The ACLU's new cause: jail time for unapproved speech. [Archive]

ITR champion

09-07-2009, 01:16 AM

In Santa Rosa County, Florida, the ACLU filed a lawsuit alleging first amendment violations. The case lead to further cases and eventual agreements. Among the results, the principal Frank Lay and another administrator, Robert Freeman, may face jail time because they offered a blessing of a new building at the school at a ceremony attended by adults. Another employee, Michelle Winkler, is being prosecuted because she requested a prayer at an event that wasn't even held on school property. The President of the senior class, Mary Allen, was banned from speaking at this year's graduation ceremony because she was a Christian, even though it's customary for the class president to speak at the ceremony. Here's an article on the case. (http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2009/08/christian-law-firm-stands-with-school-officials-who-are-facing-criminal-charges-for-praying-at-a-lun-1.html) The information about Mary Allen is not mentioned there; it comes from a Washington Times article from last month.

I have to admit being a little bit puzzled by this. My copy of the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I interpret this as meaning that any person can say what they want, when they want, where they want, and the federal government cannot stop them. The ACLU apparently interprets it as meaning the opposite, namely that the government can imprison and otherwise punish people for their speech or for their religion.

statsman1982

09-07-2009, 01:27 AM

If I recall correctly, the penalty of jail time is the result of their violating a court order, not the saying of a blessing per se.

I highly doubt that Mary Allen is being prohibited from speaking solely because she is a Christian, but rather, she was planning on delivering a message that had religious content. I could be wrong, though. I'd appreciate it if you could dig up that link to the Times so I could read it for myself.

I interpret this as meaning that any person can say what they want, when they want, where they want, and the federal government cannot stop them.

It has never been interpreted this way. Even under the newly minted Constitution we had the Alien and Sedition Acts. Government has always sought to put a few restrictions on speech. That's why cases arguing the infringement of free speech are still relevant. There are times when the courts have found that speech can and should be restricted. For example, you can't advocate the killing of the U. S. president without the Secret Service taking a very serious look at you. For another, there is the whole "shouting fire in a crowded theater" argument.

Diogenes the Cynic

09-07-2009, 01:38 AM

They're being proscuted for contempt of court, not for speech.
I have to admit being a little bit puzzled by this. My copy of the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I interpret this as meaning that any person can say what they want, when they want, where they want, and the federal government cannot stop them.
Your understanding is erroneous, or at least incomplete. What you're missing is that these individuals ARE the government. That's what religionists ALWAYS miss about cases like this. Citizens can say whatever they want, but the government can't. Public school officials are agents of the government. Public school officials are not allowed to proselytize in their roles as government agents. Do you understand that public school officials are agents of the government? Do you understand the Establishment Clause? The ACLU is helping to ENFORCE the First Amendment, not abridge it. Why do you want the government telling you what God to worship?

By the way, it's completely irrelevant that these events were attended by adults. The First Amendment protects all citizens from proselytization by the state, not just children.

Larry Borgia

09-07-2009, 01:45 AM

Another view (http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/7363)

ETA: to OP and his article, not to respondents.

DanBlather

09-07-2009, 01:53 AM

If you look at the case it is about a school that has a long tradition of inserting prayer into school events. The teachers handbook says that teachers are to spread Christian values. No one cares if you pray before school, after school, or at school for that matter if it is not led by school officials and other students practicing their religion are given the same opportunity. I was subjected to Roman Catholic prayers in public school and was very upset because I was a protestant. I was happy the day the SC banned organized orayer in school as I no longer had to choose between going along and offending God (who as we all know is not Roman Catholic) or being the kid in class that was "different" becuase I didn't say the prayers the same way. Some kids in my class didn't even believe that protestants were really christians.

Now maybe we should pick which bible to use in school, which version of the 10 commanments to post, which day of the week is the sabbath, and who are real christians. But to my mind the US is such a religious country BECAUSE of separation of church and state, not DESPITE it. England has a state church and they they are much less religious than the US.

The school in Florida displayed bad manners to students of other (or no) faiths, and knowingly defied the law. Where should we stop? Is it OK to have a "moment of handling snakes" before school? Can the Santerias kill a chcicken in assembly? Could an atheist principal start each day by giving a speech on why God does not exist?

Polycarp

09-07-2009, 01:56 AM

Mrs. Hedrick was my fourth grade teacher. She was also my fourth grade Sunday School teacher. One of the lessons she taught me (and Gary and Fred and Steve and Sandy and the other kids I went to school and church with) was that her job at school was to teach us, and the Catholic kids, what the school board said she was supposed to teach. And at church she was free to tell us what she believed and thought we should too, but not at school.

IMO, we need more Mrs. Hedricks. She was a woman of faith, but also a woman dedicated to what America has stood for, including freedom of religion.

Too bad she passed away -- it sounds like a Washington Times reporter or two could use a lesson in elementary-school-level civics.

hotflungwok

09-07-2009, 02:02 AM

Way to go ITR Champion. You've not only parroted the intentionally misleading headline so many news outlets have gone with, but you've managed to push the lie out just that much further, enabling you to not only play the religious martyr, but also the Constitutional one. Bravo.

First and foremost, the crime here is not prayer, not is it protected speech. The crime is violating a court order. The administrator of the public school was sued for repeated and flagrant violations of the First Amendment, and the out of court settlement included provisions for further violations of the First Amendment.

You know the first Amendment ITR Champion, right? It goes 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' And what this is generally interpreted as meaning is that public run agencies, such as public schools like Pace High School, are not allowed to favor one religion. Lets have a look at the handbook this principal gave, hopefully, to the teachers at the school. It says that they should
embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the practice of every Christian virtue.
Now does this sound like it might be favoring any particular religion? Maybe the one mentioned by name in the book?

You know what? I hope this guy doesn't get jail time. I don't think he deserves it. The incident doesn't sound like something done 'institutionally', it just sounds like a prayer before eating to me. Yes, he might be violating the settlement he agreed to abide by, that's for the court the decide, but I hope they don't give him more than a slap on the wrist for it.

Of course, if these headlines are anything to go by, we'd then see stuff like 'Christianity proven right in court!' and 'Prayer allowed in public schools!'. You wanna talk about this case, fine, present the facts and lets have a debate. Don't walking here and start with the 'Oh woe is us, for we are beset!' horsecrap. This whole thing could have been avoided if the guy wasn't pushing his beliefs down children's throats in the first place.

magellan01

09-07-2009, 02:09 AM

We've debated this before, but a valedictorian should be able to share what he or she thinks helped her succeed. If that is God or church or a purely rationalistic, agnostic or atheistic view that she holds important, he or she should be able to share it.

ITR champion

09-07-2009, 02:11 AM

They're being proscuted for contempt of court, not for speech.
They were given a court order telling them that they no longer had freedom of speech; now they are being prosecuted for violating that court order. The fact that the process occurred in two steps does not change the fact that they are being prosecuted because of what they said.

Your understanding is erroneous, or at least incomplete. What you're missing is that these individuals ARE the government. That's what religionists ALWAYS miss about cases like this. Citizens can say whatever they want, but the government can't. Public school officials are agents of the government. Public school officials are not allowed to proselytize in their roles as government agents. Do you understand that public school officials are agents of the government? Do you understand the Establishment Clause? The ACLU is helping to ENFORCE the First Amendment, not abridge it.
Since I posted a copy of the First Amendment, you can see for yourself that it only restricts what Congress can do. It does not say a single word about what a high school principal, teacher, or school board employee can do. The idea that the First Amendment restricts public school officials is factually false. They are not mentioned in the First Amendment, nor the Fourteenth, nor anywhere else in the Constitution. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about restricting any religious activities among government employees or anyone else. Government employees lead religious activities every day. Does not the military have thousands of chaplains, paid by government money, whose duties are entirely religious? Do not numerous departments at all levels have government have chaplains as well? Did not the first Congress have a paid minister to lead prayers? Did not George Washington (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/thankstext.html) call on the American people to worship God? Wasn't he involved in the government in some way?

Polycarp

09-07-2009, 02:15 AM

Just a quick emendation to what Hotflungwok had to say. The violation was not tecnically of the First Amendment, though it involved First Amendment rights, but of the Fourteenth Amendment. The First protects American citizens against infringement of their freedom of speech and of religion by Congress -- and by extension the Administration, which must be authorized to act by Congressional statute except in a very small sphere of activity. The Fourteenth forbids the states, including their creatures the local governments, school districts, and such, from abridging rights of American citizens.

