FRISCO, Texas – There’s a special space for Muslim students at Liberty High School – room C112 — an empty classroom provided by the school for daily prayer sessions.

School officials initially opened up a small conference room for Islamic prayers in 2009 after they noticed some Muslim students leaving on Friday afternoons to pray, and demand eventually forced them to dedicate an entire classroom for the ritual.

“This is my seventh year at Liberty, my first year it kind of started when a core group of students were leaving campus every Friday for Friday prayer,” principal Scott Warstler told Wingspan, the student site.

“Their parents would pick them up, so they may miss an hour and a half to two hours to two and a half hours of school every Friday, so I met with those students and a couple of their parents and suggested if they would be okay if the students were able to lead the prayer at school as a group, and we gave them a space to do that so they didn’t have to be in a car traveling thirty minutes each way on a Friday missing an hour, hour and half, of class.”

Islamic Association of Collin County Youth Director Ryan Hillard explained why it’s important for Muslim students to have special access to C122 during lunch time every day.

“By praying five times a day, which includes movements such as bowing and prostrating where you actually place your forehead and the tip of your nose on to the floor and also facing a specific direction, not only shows uniformity, in terms of how Muslims pray together and come together for that purpose,” Hilliard said. “But even more importantly it shows that they’re willing to put their entire body and their entire mind and their soul into this act and be able to focus on that moment where they’re able to have this conversation with God, when in many other places they would not be able to do so.”

Warstler told Wingspan he’s never received a single complaint about the prayer room.

“Like I’ve said, this is the seventh year that we’ve been doing this and we’ve never had one issue. You know we have other religious student groups that meet maybe before school or maybe after school,” Warstler said “As long as it’s student-led, where the students are organizing and running it, we pretty much as a school stay out of that and allow them their freedom to practice their religion.”

Warstler’s inclusive and understanding attitude stands in stark contrast to the reaction other school officials in Texas and other states have shown to Christian students attempting to exercise their faith at school.

Last fall, officials at O’Donnell High School, in O’Donnell, Texas, rushed to cover up a student painting of the Ten Commandments and an accompanying Bible verse after a single complaint, EAGnews reports.

At Patterson Middle School in Killeen, Texas, school officials forced a staffer to censor her “A Charlie Brown Christmas” decorations to remove a reference to “Christ the Lord” shortly before Christmas, though a judge ultimately overruled the school, according to the Killeen Daily Herald.

In other places, school officials and teachers have ended Bible studies, lectured students for reading the Bible during free time, and taken other actions to block Christian students.

But at Liberty High School, it’s live and let live, Wartstler told KERA Radio.

The station played audio of a student reciting the Islamic call to prayer in the classroom.

“They’re not out proselytizing,” he said. “They’re not out in the lunch periods trying to gain, you know. They take care of themselves in their group and they accept those that are a part of their group. And honestly, if others wanted to go in and learn and see and experience that, they’re OK with that.”

Unlike the general hostility against Christian students in many public schools, Muslim students at Liberty are welcomed, free to recite the Islamic call to prayer in peace, and it’s “really great,” junior Sarah Qureshi told Wingspan.

“It gives us a way to pray in a classroom and then go straight back to class,” Qureshi said. “It takes five minutes instead of having to leave school, get in the car, and go with my parents to the actual masjid and then coming back. When I first found out I was really shocked. I think it was a really great opportunity and I was pretty happy for it that we actually get to have this choice to go and to do what we have to do.”

329 responses to “Weekly Islamic call to prayer in Texas public high school”

  1. Jonny Realnews says:

    WTF?

  2. Ron Fuller says:

    the article tries really hard to compare apples to bananas. Get a grip!

  3. Fred762 says:

    So…call for a Christian Bible reading..and the kid gets expelled. Lucifer at work in TX

    • Brian Westley says:

      Got a cite for that?

        • Brian Westley says:

          For the first story, there IS no such school by that name — thenewsnerd.com is a satirical news site. Their front page says “The stories posted on TheNewsNerd are for entertainment purposes only. The stories may mimic articles found in the headlines, but rest assured they are purely satirical.”

          The school district pointed this out.

          http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/natalie-gross/2014-07-21/school-district-says-story-plainview-boy-suspended

          For the second story, the school consulted actual lawyers and backed down.

          Same for the third story.

          For the fourth story, the school disputed the details and said the student can read his bible.

          Story #5 is the same as #3

          I can’t find outcomes for story #6 — it was 3 years ago, and there are two letters from libertyinstitute.org demanding an apology, but I can’t find any apology or lawsuit. Here are those letters:

          https://libertyinstitute.org/document.doc?id=241

          https://www.libertyinstitute.org/file/FINAL—Ltr-to-DCPS-re-Viewpoint-Discrimination—090514.pdf

          Story #7, “In an interview with MyFoxDetroit.com, Superintendent Laurine VanValkenburg apologized about the worksheet and said that students are allowed to bring their Bibles to read at school.”

          So, none of those stories are about “call for a Christian Bible reading..and the kid gets expelled”

          Most of them are school officials not knowing the law, and correcting the situation afterwards. There are plenty of non-Christian students ALSO being wrongly punished and sometimes having to get civil liberty organizations involved. Welcome to the club.

          • Kelli says:

            I wasn’t citing any story about a kid getting expelled.. I was giving examples where Christian kids have been the target of schools who claim to want separation of church and state but it seems that’s only for Christ following children and not Muslims.

          • Brian Westley says:

            I wasn’t citing any story about a kid getting expelled.

            That’s what I was asking for, so why did you reply? And the first story which was fake looks like it could be the source.

            I was giving examples where Christian kids have been the target of schools who claim to want separation of church and state but it seems that’s only for Christ following children and not Muslims.

            And I pointed out how the schools corrected their unlawful actions. I can find lots of examples where non-Christian students have their rights unlawfully infringed, too. Again, welcome to the club.

          • Kelli says:

            I replied because I felt like it.. And just because a school “corrected” their unlawful actions doesn’t make their original targeted actions against a Christian child suddenly disappear. But if a school stopped a Muslim child from praying the lame stream media would be going nuts.

          • Brian Westley says:

            And just because a school “corrected” their unlawful actions doesn’t make their original targeted actions against a Christian child suddenly disappear.

            It happens to all kinds, not just Christians.

            But if a school stopped a Muslim child from praying the lame stream media would be going nuts.

            Uh, every one of your stories were reported in the media. Including the first, joke one.

          • Sybil Luddington says:

            So what is your point Brian??

          • Brian Westley says:

            That the school in this case is actually following the law.

          • warptek says:

            What’s your take in all this? You seem to have a lot of time defending schools and the law. I just would like to know who and what you represent because judging from all the posting you’re either getting paid as a spokesperson for public schools or you don’t seem to have a life. Anyone who comes to the defense of big bloated, bureaucracies I find suspect. You do know they work for us not the other way around, right?

          • Brian Westley says:

            What’s your take in all this?

            That some people don’t know the law.

            I just would like to know who and what you represent

            Just me.

            You do know they work for us not the other way around, right?

            Which means they have to follow the law, right?

          • emaleroland says:

            Not following the law, snowflake.

          • Brian Westley says:

            If not, what law are they violating?

          • Sybil Luddington says:

            Exactly. Do what you want and apologize for your actions if someone complains isn’t the way to run a school. This is just liberal mentality that has grown like a cancer in our public school system.

          • beckdella says:

            Give up….liberals are stupidity exploited to the max.

          • AllAboutMe says:

            Who are you calling a liberal?

          • AZRocks CP (2012) AZ says:

            You did not ask a question mister perfect… lol

            Kelli can reply to whosoever she chooses from her computer…..

          • Brian Westley says:

            Yes, I did: “Got a cite for that?”
            In reply to the claim “So…call for a Christian Bible reading..and the kid gets expelled. Lucifer at work in TX”

          • Sybil Luddington says:

            So are you trying to deny that Christian kids are punished or banned from practicing their religion in school? Taxpayers should be outraged at public school space being set aside for one particular religion.

          • Brian Westley says:

            So are you trying to deny that Christian kids are punished or banned from practicing their religion in school?

            Did you read my comment? This happens to everyone, not just Christians, because a lot of school officials have no idea what the laws are.

            Taxpayers should be outraged at public school space being set aside for one particular religion.

            It isn’t. Everyone is treated the same. If Christian students want to get a room so they can pray together, they get the same treatment.

          • Sybil Luddington says:

            That is an incorrect statement. You would not be granted a classroom during school hours to conduct any organized religious rituals.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Christian students (and any other students) get exactly the same access as the Muslim students. If not, contact the ACLU.

          • emaleroland says:

            No, they do not. The ACLU is a terrorist organization. Your Liberal mama should have told you, your opinion doesn’t matter that much.

          • Brian Westley says:

            The ACLU is a terrorist organization.

            Of course they aren’t — they operate in the open, and they aren’t being stopped by law enforcement. If they really ARE a terrorist organization, why is that?

          • SilentKnot says:

            But they are in Frisco, Texas.

          • rpp618 says:

            You are a lying anti-Christian bigot and a troll. Go peddle your lies elsewhere.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Sorry, you don’t even know what “troll” means. And it’s easy enough to find the same results I did where the schools backed off.

          • emaleroland says:

            Yes he does. You, you’re the troll. You’re lying even when the truth sounds better.

          • Brian Westley says:

            You have no idea what “troll” means.

          • John Flaherty says:

            I would like to see a citation of that, Mr. Westley.

          • Brian Westley says:

            It’s right in the story:
            You know we have other religious student groups that meet maybe before school or maybe after school,” [principal] Warstler said “As long as it’s student-led, where the students are organizing and running it, we pretty much as a school stay out of that and allow them their freedom to practice their religion.”

          • emaleroland says:

            No it doesn’t. Stop lying. Go do something productive. Read a book and stop lying.

          • Brian Westley says:

            It does happen to everyone. Want some cites?

            Notice that when school officials check with actual lawyers, they get told that students (Christian or not) CAN pray in school.

          • beckdella says:

            Of course he is, he is a muslim sympathizer who would rather Americans bow to the barbarians rather than destroy them.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Why do you hate religious freedom and religious equality?

          • emaleroland says:

            Islam is cloaked as a religion. Go read a book. You don’t know anything about Islam. You just spew nonsense to hear yourself talk, to see your silly, goofy, pic on the page. Stop lying. Islam is Shariah law. Ever read the Qur’an? No. Ever read the Bible? No. Ever read the Torah? No. Sit down.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Islam is cloaked as a religion.

            So what? Scientology is a religion and a criminal organization.

            Islam is Shariah law.

            And Catholicism is canon law. So what? Neither one can enforce their religious laws on Americans.

          • John Flaherty says:

            Interestingly, I have seen no evidence at all to suggest that anyone has insisted that the whole of America should live according to Catholic canon law. We, the People, generally live according to the specific tenets of each of Our particular religious or philosophical ideals.
            Most angst against Judeo-Christian precept seems insistent on casting these religious principles as a demon. Our national history does not substantiate such a view.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Interestingly, I have seen no evidence at all to suggest that anyone has insisted that the whole of America should live according to Catholic canon law.

            Try Michael Vorix and churchmilitant.com
            He seriously wants a catholic dictatorship.

          • John Flaherty says:

            I see. Did you hear “dictator” and ignore everything else? You notice he’s laying out an argument describing the error of a pure democracy. He then reminds us that Christian Europe survived because of the “dictatorship” of Christian monarchs. Church Militant’s materials seek to evangelize the nation. If We already embrace the principles the “dictator” enacts, there’s no problem with tyranny. I notice that he does not induce anyone to embrace Catholic canon law throughout. We suffer no real threat of oppression from Catholic ideals. Not unless We choose to reject moral virtue. As mentioned before, Our laws already reflect Catholic principles in many aspects of life.

          • Brian Westley says:

            I see. Did you hear “dictator” and ignore everything else?

            That’s enough to toss the idea, yeah, but the further blather about Catholics as the only virtuous voters also helped.

            You notice he’s laying out an argument describing the error of a pure democracy.

            No, we don’t HAVE a pure democracy, and he still wants a dictatorship.

            I’m not surprised you turned out to be an apologist for a religious dictatorship.

            If We already embrace the principles the “dictator” enacts, there’s no problem with tyranny.

            I’ve been pointing that out about you for a couple of days. You’re just fine with imposing your religion on everyone.

          • John Flaherty says:

            Secularists like yourself have been demanding that We all allow Ourselves to allow a rejection of religion to be imposed upon all of Us, whether We wish it or not. We, the People, have obviously rejected such nonsense. If you wish to throw a temper tantrum when We do not follow your precise view of establishment, so be it. You may throw a screaming fit 24 hours a day, if you wish.
            As should be obvious from the degree of acrimony that has often dominated debates, there is no Constitutional dictate forbidding you from choosing to be an idiot.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Secularists like yourself have been demanding that We all allow Ourselves to allow a rejection of religion to be imposed upon all of Us

            Now you’re just lying. You can practice your religion.

            We, the People, have obviously rejected such nonsense.

            Then how can it exist? You’re spouting nonsense at this point.

            If you wish to throw a temper tantrum when We do not follow your precise view of establishment, so be it.

            No tantrum, I’ll just sue you in court.

          • John Flaherty says:

            “I’ll just sue you in court.”
            Yes, …We have noticed that. Many times.

          • Brian Westley says:

            And we win. That means the law is on our side.

          • John Flaherty says:

            It means that law has been distorted to suit Judicial activism. Nothing more.

          • Brian Westley says:

            “distorted to suit Judicial activism” says the supporter of a Catholic dictatorship.

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          • AZRocks CP (2012) AZ says:

            you are deluded sir

          • AZRocks CP (2012) AZ says:

            no you won’t another porky has been told

          • Brian Westley says:

            Really, if you violate the establishment clause, atheists including me will sue.

      • Michael L says:

        The ACLJ should have a listing.

      • John Flaherty says:

        Sadly, Mr. Westley, your comments reflect the virulent intolerance of the secularist.
        In the 1950s, a relative few atheists hated the idea that the majority of the country didn’t follow–or teach–secular or atheistic ideas. They sued and a “progressive” Court insisted that the People must surely be in error, legally forbidding a teacher to lead students in prayer. Other lawsuits about prayers at graduations followed.
        Never mind that legal minds had not found any of the above objectionable since 1789.

