Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

[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.

[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.

[Aramike]

Unfortunately for your argument, SCOTUS sees it differently:

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe:

Actually it doesn't. That's a completely different situation. It's language:

The delivery of a message such as the invocation here---8212;on school prop-
erty, at school-sponsored events, over the school---8217;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---8212;is not properly characterized
as ---8220;private---8221; speech.

Emphasis mine, doubly on the word "and".

In any case, the 5th Circuit had this to say:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57111291/S...ol-Dist-6-3-11

On this incomplete record at this preliminary injunction stage of the case, we are not persuaded that plaintiffs have shown that they are substantially likely to prevail on themerits, particularly on the issue that the individual prayers or other remarks to be given by students at graduation are, in fact, school sponsored. We also observe in particular thatthe plaintiffs' motion may be rooted at least in part in circumstances that no longer exist.For example, the school has apparently abandoned including the words "invocation" and"benediction" on the program. The motion also did not expressly address the involvementof the valedictorian in the graduation ceremony.

So the way *I* see it, the leg your argument is standing upon is ill-informed at best.

[Aramike]

Oh, and by the way mookie - for future reference Supreme Court rulings aren't immune from one believing that they are wrong, as did three justices in the case you cite. In fact the dissent which I'm referring to is far more in line with where I stand on the issue. You should read it - it's interesting.

I'm curious - what was your take on the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? Oh wait, it's right here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=160591

Well I've got news for you - all your opinions about that are wrong because the Supreme Court disagreed with you.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Oh, and by the way mookie - for future reference Supreme Court rulings aren't immune from one believing that they are wrong, as did three justices in the case you cite. In fact the dissent which I'm referring to is far more in line with where I stand on the issue. You should read it - it's interesting.

I'm curious - what was your take on the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? Oh wait, it's right here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=160591

Well I've got news for you - all your opinions about that are wrong because the Supreme Court disagreed with you.

When you start interpreting the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendments with such certainty, it's helpful to point out that the branch of government who interprets the law has already done the interpreting.

Originally Posted by Platapus

The event leader should just say let us now proceed with the ceremony. There!! No endorsement to whatever specific religion. And for theists, they just need to pray silently as not to disturb those who are there for the ceremony and as a token of respect to the other event participants.

There! No one is forced to pray and no one is forced not to pray. Perfect!!

That's how it should be done.

Exactly. Why even stray close to the line and create a court case over it when there's no pressing need to do so?

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by August

How about an even more pragmatic solution? Get rid of graduation ceremonies altogether. Let the religious students go to their church/mosque/temple/whatever of choice if they want a ceremony and the taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill for it.

The people who attend the graduation ceremony share a mutual interest: to get the HS diploma. Religion is not a common demoninator.
Another thing that those people share, is that they went to an american school, so while it is ok to sing the anthem at the ceremony, it would not be ok to sing the song of the HS football team, as not all students are part of the team or are interested in sports at all.

Originally Posted by August

Of course it'd tear the town into separate (but equal) factions but that's probably the true objective of the objectors anyways.

I get your "separate but equal" phrase, nice implication you are trying to make there. Of course should theists and non-theist go to separate events, schools, toilets and believers should sit in the back of the bus...

However regarding that prejudice against atheists seems to be supported by many Americans (1), maybe atheists should be bussed to schools in christian districts.

(1) a summary of different polls: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistb...istSurveys.htm