LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Goes a bit further than what I would personally like

That tends to be what happened when no one bothers to do their job and debate a bill. I mean we've had like 3 people make ridiculous claims about like 20% of the bills contents prompting an amendment to eliminate 95% of the bill, almost none of which was mentioned at all as to what the problem is. Frankly thats more insulting that just killing this bill, a bill that was ignored for an entire month because the last parliament stopped doing its job. Even when I pointed out to SNJC that he was so wrong about this bill he was basically lying or invited the laborites to explain their outrageously inflammatory descriptions no one ever bothered. Section 3 wasn't even discussed and yet is being 100% eliminated.

This amendment literally eliminates due process protections, protections from warrantless student strip searches, privacy protections for student personal information, free speech protections, bans on racial frickin segregation, neutrality towards religion, school district flexibility over security... i get that not everyone is a libertarian but the amendment to eliminate all those things to avoid debate is fuking madness. Many of these policies are REQUIRED under Supreme court interpretations. I shouldnt even need to point that out since what kind of loon thinks due process, free speech, warrants for searches, and bans on racial segregation are bad? I guess we get to see ...

Well, if they are required by the Supreme Court, wouldn't this bill be mostly unnecessary?

While a Supreme Court interpretation can have wide effects, as it only hears individual cases it is up to the other branches of government to effect the ruling generally instead of just against the named party to the case. For example, last year a Supreme Court case out of Charlottesville, VA held that it violates the 4th Amendment of the US constitution when a police officer enters property without a warrant or probable cause and lifts a tarp draped over the vehicle to read a license plate number. Accordingly, the Court threw out any evidence from the illegal tarp lifting cited in that case and the Police department in Charlottesville, Virginia can possibly be sued for trespass by that 1 landowner.

That doesnt mean that every police department everywhere immediately stops entering property and lifting tarps without cause. I had to meet with a police officer a few weeks back who literally did the same thing and had to explain to him why he can't do that. A court case is not self executing against everyone. While the precedent suggests that pretty much any time the police go onto property and lift the tarp without a warrant or cause, the police will lose if they are sued over the matter, that doesnt mean the police are going to stop lifting tarps.

Many of the rules above are constitutionally required by the Supreme Court ... but that in no way means there arent violations of the rulings by Regional/State/Local governments. The Court rule is essentially laying out what similar groups must do to conform with the law, not passing the actual law that becomes self-executing. Litigation is so expensive and time consuming that governments operate in contravention of court decisions for years and years without being called out on it (and Im speaking from my experience as a lawyer for a government). So I guess my argument is that as there are Supreme Court cases on some of the specific issues, that actually makes it more important to address the issues rather than leaving it up to the courts to enforce. Because if someone maintains an illegal policy and tries to enforce it, while there may not always be a likelihood of a lawsuit, the odds of that government winning the lawsuit are almost 0.

If you want I can provide a list of which Supreme/Federal Court cases apply to stuff in the bill to better illustrate why these provisions are necessary to ensure compliance with federal law and keep some government somewhere from getting sued.

[Former President tack50]

I have to admit - some of the legal arguments are above my head. Let me think aloud some more here.

Let's think about this in practice, though. Reading the bill, I don't think anybody's religious beliefs are being forced upon anybody. The danger here, is what, that in a closed setting, people will be forced to be subjected to somebody else praising his/her religion? I don't think we're talking about people giving sermons or anything here.

A lot of kids nowadays struggle to get through school, with the collapse of the community and localism. I'm not somebody who likes to talk about identity and such, but if that's going to get kids through school, and in some cases is helping them get through school alive (as opposed to the alternative), maybe these kids should be afforded the opportunity to speak to what helped guide or save them. If that's a women's organization - nothing wrong with giving credit. If it's an LGBT group - nothing wrong with giving credit. A black students' club - nothing wrong with giving credit. If Christianity/Islam/other forms of spirituality helped a kid get through school, I don't think we should bar nonoffensive appreciation. If these teachings helped one kid get through, then sharing their stories might save other lives too.

