Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:



"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their ***legislature*** should
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of
separation between Church & State. (emphasis mine)

I interpret that to specifically mean that no law shall be made to
sanction any religion as official, and that would mean no religious
this or that in public schools, since they are directed by law to
educate the kids, and so are a direct extension of the legislature.
(It's immaterial here that schools in general don't do a good job
educating).

The gist is that the constitution, and TJ's suggested
interpretation, only impact on active things. That the legislative
bodies can't pick out one and make it the official religion. This has
nothing to do with more passive actions such as allowing Christmas
decorations or even pagents, and especially not disallowing
student-lead prayer.

I agree that the "prohibition" against decorations etc has gone a bit too
far. Student-led prayer is a different thing, since then a majority, or
even a minority, can easily become coercive. Look at a (perhaps crazy)
example. If you allow that in a majority Christian/Catholic/Baptist
school, you need to allow it also in a majority Jewish community, or
Muslim community. I can see it already, before a public high school
football game 3/4 of the students prostrate themselves facing east ...

If someone wants to bow their head and mumble a phrase or two, or cross
themselves before coming to bat, that's fine, because it is a short and
personal gesture. Leading the congregation in prayer is something to be
done in church (substitute other religions' peculiarities).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid