America California Christianity/Religion Education Evil Outrageous Patriotism Schools Social The World

Muslim Prayer Allowed in San Diego–Christian Prayer Denied in Bayonne

Somehow I missed hearing about this story until yesterday, and when I did so, I listened carefully, then read thoroughly about this development. My ire is raised…for it is reported that in Carver, a San Diego elementary public school, a time during class hours has been set aside for Muslim led prayers, and that the school is now offering classes in Arabic.

Carver school no longer serves pork and other foods which conflict with fundamental Muslims diet restrictions. In addition, single gender classes for girls have been set up there.

When I read this, my mind raced to Jeremy Jerschina, the valedictorian of his graduating class, who was forbidden to include a prayer in his address to the assembled people during the ceremonies.

Please carefully read both of these accounts …and think…what you’re reading. It’s outrageous!

Muslim prayers in school debated

S.D. elementary at center of dispute

By Helen Gao
STAFF WRITER San Diego Tribute

July 2, 2007

A San Diego public school has become part of a national debate over religion in schools ever since a substitute teacher publicly condemned an Arabic language program that gives Muslim students time for prayer during school hours.

Carver Elementary in Oak Park added Arabic to its curriculum in September when it suddenly absorbed more than 100 students from a defunct charter school that had served mostly Somali Muslims.

OVERVIEW Background: The U.S. Department of Education’s guidelines say students can pray at public schools during school hours by themselves or with fellow students. However, Šteachers and other public school officials may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible or other religious activities. What’s happening: A substitute teacher claimed that Carver Elementary School in San Diego was indoctrinating students into Islam, and that a teacher’s aide led Muslim children in prayer. An investigation failed to substantiate the claims, but the allegations have thrust Carver into a nationwide debate over prayer in schools. The future: Carver, which has set aside a 15-minute break to allow time for students to pray, is considering alternative prayer accommodations. Religious and civil rights groups are monitoring developments.

After subbing at Carver, the teacher claimed that religious indoctrination was taking place and said that a school aide had led Muslim students in prayer.

An investigation by the San Diego Unified School District failed to substantiate the allegations. But critics continue to assail Carver for providing a 15-minute break in the classroom each afternoon to accommodate Muslim students who wish to pray. (Those who don’t pray can read or write during that non-instructional time.)

Some say the arrangement at Carver constitutes special treatment for a specific religion that is not extended to other faiths. Others believe it crosses the line into endorsement of religion.

Article continues here.

The Bayonne High School graduation ceremonies on July 20 were marred by a controversy over the inclusion of a prayer in this year’s Valedictory Address.

Traditionally, the top student of the graduating class speaks during the ceremonies, often expressing feelings about the past and hopes for the future.

But a few days before the June 20 ceremonies, Jeremy Jerschina – this year’s valedictorian – was asked to submit his speech for review.

The speech ended with a prayer to God, which was deemed unacceptable by school officials.

The article continues here.

Here is Jeremy’s “offensive” prayer:

Dear God,
I am to You forever grateful for Your Creation. You placed Your eternal Hand upon the Earth and created Man. You have created him of every tongue and race, and gave him the capacity to grasp at least some of the vast multiplicity which You precisely engineered.
Thank You, Lord, for bringing us together tonight to celebrate both our achievements and those individuals who have helped lead us to this level of accomplishment.
Also, lest we forget about You in the midst of our individual successes, I ask You impart in us an understanding and remembrance of Your omnipresent power and might.
Lord, I pray that You guide, protect and bless us.
I give You all praise and honor for Your Creation, for Your love, for Your mercy, and for the life that You proffer to us daily. In Jesus Christ’s Name, Amen.

What is wrong with our country, our Christian nation formed on Judeao-Christian values? What has happened to our throats that sing loudly, God Bless America, and on whose coins is stamped In God We Trust?

Who is behind these wretched decisions that provide for Muslims to have special menus, class arrangements and adult led prayers during class time, but who deny a high school valedictorian the opportunity to say a godly prayer in which Jesus Christ is mentioned? Something is terribly wrong here.

I will get lots of flack from this post–I know that, but I am prepared for it. I hope too, that you who are of like thinking as I, will also speak. We must not be silent against the terrible war that is raging against our country, and that threatens to destroy the freedom to practice our cherished Judeo-Christian values–values that were brought at great price.


My devotional blog is here.

