> > 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?

absolutely. "sure kid, you can say a prayer. In fact, why don't we let you use the equipment that we, the public school, an entity of the government, paid for to broadcast your prayer to everyone. In fact, we'll even run the thing for you."

I call that school-sponsored religion, which is unconstitutional.




> "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 where you have it a little bit wrong. First off, I'm willing to bet you that they're favoring christianity over other religions. If you don't believe me, go down there and try to get permission to pray to satan over the PA. . . Second, by allowing the student to use their equipment, and to use it in such a manner as to force everyone there to hear the prayer, the school is supporting that religion. AND they're doing so to the detriment of other religions - - - i.e. any religion represented by anyone in the crowd that does not happen to be christian (hindu, satanism, etc)





>That's what freedom of religion means, after all.

no, freedom of religion means that anyone can worship their own diety in any way they see fit, provided it does not infringe on the rights of others. For example, if I decided that killing you was the best way to worship my god, I still wouldn't be allowed to do it because it violates your rights. Similarly, them praying over a loudspeaker violates the rights of anyone who doesn't believe in that.




>
> 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.

Again, I'll bet you that the Student Satanists would not have gotten to pray.



>
> 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?

not really. speaking before the game to encourage school spirit and praying are two totally different things.

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?


no.

>
> 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.)
>


bingo. "I hope we win the game" is a VERY different message from "God please let us win the game."

And yes, if you change from the generic to the specific it does change meaning significantly, so your argument there isn't really very strong. for example, I can make the generic statement "People should be allowed to hunt." and very few people would argue with it. If, however, I changed it to the specific and said "People should be allowed to hunt the Jews" I think you'd have a very BIG problem with that statement, no? So as you see, going from general to specific CAN alter the meaning quite a bit.




> 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.


WOAH. BIG problems with this argument. What if the students decide that running around nude is an appropriate way to express themselves in school. Are you trying to say that the school would be violating their rights if they made them put clothes on? What if the majority of the students wanted to worship Satan? Should the school still provide the PA? Just because it is a message that's spoken/thought up by students does NOT mean that the school is or should be expected to provide the medium without the authority to edit the message's content.




>
> 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.


You misunderstand the First Ammendment. The government does not at any time say that it can't limit your right to say anything anywhere. for example, you can be arrested for yelling fire in a crowded area. People working for various government agencies aren't allowed to divulge various facts about their jobs (top secret, classified, need-to-know, etc), and government-funded shools aren't supposed to be used to force the students to sit through a prayer.




>
> 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?

Never said that. They can believe in anything they want, and worship in any way they want, as long as they're not connecting that religion with their governmental duties.



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.


sure he can mention it in public, but I think it's inappropriate to be saying it in connection with governmental duties- - -state of the union address, etc.




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.

I snipped a lot of that because this is the biggest part I wanted to argue about. i never said they shouldn't be exposed to religious stuff- - - -learning about other religions is fine- - it helps you gain a greater understanding of the world. One of my favorite classes was world history, where we learned a LOT about world religions because, after all, they influenced just about everything in history. There was nothign wrong with being taught ABOUT those religions. If, however, the prof had then told us to pray to a Hindu god or something, I'd have had a very BIG problem with it.


Essentially, by giving their PA system to the kid to use to say his prayer, they were turning their school into a church. You had a guy up front leading a prayer, and via peer pressure, everyone was expected to join in, or at least pretend to have joined in. Sounds an awful lot like a church to me, and wholly inappropriate for a school to take part in.




>
> (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.)