Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: 1st amendment (was: religious courses in a secular school) Message-ID: Date: 14 Apr 91 06:27:39 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, St. Louis Park, MN Lines: 126 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >Well, at my HS graduation, the pastor from the local Presbyterian church >got up and gave the invocation. We were not *led* by the pastor. Was anyone else allowed to give some kind of invocation? Or only people invited by the state? How do people get invited? >..The invocations I have >heard over the years have really been quite non-sectarian. But, true, >they were addressed to the Judeo-Christian God, and not to Satan. Hardly non-sectarian, then. Not a specific brand of Christianity, but not Islam, not Hinduism, not Wicca, not a lot of things. And if Jesus was ever mentioned, strike the Juedo- part. >I would say that in an area which was predominantly or significantly Islamic >the school board would advise the person delivering the invocation to >make sure not to offend these people. How white of you. If it was PREDOMINANTLY Islamic, wouldn't you expect a Mullah from the local Mosque? Or, again, are only Christians allowed to speak at graduation? >In an area that was primarily made up of Satan worshippers, prayers to >Satan would be unavoidable. I suspect that if such an area existed, >most Christians wouldn't be attending that school. If it were primarily Satan worshippers, wouldn't they invite a Satanist to speak at graduation? Again, you seem to allow *only* Christians to "speak", and maybe not offend other faiths; you don't even entertain the thought of a non-Christian (oh, maybe Jewish) speaker - then, it suddenly becomes a-Christian-speaking-but-not-offending-the-Muslims or no-one- speaking-but-the-Satanists-in-the-audience-are-praying-because-it's- unavoidable. You have never mentioned a U.S. school allowing a Muslim prayer or a Satanist prayer... Would you object to either of these? >In an area primarily made up of athiests, there would be no need to have >people repeat "There is no God..." over and over, (who would be >listening to them?) (It wouldn't be a prayer.) No need? Who are you to determine this? Why do the Christians have a "need" but the atheists don't? Mind if *we* are allowed to make these decisions? Now it's atheists-have-no-need-so-we-don't-need-to-allow-an- atheist-speaker. >Most likely, nothing >would be said regarding the existance or non-existance of a diety. Exactly. Right now, when Christians speak, something *is* said regarding the existance of a diety. Now, you are not allowing the negative opinion to be voiced. >Those Christians who found themselves in the gathering would most likely >pray silently to their God. My point exactly. Let the Christians pray to their god, the Muslims to theirs, the Satanists to theirs... You seem to allow Christians to speak, and NO ONE ELSE. >But, these are my thoughts, regardless of them, I don't see what an >Invocation at a HS graduation has to do with the Constitution of the >United States. Public high schools are run by the state government. >No *law* has been made by the state *requiring* invocations at HS graduations. But there are things governments are prohibited from doing. School prayer is one; I would argue that graduations prayers are the same thing. >If the state were to pass a law banning invocations at graduations, that >IMHO would be unconstitutional. Why? The state is not infringing on anyone's religion. It is merely not allowing a particular religious invocation at a public, secular event. There are plenty of public events that DON'T have any kind of prayer attached to them. Is this an infringement? >Present reasoning seems to be that "the state" and "religion" must be >kept separate. And yet, Churches are tax-exempt. They are defined as automatically tax-exempt, but it would be legal for a state to not automatically exempt them. There was a recent SC decision on Jimmy Swaggart ministries being taxed for religious materials; the materials can be taxed like anything else, or they may be exempted - states have the power to do either. >Congress starts each >session with an Invocation. The Supreme Court itself starts with an >Invocation. We have the tradition of witnesses in court, and elected >officials taking oaths with one hand raised, and the other hand on the >Bible. I don't think Congress or the S.C. ought to start with a particular religious invocation. As for oaths, it is not required to swear or use the Bible (or any book) to become president, for example. There is a case making its way to the S.C. now, concerning an atheist in Texas refusing to swear on the Bible for jury duty. >All of these seem >contrary to the prevalent interpretation of the Constitution. >Now, two possibilities: (There may be more). >1. The founders wrote the Constitution. It was almost immediately >mis-interpreted. Since that time, we have come closer and closer to the >true intent of the founders. >2. The founders wrote the Constiturion. It was correctly interpreted, >and we have persistantly and consistantly strayed from the founders >original intent. >Which one do you think is more likely? 3. The founders wrote the constitution, and disagreed about practically everything. We continue to do so. --- Merlyn LeRoy [Possibly these postings crossed. Tom has already responded that in an area that was predominately Satanist, Satanist prayers would be unaviodable (and Christian parents probably wouldn't use the public schools). --clh]