Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education

Abolishment of the Lord's prayer in ontario in public schools
by

Bree Collins

on 14 January 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education

Verdict: Heard: February 17-19 1988
Verdict: September 23, 1988 Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education The court ruled in favour of Zylberberg Our Take The W's where: Supreme court of Ontario, Court of appeal

who: Philip Zylberberg, Mora Gregg, Bryna Coppel-Park, Harvey Wyers, and Sam Enver
against the director of education of the Sudbury Board of Education.

why: whether or not praying, saying the Lord's prayer, and devotions are against the freedom of religion and conscience right. Rights infringed upon
freedom of religion and conscience

Because Christianity (according to Zylberberg)was
given preference with daily readings of the lords
prayer and devotions. If you read Zylberberg's case it seems as if children were forced to pray, and frankly, they weren't, as long as they 'maintained proper decorum' they were allowed to remain in class or even leave the classroom under supervision at a parent's request. So there were many solutions available to avoid this court case. Even with the case going through you could support all types of religion by doing a piece for each relgion instead of doing a strictly christian devotion or even just a moment of silence. In our opinion the action taken was too much too fast as not even 25% of the public supported the movement. Finally, we think that this did not discriminate against the constitutional rights, and that this matter didn't need to be taken up with the court. Background Zylberberg was contested Reasons why There was no compromise, any strictly christian time was forbidden. rights violated:
sudbury education system.

He was an atheist (as were all the
persons on the opposing side.) Zylberberg was a teacher in the The public didn't actually agree
with Zylberberg because they
believed the regulations and
precautions in place were
enough.
Full transcript