We should be in the process of improving lives, not policing speech.

While I agree on the fact that we should help children in need, I definitely don't see any relation between that and allowing religion in schools. If children need spiritual help, they can always go to their local church and ask the people there. Or their local school's therapist, who is also qualified to try and help children who are having problems.

I have the firm belief that religion should be kept out of schools as much as possible, and kept into one's private life as much as possible as well.

I think the most accurate way to describe it would be "freedom from religion" (as opposed to "freedom of religion").

Of course, about the other counterexamples mentioned (LGBT groups, women's organizations, black student clubs), I would also argue they shouldn't exist; at least not in primary school and maybe also high school, though that may just be me not relating to the concept in the first place. Plus even without the bill, I don't think a "christian club" or "muslim club" or something like that would be banned (at least not in Lincoln at large, I imagine individual schools would still need to authorize them)

[S019]

I really don't think this bill does anything other than set Lincoln's public school system on a track towards theocracy

[Mr. Reactionary]

I really don't think this bill does anything other than set Lincoln's public school system on a track towards theocracy

Why do you think that though; its like you are determined to avoid explaining your slander? A theocracy is when a religion controls the government. This bill literally is the opposite. It says any student can be a member of any religion, any student can have religious beliefs heterodox to that of teachers and administrators, no students can be forced to adopt religious beliefs they disagree with,  and that schools wont single out the religious beliefs of any student regardless of what religion. That is not theocracy. Plus only a few provisions on this law even affect religious beliefs. How does guaranteeing due process in college disciplinary hearings equate to theocracy? How does prohibiting segregated dorms equatw to theocracy? How does letting local schools decide whether or not to lock their front doors each equate to theocracy? How does prohibiting warantless strip searches in public schools equate to theocracy? How does prohibiting free sperch zones on campus equate to theocracy? How does protecting student data from FOIA equate to theocracy? You have basically said you dont like 5 out of 25 things therefore the other 20 are automatically bad.

[Former President tack50]

I understand what your point is, but I'm thinking about this in terms of saving/bettering lives. I understand your point about freedom from religion (I'm an atheist personally), but I feel like people sharing testimony of religious and/or other identity groups might help better the lives or save other kids.

Let me ask you this - do you think there is a nonoffensive way for an individual in schools to extend to others that some group (faith or otherwise) was transformative in a positive way to him/her, while keeping it proper (i.e. not forcing beliefs upon others)?

Maybe the problem isn't the communications, but forcing kids to listen. Maybe morning announcements, assemblies, should be optional, and there should be opportunities for kids to opt out for alternative programming (maybe free periods or something). What do you think?

Well, sharing a positive transformative experience is indeed something that should be allowed and even encouraged. While I do think there are better ways of doing therapy and getting someone's life sorted out, it's still interesting to listen to stories.

Indeed the problem would instead forcing kids to listen, especially for ideological stuff that each person should develop on their own (which would include religion in my opinion).

Making religious stuff optional instead of mandatory (and of course not make it count in your grades in any way) would be a really good improvement. Probably replaced by free periods or maybe an alternative class as you say. It would depend on the specifics.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Making religious stuff optional instead of mandatory (and of course not make it count in your grades in any way) would be a really good improvement. Probably replaced by free periods or maybe an alternative class as you say.

I think II-6 is the only thing that could be viewed as "mandatory" and that is only in the context of physical attendance of ceremonies and hearing of announcements. Even in those cases, its not really religious stuff any more than its [insert potpurri topic here].

[S019]

If all mentions of religion and searching are removed from this bill, I may support it


Also with segregated dorms, this could have the opposite effect, where minorites just do not get dorm assignments, at all, you say it's preventing segregated dorms, but what it really does is roll back affirmative action


This law is a step backwards, and unless it is fixed, I cannot and will not support it

[Mr. Reactionary]

If all mentions of religion and searching are removed from this bill, I may support it

I notice you still aren't explaining how this is "theocracy" which is a very specific and negative word that in actuality has nothing to do with this bill. Your hostility appears to be directed at citizens who are religious, even though we have a right to be religious. By your logic anyone who is not an atheist is a "theocrat". I mean, are you ever going to answer the question of how saying any student can believe in any religion without retaliation is "theocracy"?

