This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
A student's prayer.
Return to board index
Post by
Heckler
My Google-fu is usually pretty good, but I can't find that story on a "real" news site -- but trusting 'Christian News' websites (and I'm not saying they're not trustworthy, just that it would be nice to find the story in a Vancouver, WA newspaper)...
I did find a follow-up story a couple weeks later (again, on a Christian website) reporting the suspensions were reversed by the school district (
source
). It doesn't sound like they tossed out the rationale of "high traffic" but instead said that up to 20 people could meet without impeding traffic in that area, and since there was 12, it was okay and therefore the suspensions were improper.
Edit:
I found a version of the story on popular left-wing website Daily Kos,
here
. This story was written before the suspensions were reversed. It contains links to Vancouver, WA newspaper
The Columbian
, but they don't function. I'm not sure if any of this matters since the school reversed / clarified its position, but I figured I'd share what I found.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
Edit:
I found a version of the story on popular left-wing website Daily Kos,
here
. This story was written before the suspensions were reversed. It contains links to Vancouver, WA newspaper
The Columbian
, but they don't function. I'm not sure if any of this matters since the school reversed / clarified its position, but I figured I'd share what I found.
Looks a lot like the synthesis I came up with.
Again, I'm immediately going to consider suspect any article that changes "several student complaints - one from a supposed pagan" to "one Satanist student". :P
Post by
Magician22773
Xara,
I think you are close, but I think some of the timing is off.
I read it that the group had asked to form a group earlier, and were denied (likely due to procedure)
"The students attempted to start a prayer club several weeks ago, Liberty Counsel reported in a statement to the press, but were denied permission by the school’s vice principal Alex Otoupal
According to the group’s statement, the affected students had met together a few weeks ago to initiate a school prayer club. They were refused by the school’s vice principal, Alex Otoupal, who explained that they could not meet in a private room.
After that, they decided to hold their meeting in the commons area, at a time when traffic should have been quite low. The meetings were allowed for about 2 weeks, until the school recieved a complaint from a Pagan (or Satanic, depending on source) student.
The individuals, who met for about two weeks before 7 a.m., decided to pray in the school cafeteria, instead, where an alleged Satanist student complained to the school office.
At that point, they were told to go outside. They refused, either in part or in whole because of weather, and because they wanted others to be able to join in.
The prayer group was instructed by the vice principal to go and pray outside rather than in the cafeteria. The students persisted in praying in the lunch room, however, because of the inclement weather outside.
"If we’re in a secluded room, they can’t just join in" Gaultier said, as she had done herself.
And yes, their suspension was for insubordination, not because they were praying. But the schools reasoning behind why they had to move is just rubbish. 12 kids in a commons area at 7am is not a disruption. Furthermore, it was allowed for about 2 weeks prior to the complaint being made.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I find it funny that the eame exact comment is attributed to the president of the Liberty Counsel in one article, and to a Reverend in another.
Not invalidating the issue- just noting how facts get mixed up in the hands of reporters.
EDIT: I would also like to point out that, if they were praying out loud, there could be content in the prayers that was offensive to other students. AKA "Please save all the people of X religion and Y sexuality from their evil, evil ways so that they might know you and not burn in hell for all eternity." I've heard similar things.
Not saying it was or wasn't that way- just looking at another possible angle.
Post by
xaratherus
And yes, their suspension was for insubordination, not because they were praying. But the schools reasoning behind why they had to move is just rubbish. 12 kids in a commons area at 7am is not a disruption. Furthermore, it was allowed for about 2 weeks prior to the complaint being made.
Maybe the student(s) making the complaints were not arriving to school early for those first two weeks. The length of time for which it occurred prior to the complaint really doesn't have any bearing on the issue.
Once the complaint is made, the school had a responsibility to address it. Which makes more sense, asking a group of 12 people to form a club, find a sponsor, and hold their prayer clubs in a private classroom - or to do the same for the student(s) lodging the complaint?
That's what it would require, after all: If the complainant(s) are made uncomfortable in the commons area, and assuming no other indoor commons areas are available, they'd have to be allowed into a different location in the school (probably a classroom) to wait before school started.
In my book the former makes more sense.
Post by
Atik
And yet, Magician, you still have no proof that it is was because they were praying. Specifically, everything points to the opposite.
Post by
Heckler
Google-fu success, I found the actual local newspaper (
The Columbian
) articles using the internet archive wayback machine.
Original article detailing the incident (March 2, 2007)
Article detailing the reversal (May 1, 2007)
Unfortunately the followup article on March 6, 2007 is missing from the IAWM archive.