        Then, between 1980 and 2000, others grew angry that schools dared possess bibles in libraries, so they sued over “establishment” of religion. In some cases, I believe courts required schools to remove the bibles. Later, some schools had allowed for after-school or lunch-hour meetings of Christians in *gulp!* public school rooms. We couldn’t have THAT! Such school districts suffered lawsuits, so the Christian groups were compelled to move their meetings away from public property.

        Then, in the early 2000s, an atheist in California hated the idea that his son might be compelled to say “under God” in the Pledge, so the Ninth Circuit forbade public schools in the West Coast from reciting said Pledge.
        …And these don’t even admit the numerous battles over the Ten Commandments.

        All of this came about because someone insisted that even allowing a public meeting or the existence of any book that mentioned a religious principles could not be tolerated.

        Now you’re saying that Muslims should have the right to have a room in a school dedicated to their needs?!

        If the other efforts I’ve mentioned constitute “establishment”, but a Muslim prayer room does not, I think you’re being viciously selective. Or willfully hypocritical.

        • Brian Westley says:

          Sadly, Mr. Westley, your comments reflect the virulent intolerance of the secularist.

          So that’s a “no”, you don’t have a cite for a student being expelled for calling for a Christian Bible reading.

          They sued and a “progressive” Court insisted that the People must surely be in error, legally forbidding a teacher to lead students in prayer. Other lawsuits about prayers at graduations followed.

          Because PARENTS get to decide what religion, if any, to teach their own children, NOT government officials like public school teachers.

          You have no respect for genuine religious rights.

          Then, between 1980 and 2000, others grew angry that schools dared possess bibles in libraries, so they sued over “establishment” of religion. In some cases, I believe courts required schools to remove the bibles.

          Do you have any cites at all for any of this? I’ve never heard of any lawsuits over bibles in a public school libraries.

          Later, some schools had allowed for after-school or lunch-hour meetings of Christians in *gulp!* public school rooms. We couldn’t have THAT!

          Have you even heard of, say, Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993)?

          Then, in the early 2000s, an atheist in California hated the idea that his son might be compelled to say “under God” in the Pledge, so the Ninth Circuit forbade public schools in the West Coast from reciting said Pledge.

          They could still use the pre-1954 version, before religious hypocrites added “under god” while insisting it had no religious purpose.

          …And these don’t even admit the numerous battles over the Ten Commandments.

          Which, of course, are foreign religious laws like Sharia law. They don’t belong in front of public schools or courthouses.

          Now you’re saying that Muslims should have the right to have a room in a school dedicated to their needs?!

          On the same basis as all other students, yes. Students have ALWAYS had the freedom to pray in public schools. Do you have something against religious freedom?

          If the other efforts I’ve mentioned constitute “establishment”, but a Muslim prayer room does not, I think you’re being viciously selective.

          You’re not distinguishing between the religious acts of students (legal) with the actions of government officials like teachers.

          • John Flaherty says:

            Ah, yes, secularists are always the innocent victims of evil, Christian bigots, aren’t they? Sure.

            With your assertion about the rights of parents, you seem to have a very selective memory. If I do a quick search with Google or Wikipedia, I find that many of the first public schools, created before the Constitution was signed, were started by…Christians. Parents wished for their children to be educated with a Christian–though arguably non-sectarian–frame of mind. PARENTS paid taxes for these public schools, like they did for other matters. Literally millions of parents paid taxes for their children to attend public schools which required prayer along with all their other studies. Interestingly, numerous Presidents and Chief Justices of the Supreme Court certainly knew about these schools–likely many of them sent their own children to these same schools–and found no Constitutional difficulties to warrant forbidding such things legally.

            I’m sorry, but I don’t have the time to trace down every lawsuit about bibles or student prayer I can remember. I do not have ready access to a law library. Given your sentiments thus far, I do not believe using my time for such an effort would prove much. If you have an interest in being as open-minded as a secularist usually insists, I suggest you do some digging on your own.

            I notice that you’re willing to allow for prayer, so long as such does not threaten the secular monopoly currently dominant in schools. This too, is very typical.

            Incidentally, the designation of the Ten Commandments as “foreign” law generally implies that these come from another nation. It would be wise to recognize that most of our nation’s current laws, such as those regarding murder, theft, and other laws,derive from those same Ten Commandments.
            As such, these Commandments are about as “foreign” to this nation as the Bill of Rights.

            Finally, the distinction about student acts and government official acts is the typical hypocrisy of secularists again. For most others, the imposition of “values” according to secular ideas does, itself, constitute an imposition of religious precept by government officials. As such is typically done in direct defiance of the wishes of millions of parents even today, the charge about “church-state separation” is laughable.

            You would be well advised to learn about the First Amendment without resorting to secular revisionism.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Ah, yes, secularists are always the innocent victims of evil, Christian bigots, aren’t they? Sure.

            What are you babbling about now?

            With your assertion about the rights of parents, you seem to have a very selective memory. If I do a quick search with Google or Wikipedia, I find that many of the first public schools, created before the Constitution was signed

            Irrelevant to current legal issues. States could have official state religions and have public schools that taught that religion. They could also have slavery. So what? That’s the past.

            Parents wished for their children to be educated with a Christian–though arguably non-sectarian–frame of mind.

            Uh, no. First, the US has never been 100% Christian, and there are plenty of Christians in the past and today who don’t want public schools to teach Christianity because they would likely teach something that contradicts their own flavor of Christianity.

            Literally millions of parents paid taxes for their children to attend public schools which required prayer along with all their other studies.

            Like I said, you have no respect for genuine religious freedom.

            Interestingly, numerous Presidents and Chief Justices of the Supreme Court certainly knew about these schools–likely many of them sent their own children to these same schools–and found no Constitutional difficulties to warrant forbidding such things legally.

            So what? It’s unconstitutional. Now you’re just whining.

            I’m sorry, but I don’t have the time to trace down every lawsuit about bibles or student prayer I can remember. I do not have ready access to a law library. Given your sentiments thus far, I do not believe using my time for such an effort would prove much.

            In other words, you won’t bother to back up your own claims.

            If you have an interest in being as open-minded as a secularist usually insists, I suggest you do some digging on your own.

            I don’t make up nonexistent problems like your “bible prohibited from public school libraries”.

            I notice that you’re willing to allow for prayer, so long as such does not threaten the secular monopoly currently dominant in schools.

            What are you babbling about now?

            Incidentally, the designation of the Ten Commandments as “foreign” law generally implies that these come from another nation.

            Like the Middle East. Yes. That’s foreign.

            It would be wise to recognize that most of our nation’s current laws, such as those regarding murder, theft, and other laws,derive from those same Ten Commandments.

            Nonsense. Laws against murder and theft predate Christianity and Judaism, and exist in pretty much every legal system. Your favorite religion doesn’t get to claim it invented laws against murder and stealing.

            Finally, the distinction about student acts and government official acts is the typical hypocrisy of secularists again.

            No, it’s vital. I see you can’t distinguish between them even when it’s pointed out.

            You would be well advised to learn about the First Amendment without resorting to secular revisionism.

            Apparently, to you, “secular revisionism” means current case law. I’ll stick with reality.

          • John Flaherty says:

            OK, one last try, in an effort to keep things within the bounds of reality.

            First off, recall that we cannot legitimately interpret the Constitution however we may wish. Something is not unconstitutional merely because your or I say so.

            Knowing that, I mention the idea of Presidents and Supreme Court Justices because…these were the men who first had responsibility to interpret the Constitution. After all, they wrote and/or ratified this Law of the Land in the first place. They would know very well what the law said, what it meant, and how to enact it. They did not forbid teacher-led prayer, nor other noticeably religious acts. In fact, the Congress has recognized a chaplain since the beginning. Had We wished to be a secular nation in the manner secularists insist, We would never have tolerated this.
            For that matter, nobody seems to have assumed that secular principles should hold sway regarding slavery. Northern politicians and ministers railed against slavery as moral abomination…from the Bible. Southern politicians and ministers railed in support of slavery as virtuous…from the Bible. Neither side, including Presidents and Justices still, seemed to have felt that religion should play no role. Their interpretation of “secularism” appears to have required that various faithful people should not be compelled to attend anothers’ church or held accountable to anothers’ catechism. They still expected Christian norms to influence law intensely. …Even if they didn’t follow those same principles very well all the time.

            I agree that the nation has always experienced an influence from secular, atheistic, agnostic, rationalistic, or other factions. I notice though that nobody appears to have acted to forbid school prayer from 1789 to 1954. For some 170 years or so, neither We, the People, nor any of our governing or presiding authorities, objected to teacher-led prayer in schools. The only example I have heard of in which the Court restrained anything came when ruling that Massachusetts could not require Catholic children to learn Protestant theology in public schools. Even that ruling exclusively forbade requiring Catholics to learn Protestant faith, it did not forbid teacher-led prayer–even though such surely had been happening–nor the existence of bibles in schools.

            You are correct in thinking that laws predating Christianity have forbidden murder and theft. I don’t think such is terribly relevant though. I have never seen evidence that Our laws came from Buddhism, Taoism, Druidism, ancient Greek or Roman gods, Egyptian gods, or even tribal influences. No, they came from Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal, which were Christian nations. And, since the Ten Commandments predate all of these nations, We can’t honestly dismiss them as “foreign” because…Our ancestors brought these Commandments with Them. Had they been written by the modern-day Israelis, Saudis, or someone else in that region, you might have a point there. As it is, these groups did not write the Commandments, so they can’t be branded as “foreign” incursions.

            Finally, I am well aware that many Christians have accepted the nonsense about Church-State separation as promoted by secular interests. I think it very sad that many have abandoned part of their American heritage, but they have. Over time, perhaps we will remind enough people of Our common religious birthright to restore some semblance of an expectation of morals. Sadly, many will suffer far more without these tenets before this happens.

            BTW, no I don’t know for certain if bibles have ever been legally forbidden in public schools. Assuming such records still exist, I think they would be difficult to find on the internet now, as I recall most of that from the 80’s and early 90’s. Such does not mean though that these cases never happened. Mostly it means that secular advocates do not wish to admit to these issues, so they certainly will not be easily found.

            I am also well aware that most secular advocates have no intention of surrendering a scrap of the secular juggernaut without being compelled to do so. Given how… anemic… most clergy tend to be these days, we will be compelled to tolerate secular ignorance and prejudice for a long time to come.

          • Brian Westley says:

            They would know very well what the law said, what it meant, and how to enact it.

            Read what Madison wrote about the first amendment. In his view, it even prohibited congress from having official chaplains.

            They did not forbid teacher-led prayer

            Because states, not the federal government, ran public schools. And, as I’ve already written, states could have official state religions and have their school teach that religion as true.

            nor other noticeably religious acts.

            Read Madison.

            In fact, the Congress has recognized a chaplain since the beginning. Had We wished to be a secular nation in the manner secularists insist, We would never have tolerated this.

            Madison was against it, but congress didn’t listen.

            I notice though that nobody appears to have acted to forbid school prayer from 1789 to 1954.

            So what?

            For some 170 years or so, neither We, the People, nor any of our governing or presiding authorities, objected to teacher-led prayer in schools.

            I guess you don’t know about the Philadelphia bible riots of the 1840s.
            Anti-Catholic agitation increased in the early 1840s, organized in part around a perceived threat to the Bible in the public schools. Catholic Bishop Francis Patrick Kenrick (1796-1863), an Irish immigrant himself, objected to Protestant teachers’ leading students in singing Protestant hymns and requiring them to read from the King James Bible.

            You are correct in thinking that laws predating Christianity have forbidden murder and theft. I don’t think such is terribly relevant though.

            Well, I do. The commandments order you what god to worship, which violates the first amendment.

            Finally, I am well aware that many Christians have accepted the nonsense about Church-State separation as promoted by secular interests.

            And it’s case law.

            I think it very sad that many have abandoned part of their American heritage, but they have.

            Like I keep pointing out, you do not respect genuine religious freedom. You prefer government imposition of religion.

            BTW, no I don’t know for certain if bibles have ever been legally forbidden in public schools. Assuming such records still exist, I think they would be difficult to find on the internet now, as I recall most of that from the 80’s and early 90’s. Such does not mean though that these cases never happened. Mostly it means that secular advocates do not wish to admit to these issues, so they certainly will not be easily found.

            Now you’re just trying to backpedal over your nonsense claim.

            I am also well aware that most secular advocates have no intention of surrendering a scrap of the secular juggernaut without being compelled to do so.

            You do know that “secular” just means not religious, don’t you? I don’t want a theocratic government, and most Americans don’t, either. Most of us are smart enough to realize that it might not be your favorite religion running things.

          • John Flaherty says:

            “I don’t want a theocratic government, and most Americans don’t, either.
            Most of us are smart enough to realize that it might not be your
            favorite religion running things.”

            LOL!
            You already have a theocratic government, just not a theocracy that you’ll admit. Whether your “god” may be rationalism, progressivism, atheism, agnosticism, secularism, or something else, you believe in something that you intend that you and others shall follow. You preach values with all the passion of the typical religious fanatic.

            I do wish you all the best.

          • Brian Westley says:

            You can’t just make up your own definition of “theocracy”.

            Whether your “god” may be rationalism, progressivism, atheism, agnosticism, secularism, or something else, you believe in something that you intend that you and others shall follow.

            Now you’re just lying about me.

          • John Flaherty says:

            “You can’t just make up your own definition of ‘theocracy'”.

            Neither can you.
            Many barbs directed against “theocracy” insist on treating Christian beliefs in the same manner that we would view Sharia law. Trouble is, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate any serious similarity between Sharia law as imposed overseas and anything most Christians believe. If anything, barbs come about because someone dares suggest that following every sexual passion we have isn’t a good thing, or because some public official dares to pray publicly with (often mostly Christian) constituents.

            Most of the diatribe I hear against religion in public comes about because some small group of people despise any suggestion that We might not be the supreme power in the universe. Because they are “offended”, nobody may pray.

            Whether you’ll admit to the act or not, you may rest assured that “secularism” has become it’s own form of religion. Essentially, the secularist believes in…nothing. There’s nothing you CAN believe in.

          • John Flaherty says:

            Hmm. Perhaps I ought to rephrase part of that slightly:

            The vast majority of barbs I have heard about “theocracy” mostly come about because someone hates the idea that they might be compelled to restrain themselves from following some sort of passion that people generally recognize as harmful or sinful.

            It has nothing to do with seeking to be a secular nation or anything else. Mostly it has to do with a demand to be given license to act as one may wish, with no legal consequences.

