Another blatant Constitutional violation

[martybegan]

In that instance, it was the same thing.



You might be surprised to find out that atheists have constitutional rights, too.





That's not really up to you, is it?



What a bullshit argument. That case was decided in 1896.

First, stop using bold font, it makes you look like more of an idiot that you actually are.

I like using it because it differentiates the response from the original comment and you don't get to tell me how I should or should not post.



How many times do I have to say this? It is not about being offended. It is about constitutional rights. In case that doesn't sink in, I'll have another repeat standing by.



I was just pointing pout the silliness of your claims that you are not subject to the decisions of a US court. Are you also exempt from criminals laws? How does that work exactly?

And i have shown that the court can be wrong.

Have you? Where?

you based your position on the court, and assume your position is the "right" one.

Plessey V Fergueson is the best example. and tons of people disagree with citizens united.

 

[martybegan]

It most certainly can be, but that is not the assertion now. The assertion now was that the law was not "violated". Certainly if there is a constitutional violation, the law has most certainly been violated. Would you not agree?

Again, how has the Constitution been violated?

It is a public school. Public schools are governmental institutions. Any time a governmental institution is involved, Constitutional limitations apply. Forcing people attending a public school to listen to religious chanting is violative of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Only if the employees of said school, as government actors, impose it on others.

Students are not government actors.

 

[Ernie S.]

It most certainly can be, but that is not the assertion now. The assertion now was that the law was not "violated". Certainly if there is a constitutional violation, the law has most certainly been violated. Would you not agree?

Again, how has the Constitution been violated?

It is a public school. Public schools are governmental institutions. Any time a governmental institution is involved, Constitutional limitations apply. Forcing people attending a public school to listen to religious chanting is violative of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Can you grasp that the school approved a speech that would have been uncontroversial and the student went off script.
Holding the school responsible is as ludicrous as me holding you responsible for rdean's posts.

 

[George Costanza]

Again, how has the Constitution been violated?

It is a public school. Public schools are governmental institutions. Any time a governmental institution is involved, Constitutional limitations apply. Forcing people attending a public school to listen to religious chanting is violative of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Only if the employees of said school, as government actors, impose it on others.

Students are not government actors.

They are deemed to be if they are mouthing their own, personal, religious crap at an official school function, such as a graduation. The school is responsible for what goes on and, hence, is deemed to be sanctioning what is said.

 

[George Costanza]

Again, how has the Constitution been violated?

It is a public school. Public schools are governmental institutions. Any time a governmental institution is involved, Constitutional limitations apply. Forcing people attending a public school to listen to religious chanting is violative of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Can you grasp that the school approved a speech that would have been uncontroversial and the student went off script.
Holding the school responsible is as ludicrous as me holding you responsible for rdean's posts.

Yes, I can "grasp" that - and I agree with your premise. Previously, I was merely discussing the general situation of religious utterances during official school functions.

Besides, I didn't read anything in the OP about the school being sanctioned or punished in any way - it was just a lot of local hoopla between religious nuts and freedom from religion folks over what happened. Nothing to see here . . .

 

[Ernie S.]

OK, but the thread is about this specific case.

 

[martybegan]

It is a public school. Public schools are governmental institutions. Any time a governmental institution is involved, Constitutional limitations apply. Forcing people attending a public school to listen to religious chanting is violative of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Only if the employees of said school, as government actors, impose it on others.

Students are not government actors.

They are deemed to be if they are mouthing their own, personal, religious crap at an official school function, such as a graduation. The school is responsible for what goes on and, hence, is deemed to be sanctioning what is said.

Your bias shows by your reference to "personal religious crap"

Liberals can be the biggest bigots out there.

 

[George Costanza]

Only if the employees of said school, as government actors, impose it on others.

Students are not government actors.

They are deemed to be if they are mouthing their own, personal, religious crap at an official school function, such as a graduation. The school is responsible for what goes on and, hence, is deemed to be sanctioning what is said.

Your bias shows by your reference to "personal religious crap"

Liberals can be the biggest bigots out there.

