Prayer in school is justified and ought to be legal.

I have had many debates recently where the instigator posted an opening round and never posted again. ~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///Contention 1/// [Allowing prayer in school does not violate the establishment clause. The establishment clause states that the government of the United States of America may not make any laws that respects an established religion. If the government were in fact to make a law that prohibited individual prayer in schools they would in fact be violating the free exercise clause [R1, source 1]. It would do this by restricting an individual's religious right to pray. Not prohibiting something is not necessarily promoting said thing. ] ///Contention 2/// [The government has not established a prayer to be said in schools. If religion were completely separate from government, as you say with the statement, "religion is being brought into a government institution which is illegal. " then it would be illegal to allow a Christian to have a cross necklace inside of a government building, a catholic couldn't wear a crucifix, a Jew couldn't wear a yarmulke, and a Muslim woman couldn't wear a hijab; there are many other examples. If religion wasn't allowed in government institutions then it would be illegal for a government worker to read the bible during lunch in the break-room of the building. All of these things are currently legal. ] ///Contention 3/// Allowing prayer in school does not violate the free exercise clause as my opponent claims. No one is forcing anyone to pray and no one, save government employees and while on government time, is being told not to pray. ~~~~~~ Defense ~~~~~~ Before I move on I would like to point out that my opponent and I are interpreting the debate resolution in different ways. I believe that he interprets the debate resolution like so: "There should be state sponsored prayer in school. " and has taken the con position to this issue. I interpret it as: "People should be allowed to pray in school. " and I have taken the pro position of this issue. It is here that I believe I am upholding my side by the _word_ of the resolution whereas my opponent has intended this debate to be about state sponsored prayer, an activity that I vehemently oppose. This is merely an observation that I wish my opponent to respond to. ///. .. by instituting prayer in school we actually violate the first amendment. /// [I am not advocating the institution of prayer, merely the allowance of it which is not unconstitutional as I will illustrate below. ] ///In their second contention they said that prayer in school is already legal. This is not so. In the supreme court case Engel v. Vitale, the court ruled that prayer in school was a violation of the free exercise and establishment clauses and was not legal. /// Here are some examples that show that prayer _is allowed in school:_ ". .. the same First Amendment guarantees that students may engage in many forms of non-disruptive personal religious expression, including the wearing of religious clothing and jewelry. They can pray (individually or in student-led groups) on the school bus, at the flagpole, before lunch, in the corridors, in the classroom before and after lessons, at sports events, etc. They can talk freely about religion to other students outside of class. They can distribute religious literature. If there are any student-led clubs in the school, they have the right to organize student-led Bible prayer clubs. " [2]. In his defense my opponent cites Engel V. Vitale, this court case does not outlaw prayer in school. It outlaws state sponsored prayer [3]. ~ I believe that I have proven my case and await my opponent's response. [2] . http://www.religioustolerance.org... [3] . http://supreme.justia.com...