Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

archer wrote:

CriticalBill wrote: It obviously wouldn't bother LJ no matter how much Obama talks in religious terms to the entire nation and the world. :thumbsup:

Why don't you ask LJ instead of YOU telling us what she is bothered by. Like kate.....I think using the "God bless" in public speeches is just wrong. The problem for politicians is if they don't use it the right calls them athiests, or Christian haters, or whatever the flavor of the day "hate the left" remark is.

Since he DIDN'T bother to ask me, (and as usual, assume whatever he likes), I DO, in fact, agree with Kate. I think it has no business in politics, and I wish politicians would leave their religion "in the closet"...and that INCLUDES Obama.

But ANY politician, regardless of party, that doesn't express the magic words, or who suggests that they have no place in politics, would be demagogued-to-death by the other party..."They hate God, mom, apple-pie, and probably kick prairie-dogs in the back..ad nauseum." It's not possible in the real world.

And the Congress, Senate, House, SCOTUS, etc., STILL have nothing to do with the case defining the insertion of religious material into school events.

Kate wrote: Seriously? You think the pressure comes from the students being forced to be respectful during a prayer and not the invocation itself?

I'm not sure where to go from here, since every time I present an argument, you find a little detail that hearkens back to your days as a cub scout and "Well, we just didn't do it that way" and "When I was a kid....."

Your idea of argument apparently is not arguing the facts in a common sense manner, but presenting your interpretation of a little detail, out of context - in a really weird way - when it is plain as day what the meaning was within the Supreme Court decision.

Are we through here or will you be dredging up another arcane argument to support some fantasy from your mind?

In all seriousness I fail to see any pressure, subtle or otherwise, that is outside of the conduct that society expects from its members. The court, on the other hand, did find that requiring the students to stand or remain respectfully silent was one of the means by which the state violated the establishment clause.

What the court found objectionable was that the principal alone decided that the ceremony would include an invocation and a benediction, participated in the construction of the prayer that would be said and dictated the conduct of the students while the prayer was being said. That, in a nutshell, was what the court found objectionable and why in its opinion the establishment clause had been violated. It was not that an invocation was included, it was that one person who represented the state at the school, its principal, decided a prayer would be said, attempted to dictate the content of the prayer that would be said and issued instructions as to how the students would behave while it was being said.

I know you wish to believe something other than this Kate, but the text of the majority decision supports what I am saying, not what you are saying. To whit:

The last sentence under (a) that explains the why of the decision references Lynch v Donnelly. From the decision referenced comes the following:

(a) The concept of a "wall" of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor, but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the "callous indifference," Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 343 U. S. 314, that was never intended by the Establishment Clause. Pp. 465 U. S. 672-673.

(b) This Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause comports with the contemporaneous understanding of the Framers' intent. That neither the draftsmen of the Constitution, who were Members of the First Congress, nor the First Congress itself saw any establishment problem in employing Chaplains to offer daily prayers in the Congress is a striking example of the accommodation of religious beliefs intended by the Framers. Pp. 465 U. S. 673-674.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/465/668/case.html

Under (b) of the decision the language is clearly taking issue with the actions of the principal, Lee, with his unilateral decision to include an invocation and a benediction and his actions aimed at specifying the content of the prayer that would eventually be said.

(c) of the decision is where the court takes issue with Lee requiring the students to stand or remain silent while the prayer is said. Specifically:

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.

It is the school district requiring the students to stand or at least to remain silent during the invocation, not the invocation, that might (could, not does) lead a high school dissenter, who has yet to reach sufficient maturity to understand this is a matter of respect, that their conforming behavior is an approval of or a participation in the prayer itself. Clearly the court does not think that standing and maintaining respectful silence is an approval of or a participation in the prayer, they merely can see where a high school aged student might not yet have reached that level of understanding for themselves yet.

I'm sorry Kate, the opinion doesn't say what you think it says. The facts don't support what you are attempting to have us believe.

LadyJazzer wrote:

archer wrote:

CriticalBill wrote: It obviously wouldn't bother LJ no matter how much Obama talks in religious terms to the entire nation and the world. :thumbsup:

Why don't you ask LJ instead of YOU telling us what she is bothered by. Like kate.....I think using the "God bless" in public speeches is just wrong. The problem for politicians is if they don't use it the right calls them athiests, or Christian haters, or whatever the flavor of the day "hate the left" remark is.

And the Congress, Senate, House, SCOTUS, etc., STILL have nothing to do with the case defining the insertion of religious material into school events.

Why is there a difference LJ? Is the White House not a publically owned property just like the school? Is the president not ignoring all other religions (or atheism) by invoking Jesus in his speech? And is it not far more harmful to the millions of sensitive ears when he does this on TV were as the school issue may only affect a few thousand people?

