Another blatant Constitutional violation

[YWN666]

Here is a list of court cases dealing with prayers at graduation ceremonies. I know the rabid rightwingers will attack the website it comes from but the source does not change the facts of these cases.



Graduation Prayers in Public Schools - Case Law on Graduation Prayers

Public vs. Private Speech

The division between public and private speech in the context of graduation/commencement prayers was first addressed in Lee v. Weisman. This case involved not student speakers, but a Rabbi invited by the school administration to offer an official, nondenominational prayer to the students.

By acting to select the person to offer the prayer and by approving of the nature of the prayers before hand, an officer of the state was acting to determine the content of a prayer — something already found unconstitutional in Engel v. Vitale. Even when the prayer is nondenominational, the state is not permitted to impose it upon citizens or students.

There is a further problem inherent in prayers given both by invited adults and, frequently, by students: the perception of coercion. In any given audience, there are bound to be people who do not wish to participate in the prayers in any fashion. This is difficult when the standard practice is for everyone to stand and bow their heads in silence during prayer. There exists a great deal of social pressure to conform.

Dissenters don't want to participate, but feel as though they must. Even if they stand just to show respect for the service and for others, it is impossible to tell the difference between that and standing because you believe in it and wish to participate. This, too, creates conflict for those who disagree with the prayer.

It may be true that they have the right to stay seated, but this does not change the fact that the state is not allowed to create a social setting where people are under any sort of pressure to feel like they have to participate in a religious ritual. Creating the conditions for social orthodoxy and peer pressure is just as prohibited as direct force for getting people to accept specific religious observances.

It is also true that students are not forced to attend graduation exercises — if the stay away, they can avoid personal conflicts completely while also allowing the majority to have its religious prayers. This, however, is unacceptable. High school graduation is a once-in-a-lifetime experience for people, something students have been aiming for over the course of years. It is a state function which exits for all citizens, not just those who are members of a religious majority. Because of that, a religious majority cannot be allowed to hijack the ceremonies for their own sectarian agenda, forcing all others to feel excluded and unwelcome.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Saw the video and laughed outloud. Good job!

I hope it put all those who hated it in a bad mood for the rest of the day.

 

[Montrovant]

First, the only position I've stated here is that lack of religious expression does not equal atheism.

Who cares?

Reality exists, regardless of what "position" you take. You can take the position that birds have gills, but it doesn't mean that they do.

Next, I haven't seen any atheistic speech being promoted in place of religious speech in government.

I've not seen any religious speech "promoted" in place of atheist speech. What the Taliban demands is the NO UTTERANCE of a blasphemous nature - promoting a power greater than government - be permitted on sacred government ground.

Forget promoted, this is about a high school student who dared utter a prayer - which brought you of the Taliban out in force.

You simply demand that the implied violence of government be used to silence ideas that run contrary to your own - such is the way of you of the Taliban.

Last, the portion of your post I put in bold states that atheism has been established as the state religion. I find that funny, both because it is obviously not the case, as well as because atheism is not a religion.

You can feel free to show evidence of atheism having been established as the state religion, if you like. You can also feel free to show any evidence that I enforce any type of speech on anyone (excepting the little girl who I nanny ).

Many Christians also claim that theirs is not a religion - that it is the truth and therefor above religion.

I don't care about their silly claims, or yours, reality is independent of ecumenical goals.

I support liberty - you seek to crush liberty - thus we clash.

Unless you define atheism as a lack of religious expression, my point stands. That is reality.

I didn't say religious speech was being promoted. You are arguing against something I did not claim.

I did not demand anything of government. Once again, you go to a straw man. You seem incapable of realizing my comments were based on a specific quote by a poster. I have not said anything about the morality or legality of the incident in the OP. To be clear, I don't consider a student saying a prayer, or even calling on others to pray, to be a promotion by government.

Once again, the definition of atheism is important. I imagine we are using different definitions. You seem to be using a definition which considers atheism a denial of the possibility of god(s) existing. That may or may not fit into the definition of religion, but is certainly closer than atheism as simply not having a belief in god.

I find it funny that you berate another poster in this thread for using straw man arguments when you seem to have no problem tossing them out at me.

