Another blatant Constitutional violation

[hortysir]

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.

Which constitutional right, of yours, is being violated by hearing someone pray?

Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT have the right to not be offended.

 

[whitehall]

The Constitutional issue we recognize today came out of a decision written by a former KKK member appointed by FDR. Justice Hugo Black created the modern "separation of church and state" out of thin air. Black was raised with a bias toward Papists and maybe his KKK anger got in the way of his education. There is no such statute in the Constitution that relates to "separation of church and state" as interpreted by Justice Black. As a matter of fact the 1st Amendment affords the freedom of citizens to express religious beliefs in public on government property or private property or anywhere and any time in the greatest Country in the world.

 

[legaleagle_45]

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

You might wish to review Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001)

when a government operates a "limited public forum," it may not discriminate against speech that takes place within that forum on the basis of the viewpoint it expresses—in this case, against religious speech engaged in by an evangelical Christian club for children.

The South Carolina scenario does not pose a Constitutional issue because the speech was obviously not controlled by or directed by the state. The issue in Cole was whether the school could get in trouble for preventing religious speech. At issue was the extent and nature of the control actually asserted over the graduation speeches and the court found that the school exerted such a degree of control over the ceremony that it would be deemed to be governemntal speech. That is not the case in the South Carolina matter. Everyone knows that the government did not endorse this speech, thus no liabilty attaches.

 

[martybegan]

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.

It is only a government endorsement of religion in your easily offended mind. In no way was a government actor endorsing a religion at all.

 

[martybegan]

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.

What you are speaking of is not neutrality, but hostility. Is any reference to religion such a source of butthurt to atheists that they very sound of them causes them pain?

 

[YWN666]

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.



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.

You're making the mistake of equating religious neutrality with atheism.

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.

Nope. The Courts have made it crystal clear that the government or anyone representing the government cannot endorse religion. The student as an individual does have that right but not when he is part of an official school graduation. He can pray in the hallway or out in the parking lot (or even to himself during the ceremony - a quiet prayer is as effective as an out loud group prayer, isn't it?)

My question: If this student was being a good christian, then why did he lie to the school and tell them he would recite the school approved speech?

 

[YWN666]

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?

Already answered.

 

[YWN666]

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.

Which constitutional right, of yours, is being violated by hearing someone pray?

Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT have the right to not be offended.

Once again, it is NOT about being offended. As I said a few times before, I have no problem with a student saying a prayer out in the hallway outside of the official school ceremony. The right that is being violated is my right to have a government that does not favor, promote or endorse religion.

 

[martybegan]

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

Which constitutional right, of yours, is being violated by hearing someone pray?

Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT have the right to not be offended.

Once again, it is NOT about being offended. As I said a few times before, I have no problem with a student saying a prayer out in the hallway outside of the official school ceremony. The right that is being violated is my right to have a government that does not favor, promote or endorse religion.

And again, a student graduating is not a government actor, and said student saying a prayer as part of his graduation speech is not an endorsement via government of his religion.

His saying it does not make you a member of his church, nor force you to tithe, or do anything that breaches the 1st amednment by way of endorsing a religion.

What is actually happening is government supression of the students religious freedom in favor of atheists not having to hear a prayer.

 

[YWN666]

Which constitutional right, of yours, is being violated by hearing someone pray?

Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT have the right to not be offended.

Once again, it is NOT about being offended. As I said a few times before, I have no problem with a student saying a prayer out in the hallway outside of the official school ceremony. The right that is being violated is my right to have a government that does not favor, promote or endorse religion.

And again, a student graduating is not a government actor, and said student saying a prayer as part of his graduation speech is not an endorsement via government of his religion.

In the eyes of the Courts, he is.

His saying it does not make you a member of his church, nor force you to tithe, or do anything that breaches the 1st amednment by way of endorsing a religion.

In the eyes of the Courts, it does. No one is saying that his actions were making us members of the church or forcing us to tithe.

What is actually happening is government supression of the students religious freedom in favor of atheists not having to hear a prayer.

Nonsense. I will once again point out that atheists are not the only ones trying to preserve separation of church and state. The bottom line is that a public school is a government entity and no individual has the right to commandeer shared school resources for their own religious purposes.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Sure, but what are you going to do? Arrest/fine the kid? If there's no action to take afterwards, then what's there to discuss, you know?


