Another blatant Constitutional violation

[YWN666]

It's South Carolina.

Here are some facts you might file away somewhere....

Did you know that South Carolina is in the United States?

And is, ostensibly, governed by the Constitution, known as the 'law of the land'?

'
That's exactly why the student's behavior was wrong.

 

[YWN666]

stupid response?
ur name has 666 and all u do is talk about religionn. I am nonbeliever myself so Iunderstand ur want for discussions, but cant help feeling like that was ur motivation.
some people do not like it when people put 2 and 2 together. I could be wrong but for u to call it stupid is ignorant at best

My motivation for posting this story was to find out if others felt the same was as I do about the issue and if you think that all I talk about is religion, then you have not been reading my posts. As for your response, it was a false dichotomy.

hmmmm every thread u made since "returning" has been about religion.

All 3 of them? Wow.

 

[KevinWestern]

In that particular situation, not much can be done after the fact especially since the student went off script, but people who would do what this student did should take note that they are exposing the school to lawsuits which they will lose and which will result in higher taxes. There are too many people like him that are willing to violate the rights of others for their own selfish reasons.

Frivolous lawsuits filed by morons with nothing better to do with their lives than to cower in terror whenever someone invokes the name of their particular deity. Words have no more power than that which you give them.

Defending constitutional rights is not frivolous. The Courts have heard many lawsuits involving this same scenario and they have decided that it is unconstitutional.

Definitely, just feel like this one wasn't a big deal due to the fact it was a rogue private citizen who deviated from his pre approved path. It just happens.

Wasn't a case of school sponsored religion because the kid wasn't a paid official nor was he coached by one. In my view, it becomes a "Constitutional" issue when the school itself - which is funded by public dollars - promotes a specific region.

Extreme example, but if a student randomly whacked a guy over the head with a bar at one of these events and kills the person, would you blame the school/state as well?


.

.

 

[YWN666]

Frivolous lawsuits filed by morons with nothing better to do with their lives than to cower in terror whenever someone invokes the name of their particular deity. Words have no more power than that which you give them.

Defending constitutional rights is not frivolous. The Courts have heard many lawsuits involving this same scenario and they have decided that it is unconstitutional.

Definitely, just feel like this one wasn't a big deal due to the fact it was a rogue private citizen who deviated from his pre approved path. It just happens.

It happens a lot - people thumbing their nose at the constitution and I think it is appropriate to do something about it. What the student did can't be stopped now but perhaps the school should be warning students about such behavior and withholding their diploma if they decide to break the rules.

Wasn't a case of school sponsored religion because the kid wasn't a paid official nor was he coached by one.

He doesn't have to be paid or coached by the school in order for it to be considered government endorsement.

Extreme example, but if a student whacked a guy over the head with a bar at one of these events, would you blame the school/state too? Or would you blame the individual?

As I said, that students behavior can't be undone but the school should be on notice to take steps to avoid it happening again. If we don't then I guarantee there will be a rash of rogue students doing the same thing.


.

 

[martybegan]

SC valedictorian recites Lord's Prayer at graduation - Atlanta News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | FOX 5


SC valedictorian recites Lord's Prayer at graduation


Posted: Jun 06, 2013 11:22 PM EST Updated: Jun 13, 2013 11:22 PM EST
By MYFOXATLANTA STAFF


A valedictorian at a South Carolina high school ripped up a faculty-approved speech and opted instead to read the Lord's Prayer.

Liberty High School valedictorian Roy Costner hadn't been at the podium for more than 30 seconds when he tore up the speech he had gotten approved by the faculty and began reciting the Lord's Prayer to thunderous applause.

Patrick Elliott with the Freedom From Religion Foundation says they have received complaints about the district in South Carolina in the past for having student-led prayers at school board meetings, so they wrote to them and asked them to stop.

"Sometimes people think, 'majority rules' but that's not really the case with a constitutional right. So students do have the right to attend school without the school promoting or endorsing religion even if you know a large amount of people in the community would hope that the school would do so," Elliott said.

Jonathan Saenz with Texas Values is proud of Costner.

"It's very clear. If the student is allowed to speak, the government cannot pick and choose what words they like...specifically target them because they're religious," Saenz said.

Elliott says he doesn't feel what Costner did was illegal, just in poor taste.

"I think it's a symptom of the entitlement that has gone on in that district. They've been instituting prayers and religious practices for a very long time and so when the school is now coming into compliance with the law, I think there's bound to be some reaction to that. I also think if it were a non-Christian student, a Muslim or somebody who's non-religious, I think you would have heard "boos" there instead of you know, loud applause," Elliott said.

Saenz doesn't agree, saying those who complain usually target Christians expressing their faith.

"That's what we've seen in Texas, that's what we're seeing in South Carolina, and so all denominations have religious freedom rights but it seems like every time it becomes an issue and someone threatens with a lawsuit or some type of challenge, it's always a Christian student. And so that's unfortunate that you see this type of targeted discrimination. And we hope that's something that will end," Saenz said.

Link to video: LHS Valedictorian Address 2013 - YouTube

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

You freedom of religion ends when it begins to violate the rights of others.

Show me the part of the consitution where it bans your ears from hearing a prayer.

Said action did not make you join a religion, nor tithe to it, nor did it show any government endorsement of said religion, nevermind actually creating a law that respects the establishment of a religon by said school.

How is this student violating ANYONES right?

Please lower your level of butthurt.

 

[martybegan]

He was supposed to read a speech approved by the school but instead he disregarded their direction and lead the audience in a prayer and that constitutes government endorsement. He can stand in the hallway and recite prayers until he is blue in the face but when he stands at a school podium at a school graduation over a school PA system, he can't. He could have even gotten by if he spoke about how religion helped him be a successful student but the prayer was over the line (and was he really showing true christian behavior by lying to the school about his intentions in reading that prayer? - what he did was a real "fuck you" to the school and others in the crowd). People have the right to come to school functions and not be subjected to any religious indoctrination.

He did not read the speech that received "government endorsement". He exercised his 1st Amendment right of Free Speech. Just how is a prayer "religious indoctrination"? What is it about Christian prayer that terrifies you and your type so much that even a hint of a prayer sends you all into paroxysms of rage and fear? You certainly do not have to participate if you do not agree, or you might use such an interlude to make your own invocation.

Whatever speech he makes in that position is considered to be endorsed by the government and it has nothing to do with fear of prayer, it has to do with constitutional violations and the selfish mentality of those who try to commandeer an official government event for their own religious purposes. Telling me to ignore it or step out is not acceptable because it is treating non-christians like second class citizens in a government that is supposed to represent all.

It has everything to do with your inabilty to tolerate the actions and beliefs of others.

Atheists are some of the biggest butthurt assholes out there sometimes.

 

[KevinWestern]

It happens a lot - people thumbing their nose at the constitution and I think it is appropriate to do something about it. What the student did can't be stopped now but perhaps the school should be warning students about such behavior and withholding their diploma if they decide to break the rules.[/B]
.

I dunno - withhold a valedictorian's diploma because he uses religious language in his speech seems a bit harsh. And does it happen a lot? This is the first news story I've seen of the like.

He doesn't have to be paid or coached by the school in order for it to be considered government endorsement.

This was endorsed by the government? The 'government' endorsed his pre approved speech, which was ripped up.

As I said, that students behavior can't be undone but the school should be on notice to take steps to avoid it happening again. If we don't then I guarantee there will be a rash of rogue students doing the same thing.

I guess.

I dunno YWN, I'm non-religious and don't support a public school favoring a particular religion. I'm with you on that. Just don't think this is a big deal.

Agree to disagree I guess.


.

 

[YWN666]

First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case

Cole v. Oroville Union High School District, 228 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2000)

Facts:

Ferrin Cole and Chris Niemeyer, students at Oroville High School, were selected to give the invocation and valedictorian graduation speeches, respectively. The district had a policy of reviewing the speeches. During this review process, the school informed the students that their messages were too sectarian and proselytizing and had to be modified. When the students refused, they were denied the opportunity to speak at graduation. The students sued, seeking damages for denial of their First Amendment right of free speech.

Issue:

Whether a school's revocation of students' opportunity to give invocation and valedictorian speeches at graduation due to the religious and proselytizing nature of their messages violates the students' freedom of speech.

Holding:

In a 3-0 decision, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that a graduation ceremony is not an open speech forum but a government ceremony, and as such, the school has a responsibility to avoid Establishment Clause violations during its graduation ceremony.

Reasoning:

The court found that the close control the school exercised over every aspect of the ceremony gave the student speeches the implied endorsement of the school. Since the student messages bore the imprimatur of the school, the school had an obligation to make sure that the student messages would not violate the Establishment Clause. For these reasons, the court easily found that the graduation prayer was problematic irrelevant of its specific theological content.

