the critical phrase is publicly led pray by those in authority. During
the 60's a school district was sued (cannot remember the specifics) by
a self identified atheist saying that prayer in schools was
unconstitutional. The courts, all the way to the Supreme Court upheld
that argument. Since then the ruling has been modified to allow for
student led prayers rather than teacher or administration led worship.
larry
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:26:15 -0400, Monique Boea
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well I do agree with the fact that prayer should not be in public schools.
>
> It's not the place for religion
>
> If you want your kids to prayer in school, send them to private.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marwan Saidi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:25 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
>
> Not necessarily. The clause (... shall make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion) can be viewed two ways:
>
> 1. Using establishment as a verb. This interpretation is that congress
> cannot make a law that establishes a religion
> 2. Using establishment as a noun. This reads that congress cannot make laws
> respecting _any_ religious establishment. A law permitting prayer in schools
> or allowing display of religious artifacts in publicly owned facilities
> would violate the clause here...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monique Boea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:17 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
>
> but the fact that people think it to mean that congress cannot make any laws
> regarding religion is a misinterpretation
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:11 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
>
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 13:59:23 -0400, Monique Boea
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks! That was their exact argument.
> >
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
> > of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
> >
> >
> > But I had never gave it a thought until someone challenged the
> > misinterpretation of it.
>
> It's not really a misinterpretation though. Not unless you consider
> Jefferson's own explanation to be a "misinterpretation".
>
> -Kevin
> _____
> _____
> _____
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