.

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.

In this particular situation they should have cut the mike..and had security walk him off stage.

They didn't.

So it's done in this instance.

The best thing they can do moving forward is issue a warning that if that happens again..that's what they will do.

 

[legaleagle_45]

In this particular situation they should have cut the mike..and had security walk him off stage.

They didn't.

So it's done in this instance.

The best thing they can do moving forward is issue a warning that if that happens again..that's what they will do.

Why not arrest him and throw him in jail?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Nonsense. I will once again point out that atheists are not the only ones trying to preserve separation of church and state. The bottom line is that a public school is a government entity and no individual has the right to commandeer shared school resources for their own religious purposes.

Yes they can. You think placing a cross on public property violates the 1st Amend as well, I suppose?

 

[YWN666]

Sure, but what are you going to do? Arrest/fine the kid? If there's no action to take afterwards, then what's there to discuss, you know?


.

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.

In this particular situation they should have cut the mike..and had security walk him off stage.

They didn't.

So it's done in this instance.

The best thing they can do moving forward is issue a warning that if that happens again..that's what they will do.

That sounds reasonable.

 

[YWN666]

Nonsense. I will once again point out that atheists are not the only ones trying to preserve separation of church and state. The bottom line is that a public school is a government entity and no individual has the right to commandeer shared school resources for their own religious purposes.

Yes they can. You think placing a cross on public property violates the 1st Amend as well, I suppose?

It depends on the circumstances. A cross on an individual grave in a Veteran's cemetery is not a problem but if a large cross is installed at the gate to represent the cemetery, then it IS a problem.

 

[legaleagle_45]

It depends on the circumstances. A cross on an individual grave in a Veteran's cemetery is not a problem but if a large cross is installed at the gate to represent the cemetery, then it IS a problem.[/SIZE][/FONT][/B]

I would suggest that the distinction you apply to crosses also applies to schools and other public property. The key distinction being whether it is governmentally sanctioned and directed or whether it is the opinion or speech of an individual.

 

[martybegan]

Once again, it is NOT about being offended. As I said a few times before, I have no problem with a student saying a prayer out in the hallway outside of the official school ceremony. The right that is being violated is my right to have a government that does not favor, promote or endorse religion.

And again, a student graduating is not a government actor, and said student saying a prayer as part of his graduation speech is not an endorsement via government of his religion.

In the eyes of the Courts, he is.

His saying it does not make you a member of his church, nor force you to tithe, or do anything that breaches the 1st amednment by way of endorsing a religion.

In the eyes of the Courts, it does. No one is saying that his actions were making us members of the church or forcing us to tithe.

What is actually happening is government supression of the students religious freedom in favor of atheists not having to hear a prayer.

Nonsense. I will once again point out that atheists are not the only ones trying to preserve separation of church and state. The bottom line is that a public school is a government entity and no individual has the right to commandeer shared school resources for their own religious purposes.

What is created is hostilty to religion, not neutrality. What is the reason is butthurt atheists who want the government to be hostile to religion, and not neutral to it.

Again, no force is done to make you join a church or pay into it. No government actor is endorsing the religion when some valerdictorian mentions god or prays during his speech.

It would take the Principal of the school praying or endoring religion to make it the acts of a government actor.

 

[martybegan]

Sure, but what are you going to do? Arrest/fine the kid? If there's no action to take afterwards, then what's there to discuss, you know?


.

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.

In this particular situation they should have cut the mike..and had security walk him off stage.

They didn't.

So it's done in this instance.

The best thing they can do moving forward is issue a warning that if that happens again..that's what they will do.

So some student mentioning God or praying during his valerdictorian speech merits thugs escorting him off stage?

If you are so offended by prayer that you cant hear it for 2 minutes, i suggest you get a spine.

Meanwhile if he wanted to spout about things progressives actually like, he/she can drone on for hours.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Ah..so..you weren't calling the Muslim Center built in lower Manhattan the victory mosque, right? And you fully supported it's building.

Right?

Yes or No.

 

[Sallow]

In this particular situation they should have cut the mike..and had security walk him off stage.

They didn't.

So it's done in this instance.

The best thing they can do moving forward is issue a warning that if that happens again..that's what they will do.

Why not arrest him and throw him in jail?

Why? He's not violating the law.