Invocation/Lord's Prayer at public school graduation

[Steve_MB]

@flyboy

It’s interesting I don’t see Bricker chiming in any more here.

Suppose that you were at a party, and started discussing your objections to the Bush Administration’s anti-terrorism policies and tactics. Before you got very far, you felt the call of nature, and excused yourself.

Imagine that you returned to find that the conversation was now centered on someone who was delivering a “9-11 Was An Inside Job” rant.

Would you continue where you left off, or would you drop the subject for the time being?

[flyboy]

Shodan, I find none of your arguments referenced in any of the cases I’m reading. Here is what I see a lot of:

SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE
The Court rejects the District’s argument that its policy is distinguishable from the graduation prayer in Lee because it does not coerce students to participate in religious observances. The first part of this argument–that there is no impermissible government coercion because the pregame messages are the product of student choices–fails for the reasons discussed above explaining why the mechanism of the dual elections and student speaker do not turn public speech into private speech. The issue resolved in the first election was whether a student would deliver prayer at varsity football games, and the controversy in this case demonstrates that the students’ views are not unanimous on that issue. One of the Establishment Clause’s purposes is to remove debate over this kind of issue from governmental supervision or control. See Lee, 505 U.S., at 589. Although the ultimate choice of student speaker is attributable to the students, the District’s decision to hold the constitutionally problematic election is clearly a choice attributable to the State, id., at 587. The second part of the District’s argument–that there is no coercion here because attendance at an extracurricular event, unlike a graduation ceremony, is voluntary–is unpersuasive

Lee v. Weisman

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 court determined that the practice of including invocations and benedictions, even so-called nonsectarian ones, in public school graduations creates an identification of governmental power with religious practice, endorses religion, and violates the Establishment Clause.
That involvement is as troubling as it is undenied. A school official, the principal, decided that an invocation and a benediction should be given; this is a choice attributable to the State, and, from a constitutional perspective, it is as if a state statute decreed that the prayers must occur. The principal chose the religious participant, here a rabbi, and that choice is also attributable to the State.

I believe it can be argued that you could simply replace “student vote” or “student” with rabbi here.

Cole v. Oroville Union High School
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the school district on all the constitutional issues. The justices stated quite clearly that the district did what was necessary in order to avoid any violation of the Establishment Clause:
The invocation would not have been private speech, because the District authorized an invocation as part of the graduation ceremony held on District property, allowed only a student selected by a vote of his classmates to give an invocation and no doubt would have used a microphone or public address system to amplify the invocation to the audience at the graduation ceremony.

[Shodan]

@Steve MB

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.

No, my position is that you have to show how a conclusion about a person’s motivations can be drawn with evidence.

We can infer, for instance, from the fact that you post on the SDMB, that you are a member of the Communist party. Right?

Or else it is not enough to ascribe motives. You have to show, with some other evidence, that that was indeed the motivation, or demonstrate in some way that a given action could only have a single motive. I can certainly show that X intended to murder someone by demonstrating that they lay in wait for them and then shot them repeatedly, because only a desire to commit murder could cause a person to act in this way. But a public prayer can have different motives. It could be self-aggrandization, it could be witnessing, or it could be a desire to ask the blessing of God on students who are experiencing a significant life passage. What is needed is some evidence that shows it was one of the motives rather than the others.

flyboy, as I mentioned way back earlier in the thread, there is no definitive Supreme Court decision on graduation prayers. Different appeals courts have ruled in different ways. Some of those lower court decisions have been upheld, others not. But no precedent has been set, and thus we need to look to other decisions of the court (like Tinker) for the principles to guide us.

@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

Graduation ceremonies are not compulsory, as was mentioned before. The limits placed on the speakers have nothing whatever to do with it. As I mentioned, limits of one sort do not entitle the school to any other limits.

It is simply not the case that, as soon as any limit is put on speech, all limits are allowed. As I mentioned, the fact that I cannot shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater does not mean that I can be prevented from putting on a school play.