The valedictorian speech posed harder problems. Yet in the end, the level of the school’s control over the content of the speech indicated that the speech was not purely private student speech, but bore the significant imprimatur of the school.

Majority:

"Because district approval of the content of student speech was required, allowing Niemeyer to make a sectarian, proselytizing speech as part of the graduation ceremony would have lent District approval to the religious message of the speech. Equally important, an objective observer familiar with the District's policy and its implementation would have likely perceived that the speech carried the District's seal of approval." (Judge Raymond C. Fisher)

This case was appealed to the US Supreme Court who declined to hear it leaving the lower court ruling stand.

 

[YWN666]

It happens a lot - people thumbing their nose at the constitution and I think it is appropriate to do something about it. What the student did can't be stopped now but perhaps the school should be warning students about such behavior and withholding their diploma if they decide to break the rules.[/B]
.

I dunno - withhold a valedictorian's diploma because he uses religious language in his speech seems a bit harsh. And does it happen a lot? This is the first news story I've seen of the like.

He doesn't have to be paid or coached by the school in order for it to be considered government endorsement.

This was endorsed by the government? The 'government' endorsed his pre approved speech, which was ripped up.

As I said, that students behavior can't be undone but the school should be on notice to take steps to avoid it happening again. If we don't then I guarantee there will be a rash of rogue students doing the same thing.

I guess.

I dunno YWN, I'm non-religious and don't support a public school favoring a particular religion. I'm with you on that. Just don't think this is a big deal.

Agree to disagree I guess.


.

I understand that this event in itself is not a huge deal but I think if small infractions are not dealt with, they will turn into larger ones. There is a long history of people trying to cram their religion into the government and the motivation behind this kids behavior was just one more.

 

[KevinWestern]

In a 3-0 decision, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that a graduation ceremony is not an open speech forum but a government ceremony, and as such, the school has a responsibility to avoid Establishment Clause violations during its graduation ceremony.

Reasoning:

The court found that the close control the school exercised over every aspect of the ceremony gave the student speeches the implied endorsement of the school. Since the student messages bore the imprimatur of the school, the school had an obligation to make sure that the student messages would not violate the Establishment Clause. For these reasons, the court easily found that the graduation prayer was problematic irrelevant of its specific theological content.

Again, they preapproved his speech and he ripped it up and went with something else.

What was the school supposed to do? Tackle him in front of all the parents?

YWN - they can't mind read, and I don't feel like it's serious enough of an issue to do something so harsh as to take his diploma away (after 4 years of stellar work by the kid).

There are big Constitutional violations (NDAA 2012) and small ones (like this). Sometimes we just need to shrug these little guys off and focus on the big kahunas.

.

 

[martybegan]

First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case

Cole v. Oroville Union High School District, 228 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2000)

Facts:

Ferrin Cole and Chris Niemeyer, students at Oroville High School, were selected to give the invocation and valedictorian graduation speeches, respectively. The district had a policy of reviewing the speeches. During this review process, the school informed the students that their messages were too sectarian and proselytizing and had to be modified. When the students refused, they were denied the opportunity to speak at graduation. The students sued, seeking damages for denial of their First Amendment right of free speech.

Issue:

Whether a school's revocation of students' opportunity to give invocation and valedictorian speeches at graduation due to the religious and proselytizing nature of their messages violates the students' freedom of speech.

Holding:

In a 3-0 decision, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that a graduation ceremony is not an open speech forum but a government ceremony, and as such, the school has a responsibility to avoid Establishment Clause violations during its graduation ceremony.

Reasoning:

The court found that the close control the school exercised over every aspect of the ceremony gave the student speeches the implied endorsement of the school. Since the student messages bore the imprimatur of the school, the school had an obligation to make sure that the student messages would not violate the Establishment Clause. For these reasons, the court easily found that the graduation prayer was problematic irrelevant of its specific theological content.

The valedictorian speech posed harder problems. Yet in the end, the level of the school’s control over the content of the speech indicated that the speech was not purely private student speech, but bore the significant imprimatur of the school.

Majority:

"Because district approval of the content of student speech was required, allowing Niemeyer to make a sectarian, proselytizing speech as part of the graduation ceremony would have lent District approval to the religious message of the speech. Equally important, an objective observer familiar with the District's policy and its implementation would have likely perceived that the speech carried the District's seal of approval." (Judge Raymond C. Fisher)

This case was appealed to the US Supreme Court who declined to hear it leaving the lower court ruling stand.

