> > Today at work I read a newspaper article about the Supreme's Court's verdict on the Texan case where students led prayer at football games. It was a 6-3 split (Chief Justice dissenting) that finds another area of speech unfree. Obviously, my opinion doesn't count; I can't vote yet and we don't vote for judges or court decisions anyway. (Good thing, I might add.) The problem is, I don't understand their reasoning process.
> >
> > I understand the reasons the majority gave. I am a Christian, but I do not think public schools, or any other government system, should require prayer or officially endorse one religious group over another. That's what the previous laws prevented. This "separation of church and state," though not in the Constitution, can reasonably be construed to be guaranteed by it. The establishment clause, however, was created for the purpose of protecting religion from corruption by government, not the other way around. This is widely known and widely ignored, but it's not my point here.
> >
> > I'm no specialist in Constitutional law, but the fight here seems to be a grey area between "freedom from religion" and freedom of speech. The quotes were intentional: one right is clear and unavoidable, the other is debatable but probably implicit. The two definately appeared to converge in this issue. Many students were required to attend by the school, a part of the government, and thus, required to hear the loudspeakers, including the prayer. I agree that if the school had known and planned on prayer being given, it would be wrong.
> >
> > The point is, they didn't. The student was chosen but given no guidelines on what to say. She/he won the opportunity to speak on whatever topic she wished. She/he prayed. The new guideline of unconstitutionality reads, "School officials may not allow students to lead prayer in public." What happened to free, voluntary speech? To peaceable assembly for whatever purpose? Basically, the Justices chose one clause of the First Amendment over another, both of which are fundamental. Therefore, it amounts to basing a highly contentious decision on their personal biases. Without exaggeration, it shows that some of our leaders are so eager to rid their own lives of religious influences that they will undermine other tenets of freedom as well.
> >
> > I don't know how to end this post. I'm saddened by this turn of events.
> >
> > gabby
>
>
> I don't know the details of this, but I'm just going to pretend I do. Personnally I don't like it when large groups of people pray around me... I feel really weird if a whole room of people are sitting there praying and I'm just sitting there looking around waiting for it to be over. It's not the praying that bugs me, but the akwardness of having a huge majority of the people doing something that I don't believe in... I don't exactly know what the point of this is, so I'm going to stop talking.

That's when everyone's doing it except you. This case, to my understanding, involved a few students standing in front of a microphone and praying, with perhaps a few others in the crowd joining in. No one was forced to do anything, and it wasn't school- or state-sponsored. I don't think it should be classified as wrong or illegal. I think the Supreme Court made a bad decision on this.

-eric " " sleator
Wed 21 Jun A.D. 2000