Also with segregated dorms, this could have the opposite effect, where minorites just do not get dorm assignments, at all, you say it's preventing segregated dorms, but what it really does is roll back affirmative action

Are you fuqing high?! Reread the following provision:

No public College shall consider the race or religion of any student when determining dormitory assignments.

There is no reading of the above sentence that could be interpreted as saying no affirmative action. This specifically says student, which means this only applies to already admitted students, not to applicants. And again, it says race cant be considered at all ... how would that only result in one race being singled out for exclusion? Such exclusion would by necessity require an illegal consideration of race. This applies solely to SEGREGATION which is supposed to be a bad thing. Why would it ever be appropriate to have a whites only students dorm or a blacks only dorm or a Scientologists only dorm?

Can you just be honest and change your name to Suburban New Jersey SJW Progressive?

[S019]

If all mentions of religion and searching are removed from this bill, I may support it

I notice you still aren't explaining how this is "theocracy" which is a very specific and negative word that in actuality has nothing to do with this bill. Your hostility appears to be directed at citizens who are religious, even though we have a right to be religious. By your logic anyone who is not an atheist is a "theocrat". I mean, are you ever going to answer the question of how saying any student can believe in any religion without retaliation is "theocracy"?

Also with segregated dorms, this could have the opposite effect, where minorites just do not get dorm assignments, at all, you say it's preventing segregated dorms, but what it really does is roll back affirmative action

Are you fuqing high?! Reread the following provision:

No public College shall consider the race or religion of any student when determining dormitory assignments.

There is no reading of the above sentence that could be interpreted as saying no affirmative action. This specifically says student, which means this only applies to already admitted students, not to applicants. And again, it says race cant be considered at all ... how would that only result in one race being singled out for exclusion? Such exclusion would by necessity require an illegal consideration of race. This applies solely to SEGREGATION which is supposed to be a bad thing. Why would it ever be appropriate to have a whites only students dorm or a blacks only dorm or a Scientologists only dorm?

Can you just be honest and change your name to Suburban New Jersey SJW Progressive?

No, because I am pro-life, oppose the ACA, opposed Dodd-Frank, support lower taxes, I supported Cramer, Morrisey, and Rosendale

Yet I am somewhere, called a progressive 


There are just some issues that I hold moderate views on

Also it's not legal, but getting rid of considering race when providing dormitories, actually means that some racist administrators will no longer feel compelled to treat minority students, equally

[Mr. Reactionary]

If all mentions of religion and searching are removed from this bill, I may support it

I notice you still aren't explaining how this is "theocracy" which is a very specific and negative word that in actuality has nothing to do with this bill. Your hostility appears to be directed at citizens who are religious, even though we have a right to be religious. By your logic anyone who is not an atheist is a "theocrat". I mean, are you ever going to answer the question of how saying any student can believe in any religion without retaliation is "theocracy"?

Also with segregated dorms, this could have the opposite effect, where minorites just do not get dorm assignments, at all, you say it's preventing segregated dorms, but what it really does is roll back affirmative action

Are you fuqing high?! Reread the following provision:

No public College shall consider the race or religion of any student when determining dormitory assignments.

There is no reading of the above sentence that could be interpreted as saying no affirmative action. This specifically says student, which means this only applies to already admitted students, not to applicants. And again, it says race cant be considered at all ... how would that only result in one race being singled out for exclusion? Such exclusion would by necessity require an illegal consideration of race. This applies solely to SEGREGATION which is supposed to be a bad thing. Why would it ever be appropriate to have a whites only students dorm or a blacks only dorm or a Scientologists only dorm?

Can you just be honest and change your name to Suburban New Jersey SJW Progressive?

