LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act.

[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'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.

People should not bring religion into schools, period. Why do you (a Mike Gravel supporter for California), of all people, support this bill?

[Sestak]

The "school prayer" banned by SCOTUS IRL refers to school-facilitated prayer, not "prayer that just happens to be in a school".

[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'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.

People should not bring religion into schools, period. Why do you (a Mike Gravel supporter for California), of all people, support this bill?

People have a right to free exercise. Infringing on that is unconstitutional.

As a matter of fact, there are several parts of this bill that I think go too far. But what we're specifically discussing right now is the provision regarding private, voluntary prayer that happens to be taking place inside school property.

[S019]

Then they should go outside of the school, onto the playground or something, and pray during their lunch period, but only if no one can see them and if they do it in complete and utter silence

[lfromnj]

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

Engel V Vitale specifically outlawed mandatory school prayer with official school backing. These would be more unofficial clubs.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Then they should go outside of the school, onto the playground or something, and pray during their lunch period, but only if no one can see them and if they do it in complete and utter silence

Damn. I understand you aren't Christian and probably don't realize you are being offensive, but my lord is this an offensive point of view ... that the mere fact that a person is religious is so repugnant to you that they must hide and stay silent lest they merely be perceived, as though perceiving someone worshiping different than them is an attack. If you saw me praying before a meal in a restaurant would you similarly feel disgusted and demand the owner kick me out?

And again, as I have pointed out multiple times as have others, the Supreme Court REQUIRES protections that you want to eliminate. You cannot ignore the Supreme Court just because you have no empathy for the religious. Several binding Supreme Court cases I have linked to require policies in this bill you want to vote down. You cant just vote away a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution. Public schools are not allowed to single out religious speech for adverse treatment in public and semi public forums. So again, if I can talk about Avengers: Endgame or robots or being gay at the lunch table then I can also pray, and the idea that I shouldnt be able to is evil.

[lfromnj]

Then they should go outside of the school, onto the playground or something, and pray during their lunch period, but only if no one can see them and if they do it in complete and utter silence

Damn. I understand you aren't Christian and probably don't realize you are being offensive, but my lord is this an offensive point of view ... that the mere fact that a person is religious is so repugnant to you that they must hide and stay silent lest they merely be perceived, as though perceiving someone worshiping different than them is an attack. If you saw me praying before a meal in a restaurant would you similarly feel disgusted and demand the owner kick me out?

And again, as I have pointed out multiple times as have others, the Supreme Court REQUIRES protections that you want to eliminate. You cannot ignore the Supreme Court just because you have no empathy for the religious. Several binding Supreme Court cases I have linked to require policies in this bill you want to vote down. You cant just vote away a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution. Public schools are not allowed to single out religious speech for adverse treatment in public and semi public forums. So again, if I can talk about Avengers: Endgame or robots or being gay at the lunch table then I can also pray, and the idea that I shouldnt be able to is evil.

Now that should be a crime.

[Pyro]

Abstain.

[Former President tack50]

The vote on Ammendment L 2:16 is now closed

Aye: 2 (tack50, S019)
Abstain: 2 (Pyro, lfromnj*)
Nay: 2 (Ninja, thr33)
Not voting: 3 (Zaybay, Dipper Josh, Griffin)

*: Posted while the vote was open but didn't post a vote itself, which I'm counting as an abstention

With the numbers being tied, the governor shall break this tie.

[Former President tack50]

Honestly looking at the vote results, I fear most Councillors weren't even aware a vote was taking place. I guess I should have pinged everyone on Discord or sent PMs?

Joining into the debate, I have to say that the ammendment does not ban prayer in schools per se. Remember prayer groups and the like are still recognized by the law. Not to mention that the relevant Supreme Court cases still exist.

I do think that while prayers at schools should be allowed, they should also be restricted depending on circumstances. No teacher should interrupt their class because a kid wants to pray for example. (of course, said kid can and should be able to pray during recess or between classes)

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Honestly looking at the vote results, I fear most Councillors weren't even aware a vote was taking place. I guess I should have pinged everyone on Discord or sent PMs?

Yes, you really should do that.

[Peanut]

I have two aspects that concern me.

1) Council opinion is fragmented. We really don't have  strong determination on the Council's will, with diferring viewpoints between, well, pretty much everyone, and an Amendment accepted  by only 2 Councillors.

2) Some of the wording and intentions of this bill could be worked on a little more.

I will be monitoring this debate closely, and urge Councillors with any more questions about where I stand to contact me.

For now, I vote NAY on this Amendment. As such, it fails, and debate shall resume on the former bill. Thank you.

[Former President tack50]

Given that the 2 attempts to ammend the bill have failed, I think we should go with a final vote.

I motion for a final vote. 24h to object

[S019]

I object

I cannot support a bill that allows prayer in schools

[Mr. Reactionary]

I object

I cannot support a bill that allows prayer in schools

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Club_v._Milford_Central_School
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenberger_v._University_of_Virginia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb%27s_Chapel_v._Center_Moriches_Union_Free_School_District
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1028/viewpoint-discriminationUC

You have already lost though. Most of these Supreme Court cases are probably older than you. You need a federal constitutional amendment in order to legally prohibit only prayer within a physical school.

[Former President tack50]

I object

I cannot support a bill that allows prayer in schools

Uh, this is for a final vote. You can always vote no in the final vote.

[Sestak]

Tack, you’re rushing. There is clearly a compromise to be found here.

[S019]

Tack, you’re rushing. There is clearly a compromise to be found here.

The compromise is to outlaw prayer I'm schools

[lfromnj]

I would vote Aye on this but I don't want to be on atlas next week. Can someone who would vote no abstain to pair with me for abstention?(I would vote aye as long as thr says the full bill is friendly)

[S019]

I would vote Aye on this but I don't want to be on atlas next week. Can someone who would vote no abstain to pair with me for abstention?(I would vote aye as long as thr says the full bill is friendly)

Is this on the final vote or the vote to override a filibuster

[lfromnj]

I would vote Aye on this but I don't want to be on atlas next week. Can someone who would vote no abstain to pair with me for abstention?(I would vote aye as long as thr says the full bill is friendly)

Is this on the final vote or the vote to override a filibuster

This is on both votes I guess.

[S019]

I would vote Aye on this but I don't want to be on atlas next week. Can someone who would vote no abstain to pair with me for abstention?(I would vote aye as long as thr says the full bill is friendly)

Is this on the final vote or the vote to override a filibuster

This is on both votes I guess.

I can Abstain on the final vote, because if the filibuster fails, there is no way that the bill would fail a final vote

[Sestak]

ATTN PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THIS BILL: the unamended version is probably not passing. If you want parts of it at least, I’d recommend asking for debate to continue.

[S019]

ATTN PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THIS BILL: the unamended version is probably not passing. If you want parts of it at least, I’d recommend asking for debate to continue.

I agree, scrap the parts dealing with prayer in schools, and this bill earns my support

[Sestak]

I'm not entirely opposed to a more limited bill removing the controversial sections if that's the only way this will pass, but from reading the debate, given that it's been stated a lot of the rights stated in the bill have been affirmed by the SCOTUS, by omission aren't we denying rulings?

I think (ignoring SNJC) the primary sticking point is II.6 - I agree that just thanking Jesus once during a graduation speech is probably acceptable? But the section goes far beyond that, allowing student speakers to turn mandatory assemblies into basically sermons.  There is, I think, some rewording/tightening that can be done here.