Senate [South Carolina] Atheist student sues high school over graduation prayer

Why is it appropriate for the whole apparatus of government to be turned towards expressing one individual's (or even a group of individuals') beliefs? If they want to express those things, they can do it on their own time. The government shouldn't be expressing anything, since the government has no religious beliefs to express.

Just because someone occupies an appointed or elective office, it doesn't become their personal fiefdom. For those of us who have moved out of the Middle Ages, there is a difference between an office and the office-holder of the moment.

It was moved incorrectly mind you. The fact that we have yet to correct this illegal travesty is disappointing.

I guess I just don't understand why it's not a free speech deal. Can you guys enlighten me? It seems to me that if a student asks to pray at a graduation ceremony, and other students agree they should be able to, that student should be able to pray. What about that is illegal?

I'm not trying to be argumentative at this point. I just don't understand.

Wocky, I don't think anybody is arguing for what you said in your last paragraph.

The key problem I see with your analysis is that you are giving weight to the way in which this act came about. But that's irrelevant to it's legality. The controlling factor is whether this was being presented as the view of the school (and therefore, the government).

It either is or is not presented in that fashion, regardless of whether this came about by popular vote, spontaneous acclamation, threat of alien invasion, or the work of the Adjustment Bureau from the Matt Damon film of the same name. The journey is not important. The destination is. What you have to answer is whether officially being on the program and speaking from the microphone during the graduation makes the episode an official part of the graduation ceremony.

EDIT: Prenn, I guess I don't see how Asterix's position isn't arguing against my last paragraph. He admits that the prayers would have no relevance in terms of the actual function of government at all. The only beneficiary would be the office-holder. How isn't he arguing that people should be able to use their government posts for personal gain/pleasure?

Yes, it's not the whole amendment. I posted more of the text earlier.

My "narrow" interpretation is merely based on the text of the law, and the intent of the lawmaker. Read the link I offered, if you want to learn more.

Did the school, by holding official public prayer establish Christianity as the public school's official religion?

No.

Did the school by holding the prayer force others to become Christians?

No.

Did the school make any law with regard to the establishment of religion?

No.

Did the school limit anyone's exercise of religion by holding the prayer?

No.

Would the government, stepping in to limit the school's ability to democratically select whether or not to have a public prayer, limit the exercise of religion by the students and faculty on campus?

Yes.

Is the goverment, through law, regulating when and where an exercise of religion can be held?

Yes.

In order to do that, is the government stepping over the intended "wall" between government and religious liberty?

Yes.

It doesn't matter that it was an official function on school grounds so long as it did not violate the first amendment--

It doesn't. Not unless you reinterpret the original meaning of the law and the separation of church and state. To not do so is "narrow" according to you.

Moreover, the lawsuit IS a rights issue as I already pointed out (using all caps because I can't italicize on tapatalk).

The student is going to court because he feels his rights were violated--he stated this, and as many here agree, his rights were not violated.

Edit: Should the school have held the public prayer? No, not in my opinion.

The problem I see with that, Wocky, is that would make the school itself responsible for individual kid's actions. If some kid decides to flash everybody while walking across the stage, is the school responsible for that? I don't think you are saying the school should be, and I don't think either. But if we take your analysis to its conclusion, that's where it leads. Why shouldn't how something comes about be considered with legality? I think that's very relevant. In my mind, there's a big difference between a student asking to pray, or an administrator asking a student to pray. Why is that distinction not important to the legality of the matter?

Edit: Yeah my bad Wocky. Didn't see that.

Your counter-example isn't really a good one. The child in my case (ie, what actually happened) was brought to the stage for the purpose of leading a prayer, and did that. The child in your hypothetical was brought to the stage to receive a diploma, and instead did something entirely different. My analysis only leads to holding the school responsible for their intentions.

I find your distinction irrelevant because an illegal act is still illegal regardless of who initiates it. You don't seem to take into account there are some things a student simply cannot ask (or, rather, some requests that cannot be granted).

EDIT: To be clear, here, Prenn, I am not trying to say that I am 100% correct with complete certitude. I am merely trying to explain the logical coherency of my position. If I am correct, this is how everything fits together and addresses the concerns you raised.

@Jabba-wocky

There's a difference between using a government position to establish law pertaining to religion vs. using such a position to either elevate a religion in the public eye, or merely express one's religious beliefs.

While I don't approve of using such a position to elevate one's own religious ideas (though I don't think that was the intent here at all)--elevating one's religious views through speech does not violate the first amendment nor does such an action have any issue with Jefferson's intent.

It may be annoying, you may consider it morally wrong, but it should not be illegal so long as it does not infringe upon the religious rights of others, which the first amendment was created and intended to protect.

Edit: When the government interferes--it neccesarily, literally limits the exercise of religion--"the school cannot hold public prayer" is a limitation.

It doesn't mean people can't pray elsewhere, but the 1st amendment is specific and careful to protect against any limitation, and for good reason imo.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - TJ, 1802 (emphasis mine, of course)

Read the rest of what he says--it helps put things in context:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=123

Okay, thanks at least for clarifying that I can understand if you aren't sure the the legality of something. But there is a difference in 'must' and 'should' as well that I think is worth pointing out.

It's actually the second time I've stated that opinion, but ok

It hit home this time

While I personally don't support the decision, it's not my place to impose that opinion on the school if it was within its legal rights, and for reasons I've stated a couple times, I think it was

I have serious issues with the modern interpretation of Jefferson's "wall"

This is mostly because they are too revisionist for my tastes. I mean, yeah, some people are fine with revising things (and hate Jefferson ), and I accept that opinion is a valid alternative to my own. However, I don't agree with it--I think Jefferson knew what he was doing.

Congratulations on your discussion of Thomas Jefferson's intent. However, he was not the only one involved in making the First Amendment the law of the land. It also had to be approved by the 1st Congress of the United States (91), as well as the legislatures of New Jersey (52), Maryland (6/county x 42 counties), North & South Carolina, New Hampshire, Delaware (30), New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia (24+2/county).

I eagerly await your in-depth review of the hundreds of other people whose intent you have to puzzle out in order to give an accurate and complete picture of original intent. And I trust that you will certainly do this, given how important this method of legal analysis is to you.

Oh I know--I just value Jefferson's opinion in particular

I guess it's out of style.

I apologize if anyone feels I was attacking them or if I have offended. I'm just stating my opinion in a senate thread

Not gonna torture anyone with any more for now

I suppose I'm just usually in the practice of prefacing my arguments first with "for the record, here's my personal opinion." I guess it's sort of like when news networks have to disclose that the company they're doing a piece on owns their channel. Or this could be a totally useless analogy

[/quote]

Right, it says what any rational human being would interpret Jefferson's remarks as: there's a wall completely separating government from religion, except where it's insane (sacrifice, incest, etc.). The government can't (and shouldn't) interfere at all with normal religious practices (which you, presumably, are also using the "public prayer" portion as one of the things mentioned).

Which is all fine and dandy, except the Amendment also clearly states what is known as the Establishment Clause ("respecting an establishment of religion") -- which is occurring here, since it's at a public high school where the administration is allowing the public prayer. Once the administration is aware and tacitly-approving, the ballgame's over.

Do you know what very likely would have been acceptable public prayer? If the valedictorian speaker -- without the speech being reviewed by the administration -- gave a speech extolling G-d and asked for the students to join in prayer. That would almost certainly be 100% fine under the law. Why? Because there would be no administrative oversight, thus the school was not endorsing. That would probably pass the Lemon test.

There are almost any number of situations where the USSC would uphold this lawsuit if it reaches them; ultimately, they probably need to strike down the 5th Circuit's decision first in which case they'd basically have been covered already.[/quote]

I am curious to see someone explain HOW the government can make laws limiting when and where religion can be practiced, and not....limit when and where the exercise of religion occurs--by extension, not limit the exercise of religion...how?

"Limit" not "completely prohibit everywhere forever"

Great point, David. At my own high school graduation, one of the speakers went completely off the reservation into her own (unapproved) speech. It was not religious in any way, but something like that can happen.

And what constitutes "endorsement?"

What does that word actually mean, in this context? Does it mean the school through the act of public prayer, established an official religion for the federal government...or the school?

On official government grounds, yes. That's what it means. Because the government has to be like Jell-- er, Caesar's Wife. "Above reproach." It's obviously a tightrope, but the government CAN'T abridge religion and it CAN'T prohibit freedom of it either. So, realistically the only way is to prohibit it anywhere the government is (which is why the new healthcare system has some fun issues) while not prohibiting it anywhere the government isn't.

It's... not actually that complicated? Just a tightrope?

EDIT:

Yes. Because it does.