge in school. That was compulsory.) Is that some sort of government agenda?

            Whats the agenda? We’re not talking forced conversion. Is your issue with someone in authority initiating voluntary prayer or with people simply praying. If prayer was initiated by say several students is it still offensive? Is it still pushing some kind of agenda then?

          • brentwilliams2

            What about this? Why not have a Muslim or Taoist prayer before each class during school? Imagine the reaction from those in the South who are fighting this particular battle… Do you think the parents of those children would feel there was an agenda? Do you think they would feel that those prayers were trying to indoctrinate their children? Of course they would! But it’s ok to keep out other religious practices as long as their own isn’t restricted.

            If there were different prayers for different games that were from different religions (and maybe a lack of one for atheists), I would probably think it was ok, as they are trying to showcase different cultures. But pushing one religion during a state-sponsored event is wrong.

  • SovereignMary

    The constitution does not state “freedom FROM religion” … it states, “the FREE exercise thereof.”

    • Skrilla Mcskrillerson

      Nobody is stopping your right to exercise said religion. They are stopping your made-up right in which you pretend you can stop everyone around you to observe you exercising said religion. If you want to ask for a moment of silence, and let people choose what they’d like to do, that’s much much much much much different…

      • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

        Ooooops. No, a school HAS EVERY RIGHT to pray AS THEY WISH. And NOBODY… NOT ONE PERSON… is forced to worship ANYTHING. But your “moment of silence” IS A SCAM TO SILENCE ANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF GOD.

        Try another lie?

        • brentwilliams2

          If a school official quietly prayed to him/herself, this wouldn’t be an issue. But it is different to pray yourself and lead a prayer. Every person on the field and in the stands has the right to pray, but getting on a loudspeaker and leading a prayer is simply a different animal.

  • Wayne D.

    Some of us who have studied religions and history consider them to be myths, or actually, lies.
    I know this offends those who have been indoctrinated their entire life to believe these myths to be true. Some of us see religion as a devisive element in our society that keeps us locked in ignorance and infighting.
    I was a Christian, have been baptized 3 times as I thought I had found the true church and have 6 Catholic priests in my lineage. I have read the bible many, many times and have spent much time in prayer and fasting to seek god’s will. I was praying to the air.
    I see no evidense of a christian god or any other. What I experienced in the church I call emotional sensationalism.
    I do see a universal consciousness that we all fit into and believe we all need to draw closer together in unity to solve the problems we face in this modern industrial age of trans-humanism.
    I love you guys without end, not because I have been compelled to out of guilt, but from my heart

    • settheline

      Wayne, best of luck to you in your search for truth. I too have studied religions and history a fair bit. For me, I’ve found it important to not let the failings of human religion get in the way of spirituality. Often religious blinds us to the bigger picture of what I believe God is: love. I’m glad to hear you have that! Can I suggest a book? “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis. Lewis is pretty compelling, and even if you’re unconvinced, it’s well worth the read.

      • Wayne D.

        Thank you for the suggestions, I am familiar with CS Lewis’s work. I “think” the best way to explain my view on this topic is this; As a human of limited consciousness and awareness I have sought “GOD” (as so defined by and according to the prescribed Christian doctrines/dogmas) and after careful study, prayer, etc. in complete earnest, I felt no input from god. God did not and does not reveal himself to me in this way. The invitation is open. I love, I Am, and I am burdened for the health and well being of all our brothers and sisters and the planet (our only home) which is being destroyed by greed and selfishness, or your could just call it what it is, careless, thoughtless, irresponsible behaviour. According to the bible (book of books), Jesus said, “my people suffer for their lack of knowledge.” There in lies my burden. Willful ignorance seems to be what happens when reality does not fit into the box built for you by those who would benefit by your subservance. Thanks for sharing though. I wish peace, love and understanding to everyone. I think a moment of silence out of respect for all would be appropriate at school events.

  • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

    See the Devil’s trick? “these First Amendment guarantees?” Notice how the “guarantees” ARE NEVER CITED? I’ve reading the 1st Amendment, and find NO VERBIAGE BANNING VOLUNTARY “PUBLIC” prayer. But the Devil will use PRECEDENT and rulings… TO REPLACE ACTUAL LAW!

  • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

    Which part of the 1st Amendment forbids prayer before a football game?

    • fredrik8

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ” and this has been upheld many, many times.

      Remember being “less gifted” and not understanding this is NOT an argument.

      “the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” – Treaty of Tripoli

      • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

        Wonderful! I seem to have attracted a gifted mind.

        So you’ve successfully found the 1st Amendment… now the difficult part…

        Explain how a town’s prayer before a football game… is the equivalent of “Congress” “making law” to “establish religion”… thus violating the “First Amendment guarantees.”

        • fredrik8

          Governments makes laws taxing people to fund schools and other public institutions. If this money is used to promote religion then the government is establishing religion.

          You can’t argue against this. we live in a world where this is the reality. Saying something else is like saying 2+2=5

          • That Guy

            I’ll try again. If I force no one, how am I “promoting” a religion? How am I violating the constitution as well?

          • fredrik8
          • That guy

            We can go back and fourth here.

            I’ll try again too. All from links you provided.

            Engle vs Vitale 1961 “By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion.” So in my understanding, if we have a voluntary prayer at a game I have broken no law.

            “While the Engel decision held that the promulgation of an official state-school prayer stood in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (thus overruling the New York Courts’ decisions), Abington held that Bible readings and other (state) SCHOOL-SPONSORED religious activities were prohibited”. So how am I breaking a law by voluntarily having a prayer before a football game? The school is not sponsoring the prayer, only the game.

            As far as I see it’s not a violation of the law to voluntarily pray before a game.

          • That Guy

            And to be clear I’m talking about a coach praying with his team.

          • http://www.brandonrichards.com/ Brandon Richards

            Interesting this only comes up when its prayer to a Christian God… and yet they teach about other religions in the schools. I pity an attorney who works for ACLU, must be the bottom of the barrel as we call it here in TN.

          • fredrik8

            lol,
            school = learning, this includes religions.
            Prayer = religious expression

          • http://www.brandonrichards.com/ Brandon Richards

            Christianity is mostly excluded and if someone wants to say a prayer during the beginning of a football game, then they can do that, if you dont want to pray then plug your ears or pray to your own god or whatever… aclu is the problem here.

          • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

            Oooops.

            1. The federal government has ZERO Constitutional authority to fund education. They are doing so in 100% VIOLATION of the numerated Powers and the 10th Amendment.

            2. The 1st Amendment IS NOT ALTERED if the government IS authorized to fund something.

            3. A school praying IS NOT “government establishing religion.”

            Try again?

          • fredrik8

            lets try a third time http://bit.ly/1cqIWrN
            remember 2+2 is till 4

          • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

            I agree… let’s try again. Honestly, I expected a little more, from a gifted mind.

            I DON’T GIVE A DAMN about precedent.
            I DON’T GIVE A DAMN about Danbury Baptists.
            I DON’T GIVE A DAMN about what so-n-so founder said to his wife.
            I DON’T GIVE A DAMN about the ACLU’s “offense.”

            Again…
            Explain how a town’s prayer before a football game… is the equivalent of “Congress” “making law” to “establish religion”… thus violating the “First Amendment guarantees.”

          • fredrik8

            But do yu carae what every singe Us supreme court has said thel last 80 years?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale

            “The Court rejected the defendant’s arguments that people are not asked to respect any specific established religion; and that the prayer is voluntary. The Court held that the mere promotion of a religion is sufficient to establish a violation, even if that promotion is not coercive.”

          • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

            No, I don’t. That’s PRECEDENT. No, I’m ONLY CONCERNED WITH ORIGINAL LAW.

            Again, Mr. gifted thinker…
            Explain how a town’s prayer before a football game… is the
            equivalent of “Congress” “making law” to “establish religion”… thus
            violating the “First Amendment guarantees.”

