Conference back40::soapbox

	The second (or third) thing that Clinton has done right. :-)

	IF it is called a moment of silence, then yeah. If it is called a
moment of prayer, it won't ever get put into place.

    If it is rayer, then prayer to who?  If you all want your children
    educated spiritually, do it by dragging your ass out of bed on Sundays
    (or whatever day your sabbat is,) and taking them to your temple,
    grove, or church.   Letting the state control who and what your kids
    pray to is dangerous.
    
    meg

	Meg, that's why it would be a moment of silence. If someone wants to
pray, they can, SILENTLY, and to whatever God they believe in. If someone is an
unbeliever, then they can shoot spitballs around the room. 



Glen

    how is it dangerous to offer the CHOICE to take a moment of silence
    to pray or not?

Sculpture of false god (Quetzalcoatl) allowed where sculptures of real
God (Jesus) forbidden:

	SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- A judge has rejected an attempt to keep
the city from unveiling a statue of the ancient Aztec god
Quetzalcoatl.

	On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge James Ware ruled against six
people who claim the 8-foot statue violates the First Amendment ban
on government establishment of religion. Ware said the statue is a
cultural symbol, not a religious one.

	The $500,000 sculpture of a plumed serpent, a common
representation of Quetzalcoatl, is by Robert Graham. It already
sits in a city park, Plaza de Cesar Chavez, and is to be unveiled
Friday.

	San Jose resident Esther Medina said Quetzalcoatl is a positive
symbol for Mexicans and a ``recognition of Mexican culture.''

	But plaintiff Manuel Salazar said human sacrifices once offered
to Quetzalcoatl have made the god a ``black eye for the Latino.''
The plaintiffs contend Quetzalcoatl is still worshipped in southern
Mexico and that the cult is spreading in the United States.

	``It is a religion. It is not art,'' said plaintiffs lawyer J.
Thomas Diepenbrock.

	The plaintiffs have not decided whether to appeal.

    Gotta be cool to KNOW which God(s) are false & which ain't.  Kudos!
    

    re: .5
    
    Well, for one thing it's pretty much useless to those people
    who, for one reason or another 1.) don't pray silently; and
    2.) don't pray in public.  They may feel upset because some
    people are being afforded an opportunity to pray which they
    cannot take advantage of, even if they desired to do so.
    
    Mary-Michael

    Newt says that we will see a difference in this country within a year
    of this measure being enacted into law.  I say we should hold him to
    that prediction.

    ok, mary-michael, how does useless=dangerous? i don't
    see the connection.  now, if you want to make an arguement
    that a moment of silence is useless as in a non-value added
    item on which time and money will be expended, i can buy that.
    i STILL don't see the DANGER of it, tho.
    
    A moment of silence offers EVERYONE a moment to silently
    do WHATEVER  they want.  It does NOT  DENY one of anything.

	Steve, there will be a difference. We will have a leaner America... but
that will be because everyone is starving and living in the streets.

    Just from a moment of silence, Glen?

    re: .10
    
    Well, it might not be dangerous, but it IS rude, and
    does not show that we consider belief systems which are
    different from the majority of ours to be worthy of our
    consideration.  
    
    Mary-Michael

    re: .13
    
     explain, please, how this is so. A moment of silence in which a
    student can pray, daydream or play pocket pool show that we consider
    people with alternative belief systems to be unworthy of consideration?
    What sort of belief system would that be, one in which it was a
    sacrament to disrupt someone else's silent meditation?

    Why does there have to be a rule one way or the other. As soon as a
    regulation is put in place it requires a government department to make
    rules and build its own empire. Politicians thrive on regulations.
    Regulations only place rules on people, taking away there individual
    rights and giving power to bureaucracies. 
    
    On the subject of prayer in school, especially a moment of silence,
    "moment of silence" police will be hired to assure that it is carried out
    according to regulation. This is dumb. Suppose I am taking a test and I
    am a christian, I can say a silent prayer for help and guidance any
    time I want. This can be the same for everyone. A problem is being
    created, where there isn't one. This problem is being created by those
    who will benefit by the additional regulation and has nothing to do with 
    separation of church and state. Until we get the Politicians, Bureaucrats, 
    lawyers, religious leaders and others out of the way our individual
    rights (right to pray to the god of our choice) will be slowly
    eliminated. A 16 year old will become a criminal if he decides to pray,
    and gets caught, at a time not designated by the regulation. Let's put
    a stop to this madness.
    
    ...Tom

    re: .14
    
    Ok, fine, they YOU tell ME why you need a MoS at a sporting
    event or a graduation to "play pocket pool" if the original 
    INTENT of the MoS wasn't to use it for prayer.
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    Not that I have a big problem with school prayer/moment of silence,
    but why is this particular slice of the child's week targetted in this
    way?  Anyone, child or not, can pray anytime they want, not just
    during the 30 or so hours a week they spend in class.  What's so
    crucial about those first moments of class that require a prayer to
    <insert diety-of-choice here>?  Why can't the kids pray before they
    leave home?
    

    
    Quetzlcaotl isn't just a god, its a symbol of the Hispanic community
    and therefore a nationalistic/cultural icon. Only ones considering
    it a religious statue are a few assorted fundies.

    	I think it is a mistake for Gingrich to take this up as a top-
    	priority item.  I see it as an in-your-face move, and I think
    	it will upset as many liberals as Clinton's choice of top-
    	priority items (gaymil, abortion) upset conservatives.
    
    	Take care of the budget, taxes, line-item-veto, etc., first.

    Covert, 
    
    This is what our country needs, prayer.  It's about time. +:)
    

    .15 put it well
    
    
    
    							S.R.

    As an issue, this strikes me as holding the same political implications
    for the Republicans as gays in the military did for the Clinton
    Administration: It will cause great fallout and squander political capital.
    
    This will not effect me or my family one whit.  My children already
    have a strong religious background; at this moment two of them are at
    Mass, and one is serving.  Will this improve the quality of education,
    which Republicans have said they support?  I don't see how.

    Can someone present a decent arguement WHY prayer has to be brought
    back into school?!?!?  I don't see where the "moment of silence"
    doesn't offer this medium -- or is it that the Fundies want yet another 
    medium to brainwash their brats so they can shout the good word at the
    top of their lungs for all to hear??  
    
    Personally, methinks the latter.

    Speaker-Presumptive Gingrich has pledged to bring to a House vote in
    the first 100 days of the new Congress a constitutional amendment
    restoring prayer in the public schools.

>    Speaker-Presumptive Gingrich has pledged to bring to a House vote in
>    the first 100 days of the new Congress a constitutional amendment
>    restoring prayer in the public schools.

Where did you see Newt's claim to this effect? Source, please?

    It's part of the theocratic movement which believes that private
    religious belief is insufficient, but instead believes that it is the
    outward and public formalities of religion that are essential to the
    proper molding of the masses to good citizenship.
    
    Kit

...all others pay cash.

    1. Why is the basenote authorless??
    
    2. Word today is that the republican leadership is saying that they don't
    think that the school prayer bill will pass and that they would rather
    put more effort into more important legislation like the balanced
    budget amendment. (Colo. Spgs. Gazette Telegraph, 11/21/94)
    
    ...Tom

>    1. Why is the basenote authorless??

The extract in 77.2 was the original content of the basenote. When called
on it, Steve deleted the basenote and posted .3. Deletion of the base note
left it authorless.

Where's the statue to recognize the Christian heritage of many San Jose
residents?

	SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- Christians opposed to a city statue of the
Aztec god Quetzalcoatl launched a spiritual war Thursday against what they
call a bloodthirsty and dangerous idol.

	Half a dozen people prayed and read the Bible near the tarp-swathed
sculpture that will be unveiled in a downtown park on Friday. They and
others planned to be there in shifts around the clock for four days.

	``We believe an idol like this put in the middle of a city center
can bring God's judgment on a city,'' said Chet Gallagher, leader of Word
in Warfare, a local Christian group that organized the vigil.

	The $500,000 sculpture of Quetzalcoatl is intended to honor the
Mexican heritage of many San Jose residents. The 8-foot-tall, cast-stone
work is in the form of a feathered serpent, the most common depiction of
the ancient deity.

	Supporters on Thursday repeated their assertion that Quetzalcoatl
did not demand human sacrifice as Gallagher and other opponents claim. The
god worshipped in pre-Colombian times is now a powerful and positive
cultural image, they said.

	``The reality is, it's the symbol of justice, peace and wisdom,''
said Andres Segura, a Mexican Indian and member of an Aztec dance troupe
from Mexico City. The group is one of about 20 that will perform to mark
the sculpture's dedication in Plaza de Cesar Chavez.

	``We're grateful the (city) has begun to recognize the importance
of the ancient cultures,'' Segura said.

	The prayer vigil began one day after a federal court judge rejected
a separate effort to block the unveiling.

	A lawsuit by six San Jose residents claimed the statue's civic
funding and presence on municipal property violate the First Amendment's
ban on government establishment of religion. They said Quetzalcoatl is
still worshipped in parts of Mexico -- a claim Segura and other supporters
deny.

	U.S. District Judge James Ware agreed with the city, which argued
that the statue was a cultural symbol and not a sacred one. In questioning
the lawyer for the plaintiffs, the judge likened the sculpture to one of
Zeus or other ancient Greek gods.

	``The court finds that the `Plumed Serpent' is an artistic
representation of an ancient civilization and is not a religious object,''
Ware wrote in a brief order.

	Gallagher said Wednesday's court order made little difference to
him. He said he did not agree with separation of church and state arguments
because he would then also have to oppose a nativity scene on public
property.

	He also said his fight against Quetzalcoatl is spiritual rather
than legal or physical.

	``What we're trying to break down is the stronghold in people's
hearts that the devil builds to take them away from God,'' he said as he
passed out leaflets in the cold rain.

	Gallagher also disputed supporters' claims that Quetzalcoatl's
tradition was peaceful and warned that God might judge San Jose for
erecting the statue.

	``This ... has tremendous violence associated with it, and we
believe bringing it into the city could bring more violence to the city,''
he said.

    How is teaching children to pray to a God they don't believe
    in going to make a stronger America?
    
    Mary-Michael

>     <<< Note 76.9 by MKOTS3::SCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>
>
>    How is teaching children to pray to a God they don't believe
>    in going to make a stronger America?
>    
>    Mary-Michael


Mary-Micheal,

Where is this proposed?

Bruce

    re: .10
    
    Well, since we are specifically calling this "school prayer"
    I guess we're out of the realm of "Moment of Silence." Whose
    prayer are we using?  Are we expecting all children to recite 
    the same prayer aloud?  Are we going to allow Muslim children
    to pray as well?  And pagan children?  And Jewish children?
    And is this fair to atheist children who don't believe in any
    god?
    
    Mary-Michael

What kind of name is "Word in Warfare?"

    God's judgement on the area is inevitable. There will be a huge
    devastating earthquake, idol or no idol.

    Glenn

    
    all who fail to hail the monument and make their genuflection
    will be condemned as rassist.

>What kind of name is "Word in Warfare?"

As the article indicates, this is spiritual warfare; the Eternal Word (Christ)
in war against the powers of darkness that would lead humanity to the worship
of false gods.

In this battle, the weapons are not swords or guns, but truth and love.

/john

Kind of like Arafat's hedging on jihad?

    
    I thought my _G*d_ was the true one. Saved my carcass numerous times.
    

 "Word in Warfare" - what a stupid name.  I'll bet at least half of
 the people who come across it have no clue what the organization
 stands for.

Yeah, I agree the name is subject to misunderstanding.

/john

Do Gallagher and Co. have it on good authority that Aztec god Quetzalcoatl
was allied with the "Power of Darkness" (I love this crap! :^)? Were they,
like, _there_ back in the ancient Aztec days to know what was what?

Must be they got it from all of those Aztec written records.

| <<< Note 76.4 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>



| Where did you see Newt's claim to this effect? Source, please?



	C-Span....

I was hoping perhaps in written form somewhere? I've heard plenty on C-Span
and elsewhere about Newt's interest in getting prayer back into school
but I don't recall anything about a constitutional ammendment about it.
Now, I'm a conservative Republican for all intents and purposes, but
even if I weren't an Atheist, I'd prolly think the idea of a constitutional
ammendment establishing school prayer to be a) Pretty hokey, and b) unpassable.
I doubt that it's been formally proposed, but I'll be willing to relent
if you can point me to a printed quote or coverage of the matter.

	Newt has said he would have a constitutional ammendment for prayer in
school. Why aren't his OWN words good enough? If yer a conservative repub, what
publication would you even believe? :-)  


Glen

    Well there it is then.
    

	Dan, I can always count on you to bring a smile to my face. :-)  Glad
yer back!

    .33
    
    nice elliptical quotation, typos and all.  from grolier's multimedia
    encyclopedia, 1994 edition, a more complete - and telling - article:
    
    Quetzalcoatl
    {ket-sahl-koh-aht'-ul}
    
    The feathered serpent god, Quetzalcoatl, is one of the oldest and most
    important deities of ancient Mesoamerica.  He is known to have been
    worshiped as early as AD 300 in highland Mexico and perhaps much
    earlier on the Gulf coast.  At the time of the Spanish conquest (16th
    century) he was worshiped all over AZTEC and MAYA territory.
    
    Quetzalcoatl was a creator god, and in one story he journeyed to the
    underworld to collect the bones from which he fashioned the human race
    after he sprinkled them with his own blood.  In this aspect he was the
    god of self-sacrifice, wisdom, and science.  As Ehecatl, he was god of
    the wind.  He was also god of the planet Venus, which is both morning
    and evening star--the morning aspect represented by the feathered
    serpent, the evening aspect by Xolotl, a dog-headed monster.  This
    duality made him the patron deity of twins, the god to whom barren
    women prayed for children.
    
    The title Quetzalcoatl was taken by several historical rulers and
    heroes so that confusion often arises between historical and
    mythological events.  The story of the exile of Quetzalcoatl, for
    example, probably refers to a real event, the driving out of King
    Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl from the city of TULA in the 12th century, to
    which have been added mythological stories about the deification of the
    god-man and his promise to return and claim his earthly kingdom.  This
    prophecy was still current in the day of MONTEZUMA II.  Montezuma
    thought that Hernan Cortes was a deity because the latter landed (1519)
    in Mexico on the day One Reed, the calendar day of Quetzalcoatl's
    birth.

Well, like Dan sez -

What's the basis for the EB's position on the matter? Mythology passed down
through word of mouth by a civilization that was brainwashed by Christian
Missionaries? What a reliable source!

    The synopsis in .7 sounds like what I heard on the news this AM as
    Dole's response to Gingrich's proposal.
    
    Why so shocked by this?  Y'all sound like Claude Rains closing down
    Rick's Place.
    
    Kit

>What's the basis for the EB's position on the matter?

Archaeological findings.

/john

>Why aren't his OWN words good enough?

All I'm saying is that I personally haven't read or seen anything in which
Newt stated he was pursuing a CA on this matter. That doesn't mean it didn't
happen, just that I haven't seen it. And I would like to do so.

    .38
    
    odd how thorougly divergent the archaeological evidence the brits used
    is from the archaeological evidence used by grolier's in re the nature
    of the god.  d'ye suppose there might be an agenda there?  nah...

    God forbid!
    

The information Binder provided is also present in the EB article; the
human sacrifice period was from c. 900-1200.

But let's look at the argument from another viewpoint:

The court says that Quetzlcoatl, or Apollo, etc. are not religious symbols,
but nativity scenes are.  Ancient idols are allowed in public squares; the
God of gods, King of kings, and Lord of lords, Jesus, is not.

This would appear to be the court deciding that Christianity is a real
religion and that Greek and Mexican paganism is not.

This requires me to spend some time in thought as to the implications.

/john

              <<<  COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

This is a pre-columbian god, turned cultural icon, for crissake! Are you so 
insecure in your faith that you've got to revert to word warfare against 
this basically archeological object. 

Better to battle deacy with the church then to worry about what's outside. 
Particularly if it's been dead for hundreds of years.

>>God of gods, King of kings, and Lord of lords, Jesus, is not.

     John can't Handel this.

    Lady Di-
    
    Wish I'd said that :-)

    
    
     Forget it Jack... innuendo rules in SOAPBOX...
    
    When things resort to sarcasm, it's because there ain't nothing written
    to back up thr claims....
    
      Usual fodder...
    

    
    It is not possible to evaluate any amendment to the Constitution
    without the actual text.  Does anybody have the text of the
    proposed constitutional amendment.
    
      bb

	Hey Andy, that was pretty funny.... especially coming from you...

   >>     How is teaching children to pray to a God they don't believe
   >>     in going to make a stronger America?
    
    I personally don't know if it will work.  However, it has been proven
    that families who attend church, synagogue, etc. on the average are far
    less dysfunctional.  
    
    Getting back to the statue in San Jose...I wonder if this organization
    ever goes to DC and pray around the Washington monument.  This monument
    is a fallace which was absolute vile paganism of ancient Babylon.
    
    -Jack

    	re .45
    
    	Steve Jong.  See .19.  Seems we agree.  Now I have to change
    	my position!  :^)

| <<< Note 33.64 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| I personally don't know if it will work.  However, it has been proven that 
| families who attend church, synagogue, etc. on the average are far less 
| dysfunctional.

	Jack, what are you using as your source for this? BTW, let's just say
what you wrote above is true. What would that have to do with prayer in
schools? 


Glen

    Ya andy, whattareyou... a polack or sumptin?

    	re .66
    
    	I don't know about the specifics of Jack's stats, but US Census
    	stats show that one in two marriages fail.  But if the couple
    	was married "in the church" (church-sanctioned/blessed -- without
    	specifying any religions) then one in three end up divorcing.
    	And if the couple regularly attends church together, one in ten 
    	end up divorcing.

    
    RE: .63
    
    Typical intelligent reposte by the king of the "non-liners"

    RE: 67
    
    >Ya andy, whattareyou... a polack or sumptin?
    
    That's the second time you've done that....
    
    You stalkin me or sumptin?
    
    
    
    
    
       :) :) :):)
    

    .64> pray around the Washington monument.  This monument is a fallace 
    
    No comment.
    
    DougO

    
    Washington monument is a phallacy?

    
    Well, it *does* thrust skyward...
    

    be still my heart!

| <<< Note 33.68 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>


| I don't know about the specifics of Jack's stats, but US Census stats show 
| that one in two marriages fail. But if the couple was married "in the church" 
| (church-sanctioned/blessed -- without specifying any religions) then one in 
| three end up divorcing. And if the couple regularly attends church together, 
| one in ten end up divorcing.

	Joe, interesting stuff. But it doesn't really address the "good family"
issue. Any family can be together, and still be disfunctional. Having 2 parents
can cause more problems than having 1 in a lot of cases. Parents who stay
married because they feel they should, even though they may not love each
other. Sounds like an episode of Geraldo. :-) It also sounds like the stats you
listed are kind of incomplete.


Glen

| <<< Note 33.69 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Less government, stupid!" >>>


| Typical intelligent reposte by the king of the "non-liners"

	Why thank you Andrew. I sincerly appreciate the words you have sent my
way. You are truly a man of God. May he bless every move you ever make in your
life.

| <<< Note 33.71 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto" >>>


.64> pray around the Washington monument.  This monument is a fallace

<person kneeling before the Washington Monument with arms and hands repeatedly
touching the ground, and then rising up>


	I'M NOT WORTHY! I'M NOT WORTHY!

    
    >You are truly a man of God.
    
    Sorry... I don't usually wear a starched collar...
    
    BTW... your sarcasm becomes you.... but you knew that...

	God's love to you Andrew! 

    serious question:
    
    Andy, why do you think Glen is being sarcastic?  Maybe he is
    doing the Christian thing and turning the other cheek?  Just
    a thought.

    	.75
    
    	Oh, you're right.  The single (and limited) example I provided
    	doesn't prove anything in particular.  It was intended to be
    	one more item to support the notion that shared religion might
    	strengthen relationships, nothing more.
    
>         -< They don't tell us anything about disfunctional families >-
    
    	I don't want to go so far as to say they don't tell us ANYTHING.
    	But their purpose was more to address FUNCTIONAL families anyway,
    	and in particular a factor that seems to help foster functional
    	families.
    
    	As for all the dysfunctionality that you were postulating, we
    	all know that these things COULD happen.  But when people bring
    	up such possibilities, I tend to discard them in discussions like
    	this because they tend to give the appearance of the rule and not 
    	the exception.

	Tell you what Joe, when people use the words most, all, majority, then
tune it out. But when they don't, listen for a change. 

	Does it make sense to talk about dysfunctional families, then provide
some stuff on which families stay together the most, but don't offer what % of
those families turn out to be dysfunctional? Sounds like you DID leave out a
big chunk of information

    
    RE: .80
    
    Easy 'tine....  Ever see a zebra change it's stripes?
    
    Anything's possible though.. right? ;)
    
    When I see it, I'll be the first to acknowledge it.... Course, I won't
    be holding my breath in the mean time...
    

	.82

>	Tell you what Joe, when people use the words most, all, majority, then
>tune it out. But when they don't, listen for a change. 
    
    	Ok.  Reply .64, which precipitated this thread qualified the
    	claim with "on the average".
    
    	What was your point again?

>	Does it make sense to talk about dysfunctional families, then provide
>some stuff on which families stay together the most, but don't offer what % of
>those families turn out to be dysfunctional? Sounds like you DID leave out a
>big chunk of information
    
    	Sure, it makes sense when the only purpose (as I clearly stated I
    	was doing) was to provide one piece of info to add support to
    	the point, not to definitively prove it as you insist.  Sure
    	I "did leave out a chunk of information".  I already admitted it.
    	I don't understand what your problem is.  Perhaps it is you who
    	needs to "listen for a change".

    Sorry...Phallace!!!

| <<< Note 33.84 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>


| >	Tell you what Joe, when people use the words most, all, majority, then
| >tune it out. But when they don't, listen for a change.

| Ok.  Reply .64, which precipitated this thread qualified the claim with "on 
| the average".

	Joe, he hasn't backed the claim with any source as of yet. When he does
we move on from there. Pretty simple, huh?

| >	Does it make sense to talk about dysfunctional families, then provide
| >some stuff on which families stay together the most, but don't offer what % of
| >those families turn out to be dysfunctional? Sounds like you DID leave out a
| >big chunk of information

| Sure, it makes sense when the only purpose (as I clearly stated I was doing) 
| was to provide one piece of info to add support to the point, not to 
| definitively prove it as you insist.  

	Joe, you talked about those who go to church as having the lowest
divorce rate. It does nothing to support or defeat the dysfunctional family
claims. It mentions divorce ONLY. Married couples does not = (dis)functional
families. 

| Sure I "did leave out a chunk of information".  

	Yeah... the chunk of information that could tie it in with
(dis)functional families. Hey, so what if it is the biggest part, and
what we were talking about.

| I don't understand what your problem is.  Perhaps it is you who needs to 
| "listen for a change".

	I've been listening just fine Joe. I'm just pointing out to you that
your info does NOTHING to support (dis)functional family claims.


Glen

    >Sorry...Phallace!!!
        
    ok, this time I'll comment.  
    
    Dictionaries are cheap.  ignorance is correctable.
    
    DougO

    Is that Jack Phallace, the movie actor? :-)
    
    -b

>	Joe, he hasn't backed the claim with any source as of yet. When he does
>we move on from there. Pretty simple, huh?
    
    	Fine.  So why do you have to keep yapping at me?

>	Joe, you talked about those who go to church as having the lowest
>divorce rate. It does nothing to support or defeat the dysfunctional family
>claims. It mentions divorce ONLY. Married couples does not = (dis)functional
>families. 
    
    	Divorce is a part of family disfunctionality.  Of course marriage
    	does not NECESSARILY mean an absence of dysfunctionality, but
    	divorce shows a definite presence of dysfunctionality.  I don't
    	see why you insist there is **NO** relation between what I
    	entered and dysfunctional families.
    
    	And, BTW, those who go to church together so not have the lowest
    	divorce rate in the census statistics.  Those who pray together
    	do.  (One in 1100+ divorce.)
    
>	I've been listening just fine Joe. I'm just pointing out to you that
>your info does NOTHING to support (dis)functional family claims.

	Well you're wrong.  Period.

    
    .88
    
    oh, jack palance...he's very...hmm, never mind 8^)

    so, um
    
    Is dysfuntionality ok as long as you don't have to see it in divorce
    statistics?  Never mind the potential abuse that goes on when people
    stay together, either for the sake of the kids or for the sake of god.  
    
    My compadre lived in such a household.  It would have been far better
    for the kids if his parents had divorced instead of sniping at each
    other and the kids.
    
    meg

>    Is dysfuntionality ok as long as you don't have to see it in divorce
>    statistics?  
    
    	No.  You need to read better.  This was thoroughly explained
    	already.
    
>    Never mind the potential abuse that goes on when people
>    stay together, either for the sake of the kids or for the sake of god.  
    
    	And are you arguing that this is the rule and not the exception?
    
>    My compadre lived in such a household.  It would have been far better
>    for the kids if his parents had divorced instead of sniping at each
>    other and the kids.
    
    	Well this one anecdote ought to be enough to constitute proof... 
    	(not.  Even if you can be sure that it really WOULD have been
    	"far better".)

Anti-Defamation League is protesting presence of 22-foot menorah on
Boston Common and other public locations and participation by elected
officials in Chanukah observances.

How tall is the huge menorah I saw next to the White House?

/john

    	In my opinion, a silent time at the beginning of a school day would
    be good for all involved. The students can use these moments for any
    thing there free thinking minds allow, and at the same time they
    unwind. Teachers can relax and mentally "tune in" to prepare for
    instruction. Call this time something other than "prayer", organized
    religion should not be forced on anyone. Thank you for allowing me to
    express my opinion.
    
    Exploring Spirituality,
                        Peter
    
    
    

    ... and it would be loverly if used to contemplate camels' noses
    intruding in tentz too.  In other words, after a few years (and in some
    districts nanoseconds') standing, the true agenda could be revealed.
    
    Nope, I ain't buyin.
    

>    	In my opinion, a silent time at the beginning of a school day would
>    be good for all involved. 

    If its such a great idea, then teachers would be doing it all on
    their own.  Why is it that Newt, etc. fight for less gov, local
    control, but then want to mandate prayer (or moment of silence)
    bob

    \If its such a great idea, then teachers would be doing it all on
    \their own. 
    
     Wrong. It's illegal.
    
    \but then want to mandate prayer
    
     Wrong again. They want to allow it.

>     <<< Note 33.97 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "what's the frequency, Kenneth?" >>>
>
>    \If its such a great idea, then teachers would be doing it all on
>    \their own. 
>    
>     Wrong. It's illegal.

    Prayer is illegal, but any teacher can have a silence in the classroom.

>    \but then want to mandate prayer
>    
>     Wrong again. They want to allow it.

    What many WANT is mandated prayer...What this bill is about is
    a moment of silence

>    Prayer is illegal, but any teacher can have a silence in the classroom.

Nope.  It has been ruled illegal by the courts to have an organized moment
of silence.

People like Dan Kalikow claim it's not really for silence, and they win in
the courts.

/john

    They have nap time in kindergarden. So, lets just call it a moment of
    napping. Or would that be illegal as well? Laws against prayer, laws
    for prayer, it doesn't matter. It is all about control of our lives by
    those who want power without effort. And we sit and argue amongst
    ourselves, while our freedom and rights go the way of the dino. The answer 
    is no law, no law except for one that doesn't allow force, coersion or 
    fraud against any individual.
    
    ...Tom

    Why don't they just allow a moment of silence so the kids can
    contemplate their navels?
    
    

The Supreme Court has just turned down the appeal of a Florida
man who had claimed that the Halloween celebration in public schools,
with its witches and brooms and cauldrons, offended him and his
children and violated the separation of church and state.

It encourages thought about why it is that the Supreme Court permits
schools to display the symbols of a false religion -- witches and their
accoutrements -- but forbids the displays of true religion -- the living
God to earth come down.

The Supreme Court's decision amounts to a ruling that Christianity is
true and that wicca is not.

/john

    /john,
    
    FWIW Halloween celebrations in schools have about as much commonality
    with Wicca as Santa Claus has with Christianity.  It actually hasw far
    more in common with some of the catholic beliefs in Mexico surrounding
    the day of the dead.
    
    meg

>    more in common with some of the catholic beliefs in Mexico surrounding
>    the day of the dead

Those beliefs are not catholic.

/john

    Excuse the heck out of me John, but they involve the church quite
    heavily.  Or are you saying the Mexican Priesthood doesn't follow the
    teachings of the pope?