Regards,
Shodan

[Steve_MB]

@Shodan

We can infer, for instance, from the fact that you post on the SDMB, that you are a member of the Communist party. Right?

The controlled demolition of the thread continues.

[OpalCat]

It really is like beating your head against a wall with some of these people, isn’t it? It’s the same blindly ignorant defenses over and over and a refusal to understand the reality of the issue… and it’s gone full circle a number of times now. I’m getting dizzy.

[flyboy]

So 9-11 *was * an inside job…

[prleone]

@pbbth

It’s not. I was taken aback when they did that at my graduation and when my brother graduated my aunt and I sat there and quietly discussed the huge number of individuals in the graduating class who didn’t seem to be Christian (traditionally Muslim names, wearing yarmulkes, etc.) and how they probably didn’t appreciate the forced prayer to a god they didn’t worship. It is an offensive practice that I wish they would do away with permanently.

Agreement meter at 100%!

I am still so irked at the girls who insisted upon doing that at their graduation
earning them a useless scholarship to Liberty University.
Oh, the waste…

Separation of C & S, people. Separation…

[ArizonaTeach]

@Steve MB

The specific job of a school is to educate. Ergo, if it schedules prayers, it must schedule a prayer in every available religion… specifically excluding the relgion(s) of the students (the former is new knowledge, the latter is simply a repetition of stuff they already know and thus of no educational value).

This seems to be the argument of the Intelligent Design crowd, so I’d avoid making my point with this,
Regardless, the purpose of *graduation * certainly isn’t to educate, so I’m kinda confused on what you’re getting at anyway.

ETA: I should point out that I get the seperation argument…I just don’t get what you’re trying to say.

[Rucksinator]

[ETA: this thread wasn’t 3 pages long when I read it. I haven’t read all of it.]

@jtgain

At some point in time, to enforce the court decision, the cuffs will have to come out, and that is the “corner” I was talking about. Who wants to handcuff a principal for allowing prayer and be in the firing line of every Christian minister in the country next Sunday morning?

Anecdote warning: When I was in HS in Kentucky around ~1990, I recall our principal talking at some function in the gym, and saying (paraphrasing from memory) “I’m going to lead us in prayer, and I will do so until they arrest me.”

This wasn’t a particularly religious-zealot-type guy, but it was a religious town. He was in no danger of getting arrested. I don’t recall him making this prelude at any other time, so I think he must have just gotten a bug up his ass that day about “the outlawing of school prayer”.

My point is: Unless it’s very egregious, and is a fairly liberal town, it’s going to be gotten away with.

It’s kinda like smoking a little bit of pot; except in the opposite direction.

[Rucksinator]

@Quartz

Just a nitpick, but Jews, Christians, and Muslims do worship the same deity, only in different ways.

You mean Jesus?

[Clothahump]

@OpalCat

I agree that it’s rude and offensive. I’m baffled by people who don’t see this.

Because it’s their religion. And if you don’t believe in their religion, you are automatically wrong.

[villa]

@Shodan

Graduation ceremonies are not compulsory, as was mentioned before.

I have not said they are. I said quasi-compulsory. Might help if you read what people write, but that wouldn’t fit in with your views so well.

@Shodan

The limits placed on the speakers have nothing whatever to do with it. As I mentioned, limits of one sort do not entitle the school to any other limits.

It is simply not the case that, as soon as any limit is put on speech, all limits are allowed. As I mentioned, the fact that I cannot shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater does not mean that I can be prevented from putting on a school play.

And I have not said that limits of one type entitle all limits. But if you still continue to think that the limits placed are irrelevant, then you have no concept whatsoever of First Amendment jurisprudence. Such an assessment is further backed up by the idea that you think Tinker is controlling on Establishment cases.

[ITR_champion]

@begbert2

The will of the majority does NOT trump the constitution or laws, ever. If the majority want to trump those, it has to jump through the hoops and change the constitution and laws! Until then, the will of the majority means exactly nothing, the instant it comes into conflict with an existing law.