And right there is the problem. Messrs. Lay and Freeman and Ms. Allen are free to speak their minds and practice their religion as private citizens and as members of their churches, on their own time or as employees of their churches. But when they act in official capacities, as officials or employees of a state-chartered body like a public school, they forfeit their right to evangelize and to lead people in prayer, because the rights of the schoolchildren and their parents to freely exercise their own beliefs -- or lack therreof -- is being infringed, by action taken by a government official. There is no difference in kind, only in degree, between a first grate public school teacher leading her charges in the Lord's Prayer and the President making his church of choice mandatory on all citizens -- in both cases, it's a public official using the power of the state to compel a religious practice on another.

ITR champion

09-07-2009, 02:23 AM

I highly doubt that Mary Allen is being prohibited from speaking solely because she is a Christian, but rather, she was planning on delivering a message that had religious content. I could be wrong, though. I'd appreciate it if you could dig up that link to the Times so I could read it for myself.

Here's the article: (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/criminal-prayer-case-stirs-protests/)

Mr. Staver said the district also agreed to forbid senior class President Mary Allen from speaking at the school's May 30 graduation ceremony on the chance that the young woman, a known Christian, might say something religious.

"She was the first student body president in 33 years not allowed to speak," he said.

This portion of the events at Pace High School is completely omitted from the article that Larry Borgia linked to.

It has never been interpreted this way. Even under the newly minted Constitution we had the Alien and Sedition Acts. Government has always sought to put a few restrictions on speech. That's why cases arguing the infringement of free speech are still relevant. There are times when the courts have found that speech can and should be restricted. For example, you can't advocate the killing of the U. S. president without the Secret Service taking a very serious look at you. For another, there is the whole "shouting fire in a crowded theater" argument.
Obviously free speech does not include treason, murder, or any other crime. But this case is not about Lay and Freeman committing some other crime by speaking. In their case, we're told that speaking is the crime. Because they spoke, they were forced to sign a court order telling them not to speak. Then because they spoke again, they may go to jail.

DanBlather

09-07-2009, 02:30 AM

Diogenes the Cynic

09-07-2009, 02:34 AM

They were given a court order telling them that they no longer had freedom of speech
No, they were given a court order not to proselytize as agents of the government. In any unofficial capacity, they were free to say whatever they wanted.
Since I posted a copy of the First Amendment, you can see for yourself that it only restricts what Congress can do.
The jusisprudence is well established on this point. You're wrong.
The idea that the First Amendment restricts public school officials is factually false.
It is factually established LAW. You flat don't know what you're talking about. Government employees lead religious activities every day. Does not the military have thousands of chaplains, paid by government money, whose duties are entirely religious?
Their services are sought out only voluntarily. They cannot be foisted on those who don't want them You are incredibly ignorant of the jurisprudence here.

ITR champion

09-07-2009, 02:34 AM

Just a quick emendation to what Hotflungwok had to say. The violation was not tecnically of the First Amendment, though it involved First Amendment rights, but of the Fourteenth Amendment. The First protects American citizens against infringement of their freedom of speech and of religion by Congress -- and by extension the Administration, which must be authorized to act by Congressional statute except in a very small sphere of activity. The Fourteenth forbids the states, including their creatures the local governments, school districts, and such, from abridging rights of American citizens.

Here's what the relevant part of the Fourteenth Amendment actually says:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So nothing in their extends the Constitution as a whole, or the First Amendment in particular, down to the level of the states, much less to a high school principal. The real purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make certain that the prohibition of slavery in the Thirteenth could be enforced. Those who voted the Fourteenth into law would be completely baffled to see it used to censor high school teachers and other local officials on religious issues. Indeed, the Supreme Court did not use that argument until nearly a century after the Fourteenth was ratified. Hence it's a case of the court making a law that didn't exist previously, as opposed to simply enforcing a law that did.

But let me ask you, if as you say state employees only have the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech "on their own time", how do you justify chaplains and all the other obvious cases of government employees hired with religious duties? Should they be prosecuted as well?

statsman1982

09-07-2009, 03:52 AM

...how do you justify chaplains and all the other obvious cases of government employees hired with religious duties? Should they be prosecuted as well?Bolding mine.

We could debate whether chaplains belong in the armed services, or whether a prayer should be said before the opening of the Supreme Court, or any number of other situations in which religion comes up. In some cases, I would agree with you that some of these seem inconsistent with one another. But these are, indeed, separate issues, dealt with by other case law. Let's stick to the point at hand.

I am sorry, but I think you are failing to understand that the whole reason prosecution is being brought into this at all is that they violated a court order. It has been decided--rightly or wrongly, and some people will still debate this point--that favoring a single religion in a public school setting is overstepping the bounds of what agents of the school can do. Done. Settled. They were ordered not do to this by a court, and they did it anyway. Thus, jail time, again for violating a court order, not for praying per se.

ETA (doing this a lot lately with my posts): The Mary Allen issue, I'll admit, seems a little bit over the top on the part of the administration. In fact, I'm willing to be that if the court order hadn't been violated, if she did say anything religious at the ceremony, no one would have done more than grumble. But now, thanks to the pseudo-martyrs testing the court's ruling, she won't get to speak.

kaylasdad99

09-07-2009, 05:00 AM

ETA (doing this a lot lately with my posts): The Mary Allen issue, I'll admit, seems a little bit over the top on the part of the administration. In fact, I'm willing to be that if the court order hadn't been violated, if she did say anything religious at the ceremony, no one would have done more than grumble. But now, thanks to the pseudo-martyrs testing the court's ruling, she won't get to speak.More like didn't get to speak, as the graduation ceremony took place last May.

There was a religious-themed Baccalaureate ceremony the day before the graduation, IAUI, and she got to speak at that.

But your point is well-taken.

FinnAgain

09-07-2009, 05:59 AM

Look at the First Amendment, you can see for yourself that it only restricts what Congress can do. It does not say a single word about what a Mayor, policeman. or school offical can do. The idea that the First Amendment restricts public school officials is factually false.

No, actually it's not.
It's correct on a factual level because that's how the law of the land has been interpreted by our highest judicial body.
It's also correct on a factual level since the first amendment protects citizens from Congress forcing/advocating a religion upon/at them. As such, individual states can also not "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" by forcing/advocating a religion upon/at them.

As schools are official organs of individual states, they too are bound by that.

No, they cannot lead prayers to Allah, or any other religious ceremony. It is a violation of an American's privileges and immunities to make their own religious choices without the state declaring itself, in one way or another, for one religion or religious view. The idea that individual states can then violate that privilege and immunity but only Congress can't is neither supported by the facts, nor by the current law of the land which is built on precedent and the rulings of the SCOTUS.

Left Hand of Dorkness

09-07-2009, 06:23 AM

Since I posted a copy of the First Amendment, you can see for yourself that it only restricts what Congress can do. It does not say a single word about what a high school principal, teacher, or school board employee can do. The idea that the First Amendment restricts public school officials is factually false.
Others have pointed out how terribly wrong you are here. I also want to point out that your idea that the first amendment protects them is also factually false. There are plenty of things my principal could say on her own time ("Mr. Smith is an asshole," "Our president is an Arab Muslim who wants to destroy America, and we should all oppose him," "Hail Satan," "Dear Jesus, please bless this food") that she may not say while on the government's dime, or while wearing the government's mantle of authority.

You want a real travesty to address, how about this: every morning, North Carolina law requires me to pledge allegiance to a flag (a pledge that I find morally offensive), declare that we are one nation under God (a declaration that I find completely obnoxious), and describe our country as indivisible (a description that, these days, I find laughably incorrect). But let's just focus on the fact that I'm essentially required to affirm a belief in God in front of my students every day, leading them in the same affirmation.

NC law makes an exception to the requirement for students who do not wish to make the pledge, but there is no such exception for teachers.

Now THAT's a violation of the first amendment.

Fantome

09-07-2009, 07:59 AM

I interpret this as meaning that any person can say what they want, when they want, where they want, and the federal government cannot stop them. The ACLU apparently interprets it as meaning the opposite, namely that the government can imprison and otherwise punish people for their speech or for their religion. Since the ACLU isn't in charge of interpreting and enforcing laws, shouldn't your grievance be with another agency?

jtgain

09-07-2009, 08:42 AM

At this point, I'll insert my usual plug for school privatization so as to solve this issue (among others) If schools administrators are no longer agents of the government, then anything goes with respect to religion/no religion and people can vote with their funds.

