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: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:40:16 GMT

In article <merlyn.724215278@digibd>, merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes...
>graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
>>In article <merlyn.724112867@digibd>, merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes...
>>>graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
>>>>One of the arguments against voluntary prayer that I hear over and over
>>>>from the left is that those who do not participate may feel "left out"
>>>>and therefore feel "ostracized" or somehow "inferior".  Poor babies.
> 
>>>Actually, it's a violation of the establishment clause; it isn't illegal
>>>to be "left out" of things, but it IS illegal for schools to promote
>>>a religion.  Students can pray, but it isn't the state's business to
>>>encourage or discourage such.  Why should the state do either of these?
> 
>>Exactly.  Stay out of it altogether.
> 
>>Unfortunately, that isn't happening.
> 
>In what way isn't this happening?

It works both ways.  One can say "Let's force ALL kids to practice
some form of religion".  Or, one can say, "Let's force ALL kids to
not practice ANY form of religion".  The latter is what is happening.

> 
>>>[sports examples deleted]
>>>>"Ah, but Jim, Jim, Jim" you say, shaking your head from side to side,
>>>>"There is no constitutional separation of sports and state".
>>> 
>>>Your anaolgy is flawed, since it was based on your "feeling left out"
>>>theory, which is wrong.
> 
>>No, I don't think it's flawed at all.  Besides, it is not _my_ "theory".
> 
>>Honestly, I've heard this many times.  
> 
>>Whether it's an analogy or not is irrelevant.  The simple fact is that
>>many people _against_ voluntary prayer use the excuse that it might
>>make those who don't participate feel "left out" and therefore 
>>"inferior".
> 
>Fine; other people use bad arguments.  This doesn't affect other, valid
>arguments.  I agree that the "leaving out" argument is invalid, but
>that doesn't affect the logic of past court decisions.

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".

> 
>>>>Bullcrap.  This whole prayer thing has little or nothing to do with
>>>>separation of church and state, and everything to do with the fact that
>>>>the left is _afraid_ of anything which even hints of "values".
> 
>>>Sorry, you're the one full of it.  Court rulings on this are always
>>>based on the first amendment.  Telling schoolchildren that THESE children
>>>over here can pray to the Christian god[TM] with the teacher, while THOSE
>>>children over there get ignored, is an illegal establishment of religion.
> 
>>That's right, and I am in full agreement.  What does this have to do with
>>the "left-out" argument used by many liberals?

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.

One only need to look up the meaning of "establishment" to see why this
is silly, and a straw man.

> 
>You just claimed it had "little or nothing" to do with separation of
>church and state, while it has everything to do with it, according to the
>Supreme Court.  You are bringing up invalid arguments brought up by other,
>unspecified people in order to knock them down, instead of addressing the
>REAL issues in the Supreme Court decision.  Do you disagree with any
>actual court decisions on this issue?

No, my arguments are perfectly valid and appropriate.  Again, I am not
debating the supreme court decision.  I AM debating the argument that
others who do not participate might feel left out or ignored.  I am
simply trying to show that there are many other analogies (cheerleading,
ball-playing, etc) that render this excuse a straw-man.

>>>>>|...A blind, grade-school girl was quietly praying her rosary 
>>>>>|beads on the school bus.  The bus driver took them away and the school 
>>>>>|forbade her from praying the rosary (even quietly) in public.
>>> 
>>>>Sounds to me like that bus-driver needs a little "sensitivity training".
>>> 
>>>Sounds to me like the bus driver knows as much about S.C. rulings on
>>>the freedom of religion of schoolchildren as you do.
> 
>>No.  If the busdriver was that knowledgeable (ie had enough simple
>>common-sense, and most importantly _COMPASSION_) gasp, cough, he/she
>>would have left the schoolgirl _alone_ and not made an _issue_ over
>>it.
> 
>You know this busdriver, I suppose?  How can you tell if the busdriver
>was incompassionate vs. the busdriver sincerely thought prayer on the
>schoolbus was illegal?  Many people seem to have this false impression.
>(Ironically, the most visible propagators of this false impression
>seem to be Christians lobbying to bring prayer back in school)

No, I don't know the busdriver.  I do know about this "rumor", which may
be all that it is.  On the other hand, it may be true.  I'm addressed it
with the assumption that it _might_ be that.

If what the busdriver did is fact, then what I said about the busdriver
stands.

BTW: I'm not a "christian lobbying to bring prayer back...".  I do, however
believe in the 1st amendment, in spite of what the left, or the courts may
have to say about it.

The bottom line is that the 1st amendment guarantees every American 
citizen the "right to free exercise" of their religion.  It doesn't 
say _anything_ about when and where.

In fact, religion, like it or not, is a way of life to many people, and
as such, is as 2nd nature and _necessary_ to them as eating, sleeping,
and having sex.

>>>Have you ever
>>>heard that some of the old "school prayers" children were required to
>>>pray were explicitly anti-Catholic?  Had a first-person article about that
>>>in soc.religion.christian (or talk.religion.misc, I forget) a couple of
>>>years ago; the poster said even though he was a Christian, he was opposed
>>>to prayer in school because his sister was forced to say anti-Catholic
>>>prayers by her (supposedly "Christian") teacher.
> 
>>Who's talking about _compulsory_ prayer?  I thought the issue was
>>_voluntary_ prayer.
> 
>I would have to hear your definition of voluntary prayer; many states'
>laws concerning 'voluntary' prayer have been struck down by courts as
>unconstitutional.

My definition, and maybe it's unique:

Every person should take the right to practice their religion, whether
it is private or public, and as long as it doesn't infringe, literally,
on the rights of others.

In practice, a student should have the right to pray at any time, and
in any place, as long as it doesn't literally upset the classroom
environment.

That's a pretty simple definition, I think, 

One may argue about this, but so far, the only argument I've seen is
that it _might_ or _could_ make someone who doesn't participate
feel "left out" and therefore "inferior".

Sorry, I don't buy it.

And, just because the supreme court says it (if it does), neither justifies 
it nor makes it fact.

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.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh