Prayer In School, are you against or for prayer in school Options

[chelle]

ok. so i'm doing an english project for school on the oh so controversial topic of prayer in school. and since we LOVE to debate ( ) i was wondering what everyone's stand in this is.

Pro School Prayer Positions:
1)Our Government is based on Religious Principles
2)The Free Exercise Clause Protects School Prayer
3)Banning School Prayer Leads to Moral Decline
4)Majority Should Rule

Anti School Prayer Positions:
1)State-Sponsored School Prayer is Unconstitutional
2)Prayer in School is Already Legal
3)State-Sponsored Prayer Will Lead to Religious Intolerance
4)Moral Decline and School Prayer are Unrelated
TO SEE THESE ARGUMENTS IN DEPTH GO HERE


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i am against school prayer. big surprise. lol. public schools exist to educate, not to proselytize. children in public schools are a captive audience. making prayer an official part of the school day is coercive and invasive. what 5, 8, or 10-year-old could view prayers recited as part of class routine as "voluntary"? religion is private, and schools are public, so it is appropriate that the two should not mix. our schools are for all children, whether catholic, baptist, quaker, atheist, buddhist, wiccan, jewish, agnostic. the schools are supported by all taxpayers, and therefore should be free of religious observances and coercion. when religion has invaded our public school system, it has singled out the lone jewish student, the children in the minority. families who protest state/church violations in our public schools invariably experience persecution. it was common prior to the court decision against school prayer to put non-religious or nonorthodox children in places of detention during bible-reading or prayer recitation. the children of supreme court plaintiffs against religion in schools were beaten up on the way to and from school, their families subjected to community harassment and death threats for speaking out in defense of a constitutional right. we know from history how harmful and destructive religion is in our public schools. individual, silent, personal prayer never has and never could be outlawed in public schools. it is coercive for schools to schedule worship as an official part of the schoo day, school sports or activities, or to use prayer to formalize graduation ceremonies. such prayers are more "mandatory" than "voluntary." the radical school prayer amendment would negate the first amendment's guarantee against government establishment of religion. most distressing, it would be at the expense of the civil rights of children, america's most vulnerable class. it would attack the heart of the bill of rights, which safeguards the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the majority. those in the minority would be compelled to conform to a religion or ritual n which they disbelieve, to suffer the humiliation and imposition of submitting to a daily religious exercise against their will, or be singled out by orthodox classmates and teachers as "heretics" or "sinners" for not participating. should the government become "prayer police"? the school prayer debate seems calculated to deflect attention away from the more pressing economic questions facing our nation. some politicians like to blame everything bad in america upon the absence of school prayer. it is a quick fix. it is irrational to charge that the complicated sociological problems facing our everchanging population stem from lack of prayer in schools. our political system is a democratic republic in which we use majority vote to elect certain officials or pass laws. but, we do not use majority vote to decide what religion, if any, our neighbors must follow. imposing prayer-by-majority-vote is flagrant and insensitive abuse of school authority. such schools should be teaching students about the purpose of the bill of rights, instead of teaching them to be religious bullies.

[baller30]

actually both theories cannot be really proven unless there are time machines... that is the man reason of the debate... theories unlike scientfic facts cannot be proven
each theory has holes that require a person to believe that in something without full proof the evidence is basically cirumstatial for both

trust me on this i have studied both so in depth through out my life

each theory is really just left for you to believe because no matter how much "scientific fact" there is there will never be enough to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that either theory is true or false

[*mipadi*]

actually both theories cannot be really proven unless there are time machines... that is the man reason of the debate... theories unlike scientfic facts cannot be proven
each theory has holes that require a person to believe that in something without full proof the evidence is basically cirumstatial for both

trust me on this i have studied both so in depth through out my life

each theory is really just left for you to believe because no matter how much "scientific fact" there is there will never be enough to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that either theory is true or false

The difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief, however, is that a scientific theory is testable, and has been tested using the scientific method.