Don't like the fact that there is no prayer in your child's school, then go to the competing one down the road

Polycarp

09-07-2009, 09:15 AM

So nothing in their extends the Constitution as a whole, or the First Amendment in particular, down to the level of the states, much less to a high school principal.
In their what? Although I might give a more substantive answer, and say that your interpretation in effect says, "Citizens of the United States have rights. The states may violate them with impunity."

The real purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make certain that the prohibition of slavery in the Thirteenth could be enforced. Those who voted the Fourteenth into law would be completely baffled to see it used to censor high school teachers and other local officials on religious issues.

"This proves not to be the case." The Fourteenth was passed precisely because the states, or some of them, specifically the former Confederacy now being reconstructed, were intentionally and willfully denying rights to American citizens. One major focus of that denial was black people, to be sure, but far from the only one. And the amendment was intentionally written with broad language to ensure that no ingenious way of denying those rights would pass muster. Note the differences in the broad language of tje 14th and the very specific language of the 24th.

Oh, and by the way, telling a public employee they cannot compel minor children temporarily in their care to practice their, the public employee's, religion, is not "censorship" or "violating their freedom of religion."

Indeed, the Supreme Court did not use that argument until nearly a century after the Fourteenth was ratified.

The amendment was put into effect in 1867. The first instance of incorporation of a right by it was in 1897, in an opinion written by that flaming liberal Chief Justice Edard D. White. I assume thirty years is "nearly a century" in ITR speak?
Hence it's a case of the court making a law that didn't exist previously, as opposed to simply enforcing a law that did.

Someday take a course in basic civics. Courts "make law" all the time -- case law. It's their job. And courts are not in the business of "law enforcement." There's a difference between a judge and a cop beyond what outfit they're wearing on the job. If you want to live in a country where arrest by a cop is an immediate guarantee of guilty status, and a plaintiff wins every lawsuit he files, and any public official can cram his religious beliefs down your or my throat at his leisure, go right ahead. But don't try to turn my country into your totalitarian theocracy.

But let me ask you, if as you say state employees only have the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech "on their own time", how do you justify chaplains and all the other obvious cases of government employees hired with religious duties? Should they be prosecuted as well?

Because servicemen, congressmen, and others (even convicts) have the right to freely exercise their faith, and chaplains are provided to enable them to better do so. Telling a serviceman in Iraq, "Sure you have the right to believe that a priest can pronounce God's forgiveness of your sins when you confess them to him, and you can visit one back in the States -- if you live," is effectively denying him the free exercise of his faith. Sending a priest as chaplain enables him to exercise it. And nobody else is obliged to make use of said chaplain if his services go against their faith. Besides chaplains, what other government employees are "hired with religious duties"? Provide a detailed list, please.

Bottom line, nowhere in the First Amendment or anywhere else does it permit any person whatsoever to use the resources of government to compel or coerce anyone else to practice their faith. In fact, it explicitly says Congress cannot do that, and the courts, backed by every competent legal scholar, have been in agreement that the states and their minor subdivisions have been equally prohibited from doing so for 142 years.

Richard Parker

09-07-2009, 09:20 AM

The ACLU has consistently advocated for the rights of the religious to proselytize in malls, visit houses, and remain free from state interference. The absurd notion that they are anti-religion, because they sue to enforce the establishment clause, is really unfortunate.

But what's amusing to me is that the OP's preferred interpretation of the First Amendment is the one that would allow state governments to eliminate the free exercise of religion. If the Amendment only applies to the US Congress, then California can just straight up ban Christianity altogether.

tomndebb

09-07-2009, 09:40 AM

You've not only parroted the intentionally misleading headline so many news outlets have gone with, but you've managed to push the lie out just that much further. . .In the future, in Great Debates, you will be much more careful that any claims of lying are directed toward third parties and not, even inadvertantly, at posters on this board.

[ /Moderating ]

DanBlather

09-07-2009, 10:36 AM

No, actually it's not.
It's correct on a factual level because that's how the law of the land has been interpreted by our highest judicial body.
It's also correct on a factual level since the first amendment protects citizens from Congress forcing/advocating a religion upon/at them. As such, individual states can also not "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" by forcing/advocating a religion upon/at them.

As schools are official organs of individual states, they too are bound by that.

No, they cannot lead prayers to Allah, or any other religious ceremony. It is a violation of an American's privileges and immunities to make their own religious choices without the state declaring itself, in one way or another, for one religion or religious view. The idea that individual states can then violate that privilege and immunity but only Congress can't is neither supported by the facts, nor by the current law of the land which is built on precedent and the rulings of the SCOTUS.
You missed my irony. I was restating the OP's argument.

ITR champion

09-07-2009, 10:37 AM

Since the ACLU isn't in charge of interpreting and enforcing laws, shouldn't your grievance be with another agency?
Consider that the ACLU was responsible for both the original lawsuit and the later motion that may lead to jail time, I think it's fine for my grievance to be with them.

DanBlather

09-07-2009, 10:41 AM

Anyone else so tired of the Bible Belt loonies that you want to secede yourself?

ITR champion

09-07-2009, 10:50 AM

In their what? Although I might give a more substantive answer, and say that your interpretation in effect says, "Citizens of the United States have rights. The states may violate them with impunity."
My interpretation is that the Constitution means what it says. In the Bill of Rights, most amendments are written so as to limit what all government can do. The Eighth, for example, simply says that there will be no excessive bail or fines or punishment. Period. Hence those things are illegal from any part of the government at any time or place for any reason. The First, on the other hand, goes out of the way to make clear that it applies to Congress exclusively. So it's unconstitutional for public school officials to torture--though some do anyway, maybe the ACLU should address that (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/031909dnmetcagefight.3dfc1c3.html)--but not unconstitutional to pray on school grounds.

In fact, one wonders why the ACLU keeps insisting that it's fighting for the First Amendment, but then defenders have to quickly adjust and insist that they're fighting for the Fourteenth Amendment, and then adjust again and admit that they're really just fighting for various court decisions rather than the original intent of the Constitution.

The amendment was put into effect in 1867. The first instance of incorporation of a right by it was in 1897, in an opinion written by that flaming liberal Chief Justice Edard D. White. I assume thirty years is "nearly a century" in ITR speak?
Are you saying that the Supreme Court ruled school prayer illegal in 1897? If so, I'd like to see the case. In my history books, it was legal until the courts outlawed it in the 60's, and I'm sure some people in this thread have living memories of that.

FinnAgain

09-07-2009, 10:52 AM

You missed my irony. I was restating the OP's argument.

Ahhhh, my bad.
Le whooooooosh!

Captain Carrot

09-07-2009, 10:53 AM

Oh look, it's time for yet another of ITR's fact-free anti-atheist rants.

FinnAgain

09-07-2009, 11:01 AM

The First, on the other hand, goes out of the way to make clear that it applies to Congress exclusively.

Because Congress is the only body that could establish a national religion. Since it's the legislative branch.

So it's unconstitutional for public school officials to torture--though some do anyway, maybe the ACLU should address that (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/031909dnmetcagefight.3dfc1c3.html)

What, exactly, do you believe that the ACLU should do to compel the DA to press charges? And how does this have anything to do with the first amendment? You mean if the ACLU isn't on top of each and every single violation that goes on in schools, you've got a gotchaya! ready?

In fact, one wonders why the ACLU keeps insisting that it's fighting for the First Amendment

Because it is.

but then defenders have to quickly adjust and insist that they're fighting for the Fourteenth Amendment and then adjust again and admit that they're really just fighting for various court decisions rather than the original intent of the Constitution.

This is, at best, hugely inaccurate and at worst quite deliberately obfuscatory while purposefully missing the point in order to use a bogus rhetorical gambit. People point out that the 1st applies to the states due to the 14th. Nobody, at all, has claimed that that ACLU is championing the 14th in a vacuum. Nor has anybody claimed that the ACLU's actions are not in accord with what the Constitution actually says. Nor is it at all wrong to point out that the law in the United States is made by several factors, including precedent and SCOTUS decisions. If you do not understand that this is how the law is made then don't lay that at the feet of the ACLU.