If priests in Mexico celebrate anything with witches and cauldrons
and the dead walking the earth, anything like Halloween, then they are
not following the teachings of the Apostles and have departed from the
Catholic faith, which, by definition, is the same in all places and for
all people and for all time.

The Catholic celebration of All Soul's Day, on November 2nd, is a day
on which the Church commemorates those who have died, not with the
occult symbols of the wiccan Samhain festival, but by remembering the
resurrection of Jesus Christ and the promise of resurrection for all.

This is the faith we are proud to proclaim.

/john

    
|This is the faith we are proud to proclaim.
    
    And anyone who disagrees is not we.
    
    								-mr. bill

Schools in So. NH have banned Santa from the classroom as well as 
the carol "Come all ye faithful".

daryll

    
    Schools on Martha's Vineyard have banned Christmas.

(They must stop Christmas from coming. But how?)

    > why it is that the Supreme Court permits schools to display the
    > symbols of a false religion -- witches and their accoutrements -- but
    > forbids the displays of true religion -- the living God to earth come
    > down.
    > 
    > The Supreme Court's decision amounts to a ruling that Christianity is
    > true and that wicca is not.
    
    Meg's direction was nice, but I'm gonna go back and address this
    directly.  The spin with 'false' and 'true' religion was inspired
    wording; but sorry, I noticed.  In what sense do you imagine that the
    Supreme Court would ever imply a ruling on that issue?  Do you think
    they consider themselves empowered to validate or verify the truth
    of a religion, in their role as Justices on a secular court?  You can't
    honestly even imagine them agreeing to hear any such case.  No, what
    they have ruled on is whether or not the trappings of Halloween as
    displayed on bulletin boards in 2nd grade classrooms are religious
    in nature.  Are you arguing that any depiction of the symbols of a
    religious tradition are tantamount to the practise of that religion?
    I suggest you consider Serrano's "Piss Christ" carefully before you
    answer.  Clearly, there are other realms of human endeavor, such as
    art, wherein the intellect can use symbols sometime associated with
    religions for other purposes.  Such as art, I said; such as the
    stimulation and education of children.  I personally don't like the
    display of ugly witches at Halloween; I find it a reinforcement of
    originally churchly-inspired prejudice against difference; but I don't
    find it religious.  The Supreme Court also had no trouble with the
    distinction.
    
    DougO

    John,
    
    the day of the dead celebrations are indeed religious and secular. 
    they include the beliefs that on this day presents should be left for
    the dead, etc.  people spend evenings in the local cemetaries, with
    candles etc.  and, yes the priesthood is involved.  You really should
    spend the last week in October and first week in november in Mexico
    sometime, it sounds like you could enjoy the culture around it.
    
    While I haven't yet made a disparaging remark about the upstart cult to
    which you belong, true and falseness is in the eye of the beholder.  you
    are free to believe in your god and celebrate your religion, as am I. 
    Putting up with the secularization of holidays is the sigil we both
    have to bear.  
    
    meg

    
    I don't think the Gente care whether their observances are kosher
    with the pope, the anglicans, or anyone else.
    

      re: .107
    
      John,
    
        I won't rathole this, but there were many and there are
        still some that do not have nearly the same view regarding
        the Catholic Church as you do.
    
        For centuries, people were scared for their lives if they
        so much had in their possession the sacred scriptures in
        their native tongue.  People were led to believe in 'indulgences'
        that is, if they gave the church enough money, people (even
        dead people) might go from lost to saved.  There were some
        groups such as the Waldenses that escaped persecution of the
        Catholic Church by retreating to the mountains.
    
        For several years, jesuits were kicked out of entire countries
        because of their baleful influence.
    
        If one option would be having our legal system embrace the 
        'true' religion as you seem to deem it to be, then my response
        to you is thank God if they should embrace no religion whatsoever.
    
                                                  Tony

    It seems that the SC is not very consistent in modern times with their
    'separation of church and state' doctrine.
    
    Holloween stuff is okay.  Even though it sybolizes pagan religions,
    wicca (well, witches and cauldrons), satanism, etc.  While at the same
    time not allowing the 10 commandments to be displayed on any of the
    school's walls.  
    
    Seems John may have a point.  If they are familiar with the separation
    doctrine, then they are basically saying that Jews and Christians
    follow true religions while the rest of this pagan sybolism is nonsense,
    thus allowed in classrooms, in the hallways, etc.
    
    -steve

    if kids thought of halloween as wicca or paganism, i could see your
    point.  but they don't.  they see it as a night when they can get
    dressed up and go tot-ing.  it's a game to kids, not religion.  it's
    narrow-minded adults, who see virtually everything outside their own
    private niche as a threat to that niche, who are the problem.

    <<< Note 33.116 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


What you and others here seem to forget is the reason for separation of 
church and state. It's not because there's anything inherently wrong with 
religion (I've been arguing with the guns-are-harmless crowd too long), 
it's to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If religion 
were to all but vanish from the planet, nobody would mind if crosses and 
other symbols of christianity were to be displayed in classrooms.

    Leech,
    
    they still have decorated evergreen trees and pieces regarding rabbits
    and eggs in the spring in schools as well.  
    
    As I have said,  halloween has the same resemblance to the pagan
    holiday Samhain as santa has to the xian holiday christmas.  While a
    fairly major cross-quarter holiday, it certainly isn't my most holy, I
    much prefer Beltane.
    
    meg
    
    meg

>Beltane

Isn't he from France?

    I thought Beltane was a hearing aid?

    And I thought christmas was a fancy name for the saturnalia  or for the
    solstice.  Not to mention swiping eostare and renaming it easter and
    celebrating some wierd sacrifice around it.
    
    meg

    re: .118
    
    Then who is to protect the majority from the minority?  Seems a vast
    majority of people could care less about whether or not the 10
    comandments are hung on school walls or not. 
    
    And Binder, most kids ignored the 10 commandments on the school
    walls.  Why was it taken out?  I have no problem with halloween
    decorations, personally.  I have a problem with inconsistencies in the
    "separation of church and state".  It isn't a matter of how things are
    viewed by the children, it is a matter of consistency in application. 
    Like it or not, wicca and other pagan religions exist and are
    considered religions (well at least by most, perhaps not by the SC if
    you go by the recent ruling), even if the decorations are just sybolisms 
    that are just for fun.  If you allow sybolisms for pagan religions,
    then you should allow other religions to get in on the act (and it
    seems that some schools are outlawing Christmas sybolisms in school
    today, while the SC rules that pagan holidays are okay to celebrate).
    
    I can't believe that you, of all people, cannot see the inconsistencies
    of these rulings.
    
    
    -steve                                                             

    .122
    
    i like to trot this one out once a year.  from the curmudgeon's
    dictionary:
    
        Christmas, n.  A wintertime pagan festival dedicated to the worship
        of the almighty dollar, which masquerades as a celebration of the
        birth of the Christ-child, who, as everyone ought to know, was born
        in the springtime along with all the other lambs.

    .123
    
    > And Binder, most kids ignored the 10 commandments on the school
    > walls.  Why was it taken out?
    
    because, despite the fact that it was ignored, it was patently
    religious IN THE CONTEXT OF TODAY'S ORDINARY SOCIETY.  hallowe'en is
    not a religious holiday in that context.

Steve,
   How do you justify the hanging of the 10 Commandments, which have their
  roots in Judeo-Christian custom, in a secular society which is more
  encompassing than that?
-Jack

PS. I support a "moment of silence".

    I went to a parochial school (grades 1-7) and we celebrated Halloween.
    
    The priests and nuns had as much fun as we did decorating and going
    through special little events. 
    
    All of sudden, this stuff is tagged as either psychologically/
    ideologically damaging, religiously immoral, etc... What the
    hell are the adults doing? 
    
    There's incessent clatter about kids growing up too soon, having too
    many decisions to make, blah, blah, blah... And yet there's a whole
    movement afoot out there to dismantle childhood. 
    
    Holloween meant two things to me when I was growing up  1) What cool
    thing was I going to be that year  2) c-a-n-d-y , period, end of
    list.
    
    More example or morons with way too much time on their hands...
    
    Flame - just warming up...
    
    Chip
    

	Steve, would you object to having a wall, or a bulletin board in each
and every school that people could put up things from ALL the various religions
that are participating in the school? From student to teacher? 

	You see, to point to one religion over another, like having JUST the 10
commandments up, is not right. Your beliefs may be in Christianity, but not
everyone elses is. 

	I believe a wall with different things from different religions would
not only be great to see, but educational as well. Would you go for something
like that?


Glen

    re: .125
    
    You are wrong.  It is a very religious holiday for some...maybe not
    many, but some.
    
    The SC ruling is still inconsitent.
    
    -steve

>Steve,
>   How do you justify the hanging of the 10 Commandments, which have their
>  roots in Judeo-Christian custom, in a secular society which is more
>  encompassing than that?


    It not a matter of justification...you shouldn't have to justify
    inalienable rights.  It is the fact that SCOTUS determines what is
    acceptible, rather than the local community.  If a community wished to
    put wiccan chants/whatever on the school walls, they should be allowed
    to.  If they want to put the 10 Commandments on the walls, they should
    be *able* to do so.  The only limitation to this should be common
    law...no promotion of illegal things nor pictures that are not
    appropriate for children, etc.
    
    Although I support a moment of silence, I do not support a
    constitutional amendment to make it happen.  In my view, there is no
    need for an amendment that *allows* (or recognizes, which I feel is a
    better word to use in this case) free expression of religion that is
    an inalienable right.  The fallout of such an amendment could be very
    harmful to future First Amendment rulings in this area.
    
    It's an issue of freedom, rather than religion, IMO.  The federal
    government has no right to limit such freedoms.
    
    
    -steve

    re: .128
    
    I have no problem with that. 
    
    (see my previous note)

    Steve,
    
    All Hallow eve is also a religious holiday for some xians as well.  
    
    Might as well realize we all tend to celebrate some holidays at about
    the same time of the year.  Our mythology surrounding those times is
    vastly different, however.
    
    meg
    
    

	Would you fight for the wall at your local school on your own, or only
if others started the campaign?

    .129
    
    steve, you're having problems reading.  in .125 i said AND EMPHASIZED
    that hallowe'en is not a religious holiday IN THE CONTEXT OF TODAY'S
    ORDINARY SOCIETY.  there, i've said it again.  wiccans and others who
    do celebrate hallowe'en as a religious holiday are not any kind of
    numbers to be considered a major influence on ORDINARY society.  xians,
    on the other hand, pretty much DEFINE ordinary society in the usa.

    re: .134
    
    I read it just fine, even understood your emphasis.  I don't care
    whether or not it is "ordinary", it is still religion at its origin. 
    Therefore the separation of church and state should apply to this as it
    is with Christianity.  It is not.  
    
    I'm not trying to ban halloween from schools (it is a fun holiday for
    kids and all, and I don't really see any harm in it for the most part),
    I just want EQUAL APPLICATION of law.  
    
    Numbers and influence are meaningless, as I am being legalistic on this
    front.
    
    
    -steve

    .135
    
    > Numbers and influence are meaningless...
    
    this is, of course, why the candidate who spends the most money (a
    number) or who spoke to a voter last (an influence) almost always
    gets elected.  get real.  we are dealing with people here, not with an
    imaginary perfect legalistic mentality.

    Different subject altogether, Binder.  I see your point, but you are
    dismissing inconsistency in SC rulings as non-issues.  I think any
    inconsistency in Constitutional law is an issue.
    
    -steve

    	If Christians "DEFINE ordinary society in the usa" because they
    	predominate the population, why can't Christian influence 
    	predominate schools, government, etc.?  More importantly, why
    	must it be ELIMINATED when less-predominant faith expressions
    	are not eliminated, but in fact are encouraged to flourish?
    
    	I expect to hear something about "Tyranny of the majority",
    	but it's not clear to me that it is tyranny to expect even 
    	SOME influence of the predominant religion when other religions
    	are allowed to have influence.

    > why can't Christian influence
    > predominate schools, government, etc.?
    
    > I expect to hear something about "Tyranny..."
    
    you expect correctly.  tyranny is the imposition of something by force
    upon someone else.  and our constitution protects us against tyranny,
    whether it be imposed by government or by the majority.  requiring
    prayer in schools, if it is a public, vocal prayer to a specific deity,
    is tyranny.  subtle and in most people's minds a good thing, but
    tyrannical nonetheless.

    	    
    RE: .138, /john
    
    	   > If Christians "DEFINE ordinary society in the usa" because they
           > predominate the population, why can't Christian influence
           > predominate schools, government, etc.?  More importantly, why
           > must it be ELIMINATED when less-predominant faith expressions
           > are not eliminated, but in fact are encouraged to flourish?
    
    I find it difficult to believe that you would be happy with all the
    so-called "christians" having influence in the school your children
    attend. The word christian brings to mind every possible interpretation
    of scripture from various sects. In one community you can have
    Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Seventh Day
    Adventists, Mormons, Evangelicals, RLDS, Church of Christ, Catholic
    Byzantine, Charismatic, Christian Science, Church of God Anderson
    Indiana, Church of God Cleveland Tenn., Church of God holiness,
    Pentecostal, Church of the Nazarene, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist,
    Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran, Quaker, Unification, Unification
    Universalist, Religious Science, mennonites, etc, etc, etc., All with
    differant beliefs and differant styles. 
    
    Yes by all means, let's use our schools for christianity to be
    "encouraged to flourish". Get real!!
    
    ...Tom

    y'all ain't paying attention.  if the use of symbols sometimes
    associated with religion is deemed to be the practise of that religion,
    and therefore something the state cannot do, then all the art that uses
    religious motifs will have to be removed from museums subsidized by
    state funds.  whether it honors that religion as 99% of it does, or
    whether it mocks it as Serrano's Piss Christ does.
    
    The Court recognized that cardboard witch cutouts on elementary school
    blackboards are not the practise of religion.  Just as art which draws
    upon the symbols of religion for cultural, intellectual stimulation are
    not automagically defacto the practise of the religion.  
    
    Go on, Steve; you got the courage to face off against the hordes of
    fanatic who'll mobilize against you when you tell 'em they have to yank
    all church art out of museums that get subsidies?
    
    DougO

    Displaying a poster of the 10 Commandments or a picture of Christ is
    not "practicing" religion, any more than putting up cardboard cut-outs
    of  witches is.  
    
    -steve

    .142
    
    > Displaying a poster of the 10 Commandments...
    
    perhaps if the majority of the kids in a school were areligious or of a
    faith other than xianity or judaism, the 10 commandments could be taken
    as a philosophical treatise, much as xians regard confucianist or
    buddhist writings.
    
    but since these kids are mostly xians, the 10 commandments are an
    expression of the religious heritage that they are taught and
    encouraged to follow.  nobody is encouraging kids to go out and be
    witches.  are you honestly unable to see the difference?

    I yam surprisid that someone hasn't tried to take the christmas gift
    exchange out of school, after all isn't that the celebration of the
    birth of Christ?
    
    
    Rick

    As an expression of their historical herritage, it should be allowed,
    not banned.  What message are we sending our school kids? 
    
    I understand your point, but you still haven't seemed to grasp mine
    (maybe I'm not making myself very clear).  Equal application is the
    issue I'm taking.  Witches are okay by the SC, but the 10 Commandments
    are not okay.  Christianity must be banned, pagan symbolism is okay
    (whether it is in fun or not, is not the issue, IMO).
    
    It is beside the point that the Federal government (or any other
    government) is not allowed to make laws limiting the religious freedoms
    of the people, but does anyway.  If people want to post the 10
    Commandments in their schools, what's the problem?  SCOTUS rules in
    favor of school books that call Jesus "poor white trash", but it is not
    okay for schools to hang a picture of Jesus on a wall...any wall.
    
    Inconsistency.  That is my problem.  
    
    I also do not agree that most kids are raised Christian.  Last poll
    taken stated that 33% of adults believed in the Bible (or somewhere in
    that neighborhood...if anyone has the stats, please correct me if I'm
    wrong).  Assuming that all 33% of these adults have kids who also
    follow the faith, you still have a minority of kids being Christians, 
    rather than a "majority".  Add in Jewish kids and you still have less 
    than a majority.
    
    
    -steve

      re: .142
    
      Which ten commandments?  The one in the Bible that calls
      us to rest on the 7th day of the week?  Or perhaps a made
      up one that calls us to rest on the 1st day?
    
      Or perhaps the Catholic version which calls for rest on 
      the first day of the week and which completely removed 
      the second commandment (not to make graven images) and
      split off the tenth commandment into two (Thou shalt not
      covet wife + property, etc. to Thou shalt not covet wife
      and Thou shalt not covet property?)
    
      By the way, the Lutheran and several other versions are
      taken from the Catholic.
    
      Anyway...which 10?  The scriptural?  Or some other?
    
                                            Tony

    .145
    
    > Equal application
    
    i understand your point, steve.  but the real point at issue here, one
    of which the scotus seems well aware, is that in terms of their effect
    on school kids, comparing hallowe'en witches to xian symbols is like
    comparing apples to oranges.  the scotus, for once, is applying the
    spirit of the law correctly instead of listening to the arguments of
    people who want everything the way their religion sees it.

>      Which ten commandments?

Exodus 20:1-17, as used by Jews and Christians, who differ only in numbering.
    
>      Or perhaps the Catholic version ... which completely removed 
>      the second commandment (not to make graven images)

The Roman Catholics did not remove the second; it is combined into the
first.  The next 8 are numbered one lower.

>      split off the tenth commandment into two (Thou shalt not
>      covet wife + property, etc. to Thou shalt not covet wife
>      and Thou shalt not covet property?)

This is just a matter of numbering.  The text of the ten commandments
remains the text from Exodus 20:1-17.

/john

Consider the following chart, listing the verses of Exodus 20 involved:

         Jewish*	     Roman Catholic	     Anglican and Protestant

I	 2    IAM	    2-6	  IAM,only,idols	2-3  IAM,only
II	3-6   only,idols     7	  name			4-6  idols
III	 7    name          8-11  sabbath		 7   name
IV	8-11  sabbath	     12	  parents		8-11 sabbath
V	 12   parents	     13	  murder		 12  parents
VI	 13   murder	     14	  adultery		 13  murder
VII	 14   adultery	     15	  theft			 14  adultery
VIII	 15   theft	     16	  false witness		 15  theft
IX	 16   false witness  17   covet wife		 16  false witness
X	 17   covet	     17   covet property	 17  covet

I'm not sure about the Eastern Orthodox numbering.
*Jewish numbering is based on an example by Dave Gross in ::BAGELS.

    speaking of consistency, I guess Steve Leech just showed it; he ducked
    the question i asked him at the end of .141.
    
    DougO

    re: .150
    
    As did /john in my remarks in .140.

    
    can one covet one's neighbor's false wife?

	Steve and John and Joe have raised the issue of "consistency"
	regarding the SCOTUS decision. But they seem to be having a
	problem listening to Meg when she makes it clear that the
	symbols under discussion, witches with long pointed hats
	and long noses with warts, boiling cauldrons, black cats, 
	skeletons, and the like have nothing to do with a religious
	representation of Wicca or any other Pagan religion that she is
	familiar with.

	Now listen carefully boys, these items represent a purely SECULAR
	holiday know as Halloween. It is not a religious holiday of Wicca,
	and the symbols are NOT Wiccan.

	To be labled as inconsistent, the Court would have to rule in favor
	of a ban on pictures of Santa Claus, reindeer and sleighs. They have
	not done this. And I would guess that any such request for a ban
	would follow the same logic as was used to permit the Halloween
	displays. Those items are SECULAR, not religious.

	They have ruled that RELIGIOUS representations, the 10 Commandments,
	pictures of Christ, Nativity scenes and the like cannot be supported
	by government entities.

	There is no inconsistency here.

Jim 

	And as for the issue of a "Moment of Silence".....


	Well my daughter already has one. They call it Study Hall.

Jim

    	I must point out that there is no prohabition, that I am aware of
    from going to a halloween party at school as a Nun or priest or Jesus
    or any other christian figure. The party is not a religious celebration
    it is a costume party. I would feel that prohibiting religious figure
    custumes of any type was wrong. The act of wearing one to a party,
    whoever, is completely differnt from displaying something on the wall
    or other form of observance from the school itself. I would be against
    them butting up symbols of druidism or witch craft as much as I would
    be against Christian symbols.
    
    
    						S.R.

>    re: .150
>    
>    As did /john in my remarks in .140.

Why don't you go back and take a good look at .140 and figure out why
I didn't answer it.

/john

    RE: .156, John
    
    OK, for my benefit, would you make a comment? I really don't think that
    you have considered every possible problem, with some of your
    statements. You also told me once, in the old box, that you wouldn't
    like being dictated to by other christian sects.
    
    ...Tom

re .157

I think it's obvious that you can't keep track of what I told you and
what someone else told you but you thought it was me.

The issue is that anything remotely related to Christianity (in some
cases even the "Santa" development out of the life of St. Nicholas,
and certainly any _real_ explanations of St. Nicholas' life, or of
the real beliefs of the Pilgrims and to whom they were giving thanks)
is completely forbidden in the schools, even if the children initiate
it on their own, but children can be taught witch's spells and all
sorts of other occult and new age crap.

Either get it _all_ out, absolutely anything supernatural, or let it
be completely free.  One or the other.

/john

    re: .150
    
    It really wasn't much of a question.  I did answer your note in .142,
    however, by stating that displaying the 10 Commandments is not
    practicing religion, any more than displaying cardboard cut-outs of
    witches is.
    
    I agree that halloween decorations should be allowed, I've never had a
    problem with that.  What I have a problem with is that the FEDERAL
    GOVERNMENT picking and chosing what is okay and what is not.
     
    
    -steve

    .141> Go on, Steve; you got the courage to face off against the hordes
    of fanatic who'll mobilize against you when you tell 'em they have to
    yank all church art out of museums that get subsidies?
    
    DougO

    I didn't read any of the replies here.  The fact is that the
    "separation of church and state" was put into place in 1947 by the
    SCOTUS, and did not exist in this country before then.
    
    Anything said here either agrees or disagrees with SCOTUS.  Niether the
    constitution nor the founding fathers had any intent to separate church
    and state.  The phrase was taken out of context from one of Thomas
    Jeffersons letters and used to justify the SCOTUS ruling.

      re: -1
    
      Ok, I'm admitting being REAL ignorant here, but what
      is SCOTUS?  I've seen the acronym a few times, but I
      haven't a clue as to what it is?
    
      Could you fill me in?
    
                                             Tony

	supreme court

    of the united states

    question mark

 i didn't want to rub it in.

    re: .161
    
    That's what I've been trying to explain for two years now.  Maybe you
    can do a better job that I did in the last box incarnation.
    
    -steve

    re: .160
    
>   -< [still ducking...] >-
    
    There's nothing of substance here TO duck.
    
>    .141> Go on, Steve; you got the courage to face off against the hordes
>    of fanatic who'll mobilize against you when you tell 'em they have to
>    yank all church art out of museums that get subsidies?
 
     You assume first that there will be hordes of fanatics who'll mobilize
    against me for another assumed event.  What's to answer?
    
    
    -steve

             <<< Note 33.158 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>Either get it _all_ out, absolutely anything supernatural, or let it
>be completely free.  One or the other.

	I suppose you would object to Macbeth or Hamlet as well then?

Jim

I wouldn't object, but who gets to decide?

/john

    	re .169
    
    	I'd suspect John wouldn't object because he'd prefer the
    	"completely free" option, as would I.

             <<< Note 33.170 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>I wouldn't object, but who gets to decide?

	Didn't your note say get it ALL out (references to the supernatural)?

Jim

    	re .-1
    
    	His note did, as an anternative to a much more palatable OR
    	option.  Why do you only consider half of the reply?

    re .168- never mind, Steve.  I see that the bother of explaining that
    symbols associated with religions can be used in other ways and for
    other purposes has been totally lost on you.  Just so we can go for
    complete inconsistency, tell me, do you consider Serrano's art work,
    a crucifix in a jar of urine, "Piss Christ", to be the practise of
    Christianity?  No?  Then why do you insist that caricatures of witches
    must constitute the practise of wicca?
    
    DougO

              <<< Note 33.173 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>

>    	His note did, as an anternative to a much more palatable OR
>    	option.  Why do you only consider half of the reply?


	The current status quo makes the second half of his reply
	inoperative regarding my question.

	How 'bout you Joe?

	Given the current situation, should Shakespeare be removed
	from school libraries/Engish Lit classes?

Jim

>	Given the current situation, should Shakespeare be removed
>	from school libraries/Engish Lit classes?

    	Given the current situation, there is no one calling for that
    	removal.
    
    	Except maybe you!  :^)
    
    	The "ALL" situation under which you proposed that removal is
    	no more the current situation than the "total freedom" alternative
    	is.

>    	Given the current situation, there is no one calling for that
>    	removal.
 
Joe,     Let me quote from John's .158


    >Either get it _all_ out, absolutely anything supernatural, or let it
    >be completely free.  One or the other.

         Now, the situation is that it is NOT "completely free". As long
         as it remians so, John seems to be asking for "ANYTHING" 
         supernatural to be removed.
         
         Ever read Act 1 Scene 1 of Macbeth?
         
Jim

    
    
    
    
    Iteresting piece on ome of those newsmagazine shows last night.  They
    had Marilyn Murray O'Haire along with one of her sons and they also had
    the other son who has become an evangelist.  Maybe it's me, but she
    sure seems to be one miserable (as in unhappy) person.  
    
    
    Mike
    
    

    re: .174
    
>    re .168- never mind, Steve.  I see that the bother of explaining that
>    symbols associated with religions can be used in other ways and for
>    other purposes has been totally lost on you.  
    
    Oh, so that's what you were referring to...oh, ignorant me.  I am
    humbled by your superior intellect.
    
>    Just so we can go for
>    complete inconsistency, tell me, do you consider Serrano's art work,
>    a crucifix in a jar of urine, "Piss Christ", to be the practise of
>    Christianity?  No?  
    
    If you knew the answer, why ask a stupid question?  
    
 >   Then why do you insist that caricatures of witches
 >   must constitute the practise of wicca?
  
    I never said caricatures of witches were a practise or wicca.  If you
    had read for comprehension, o' intellectual giant, you would see that I
    have already said it is no more practicing of religion that is hanging
    a picture of Jesus on the wall.
      
    
    -steve

    RE: Connie Chung last night.....
    
    Yes, she did seem unhappy, downright cranky but quite lucid.  She also
    seemed to have very strong convictions.  Her son the evangelista did
    not seem to tightly wound either.  His answer to her "problem" sounded
    like many of the boxthumper variety.  
    
    I agree with her stand on school prayer but I do not necessarily share
    her spiritual beliefs.  Newt is out of line pushing for school mandated
    prayer.  
    
    Brian

    > I never said caricatures of witches were a practise or wicca.  If
    > you had read for comprehension, o' intellectual giant, you would see
    > that I have already said it is no more practicing of religion that is
    > hanging a picture of Jesus on the wall.
    
    You meant of course, caricatures of Jesus.  That would not be the
    practise of religion.  But since you actually didn't say and didn't
    mean caricatures, but idealized 'pictures', your inconsistency is
    demonstrated.  Thank you for playing.
    
    DougO

    Why is hanging a picture of Jesus on the wall "practising" religion? 
    
    Would you consider hanging a picture of a real witch on the wall a
    practice of wicca?
    
    -steve

	.177

.158    >Either get it _all_ out, absolutely anything supernatural, or let it
.158    >be completely free.  One or the other.

>         Now, the situation is that it is NOT "completely free". As long
>         as it remians so, John seems to be asking for "ANYTHING" 
>         supernatural to be removed.
    
    	John is offering two extremes, neither of which exist.  You are
    	being unfair in trying to force people to answer to one choice
    	while rejecting the possibility of the other.  In my mind both
    	are equally extreme.  If you reject one, in my mind you should
    	be rejecting both (which seems reasonable.)
    
    	Your statement could just as easily have been:
    
         Now, the situation is that it is NOT "get it _all_ out". As long
         as it remains so, John seems to be asking for "completely free" 
         to be allowed.
    
    	I see your questioning as pointless.

    No A caraciture of Christ, you know, sort of like what Ed Stien does
    to clinton or Newt.  This would be closer to what you would be looking
    at if you wanted to come close on the analogy.  Picture of a real witch
    on the wall?  You mean like a photo of my daughter, or me or my circle? 
    different matter.  Or are you talking about a representation of the
    goddess?  Now that would be much closer to your picture of jesus on the
    wall.  
    
    what do you think witches  look like anyway?
    
    meg

    >Why is hanging a picture of Jesus on the wall "practising" religion?
        
