From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Prayer at graduations
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:30:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: psygate.nate.384
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>>>Furthermore, I would venture a guess that even non-administration 
>>>graduation speakers would be free to speak of god or religion.

>>    That would seem like a safe guess, but in at least one case it has
>>been disproven.

>When you say "case," do you mean a *court* case, or just an example.  It
>sounds like you mean the latter.

    That's right, the latter. I don't think it's made it to court yet.

>  If so, then this sets absoultely no
>precedent--it is just the misguided position of one school administration.

    Absolutely. However, even if we both agree that the position of the 
school is misguided, how do we go about changing it? What if the school 
administration in question was the one in charge of the district in which 
your son or daughter attends school. Are you going to say "Oh well, that's 
okay. At least the unfairness in this district isn't indicative of the 
system as a whole..."? 

    I think I can understand why there isn't much sympathy and understanding 
from religious parents for that position. Basically, their rights (and those 
of their children) are being violated, and I'm not sure what they can do 
about it short of taking to the courts.

>>>However, I seriously doubt that the SC decision could be interpreted to
>>>suggest that, for example, a valedictorian could be prohibited from
>>>personally thanking god in his speech

>>    I would agree with this completely. Unfortunately, for whatever 
>>reason, the laws are not being enforced in that way....
>> ...At this point I would say that
>>the people in charge are being overly sensitive about religion in schools.

>But, you see, the Court's position has been based upon the problem with
>an *agent* of the school (and, thereby, of the state) promoting religion--
>not private individuals promoting religion.

    Yep, that's the court's position, and it's one which I agree with.

>  The problem with school *agents*
>doing it is that 1) they are explicitly prohibited from doing such by the
>constitution, and 2) that there may be a coercive effect even in "voluntary"
>participation programs.

    Absolutely. So maybe what we really need is for the SC to come out with 
a definition of what they mean by the term "school agent". I can't imagine 
by the most outrageous stretch of my fertile imagination how they could 
possibly include students as "agents" of the school. However, even if 
that's not what the SC intended, it's what some school administrators are 
doing. I guess the only way to deal with it (assuming that talking with the
offending administrators doesn't help) is to go after them in the courts.

    I just don't fancy the idea of explaining to parents how their kids 
won't be allowed to praise their gods until the completion of a class-action
suit.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6331 soc.culture.british:10719