On 29 Jan 2012 18:05:33 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 29 Jan 2012 13:39:28 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 27 Jan 2012 22:06:10 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
news:JfqdneDfqcm6M7_SnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@earthli nk.com:

In article ,
Han wrote:
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 ...
I was talking more about specific functions. For instance if
the
students vote to include a prayer at graduation ceremonies, which
is forbidden. In many instances, they have said a person couldn't
use even a biblical reference in their validictory speech.

OK, as an agnostic, and father of an equally agnostic valedictorian
at a public high school, I would say the following: A prayer at
graduation is a no-no for me. But, words with a similar meaning
without references to God or religion should be easy to find. You
come up with the prayer, and I'll "translate", OK? A biblical
reference, similarly, I think. I hope I didn't bite off more than I
can chew ...

How about the state decide to "edit" everything you have to say?

That's off topic here. We are dealing with minors and public schools.
Seems there is a valid reason for preemptive censoring/editing.

No, it's not. You're saying that one should submit his speech to
another to have it edited before giving it. Once you edit speech for
"religious" content, is political content vary far off? You lefties
really are all about controlling thought.

Sorry for not making it clearer. I am saying that a statement in the
form of a prayer can also be rephrased so that it isn't formally a
prayer. I am NOT suggesting that something like that should become a
formal censoring step. More like an evasive maneuver so that a prayer
isn't a prayer anymore.

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can censor it.
That's called "prior restraint".

On another level: In Holland, and I believe Britain too, the Queen
cannot say what she wants, since as head of state she represents the
"government", and the prime minister's office has to approve
everything she is going to say. Up to and including whether she may
were a headscarf - sorry, it's in Dutch about a state visit of the
queen to Oman:
http://nos.nl/koningshuis/artikel/33...ek-onderdrukt-
niet.html "beatrix headscarf represses not"

Something *SHE* chooses to do. BTW, there was a war fought to
separate us from the Queen.

Around 1848 there were revolutions going on in Europe (some more, some
less violent). The then current King Willem II of Holland had an
overnight epiphany to avoid a violent revolution and charged his prime
minister (?) Thorbecke to rewrite the constitution. That led to the
modern form of a constitutional monarchy, similar to Britain's, wherein
the power to govern rests with the prime minister, subject to
parliamentary support. The Queen/King has very little, if any, actual
power. So (perceived) abuses of power as left and right have accused US
president of, do not happen. On the other hand, cabinets fall sometimes
because of petty "no confidence" motions.

Crap! When *haven't* there been revolutions going on in Europe. It's not
like it has *anything* to do with this thread.

snipped the rest of the irrelevant Europeon ****