I remember VERY clearly when Bush mentioned his faith, the people on the left went batsh@t over that but now when Obama does it, NOTHING.

Obama said we are not a Christian nation right? So why is the graduation such a big story when the most powerful man on the planet can inject his religion from a taxpayer owned property? Hypocrisy?

I get that you disagree with Obama when he does that, but to be outraged by a graduation ceremony seems silly when you've been silent about Obama doing the same thing.

Since he DIDN'T bother to ask me, (and as usual, assume whatever he likes), I DO, in fact, agree with Kate. I think it has no business in politics, and I wish politicians would leave their religion "in the closet"...and that INCLUDES Obama.

If you want to know what the difference is in THE CASE, I suggest you read the case. Arguing with someone who obviously doesn't know anything about it, and does nothing but raise irrelevant hypotheticals, is tiresome.

Actually, it would be quite easy to have an invocation at a graduation ceremony that didn't run afoul of the courts opinion. Have the planning done by a parent committee as to what will or will not be included. Don't have the principal instruct the invited guest on what should or should not be included in the invocation. And lastly, during the practice inform the students that their standing or remaining quiet is a matter of respect and manners, not a participation in or an agreement with anything included in the invocation. Problems solved.

How about they take their religious observation to another venue rather than continue to look for ways to cram it down everyone else's throats by skirting the rules?

PrintSmith wrote: In all seriousness I fail to see any pressure, subtle or otherwise, that is outside of the conduct that society expects from its members. The court, on the other hand, did find that requiring the students to stand or remain respectfully silent was one of the means by which the state violated the establishment clause.

What the court found objectionable was that the principal alone decided that the ceremony would include an invocation and a benediction, participated in the construction of the prayer that would be said and dictated the conduct of the students while the prayer was being said. That, in a nutshell, was what the court found objectionable and why in its opinion the establishment clause had been violated. It was not that an invocation was included, it was that one person who represented the state at the school, its principal, decided a prayer would be said, attempted to dictate the content of the prayer that would be said and issued instructions as to how the students would behave while it was being said.

Amazing how you cannot quote the paragraph from the case we've been discussing to back up your claim.

PrintSmith wrote: I know you wish to believe something other than this Kate, but the text of the majority decision supports what I am saying, not what you are saying. To whit:

The last sentence under (a) that explains the why of the decision references Lynch v Donnelly. From the decision referenced comes the following:

(a) The concept of a "wall" of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor, but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the "callous indifference," Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 343 U. S. 314, that was never intended by the Establishment Clause. Pp. 465 U. S. 672-673.

(b) This Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause comports with the contemporaneous understanding of the Framers' intent. That neither the draftsmen of the Constitution, who were Members of the First Congress, nor the First Congress itself saw any establishment problem in employing Chaplains to offer daily prayers in the Congress is a striking example of the accommodation of religious beliefs intended by the Framers. Pp. 465 U. S. 673-674.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/465/668/case.html

Under (b) of the decision the language is clearly taking issue with the actions of the principal, Lee, with his unilateral decision to include an invocation and a benediction and his actions aimed at specifying the content of the prayer that would eventually be said.

(c) of the decision is where the court takes issue with Lee requiring the students to stand or remain silent while the prayer is said. Specifically:

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.

It is the school district requiring the students to stand or at least to remain silent during the invocation, not the invocation, that might (could, not does) lead a high school dissenter, who has yet to reach sufficient maturity to understand this is a matter of respect, that their conforming behavior is an approval of or a participation in the prayer itself. Clearly the court does not think that standing and maintaining respectful silence is an approval of or a participation in the prayer, they merely can see where a high school aged student might not yet have reached that level of understanding for themselves yet.

I'm sorry Kate, the opinion doesn't say what you think it says. The facts don't support what you are attempting to have us believe.

Can we keep this to the case in question? I'm having a hard enough time reading the court case cited by Trouble without dragging in another deflection by you.

You still maintain, apparently, that an invocation is not the offending activity, yet it's been shown to you that it is the religious ceremony that was cited in the case, which flunked the "Lemon" test. You can bluster and blow and deflect all you want, but the case stands on its own merit.

Sorry that you can't see that. I'm done trying to read through your complex sentences and archaic references where you try to prove a point that most here see you have clearly lost. Argue with someone else.

PrintSmith wrote: Actually, it would be quite easy to have an invocation at a graduation ceremony that didn't run afoul of the courts opinion. Have the planning done by a parent committee as to what will or will not be included. Don't have the principal instruct the invited guest on what should or should not be included in the invocation. And lastly, during the practice inform the students that their standing or remaining quiet is a matter of respect and manners, not a participation in or an agreement with anything included in the invocation. Problems solved.