DanBlather

09-07-2009, 11:02 AM

I have a question for the OP: have you ever considered that someday you may live in a place where your particular brand of religion is not the majority? What if you lived in parts of NYC that are mostly Jewish, or Boston that are mostly Catholic, or Detroit that are Muslim, or Arkansas that are snake handlers? Would you want your child to be led in prayers by teachers of another faith? Would you want the commencment speaker to ask the audience to please get down on their knees and face Mecca while she thanks Allah for her good grades?

statsman1982

09-07-2009, 11:11 AM

...
You want a real travesty to address, how about this: every morning, North Carolina law requires me to pledge allegiance to a flag (a pledge that I find morally offensive), declare that we are one nation under God (a declaration that I find completely obnoxious), and describe our country as indivisible (a description that, these days, I find laughably incorrect). But let's just focus on the fact that I'm essentially required to affirm a belief in God in front of my students every day, leading them in the same affirmation.

NC law makes an exception to the requirement for students who do not wish to make the pledge, but there is no such exception for teachers.

Now THAT's a violation of the first amendment.

What if the teacher were, say, a Jehovah's Witness, where pledging allegiance to anything other than God is prohibited? Has this particular issue been adjudicated yet? I'd be surprised if not.

What grade do you teach? As far back as I can remember, the teacher never led the pledge. It was always either part of the morning announcements or delegated to the "pledge leader" of the week.

I'm curious as to how NC handles these situations.

Digital Stimulus

09-07-2009, 11:23 AM

...but not unconstitutional to pray on school grounds.
No one argues (or is arguing) that it is unconstitutional to pray on school grounds.

Polycarp

09-07-2009, 11:23 AM

If one of our Ohio members were to ask Elendils Heir to issue a bench warrant requiring that ITR Champion, if he ever sets foot in Ohio, should be taken into custody and locked up until he agrees to convert to Episcopalianism, I presume he would have no objection to this being done, since on his interpretation there is no law guaranteeing his freedom of religion as against state action. And Congress would have nothing to do with that action, just as he makes ckear.

So I guess that would be OK constitutionally, right? :eek:

raindog

09-07-2009, 11:57 AM

Others have pointed out how terribly wrong you are here. I also want to point out that your idea that the first amendment protects them is also factually false. There are plenty of things my principal could say on her own time ("Mr. Smith is an asshole," "Our president is an Arab Muslim who wants to destroy America, and we should all oppose him," "Hail Satan," "Dear Jesus, please bless this food") that she may not say while on the government's dime, or while wearing the government's mantle of authority.

You want a real travesty to address, how about this: every morning, North Carolina law requires me to pledge allegiance to a flag (a pledge that I find morally offensive), declare that we are one nation under God (a declaration that I find completely obnoxious), and describe our country as indivisible (a description that, these days, I find laughably incorrect). But let's just focus on the fact that I'm essentially required to affirm a belief in God in front of my students every day, leading them in the same affirmation.

NC law makes an exception to the requirement for students who do not wish to make the pledge, but there is no such exception for teachers.

Now THAT's a violation of the first amendment.
If that's true, the teachers would have little problem defeating this requirement in court.

Very little problem.

raindog

09-07-2009, 12:00 PM

What if the teacher were, say, a Jehovah's Witness, where pledging allegiance to anything other than God is prohibited? Has this particular issue been adjudicated yet? I'd be surprised if not.

What grade do you teach? As far back as I can remember, the teacher never led the pledge. It was always either part of the morning announcements or delegated to the "pledge leader" of the week.

I'm curious as to how NC handles these situations.
IIRC, adjudicated 60 years ago.

I'd be exceptionally hard pressed to believe that any school district in the country could force a teacher to lead the class in the Pledge against their wishes.

raindog

09-07-2009, 12:05 PM

Others have pointed out how terribly wrong you are here. I also want to point out that your idea that the first amendment protects them is also factually false. There are plenty of things my principal could say on her own time ("Mr. Smith is an asshole," "Our president is an Arab Muslim who wants to destroy America, and we should all oppose him," "Hail Satan," "Dear Jesus, please bless this food") that she may not say while on the government's dime, or while wearing the government's mantle of authority.

You want a real travesty to address, how about this: every morning, North Carolina law requires me to pledge allegiance to a flag (a pledge that I find morally offensive), declare that we are one nation under God (a declaration that I find completely obnoxious), and describe our country as indivisible (a description that, these days, I find laughably incorrect). But let's just focus on the fact that I'm essentially required to affirm a belief in God in front of my students every day, leading them in the same affirmation.

NC law makes an exception to the requirement for students who do not wish to make the pledge, but there is no such exception for teachers.

Now THAT's a violation of the first amendment.
I don't disbelieve you. I am sincerely curious. Can you cite this law for me?

And why hasn't the ACLU (et al) or people with your sentiments challenged this law?

DanBlather

09-07-2009, 12:16 PM

I don't disbelieve you. I am sincerely curious. Can you cite this law for me?

And why hasn't the ACLU (et al) or people with your sentiments challenged this law?Well a teacher may worry about their job and/or their safety.

raindog

09-07-2009, 12:21 PM

Well a teacher may worry about their job and/or their safety.
A valid concern to be sure.

Still, those same kids who have the exemption that LHoD refers to were ridiculed unmercifully, beaten and abused in their quest to secure their rights. (codified in SCOTUS rulings)

Left Hand of Dorkness

09-07-2009, 01:08 PM

I don't disbelieve you. I am sincerely curious. Can you cite this law for me?

And why hasn't the ACLU (et al) or people with your sentiments challenged this law?I'm glad you asked, because here's the law (http://www.ncleg.net/sessions/2005/bills/senate/html/s700v5.html). And I was wrong.

I swear I looked up the law and read the text before I began teaching, looking for a way out, and I didn't find one. All these years I've remembered this sentence
The school shall not compel any person to stand, salute the flag, or recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
as saying essentially
The school shall not compel any student to stand, salute the flag, or recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Now, you're right that there are career issues: especially for a teacher in their first few years, the principal can fail to renew your contract without giving cause, until you reach career status, and this isn't a hill I want to die on. But still, I thought the law was written much more poorly. Instead, it looks like I misunderstood the law every bit as much as ITR Champion misunderstood what happened in the OP's case.

My apologies, and again my thanks for asking for the cite!

Diogenes the Cynic

09-07-2009, 01:23 PM

Diogenes the Cynic

09-07-2009, 01:32 PM

Consider that the ACLU was responsible for both the original lawsuit and the later motion that may lead to jail time, I think it's fine for my grievance to be with them.
The lawsuit was filed by students, not the ACLU -- students who were subjected to rape and death threats for doing so. The ACLU represents clients.

Any jail time will be a result of a violation of a courtt order, not the ACLU. The ACLU cannot send people to jail and does not write the law. Your beef is with the First Amendment.

MOIDALIZE

09-07-2009, 01:38 PM

I'm really starting to wonder about the quality of civics instruction in U.S. schools. Civics was a part of my 9th grade proficiency exams when I was in high school, and a not insignificant number of my classmates did not pass it. I remember thinking how stupid they were for not knowing basic aspects of America's government and laws, but I'm starting to believe that quite a few Americans are perfectly fine with their own ignorance.

Rhythmdvl

09-07-2009, 01:48 PM

IRT Champion: Are you arguing against the incorporation of the Bill of Rights? That is, there is a long-standing (yet not uncontroversial and in some areas unsettled) area of law focused on which (and to what extent) Constitutional protections extend to State actions. Are you arguing whether those protections should extend to state action, or whether they do extend to state action?

treis

09-07-2009, 01:55 PM

students who were subjected to rape and death threats for doing so.

Link?

Diogenes the Cynic

09-07-2009, 03:32 PM

Link?
It's in Larry Borgia's link in post #4 above. Here's the quote:
Florida's Santa Rosa County School District has a long and unrepentant history of unconstitutionally sponsoring prayers, proselytizing students, and generally promoting particular religious beliefs throughout district schools. In August 2008, no longer able to bear this infringement on their liberties, two students at Pace High School sued the district with the assistance of the ACLU. Many in the community reacted in an uproar: the student plaintiffs were vilified in the media and threatened with rape and death, among other efforts to intimidate them, and district officials vowed to fight back.

jtgain

09-07-2009, 07:24 PM

Not sure if you're aware of this, but private schools already exists. You want your kid to get prayed at, you can pay for it yourself. Don't use the public dime.

Problem is that I'm already contributing to the public schools whether I want to use them or not, so that's an incentive to keep using them. If you give me back my contributions in the form of a voucher, then I'll be glad not to use the "public dime".

