# Invocation/Lord's Prayer at public school graduation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 2, 2008, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478 "2008-06-02T14:56:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![flyboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4da419/32.png) [@flyboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flyboy)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2008, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/161 "2008-06-08T16:01:45Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] _Tinker_ is relevant because there is no one, single Supreme Court decision controlling graduation prayers (as has been mentioned at least twice). Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] **Shodan** , you keep saying this as if it’ll make the foundation of your argument solid. But I’m confused here, so maybe you can clear this part up for me. You threw out all of my Court decisions based on your single cite. This cite is not a decision. It is merely a non-decision. The Supreme Court elected not to rule on it, setting no precedent either way. Now, you can argue that this indicates the Court’s shift toward the lesser Circuit Court’s ruling (upholding the student message at graduation). If this is the case, I would argue three things: 1. Again, this is a non-decision. One cannot use it in support for either side. 2. The Court ordered the Circuit Court to rehear the case based on the Supreme Court’s decision in 2000’s Santa Fe Ind. School District vs. Doe, in which the Supreme Court ruled that student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause. They did not elect to pass on the first round: the case came before them, they ordered the re-hearing in light of the Santa Fe v. Doe ruling, and then passed when the Circuit Court upheld their original decision and the case landed on the Supreme Court’s plate yet again. Personally, I think that in itself speaks rather loudly, but all I’m using this for is to counter any claim that the Supreme Court was sending some kind of message about any favor to uphold prayer at school functions. At best, I think you could say it’s an entirely mixed message. 3. Adler v. Duval County (the case your cite referenced) had different verbiage in their case. Specifically, the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled “Duval County’s **facially-neutral policy permitting high school seniors to vote upon the delivery by a student of a message entirely of that student’s choosing** as part of graduation ceremonies did not violate the Establishment Clause.” Bolding mine. This entire case hinged on that verbiage. To get further in the weeds on this, here is the key text [policy] in question: > [@](#): > > "1. The use of a brief opening and/or closing message, not to exceed two minutes, at high school graduation exercises shall rest within the discretion of the graduating senior class; > > 1. The opening and/or closing message shall be given by a student volunteer, in the graduating senior class, chosen by the graduating senior class as a whole; > > 2. If the graduating senior class chooses to use an opening and/or closing message, the content of that message shall be prepared by the student volunteer and shall not be monitored or otherwise reviewed by Duval County School Board, its officers or employees; > > The purpose of these guidelines is to allow students to direct their own graduation message without monitoring or review by school officials." And just to clarify the Court’s analysis: > [@](#): > > We defined the issue then before us as “whether the Duval County school system’s policy of permitting a graduating student, elected by her class, to deliver an unrestricted message of her choice at the beginning and/or closing of graduation ceremonies is facially violative of the Establishment Clause.” Id. at 1073. Analyzing this policy under the Supreme Court’s opinions in Lee v. Weisman …[edited] we concluded that the policy did not violate the Establishment Clause on its face. > > Although we offered multiple reasons for that decision, our Lee analysis turned on several key facts. First, we emphasized that under Duval County’s policy school officials have no power to direct that a message (let alone a religious message) be delivered at graduation ceremonies, or control in any way the content of any message actually to be delivered. The point of all of this? Your rebuttal of my argument is not all that you believe it to be. In fact, it does nothing for you at all. My argument still stands, I believe. You say there is no single court case controlling graduation prayers. True. THERE ARE SEVERAL. Better than just one. All of them support my case. One does not (Jones v. Clear Creek), but it is not a Supreme Court ruling (it was the 5th Circuit Court), and since you seem to be aiming for the top, we need not include lower court rulings in our discussion. Engel v. Vitale (1962) The Court ruled 7 to 1 that it was unconstitutional for a government agency like a school or government agents like public school employees to require students to recite prayers. Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) The Court found that an Alabma law requiring that each school day begin with a one minute period of “silent meditation or voluntary prayer” was unconstitional. **Lee v. Weisman (1992) On June 24th 1992, the Court ruled in a 5-4 Court Decision that the graduation prayer during school graduation violated the Establishment Clause** Jones v. Clear Creek (1992) The Fifth Circuit Court ruled that it was not unconstitutional for a school to allow graduating seniors to vote on whether or not there would prayers during graduation ceremonies \*\*ACLU v. Black Horse Regional Board of Ed. (1995) Third Circuit Court opinion that a school could not allow students to vote on whether or not they would have a student-lead prayer during graduation because the degree of state involvement in the ceremonies meant that any aspect of it was state-approved, including the prayer and prayer content. \*\* Cole v. Oroville Union High School (1999) Ninth Circuit Court ruling that extremely sectarian and proselytizing speeches at a graduation ceremony could be prohibited because of the reasonable impression that the religious message was supported by the school. The Supreme Court let this stand. Granted, not a Supreme Court Ruling, and probably better used as a fourth point arguing against any argument that the SC’s non-ruling on the Adler case indicates favoring of the case. This case is the same thing, but on the other side of the fence. Freiler v. Tangipahoa (1999) Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a disclaimer to be read before teaching about evolution ultimately had the effect of furthering religious interests and was therefore unconstitutional **Santa Fe School District v. Doe (2000) The Supreme Court ruled that official, student-led prayers before a school football game violated the separation of church and state** The ones in bold are most germaine, although the last one doesn’t pertain to graduation, it is the same issue general issue, but at football games vice graduation. So really, I don’t know how my argument can be so easily tossed out. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2008, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/162 "2008-06-08T16:49:07Z")
In Dearborn we have several schools that are majority Muslim. So I suppose if they offered a Muslim prayer that would be acceptable. The minority Christians would just have to sit respectfully and be quiet. ---
**Author:** ![flyboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4da419/32.png) [@flyboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flyboy)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2008, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/163 "2008-06-08T16:51:28Z")
Also, **Shodan** , I’ve noticed you have a tendency to make some weak responses to arguments, then roll on with your case building using those weak responses. I’ll do likewise. As you can see from my previous posts, cites, and Supreme Court cases, I believe we can come up with the following points, using the SC’s very language: - Compulsory: “Petitioners’ argument that the option of not attending the ceremony excuses any inducement or coercion in the ceremony itself is rejected. In this society, high school graduation is one of life’s most significant occasions, and a student is not free to absent herself from the exercise in any real sense of the term “voluntary.”” - Content: “As the court noted, high school graduation ceremonies are not treated like a public forum where a multiplicity of views on a topic - secular and/or religious - can be discussed.” - Control: "School officials necessarily “retain a high degree of control over the precise contents of the program, the speeches, the timing, the movements, the dress, and the decorum of the students” - Students having Free Speech: “An impermissible practice can not be transformed into a constitutionally acceptable one by putting a democratic process to an improper use. There should be no question “that the electorate as a whole, whether by referendum or otherwise, could not order [governmental] action violative of the [Constitution], and the [government] may not avoid the strictures of [the Constitution] by deferring to the wishes or objections of some fraction of the body politic.”” Therefore, the proceedings are entirely controlled by the school admin, and they are responsible for voted student prayers. Period. Free speech (Tinker) does not come into play. The proceeding is not “voluntary.” This is the Supreme Court saying all of this, not me. And your only counter to this is a non-ruling? ---
**Author:** ![pbbth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f9ae1b/32.png) [@pbbth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pbbth)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2008, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/164 "2008-06-08T16:54:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Shodan** > > Either it is wrong for the schools to impose a single point of view, in which case they have no right to impose on their students to exclude prayer, or it is OK for the schools to impose a single point of view, in which case it is OK for the schools to compel prayer. Which is it? This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Not allowing prayer is not the same as imposing a single point of view. There can be a moment of silence in which people are allowed to pray, zone out, or hum Banana Phone in their heads if they would like. This is the same as imposing no point of view. Not a single person here is saying you shouldn’t be able to pray if you feel the need. You can pray in groups or by yourself before or after the ceremony. You can pray silently to yourself throughout the entire graduation. You can wear a shirt that says, “I am praying to Jesus!” while you do it. But you can’t make it a part of the ceremony and force those who want to graduate with their class to sit through it any more than a Valedictorian who is a big PETA supporter can force the class to sit and watch videos of animal torture being projected above the stage. I can just see some criminal in a prison cell having a conversation with his cell mate right now. “I can’t believe the arrested me for attempted murder! Either murder is illegal and since I didn’t murder anyone they have to let me out of here or attempted murder is illegal so all of those guys in that cell who are here because they killed someone have to be let out of here since they didn’t _attempt_ to kill anyone, they actually managed to kill them.” ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2008, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/165 "2008-06-08T21:09:04Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] That is exactly what I believe. In a country that is a democracy, the majority make the laws by electing officials who have the power to make laws. When a group of nine people who are not elected suddenly begins to make up laws on then mutilate the English language in order to invent Constitutional support for their laws, that’s not democracy. [/QUOTE] Yes, you are right, it’s a _constitutional democracy_. ---
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2008, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/166 "2008-06-09T04:01:20Z")
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] Enjoy getting it on in auditoriums, eh? 😃 [/QUOTE] Hmmm… never tried… intriguing possibilities… Hey!–are you coming on to me!? what auditoriums do you live near? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2008, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/167 "2008-06-09T11:42:32Z")
[QUOTE=flyboy] One does not (Jones v. Clear Creek), but it is not a Supreme Court ruling (it was the 5th Circuit Court), and since you seem to be aiming for the top, we need not include lower court rulings in our discussion. [/quote] OK, then let’s not include lower court rulings. > [@](#): > > Engel v. Vitale (1962) > The Court ruled 7 to 1 that it was unconstitutional for a government agency like a school or government agents like public school employees to require students to recite prayers. We are talking about student-led prayers, not officially required ones. > [@](#): > > Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) > The Court found that an Alabma law requiring that each school day begin with a one minute period of “silent meditation or voluntary prayer” was unconstitional. Same as above - this is not a case about student-led prayers. > [@](#): > > **Lee v. Weisman (1992) > On June 24th 1992, the Court ruled in a 5-4 Court Decision that the graduation prayer during school graduation violated the Establishment Clause** Same as above - this is a case where the principal of the schools initiated the prayer. Again, we were talking about student-led prayers. > [@](#): > > Jones v. Clear Creek (1992) > The Fifth Circuit Court ruled that it was not unconstitutional for a school to allow graduating seniors to vote on whether or not there would prayers during graduation ceremonies I thought we were not going to include lower court rulings. This is from the Fifth Circuit Court. > [@](#): > > \*\*ACLU v. Black Horse Regional Board of Ed. (1995) > Third Circuit Court opinion that a school could not allow students to vote on whether or not they would have a student-lead prayer during graduation because the degree of state involvement in the ceremonies meant that any aspect of it was state-approved, including the prayer and prayer content. \*\* Lower court again. > [@](#): > > Cole v. Oroville Union High School (1999) > Ninth Circuit Court ruling that extremely sectarian and proselytizing speeches at a graduation ceremony could be prohibited because of the reasonable impression that the religious message was supported by the school. The Supreme Court let this stand. Granted, not a Supreme Court Ruling, and probably better used as a fourth point arguing against any argument that the SC’s non-ruling on the Adler case indicates favoring of the case. This case is the same thing, but on the other side of the fence. Lower court again. And, as you say, letting a lower court decision stand does not necessarily set a precedent. > [@](#): > > Freiler v. Tangipahoa (1999) > Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a disclaimer to be read before teaching about evolution ultimately had the effect of furthering religious interests and was therefore unconstitutional Lower court again.Also not a prayer, not student-led. > [@](#): > > **Santa Fe School District v. Doe (2000) > The Supreme Court ruled that official, student-led prayers before a school football game violated the separation of church and state** > > The ones in bold are most germaine, although the last one doesn’t pertain to graduation, it is the same issue general issue, but at football games vice graduation. > > So really, I don’t know how my argument can be so easily tossed out. You are correct that the last one doesn’t have to do with graduation prayers. Neither did _Tinker_, but both deal with related issues. I don’t see how you can claim that the one controls without considering the other. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2008, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/168 "2008-06-09T12:16:33Z")
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach] I’m kinda confused on what you’re getting at anyway [/QUOTE] My point is that this is one of those situations where one horse laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2008, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/169 "2008-06-09T12:18:57Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] …there is no implicit endorsement of the prayers by any agent of the state… [/QUOTE] …there are no American tanks in Baghdad… ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2008, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/170 "2008-06-09T13:37:39Z")
[QUOTE=OpalCat] Hmmm… never tried… intriguing possibilities… Hey!–are you coming on to me? what auditoriums do you live near? [/QUOTE] [Maybe](http://www.orlandovenues.net/other_info_files/bob_carr_centre.php) ---
