Tamar,

>>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:

Is this the editor in you at work? < rof'l >

>
>Exactly how are any child's rights violated by a prohibition on organized prayer in public schools?
>

I will start by noting you have now inserted "organized" into the discussion which is a narrowing of the issue. <g> It suites your position. <g> I would ask what you should do when the vast majority do want to pray in the morning? THis cuts both ways and the minute you use your position to remove my right to mine you've crossed the line. I think we have crossed that line. Remembe, in most cases like this it's one or two kids forcing sometimes several thousand to their pov. What's "fair" about that?

This is all a very clever usage of the language just like those who say, "We are for clean air", insinuating that those who oppose their pov do not want clean air. It's not about clean air. We all want it. It's about how to best get clean air. In these prayer arguments this same pseudo-logic is used to eliminate one side, not about how to accomodate all sides. And people swallow it hook, line and sinker. We all say we want to be "tolerant" and "fair" but the reality is that a huge number of people's rights are being removed from them on the pretense of "fairness" and not offending someone else. It's very insidious and it is IMO evil.

Having said that to answer your question directly, I don't suppose they are but I would ask you how they are by making provision for those who wish to organize prayer in public schools? Mind you, I am not suggesting that any child should be forced, only that those who so wish may organize themselves up to and including using thee facilities.

Additionally, by taking the road you suggest I see that there is no end in sight and from my point of view we're on the road to where there could be no references to any religious information. We used to call this "creeping socialism" years ago and people laughed, just like they laughed at those who said that the Income Tax would eventually grow beyond the 1-3% levels when first enacted.

The problem I see is underlying the whole issue here and it's the gradual secularizing of society and from that pov I do indeed think that the rights of that child are being violated. Now, that isn't the law right now and I will obey the law as it currently is on the books. I will also exercise my rights as I currently have them to lobby for my pov.

I do not want to force your kids to pray but I also want kids to be free to pray if they wish to, and publicly. For example, let's say that the vast majority of kids do want to have a morning school prayer. Why not allow them? Oh, right, a small minority is "offended". Here we are right back at my point which is that feelings do NOT make good law. If we make law based upon hurt feelings then we open a real Pandora's Box with no end in sight.

I say to those who have 'offended' feelings - please get over it and get on with life. IOW, grow up.

I will remind you that the first school book in our nation was the Bible and then the McGuffy Readers, which is certainly by today's standards is not "content neutral". <g>