Left Hand of Dorkness

09-07-2009, 07:30 PM

Problem is that I'm already contributing to the public schools whether I want to use them or not, so that's an incentive to keep using them. If you give me back my contributions in the form of a voucher, then I'll be glad not to use the "public dime".How generous. And your suggestion for Tomas, the kid in my class who desperately looks forward to the food bag we send home every week, is what, exactly? Let him eat cake? If we give you back your "contributions," how will he get an education?

Hamlet

09-07-2009, 07:38 PM

Problem is that I'm already contributing to the public schools whether I want to use them or not, so that's an incentive to keep using them. If you give me back my contributions in the form of a voucher, then I'll be glad not to use the "public dime".No kidding. I'm already contributing to roads I don't use, hospitals I don't use, military bases I don't use, and incredibly stupid wars I don't want. If you give me my contributions back in the form of a voucher, I'll be glad not to use them.

Diogenes the Cynic

09-07-2009, 07:41 PM

Problem is that I'm already contributing to the public schools whether I want to use them or not, so that's an incentive to keep using them. If you give me back my contributions in the form of a voucher, then I'll be glad not to use the "public dime".
This makes no sense. Contributing to public schools does not give you the right to proselytize in them. The Constitution forbids using the public dime to promote religion. Period.

Polycarp

09-07-2009, 07:49 PM

But according to a relatively small but loud minority of Christians, their freedom of religion includes the right to force everyone else to practice their faith. I fail to find that idea anywhere in the Constitution, the writings of the Founding Fathers, or statute or case law. But it must be there -- they're so firmly convinced they have that right!

elucidator

09-07-2009, 07:56 PM

Well, its for our own good, isn't it? Spiritually speaking, they're just making sure we eat our spinach. Of course, I say its spinach, and I say to hell with it!

jtgain

09-07-2009, 08:09 PM

This makes no sense. Contributing to public schools does not give you the right to proselytize in them. The Constitution forbids using the public dime to promote religion. Period.

Right. So if you don't have such a thing as public schools and give people tax credits to attend a private school of their choice, then there is no constitutional issue about religion. That was my only point; I didn't intend to debate prayer in public schools.

Polycarp

09-07-2009, 08:22 PM

Right. So if you don't have such a thing as public schools and give people tax credits to attend a private school of their choice, then there is no constitutional issue about religion. That was my only point; I didn't intend to debate prayer in public schools.

I actually can see that. I hope you don't think my rant was directed at you (in point of fact, it was a group of people with the attitude I bitched about on another board who triggered it). I have philosophical issues with vouchers, but bigger ones with one-size-fits-all government-issue standards.

Diogenes the Cynic

09-07-2009, 08:25 PM

Frostillicus

09-07-2009, 09:04 PM

Voyager

09-08-2009, 01:35 AM

My interpretation is that the Constitution means what it says. In the Bill of Rights, most amendments are written so as to limit what all government can do. The Eighth, for example, simply says that there will be no excessive bail or fines or punishment. Period. Hence those things are illegal from any part of the government at any time or place for any reason. The First, on the other hand, goes out of the way to make clear that it applies to Congress exclusively.

So, if the mayor of a town were to shut down a newspaper for printing bad things about him, (with a law passed permitting it) this would be fine with you because Congress didn't do it?

Zoe

09-08-2009, 02:19 AM

it was legal until the courts outlawed it in the 60's, and I'm sure some people in this thread have living memories of that.

When I began teaching in 1969, my high school principal insisted on Bible readings every morning. I think he also had prayer from time to time. He brought in a well known televangelist to preach to us in an assembly program. My blood used to boil.

Finally, in a faculty meeting one day, one of the teachers questioned him on the legality of what he was doing. He slammed down his fist and said that he would continue to read the Bible every morning and have devotionals until he was given a court order to stop.

It may have taken another month or two, but he stopped. The teacher who complained was married to an ACLU attorney and the Supremes had already ruled that the kind of things he was doing were out of line.

For the twenty years that I taught, however, I continued to run into problems at other schools with teachers and principals who ignored the law while I was a captive audience. They were very aware of my objections. All of them were very hostile fundamentalists. Some harrassed me in the faculty lounge about my beliefs (supporting the SCOTUS ruling). There were many times that I could have filed a suit. (But the administrators would just have made it harder on me.)

I was an Episcopalian and if I wanted to take Ash Wednesday or All Saints' Day off for special services, I had to go to the rector and get a statement about these days and so forth. Another year, the principal told the vice principal to "run interference" on my request. They were all members of fundamentalist churches.

I wonder what it is they are so anxious to pray for.

Those of you who keep pushing for the concept of prayer in the classroom again probably have no real notion of what most classrooms across the country look like now. There wouldn't be any time at all before someone will claim to be a Satanist and would want equal time. Then the vampires and who knows?

Yes, you can still pray. Isn't that what matters?

E-Sabbath

09-08-2009, 05:10 AM

No, Zoe. It isn't. What matters is that somewhere, someone else is _not_ praying to their God.

jtgain

09-08-2009, 12:56 PM

That's still using tax money to fund religion, and basically offers no option to people can't afford private schools.

But everyone would get a refundable tax credit, therefore everyone could afford a private school.

As for using tax money to fund religion, I guess in a way you are correct, but what if someone uses their Earned Income Tax Credit check and donates it to their church? That's pretty much the same thing.

Diogenes the Cynic

09-08-2009, 01:19 PM

Private schools cost more than a lot of people pay in income tax, so it would not be possible to put every kid in school with tax credits. We also can't afford the loss of tax revenue. There also aren't enough secular or non-Christian options for private schools. Many towns don't have any private schools at all.

RTFirefly

09-08-2009, 01:59 PM

I wonder what it is they are so anxious to pray for. The success and well-being of those in their tribe. That which they regard as Other, not so much.

Steve MB

09-08-2009, 02:17 PM

So nothing in their extends the Constitution as a whole, or the First Amendment in particular, down to the level of the states

Wrong again.

Steve MB

09-08-2009, 02:23 PM

prettydorky

09-08-2009, 02:25 PM

Finally, in a faculty meeting one day, one of the teachers questioned him on the legality of what he was doing. He slammed down his fist and said that he would continue to read the Bible every morning and have devotionals until he was given a court order to stop.

This is essentially what happened here. I live in Pace. I went to this high school. They held prayers- and not just "Let's call for a moment of silence", but "Our father in heaven, Jesus Christ"-type prayers at every school-sanctioned event. Pep rallies, assemblies, and graduation. Randomly inserting "we can thank God for" and "with God's help" into communications, classroom lectures. The biology teacher doesn't believe in evolution and regularly talks about how it goes against "God's word". It's a great school for Christians who want a Christian atmosphere for their Christian children, but don't want to pay for it.

This has been going on forever. A copy of the lawsuit can be found on the ACLU site, here: http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/36566lgl20080827.html

Holding a prayer at a high school graduation or any other school event is illegal. He knew it and did it anyway. Said nobody could stop it. For YEARS. Only, finally, this past year, some students tried to speak up about it. If you don't live in this tiny, unincorporated township in this part of the bible belt, then it's hard to understand the kind of courage it took for these kids. The threats they got were pretty rough. I won't get into personal experience, but not being Christian around here can get you some pretty second-class treatment.

Few are the people who have publicly said, "Good for these kids for speaking out against something they didn't think was right."

Since the beginning, articles in the paper have been condemning the kids, their families, the ACLU, and "the times" for not allowing (ILLEGAL) prayer at school events. Most recently, residents are regularly solicited for donations to a legal defense fund to help the law breakers, whose salaries WE pay and who, as a reminder- religion or not- knowingly and flagrantly disregarded the law. Signs have popped up in every 2nd or 3rd front lawn, "PRAY for our schools".

So, because it's prayer, are these adults who are supposed to be role models allowed to break the law and get away with it? And intimidate, dismiss, and devalue anyone who disagrees?

Maybe it's hard to be a Christian these days. But in Pace, Florida it has always been harder NOT to be. And the ACLU is not exactly a Lion's Den.

ITR champion

09-09-2009, 07:32 PM

This makes no sense. Contributing to public schools does not give you the right to proselytize in them. The Constitution forbids using the public dime to promote religion. Period.

This is not true. The Constitution says nothing about government money beyond trivialities such as saying that the government must make information about spending public, and so forth. Government vouchers to private religious schools and other religious organizations are perfectly Constitutional and even the Supreme Court has agreed so. (Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris, Mitchell vs. Helms, Bowen vs. Kendrick, and many others.)