You clearly care enough about my 'silly claims', even if they are not actually mine, to respond to them.

You are clearly enamored of seeing yourself as a defender of liberty. It might be more convincing if you were to fight against actual threats to liberty instead of creating them yourself.

 

[George Costanza]

Yes, they do - in a private capacity.

You create "free speech closets" in special camps for them?

Gosh, you in the Taliban are so nice...

I wonder what people with intelligence who are reading this thread must think.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I wonder what people with intelligence who are reading this thread must think.

That you are extremely hostile to civil liberties.


Why do you ask?

 

[YWN666]

Yes, they do - in a private capacity.

You create "free speech closets" in special camps for them?

Gosh, you in the Taliban are so nice...

I wonder what people with intelligence who are reading this thread must think.

They'd think they were watching an All In The Family rerun, only in this case Archie Bunker is real and he is not just acting stupid.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The crux of that religion thingy is whether a reasonable person would believe that the state is choosing/mandating one religion over another. Hell if I can recall the case, but there was one a while back which held that if the students choose to pray at their own commencement that is OK, but it is not OK if the faculty or administration makes the decision to pray because they work for the state.

Maybe [MENTION=43021]legaleagle_45[/MENTION] will happen along and jog my memory. I just can't recall which case it was.

It is termed the "endorsement test" and was first proposed by O'Connor in her concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), but that involved the validity of a nativity scene. Perhaps you are thinking of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)? That case struck down governmentally sactioned prayer at graduation wherein the school invited a Rabbi to lead a non sectarian invocation at graduation ceremonies..

 

[Sunshine]

The crux of that religion thingy is whether a reasonable person would believe that the state is choosing/mandating one religion over another. Hell if I can recall the case, but there was one a while back which held that if the students choose to pray at their own commencement that is OK, but it is not OK if the faculty or administration makes the decision to pray because they work for the state.

Maybe [MENTION=43021]legaleagle_45[/MENTION] will happen along and jog my memory. I just can't recall which case it was.

It is termed the "endorsement test" and was first proposed by O'Connor in her concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), but that involved the validity of a nativity scene. Perhaps you are thinking of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)? That case struck down governmentally sactioned prayer at graduation wherein the school invited a Rabbi to lead a non sectarian invocation at graduation ceremonies..

I think it was likely the Lee v Weismann case. It is difficult to get my brain away from painting walls and ceilings this week! LOL

 

[Moonglow]

Even Jesus says to pray in private.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Even Jesus says to pray in private.

He does?

What a hypocrite! I saw him pray after he finished my lawn as was about to eat a burrito last Friday....

Good thing YWN666 wasn't around to have him arrested for it!

 

[Uncensored2008]

They'd think they were watching an All In The Family rerun, only in this case Archie Bunker is real and he is not just acting stupid.

That right, bolded boi?

I'd be willing to bet that in real life, you are the least educated participant in this thread - by a wide margin.

When school starts back up, you'll return to Jr. High and continue your journey, but at the moment....

 

[gallantwarrior]

And if the discussion were centered on the idea that there is no god being promoted, you'd be right. However, it was about whether not allowing religious expression constitutes atheistic expression.

The men who penned the bill of rights grasp that the guarantee of liberty are asserted rights.

While the atheistic left views it as their right to silence speech that offends them, the BoR actually falls in the other direction, stating that speech is protected EVEN IF IT OFFENDS AN ATHEIST.
I grant that many would be more comfortable silencing views that the disagree with, as you have done regarding religious expression, but the fact that this directly violates the 1st makes it an act I must strongly oppose, as a Libertarian and as free citizen.

While the left often states that "Christians may speak in churches," this is just the opposite of the truth. You are free to open an Atheist church and prohibit ideas that are contrary to your faith within those confines - but in public, your views hold no more weight than those of Christians, Buddhists, or Satanists. All have the right under the Constitution to express their faith. That Atheist have gained the support of corrupt judges, notwithstanding.

Not talking about god does not equate to a disbelief in god, just as not talking about a specific religion doesn't equate to a disbelief in that particular religion.

It is possible to prohibit the expression of certain beliefs without endorsing their opposites.

This has nothing to do with the morality or constitutionality of such restriction, of course.

Violations of the 1st to appease a particular ecumenical view is the establishment of that view as the state religion.

I'm thinking the highlighted phrase pretty much sums up the issue. Particularly speech that might be found offensive to some who would employ force to silence that which violates their personal beliefs.

 

[gallantwarrior]

When he is asked to recite a school approved speech at a graduation ceremony, he is considered a "government actor"

The school shouldnt be approving the speech in the first place. This is the valerdictorian, the schools best and brightest. They should be trusted on this.

The reason for pre-screening is because of butthurt assholes such as yourself, that get thier panties in a twist the second god is mentioned outside a church.

But when I say I have no problem with the student reciting the prayer in the school hallway, you ignore it because it doesn't fit into your rabid rants. Some christians think that having to follow the rules that we all have to follow is persecution of christians. That's bullshit.

Isn't the school hallway part of the government "platform"? The student would be violating your right to prohibit all religious expression on public property if he stood in the hallway, proselytizing, wouldn't he?

 

[gallantwarrior]

For the 100th time - your war on civil liberties is not reasonable.

If you think there is no limitation on free speech, then walk up to a police officer and tell him that you are planning to kill the President or start a stampede by yelling fire in a crowded theater and let me know how that works out for you.

1. that is a threat to kill someone, which if found to be based on some evidence of ability, would get you convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The speech is not the crime, the potential action and planning is.

2. In this case your words can cause a panic, and bodily injury to someone in said panic. the crime is the result of the words, not the words themselves., and what you are convicted of is the damage or potential damage to others BY your words, not the words themselves.

Show me where reciting the lords prayer can kill someone who hears it (Power Word: Kill for your D&D nerds out there) or will make people scream and flee for the exits of the commencment, and then you may have a point.

If not, fail.

Given the present example, I'd say that hearing the name of god invoked anywhere in public kills some people's brain cells.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Holy fuck, just how stupid are you? No one said he couldn't mention god.

Really? just what do you think the pre-clearance was about?

And by your logic, he shouldnt be able to. What is a prayer except a poem about God?

You're still not getting it. Talking ABOUT religion is OK as I have already said a few times. Leading the audience to PRACTICE it by reciting a prayer with him is not.

Who was holding a gun on the audience, forcing them all to "practice" religion. Participating in the recitation of said prayer would otherwise have been voluntary.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Only because it is a valid answer and you refuse to listen because it kills your lame argument

Sparky, you've failed to answer:

What part of the Constitution does hearing words you oppose, violate?

Be specific, article and section.

Offer valid support for your war against civil liberties!

False argument. No one said it was a violation because the student said words anyone opposes.

So what the hell are you whining about in the first place?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Christian fundamentalists and conservatives in general, like to couch the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as being "hostile to religion," while ignoring the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause because it does not suit their purpose. Enforcement of the Establishment Clause is not being "hostile to religion." You may choose to characterize it as such, but it simply is not. All the Establishment Clause is doing, is preventing YOU from forcing YOUR religious views on me via the public sector. You can come come to my front door all you want and try to tell me I need religion, so long as you are acting in a private capacity. That's not violating anything except my personal space, and there are ways of handling that. Just don't try and use governmental platforms to do it.

A student at commencement, who chooses to inject religion into their talk, is a sticky point. Is he speaking for himself, or the school? Is the school deemed to be "behind" what he is saying? I don't know how this works in actual practice, but I think that most schools will want a preview of any valedictorian talk and will tell the valedictorian that religious references are off base. What happens when the valedictorian goes out on his own and ignores his instructions? I think it at least should let the school off the hook. They can't control a "rogue valedictorian." I think, most of the time, valedictorians will be smart enough to leave religion out of it. They should.

Show me where the studen'ts speech forced you to pay a tithe, or recognize a specific religion as the official US religion, or made you join the church he belonged to. That is ESTABLISHMENT of a national religion. Allowing someone to invoke God during their valerditorian speech, as long as the school did not FORCE the person to do it is in no whay endorsement or establishment of religion, just like allowing people to put a manger in a public space is not endorsement of relgion, or having a cross on public land is not endorsement of religion. Especially if these displays are paid for 100% in private.