            Effectively, while no secularist will admit it, it’s a demand that we simply abolish any law that the secularist doesn’t like.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty: The vast majority of commenting Dominionist Christians (like yourself) make sweeping ill-informed assumptions about atheists that contradict the reality of atheism and the expressed interests and opinions of atheists.

          • John Flaherty says:

            In various arguments with atheists, Mr. T, the only view really proposed is…they reject belief in God. Various atheists may propose one or another view as an alternative, sometimes contradicting each other, but they all come back insisting that the God of Christian proposal does not exist, does not influence the world, whatever. All the opinions from atheists I have ever heard most truly come down to that.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty:

            they reject belief in God.

            Correction. There is a difference between rejecting and lacking belief in something. Atheists lack a belief in a god or gods.

            but they all come back insisting that the God of Christian proposal does
            not exist, does not influence the world, whatever. All the opinions
            from atheists I have ever heard most truly come down to that.

            This is notably different from your earlier assertion regarding sin and selfish motivation.

          • John Flaherty says:

            “There is a difference between rejecting and lacking belief in something.”
            Only if you insist on splitting hairs. The latter may declare that he lacks belief in God or gods because he has yet to be convinced that any such entity exists or for some other cause. The former may declare that he rejects the existence of any Supreme Being because he insists on declaring that, in accord with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, that the universe has expanded from the Big Bang, that humans and other animals evolved from a lightning strike in the ocean having struck a protein slime, or for some other cause.

            Both will insist, in one form or another, that any mention of a religious sentiment is unconstitutional for some reason or other.
            For the purposes of this debate, such distinctions don’t hold much weight.

            “This is notably different from your earlier assertion regarding sin and selfish motivation.”

            Without knowing which of my assertions you refer to, it’s difficult to address this comment. I don’t think I have contradicted my previous statements though.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty: For accuracy, this hair needs to be split. If it’s not then you might converse with atheists based on a false impression.

            Both will insist, in one form or another, that any mention of a
            religious sentiment is unconstitutional for some reason or other.
            For the purposes of this debate, such distinctions don’t hold much weight.

            I disagree. It is the basis of the discussion that you’ve chosen to engage in. I suggest that you not blithely dismiss it if you honestly wish to engage in discourse.

            Without knowing which of my assertions you refer to, it’s difficult to address this comment.

            “The vast majority of barbs I have heard about “theocracy” mostly come
            about because someone hates the idea that they might be compelled to
            restrain themselves from following some sort of passion that people
            generally recognize as harmful or sinful.”

            This is the text that is different from your follow-up. I know many atheists and none of them oppose a theocracy based on your simplified assertion.

          • John Flaherty says:

            Um, yes, I’m well aware that you disagree. …You wouldn’t be writing otherwise.

            No, we don’t need to split these hairs. Two–or more–groups of groups of people may dispute what is meant by “atheism” precisely. So be it. Especially given the founding of the nation, We, the People, do not have an obligation to dispense with Our generally Judeo-Christian principles to satisfy those who deny the merit of those same principles.
            I would say that has been the essential case I have been making for the past few days.
            I notice that secularists and atheists have suffered few, if any, compunctions about imposing lack of belief on the general populace.

            “This is the text that is different from your follow-up.”

            Not in the slightest. If atheists you have spoken with could accept the ideas I proposed, I have argued many other atheists who DO object.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty:

            You wouldn’t be writing otherwise.

            Incorrect. I’ve posted my agreement when called for. Sometime agreeing with one part of a comment and disagreeing with another.

            No, we don’t need to split these hairs. Two–or more–groups of groups
            of people may dispute what is meant by “atheism” precisely.

            If you’re conversing with another person with different concepts of the subject matter, then you are functionally talking past each other. An agreement regarding terminology is needed.

            Especially given the founding of the nation, We, the People, do not have
            an obligation to dispense with Our generally Judeo-Christian principles
            to satisfy those who deny the merit of those same principles.

            Nobody is asking you to do so. Just recognize that our national structure and law is based on Enlightenment principles. Expecting other citizen to comport to your Judeo-Christian principles would be the same as an Islamic cleric expecting your mother to wear a headscarf when our nation doesn’t impose Sharia law. You can hold yourself to whatever additional principles you wish, but don’t expect others to follow your example.

            I notice that secularists and atheists have suffered few, if any,
            compunctions about imposing lack of belief on the general populace.

            So you are claiming that an atheistic lack of belief is being imposed? Please validate your currently baseless claim.

            Not in the slightest. If atheists you have spoken with could accept the
            ideas I proposed, I have argued many other atheists who DO object.

            Given that you voiced a carelessness with terminology, I’m inclined to suspect that you misunderstood what they were expressing.

          • John Flaherty says:

            “I’ve posted my agreement when called for.”

            As have I. In general though, the vast majority of comments that I have read or written expressed disagreement with another’s opinion. My comment reflects this reality.

            “…recognize that our national structure and law is based on Enlightenment principles. Expecting other citizen to comport to your Judeo-Christian principles…”

            Our nation’s Enlightenment principles emphasized a more Deistic view than one explicitly Christian, sure. Even this Deism embraced more of a Judeo-Christian frame of mind than a secularistic, atheistic, or agnostic idea. We, the People, have already reached an agreement regarding terminology and have lived by the agreement since before 1789. Many atheists, agnostics, and secularists refuse to admit to this agreement, instead insisting that We now redefine terms according to a secularistic worldview. We, the People, have no obligation to comply, even if many secularists will insist they suffer degradation as citizens.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty:

            Even this Deism embraced more of a Judeo-Christian frame of mind than a secularistic, atheistic, or agnostic idea.

            I don’t see how you draw that conclusion when…

            We, the People, have already reached an agreement regarding terminology and have lived by the agreement since before 1789.

            Secular terminology, invoking authority being granted by the people of this nation and not a god, being a drastic divergence from nearly every governmental structure that preceded The US.

            Many atheists, agnostics, and secularists refuse to admit to this
            agreement, instead insisting that We now redefine terms according to a
            secularistic worldview

            Well, this is a secular nation peopled by a religious plurality that includes non-theists.

            We, the People, have no obligation to comply, even if many secularists will insist they suffer degradation as citizens.

            I appreciate your honesty regarding your divisive and unreasonable interests. I am an atheist, an advocate for secular government, and a member of “We, the People” that you are dismissing in favor of antipathy and animosity based on your religion. …not unlike radical followers of Islam.

          • John Flaherty says:

            I am well aware that you are an atheist, an advocate for secular government as you define it. If the terminology We used might be “secular” from the beginning, such terminology exclusively aimed at ensuring that law would not be defined for all from an explicitly Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish point of view. As noted to Mr. Westley, We, the People, as a whole, have chosen a Judeo-Christian view of life and law for Our nation from Our founding. We have never chosen to legally forbid religion from exercising a role in public life or law.
            As I (also) told Mr. Westley, if you so choose to consider yourself…infringed…because We, the People, do not hold Ourselves accountable to your views, if you choose to consider us divisive or unreasonable because We don’t assume your “religion-free” worldview…so be it.
            We will tolerate your gnashing of teeth and hurling of epithets. We will not bow to your intent to refashion the Constitution.

            Good night.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty:

            I am well aware that you are an atheist, an advocate for secular government as you define it.

            Those are two different qualities. There are Christians, Muslims, and followers of other faiths who recognize and appreciate the benefits of a secular (religiously neutral) government.

            If the terminology We used might be “secular” from the beginning, such
            terminology exclusively aimed at ensuring that law would not be defined
            for all from an explicitly Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish point of
            view.

            That is the case. No religion or denomination is favored or given special recognition.

            As noted to Mr. Westley, We, the People, as a whole, have chosen a
            Judeo-Christian view of life and law for Our nation from Our founding.

            Currently this is a baseless claim. Can you validate this claim?

            We have never chosen to legally forbid religion from exercising a role in public life or law.

            Correct. Our secular government recognizes the right of citizens to follow and practice whatever faith they wish. Our government isn’t a citizen and is prohibited from exercising religious rights.

            As I (also) told Mr. Westley, if you so choose to consider
            yourself…infringed…because We, the People, do not hold Ourselves
            accountable to your views, if you choose to consider us divisive or
            unreasonable because We don’t assume your “religion-free” worldview…so
            be it.

            I’m not aware of any atheist person or group trying to hold others to atheist views. The FFRF holds our government to The Establishment Clause. Our government violating that clause impacts your religious rights and mine.

            We will not bow to your intent to refashion the Constitution.

            There is no such intent. You’re probably mistaking the removal of an undeserved privilege as oppression.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/88ebcf2dd908a2a297b7a73eb5e94c0b954c3fbbc4131d0d493056027c53772d.jpg

          • John Flaherty says:

            I have already properly disputed most of these claims in my comments to Mr. Westleys statements. I have no need to repeat myself.
            As to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, I have heard of this group; I think it deplorable. So many are insistent about rejecting belief in anything besides man or “reasoned thought”.

            Tragic though this may be, the same First Amendment guarantees you the right to speak and live your bilge without restraint.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty: You’ve disputed these claims in discussion with Brian Westley. You haven’t done so properly. I note a false dichotomy in your comments.

            As to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, I have heard of this group; I
            think it deplorable. So many are insistent about rejecting belief in
            anything besides man or “reasoned thought”.

            It’s your choice to think something is deplorable. I think it’s deplorable to think your religious beliefs should be imposed on others because you disagree with their life decisions that don’t violate any law.

            Tragic though this may be, the same First Amendment guarantees you the right to speak and live your bilge without restraint.

            I’m equal parts offended by your religiously motivated arrogance, but I would defend the rights you share with me to spew such bilious dreck even if you won’t act like a considerate citizen by defending our shared rights in kind.

          • John Flaherty says:

            Be offended by the “arrogance” of myself or others if you wish. Even if you despise religion or religious principle in law or government, We, the People, have every right to define “considerate citizenship” and “shared rights” as including religious ideals.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty:

            Even if you despise religion or religious principle in law or government

            Please remember that your religion isn’t the source of laws prohibiting homicide or theft, for example. Those were found in many successful societies and cultures that predate Christianity.

            We, the People, have every right to define “considerate citizenship” and “shared rights” as including religious ideals.

            In application to yourself, sure. Imposing religious actions and rules on people who don’t share your faith using government authority violates The Establishment Clause.

          • John Flaherty says:

            Sadly, I find secularists insist on promoting this intellectually dishonest nonsense.
            If you wish to point to pre-Christian societies which forbade various acts, you can also point to slightly more modern societies which also forbade various acts. Tribal peoples such as Iriquois, Huron, Cherokee, and Mohican are known to have inhabited lands that became part of the United States.
            Even these did not found this nation, nor did their values inspire Our laws. This nation was founded by those with Judeo-Christian views, even as thin as Deism. We, the People, have lived according to this founding since before We finally ratified the Constitution in 1789.

            As for the Establishment Clause, We included this as a means of forbidding something like the Church of England from being imposed. Sadly, secularist intentions have created our own de facto Church of the United States. When you forbid any religious precepts from being recognized by government, you inherently create secular “religion” by virtue of demanding that secular views (also known as political correctness) to be the legally obligated source of law, a stumbling block that all lives must work around.

            In short, secular interests have revised matters so badly as to willingly violate the very Amendment they insist they uphold.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty:

            Sadly, I find secularists insist on promoting this intellectually dishonest nonsense.
            If
            you wish to point to pre-Christian societies which forbade various
            acts, you can also point to slightly more modern societies which also
            forbade various acts. Tribal peoples such as Iriquois, Huron, Cherokee,
            and Mohican are known to have inhabited lands that became part of the
            United States.

            I don’t see why you’re dismissing this as nonsense. By referencing more cultures unrelated to Christianity you validate my point.

            nor did their values inspire Our laws.

            Incorrect

            As for the Establishment Clause, We included this as a means of
            forbidding something like the Church of England from being imposed.
            Sadly, by refusing to define any group of secular principles as
            “religion”, but demanding that such secular principles guide law and
            life in lieu of any well-defined religious principle, you inherently
            create the very matter the Amendment aimed to forbid.

            No, you imagine that to be the case. It’s a common method to try and associate one structure to a dissimilar structures in an effort to understand. For example, when learning to ride a motorcycle I had to link actions that I knew from driving a car to operating a different set of controls that don’t directly relate. It’s not a bad thing to do. Where your making a mistake is insisting that you religion and a secular government are directly analogous instead of learning more about the differences.

          • John Flaherty says:

            Judeo-Christian values are well known to have been taught and practiced by people and expected in government action and law for some time before We wrote the Constitution. If you wish to insist that some other set of values exercised greater influence, you are welcome to demonstrate such influence.

            I am well acquainted with the differences between governmental and religious…apparatus. I am also well acquainted with secular insistence that lack of religion cannot be, itself, an assertion of values, morals, or anything else that could be construed as “religion”. We, the People, have never been obligated to agree with this appraisal. Whatever motive or knowledge it might be that the secularist would wish to use to inspire law or act, We, the People, have never been compelled to agree to these terms.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty:

            Judeo-Christian values are well known to have been taught and practiced
            by people and expected in government action and law for some time before
            We wrote the Constitution.

            Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

            I’ve already explained that the laws and values in our national structure are not exclusive intellectual property of Christianity. Evidence being the lack of ridiculous laws prohibiting idol worship not being in our national structure or law. Even the Mosaic law regarding adultery isn’t a national law.

            We, the People, have never been obligated to agree with this appraisal.

            Saying “We, the People” includes me as I am a citizen. I suggest that you stop claiming to speak for me in this way.

          • John Flaherty says:

            *chuckles*
            We do say “Judeo-Christian” for a reason, Mr. T. Our laws were never explicitly Jewish nor Christian, but a nationally accepted blend of both. That being the case, Our laws have no need to have been exclusive intellectual property of Christendom; We never said they were.
            If you cannot name another source of law that exercised greater influence in Our law than Judeo-Christian view, your objection to this appraisal fails.

            We, the People, have every right to refer to Our country as a Judeo-Christian nation in accord with these circumstances. If you choose to exclude yourself from this designation because you consider this a violation of your rights as an atheist, so be it. As stated previously, We, the People, have no obligation to abandon Our principles to satisfy your loathing for Our ideas.

            Have a good night.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty: *chuckles back*

            Why are you assuming that I was making some distinction between Jewish and Christian religions?

            Our laws were never explicitly Jewish nor Christian

            Nor any other religion.

            If you cannot name another source of law that exercised greater influence in Our law than Judeo-Christian view, your objection to this appraisal fails.