          • fredrik8

            To bad you live in a country based on common law…

            I have a question for you: If you had a test in school that said: “Is it legal un the united states for schools to organise prayers?”

            What would you answer? if you fail your are out of school and can only get minimum wag jobs.

            The bottom line is reality more important than you personal believes

          • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

            No answer? C’mon, brother… don’t tap out now.

            Again…
            Explain how a town’s prayer before a football game… is the equivalent of “Congress” “making law” to “establish religion”… thus violating the “First Amendment guarantees.”

          • fredrik8

            last time i paste this http://bit.ly/1cqIWrN.

            This question has been aswered by the us supreme court several times. And you are living in a country that uses Common law were presidencies are important.

          • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

            Again…
            Explain how a town’s prayer before a football game… is the equivalent of “Congress” “making law” to “establish religion”… thus violating the “First Amendment guarantees.”

            (psssst… you’re looking rather… “less gifted,” friend. It’s a simple question, involving but a HANDFUL of easily understandable words from our 1st Amendment.)

          • Tom223

            So you can’t actually explain it in terms of the actual constitution. Presidencies can be changed or overturned the original can not unless congress and the states act. As long as the citizens know how to read. Maybe that’s why our schools suck so bad.

          • Tom223

            What matters is what sort of alteration of the original law is allowed by the citizens. Congress cannot pass a law that restricts religion. You can not say “on this land we are establishing a government entity and activity and since it is the government while you are here, under order of law – students, you are not allowed to freely practice religion.” There is no power given to the government that allows for the restriction of a teacher to pray. It is a made up restriction. The supreme court can be full of crap. Look at the decision regarding eminent domain and taking land for higher property taxes. It is supposed to be a taking of land for public use. If they do take land and put up a condo complex with a swimming pool any member of the public should have access to that pool as it was placed on land taken for public use.
            Liberty is lost in stages. The government just changes the definitions of words. Or makes statements like “separation of church and state” which then replace the actual text of the law in the minds of the public individual.

          • Tom223

            Why don’t you answer his question?

          • That Guy

            I’ll try again too. All from links you provided.

            Engle vs Vitale 1961 “By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion.” So in my understanding, if we have a voluntary prayer at a game I have broken no law.

            “While the Engel decision held that the promulgation of an official state-school prayer stood in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (thus overruling the New York Courts’ decisions), Abington held that Bible readings and other (state) SCHOOL-SPONSORED religious activities were prohibited”. So how am I breaking a law by voluntarily having a prayer before a football game? The school is not sponsoring the prayer, only the game.

          • fredrik8

            it is no problem to pray in a school that is 100% private. It is the taxmoney that is the important part.

          • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

            Actually, no. “Taxpayer money” DOES NOT ALTER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. And to be clear, the federal government IS FORBIDDEN from funding schools.

            If I’m a Christian, living in a town that worships wooden owls… in their public park… in their hospitals… in their schools… IT IS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO SO… so I MOVE to a different town that better accommodates my lifestyle. Understand?

          • Tom223

            The government can not pass a law that restricts the practice of religion. Doesn’t matter how much they tax or otherwise they can not restrict the free practice of religion.
            By your logic congress just needs to pass some law that makes all land and buildings and businesses in the US federal land and then it will become illegal to practice religion. Oh . …… wait. That’s communism. Think about it.

      • That Guy

        Did you forget “or
        prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” If no one is forced then how is it that they broke a law? If I’m not mistaken, as long as you FORCE no one than you are not in violation of any law and are in fact completely compliant with the supreme law of the land.

        • fredrik8
          • That Guy

            Engle vs Vitale 1961 “By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion.” So in my understanding, if we have a voluntary prayer at a game I have broken no law.

          • fredrik8

            The wikipedia article is clear:

            “The Court rejected the defendant’s arguments that people are not asked to respect any specific established religion; and that the prayer is voluntary. The Court held that the mere promotion of a religion is sufficient to establish a violation, even if that promotion is not coercive.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale

          • That Guy

            Yes, because the school is sponsoring the prayer (at the school no less). At a football game the school is not sponsoring the prayer, only the game.

