>>Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.


>>On the other hand a mandated Christian or Buddhist prayer coming over the school loud-speaker each morning would certainly diminish my private practice of my Hindu beliefs (for instance).
>
>Right. I'm generally not in favor of this. However, for example, I also think it'd be ok for a child to do a book report on the Bible, Koran or whatever. There have, unfortunately, been cases where children doing book studies of such a nature have been punished. This is wrong.


I agree. It seems clear that the rights of the child are being restricted. The Supreme Court having raised this "wall of separation" concept has actually led us away from the principles above (which I believe is what the framers had in mind when they drafted the first amendment). The children you describe are not free to "profess" and their civil capacity is reduced. Children who believe most fervently in shopping, however, can write about it all day long.

Peter