From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)Summary:
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Somewhere in Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:40:39 GMT

In article <YOUNG.92Dec14205701@ssdd475a.erim.org>, young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes...
>In article <Bz9JF9.Inu@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
> 
>>   Screw what the court decision is at the moment.  Read my previous posts
>>   again.  I am not discussing the supreme court decisions.  I AM discussing
>>   the empy argument used by many concerning the feeling of being "left out".
> 
>Why are you arguing about this, Jim?  No one but you has mentioned
>this argument.  Why do you bring it up?  You seem to have no problem
>with the law, but only with some wrongheaded arguments that some
>people make.  Your point baffles me.

I'm not arguing about it so much as trying to keep on-topic.  

So far, the issue hasn't been addressed (at least in response to my
original posting).

Instead, I keep reading about the "supreme court decision" how "it's
the law".

I haven't argued this, and won't.  But I would like to see what _I_
said addressed.

> 
>>   The argument that it is an "illegal establishment of religion" _because_
>>   someone who doesn't participate is left out or "ignored" is absurd.  It
>>   is really stretching the imagination to make this stick.
> 
>No one has made it stick.  No one is arguing it.  If and when you run
>into this argument, then make this  point.  Don't do it here where no
>one is making it.

No one?  Are you sure about this?  Hasn't there been a few cases where
_parents_ (non-Christian or non-sectarian) have filed complaints and
_won_.   The argument, which I am addressing, is that their children
might feel "left out" and "inferior".

I'm sorry if I cannot provide explicit sources and case numbers.  Perhaps
someone who actually memorizes this stuff can.

> 
>So far, Jim, you are the only one making this "left out" argument.
>Nobody, except for the alleged bus driver who everybody agrees that if
>he did do what Ted claims was completely in the wrong and needs
>reprimanding and probably a civil suit.  But, your definition of
>permitted prayer is exactly what everyone else's definition is.  The
 ^^^^^^^^^

"permitted prayer"?  No, I stated my definition of _voluntary_ prayer.

>the group and leading the prayer, it is disruptive.  That _is_ pretty
>simple.

I agree.

> 
>>   Sorry, I don't buy it.
> 
>>   And, just because the supreme court says it (if it does), neither justifies 
>>   it nor makes it fact.
> 
>But it does make it the law.  See Marbury v. Madison.

So?

Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11750 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10253 alt.politics.clinton:18748 alt.politics.bush:14621 alt.politics.homosexuality:8035