    I dunno; why do so many people do it?  Seems to be a common thing to do
    among many practising christians.  you think such idealized portraits
    are put up for people to enjoy absent a religious motive?  I say nuts
    to that.
    
    > Would you consider hanging a picture of a real witch on the wall a
    > practice of wicca?
      
    not really - that isn't something that real witches do, to my
    knowledge; though I haven't been in all that many homes that I 
    knew were the domiciles of practising witches.  Hey Meg, got any
    hero-witches on your walls, there for the purpose of religious worship?
    (and pardon me for the jesting tone, I intend no disrespect.)
    
    Now that you've noticed the difference, Steve, why does anyone
    apparently consider the carboard caricatures of witches, which are
    actually derogatory and intended, as most depictions of witches are in
    this culture, to make people think witchcraft is bad, and that witches
    are evil, ugly, and have green faces and warts; why, as I was saying,
    do people consider these caricatures to be a state endorsement of
    religion?  They're clearly not; while just as clearly, pictures of
    Jesus in the schools would be.
    
    DougO

    DougO
    
    Of course I have hero witches, but I generally keep them in photo
    albums  with a few in my office.  However, having a picture of a real
    witch on the wall is more like having a picture of any practising
    christian on the wall.  (Well with the possible exception of a great
    picture of a fellow witch in a koshare costume some tend to be cross
    cultural pagans)  Wanna come over and see the pictures of my kids?
    
    meg

	meg, I think witches look the same as Samantha Stevens, real people.
Not long noses with warts, and a pointy hat riding a broom. 

	although I did like the witch in bugs bunny that rode a vaccum.... 

    
    	I don't remember Jesus sitting for a portrait mentioned in the
    	4 gospels.  And most of the pictures I've seen hanging on walls
    	depict him as Gentilic-looking.
    
    	;^)
    

    Glen,
    
    I always like here too.  Kind of a high tech broomster.  
    
    re .188, I have seen Black Jesus's, and in another  part of the world,
    one who was definitely hispanic/Native american looking.  However I
    haven't seen someone trying to put warts on his followers' noses, color 
    them green and put them in impractical clothing riding brooms.
    
    meg

    I'd be delighted to take you up on the invite, Meg, should I get a
    chance to travel in Colorado any time soon.
    
    DougO

    Any time you get out dougO,
    
    meg

    re: .185
    
    Semantics, DougO, semantics.  
    
    BTW, I don't have a picture of Jesus on my wall...does that mean I'm
    not a practising Christian?
    
    
    -steve

    ducking the questions again, Steve, well, I'm too bored to go around
    the dance floor with you again.  try reading for comprehension
    yourself.
    
    DougO

    I liked the part about Samantha Stevens being referred to as "real
    people".
    
    Does this mean Bugs Bunny is a weal wabbit?

    re: .193
    
    I noticed you conveniently ducked my question in .192. 
    
    Fodder for the P&K topic, perhaps?
    
    -steve

    I didn't.  I said to try reading for comprehension.  A quick perusal of
    my .185 would have answered your question.  I said that hanging such a
    picture seems to be a religious practise of "many" christians.  Nowhere
    did I imply that your choice not to do so makes you non-christian.
    
    I really meant it; try reading for comprehension.  Then you'd notice I
    didn't duck your question.
    
    We also notice you have continued to duck mine.
    
    DougO

    	Yours isn't important, Doug.

    After reading .-1, just imagine this scene:

        A little child, eyes scrunched closed as tight as they can,
        hands pressed over the ears, babbling loudly, "BLAH BLAH BLAH
        I CAN'T HEAR YOU BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M NOT LISTENING BLAH BLAH I'M
        IGNORING YOU BLAH BLAH BLAH."

    Or am I the only one to have this vision?

    \john

               -< The only time Daniel Schorr made me laugh: >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I was listening to Schorr's commentary on the week's news yesterday on
    National Public Radio.  He drew the parallel beteen  Clinton's former
    adamant opposition to the "period of silent meditation" as part and
    parcel of his distaste for any sort of school prayer, and his choice of
    the masturbation-teaching-in-school canard as the pretext for firing
    Elders.  He suggested that perhaps Clinton might be convinced to
    "consider supporting a period of silent masturbation" instead...
    
    Although I was alone in my hotel room here in Anaheim, I just got
    completely hysterical...  :-)
    

    Separation of church and snarf?

RE: 33.161 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog"

> The fact is that the "separation of church and state" was put into place 
> in 1947 by the SCOTUS, and did not exist in this country before then.

It's kinda odd how my mother's American History textbook,  published in
1931,  talks about the separation of church and state.

Perhaps you can explain.


Phil

    those who refuse to read history all the way are condemned to repeat
    it.  

    There has been some mention made that the Supreme Court invented the
    wall of separation only comparatively recently, relying upon a
    misinterpreted phrase from a letter of Jefferson.  I just tripped over
    that letter, (amazing what's on the Web these days), and thought I'd
    include it here so we could see just what old TJ said, and decide for
    ourselves whether or not he's been "misinterpreted".
    
    DougO
    
            _To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others, a Committee of the
    Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut_
    
            January 1, 1802
    
    GENTLEMAN, The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which
    you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury
    Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction.  My duties
    dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my
    constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to
    those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
    
    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
    man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or
    his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions
    only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act
    of the whole American people which declared that their legislature
    should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
    prohibiting  the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of
    separation between church and State.  Adhering to this expression of
    the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I
    shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments
    which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has
    no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
    
    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the
    common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and
    your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

    
    Note that :  TJ was in his first term as Prex, 26 years AFTER he
    wrote the Declaration, that in a bitter election victory over
    Adams he lost Connecticutt which was the source of the letter,
    that Baptism was a tiny minority religion there at the time but
    was a larger in TJ's Virginia, and that TJ was NOT a Baptist himself.
    
    Thus the letter might be interpreted as a general statement of support
    for religious groups with local minority status on philosophical
    grounds, and as reassurance to a potential source of support in a
    constituency not generally warm to TJ.
    
    TJ would have been apalled at the modern MM O'Hare, but I suspect
    would have felt it his duty to protect an atheist against government
    action just as a Baptist.  In Connecticutt in 1802, virtually all
    schoolteachers would have been preachers, and schooling was neither
    widespread, mandatory, nor funded fully by the state.
    
    TJ was among the strongest advocates of the Bill of Rights generally,
    and was not at the Constitutional Convention.  Adams, whom he'd just
    defeated, thought the BoR claptrap and unnecessary.  Later reconciled,
    both men learned English first by reading the Bible.
    
      bb

    Jefferson had written a letter of advice on further studies in
    languages, science, philosophy, etc, to a young man whose father he had
    known, and who had opened a correspondence with Jefferson while he was
    in France in the mid 1780s.  The fourth paragraph of that list of
    specific advice shows Jefferson's advice to the young man on reason's
    place in the matter of religion.  I find it worthwhile to include here
    for ideas about what religion meant to Jefferson.
    
    DougO
    -----
    
            _To Peter Carr_
            _Paris, Aug. 10, 1787_
    
    [...]
    
    4. Religion. Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. 
    In the first place divest yourself of all bias in favour of novelty &
    singularity of opinion.  Indulge them in any other subject rather than
    that of religion.  It is too important, & the consequences of error may
    be too serious. .  On the other hand shake off all the fears & servile
    prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched.  Fix reason
    firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. 
    Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there
    be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of
    blindfolded fear.  You will naturally examine first the religion of
    your own country.  Read the bible then, as you would read Livy or
    Tacitus.  The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature you
    will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the
    same kind in Livy & Tacitus.  The testimony of the writer weighs in
    their favor in one scale, and their not being against the laws of
    nature does not weigh against them.  But those facts in the bible which
    contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and
    under a variety of faces.  Here you must recur to the pretensions of
    the writer to inspiration from god.  Examine upon what evidence his
    pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong as that
    its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of
    nature in the case he relates.   .  For example in the book of Joshua
    we are told the sun stood still several hours.  Were we to read that
    fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood,
    speaking of statues, beasts, &c.  But it is said that the writer of
    that book was inspired.  Examine therefore candidly what evidence there
    is of his having been inspired.  The pretension is entitled to your
    inquiry, because millions believe it. .  On the other hand you are
    astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that
    a body revolving on its axis as the earth does, should have stopped,
    should not by that sudden stoppage have prostrated animals, trees,
    buildings, and should after a certain time have resumed its revolution,
    & that without a second general prostration.  Is this arrest of the
    earth's motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law
    of probabilities?  You will next read the new testament.  It is the
    history of a personage called Jesus.  Keep in your eye the opposite
    pretensions 1. of those who say he was begotten by god, born of a
    virgin, suspended & reversed the laws of nature at will, & ascended
    bodily into heaven: and 2.  of those who say he was a man of
    illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set
    out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, & was
    punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted according to the
    Roman law which punished the first commission of that offence by
    whipping, & the second by exile or death _in furca_.  See this law in
    the Digest Lib. 48. tit. 19. 28. 3. & Lipsius Lib. 2. de cruce. cap. 2. 
    These questions are examined in the books I have mentioned under the
    head of religion, & several others.  They will assist you in your
    inquiries, but keep your reason firmly on the watch in reading them
    all.  Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of it's
    consequences.  If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will
    find incitements to virtue in the comfort & pleasantness you feel in
    it's exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you.   If
    you find reason to believe there is a god, a consciousness that you are
    acting under his eye, & that he approves you, will be a vast additional
    incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy
    existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus
    was also a god, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. 
    In fine, I repeat that you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides,
    & neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or
    description of persons have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is
    the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the
    rightness but uprightness of the decision.  I forgot to observe when
    speaking of the new testament that you should read all the histories of
    Christ, as well of those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided
    for us to be Pseudo-evangelists, as those they named Evangelists.  
    Because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiration as much as
    the others, and you are to judge their pretensions by your own reason,
    & not by the reason of those ecclesiastics.  Most of these are lost. 
    There are some however still extant, collected by Fabricius which I
    will endeavor to get & send you.
    
    [...]

    And here is an extract from a letter 15 months before the "wall of
    separation" letter, wherein Jefferson shares some other thoughts on the
    amendment, and the establishmentarian hopes of particular sects.
    
    DougO
    -----
            _To Dr. Benjamin Rush_
            _Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800_
    
    [...]
    
    I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. 
    On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much
    more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of.  I have a
    view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational
    Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have
    too hastily rejected.  I do not know that it would reconcile the _genus
    irritabile vatum_ who are all in arms against me. .  Their hostility is
    on too interesting ground to be softened.  The delusion into which the
    X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful
    experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of
    the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press,
    covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very
    favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of
    Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form
    the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the
    Episcopalians & Congregationalists.  The returning good sense of our
    country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any
    portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their
    schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of
    god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of
    man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their
    opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against
    me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c.,
    which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest
    on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for
    they are men of truth.
    
    [...]

    The foregoing especially makes clear that Jefferson was unambiguously
    against the notion that the free exercise of religion protected by the
    first amendment would permit any establishment of religion; that the
    "tyranny over the mind" of particular sects would not be permitted to
    become law if Jefferson could prevent it.  That was 15 months before
    the letter some here claim has been misinterpreted.  It seems to me
    that Jefferson's position was consistent and very clear, and that 'wall
    of separation' was as accurate a depiction of his views then as we
    consider it to be today.
    
    DougO

    And six years later, Jefferson repeated his views about the powers the
    government had, and the powers it didn't, with respect to religion.
    
    DougO
    -----
            _To Rev. Samuel Miller_
            _Washington, Jan. 23, 1808_
    
    
    SIR, -- I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to
    you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than
    to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with.  I
    consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution
    from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines,
    discipline, or exercises. .  This results not only from the provision
    that no lawshall be made respecting the establishment, or free
    exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states
    the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe
    any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline,
    has been delegated to the general government.   It must then rest with
    the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.  But it is only
    proposed that I should _recommend_, not prescribe a day of fasting &
    prayer.  That is, that I should _indirectly_ assume to the U.S. an
    authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly
    precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is
    to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those
    who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some
    degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion.  And does the change
    in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less _a law_
    of conduct for those to whom it is directed?  I do not believe it is
    for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct
    it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the
    religious societies that the general government should be invested with
    the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them.  
    Fasting & prayer are religious exercises.  The enjoining them an act of
    discipline.  Every religious society has a right to determine for
    itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them,
    according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be
    safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.
    
    [...]

	  VANCOUVER, British Columbia, (Reuter) - A Canadian choir
prepared to sing its usual program of popular Christmas carols
at the British Columbia legislature Thursday after resolving a
conflict over a government edict to avoid songs about Jesus
Christ.

	 A furor erupted after government officials told the choir to
perform songs that reflected Canada's ethnic diversity and avoid
overtly religious carols.

	 ``This year we were ordered to sing carols that do not
include 'Christ' or 'Jesus.' They had to be non-Christian ...
part of the move to so-called political correctness, I
suppose,'' said one choir member.

	 After an outpouring of protest, government officials rushed
to dispel the notion they had ordered the move, saying there had
been a misunderstanding.

	 ``Lord help us. Last time I checked this was a religious
celebration,'' said provincial health minister Paul Ramsey.

	 The choir sings on the steps of the legislature in the city
of Victoria at a Christmas tree lighting every year.

	 Some bureaucrats were reportedly upset at the singing last
year of ``Silent Night'' which contains references to the Virgin
Mary and the infant Jesus.

| <<< Note 33.194 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>



| I liked the part about Samantha Stevens being referred to as "real people".

	Hey, she is! And she has survived 2 hubby's too! I guess her mother had
it right when she called Darrin, "Deadwood". 

| Does this mean Bugs Bunny is a weal wabbit?

	He looked real at the Warner Bros store. 


Glen

	DougO, no matter how many letters you provide that clearly prove your
point, our founding father Steve Leech will refute, as he, and ONLY he, was
there then. Please keep this in mind. :-)


Glen

    re .209 - I really hate hearing about this.  Each year the outrayge
    of offended people gets stronger.  If you do not like it, don't
    celebrate.  What a bunch of maroons.  
    
    Brian

    re: .211
    
    Actually, DougO is not disputing anything from my point of view.  He
    has actually inadvertantly supported my case.  
    
    I'll elaborate later, no time to play at the moment.
    
    -steve

    	All Doug's postings show is that TJ knew (and supported) that
    	the Fed Govt couldn't force any particular religion upon people.
    	That is "the wall" that TJ is talking about, and all the letters
    	support this.

    	I agree that a govt-mandated prayer would violate this, and
    	have been clearly in opposition to that in this topic and others.
    	I also hold that a moment of silence does not violate this.

    	The TJ letters give no indication that he believed the govt
    	had any business SUPPRESSING the expression of religion.  This
    	seems to me to be the case today, whereby the town square can't
    	erect a creche display, for instance.

    	We are in a grey area today that has evolved from what was the
    	situation back then.  Today even the depiction or display of 
    	anything remotely religious (for almost any religion) is not 
    	allowed.  Some say it is govt-sponsored religion, and others 
    	say it is the suppression of religion.  I see nothing in the
    	Jefferson letters as presented here and elsewhere that Jefferson
    	ever really addressed this particular issue.

    	The misinterpretation of "the wall of separation" occurred when
    	that separation changed focus from TJ's govt-forced religion to
    	today's govt-suppressed religion.  It was the 1947 Supreme Court
    	ruling that most commonly is seen as the event that marks that
    	change.

    	The TJ letters also clearly state that the State is the authority
    	for determining what is in violation of "separation", not the
    	fed govt.  Obviously that is no longer the case today.

| <<< Note 33.212 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "aspiring peasant" >>>

| What a bunch of maroons.


	Brian, make that macaroons and it sounds interesting... well, at least
tasty!

    Well, I need not elaborate too far now...Joe already covered most of
    the points I was going to address, in .213.  
    
    The "wall of separation" misuse *did* begin with 1947 SCOTUS, however, 
    and was indeed a misuse of TJ's letter.  TJ's letter to the Danbury
    Baptists was in response to their fear of certain rumors of a
    nationally sponsored religion.  TJ put their fears to rest by stating
    that the federal government has no right to sponsor a particular
    religion (or more specifically, sect of Christianity) as an "official"
    religion.  I believe in this as well.
    
    The "wall of separation" mentioned was meant as a protection of religion, 
    not as a club to supress religion in public places.
    
    
    -steve

              <<< Note 33.214 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>

>    	I agree that a govt-mandated prayer would violate this, and
>    	have been clearly in opposition to that in this topic and others.
>    	I also hold that a moment of silence does not violate this.

	Others have argued that posting the Ten Comandments on the
	wall of a classroom would not violate the restriction. What
	is your position on this?

>    	The misinterpretation of "the wall of separation" occurred when
>    	that separation changed focus from TJ's govt-forced religion to
>    	today's govt-suppressed religion.  It was the 1947 Supreme Court
>    	ruling that most commonly is seen as the event that marks that
>    	change.

	Only if you believe that the public schools are not a government
	entity. A position that would be very difficult to support.


>    	The TJ letters also clearly state that the State is the authority
>    	for determining what is in violation of "separation", not the
>    	fed govt.  Obviously that is no longer the case today.

	Not the case since the ratification of the 14th Amendment actually.

Jim

RE: 33.214 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca."

> The TJ letters give no indication that he believed the govt had any 
> business SUPPRESSING the expression of religion.  This seems to me to be 
> the case today, whereby the town square can't erect a creche display, for 
> instance.

Explain what religious buildings can be government funded,  in whole or 
in part,  without violating the seperation of church and state.


> The TJ letters also clearly state that the State is the authority for 
> determining what is in violation of "separation", not the fed govt.  

HOWL!!!  

The Federal Government is an example of a State,  and Kansas is one of
the States.  Don't understand?  Get a dictionary.


Phil

    .205:
    
    Thanks, DougO, for some useful information.
    
    Dick

	.217
    
>	Others have argued that posting the Ten Comandments on the
>	wall of a classroom would not violate the restriction. What
>	is your position on this?
    
    	Personally I don't see it as a violation.  This point is a good
    	example of what I was saying in .214 about the difference between
    	government-mandated religion violating "separation" vs "separation"
    	forcing govetnment-suppressed expression.
    
>>    	The misinterpretation of "the wall of separation" occurred when
>>    	that separation changed focus from TJ's govt-forced religion to
>>    	today's govt-suppressed religion.  It was the 1947 Supreme Court
>>    	ruling that most commonly is seen as the event that marks that
>>    	change.
>
>	Only if you believe that the public schools are not a government
>	entity. A position that would be very difficult to support.
    
    	I don't see how your comment is related to mine.  I fully see
    	the public schools as a government entity.  The debate is over
    	the meaning of "separation" and whether that was intended to
    	prevent government-mandated religion, or promote government-
    	suppressed expression.

	.218
    
>Explain what religious buildings can be government funded,  in whole or 
>in part,  without violating the seperation of church and state.
    
    	You missed the entire point of my .214.  What is "separation"
    	supposed to mean?  Prevention of government-mandated religions?
    	(My take on it.)  Or encouragement of government-suppressed
    	expression?  (Current societal take on it.)  I contend that
    	we switched from the former to the later in 1947.

>> The TJ letters also clearly state that the State is the authority for 
>> determining what is in violation of "separation", not the fed govt.  
>
>HOWL!!!  
    
    	Well go howl at Jim Percival.  He agrees with this too.  See
    	.217 and his comment on the 14th amendment.
    
>The Federal Government is an example of a State,  and Kansas is one of
>the States.  Don't understand?  Get a dictionary.

    	You see no distinction between State and Federal government?
    	Or are you just playing semantic games...

          <<< Note 33.220 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid" >>>

>    	I don't see how your comment is related to mine.  I fully see
>    	the public schools as a government entity.  The debate is over
>    	the meaning of "separation" and whether that was intended to
>    	prevent government-mandated religion, or promote government-
>    	suppressed expression.

	And yet you do not see that posting the 10 Comandments would
	represent "government sponsored religion"?

	While the 10 Comandments represent a basic religious tenet of
	a very large portion of the population, they certainly do 
	not represent all religions.

Jim

    .221
    
    slightly out of context, but correct constitutionally:
    
    > government-mandated religions?
    > (My take on it.)
    
    posting the 10c without also posting the equivalent fragments of other
    religions' holy books - in positions of equal prominence and with equal
    decoration - qualifies as gummint-mandated religion, which violates the
    first amendment and violated it even before 1947.

    If schools are allowed to post the 10 commandments, what's to stop other
    religions from posting similar passive things? 
    
    -steve 

>    <<< Note 33.224 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    If schools are allowed to post the 10 commandments, what's to stop other
>    religions from posting similar passive things? 
    
BINGO!!

If SCHOOLS are allowed to post ,,,,,

What is to stop OTHER RELIGIONS ,,,,

In other words if the school were to post it would be acting like(promoting) a 
RELIGION!!  That is what the seperation doctrine is about.

You finally got it!

Amos

| <<< Note 33.224 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

| If schools are allowed to post the 10 commandments, what's to stop other
| religions from posting similar passive things?

	The Christian Right????

    Okay, how about if kids are allowed to post religious materials in
    school (per their freedom of religion), would you have a problem with
    that?
    
    Personally, I don't really see a problem with passive things like
    posters (as long as they are tasteful and don't suggest inappropriate
    or illegal things), pictures, etc.
    
    This country didn't topple from school prayer and Bibles before SCOTUS
    outlawed them, so I fail to see why it is such a big deal.
    
    -steve

    > Personally, I don't really see a problem with passive things like
    > posters (as long as they are tasteful and don't suggest inappropriate
    > or illegal things), pictures, etc.
    
    Posters and pictures are not passive.  They are overt and conspicuous.  
    The definition of tasteful or appropriate is far too broad to be able 
    to be controlled.  
    
    IMO etc.
    
    Brian

RE: 33.221 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid"
    
PH> Explain what religious buildings can be government funded,  in whole or 
PH> in part,  without violating the separation of church and state.
    
> What is "separation" supposed to mean?  Prevention of government-mandated 
> religions?  (My take on it.)  

Suppose the government taxes went to build church buildings,  as was done 
in T.J.'s day.  Would this be a "government-mandated religion"?  

Would you be in favor of such a tax?


> Well go howl at Jim Percival.  He agrees with this too.  See .217 and 
> his comment on the 14th amendment.

Jim just ignored your little failure to read.  Go check out a dictionary
and see the two meanings of the word "state".  Don't come back without it.
Hope this helps.


Phil

	Brian, you said the "b" word. Very bad boy. 

  <<< Note 33.229 by BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?" >>>

>> Well go howl at Jim Percival.  He agrees with this too.  See .217 and 
>> his comment on the 14th amendment.

>Jim just ignored your little failure to read.  Go check out a dictionary
>and see the two meanings of the word "state".  Don't come back without it.
>Hope this helps.

Phil,
	I gotta go with Joe on this one. There ARE two definitions, but in
	this context only one of them applies. 

Jim

.222>	And yet you do not see that posting the 10 Comandments would
>	represent "government sponsored religion"?
    
    	In and of itself, no.  If the schools were ordered to TEACH
    	this 10 commandments, that would be a case of government-sponsored
    	religion to me.
    
    	Let me repost something I posted elsewhere::
    
>        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
>                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
>================================================================================
>Note 833.140        How would a return to school prayer help?         140 of 147
>CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca."                       37 lines  13-DEC-1994 17:28
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >	...
>    	[it] would allow for a moment of silence.  It would allow
>    	for the Torah to be an item in the school library.  It would
>    	allow for the Code of Hammurabi to be posted in the school
>    	hallways.  It would allow a school to erect a crech display at
>    	Christmastime if the directors wanted to do that.
    
    
    
    	Any of these things in and of themselves are not sponsoring
    	any particular religion.  EXCLUDING some religion could be
    	argued as sponsoring the others that get to be expressed in
    	the schools.  And INSTRUCTING in one (especially at the 	
    	exclusion of the others) would definitely violate "separation"
    	-- especially in today's diverse society.
    
    	To me, simply displaying something from a religion -- even in
    	the absence of displays from any other religion -- would not
    	constitute "sponsorship".
    
    	Thus I disagree totally with Dick's opinion in .223 and Amos
    	in .225.
    
>	While the 10 Comandments represent a basic religious tenet of
>	a very large portion of the population, they certainly do 
>	not represent all religions.

    	Who says they are?

	.229
        
>Suppose the government taxes went to build church buildings,  as was done 
>in T.J.'s day.  Would this be a "government-mandated religion"?  
    
    	In and of itself, I would say it was.  You conveniently leave
    	out the historical and demographic context of this practice
    	though.
    
    	I agree it would never fly today.
    
>Jim just ignored your little failure to read.  Go check out a dictionary
>and see the two meanings of the word "state".  Don't come back without it.
>Hope this helps.
    
    	I can't help you if you insist on remaining contextually-challenged.
    	I'll just ignore your little failure to apply proper definitions
    	within context.  Don't come back.  That would help.

          <<< Note 33.232 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid" >>>

>    	To me, simply displaying something from a religion -- even in
>    	the absence of displays from any other religion -- would not
>    	constitute "sponsorship".
    
>    	Thus I disagree totally with Dick's opinion in .223 and Amos
>    	in .225.
 
	Well, no suprise that I side with Dick and Amos on this one.
	A poster, of any type, is obvious sponsorship.

Jim

    	Yup.  No surprise.
    
    	C'est la vie.

RE: 33.233 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid"

PH> Suppose the government taxes went to build church buildings,  as was done 
PH> in T.J.'s day.  Would this be a "government-mandated religion"?  

> In and of itself,  I would say it was.  

Thank you.


> I agree it would never fly today.

By this statement,  do you mean:  

1)  Joe is against such a use of tax money.
Or 
2)  Joe would like such a use of tax money,  but doesn't think that it's 
    practical politics.

    
> I can't help you if you insist on remaining contextually-challenged.
> I'll just ignore your little failure to apply proper definitions
> within context.  Don't come back.  That would help.

"The State" is the federal government in the context of national policy.
"The states" are the subdivisions,  again in the same context.  Hope this 
helps.


Phil

    	.236
    
>> In and of itself,  I would say it was.  
>
>Thank you.
    
    	And in true character you again conveniently left off supporting
    	context for my reply.  It's OK.  I expected nothing different.

>> I agree it would never fly today.
>
>By this statement,  do you mean:  
>
>1)  Joe is against such a use of tax money.
    
    	Not necessarily against it.  I suppose I could go on to explain
    	why "not necessarily", but you'll just take my first sentence
    	out of context again, so I'd just be wasting my time.
    
>Or 
>2)  Joe would like such a use of tax money,  but doesn't think that it's 
>    practical politics.
    
    	Not necessarily true either.  "Joe would _like_ it" limits your
    	choice to one that is unfair for me.  Joe *does* think that
    	today it isn't practical policy given the diversity of the
    	populace.
    
    	If EVERYONE in a town were Jewish, would you have a problem 
    	with the town collecting taxes to support the synagogue there?
    	I wouldn't.

>"The State" is the federal government in the context of national policy.
>"The states" are the subdivisions,  again in the same context.  Hope this 
>helps.
    
    	It doesn't help me determine if you are contextually challenged,
    	or just anal retentive.  Take it to the joyoflex conference where
    	someone else might care.

RE: 33.237 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid"

I deleted the "<<<  Note" and the ">>>".  Hope you don't mind.

> .236
    
> And in true character you again conveniently left off supporting context 
> for my reply.  It's OK.  I expected nothing different.

Get a life,  if anyone cared about the context of your comment they would
follow the pointer to the original,  unless your covert friend "fixed"
Soapbox again.


> Joe *does* think that today it isn't practical policy given the diversity 
> of the populace.

Diversity is a problem that can be "fixed",  of course.  


> Take it to the joyoflex conference where someone else might care.

Yea,  yu iss wriat,  dis her iss da 'box,  vere grmmr n spallin iss
opsional.

Hope this helps.


Phil

    	It helps a lot, Phil.  Keep it coming.

>          <<< Note 33.239 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid" >>>
>
>        It helps a lot, Phil.  Keep it coming.

Hey,  you quoted me out of context!



Get a life.   

    	If "getting a life" means crying about specific definitions
    	of "state" when, within context, the meaning was already
    	obvious, I think I'll pass.

RE: 33.237 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid"

>    	If EVERYONE in a town were Jewish, would you have a problem 
>    	with the town collecting taxes to support the synagogue there?
>    	I wouldn't.


I would have a problem with this,  Joe,  for the same exact reason I 
would have a problem with merging all the powers of government with a
single person.  People are corruptible,  and power corrupts.  To prevent
this,  power should never be any more concentrated than is absolutely 
necessary.

