>>Well, the problem I'm getting at Rich is the notion that people are using the notion of "offense" as a justification.
>
>But Doug, you're still missing the point. I'm going to boil this down to one simple question:
>
>Exactly how are any child's rights violated by a prohibition on organized prayer in public schools?
>
>Tamar

Tamar;

It depends upon what you want to term "organized prayer". It is a term too easily taken too far. There is no clear-cut term as to what should or should not be allowed. It is done on an individual basis according to lawsuits against local public schools and can become “the law of the land”.

If we attempted to respect all religions and beliefs to the letter in our public schools, all schools would be closed. There is something offensive to many religions that occurs in public schools. The justification of such action is righteousness and can only be defined by the individual.

Common sense does not prevail in incidents such as these as they are guided by emotion. I call it emotion and others might call it doctrine. It is when the doctrine of another inhibits the majority that a serious dilemma exists.

Should all females be required to veil their faces? If you do not do this in all public places you have offended certain members of a religious faith. It may be an inconvenience to dress in such a manner but you would not want to offend another would you? And then there are those who believe that females should not receive education. How do we accommodate everyone to the satisfaction of a few? We have to have some balance in our society and at times accommodation of the view points of the minority will take away the rights of the majority.

Tom