Nothing, if we are talking about politeness and propriety. But from a legal standpoint, it’s nonsense. There is no grounds on which the court can control what people choose to say or not say about religion whenever they feel like it. The court can order government employees not to violate the first amendment in situations of mandatory attendance, but there is no crime you can charge a student valedictorian who thanks Jesus in his speech with. It’s utterly off-the-wall nonsense.
Sorry, Apos, but you’re simply wrong about this. If I go to court to complain that my high school is allowing school-sponsored prayers, in violation of the separation of church and state, and the judge agrees with me, he’ll issue an injunction. (Granted, the injunction will probably be directed at the school administration, rather than at one of the students.) Then, if the school goes ahead and allows the prayers, they’ve violated the injunction, they’re in contempt of court, and the court can, and will, issue an arrest warrant.
He’s not issuing the injunction on his own initiative - he’s issuing the injunction in response to a complaint filed by an aggrieved party with standing. The fact that the violation of the injunction happens outside the courtroom is completely irrelevant. And there’s nothing abusive about it - this is how judges enforce their orders.
Actually, the entire quote was:
Christianity was not singled out. The WND article implied that it was.
I would also like to see this information.
In addition to the missing info from the Galveston “Jesus” grad ceremony story, the WND ad also had this:
But as the Washington Post reported:
But to answer the OP, I think that yes, if a judge has ordered that only non-denominational prayers are to be given at a graduation ceremony and someone purposefully violates that order, then they should be found in contempt and face a sentence of up to 6 months.
[sub]“Worldnet Daily Exclusive” usually means no reputable news source will touch it with a ten-foot pole[/sub]
In addition to the missing info from the Galveston “Jesus” grad ceremony story, the WND ad also had this:
But as the Washington Post reported:
But to answer the OP, I think that yes, if a judge has ordered that only non-denominational prayers are to be given at a graduation ceremony and someone purposefully violates that order, then they should be found in contempt and face a sentence of up to 6 months.
[sub]“Worldnet Daily Exclusive” usually means no reputable news source will touch it with a ten-foot pole[/sub]
Mojo, can you give a link to that article, please? I need it for a discussion of this situation on another board, and I haven’t been able to find a non-rightwing-biased source for the incident.
Do you have a link for this? Pretty please?
Honestly, who cares? This is just one more thing for people to argue about all over the country in all their glory and mediums. There are so many other things to worry about. Everyone is the great debater when it comes to their own opinions. See, I am living proof. Go back to worrying about your bills and your children instead of a high school kid and a judge arguing over saying the word Jesus.
Thank you and good night.What’s “wrong” (to zealots) about silent prayer is that it doesn’t allow you to proselytize to others.
These sorts of controversies are virtually never about an individual’s right to exercise his/her freedom of religion. It’s about influencing or controlling others.
No, kids shouldn’t get jail time for saying Jesus. It should be public execution, no questions asked.*
*Note to the humorless: the aforementioned was a joke. Jest. Not intended as a serious remark. Taking it seriously can and will lead to you being viewed as a complete doofus by the poster, and possibly others. Continue at your own risk.
If you don’t care about the issue under discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting. Do you plan to open every GD thread, and tell everyone in it that they shouldn’t bother debating the issue? How very thoughtful of you.
Oh, and Jackmannii’s words should be carved into a large piece of granite, and dropped on the head of every religious zealot. Well stated!
At my high school graduation, the school supposedly followed the rule that prohibited them from leading an actual prayer at graduation by suggesting to a student that it would be a very good idea for her to just ‘spontaneously’ request that everyone join her in a prayer before she gave her speech.
What a neat little way for the school officials to shove through a prayer they wanted at the graduation. Just make it look like it was something the student did, spur of the moment, for her own reasons.
The thing is that even with a secular prayer that doesn’t mention any ‘god’ by name, you’re still alienating those who don’t believe in any higher power at all.