Post by
gamerunknown
Why is it that you have to show off how much you love God to everyone? Why can't you just keep your prayer / 10 Commandments to yourself unless you're in a place where people want to be around that (ie. church)?
Well, if one reads Matthew 6 in context, the main points in the beginning are that one should give to charity in private, should pray in private and shouldn't be blatant when fasting. The reasoning isn't difficult to follow: some people seek glory in this world by claiming a great relationship with the next - attempting to serve two masters. The language used is somewhat similar to the whetstone around the neck for someone that causes a child to lose their faith - presumably meant to be taken literally. Especially when the father's prayer was given verbatim.
Another thing to note is that often its Christians that bring up their beliefs, its not atheists that challenge people with no provocation. Most other beliefs are challenged on the thread, there's rarely a consensus.
Pikeyboy, in order to quote, just do without the spaces. (not sure if there's a markup). One can also do .
As for the golden rule, Christopher Hitchens has some valid criticisms of it, as had Kant. But some variation on it (retributive system) is an evolutionary stable strategy according to Game Theorists - allowing variation for personality of individuals while maintaining a functioning society. If one chooses to abscond from the social contract, there's no reason for society to welcome one as a member.
Post by
xaratherus
Google-fu success, I found the actual local newspaper (
The Columbian
) articles using the internet archive wayback machine.
Original article detailing the incident (March 2, 2007)
Article detailing the reversal (May 1, 2007)
Unfortunately the followup article on March 6, 2007 is missing from the IAWM archive.
Awesome, thanks. Almost exactly how I had it sussed out.
If one chooses to abscond from the social contract, there's no reason for society to welcome one as a member.
Bring on Coventry!
Post by
Magician22773
Xara,
Especially in light of the reversal, and the admission that the commons area could hold up to 20 students without obstructing traffic, it makes my point even stronger. The administration stated that the reason they had to move was because of traffic flow, not because of the other student's beliefs. The fact that when presented with legal action, it all of a sudden became OK, just goes to show that their original motivation was not to prevent the flow of traffic, but to stop the group from praying due to a complaint, or complaints made by non-religious students.
Not invalidating the issue- just noting how facts get mixed up in the hands of reporters.
I agree. It is interesting how reporters take the same story and mix up, or mix in facts. Especially in a case like this one, where major details are in question. The biggest discrepency I see is in whether or not they were offered a private room to meet in. If they were, but refused because they wanted to do it in public, than the students were in the wrong, both from a Christian standpoint (see my arguement with DoctorLore regarding Matthew 6:5), and with the administration.
Post by
xaratherus
Especially in light of the reversal, and the admission that the commons area could hold up to 20 students without obstructing traffic, it makes my point even stronger.
It wasn't the administration that stated that from what I saw; it was the litigious organization who made that statement - if I'd have to guess, based on fire code.
As for the reason the school presented as to why they had to move?
Let me paint a mental picture: Instead of claiming that the students were obstructing the flow of traffic, the school simply tells the students that they can't pray in the commons area because they received complaints from other students.
Now, since several of the articles state that at least one student had asked the group to move because they were bothering them, what do you think might have happened?
What
I
could see happening is a few of the students of the prayer group going up to the people who
might
have lodged the complaint and engaging in a bit of old-fashioned bullying. Would it have been hypocritical of them? Yes. Would that have made a difference? Probably not.
So why not avoid it and instead say that they're potentially blocking traffic instead?
As for the reversal strengthening your point? You assume it illustrates that the school was in the wrong. It could just as easily be an issue where the school wanted to avoid a costly and extended legal battle, bad publicity, and so forth - a situation where, even if the school won, they would ultimately lose.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
My daughter attends classes at home,
to avoid liberal influences
. Not that I don't encourage her to make up her own opinion or learn about liberal trains of thought. I just don't want to see an agenda pushed on her, mine or otherwise.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
My daughter attends classes at home,
to avoid liberal influences
. Not that I don't encourage her to make up her own opinion or learn about liberal trains of thought. I just don't want to see an agenda pushed on her, mine or otherwise.
With the link you posted it sounds more like you want to raise a homophobe.
You are such a troll.
I don't want my daughter to get suspended for having an unpopular opinion. That's the point of that link.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
It's an opinion that has no place in society. Some day everyone will look at homophobes the way rational people look at racists, promoting hatred and keeping her in an environment where that hatred won't be challenged is a disservice to your daughter and society as a whole.
You and I disagree. That disagreement is so significant, I don't see any reconciliation currently possible. Perhaps we should leave the discussion here?
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.