Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

Soulshiner wrote: People who pray in public just want to be noticed for doing so...

That's what I keep saying... But you certainly said it in fewer words.... :thumbsup:

It would seem that the Supreme Court disagrees with you in Lee v. Weisman.

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. The reason for the choice of a rabbi is not disclosed by the record, but the potential for divisiveness over the choice of a particular member of the clergy to conduct the ceremony is apparent.

You can say that it's praying "for" you all you want, but it is still a religious activity at a publicly funded ceremony.

Look, I understand that you don't want to admit you are wrong and so you are splitting hairs to backpedal. After all, you have a reputation here to protect. But there is just no way that prayer is not considered a religious activity, regardless of the intention - which is the hair you are splitting.


In the case of prayer at a graduation ceremony,the Supreme Court cites "subtle coercive pressures." That's a major problem I have with these prayers, while basically harmless and well intentioned, they are nonetheless a form of pressure for everyone at the ceremony. By giving a prayer, there is an implied agreement that everyone there basically agrees with the religion being displayed. That is the "subtle coercive pressure."

Divisiveness, of course, can attend any state decision respecting religions, and neither its existence nor its potential necessarily invalidates the State's attempts to accommodate religion in all cases. The potential for divisiveness is of particular relevance here though, because it centers around an overt religious exercise in a secondary school environment where, as we discuss below, see infra, at 593-594, subtle coercive pressures exist and where the student had no real alternative which would have allowed her to avoid the fact or appearance of participation.

Now I understand that you are probably deeply religious and want to find ways to bring that into everyday events, but a public school graduation is not the place to inject religion. Host your own graduation ceremony and pray all you want, but don't try to tell me that a prayer is not a religious activity and then accuse me of not using reason and logic when I object. That's just dishonest.

Kate wrote: It would seem that the Supreme Court disagrees with you in Lee v. Weisman.

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. The reason for the choice of a rabbi is not disclosed by the record, but the potential for divisiveness over the choice of a particular member of the clergy to conduct the ceremony is apparent.

You can say that it's praying "for" you all you want, but it is still a religious activity at a publicly funded ceremony.

As is "May God Bless you and may He Bless the United States of America". What the court found most objectionable was not that the rabbi gave a benediction, but that the principal of the school gave the rabbi a pamphlet on what his benediction should contain. The principal attempting to determine the content of the prayer, not that a prayer was said at the public gathering, was what the court found objectionable in Lee. A very important distinction which none of you seem anxious to mention for some reason. What would that reason be?

Kate wrote: Look, I understand that you don't want to admit you are wrong and so you are splitting hairs to backpedal. After all, you have a reputation here to protect. But there is just no way that prayer is not considered a religious activity, regardless of the intention - which is the hair you are splitting.

The question is, has been, and remains how any invocation rises to the level of state established religion and why an invocation delivered at a high school graduation rises to that criteria but an invocation delivered by the President of the United States of America does not and an invocation on the floor of the House of Representatives or the Senate does not either.

Kate wrote: In the case of prayer at a graduation ceremony,the Supreme Court cites "subtle coercive pressures." That's a major problem I have with these prayers, while basically harmless and well intentioned, they are nonetheless a form of pressure for everyone at the ceremony. By giving a prayer, there is an implied agreement that everyone there basically agrees with the religion being displayed. That is the "subtle coercive pressure."

Divisiveness, of course, can attend any state decision respecting religions, and neither its existence nor its potential necessarily invalidates the State's attempts to accommodate religion in all cases. The potential for divisiveness is of particular relevance here though, because it centers around an overt religious exercise in a secondary school environment where, as we discuss below, see infra, at 593-594, subtle coercive pressures exist and where the student had no real alternative which would have allowed her to avoid the fact or appearance of participation.

What you have failed to mention, which I did above, is that the 'subtle coercive pressures" being applied were the principal attempting to control the content of the prayer the rabbi delivered.

Kate wrote: Now I understand that you are probably deeply religious and want to find ways to bring that into everyday events, but a public school graduation is not the place to inject religion. Host your own graduation ceremony and pray all you want, but don't try to tell me that a prayer is not a religious activity and then accuse me of not using reason and logic when I object. That's just dishonest.

I am a religious person Kate, I have never represented myself as anything other than that. That does not alter the reality than an invocation is not a state established religious activity as my earlier examples clearly establish. What you and others are attempting to do with your citing of Lee is to remove the context in which the decision was reached in that case where the principal attempted to control the content of the prayer being said. That is altogether different from the principal inviting someone to give an invocation and allowing them to entirely determine the content of the invocation. The problem the court had was not that a rabbi gave an invocation, but that the principal attempted to determine the content of the rabbi's invocation. I recognize that distinction for what it is; and more importantly for what it is not, which is an outright agreement with the position you have taken here. If you are going to cite the case in support of your argument then you should at least be familiar enough with the case to know what the objection of the court was in that case.

I'm no attorney, nor do I keep track of all the Supreme Court decisions on religious matters.

I know this:

When I am visiting my parent or in-laws, they say grace in their homes. I sit there silently, eyes open, waiting for them to finish. I am in their homes and that is what they do.

When I am at a public, government sponsored event, and someone beside me is praying, I go about my business. I am not part of their prayer and have no obligation to be quiet while they pray.

At a public graduation, some kid who wants to sing hosannahs about his/her God/Allah/whatever can save it for his/her religious service. Public high school graduation is not a place for an invocation, benediction or prayer by anyone.

And, Chickaree, I thank your church for having a recognition of the graduates. That's the best way to do it.

When I was a student at Evergreen High School, there was also a baccalaureate service - held in the high school's auditorium in the evening a few days prior to graduation. It was an interfaith affair, attendance was completely voluntary, but it was held at the school itself. I'm guessing most of those opposed to the invocation at the graduation would have a similar problem with this as well. Not really much of a guess. By the time my kid brother graduated from the very same school 9 years later, it was no longer allowed.

If a graduation is an inappropriate place for an invocation 2w, what then of a president's speech to the nation or during his commencement address to a graduating class? Is this also inappropriate? What about the invocations that occur when state and federal legislatures, city councils or county boards are called into session? Are these equally inappropriate as well?

2wlady wrote: At a public graduation, some kid who wants to sing hosannahs about his/her God/Allah/whatever can save it for his/her religious service. Public high school graduation is not a place for an invocation, benediction or prayer by anyone.

Talk about wild exaggerations, nothing akin to singing of hosannas was envisioned or planned. No part of a formal worship service from any religion was envisioned or planned either. What was envisioned was nothing more and nothing less than that which occurs prior to the start of every legislative day on the floor of the House of Representatives, the floor of the Senate or the conclusion of a speech by the president, the Speaker of the House or the Secretary of State intended for the citizens of the union.

PrintSmith wrote: The question is, has been, and remains how any invocation rises to the level of state established religion and why an invocation delivered at a high school graduation rises to that criteria but an invocation delivered by the President of the United States of America does not and an invocation on the floor of the House of Representatives or the Senate does not either.

OMG! You almost had me! You state things so authoritatively and condescendingly that you had me doubting myself! Bravo on your debate style! It made me go back and read the court decision more closely, so thank you!

I do not know how a prayer or invocation at a graduation ceremony can be wrong while an invocation on the Senate floor can be acceptable. However, just because one is allowed does not make the other allowable.

Don't just take my word for it. The Supreme Court even says in Lee v Weisman that invocation is a religious activity:

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.

So it seems pretty clear the the Supreme Court has answered your question of how an invocation rises to the level of state established religion. Why they do not apply it to the Congressional activities is beyond me, but there is the ruling in black & white. Perhaps it is because the students are a captive and impressionable audience?

PrintSmith wrote: What you have failed to mention, which I did above, is that the 'subtle coercive pressures" being applied were the principal attempting to control the content of the prayer the rabbi delivered.

Here, you are just wrong. The pressure is not on the Rabbi (although he was given a pamphlet outlining what a non-sectarian prayer should be) but the pressure is rather on the students attending.

Again, from the Supreme Court decision:

Divisiveness, of course, can attend any state decision respecting religions, and neither its existence nor its potential necessarily invalidates the State's attempts to accommodate religion in all cases. The potential for divisiveness is of particular relevance here though, because it centers around an overt religious exercise in a secondary school environment where, as we discuss below, see infra, at 593-594, subtle coercive pressures exist and where the student had no real alternative which would have allowed her to avoid the fact or appearance of participation.

We need not look beyond the circumstances of this case to see the phenomenon at work. The undeniable fact is that the school district's supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places public pressure, as well as peer pressure, on attending students to stand as a group or, at least, maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction. This pressure, though subtle and indirect, can be as real as any overt compulsion.

So you see, it is not the Rabbi who is receiving the pressure, but the student.

PrintSmith wrote: I am a religious person Kate, I have never represented myself as anything other than that. That does not alter the reality than an invocation is not a state established religious activity as my earlier examples clearly establish. What you and others are attempting to do with your citing of Lee is to remove the context in which the decision was reached in that case where the principal attempted to control the content of the prayer being said. That is altogether different from the principal inviting someone to give an invocation and allowing them to entirely determine the content of the invocation. The problem the court had was not that a rabbi gave an invocation, but that the principal attempted to determine the content of the rabbi's invocation. I recognize that distinction for what it is; and more importantly for what it is not, which is an outright agreement with the position you have taken here. If you are going to cite the case in support of your argument then you should at least be familiar enough with the case to know what the objection of the court was in that case.

Well, it was established, as outlined further up in this post, that an invocation is a state endorsement of religion, at least in this situation. The state provided guidelines in the form of a pamphlet, to be sure, but that is an extremely minor part of the case and is not the crux of the issue. I urge you to re-read the case to familiarize yourself with it again.

This seems to be the crucial point of the case:

The injury caused by the government's action, and the reason why Daniel and Deborah Weisman object to it, is that the State, in a school setting, in effect required participation in a religious exercise.

Just to make sure that we're talking about the same case, here's the link to the decision:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

Kate wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: The question is, has been, and remains how any invocation rises to the level of state established religion and why an invocation delivered at a high school graduation rises to that criteria but an invocation delivered by the President of the United States of America does not and an invocation on the floor of the House of Representatives or the Senate does not either.

OMG! You almost had me! You state things so authoritatively and condescendingly that you had me doubting myself! Bravo on your debate style! It made me go back and read the court decision more closely, so thank you!

I do not know how a prayer or invocation at a graduation ceremony can be wrong while an invocation on the Senate floor can be acceptable. However, just because one is allowed does not make the other allowable.

Don't just take my word for it. The Supreme Court even says in Lee v Weisman that invocation is a religious activity:

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.

So it seems pretty clear the the Supreme Court has answered your question of how an invocation rises to the level of state established religion. Why they do not apply it to the Congressional activities is beyond me, but there is the ruling in black & white. Perhaps it is because the students are a captive and impressionable audience?

PrintSmith wrote: What you have failed to mention, which I did above, is that the 'subtle coercive pressures" being applied were the principal attempting to control the content of the prayer the rabbi delivered.

Here, you are just wrong. The pressure is not on the Rabbi (although he was given a pamphlet outlining what a non-sectarian prayer should be) but the pressure is rather on the students attending.

Again, from the Supreme Court decision:

Divisiveness, of course, can attend any state decision respecting religions, and neither its existence nor its potential necessarily invalidates the State's attempts to accommodate religion in all cases. The potential for divisiveness is of particular relevance here though, because it centers around an overt religious exercise in a secondary school environment where, as we discuss below, see infra, at 593-594, subtle coercive pressures exist and where the student had no real alternative which would have allowed her to avoid the fact or appearance of participation.

We need not look beyond the circumstances of this case to see the phenomenon at work. The undeniable fact is that the school district's supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places public pressure, as well as peer pressure, on attending students to stand as a group or, at least, maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction. This pressure, though subtle and indirect, can be as real as any overt compulsion.

So you see, it is not the Rabbi who is receiving the pressure, but the student.

PrintSmith wrote: I am a religious person Kate, I have never represented myself as anything other than that. That does not alter the reality than an invocation is not a state established religious activity as my earlier examples clearly establish. What you and others are attempting to do with your citing of Lee is to remove the context in which the decision was reached in that case where the principal attempted to control the content of the prayer being said. That is altogether different from the principal inviting someone to give an invocation and allowing them to entirely determine the content of the invocation. The problem the court had was not that a rabbi gave an invocation, but that the principal attempted to determine the content of the rabbi's invocation. I recognize that distinction for what it is; and more importantly for what it is not, which is an outright agreement with the position you have taken here. If you are going to cite the case in support of your argument then you should at least be familiar enough with the case to know what the objection of the court was in that case.

Well, it was established, as outlined further up in this post, that an invocation is a state endorsement of religion, at least in this situation. The state provided guidelines in the form of a pamphlet, to be sure, but that is an extremely minor part of the case and is not the crux of the issue. I urge you to re-read the case to familiarize yourself with it again.

This seems to be the crucial point of the case:

The injury caused by the government's action, and the reason why Daniel and Deborah Weisman object to it, is that the State, in a school setting, in effect required participation in a religious exercise.

Just to make sure that we're talking about the same case, here's the link to the decision:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

I don't remember the case, but the courts held that invocation on the Senate floor was not likely to create pressure on those Senators who actually were present, while in a high school setting, the intended audience is more impressionable. Sounds like they are dancing a fine line to distinguish so they do not have to outlaw the Senate practices.

Way to go, Kate. PS, take that!

Something the Dog Said wrote: I don't remember the case, but the courts held that invocation on the Senate floor was not likely to create pressure on those Senators who actually were present, while in a high school setting, the intended audience is more impressionable. Sounds like they are dancing a fine line to distinguish so they do not have to outlaw the Senate practices.

I think it's Marsh v. Chambers from 1983.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 6&as_vis=1