Just because a bunch of unelected lawyers decide something is right, doesnt make it right.

So basically its OK to infringe upon someones free exercise of religion because some atheists may get all butthurt over it.

Freedom is dead. It dies because of assholes like you.

 

[YWN666]

First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case

Cole v. Oroville Union High School District, 228 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2000)

Facts:

Ferrin Cole and Chris Niemeyer, students at Oroville High School, were selected to give the invocation and valedictorian graduation speeches, respectively. The district had a policy of reviewing the speeches. During this review process, the school informed the students that their messages were too sectarian and proselytizing and had to be modified. When the students refused, they were denied the opportunity to speak at graduation. The students sued, seeking damages for denial of their First Amendment right of free speech.

Issue:

Whether a school's revocation of students' opportunity to give invocation and valedictorian speeches at graduation due to the religious and proselytizing nature of their messages violates the students' freedom of speech.

Holding:

In a 3-0 decision, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that a graduation ceremony is not an open speech forum but a government ceremony, and as such, the school has a responsibility to avoid Establishment Clause violations during its graduation ceremony.

Reasoning:

The court found that the close control the school exercised over every aspect of the ceremony gave the student speeches the implied endorsement of the school. Since the student messages bore the imprimatur of the school, the school had an obligation to make sure that the student messages would not violate the Establishment Clause. For these reasons, the court easily found that the graduation prayer was problematic irrelevant of its specific theological content.

The valedictorian speech posed harder problems. Yet in the end, the level of the school’s control over the content of the speech indicated that the speech was not purely private student speech, but bore the significant imprimatur of the school.

Majority:

"Because district approval of the content of student speech was required, allowing Niemeyer to make a sectarian, proselytizing speech as part of the graduation ceremony would have lent District approval to the religious message of the speech. Equally important, an objective observer familiar with the District's policy and its implementation would have likely perceived that the speech carried the District's seal of approval." (Judge Raymond C. Fisher)

This case was appealed to the US Supreme Court who declined to hear it leaving the lower court ruling stand.

Just because a bunch of unelected lawyers decide something is right, doesnt make it right.

So basically its OK to infringe upon someones free exercise of religion because some atheists may get all butthurt over it.

Freedom is dead. It dies because of assholes like you.

FYI most of the cases brought before the Supreme Court concerning religion and government are brought on behalf of CHRISTIANS who know how dangerous mixing religion and government can be. Also FYI, free exercise of religion does not include violating the rights of others.

 

[gallantwarrior]

He was supposed to read a speech approved by the school but instead he disregarded their direction and lead the audience in a prayer and that constitutes government endorsement. He can stand in the hallway and recite prayers until he is blue in the face but when he stands at a school podium at a school graduation over a school PA system, he can't. He could have even gotten by if he spoke about how religion helped him be a successful student but the prayer was over the line (and was he really showing true christian behavior by lying to the school about his intentions in reading that prayer? - what he did was a real "fuck you" to the school and others in the crowd). People have the right to come to school functions and not be subjected to any religious indoctrination.

He did not read the speech that received "government endorsement". He exercised his 1st Amendment right of Free Speech. Just how is a prayer "religious indoctrination"? What is it about Christian prayer that terrifies you and your type so much that even a hint of a prayer sends you all into paroxysms of rage and fear? You certainly do not have to participate if you do not agree, or you might use such an interlude to make your own invocation.

Whatever speech he makes in that position is considered to be endorsed by the government and it has nothing to do with fear of prayer, it has to do with constitutional violations and the selfish mentality of those who try to commandeer an official government event for their own religious purposes. Telling me to ignore it or step out is not acceptable because it is treating non-christians like second class citizens in a government that is supposed to represent all.

I am a non-Christian and I do not feel violated if someone else intones some prayer or another. I rather expect the same courtesy be extended to me should I wish to exercise my First Amendment rights. You do not have a right to stifle speech you disagree with simply because you find it somehow offensive. I ask again, what exactly do you fear about someone else's prayers? Are you so weak in your own faith that you fear conversion?

 

[YWN666]

He did not read the speech that received "government endorsement". He exercised his 1st Amendment right of Free Speech. Just how is a prayer "religious indoctrination"? What is it about Christian prayer that terrifies you and your type so much that even a hint of a prayer sends you all into paroxysms of rage and fear? You certainly do not have to participate if you do not agree, or you might use such an interlude to make your own invocation.