As an example,  suppose a citizen of this town converts from Judaism to
Taoism.  Suppose he refuses to pay taxes to pay for the synagogue.  The
local Rabbi,  rather than trying to convince the rest of the town that
Taoism isn't correct,  has the option of going to the Mayor of the town 
and asking for the Taoist's property to be seized for back taxes.  


{Official Notice.  I only extracted the relevant part of Joe's note.  If 
anyone cares to see the rest of Joe's posting more than once,  notice that 
I included a pointer the whole,  non-edited thing right up at the top of the 
note.  Unless Joe deleted it,  or some covert action took place,  of course.
If you don't care to ever see Joe's posting again,  you don't need to, 
just don't follow the pointer.}


Phil

    I am sick of even "Next Unseen" on this topic.  
    
    1. Those of you in favor of publick skools can wait about 10 years
       to see the results.
    
    2. Those of you who favor prayer in public schools should read
       Luke 20.
    
    A Texas Messianic Jew-Boy's opinion.

>.237>    	If EVERYONE in a town were Jewish, would you have a problem 
>>    	with the town collecting taxes to support the synagogue there?
>>    	I wouldn't.
>
>
>I would have a problem with this,  Joe,  ...
>
>As an example,  suppose a citizen of this town converts from Judaism to
>Taoism.  
    
    	If that happens, then the premise upon which I place my support 
    	in the above quote is gone.  You are therefore arguing with
    	yourself and not my statement.

    .237
    
    > If EVERYONE in a town were Jewish, would you have a problem
    > with the town collecting taxes to support the synagogue there?
    > I wouldn't.
    
    i would.  try rephrasing your question:
    
    if EVERYONE in a town were xian, would you have a problem the town
    collecting taxes to support the churches there?
    
    i don't think your average bible-believing fundamentalist is going to
    be too thrilled paying taxes to support the rc church.  so yes, i'd
    have a problem even with your scenario.  and your average sephardic jew
    might have a problem with the town's taking his money to support the
    reformed synagogue.

   Actually, I wonder how many Catholics would be happy if the Catholic
   Church collected funds for a Catholic church, if such collection was
   mandatory...

    
    ask a German in, say, Bavaria.

RE: 33.244 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid"

{Official Notice:  If anyone really cares about anything or everything Joe 
wrote,  then they can follow the pointer at the top of the note,  excluding 
covert or Joe's actions}

> If that happens, then the premise upon which I place my support in the 
> above quote is gone.  

The premise upon which you place your support is true at the start of the
example.


Phil

    	SO?

    .246
    
    > Actually, I wonder how many Catholics would be happy if the Catholic
    > Church collected funds for a Catholic church, if such collection was
    > mandatory...
    
    it is.  the catholic church assesses each parish for the maintenance of
    the diocese buildings and staff.  in addition, the holy see levies an
    assessment called peter's pence.  of course, it's not MANDATORY that
    the individual catholic pay his or her tithe, but the church has had
    nearly 2,000 years of practice at laying guilt trips on communicants.

	Dick, is that where guilt trips came from????

   Dick, my wife regularly expresses outrage at the low percentage of
   people in my family's parish who actually contribute anything at all.
   
   (Mind you, both of my sons have voluntarily taken piggy-bank money and
   donated it at one time or another, so I figure they've exceeded
   expectations.)
   
   Make collections mandatory and the Church becomes solvent -- assuming
   people stay.

    .252
    
    > low percentage ... who actually contribute
    
    i don't usually express outrage at that number, but i continually
    notice that an astonishing number of $1.00 bills are dropped in by the
    heads of families who drive out of the parking lot in bimmer 5xx and
    7xx or mercedes cars.

	And you wonder why they only drop in $1????

Don't they distribute number envelopes anymore?

	It's easier to push the guilt factor if everyone sees what you put in.

    numbered envelopes are used in many parishes, but the decision actually
    to sign up, get the envelopes, and then use them, is left to the
    parishioner.  i haven't used one in at least 10 years.

I guess it's a toss up as to where the greater benefit is - peer pressure,
or knowing that everyone in the diocesan accounting department knows how
much you gave during the entire year.

    if you just drop checks in the basket, nobody keeps track of them in
    the sense of tying them to an individual - they just cash them.

    	re .259
    
    	If tax deductibility is an issue for you, just dropping in checks
    	so that they are not accounted will not be very good for you
    	at audit time.  Cancelled checks alone are no longer sufficient.

	Hey, that's a cool angle! GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY, and deduct it from
your taxes at the end of the year.... hope I never hear that in a church..

    .260
    
    tell that to my wife, who is a professional tax preparer and is briefed
    every year on changes in the tax laws.

>	Hey, that's a cool angle! GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY, and deduct it from
>your taxes at the end of the year.... hope I never hear that in a church..
    
    	Not far from what happened with that couple who gassed themselves
    	recently...

    
    I heard that theres now a minimum n% threshold for deductibility.
    
    On NPR, I thinkk..

Moments before the annual concert at which students at Primrose Hill
School in Barrington, Rhode Island, were to sing Christmas and Chanuka
songs, the principle caved in to a complaint from a furious parent.

The word "Christ" was removed from all the carols, because it proclaims
that Jesus is the messiah or anointed one, which this parent refused to
allow the school children to use in song.

For example:

	"Jesus Christ is born today" was changed to
	"Je-e-sus is born today".

/john

    See, John?  Some people really *do* have a different view on Christ.

    .259 ff:
    
    Among Catholic dioceses, it appears to vary;  the Diocese of Worcester
    (MA) sends a statement for tax purposes, I'm told.  Archdiocese of
    Bawstin could still be using Roman numerals for the math in their
    books, for all I've heard.
    
    I'd expect the situation to be easier in non-denominational assemblies,
    given the lack of superstructure.
    
    Dick

>    	If tax deductibility is an issue for you, just dropping in checks
>    	so that they are not accounted will not be very good for you
>    	at audit time.  Cancelled checks alone are no longer sufficient.

This is only true for _very_ large checks.

Small checks remain fully deductible.

/john

    .269
    
    aw, /john, i was waiting to see if joe would bite on my suggestion that
    he should inform my wife about checks' not being deductible.

>This is only true for _very_ large checks.

$250, I think.  Not what I'd call "_very_ large."

Well, I don't know anyone who gives $250 per week.  There may be some, and
they will presumably be given receipts for checks that large even without
an envelope system; the church or other charity is certainly required to keep
track of any checks received that are that large, whether they arrive in
numbered envelopes from known donors, in the mail, or in the plate, and they
can certainly provide a receipt at any time in the next few years.

I gave more than that to assist a church in Dorchester with the purchase
of a new organ, but I did it in several installments of less than $250.

/john

    Some folks here have said voluntary prayer or moments of silence are
    defensible, even desirable.  Look what peer pressure will do.
    
    this case goes to trial this week.
    
    DougO 
    ----- 
    In a challenge to the burgeoning school-prayer movement, a parent of
    five children is planning to sue her public-school district because she
    says her children have been harassed and ridiculed for opting out of
    prayers and Bible studies held during class time. The case goes to
    court today in Oxford, Miss.
    
    Lisa Herdahl says her son Jason, 7, has been taunted by other students
    since his teacher put headphones over his ears last year to drown out
    prayers on the school intercom. Her son David, 11, was branded an
    ``atheist'' and ``devil worshiper'' after he did not participate in a
    Bible class, the suit alleges.

 Bible class in a public school?!?

    	That 7-year-olds can come up with that kind of stuff seems to
    	be the sadder commentary to me.

    Joe,
    
    for those of us who have raised children in other faiths, having them
    exposed involuntarily to bible studies is anathema.  it would be like
    having your curricula require you to have your kids study the spiral
    dance, or drawing down the moon, or real majick and teaching it as
    fact.  Voluntary exposure is another matter.
    
    What is sad is that children have been taught that anyone from another
    religious background must be an athiest or "devil worshipper."  This
    bodes ill for the futures of these kids if and when they get out in the
    larger world.
    
    meg

>    What is sad is that children have been taught that anyone from another
>    religious background must be an athiest or "devil worshipper."  This
>    bodes ill for the futures of these kids if and when they get out in the
>    larger world.
    
    	Exactly my point, Meg.
    
    	It's not the 7-year-olds doing that to each other in that
    	classroom.  It's the parents of the kids doing it through
    	their children.  Same thing happens on the little-league 
    	baseball field.
    
    	That's what's sad.

    
    I doubt .273 is the real story.  Sounds like transmission is garbled.
    
      bb

The story's from the Washington Post.

 I've never heard of a public school that allowed Bible studies (at least
 not in the last 30 years or so).





 Jim

    The story in .273 was in the News Briefs column of the SJ Mercury News. 
    usually those are mentioned as coming from the AP newswire, but I
    didn't see the attribution in this case; it could have been from the
    Post, as .278 says.
    
    DougO

The Globe has a somewhat longer version, attributed to the Post.

    	So what's all this uproar about constitutional amendments and
    	all if public schools are already doing prayer and bible readings
    	as was stated in the story?

 .283


 That's what has me sceeeratchin' my head

>    	So what's all this uproar about constitutional amendments and
>    	all if public schools are already doing prayer and bible readings
>    	as was stated in the story?

Do you ever exceed the speed limit?

    	Is there a national ruckus, a constitutional battle, some
    	might even go so far as to say a political jihad, regarding 
    	speed limits?

    OXFORD, Miss. (AP) -- A 7-year-old was humiliated in class when he
    objected to hearing prayers in his public school, his mother said
    Tuesday as she filed suit to stop the religious practice. 

    A second-grade teacher asked Jason Herdahl to wear headphones in order
    to drown out the prayers, and he was made fun of and called names like
    "football head," Lisa Herdahl said at a news conference. 

    Herdahl said the lawsuit was a last resort in her yearlong effort to 
    eliminate prayer and Bible study from classes attended by her five
    children, who are in kindergarten through ninth grade at North
    Pontotoc Attendance Center in Ecru. 

    She said her children were "stigmatized by school officials, and teased
    and harassed by other students" because they elected not to
    participate in Bible classes or prayer.  She said they have been
    taunted so much that they no longer want to attend class. 

    The school serves about 1,300 students from kindergarten through high 
    school and is the only public school in the area. Prayers are fed into 
    classrooms by intercom. 

    Public schools in Mississippi have traditionally allowed prayer over 
    intercoms at the start of the school day, saying they do not violate
    the Supreme Court ban on public school prayers because students
    initiate them. 

    "We plan to vigorously defend our practices -- we feel it's
    constitutional and doing good for the students," Pontotoc school
    superintendent Jerry Horton said Monday. "We don't consider it a
    state-sponsored prayer or require people to do it or listen to it." 

    The school's practices are "not even close to the line between 
    constitutional and unconstitutional," said Judith Schaeffer of People
    for the American Way. The civil rights group and the American Civil
    Liberties Union sued on Herdahl's behalf. 

    Herdahl said that, when her children entered the school in October
    1993, she was told Bible teachers from various churches went to the
    school regularly and taught Christian principles to children in the
    lower grades. 

    Herdahl said her children were baptized as Lutherans. 

    "I simply do not want the school telling my children how and when to
    pray," Herdahl said. "Prayer is something that my children learn at
    home and in our church. It is ironic that in the name of religion my
    children are forced to face daily ridicule and cruelty." 

    Over the past year, Herdahl repeatedly asked the school to stop
    sanctioning the teaching of religion. "They never responded," she
    said, "except to say they would deal with it at a further meeting.
    They never did." 

    Jason only wore the headphones a few times, Herdahl said, "because his 
    teacher was disturbed by it and called me."  Herdahl said the teacher
    told her that someone else had instructed her to put the headphones on
    the child. 

Attendance Center?

 .288

 Same question I had in another conference.

    So...there's one problem out of 1300 students?  Seems to me that the
    system is doing a pretty good job, though it seems a few students need
    to be disciplined (yes, the students, not the system). 
    
    If she doesn't want her children exposed to this, she can always take
    them to another school that does not have this  practice, rather than
    forcing her will off on 1300 students.
    
    The media will be focusing in on this issue (negatively, of course), so
    expect more stories like this one.  
    
    -steve

>    If she doesn't want her children exposed to this, she can always take
>    them to another school that does not have this  practice, rather than
>    forcing her will off on 1300 students.

>>    The school serves about 1,300 students from kindergarten through high 
>>    school and is the only public school in the area.

>>    Public schools in Mississippi have traditionally allowed prayer over 
>>    intercoms at the start of the school day, saying they do not violate
>>    the Supreme Court ban on public school prayers because students
>>    initiate them. 

    
    
    And of course this is such a mainstream situation where it happens all
    the time and the news only picked up on it cause it was a slow news
    day... There's absolutely no sensationalism involved with our beloved
    news media..
    

    There's a constitutional issue involved, Andy, which makes it
    considerably newsworthy to many of us.  And Leech, "one" problem? The
    woman has five kids in that school, and at least two have had problems
    from their religiously-oriented peers (the 7 year old and the 11 year 
    old.)  Why is it that apologists for organized religion always attack
    the victims for demanding justice, instead of correcting the abuses of
    their own?
    
    DougO

    	.293
    
>    And Leech, "one" problem? The
>    woman has five kids in that school, and at least two have had problems
    
    	Ok.  Two out of 1300 instead of one out of 1300.  Or even FIVE
    	out of 1300.  Still not a very high ratio of problems.
    
>    from their religiously-oriented peers 
    
    	What evidence do you have that the peers are religiously-oriented?
    
>    old.)  Why is it that apologists for organized religion always attack
>    the victims for demanding justice, instead of correcting the abuses of
>    their own?
    
    	What "organized religion" is organizing these prayers anyway?

     I've gotta admit, this is over the line. Moment of silence, yes.
    Prayer over the intercom, no. Non elective bible study, no.

    What's her beef, really?  
    
    She's raising her kids as Lutherans, and over the intercom comes
    generic Christian-spin scripture. Why is that a problem?
    
    

    >   What "organized religion" is organizing these prayers anyway?
    
    >> Herdahl said that, when her children entered the school in October
    >> 1993, she was told Bible teachers from various churches went to the
    >> school regularly and taught Christian principles to children in the
    >> lower grades. 
    
    But Joe, your query was nonsequitor anyway.  When I asked my rhetorical
    question about why do organized religions always persecute their
    victims when they demand justice, instead of cleaning up their acts, I
    was referring to the stick-in-the-mud approach that you and Steve show
    in response to these clearly abusive cases of state-sponsored religion.
    You challenge us, instead of accepting that these cases are clearly
    well beyond what you agreed were reasonable limits last week; you, Joe,
    said that a moment of silence wasn't pushing prayer on anyone; now,
    when we discover a clear case of pushing prayer, and further abuse of
    someone who objects to it, you go into damage control mode.  That's
    twofaced.  I'm talking about YOU when I make my rhetorical complaint.
    
    DougO
    
    
    
    DougO

    > She's raising her kids as Lutherans, and over the intercom comes
    >    generic Christian-spin scripture. Why is that a problem?
     
    The problem is that when her kids choose not to participate their peers
    abuse them, call the demon worshippers and other names.  Seems there a
    state-sponsored prayer session and her kids aren't with the program; so
    the "good" kids are using peer pressure to enforce the religion.  Just
    like we predicted would happen 300 notes ago.
    
    DougO

    .298
    
    Did you never get teased during school years?
    
    Personally I'm opposed to school prayer, and am not much of a believer
    in a moment of silence either (which sounds like something out of the
    Instant Zen Catalog). I favor vouchers and tax breaks and private
    schools. 
    
    

    >Did you never get teased during school years?
        
    Sure.  But I don't consider that an excuse for a school to continue 
    to push prayer on students, when such abuses are predicted and
    demonstrated.  There's a REASON that the first amendment exists,
    there's a REASON the Supreme Court insists that there be a wall of
    separation.  You're seeing the abuse of a few kids in violation of the
    Constitution, and you're going to see it stopped.
    
    DougO

    Many legal scholars see the 1962 Supreme Court decision that ended
    school prayer as "bizarre" -- way out of whack with stated intentions
    of the Framers, and so forth.
    
    

    <<< Note 33.301 by WECARE::GRIFFIN "John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159" >>>

>    Many legal scholars see the 1962 Supreme Court decision that ended
>    school prayer as "bizarre" -- way out of whack with stated intentions
>    of the Framers, and so forth.
 
	Well, the nine votes that count have re-affirmed the decision
	on quite a few occasions.

Jim
   
    

    	.297
    
>    victims when they demand justice, instead of cleaning up their acts, I
>    was referring to the stick-in-the-mud approach that you and Steve show
>    in response to these clearly abusive cases of state-sponsored religion.
    
    	I have presented absolutely NO approach at all with respect to
    	this issue.  You are so bent upon looking for boogeymen in my
    	entries so that you can somehow discredit my positions (when I 
    	*do* make a stand) that you fabricate "approaches" on my behalf
    	and then attack them.  Do I threaten you that much that you have
    	to stoop to such tactics?  Does this somehow make you feel better?
    
>    You challenge us, instead of accepting that these cases are clearly
>    well beyond what you agreed were reasonable limits last week; you, Joe,
>    said that a moment of silence wasn't pushing prayer on anyone;
    
    	I still hold that forced prayer in public school is beyond what
    	I find acceptable.  All of my questions to date regarding this
    	incident have been to help me understand what is really happening.
    	Thus when I asked,     
    
    	>   What "organized religion" is organizing these prayers anyway?
    
    	... it was not a "nonsequitor" (sic) at all, and your response
    	was truly an overreaction to it.  Who are the "Bible teachers from
    	various churches"?  What churches?  What is the nature of the
    	"prayer", the "teaching"?  So far what I've hear makes me feel
    	uncomfortable.  But I'm reserving final opinion until I get more
    	information.  You haven't been much help on that front, that's
    	for sure...
    
>    when we discover a clear case of pushing prayer, and further abuse of
>    someone who objects to it, you go into damage control mode.  That's
>    twofaced.  I'm talking about YOU when I make my rhetorical complaint.
    
    	Yeah, well now you can understand that you are merely playing with
    	your own strawmen.  Your inability to control your mis-fabricated
    	anger and hatred is pitiable.

    So, the two students who don't wish to participate override the other
    1198??
    
    Strange logic, that.  More minority rule.
    
    -steve

    So your position is that the 1198 are allowed to cram their religion
    down the throats of the two?  No?  Then you should have no objection
    to the lawsuit.
    
    DougO

>    <<< Note 33.290 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

    
>    If she doesn't want her children exposed to this, she can always take
>    them to another school that does not have this  practice, rather than
>    forcing her will off on 1300 students.
    
You obviously missed the statement that "it is the only public school in the 
area".

How about if you don't like what your school system teaches you can take your 
kid to another town/county?

Why should she travel when it is the school department that is breaking the 
law?

 Excuse the kids who object from participation if they so desire. Suspend
 those who ridicule them.




Jim

    prevent the unconstitutional state-sponsorship of religion from
    happening in the first place.
    
    DougO

    	Some of these arguments are amazing from .296's what's her beef to
    Leech's complaining that 2 kids outweigh 1298. For the what's her beef
    question, what does it matter. They are teaching religion in school,
    her kids are being harassed and it's illegal. I think the proper
    response is obvious. As to the matter of two kids outweighing 1298
    that is why we have rights. To prevent persocution in a democracy. The
    constitution was set up to say you can do some things but to do others
    you need to go through a very long process precisely so minoritys won't
    get trampled. You guys wonder why liberals worry about a moment of
    silence. You say it won't lead to forced prayer in school and you all
    say that would be inproper, but when some one uncovers a case of
    exactly what we were worried about, a lot of you start defending it.
    They can move, they can leave the class, they don't have to
    participate. As if we don't have enough reasons to seperate people out
    of society already! :*(
    
    
    								S.R.

    re: .305
    
    Can the emotionalism, DougO..."cram their religion", etc.
    
    Sounds like this is a problem between students, rather than a problem
    with the pre-class prayer.  As I said earlier, how about DISCIPLINING
    those who are the problem?  You wish to throw out the baby with the
    bathwater.
    
    -steve

     re: .306
    
>You obviously missed the statement that "it is the only public school in the 
>area".

    She should've checked out the school before she moved there, IMO.  In
    any case, I DID miss that point, and have already been corrected on it.
    (a few notes back)
    
>How about if you don't like what your school system teaches you can take your 
>kid to another town/county?

    How many parents check out schools before they move?  I know my parents
    made sure there were good schools in the area before even considering
    moving there.  In any case, everyone has the option of private schools,
    or just simply moving.
    
>Why should she travel when it is the school department that is breaking the 
>law?
    
    The school is breaking no law.  It is student lead prayer, which is
    quite legal.
    
    It would be illegal, however, if these two kids were FORCED to
    participate.  It would seem that they are not, and are even given (or
    allowed) headphones to drown out the prayer.  Seems pretty fair to me.  
    
    The problem is with the OTHER STIDENTS...who need to be told in no
    uncertain terms that they should leave these two boys alone. 
    Discipline the kids that act inappropriately, don't sue the school.
    
    -steve

    re: .309
    
    The problem is, we are bending over backwards so that one nay-sayer
    overrides everyone else.
    
    IF there is no constitutional problem (and there isn't), then excuse
    those who do not wish to participate, and discipline those who
    badger/harass them for not participating. 
    
    -steve

    Steve,
    
    We won't know there is a constitutional problem until someone who has
    studied constitutional law rules on the case.  (Problably be about 5
    years with the way the backlog of cases runs)
    
    from someone who doesn't believe in teaching life skills is a public
    school environment, I can't believe you would want something as
    personal as one's relationship with their creator to be taught in the
    schools.  I am willing to bet that this would have been completely
    squelched had it been a UU teaching study of relationships to creators.
    
    meg

    <<< Note 33.304 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    So, the two students who don't wish to participate override the other
>    1198??
    
>    Strange logic, that.  More minority rule.
 
	The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority
	from the majority.

	Not strange, it's the way the FFs designed it.

Jim

    Jim,
    
    maybe Steve believes that if the 1298 practiced cannabalism and the two
    didn't want to be eaten that they should gracefully accept th1e
    inevitable.
    
    meg

         <<< Note 33.315 by CSC32::M_EVANS "My other car is a kirby" >>>

>    Jim,
    
>    maybe Steve believes that if the 1298 practiced cannabalism and the two
>    didn't want to be eaten that they should gracefully accept th1e
>    inevitable.
 
	He might. I would still be opposed. ;-)

Jim

       canny-Baal-ism  ... no, DON't thank me.  It only encourages him.

    re: .314
    
    Nonsense (in this instance).
    
    The problem with this logic is that it is not applied evenly.  What
    about me?  I do NOT like liberal sex-education in school...yet me and
    many others are told to go bog off.  
    
    Another problem with this logic is that the FF *did* wish to keep
    things from a majority rule IN THE CASE OF THE MAJORITY STEPPING ON THE
    RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY.  No one's rights are being infringed upon in this 
    case.  These kids are not forced to participate, therefore the whole
    issue is moot.
    
    -steve

    <<< Note 33.318 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    The problem with this logic is that it is not applied evenly.  What
>    about me?  I do NOT like liberal sex-education in school...yet me and
>    many others are told to go bog off.  
 
	Could you point out the clause in the Constitution that prohibits 
	the government from providing education in the schools?

	I can certainly point out the clause that prohibits them from
	school sponsored religious excersizes.
   
>No one's rights are being infringed upon in this 
>    case. 

	Wrong.

> These kids are not forced to participate, therefore the whole
>    issue is moot.
 
	"Class we will now hear a reading from the Bible, you two in the
	back can don your earphones". But no one's rights are being 	
	infringed? Your analysis of the situation is a joke.

Jim

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
    re: .319 
    
>    The problem with this logic is that it is not applied evenly.  What
>    about me?  I do NOT like liberal sex-education in school...yet me and
>    many others are told to go bog off.  
 
   |	Could you point out the clause in the Constitution that prohibits 
   |	the government from providing education in the schools?

    Can you point to the clause in the Constitution that prohibits school
    prayer (remember, this is lead by school kids, not the "government")?
    
>	I can certainly point out the clause that prohibits them from
>	school sponsored religious excersizes.
 
    Wrong. It is allowed by the school, as per First Amendment freedoms of
    the students.  I can point to SC cases where my view in this is backed
    up, and can point to many quotes from our FF writings that say that
    prayer and the Bible SHOULD be in schools.  I'd prefer not to go down
    that rathole, though.
      
>No one's rights are being infringed upon in this 
>    case. 

   |	Wrong.

    Who's rights are being infringed?  Those students who are not forced to
    participate?
    
> These kids are not forced to participate, therefore the whole
>    issue is moot.
 
   |	"Class we will now hear a reading from the Bible, you two in the
   |	back can don your earphones". But no one's rights are being 	
   |	infringed? Your analysis of the situation is a joke.
    
    I find your slant on this situation very one-sided.  You would rather
    infringe on the religious rights of 1198 students, than accept the fact
    that you cannot please everyone all the time.
    
    
    -steve

>    I find your slant on this situation very one-sided.  You would rather
>    infringe on the religious rights of 1198 students, than accept the fact
>    that you cannot please everyone all the time.

Why should a person's religion have anything to do with their academic 
studies?  By allowing school prayer, you are violating a student's right
to keep their religion private to themselves.  That is more than enough
reason to keep parayer out of school.

I have no problem with a moment of silence (which you can use any way
you want and is what I grew up with in Arizona).

Let's assume there is school prayer.  Who decides on what prayer?  
Definitely not the teacher and not a majority vote (the minority will
never ever get a chance).  The only fair way to give each student a chance
to recite his or her prayer in the manner they wish.  Be it from the Koran,
the Bible, or if they heed to recite in Hebrew.

Even better would be to only allow school prayer only if and during the
student is taking a comparitive religion class.  So that after the prayer,
one can discuss the meaning and background of the prayer and its religious
meanings.

But I doubt the thumpers would go in for that.

>By allowing school prayer, you are violating a student's right
>to keep their religion private to themselves.  That is more than enough
>reason to keep parayer out of school.
    
    	If the student is FORCED to participate, your statement would
    	hold true.

    	As for the rest, I can pretty much agree with what you said.

Even if the student declines, the other students will at least suspect if not
know that the student is "different".  And children being what they are will
typically suspect the worse and that may cause the student to be become a
relative outcast.

The student is forced to do something, even if the something is
non-participation.  That can not be avoided.  The only way for the
student to avoid the issue is if student prayer is not allowed in school.

    .323
    
    Like that doesn't happen now over more trivial matters such as who's
    wearing what name brand tennis shoes???  or if you have curly hair?  
    
    Gimmee a break, weakest argument I've ever heard.

    Apparently, Nancy, you've never been a kid who was of a minority
    religion in elementary school...?  I've done it, and it ain't NO fun. 
    Try on some Jewish or Muslim or whatEVERtheheck moccasins fer size, and
    then I'll betcha you won't think it's a weak argument.  Such a stance
    belies the sensytyvyty I know you to possess...
    

    I beg yer pardon Dr. Dan... excuse me...
    
    I was worse than a minority, I was considered poor white trash... plus
    I had curly hair and was mimicked as brillo pad. :-)  And as you can
    see my hair is soft not frazzled... so they were wrong, harumph.  Big
    bottom lip sticking out! 
    
    I think it's a weak argument, period.  In 1994 the minority will be the
    kids who respect prayer...not the one's who don't.
    
    

    Dear Big Bottom Lip,
    
    Wot you have noted were social differences, to be sure, but did they
    extend to the level of RELIGIOUS differences?  Were the differences
    INSTITUTIONALIZED -- i.e., were you FORCED into DAILY demonstrations of
    that difference?  
    
    And as to who's in the minority -- the kids who respect prayer -- I
    claim that's irrelevant.  And anyhow, s/he who respects prayer could
    hardly claim that it's so important it should be forced onto those who
    don't, or onto those whose rituals and/or beliefs differ from the
    mandated form???
    
    /s/ EMaily Post
    

    Dr Dan,
    
    Some folks just don't get it :-(  The folks in the school in Miss.
    are skirting a fine line IMHO.  Since students are leading the
    prayers, wonder how the folks would feel if a Sunni Moslem, Shiite
    Moslem or a Jewish student enrolled and asked to use their prayers?
    
    I consider myself to be a good Christian, but to me that means staying
    out of other people's faces.  I know I've had my belly-full of folks
    telling me I needed to "repent and be saved"!!
    
    

    <<< Note 33.320 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    Can you point to the clause in the Constitution that prohibits school
>    prayer (remember, this is lead by school kids, not the "government")?
 