            Enlightenment principles are based on moral and ethical concepts that are religion independent, but have a place in many religions.

            We, the People, have every right to refer to Our country as a Judeo-Christian nation in accord with these circumstances.

            You have a right to claim that you’re emperor of the world. Other citizens have a right to ignore you. You have no authority to speak for all US citizens by using “We, the People”. I know many Christians, atheists and non-believers, several Muslims, and one Zoroastrian who I know that you do not speak for.

            If you choose to exclude yourself from this designation because you consider this a violation of your rights as an atheist, so be it.

            I’m correcting your unjustified usage of a sweeping declaration made on behalf of people who have never heard of you.

            As stated previously, We, the People, have no obligation to abandon Our principles to satisfy your loathing for Our ideas.

            Nobody is asking you to. Just don’t expect others to adopt your principles because you think they should.

          • John Flaherty says:

            That Enlightenment to which you refer happened in Europe, which was primarily motivated by Judeo-Christian ideals. It’s true enough that Druidic, Celtic, and various other ideas were about–I even recall reading about salons in France in which “eliltes” debated various ideas of rationalism. Much this last came after the Reformation kicked off. None can be honestly said to have motivated the laws and cultures of the Peoples of the continent. Even a rebellion against Church authority (Protestantism) does not constitute an intent to abandon Christian ideals.

            We could even agree that some of the founders rigorously opposed allowing any religious idea from being allowed in a government activity. Mr. Westley had made that point too. However true these ideas may be, they do not negate the idea that We, the People, had founded this nation on generally Judeo-Christian philosophical ideas. We had the chance to decide against this when We founded the nation. We did not.

            I understand the outrage at being compelled to subordinate part of one’s own beliefs to those of a larger group of people. Certainly there are matters of law that I think present moral ideas only very poorly. As of yet though, We, the People, have not agreed to live by a more strict interpretation. We will need to struggle on with more ignorance than I would like.

            Find all manner of causes that you wish, your case still does not demonstrate that this nation has ever sought to be secular according to your definition.
            Incidentally, I’m surprised you didn’t howl about how my case could be argued to exclude Islamic ideas. I think the best answer will be to recognize that We do have a Judeo-Christian founding, not secular. We will consider adjusting Our laws to meet Islamic needs so long as doing so does not conflict with the larger population’s intent toward Judeo-Christian ideas.

            Who knows? Maybe the challenge of Islam will provoke more Jewish and Christian groups to better remember what their faith actually teaches, giving them cause to better exercise their religious rights. I have long held the thought that the secular mania We see today came about in part because too many lacked the nerve to insist on upholding the rights of their own faith tradition.

            We are intended to be arguing intensely amongst Ourselves regarding what moral laws We will agree to live by. We are not intended to be forbidding any moral ideal from being enacted because “Church/State Separation” demands We should.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty:

            That Enlightenment to which you refer happened in Europe, which was primarily motivated by Judeo-Christian ideals.

            If Judeo-Christian ideals comport to principles of human reason, then good for those religions. Human reason was the basis of The Enlightenment. Christians were involved. Correlation does not imply causation.

            had founded this nation on generally Judeo-Christian philosophical ideas.

            Can you identify philosophical ideas that are exclusive to Judaism or Christianity? Again, just because Christianity assumed various laws and principles from Zoroastrianism or The Code of Hammurabi doesn’t mean they can assume credit for those concepts.

            Find all manner of causes that you wish, your case still does not
            demonstrate that this nation has ever sought to be secular according to
            your definition.

            My definition is equal religious rights for all citizens, and our government being prohibited from assuming religious rights as that automatically impacts citizen religious rights.

            That is our national secular structure.

            Do you think that’s somehow unfair or unjust? What issue do you have with this definition?

          • John Flaherty says:

            Our nation has never embraced secular structure in the manner you suggest. Your definition of “equal religious rights” has typically forbidden any law from being enacted if a minority–however small–might insist that the law violates their rights as they define them. Simply put, your definition would inherently required that secularists be allowed to exercise the “privilege” you accuse Christians of wielding and abusing.

            Such an approach cannot be reconciled with the history of the nation. Enlightenment principles arguably aided in developing a more vigorous understanding of how religion or religious precepts might be misapplied or abused. Such would be just that though, supplementing Judeo-Christian ideas. Not replacing them, as your argument would insist.
            (Incidentally, social and political commentators have noted how Islam has need to undergo it’s own “Enlightenment period” to be capable of properly contributing to Unites States culture, law, and custom.)

            Given that Our founders included religion in an Amendment that they wrote, I think they knew well about the benefits and dangers of religious ideals. Had they chosen, they could have required religion to be forbidden from exercising any real influence on law or culture at both Federal and State levels. They could have demanded greater emphasis on the human reason you emphasize. They could have required a different understanding of “establishment” from what I have explained.

            History shows they did not. History shows that religion exercised significant influence on much of Our nation’s law and culture, including expectations of how Our government officials might act from before the final State ratified the Constitution.

            By the way, for all that this debate has been interesting, I have forsaken other matters while engaged with this. Given that We do not appear to have much more to say on this subject without repeating Ourselves over and over, I must bow out.
            Goodbye.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty:

            Our nation has never embraced secular structure in the manner you
            suggest.

            Incorrect. All religions are given equal treatment. Cases of special privilege are corrected based on The Establishment Clause.

            Your definition of “equal religious rights” has typically
            forbidden any law from being enacted if a minority–however small–might
            insist that the law violates their rights as they define them.

            Incorrect. The definition is from The Constitution and court precedent.

            Simply
            put, your definition would inherently required that secularists be
            allowed to exercise the “privilege” you accuse Christians of wielding
            and abusing.

            Incorrect. Our government is equally prohibited regarding any religion. Citizens all have equally recognized religious rights. This is why Satanists can install a monument on government property when Christians install a monument first. The Christian privilege opens the door for other religions as they are all treated equally in our secular nation.

            Given that Our founders included
            religion in an Amendment that they wrote, I think they knew well about
            the benefits and dangers of religious ideals. Had they chosen, they
            could have required religion to be forbidden from exercising any real
            influence on law or culture at both Federal and State levels. They could
            have demanded greater emphasis on the human reason you emphasize. They
            could have required a different understanding of “establishment” from
            what I have explained.

            Correct. But what they did put is place was a big improvement on every other government at the time that had a strong connection to one religion or another. Many of our founders realized that strong connection leaned towards religious conflict, imposition, and bloodshed.

            History shows
            that religion exercised significant influence on much of Our nation’s
            law and culture, including expectations of how Our government officials
            might act from before the final State ratified the Constitution.

            Yes. Not exactly in the way that you’re apparently thinking.

            By
            the way, for all that this debate has been interesting, I have forsaken
            other matters while engaged with this. Given that We do not appear to
            have much more to say on this subject without repeating Ourselves over
            and over, I must bow out.

            Debate? I’ve just been correcting errors. I’m sure that you’re unwilling to consider a different perspective, but I’m using you to provide clearer information to comment readers who are more able and willing to educate themselves regarding 1st Amendment rights and religious equality.

          • John Flaherty says:

            LOL! I also have used this exchange for the sake of others. I challenge everyone to investigate precisely the extent of the truth and clarity of your proposals, and mine.
            I think when People see what all you mean by “religious equality”, they have ample cause to think twice–or more–about following your lead.
            May God bless you.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty: Yes, religious equality independent of government impositions. The government has no religious rights. If it did, citizen rights are automatically maligned to make room for that 800 pound gorilla.

            Thus, The FFRF opposes government impositions and endorsement of religion.

            For any curious parties, please search for the following…

            The Lemon Test

            Lemon v Kurtzman

            Wallace v Jaffree

            Engel v Vitale

            Ahlquist v Cranston

          • John Flaherty says:

            Curious parties will notice that each of these cases presents an example wherein government–the Judicial branch–imposed intolerance for faith on all the People. Because a very few, but very loud secular voices hated the idea that anyone else might not follow secular ideas, the People were deprived of their fundamental right to pray in any manner.

            Whatever Mr. T or others may insist to the contrary, these are gross violations of what the First Amendment intended.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty: Inaccurate summation based on a biased, and apparently paranoid perspective.

            The Judicial branch held a agent of The US Government to The Establishment Clause. Nothing is inhibiting the ability of citizens to practice their faith.

          • John Flaherty says:

            Spin these cases and the Establishment Clause however you wish, Mr. T. They still expose a secular bias which the People have never approved.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty: It’s not spin. I find it interesting that you think equal treatment of religion (secular) can be a bias. This indicates to me that you advocate unequal and prejudice treatment of religions that you don’t like. Please prove me wrong. I’d like to think that my fellow countrymen are civil and reasonable.

          • John Flaherty says:

            I do, indeed, advocate unequal and prejudiced treatment of religions…according to your definition. I have emphasized how I consider that We, the People, have never agreed to be bound by your definition. We have carried on with the Judeo-Christian founding of the nation in spite of secular attitudes.

            We have tolerated many abuses by the Judiciary in the last six decades. I do hope We will see these corrected in my lifetime.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty: Again, your usage of “We, the People” falsely implies an authority to speak for others that you don’t have.

            We have carried on with the Judeo-Christian founding of the nation in spite of secular attitudes.

            Sure. Impose whatever Judeo-Christian restrictions on yourself that you’d like. Imposing them on others is an arrogant exercise of authority that you have no justification for.

            If you don’t understand, how would you feel if your mother were ordered to wear an Islamic headscarf by an agent of our government before ordering you to bow towards Mecca? You are expressing Christian versions of this mentality.

          • John Flaherty says:

            “You are expressing Christian versions of this mentality.”

            …And you have expressed the secular versions of this mentality. That’s fine. Nobody has any obligation to agree with either of us. Respective camps will gather on respective sides and from differing angles, same as always.
            I suspect this fight will continue for a long time to come.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty:

            …And you have expressed the secular versions of this mentality.

            Sure. I demand that all citizens have equal religious rights. Radical secular views (^_^)

          • John Flaherty says:

            Curious parties will note that, whatever Mr T may insist, these are cases wherein government imposed secular attitudes on all of the People, in direct defiance to the obvious wishes of those same People.

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty: Inaccurate summation based on a biased, and apparently paranoid perspective.

            The Judicial branch held a agent of The US Government to The Establishment Clause.

            A person who agreed to act on behalf of the government was imposing a religious activity using their government granted position of authority.

          • John Flaherty says:

            Hmm. This is a little worrisome: I placed two separate posts here (I actually liked the second better), but neither shows up now.
            Why?

          • George T says:

            John Flaherty: I’d like to assume that this websites BS sensor flagged your comments, but I honestly don’t know.

            EDIT: I can see them.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Tribal peoples such as Iriquois, Huron, Cherokee, and Mohican are known to have inhabited lands that became part of the United States.

            Even these did not found this nation, nor did their values inspire Our laws.

            The 100th congress (1988) disagreed with you:
            https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/hconres331.pdf
            To acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of the United States Constitution and to reaffirm the continuing government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States established in the Constitution.

            Whereas the original framers of the Constitution, including most notably, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are known to have greatly admired the concepts, principles and governmental practices of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy; and,

            Whereas the confederation of the original Thirteen Colonies into one republic was explicitly modeled upon the Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the Constitution itself;

          • Brian Westley says:

            I have already properly disputed most of these claims in my comments to Mr. Westleys statements.

            Well no, but you can pretend that, just like you can pretend your god exists.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Neither can you.

            I’m not. Having government officials tell other people’s children what religion to follow is a theocracy.

            Many barbs directed against “theocracy” insist on treating Christian beliefs in the same manner that we would view Sharia law. Trouble is, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate any serious similarity between Sharia law as imposed overseas and anything most Christians believe.

            The real trouble is, you wouldn’t mind having your religious laws imposed on you, because you follow them anyway. That’s why you can’t even see the problem.

            If anything, barbs come about because someone dares suggest that following every sexual passion we have isn’t a good thing

            Right there, I can safely bet that you want to control other people’s “sexual passions”, even if they don’t affect you or other people.

            Most of the diatribe I hear against religion in public comes about because some small group of people despise any suggestion that We might not be the supreme power in the universe. Because they are “offended”, nobody may pray.

            Well, now you’re just lying. I’ve been trying to hammer into your thick skull that students CAN pray in public schools. You are apparently too dumb to understand what the issues are.

            And “offense” has nothing to do with it. That’s as imaginary as your “no bibles in school libraries” fantasy.

            Whether you’ll admit to the act or not, you may rest assured that “secularism” has become it’s own form of religion.

            There’s that usual, tired, stupid equivocation again.

            Essentially, the secularist believes in…nothing. There’s nothing you CAN believe in.

            You’d prefer people make up supernatural beings?

          • John Flaherty says:

            Wow. It really IS all about license.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Wow. You really WANT to control other people’s lives.

            You’ve failed now, and you’ll continue to fail in the future.

            PS: where’s a school library that has removed the bible due to a lawsuit?

          • John Flaherty says:

            “You really WANT to control other people’s lives.”

            If you didn’t also, secular advocates would never have a problem with teaching chastity and abstinence alongside “safe” sex.

            This link discusses the impact that removing religion from schools has brought about. While it doesn’t specifically declare when a particular school removed a bible from a library, it does imply that such has been legally compelled.

            http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/education-expert-removing-bible-prayer-public-schools-has-caused-decline

          • Brian Westley says:

            “You really WANT to control other people’s lives.”
            If you didn’t also

            So, you admit it.

            secular advocates would never have a problem with teaching chastity and abstinence alongside “safe” sex.

            I don’t, not as long as they’re not taught as the only way, or taught as if it’s a religious requirement. But you have no trouble lying about me and saying my views must match your delusions about fictional “secular advocates”.

            This link discusses the impact that removing religion from schools has brought about. While it doesn’t specifically declare when a particular school removed a bible from a library, it does imply that such has been legally compelled.

            It doesn’t say that at all. Like many other people who can’t read, you see a ruling that bible readings during classtime has been struck down, and somehow think that means that bibles have been entirely removed from the school library.

            You’re just lying at this point.

          • John Flaherty says:

            I’m not sure there’s much left to say without rehashing the same arguments, Mr. Westley. I have offered you plenty of evidence to demonstrate how We, the People, have generally sought to be Judeo-Christian nation, including in law. In response, you have insistently declared that the nation’s history and law must always be viewed through a secular lens. I don’t believe there’s much evidence to substantiate that view, outside of Judicial bullying and an unceasingly intellectually dishonest review of the nation’s history. I also don’t think you’ll change your tune without a hellish fight.
            Sadly, I have come across this sort of mindset before. For people who will throw fits about “rights” and “imposing beliefs”, you and others are mighty determined to dictate what may be taught or stated (thus believed and acted upon) to all who disagree.
            I do hope the Court will eventually get it’s act together and remember that we need not be ruled by a secular mob.

