Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

[Castout]

Originally Posted by tater

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?

Sure why not even praying to satan as long as they don't break the law while praying whatever and however they do it.

Really.

If it's a Muslim community event sure why not an Imam to lead their Muslim community to pray according to Islam tradition even in public venue.

The prayer leader should just say let us now bow our head in prayer according to each of our faith . . . . . . There!! No endorsement to whatever specific religion. And for atheists they just need to be silent as not to disturb those who pray and as a token of respect to other believers as their faith/belief is the nonexistence of God.

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

[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.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Then people should have the right to pray silently and without calling attention to it. That's a win win situation

The prayers get to pray, those who don't wanna don't have to hear/see it.

Unfortunately, that is not what many of these theists want. They want it to be a big public thing. They want things to stop so that everyone notices that they are praying (or pretending to).

A person who is secure in their faith can pray in a crowded room and no one will ever notice. Why does it have to be a public "hey pay attention to what I am doing" thing?

That's what I don't understand. Why does praying need to be a formal part of a ceremony?

Yea good point dood...

Matthew 6 5-6
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. "

Good point Platapus

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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

No one is forced? If I want to attend your church service I can, and if I don't want to I don't have to. If I want to attend the council meeting, or the congressional session I shouldn't have to also be a part of your worship. What? I can wait outside while you conduct your service? If I don't like it I don't have to come?

Can you really not see how arrogant that is? Using public time and money for your worship service is very much forcing your beliefs on everyone else, and is exactly what people like Madison, Adams and Jefferson were trying to prevent.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If it is a public school, the state has to make sure not to propagate or support any religion in the public space. It's called secularism, and is based on the 1st amendement:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [...]

People' freedom ends where they practice it at the cost of the freedom of others, hence: keep away religion from state-run institutions and the communal public space. Leave it to the private sphere of the individuals.

That is where personal belief in the divine belong anyway. What is between you and your God, is your intimate business only for which nobody else must care. Where you claim the public sphere for your belief, you are supressing others, and turn from religion to politics.

this.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Castout

The prayer leader should just say let us now bow our head in prayer according to each of our faith . . . . . . There!! No endorsement to whatever specific religion. And for atheists they just need to be silent as not to disturb those who pray and as a token of respect to other believers as their faith/belief is the nonexistence of God.

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

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.

[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?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

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.

But the constitution also says that there will be no religious test for federal government positions.

To me, this clearly indicates an intent to keep religion a private thing and totally separate from official duties.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

But the constitution also says that there will be no religious test for federal government positions.

To me, this clearly indicates an intent to keep religion a private thing and totally separate from official duties.

I don't see the connection. It's the same thing as saying "Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and obviously any such religious test would require that. But there was no test or Federal government position involved with the Texas Graduation Ceremony so how does that give the Feds the right to inhibit those folks free expression?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

I don't see the connection. It's the same thing as saying "Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and obviously any such religious test would require that. But there was no test or Federal government position involved with the Texas Graduation Ceremony so how does that give the Feds the right to inhibit those folks free expression?

He's saying its indicative of the position of the framers on religion. Not necessarily that it's applicable, but evidence for the fact that they wanted to keep religion and government separate.

It's not necessarily a bright line between the Federal and local governments, either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...Bill_of_Rights

[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

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

He's saying its indicative of the position of the framers on religion.

Not quite Mookie. It is indicative of the position of one of the framers, not the framers as a group. There were those in Congress who voted against the 21st amendment too. That does not make their beliefs the law of the land.

Not necessarily that it's applicable, but evidence for the fact that they wanted to keep religion and government separate.

Again with the "they". Madison was an individual, not a group. We just cannot go by the recorded thoughts of one, two or even several individuals no matter how prestigious they were. We must only go by what the majority of the group decided.

Congress making no laws about the establishment and specifically not being able to prohibit the free exercise of religion was all that the majority agreed to and nothing more. That was all the states ratified and nothing more.

If you want to amplify that meaning to include things not in the original then fine. The proper way to do it is to convene a Constitutional Convention and pass another amendment. Any other way is simply unconstitutional.

[tater]

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.

I'm not suggesting they prohibit religion. Anyone who wants can pray silently at any time. Or the audience is welcome to be rude and pray out loud I suppose. Having even a moment of prayer set aside, however, is going too far, much less actually praying out loud using the PA system.

If you want a prayer meeting, hold it before or after the graduation for those who wish to attend. Not during the ceremony to hand out diplomas.

[Aramike]

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.

Except that branch that interprets the law wasn't very certain either, ergo the dissent.