	Using government resources. Therein lies the problem and the
	violation of the establishment clause.

>    Who's rights are being infringed?  Those students who are not forced to
>    participate?
 
	Yes, their rights are being violated. 

>    I find your slant on this situation very one-sided.  You would rather
>    infringe on the religious rights of 1198 students, than accept the fact
>    that you cannot please everyone all the time.
 
	The other 1198 can pray as much as they like. They just can't use
	government resources to do it.

Jim

    "government resources" is pretty weak, Percival.  Also, you are
    definitely stretching the establishment clause beyond reason.  Allowing
    kids to lead prayer in a school is hardly establishing a national
    religion.  Now, if every public school was forced to give a
    denominationally specific prayer, then we would be establishing a
    national religion.
    
    You do a great job on the Second Amendment debates, but seem to be
    willing to limit the First. 
    
    Article III of the Northwest Ordinance:
    
    "Religion, morality and knowledge being essentially necessary to the
    good government and happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
    instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision."
    
    
    The First Amendment places limitations on the government, not on the
    people.  First Amendment rights do not cease to exist inside public
    schools.  Only a forced ritual of specific demoninational prayer in all
    public schools would go against the "establishment" clause.  One school
    allowing prayer by the students does not an establishment make,
    especially when no force is involved.  If communities wish to have
    prayer in school, then they should be allowed to.
    
    
    -steve 

    <<< Note 33.330 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    "government resources" is pretty weak, Percival. 

	Who paid for the PA system in the school?

> Also, you are
>    definitely stretching the establishment clause beyond reason.  Allowing
>    kids to lead prayer in a school is hardly establishing a national
>    religion.

	With the adoption of the 14th Amendment the establishment clause
	(as well as the rest of the BoR) was extended to state and local
	governments. You ain't allowed to set up a school district religion
	anymore than you are allowed to set up a national religion.

>    The First Amendment places limitations on the government, not on the
>    people. 

	WEll at least you have this right. Now explain to me how a public
	school district is not part of the government.

> First Amendment rights do not cease to exist inside public
>    schools. 

	Oh really? I'll have to remember to tell my daughter's teacher
	this the next time she gigs Christina for talking in class.

> Only a forced ritual of specific demoninational prayer in all
>    public schools would go against the "establishment" clause.

	You are wrong, absolutely wrong.

>  One school
>    allowing prayer by the students does not an establishment make,
>    especially when no force is involved.  If communities wish to have
>    prayer in school, then they should be allowed to.
 
	Sorry. If a group of parents wnat to get together and establish
	a private school they can have all the prayer they want. That's
	what my parents did. But when you decide to use tax money for
	public schools, you have to play by the rules. And the rules say
	no government sponsored prayer.



Jim

    So...the establishment clause NOW means (because the 14th somehow
    redefines it from what our FF created) something other than the
    intended English definition (state religion)?
    
    And VOLUNTARY prayer, lead by STUDENTS- because they are using the
    intercom that was paid for by (probably LOCAL) tax $$- is somehow a
    government sponsored religion?
    
    -steve

    > And VOLUNTARY prayer, lead by STUDENTS- because they are using the
    > intercom that was paid for by (probably LOCAL) tax $$- is somehow a
    > government sponsored religion?
    
    'Voluntary' - it isn't.  Students are in the school because the law
    says they have to be there.  Nobody - not the teachers, not the other
    students - is allowed to impose a prayer on them in that circumstance.
    What's so hard to see, Steve?
    
    DougO
    
    

    <<< Note 33.332 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    So...the establishment clause NOW means (because the 14th somehow
>    redefines it from what our FF created) something other than the
>    intended English definition (state religion)?
 
	The application of the 14th did not re-define anything. It
	merely extended the establishment prohibition to state and
	local governments. Up to the adoption of the 14th, "state
	sposored religions" would have been perfectly legal, at least
	from a Federal Constitutional point of view.

>    And VOLUNTARY prayer, lead by STUDENTS- because they are using the
>    intercom that was paid for by (probably LOCAL) tax $$- is somehow a
>    government sponsored religion?
 
	The use of government resources to promote prayer is the problem,
	yes.

	Now if the students want to gather on the lawn before school
	and have a prayer meeting where attendance is purely voluntary,
	I don't think you run afoul of the 1st.

Jim

I repeat: WHY BOTHER!!!!

If someone is determined to "allow" prayer in schools, that tells me they 
want to use the school to reinforce, if not minister, a religion. You don't 
see minority religions tripping over each other to fight on the side of 
school prayer, moment of silence, or any of the other names for this 
setting aside time AWAY from education for some other, utterly irrelevant 
activity.

Leave it alone! Pray at home. Pray in you church. Study at school.

    We are still having difficulty defining "voluntary", I see.
    
    Nevermind.  If we can't get past this definition, then there is no
    point in continuing.
    
    -steve

    Und dat, mine deeyre Franz, iz as close as Herr Leech vill come to
    giffink up und admittink he vas wronk.

    <<< Note 33.336 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    We are still having difficulty defining "voluntary", I see.
 
	Correct Steve. And as soon as you figure out that these religious
	messages are being broadcast over the school's PA system AND that
	the students that object are LEGALLY required to be in school, then
	we will make progress in helping you understand the definition.

Jim

    re: .338
    
    Legally required to be in school, yes.  Legally required to listen to
    or participate in prayer...no.  There is no force, thus no problems
    with the First.  By forcing out all religious activity, you promote
    atheism, which is considered a religion according to SCOTUS.  This
    slant taken in recent SC cases is winning, which is why prayer in
    school has become a real issue once more.  
    
    
    re: .337
    
    I'll admit when I'm wrong, I won't say I'm wrong when I'm not, though. 
    There is a difference.
    
    
    -steve

RE: Note 33.339, Steve
    
    >By forcing out all religious activity, you promote
    >atheism, which is considered a religion according to SCOTUS.
    
    Question Steve, do you think SCOTUS is right??
    
    ...Tom (Atheist without religion)
    

    <<< Note 33.339 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

    
>    Legally required to be in school, yes.  Legally required to listen to
>    or participate in prayer...no.  There is no force, thus no problems
>    with the First. 

	Your assertion is a joke. They are required to be in the classroom.
	You assert taht they are allowed to wear earmuffs to drown out the
	readings, so no problem. What a maroon!.

> By forcing out all religious activity, you promote
>    atheism, which is considered a religion according to SCOTUS. 

	Promoting atheism? Can you explain just how this is so?

	Geez, Steve it used to be some fun arguing with you, but lately
	your arguments have become so idiotic that you've taken all the
	joy out of it.

Jim

    I believe what it really promotes is agnosticism which in some ways is
    more dangerous.  Agnosticism to me is a belief in the concept that
    people are generally good, that one can save themselves, and that god
    is whoever you want god to be.  If god is nature...great.  If god is 
    a statue...great, whatever works for you.  
    
    I just happen to believe that education in the public schools must be
    focused on reading, writing, arithmetic, the promotion of history and
    sciences.  Unfortunately, the public school has proven to be a poor
    surrogate in teaching character, integrity, and the like.  Asking the
    NEA crowd to actually promote the recognition of a deity is quite
    humerous to say the least.  
    
    -Jack

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  A point proven by your concept of
Agnosticism.  In all the readings I've done on agnosticism the idea that
"people are generally good, that one can save themselves," has little basis
in fact though "and that god is whoever you want god to be" is somewhat true
though I'd change whoever to whatever since god doesn't have to be a deity.

      re: .312
    
      Your reply is very ominous to me.
    
      Just wait until this nation passes a national Sunday law
      and I am persecuted for keeping the scriptural ten command-
      ments.
    
      Your majority will have your rights.  And this country will
      go straight to hell.

         <<< Note 33.342 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

>    I believe what it really promotes is agnosticism which in some ways is
>    more dangerous. 

	Same question that I asked Brother Leech. How does it "promote"
	agnosticism?

	I can easily see how Bible readings in public schools promote 
	Christianity, even if Brother Leech can not. But how does NOT 
	having such readings promote anything?

Jim

    re: .340
    
    >>By forcing out all religious activity, you promote
    >>atheism, which is considered a religion according to SCOTUS.
    
>    Question Steve, do you think SCOTUS is right??
 
    Personally, no.  I do not think SCOTUS is right.  Actually, I think
    they have been wrong on lots of things this century, and this is only
    the tip of the iceberg.  Historically (as in the time of our FF),
    atheism was not considered religion.
    
    However, since we are playing by their rules in modern day rulings,
    this ruling is pertinent for purpose of fair application of modern
    "Constitutional" law.
    
    -steve
    

      I don't have a problem with govt. property being used.  I have
      a problem with people of different belief systems being singled
      out too easily.  How would it be to be a Moslem or a Jew for
      example and hear (every day) over the intercom obvious references
      to a faith that is in conflict with one's own?  As a child, I would
      feel bad.  And I think things can be more sensitive for children.
      What is their recourse?  To leave the classroom and thus be further
      stigmatized?
    
      I don't have a problem if (in a public school), any student who 
      wanted to even spent a full 'study hall' studying the gospel of
      John (provided they were doing well scholastically).  Just so 
      that they do it in a way that doesn't single out.  If they had 
      their own room to go to.  I would even go this far.   Here, they 
      have their own space and whoever wants to go can go.  I don't care 
      if they cover the whole Bible or Koran or whatever.
    
      But, to insist upon using govt. property in a way that establishes
      the practise of one religion FROM THE VANTAGE POINT of all being
      captive listeners (unless they make themselves obviously visible
      by being the few to leave and thus being unfairly stigmatized),
      that is BAD precedent.  And to defend it on the basis of this one
      group being the majority.  Oh man, to establish religion in the 
      state with all being captive on the basis of majority - wow.  That
      is the seed of the spirit of the beast.
    
                                                       Tony
      

    re: .341 
       
>>    Legally required to be in school, yes.  Legally required to listen to
>>    or participate in prayer...no.  There is no force, thus no problems
>>    with the First. 
     
>	Your assertion is a joke. 
    
    Not at all.  You are equating "legally required to be in class" with
    "legally being forced to listen/participate in prayer", which just
    isn't so.  Kids have to go to school, yes.  Kids do not have to listen
    to prayer, though, which makes such prayer a voluntary exercise, thus
    no problems with the First.  I suppose they could leave the room if
    they wished to (not sure the rules of this school, but that would be my
    suggestion for policy change, if they can't).
    
>    What a maroon!.

    I'm surprised at you, Jim.  You usually don't stoop to insults in
    debate.  
    
>> By forcing out all religious activity, you promote
>>    atheism, which is considered a religion according to SCOTUS. 

>	Promoting atheism? Can you explain just how this is so?

    By forcing out all religious activity in schools, you effectively
    promote atheism.  You show legal favor for the non-religious over the 
    religious.
    
>	Geez, Steve it used to be some fun arguing with you, but lately
>	your arguments have become so idiotic that you've taken all the
>	joy out of it.

    You haven't been paying attention to the court battles lately, Jim. 
    There were rulings last year in lower courts regarding this very idea. 
    These courts have ruled that by outlawing all religious activities in
    school, you in effect promote atheism (a recognized religion, according
    to SCOTUS).  These cases make their way into higher courts, and the
    ruling haven't been overturned.  Kids have freedom of religion...even
    in schools.
    
    This idea isn't mine, I got it by hearing about these court rulings.  I
    can't claim to be the author of this "idiotic" argument (to quote you
    from the above).
    
    The plain fact of the matter is that the prayer is lead by students,
    is voluntary, and is not at odds with the First.  I find YOUR arguments
    regarding the "PA system" to be quite "idiotic" and a non-issue.  You
    would be against this prayer whether they used the PA system or not,
    wouldn't you?  The fact that you bring this "point" up at all shows
    that you have a weak argument.
    
    
    -steve

    re: .344
    
    Are you sure you are referring to my note?  If so...
    
    What are you going on about?
    
    -steve

    >By forcing out all religious activity in schools, you effectively
    >promote atheism.  You show legal favor for the non-religious over the 
    >religious.
    
    I disagree.  A house of worship is the place for religious teaching and
    discussion.  A public school is the place for secular education.  It's
    not showing favour for one or the other; simply separating them.

RE: 33.348 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum"

> You are equating "legally required to be in class" with "legally being 
> forced to listen/participate in prayer", which just isn't so.  

33.287> OXFORD, Miss. (AP) -- A 7-year-old was humiliated in class when he
33.287> objected to hearing prayers in his public school, his mother said
33.287> Tuesday as she filed suit to stop the religious practice. 

33.287> A second-grade teacher asked Jason Herdahl to wear headphones in order
33.287> to drown out the prayers, and he was made fun of and called names like
33.287> "football head," Lisa Herdahl said at a news conference. 

33.287> Herdahl said the lawsuit was a last resort in her yearlong effort to 
33.287> eliminate prayer and Bible study from classes attended by her five
33.287> children, who are in kindergarten through ninth grade at North
33.287> Pontotoc Attendance Center in Ecru. 

33.287> She said her children were "stigmatized by school officials, and teased
33.287> and harassed by other students" because they elected not to
33.287> participate in Bible classes or prayer.  She said they have been
33.287> taunted so much that they no longer want to attend class. 

    
    "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined
    education...*reason* and *experience* both forbid us to expect that
    national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle"
    [emphasis mine]   - George Washington
    
    "God who gave us life gave us liberty.  Can the liberties of a nation
    be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a
    gift of God?  Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God
    is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson
    
    "The philosophy of education in one generation will be the philosophy
    of government in the next." - Abraham Lincoln
    
    
    							

    USAT05::BENSON
    
    >>"God who gave us life gave us liberty."
    
     He also gave you the devine right of Kings.
    
    
    				Derek.

    <<< Note 33.348 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

       
>    Not at all.  You are equating "legally required to be in class" with
>    "legally being forced to listen/participate in prayer", which just
>    isn't so.  Kids have to go to school, yes.  Kids do not have to listen
>    to prayer, though, which makes such prayer a voluntary exercise, thus
>    no problems with the First.  I suppose they could leave the room if
>    they wished to (not sure the rules of this school, but that would be my
>    suggestion for policy change, if they can't).
 
	So, in order not to FORCE them to participate in your "voluntary"
	prayer meeting you decide to FORCE them to leave the room???

	Seems that FORCE is PRECISELY the issue at hand regardless of
	where it is applied.

>    I'm surprised at you, Jim.  You usually don't stoop to insults in
>    debate.  
 
	It becomes ever more frustrating as your arguments become
	ever more moronic. This one is a slam dunk and as soon as
	it gets to court the readings will stop.

   
>    By forcing out all religious activity in schools, you effectively
>    promote atheism.  You show legal favor for the non-religious over the 
>    religious.
 
	Sorry, the above is merely a repetition of your assertion. It does
	NOT describe just how the promotion of atheism is accomplished.

	I'm not entering a prayer in this reply, does this mean that I 
	am promoting atheism? I went to several meetings last week and
	there was no convocation at the beginning nor was there a 
	benediction at the end of any of them. Does this mean that
	businness meetings promote atheism?

>    You haven't been paying attention to the court battles lately, Jim. 
>    There were rulings last year in lower courts regarding this very idea. 
>    These courts have ruled that by outlawing all religious activities in
>    school, you in effect promote atheism (a recognized religion, according
>    to SCOTUS). 

	You can, of course, provide us with a bit more detail (case references
	and summaries). Or didn't Pat pass that information along?

>You
>    would be against this prayer whether they used the PA system or not,
>    wouldn't you?

	I've already told you that if a group of students chose to meet,
	before or after school, and read the same tracts, I would have
	no problem with it. The problem is when you use school resources
	to "spread the Word" to a captive audience.

Jim

    
    re: .347
    
    I have a few problems with your first couple of paragraphs, though only
    in the tone, so I will comment without all the cut-n-paste.
    
    First, you have succomed to the liberal ideal of "if it saves one
    life".  Now I realize that this is not a life threatening subject, but
    the mentality is the same.  "If only one person objects, then get rid
    of it."  "If one person *could* be stigmatized, then abort the
    Constitutional rights of all the others."  This is the general theme I
    see in your first few paragraphs.  I realize that you don't consciously
    think of it in this way- that you are just worried about all peoples of
    all religions.  I look at it as a freedom issue, however, and if there
    is any question as to the interpretation of the BoR, you must err on
    the side of the freedom involved.
    
    What if a school was predominanty Hindu?  Well, IMO the students could
    get together and lead a Hindu prayer.  How about Jewish kids?  Same
    thing.
    
    You see, I'm not singly supporting only Christianity in schools, but of
    the generic First Amendment FREEDOMS of all kids of all religiouns in
    schools.   No matter what you do, though, you are going to step on some
    toes...there is no way around this, really.  To take away everyone's
    freedoms for the sake of a small minority who are not forced to
    participate (but can not only drown out the student lead prayer, but
    can pray their own prayer to themselves while the other one is being
    lead), is not American, but is one of the most basic elements of left
    wing liberal ideology.
    
>      But, to insist 
               ^^^^^^
    
    First error.  I insist on nothing but allowing the school kids the
    FREEDOM of religion.
    
    
>    upon using govt. property in a way that establishes
>      the practise of one religion          ^^^^^^^^^^^
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Next error.  If the school was predominanty Islam or Hindu or atheist,
    then the students shouldbe able to lead a Hindu prayer, Islamic prayer,
    or to opt not to have any lead prayer.
    
>    FROM THE VANTAGE POINT of all being
>      captive listeners (unless they make themselves obviously visible
>      by being the few to leave and thus being unfairly stigmatized),
>      that is BAD precedent.  
    
    The right not to be stigmatized takes precedent over the First
    Amendment freedoms of all the kids?  Now THAT is a bad precedent, if
    you ask me.
    
>    And to defend it on the basis of this one
>      group being the majority.  Oh man, to establish religion in the 
>      state with all being captive on the basis of majority - wow.  That
>      is the seed of the spirit of the beast.
 
    Where do you come up with "to establish religion in the state"?  The
    example for this discussion is a Christian-majority school (so it
    seems, anyway).  I would argue with equal vigor if it were Islamic
    students wishing to lead a prayer in a mostly Islamic school (and I
    most certainly do not agree with the Islamic religion, though I do
    agree that the First applies to ALL people).
    
    I guess by your last comment, you think I am possessed or am the
    Anti-Christ?  8^)
    
    I'm sorry you can't see that this is simply a First Amendment issue.  I
    do not argue FOR establishing a specific religion in all schools, as
    you seem to imply above, nor do I wish to establish that prayer be
    mandatory in schools.  I merely stand for the FREEDOMS of school kids
    to pray or not to pray.  As long as it is a student lead prayer, there
    is no "STATE" involved, and the prayer can be of any denomination or
    religion. 
    
    
    -steve 

re .344:

>      Just wait until this nation passes a national Sunday law
>      and I am persecuted for keeping the scriptural ten command-
>      ments.

I assume that by "national Sunday law" you mean a law prohibiting blue laws.
If you were forced to work on Sunday, which of the scriptural ten
commandments would that force you to disobey?

    <<< Note 33.355 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

    
>    First, you have succomed to the liberal ideal of "if it saves one
>    life".  Now I realize that this is not a life threatening subject, but
>    the mentality is the same.  "If only one person objects, then get rid
>    of it."  "If one person *could* be stigmatized, then abort the
>    Constitutional rights of all the others." 

	I seem to have this argument before. It was a number of years
	ago. It had to do with lunch counters and seating arrangements
	on city buses.

> This is the general theme I
>    see in your first few paragraphs.  I realize that you don't consciously
>    think of it in this way- that you are just worried about all peoples of
>    all religions.  I look at it as a freedom issue, however, and if there
>    is any question as to the interpretation of the BoR, you must err on
>    the side of the freedom involved.
 
	Precisely. And the entire purpose of the BoR was to protect
	the minority. The FFs were well aware that the majority need
	not be protected. After all the majority would be running the
	government, establishing the laws and so on. So they they wrote
	down certain protections for ALL the citizens so that the
	tryanny of the majority would not, and could not, prevail.

	Pretty smart of them, wasn't it?

	Now you come along and tell us that the majority hould prevail
	and you use the very protections that the FFs established to support 
	your claim.

	Not very smart, is it?

>    The right not to be stigmatized takes precedent over the First
>    Amendment freedoms of all the kids?  Now THAT is a bad precedent, if
>    you ask me.
 
	Maybe we can just have those kids that wish not to participate
	wear little patches over their pockets. Jewish kids could wear
	the Star of David and so on. Ooh, wait a minute. There's something
	vaguely familiar about this idea.

Jim

      re: 354
 
>	So, in order not to FORCE them to participate in your "voluntary"
>	prayer meeting you decide to FORCE them to leave the room???

    "Force" is your own word and is an incorrect assumption of what I said. 
    I think students who do not wish to participate should be ABLE to leave
    the room IF THEY WANT TO.  No force, their choice.  The fact that you
    are now arguing silly semantics is more basis for my opinion that you
    are running out of ammo.
    
>	Seems that FORCE is PRECISELY the issue at hand regardless of
>	where it is applied.

    Only in your own mind.
    
>	It becomes ever more frustrating as your arguments become
>	ever more moronic. This one is a slam dunk and as soon as
>	it gets to court the readings will stop.

    You are wrong.  The slam dunk is mine, as the lastest rulings back me
    up on my opinion.  I will expect an appology when the court rules in
    favor of the First on this issue.
    
>>    By forcing out all religious activity in schools, you effectively
>>    promote atheism.  You show legal favor for the non-religious over the 
>>    religious.
 
>	Sorry, the above is merely a repetition of your assertion. It does
>	NOT describe just how the promotion of atheism is accomplished.

    Yes it does.  And once again, current rulings back me up, while all you
    have is your somewhat biased opinion on the issue.  
    
    In your mind, showing legal favor for non-religious people is not
    establishing atheism?  Considering that it would be the government who
    puts a stop to religion in schools (like the 60's SCOTUS rulings), I
    would go so far as to say that it establishes a national religion of
    atheism by default.
    
    Limiting First Amendment freedoms due to a few disgruntled people is
    VERY dangerous precedent. 
    
>	I'm not entering a prayer in this reply, does this mean that I 
>	am promoting atheism? 
    
    Non-sequitur.  You MAY enter a prayer in this reply IF YOU WISH TO. 
    No law tells you that you cannot enter a prayer. 
    
>    I went to several meetings last week and
>	there was no convocation at the beginning nor was there a 
>	benediction at the end of any of them. Does this mean that
>	businness meetings promote atheism?

    Another non-issue.  If they had wished to begin with prayer or end with
    prayer, THEY COULD HAVE DONE SO.  There is no law to limit them in
    doing this if they wished to. 
    
    It is the FREEDOM to be able to pray that is the issue.  By making law
    that there can be no prayer in schools, you are promoting non-religion,
    which favors atheists over religious people.
    
>	You can, of course, provide us with a bit more detail (case references
>	and summaries). Or didn't Pat pass that information along?

    I'll do my best to get this information.  The cases were ones worked on
    by the Center For Law and Justice (or something like that).  The head
    lawyer was on teevee talking about the most recent cases (victories) on
    First Amendment issues.  

>	I've already told you that if a group of students chose to meet,
>	before or after school, and read the same tracts, I would have
>	no problem with it. The problem is when you use school resources
>	to "spread the Word" to a captive audience.

    Captive, only if they are not allowed to leave the room or drown it out
    in one way or another.
    
    But I do understand your point above, though I can't condone limiting
    First Amendment freedoms of school kids on this basis.  The "use of
    school resources" really isn't the issue.  I think the issue you have
    is more with what you view as a "captive" audience....I agree with this
    somewhat, but once again would rather not allow restrictions on the
    First.
    
    
    -steve

    re: .357
    
    So...you DO think that the "right not to be stigmatized" takes
    precedent over the First?  I didn't even know there was such a right.
    
    Nice of you to try and parallel me with racists and Nazi's
    though...very interesting.  Another sign of no ammo?  8^)
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 33.355 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


| First, you have succomed to the liberal ideal of "if it saves one life".  

	Steve, the ONLY time I really hear that line is from the pro-life
people. Are you saying they are liberals? 

| What if a school was predominanty Hindu? Well, IMO the students could get 
| together and lead a Hindu prayer. How about Jewish kids? Same thing.

	The more I think about this, the more I see this being wrong. If you
want to teach ABOUT the religions of the world, from a historical or facts
perspective and not from a church view, then go for it. (but make it an
elective) If you want a moment of silence, and it's main point is for prayer to
happen, then it is not needed. What led me to change my mind on this is anyone
who wants to pray, doesn't need a set time to do it. They can just start
talking to their God. It would mean that the family would have to get more
involved to promote this type of thing, but that's where something like prayer
really should come from, not from a school where you have many different
religions (and non) involved. 


Glen

      Hi All,
    
        Steve, let me first say that my 'spirit of the beast' phrase
        was said in some spontenaity and I probably should have left
        it out.  I am a Christian and it seems you are, but we all
        are falling short of perfect Christlikeness and if its not
        Christlikeness, its another spirit.  But, I do believe the
        spirit of captive listening is not of the Lord, but rather one
        of coercion.  And I agree with the term captive where the only
        way to not listen is to do something a bit drastic (like walk
        out of school or whatever).
    
        I can see from your reply to me that you advocate something that
        (at least) is much more permissive than establishing Christianity.
        I'm referring to your statement that if its a predominantly Hindu
        school, the whole class should be able to pray over the intercoms
        a Hindu prayer, etc.  Its refreshing to me that you at least are
        consistent in respecting other religions in the same way.  At
        least you have that impartiality.
    
        When I refer to the establishment of a religion, I mean the use
        of govt. equipment in a way that involves everybody to hear except
        for the exceptions of doing something that I would consider a tad
        extreme - like walking out of the school building or something as
        I mentioned above.
    
        I see this as a conflict of rights, i.e. free speech versus non-
        establishment of any religion and I would personally opt to favor
        the nonestablishment right in that I believe people are being
        forced to be in a delicate situation and in a govt. building at
        that.
    
        Let a person blab all they want about whatever they want, but in
        the confines of govt. owned property and resources?  To me that
        establishes that one's religion via the state.
    
        I can agree to disagree.  You read my replies.  I believe (as I
        said) that people ought to be able to study the Bible in separate
        groups in a public school.  I just do not see the captive listening
        part as ok.  I very much doubt the liberal or the Madelain Murray
        Ohare's (is that the atheists name?) would come close to embracing
        what I have stated I feel is acceptable practise in a govt. owned
        building.
    
        As far as 'national Sunday law', I am a Sabbathkeeping Christian.
        The 4th of the 10 commandments calls for rest on the SEVENTH day
        which is (according to scripture) sundown Friday to sundown Sat.
        There is no scriptural call whatsoever for rest on Sunday.  By
        Sunday laws, I refer to legislation requiring certain kinds of rest
        on Sunday.  I believe this will happen and is actually in the
        works.  Since GATT, we will begin to see a push for restrictions
        on Sunday.  The next step will be forced things on the Sabbath of
        the Lord.  Things like making it very hard not to work one's job -
        that sort of thing.  Government forcing people to disobey God's
        10 commandment law.
    
        My use of Sunday was simply an analogy of something the majority
        will go along with.
      
                                                     Tony
                            

>If you want a moment of silence, and it's main point is for prayer to
>happen, then it is not needed. 

A the main point of a moment of silence is not necessarily to provide an
opportunity for prayer, but an opportunity for focus and reflection for
the days work.

Some may pray to their god for support and guidence, relieveing them of some
of that pressure (there is someone here to help me through), some may use
the opportunity to gather and organize their thoughts for the days efforts,
and some will no doubt be concentrating on the little blonde girl sitting
in front of them. In any event, a moment set aside each morning for the purpose
of clearing ones mind, is a good practice to get into and should carry on
thoughout ones life.

Given the increasing lack of focus and concentration in our schools and the
effects this has had on the recent generations, I feel pretty strongly that
any effort to help children focus there attention on the task at hand (schooling)
is a worthy one.

Why anyone would fight or fear such a thing is beyond me ...

Doug.

.354>	I'm not entering a prayer in this reply, does this mean that I 
>	am promoting atheism? 
    
    	No.  But if you were to push to prevent others from entering
    	prayers in their replies, it could be construed that you were
    	promoting atheism.
    
.357>>    of it."  "If one person *could* be stigmatized, then abort the
>>    Constitutional rights of all the others." 
>
>	I seem to have this argument before. It was a number of years
>	ago. It had to do with lunch counters and seating arrangements
>	on city buses.
    
    	There is a big difference to me in this "parallel".  It would be 
    	more correct if today there were pushes to exclude the MAJORITY 
    	from certain lunch counters and the fronts of buses.