Besides which, think of what the consequences under you interpretation which somehow dredges up these prohibitions. Should employees at Citibank, GM, and AIG be banned from praying while on the job? They get a heck of a lot more government money than most teachers do.

FinnAgain

09-09-2009, 08:02 PM

You are massively distorting the issues to support your agenda. I'm not going to comb through everything as your first error is truly glaring. Zelman, for instance, turned not the fiction of "government vouchers to private religious schools", but

(a) Because the program was enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system, the question is whether the program nonetheless has the forbidden effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 222—223. This Court’s jurisprudence makes clear that a government aid program is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause if it is neutral with respect to religion and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice. See, e.g., Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388. Under such a program, government aid reaches religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of numerous individual recipients. The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits. Pp. 6—11.

(b) The instant program is one of true private choice, consistent with the Mueller line of cases, and thus constitutional. It is neutral in all respects towards religion, and is part of Ohio’s general and multifaceted undertaking to provide educational opportunities to children in a failed school district. It confers educational assistance directly to a broad class of individuals defined without reference to religion and permits participation of all district schools–religious or nonreligious–and adjacent public schools. The only preference in the program is for low-income families, who receive greater assistance and have priority for admission. Rather than creating financial incentives that skew it towards religious schools, the program creates financial disincentives: Private schools receive only half the government assistance given to community schools and one-third that given to magnet schools, and adjacent public schools would receive two to three times that given to private schools. Families too have a financial disincentive, for they have to copay a portion of private school tuition, but pay nothing at a community, magnet, or traditional public school. No reasonable observer would think that such a neutral private choice program carries with it the imprimatur of government endorsement. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1751.ZS.html)

So in direct contradiction to your fictional gloss, the real reason was government vouchers to individuals who then made their own choices and not to religious schools. It's the difference between giving people tax credits that they use to buy Bibles, and taking that tax money and having the federal government buy every family in America a Torah.

Which such a significant mistake that ignores the actual facts and just happens to be in accordance with your agenda, there's really no need to take any of the rest of your claims of jurisprudence at face value without substantiation.

And your rather obvious dodge about AIG aggressively misses the point. It is not a question of who gets "more" money from the government, but that 100% of teachers salaries are paid for by local government and are government employees, which makes them bound by the 1st via the 14th, while AIG is not an organ of the government and AIG employees are not government employees. That non-trivial distinction, of course, is why Moore's Rock got the fucker fired but American farmers, despite subsidies, are free to erect creches on every square foot of their front yards.

ITR champion

09-10-2009, 06:36 PM

I have a question for the OP:
I have already answered that question so many times in so many other threads that I doubt it will have any impact if I answer it again here, but what the heck. Yes. See numerous previous threads for further elaboration. Suffice to say, that question is not the trump card that you seem to think it is.

ITR champion

09-10-2009, 06:39 PM

And your rather obvious dodge about AIG aggressively misses the point. It is not a question of who gets "more" money from the government, but that 100% of teachers salaries are paid for by local government and are government employees, which makes them bound by the 1st via the 14th, while AIG is not an organ of the government and AIG employees are not government employees.
AIG gets most of its money from the government, takes orders from the government, and (at least in theory) will pay money to the government. Distinguishing its emploees from government employees is a theoretical exercise. In practice, it's functioning as a branch of the government right now.

In any case, though most folks on your side aren't willing to acknowledge it, the ACLU's campaign for censorship does not target only government employees because it does not target only teachers and admins. It also targets students, who are not paid anything by the government.

Miller

09-10-2009, 06:49 PM

In any case, though most folks on your side aren't willing to acknowledge it, the ACLU's campaign for censorship does not target only government employees because it does not target only teachers and admins. It also targets students, who are not paid anything by the government.

No, it doesn't. Students are still free to exercise their religion. What they are prevented from doing is disseminating religious doctrine while acting as an agent for the school administration.

Polycarp

09-10-2009, 08:44 PM

FriarTed

09-11-2009, 06:36 AM

The only time students come afoul of the Establisment Clause is when they imsert religious speech into an utterance which is both sponsored by the school administration and at which attendance of other students is required. A voluntary club, or a baccalaureate service for graduating seniors, at neither of which attendance is required, are legitimate forums for religious speech. One student may freely evangelize another during free time. A "high schoolers club" at a church, open to all students but including religious practice, is perfectly OK.

Now, contemplate a graduation ceremony, mandatory to all graducating seniors, at which a valedictorian is to give a speech of his/her own composition. When that speech turns into a witness of what Jesus Christ has done in the valedictorian's life, the students, their family, etc., become an unwitting captive audience to a religious speech -- at which attendance has been mandated by the school district, an agent created by the state and endowed with its authority.

In the same year, this occurred at the graduation ceremonies of two different public high schools-

one valedictorian gave a speech in which she thanked Jesus, did not tell people they had to accept Him or else, but just thanked Him. I've known this young lady since she was a child & she's always been a good consistent believer & remains so;

another valedictorian gave a speech calling for involvement in political affairs, advocated gun control & accused the NRA of raping the Constitution. I don't know this young man personally. He's the son of a Baptist pastor, played JC in the high school production of Godspell, and a gay friend (yes, I have some!) told me that he's also gay.

In neither case was there, nor should there been, any official action taken to censor them prior to speaking or criticize them after speaking. My friend told me that the guy did get some flak from people privately on what he said but as long as it was just verbal criticism, that's not a public concern.

I do not regard her talk a violation of the Establishment Clause nor do I regard his a violation of the Second Amendment. And yes, I do think both are comparable.

From everything I've read, the Pace administrators & faculty do indeed have a record of violating the Establishment Clause and I can understand & support the speech restrictions placed on them. But keeping the valedictorian from speaking lest she say something religious? Whatever ACLU personnel thought THAT was pro-civil liberties need a kick in the jimmies.

CurtC

09-11-2009, 08:28 AM

I do not regard her talk a violation of the Establishment Clause nor do I regard his a violation of the Second Amendment. And yes, I do think both are comparable.

There's a pretty big difference though. Let's push aside the issue of the student making the speech, and assume that we're explicitly talking about an agent of the school doing it. An agent of the school cannot promote any religion, that's a direct violation of the Establishment Clause. On the other hand, he could rail against the NRA raping the Constitution, and that's NOT a violation, because the Second Amendment prohibits infringing on gun rights, and talking about what those rights should be does not actually restrict gun possession.

Getting back to the valedictorian, the issue there is whether she is acting as an agent of the school in making her speech. It's not that clear-cut to me, but I'm willing to give her some latitude in the interest of freedom.

Diogenes the Cynic

09-11-2009, 08:53 AM

The Establisment Clause does no prohibit agents of the government from engaging in political speech, only from endorsing a religious view (and that also means they can't say God does not exist), so the comparison isn't legally valid.

The thing about valedictorians is that they are speaking to a captive audience. They are forcing students to listen to religious speech as a condition of receiving their diplomas. That is improper. It would also be improper for a valedictorian to give a discourse on "freeing one's self from the shackles of religion."

FinnAgain

09-11-2009, 09:27 AM

forcing students to listen to religious speech as a condition of receiving their diplomas

I do not believe this actually happens. Students should be able to get diplomas by stopping by the school after graduation or in the mail, or what have you. After all, if not, students who get sick on graduation day wouldn't have diplomas. Also, you still graduate even if you don't get the piece of paper, so I'm not really all that inclined to worry about this issue.

I do have a problem if a school administration were to ask a student to specifically give a religious address. But I also don't see a conflict with the establishment clause if students choose, of their own free will, to Witness.

Diogenes the Cynic

09-11-2009, 09:51 AM

Yes, you still graduate, and you can still receive your diploma, but you can't do it in a public ceremony with your family and friends in attendence.

The ceremony is supposed to be secular, and is supposed to serve all the students, not just those who happen to agree with the valedictorian's religious views.

jtgain

09-11-2009, 09:56 AM

Only in liberal speak does the Valedictorian=Congress and a speech=a law.

Congress shall make no law.....

Diogenes the Cynic

09-11-2009, 10:13 AM

Wow, not that old canard again.

FriarTed

09-11-2009, 10:21 AM

Wow, not that old canard again.

Yeah, it's pretty low when someone actually Quotes The Constitution, huh?

If the valedictorian actually preached a sermon or called for people to actually give their lives to Whoever, I would agree with curtailing that. However, some acknowledgement of gratitude to God/Jesus/Allah/Brahma/The Tao/The Great Architect of the Universe is not oppressively religious speech.