OMG! Apparently I'm not done with you, as you continue to pollute this thread with your faulty interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling.

Just because you say it is so does not make it so. Too bad you can't admit you're wrong and just move on. Now I'm done with you.

Kate wrote: Can we keep this to the case in question? I'm having a hard enough time reading the court case cited by Trouble without dragging in another deflection by you.

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but it was you who referenced the Lee decision of the Supreme Court in support of your opinion. I am merely showing you how your interpretation of that decision is in error, as you asked someone to do earlier:

It's very dry reading, but from what I understand, prayer at public school graduations is not allowed. I could have read this decision wrong - like I said, it's somewhat confusing and I'm not a lawyer.

Perhaps someone else could read through it and see if I'm wrong on my interpretation?

I am someone else, I did read the opinion and you are indeed wrong in your interpretation of the opinion for the reasons I cited. I can only show you why you are wrong, I can't make you understand why you are wrong. Trouble took the trouble to include something in their post (page 11 of the thread) that is very relevant that you seem to want to overlook.

Justice Kennedy made clear, for the majority, that the Court's decision was limited to the particular facts before the Court.[FN16] Thus, any change from the factual situation presented in Lee might alter the resulting opinion from the Court.

Reason and logic tell us therefore that it was the situation surrounding the invocation, not the invocation itself, which drew the objections of the court and that if steps were taken to avoid these situations (the principal deciding that a prayer would be said, what the prayer would include and how the students were to behave while it was being said) the opinion of the court might be altered.

Kate wrote: You still maintain, apparently, that an invocation is not the offending activity, yet it's been shown to you that it is the religious ceremony that was cited in the case, which flunked the "Lemon" test. You can bluster and blow and deflect all you want, but the case stands on its own merit.

I maintain it because the Supreme Court has said that invocations, in and of themselves, are not the offending activity. That is very clear in the Lee case. It was the particular set of circumstances surrounding that incidence that were unconstitutional, not that an invocation was said at all. It was that particular incident which flunked the Lemon Test, but the court was quite clear that the inclusion of any invocation didn't automatically flunk the Lemon Test. The one in Lee did, but one in which the circumstances were different would not necessarily also fail. The court was very specific as to why the invocation in Lee failed the standard. I'm sorry that you either fail to see or fail to accept that reality, but it exists despite your failure.

In Lynch, which was cited in Lee, the court reaffirmed that not only is prayer not forbidden at government activities, it must be accommodated by the government at its activities. While making that necessary accommodation, however, it must not cross into establishment. I'll put it here again so that you don't have to scroll up to read it and even enhance the relevant part for you:

(a) The concept of a "wall" of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor, but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the "callous indifference," Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 343 U. S. 314, that was never intended by the Establishment Clause. Pp. 465 U. S. 672-673.

The Constitution affirmatively mandates accommodation of religion by the government. On public property and at public events it must accommodate the expression of religion, which means it must allow it to occur provided that the accommodation does not become an establishment of that particular religion. An outright ban on there being an invocation at all is just as much of a violation of the Constitution as the particular invocation referenced in Lee was because the government must accommodate the expression of religion on its property and during the course of events associated with the government.

That is why a nativity scene is allowed to be displayed on public property during the Christmas season. It is not an establishment of a religion, it is an accommodation of the religion that must be allowed by the government according to the Supreme Court. As LJ is often fond of saying, this is the established law of the land. You may disagree with that law, but your disagreement does not alter the reality that exists as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of the law in this nation.

Kate wrote: Sorry that you can't see that. I'm done trying to read through your complex sentences and archaic references where you try to prove a point that most here see you have clearly lost. Argue with someone else.

I am truly sorry, but it is your sight, not mine, that is flawed here Kate. The Supreme Court never outlawed the inclusion of an invocation at every public high school graduation. It merely established some of the parameters under which it was not allowable in its decision in Lee. Altering the circumstances which the court found objectionable in Lee is not, as LJ implied, a skirting of the rules, it is instead an adherence to the rules as established by the Supreme Court that permit the inclusion of an invocation at a public school ceremony. The school may neither insist upon nor forbid an invocation at their ceremonies. They may decide to include or exclude one however as long as certain standards are followed. Exclusion is not an automatic hostility towards religion, which is not allowed, nor is inclusion an automatic establishment of religion, which is also not allowed. The circumstances surrounding the inclusion or exclusion are what determine whether or not the Constitution is being followed, not the inclusion or exclusion of an invocation. The schools must permit an invocation to be part of the ceremony provided that its inclusion does not rise, in the opinion of the court, to the level of establishment.

I hope that clears things up for you and provides the necessary explanation as to why just because you think it so does not make it so. I hope you can now simply admit that you are wrong and just move on.