Also it's not legal, but getting rid of considering race when providing dormitories, actually means that some racist administrators will no longer feel compelled to treat minority students, equally

What does that even mean dude? Racists will be racist if they cant be racist? That doesn't make any sense. So a racist would not segregate the races if allowed, but would segregate the races if he was not allowed? Thats lunacy. Just admit this has nothing to do with affirmative action. Then we can work towards you admitting that this also has nothing to do with theocracy, since once again,  no explanation for why that very specific word is being lobbed around something that is literally the opposite of theocracy.

[Former President tack50]

Ok, I will present my alternative fix to the bill, though not sure if it will pass or fail

Ammendment L 2:16 by tack50

SECTION I: NAME
1. This act shall be called the Students Have Rights Too Act.

SECTION II: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS
1. Public school districts shall not discriminate against students or parents on the basis of their religious viewpoints or expressions of religion.
2. Students may wear clothing, accessories and jewelry that display religious messages or symbols in the same manner and to the same extent that other types of clothing, accessories and jewelry that display messages or symbols are permitted.
3. Students may express their beliefs about their religion in their class assignments, discussions, and artwork free of discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such work must be evaluated by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance. If assignments or artwork containing religious viewpoints are shown or made available to parents, the community, or the general public, it must be accompanied with a disclaimer that the viewpoints expressed are those of the student and are not endorsed by the school district.
4. Students in public schools may pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that students may engage in secular student-led activities or expression. Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, “see you at the pole” gatherings, or other religious gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students may organize or participate in other extracurricular gatherings and groups. Religious groups must be granted the same access to school facilities as other student extracurricular groups.
5. Student-led religious groups or organizations may invite outside guests, such as clergy, religious leaders or parents, to speak, and teach, or lead prayers at group meetings. Invited guests must be approved by school administration, pass a school district-approved background check, and not teach or endorse any viewpoints that are contrary to the law or school district curriculum or may incite hatred towards other groups, organizations or activities. Guests may not be paid or materially reimbursed in any way by the school district, parent association, or student association.
6. Students who speak in public forums such as assemblies, graduation ceremonies, and sporting events shall be free to express their religious viewpoints to the extent that secular viewpoints would be permitted. Students who speak in such forums shall be selected based on neutral criteria. School districts and individual schools are free to establish time limits and other restrictions that do not infringe student expression. School administrators must provide disclaimers that student viewpoints are those of the student and are not endorsed by the school district through all relevant channels, including but not limited to oral announcement and written disclaimers in in the event program.
7. This act is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to, authorize this region or any of its political or administrative subdivisions to:
a. Require any person to participate in prayer or other religious activities.
b. Violate the constitutional rights of any person.
8. No student shall be forced to take part in any sort of religious activity before, during or after school hours. Participation in religious activities in any school in the region shall require authorization from the student and if said student is a minor, from their parents or legal tutors as well. Participation in religious activities shall also not be considered for the purposes of grading by any school in this region, nor by any university, college or graduate school in this region for the purposes of grading, access, enrollment, scholarships or dorm assignments
8. 9. Upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, any educational personnel may request consent to search any student's belongings and/or property. The student that would be searched may, if they see fit, refuse consent to any such search. Such a refusal is not to be construed as insubordination. The taking of any disciplinary action by any educational official, as a response to refusal of consent to a request to search, is hereby prohibited. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the right of an educational official to acquire a warrant for any search, to search when a warrant is possessed, or to search when a warrant is not required. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting "probable cause" based searches. Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving students property rights in an assigned locker, desk, or workspace.
9. 10. Section IV of the Lincoln Gun Control Act mandating school employees search every item that enters a school before it enters a school is hereby repealed.
10. 11. No student shall be required to obtain permission to possess lotion or sunscreen while at school.
11. 12. No public school district may prohibit students from carrying bags or purses that are not transparent.
12. 13. Any public school system may allow students in the same administrative district who are enrolled in a lawful home school program to participate in extracurricular activities conducted by the public school system, provided the home school students are subject to the same waiver of liability applicable to public school students.