Diogenes the Cynic

09-11-2009, 11:22 AM

Yeah, it's pretty low when someone actually Quotes The Constitution, huh?
The jurisprudence on the 1st Amendment is well-established. It applies to all government entities and agents, not just Congress. Quoting the letter of the clause is just sophistry. Not only that, but it can easily be turned around. If the 1st Amendment only applies to Congress, then you should have no objecting to public schools abridging the free practice of religion. Schools aren't Congress.

Camus

09-11-2009, 12:26 PM

Only in liberal speak does the Valedictorian=Congress and a speech=a law.

Congress shall make no law.....

No, it's called case law. If you're not a lawyer or educated in the law, you probably shouldn't act like you know what you're talking about.

When analyzing whether any governmental agency or body has violated the Establishment Clause (since the First Amendment applies not just to Congress or the federal government, but to the States and state government through the 14th Amendment), courts utilize the Lemon test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). A governmental action will not be found to have violated the Establishment Clause if 1) it has a secular purpose, 2) it does not have as its principal or primary effect the advancement or inhibition of religion, and 3) it does not foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion. The general purpose of the test is determining whether a governmental action or certain governmental speech has either the purpose or the effect of endorsing or disapproving of religion or a particular religion.

If the head of a government-run agency, such as a principal, is making public and official statements endorsing Christianity to his students, that's probably a violation of the Establishment Clause. If the very same government official (particularly when taking account of his other conduct) actively selects a speaker at a formal graduation ceremony knowing that the student will effectively endorse a religion, that's probably going to be another violation. A good analogy would be that police can't simply hire mercenaries to act in their stead to get around the protections of the 4th and 5th amendments when it comes to dealing with members of the public. Similarly, school and governmental officials can't shield themselves behind students for their planned and purposeful activities when they use those students to accomplish their ends.

jtgain

09-11-2009, 12:40 PM

I know what the case law is and the case law is wrong. It has taken words that have plain and simple meanings and morphed them into the silliness that we have today. The whole Establishment Clause jurisprudence requires de novo review.

If you had a contract with similar language, you would be appalled if it was enforced the way the 1st amendment is.

Just because liberal judges want to make things up on the fly doesn't mean I have to treat them like they were handed down from Moses.

jtgain

09-11-2009, 12:41 PM

If the 1st Amendment only applies to Congress, then you should have no objecting to public schools abridging the free practice of religion. Schools aren't Congress.

I certainly wouldn't like it and I would attempt to get it changed, but, you are correct. Please point to the words in the first amendment that apply to schools.

Diogenes the Cynic

09-11-2009, 12:46 PM

Please point to the words in the first amendment that apply to schools.
It's all of them. This is established law. You can dislike the law all you want, but that doesn't make it go away.

jtgain

09-11-2009, 01:16 PM

It's all of them. This is established law. You can dislike the law all you want, but that doesn't make it go away.

You seem like a reasonable and educated person.

How does any judge interpret "Congress" and "law" and "establishment of religion" to get to the point that we are regulating what students say at a graduation ceremony? Or what some judge in Podunk, Arkansas puts on the wall of his courtroom?

Sure the case law is established, but case law had also established that separate but equal schools were okay. Judges are human and make mistakes, but they didn't even try here. They just decided that it was a bad idea to have religion in the public sphere and pretended to have some justification for outlawing it.

If it was any other issue, and you were honest with yourself, you would see how ridiculous that this interpretation is. It can't really even be called an interpretation because it is so very against the plain and obvious meaning of those words.

FinnAgain

09-11-2009, 01:27 PM

How does any judge interpret "Congress" and "law" and "establishment of religion" to get to the point that we are regulating what students say at a graduation ceremony? Or what some judge in Podunk, Arkansas puts on the wall of his courtroom?

By reading the Constitution and realizing that the 1st applies to individual states and their official agents via the 14th. Congress can't get around the 1st by simply declaring that the country has a nation religion but not making it a "law". Neither can Arkansas judges. Or school principals.

They just decided that it was a bad idea to have religion in the public sphere and pretended to have some justification for outlawing it.

Oh, those wicked, tricksy, false judges!
By the way, I would like to point out that you're posting from a position of militant ignorance, as Lemon v. Kurtzman was decided 7-0. Are you actually trying to slip in a claim that all seven were liberals or cryptoliberals dedicated to just doing whatever they thought was a good idea and pretending to be following the law? :rolleyes:

It can't really even be called an interpretation because it is so very against the plain and obvious meaning of those words.

You're right. I suggest that we don't call it an interpretation, but a Conservative Ploy. Damn those Conservatives. Why do they hate America?

jtgain

09-11-2009, 01:56 PM

Congress can't get around the 1st by simply declaring that the country has a nation religion but not making it a "law".

I'll just focus on that for now and ask, "Why not?" In ever other legal document that we come across in life, we take the words for what they mean.

If you pass a law saying that I can't drive without a valid license, then that is what it means. If I have no license I can't drive. If I have an invalid license I can't drive. But you can't turn around and say that I can't walk because I don't have a valid license; that's not what is said. Words have meanings.

If you want the constitution to say that school principles can't let someone speak who might advocate religion, then you should use Article V to amend it to say that.

I'm not familiar with the Court case you cited, but I can read English:

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

Anyone who looks at that statement and says that it applies to my daughter's school principal is being extremely disingenous. There is no rational explanation to make that link.

Ok, but I will let that slide for the sake of getting along.

By allowing prayer, would my daughter's principal be passing a "law" of some type? Of course not; he doesn't have the authority to pass laws, which would strengthen my first statement.

But, let's allow that. Since the principal is now Congress, and his policies are now law, does his voluntary non-denominational prayer concern an establishment of religion?

Of course not. There is no church being formed and he likewise hasn't the power to establish a national religion. Nor is he prohibiting the free exercise of religion as the prayer is voluntary.

You may say that students who don't participate would feel pressure to conform, but that happens in all walks of life, and the first is very clear that as long as free exercise is not "prohibited" then it is fine. Encourage, nudge, suggest, give preference, and other things are not a prohibition.

So, this current jurisprudence fails at every single level of what the actual text says.

CurtC

09-11-2009, 02:21 PM

In ever other legal document that we come across in life, we take the words for what they mean.

But what you're missing is what the 14th Amendment says. It says that a citizen's rights apply to the state governments as well as the federal government. Your local public school is a part of your state government, therefore the Bill of Rights applies to them.

Diogenes the Cynic

09-11-2009, 02:28 PM

And not for nothing, but both federal and state legislatures "pass laws" to establish these institutions and to collect taxes to pay for them.

E-Sabbath

09-11-2009, 02:33 PM

I think jtgain has a problem with the 14th amendment. Perhaps he favors a simpler time, before the Civil War, when a man could own another man?

prettydorky

09-11-2009, 02:38 PM

okay, a couple things (from someone who lives in Pace)-

- The valedictorian and the salutatorian both spoke at the graduation. My little brother was there and can vouch for this first hand. Their speeches were, he tells me, not very religious. They did apparently have a sort of anti-establishment undertone a-la "damn the man" :)

- Mary Allen is the class president, not the valedictorian. When the consent decree was issued, one of the items stated that all speakers had to be selected by a neutral process (i. e., Salutatorian and Valedictorian) as opposed to elected students. It's a bummer for Mary, because she was really upset about having to disappoint her parents who were very much looking forward to her speech. But it's a bit of a stretch to say that Mary could not speak because she was a Christian. Props to whoever spun this, though. It worked!

Miller

09-11-2009, 02:57 PM

I'll just focus on that for now and ask, "Why not?" In ever other legal document that we come across in life, we take the words for what they mean.

Which is precisely what's being done in this case. The problem is, you're only taking some of the words into consideration, and flat out ignoring others.

Anyone who looks at that statement and says that it applies to my daughter's school principal is being extremely disingenous. There is no rational explanation to make that link.

Of course there is.

Let's say that Congress decides to give 10 billion dollars to the Catholic Church. Just hands it over. They're not passing a law saying, "Everyone has to be a Catholic," so does this makes them free and clear of the 1st amendment? If you're sufficiently literal, you could argue that they're okay, but it's patently obvious that they're violating the intention of the 1st amendment. The Constitution isn't meant to be read that literally, though. It does not contain a lot of precise language. This was a deliberate decision of the Founders, who recognized that changing times would introduce situations they could not possibly foresee, and wanted to establish legal principles that would be applicable to a wide variety of situations, as adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Now, there are a number of agencies in the country that have been created by Congress. As such, Congress is responsible for how those agencies act. Congress can't create, say, a national Motor Vehicle Operator Licensing Bureau, then turn a blind eye when the (non-elected) head of the agency institutes a policy that people have to agree to worship Jesus before they can get a driver's license. They haven't created a law establishing a religion there, either, but something they created through law is having the effect of establishing a religion, which in the court's eyes, is effectively the same thing.