**Author:** ![flyboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4da419/32.png) [@flyboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flyboy)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2008, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/171 "2008-06-09T13:41:02Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] We are talking about student-led prayers, not officially required ones. [/QUOTE] Not quite. **You** are talking about student-led prayers. **We** , to include most of the other folks in this thread _and the Supreme Court_, are talking about school admin-controlled prayer. That it happens through the students or by the students is irrelevant. I don’t know how to make it any clearer. The Supreme Court has made the distinction. You seem to want to ignore that fact. It is not debatable. I will add the cite yet again just in case you missed it earlier: ACLU v. Black Horse Regional Board of Ed. (1995) Third Circuit Court opinion that a school could not allow students to vote on whether or not they would have a student-lead prayer during graduation because the degree of state involvement in the ceremonies meant that any aspect of it was state-approved, including the prayer and prayer content. Specifically from the SC ruling: > [@](#): > > Although the state’s involvement here is certainly less evident, the student referendum does not erase the state’s imprint from this graduation prayer. Graduation at Highland Regional High School, like graduation at nearly any other school, is a school sponsored event… [edit] > Delegation of one aspect of the ceremony to a plurality of students does not constitute the absence of school officials’ control over the graduation. Students decided the question of prayer at graduation only because school officials agreed to let them decide that one question.[Opinion of the Court, IV.B.(1) paras II & III] By extension, I include Lee v. Wiseman in my support. So, by the way, does the Supreme Court: > [@](#): > > ACLU v. Black Horse > **The School Board argues that the student referendum here significantly distinguishes this case from Lee . We disagree**. It is, of course, true that the state’s entanglement with the graduation prayer in Lee was more obvious, pronounced, and intrusive than the School District’s involvement here. In Lee , the principal decided prayer would be included in the ceremony, chose the clergy person who would give the prayer, and even determined part of the content of the prayer by giving the invited clergy guidelines for the substance of the prayer. Id. at 587. It is no wonder then, that the resulting prayer “bore the imprint of the State.” Id. at 590. > > **Although the state’s involvement here is certainly less evident, the student referendum does not erase the state’s imprint from this graduation prayer**. Bolding mine. Interesting fact: _ **Neither case references Tinker** _. Now, if you take the un-ruled on case by the Circuit Court, about the student messages, it’s a whole different ball of wax, and I think your argument starts holding a bit more water. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2008, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/172 "2008-06-09T15:29:57Z")
_:shrugs:_ **Bricker** ’s first point was this - > [@](#): > > When a student speaker selected by religiously-neutral criteria – say, for academic achievement – offers prayer, this does not offend the Constitution. Mine was this - > [@](#): > > AFAIK, student-led, voluntary prayer is acceptable - students have a First Amendment right to pray. If you haven’t been arguing against that, fine with me. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2008, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/173 "2008-06-09T15:45:05Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] If you haven’t been arguing against that, fine with me. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] That wasn’t the point you were making most of the time, though. We all agreed that if the valedictorian chooses to pray as part of the scheduled speech, there’s not much we can do about it- although the administration really ought to be vetting the speech beforehand. However, if the administration schedules a prayer, whether or not the students get to vote that’s actionable. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2008, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/174 "2008-06-09T21:46:42Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] _:shrugs:_ **Bricker** ’s first point was this -Mine was this - If you haven’t been arguing against that, fine with me. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] Another classic Shodan post. He has no response of substance, so he :shrugs: and pretends that is an actual argument. It’s cute. From Santa Fe v. Doe: “The District next argues that its football policy is distinguishable from the graduation prayer in Lee because it does not coerce students to participate in religious observances. Its argument has two parts: first, that there is no impermissible government coercion because the pregame messages are the product of student choices; and second, that there is really no coercion at all because attendance at an extracurricular event, unlike a graduation ceremony, is voluntary.” Both arguments were rejected. ---
**Author:** ![flyboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4da419/32.png) [@flyboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flyboy)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2008, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478/175 "2008-06-09T22:41:45Z")
What are you talking about? Tinker says the football players have free speech. As we’ve seen, Santa Fe v. Doe doesn’t apply. :shrug: Seriously, though, thanks for digging that up, **Hamlet**. I think that’s why I bolded that reference in post 159–also by extension, that case directly supports what I’m trying to show **Shodan** , although he’s still not going to want to see it. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Shodan** _ > I don’t see how you can claim that the one controls without considering the other. Maybe now you can see why I say all of those “control,” if that’s the word you want to use (I’d use _apply_ or _arguably set precedent_ myself). Can I get another shrug? I loved the last one, it was very gratifying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invocation-lords-prayer-at-public-school-graduation/451478.md?page=8)