Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
So? The 1st Amendment regarding religion means two simple things: government cannot impose religious practices upon people and it cannot interfere with it.
Perhaps to you, a prayer is a massive intrusion. To me in this case its a respectful observance of the will of the majority that does NOT intrude upon anyone. There is no compulsion to participate.
And finally, I'm pretty sure that the 2nd Amendment says that "Congress shall make NO LAW..." This is not about any law. But if it were banned, it would be a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.
|
Unfortunately for your argument, SCOTUS sees it differently:
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe:
Quote:
The delivery of a message such as the invocation here—on school prop-
erty, at school-sponsored events, over the school’s public address sys-
tem, by a speaker representing the student body, under the super-
vision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly
and implicitly encourages public prayer—is not properly characterized
as “private” speech.
|
I.e. it's officially endorsed. The court has ruled that this sort of thing is not, as you say, non-interference.
Your second argument, that there's non coercison has been addressed by the court as well:
Quote:
The first part of this argument—that there is no impermissible government coercion
because the pregame messages are the product of student choices—fails
for the reasons discussed above explaining why the mechanism of the
dual elections and student speaker do not turn public speech into pri-
vate speech.
|
The way I see it, your arguments are left without a leg to stand on. It's public speech, endorsed by the school, and the fact that its not forced on someone doesn't make it any less so.