Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

[Aramike]

Anyone pro-prayer at graduation. Would you be cool with next year the prayer done by an imam shouting "alah'u akbar!"? How about some stoner kids that want to do a prayer to satan? How about a polytheist prayer to all the gods? Zeus? Apollo?

If that was the will of the people, while I wouldn't like it, I would support their right to do so.

"Free exercise thereof" doesn't mean "free and EQUAL exercise thereof"...

[tater]

Originally Posted by Aramike

That's different. Listening to one's radio too loudly can actually impede others from going about their business. The problem is not whether or not they like the music, but rather that the music is so loud that it is infringing upon another's right to freely exercise their liberties.

Regarding religion, and specifically this discussion, that isn't the problem. The anti-religious crowd isn't feverish over the "volume" but the "content".

The content matters because the government is sanctioning it. If the content was not religious, it would not be "establishment."

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Aramike

That's different. Listening to one's radio too loudly can actually impede others from going about their business. The problem is not whether or not they like the music, but rather that the music is so loud that it is infringing upon another's right to freely exercise their liberties.

Regarding religion, and specifically this discussion, that isn't the problem. The anti-religious crowd isn't feverish over the "volume" but the "content".

Wrong, at least for atheists like me. I do not care so much for the content, but the volume. I never met any atheist bashing religious people over their content , but their "volume".

As I use to say: keep religion to thyself. What people do in their private sphere, in their own cabin, I do care as little for as I do care for what goes on in other people's bedrooms. Butwhen my kids need to get exposed to religiously pressure/concepts/rituals/claims in the public spohere, in public school, then that is when I call to arms - no matter wghat relgion it is about and no matter whether that religions claims it has a religious duty to missionise.

I despise missionaries. None of them has to expect anything good from me. I give them one warning. If they need a second warning in order to win ground, they already have behaved in an invading, aggressive manner. One "No" should be enough. And in public, state-run institutions, any such "No" should not even been needed - religious agendas have to stay out from the beginning there. That cames as part of secularism.

It comes down to this freedom of reliious practicing needs to accept peoples freedom FROMgion as well. Else said religion becomes a tyranny, a dicatorship of the religious sectarians over those not falling for that religion.

No religion has the right to demand non-followers to fall back, to give space to, to accept a degrading of their freedoms for the benefit of the freedom of said religion. This statement is non-negotiable. From this treshhold criterion on (at the latest), atheists and other non-believers speaking out against said religion are not acting intolerant, or aggressive, but in a clear and imminent case of self-defence. That is true regarding Islam. That is true regarding Jewish othodox and Jehovian witnesses. That is true regarding any sectarians . And of course it is true in case of American Christian fundamentalists as well.

Tolerance is no one-way road. It is a deal of reciprocity. There shall not be tolerance for the intolerant. In the end it is easy to get along with "atheists like me": don't claim what is not yours, don'T stick your nose into my/our private business, don't break the laws or basic human rights, don't try to turn the country into a theocracy basing on your beliefs, and I/we do not care much for what you claim to beieve in. Push your religious views into the public space, into a school curriculum, into policy- and law-making and access procedures for public services or public offices, or rub your stuff under my/our nose(s) in a missionising attempt - and find yourself meeting the more bitter resistence the more you try.

[MH]

Since religious people are so sensitive about their believes the removal of the practice from government institutions should actually work for the better.
Certainly in country like USA which is multicultural in many ways.
This way using religion as political statements as it often happens and possibly happened in this case will be avoided as well.

Sadly religious/atheist views are part of left/right conflict as well.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

The bad precedent, however is that Congress opens with a prayer, which frankly it should not.

Actually instead of setting a bad precedent I believe it illustrates exactly how the founders intended the first Amendment to be understood.

We have the freedom to worship. Nobody can force you but nobody can stop you either. The modern notion that the 1st Amendment bans all references to God in public functions is something that I doubt any of the founders would have agreed to.

In fact read what the US Senates chaplain, yes they have one, says about it. http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm

Throughout the years, the United States Senate has honored the historic separation of Church and State, but not the separation of God and State. The first Senate, meeting in New York City on April 25, 1789, elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provost, the Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first Chaplain. During the past two hundred and seven years, all sessions of the Senate have been opened with prayer, strongly affirming the Senate's faith in God as Sovereign Lord of our Nation.

[tater]

That chaplain is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, clearly. "God" (singular) is already "establishment" in fact. Why not "gods?"

You say no one can force you, but no one can stop you---8212;when the prayers is said by a government official, it is the State engaging in religion, not the individual. The principal, etc, can say whatever they like on their own time, in their home, church, or even on a soap box in the park. I don't think they should do so in their official capacity, and if they do, they should be required to include every single possible belief.

