Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: religious courses in a secular school] Message-ID: Date: 1 Apr 91 09:10:46 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton Lines: 44 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: >[As I understand it, a state school cannot teach doctrine in the sense >of encouraging you to accept it. This would be a violation of >separation of Church and State, because it would be an arm of the >State propagating religion. Thus a State school is going to be >limited to an intellectual approach, or to approaches to personal >values that present multiple alternatives and challenge you to make >your own choice. I had gotten to wondering about "Seperation of Church and State". We have yet another Supreme Court decision coming. Recently, I attended a Davic Meece concert at a local public Jr. High school. (If you get the chance, go see this man! I don't care about your age, or personal beliefs. Even if you just like to watch a great pianist at work!) I've been noticing all the Bibles in courtroom scenes on TV. (Anyway, I've been reminded about this doctrine a lot lately.) So, I dug out an encyclopedia, and looked up "Constitution of the United States". I just got more confused. Dig up a copy and check it out. As I read it, the Constitution says that CONGRESS cannot make a LAW establishing a STATE RELIGION. It also says that CONGRESS cannot make a LAW abridging the practice of a religion. The Constitution also reserves for the states all rights not assigned to the Congress. So, what does allowing people to pray at graduation ceremonies have to do with the 1st Ammendment? Congress isn't passing a law stating that there shall be prayers at graduation ceremonies! They (hopefully) aren't passing a law that prevents them either. It even appears to me that if A STATE wanted to establish a STATE RELIGION that that right has been reserved for them. (Extreme, I'll grant you, but constitutional the way I read it!) As I read it, the new Congress wanted to make sure that this new country didn't establish a state religion as England had, this would make sense since so many of our founders had left England so they could freely practice their religion. Does anyone know when this present interpretation of the 1st Ammendment became vogue? Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton