From: whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: School Prayer Poll
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:54:57 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <Jan.20.00.19.30.1993.992@geneva.rutgers.edu>, crs@carson.u.washington.edu (Cliff Slaughterbeck) writes:
> School prayer is a hot topic among many Christians these days...
> 
> Plan A:	School prayer is mandatory unless written excuse from parent is
> 	obtained.  A time of 15 minutes every day is devoted to prayer
> 	and led by the teacher of the class.

Sure--under one of two conditions.  Either
	1.  *I* get to pick the prayer....
	or
	2.  Every day a prayer is offered to a *different* god.  No
	    repeats are allowed until *all* known gods have been
	    covered.  Since Christians of all varieties claim to
	    worship the same god, and that god is publically claimed
	    to be the same for jews and Moslems as well, when that
	    particular god comes up, a prayer will be randomly selected
	    from among the various sects that woship him.

> Plan B:	School prayer is "optional", i.e. voluntary.  A time of 15 minutes
> 	each day is set aside as a quiet time.  The teacher may elect to
> 	lead a few minutes (max 5) before giving over the time to the 
> 	students to pray and reflect if they wish.

If the teacher does *any* leading, the same constraints as under
option 'A' would apply.  Other than that, this simply asks students to
be quiet for 15 minutes.  Not a bad thing in itself, but I think
you've forgotten that not all religions pray quietly.

> Plan C:	Similar to plan B, but with absolutely NO direction from the teacher.

Better--but I think you begin to see the problems....

> Plan D:	Allow junior and senior high students to attend classes on religion
> 	taught at school for no credit if they are still on track to graduate
> 	from h[gh school.  The classes would be taught by local pastors
> 	or other church leaders, who would not be paid by the school.

Rather than this, set up classes that study religions.  Not ones that
teach individuals to *believe* a particular religion--but *about*
religion.  "Comparative Religion" is a possible title.  Then ask local
religous leaders to come and talk about *their* religion--and be
especially careful to *include* minority religions (and be *sure* to
include ones that are not popular locally!).

> Plan E:	Similar to plan D, except that the classes would be for credit and
> 	taught about religion in general--ie, no one specific religion is
> 	taught, but an overview of all religions.  Classes would be taught
> 	by regular teachers with training in religous studies and would be
> 	paid for by the school district.

Just be sure to cover a *wide* variety of religions--not just 57
varieties of Christianity.  (I rather suspect that many *Christian*
groups would howl this down much louder than non-Christians...)

> Plan F:	A voucher system as proposed by President Bush.  Each student could
> 	attend a school of his or her choice with the voucher acting as a
> 	(partial) payment for the school.  Schools with a religious emphasis
> 	would be fully allowed to participate in the plan if they meet 
> 	minimum guidelines for education.

*And* provided that they do not attempt to instill a religious bias
into no-religious subjects.  (I.e.  Even is a religious school,
'Scientific Creationism' *still* isn't science and has no place in a
biology class any more than Aristotelean Cosmology has a place beyond
historical interest in a Physics class.)

> Plan G:	The status quo.  If want to learn about religion, do it at home or in
> 	church.

I--as an areligious person--would actually prefer to see comparative
religion classes taught.  This is a strong second-best.

> Optional:  On your ballot, if you would state which denomination you attend 
> 	   (if any), and your political bent (conservative, moderate, or
> 	   liberal), I will attempt a correlation if there are enough replies.

This statement completely biases your sample.  You have *assumed* that
all of your respondents will be Christians.  This assumption is
untenable.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |