Invocation/Lord's Prayer at public school graduation

Great Debates
161

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:

And just to clarify the Court’s analysis:

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.

162

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.

163

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?

164

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.”

165

Yes, you are right, it’s a constitutional democracy.

166

Hmmm… never tried… intriguing possibilities…
Hey!–are you coming on to me!?

what auditoriums do you live near?

167

OK, then let’s not include lower court rulings.

We are talking about student-led prayers, not officially required ones.

Same as above - this is not a case about student-led prayers.

Same as above - this is a case where the principal of the schools initiated the prayer. Again, we were talking about student-led prayers.

I thought we were not going to include lower court rulings. This is from the Fifth Circuit Court.

Lower court again.

Lower court again. And, as you say, letting a lower court decision stand does not necessarily set a precedent.

Lower court again.Also not a prayer, not student-led.

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

168

My point is that this is one of those situations where one horse laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms.

169

…there are no American tanks in Baghdad…

170

Maybe

171

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:

By extension, I include Lee v. Wiseman in my support. So, by the way, does the Supreme Court:

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.

172

:shrugs:

Bricker’s first point was this -

Mine was this -

If you haven’t been arguing against that, fine with me.

Regards,
Shodan

173

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.

174

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.

175

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.

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.