            I do hope we’ll remember what genuine tolerance really means before we have religious riots and wars. Given what the radical factions of Islam seem intent on doing, …well, I guess we’ll hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

            I do wish you the best.

          • Brian Westley says:

            I have offered you plenty of evidence to demonstrate how We, the People, have generally sought to be Judeo-Christian nation, including in law.

            I can’t help but notice that your “We, the People” excludes me. I guess that means you don’t consider me to have the same rights as you.

            In response, you have insistently declared that the nation’s history and law must always be viewed through a secular lens.

            It’s that “no establishment” clause.

            I don’t believe there’s much evidence to substantiate that view, outside of Judicial bullying and an unceasingly intellectually dishonest review of the nation’s history.

            So you don’t like the US court system?

            I also don’t think you’ll change your tune without a hellish fight.

            I won’t change my tune even AFTER a hellish fight.

            I do hope the Court will eventually get it’s act together and remember that we need not be ruled by a secular mob.

            Or Papists like yourself, eh?

            I do hope we’ll remember what genuine tolerance really means before we have religious riots and wars.

            You’d be the one rioting.

            I do wish you the best.

            No, you wish I’d live in a theocracy of your choosing.

          • John Flaherty says:

            “It’s that ‘no establishment’ clause.”
            I’ve heard much the same argument made regarding the 2nd Amendment. I have heard people argue–meaning every word, mind you–that only a militia may possess firearms, thus private ownership is unconstitutional. Thankfully, We, the People, have rejected this nonsense.

            I’ll say this:
            If secular peoples would insist that their rights have been trampled, if secular people would insist they are oppressed, if such a view would be because We dare to recognize religion or morals in public law and life, …so be it. We will not compel you to abandon your wretched view. Neither will We agree to be bound by it. We will probably not act violently against it–We actually value your life more than that–but We will fight such idiocy when We may as best We can.

            If you wish to insist that the Church of the US has been imposed upon you against your will every time We recognize religious ideals, every time We pray, every time We act, …so be it. Secular peoples have already imposed their own acceptable idea of religion on others.

          • Brian Westley says:

            I’ve heard much the same argument made regarding the 2nd Amendment.

            Well, courts (including the supreme court) HAVE made the argument about the no establishment clause.

            You keep whining as if you’re being oppressed. You aren’t, you’re just whining that you can’t make other people obey your religious restrictions. I’ll play my tiniest violin.

          • John Flaherty says:

            Whether by the will of the People enacting an Amendment, or by later Court decisions, Court rulings have been overturned before and can be again, should such be required.
            I should think that should be obvious.
            As far as angst about my religion, We all–including you and other secularists–already follow many of my religious “restrictions”. Notably, We do not compel you or anyone else to attend a Catholic Church, confess your sins, or pray. You are free to act sinfully in any number of ways, especially sexually.
            Your howl about “religious impositions” doesn’t wash very well.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Whether by the will of the People enacting an Amendment, or by later Court decisions, Court rulings have been overturned before and can be again, should such be required.

            Good luck with that.

            I should think that should be obvious.

            You’re acting like it’s already happened. It hasn’t.

            As far as angst about my religion, We all–including you and other secularists–already follow many of my religious “restrictions”.

            No, that’s the usual stupidity of “my religion says don’t do X, so anyone not doing X is due to my religion”.

            It doesn’t work that way.

            Your howl about “religious impositions” doesn’t wash very well.

            Because your side lost. You’ve been pining for the days of imposed school prayer.

          • John Flaherty says:

            “No, that’s the usual stupidity of ‘my religion says don’t do X, so anyone not doing X is due to my religion'”.

            Odd comment. I did not suggest that if a person acts in accord with Catholic teaching that such a person even knows what Catholics teach. Obviously, a Buddhist who lives life without resorting to embezzlement does not fail to embezzle because Catholics forbid it. Obviously, he fails to embezzle funds for any of a number of other reasons; that embezzlement is a crime punishable by a jail sentence may be the least important cause of the Buddhist’s failure to embezzle.

            Mostly I’m making the point that, for all the heated rhetoric directed against any religious sentiment, …life in these United States probably would not differ tremendously from the current state of affairs. …Which does make me wonder why so many rail so bitterly against the use of any religious sentiment. I recall thinking back in the 90’s that solving the religion problem was easy: We merely legally require that each school dedicate one room to be a quiet place with books from each of the five major world religions and prayer as each student would see fit. Somehow, the secular imagination has never succeeded in considering such an approach.
            I don’t pretend to understand why, but secular views have always demanded that religion be removed from public life entirely, instead of recognizing the merit of all of them.

          • John Flaherty says:

            Hmm. Perhaps I should amend that slightly:
            If teacher-led prayer or which mentions God would be viewed as “establishment”, we could require students to recite one prayer each day from each of the five religions. Given that these five traditions teach differing ideas, no argument about favoring one or another could be taken seriously.

          • Brian Westley says:

            If teacher-led prayer or which mentions God would be viewed as “establishment”, we could require students to recite one prayer each day from each of the five religions.

            There are only five religions???

            Wrong.

            Given that these five traditions teach differing ideas, no argument about favoring one or another could be taken seriously.

            Sorry, you can’t get around the first amendment by pushing just five popular religions. That doesn’t fly at all.

          • Brian Westley says:

            I did not suggest that if a person acts in accord with Catholic teaching that such a person even knows what Catholics teach.

            “As far as angst about my religion, We all–including you and other secularists–already follow many of my religious “restrictions”.”

            Which does make me wonder why so many rail so bitterly against the use of any religious sentiment.

            Because you can’t understand that other people don’t want their government promoting your (or anyone else’s) religion.

            I don’t pretend to understand why, but secular views have always demanded that religion be removed from public life entirely, instead of recognizing the merit of all of them.

            Nobody “demanded that religion be removed from public life entirely”, just from OUR GOVERNMENT.

            I pointed out to you how your definition of “We, the People” excluded me. Yet you still can’t understand.

          • John Flaherty says:

            I am well aware that secularists wish for government to reject any intent that the secularist will define as based on religion. This whole debate essentially comes down to deciding what mindset will set the course for Our nation’s future. Secularists demand a change of focus to reflect a more atheistic, secularistic, or agnostic worldview. We, the People, have already decided against this, pursuing a Judeo-Christian worldview instead. I have already explained that if you consider yourself excluded from full citizenship by this view, so be it. I will not demand anyone abandon their religious principles on the basis of your refusal to admit that We do not share your sentiments.

            Now, gents, I have spent much time on this debate, and We are now rehashing previous arguments. As I have other matters to attend, I wish you a good week.

          • Brian Westley says:

            I have already explained that if you consider yourself excluded from full citizenship by this view, so be it.

            OK, so I won’t mind that the current situation excludes you. That’s your tough luck.

          • Christina says:

            I agree with you John, I just want to warn you that Mr. Wesley is not worth all your time. He has no job and has 24/7 to do nothing but Google. He thinks cause he learned some “politically correct” terms that he knows everything. America has became its own downfall, the good news is that in the end all will have to face the truth, will not be able to hide behind their cyber world in the basement. Although he is very annoying I have to say I truly feel sorry for him.

          • AZRocks CP (2012) AZ says:

            yes the US was established as a Christian nation – do not distort

          • Brian Westley says:

            No, the constitution doesn’t contain the term “Christian” and instead establishes religious freedom.

  4. III% says:

    either all religions are accommodated or no religion can’t have it both ways

  5. beckdella says:

    Who the hell decided to do this????? Tell them to go to a muslim country to prostrate themselves and pray to a child molesting fake god. Here we worship Christ not muhammed, and God not allah. Texans need to put an end to this BS once and for all.

    • Pastor C says:

      Correct.

      Allah is the crescent moon god of the Koran, not the God of the Bible. There are no similarities between the two.

      So, since religious freedom exists for all, Christians and Jews should not be discriminated against, but are. While Muslims are accommodated at every turn.

      Also, Sharia law is completely incompatible with our Constitution. But whenever we succumb and surrender to its dictates, such as this, we surrender to Allah-which is exactly what Islamic terrorists are compelling us, by force, to do.

      • Jesussaves1226 says:

        Amen! Government run public schools only scream ‘separation of church and state’ when it involves Jesus Christ. Our Lord and Savior told us not to be surprised when the world hates us because it hated Him first. So it’s not surprising that this school is accomodating these students.

        The bottom line is: Jesus Christ is God, the One and Only True God, I AM, Yahweh! Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. (John 14:6)

        We must share the Truth with the world and have faith in our Heavenly Father who is in control of all things. God is still on His throne, and He is watching to see what we do with His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. We must not fear man, only God! We should be about His Business All the Time, regardless of what the school boards say, regarless of what the ACLU or any other godless institution says!

        I don’t care what anyone says (no offense). All that matters is what our Heavenly Father says! We must share the Gospel wherever we are because our Savior commands it. We must stop being afraid and start having Faith in the One who Saves us, Jesus Christ, KING oF Kings and LORD of Lords!

      • VisionaryHD says:

        Translate the Bible to arabic and God is reffered to as Allah. In fact every Arab christian refers to god as Allah. Allah is the name of God. God is not god. Allah is god. You’ve just commited a sin for slandering god. Moon god LOL

        • Pastor C says:

          Trolls, as expected, always evade the truth. You, entirely and intentionally, miss my point. I am fully aware of who you are and who sent you. Therefore, this is my final reply to you.

          • VisionaryHD says:

            I’m the troll? You stated Allah = the crescent moon god therefore you don’t deserve to have the rest of your statement to be heard “pastor”. Spreading ignorance. In addition, history tells us how the bible has been edited for the use of plantation owners during the times of slavery. It’s always been edited to meet the needs of man.

          • beckdella says:

            You just might be the false preachers Christ warns us of…to bad most don’t read to educate themselves from the likes of you. Allah is of Satan no matter who calls on his name, they are calling on the devil not the Creator of all things. There are many names for God in His holy word and allah aint one of them. Tares, read about them.

    • Brian Westley says:

      Who the hell decided to do this????? Tell them to go to a muslim country to prostrate themselves and pray to a child molesting fake god.

      In the USA, all religions are protected, even ones you don’t like and consider to have false gods. I suggest you learn to live with it.

      • Kelli says:

        AMEN!!!

      • beckdella says:

        Protection is one thing, favoritism is entirely different! I live with a lot I don’t like.

        • Brian Westley says:

          Protection is one thing, favoritism is entirely different!

          This isn’t favoritism; every student has the same right. Christians can get a room too, if they want one.

          • beckdella says:

            I will believe that when I see it ….. Christians are the most persecuted group there is now days…..EVERY religion comes before Christians and no, Christians are not allowed practically any activity without going to court to MAKE the govt honor their religious rights. So spare me your sad, poor, put upon, persecuted muslim sympathy.

          • Brian Westley says:

            I will believe that when I see it

            No, you won’t.

            Christians are the most persecuted group there is now days.

            Only evangelical Christians think that evangelical Christians are the most persecuted group in the US:
            http://www.prri.org/research/lgbt-transgender-bathroom-discrimination-religious-liberty/

            So spare me your sad, poor, put upon, persecuted muslim sympathy.

            Coming from a Christian, where the majority of the population is Christian, and where the vast majority of government officials are Christians, you’re hilariously paranoid.

          • beckdella says:

            and you are a useful idiot… therefore your opinion of me is completely irrelevant!

          • Brian Westley says:

            You’re just another selfish Christian.

          • “al hamdulillah, al hamdulillad!”

            It is Arabic for “Praise God” not praise allah…

          • Brian Westley says:

            What does that have to do with anything?

    • 98C3LCMT9Y4 says:

      If you you are so bigly ignorant as to want to live in a THEOCRACY, I suggest you stop attacking our Constitution and move to country that is already a THEEOCRACY. They will welcome you & your nutcase ideas with open arms and demonstrate why you are so bery bigly ignorant on so very many different levels.

      I will even take up a collection to assist you in finding that perfect country of all countries – the THEOCRACY that will meet all your needs. So, you are going to select Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia [you may even get to spend some time with the orange excrement smear or one of his sperm donations while there], Sudan, or Yemen. And don’t worry about learning the language as you won’t be alive long enough to learn more than a couple of phrases.

      • beckdella says:

        Awww, did the truth hurt your tiny liberal brain…..YOU go live with the infidels, I will stay in America where the majority of them are Christians….I stand by my beliefs, they need to go home and practice their idolatry there. You are an idiot who would probably welcome the barbarians into your home and allow them to rape and beat the women in the family, but oh, lets have pity on the muslims! Go back under your rock.

        • Kelli says:

          AMERICA = U.S. Bill of RIGHTS & CONSTITUTION. You might want to read these and learn exactly what is written and while you’re at it, read up on the Founding Fathers and their thoughts on Theocracy because with each post you continue to make yourself look like the fool you are.

        • 98C3LCMT9Y4 says:

          Sorry cupcake, but my rational well educated conservative brain is just fine.

          And you demonstrate your bigly ignorance if you do not see that our Constitution does NOT allow your deplorable “christians” to rule this great nation. As to rape & beatings – perhaps you should do a little research on the orange excrement smear you voted for. But you appear to be to bigly ignorant to understand that “christians” are the biggest threat to every other citizent of this great nation.

          And that “majority” is growing smaller & smaller each & every year – which is actually a good thing given that christiant terrorists are also getting to be a smaller & smaller percentage here. Have you never read any actualy history of the terrorist acts that your so called christianity has done over the last 2,000+ years – the vast majority of it slaughtering other christians just because they were the wrong type of “christian?”

          • beckdella says:

            Satan’s minion, that’s what you are. Plain and simple.

          • 98C3LCMT9Y4 says:

            Actually YOU are the perfect example of “satan’s minion” and should be sent back to whatever orange excrement cesspool you crawled out of and stop harming this nation and our great Constitution.

          • beckdella says:

            Project much?

  6. chris says:

    ” What makes the school so great is our diversity” Yea right, not if you’re Christian or Jewish. Mention Jesus and they freak.

  7. chris says:

    Where are all the atheist that pop up and sue schools if someone mentions Jesus or if a coach prays before a game.