Yes, that's right - liberals are bigots. If that makes you feel better, keep on with it.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Holding the school responsible is as ludicrous as me holding you responsible for rdean's posts.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you or rdean says can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you would like an attorney but can not afford one, you are screwed.

 

[martybegan]

They are deemed to be if they are mouthing their own, personal, religious crap at an official school function, such as a graduation. The school is responsible for what goes on and, hence, is deemed to be sanctioning what is said.

Your bias shows by your reference to "personal religious crap"

Liberals can be the biggest bigots out there.

Yes, that's right - liberals are bigots. If that makes you feel better, keep on with it.

No YOU are a bigot, and you are a liberal.

 

[hortysir]

It is a public school. Public schools are governmental institutions. Any time a governmental institution is involved, Constitutional limitations apply. Forcing people attending a public school to listen to religious chanting is violative of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Only if the employees of said school, as government actors, impose it on others.

Students are not government actors.

They are deemed to be if they are mouthing their own, personal, religious crap at an official school function, such as a graduation. The school is responsible for what goes on and, hence, is deemed to be sanctioning what is said.

What would you have the school do?

The kid already has his diploma in hand. They can't suspend him.
What recourse did the school have that wouldn't abridge his free exercise thereof?

 

[George Costanza]

Your bias shows by your reference to "personal religious crap"

Liberals can be the biggest bigots out there.

Yes, that's right - liberals are bigots. If that makes you feel better, keep on with it.

No YOU are a bigot, and you are a liberal.

You raise an interesting issue. Let's talk about it a bit. One definition of bias is: " A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." Nothing wrong with a preference or an inclination. We all have them. Does that make us bigots? Of course not. I am not a big fan of organized religion. In other words, I have a "preference or an inclination" which is opposed to organized religion. Does that make me a bigot? I don't think it does, any more than a preference for religion would make someone a bigot.

It isn't a preference for or against something that makes someone a bigot. It's how one acts on that preference that may make them a bigot. Here is a pretty good definition of a bigot, I think: A bigot is "someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."

I don't agree with the concept of organized religion. In spite of that, I do not go around treating those who do believe in organized religion with "hatred, contempt or intolerance." In fact, I am personally very tolerant of those who belong to organized religions. It just isn't my cup of tea. I can't recall ever trying to talk someone out of their religious beliefs, ridiculing those beliefs or developing any degree of hatred for them because of their religious beliefs. Live and let live is very much my motto - always has been.

And most liberals I know who share my views on organized religion, nonetheless treat those who are religious in pretty much the same way that I do. You aren't going to see too many liberals putting pressure on religious types to abandon their religious beliefs at the private level. I wish I could say the same for the religious folks who feel compelled to force their religious beliefs on others. Does that make them bigots? Not necessarily - but it does make them annoying.

Do yourself a favor - before you go around calling others bigots, you might want to get a handle on what the term actually means.

 

[Ernie S.]

Does not the choice of the words "personal religious crap" show a "preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment."?

It sure as shit looks like it from here.

 

[George Costanza]

Does not the choice of the words "personal religious crap" show a "preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment."?

It sure as shit looks like it from here.

Sure - I admit to having a bias against organized religion. So what? Does that make me a bigot? Not any more than a Christian having a bias against an atheist make him/her a bigot. (I am not an atheist, BTW.)

I don't mind being accused of having a bias. We ALL have biases. I object to being called bigot. See the difference?

 

[martybegan]

Yes, that's right - liberals are bigots. If that makes you feel better, keep on with it.

No YOU are a bigot, and you are a liberal.

You raise an interesting issue. Let's talk about it a bit. One definition of bias is: " A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." Nothing wrong with a preference or an inclination. We all have them. Does that make us bigots? Of course not. I am not a big fan of organized religion. In other words, I have a "preference or an inclination" which is opposed to organized religion. Does that make me a bigot? I don't think it does, any more than a preference for religion would make someone a bigot.

It isn't a preference for or against something that makes someone a bigot. It's how one acts on that preference that may make them a bigot. Here is a pretty good definition of a bigot, I think: A bigot is "someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."

I don't agree with the concept of organized religion. In spite of that, I do not go around treating those who do believe in organized religion with "hatred, contempt or intolerance." In fact, I am personally very tolerant of those who belong to organized religions. It just isn't my cup of tea. I can't recall ever trying to talk someone out of their religious beliefs, ridiculing those beliefs or developing any degree of hatred for them because of their religious beliefs. Live and let live is very much my motto - always has been.

And most liberals I know who share my views on organized religion, nonetheless treat those who are religious in pretty much the same way that I do. You aren't going to see too many liberals putting pressure on religious types to abandon their religious beliefs at the private level. I wish I could say the same for the religious folks who feel compelled to force their religious beliefs on others. Does that make them bigots? Not necessarily - but it does make them annoying.

Do yourself a favor - before you go around calling others bigots, you might want to get a handle on what the term actually means.

Nope, you hide your bigotry around the veneer of "constitutionality." You could have indicated your disdain of religion without using vulgar words to describe it, but you didn't.

The current move when it comes to the 1st amendment and religion is hostility to religion, not neutrality towards it. The 1st amendment was never meant to prevent people from practicing their religion in public, which is what the current crop of asshole atheists (to discriminate them from non asshole atheists) is hellbent on trying to implement.

Again, if it was the Principal leading or saying a prayer, you have a point. If its a student then I don't see the issue. In fact, most progressives would admire the students rebellious spirit if it were for a topic such as AGW or gay rights. but because it was a prayer their panties all get bunched up.

 

[George Costanza]

No YOU are a bigot, and you are a liberal.

You raise an interesting issue. Let's talk about it a bit. One definition of bias is: " A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." Nothing wrong with a preference or an inclination. We all have them. Does that make us bigots? Of course not. I am not a big fan of organized religion. In other words, I have a "preference or an inclination" which is opposed to organized religion. Does that make me a bigot? I don't think it does, any more than a preference for religion would make someone a bigot.

It isn't a preference for or against something that makes someone a bigot. It's how one acts on that preference that may make them a bigot. Here is a pretty good definition of a bigot, I think: A bigot is "someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."

I don't agree with the concept of organized religion. In spite of that, I do not go around treating those who do believe in organized religion with "hatred, contempt or intolerance." In fact, I am personally very tolerant of those who belong to organized religions. It just isn't my cup of tea. I can't recall ever trying to talk someone out of their religious beliefs, ridiculing those beliefs or developing any degree of hatred for them because of their religious beliefs. Live and let live is very much my motto - always has been.

And most liberals I know who share my views on organized religion, nonetheless treat those who are religious in pretty much the same way that I do. You aren't going to see too many liberals putting pressure on religious types to abandon their religious beliefs at the private level. I wish I could say the same for the religious folks who feel compelled to force their religious beliefs on others. Does that make them bigots? Not necessarily - but it does make them annoying.

Do yourself a favor - before you go around calling others bigots, you might want to get a handle on what the term actually means.

Nope, you hide your bigotry around the veneer of "constitutionality." You could have indicated your disdain of religion without using vulgar words to describe it, but you didn't.

The current move when it comes to the 1st amendment and religion is hostility to religion, not neutrality towards it. The 1st amendment was never meant to prevent people from practicing their religion in public, which is what the current crop of asshole atheists (to discriminate them from non asshole atheists) is hellbent on trying to implement.

Again, if it was the Principal leading or saying a prayer, you have a point. If its a student then I don't see the issue. In fact, most progressives would admire the students rebellious spirit if it were for a topic such as AGW or gay rights. but because it was a prayer their panties all get bunched up.

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, that's right - liberals are bigots. If that makes you feel better, keep on with it.

No YOU are a bigot, and you are a liberal.

