co@cbscc.UUCP (Corinna Owens) (03/06/84)
After listening to President Regan's speech to the National Evangelical Association, I realize I spoke too soon. The proposed amendment for prayer in schools states that the state cannot compose a prayer, nor can a student be forced to recite a prayer. These are the two items I was concerned about. I still do not believe that the amendment is necessary to allow a child to pray, but allowing a moment of silence for prayer is not all bad. When I was attending the public grade schools, the pledge of allegiance was recited each day. Some students chose not to recite it. Is this pledge still being recited each day? If time is reserved for the pledge of allegiance, which incedently refers to the Lord, then time can be reserved for prayer. ---------------------- Corinna Owens cbosgd!cbscc!co
scc@mgweed.UUCP (Steve Collins) (03/07/84)
Yes, I also saw the presidents speech. AMEN!! In several of the articles it was mentioned that silent prayer would be acceptable. One of the programs I was watching last night said that the presidents amendment was for oral prayer, not silent. The discussion that followed was very interesting. It stated that this government was formed by Christian principles. The statement of separation between Church and State was to prevent the State from interfering with these principles. That schools should be allowed to have an oral prayer. Not one selected by the government , but by the people. Its time that this nation makes a Christian stand. AMEN!!
amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (03/08/84)
Steve Collins says: >> It stated that this government was formed by Christian >> principles. The statement of separation between Church and >> State was to prevent the State from interfering with these >> principles. That schools should be allowed to have an oral >> prayer. Not one selected by the government , but by the >> people. Its time that this nation makes a Christian stand. Steve, this, believe it or not, is not a Christian country. Nor should it be. There are a lot of non-Christian (and Christian) people out there who cringe every time that someone makes a statement like the one you are making here. Let me ask you something. If this is supposedly a Christian country, then who is to decide what form of Christianity this country is to profess? I certainly don't want it to be someone like Jerry Falwell, and I don't suppose he would particularly like it if it were to be the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (the same people who recently put out a position paper condemning the nuclear arms race)--and remember that, according to the last census, there are more Catholics than Baptists in the US. I cannot agree that it's time this country took a Christian stand. It's time this country stood up and declared once and for all that official religious practices are not going to be foisted on the unwilling public. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (03/09/84)
This is ridiculous! Next, the government will require 30 seconds of private meditation in libraries, at all public meetings and in all houses of worship. Since we're talking about the instruction and molding of our young people, it has become an important issue. Many people want certain values instilled in their childern. Others simply want their heavy-handed beliefs forced on everyone (but that's a different issue altogether). The purpose of the public schools is to prepare young people for participation in our (so called) civilised society. That's why we have math, reading, and science courses. Effective participation in a democratic societey DOES NOT require what might be viewed as a meeningless ritual. Should we instill a sense of spiritual values in them as well as these other day-to-day skills? Not through prayer, no. Prayer assumes that the (unwilling) participants WANT or NEED to communicate with an unnamed, undefined deity or deitys. It does not instill beliefs... this task has been left to the parents... which is where personal experiences, like prayer, should be left. -- Debbie does Daleks - Speaker
rpw3@fortune.UUCP (03/11/84)
#R:cbscc:-191100:fortune:21900014:000:705
fortune!rpw3 Mar 10 20:32:00 1984
An editorial sometime back in Analog magazine (sorry, can't find the
reference) suggested that maybe prayer in the schools wouldn't be so
bad, for if, as the previous poster suggests, the purpose of school
is to prepare the individual for adult life in society, one of the most
important lessons to learn is when to keep your mouth shut and not
stick your neck out into the social emotional meatgrinder of "being
different" -- a lesson that Jews and Buddhists and Muslims and atheists
need to learn early in a "Christian" society. :-)
Rob Warnock
UUCP: {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD: (415)595-8444
USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065awex@wxlvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (03/13/84)
One thing I haven't seen mentioned in the discussion on school prayer: Two of the most vocal opponents to the amendment are fundamentalist Christians (Nazarene?) who were verball ~e ~e ~e
awex@wxlvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (03/13/84)
GAAAH! Sorry about that! My modem screwed up that message. What I wanted to say was: Two of the most vocal opponents of the amendment are fundamentalist Christians (Nazarene?) who were verbally and physically abused because they didn't want their kids praying with all the Southern Baptists in school. Now who is being un-Ghodly here? One of the women reportedly broke out in tears when it began to look like the amendment would pass. It makes me stop and think... --Alan Wexelblat (Shadows with no substance, in the shape of men) ...decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!awex
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (04/08/84)
<the words of the wombats are written on the first news lines>
According to President Reagan's press conference last Tuesday, it was
never his intention to force a morning prayer in schools, or do anything
like that. What he was addressing is the right for those who wish to
pray in school to be able to (lawfully). Some have said that their
schools did not permit them to hold organized Bible studies or prayer
meeting on school grounds. Reagan's bill would allow religious events
to take place in public schools.
That was an interesting submission from the person who became Christian
when he was at a Christian high school and changed when he left. It
could very well be peer pressure that changed him for that time being.
I know of some Christians who view Christianity as sort of a "club", and
if you're not "in", you're nothing (sort of like a school which revolves
about fraternities & sororities). I fear that such behavior by
Christians does indeed drive many people away who might have converted
to Christianiy of their own free will but because they were free of the
pressure, they left. I can only hope that in your case, God brought you
to that place so that you might learn something of Christianity so that
when you are able to make an independent decision, you will choose based
on what you have come to know of Christianity.
--
Be ye moby,
for I am moby.
Greg-bo, Prince of Eternia
{decvax!genrad, eagle!mit-vax, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gdsddb@mrvax.DEC (DAVID DYER-BENNET MRO1-2/L14 DTN 231-4076) (04/11/84)
Actually, it seems that what is being proposed nationally is more like
"religious extra-curricular activities on public school grounds". I
don't find any harm in this, since churches almost by definition have
their own grounds anyway.
However, if this is done it is critical that all religions be treated
fairly, and I don't think this is likely to happen. Furthermore, I think
that the christians would be up in arms at the formation of a "young satanists"
club to meet after school in the cafeteria, or a "young druids" to sacrifice
the administration. (all right, calm down; obviously illegal activities such
as human sacrifice (illegal under the designation "homicide") wouldn't be
permitted). But, Christians, please consider this seriously: How can the
law distinguish between you, and satanists (to pick an obvious worst-case,
at least from your point of view)? The law MUST treat all religions
even-handedly: to do otherwise would be an unconstitutionaly establishment
of religion, not to mention an unpardonable infringement of human rights.
There are things (probably including the satanists, depending on what they
really believed in behind the "shock" label) that I wouldn't want even the
slightest trace of governmental support to go with that I can't distinguish
from Christianity in any objective way -- and objective ways are the only
ones that can be used in a government of laws not men.
THIS IS THE REASON THAT CHURCH AND STATE SHOULD BE SEPARATE!!! To establish
one church is a disaster, and to support all even-handedly is pretty bad
too. The remaining alternative seems to be to support none.
I wish this mail system supported an editor.
-- David Dyer-Bennet
{ihnp4,purdue,shasta,ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!mrvax!ddb