Invocation/Lord's Prayer at public school graduation

[UltraVires]

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Do you not understand civil law at all? You don’t have to suffer financial loss to be awarded monetary damages. Cash is just the legal system’s shorthand for the amount of injury suffered by the plaintiff.

Since we don’t go in for that “eye for an eye” stuff, we get paid off instead.
[/QUOTE]

While IANAL, I believe that in order to recover any punitive damages you must have some type of actual damages

[Musicat]

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Is it really any different than a high school football team praying together before a game? I’ve never seen one that didn’t.
[/QUOTE]
How well does that work? Do they win?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

[QUOTE=jtgain]
While IANAL, I believe that in order to recover any punitive damages you must have some type of actual damages
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but that isn’t necessarily limited to financial loss or physical injury. The families who’ve won school prayer suits have mostly asked courts to order the school not to have prayers or whatever and pay their legal fees and costs - but there’s no particular reason they couldn’t ask for (and be awarded) a pot of money too.

How well does that work? Do they win?

I’m don’t know. I think they’re all praying to the same god. I’m not sure if He decides the outcome based on which team has the better prayer or which one prays harder.

I suppose He might just pick the one that scores the most points.

[villa]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Schools may not interfere with the First Amendment rights of students.
[/QUOTE]

Not a very meaningful comment, to be honest. The interesting question is what are the First Amendment rights of students.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
No, no one is forced to participate. Having someone pray in your presence does not violate your rights. If you wish to join in the student-led prayers, you may do so. If not, you don’t have to. If your sensibilities are so fragile that you are offended by someone else praying in your presence, tough snot. Exactly. This is one of the times.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

It isn’t about someone praying in my presence. It is about whether I should pay for your public prayer, and whether it should in any fashion have the imprimateur of the state placed upon it. At the moment, some decisions of some federal courts have (mistakenly IMHO) determined that a student giving a prayer at a school function that is an integral part of the school year, through a tax payer provided PA system, in a non-open forum (i.e. the speaker is selected by the school, and others are not allowed to speak) does not present the impression of state sponsorship. I don’t know how that can be rationally defended, but then again, I don’t understand how ceremonial deism can be rationally defended.

[Who_me_1]

[QUOTE=jtgain]
I’m sure that there are many athiests who would like to arrest the principal in this case, but I’m talking about a politician (sheriff, DA, governor, president) who would have the political will to do so.
[/QUOTE]

Look, it is possible for the principal to end up in handcuffs in situations like this. Whether or not there is any financial compensation, if a judge says that the school sponsored prayers will end, they will end… or someone will get locked up for contempt of court. Sheriff, DA, Governor bedamned, if the judge says lock him up, he will get locked up.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=jtgain]
While IANAL, I believe that in order to recover any punitive damages you must have some type of actual damages
[/QUOTE]

While the plaintiffs in these suits are not necessarily seeking monetary damages (and sometimes the plaintiffs are the pro-prayer people suing a school that won’t let them enegage in practices that the school feels violate the Establisment Clause), it is not true that compensatory damages must necessarily be awarded in order to award punitive damages.

In a lot of the cases we’re talking about, though, plaintiffs are only suing to get a school to change its practices, not to collect money.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

[QUOTE=Who_me?]
Look, it is possible for the principal to end up in handcuffs in situations like this. Whether or not there is any financial compensation, if a judge says that the school sponsored prayers will end, they will end… or someone will get locked up for contempt of court. Sheriff, DA, Governor bedamned, if the judge says lock him up, he will get locked up.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but the judge would have to rule on a specific case involving said principal for that to happen.

You can’t be held in contempt of a court ruling that didn’t involve you, AFAIK.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=villa]
Not a very meaningful comment, to be honest. The interesting question is what are the First Amendment rights of students.
[/quote]
In this case, we are talking about freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. I will assume I don’t need to cite the finding of the Supreme Court that students do not forfeit their First Amendment rights at the school house door.

It isn’t about someone praying in my presence. It is about whether I should pay for your public prayer, and whether it should in any fashion have the imprimateur of the state placed upon it.

Not merely whether it should - whether it does.

At the moment, some decisions of some federal courts have (mistakenly IMHO) determined that a student giving a prayer at a school function that is an integral part of the school year, through a tax payer provided PA system, in a non-open forum (i.e. the speaker is selected by the school, and others are not allowed to speak) does not present the impression of state sponsorship. I don’t know how that can be rationally defended, but then again, I don’t understand how ceremonial deism can be rationally defended.

Two points - first, you are not entirely correct in your phrasing of the question. Defense is necessary, not of the students engaging in religious speech, but for any action the school might take to interfere. That’s what needs to be justified. If no justification is produced, then the actions of the students must be allowed to proceed.

Second, ‘no interference by the schools’ is easily justified. Think of it like this - the police provide taxpayer funded protection for all the citizens and lawful institutions in their jurisdiction. This includes private residences, businesses, and public accomodations, without discrimination. Note that this includes churches. Even though police are paid thru public funding, no violation of SoCaS is occurring. Police do not get to pick and choose which of the citizenry get protection and which do not.

Same thing here. Some students may choose to engage in religious speech, and others may not. The school may not pick and choose which of the Constitutionally protected speech they will allow and which they will prevent. Either it all goes, or none of it goes.

No one can be compelled to join in, of course, but since we are talking about student-led activities, no compulsion is involved.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The school may also not allow students to hijack official functions and PA equipment to pray at other students. Having a right to pray does mean you have the right to use a school microphone to do it, or to force other students to listen to it as a condition to receive their diplomas.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
No one can be compelled to join in, of course, but since we are talking about student-led activities, no compulsion is involved.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

If the activity takes place during a school-sponsored activity at which attendance is compulsory or highly encouraged, then compulsion is involved.

Students meeting at graduation site for prayer before ceremony = okay

Students being granted time during ceremony for group prayer (beyond a moment of silence/personal reflection) = not okay

[Shodan]

There’s no hijacking involved, of course - the PA equipment is set up so that students can speak. Therefore, any attempt by the schools to censor speech based on content is a violation of the First Amendment.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Incorrect. Any attempt to use school equipment to endorse religion (or to make listening to that endorsement a condition for collecting a diploma) is a violation of the First Amendment.

[Shodan]

By teachers, yes. By students, no.

Regards,
Shodan

[villa]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
In this case, we are talking about freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. I will assume I don’t need to cite the finding of the Supreme Court that students do not forfeit their First Amendment rights at the school house door.Not merely whether it should - whether it does.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but it is a truism that the government cannot restrict First Amendment rights. The question is whether the activity concerned is a First Amendment right.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Two points - first, you are not entirely correct in your phrasing of the question. Defense is necessary, not of the students engaging in religious speech, but for any action the school might take to interfere. That’s what needs to be justified. If no justification is produced, then the actions of the students must be allowed to proceed.
[/QUOTE]

You are misreading what I am saying. The defense that I suggest is needed is defense of the idea that paying for speech, and providing the forum, and limiting the speakers at the forum, does not create and inpression of state action. I do not believe that can be rationally defended. I wasn’t talking about defending a particular type of speech, or a restriction on a particular type of speech.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Second, ‘no interference by the schools’ is easily justified. Think of it like this - the police provide taxpayer funded protection for all the citizens and lawful institutions in their jurisdiction. This includes private residences, businesses, and public accomodations, without discrimination. Note that this includes churches. Even though police are paid thru public funding, no violation of SoCaS is occurring. Police do not get to pick and choose which of the citizenry get protection and which do not.

Same thing here. Some students may choose to engage in religious speech, and others may not. The school may not pick and choose which of the Constitutionally protected speech they will allow and which they will prevent. Either it all goes, or none of it goes.

No one can be compelled to join in, of course, but since we are talking about student-led activities, no compulsion is involved.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

But the fact is that a commencement address is restricted, on many grounds. You think a person would be permitted to make a white power speech as their commencement address? Isn’t racist speech “constitutionally protected speech” by people in other situations? Clearly it is…

What has happened is that religion has been segmented out as defended in this forum. (Actually in many fora - it is one of the problems of the way the First is written). What they are doing is exactly what you say they cannot - the school IS “pick[ing] and choos[ing] between Constitutionally protected speech.”

Except they aren’t, really, because your language repeats the earlier truism. What they are saying is that student led prayer at a school function IS constitutionally protected speech, and racism is NOT constitutionally protected speech. And that is the view point which I am not sure can be rationally defended.

[flyboy]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Some students may choose to engage in religious speech, and others may not. The school may not pick and choose which of the Constitutionally protected speech they will allow and which they will prevent. Either it all goes, or none of it goes.