Again, the overall goal is the removal of religous expression from the public commons, so basically Atheism becomes the de facto established religion.

Nonsense.

Establishment Clause jurisprudence applies only to government and law/policy making entities, and only when government seeks to conjoin itself with religion in a manner offensive to the Constitution.

Religious expression is allowed in all venues, public and private, provided religion concerning the former is not sanctioned by official government decree. The only goal with regard to First Amendment case law is to keep church and state separate in accordance with the Framers’ original intent.

And as already correctly noted, ‘atheism’ is not ‘religion,’ it’s ignorant idiocy to believe otherwise.

Wow. Maybe you need to tell the atheists that they're ignorant idiots, then.

Atheists in the Military Are Demanding Their Own Chaplains | CNS News

For Atheist Chaplains to Exist, First There Needs to Be an Atheist Church - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

 

[gallantwarrior]

You don't quite grasp what an analogy is, do you?

Because Atheism is the established state religion, you view any contrary utterance, such as that which was made by this student, to be blasphemy.

I guess you are as stupid as you appear to be. The absence of religion is not equal to atheism but I doubt that fact will sink into your thick skull very soon because it would take away your reason for foaming at the mouth over nothing.

I live with an "absence of religion" but somehow I still support the Constitutional rights of those who do own religious inclinations to say what they feel they must. I am not an atheist, because atheism has most certainly become the religion of those who worship the government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The school shouldnt be approving the speech in the first place. This is the valerdictorian, the schools best and brightest. They should be trusted on this.

The reason for pre-screening is because of butthurt assholes such as yourself, that get thier panties in a twist the second god is mentioned outside a church.

But when I say I have no problem with the student reciting the prayer in the school hallway, you ignore it because it doesn't fit into your rabid rants. Some christians think that having to follow the rules that we all have to follow is persecution of christians. That's bullshit.

Isn't the school hallway part of the government "platform"? The student would be violating your right to prohibit all religious expression on public property if he stood in the hallway, proselytizing, wouldn't he?

No.

The issue has nothing to do with ‘public property,’ the case law concerns only religious expression sanctioned by the government. Hence the ignorant myth that students aren’t allowed to pray in school.

Indeed, individuals may engage in religious expression in any venue, public or private, provided that expression is not at the behest of government.

And the case in the OP doesn’t concern religion, it concerns unauthorized speech, where school officials have the authority to control the speech that takes place at official school functions. The student would be just as in the wrong if he had read recipes from a cookbook; the issue was that the speech was unauthorized, not that it was of a religious nature.

Last, there is no ‘right’ to be free from religious expression, in schools or anywhere else. Establishment Clause violations occur when government becomes excessively entangled with religion, not that religious expression should happen to take place on government property.

 

[gallantwarrior]

But when I say I have no problem with the student reciting the prayer in the school hallway, you ignore it because it doesn't fit into your rabid rants. Some christians think that having to follow the rules that we all have to follow is persecution of christians. That's bullshit.

Isn't the school hallway part of the government "platform"? The student would be violating your right to prohibit all religious expression on public property if he stood in the hallway, proselytizing, wouldn't he?

No.

The issue has nothing to do with ‘public property,’ the case law concerns only religious expression sanctioned by the government. Hence the ignorant myth that students aren’t allowed to pray in school.

Indeed, individuals may engage in religious expression in any venue, public or private, provided that expression is not at the behest of government.

And the case in the OP doesn’t concern religion, it concerns unauthorized speech, where school officials have the authority to control the speech that takes place at official school functions. The student would be just as in the wrong if he had read recipes from a cookbook; the issue was that the speech was unauthorized, not that it was of a religious nature.

Last, there is no ‘right’ to be free from religious expression, in schools or anywhere else. Establishment Clause violations occur when government becomes excessively entangled with religion, not that religious expression should happen to take place on government property.

I can accept that the student deviated from the agreed upon address. The OP, however, complains that the selected deviation is a blatant violation of his "rights" based solely upon the content of the student's actual address. The argument presented does not address the dishonesty of agreeing to one speech and the subsequent substitution.