From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)Summary:
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:54:38 GMT

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?

>>[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.

>>>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?

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?

>>>>|...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)

>>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.

The actions of one ignorant school administration does not constitute an
official state policy; it constitutes some state bureaucrats screwing up.
When the courts tell them what they're doing is beyond their authority
and a violations of the student's rights, things'll get back to normal.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton