Bill D wrote:
This is an example of equivocation. It plays with the very meaning of the words.

No, it's not equivocation, and I won't accuse you of sophistry either. I don't disagree with you about whether it's preferable or not to have religious prayers at public events (although if you're fair you'll admit that the movement to allow prayers is asking for non-specific religion prayers, e.g., not one's specifying Christ, or Mohamed, etc. – just God. Not that that's necessarily any better, but you shouldn't use Jesus-prayers as an example for your argument).

Anyway, it's not equivocation, because there is a difference between a law forbidding prayer at government-funded institutions, and a law requiring it. Personally, I like separation of state and religion – I don't even like getting religion mixed up with money by putting "in God we trust" on our currency and coins, and I don't think we should have inserted "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, which was done in the 1950s as an anti-Communist measure. The Pledge should be applicable to all Americans, including athiests. But there is a difference between trying to pass a law requiring prayer, and trying to get rid of the law prohibiting it. A big difference.

But this is a side-issue, isn't it? School prayer isn't really a big issue anymore, is it?