From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Voluntary school prayer
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:52:05 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <12774@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
wrote:
> 
> The Alabama case (the only recent one I am aware of) was because the
> legislators arguing for the law stated that was the intent.  Did
> Arkansas pass a similar law?  (If so, did Clinton sign it?)

I think Alabama is the state I was thinking of in the first place.  It is
possible that they talked about prayer while debating the new law, but it
was not in the legislation itself.  When the federal court struck down the
law, it did not rely entirely on what the legislators said; it made clear
that the intent could easily be inferred from the context, i.e. the
existence of a national campaign, spearheaded by the President and
supported by many Christian and conservative organizations, to restore the
former practice of official, public, sectarian prayer in the public
schools.  There's nothing at all surprising about this argument.  It's like
a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar and trying to claim that it
had nothing to do with cookies, just the exercise of opening the jar and
sticking his hand in.  The kid's mother doesn't buy it, and neither did the
court.  Exactly the same scenario is what Dave Manley proposed.

> # # The problem is that liberal enthusiasm for suppressing religious
> # # belief is contrary to the "free exercise" clause of the First
> # # Amendment.  A minute of silence provides an opportunity, does not
> # # violate the "free exercise" clause, and should provide a way for
> # # a public school to satisfy (as much as public schools ever can)
> # # the demands of those who want an opportunity for prayer in public
> # # schools.
> # 
> # The problem is that some right-wing Christians are not satisfied with free
> # exercise, and insist on a public, institutional, sectarian religious
> 
> I know a lot of "right-wing Christians."  Why is that none of them
> that I know support such an idea?  Are you sure that such exist?
> Or is this a strawman that the liberals use to justify oppression?

You mean liberals invented the whole School Prayer Issue just to oppress
Christians?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Oh, I forgot -- by you, Reagan and Bush are liberals.  So I guess you're
saying THEY want to oppress Christians???

> # exercise, *especially* in government-funded institutions.  This is
> # unconstitutional.  An officially mandated minute of silence, which
> # everybody knows is for the purpose of prayer, is not required for free
> # exercise of religion.
> 
> You mean, like the exercise of free speech doesn't require you to
> be able to burn a flag, because there are other ways to exercise
> free speech?  "Free exercise" isn't free if it's restricted -- or
> so liberals like to claim about free speech.

No, it's like freedom of speech doesn't require the teacher in a public
school to set up a special time for the kids to burn flags.  Obviously you
haven't the faintest idea of what the First Amendment means -- better leave
that to the "liberals," as you call them.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics