I cannot believe anyone would exclude prayer from the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment.
Actually, as my police protection example shows, it is perfectly possible to pay for police and their equipment to protect religious activities and institutions without this constituting an endorsement of religion. It is only when the state chooses one kind of speech and allows it but disallows another that we are entering the realm of content-based censorship.
The League of Women Voters is not endorsing a candidate when it provides a forum for debates. If they attempted to limit what could be said (“No candidate may speak badly of the war in Iraq”) then that would be censorship of one point of view and an implied endorsement of all the un-censored ones.
No, both are Constitutionally protected. The standard to be applied (I think the relevant decision by the Supreme Court is Tinker v. Des Moines) is that the school has to prove that the speech to be restricted violates the educational mission of the school. IOW, if the school could not reasonably show that a white power speech was disruptive, then they couldn’t restrict this either.
But notice where the burden of proof lies. It lies (rightly, IMO) with the school, to show that any speech needs to be restricted. Unless and until they come up with such a justification, they may not prevent speech of any sort. And indeed, given the special protection of religion in the Constitution, religious speech like prayer is even more a fit subject to be protected from censorship by the schools.
Such a standard seems to me to be very much in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. Congress, nor any agent of the government, may take no action whatever regarding religion or freedom of speech without fully justifying it in advance, and showing that they are not favoring one set of opinions over another.
You are not endorsing any point of view by providing a forum for expression of a range of views. And if you pick out one set of ideas, and try to silence it, you are clearly attempting censorship based on content, and that is never the default for the government.
Actually the Constitution exists to protect the majority, as implied by the Preamble. As Allan Bloom put it:
The whole point of the Constitution was to put the people in control, so that the majority could make the laws. This was intended to be the opposite of the situation in Europe, where minorities ruled. (A minority of one in most cases.)
(Of course since someone is probably going to rip this out of context as “proof” that I support lynch mobs or something like that, I suppose I should say that I’m glad minorities have guaranteed rights. I just don’t support re-writing the history books to make the Constitution stand for the exact opposite of what it actually stood for.)
Actually, there can be a scheduled prayer and there often is, whether or not you want one.
If students want to pray in ceremony and that’s the only place that they want it, I think there’s a bigger issue of faith than the constitutionality of imposing prayer on a captive audience. If students are saying that they MUST be allowed to pray because they WANT to in that particular setting, well, there’s a lot of things that I want to do, but the law (and the Constitution) don’t allow me to. That’s the nature of living in a pluralistic society - you don’t always get to do whatever you want whenever you want. Students probably need to learn that at some point.
Logic and common sense have nothing to do with the historical will of the people. And I’ll leave the comment about tradition alone, as I am sure you are intelligent enough to identify traditions that were at the time they were practiced unconstitutional, and that have been found to be so, throughout the course of U.S. history.
Personally I don’t think that nine people make a society. Even if they did, that particular society has only held that the federal government can impose a ban on prayers at public functions for a very short time, relative to the whole history of the country. But certainly society as we normally understood the word does not agree with the current Supreme Court on this issue.
ITR, The Bill of Rights exists speciifically to protect the minority from the majority. There is no “majority rule” when it comes to the First Amendment and all the Suipre Court does is protect your Constitutional rights.
The other thing you seem to have a lot of trouble grasping is that this issue is not about restrictions on what the students can do, but on what the GOVERNMENT can do (via the public schools). Students cannot hijack school PA equipment and events to promote their own religious agenda and school does not have a right to force other students to endure religious harrassment as a condition of receibving a diploma (and don’t bother saying they don’t have to go to the ceremony. The school can’t have a special graduation ceremony fort Christians only).
Christians are not being persecuted just because they can’t use state funded equipment or events to hararangue other people with their grandstanding prayers. That is not an infringement on your practice. You have a right to pray, but you don’t have a right to force me to pay for your microphone.
In order to convince me that someone is telling christians they can’t practice their religion, first you need to establish that their religion requires them to stand up in front of a bunch of people and pray out loud.
And, since the bible specifically prohibits standing up in public and praying out loud, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me of that.
As a staunch atheist who recognizes that you cannot co-opt the public school equipment to pronounce your religion (else why not have faculty-selected ‘student speakers’ delivering sermons at the start of each class - it would be the same thing, rightswise speaking) - this is nonsense. Lots of religious people like to preach in public for the sole reasons that they like to hear themselves preach and think that everybody else wants to hear it - or should.
If your paranoid theory was true, churches in communities with an open mix of religions wouldn’t have prayers in their own voluntary meetings - they know of you weren’t on their side, you wouldn’t attend. That such churches still hold prayers proves your assertion to be false.
Here’s what the Bible actually says on the issue of prayer.
“Be joyful always; pray continuously; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you.” (first Thessaloninans Chapter 5, verses 16-18.)
Now that we have that little misconception cleared up, we can return to the debate at hand. The “free expression thereof” must certainly guarantee our rights to express our religion when we choose, not when the government chooses for us. As many Christians wanted to include a prayer in graduation ceremonies, federal intervention to prevent that from happening is certainly a blocking of the free expression of religion.
So, do you think a cop should be able to pray at me when he pulls me over, before he writes me a ticket? How about at the DMV? Can a DMV employee witness to me before I can get my driver’s license renewed? Why not? Surely, preventing the DMV clerk or the CHP officer from expressing their religious beliefs is a greivous imposition on their first ammendment rights?
There is also no minority rule, or at least there should not be. At an event like a graduation ceremony, if 390 students want a prayer at 10 don’t, someone won’t get what they want. Luckily our nation has a means of dealing with such situations which is called democracy.
If the students vote on it then it is an issue of what the students can do.
And if the Supreme Court forces students to hold a graduation ceremony in a certain manner against their wishes, does the Supreme Court have the right to force students and their families to pay for that ceremony?
Here’s something to consider. Other people of other spiritual paths also may want to include an expression of religion in a ceremony. Either the organizers of a state-sponsored event must allow ALL people so interested to express themselves in such a manner, or none. A student who decides to include a Wiccan, Native American, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Ba’hai, Jainist, etc., prayer in the setting must be allowed to do so, if a student including Christian observances is so allowed.
(I really wasn’t going to use this argument, but I think it fits somewhat here) Given that many audience members in such a scenario might probably object to a Wiccan, Native American, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Ba’hai, Jainist, etc., prayer in the setting, I highly doubt that a student wanting to include one of the above would be allowed. Therefore, the organizers of the state-sponsored event are, by default, establishing a preference toward a particular religion.
And the student body voting is irrelevant in such a situation. If 80% of the body say “we want the school colors to be lime and maroon” and .2% say “we want the school colors to be puce and chartreuse,” then in such a situation the majority can rule. However, if 80% of the student body say “we want a Christian prayer” and .4% say “we want a Wiccan circle casting,” allowing the rule of the majority in this case in a state-sponsored event is unconstitutional.
Kolga, I don’t think the debate will advance by you telling me again that a prayer at graduation ceremony is currently viewed as unconstitutional by the Supreme court. I’ve already made it clear that I don’t agree with the Supreme Court. Preference is not a synonym for establishment.
miller, no, no, no, and because the policeman and the DMV employee have specific jobs to do and should not interfere with them. For a school, on the other hand, a prayer does serve the purpose of preparing young people for life in this world (that’s what the majority says).