    <<< Note 33.362 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>
                  -< Children need focus to perform well ... >-

Nice smokescreen.

Where's you research to indicate the value of a prescribed moment of 
silence? 

If silent reflection aids learning, let it be part of any teacher's 
repertoir of classroom tools. And remove religious connotation from it 
altogether. 

But that's not the point, is it? 

Do we hear anyone calling for a constitutional amendment to allow the use of 
phonics in school?

Tom

    <<< Note 33.358 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

 
>    "Force" is your own word and is an incorrect assumption of what I said. 

	What you "said" does not reflect the reality of the situation.

>    I think students who do not wish to participate should be ABLE to leave
>    the room IF THEY WANT TO.  No force, their choice. 

	So they can "choose" to listen to the readings, or "choose" to leave?
	Only your fanaticism FORCES them to make the choice at all. Why they
	they just "choose" stay in the classroom and be taught the subjects
	that are covered in the school curriculum?

>    Yes it does.  And once again, current rulings back me up, while all you
>    have is your somewhat biased opinion on the issue.  
 
	Again, it seems appropriate to ask for citations. I have asked this
	several times and you have failed to respond. Why?

   
>    In your mind, showing legal favor for non-religious people is not
>    establishing atheism? 

	Non-religious? By all accounts the children we have been discussing
	are Lutherans.

> Considering that it would be the government who
>    puts a stop to religion in schools (like the 60's SCOTUS rulings), I
>    would go so far as to say that it establishes a national religion of
>    atheism by default.
 
	Then you are foolish. And stretching "reality" beyond recognition.

>>	I'm not entering a prayer in this reply, does this mean that I 
>>	am promoting atheism? 
    
>    Non-sequitur.  You MAY enter a prayer in this reply IF YOU WISH TO. 
>    No law tells you that you cannot enter a prayer. 
 
	But I didn't. How does this promote atheism?

>    It is the FREEDOM to be able to pray that is the issue.  By making law
>    that there can be no prayer in schools, you are promoting non-religion,
>    which favors atheists over religious people.
 
	Any person is free to pray. The restriction only applies to organized
	activities in public schools.

	Anyone who doesn't think there is prayer in school, never took a 
	Math final.

>    I'll do my best to get this information.  The cases were ones worked on
>    by the Center For Law and Justice (or something like that).  The head
>    lawyer was on teevee talking about the most recent cases (victories) on
>    First Amendment issues.  

	CBN, right?

Jim

    <<< Note 33.359 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

    
>    Nice of you to try and parallel me with racists and Nazi's
>    though...very interesting.  Another sign of no ammo?  8^)
 
	No. I'm just trying to point out to you just where your
	"logic" can take us. You might want to step back and
	examine the risks.

Jim

      <<< Note 33.363 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	No.  But if you were to push to prevent others from entering
>    	prayers in their replies, it could be construed that you were
>    	promoting atheism.
 
	Then fighting to continue the practice in these schools must be 
	promoting Christianity, RIGHT!!? And we HAVE previously agreed
	that promoting religion is something the government SHOULD
	avoid, RIGHT!?

	Neither you nor Stve has made a case that the LACK of something
	promotes its opposite. Do keep trying though.

>    	There is a big difference to me in this "parallel".  It would be 
>    	more correct if today there were pushes to exclude the MAJORITY 
>    	from certain lunch counters and the fronts of buses.

	Not really. The inclusion of the minorities at the front of
	the bus or at the lunch counter automatically excluded certain
	members of the majority. Simple law of physics.

Jim

    	.366
    
>	No. I'm just trying to point out to you just where your
>	"logic" can take us. 
    
    	Gee.  I recall you deriding as paranoid things like toppling 
    	dominoes and next-step scenarios on issues where you were on
    	the other side of the fence...
    
	.367
    
>	Neither you nor Stve has made a case that the LACK of something
>	promotes its opposite. Do keep trying though.
    
    	Problem is that I'm not trying to make a case.  I'm just pointing
    	out that there are several ways to view a situation.  Yours is
    	not the only view, and you haven "made the case" that yours is
    	any more correct than anyone else's.

>>    	There is a big difference to me in this "parallel".  It would be 
>>    	more correct if today there were pushes to exclude the MAJORITY 
>>    	from certain lunch counters and the fronts of buses.
>
>	Not really. The inclusion of the minorities at the front of
>	the bus or at the lunch counter automatically excluded certain
>	members of the majority. Simple law of physics.

	There is a difference between "certain members" (due to the laws
    	of physics) and **ALL** members, which is the example I was giving.

| <<< Note 33.362 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>


| -< Children need focus to perform well ... >-

	Then why not start it at an age where the kids may actually realize
what they are doing and not just have them do it for doing it sake?

| A the main point of a moment of silence is not necessarily to provide an
| opportunity for prayer, but an opportunity for focus and reflection for
| the days work.

	Same as above.

| Some may pray to their god for support and guidence, relieveing them of some
| of that pressure (there is someone here to help me through), some may use
| the opportunity to gather and organize their thoughts for the days efforts,
| and some will no doubt be concentrating on the little blonde girl sitting
| in front of them. In any event, a moment set aside each morning for the purpose
| of clearing ones mind, is a good practice to get into and should carry on
| thoughout ones life.

	That could be done at home without the distractions of other people in
school. 

| Why anyone would fight or fear such a thing is beyond me ...

	It's simple, they are things that can be done at home, things that make
parents take responsibility for their kid(s) IF a moment of silence is
something they want to instil into their child/children. 



Glen

      <<< Note 33.368 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

    
>    	Problem is that I'm not trying to make a case.  I'm just pointing
>    	out that there are several ways to view a situation.  Yours is
>    	not the only view, and you haven "made the case" that yours is
>    	any more correct than anyone else's.

	So in other words, you have no counter-argument?

>	There is a difference between "certain members" (due to the laws
>    	of physics) and **ALL** members, which is the example I was giving.

	No one is saying that "all" members of the majority can not pray.
	The law is that they can not subject the minority to organized
	prayer in public schools. They can pray all they like.

Jim

>	So in other words, you have no counter-argument?
    
    	Correct, because I really haven't bothered to follow along
    	with yours and Steve's little chat.
    
    	And I really don't know what compelled me to get involved
    	even at this superficial level today.  My mistake.  Do carry
    	on...

    re: .365
    
>	What you "said" does not reflect the reality of the situation.

    Your opinion.  Obviously, we see things differently on this matter.

>	So they can "choose" to listen to the readings, or "choose" to leave?
>	Only your fanaticism FORCES them to make the choice at all. 
    
    "Only my fanaticism", eh?  Well, okay, if you insist.  I am rather
    fanatical on supporting EVERY aspect of the First Amendment.  I'm sorry
    you are willing to toss out the parts you don't like.
    
>    Why they
>	they just "choose" stay in the classroom and be taught the subjects
>	that are covered in the school curriculum?

    The prayer takes, what...one minute tops?  I don't think studies suffer
    from having inadequate time due to prayer.  As far as "choosing", the
    students chose to have a prayer...are you denying them this?
 
>	Again, it seems appropriate to ask for citations. I have asked this
>	several times and you have failed to respond. Why?

    You've asked me once (twice now), and I answered you the first time. 
    Terrible thought that I am right, eh?  8^)
   
>>    In your mind, showing legal favor for non-religious people is not
>>    establishing atheism? 

>	Non-religious? By all accounts the children we have been discussing
>	are Lutherans.

    Now you are mixing issues.  I talk generic, you come back to specific. 
    I guess that means I won this point.  8^)  (generically, outlawing
    religion in schools IS most definitely giving legal favor to
    non-religious students over religious students)
    
>	Then you are foolish. And stretching "reality" beyond recognition.

    Once again, in your opinion.  Just because you disagree with me does
    not make me wrong, as you seem to thing.
    
>	But I didn't. How does this promote atheism?

    Apples and oranges, Jim.  We are speaking of a court outlawing this
    prayer.  If your note was in favor of outlawing prayer of all kinds,
    then you are promoting atheism.  As I post notes in favor of letting
    the individual schools decide on prayer issues (pro-prayer), I am
    promoting religion (or rather religious freedoms).
    
    You are not keeping this idea in proper context.
    
>	Any person is free to pray. The restriction only applies to organized
>	activities in public schools.

    So...you admit restrictions on the First Amendment (finally).  I say
    the government has no right to make such restrictions (let the
    communities/students decide), as per that latter part in the First
    about Congress not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof (religion).
    
>>    I'll do my best to get this information.  The cases were ones worked on
>>    by the Center For Law and Justice (or something like that).  The head
>>    lawyer was on teevee talking about the most recent cases (victories) on
>>    First Amendment issues.  

>	CBN, right?

    Yes.  I believe the layers mentioned above are associated with CBN,
    thus would naturally be inclined to share their progress on this
    network.  In any case, I'll try to get a listing of court cases for
    you...if you doubt the source, you can always check the case in
    question.
    
    
    -steve   

    <<< Note 33.372 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


>    Your opinion.  Obviously, we see things differently on this matter.

	My opinion and the opinion of those 9 other guys.


>    "Only my fanaticism", eh?  Well, okay, if you insist.  I am rather
>    fanatical on supporting EVERY aspect of the First Amendment.  I'm sorry
>    you are willing to toss out the parts you don't like.
 
	Sorry, you are no more supportive of the "whole" 1st Amendment
	than you accuse me of being. You are hung up on the "Freedom of"
	wording. I on the establishment clause. The only problem is that
	my argument does not affect the "freedom of", the students are
	still allowed to believe what they choose, they are still allowed
	to pray. They just can't organize it at a public school and force
	their religion on others who have no choice but to either listen
	or be singled out for special treatment.

>    You've asked me once (twice now), and I answered you the first time. 
>    Terrible thought that I am right, eh?  8^)
 
	Will discuss your being "right" when the citations are supplied.

>    Apples and oranges, Jim.  We are speaking of a court outlawing this
>    prayer. 

	Show me a court case where prayer was outlawed. I have seen cases
	that state, wuite clearly, that the government can not sponsor
	prayer. But I have never seen a case where ANY court said "Thou
	Shalt Not Pray".

>    So...you admit restrictions on the First Amendment (finally).

	I admit that the restriction is CONTAINED in the 1st Amendment.

Jim

One simple matter that seems to be ignored in all of this is
the question -
	Whom is served by a moment of silence in school?

The answer is clearly -
	The agenda of the parents and the community, not
	the children.

 I have never, ever, met a child under the age of 12 who
 honestly gave a rat's behind about prayer in school. Not
 when I was that age, and not since.

So why don't we all, just for a change, be a little bit
honest about this whole thing.

    
    the moment of silence (i.e. prayer) is not the type of prayer a
    Christian or Muslim would practice normally but it does accomodate a
    moment when a child will consider that there is a transcendent being
    greater than him which can shape many positive behaviors and is sorely
    needed in our society today...and tomorrow.
    
    jeff

	In my son's case, the transcendant being would be
	Batman, so it's probably a waste of time.

    I disagree with you, Jim, on the establishment clause.  I don't see a
    student lead prayer as being a government sanction, but rather an
    exercise of freedom on the part of the students.  Just because it is in
    a school does not make it a government sanction or establishment.
    
    Congress begins session with a prayer.  It this establishing a national 
    religion?  Does this infringe upon the freedoms of those members of
    Congress who do not hold to any religion (or hold to a different
    religion)?  
    
    The First Amendment was not designed to keep prayer, even an organized
    prayer, out of schools.  There is simply too much evidence to the
    contrary to hold to this opinion (which is what it all comes down to).
    
    I think the problems of confusion began with federal funding of
    This  brings up the strawman of a "federally" sanctioned prayer by
    association with federal funds.  If a prayer is inserted into every
    public school, tuned to a specific religion, and was mandatory for
    everyone, then I would agree that it is establishing a national
    religion. 
    
    For school kids to organize a morning prayer themselves in a single
    school cannot *possible* be considered an "establishment of religion",
    in any stretch of the imagination.  Do you understand the meaning of
    "establishment of religion"?  
    
    
    Another problem is that by the government telling kids they cannot
    organize a prayer, even if all in the school want one, it in effect
    goes against the other clause in the First about Congress not being
    able to restrict the First Amendment freedoms.
    
    How about we keep the State and Federal government out of this and let
    the communities decide if they want a prayer in school or not, and if
    so, what kind.  As long as no one is forced to participate, then no
    one's freedoms are being stepped on (this does not mean you can please
    everyone, but at least you don't have Congress restricting your
    freedoms).
    
    
    -steve

    re: .375 
    
    Most adults let alone children can't even grasp the idea of a
    transcendant being.  If a school system wishes to impose a moment of
    silence for contemplation, great.  Make it a 15 minute mandatory period
    so those that wish to do something productive may do so.  If a child
    wishes to pray, silently, fine.  The idea of foisting a period of
    silence for the sole purpose of prayer is not a tonic for todays 
    societal ills.  Historically, it never has been.  
    
    Brian

    .377
    
    > student lead prayer
    
    does the school also permit voudoun or wicca ceremonies if they're led
    by students?  if not, then it's gummint-sanctioned xianity.
    
    > Congress begins session with a prayer.  It this establishing a national
    > religion?
    
    congress is specifically excluded from obeying the law of the land.  as
    a constitutional scholar of such eminent standing, you should know this.
    
    > For school kids to organize a morning prayer themselves in a single
    > school cannot *possible* be considered an "establishment of religion",
    > in any stretch of the imagination.
    
    unless the school allows them to persecute those who choose not to
    participate, in which case it is a gummint-sanctioned violation of the
    latter children's civil rights.
    
    > How about we keep the State and Federal government out of this...
    
    VERY GOOD!  i agree 100 percent.  how do you propose to accomplish
    this, given that scotus has already staked out the territory?

>    does the school also permit voudoun or wicca ceremonies if they're led
>    by students?  if not, then it's gummint-sanctioned xianity.

    Or church of the sub-genius?

>    > student lead prayer
>    
>    does the school also permit voudoun or wicca ceremonies if they're led
>    by students?  if not, then it's gummint-sanctioned xianity.

    Why limit this to religions?  How about giving the BoyScouts
    equal time...they could lead the school in their creed.  Perhaps
    the local German Club wants to read some nice German passages.

    I dont see what's so special about religions that they deserve to
    hog the mike.
    bob

    <<< Note 33.377 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    I disagree with you, Jim, on the establishment clause.  I don't see a
>    student lead prayer as being a government sanction,

	I wouldn't either. Unless of course they do it with the official
	sanction of the public school's administrators. There lies the
	rub.

>    For school kids to organize a morning prayer themselves in a single
>    school cannot *possible* be considered an "establishment of religion",
>    in any stretch of the imagination.  Do you understand the meaning of
>    "establishment of religion"?  
 
	We've been over this before. Your attention span appears to
	be slipping. THe 1st Amendment now applies to local and
	state government agencies, just as it applies to the Feds.

>    How about we keep the State and Federal government out of this and let
>    the communities decide if they want a prayer in school or not, and if
>    so, what kind.  As long as no one is forced to participate, then no
>    one's freedoms are being stepped on (this does not mean you can please
>    everyone, but at least you don't have Congress restricting your
>    freedoms).
 
	THey can decide. THe parents get together and decide to fund
	a private school. Then they can pray to their hearts content.

	Just don't ask ALL of the taxpayers to fund it.

Jim

    A little off tangent, but deserved of an entry... I agree with you
    Brian, most adult, let alone children, do have difficulty in grasping
    that concept (if they even take the time to ponder). This is basically
    why (at the Catholic religion) is largely based on faith. 
    
    But, to make a remark that children are not served (and only the
    community's and parent's agendas benefit is something I do not agree
    with. The children do benefit. 
    
    I went to a parochial school grades K-7. While I vividly remember
    thinking (at that time) those hours were the worst of my life and
    the nuns were the devil incarnate, I look back and understand that
    the discipline, beliefs, faith, etc... were extremely beneficial to
    me, particularly in my adult life and the molding of my value system.
    
    I'm not a big fan of the Catholic religion and forced prayer should not
    be allowed. An opportunity, yes. 
    
    I cannot possibly see, nor have I read anything in this string that
    remotely describes detriment or threat if an opportunity is given.
    To me, this would translateas an act of respect to an individuals 
    personal beliefs if the opportunity were offered, period.
    
    Like many, I grew up throughout my school years (except college)
    with a moment of silence (not forced prayer). It was a 30 second
    gesture. If someone is actually feeling pressured or threatened
    by this I'd suggest seeking professional help before he/she begins
    to hear little voices inside their empty heads.
    
    Chip

    re: .379
        
>    does the school also permit voudoun or wicca ceremonies if they're led
>    by students?  if not, then it's gummint-sanctioned xianity.
 
    I would support their right to do so if they wished.  I doubt this is
    even a consideration from the school/students, since it seems to be a
    predominantly Christian school (and a denominational squabble).
       
>    congress is specifically excluded from obeying the law of the land.  as
>    a constitutional scholar of such eminent standing, you should know this.
 
    Yes, they are...but they shouldn't be.  If the Repubs get their way and
    Congress has to begin following the laws they enact, will they be
    establishing a national religion by following their prayer tradition?
    
    Historically, Congress DID follow the law of the land, yet still
    started Congress sessions with a prayer.  They saw nothing wrong with
    this (as far as the First Amendment goes), and neither do I.  Same with
    schools.
       
>    unless the school allows them to persecute those who choose not to
>    participate, in which case it is a gummint-sanctioned violation of the
>    latter children's civil rights.
 
    I can agree with you on this one.  The school has to discipline those
    who persecute the students who do not wish to follow the prayer.  If
    they have no policy of discipline, then they are in effect sanctioning
    this persecution.
    
>    VERY GOOD!  i agree 100 percent.  how do you propose to accomplish
>    this, given that scotus has already staked out the territory?
    
    SCOTUS is despotic...it has always tried to be the "law of the land",
    even as early as the 1790's (see Marbury v. Madison).  Somehow it has
    succeeded in being the end all of modern law.  It strikes laws down,
    creates new laws- all by a small group of unelected, unaccountable
    men.  It happens so much today, it seems normal.  All anyone need do to
    promote social change/agenda is to buy off the SCOTUS.  Nine men can
    strike down any law of the land, redefine the Constitution, or stop
    laws from the Legislature from being implemented (laws passed by
    men/women directly accountable to the people, by design).
    
    I'm not sure how to reign the Judiciary in.  I'm not sure how things
    got the way they are...I'm still doing a bit of study on the matter.  I
    do know that by giving the SCOTUS this kind of power (to unaccountable
    men) is not the way things were set up originally, nor are is it in our
    best interest as a nation.
    
    A quip from Jefferson's letter to  Mrs. John Adams regarding Marbury v.
    Madison...
    
    "Nothing in the Constitution has given to them (SCOTUS) a right to
    decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for
    them.  The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what
    laws are Constitutional, and what not...for the legislature and teh
    executive...would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
    
    James Madison (the defendant in this case) went on to say...
    
    "[Some contend] that wherever [the Constitution's] meaning is doubtful,
    you must leave it to take its course, until the judiciary is called
    upon to declare its meaning...But I beg to know uon what principle it
    can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution
    greater powers than another...I do not see that any one of these
    independent departments has more right than another to declare their
    sentiments on that point."
    
    On the floor of the Senate, William Giles of Virginia stated...
    
    "If  the Judges of the Supreme Court should dare  to declare the acts
    of Congress unconstitutional  it was the undoubted right of the House
    to impeach them, and of the Senate to remove them."
    
    
    Lincoln declared in the Lincold/Douglas debates...
    
    "A [Supreme Court] decision...has always needed confirmation before the
    lawyers regarded it as settled law."
    
    
    In the Cherokee Indian cases (1831-1832), President Jackson was told by
    the Court (through the Chief Justice) to take certain actions, Jackson
    responded...
    
    "[The Chief Justice] has made his decision:  now let him enforce it!"
    
    
    We've let SCOTUS rule for too long...I'm not sure there is a way to
    reign them in, especially considering we have allowed them to rule for
    a long time.  I guess we can HOPE that they make good constitutional
    rulings.  
    
    
    (the above posted so that the nay-sayers won't poo-poo me to death...no
    one seems to believe that SCOTUS is somewhat despotic these days)
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 33.375 by USAT05::BENSON >>>


| the moment of silence (i.e. prayer) is not the type of prayer a Christian or 
| Muslim would practice normally but it does accomodate a moment when a child 
| will consider that there is a transcendent being greater than him which can 
| shape many positive behaviors and is sorely needed in our society today...and 
| tomorrow.


	Jeff, be real. Not everyone is religious, and like Jack stated, most
kids could care less. You want a moment of silence for the kids? Do it at home
where it will have more of a chance to mean something. So many people talk
about the government interfering with schools and such, yet these same people
want the same government to impose a moment of silence. Isn't that special...

    <<< Note 33.385 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    I would support their right to do so if they wished.  I doubt this is
>    even a consideration from the school/students, since it seems to be a
>    predominantly Christian school (and a denominational squabble).
 
	Isn't this precisely the issue that Jefferson addressed in
	his letter to the Danbury Baptists? The "wall of seperation"
	comment was to assure them that the government would NOT
	take sides.

Jim

| <<< Note 33.377 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


| I disagree with you, Jim, on the establishment clause.  I don't see a student 
| lead prayer as being a government sanction, but rather an exercise of freedom 
| on the part of the students.  Just because it is in a school does not make it 
| a government sanction or establishment.

	Who would have to make it happen Steve? The government??? Hmmm...

| Congress begins session with a prayer.  

	This is something that really backs Jack's position. The people who
make up Congress are ADULTS! True, they may not act that way all the time, but
they are adults. If we were to look at the REAL picture Steve, how many of
those who are in Congress really join in? How many of those that do join in are
doing it out of habit more than doing it for any meaning? I think if we were to
factor these REALITIES into your equation Steve, you could clearly see that
prayer in schools isn't going to accomplish much, if anything. Doing something
is easier than doing it for a purpose, with feeling, with meaning. 

RE: establishment of religion

	I agree with you when you say that if kids got together and started a
prayer, it would not establish any certain religion. What it does do is PUSH a
certain religion. If you have people who are not from that religion joining in,
then you are now cramming the religion down to the others.



Glen

    re: .387
    
    I didn't say that they wouldn't allow it if the students wanted it, I
    said that they probably never thought about it since the students are
    Christian.  If they are Christian, why would they wish to pray to a
    pagan god?  That was my only point to the comment.
    
    
    -steve

    <<< Note 33.389 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    re: .387
    
>    I didn't say that they wouldn't allow it if the students wanted it, I
>    said that they probably never thought about it since the students are
>    Christian.  If they are Christian, why would they wish to pray to a
>    pagan god?  That was my only point to the comment.
 
	????

	Does not seem to address the question posed in .387.

	Can you clarify?

Jim

    re: .388  
    
    What difference does it make, Glen, if it is adults or kids praying on
    federal property (as far as the First goes)?  I say that the Congressional 
    prayer is not violating the First, any more than voluntary school prayer 
    led by kids.
    
    
    
    -steve

    <<< Note 33.391 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    What difference does it make, Glen, if it is adults or kids praying on
>    federal property (as far as the First goes)?  I say that the Congressional 
>    prayer is not violating the First, any more than voluntary school prayer 
>    led by kids.
 
Steve,	As has been pointed out to you, internal operations of the
	Congress are NOT subject to Constitutional review. You are right
	in saying that the prayer does not violate the 1st, but your 
	reasoning is wrong.

	The reason that there is no conflict with the 1st is because
	the 1st does not apply to internal operations of the Congress.

Jim

     re: .387
    
>>    I would support their right to do so if they wished.  I doubt this is
>>    even a consideration from the school/students, since it seems to be a
>>    predominantly Christian school (and a denominational squabble).
 
 >	Isn't this precisely the issue that Jefferson addressed in
 >	his letter to the Danbury Baptists? The "wall of seperation"
 >	comment was to assure them that the government would NOT
 >	take sides.

    The issue with Jefferson's letter was more specific.  It was a direct
    issue of the government establishing a specific sect of Christianity as
    "the" denomination of America(it was an untrue rumor).  He told them that 
    the wall of separation was to protect religion from the State, so that no
    one denomination would be *officially* placed above another.
    
    Since it is the school kids who are organizing the prayer, there is no
    official sanction, but merely the rightful allowance of their First
    Amendment rights (even by modern interpretations of the First).  I don't 
    see this as being exclusionary of the other two students who are 
    Lutherin (?), as they should be allowed to do the same thing should
    they choose to.
    
    I prefer a moment of silence over organized prayer, personally,
    especially in schools where there are many varying
    denominations/religions.  There comes a time when practicality must be
    looked at.  Providing time for every different religion/denomination to
    have a prayer, though Constitutional, is probably not a good idea for
    time considerations.
    
    
    -steve

    pointer for the forgetful- several of Jefferson's letters on the role
    of religion and the state and the "wall of separation" are in .203-.208
    in this topic.  (Hint: Steve's interpretation is rather creative.  Mine
    is in .207.)
    
    DougO

    <<< Note 33.393 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    Since it is the school kids who are organizing the prayer, there is no
>    official sanction,

	You claim that the school administration does not sanction the
	student's actions?

>There comes a time when practicality must be
>    looked at.

	So you are of the opinion that the BoR should bow to "practicality"
	when deemed "neccessary"?

Jim

| <<< Note 33.391 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


| What difference does it make, Glen, if it is adults or kids praying on
| federal property (as far as the First goes)?  I say that the Congressional
| prayer is not violating the First, any more than voluntary school prayer
| led by kids.

	The difference is that it's a waste of time. You say you don't want
schools to talk about sex education, yet you want them to try and push
something like prayer in school? Uh huh... you make perfect sense.

    Coming from a prosecutor who wants to tax the local church, that's a
    laugh!!!
    
    -Jack

    re: .395
    
>	You claim that the school administration does not sanction the
>	student's actions?

    I'd say that they allow the students their First Amendment rights.
    
    
>	So you are of the opinion that the BoR should bow to "practicality"
>	when deemed "neccessary"?

    I'm saying let the schools decide.  If there are 20 varying religions
    that wish to have an organized prayer before classes start, then
    perhaps a moment of silence is best.  Leave it up to the community,
    leave the government out of it.
    
    (even though most schools receive federal money, I do not consider them
    part of the government...I think this is a stretch of semantics; I
    think that schools are more a community agency than on of government)
    
    
    -steve 

    If its a Catholic Church they should charge them double!!!!

 Separation of SNARF and state

     re: .396

| What difference does it make, Glen, if it is adults or kids praying on
| federal property (as far as the First goes)?  I say that the Congressional
| prayer is not violating the First, any more than voluntary school prayer
| led by kids.

>	The difference is that it's a waste of time. 
    
    Your opinion is not in the majority according to polls (if you are
    talking about prayer in schools).  Your statement makes no sense in light 
    of what I wrote above.  You need some sort of qualifier for this 
    statement.  What is a waste of time?  Prayer in school?  Prayer in 
    Congress?  Both?  You need to work on your sentence structure.
    
>    You say you don't want
>schools to talk about sex education, yet you want them to try and push
>something like prayer in school?         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    The underlined is a false assumption.  I defend their right to pray if
    they want to.  I support free exercise of religion, per the First.  I
    do not support Congress deciding where we can and can't pray, nor
    SCOTUS nor any other part of the federal government doing this, either.
    
    I also support that communities decide what they wish to do in their
    own schools.  I trust the community, unlike most (it seems).  If they
    wish their children to begin the day with a prayer, then  fine I say,
    as long as they do not force that prayer on any who wish not to
    paricipate.  If communities do not wish to have prayer in their
    schools, then I say that's all fine and dandy, too.
    
    I do not support ANY new Amendments.  Period.  This includes the
    so-called "prayer" amendment introduced by the Repubs (which is really
    just a moment of silence amendment...which I say is redundant with the
    First, and possible dangerous in the long run (for previously explained
    reasons) ).
    
>    Uh huh... you make perfect sense.
    
    If you would read what is written and not twist the context (using
    loaded terms like "push" etc., especially when they are petently
    false), then it would make sense to you.
    
    
    -steve

    <<< Note 33.398 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


	Ah, the Artful Dodger lives!
    
>>	You claim that the school administration does not sanction the
>>	student's actions?

>    I'd say that they allow the students their First Amendment rights.
 
	Does the school adminstration sanction the students actions
	or not?

>>	So you are of the opinion that the BoR should bow to "practicality"
>>	when deemed "neccessary"?

