Invocation/Lord's Prayer at public school graduation

[Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Well, not exactly. It seems to depend on your motivation.Matthew 6:5-6.

On the other hand -

Matthew 5:14-16. And Matthew 10:27.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

Ah, I do so enjoy watching you twitch while you twist the bible to your own ends. Good times.

Of course, the passage about the light on the hill is talking about doing good deeds to show people how nice god is. And, since public prayer is specifically prohibited by the bible, it cannot be considered a good deed, and cannot be used as an example of shining your light on a hill.

And I don’t even understand your reasoning for posting the “whatever I teach you in the dark, preach in the light” passage. Since Jesus teaches you not to pray in public, you should be out teaching people that they should not pray in public. Now, if Matthew 10:27 said “whatever I teach you in the dark, teach people the exact opposite in the light,” then you would be doing what Jesus told you. Because that is exactly what you are doing here, you are telling people that they should be doing the exact opposite of what Jesus said.

Yet another shining example of how a christian can take what the bible actually says and convince themselves that it says the exact opposite. The bible is nothing but a Rorschach test, everyone sees what they want to be there.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=villa]
Of course it makes a difference. You are saying that the LOWV can organize a debate without being seen as endorsing the views. There are two major issues you are deliberately ignoring here. First - it doesn’t matter what they endorse because they are not a state actor, whereas the school is.
[/quote]
I understand your distinction, but it is not relevant. The purpose of the LoWV example was to demonstrate that the sponsors of a forum, any forum, cannot be assumed to be endorsing any of the viewpoints presented. That is not different for a private agent like the League than for a public one like a school graduation. Public or private, those who set up a forum are not necessarily endorsing anyone thereby.

Public agents, such as the police, can provide a service that will be used even in furtherance of religious speech without it being an establishment of religion.

And second - they are presenting multiple viewpoints, and not controlling the content. The school is allowing a single viewpoint, and absolutely does control the content.

Well, yes, if they disallow religious speech, then they are allowing one viewpoint but censoring others. As mentioned, this is not allowed.

By picking one viewpoint over another, based on some standard other than “does it interfere with the educational mission of the school”, they are infringing on the religious rights of private citizens, to wit the students.

See the idea? Just like the police are not allowed to pick and choose who they are going to protect, the school administration is not allowed to pick and choose what students are allowed to say, providing that speech does not interfere with the educational mission of the school. And, just like with the League of Women Voters, the schools cannot be assumed to be endorsing any of the points of view presented.

Unless, as you say, they attempt to allow only one point of view. Then they are certainly endorsing that point of view. If that point of view is “no religious speech allowed”, then they are infringing on the religious freedom of the students.

@Steve MB

The motivation of an official public ceremony is “to be seen my men”.

Game. Set. Match.

OK, prove it. Please demonstrate that students who pray at graduation are necessarily motivated by a desire to be seen by men, and not to let their light shine before others, nor to proclaim from the housetops, nor in order that others may see their good works and give glory to God.

Not sure how you are going to do that, but feel free to try. Please note that we are talking about the prayer, not the ceremony, and that you will need to rule out the other motivations and show that the desire to be seen by others is the primary one.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

The bible is nothing but a Rorschach test, everyone sees what they want to be there.

I think you are projecting a bit here.

Regards,
Shodan

[Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley]

@ITR Champion

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.

Hmm, pray continuously. I see. Nothing in there about microphones and standing up in public while you do so. So you have not cleared up the “misconception,” in fact, the misconception is yours, and you steadfastly refuse to have it cleared up.

I’ll wait for a cite from the bible that praying in public is part of “practicing your religion.” Good luck.

[Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley]

@Shodan

Please demonstrate that students who pray at graduation are necessarily motivated by a desire to be seen by men, and not to let their light shine before others, nor to proclaim from the housetops, nor in order that others may see their good works and give glory to God.

Still waiting for an explanation on how doing something that is specifically prohibited by Jesus can be considered “shining your light” or “good works,” or how disobeying the bible is “giving glory to god.”

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I think you are projecting a bit here.
[/QUOTE]

You’d have to be pretty obtuse to argue that the Bible doesn’t contradict itself quite a bit. A number of those contradictions have been mentioned in this very thread.

[Miller]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
It doesn’t make any difference, which is why I gave the example of police protection for churches.

Candidates at a forum are not state actors. Students leading prayers are not state actors. Allowing candidates to speak does not constitute an endorsement of their views; allowing students to pray does not constitute an establishment of religion.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

The problem with your argument is that it renders the establishment clause entirely meaningless, because any time a state agency wishes to promote a religious viewpoint, it merely has to find someone willing to preach for free. Which, all things considered, is not particularly difficult.

And your League of Women Voters example does not demonstrate what you think it demonstrates, as the selection of who is allowed to participate in their debates is, itself, an endorsement of the speakers. When they invite the leading Democratic and Republican candidates, but exclude Greens, or Libertarians, that sends a clear message about who they consider to be “real” candidates for the election. That is a pretty clear and unambiguous endorsement of the mainstream political parties, if not the specific content of their platforms.

[villa]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I understand your distinction, but it is not relevant. The purpose of the LoWV example was to demonstrate that the sponsors of a forum, any forum, cannot be assumed to be endorsing any of the viewpoints presented. That is not different for a private agent like the League than for a public one like a school graduation. Public or private, those who set up a forum are not necessarily endorsing anyone thereby.
[/QUOTE]

First, it is relevant because the LOWV can endorse whatever they choose to endorse, because they are not state actors. Second, and more relevant, you are once again trying to compare a forum where multiple viewpoints are presented with that where a single one is presented. And a forum where content is not controlled to one where content is controlled. It’s a pointless comparison.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Public agents, such as the police, can provide a service that will be used even in furtherance of religious speech without it being an establishment of religion.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, you have said this multiple times, and I have agreed with it. But you are ignoring the exclusivity aspect involved. Were the police to protect Churches, and refuse to protect mosques and synagogues, I think even you might admit there was an Establishment Clause problem. The school here controls the content of the speech. Speakers are not given free rein.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Well, yes, if they disallow religious speech, then they are allowing one viewpoint but censoring others. As mentioned, this is not allowed.
[/QUOTE]

Yet that is exactly what is happening. Students are not permitted to express multiple opinions as part of such a speech.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
By picking one viewpoint over another, based on some standard other than “does it interfere with the educational mission of the school”, they are infringing on the religious rights of private citizens, to wit the students.
[/QUOTE]

There is no unfettered right to religious practice. I have tried to explain this multiple times, but you are ignoring that.

[Steve_MB]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
OK, prove it. Please demonstrate that students who pray at graduation are necessarily motivated by a desire to be seen by men
[/QUOTE]

If they weren’t, they’d pray in private as required by the Bible. Duh.

and not to let their light shine before others

They shine lights? I thought that was for Dylan concerts.

nor to proclaim from the housetops

I knew that school budgets were getting tight, but I had no idea that they’d been forced to resort to such unusual choices of venue for graduation ceremonies.

nor in order that others may see their good works

Works? What work, precisely, are they doing?

Not sure how you are going to do that

The ordinary rules of English usage serve the purpose.

[Who_me_1]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
It doesn’t make any difference, which is why I gave the example of police protection for churches.

Candidates at a forum are not state actors. Students leading prayers are not state actors. Allowing candidates to speak does not constitute an endorsement of their views; allowing students to pray does not constitute an establishment of religion.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

I’ll agree as long as you let the Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, atheists, and anyone else who wanted to, the same platform.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=villa]
First, it is relevant because the LOWV can endorse whatever they choose to endorse, because they are not state actors.
[/quote]

Neither the League nor the schools are endorsing anyone by providing a forum. I thought we had agreed on that.

No endorsement is taking place. Public or private doesn’t matter. The idea that schools are endorsing religion by allowing a forum in which some may pray is a red herring. That’s the point of the LoWV example, and changing it to a public agent does not alter it. Hence the police protection example.

Yes, you have said this multiple times, and I have agreed with it. But you are ignoring the exclusivity aspect involved. Were the police to protect Churches, and refuse to protect mosques and synagogues, I think even you might admit there was an Establishment Clause problem. The school here controls the content of the speech. Speakers are not given free rein.

Right. And if the schools protected the right of students not to pray, but refused to protect their right to pray, then the same problem appears.

Yet that is exactly what is happening. Students are not permitted to express multiple opinions as part of such a speech.

I don’t if you are arguing that school censorship is justified because it happens, or that student-led prayers are justified because they happen, or that it would be okay for a school to censor all points of view except one.

There is no unfettered right to religious practice. I have tried to explain this multiple times, but you are ignoring that.

No, I’ve covered that. The only “fetter” that can be imposed is if the speech (of whatever nature) interferes with the educational mission of the school. No other. It’s like saying there is no unfettered right to free speech because I can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. The fact that there are licit and practical limits on a right does not justify illicit limits.

If you are saying that it is okay for a school to force everyone to pray because they can limit speech in other ways, that seems like you are arguing against your own position.

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?

Regards,
Shodan
ETA - SteveMB, did you have any evidence, or are you mistaking repetition for demonstration?

[villa]

[QUOTE=Shodan]

Neither the League nor the schools are endorsing anyone by providing a forum. I thought we had agreed on that.
[/QUOTE]

You repeating something that is incorrect is not the same thing as us agreeing on it.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
No endorsement is taking place. Public or private doesn’t matter. The idea that schools are endorsing religion by allowing a forum in which some may pray is a red herring. That’s the point of the LoWV example, and changing it to a public agent does not alter it. Hence the police protection example.
[/QUOTE]

If you honestly do not see for endorsement purposes a fundamental difference between a forum provided without content restrictions bya private entity to multiple parties and a state provided forum for a single speaker at a quasi-compulsory event then I am not sure a debate is possible. There is a fundamental difference between how open fora and restricted fora are treated legally. And that is something you are refusing to acknowledge.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Right. And if the schools protected the right of students not to pray, but refused to protect their right to pray, then the same problem appears.I don’t if you are arguing that school censorship is justified because it happens, or that student-led prayers are justified because they happen, or that it would be okay for a school to censor all points of view except one.
[/QUOTE]

It is utterly disingenuous to continue to argue that students are being prevented from praying. They are not, and no one has suggested that they should be.

The relevant fact is that a commencement address is controlled by the school. Were a student to spout white power nonsense as part of his or her address, the microphone would be disconnected. Some viewpoints are excluded. That’s the free speech angle (though personally speaking I am in favor of much wider free speech rights than allowed by Tinker). The Establishment angle, however, comes into play because by having the prayer at a quasi-compulsory event, it is creating the impression of endorsement. It is the same as the soup kitchen argument I used earlier.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
No, I’ve covered that. The only “fetter” that can be imposed is if the speech (of whatever nature) interferes with the educational mission of the school. No other. It’s like saying there is no unfettered right to free speech because I can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. The fact that there are licit and practical limits on a right does not justify illicit limits
[/QUOTE]

You need to separate out free speech rights under Tinker from Establishment Clause arguments. I admit I have been guilty of blurring the line. On Tinker, I could argue that a prayer at commencement is as interfering with the educational mission of the school as a speech decrying a particular ethnic group. Generally speaking I am in favor of more not less free speech in schools.

But if the free speech falls foul of the establishment clause, then the school cannot provide it with a forum.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
If you are saying that it is okay for a school to force everyone to pray because they can limit speech in other ways, that seems like you are arguing against your own position.
[/QUOTE]

I never said anything of the sort and I have no idea where you got that from.

[QUOTE=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?

[/QUOTE]

You are once again running free speech and establishment together. Doesn’t work. I would have a major free speech problem if students were prevented from gathering in free time to pray together. But that doesn’t mean I have to think that such free speech should be given a tax payer provided forum.

[Steve_MB]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
did you have any evidence, or are you mistaking repetition for demonstration?
[/QUOTE]

I am not sure what sort of “evidence” one would cite for or against gibberish, which is what I have demonstrated your statements to be.

[Steve_MB]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
it is wrong for the schools to impose a single point of view
[/QUOTE]

Correct. This is why they may not grant the imprimatur of state endorsement to prayer by presenting it under school sponsorship.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=villa]
You repeating something that is incorrect is not the same thing as us agreeing on it.
[/quote]
Then is the League endorsing one point of view by providing a forum for it (along with others)?

If you honestly do not see for endorsement purposes a fundamental difference between a forum provided without content restrictions bya private entity to multiple parties and a state provided forum for a single speaker at a quasi-compulsory event then I am not sure a debate is possible. There is a fundamental difference between how open fora and restricted fora are treated legally. And that is something you are refusing to acknowledge.

But my police protection example shows that they are not.

It is utterly disingenuous to continue to argue that students are being prevented from praying. They are not, and no one has suggested that they should be.

You have. You are arguing that students should be prevented from praying at a graduation ceremony. Or are you arguing that they should not be prevented?

The relevant fact is that a commencement address is controlled by the school. Were a student to spout white power nonsense as part of his or her address, the microphone would be disconnected. Some viewpoints are excluded. That’s the free speech angle (though personally speaking I am in favor of much wider free speech rights than allowed by Tinker).

We’ve already covered this - the fact that the school can restrict for one reason does not mean that they can restrict for any other (absent some justification).

The Establishment angle, however, comes into play because by having the prayer at a quasi-compulsory event, it is creating the impression of endorsement.

No, it’s not - that’s what was established by the League example. And the police example shows that this is not affected by public vs. private actors. And the fact that the schools can restrict speech that violates their educational mission does not mean that they can restrict speech that does not - especially not speech that is protected by the Constitution.

You need to separate out free speech rights under Tinker from Establishment Clause arguments. I admit I have been guilty of blurring the line. On Tinker, I could argue that a prayer at commencement is as interfering with the educational mission of the school as a speech decrying a particular ethnic group. Generally speaking I am in favor of more not less free speech in schools.

You could. You would have to demonstrate how prayer disrupts the mission in ways that peaceful symbolic protest does not, because peaceful symbolic protest is clearly allowed by Tinker. Tinker establishes that any non-disruptive free speech is allowed.

But if the free speech falls foul of the establishment clause, then the school cannot provide it with a forum.