You raise an interesting issue. Let's talk about it a bit. One definition of bias is: " A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." Nothing wrong with a preference or an inclination. We all have them. Does that make us bigots? Of course not. I am not a big fan of organized religion. In other words, I have a "preference or an inclination" which is opposed to organized religion. Does that make me a bigot? I don't think it does, any more than a preference for religion would make someone a bigot.

It isn't a preference for or against something that makes someone a bigot. It's how one acts on that preference that may make them a bigot. Here is a pretty good definition of a bigot, I think: A bigot is "someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."

I don't agree with the concept of organized religion. In spite of that, I do not go around treating those who do believe in organized religion with "hatred, contempt or intolerance." In fact, I am personally very tolerant of those who belong to organized religions. It just isn't my cup of tea. I can't recall ever trying to talk someone out of their religious beliefs, ridiculing those beliefs or developing any degree of hatred for them because of their religious beliefs. Live and let live is very much my motto - always has been.

And most liberals I know who share my views on organized religion, nonetheless treat those who are religious in pretty much the same way that I do. You aren't going to see too many liberals putting pressure on religious types to abandon their religious beliefs at the private level. I wish I could say the same for the religious folks who feel compelled to force their religious beliefs on others. Does that make them bigots? Not necessarily - but it does make them annoying.

Do yourself a favor - before you go around calling others bigots, you might want to get a handle on what the term actually means.

True.

It’s the fundamental issue of thought verses action.

Everyone’s a ‘bigot’ to one degree or another, the difference is whether or not one acts on his bigotry.

Conservatives for the most part fail to understand this, and act on their bigotry. They seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, or women their privacy rights, or immigrants their due process rights. And with regard to religion, conservatives for the most part seek to codify Christian dogma into secular law, in violation of the Constitution’s requirement that church and state remain separate.

Conservatives are of course at liberty to hate gays and immigrants, but they’re not at liberty to attempt to use the authority and power of the state to enforce that hate.

 

[Ernie S.]

You raise an interesting issue. Let's talk about it a bit. One definition of bias is: " A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." Nothing wrong with a preference or an inclination. We all have them. Does that make us bigots? Of course not. I am not a big fan of organized religion. In other words, I have a "preference or an inclination" which is opposed to organized religion. Does that make me a bigot? I don't think it does, any more than a preference for religion would make someone a bigot.

It isn't a preference for or against something that makes someone a bigot. It's how one acts on that preference that may make them a bigot. Here is a pretty good definition of a bigot, I think: A bigot is "someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."

I don't agree with the concept of organized religion. In spite of that, I do not go around treating those who do believe in organized religion with "hatred, contempt or intolerance." In fact, I am personally very tolerant of those who belong to organized religions. It just isn't my cup of tea. I can't recall ever trying to talk someone out of their religious beliefs, ridiculing those beliefs or developing any degree of hatred for them because of their religious beliefs. Live and let live is very much my motto - always has been.

And most liberals I know who share my views on organized religion, nonetheless treat those who are religious in pretty much the same way that I do. You aren't going to see too many liberals putting pressure on religious types to abandon their religious beliefs at the private level. I wish I could say the same for the religious folks who feel compelled to force their religious beliefs on others. Does that make them bigots? Not necessarily - but it does make them annoying.

Do yourself a favor - before you go around calling others bigots, you might want to get a handle on what the term actually means.

Nope, you hide your bigotry around the veneer of "constitutionality." You could have indicated your disdain of religion without using vulgar words to describe it, but you didn't.

The current move when it comes to the 1st amendment and religion is hostility to religion, not neutrality towards it. The 1st amendment was never meant to prevent people from practicing their religion in public, which is what the current crop of asshole atheists (to discriminate them from non asshole atheists) is hellbent on trying to implement.

Again, if it was the Principal leading or saying a prayer, you have a point. If its a student then I don't see the issue. In fact, most progressives would admire the students rebellious spirit if it were for a topic such as AGW or gay rights. but because it was a prayer their panties all get bunched up.

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.

That is exactly what happened in this case. The school approved one speech and the kid tore up his copy and went off on his own.

I am Conservative and have no problem whatever with the establishment clause. I don't want King George, barack obama, Joe Lieberman, Teddy Kennedy or Kieth Ellison telling me how to worship. I don't want Pat Robbertson telling me I must worship, or you telling me I must not.

I sure as shit don't ignore the free exercise clause. I believe you are free to deny the existence of a Higher Power, Congressman Ellison is free to attend Mosque, I an free to feel closest to God on my motorcycle at 100 MPH.
As a private citizen, I am as free to express my beliefs as you are to deny God's existence.

 

[George Costanza]

Nope, you hide your bigotry around the veneer of "constitutionality." You could have indicated your disdain of religion without using vulgar words to describe it, but you didn't.

The current move when it comes to the 1st amendment and religion is hostility to religion, not neutrality towards it. The 1st amendment was never meant to prevent people from practicing their religion in public, which is what the current crop of asshole atheists (to discriminate them from non asshole atheists) is hellbent on trying to implement.

Again, if it was the Principal leading or saying a prayer, you have a point. If its a student then I don't see the issue. In fact, most progressives would admire the students rebellious spirit if it were for a topic such as AGW or gay rights. but because it was a prayer their panties all get bunched up.

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.

That is exactly what happened in this case. The school approved one speech and the kid tore up his copy and went off on his own.

I am Conservative and have no problem whatever with the establishment clause. I don't want King George, barack obama, Joe Lieberman, Teddy Kennedy or Kieth Ellison telling me how to worship. I don't want Pat Robbertson telling me I must worship, or you telling me I must not.

I sure as shit don't ignore the free exercise clause. I believe you are free to deny the existence of a Higher Power, Congressman Ellison is free to attend Mosque, I an free to feel closest to God on my motorcycle at 100 MPH.
As a private citizen, I am as free to express my beliefs as you are to deny God's existence.

You know, Ernie, you are one of the few conservatives on this board that I agree with more often than not. I guess it is possible for people to think basically alike and still belong to different parties.

 

[martybegan]

You raise an interesting issue. Let's talk about it a bit. One definition of bias is: " A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." Nothing wrong with a preference or an inclination. We all have them. Does that make us bigots? Of course not. I am not a big fan of organized religion. In other words, I have a "preference or an inclination" which is opposed to organized religion. Does that make me a bigot? I don't think it does, any more than a preference for religion would make someone a bigot.

It isn't a preference for or against something that makes someone a bigot. It's how one acts on that preference that may make them a bigot. Here is a pretty good definition of a bigot, I think: A bigot is "someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."

I don't agree with the concept of organized religion. In spite of that, I do not go around treating those who do believe in organized religion with "hatred, contempt or intolerance." In fact, I am personally very tolerant of those who belong to organized religions. It just isn't my cup of tea. I can't recall ever trying to talk someone out of their religious beliefs, ridiculing those beliefs or developing any degree of hatred for them because of their religious beliefs. Live and let live is very much my motto - always has been.

And most liberals I know who share my views on organized religion, nonetheless treat those who are religious in pretty much the same way that I do. You aren't going to see too many liberals putting pressure on religious types to abandon their religious beliefs at the private level. I wish I could say the same for the religious folks who feel compelled to force their religious beliefs on others. Does that make them bigots? Not necessarily - but it does make them annoying.

Do yourself a favor - before you go around calling others bigots, you might want to get a handle on what the term actually means.

Nope, you hide your bigotry around the veneer of "constitutionality." You could have indicated your disdain of religion without using vulgar words to describe it, but you didn't.

The current move when it comes to the 1st amendment and religion is hostility to religion, not neutrality towards it. The 1st amendment was never meant to prevent people from practicing their religion in public, which is what the current crop of asshole atheists (to discriminate them from non asshole atheists) is hellbent on trying to implement.

Again, if it was the Principal leading or saying a prayer, you have a point. If its a student then I don't see the issue. In fact, most progressives would admire the students rebellious spirit if it were for a topic such as AGW or gay rights. but because it was a prayer their panties all get bunched up.

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.