>    I'm saying let the schools decide.  If there are 20 varying religions
>    that wish to have an organized prayer before classes start, then
>    perhaps a moment of silence is best.  Leave it up to the community,
>    leave the government out of it.
 
	First you say let the schools decide, then you say leave the
	government out of it. Huh?

	Can the schools ignore the Constitution or not?

>    (even though most schools receive federal money,

	Moot point. The Constitution applies to local government every bit
	as much as it does to the Feds.

> I do not consider them
>    part of the government...

	Let's see. The Board of Education is an elected body. Their salaries
	and the salaries of every employee are funded through the payment
	of taxes by every homeowner that lives in the district. Failure
	to pay those taxes will result in a lien and eventual foreclosure
	on your property. The "tax sale" will be handled by the local
	Sheriff.

	So let's review. We have an elected group that can levy taxes, 
	spend tax dollars as they see fit, use the power of the state to
	take property away from those who do not comply and dispose of
	that property as they see fit. But you claim they are not part
	of the "government".

	What color is the sky in your world?

Jim

    <<< Note 33.401 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    I also support that communities decide what they wish to do in their
>    own schools.  I trust the community, unlike most (it seems).  

	So if the "community" decides that all the minorities have to
	sit in the back of the classroom, that'd be OK with you too?

Jim

I've started topic 228, SCotUS, for further discussion of the role and
value of the Supreme Court in this and other more generic matters.

-Jack

    
    I don't see how SCOTUS could rule for the school and be consistent.
    
    But that's because they were wrong in the first place.  Tha Bible
    is one of the basic books of Western Civ.  Reading from it is just
    an old-fashioned (and quite successful) way of teaching.  A daily
    reading from it, and from other great books by the way, ought to
    be allowed under the First.
    
      bb

    I have been trying to get a question or two answered about Preists and
    I hope some one here can help me out:
    
    1) Does a Preist wear a wedding band?
    
    2) If I an a professional exicutioner (killing people as decribed by
       the State) how does/would that be treated in the church?
    
    Thanks in advance.

>    1) Does a Priest wear a wedding band?

Some do to indicate their ordination.  Others do to indicate their marriage
to their wives.  (The Roman Catholic Church permits Eastern Rite priests to
be married when they are ordained as does the Eastern Orthodox Church; the
Polish National Catholic Church, Old Catholic Church, and the Anglican or
Episcopal Churches permit their priests to be married or to marry.)
    
>    2) If I an a professional executioner (killing people as decribed by
>       the State) how does/would that be treated in the church?

The church acknowledges the right of the state to execute people in extreme
cases; however, in practice it opposes the application of capital punishment.
If you, as executioner are carrying out a duly imposed sentence of death,
you have not violated any church law.

/john

    .407
    Thanks but I`m still confussed over the wedding band. You say, "some do
    to indicate their ordination" so then what is "ordination"?
    
    Again thanks in advance.

    	Ordination is not marriage, though parallels can be made.  Many
    	people look upon ordination as a priest's marriage to the Church.

Ordination is the process of being given the sacrament of Holy Orders, that
is, being made a deacon, priest, or bishop.

/john

| <<< Note 33.401 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

| >	The difference is that it's a waste of time.

| Your opinion is not in the majority according to polls (if you are talking 
| about prayer in schools).  

	I am.... now, who was polled? The parents or the kids who would
actually be doing the praying? I think the key is there. Because of course they
wouldn't poll the kids, as many aren't aware of what is involved yet. But of
those who they did poll, where were the polls done Steve? The Bible Belt? Out
in the boonies? The cities? East coast? West coast? Inbetween? Can you answer?

| >    You say you don't want
| >schools to talk about sex education, yet you want them to try and push
| >something like prayer in school?         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

| The underlined is a false assumption. I defend their right to pray if they 
| want to.  

	Prayer could be done anytime, anywhere. No special time put aside in
schools is needed. 

| I also support that communities decide what they wish to do in their own 
| schools.  

	I would rather have a community school that acknowledges EVERYONE and
not just the majority. I seem to think we might differ here...



Glen

    If you want your children to pray and be taught in accordance
    with your family's religious belief's there are many church-run
    schools for that purpose.  Many offer scholarships for students
    who cannot afford tuition.  Public schools are funded by tax dollars
    collected by all citizens.  To use those tax dollars to profer
    relgious beliefs which are not shared by the entire community
    is wrong.  Any type of prayer may be offensive to a child whose
    family does not believe in religion.  It is not our place to
    determine who is right and who is wrong.  I believe a community
    can be sensitive to parents belief systems (such as having alternate
    reading lists available in school libraries approved by area
    churches) without favoring one type of religious expression
    over another.
    
    RE:
    
    Allowing communities to act in the best interests of it's
    citizens:
    
    Don't bet on it - I live in Merrimack. :-)
    
    Mary-Michael

    	re .411
    
    	Actually I've seen several polls from various sources on this.
    	In the ojes I can remember, high school students have been
    	60%+ in favor of prayer in school or moments of silence.  Just
    	recently there was one in the Parade Magazine (Fresh Voices)
    	and an associated article about this.

    This is why kids aren't allowed to vote until they're 18....

| <<< Note 33.413 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| In the ojes I can remember, high school students have been 60%+ in favor of 
| prayer in school or moments of silence.  

	High school is = to 1st grade? BTW, where was the poll taken? Taking a
poll about religion in the Bible belt would hardly constitute reality for
everyone. I think a sample needs to be done from every state to get any kind of
accurate results of 60% of anything.

Glen

    Rarely do I get to see sucha bunch of claptrap from the left as I do
    when I hear or see discussions of religion.  I see all of the notes
    about not allowing prayer in school, in any way, shape or form, because
    someone might be offended.  But the fact that someone might be offended
    by sex ed, of historical revisionism, well, that's just tough.
    
    At least try to remain consistent.  If a minority might be offended by
    an activity and therefore it should be banned, then ban all activities
    that any minority objects to.
    
    We'll make it simple for you.  If a kid objects to sex ed, for whatever
    reason, embarrassment, etc, then following your logic it should not be
    taught in the schools.  If parents want their kids to know about sex
    they can teach them at home.  If they don't wnat to that's their
    choice.
    
    Oh, I can hear the yells already.  This isn't the same, etc, etc.  Well
    it is the same.  Also the silly assertion that the poll of kids was
    limited to the Bible Belt is quite a stretch.  Because this poll
    doesn't fit with your opinion, it must therefore be wrong in some
    fashion.  I am quite sure that it was done with the same exactitude as
    any other poll that you would prefer to quote.
    
    If you're going to criticize at least be consistent.
    

    >I see all of the notes about not allowing prayer in school, in any
    way, shape or form, because someone might be offended.  
    
    Talk about your historical revisionism.  Most of us object to state-
    sponsored religion because its unconstitutional, not because it might
    offend someone.
    
    DougO

    Who was it wanted me to point out Bircheristic stupidity?
    
    One guess which note I'd point out.
    
    DougO

    ...and what if the kid is not comfortable with a lesson plan and
    the teacher on history (let's say the teacher is Jewish)? do we
    assign the parent this task?
    
    Chip

| <<< Note 33.416 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>


| Rarely do I get to see sucha bunch of claptrap from the left as I do when I 
| hear or see discussions of religion. I see all of the notes about not allowing
| prayer in school, in any way, shape or form, because someone might be offended
| But the fact that someone might be offended by sex ed, of historical 
| revisionism, well, that's just tough.

	Should both things be taught at home? To be honest, yes. Is everyone of
the same religion? No. Is everyone religious? No. Will everyone want sex? Yeah.
Will everyone's parents teach their kids about the good and bad stuff about
sex? No. Will people die if they aren't taught to protect? Taught to wait until
a responsible age? Or taught to abstain? Yes. This is your difference. No one
will die if they don't pray in school. People will die if sex education isn't
taught in schools. In an ideal world all of this stuff would be done at home.
But right now there are too many kids out there who's parents could care less,
who's parents may have a hard time talking about sex, to not have something in
the schools. So consistancy is still there because there are different reasons
for having both. One could save lives, the other is a projection of some people
and their own religion onto children.

Glen

> No one will die if they don't pray in school.

But it will lead to the destruction of their immortal souls, Glen.



Oh - wait a minute - if they're immortal, then they can't be destroyed . . .

But . . .

| <<< Note 33.421 by 2582::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

| > No one will die if they don't pray in school.

| But it will lead to the destruction of their immortal souls, Glen.


	Prayer in school could only save those who are Christian. The others
will be labeled as going to hell.

    <---------
    
    Idjit...
    

                      <<< Note 33.416 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>

>I see all of the notes
>    about not allowing prayer in school, in any way, shape or form, because
>    someone might be offended.

	That is not the sum total of the arguments that have been presented.
	The issue of offense is merely a supporting argument showing the
	wisdom of the Constitutional prohibition against having the 
	government involved in sponsoring any religious activity.

Jim

RE:     <<< Note 33.422 by BIGQ::SILVA "Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box!" >>>



>	Prayer in school could only save those who are Christian. The others
>will be labeled as going to hell.


 Huh?

    
    <--------
    
    
     The Bible according to St. Glen...
    

    	I'd argue with you Glen, but there are so many inaccuracies
    	back there that it would be an overwhelming task.

	Cool, as I don't feel like bitchin with ya. 

	To clarify, anyone who is not Christian, ain't going to Heaven
according to most Christians I know. So prayer in this school is only gonna do
good for those who are Christian, Right?


Glen

    glen,
    
    mebbe they are planning on converting my little witches, never can
    tell.
    
    meg

>    mebbe they are planning on converting my little witches, never can
>    tell.

Jesus told us to try, and we are obedient to him.

/john

| <<< Note 33.430 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| >    mebbe they are planning on converting my little witches, never can
| >    tell.

| Jesus told us to try, and we are obedient to him.

	Thanks for summing up what I said John. 


Glen

    Sir, does this mean you hear voices?

>    Sir, does this mean you hear voices?

No.  This means that I keep a solemn vow to continue in the apostle's
teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers,
and to proclaim the Good News of God in Christ.

/john

    Have you, John, ever concidered priesthood? I`m not CAtholic but I
    think you would make a fine Priest. (This is without smilies.)
    

And if you're attempting to convert others to your faith or beliefs
in a public school you deserve to have the britches sued off you and
your church.

    
    absurd.  the school attempts and succeeds in converting students to its
    beliefs quite well without so much as a whimper from religious folks,
    usually.  
    
    but times are changing for the better in that religious people are
    asserting themselves again.  we can expect more lawsuits against the 
    schools.
    
    jeff

	Yer right Jack. It does lead us back to what the intent is for prayer
in schools. Perceived Christian nation, so is it to push Christianity? What
other reason could there be?

| <<< Note 33.436 by USAT05::BENSON >>>


| absurd.  the school attempts and succeeds in converting students to its 
| beliefs quite well without so much as a whimper from religious folks, usually.

	I guess if ya view this as a problem, then it might mean that you
should either be more involved, or stop whining.

> we can expect more lawsuits against the schools.

What do you expect the basis for these suits to be? (Serious question -
Perhaps I agree.)

Public Schools are no place for the dissemination of beliefs which
promote a particular church, religion or diety. Attempts to do so
will clearly be litigious.

I have no quarrels with a moment of silence. I have a lot of problems
with anything which gets anymore explicit than that. Everyone doesn't
share your (that's the generic "your") views and ideology. An institution
funded by public tax dollars is no place to be attempting to ram it down
the throats of others.

And check your statistics before you go off assuming that the USofA
is beginning to join the ranks of your christian soldiers en masse.
You may be surprised at what you find. It's like Rush was saying the
other day, in actuality, only 18% of Americans elected Slick.

    re: .437
    
    Oh, I don't know...freedom of religion, maybe? (it's in the First
    Amendment, you know).

    re: .439
    
    You may be wrong (regarding Christian soldiers).  By far, the largest
    voting block last November was evangelical Christians (30-something %).
    
    Of course, since I heard this on a Christian radio station, it must be
    false ( I believe the % was 33 or 35).  Compare this to the black,
    Jewish, and gay vote (which is heavily sought after by rep's) which
    combined for 9%.
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 33.440 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


| Oh, I don't know...freedom of religion, maybe? (it's in the First
| Amendment, you know).

	Ain't that ONE religion Steve? BTW, I saw ya on tv last night. Glad to
see you're working on your game so when the hockey season starts you'll be
ready.

	You're right, if it's on Christian radio, it's always wrong. :-)

9% of voters are gay black Jews?  It boggles the mind.

    I think he meant 9% of those who voted in the last election.  Since
    only 39% of the eligible voters excercised their right in novemeber all
    the information proves is that the EC's managed to get their EV's out.  
    
    meg

    re: .444
    
    8^)

>    Have you, John, ever concidered priesthood? I`m not Catholic but I
>    think you would make a fine Priest. (This is without smilies.)

To become an Episcopal priest, I would have to move to a more conservative
part of the country; the Commission on Ministry in Boston would never
approve my postulancy.  You see, I don't think there is any such thing as
a woman priest or bishop.  And although the General Convention has affirmed
that I hold a "recognized theological position" within the Church, the
Diocese of Massachusetts is notoriously politically correct.

I could consider the Polish National Catholic Church, but I don't speak
Polish.  That may not be a requirement anymore, though.

Being married, the Roman Catholic priesthood is right out unless I were to
be ordained by the Episcopal Church or the Polish National Catholic Church
first.  The option of moving to the East (Lebanon or the Ukraine or Egypt or
other places where Roman Catholic priests are married) doesn't exist.

/john

>And if you're attempting to convert others to your faith or beliefs
>in a public school you deserve to have the britches sued off you and
>your church.

Only if I'm an employee of the state.

Otherwise, preventing me (as a student, for example) from exercising my
religion, which requires me to share the Good News in Christ, violates my
1st Amendment rights.

/john

Well, the kiddies converting the kiddies isn't a concern on anyone's
part, I wouldn't think.
Thankfuly most kiddies aren't indoctrinated one way or the other to
the extent that they have much in the way of convictions along these
lines.
Be they more than kiddies (say, HS students), I think they'd get a
"run for their money" with a few savvy kiddies of other persuasions
who felt that their own rights were being violated.

    .347
    John,
    Why just Catholic? I`m sure there are other churches out there that
    would welcome you in. Beleive it or not I almost became a minister but
    me church (Presbyterian) didn`t think I had the "calling" so there for
    they wouldn`t sponser me. I think if you have that "calling" within you
    then you would find a way to deliver. You and I will never agree on
    everything but I like the way you approch the subject.
    
    Ray

    Well, I was wondering who was going to come up with the "kids will die"
    argument if you don't teach them sex in school.  Your argument is lame. 
    the children belong to their parents not the state.  Parents can
    execise their right to raise their children as they see fit.  If they
    beleive that issues are to be taught at home at the appropriate time,
    that is their decision.
    
    But, following your argument, what if parents felt that having a
    strongly religious environment in the schools would support their
    teachings about sex.  this would then suuport their efforts and make
    the teaching of sex-ed in schools unneccessary.
    
    Once again, you prove that the issue is not what is the appropriate
    things and values to instill in children, but what is the path of least
    resisitence.
    
    Schools are set up to teach children the basic requirements of an
    educated population.  This includes the, literally, the three "Rs". 
    You may extend these to higher levels as kids go through the schools,
    but any item not related to the basic education is inappropriate for
    schools.  this is regardless of what you think, or for that matter,
    what I think.
    
    Also, you might be interested that some schools prohibit the wearing of
    a religious T-shirt to school, but allow any other.  Does this seem
    strange.
    

| <<< Note 33.451 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>

| -< Check this. >-

	I did... what a waste.

| Well, I was wondering who was going to come up with the "kids will die"
| argument if you don't teach them sex in school.  Your argument is lame.
| the children belong to their parents not the state.  Parents can
| execise their right to raise their children as they see fit.  If they
| beleive that issues are to be taught at home at the appropriate time,
| that is their decision.

	So, when a child, at whatever age, commits murder, we should really go
after the parents, as obviously it had to of been their fault. You see, the
difference is with religion, it affects those involved, PERIOD. With sex, one
person could kill a lot of people, cause many diseases to travel along, get or
get others pregnant. Knowing about what could happen could save lives. There is
your difference. 

| But, following your argument, what if parents felt that having a strongly 
| religious environment in the schools would support their teachings about sex.

	Ya gotta have consitency. Look at the test scores of one school, then
compare it to another. Will they be close? Maybe. Could there be a vast
difference? Yup. Why is that? Could the consitency of teaching/teachers from 
school to school be a factor? Yup.

| Also, you might be interested that some schools prohibit the wearing of
| a religious T-shirt to school, but allow any other.  Does this seem strange.

	It helps back the non-consistancy thing I was talking about. Thanks!


Glen

    <----  Sorry, but your argument is still as weak as it always has been. 
    Strong personal morals are one of the best ways to insure that the
    diseases, pregnancies, etc are avoided.  the sex-ed route that you
    propose, and this country has followed for the last couple of decades,
    has led to the problem you claim sex-ed will eliminate.
    
    the best way to develop strong morals are at home and have them
    REINFORCED at school, through the media, etc.  I assume there are
    different ways to establish a strong moral character, but one of the
    best and surest is a serious religious foundation.
    
    The cure you propose has caused the illness and the solution you
    demonize may just be the answer.  Your way has been a disaster, what's
    wrong with another way?  Maybe it just might work.
    

    Re: .453
    
    >the best way to develop strong morals are at home and have them
    >REINFORCED at school, through the media, etc.
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Ah, so school prayer is just the first step.  Next we get government
    control of the media.  You shouldn't have tipped your hand so soon.
    
    I'm sure all the little Jewish and Muslim kids will have their morals 
    thoroughly reinforced by appeals to Jesus Christ.  The Hindi and
    Buddhists are Godless, anyway, so _any_ exposure to Christian prayer
    can only improve their moral fiber.

    	That was an unfair interpretation you made there, Chelsea, and
    	I suspect that you knew that and deliberately entered it anyway.
    
    	If I might be so bold as to speak for him, I suspect he was
    	thinking of a scenario such as this:
    
    	At home the child is taught that sex is to be reserved for
    	marriage.  (An example of morals taught at home.)  What he 
    	would now like from the school to reinforce what was taught
    	at home would be the same message, and the absence of
    	counter-moral messages such as, "Here is a condom if you
    	choose to do it anyway."  From the media it would be nice
    	to get similar reinforcement of that message by not glorifying
    	teenage characters who "choose to do it."
    
    	There is nothing in here about any one religion forcing prayer
    	in schools and over the media.
    
    	We (at least I) expect better from you.

    Re: 454
    
    Your reply was incredibly disingenuous.  As was stated in the prior
    note, nowhere did I indicate that any particular activity should be
    forced by the schools.  My note was a follow up to my prior posting
    about the role of schools.  You, and others, claim that certain items
    should not be part of school instruction, and particularly prayer or
    any religious teaching of any sort.  All other aspects of life are OK. 
    My point was that if you think religion should be taught at home and is
    the responsibility of parents, then schools should support those
    efforts and not work contrary to the parents efforts.  This apparently
    is not acceptable to you.
    
    You seem to think that it is OK for a school to mandate instruction in
    areas that many parents feel the school is inadequate, or is teaching
    contrary to their morals and values.  If religion is to be off-limits,
    then the other areas should be treated the same.  Schools should stick
    with what they do best, or have historically done, and that is
    education in basic skills.
    
    as far as your lame attemp to imply that I was advocating a take over
    of the media, your equally wrong.  My point was that the media should
    exercise more responsibility in what it treats as news and the light in
    which it is presented.
    
    Lastly, your reference to other religious groups is also incorrect.  As
    I stated in a prior note, I personally, would like to see schools
    present all religions in a positive and inclusive light.  I would like
    to see all religions represented with the intent being that it is OK to
    be religious, that it is OK to express your beliefs and you are
    accepted and your beliefs have value.  this is done by inclusion not
    exclusion.
    
    In the future please respond rationally and not taking things totally
    out of context.  If you are unable to intellectually support your
    position, perhaps you need to look at what your position is.
    

                      <<< Note 33.453 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>

>the sex-ed route that you
>    propose, and this country has followed for the last couple of decades,
>    has led to the problem you claim sex-ed will eliminate.
 
	I think that you will have a very hard time backing up this 
	assertion. THe more complete and more explicit sex-ed 
	curricula was in RESPONSE to the problems you cite. THe fact
	that this approach has not been successful is what should be
	examined. But it is certainly NOT the cause of the problem.

Jim

    Re: 457
    
    Excuse me, but I think you are all wet in your assertion.  Let's look
    at one simple, verifiable statistic - births out of wedlock.  Look at
    the figures for any decade prior to 1960 and what was the % of unwed
    births.  then look at how those rates have changed.
    
    NO wplease tell me how you think that there is no correclation between
    the stupid idea of teaching "how-to" has not a negative impact on these
    figures.
    
    Keep in mind that the mindless sex-ed courses are not the only reason
    for these increases, but they represent a significant part of it. 
    Also, I wonder if the refusal to reach morals, values, standards, etc
    in schools and the emphasis on sex-ed may have been part.  Nah, I'm
    sure it's not.
    

                      <<< Note 33.458 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>

>    Excuse me, but I think you are all wet in your assertion.  Let's look
>    at one simple, verifiable statistic - births out of wedlock.  Look at
>    the figures for any decade prior to 1960 and what was the % of unwed
>    births.  then look at how those rates have changed.
 
	The rates have changed, there is no doubt.

>    NO wplease tell me how you think that there is no correclation between
>    the stupid idea of teaching "how-to" has not a negative impact on these
>    figures.
 
	Easy. Look at when the change in pregnancy rates started. Then look
	at when the change in sex-ed occurred. The change in sex-ed was in
	RESPONSE to the increasing problem of teenage pregnancy. Sex-ed
	as we have it today it the EFFECT, not the cause. 

	Once you look at the sequence of events it's fairly easy to show 
	that your assertion is false. Failing to acknowledge this sequence
	is simply dishonest.

Jim

    The "cause" has always been around.  The "effect" has always been there
    as well.  The "cure", however, arguably makes the "effect" worse.
    
    -steve

    >The "cure", however, arguably makes the "effect" worse.
                  
    You have been 'arguably' pushing this simplistic notion in womannotes
    for the past week or so, but the evidence to the contrary, such as the
    experience of far more comprehensive and responsible sex-ed in the
    Netherlands leading to the western worlds lowest teen birth rate blows
    your 'arguable' argument to shreds.  Your argument fails to convince
    when the evidence is so completely opposite.
    
    DougO

    <<< Note 33.460 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

>    The "cause" has always been around.  The "effect" has always been there
>    as well.  The "cure", however, arguably makes the "effect" worse.
 
	Arguably being the operative word in that statement.

Jim

    Re: .455
    
    >That was an unfair interpretation you made there, Chelsea
    
    It's called satire.

    Re: .456
    
    >nowhere did I indicate that any particular activity should be
    >forced by the schools
    
    Nowhere did I say that you had.  You argued for school prayer, I
    assumed school prayer.
    
    >any religious teaching of any sort
    
    No, I haven't claimed that.  I think children should be introduced to
    the tenets of major world religions.
    
    >All other aspects of life are OK. 
    
    No, I've never claimed that.
    
    >then schools should support those efforts and not work contrary to the 
    >parents efforts.
    
    How?  You're assuming a uniformity in the parents' efforts.  If the
    work of individual parents is contrary to each other, then who is the
    school supposed to support?  You're leaving the school in a very
    impractical position.
    
    >that is education in basic skills.
    
    Basic skills?  In grades 1-3, perhaps, but after that, they better
    start dealing with some more advanced stuff.  Basic skills might get
    you a job flipping burgers, but not much more than that.
    
    >I was advocating a take over of the media
    
    Well, you were advocating a takeover of the schools....
    
    >this is done by inclusion not exclusion.
    
    So how do you construct an all-inclusive school prayer?  Do Hindu and
    Buddhist kids even believe in a single Creator?  Do Buddhists pray? 
    Who do they pray to?  Religion is inherently divisive, because it
    requires people to hold beliefs in contradiction of other people's 
    beliefs.  If there were no contradictions, we wouldn't have multiple 
    religion.
    
    >not taking things totally out of context
    
    Oh, no, I stayed in context -- it was more fun that way.

    Well, DougO, you can bring up the Netherlands all you like.  As I've
    been trying to get across (in =wn=) for the past week, the Netherlands
    is NOT the US.  Simply saying that because it works THERE, that it will
    work HERE, without taking socialogical/mental/moral differnces into the
    equation, simply means more liberal social experimentation.
    
    Since more liberal  sex-ed in schools has not proven effective HERE,
    and have arguably made matters worse, you may find that your solution
    of further pushing the envolope of our historic morality will not work.
    What happens then?
    
    But, it's the same old...ignore the positive things that have
    historically worked to keep social ills to a minimum, and continually
    push the moral evelope because we just haven't ripped out enough of our
    moral structure yet.  
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 33.453 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>

| <----  Sorry, but your argument is still as weak as it always has been.
| Strong personal morals are one of the best ways to insure that the
| diseases, pregnancies, etc are avoided.  

	I've been saying you are correct on this. But it ain't happening, and
it has to happen from the home. School is not the place. If it is, then it
should be at a religious school, not a school that deals with different
religions, some non-religious. Morals need not be from a Christian background. 

| the sex-ed route that you propose, and this country has followed for the last 
| couple of decades, has led to the problem you claim sex-ed will eliminate.

	No, the lack of a family unit has done that. 

| the best way to develop strong morals are at home and have them REINFORCED at 
| school, 

	NO! Not when schools deal with MANY different religions. Your way only
allows ONE version of it all to come through. Sorry, the world ain't built that
way. So lets deal with realities and not just one portion.


Glen

| <<< Note 33.456 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>


| Lastly, your reference to other religious groups is also incorrect.  As
| I stated in a prior note, I personally, would like to see schools
| present all religions in a positive and inclusive light.  I would like
| to see all religions represented with the intent being that it is OK to
| be religious, that it is OK to express your beliefs and you are
| accepted and your beliefs have value.  this is done by inclusion not
| exclusion.

	Ahhh... so it just isn't school prayer, it's more than that. Unless one
day the kiddies pray to God, Muhammid the next day... Buddah the day after
that... sorry, school is to learn, not to pray. They have many places to pray
if you want to be formal about it, and everywhere if ya just want to drop a
line. No special time is needed, and the power/use of prayer would be taught
from the family at home. The FAMILY.



Glen

| <<< Note 33.458 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>



| Excuse me, but I think you are all wet in your assertion.  Let's look
| at one simple, verifiable statistic - births out of wedlock.  

	Out of the births out of wedlock, how many of those people went through
a sex education class?


Glen

    	re .463
    
    	I guess my satire-meter was off kilter yesterday.  Sorry.

    RE .451
    
    You say schools are only set up to teach the three R's. Well I will
    agree with that to a point but science (computers, biology
    physics,chemistry ect) is not an 'R per say. If you don't feel science
    should be taught in school then I must say I dissagree. And with sex
    ed, if you stick to the biological side of it, it's science and I feel
    it is appropriate to teach in school. If they start teaching morals
    along with it, then it does not belong in school. IMO
    
    
    								S.R.

>    You say schools are only set up to teach the three R's. Well I will
>    agree with that to a point but science (computers, biology
>    physics,chemistry ect) is not an 'R per say. 
    
    	"The three R's" is a catch-phrase for traditional education.
    	It would include science, and history, and geography, etc.
    	I don't suspect that anyone is really saying that science
    	should be excluded at all.  The suggestion (that anyone IS
    	saying that) deserves to be relegated to the leg-pulling category.
    
>    If they start teaching morals
>    along with it, then it does not belong in school. IMO
    
    	I guess you realize that many people believe that what is 
    	happening today is the teaching of COUNTER-morals.  Do you
    	think THAT belongs in schools?

    
<----
    
>    	"The three R's" is a catch-phrase for traditional education.
>    	It would include science, and history, and geography, etc.
>    	I don't suspect that anyone is really saying that science
>    	should be excluded at all.  The suggestion (that anyone IS
>    	saying that) deserves to be relegated to the leg-pulling category.
 
         I realize what the three R's stand for. I was trying to indicate
    why I felt sex ed belonged in the three R's.

>    	I guess you realize that many people believe that what is 
>    	happening today is the teaching of COUNTER-morals.  Do you
>    	think THAT belongs in schools?
    
    
        No. I don't feel that schools should teach a moral code. That is 
    up to the parents. I do feel they should include an overview of
    contraceptives however. If you feel that that is condoning sex or
    teaching counter morals then I have to disagree with you. The devices
    exist and the knowledge could be helpful to the kids so I believe that
    should be covered along with the biological aspects. I don't think a
    big fuss should be made over them nor a moral code implied.
    