Under the 14th amendment, the limitations on the federal government also applies to the state government. So if a state government decides to fund a school, and that school tries to force its religion on its students, that's a violation of the 1st just as surely as if you had a Congressman standing in the classroom himself, telling everyone they have to be a Christian.

Taking it down another level, the school administration can't get around the 1st amendment by having someone come in and preach at the students for them, even if that person is doing the preaching for free. Or, for that matter, if the person is another student. Congress can't establish a religion. It can't create an agent to do it for them. It can't create an agent who creates an agent to do it for them, either. As long as that chain ultimately leads back to a state or federal legislative body, the entire chain has to remain religiously neutral in their official duties.

There is nothing disingenuous, let alone irrational, about this chain of reasoning. In fact, it is for precisely this sort of reasoning that we have a Supreme Court in the first place.

FinnAgain

09-11-2009, 03:12 PM

I'm not familiar with the Court case you cited

And yet you've accused every single judge who ruled on that case of being incompetent, partisan, deliberately dishonest enemies of the Constitution.
Curiouser and curiouser.

Why not?

Is it your contention, really, that the federal government could create a state religion as long as they didn't make a law to that effect? Your belief is that when the Constitution was drafted, its framers figured that they'd be totally cool with a state religion as long as it was enforced by fiat instead of the rule of law? Or by making a Bureau of Determining and Punishing Heresy as long as the law only established the bureau and not its conclusions?

If you want the constitution to say that school principles can't let someone speak who might advocate religion

1. Can't say enough about reading what I actually said when you respond to me. To remind you: "I do have a problem if a school administration were to ask a student to specifically give a religious address. But I also don't see a conflict with the establishment clause if students choose, of their own free will, to Witness."
2. The 1st via the 14th applies to state governments and their employees just as it does to Congress. This is because among the privileges and immunities that citizens are granted at the federal level, are the abilities to choose and practice one's religion and be free from the government prohibiting or pushing any religious views. As those are granted at the federal level, individual citizens are entitled to those same privileges and immunities on the state level as well.

There is no rational explanation to make that link.

If you do not want to read all the rational arguments that have been made in this thread, I suggest that you at least read the SCOTUS case which you've never read but which you still alleged was a bipartisan (and yet Liberal) attack upon the Constitution itself.

By allowing prayer, would my daughter's principal be passing a "law" of some type? Of course not; he doesn't have the authority to pass laws, which would strengthen my first statement.

Is it really your contention that if your daughter's principal was a fundamentalist Wikkan, that he could fail every student and prohibit them from getting into college unless they daily affirmed the Wikkan Rede and publicly disavowed any belief in or affinity for any other religious doctrines? You'd be okay with that? You think it would be legal?

Since the principal is now Congress

Your understanding of what people have been explaining to you is... odd.

Euphonious Polemic

09-11-2009, 03:15 PM

I know what the case law is and the case law is wrong. It has taken words that have plain and simple meanings and morphed them into the silliness that we have today. The whole Establishment Clause jurisprudence requires de novo review..

Try this argument in a courtroom in front of a judge and see how far you get. I can see it now: "Your honor, it's clear that I know what the case law is, and the case law is wrong."

You'd be better off describing how two "yutes"* were seen at the school.

*Judge Chamberlain Haller: Two what?
Vinny Gambini: What?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Uh... did you say 'yutes'?
Vinny Gambini: Yeah, two yutes.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: What is a yute?

Voyager

09-11-2009, 03:26 PM

If you had a contract with similar language, you would be appalled if it was enforced the way the 1st amendment is.

Ever think that since the First Amendment is 45 words and contracts for doing a loan are 45 pages, a lot more interpretation is needed for enforcing the First Amendment?

ITR champion

09-12-2009, 12:40 PM

So, if the mayor of a town were to shut down a newspaper for printing bad things about him, (with a law passed permitting it) this would be fine with you because Congress didn't do it?
I'm a strong advocate of free speech and would love to see all the states make strong laws defending it, but the current process of having the Supreme Court pretend that the 1st Amendment says something that it doesn't say is horrible because of all the ambiguity and contradiction it offers up. The plain fact is that the courts make the 1st apply to state and local governments sometimes and not other times. That's why a town can pass laws against pornography that Congress could not pass. These days whenever a 1st amendment case heads for the Supreme Court, nobody knows how they're going to rule because there have been so many contradictory and nonsensical previous rulings. You might as well flip a coin as try to predict what they'll say on any particular case. Though as our new Chief Justice has an irritating habit of caring about what the Constitution actually says rather than merely about what previous courts has ruled, we may see some significant shifts in the near future. (It's odd that we're hearing the press howl about the need to respect precedent now. Where was this demand for precedent when the Supreme Court started attacking freedom of speech in schools during the 60's?)

The obvious questions are these. If the 1st bans government officials even speaking about religion, then why did President Washington use his office to encourage Americans to pray to almighty God? Was he not familiar with the 1st amendment, or was he willfully violating it? And if the 14th actually does outlaw prayer at public school events, how did the Supreme Court manage not to notice this until the 1960's, almost a century after the 14th became law?

Miller

09-12-2009, 01:04 PM

I'm a strong advocate of free speech and would love to see all the states make strong laws defending it, but the current process of having the Supreme Court pretend that the 1st Amendment says something that it doesn't say is horrible because of all the ambiguity and contradiction it offers up. The plain fact is that the courts make the 1st apply to state and local governments sometimes and not other times. That's why a town can pass laws against pornography that Congress could not pass.

Can you point to an example of this? With links, preferably, as your interpretations of these sorts of cases leave a lot to be desired.

These days whenever a 1st amendment case heads for the Supreme Court, nobody knows how they're going to rule because there have been so many contradictory and nonsensical previous rulings. You might as well flip a coin as try to predict what they'll say on any particular case.

Could you not say the same about virtually any case the Supreme Court hears? If the outcome is going to be so cut and dried, it would have been settled by a lower court.

Though as our new Chief Justice has an irritating habit of caring about what the Constitution actually says rather than merely about what previous courts has ruled, we may see some significant shifts in the near future. (It's odd that we're hearing the press howl about the need to respect precedent now. Where was this demand for precedent when the Supreme Court started attacking freedom of speech in schools during the 60's?)

And that simply never happened.

The obvious questions are these. If the 1st bans government officials even speaking about religion, then why did President Washington use his office to encourage Americans to pray to almighty God?

Strawman. No one has ever held that government officials cannot talk about religion. Most presidents, particularly in recent years, have openly discussed their religious beliefs. This has rightly never been considered a Constitutional issue.

Was he not familiar with the 1st amendment, or was he willfully violating it?

Neither.

And if the 14th actually does outlaw prayer at public school events, how did the Supreme Court manage not to notice this until the 1960's, almost a century after the 14th became law?

It was also about a 100 years after the passage of the 14th amendment that the Supreme Court noticed that Jim Crow was wildly and illegally discriminatory. Does that serve as evidence that the 14th amendment does not grant equal rights to blacks?

FinnAgain

09-16-2009, 08:49 AM

Can you point to an example of this? With links, preferably, as your interpretations of these sorts of cases leave a lot to be desired.

So, "no", then?

Elendil's Heir

09-29-2009, 09:04 PM

If one of our Ohio members were to ask Elendil[']s Heir to issue a bench warrant requiring that ITR Champion, if he ever sets foot in Ohio, should be taken into custody and locked up until he agrees to convert to Episcopalianism, I presume he would have no objection to this being done....

Uh, motion denied. There, that was easy!

What people seem to fail to appreciate, time after time, is that the First Amendment protects Church and State from each other. Just as I would not want to be in the captive audience for a Jewish, Moslem or Hindu public official talking about the wonders of his faith, so I would not, in an official forum, dream of imposing my Christian views on those who do not share my faith. Those who favor theocracy should consider a move to Iran or Saudi Arabia; I doubt they would find it to their liking.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens. -- George Washington, Letter to the Touro Synagogue, 1790