Whatever speech he makes in that position is considered to be endorsed by the government and it has nothing to do with fear of prayer, it has to do with constitutional violations and the selfish mentality of those who try to commandeer an official government event for their own religious purposes. Telling me to ignore it or step out is not acceptable because it is treating non-christians like second class citizens in a government that is supposed to represent all.

I am a non-Christian and I do not feel violated if someone else intones some prayer or another. I rather expect the same courtesy be extended to me should I wish to exercise my First Amendment rights. You do not have a right to stifle speech you disagree with simply because you find it somehow offensive. I ask again, what exactly do you fear about someone else's prayers? Are you so weak in your own faith that you fear conversion?

I will tell you again, it is not about fear. If that student stood in the hallway of the same school reading his bible out loud, I would not care. Commandeering an official school ceremony to do it is wrong and stopping that student from doing that is not stifling his free speech.

 

[martybegan]

Whatever speech he makes in that position is considered to be endorsed by the government and it has nothing to do with fear of prayer, it has to do with constitutional violations and the selfish mentality of those who try to commandeer an official government event for their own religious purposes. Telling me to ignore it or step out is not acceptable because it is treating non-christians like second class citizens in a government that is supposed to represent all.

I am a non-Christian and I do not feel violated if someone else intones some prayer or another. I rather expect the same courtesy be extended to me should I wish to exercise my First Amendment rights. You do not have a right to stifle speech you disagree with simply because you find it somehow offensive. I ask again, what exactly do you fear about someone else's prayers? Are you so weak in your own faith that you fear conversion?

I will tell you again, it is not about fear. If that student stood in the hallway of the same school reading his bible out loud, I would not care. Commandeering an official school ceremony to do it is wrong and stopping that student from doing that is not stifling his free speech.

Why is it right to stifle one form of thought just because it is religous in nature? Nothing in the 1st amendment says anything about quashing religous speech at all. The church/state clause has been abused to the point where it infringes on people more than it ever infringes on government.

Again, his speech did not force you to join in the prayer, join his church, or pay a tithe. No government actor pushed a religon on you.

 

[martybegan]

First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case

Cole v. Oroville Union High School District, 228 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2000)

Facts:

Ferrin Cole and Chris Niemeyer, students at Oroville High School, were selected to give the invocation and valedictorian graduation speeches, respectively. The district had a policy of reviewing the speeches. During this review process, the school informed the students that their messages were too sectarian and proselytizing and had to be modified. When the students refused, they were denied the opportunity to speak at graduation. The students sued, seeking damages for denial of their First Amendment right of free speech.

Issue:

Whether a school's revocation of students' opportunity to give invocation and valedictorian speeches at graduation due to the religious and proselytizing nature of their messages violates the students' freedom of speech.

Holding:

In a 3-0 decision, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that a graduation ceremony is not an open speech forum but a government ceremony, and as such, the school has a responsibility to avoid Establishment Clause violations during its graduation ceremony.

Reasoning:

The court found that the close control the school exercised over every aspect of the ceremony gave the student speeches the implied endorsement of the school. Since the student messages bore the imprimatur of the school, the school had an obligation to make sure that the student messages would not violate the Establishment Clause. For these reasons, the court easily found that the graduation prayer was problematic irrelevant of its specific theological content.

The valedictorian speech posed harder problems. Yet in the end, the level of the school’s control over the content of the speech indicated that the speech was not purely private student speech, but bore the significant imprimatur of the school.

Majority:

"Because district approval of the content of student speech was required, allowing Niemeyer to make a sectarian, proselytizing speech as part of the graduation ceremony would have lent District approval to the religious message of the speech. Equally important, an objective observer familiar with the District's policy and its implementation would have likely perceived that the speech carried the District's seal of approval." (Judge Raymond C. Fisher)

This case was appealed to the US Supreme Court who declined to hear it leaving the lower court ruling stand.

Just because a bunch of unelected lawyers decide something is right, doesnt make it right.

So basically its OK to infringe upon someones free exercise of religion because some atheists may get all butthurt over it.

Freedom is dead. It dies because of assholes like you.

FYI most of the cases brought before the Supreme Court concerning religion and government are brought on behalf of CHRISTIANS who know how dangerous mixing religion and government can be. Also FYI, free exercise of religion does not include violating the rights of others.

How is a student saying a prayer at a graduation a violation of anyone rights? Its not like a collection basket is being passed around. I fail to see a rights violation in being forced to listen to 1 paragraph.

 

[YWN666]

Just because a bunch of unelected lawyers decide something is right, doesnt make it right.

