From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:05:56 GMT

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.184128.10496@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>> [teachers teaching religion]

>> >Spokesman for the STATE is correct.  Not for the federal government.  There
>> >is a major difference, you know.  Where does it say in the constitution that
>> >the State of Utah can't promote a religion?  As long as they don't prohibit
>> >practice of other religions, there is nothing legally wrong.
>>
>> Wrong; check out the 14th amendment and decisions based on it.

>The 14th amendment is about Civil Rights.  Section 1 defines citizenship.
>Section 2 defines Apportionment of Representatives.  Sections 3, 4, and 5
>are irrelevant (relevant to Civil War crimes/activities) and slavery.
>If you think the 14th Amendment eliminates a state's right to have ANY of
>its schools practice religion, then states have ZERO rights at all.

Well, me and most of the Supreme Court thinks it does.
Like I said, check out what the SC has said about the 14th.

>>It is not legal for a state to simultaniously require school attendance and
>>have religious indoctrination as part of that attendance; you have essentially
>>required all children to be taught a particular religion,which is in violation
>>of the 1st amendment (and the 14th amendment extends this protection against
>> state laws which violate the 1st).

>Prayer is not relitious indoctrination.

Requiring children to pray, is.  Read some rulings.

>Nor is permitting prayer by choice of
>the participants in any way promoting a singular religion.

I, and the Supreme Court, don't agree with your evaluation.

Schools routinely used to require all the children to pray a specific prayer,
usually a Christian prayer, and sometimes an overtly anti-Catholic prayer
(one reason so many Cathlic private schools exist today).

>The intent of the
>1st Amendment 's freedom of religion clause is based entirely upon the anglican
>church in England pre-1776 - where the King demanded every member of society
>be a member of that specific church.  And the 1st amendment prohibits CONGRESS
>from establishing religion by law - not states.

And, like I've said, the 14th extends this prohibition to the states.
There are many SC rulings establishing this.

>Nor does it permit the prohibition
>of religion, which is what you are talking about.

Students are not prohibited from praying; school officials are prohibited
from telling students that they ought to pray, and to what.

You should read what the rulings actually say, not the funhouse-mirror
distortion that's promoted by some.

>> Sorry to inject facts into a.f.r-l; it may be a violation of the newsgroup
>> charter.  I'll try not to do it again.

>Facts only in your teeny little self-centered universe.

Just me, and what the Supreme Court has ruled; do you have any rulings to
support your side, or do you use an imaginary Court?  What else could be
used to establish US legal fact, if not US court rulings?

---
Merlyn LeRoy