          • That Guy

            They school in question also provided the prayer no less. Another important fact of the case.

          • Tom223

            The school was created by government. A government that cannot pass a law that restricts the free practice of religion. The law enacting the school does not state that there shall be prayer. And yet, if someone in the school does pray it is not a law that is mandating it and there is the constitution that protects the prayer. Congress has no say in the matter.

      • LibertyMonger

        You’re totally misinterpreting the 1st amendment, just like everyone else does. I suggest you find a better understanding.

        • berky

          when you’re going to tell someone they don’t understand something, for everyone’s sake, please post what YOU think it is supposed to mean… so we can avoid having arguments over miscommunication.

        • Tom223

          You might need to get a dictionary and look up the word “totally”. You haven’t made a point here just presented an unfounded opinion. Neither you nor the government has the right to create an entity that in turn restricts the free practice of religion.

      • Tom223

        it can not make a law that restricts the free practice either. Basically congress and the federal government can have no say about religion and yet they do so all the time by trying to restrict it for those who have some irrational hatred for religion. I am not a Christian and yet I find it completely absurd that anyone would be offended by hearing a person pray – especially since most prayers are asking for something good.
        I think we would be better off if it were made illegal to be offended. Then everyone could shut up about it and get on with the game.

  • That Guy

    Ben and team, can you guys provide a little more clarity here? There are a lot of important missing factors. Are they being forced to pray or is this voluntary? Is it over a loud speaker like at Nascar or is this the team on the field before the game (which was normal when I played high school sports)? These are important factors to understand if its wrong or just odd. If no one is being forced to pray is this really a problem? I look forward to an update. Thanks again for all of your great articles.

  • fredrik8

    For the people who wants to know more about this case http://ffrf.org/ will most likely take this up on there next weekly podcast

    • That Guy

      Judging by the name of that group I’m sure it’ll be very unbiased…

      I actually hope Ben takes this on once they have some more facts.

  • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

    Ever notice how some folks (typically the smart ones) CAN NEVER, EVER, EVER “debate” using ORIGINAL LAW? Whether prayer… Obamacare… the “War on Drugs”… the “War on Terror”… the “Patriot” Act… DOE… WIC… HUD… EBT cards… FEMA… Disability… etc, etc. Why is that?

    Ever get the feeling THAT OUT ENTIRE AMERICAN Centrally-Planned SOCIETY has been built on COUNTLESS ACCEPTED lies?

    • Tom223

      It has. They take away liberty every day by redefining the terms we use to define and describe our freedom and our rights.

  • jason

    If it was my school that got a letter like that, they would amplify prayer before a game, before class starts and includes a prayer for the ACLU to be disbanded as the traitors they are and put them in FEMA camps.

  • cbranalli

    banish the aclu to anti-Christ israel
    charles ranalli
    albuquerque

  • JeffersonBible

    Not that it would make a difference anyway. There’s no reason they shouldn’t be allowed to pray before a game, if they’re indoctrinated by a religious background. But if the coach encourages it, that’s not right. It’s not fair to the kids who are smart enough to ignore fairy tales.

    • Yves Baggi

      Amen to that… (pun intended)

  • tionico

    so, what law did CONGRESS make that mandates or requires this. Until CONGRESS passes such a law, there IS no violation. Read your Constitution.

    • Yves Baggi

      My guess is that because school is publicly funded, praying (probably christian prayers) is regarded as supporting the religion.

      I’m pretty sure the tune would be different if the prayers were moslem or hindu. That would be an outrage.

    • Tom223

      True

    • Dr. Bill O’Wrightz

      That’s correct. It’s not a federal issue. The first amendment (and the 10th) specifically prevent it from being congressional jurisdiction. Religious matters are to be left to states and the people, to the extent that state does not interfere with the ability of people to practice their religion in good conscience.

  • budzy1911

    Our school prays at every game and every other school function. Oh yea – it’s a Christian school so no worries. Last thing I would do is send my kids to a public school where their minds are twisted in to the perverted notions that the liberals find so fascinating. They don’t come home and tell me that Obama must be worshipped, guns are bad, and filth coming from Hollywood is good.

    • brentwilliams2

      They might not be taught about evolution though, so there’s that…

      • budzy1911

        As a matter of fact – they are.

      • born2think

        Uh, are you inferring that it is bad if a child doesn’t learn he started as a rock, turned to goo, and eventually became a monkey and got a shave, lost his tail, and here he is? By the way, that order of things I just gave is exactly (minus the shave and some intermediate forms) what I am told to teach in my public HS classroom. Personally, just the part about losing the tail is a bummer if it were true. How handy! Ever see a monkey? But teaching that they are all just animals helps me understand why they often act like it. It’s those kids who believe they were created by something intelligent that give me the least trouble. Just saying. And budyz1911, I am hoping your “Christian” school teaches evolution so that the kids can realize the bankruptcy that is emerging in that particular field. And then contrasts with what the Bible says, for real.

        • brentwilliams2

          What “bankruptcy” is emerging in the idea of evolution?

          • Klaatu Fabrice Aquinas

            Darwin doubted his own theory genius. So did his contemporary George Romanes. Look it up. The real nail in the coffin for evolution (macro more than micro) is the legitimacy for geocentricity vs. heilocentricity. The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments thoroughly discredit Einstein’s general and special theories of relativity. Yeah, they don’t teach that to physics students these days. I do wonder why.

            http://www.geocentricity.com/

            I’m sorry “they” lied to you. That is what “they” do. “They” live for it. “They” live to lie to people like you and me. Time to wake up to the lie. Time to learn the truth. God created the universe. Not Man. God created “nature.” Not Man. If God created say the mechanism of evolution (natural selection of species) through nature, don’t you think he would have clearly told us so in his Word? Like he has clearly told us so that the Earth does NOT move, as does the Sun, the stars, and the other planet do.

            Now so far as prayer in public (public meaning “We the People” NOT the govt.) schools. The ACLU and SCOTUS should clearly understand that section “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This is not rocket science. This is very simple. The govt. cannot establish a state religion or church. Nor can the govt. prohibit the free expression of “We The People” to give honor to our Lord God Creator. And that goes for govt. property as well. The constitution is clear. The ACLU is either stupid on the matter, or knowingly intellectually dishonest.

            I can give them a pass on the geocentric model for now. It IS a bit more “rocket science.” We will just say they are ignorant (like unfortunately are the masses) on the matter. Why this is relevant, is the implications of the moral consequences of adopting the heliocentric model. This the ACLU, if it is truly for liberty and justice for all should be shouting from the rooftops, once it is fully comprehended.

          • brentwilliams2

            Woah. Too much crazy in this post to respond to.

          • Dr. Bill O’Wrightz

            Thanks for the ad-hominem attack, as it so clearly illustrated the evolutionary mindset: Anyone who has evidence against the theory must be attacked as crazy rather than to face the laws of nature with rigorous proofs.

            Meanwhile the laws of science that I mentioned earlier testify against evolution.

          • born2think

            Agreed, there seems to be some crazy there. I’ll try and pass on it for now and answer your question. Traditionally, evolution mandates eons and eons of time to slowly transition each species into another – Reptiles becoming birds, Ameobas becoming fish, Apes becoming men, etc. If this were the case, then we should find an equal amount of transitional fossils as we find “regular” fossils as Darwin stated in his book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
            Yet, 150 years later and we can barely show one intermediate example. Lots of “regular” perfectly formed species fossils exist, just no solid transitional ones. And if one hopeful transitional is found, we have exactly half of it or just a few. Although discussed for decades, a new theory is being turned to: It states that instead of gradual, it is practically instant. An example would be a horned lizard giving birth to a pigeon. Or one of the salmon eggs hatching out a salamander instead of a fish like all its siblings. Early phrases that described this were: Hopeful monster theory. then,Spontaneous Generation. But TODAY, we can make this rather unobservable, rather impossible, but-we-have-no-choice theory sound more legit by calling it…get ready….Punctuated Equilibrium.
            Wow. Has evolution come to that? Are we trying to look academic as we are resolving to abandon traditional macro-evolution by slow processes by giving it a cool name? Sounds like it. And God or not, PE sure sounds like a hell of a lot of intelligence and new information being inserted to pull that one off. Then again, new info had to be added in the old theory too. But it looks more and more like a white flag until which time a better theory can arise.
            I hope that helps you see why BK might be just behind the curtain. Don’t any attention to that man though! Just pray your wife doesn’t exhibit this PE and give birth to a dolphin…although if she does, I’ll be sure to read about it in a science journal, or some other magazine I might find at the checkout stand! :-)