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.

Any other route is mob rule.

The current Supreme Court is mob rule with a small mob.

[ITR_champion]

@Steve MB

The specific job of a school is to educate.

Since you and I agree on that we have common ground. To educate a person is to develop a person’s abilities and faclties; look it up if you don’t believe me. Therefore prayer itself can be part of education.

[ITR_champion]

@Don't Call Me Shirley

Hmm, pray continuously. I see. Nothing in there about microphones and standing up in public while you do so. .

If I say that praying is part of my religion, then it is. Unless there’s an article in the Constitution saying that Con’t Call Me Shirley gets to decide what everyone else’s religious beliefs are, that’s the last wrod I’m saying on the topic.

[OpalCat]

My religion requires me to scream loudly and continuously for the duration of any public prayer to a god other than my own, to show my devotion to my god. I trust you won’t mind when I do this at the graduation ceremony.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@OpalCat

My religion requires me to scream loudly and continuously for the duration of any public prayer to a god other than my own, to show my devotion to my god. I trust you won’t mind when I do this at the graduation ceremony.

Enjoy getting it on in auditoriums, eh?

[Miller]

@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.

How has the Supreme Court “mutilated” English on this subject? Please, be precise in your answer.

Also, do you understand the purpose in our system of government in having a Supreme Court that is not selected by direct election? Do you think our system of government would be improved by changing how Supreme Court justices are chosen?

In a related area, you never answered my question in regards to a majority always being right. Do you think there are times when the majority can want something that is bad? Should there be any checks in our society to prevent that from happening?

To educate a person is to develop a person’s abilities and faclties; look it up if you don’t believe me. Therefore prayer itself can be part of education.

How does prayer count as education?

If I say that praying is part of my religion, then it is. Unless there’s an article in the Constitution saying that Con’t Call Me Shirley gets to decide what everyone else’s religious beliefs are, that’s the last wrod I’m saying on the topic.

No one is suggesting that prayer isn’t a part of your religion. What you seem to be unable to grasp, here, is that there is a difference between allowing you to worship as you see fit, and providing you a platform from which to preach. Pray all you want: no one is going to stop you. Just don’t expect the government to pay for it. That’s not the government’s job.

[Shodan]

@villa

I have not said they are. I said quasi-compulsory. Might help if you read what people write, but that wouldn’t fit in with your views so well.

Distinction without a difference again. If you are not compelled to attend the graduation ceremony in order to receive a diploma, then you are not compelled to listen to prayers with which you may not agree, which is another reason why no establishment of religion under the authority of the state is occurring.

And I have not said that limits of one type entitle all limits.

Well, you keep saying over and over that the fact that the school disallows disruptive speech means that it is not an open forum and therefore student-led prayer is disallowed. But, in the same way, disruptive speech is disallowed in public in other situations (and OpalCat’s nonsense about screaming is therefore silly). Free speech may not therefore be disallowed because the state or its agents will be perceived as endorsing the opinions expressed.

You keep repeating that one kind of limit means you can impose another kind of limit. You can’t. Limits on free speech and freedom to practice religion have to be specifically justified. The limit imposed by a ban on disruption can be justified. This does not mean that any other limit can be imposed without specifically justifying that limit.

Freedom of speech and of religion in this context cannot be limited because of the Establishment clause. There is no compulsion to pray, no agent of the state is initiating the prayers, there is no implicit endorsement of the prayers by any agent of the state, allowing someone to express a viewpoint does not mean that you endorse it, and the default assumption must always be that the state may not act to limit speech or religion unless the limitation can be expressly justified for the circumstances.

Tinker is relevant because there is no one, single Supreme Court decision controlling graduation prayers (as has been mentioned at least twice).

Regards,
Shodan

[flyboy]

Duplicate Post–Someone needs to feed the hamsters.