Oh, and a nitpick to that judge, the Buddha wasn’t a god and never will be. The word buddha means that a person is enlightened, and although Siddharta Gautamu was the most famous Buddha ever, he certainly was a man and not a god.
The judge didn’t just pull this decision out of his ass. The precedent at the time was a SCOTUS case, Lee v. Weisman, which held that a school allowing a rabbi to give an invocation at a graduation ceremony was coercing students to support and participate in religion or its exercise.
The judge’s ruling was that school sanctioned, student led prayer at a school event was the functional equivalent of Weisman (a position the Supremes upheld 5 years later in Santa Fe). The court’s admonition was an over the top reminder that you don’t petition a federal court for a redress of your grievances and then disobey that court’s order when you don’t like the outcome, unless you want to be jailed for contempt of court.
‘Allah’ is the Arabic word for God. ‘God’ is the English proper noun for God.
So you can use certain terms for God, but not others.
In other words, Christianity was singled out. Unitarianism, for example, is allowed, because it uses different terms for God. Judaism is OK providing you use the English translation of ‘Elohim’. And Islam and Buddhism are OK, since neither Buddha nor Mohammed are considered deities.
In other words, the judge is an idiot on other topics besides the First Amendment.
Yes, I did. Did you even notice that certain prayers were outlawed, but other ones allowed? In what way is this not an establishment of religion?
No. I have never been subject to an unlawful search, either, but I still object when it happens to others.
The fact that the decision is being made by the State, in clear contradiction of both the spirit and letter of the First Amendment.
Everybody’s rights are being considered. Everyone has the right to freedom of religion. Not just those who are willing to use State-approved words, or pray State-approved prayers, or think State-approved thoughts.
They already have this. I am trying to preserve it from encroachment by the State, who want to deny freedom of speech and of religion.
Someone who “grabs” you and forcibly detains you is guilty of assault and battery, and unlawful detainment.
Atheists have killed millions of religious believers, and Madlyn Murray-O’Hair was a major-league asshole. This has exactly zero to do with whether or not mentions of atheism should be forbidden in public.
How often does this need to be said?
No one has the right to say, “I don’t like your ideas, and therefore you are not allowed to express them in public”. You don’t have the right not to be upset in a public forum.
The judge is subjecting speech to a religious test. Some kinds of religious speech is allowed, and others forbidden.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Not “just a few laws”, or “unless it will upset people”, or “unless it will shut up those obnoxious folks that we don’t like anyway”. No law.
The government may not forbid using the name of Jesus in public. Nor Allah, nor Stalin, nor Robert Ingersoll.
Regards,
Shodan
better left unsaid? sure.
but people taking offense at your words isn’t the constitutional basis against school prayer. the idea is that when attending a public event (especially a secular one where people of different religions have a vested interest in attendance), forcing the audience to take part in a necessarily religious observance is essentially government coercion of religious beliefs, and goes against the establishment clause. that they can “refrain” from acknowledging the religious aspects of the observance makes no difference when it is part of the government ceremony, in which they want to take part.
as far as i know, having a student lead the prayer is no different.
Here’s some more: the controlling 5th Circuit precedent at the time, as described by the majority in Santa Fe Ind. School Dist. v. Doe:
" In Jones v. Clear Creek Independent School Dist., 977 F.2d 963 (1992), [the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals] held that student-led prayer that was approved by a vote of the students and was nonsectarian and nonproselytizing was permissible at high school graduation ceremonies. On the other hand, in later cases the Fifth Circuit made it clear that the Clear Creek rule applied only to high school graduations and that school-encouraged prayer was constitutionally impermissible at school-related sporting events."
So what was Judge Kent supposed to do? Make an incorrect ruling directly against precedent and get reversed?
In fact Kent had ruled that a nonsectarian prayer was okay at a football game and was overruled on that in 1996, IIRC.
Can we still pray to the Supreme Evil One?
Yes, you can still pray to Bill Gates. It won’t make Windows work any better, though.