      • Dr. Bill O’Wrightz

        Evolutionary dogma is in violation of the laws of science, despite having a very effective PR campaign.

        Matter and energy spontaneously generating itself from nothing would go against all of real science and it’s pseudoscience. It violates the observed law of conservation of matter and energy.

        Developing complexity from disorder without external forces also goes against real observational science. It would violate the first, second, and third laws of thermodynamics.

        Slowing down expansion for a time to allow equalization of background radiation as in the standard big bang model would require violating Newton’s observed laws of motion.

        Life spontaneously arising from non-life would violate Louis Pasteur’s observed law of biogenesis.

        New organs developing one kind of animal into another is something that has never been observed, but only speculated. It would violate Mendel’s laws of inheritance.

        The proposed missing links “Piltdown Man” and “Nebraska Man” that you learned in school as being missing links have been shown to be fallacies. They don’t exist but in the imagination of evolutionist propagandists and those who’ve been duped. Look them up to see why they’ve been quietly removed from textbooks.

        And your tax dollars continue to contribute to promoting these fallacies. Of course lots of people will believe when it’s taught in our schools, and then its claim for validity is consensus. Consensus is not science. Proof is science. The laws of science described above are a sample of the laws of nature. Discard the propaganda land evolution is disproved because it would violate most of what we know about real science.

        This is clearly a more scientific argument than ad-hominem nonsense relied upon by evolutionists.

        • brentwilliams2

          I believe you are doing the PR campaign here, and it is unfortunate that you are spreading falsehoods using improperly understood theories and laws. Citing the fact that Louis Pasteur did not personally view the spawning of life as proof that it did not occur that way is ridiculous, for example. And saying that Mendel’s work contracts the theory of evolution is ludicrous when it did exactly the opposite. Here is some reading for you: http://www.scientus.org/Mendel-Darwin.html

          It seems that you have decided to throw out a whole bunch of important-sounding parts so you sound educated, and I’m worried that others here will actually believe you.

          • Dr. Bill O’Wrightz

            Each of those laws is observed, regardless of what you believe the discoverers thought of them. The idea that life violated Pasteur’s observations is only speculation based on the belief that no God could have been involved so it must have happened. That is faith in the religion of naturalism. Pure and simple. These are real observed laws of physics that deny evolution at every step. The claims of evolutionary dogma are supported by heavy PR, but lacking in real scientific laws. It’s time to discard it as utterly unscientific religion based on faith that all matter and energy must have created itself and turned to life, despite all of the scientific laws of nature against it.

            Regarding education, yes, I am involved in publishing academic literature, and I understand through observation how scientific journals are run. If the editor in chief doesn’t like a particular idea, the associate editors who assign reviews will be hand picked who are certain to assign the paper to extremists who can be depended upon to either give the paper a rejection or leave it languishing in the review process where it can’t be published elsewhere. That point convinced one of my colleagues more than anything else so that he became a deist. Perhaps one day he will study the documents of antiquity and compare them with those of classical works whose content are taken as fact (like the battle of Troy) while being supported by vastly inferior codices. If so, he will either have to discard the teaching of everything we know about antiquity, or accept the Biblical writings as well, or to live in denial of the implications.

          • Dr. Bill O’Wrightz

            Now for that colleague it is not a matter of whether God exists or not, but who He is.