    	On the other hand, if You (generic you) wanted to structure sex ed
    as an additional classe, for wich participation was not mandatory, I
    would have no problem with that. That would allow parents who really
    objected to keep there kids out of those classes. I also would have no
    objection if the wanted to have a seperate religious class with
    voluntary participation. Of course, in that case, I feel that the
    school would be obligated to provide one for all religions represented
    in the school that wished to have one.
    
    
    
    								S.R.
    
    
    

RE: 33.471 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

>> You say schools are only set up to teach the three R's. Well I will
>> agree with that to a point but science (computers, biology
>> physics,chemistry ect) is not an 'R per say. 
    
> "The three R's" is a catch-phrase for traditional education.
> It would include science, and history, and geography, etc.
> I don't suspect that anyone is really saying that science
> should be excluded at all.  The suggestion (that anyone IS
> saying that) deserves to be relegated to the leg-pulling category.

Oh?  Teaching biology often gets the "Bible is the literal word of god"
crowd upset,  as does many parts of astronomy,  chemistry,  physics, 
Computer Science,  etc.


Phil

    .473> Teaching biology often gets the "Bible is the literal word of
    god" crowd upset,  as does many parts of astronomy,  chemistry, 
    physics, Computer Science,  etc.
    
    ... I can't for the life of me imagine what in Computer Science might
    upset anyone in the "BitlWoG" crowd...  Please elucidate?  Tnx!
    
    (Recursion?)
    

RE: 33.474 by LJSRV2::KALIKOW "UNISYS: ``Beware .GIFt horses!''"

> I can't for the life of me imagine what in Computer Science might upset 
> anyone in the "BitlWoG" crowd

You might come to a Merrimack,  New Hampshire School board meeting and see
for yourself.  The subject Tuesday night (17-Jan-1995) at 7:30 PM is 
"Scientific Creationism" for biology class,  and the meeting will be filmed 
by CBS News.  "KidsNet",  a service of the National Geographic Society,  and 
some hardware to access it got killed last meeting for moral reasons.


Phil

                   Oxymoron Alert!  Run away, run AWAYYYY!!!

RE: 33.476 by LJSRV2::KALIKOW "UNISYS: ``Beware .GIFt horses!''"

> Oxymoron Alert!  Run away, run AWAYYYY!!!

Can't.  


Phil

	.473
        
>me:> I don't suspect that anyone is really saying that science
>> should be excluded at all.  
>
>Oh?  Teaching biology often gets the "Bible is the literal word of god"
>crowd upset,  as does many parts of astronomy,  chemistry,  physics, 
>Computer Science,  etc.

    	I was not clear in what I said.  I meant to say nobody HERE is
    	saying that sience should be excluded.
    
    	So big deal.  You found a nice nest of fanatics.  I can find
    	you a counter example of Elders-eque groupies.  It doesn't 
    	mean that either are representative of any significant viewpoint.
    
    
    	.475

>> I can't for the life of me imagine what in Computer Science might upset 
>> anyone in the "BitlWoG" crowd
>
>You might come to a Merrimack,  New Hampshire School board meeting and see
>for yourself.  The subject Tuesday night (17-Jan-1995) at 7:30 PM is 
>"Scientific Creationism" for biology class,  
    
    	What does that have to do with Comouter Science?

	.472    
    
>    I do feel they should include an overview of
>    contraceptives however. If you feel that that is condoning sex or
>    teaching counter morals then I have to disagree with you. The devices
>    exist and the knowledge could be helpful to the kids so I believe that
>    should be covered along with the biological aspects. I don't think a
>    big fuss should be made over them nor a moral code implied.
    
    	To some, contraceptives in general are counter-moral.  Yes, we
    	disagree.
    
    	Just because "the devices exist" is not a sufficient reason
    	to "teach" about them in the classroom.  Drugs exist.  Alcohol.
    	Tobacco.  As with sex, these things, if used, should be used
    	by adults.  Should we also teach bartender science in the
    	schools?  Syringe sterilization?  Roach rolling?
    
    	"But kids are going to 'do it' anyway, so they should be
    	prepared!"  Well, kids are going to experiment with drugs,
    	alcohol and tobacco too, so by that logic these "devices"
    	should also be taught.
    
    	I like your ideas about elective classes.

    
        >Just because "the devices exist" is not a sufficient reason
    	>to "teach" about them in the classroom.  Drugs exist.  Alcohol.
    	>Tobacco.  As with sex, these things, if used, should be used
    	>by adults.  
    
    A couple of things.  First of all, *I* learned about various birth
    control devices in 9th grade biology class.  The emphasis was on how
    they worked (and how they often DIDN'T work).  The same approach was
    taken on drugs, alcohol, and tobacco - purely information.  Didn't turn
    me into a druggie, drunk, smoker, or sexfiend.  In fact, hearing all
    the failure rates and bla bla bla of birth control and pregnancy put me 
    RIGHT off the concept of rogering for quite a few years 8^).
    
    Secondly, drugs are illegal for everyone; alcohol and tobacco legal
    only for adults.  Is sex legal for adults only?  (This is a serious
    question.)  Perhaps the ubiquitous they should legislate against sex by
    minors, if not.  Just a thought 8^).
    
    
        >Should we also teach bartender science in the
    	>schools?  Syringe sterilization?  Roach rolling?
                     
    That's kind of silly, Joe.

>    That's kind of silly, Joe.
    
    	Precisely!  I entered it to show how silly I view the logic
    	that led me to the statement.

    
    When exactly DO you think that people should learn about birth control? 
    I don't mean what my mother or friends could have told me; I mean the 
    cold hard facts.

RE: 33.478 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

> I was not clear in what I said.  I meant to say nobody HERE is saying that 
> sience should be excluded.

Did you bother to follow the Evolution debate in the last soapbox?


>>You might come to a Merrimack,  New Hampshire School board meeting and see
>>for yourself.  The subject Tuesday night (17-Jan-1995) at 7:30 PM is 
>>"Scientific Creationism" for biology class,  
    
> What does that have to do with Comouter Science?

"Scientific Creationism" comes in assorted flavors,  some of which require
that computer programs can never evolve.  


Phil

| <<< Note 33.482 by POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Oral Exploits" >>>


| I mean the cold hard facts.

	Deb.... it shouldn't be cold if it's ha.... never mind...

    They should teach it in Sunday School.
    
    "Yes Joey, babies come from under cabage leaves"

    	re .482
    
    >    When exactly DO you think that people should learn about birth control?
    >    I don't mean what my mother or friends could have told me; 
    
    	Why do you discount parents teaching the kids?
    
    	Where did our parents learn about it?  Where did I learn about it?
    	I didn't have any sex education in school.  (Perhaps that's why
    	I better able to consider the teachings of my Church.   Hmmm.)

	.483
    
>> I was not clear in what I said.  I meant to say nobody HERE is saying that 
>> science should be excluded.
>
Did you bother to follow the Evolution debate in the last soapbox?
    
    	No, not really.  So who said that science should be excluded?

    
    Well, Joe, it's like anything else that you learn from your parents or
    that you teach to your children.  It's most likely different for you,
    being a homeschooler.
    
    I wouldn't have gotten a complete and thorough education of, say, 
    calculus or British history from either of my parents.  Nor would I
    have gotten the same amount of factual information on birth control.
    I didn't have sex education per se; I had biology class that spent one
    unit focused on reproduction, and birth control was part of the unit,
    as were diseases, etc.  I learned what all the methods were, why they
    worked, how they worked, when they worked, when they didn't and what
    happened if they failed.  It was presented as pure factual information
    as part of the reproductive unit.  I did not rush out and start having
    sex after learning how to prevent pregnancy.  Cripes, I didn't start 
    having sex at all for another 8 years or so.
    
    I don't see why contraception is such a troubling thing if it is taught
    as straight information just like math, English, bla bla bla.

    
    
     I wonder what the uproar would be if they attempted mandatory teaching
    of contraception to welfare mothers...

    	.488
    
>    I don't see why contraception is such a troubling thing if it is taught
>    as straight information just like math, English, bla bla bla.
    
    	Actually, Ms. Chambers :^)
    
    	I don't want to give the impression that I don't want the
    	biology of reproduction and contraception taught.  Someone
    	will try to take such a position and extrapolate it to
    	college and medical school too!
    
    	No, there is really nothing wrong with teaching the biological
    	facts of it.  But that's not what's being pushed today.  Today
    	the message is, "This is what you need to do to protect yourself,
    	and here's a condom for each of you."

    re: Note 33.489 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI

    Believe me, in some cases, something should be done. What will happen
    is that there will eventually be no more welfare period.

    re .479
    
    	I'm glad you liked my ideas for elective classes. At least we agree
    on something. I  wish some Pols would start considering it as it might
    be a workable solution. Parents who really objected could keep there
    kids from enrolling. Problem seems to be a lot of people (and pols)
    take an all or nothing point of view.
    
    
    								S.R.

    >>Today the message is, "This is what you need to do to protect
    >>yourself, and here's a condom for each of you."
    
    Not that *I've* looked at an actual class curriculum, but I sure do
    think that YOU haven't!!! :-)
    

    I heard yesterday that Cardinal O'Conner will have to retire now that
    he has reached his 75th birthday (no great loss imo) but where does he
    go. Seems pretty silly to me to put him out to pasture. He certainly
    doesn`t look 75 to me.

    
    
    The Catholic church requires a letter of resignation of all cardinals
    reaching the age of 75. This does not mean that it's mandatory or that
    the pope will accept the resignation...

>    The Catholic church requires a letter of resignation of all cardinals
>    reaching the age of 75.

Of all bishops, actually.

>This does not mean that it's mandatory or that the pope will accept the
>resignation...

Since Cardinal O'Connor is in good health, he will certainly not be required
to step down for at least a couple of years.

Even after he steps down, he will remain a bishop (though without a diocese)
as well as a full member of the college of cardinals.

/john

    If the Pope accepts it (which they say he will) what happens to him?
    The Pope said it would take him a year to find a new one. Is the Pope a
    life time position or is he required to step down?

The Bishop of Rome presumably also is required to submit a resignation to
himself, which he can then choose not to accept...

/john

>    If the Pope accepts it (which they say he will) what happens to him?

According to an AP article in this morning's paper, church officials said
that PJPII "will not immediately accept his resignation and that O'Connor
will remain in office well beyond his birthday."

seperated

                                    snarf

A New York statute requires any Orthodox Jewish man seeking a civil divorce
to give his wife a "get" -- a religious divorce.  Without a "get", religious
law does not permit the wife to remarry.

Civil libertarians have attacked the statute as unconstitutional, claiming
that the barriers to remarriage erected by religious law (the Orthodox
wife cannot remarry without the "get") only exist in the minds of those
who believe in the religion.

/john

    John (Covert),
    I hope I might call you John? Did you get a chance to watch 60 minutes
    last night (Sunday)? The last segment was on the Catholic Church. They,
    Church drop outs, were saying that they are arrox 27 million people in
    the U. S. that have droped out of the church.
    
    You also (it could have been someone else) said that the Church
    recognizes [sic] state executions? If thats the case then what about
    the person being executed? and why doesn`t the church recognize
    abortion. To me there is no concistancy in their beliefs. How can you
    (or them) not recognize both?
    
    If you want to take this off line thats ok to...I`m just a little
    confused.
    
    Thanks John.

| <<< Note 33.502 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| that the barriers to remarriage erected by religious law 

	Since when does religious law have anything to do with things being
erected?

Mods moved previous reply here; they must think this is the death penalty
topic.

While the Church agrees that the state has the authority to punish criminals,
and that the state may even have the authority to execute in the case of
certain particularly terrible crimes, the National Council of Catholic
Bishops in the United States and in many other countries believe that there
is no justification for capital punishment in modern society and oppose the
use of it.  (I've explained this before; maybe you missed it.)

I oppose capital punishment.

There is no comparison with abortion.  Abortion is the killing of an innocent
unborn child who has committed no crime.

/john

	So then don't talk Andy...

    Re: .505
    
    >there is no justification for capital punishment
    
    But to hear some of 'em talk, there is justification for homicide.  You 
    can't kill people for what they've done, but you can kill them for what 
    they're going to do....

    
    re: .507
    
    
    Another original comeback!!!!
    
    Where oh where do you come up with this original material???

| <<< Note 33.509 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>


| -< Truth hurts... don't it? >-

	Maybe you'll let us know....

| Another original comeback!!!! Where oh where do you come up with this original
| material???

	I figure I should respond on the same level that you are. What's the
matter, I'm still too mature to match your witt?

	.508
        
>    >there is no justification for capital punishment
>    
>    But to hear some of 'em talk, there is justification for homicide.  You 
>    can't kill people for what they've done, but you can kill them for what 
>    they're going to do....
    
    	Chelsea.  Very unprofessional of you!  Can you honestly say that
    	you've heard ANY Bishop of the United states support the slanderous
    	remark you've made!  Shame on you!!!!!
    
    	Let me remind you of the full quote that you butchered:
    
.505> the National Council of Catholic
>Bishops in the United States and in many other countries believe that there
>is no justification for capital punishment in modern society and oppose the
>use of it.  

    
    RE: .510
    
    In your dreams...
    
    

    Re: .511
    
    >Very unprofessional of you!
    
    Oh, like all of a sudden I'm a journalist now.
    
    >ANY Bishop of the United states support the slanderous remark
    
    I think it was a cardinal, actually.

| <<< Note 33.512 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>


| In your dreams...

	Like the song says... "Dreams can come true...."

    
    ...it can happen to you
    if you're young at heart...

.515>    I think it was a cardinal, actually.
    
    	So now we've gone from "them" to him.
    
    	Name him.

Yes, name him.

    This is based on a dinner conversation; it was either Cardinal O'Connor
    or Cardinal Law (?), but I wasn't paying that much attention.

>>    This is based on a dinner conversation; it was either Cardinal O'Connor
>>    or Cardinal Law (?), but I wasn't paying that much attention.

	yeah, I have trouble concentrating when I'm dining with Cardinals too.
	Too busy watching them make funny shapes out of their fishsticks and
	such.

    I can`t even get past their hats...

Was suet on the menu?

    You mean like in lieu of a loo?

            <<< Note 33.519 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>


>	yeah, I have trouble concentrating when I'm dining with Cardinals too.
>	Too busy watching them make funny shapes out of their fishsticks and
>	such.

	But no matter how carefully you watch, you can never catch them
	turning their 4 piece portion of fishsticks into 8 pieces. ;-)

Jim

They know how to make water from wine.  They do even better with beer.

>    You mean like in lieu of a loo?

Better in lieu of a loo than in lee of a loo.

/john

In NYS, they refer to certain legislative perqs as "lulus" because they're in
lieu of something-or-other.

Suffolk County Superior Court has issued a Temporary Restraining Order
and a Preliminary Injunction Order in a matter of the authority of the
Diocese and Bishop of Massachusetts to order the election of a parish
council (vestry) by the entire parish congregation:

In the Injunction:
   The Diocese of Massachusetts; Bishop Thomas Shaw; ...; and any others
   acting on their behalf ... ARE HEREBY ENJOINED FROM:

In the Restraining order:
   The defendants ... John Covert; ... and any other persons ...
   ARE HEREBY ENJOINED FROM:

	(i) convening, calling or otherwise causing to be held a
	    meeting at the Church of the Advent or elsewhere for
	    the purpose of electing vestry members, wardens, or
	    other officers of the Parish of the Advent including
	    the January 29 meeting now scheduled [by the Bishop
	    in paragraph 2 of his judgment] for that purpose;

       (ii) taking any steps to end the terms of current vestry members,
	    wardens or other officers of the parish of the Advent
	    prior to the expiration of those terms as provided in the
	    Constitution and By-laws of the Corporation;

      (iii) attempting to enforce, act on or otherwise carry out the
	    provisions of paragraphs 1-6 of the [Bishop's] judgment.

Separation of Church and State??

Paragraph 2 of the Bishop's judgment:

   The entire Vestry will end its term at a Congregation meeting to be
   held on January 29, 1995.  ...  At this meeting a new Vestry including
   Wardens, Clerk, Treasurer, and other necessary officers will be elected
   from the congregation and by the congregation.  The Corporation will
   not appoint or elect such leadership.  All of this will be in line with
   Diocesan model by-laws.  ...  Current vestry members may run for
   re-election, including Corporation members.

The "Corporation" is a self-perpetuating, self-electing Board of Trustees,
with a constitution which begins, in Article I:

   The name of this corporation shall be the "Parish of the Advent"; and its
   objects are to secure to a portion of the City of Boston the ministrations
   of the Holy Catholic Church, and more especially to secure the same to the
   poor and needy, in a manner free from unnecessary expense and all ungracious
   circumstances; and for this purpose this Parish accedes to the Doctrine,
   Discipline and Worship and the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant
   Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and to the Constitution
   and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, and
   acknowledges their authority.

/john

The other paragraphs of the Bishop's judgment which the Court has enjoined
from going into effect are:

	1. Formation of a Nominating Committee to draw up a slate of
	   candidates for a new Vestry.  [This was completed before
	   the court order.]
	2. See previous note.
	3. Vestry will put a review process into place which will produce
	   annual reviews of the performance of both the vestry and the
	   rector towards the goals and mission of the parish.
	4. Diocesan oversight process remains in effect for at least two years.
	   This will provide for diocesan involvement in at least the first
	   two reviews under the new vestry.  Parish will pay for a consultant
	   during this time.
	5. New bylaws will be created.  The bylaws will not limit the
	   congregation's ability to function in the Anglo-Catholic
	   tradition which is the parish's heritage.
	6. The bylaws will give consideration to the future role of
	   the Corporation.  The Vestry will do this in consultation with
	   the Corporation, the Bishop, and the Chancellor of the Diocese.
	   Real and personal property of the Parish of the Advent remains
	   held by the Corporation "in accordance with the National Church
	   and Diocesan Canons in trust for the Church and this Diocese."

    So, they see you as the enemy here?

>    So, they see you as the enemy here?

I have made no secret that I support the traditional absolute authority of
the Bishop over the entire local Church in matters of parish governance.

/john

    And your belief is a precept of the church itself?  And they are going
    against it?

re .532

My opinions are not important here.  The Standing Committee of the Diocese
"in the strongest possible terms rejects the claim that the Corporation or
any parish entity exists outside the jurisdiction of the Bishop and Diocese
of Massachusetts.  ...  The Bishop and Diocese represent the unity of the
Church in Christ.  The Standing Committee is vested with the unconditional
authority to oversee and approve the by-laws and governance of parishes
within the Diocese of Massachusetts."

The Bishop's judgment under Canon 21 of The Episcopal Church "is not debatable."

If, after arguments are complete, Suffolk County Court continues to hold that
"the Bishop's godly judgment is an unlawful interference with [Plaintiff's]
corporate rights and exceeds the Bishop's authority under Canon 21 proceedings"
there are serious implications for the right of a Church to apply its own
internal discipline without interference from the State.

/john

| <<< Note 33.515 by POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Belgian Burgers" >>>


| ...it can happen to you
| if you're young at heart...


	You mean ya gotta have a heart for dreams to come true???? :-)

| <<< Note 33.519 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>


| yeah, I have trouble concentrating when I'm dining with Cardinals too.
| Too busy watching them make funny shapes out of their fishsticks and such.

	I thought they swung bats, tossed footballs and played basketball???

| <<< Note 33.527 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>






	John, take them to personnel!!!!  :-)

re: this Parish of the Advent business

In simple terms without the benefit of the legalese used in the official
orders, what's the skinny behind all this? My brief skimming of what's
been presented is that some group within the Congregation wants to be
a bit anarchistic and the church is saying no and so they (the anarchists)
went whining to the state who's now horned in on the matter under the guise
of legal authority. Is that about the size of it?

What a dilemma . . . The church can't keep its flock happy and they go crying
for civil help and now the church is pouting. The state really oughta
tell 'em all to grow up and settle their differences among themselves.

    Does this all pertain to a legal matter still pending?  If the case is
    settled, fine, but I think it's somewhat indiscreet to be blabbing
    about cases that are pending.

    My point is that the church should not be going to the government to
    settle an eternal issue.  This is supported scripturally!
    
    -Jack

You are right.  The 11 people who went to court should be _out_ of the Church
until they say they're sorry and accept the Bishop's authority.

But the Judge's order would appear to bar the Bishop from ousting them.

/john

	John, take them to personnel!

    Can't do that.  The bishop is within his rights to oust them and the
    state has no say in it!
    
    -Jack

But the court has said:

   The Diocese of Massachusetts; Bishop Thomas Shaw; ...; and any others
   acting on their behalf ... ARE HEREBY ENJOINED FROM:

       (ii) taking any steps to end the terms of current vestry members,
	    wardens or other officers of the parish of the Advent
	    prior to the expiration of those terms as provided in the
	    Constitution and By-laws of the Corporation;

So if the Bishop ousts them, he's in contempt of court.

/john

So it sounds like it's the bishops move. Will he play 'em, or fold?

We'll see what the bishop does.

As for the rest of us, there is still a meeting on 29 January, but the
election will have to wait for further legal action.

/john

    If I were the bishop, I would take the contempt charge!

re: .-1, Jack

Actually, he probably should. It would make a clear statement that at
least the Church holds for the SoCaS, even if the State ignores it. It's
also highly unlikely that he'd be severly prosecuted for such an action,
and, if he takes that action against the churchmembers that he's being
so restrained from doing, there's really nothing the State can do about
it other than hold him in contempt and fine/sentence him - they can't
re-instate the members. Isn't that what Church spokespeople are supposed
to do? The right thing for the Church?

    Yeah, but watch the members use a civil suit to go for monetary
    damages, and use the contempt finding to offer proof of harm.

Monetary damages for excommunication????

I doubt that there's a court or jury in the land that would buy that.

    Perhaps they would consider him getting some cash 'cause he got kicked
    out.

    
    Why not Jack???
    
    They bought some idiot lady spilling coffee on her lap through her own
    stupidity and blaming it on McD's!!
    
    

    Yes, but McDs isn't a church and Ronald McDonald isn't a high
    priest!!!!

>    Yes, but McDs isn't a church and Ronald McDonald isn't a high
>    priest!!!!

I've got a college student that would disagree with the first half of that
statement. He takes one look at school cafeteria food and screams
"God help me" then goes to McDonalds. 


:-} :-} :-}

It should be pointed out that the current Treasurer and Clerk (whom the
Bishop wishes to have the congregation elect in an open election) have,
at the moment, signature authority over the entire $12 million or so in
trust funds, the $3 million or so in property, and the $700,000 or so in
general operating funds.

Ousting them in violation of a court order would probably not be recognized
by the banks.

They have already moved at least a quarter of a million (we're not sure of
the exact amount) into an escrow account at their legal firm.

The Corporation is absolutely convinced that keeping election of the vestry
their own private right rather than the right of the entire Congregation is
a sacred trust passed on to them by the Parish founders, and that they cannot
allow the Bishop to change the form of government to be consistent with all
other parishes in the country.

I actually would not expect the Bishop (or anyone else) to violate a
preliminary injunction.  The judge has made it very clear that he considers
the plaintiff's case against the Bishop the stronger case, but the Chancellor
may, indeed, be able to present convincing arguments to the contrary at the
next hearing scheduled for 21 February.

In the meantime, the Corporation keeps feeding lawyers instead of the poor
and hungry of Boston.  Well, not exactly.  Our homeless suppers are still
going on for now, but lots of money is being wasted.

/john

	Please don't blame the money being wasted on the Bishop. It doesn't
need to be fed to the lawyers. Why don't you ask one of the congregation to
take it as a pro-bono case? Oh... why would they, they don't have a say.....
and with all that money flying around, I guess they ain't exactly broke
either....

Typical write-only noting, Glen.

I'm not blaming the money being wasted on the Bishop; I'm blaming it on
the Corporation.  I'm 100% in support of the Bishop.

The Corporation wouldn't hire anyone in the Congregation; with less than
20 exceptions they are all on the side of the Bishop.

The Corporation went to court, not the Bishop.

/john

    Pardon my asking what may be perceived as an insensitive question at a
    time of mourning, but might it be that the recent suicide of Bishop
    Johnson (hope I got the name & honorific right) might be linked with
    all this legal brouhaha?  As in, "I can't take all this dissention?"
                                      

I am certain that nothing that was going on in the life of the Diocese of
Massachusetts could have caused Bishop Johnson to have committed suicide
ten days before he was out of here and off into retirement.

That said, he most certainly had commented in the week before he died that
it made him sad that the Corporation seems intent on disobeying his judgment
and destroying the parish.

Was this the added bit of despair that put him over the edge?  We'll never
know, but I doubt it.

/john

    Well, I can't judge, knowing far less than you of this matter, but
    working by analogy to other folks I have heard about, who devote their
    entire working lives to some cause only to have it trashed while they
    are approaching the culmination of their careers, I can certainly
    empathize with his sadness, or worse.
    
    I wonder if those who opposed his views and what seem to have been his
    final wishes will regret that opposition -- or whether they will cease
    it.  I didn't follow all that legal gobbledygook earlier; was it the
    Bishop Johnson camp, or his opposition, that "jumped out of band" and
    went to the real-world equivalent of HR -- i.e., the Courts?
    

The opposition had already gone to the Court on October 21st, 1993, before
the Bishop had issued his judgment.  For a year, he had been calmly asking
them to voluntarily permit the Congregation to elect a vestry.

I'm not sure of the exact date on which they filed their emergency motion
for a preliminary injunction; it may have been just before or just after
the Bishop's death.

They have been extremely active in court the entire week and a half since
his death including on the day of his funeral, and wrote to the entire
Congregation stating "We shall persevere" the day after the Bishop's funeral.

The Parish of the Advent is only one of 188 parishes in the Diocese, and
although it is the second largest, it was certainly not the most important
concern of his ten-year episcopate.

/john

    Clarification pls -- You don't gotta answer of course -- but which camp
    are you in?  Tnx
    

I am 100% in support of the Bishop's judgment, and had intended to
obey it and help implement it until the Court ordered me not to.

The only people in the opposition are about 11 of the 19 Corporation
members, their spouses, and a very small number of other people.

I'm with essentially the entire congregation, with the pastor, his assistants,
the office staff, the Senior Warden up until the 11 replaced him, the Bishop
(the new Bishop) and his staff, and the rest of the priests in the diocese.

According to the article on the front page of the Globe two weeks ago,
at the meeting a year or so ago when the Bishop first presented his
recommendation at a parish meeting that the Corporation voluntarily allow
the congregation to take over Vestry elections, only around 10 others
stood with the 11 on the Corporation, whereas around 450 stood to oppose
the corporation.

/john

    .562
    If I were a lawer I would certainly take the case pro what ever. This
    has nothing to do with me trying to make a fast buck but it would seem
    to be "the right thing to do".

    Boston GLOBE has a piece today giving partial info about the Bishop's
    suicide, best info is that it had nada to do with the Advent's travails.
                                                                   

| <<< Note 33.562 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| I am 100% in support of the Bishop's judgment, and had intended to
| obey it and help implement it until the Court ordered me not to.

	John, why is it with abortion you will go against what the law states
as the laws in place you feel are unjust, yet here you go along with the human
authority? You've confused me.



Glen

Glen, you're hopelessly confused about human authority, ecclesiastical
authority, state authority, and natural law; it's pointless discussing
it with you.

/john

    Does the Port Authority fall in here some place?:').

	Thanks John, I mean, for helping prove you get to pick what laws to
obey, and which ones to break. Regardless of who is pulling your strings,
someone, a human, chooses to go against what the Bible says. You know, that
book that you believe in so much? Or is this just one of those interpretation
things again, which I guess would lower the value of religion as a whole back
to where it should be, a human thing.


Glen

Glen, the case isn't over.  I _am_ obeying the bishop, who is continuing
to argue the case in the court.

Noone is dying.

You can't compare the abortion holocaust with a petty power squabble.

/john

| <<< Note 33.569 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| Glen, the case isn't over.  I _am_ obeying the bishop, who is continuing
| to argue the case in the court.

	John, we are FULLY aware that the Biship is pulling your strings.

| Noone is dying.

	You complained earlier that the money which would have been used to
help the needy, like those who REALLY nned it, is now being used in court....
but I guess it doesn't matter, as those people were allowed to be born, so the
aid pretty much ends....

| You can't compare the abortion holocaust with a petty power squabble.

	If it's so petty John, then drop it.

    
    RE: .569
    
    John,
    
    
    .570
    
    >John, we are FULLY aware that the Biship is pulling your strings.
    
    
    
    Must be the royal "we", John....