Talk:School prayer

Is it not secular?

Andy,

Is it not a secular culture keeping government and religion apart? Not an atheistic culture as you claim.--JBuscombe 13:13, 1 January 2008 (EST)

"Secular" means public, and reflects public beliefs, as in saying the Pledge of Allegiance, reciting a prayer during the beginning of a congressional session, or swearing in a new president through use of a Bible. Public schools are more properly described as atheistic, where religion is affirmatively censored.--Aschlafly 13:17, 1 January 2008 (EST)

"Secular" means separate from religion. It does not imply public. Also there is no prohibition of prayer in school. That is also protected by the first amendment. Students can pray any time without disrupting the school. What the critics are against is being forced to attend the prayer or the prayer being led by an authoritative figure like teacher. So it is not atheistic , just secular.--JBuscombe 13:22, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Also how would you feel if you are forced to sit through a Muslim prayer led by the teacher every day? Now, do you get the point? --JBuscombe 13:26, 1 January 2008 (EST)

There is a prohibition on prayer in public school, and it is deceitful to pretend otherwise. The prayers that start legislative sessions through the United States cannot be said to start the schoolday or a class in public school.--Aschlafly 13:38, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Are you happy for your child to be forced to sit through an islamic prayer led by a Muslim teacher every day? --JBuscombe 14:35, 1 January 2008 (EST)

5 times a day, actually. SSchultz 14:39, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Not necessarily - the dawn, sunset, and dusk ones would probably not be during the school day, unless one was boarding/homeschooling. Also, in an avowedly liberal school over here in the UK, I can pray whenever I want, so long as it doesn't disrupt teaching. --JOwen

Although I essentially side with Andy on this issue, I was going to say that I don't agree with him on the definition of "secular". However, in checking my facts, it appears that Andy is closer to the truth that anyone here has given him credit for, even if the particular way he expressed it is not exactly right.

• OneLook gives the meaning as "concerning those not members of the clergy", although I don't know which dictionary it got that from.
• Merriam-Webster gives one of the definitions as "not ecclesiastical or clerical", and gives secular courts as an example.
• The Online Etymology Dictionary says that the word started off (in 1290) as meaning '"living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state"'.

It appears that the word, which I'd say started in a society that was Christian, did not originally mean "without religion", but "not part of the religious establishment". The secular courts example above illustrates this. A secular court was distinct from a church court. It had to do with which authority (church or state) controlled it; it was not to do with whether or not religion was involved. Religion (i.e. Christianity) was involved regardless. That is, the state, although distinct from the church still recognised the church as a co-equal authority.

In modern times, it has come to mean "without religion" as one of its most-commonly-used meanings (particularly by atheists and the like), but this appears to not be an original meaning, and so Andy is justified in making the comment that he does.

Furthermore, and this is where I agreed with him anyway, any state that excludes religion is not religiously neutral, but is taking sides, with the atheists. I don't believe that Andy's gripe is that schools don't have to have prayer, but that they are not allowed to have prayer (and we're not talking about students silently or privately praying). If the state allowed, but didn't enforce school prayer, they would be religiously neutral. But if they ban it, they are no longer being religiously neutral.

Philip J. Rayment 07:59, 2 January 2008 (EST)