          • brentwilliams2

            The idea that you are involved with publishing academic literature is disturbing. You clearly are trying to prove biblical writings by denying anything that contradicts them. You have an agenda far beyond what you claim with any evolution PR campaign.

          • Dr. Bill O’Wrightz

            It’s interesting that you ignore all of these laws of physics and opt for ad-hominems. You might be on more solid ground if you would address the main point: That the laws of physics and most of science point away from the evolutionary tale sold as if truth by our tax dollars. Real scientific pursuit requires proof, not consensus or personal attacks. It is clear that the agenda supported by our tax dollars is to remove all mention of God, remove prayer from public forum as if our forefathers did not pray during their assembly while drafting the constitution that protects our rights. The mainstream academic channels have clearly been hijacked by evolutionary propagandists, and they have an agenda. I am only pointing that out, and that what the laws of nature clearly reveal is in direct contrast with the agenda that they’re pushing. Otherwise we would have had all of those observed laws disproven. Instead, we get hand-waiving about how they must not apply to evolution because of its special magic. The teachings of evolution radicals that are changing our country are clearly bogus. Disproving one or the other only results in further insistence on their religious indoctrination of our children in evolutionary propaganda.It’s a shame what it has done to our country and where it’s headed.

          • Dr. Bill O’Wrightz

            “And saying that Mendel’s work contracts the theory of evolution” – you completely evaded the point – that no new organs have ever been developed. Certainly we all accept that there is variation in kinds. Mendel’s laws show how the variation comes from the variation in the original genes of the ancestors, however far back you must go.

            There are certainly some variables among populations, akin to variables in a computer program, regulating size, color, proportion, etc., but the algorithm within the genetic code is traced back to the parents in either case.

            The evolutionary dogma is that random mutations provide new genetic sequences that must be beneficial and somehow create new organs. That’s all a belief in magic that has never been observed. The closest thing observed and often cited by evolutionists is sickle cell anemia, but if you ask anyone who’s been stricken by that disease (like the colleague of mine), they are unlikely to consider it a benefit. Sure they can’t get malaria because their blood is so malformed that the mosquito cannot make use of it, but they suffer far more than they benefit. After Chernobyl and Fukushima, if you believe in the magical stories of evolution, you should expect the evolution of new and better creatures like godzilla to emerge from those environments. But what you actually find is sick and deformed creatures suffering from the random assaults on their DNA, if they even survive. Based on actual observations, mutations are not the answer either.

  • Drew R

    I don’t think the intention of the 1st Amendment is to restrict people from praying voluntarily! But it’s moot because public school is becoming less and less relevant. The internet has removed all barriers for information and learning. Think Khan Academy.. Kids can learn more at home just on Youtube than sitting in a stale class room!

  • Tom223

    The constitution restricts congress from passing any law that restricts the free practice of religion. The government cannot restrict the practice of religion. They may make a law that establishes a school but it is inherent in any law that such creation of a government entity cannot restrict the free practice of religion. It is not a complicated sentence. The thing that makes it complicated is that people are susceptible to false information like the statement “separation of church and state” as if it were in the constitution and it is no where to be found. The constitution says what it says, not what some politician or talking head says it says or even a supreme court just says it says. The justices give their opinions and clearly they are often very skewed by their own political bias.

  • Guest

    I’m a Christian and I truly don’t care if prayer is taken off from public schools. Public schools are pathetic, trashy, and government funded which that in itself says enough.

  • Abigail Moreno

    Ewww! Public schools are icky anyways!

  • cooperbry

    Let ‘em sue. The constitutional protections work both ways. If people want to pray, they can pray.

  • Dr. Bill O’Wrightz

    The prayer of our nation’s founding fathers at the 1st continental congress:

    O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

    Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.

    Amen.

  • Tom223

    There is no law mandating that someone pray at a school football game. There is no law that can restrict an official or any other individual from expressing his/her religious freedom through prayer. It would not be correct for the school to establish a policy that prayer must occur but it would equally be incorrect for the school to establish a policy that prayer is forbidden. It is up to the individual whether he wants to pray even if it is over a loud speaker.