    • Brian Westley says:

      Because you need to distinguish between student-instigated religion (legal) and government-employee religion (unconstitutional).

      Football players can pray, but the coach can’t pray with them, because the coach is a government employee.

      • chris says:

        Oh, I feel so much better. Allah Akbar.

      • chris says:

        No way a Christian group would be granted a room for praying or bible study. They may have to now but not before the Muslims.

        • Brian Westley says:

          No way a Christian group would be granted a room for praying or bible study.

          Sorry, you’re wrong. Public schools must treat students equally. You might want to read this:
          Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law
          https://www.aclu.org/other/joint-statement-current-law-religion-public-schools
          Note all the different religious and civil rights organizations that have signed on to it. It’s over 20 years old.

          • Sybil Luddington says:

            But this isn’t just about prayer (of any religion in school). Their “prayer” is intrusive to the classroom and interrupts school scheduling to coincide with their “prayer”. They are asking the school to comply to their religious practices. And the main point of this whole thing is the bastardization of the public school system because of the cancer that has crept in over the last 40 years…Progressive liberalism.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Their “prayer” is intrusive to the classroom and interrupts school scheduling to coincide with their “prayer”.

            What’s your source on that? I say you’re just making it up.

            They are asking the school to comply to their religious practices.

            To the same extent as any other students.

            And the main point of this whole thing is the bastardization of the public school system because of the cancer that has crept in over the last 40 years…Progressive liberalism.

            Why are you against students being able to pray in school? It’s their right.

          • The ACLU is not a friend to Christians. They travel on a one-way street. They are definitely for Liberals, Democrats, Blacks and anyone else that has disputes or stand against Christians.
            The ACLJ is the one that stands up for the Christians.
            No “Public School” should honor any one group above another. In March 1961, then President John Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925 for affirmative action which meant there would be no discrimination because of race, creed, color or national origin. And yest that is contrary to the Constitutional principles and policies of the U.S…
            Funny how democrats, Kennedy and Obama to name two, that considered their way better than what was/is in our Constitution! By darn I hope that President Trump takes a page out of their book; should he even need to do so! I’ve spent my life on two way streets and really sick and tired of the democrats and their one way streets…Their way or no way. And to think I was one of them until Bill Clinton was nominated. I then spent years tagged as a republican and when I saw how distrustful they were and how they bent over backwards for the Obama administration, I again walked away. I’m now a Constitutional Conservative but I still have the common sense to investigate and then vote for the one I consider best for this nation and the American people.
            Schools no longer teach as they once did. More and more educational tools have been removed or put aside. Otherwise we would still be in the top ten re education around the world. Instead our educational system has fallen to around 34th.
            These kids will one day have positions in government, sit as judges even of the Supreme Court and of course, the White House. I hate to imagine what that will mean for my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. At least I’m getting too old to be around when that day does come.
            May God have mercy on American and continue to be with President Trump…

          • Brian Westley says:

            The ACLU is not a friend to Christians.

            Totally untrue.

            Check out http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com — it hasn’t been updated for years, but it has dozens of times the ACLU has protected Christian religious practice.

            They are definitely for the Liberals, Democrats, Blacks and anyone else that has disputes or stand against Christians.

            If you think all Liberals, Democrats, and Blacks stand against Christians, that’s your delusion, not reality.

          • I have no intention to repeatedly argue or disagree with you. You are entitled to believe whatsoever you want. So am I…

            I believe the ACLU was started 15 years before I was born in 1935. Back in those days I ‘believe but not sure’ they had a better reputation than today. However you go right on and trust their website for their claims of what they are. I mainly go by my years of living and trust what I’ve seen for myself instead of being gullible and/or deceived by them or others. I’m a stubborn old lady that really lives with past memories stuck in my mind like a movie. Believe me no one could look at what’s going on in America and not draw their own intelligent conclusions.
            Afraid I’ve never been a follower of anyone or thing other than of Jesus Christ, raised my four children to do the same and use their own minds, never allowing themselves to be brainwashed. The youngest is near 52 and none of them have ever been so weak they could be deceived or not walk the straight and narrow road. They’ve raised their children the same and now it’s being passed on to my great-grandchildren. Thank God I raised no mindless idiots.

            I’ve had my say so now you can continue going in your own direction, live life however you please and never be concerned with what this old lady has to say. When I put out a comment it is mainly to get frustration out of my system, to speak the truth of what I believe or because the Lord leads me to someone. I only defend myself when the Lord has reason for me to do so and leads me. He has yet to give me even one word to say to you. Sorry but you know what? I’m going to apologize to you for cutting this short and not giving you the response you may have expected or wanted.

            Now it’s almost seven and I still haven’t fixed dinner which I’ll put on a tray, put one of the “Against All Odds” DVD’s into the side of the TV and enjoy this evening before driving to the store early tomorrow morning and then wait for the snows arrival…

          • Brian Westley says:

            You are entitled to believe whatsoever you want. So am I…

            When I can point out where the ACLU has actually defended the religious rights of Christians, I’m right and you’re wrong. Reality isn’t a matter of opinion.

            However you go right on and trust their website for their claims of what they are.

            As opposed to making up lies, like you?

        • Sybil Luddington says:

          That’s right Chris. Taxpayers are paying for that room!!

  8. texexpatriate says:

    If the administration of this school allows this then it must allow a special room for the Christians. I look at the Texas that I had to leave in 2003 and it makes me sick to see what is happening in the best state in the ever-more-sorry United States.

  9. Michael Ryan says:

    Great – where is the Catholic chapel?? SUE THEM!! Somebody, please…

  10. (deplorable) gabwin says:

    Is there a Christian chapel space?

    • Jonny Realnews says:

      no, Christian and Jewish students have to assemble before or after school…islamist are the only ones allowed to openly pray during school.
      PLEASE CONTACT AND DEMAND THAT CHRISTIAN STUDENTS GET A SPECIAL CHAPEL AND EXCUSED TIME TO PRAY…THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FRISCO ISD IS
      JEREMY LYON, PH.D.
      Superintendent of Schools
      469.633.6014
      469.633.6017 (fax)
      MICHELE CRUTCHER
      Assistant to the Superintendent and Board of Trustees
      [email protected]
      469.633.6014
      469.633.6017 (fax)

    • Pastor C says:

      Incidentally, this is a public school correct?

      Where is the hue and cry about the ‘separation between mosque/church and state?

      Since when did prayer re-enter our public schools? I didn’t get the memo!

      Why can’t Christians pray, in school, and yet Muslims can not only pray, but are granted time away from the classroom and are, actually, taken to a ‘special’ room so they can do what no other religious practitioner can do in public school?!

      There’s something fundamentally sick, and illegal, about this!

      • Brian Westley says:

        Since when did prayer re-enter our public schools? I didn’t get the memo!

        Prayer (by students) has always been legal, and not only legal, but constitutionally protected. Why don’t you know this?

        Why can’t Christians pray,

        They can. Why are you spreading misinformation?

  11. Noble Gunnz says:

    Implementing sharia law in schools courtesy of the dumbed-down taxpayers. Way to go Frisco!

  12. KC says:

    It’s like playing Russian roulette only for real…

  13. lilyred says:

    Keep making accommodations for them and sucking up.That way they won’t cut your throat because you are not moslem. Right? Ha. Do they wash their feet in your sinks or the toilet. Oh, you fixed them a special foot sink? Ok. Do the males and females use this ‘prayer room’ together?

  14. Tweak says:

    So much for separation of church and state? This is sick stuff, and Trump should be all over this like a fly on ?. Oh wait, Trump is trying to push a Ryan and McConnell’s big Government health care bill down American throats. And so much for keeping Terrorist’s out of the country? His watered down executive order banning Terrorist’s is a joke. Folding like a cheap suit!!

  15. Grow_Up says:

    Send a report to the Freedom From Religion Foundation for prompt action!

    https://ffrf.org/legal/report

  16. sydnakay says:

    Well, isn’t this just peachy. Is there a classroom for Christian students also or does that fall under separation of church and state?

  17. Jonny Realnews says:

    Christian and Jewish students have to assemble before or after school…islamist are the only ones allowed to openly pray during school.
    PLEASE CONTACT AND DEMAND THAT CHRISTIAN STUDENTS GET A SPECIAL CHAPEL AND EXCUSED TIME TO PRAY…THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FRISCO ISD IS
    JEREMY LYON, PH.D.
    Superintendent of Schools
    469.633.6014
    469.633.6017 (fax)
    MICHELE CRUTCHER
    Assistant to the Superintendent and Board of Trustees
    [email protected]
    469.633.6014
    469.633.6017 (fax)

    • Brian Westley says:

      Christian and Jewish students have to assemble before or after school…islamist are the only ones allowed to openly pray during school.

      What’s your source of information?

    • Pastor C says:

      Thank you for this contact information. I have just emailed Michele and await her response.

      Others who see this grave injustice and illegal, patently-discriminatory practice should do the same. If a sufficient number of patriots will call, write and complain perhaps this ruling may be reversed.

      Sharia law has no place within our nation and must be confronted, then banished whenever and wherever it raises its ugly and demonic head!

      • beckdella says:

        Did you read all the angry response posts to these posts the DON”T agree that muslims are great and peaceful? Wow, you really can exploit stupidity to a new level.

  18. Charlie Alvarez says:

    This perverted filth is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Some heads need to roll in this renegade school, starting with the principal.

  19. solstar says:

    For your consideration:

    EVERYTHING and the ONLY thing one needs to know about the Muslim religion/culture in two sentences:

    “In every country where Muslims are in the MINORITY they are concerned with the democratic ‘rule of law’ and minority rights.
    In every country where Muslims are in the MAJORITY there is no democratic ‘rule of law’ nor minority rights.”

    I challenge ANYONE to show a country where this is not true….ANYONE !

  20. Tamara Wilhite says:

    To be fair, Christians must be given equal treatment as Muslims. So if Christians want a room for Bible study or prayers, they must be given it, too.

  21. Polly says:

    bull

  22. Desertdeserter says:

    Friscostan!

  23. 8675310 says:

    Where is the Christian prayer room? No, wait….that’s right. They said it violated the Constitution. Dhimmitude.

  24. M. N. says:

    From what I understand this is not a mandatory tenant of the Koran – they don’t have to do it and do not have to be accommodated.

    • Brian Westley says:

      Wrong — the government can’t decide what is the “right” way to follow a particular religion. Individual members are free to consider it mandatory even if their religious leaders don’t consider it to be mandatory.

      • M. N. says:

        Apparently the government is doing just that with personal choices regarding involvement with gay wedding cakes…

        • Brian Westley says:

          Public accommodation laws have been around for decades.

          • M. N. says:

            Is that a public accommodation law or is it preventing someone to live consistent with their religion…??

          • Brian Westley says:

            It’s a public accommodation law. Some people have religious objections to, say, mixed race marriages or mixed-religion marriages, but they also have to follow public accommodation laws.

  25. Brian Westley says:

    Warstler’s inclusive and understanding attitude stands in stark contrast to the reaction other school officials in Texas and other states have shown to Christian students attempting to exercise their faith at school.

    The dishonest author of this article is comparing student religious exercise (legal) to school officials imposing religion (unconstitutional), or to ignorant school officials wrongly interfering with student religious exercise.

  26. gffpau says:

    The principal of the school should be locked up !

  27. TEXASSEAN says:

    “Like I’ve said, this is the seventh year that we’ve been doing this and we’ve never had one issue. You know we have other religious student groups that meet maybe before school or maybe after school,” Warstler said “As long as it’s student-led, where the students are organizing and running it, we pretty much as a school stay out of that and allow them their freedom to practice their religion.”
    Texas schools are locally controlled. It appears that they would accommodate groups like The Fellowship of Christian Athletes, etc. If they are treating all groups equally, I don’t think this is an issue.

  28. QUESTIONS: 1. Do they __ONLY __ pray OR 2. DO THEY PRAY__ AND __ READ FROM THE KORAN?

    EITHER WAY OTHER RELIGIONS __ MUST __ HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS __ AT LEAST __ FOR THE VERY OBSERVANT OF EACH RELIGION (HASIDIC / ORTHODOX JEWS COME TO MIND).

  29. plankbob says:

    I pray five times a day to G_d that conservative Christian bullies will stop portraying themselves as victims.

  30. Blix Noob says:

    Tax supported aggression and animosity toward Christians. Our government no longer works for the people.

    • Brian Westley says:

      How is religious freedom for students “aggression and animosity toward Christians”?

  31. nojack says:

    What fool would send their children to a government indoctrination center? That is called child abuse and child neglect. You’re selfish and don’t really love your child. Mine are home-schooled and are independent thinkers. They are very disciplined and they have the much needed critical thinking that one can not acquire in a government indoctrination center, aka (Public School). If you think it is “Public” I suggest you enter one unannounced and see for yourself. Get your children of of these indoctrination centers if you really love them 🙂

    https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/americas_schools_breeding_grounds_for_compliant_citizens

    http://www.globalistagenda.org/

  32. Theresa says:

    This is bullshit! Christians have NO rights what so ever inside PUblic Schools. How do they allow this??!! TOTAL DISCRIMINation!

  33. Theresa says:

    Do they mention its only the MEN?

  34. What I’m about to say is just the thoughts of an old lady that has been proud to have been born in this country, who has Americas best interest as her own. Loyalty to God, family and country!
    I don’t understand how foreigners can come into this country, make demands and we bow down to them. Now I’m not referring to immigrants that have come here legally, had their own funds and have made America their home.
    A person coming her to honestly escape becomes a part of this country, not try to make this country the same as the ones they just left!
    I thought the whole idea of them coming into our country was because they were trying to escape the bad going on in their own countries and they wanted a better way of life.
    So why do they bring the old ways with them into a new country?
    Because they have one thing in mind! To make our country just like the one they escaped from.
    Only the blind can’t see that these aren’t escaping anything. They are just trying to force their ways on another country. We have seen how they leave other countries. We see their no-go zones “allowed them” even in America. That is no-go zones to us but they expect/demand all the rights of the American people. They have their Sharia laws activated. It’s only a matter of time before they will make their demands that their Sharia law is the only law acceptable in America. With Trump in office, I can’t see that being as easy as the expect but they’re well on the way and with so many of their Islamic’s holding government jobs; well they have more than their foot in the door! Kinda’ scary when one thinks about how so many disloyal Americans go along with them, isn’t it?
    Their only intention is to turn our country upside-down and inside-out, as they have done with other countries. But with America they intend to make their demands “theirs” and once they get their way, take over our country. That would/will be the icing on the cake. One of their main goals, the other is Israel but…Israel fight back and don’t just turn their country over to them as has so far been done here.
    Even those lazy prayers should sit up and take notice! If all they do is take five minutes a day to pray, they sure as heck should join those of us who have their eyes wide open and see what is actually going on. We also need to give up sincere prayer for the president. Prayer is always needed no matter who sits in the White House! God is the one that has the final say and we darn well need to acknowledge that and Him before all is lost…

    • 98C3LCMT9Y4 says:

      Because you too “came to this country” and now demand that you get to make decisions for other “coming to this country.” You are either bigly ignorant or the hypocrit that I believe you actually are and your spewing of all those lies merely underscore just how ignorant you really are.