SECTION III: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
1. Every public College and University in Lincoln has an obligation to protect peaceful expressive activities by enrolled students. Any enrolled student who: physically obstructs another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities or who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities, shall be sanctioned by the College. Colleges may determine the appropiate punishment for said students. Nothing in this section shall construe the police and the justice system of this region from prosecuting the student to the full extent of the law for any laws they might have broken. Any student sanctioned under this subsection on 3 separate occasions, shall be suspended from the College for 1 year following a hearing. Any enrolled student who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities by falsely pulling a fire alarm, threatening violence, or committing actual violence, shall be suspended from the college for 1 year, following a hearing.
2. Any outdoors public space on a public College, other than roadways, is a public forum. No public College may maintain a speech code prohibiting expressive activities in a public forum, other than enforcing reasonable noise limits between the hours of 11 P.M. and 7 A.M.
3. 2. No public College shall consider the race or religion of any student when determining dormitory assignments.
4. 3. Any student enrolled in a public College in Lincoln who has been accused of a crime, shall be entitled to due process prior to being suspended from the college. This shall include adequate notice of the time of, place of, and accusations being presented during a fair and impartial hearing, the right to attend the hearing with legal counsel, the right to offer evidence to challenge the accusations, the right to make a record or transcript of the hearing, and the right to address the hearing prior to a final decision.
5. No person enrolled in a public College or University who may lawfully own a weapon or firearm shall be prevented from storing their weapon or firearm inside a locked vehicle which is lawfully parked upon the boundaries of a public College.
6. The failure by any public College in Lincoln to abide by these requirements, shall result in a 25% reduction of funding.
7. 4. The following information shall not be subject to Lincoln FOIA laws:
a.) The name, address, any identifying information, and any contact information of any student in a public school or public college in Lincoln.

SECTION IV: ENACTMENT
1. This act shall take effect forty-five (45) days after passage.

Sponsor feedback: 24h to specify, otherwise assumed unfriendly
Status: Waiting for feedback

[Former President tack50]

This is a more limited fix than SNJC's ammendment (which pretty much nuked the entire bill) and is intended to be a compromise. Some changes:

The right to prayers with the same restrictions as secular activities is removed. Prayers can and should be treated differently than something like playing chess.

Religious visitors are still allowed with limitations on hateful speech. They are also not allowed to take part in prayers themselves.

Added a new section to make clear that participation in any sort of religious activity is optional and requires authorization from the child and if he is a minor, his parents. I also ban religious activities from being considered for grading or for entering college.

Left the punishment for students who disturb speech to colleges themselves

Took out the section about any speech being allowed in public forums. The public grounds at a college campus are still the property of the college after all.

Took out the section banning colleges from forbidding guns in parked cars at parking lots.

Took out the 25% cut to colleges who didn't abide by section III

[lfromnj]

Btw your amendment's language isn't gender neutral.

Also what would be the punishment for colleges that refuse to enforce the law as given here?

[Former President tack50]

Btw your amendment's language isn't gender neutral.

Also what would be the punishment for colleges that refuse to enforce the law as given here?

Whoops, time to make it gender neutral.

As for the punishment, I imagine it would be up to the courts. Not every law has an associated punishment with it.

[Former President tack50]

With no feedback being received in 24 hours, the ammendment is assumed unfriendly

Councillors, a vote is now open on the following ammendment

Ammendment L 2:16 by tack50

SECTION I: NAME
1. This act shall be called the Students Have Rights Too Act.

SECTION II: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS
1. Public school districts shall not discriminate against students or parents on the basis of their religious viewpoints or expressions of religion.
2. Students may wear clothing, accessories and jewelry that display religious messages or symbols in the same manner and to the same extent that other types of clothing, accessories and jewelry that display messages or symbols are permitted.
3. Students may express their beliefs about their religion in their class assignments, discussions, and artwork free of discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such work must be evaluated by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance. If assignments or artwork containing religious viewpoints are shown or made available to parents, the community, or the general public, it must be accompanied with a disclaimer that the viewpoints expressed are those of the student and are not endorsed by the school district.
4. Students in public schools may pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that students may engage in secular student-led activities or expression. Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, “see you at the pole” gatherings, or other religious gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students may organize or participate in other extracurricular gatherings and groups. Religious groups must be granted the same access to school facilities as other student extracurricular groups.
5. Student-led religious groups or organizations may invite outside guests, such as clergy, religious leaders or parents, to speak, and teach, or lead prayers at group meetings. Invited guests must be approved by school administration, pass a school district-approved background check, and not teach or endorse any viewpoints that are contrary to the law or school district curriculum or may incite hatred towards other groups, organizations or activities. Guests may not be paid or materially reimbursed in any way by the school district, parent association, or student association.
6. Students who speak in public forums such as assemblies, graduation ceremonies, and sporting events shall be free to express their religious viewpoints to the extent that secular viewpoints would be permitted. Students who speak in such forums shall be selected based on neutral criteria. School districts and individual schools are free to establish time limits and other restrictions that do not infringe student expression. School administrators must provide disclaimers that student viewpoints are those of the student and are not endorsed by the school district through all relevant channels, including but not limited to oral announcement and written disclaimers in in the event program.
7. This act is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to, authorize this region or any of its political or administrative subdivisions to:
a. Require any person to participate in prayer or other religious activities.
b. Violate the constitutional rights of any person.
8. No student shall be forced to take part in any sort of religious activity before, during or after school hours. Participation in religious activities in any school in the region shall require authorization from the student and if said student is a minor, from their parents or legal tutors as well. Participation in religious activities shall also not be considered for the purposes of grading by any school in this region, nor by any university, college or graduate school in this region for the purposes of grading, access, enrollment, scholarships or dorm assignments
8. 9. Upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, any educational personnel may request consent to search any student's belongings and/or property. The student that would be searched may, if they see fit, refuse consent to any such search. Such a refusal is not to be construed as insubordination. The taking of any disciplinary action by any educational official, as a response to refusal of consent to a request to search, is hereby prohibited. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the right of an educational official to acquire a warrant for any search, to search when a warrant is possessed, or to search when a warrant is not required. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting "probable cause" based searches. Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving students property rights in an assigned locker, desk, or workspace.
9. 10. Section IV of the Lincoln Gun Control Act mandating school employees search every item that enters a school before it enters a school is hereby repealed.
10. 11. No student shall be required to obtain permission to possess lotion or sunscreen while at school.
11. 12. No public school district may prohibit students from carrying bags or purses that are not transparent.
12. 13. Any public school system may allow students in the same administrative district who are enrolled in a lawful home school program to participate in extracurricular activities conducted by the public school system, provided the home school students are subject to the same waiver of liability applicable to public school students.

SECTION III: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
1. Every public College and University in Lincoln has an obligation to protect peaceful expressive activities by enrolled students. Any enrolled student who: physically obstructs another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities or who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities, shall be sanctioned by the College. Colleges may determine the appropiate punishment for said students. Nothing in this section shall construe the police and the justice system of this region from prosecuting the student to the full extent of the law for any laws they might have broken. Any student sanctioned under this subsection on 3 separate occasions, shall be suspended from the College for 1 year following a hearing. Any enrolled student who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities by falsely pulling a fire alarm, threatening violence, or committing actual violence, shall be suspended from the college for 1 year, following a hearing.
2. Any outdoors public space on a public College, other than roadways, is a public forum. No public College may maintain a speech code prohibiting expressive activities in a public forum, other than enforcing reasonable noise limits between the hours of 11 P.M. and 7 A.M.
3. 2. No public College shall consider the race or religion of any student when determining dormitory assignments.
4. 3. Any student enrolled in a public College in Lincoln who has been accused of a crime, shall be entitled to due process prior to being suspended from the college. This shall include adequate notice of the time of, place of, and accusations being presented during a fair and impartial hearing, the right to attend the hearing with legal counsel, the right to offer evidence to challenge the accusations, the right to make a record or transcript of the hearing, and the right to address the hearing prior to a final decision.
5. No person enrolled in a public College or University who may lawfully own a weapon or firearm shall be prevented from storing their weapon or firearm inside a locked vehicle which is lawfully parked upon the boundaries of a public College.
6. The failure by any public College in Lincoln to abide by these requirements, shall result in a 25% reduction of funding.
7. 4. The following information shall not be subject to Lincoln FOIA laws:
a.) The name, address, any identifying information, and any contact information of any student in a public school or public college in Lincoln.

