> i'm sick and can't type.
>
>
> and i also found out something that my overly liberal paper failed to report. . .they were using the school's PA system to broadcast this prayer to the whole crowd. . .that I can't support, and have to change my opinion to agree with the court.

Wait a second...

It's state-sponsored religion because it uses a school PA system?

Let me put it this way...

"Separation of church and state" means the state, the government, doesn't have the power to give support to or put restrictions on religious expression. Now, that does not mean, like many people think it does, that "if it has anything to do with the government, religious things are not allowed near it in any way". It means the government can't support one religion to the detriment of others, but, on the other hand, it can't put restrictions on an activity because of its religious nature! That's what freedom of religion means, after all.

What that means is that any student or student organization should have the same rights as any other student or student organization. Whether or not it's a religious person or a religious organization shouldn't come into it.

The school, as I understand it, makes a provision for one student, chosen by the other students, to go up in front of the student body and speak before the game, which is understandable and makes sense in the context, since the game is a major social gathering and event in the school, and so it's appropriate to have a representative student chosen by the other students give a message s/he feels represents the spirit of the school.

Sound good so far? Nothing wrong with it? If I told you this was what happened before the game, and then I told you that the courts had called this unconstitutional, you'd be outraged, right?

But if I change the generic word "message" to the specific word "prayer", all of a sudden it's a big deal and a question of constitutional right.(For those who question that a prayer is the same as a message, the only difference, to me, between a prayer of this kind and a generic expression of hope for the future is that the prayer contains an implication that there is a deity somewhere who will realize the hope or expedite its realization. In other words, the difference between the "religious ritual" that people have accused the prayer of being and an inspirational speech to be found at the beginning of nearly any school function is the implied and expressed religious belief of the speaker, not any genuine religious message. I find it hard to believe listening to that prayer would even tell you all that much about her religious beliefs, much less actually persuade you to her beliefs or attack your own, unless you are greatly offended by the very idea of a God. She wasn't delivering a sermon or, worst of all, an altar call, which I would have a much harder time defending, though I suspect I would in the end, if the circumstances were the same.)

Let me put it this way. The student is chosen by the other students. The student herself chooses what she says. All the school does is provide the system for addressing the student body, but the content of the message is chosen by a student independent of the government and school system, and this student is chosen by the rest of the student body, who are also acting independently of the government and school system. The school itself is neutral in this; all it does is provide the medium for this student-organized, student-initiated activity, something entirely within its rights to do. If it should so happen that the message that this student feels is appropriate is religious in nature, and the other students are aware of this and a majority of them feel that such a message would be appropriate, then it would be the school that would be overstepping its bounds and limiting constitutional freedoms by telling her the message is inappropriate because of its religious content. Of course, there are those who would disagree with what she has to say based on their own religious beliefs, but simply because other people disagree with her doesn't mean the student body as a whole can't choose her to be the speaker.

See, from my view, freedom of religion should work the same way as freedom of speech; the government provides a "fair playing field", so that we don't have Inquisitions, forced conversion, religious tests for political office, segregated ghettos, etc., so one religion cannot dominate another. (I'm including atheism and agnosticism as "religions" in this definition, in case anyone misunderstands me and thinks I'm saying you have to have a religion. By religion I just mean one's personal beliefs or convictions regarding ethical and spirital matters, whatever they may be; that's what I think the Founding Fathers meant, as well, in contrast to some people who seem to think that what they meant was different sects of Protestant Christianity.) The government doesn't give money to any religious organization, doesn't officially hold any religious view, doesn't put people in jail for holding the "wrong" view; it also doesn't prevent people from meeting and discussing religion where they choose, or deny the rights of freedom of speech to anybody because of her or his religious beliefs, or give people less benefits and considerations than other people because they choose to express a religious persuasion. It shouldn't say one student is allowed to use the school's PA system and another isn't because that student doesn't express any religious position.

