Prayer should not have been removed from public schools.

My opponent has used his entire last argument to say that my interpretation of the debate resolution was wrong, and that I have conceded. Wait, who's using "gotcha" debating here? In fact, nowhere in either Tatarize's first argument, his resolution, or the FULL TEXT of the majority opinion of Abington v. Schempp is the phrase "mandatory prayer" or "forced prayer" used. Tatarize used the general term "prayer" which as he should know is a very vague term. His attempt to define it was one solitary link to a court case that did not actually address prayer. In my book, that's pretty unclear. I read the court case, as well as the dissenting opinion, and yet my opponent accuses me of not reading it (although I actually quoted the dissenting opinion in my argument.) My opponent has chosen not to respond to the points I made in the previous argument; in fact, he denies that I made any at all. In fact, I did, but his statement suggests to me that he did not see fit to read my argument. Since he has not replied to my arguments, I will restate them here as my points. But first I would like to examine his first argument, from which this confusion on my part arose. Here, the full text of my opponent's first argument: "It is absolutely correct that prayer should have been removed from public schools as was done by Abington School District v. Schempp. http://en.wikipedia.org...... The government is forbidden by the first amendment to interfere with religion (without a more primary secular purpose)." "School prayer" can mean either mandatory or voluntary prayer; it could mean meditation, it could mean mere reflection. My opponent chose not to specify what he meant by this term. He relied on this court case, Abington v. Schempp, to make his argument for him, although it was apparently too much trouble for him to quote it in the first argument. Abington v. Schempp DOES NOT ADDRESS school prayer. The Pennsylvania statute which Edward Schempp took issue with on behalf of his children in this case read: "[a]t least ten verses from the Holy Bible [be] read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day." Prayer DOES NOT EQUAL Bible reading. My opponent says I conceded the argument by saying that mandatory prayer is unconstitutional. However, neither mandatory or voluntary prayer was at issue in Abington v. Schempp. Bible reading, including (we find later in the case) a reading of the Lord's prayer, was. The Lord's prayer is in the Bible, and can be read or prayed. Nothing in the case indicates that the Lord's prayer was anything other than read. Prayer is generally accomplished in the "devout posture": head bowed, hands folded, eyes closed. When the Lord's Prayer was read in Pennsylvania public schools, it was merely recited. Even my opponent should be able to see the clear difference. I will address mandatory school prayer, so my opponent will have nothing to complain about, (well, nothing VALID anyway), and in the small chance that I have misread the court case and the phrase "school prayer." Mandatory prayer may be unconstitutional. But then again, if, as I mentioned before (in an argument ignored by Tatarize), most students WANTED to pray, devoting class time to prayer (mandatory prayer) would not in fact be violating the Establishment Clause; banning it would in fact violate the Free Exercise Clause. I have provided figures that show most teenagers (no data for elementary school children) are orthodox Christians, many pray frequently and read the Bible more than once a week. (http://findarticles.com...) Another little argument my opponent has chosen to ignore. "The Gallup survey showed that 92 percent of teens consider their religious beliefs important to them. A third say faith is the most important influence in their lives. That number goes up to 52 percent for African-American teens. Close to four in ten say they pray alone frequently (42 percent) and read the Bible at least weekly (36 percent)." All in all, my opponent's last argument was devoted to telling us that I misinterpreted his almost unbelievably vague first argument, and that I have conceded as a consequence. Debate Fail, if I am permitted to use LOLspeak. However, this whole error stemmed from Tatarize's incredibly ambiguity. If I was arguing what he is arguing, I would have said "Mandatory school prayer should not have been removed from public schools." And I would have fleshed out the first argument more. A scanty three lines is simply not enough to clearly state your intention. Prayer is an integral part of many (possibly a majority) students' lives. Removing a sanctioned time for prayer the "mandatory prayer" my opponent seems to be referring to, is downright discriminatory, but my opponent supports it, in the interest of the "civil liberties" of a tiny but vocal segment of the population who insist that even knowing that a "Silent Reflection Time" was originally meant for prayer would be poisonous. This unreasonable attitude of .001% percent of the population is expected to dictate policy for the other 99.999%. My opponent's interpretation of the First Amendment concerning religious expression in public schools, and the interpretation of much modern jurisprudence, is based in the assumption that the public school must be "all things to all people." An admirable notion in some ways, but of course impossible. Face it: civic institutions must serve the majority and the minority, equally, but the minority cannot dictate the services offered to the majority. Simply: Imagine that a store sells one type of oranges. Someone complains, saying he or she is allergic to this variety. The shopkeeper refuses to stock another kind, because it wouldn't be economical. However, when more people complain, the storekeeper stocks a new kind of orange along with the first kind, so that both the majority and the minority can be accommodated. But then the people who are allergic try to ban the store from selling the first type of oranges, saying that the very existence of it is discriminatory to them. The shopkeeper is required by some law to provide services to everyone, so he acquiesces. The minority was accommodated, but then they wanted another slice at the apple: they wanted the majority to eat the same oranges they did. Imagine that everyone pays this store whether they use it or not, this is the modern public school system and school prayer. My opponent can be as vague as he wants, but the facts remain: making school prayer a covert activity (it's not even legal to bring a Bible to school. I knew a kid in grade school who brought one just to break the rules) is depriving the "praying majority" of the right to free expression. The government is interfering in the free exercise of religion. And that is unconstitutional here in America. Thanks for the debate, Tatarize.