Boazycarp: << C.J. Oh wait.. you didn't actually say anything :)
>>

I did, actually, but you apparently didn't comprehend.

Also, you didn't answer my question: why the duplicity?

The English school.. was a link I thought

here it is again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031784/Schoolboys-punished-detention-refusing-kneel-pray-Allah.html

It has bearing on the case in point actually... but the English constitution...I'm insufficiently familier to know their position but I think the Church of England rules kinda ?

Slim pickin's there, Boaz.

On the face of it, a rather zealous teacher chose a practical demonstration over chalk-and-talk. Insensitive? Possibly. But hardly earth-shattering stuff.

The rest of it is simply a classic beat-up, with a bunch of rent-a-quotes responding to the usual journalistic questions... "So, Mrs Bloggs, I expect you were horrified at what little Johnny was forced to go through..."

Have you ever been ambushed in a media interview Boaz?

I have.

But seriously, one incident, on whose full circumstances we remain in the complete dark, and the world as we know it is coming to an end?

I don't think so.

But back to the point here - do you now clearly understand the difference between the determination of a straightforward issue on the meaning of the Constitution, and the concept of "preventing prayer"?

But hold, we're still missing one, aren't we?

Whatever happened to the "student... allowed to engage in prayer as LONG as no one knows he is doing so.. even over his lunch"?

I'm guessing that will be pretty tame stuff as well. If we ever get to see it.