A "sharper knife" wrote:

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Should not the Senate chaplain be required to alternate "prayers" for every single practice in the US out of fairness? Branch Davidian prayer, the nuts who offed themselves waiting for the UFO, the flying spaghetti monster, satan, wicca, etc, ad nauseum. All it should take is a petition, and the prayer should be forced on him.

In general I'm rather loose about separation. I've posted here that some suits brought are absurd (like changing city seals that date back hundreds of years to remove crosses, etc). This comes up in NM all the time with towns like "Santa" this and that, and "Las Cruces" (the crosses)... where such cases are heard in our capital, "Holy Faith" (Santa Fe) which is nestled in the "Blood of Christ" mountains (Sangre de Christo). It can go too far. Prayer, OTOH, is way beyond this, and is in fact an overtly religious act by the state.

Yeah, I'm against the 10 commandments on the SCOTUS building, too (amazing anyone thinks those ridiculous commandments deserve to be there (they also seem to forget that the punishment for most all transgressions of them is in fact supposed to be death)).

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

A

In fact read what the US Senates chaplain, yes they have one, says about it. http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm

I don't think a chaplain would be considered an unbiased source on this matter.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I have a sneaky suspicion that a congressional chaplain might be leaning more towards a theist point of view.

Just a suspicion mind you.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Actually instead of setting a bad precedent I believe it illustrates exactly how the founders intended the first Amendment to be understood.

We have the freedom to worship. Nobody can force you but nobody can stop you either. The modern notion that the 1st Amendment bans all references to God in public functions is something that I doubt any of the founders would have agreed to.

The Founder who masterminded the Constitution would certainly have agreed with that ban.

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

-James Madison, Detached Memoranda
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...ligions64.html

Madison also believed that the military should not have chaplains, and that if Congress insisted on prayer then they should pay the chaplains out of their own pockets rather than have the taxpayers do it.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by tater

The content matters because the government is sanctioning it. If the content was not religious, it would not be "establishment."

The government is not "sanctioning" it, it is merely not interferring with it. The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is the limitation of government powers, and the 1st Amendment CLEARLY states that government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

The government is not "sanctioning" it, it is merely not interferring with it. The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is the limitation of government powers, and the 1st Amendment CLEARLY states that government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Listing "benediction" and "invocation" in the program make it pretty clear that these are part of the official ceremony put on by the school. That goes far beyond non-interference.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The Founder who masterminded the Constitution would certainly have agreed with that ban.

Madison also believed that the military should not have chaplains, and that if Congress insisted on prayer then they should pay the chaplains out of their own pockets rather than have the taxpayers do it.

Yet a majority of Congress must have disagreed with Madison because they did do all of that.

I don't think we should base our interpretation of our Constitutional amendments by what individual members said or wrote. Politicians say all sorts of things before, during and after the passage of legislation, and for various reasons too depending on their audience, but the only thing that should really count is what is actually voted into law by the legislative body as a whole.

I think if Congress had agreed with Jeffersons total "Wall of Separation" then I think they would have said so, but they didn't. The First Amendment is pretty clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

There is nothing in that which implies a community free Americans cannot include prayers and benedictions in their civic ceremonies, just like the US Congress does.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Listing "benediction" and "invocation" in the program make it pretty clear that these are part of the official ceremony put on by the school. That goes far beyond non-interference.

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Yet a majority of Congress must have disagreed with Madison because they did do all of that.

Yes, a majority of Congress did vote to have their religious preferrences installed into the National Government, thereby ignoring their own "No Law" rule.

I don't think we should base our interpretation of our Constitutional amendments by what individual members said or wrote. Politicians say all sorts of things before, during and after the passage of legislation, and for various reasons too depending on their audience, but the only thing that should really count is what is actually voted into law by the legislative body as a whole.

Congress has always had one law for themselves and another for everybody else. What's that old saw about "tyrrany of the masses"?

I think if Congress had agreed with Jeffersons total "Wall of Separation" then I think they would have said so, but they didn't. The First Amendment is pretty clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

But Congressional prayer, or any officially sanctioned public prayer is not free excersise, it's forced religious exercise, forced on anyone who disagrees with it.

There is nothing in that which implies a community free Americans cannot include prayers and benedictions in their civic ceremonies, just like the US Congress does.

As I said, what you described is not free exercise at all, but the religious forcing everyone in the community to be a part of their worship. That goes against the spirit of the Constitution, as well as what Jesus himself said. If you pray in public, out loud, you're a hypocrite.

[Aramike]

But Congressional prayer, or any officially sanctioned public prayer is not free excersise, it's forced religious exercise, forced on anyone who disagrees with it.

How? No one is forced to participate, and if I'm not mistaken, no one is forced to even be in the chambers when the prayer occurs.

As I said, what you described is not free exercise at all, but the religious forcing everyone in the community to be a part of their worship.

By that logic anyone who worships openly anywhere would be "forcing" others to be a part of their worship.

[mookiemookie]

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:

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:

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.