      • beckdella says:

        You are a liar. We were born here idiot, illegals are not! Maybe our ancestors “came” to America but we were not brought here against the law and we certainly are not trying to make America a non-Christian country. Go spew your liberal BS to someone who has been brainwashed by the public “education” system.

        • Thank you beckdella for standing up and trying to give “that one” the truth.
          Isn’t it something how so many can’t even read the written word and think only their word counts? It takes all kinds I guess.
          Chances are this person is from another country and if, mind you I said IF they are actually an American citizen, then we need to get all Muslims out of our educational system before our own are in the same situation as this one! I knew our educational system had fallen to about 34th after years of being in the top 10, but next thing we know, they will be teaching our own children to speak only their language!
          Have to pray that President Trump will be able to make all the changes he hopes to. Much prayer is needed to back him up and much prayer that OUR Lord will have mercy upon us and soon take this country back for us.
          You know, I have never been a bigot but during these past eight years, it has been very hard for me not to be a bigot! We can only take so much and make so many excuses for the actions of others before we admit it is this way because of what they are/have been doing.
          God help us!!!

        • 98C3LCMT9Y4 says:

          This is NOT a “christian” country as it is NOT a theocracy. ALL religions have the same rights here. Perhaps you should step away from your jasus coloring books and actually learn something about our great Constitution.

      • I am so very sorry that you couldn’t understand what I said!
        I was born in this country 80 some years ago.
        My parents were born in this country, as were my grandparents and great-grandparents. Before them I’m not sure how many generations it was before they came here from Ireland and Scotland but it had to be in the very early 1800’s or 1700’s.
        Can you say the same?
        I did have a step-grandfather that came to America in the mid-1800’s but he was a teenager and became an American citizen before my grandfather died and he met my grandmother. He became a chief at a famous hotel and was employed until he died of cancer in his late 70’s – if I remember correctly. He loved America and was loyal to it every day of his life here…unlike the illegals and majority of the Muslims!
        I think it is such a shame that you can’t read the written word and know what others say as my very first sentence says, “proud to have been BORN in this country.”
        I might also mention that I personally have been a born again Christian for over 70 years and remain one to this day. I have a personal relationship with MY Lord. I know where I will go when I die. I know the truth and not some fairy story that has been given to Islamic’s. I feel it is such a shame that anyone has allowed themselves and their children to be so deceived. That they will one day have to face the fact that they have sent their own family members to an eternal damnation of hell!
        I will pray that the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ have mercy on you and open those eyes that are so blinded and deceived and will see the truth before you take that last breath…

        • 98C3LCMT9Y4 says:

          I “understood” very clearly that YOUR FAMILY were immigrants and because other, later, immigrants choose to NOT be like earlier arriving eurotrash, YOU denigrate them & the choices they make because those choices are NOT the same choices that you & your ilk made. The “truth” is that you are and remain a hater and liar. Too bad that religion you claim to have accepted does not have a commandment again LYING [oops. it does, and yet you so very easily lie with each & every comment you make.]

          My ancestors were living and raising families here for thousands of years before your eurotrash immigrants crawled ashore and starting pretending that they [and apparently still you] were ordained to make personal decisions for other people.

          Perhaps you should spend your time praying for forgiveness for YOUR daily lies & sins against other religious individuals & leave others to pray to that same god in their own manner. You certainly have a lifetime of hatred and lies to repent for so I would suggest that you get started as it is unlikely that you will like where you end up [rather than rotting in a grave.]

          • Hello Mussie!!!

            May Jesus forgive you!

          • I’m sorry to disappoint you.
            To the best of my knowledge I have not “lied” about anything. My thoughts may not line up with yours but that doesn’t make them lies. It is what I believe.
            I am not and have never been a “hater.” I have friends of different nationalities and although I am not a hater, for the first time in my life I am very close to becoming bigoted. But that has nothing to do with race or nationality. That has to do with the “actions” (murdering those that don’t accept your god) and forcing others to either take your god or die. Things that come not from a true god but from the devil. Anyone that knows the difference between good and evil should be able to figure that out. Regardless of what you expect of your children away from home, you expect them to be “good” in and to their family. If there is murder and hate of others because of their “religion” in a heart, then that isn’t a good person.
            If your people didn’t try to force others to believe the same as they do, and if they didn’t murder when they aren’t obeyed; then I would have no problem accepting any or all of you. And by the way, I follow not religion or denomination; I follow the teaching of Jesus Christ, my savior.
            So you call me eurotrash. Is that suppose to hurt my feelings or make old granny cry? Sorry to disappoint you. I am only concerned with what my Lord thinks about me.
            Afraid I know the truth about your people coming to America in ships (wasn’t it the 1600’s?) and how there were some Americans that fought your people off until their ship left. To be exact I would have to go back and read my history book(s). And to be honest I would rather read my Bible. But why don’t you think about what you said. If, as you said, your people were here before any of us, then why is it that this country isn’t 98% your people and 2% of ours? The majority of us don’t multiply as fast as yours so don’t your eyes show you the truth to that statement? But I guess you are wearing rose colored glasses or simply believe whatever you’re told by your leaders. Guess I’m not as bright as you are. I only go by what I have lived with and seen during my lifetime, while you have others to tell you what is.
            By no means do I think I have any right to make decisions for others. But being a Christian I obey the Word of God. While yours force your beliefs on others, I only want to let them know that they alone are responsible for the decisions they make, that they too have a choice and whatever that choice is will either bring them to eternal life or eternal damnation. Don’t you like knowing that you too have a choice, that you alone will make that decision and have the knowledge that you will get no less than you deserve? I know I am glad to know that no one else is responsible for anything I believe.
            Now for your last paragraph: I not only pray daily but read my Bible as well and I always ask forgiveness as I know there was only one perfect man that ever walked this earth and His name was/is Yeshua. But He came from Spirit and returned to Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells within my heart and has for over 70 years. You know, if I even allow myself to get angry, I consider that sin and I ask His forgiveness. I don’t try to stop anyone from praying to “whatever” god they want to but I sure will continue to let them know they have a choice and are responsible for where their soul ends up. That’s more that yours allow others to have the privilege of! No hatred but dislike and disapproval, yes. It is your god that allows lies to fool us infidels. My God says a lie is sin and never approved regardless of the end results.
            As for where “I” will end up, I know without any doubt because Jesus died on the cross for the souls of all that have accepted Him. He and He alone gave us salvation. I do my very best to live by His word and to obey equally, which includes praying for the souls of the unbeliever and all that don’t follow Him.
            Oh, I nearly forgot, if the Lord has not already come for His children, then when I die, after the gravel I will have eternal life in pure and sinless (no sex, no lust) Heaven/Paradise.
            I am grateful for you for giving your opinion of and to me. It helps all of us understand you and your better…

          • 98C3LCMT9Y4 says:

            Perhaps you orefer the term “failure”: to “eurotrash” – those that ran away because they could not survive nor “succeed” in that part of the world certainly were not “winners’ ior “successes” or they would have remained at that successful location.

            And since “christians” have been slaughtering other “christians” for the last 2,000_ uears, you most certainly are a member of a group that hates, has hated, and hates yet today. You “own” that hatred and that history of hatred with your constant claims to be a “christian.”

            So you do NOT support the hatred directed at those that are reported as praying in this article? Excuse me if you appear to be supporting those that would violate the Constitutional rights of children to pray merely because they were NOT of the “correct” [that is ‘christiand”] religion.

            Perhaps the biological warfare eurotrash brought to this biologically CLEAN continent accounts for the millions that died from the infections your eurotrash brought. With no previous exposure, the current residents of this continent dropped like flies from the exposure to bubonic plague, chicken pox, pneumonic plague, cholera, diphtheria, influenza, measles, scarlet fever, smallpox, typhus, tuberculosis, & whooping cough.

            You seem to be bigly ignorant of a whole lot of history & science.

          • I am living today not last year or many, many years ago so that is not useful to me now. I am not answerable for anyone but myself and I will be judged for my own life and not that of others.
            If prayer was the same for ALL in the school, then I would have no complaint whatsoever.
            And with those coming across the boarders, the illegals, bring with them disease that our bodies aren’t immune to. Surely you know that all the diseases you listed sure as heck wasn’t brought about by us alone. Most came from other countries as you well know.
            As I said before, your words don’t bother me. You just show your own ignorance, disrespect and shows they kind of person you are.
            With this I’ll take my leave. There is nothing to be accomplished going back and forth with you in such a ludacris way.
            Adonai and Yeshua bBless America and President Trump. Amen and Amen…

          • 98C3LCMT9Y4 says:

            And your own comments document that you lie, lie that you have lied, and lie yet again.

            And since YOU have no idea what “my side” may be, that is merely the liar continuing to lie.

            Ignoring your history of lying while lying in the present does not alter the fact that you are, have been, and will probably always lie as that is what you are, have been, and will always be a liar. You continue to lie in this comment – how does that make you anything other than a liar?

            Just as you current whine in this very comment about “illegals” bringing diseases that YOU are not immune to is WHAT you eurotrash invaders did when you initially invaded this continent. Hypocrist thou name art “christians” pretending to not be the despicable liars that you are!

            Those diseases that I referenced most assuredly DID NOT EXIST ON THIS CONTINENT prior to eurotrash arriving here. They were common in europe & were brought here by those that invaded this continent. You apparently cannot tell the truth on anything, oh hypocritical lying so called christian! Your scientific ignorance is matched only by the level that you will go to lie about your religion and what evil it has done and is still doing to others on this globe.

          • I am very tired of reading the same old thing from you. You know I haven’t lied so who are you trying to convince? May Jesus rebuke you for bearing false witness on me. I turn you over to Him once and for all. These will be my last words to you. Enjoy…

            God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life:
            “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” John 1:16
            Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore He cannot know and experience God’s love and plan for his life:
            “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23
            Jesus Christ is God’s only provision for man’s sin. Through Him you can know and experience God’s love and plan for your life:
            “Christ died for our sins…He was buried…He was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures…He appeared to Peter, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred…” 1 Corinthians 15:3-6
            He is the Only way to God:
            “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; No One comes to the Father, but through Me.” John 14:6
            We must individually receive Jesus Christ as savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God’s love and plan for our lives:
            “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” John 1:12
            We receive Christ through faith:
            “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.” Ephesians 2:8, 9
            When we receive Christ, we experience a new birth. John 1:1-8
            We receive Christ by personal invitation:
            Christ said, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him.” Revelation 3:20
            Receiving Christ involves turning to God from self (repentance) and trusting Christ to come into our lives, to forgive our sins and to make us the kind of people He wants us to be. Just to agree intellectually that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died on the Cross for our sins is Not enough. Nor is it enough to have an emotional experience. We receive Jesus Christ by ‘faith’, as an act of our own will.
            You too can renounce your sinful life and receive Christ right now!
            By having faith in what He says and through your own prayer.

            This is my last word to you as you now have the truth right in front of you and the choice is yours and yours alone.

            Just remember that you are the one that chooses the kind of life you live and you now can’t blame anyone else by saying… ‘But no one told me Lord so how can I be blamed for not knowing right from wrong?’ His reply to that would be, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” Then will come the “eternal life that you chose.”

            Goodbye…

          • 98C3LCMT9Y4 says:

            I and any one can SEE the lies that your own comments attest to. If you do not want to be identifed in your own words as a liar, you might consider NOT lying, lying about lying, and lie yet again as you h ave just done. But you continue to do so & blame me for pointing out that you are indeed a liar. You are indeed SINFUL and hopefully will have to answer for each and every one of your multitude of lies and all the harm you have personally done to so many innocents with those deliberate lies.

          • Such a shame you haven’t the ability to back up anything your say and can only continually repeat ‘lies and liar’ instead of saying anything to me that makes good sense.

            There is only one hypocrite and I’m not it. At least I have words to back up what I say.

            I pray that Adonai and Yeshua show you the truth or remove you from my life.

            As I said earlier “goodbye!”

          • “al hamdulillah, al hamdulillah!”

          • TRUTH, TRUTH, TRUTH!!! AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH…as you will find out when you too stand before the judgment seat of The One True God…

            Sorry to have broken my word about not replying to you again but this was worth breaking my word to say!

  35. chris says:

    Calling all atheist, calling allathiest, where are you. First mention of Jesus causes freak out but this is ok.

  36. chris says:

    Are women allowed to pray at same time as boys.

  37. Sybil Luddington says:

    I call BULLSHIT on this principle!! What would happen to other students if they SKIPPED SCHOOL for 2 1/2 hrs every day?? They should be held to the same standards as Christian, Jewish, and any other religious group in a PUBLIC SCHOOL!! Remember Rosie O’Donnell screaming “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE”?? This should apply for Muslims TOO!! >: (

    • beckdella says:

      What????? Muslims are special, don’t you know???? They are sooooo demeaned and so mistreated they must have special rules. Too damn bad we don’t just drop the bomb to destoroy their sorry arses. But to some on this site muslims are the so called “persecuted” ones. Go figure.

  38. nojack says:

    FUCK YOU EAGNEWS RAG! YOU REMOVED MY POST YOU COCKSUCKERS!! NO FREE SPEECH HERE!! YOU’RE SHITLISTED & BLACKLISTED ASSHOLES! BTW…FUCK YOU AGAIN!!!!!

  39. Jan Worthen says:

    UNDER THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, Religion gets equal treatment. PRAYER HAS BEEN OUTLAWED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. WHEREBY IF ISLAMIC PRAYER IS ALLOWED AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT RULING, THEN CHRISTIANS SHOULD DEMAND THE BIBLE AND LORDS PRAYER BE ALLOWED ALSO. 5 times a day? When do they ever study? https://jeworthen.wordpress.com/2014/04/19/the-establishment-clause/

  40. rpp618 says:

    This person, Brian Westley, is a troll and should be banned from this site. He is flagging numerous comments for moderation. Not to mention the fact thet he is practically spamming the site with dozens of comments, most of which are distinctly anti-Christian.