So basically its OK to infringe upon someones free exercise of religion because some atheists may get all butthurt over it.

Freedom is dead. It dies because of assholes like you.

FYI most of the cases brought before the Supreme Court concerning religion and government are brought on behalf of CHRISTIANS who know how dangerous mixing religion and government can be. Also FYI, free exercise of religion does not include violating the rights of others.

How is a student saying a prayer at a graduation a violation of anyone rights? Its not like a collection basket is being passed around. I fail to see a rights violation in being forced to listen to 1 paragraph.

If the student recites a prayer at the official graduation ceremony, it is considered government endorsement of that prayer and that is a violation of the establishment clause. No one has a constitutional right to have the government promote or endorse their religion so stopping that from happening is not a violation and it doesn't matter if it is 1 paragraph or 300 pages.

 

[YWN666]

I am a non-Christian and I do not feel violated if someone else intones some prayer or another. I rather expect the same courtesy be extended to me should I wish to exercise my First Amendment rights. You do not have a right to stifle speech you disagree with simply because you find it somehow offensive. I ask again, what exactly do you fear about someone else's prayers? Are you so weak in your own faith that you fear conversion?

I will tell you again, it is not about fear. If that student stood in the hallway of the same school reading his bible out loud, I would not care. Commandeering an official school ceremony to do it is wrong and stopping that student from doing that is not stifling his free speech.

Why is it right to stifle one form of thought just because it is religous in nature?

Thought is not being stifled, speech is because it is religious in nature and the government can't promote/endorse it.

Nothing in the 1st amendment says anything about quashing religous speech at all.

Again, if that religious speech violates someone else's rights, then it is not allowed.

The church/state clause has been abused to the point where it infringes on people more than it ever infringes on government.

Preventing constitutional violations does not violate anyone's rights.

Again, his speech did not force you to join in the prayer, join his church, or pay a tithe. No government actor pushed a religon on you.

I disagree. At an official school function like a graduation, a speaker reciting the Lord's Prayer is a call for others to join in and in his capacity as a speaker at the graduation, that student acted as a representative of the government. Read the reasoning in the Court decision I posted. It's all there.

Had the valedictorian been a Muslim and he started reciting prayers from the Koran, you know there would have been a furor but because the prayer was from the majority religion, it got applause from the crowd. Schools should be neutral on the subject of religion.

 

[gallantwarrior]

FYI most of the cases brought before the Supreme Court concerning religion and government are brought on behalf of CHRISTIANS who know how dangerous mixing religion and government can be. Also FYI, free exercise of religion does not include violating the rights of others.

How is a student saying a prayer at a graduation a violation of anyone rights? Its not like a collection basket is being passed around. I fail to see a rights violation in being forced to listen to 1 paragraph.

If the student recites a prayer at the official graduation ceremony, it is considered government endorsement of that prayer and that is a violation of the establishment clause. No one has a constitutional right to have the government promote or endorse their religion so stopping that from happening is not a violation and it doesn't matter if it is 1 paragraph or 300 pages.

So what do you suggest? Perhaps a police sharpshooter stationed in the audience, set to blow the kid's head off at first utterance of words you find offensive?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I will tell you again, it is not about fear. If that student stood in the hallway of the same school reading his bible out loud, I would not care. Commandeering an official school ceremony to do it is wrong and stopping that student from doing that is not stifling his free speech.

Why is it right to stifle one form of thought just because it is religous in nature?

Thought is not being stifled, speech is because it is religious in nature and the government can't promote/endorse it.



Again, if that religious speech violates someone else's rights, then it is not allowed.

The church/state clause has been abused to the point where it infringes on people more than it ever infringes on government.

Preventing constitutional violations does not violate anyone's rights.

Again, his speech did not force you to join in the prayer, join his church, or pay a tithe. No government actor pushed a religon on you.

I disagree. At an official school function like a graduation, a speaker reciting the Lord's Prayer is a call for others to join in and in his capacity as a speaker at the graduation, that student acted as a representative of the government. Read the reasoning in the Court decision I posted. It's all there.

Had the valedictorian been a Muslim and he started reciting prayers from the Koran, you know there would have been a furor but because the prayer was from the majority religion, it got applause from the crowd. Schools should be neutral on the subject of religion.

And yet, you find it perfectly acceptable that government promote and endorse your personal religion, or lack thereof. Unless the speech being suppressed is a clear danger to others, i.e. yelling "fire" in a theater or inciting others to commit crimes, it is protected under the First Amendment.