SECTION IV: ENACTMENT
1. This act shall take effect forty-five (45) days after passage.

Please vote AYE, NAY or Abstain
This vote shall last for 24h or until all Councillors have voted.

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[Sirius_]

Nay, because it still removes provision allowing private prayer.

[S019]

Aye, it removes religion from schools, and gets rid of most of the bad provisions

[Sestak]

Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité.

[S019]

Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité.

Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view.

[Sestak]

Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité.

Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view.

Secularism, in our cultural context, does NOT mean the same thing as French-style laïcité, which is what you seem to be advocating here.

[S019]

Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité.

Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view.

Secularism, in our cultural context, does NOT mean the same thing as French-style laïcité, which is what you seem to be advocating here.

I am not a Christian so, I feel that with any religious mention, me and other non-Christians will be persecuted and/or ostracized

[Sestak]

Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité.

Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view.

Secularism, in our cultural context, does NOT mean the same thing as French-style laïcité, which is what you seem to be advocating here.

I am not a Christian so, I feel that with any religious mention, me and other non-Christians will be persecuted and/or ostracized

But think about this from the other perspective for a second.

Let's take Muslim students for example. Islam mandates prayer five times a day, and at least one of those times is (I believe) almost certain to have its range mostly or entirely in school hours on any given day. Are you proposing that Muslim students should have to leave the campus daily to pray and then return to campus?

That sounds a lot more like actual persecution than some Christian students mentioning their faith in a non-school-promoted setting does.

[S019]

Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité.

Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view.

Secularism, in our cultural context, does NOT mean the same thing as French-style laïcité, which is what you seem to be advocating here.

I am not a Christian so, I feel that with any religious mention, me and other non-Christians will be persecuted and/or ostracized

But think about this from the other perspective for a second.

Let's take Muslim students for example. Islam mandates prayer five times a day, and at least one of those times is (I believe) almost certain to have its range mostly or entirely in school hours on any given day. Are you proposing that Muslim students should have to leave the campus daily to pray and then return to campus?

That sounds a lot more like actual persecution than some Christian students mentioning their faith in a non-school-promoted setting does.

I'm not a Muslim either, and while I have sympathy for these Christians and Muslims, them praying may make students of other religions, such as Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, feel ostracized. Why do you want to take us back to the era of school prayer. I am part of their other religions, I am very skeptical of bringing religion into schools. The SC already outlawed school prayer, this bill literally allows school prayer

[Sestak]

Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité.

Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view.

Secularism, in our cultural context, does NOT mean the same thing as French-style laïcité, which is what you seem to be advocating here.

I am not a Christian so, I feel that with any religious mention, me and other non-Christians will be persecuted and/or ostracized

But think about this from the other perspective for a second.

Let's take Muslim students for example. Islam mandates prayer five times a day, and at least one of those times is (I believe) almost certain to have its range mostly or entirely in school hours on any given day. Are you proposing that Muslim students should have to leave the campus daily to pray and then return to campus?

That sounds a lot more like actual persecution than some Christian students mentioning their faith in a non-school-promoted setting does.

I'm not a Muslim either, and while I have sympathy for these Christians and Muslims, them praying may make students of other religions, such as Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, feel ostracized. Why do you want to take us back to the era of school prayer. I am part of their other religions, I am very skeptical of bringing religion into schools. The SC already outlawed school prayer, this bill literally allows school prayer

I'm not advocating "taking us back" to anything. Private prayer is currently not just legal but constitutionally protected, while school-organized prayer is constitutionally prohibited. Which is exactly how it should be.