Paul Harvey's take on prayer in public/Xmas (In general, a "freedom of speech" topic)

The difference is when a publicly funded organization advocates a prayer. If this ballgame is question is a privately funded one, pray away. If it is a public school function at a school facility (thus funded by government resources) the praying must be privately initiated. That is the general standard the courts have applied and it is a good one.So, your praying players are fine, as long as they initiated the activity. The Coaching staff, as public employees, must remain uninvolved. The little girl privately praying over her lunch is also perfectly legal and punishing her for it was very wrong.What would be wrong? A prayer as part of a graduation ceremony, for instance. Whatever religion was being used to form the prayer (most likely christianity, but also any other) is receiving approbation from a public institution and that is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to bar, as the courts have determined every time the issue has arisen.What I find interesting is that the christians who advocate public tampering with religion fail to see the implied threat to their own faith. What if another faith somehow became the majority and tried the same things? The idea of separation is a protection of religion, not a threat to it.By the way, Paul Harvey, in my opinion, is a sentimental, jingoistic, conservative hack, but that sells well in America. His opinions are anachronistic and of little value, except as a barometer of the public opinions of middle-aged, conservative, white christians. Hardly a good source for commentary on public matters.

As Randylsu pointed out, such an invitation is prohibited. He was also right about the reasons. What possible motivation could the coach have that was related to the job he is being paid from the public coffers to do? None, so why should the offer be made in the first place? The students have the right to pray if they so desire. Why is it so important that the authority figure become involved?

While I agree with many of the points made here by Hangdawg, I must take issue with some of them. The rights of an individual to free speech do not extend to an institution. Thus, what a teacher or coach says in an official capacity can and is controlled. For instance, I am sure that most would agree that a teacher should not tell obscene or racist jokes and action taken by a schoolboard would be appropriate. The speech of private individuals in sacred, what you can say while acting as an agent of the government is clearly subject to control. What right are christians loosing? They can still pray where and when they want. What they cannot do in institutionalize their beliefs.I also note with interest that the phrase here used is "christians". Are we to infer that you would be opposed to the prayer of some other belief being used? It is also not a priest forcing religion on the people. How can you see the truth of one but not the other? That is correct. It may not tell us where, how or when to be religious. It may not do this in any way, shape or form. That is precisely why religion must be kept out of all government institutions, especially schools.This message has been edited by mikehager, 01-03-2005 19:36 AMThis message has been edited by mikehager, 01-03-2005 19:38 AM

I also note with Interest that this is one of Mr. Bartons stated goals: And just one easy click away is a shopping cart where you can buy copies of the Constitution (Now just $9.95!) and other documents.Just go to WallBuilders And David Barton and follow the "documents" link.Seriously, after reading that page and seeing it's clear religious right bias, I don't see how anyone can credit this man as a source. He is clearly a huckster.{Fixed quote box. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-04-2005 00:52 AM

Sorry, no it isn't. His page is clearly that of a cheap huckster. Promoting yourself as an information source and then trying to charge for copies of documents that are easily and freely available is hucksterism. If you don't like the label, sorry.How does using source documents absolve him of bias? He uses only the writings that seem to support him and ignores others that put things in a different light. That is bias and that is what Barton does.

If you see no reason to, then feel free not to. I see ample reason.However, we are wandering off topic. Shall we agree to disagree and give this thread a chance to stay on track?