No one can be compelled to join in, of course, but since we are talking about student-led activities, no compulsion is involved.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
The school is picking and choosing, by its own admission in my earlier post:

Principal Palatucci testified before the district court that any student who attempted to give an unscheduled address at graduation in contravention of administrative direction would be arrested if police were available, even if a majority of the graduating students had previously approved. The district court carefully questioned the principal about what he would do if a majority of the student body, without administrative approval, voted to have a speaker who would not be included in the program but would be introduced by the valedictorian and allowed to give a one minute speech. The principal responded: “I couldn’t allow that to happen. . . . If I have a police officer, I have her arrested.”

The school has total control over the proceeding. That they give the students a vote is NOT an abrogation of their control. Thus, if the school admin controls the event, they are responsible for it, and any praying that occurs.

The 3rd Circuit court’s take here on Free Speech in this context:

"The [School] Board’s position would have us recognize a right in that plurality to [pray], and ignore the right of others to worship in a different manner, or in no manner at all. **This we can not do ** because “the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.” Wallace v. Jaffree , 472 U.S. 38, 52 (1985). Therefore, the Board’s emphasis on voting majorities is misplaced. “While in some societies the wishes of the majority might prevail, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is addressed to this contingency and rejects the balance urged upon us.”

Bolding mine. Supreme Court’s take on compulsion in a ‘volunteer’ event from Lee v. Weisman here:

(d) 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.” Also not dispositive is the contention that prayers are an essential part of these ceremonies because, for many persons, the occasion would lack meaning without the recognition that human achievements cannot be understood apart from their spiritual essence. This position fails to acknowledge that what [505 U.S. 577, 579] for many was a spiritual imperative was for the Weismans religious conformance compelled by the State. It also gives insufficient recognition to the real conflict of conscience faced by a student who would have to choose whether to miss graduation or conform to the state-sponsored practice in an environment where the risk of compulsion is especially high. Pp. 594-596.

[ITR_champion]

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Do you also not see any reason why a majority of the other students couldn’t vote to cook and eat the dissenter?
[/QUOTE]

Reason 1: Murder is bad, while prayer is good.

Reason 2: Murder is not protectd by the Constitution, while prayer is.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Prayer is not the issue. Establishment is the issue.

[flyboy]

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Reason 1: Murder is bad, while prayer is good.

Reason 2: Murder is not protectd by the Constitution, while prayer is.
[/QUOTE]
Again, the Supreme Court from Lee:

(c) The Establishment Clause was inspired by the lesson that in the hands of government what might begin as a tolerant expression of religious views may end in a policy to indoctrinate and coerce. Prayer exercises in elementary and secondary schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 ; School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 . The school district’s supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places subtle and indirect public and peer pressure on attending students to stand as a group or maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction.** A reasonable dissenter of high school age could believe that standing or remaining silent signified her own participation in, or approval of, the group exercise, rather than her respect for it**. **And the State may not place the student dissenter in the dilemma of participating or protesting. ** Since adolescents are often susceptible to peer pressure, especially in matters of social convention, the State may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use direct means. The embarrassment and intrusion of the religious exercise cannot be refuted by arguing that the prayers are of a de minimis character, since that is an affront to the rabbi and those for whom the prayers have meaning, and since any intrusion was both real and a violation of the objectors’ rights. Pp. 590-594.

Bolding mine.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Reason 1: Murder is bad, while prayer is good.

Reason 2: Murder is not protectd by the Constitution, while prayer is.
[/QUOTE]

1. Murder may objectively be defined as “bad”; prayer may only subjectively defined as “good”.

2. Your previous post didn’t have anything to do with the Constitution; it simply address whether such prayer (or the prohibition thereof) was rude.

[ITR_champion]

[QUOTE=OpalCat]
It isn’t just that they are listening to somebody pray. The idea is that it is a group prayer, led by the speaker. In spirit, the idea is that the whole group is praying, but one person is putting it into words. In that light (which I believe is how it’s viewed–for example, when a father leads prayer at a family dinner, don’t all the other family and guests consider that the meal has been properly prayed for and don’t need to add an additional prayer of their own? It’s a group ceremony.) leading a prayer at a graduation is essentially forcing everyone present to participate in a religious ceremony that may be entirely against their beliefs. It also makes it socially unacceptable to excuse yourself for the duration of the prayer, so people are pretty much trapped. What’s wrong with a moment of silence?
[/QUOTE]

For nine unelected justices to override the will of the people would force people to not participate in a prayer that they wish to participate in. That is as much an offense against freedom of speech as forcing people to hear the prayer. Saying that everyone in the student body and audience is “forced to participate” is a strange interpretation. How could someone be forced to participate if they’re free to think that they’re not participating?