For instance, you talked about presidents saying "God bless America." Is there really any reason why they can't? Granted, I think you meant that there's still a heavy bias in favor of traditional Christianity in this country, and in some areas I agree (though I think in other areas this country is heavily biased against traditional Christianity; it depends on your definition of "traditional Christianity" and "this country", of course), and I think that perhaps this bias is an unfortunate thing. (I do think the messages on coins and legal certificates are kind of borderline as far as church/state separation goes, though in that context the religious meaning is almost completely leached from the word; I don't believe there is a personified goddess of Justice, but I don't mind the statues at courthouses, nor do I take any religious meaning from the symbol the Red Cross uses or, for that matter, the seven-day week; still, I could understand one's objections.) However, even if there is a bias, should we correct an unwritten bias with written laws? Is the President no longer allowed to believe in God because he has been elected President? Is he still allowed to believe in God, but not allowed to mention that fact in public? Of course, he can mention his ethnic background or his social status, but his faith, which may be a much more crucial factor in his life than his social status or ethnic background, must not come under public consideration.

I think it's the same kind of thing. The President, yes, works for the government, is paid by the government, is intimately involved with the government, but that should not have a bearing on his religious expression; he still has the right to go to church and talk about his faith at length to people, even pray in public. Separation of church and state; his connection to the state doesn't affect his connection to the church. It's a different kind of "separation"; separation means separation of CONTROL, the government does not control religions and religions don't control the government, not separation of PROXIMITY, as in anything connected to the government isn't connected with any religion, which first of all is nearly impossible to do (How do you define it? Do we go to the point of erasing the word "God" from all textbooks, eliminate the study of certain books in public schools because they have religious messages, require elected officials to stop talking about faith in speeches, etc. Obviously no one wants to draw the line that close, now, but we impinge on this whenever we try to draw a line of this kind.) and second of all is fundamentally opposed to the concept of inalienable personal freedoms. I have the right to believe what I choose and to express it any way I choose, so long as I do not limit others' freedoms; the government is neither allowed to help nor hinder me more than it helps or hinders anyone else. (I shouldn't get the chance to speak in front of the school BECAUSE I'm giving a prayer, nor should I be denied that chance because I'm giving a prayer.)

As for those who say they "shouldn't have to" listen to someone else's religious beliefs, well... it's the same argument as freedom of speech. You have no right of "nonoffense". If people are going to be free to express their opinions, then people are going to HAVE to be offended, and learn to live with it. Otherwise, no one could speak, because you can't say anything important without offending someone. It's funny how everyone accepts this when pertaining to speech in general, but so many people reverse on this when it pertains to religion. I think maybe it's overcompensation for the long time in this country when the government did flagrantly violate this principle in support of Protestant Christianity, but past wrongs are no reason for present wrongs in the reverse direction, where we seem to have the government flagrantly violating this principle in opposition to Protestant Christianity. In this case, the state, i.e. the school, is providing a forum for a student who the other students feel represents them to give a message she feels is appropriate. They didn't make her say anything religious, they aren't making it easier or harder for her because of her religious beliefs; separation of church and state. If the chosen student had been Muslim, I'd have had no problem with a prayer to Allah; if the person had been Wiccan, I'd have had no problem with a prayer to the Goddess. If s/he had been an atheist, I wouldn't have had a problem if s/he'd chosen to deliver a message not mentioning any spirituality, or even one that was downright hostile to spirituality. Whatever the message was, it was chosen by someone chosen by the majority of students, not forced on anybody from above; it comes from the student body as a unit, and we have to respect their freedom in this case to choose what represents them as a unit. If some people think that because they're at school they should be free from exposure to religious beliefs differing from their own, well, that's too bad for them. That's the price of freedom.

(Sorry to give such a long, rambling, and possibly confrontational post (if it is confrontational, it wasn't on purpose), but I just felt like I had to jump into this debate. It's something I feel very strongly about.)