Only if the speech is endorsed or enforced by the school. No such is taking place - the speech is not endorsed by the school, it is offered by the students (who are not agents or employees of the school and therefore not subject to the restriction on establishment of religion, which applies only to the state). And no one is being forced to pray, thus no establishment is taking place under that restriction either.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
I am not sure what sort of “evidence” one would cite for or against gibberish, which is what I have demonstrated your statements to be.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I was looking for evidence in favor of your gibberish.

You made a claim about the motivations of the students. Please provide some evidence that they are what you say they were.

@Steve MB

This is why they may not grant the imprimatur of state endorsement to prayer by presenting it under school sponsorship.

Feel free to reread the League of Women Voters example (and the police protection example). Providing an open forum where a variety of viewpoints can be presented obviously does not constitute endorsement of any of the viewpoints.

And again, prohibiting speech that violates the educational mission of a school does not allow you to prohibit any other speech you don’t like.

And speech by non-agents of the state, which is what students are, does not constitute establishment of religion by the state. That can only happen when done by the state or its agents.

Regards,
Shodan

[villa]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Then is the League endorsing one point of view by providing a forum for it (along with others)?
[/QUOTE]

No. As I have repeatedly said there is a fundamental distinction drawn between an open forum and a closed forum.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
But my police protection example shows that they are not.You have. You are arguing that students should be prevented from praying at a graduation ceremony. Or are you arguing that they should not be prevented?
[/QUOTE]

No your police argument doesn’t do anything of the sort. Again for reasons discussed.

And please don’t misrepresent my arguments so transparently. I have never argued for preventing prayer. Not being allowed to give a public prayer over tax payer provided PA systems, with a semi-restrained audience is not the same thing as not being able to pray. Those who support forcing their religious views onto others choose to paint this as “the nasty heathens are stopping people praying.” This is no more a ban on prayer than DUI laws are a ban on use of automobiles.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
We’ve already covered this - the fact that the school can restrict for one reason does not mean that they can restrict for any other (absent some justification).
No, it’s not - that’s what was established by the League example. And the police example shows that this is not affected by public vs. private actors. And the fact that the schools can restrict speech that violates their educational mission does not mean that they can restrict speech that does not - especially not speech that is protected by the Constitution. You could. You would have to demonstrate how prayer disrupts the mission in ways that peaceful symbolic protest does not, because peaceful symbolic protest is clearly allowed by Tinker. Tinker establishes that any non-disruptive free speech is allowed.

Only if the speech is endorsed or enforced by the school. No such is taking place - the speech is not endorsed by the school, it is offered by the students (who are not agents or employees of the school and therefore not subject to the restriction on establishment of religion, which applies only to the state). And no one is being forced to pray, thus no establishment is taking place under that restriction either.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

I give up. Either you are deliberately refusing to acknowledge, or you simply don’t realize, that the burden on the school regarding Establishment differs from the burden to limit speech under Tinker. Both are important, but they aren’t identical. You don’t think the words of a sole speaker at a state sponsored, quasi-compulsory event where the state limits what may be said, create the impression of endorsement by the school any more than the words of multiple speakers, not-restrained by the organizer, at an event put on by a private entity. I understand that is your view. It’s one that cannot be logically defended, IMHO, and burying your head in the sand and yelling Tinker every time it is challenged does nothing to alter my opinion.

[Miller]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
And speech by non-agents of the state, which is what students are, does not constitute establishment of religion by the state. That can only happen when done by the state or its agents.
[/QUOTE]

And when a public school invites someone to speak at a school function, that person becomes an agent of the state, regardless of wether or not he is on the payroll of the school.

[flyboy]

[QUOTE=villa]
I give up. Either you are deliberately refusing to acknowledge, or you simply don’t realize, that the burden on the school regarding Establishment differs from the burden to limit speech under Tinker. Both are important, but they aren’t identical. You don’t think the words of a sole speaker at a state sponsored, quasi-compulsory event where the state limits what may be said, create the impression of endorsement by the school any more than the words of multiple speakers, not-restrained by the organizer, at an event put on by a private entity. I understand that is your view. It’s one that cannot be logically defended, IMHO, and burying your head in the sand and yelling Tinker every time it is challenged does nothing to alter my opinion.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. Tinker is totally irrelevant here, and the LOWV example is so flawed it’s useless, but he’s sticking with it to the bitter end. It’s interesting I don’t see Bricker chiming in any more here.

[Steve_MB]

[QUOTE=villa]
You don’t think the words of a sole speaker at a state sponsored, quasi-compulsory event where the state limits what may be said, create the impression of endorsement by the school any more than the words of multiple speakers, not-restrained by the organizer, at an event put on by a private entity.
[/QUOTE]

That follows logically from Shodan’s position that a person’s motivations cannot be inferred from that person’s actions.

The premise, obviously, is false, but given the premise it does follow.