    • Brian Westley says:

      rpp618 doesn’t know the definition of “troll”. I’ve given links to support my statements. I haven’t flagged ANY comments for moderation, that’s just something rpp618 is assuming and I’m sure the moderators can see who has flagged a statement. Most of my comments have explained how Christian students have the SAME rights as Muslim (or any other) students, so how that’s supposed to be “distinctly anti-Christian” is complete nonsense.

      rpp618 just doesn’t like my comments, I suggest he or she grow a spine instead of silencing differing opinions.

  41. warptek says:

    So some of these kids left every Friday. Instead of letting them leave and let their grades suffer as a resul the school caters to them? Makes perfectly stupid sense.Where’s the atheists in this school? Shouldn’t they be protesting or mocking them? Oh, that’s reserved only for Christians.

    • Brian Westley says:

      Against what? Students praying in public schools? That’s a protected right.

    • Considering the action that President Trump has/is taking, at least you will have him on your side. He is proving to all that he is a man of his word. I must admit, I am very proud of him.

      Please ignore those online, i.e. such as the following response. There are a couple nasty ones on this site but they too are entitled to their opinion. I just wish they had the ability to show a little respect for others.

      Wishing you the best of luck in your upcoming venture as I have family throughout Texas…

  42. Every time I return to this site I find my comments are being moderated. Has anyone else noticed that the comments that are awaiting moderation on this website are those written by we who proclaim to be Christians?
    Just food for thought…

  43. SilentKnot says:

    The problem here is that this is taking place at school; period! This is not the middle east, this is the U.S. If you need special things, homeschool or send them to school in the middle east. This is ridiculous! It isn’t even a religion…it is a violent cult and it does not belong here. The damn cult was banned in 1952. Obama is trying to bring us to Islamic shit!

    • Brian Westley says:

      The problem here is that this is taking place at school; period!

      Students can pray in public schools, no problem.

      The damn cult was banned in 1952.

      Nope, Islam hasn’t been “banned”, that would be unconstitutional.

  44. cestusdei says:

    It’s always that way. The only group that is persecuted is the Christians. Hold a daily rosary pray in and when they object say they are anti-Hispanic. That would be fun.

    • Brian Westley says:

      Go ahead, students can pray in public schools all they like.

      • cestusdei says:

        When they try they get punished. If they asked for a room to pray in they would be attacked.

        • Brian Westley says:

          When they try they get punished.

          Where? Notify the ACLU and they will tell the school that students can pray.

          If they asked for a room to pray in they would be attacked.

          Now you’re making up stuff.

          • cestusdei says:

            No, you just don’t read the news. Try google. It only takes a second.

          • cestusdei says:

            LOL now that’s funny. The ACLU hates us and does all it can to hurt us. It’s like claiming the SS is looking out for Jews. You won’t even bother to google it, which tells me you don’t really care.

          • Brian Westley says:

            LOL now that’s funny. The ACLU hates us and does all it can to hurt us.

            Nope, now you’re just lying. The ACLU helps Christians all the time. See e.g. aclufightsforchristians.com

            If only you belonged to a religion that said lying and gossiping was wrong…

          • cestusdei says:

            Your propaganda doesn’t work on me. We know better.

            http://www.dailywire.com/news/6529/aclu-lawyers-christian-right-blame-orlando-terror-amanda-prestigiacomo

            Took me 2 seconds to find the truth.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Still doesn’t change the fact that the ACLU will defend the rights of Christian students to pray in public schools. You keep lying about that.

          • cestusdei says:

            So I presented evidence and you ignored it. You are the liar here.

          • Brian Westley says:

            It wasn’t evidence for “When they try they get punished. If they asked for a room to pray in they would be attacked”

            That’s what you’ve been lying about.

          • cestusdei says:

            So I showed their bias and bigotry against Christians. You had denied that. I proved you wrong with their own words. They sued Christian hospitals to force them to perform abortions. They will defend Nazi’s as they have much in common with them, but they despise Christians. You are the liar here.

            http://www.adflegal.org/protect-christian-students

          • Brian Westley says:

            So I showed their bias and bigotry against Christians. You had denied that.

            I had denied that the ACLU “does all it can to hurt us.”
            They defend religious rights of Christians.

            They sued Christian hospitals to force them to perform abortions.

            Because that’s an issue for the woman to decide, not the hospital.

            And the ADF is a Christian supremacist organization, they want the government to push Christianity.

          • cestusdei says:

            You wanted evidence. I gave it. Now you defend their anti-Christian attacks. They in fact do not defend our rights and instead seek to end them. Our hospitals are OURS. Women can do what they like, but not in OUR hospitals. The ACLU is a anti-Christian alt Left organization that wants the government to persecute Christianity.

            I think you have sufficiently revealed your bigotry. You can move along now.

          • Brian Westley says:

            You wanted evidence. I gave it.

            That the ACLU doesn’t like you? Too bad.
            What I ASKED for was evidence of your statement about Christian students: “When they try they get punished. If they asked for a room to pray in they would be attacked”

            Now you defend their anti-Christian attacks.

            Lawsuits aren’t attacks.

          • cestusdei says:

            You basically didn’t want any response you are not programmed to deal with. I showed the ACLU in fact oppresses Christians and does not defend them. If you are sued you would think it was an attack. That comment alone shows your bad faith and/or inability to reason. It is in fact a lie. I have read some of your comments to other posts. You are a typical snowflake.

          • Brian Westley says:

            You basically didn’t want any response you are not programmed to deal with.

            I wanted the answer i keep asking for, and you keep avoiding.

            I showed the ACLU in fact oppresses Christians and does not defend them.

            No, you didn’t. Speech you don’t like isn’t “oppression”, poor baby, and there are plenty of real cases where the ACLU has defended the rights of Christians, and I’ve pointed you to some examples. You can’t ignore those and say they don’t defend Christians — they DO.

          • cestusdei says:

            No, I have you the answer you didn’t like. I showed the ACLU is anti-Christian. But so are you. That’s why you don’t mind it. It’s like saying ISIS defends Christians. I knew when I posted the truth you would not accept it and keep up your lies. Typical atheist.

          • Brian Westley says:

            No, I have you the answer you didn’t like.

            It was an answer that had nothing to do with my question.

            I showed the ACLU is anti-Christian.

            No, they aren’t.

          • cestusdei says:

            Yes it did.

            Yes they are.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Nope, they defend the rights of Christians. You’re wrong.

          • cestusdei says:

            No, they don’t. You are wrong.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Yes, they do. This is a simple fact. Here’s a couple of examples:
            https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2011/02/the-aclu-defends-the-ten-commandments-in-school/175143/

            Here’s an article from a rightwing site by rightwinger Bob Unruh
            http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/shocker-aclu-defends-a-christian/

          • cestusdei says:

            I already gave you the facts and you ignored them. I will do the same to you. You are wrong. They are anti-Christian bigots and that is a fact.

          • Brian Westley says:

            I already gave you the facts and you ignored them.

            No, I gave YOU facts that the ACLU defends Christians. They ALSO fight against people like you who prefer Christian supremacy, but that’s because the ACLU fights for the rights of everyone, not just selfish Christians.

          • cestusdei says:

            No, I gave you the opposite facts. They do not care about our rights. They are the selfish ones. And you are simply their minion.

          • Brian Westley says:

            No, I gave you the opposite facts.

            Wrong. I gave you instances of when the ACLU has fought for the rights of Christians.

          • cestusdei says:

            I gave you the truth. Choke on it.

          • Brian Westley says:

            I gave you actual instances where the ACLU defended the rights of Christians.

          • cestusdei says:

            I gave you actual instances where they attacked the rights of Christians.

          • Brian Westley says:

            No, they didn’t attack “rights”, speech by the ACLU critical of rightwingers isn’t an attack on rights, it’s the ACLU exercising free speech. And in any case, the ACLU takes issues to court, and the court decides.

          • cestusdei says:

          • cestusdei says:

            Finally, these atheists are a vicious bunch lol.

          • cestusdei says:

            The ACLU is an anti-Christian organization run by atheist bigots. That is a fact. Thanks for playing.

          • Eric Lytle says:

            Dirty old pervert

          • Brian Westley says:

            You are? What a loser.

          • cestusdei says:

            He no doubt is. He is an atheist loser.

  45. Agincourt says:

    As Europe burns we will see the rise of more and more in America that will demand that Islam and Muslims be removed. If the government defends that alien government and its people, you will see Americans take it upon themselves to burn the mosques and remove Muslims themselves
    God help the idiot government agents that stand in the way when it comes time to remove the Kebab

    Always remember, Islam is a government and its people are already living a parallel life among us. There is no Constitutional protection for a whole other government.

    • Brian Westley says:

      If the government defends that alien government and its people, you will see Americans take it upon themselves to burn the mosques and remove Muslims themselves

      Then you’ll get locked up.

      • Agincourt says:

        “get locked up”
        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA
        you’re funny

        • Brian Westley says:

          Yes, we lock up criminals.

          • Agincourt says:

            You really don’t know what is going on in the world or where things are headed. The great thing is that you will be counted along with the invaders.

          • Brian Westley says:

            You personally are probably too gutless to do anything, and any thugs that do will be locked up, as they ought to be.

          • Agincourt says:

            You are too stupid to extrapolate into the future beyond a year or so.

          • Brian Westley says:

            All I’ve done is point out that you’re advocating criminal arson and domestic terrorism, and we lock up idiots who do that.

          • Agincourt says:

            Invaders don’t have the right to life or beachheads
            enjoy siding with the enemy, your life will be forfeit

          • Brian Westley says:

            Yep, you’re a pretend military “expert” who’s just a coward.

          • Brian Westley says:

            You’re advocating terrorism yourself, hypocrite.

          • Agincourt says:

            oh child, you will learn that turnabout is fair play when faced with annihilation. Don’t worry, you will see this conflict become very violent and you will be faced with a choice. Will you continue to defend Mohammad’s soldiers?

            I’m advocating survival.

          • Brian Westley says:

            oh child, you will learn that turnabout is fair play when faced with annihilation.

            You’re advocating terrorism.

            Don’t worry, you will see this conflict become very violent

            Because of thugs like you.

            Will you continue to defend Mohammad’s soldiers?

            I’m not. I’m attacking you, because you are advocating terrorism. You have become like your enemy.

          • Agincourt says:

            Mohammad advocates terrorism, and every Muslim is in support of Mohammad’s commands

            Perhaps you should tell me, were the Spanish wrong to take back the land that Muslims invaded?

          • Brian Westley says:

            Mohammad advocates terrorism, and every Muslim is in support of Mohammad’s commands

            Wrong, but in any case, that doesn’t justify your terroristic threats, however spineless they aren.

            Perhaps you should tell me, were the Spanish wrong to take back the land that Muslims invaded?

            So you’d be fine if native Americans burned down your house as an invader?

          • Agincourt says:

            “Wrong”
            thanks for admitting you know nothing about Mohammad or what Muslims believe. I suggest you look up PEW research on Muslim beliefs around the world

            “native Americans burned down your house as an invader”
            they already tried that and lost. You know, when they weren’t busy killing and slaving each other like they had for the last 10,000 or so years that they didn’t even invent the wheel before Europeans showed up.

            Siberian land bridge migrants love their pickup trucks, casinos and big screen TVs too much to risk getting BTFO again. nice try but your false equivalency is fail.

            btw, did you know that the main reason that Europeans even bothered to find an ocean path to the Indies was that the Muslims had made travel on the Silk Road impossible?
            The USA wouldn’t even exist without Muslim intolerance.

          • Brian Westley says:

            thanks for admitting you know nothing about Mohammad or what Muslims believe.

            Thanks for admitting you think every single Muslim thinks alike.

            I suggest you look up PEW research on Muslim beliefs around the world

            They VARY. Which is the opposite of what you wrote.

            they already tried that and lost.

            They can try again. And thugs like yourself can’t complain.

          • Agincourt says:

            Hey, lets bring back Aztec culture of human sacrifice. How about Mohawk genocide, like they did to the Algonquin? Oh, then there is all that “native” war slaving.

            Mmmmmmm…. sounds good to you, don’t it? No wonder you love the idea of Muslims increasing their numbers. The more there are, the more they behave like Mohammad commands.

          • Brian Westley says:

            Hey, lets bring back Aztec culture of human sacrifice.

            Deflection doesn’t work, thug. You want to burn down buildings because of people you don’t like. You’re a terrorist wannabe.

          • Agincourt says:

            You want what happened to Hindus, Zoroastrians, Byzantines, Armenians, Copts, Sicilians, Africans etc.. to happen to Americans, INCLUDING THE INDIANS. You dumbass, do you think Muslims want to preserve anything not Islamic?

            What your opinion is doesn’t really matter. You are now warned about what is coming. You can’t stop it.

            Nobody asked for Muslims, now you are going to see the consequences in your lifetime.

            enjoy

          • Brian Westley says:

            You want what happened to Hindus, Zoroastrians, Byzantines, Armenians, Copts, Sicilians, Africans etc.. to happen to Americans,

            Nope, I want murderous idiots like you to stop advocating violence.

            But you’re too stupid to understand that.

          • Agincourt says:

            Remember you said that as Mohammad’s creed grows stronger

          • Brian Westley says:

            I won’t hold my breath.

          • Agincourt says:

            I’m actually going to save this page’s link for the future so I can reach you in the future.

            cheers

          • Brian Westley says:

            BWAHAHAHAHA!

            You’re a real clown.

  46. Cees Louis says:

    There uniformity is in there desire to eventually kill or enslave Christians and Jews.

  47. CHARLES S says:

    Looks like Brian Westley and his love interest George T are happily in love with each other and share the same views. It’s too bad that their social lives are so boring that they both have to post so many comments on this site with their views and waste their short time debating Killi and John Flaherty.
    Get a life you two “cupcakes.” Get out of your cave-Georgie T n little Westley, there is a world out there to enjoy if you both can find the time, instead of gaining all that “fat” around your ever widening stretching bellies sitting in front of a computer and watching TV.

  48. shucky says:

    Christians should sue these schools, for the sheer hypocritical discrimination based on religion,

  49. Bahama Joe says:

    This is another reason why mooslums don’t belong in America! Shun them, drive them out, we don’t need their backwards ways.

  50. Scab Dover says:

    Fuk the muzzles. Straight to hell on a rocket.!