By Shirley Buxton

Still full of life and ready to be on the move, Shirley at 84 years old feels blessed to have lots of energy and to be full of optimism. She was married to Jerry for 63 years, and grieves yet at his death in August of 2019. They have 4 children, 13 grandchildren and 11 great-grandchildren...all beautiful and highly intelligent--of course. :)

24 replies on “Muslim Prayer Allowed in San Diego–Christian Prayer Denied in Bayonne”

Six year’s ago in Republic Washington I had the honor of attending a high school graduation in wich a close personal friend of mines son was graduating with honors. Chris Coffee (my friend’s son) and another young man named Sam, who also was graduating with honor’s made us all very proud when they demonstrated great courage by giving credit for their acheivement’s to Jesus Christ. We were also quite thankful and a little suprised that their microphones were not turned off.

Earlier this year in the same Republic Washington public school my neice had her head bowed down an her eyes closed in the cafateria praying SILENTLY to herself before she proceeded to eat her lunch. A teacher stopped her in mid-prayer an informed her that not only was that not allowed, but that if she continued to do so there would be harsh disciplinary action’s taken against her. The teacher did this so loudly and rudely that the entire cafateria sat silently and stared. My neice was not dissuaded and continues to pray to herself silently, between classes and before lunch. She has recently been told by multiple teacher’s that she will be expelled from school if she continues to do so.

I ask, what harm is she doing?, how does her silent prayer during her free time offend other’s?, how does it violate another’s right’s?. What are these teacher’s afraid of? (highly rhetorical question)

So it does not suprise me at all that they suppressed the valadictorian’s speech. It does break my heart though. Unfortunately we all knew this day was coming regardless of the injustice.

In regard’s to the muslim prayer time in San Diego I see it as a doubley dangerous, double standard. This group is allowed to take up academic time that is payed for by the taxpayer’s money to pray to their god out loud, with prop’s ect. an yet my christian neice is not allowed to pray in silence on her own time, not the taxpayer’s, just because she is on school property. That is a double standard. An before I tell you that don’t know why it is so dangerous let me explain that I know what is presently happening to my neice at school is not legal…….,yet. I can only assess that these teacher’s are quite confident that their hopes and dream’s will soon be true an that silent christian prayer in any public school will be illegal….soon. It hurt’s me deeply to have to admit that they are probably correct.

Since these fact’s are all about School’s, Law’s and the two very different belief’s, Christianity an Islam, let me state part of why it is all so dangerous. Both have “good and bad”member’s. The “good” member’s of Islam and the muslim faith have a ultimate goal, convert or kill every single human being on earth who does not agree with them. This is what the koran teaches. The “bad” member’s of Islam according to devout koran believing muslim’s are the ones who don’t believe in forcing other’s to believe like them or die, an say they want to live in peace.

The “good” Christian’s who are devout believer’s of the Bible are instructed to love all men and live peacefuly with other’s. To share the truth with non-believer’s and then let them make their own decision as God lead’s them. NOT to be “inforced”. Simply tell them then leave them be. The “bad” so called christian’s try to force their belief’s on other’s by yelling at them, persuing them with guilt, lying to them to get their money, and using their posistion to enact attrossities upon other’s.

While I must say that a very large part of mainstream American evangelical’s have done more to harm the Kingdom of God than they have to further it. I have to ask you that have a “secular point of veiw” …, would you rather have a “bad” christian abuse you verbally and guit trip you for not believing the same as them, or have a “good” muslim kill you for not believing the same as them?

Don’t trust my knowledge about it either, read the Bible for yourself and seek out someone who does a decent job of reflecting the thing’s taught in it to consult, and/or read the koran then seek out someone who has grown up in a muslim nation to consult.

You will find that the “good” muslim will not only kill the christian man but also the liberal one, the tolerant one, the atheist, the agnostic, the homosexual and on an on an on.

What would you be more afraid of ? Leaving your loved ones alone with a Christian an return to discover they were bad.., or leaving your loved ones alone with a Muslim an return
to discover they were “good”..???

Or in reference to this current topic, what do you want promoted to your children an what do you want supressed ?

P.S. To Greg the Explorer. It sound’s to me like you get your historical fact’s from the media or worse yet the latest agenda serving U.S. public school curriculam history book’s. Neither are reliable there buddy. Try exploring the difference between the History taught 100 years ago, then 80 years ago, then 60 ect. ect. until you reach what is taught today. I am confident anyone who does this will learn just how decieved we have ALL been.

May Jesus Christ find his proper place in your heart an never leave.


Hi Muslim Guy,

I lived in a MUSLIM country almost half of my life. What I see is the worst kind of people they are. No amount of explaining that islam is religion of peace in which is NOT. Muslims can NEVER be integrated in ANY society its because the want to do things in islamic way. WHERE THERE ARE MUSLIMS THERE WILL ALWAYS BE TROUBLE. Minority, they (muslims) are quiet people, but just wait until they think they have enough muscle politically because of their increasing population in any country, you will see trouble, BIG TIME. Watchout FRANCE & UK, Salahuddin is marching!
GOOD LUCK USA..they are coming..Be strong!


Hi There,

I am a practicing muslim who prays five times a day. I think there is one point that most people miss. The muslim prayer allowed in school is a personal act that does not directly affect members of any other belief. The fact that it is performed in a group does not change the fact. Most Christian students in the school won’t even notice that the muslim students are praying several times a day. However, the prayer the Christian student was trying to say was a public act which is performed in front of a large group which may be composed of people from very diverse backgrounds. Please do not ignore this point.

Secondly, most Christians in the US (as a matter of fact in the rest of the world too) do not understand what Islam is all about. I guess people watch too much TV. Instead, you can simply knock on the door of a muslim neighbor (there are millions of us living in this country now) and ask about Islam. They will be more than happy to share their food, offer you a warm cup of tea and sincerely tell you what Islam is all about. If you want to learn tolerance, you need to act first. If you want muslims to integrate into the life here, you will be surprised how they are already integrated into the life in the US. Howver, if all you mean by integration is “assimilation” and you want muslims to be like you, well, you need to change that mentality first and then we can talk.

Finally, as a practicing muslim, I see nothing wrong with the prayer of the Christian student except for the “In Jesus Christ’s name” part. Otherwise, it is a perfectly meaningful prayer and I would go there to recite it on his side.



I thought prayer was outlawed in public schools

Evidently, only Christian prayer is outlawed in public schools. It’s pitiful. SJBuxton


Great research…? I dont think so Dave – and trust me I am not finshed yet. I just have more to do with my time than follow this thread. A hot Milo can be found described here Shirley: Dave…I will return but for now Thomas Jefferson was respnsioble for the jefferson bible was he not?

<blockquote<The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was an attempt by Thomas Jefferson to glean the teachings of Jesus from the Christian Gospels. Jefferson wished to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1] In essence, Thomas Jefferson did not believe in Jesus’ divinity, the Trinity, resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the Bible.[2]

Doesn;t sound like a Christian to me!


Just like all the other secular progressives when they lose an argument….they pout.
Thank each and everyone of you for the great research. Of course this country was founded on Christian principals. The only way we will save it will be to return to those principals and morals. To cherish life and to be tolerant of each other. That does not mean we need to give certain groups additional rights just because of their religion or sexual preference, but it does mean we can pray for them even when they don’t pray for themselves.
God bless.


I realise what Shirley was doing and Iagree with Shirley, and HelenL…and you, howqever I disagree that the founding fathers were Christians as you seem to understand them to be – nor do i think it is important that they were.

I was responding to your comment:

I’ve studied some on our founding fathers, and they were men of faith who believed in and endorsed the reading of the Bible. I believe they would turn over in their graves if they saw what was going on here.

Anyhoo I’m gog to make myself and my wife a hot milo and sit down to watch Borat, a cultural masterpiece the like of which there has never, nor shall there ever be, an equal. 😉



Here’s something for you to consider concerning the founding fathers:

The Declaration of Independence

Many are unaware of the writings and documents that preceded these great works and the influence of biblical ideas in their formation. Let’s first look at the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution.

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution to the Continental Congress calling for a formal declaration of independence. However, even at that late date, there was significant opposition to the resolution. So, Congress recessed for three weeks to allow delegates to return home and discuss the proposition with their constituents while a committee was appointed to express the Congressional sentiments. The task of composing the Declaration fell to Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson’s initial draft left God out of the manuscript entirely except for a vague reference to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” Yet,even this phrase makes an implicit reference to the laws of God. The phrase “laws of nature” had a fixed meaning in 18th century England and America. It was a direct reference to the laws of God in a created order as described in John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government and William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.

What Jefferson was content to leave implicit, however, was made more explicit by the other members of the committee. They changed the language to read that all men are “endowed by their Creator” with these rights. Later, the Continental Congress added phrases, which further reflected a theistic perspective. For example, they added that they were “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions” and that they were placing “firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”

The Declaration was not drafted in an intellectual vacuum, nor did the ideas contained in it suddenly spring from the minds of a few men. Instead, the founders built their framework upon a Reformation foundation laid by such men as Samuel Rutherford and later incorporated by John Locke.

Constitution and Human Nature

The influence of the Bible on the Constitution was profound but often not appreciated by secular historians and political theorists. Two decades ago, Constitutional scholars and political historians (including one of my professors at Georgetown University) assembled 15,000 writings from the Founding Era (1760-1805). They counted 3154 citations in these writings, and found that the book most frequently cited in that literature was the Bible. The writers from the Foundering Era quoted from the Bible 34 percent of the time. Even more interesting was that about three-fourths of all references to the Bible came from reprinted sermons from that era.

Professor M.E. Bradford shows in his book, A Worthy Company, that fifty of the fifty-five men who signed the Constitution were church members who endorsed the Christian faith.

The Bible and biblical principles were important in the framing of the Constitution. In particular, the framers started with a biblical view of human nature. James Madison argued in Federalist #51 that government must be based upon a realistic view of human nature.

But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Framing a republic requires a balance of power that liberates human dignity and rationality and controls human sin and depravity.

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind, which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.

A Christian view of government is based upon a balanced view of human nature. It recognizes both human dignity (we are created in God’s image) and human depravity (we are sinful individuals). Because both grace and sin operate in government, we should neither be too optimistic nor too pessimistic. Instead, the framers constructed a government with a deep sense of biblical realism.

Constitution and Majority Tyranny

James Madison in defending the Constitution divided the problem of tyranny into two broad categories: majority tyranny (addressed in Federalist #10) and governmental tyranny (addressed in Federalist #47-51). Madison concluded from his study of governments that they were destroyed by factions. He believed this factionalism was due to “the propensity of mankind, to fall into mutual animosities” (Federalist #10), which he believed were “sown in the nature of man.” Government, he concluded, must be based upon a more realistic view which also accounts for this sinful side of human nature.

A year before the Constitutional Convention, George Washington wrote to John Jay that, “We have, probably, had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our federation.” From now on, he added, “We must take human nature as we find it.”

Madison’s solution to majority tyranny was the term extended republic. His term for the solution to governmental tyranny was compound republic. He believed that an extended republic with a greater number of citizens would prevent factions from easily taking control of government. He also believed that elections would serve to filter upward men of greater

Madison’s solution to governmental tyranny can be found in Federalist #47-51. These include separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism.

Madison realized the futility of trying to remove passions (human sinfulness) from the population. Therefore, he proposed that human nature be set against human nature. This was done by separating various institutional power structures. First, the church was separated from the state so that ecclesiastical functions and governmental functions would not interfere with religious and political liberty. Second, the federal government was divided into three equal branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Third, the federal government was delegated certain powers while the rest of the powers resided in the state governments.

Each branch was given separate but rival powers, thus preventing the possibility of concentrating power into the hands of a few. Each branch had certain checks over the other branches so that there was a distribution and balance of power. The effect of this system was to allow ambition and power to control itself. As each branch is given power, it provides a check on the other branch. This is what has often been referred to as the concept of “countervailing ambitions.”

Constitution and Governmental Tyranny

James Madison’s solution to governmental tyranny includes both federalism as well as the separation of powers. Federalism can be found at the very heart of the United States Constitution. In fact, without federalism, there was no practical reason for the framers to abandon the Articles of Confederation and draft the Constitution.

Federalism comes from foedus, Latin for covenant. “The tribes of Israel shared a covenant that made them a nation. American federalism originated at least in part in the dissenting Protestants’ familiarity with the Bible.”

The separation of powers allows each branch of government to provide a check on the other. According to Madison, the Constitution provides a framework of supplying “opposite and rival interests” (Federalist #51) through a series of checks and balances. This theory of “countervailing ambition” both prevented tyranny and provided liberty. It was a system in which bad people could do least harm and good people had the freedom to do good works.

For example, the executive branch cannot take over the government and rule at its whim because the legislative branch has been given the power of the purse. Congress must approve or disapprove budgets for governmental programs. A President cannot wage war if the Congress does not appropriate money for its execution.

Likewise, the legislative branch is also controlled by this structure of government. It can pass legislation, but it always faces the threat of presidential veto and judicial oversight. Since the executive branch is responsible for the execution of legislation, the legislature cannot exercise complete control over the government. Under girding all of this is the authority of the ballot box.

Each of these checks was motivated by a healthy fear of human nature. The founders believed in human responsibility and human dignity, but they did not trust human nature too much. Their solution was to separate powers and invest each branch with rival powers.

Biblical ideas were crucial in both the Declaration and the Constitution. Nearly 80 percent of the political pamphlets published during the 1770s were reprinted sermons. As one political science professor put it: “When reading comprehensively in the political literature of the war years, one cannot but be struck by the extent to which biblical sources used by ministers and traditional Whigs under girded the justification for the break with Britain, the rationale for continuing the war, and the basic principles of Americans’ writing their own constitutions.”

Quote from James Madison

The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis and the source of all genuine freedom in government.”
James Madison

Copyright & Reproduction Limitations This data file/document is the sole property of National Center for Freedom & Renewal (NCFR), the parent organization of Point of View. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as “freeware,” without charge. All reproductions of this data file and/or document must contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright © 2003 NCFR) and this Copyright/Reproduction Limitations notice.
Point of View Radio Talk Show uses the powerful tool of live, daily, national talk radio to defend a Biblical Christian worldview and to proclaim Christian solutions for the problems of America. Point of View—and its parent ministry, NCFR—aims to restore the greatness of Christian thought and values to every area of American life. Point of View is a non-profit ministry which serves because of the gifts of like-minded Christians throughout the nation.

I don’t think any of us are forcing our faith on others. Shirley was just observing the unfair treatment of Christians when it comes to being able to pray in public schools. Yet another faith (Muslim) was allowed to have prayer time in public schools.


All three of those statements still don’t amount to evidence that the founding fathers were Christians. In any case – what difference does it make if hey were Christian or not? Who really cares? What matters is the will of the majority of the people in this day and age. We in Australia and ou in America live in a democracy – in fact your president likes democracy so much he wants to foist his version of it upon the world. We don’t live in a theocracy – whatever our beliefs we don’t have the right to force them on anyone else – nor do we have the obligation to suffer others beliefs to be forced upon us. You fore-bears left England becuase they were being forced to accept a version of the Christian faith that they in good conscience could not accept. Why now do Americans want to force their version of Christian faith upon everyone else?

Here in Australia we are bombarded with the likes of Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Creflo dollar, TD Jakes, and the rest of those money grubbing disgusting thieves – is that what you think the whole of Amerca’s people should accept? Do they represent you and your faith?

Let people have their faith, don;t force your own version upon others. And Tena – Jesus loves you as well!


Dear Greg,

When he proclaimed a National Day of Thanksgiving, he said:
“Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor…

Written in the front of his personal Bible, he wrote:
“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator.”

On April 18, 1775, a British soldier ordered him, John Hancock, and others to “disperse in the name of George the Sovereign King of England. Adams responded to him:
“We recognize no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus!”

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated June 28, 1813, he said
“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity”

Jesus loves you. 🙂


Here are some of the things your founding fathers have sai about the Christian faith Kikikaria.

George Washington:
Historian Barry Schwartz writes: “George Washington’s practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian… He repeatedly declined the church’s sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary… Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative.” [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]

“Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself.”
-Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, Feb. 1800

Thomas Jefferson“It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests.”
– to John Adams, 1803
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.”

Benjamin Franklin
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”

“. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

John Adams
“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”

So Kikiaria, it would seem that far from being the bible believing Christians you try to make them out to be – they were anything but! You don;t have to call on the past (or misconceptions about the past) in order to justify prayers in schools.


Kikikaria said:

I’ve studied some on our founding fathers, and they were men of faith who believed in and endorsed the reading of the Bible. I believe they would turn over in their graves if they saw what was going on here.

I sure hope it wasn’t governement funded education that helped you do your studying of the founding fathers – you are perpetuating a fallacy.

The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true.

In fact section 11 the 1776 treaty of tripoli – signed by John Adams says”

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion[my emphasis]; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

Having said that I agree that if one religoin is allowed to pray – then all religions shol dbe, however I thik that HelenL is quite right in saying that it is a complicated issue. Non-one is requiring the prayers be said by all – children are free to participate or not. I wold imagine that the 15 minutes allocated to muslim children could be easily used by children of any faith to pray.

Here in Australia we are extremely fortunate that all state primary schools (yrs k-6) allow volunteer scripture teachers to come and teach scripture. We have just had government funding announced for highschool chaplains should the parents of a school want to have one.


I am in accord with you, Sis. Shirley, and my ire is up! When I graduated from high school in 1978, the theme for our class was “What your are is God’s gift to you. What you make of yourself is your gift to God”. There was even a minister there who prayed for the ceremony. What is this pluralistic nation coming to? I’ve studied some on our founding fathers, and they were men of faith who believed in and endorsed the reading of the Bible. I believe they would turn over in their graves if they saw what was going on here. Another thing that irks me is how colleges won’t allow Christian courses to be taught in their classes but they have classes on new age and the occult, witchcraft, etc. A lot of the bigger, older, more popular colleges, Stanford for one, were founded on Christian principles, but that’s gone out the window. And the curriculums in public schools aren’t any better. I’m thankful we were able to send our son to a Christian Apostolic school, at least for his high school and jr. high years. Okay, I’ll get off my soapbox for awhile.


I thought that the purpose behind separation of church and state wasn’t to keep prayer out of schools but to prevent any one particular faith from DOMINATING and forcing their prayer on others (Tom). If prayer can be allowed in schools in our country for a Muslim, why is it banned for people of Judeao-Christian ethics? It’d be different if it were a Muslim school, and prayer was wont to be made there. If a valedictorian of a class professes Christianity, he/she should be allowed freedom of speech to express that AND PRAY ACCORDINGLY.


I do my best to be tolerant of others. Yet I feel the need for them to be tolerant with me. As a Christian I have many times been called or classified as intolerant. Why? For just doing my best to be a Christian (?). I can be tolerant of these young people praying to Allah, if my memory is correct this means The One True God. Good let them pray to that One True God, but also let others have a similar time of prayer. Now, by this is asking something like this I becomes intolerant. The very thought that a Christian should get the same treatment as a Muslim, just to pray. Why that is being so intolerant. They will need their scripture text when they pray, their prayer rug, pointed in a very specific direction and time to perform cleansing before they prayer. But what about a Christian who would like to pray? Oh No! That would be to show our tolerance for the faith that has made this nation so great. And do not remember, there is a separation between church and state. (?)


Mervin Clark


Well…my personal feelings are… stay with how it was in the beginning. God was in our schools because the country was founded on God. (God’s name is, Jesus Christ).

But, if I put my personal feelings aside and try to have a “fair” opinion, it would be this. One or the other – either allow ALL religions to have prayer in school the way their religion prays OR allow NO ONE to pray in school. How can they allow certain religions to have their way, but stop others?

Personal feelings again… the Bible talks about how in the last days the world would get worse in sin and turn more away from God as the end of time gets closer. I see this as God’s coming getting nearer which means we need to work harder to preach the gospel to as many as will hear it. 2 Timothy, chapter 3.

P.S. This is one reason I homeschool. But, that’s a whole other subject. 🙂

Sis. Buxton, thanks for this post. I’m very glad you put this on your blog. Love you!


Since the student was the chosen valedictorian, I think they should be granted “freedom” in their speech. To refuse that, invalidates our country’s stand for freedom of speech. Don’t even get me started on freedom of religion because it really doesn’t exist.

P.S. Please visit my blog and view a video clip of the WAY Quartet that Bryce put together for the WAY Choir tour this summer. I believe the quartet will be singing on Friday at Camp Meeting.


This is a complicated issue. Didn’t the “great price” that was paid to secure “the freedom to practice our cherished Judeo-Christian values,” also give the freedom to practice other religious values? Are Muslims not “free” to be Muslims? And the argument (made in the part of the article not produced on this blog) that Islam requires prayers at certain times of day (and that those times fall within school hours) and Christianity does not is true. But if steps are made to accommodate Muslim children, should they not be taken to accommodate Christian children?

The moment of silence to start the day seemed fine from a Christian point of view, but it doesn’t seem long enough or come at the right time to accommodate Muslim beliefs. So letting the Muslim children pray while others continue their studies might be a workable plan, but why do the Muslim children need adult-led prayers? Is that what Islam teaches? I don’t know that mush about Islam. Maybe I should.

The prayer that valedictorian was denied was pretty ecumenical, except for Jesus name, so there is a discrepancy here that needs explanation. The decisions were, of course, made by different groups of people.

Are the religious needs of all students important or are none important (with respect to school hours)? If Christians want the Lord’s Prayer put “back in schools,” which many do, aren’t we going to have to figure out how to accommodate Muslim belief also? This isn’t black and white, unless you think we ought to “force” Christianity onto people who seem perfectly happy with their own belief system. If that’s what it means to evangelize, please count me out. If we want to love others to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, this can’t be about “Christian rights.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s