From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)Summary:
In-reply-to: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu's message of Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:40:16 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec5.230018.23815@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
	<grendel.723788680@camelot> <merlyn.724215278@digibd>
	<Bz9JF9.Inu@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:57:01

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.

>   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, 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.

Again, why?

>   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".

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
only thing that is not allowed is for the teacher to say that it is
now time for everyone to pray.  The contention is that if the
student's choice in time and manner of prayer involves standing before
the group and leading the prayer, it is disruptive.  That _is_ pretty
simple.

>   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.

--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh