Graduation Prayer and Legal Precedence

[thereisnospoon]

I think if you are going to allow a Christian prayer to be offered then you must allow any and all other prayers, from any religion.

Including Satanism.

That's where you are wrong. At a certain point contemporary community standards will take precedent.
People of a community demand a certain way of life. They think alike. They act alike. Their kids play together, go to school together. This is what makes a community. People work hard to find these zones of comfort and security. They help each other.
IN light of that, these people are entitled by God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No government can take that away. The Founding Fathers saw to that.
To that end, if a community wishes to include or exclude, as long as their is no harm, they have that right. So if a community objects to the celebration of something as evil as satan, that is their right. If the people who wish Satan to be worshiped feel that strongly , they can seek relief from the courts. Even then let's say a judge who thinks the Establishment clause was written in Sanskrit decides Satan worship to be a religion, rules in favor of allowing a prayer to Satan, that does not mean the community will allow it.
It is our right as citizens to demonstrate civil disobedience when we believe collectively that a law or judges ruling is unjust.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think if you are going to allow a Christian prayer to be offered then you must allow any and all other prayers, from any religion.

Including Satanism.

That's where you are wrong. At a certain point contemporary community standards will take precedent.
People of a community demand a certain way of life. They think alike. They act alike. Their kids play together, go to school together. This is what makes a community. People work hard to find these zones of comfort and security. They help each other.
IN light of that, these people are entitled by God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No government can take that away. The Founding Fathers saw to that.
To that end, if a community wishes to include or exclude, as long as their is no harm, they have that right. So if a community objects to the celebration of something as evil as satan, that is their right. If the people who wish Satan to be worshiped feel that strongly , they can seek relief from the courts. Even then let's say a judge who thinks the Establishment clause was written in Sanskrit decides Satan worship to be a religion, rules in favor of allowing a prayer to Satan, that does not mean the community will allow it.
It is our right as citizens to demonstrate civil disobedience when we believe collectively that a law or judges ruling is unjust.

The community may not allow it but the LAW must. Funny thing about the law, it does not just protect your freedoms. It protects ALL our freedoms. If the school is all right with prayer in the speech, a policy that I would agree with, then they must allow any form of prayer. I would agree that offensive and derogatory items can and should be controlled and a prayer to Satanism quite likely has those elements and could be prevented from that angle but no if it were not derogatory. The most important time to protect people’s rights is when they disagree with you.

 

[geauxtohell]

That's where you are wrong. At a certain point contemporary community standards will take precedent.
People of a community demand a certain way of life. They think alike. They act alike. Their kids play together, go to school together. This is what makes a community. People work hard to find these zones of comfort and security. They help each other.
IN light of that, these people are entitled by God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No government can take that away. The Founding Fathers saw to that.
To that end, if a community wishes to include or exclude, as long as their is no harm, they have that right. So if a community objects to the celebration of something as evil as satan, that is their right. If the people who wish Satan to be worshiped feel that strongly , they can seek relief from the courts. Even then let's say a judge who thinks the Establishment clause was written in Sanskrit decides Satan worship to be a religion, rules in favor of allowing a prayer to Satan, that does not mean the community will allow it.
It is our right as citizens to demonstrate civil disobedience when we believe collectively that a law or judges ruling is unjust.

The establishment clause is a federal mandate and has supremacy over "community standards".

 

[geauxtohell]

I think if you are going to allow a Christian prayer to be offered then you must allow any and all other prayers, from any religion.

Including Satanism.

That's where you are wrong. At a certain point contemporary community standards will take precedent.
People of a community demand a certain way of life. They think alike. They act alike. Their kids play together, go to school together. This is what makes a community. People work hard to find these zones of comfort and security. They help each other.
IN light of that, these people are entitled by God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No government can take that away. The Founding Fathers saw to that.
To that end, if a community wishes to include or exclude, as long as their is no harm, they have that right. So if a community objects to the celebration of something as evil as satan, that is their right. If the people who wish Satan to be worshiped feel that strongly , they can seek relief from the courts. Even then let's say a judge who thinks the Establishment clause was written in Sanskrit decides Satan worship to be a religion, rules in favor of allowing a prayer to Satan, that does not mean the community will allow it.
It is our right as citizens to demonstrate civil disobedience when we believe collectively that a law or judges ruling is unjust.

The community may not allow it but the LAW must. Funny thing about the law, it does not just protect your freedoms. It protects ALL our freedoms. If the school is all right with prayer in the speech, a policy that I would agree with, then they must allow any form of prayer. I would agree that offensive and derogatory items can and should be controlled and a prayer to Satanism quite likely has those elements and could be prevented from that angle but no if it were not derogatory. The most important time to protect people’s rights is when they disagree with you.

And that is the crux of this issue.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's where you are wrong. At a certain point contemporary community standards will take precedent.
People of a community demand a certain way of life. They think alike. They act alike. Their kids play together, go to school together. This is what makes a community. People work hard to find these zones of comfort and security. They help each other.
IN light of that, these people are entitled by God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No government can take that away. The Founding Fathers saw to that.
To that end, if a community wishes to include or exclude, as long as their is no harm, they have that right. So if a community objects to the celebration of something as evil as satan, that is their right. If the people who wish Satan to be worshiped feel that strongly , they can seek relief from the courts. Even then let's say a judge who thinks the Establishment clause was written in Sanskrit decides Satan worship to be a religion, rules in favor of allowing a prayer to Satan, that does not mean the community will allow it.
It is our right as citizens to demonstrate civil disobedience when we believe collectively that a law or judges ruling is unjust.

The establishment clause is a federal mandate and has supremacy over "community standards".

That is true but not accurate.
Example...In a small town near here the government opened every town meeting with a short payer. This has been done for many many years in this town and was more traditional than secular.
A few years ago, a woman who claimed to be a worshiper of a Wiccan sect attended a council meeting and when exposed to the prayer decided to hire an attorney. She filed suit claiming the town violated ( here we go again) the "separation of Church and State".
The town had a great defense but decided to not fight it due to budgetary issues. The attorney representing the plaintiff handled the case pro bono.
Fast forward to today...The town of Great Falls, SC still opens their meeting with a prayer but keeps the prayer non denominational.
At the end of the day, we get to run our lives the way we want so as long as we bring no harm to others.
There are those who like to say things such as "federal mandate and has supremacy over "community standards", to make themselves feel better.
That's ok. The procedure by which one must lodge a complaint leaves so much lag time, the process of government intervention is really quite useless.
Once again, we're talking about liberty life and the pursuit of happiness vs a person who sees things differently in the realm of religion who has a bone to pick.
People in general are sick of complaining whining "special needs" people who at the slightest inconvenience run to the courts which then rule in favor of the lowest common denominator.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. The masses need not suffer but for the actions or desires of a few.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think if you are going to allow a Christian prayer to be offered then you must allow any and all other prayers, from any religion.

Including Satanism.

That's where you are wrong. At a certain point contemporary community standards will take precedent.
People of a community demand a certain way of life. They think alike. They act alike. Their kids play together, go to school together. This is what makes a community. People work hard to find these zones of comfort and security. They help each other.
IN light of that, these people are entitled by God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No government can take that away. The Founding Fathers saw to that.
To that end, if a community wishes to include or exclude, as long as their is no harm, they have that right. So if a community objects to the celebration of something as evil as satan, that is their right. If the people who wish Satan to be worshiped feel that strongly , they can seek relief from the courts. Even then let's say a judge who thinks the Establishment clause was written in Sanskrit decides Satan worship to be a religion, rules in favor of allowing a prayer to Satan, that does not mean the community will allow it.
It is our right as citizens to demonstrate civil disobedience when we believe collectively that a law or judges ruling is unjust.

The community may not allow it but the LAW must. Funny thing about the law, it does not just protect your freedoms. It protects ALL our freedoms. If the school is all right with prayer in the speech, a policy that I would agree with, then they must allow any form of prayer. I would agree that offensive and derogatory items can and should be controlled and a prayer to Satanism quite likely has those elements and could be prevented from that angle but no if it were not derogatory. The most important time to protect people’s rights is when they disagree with you.

Interesting you should put it that way. This agnostic person is using his rights to subvert the rights of a great many people. And for what purpose other than to prove a point? Nothing. All this guy did was cause a great deal of angst for an entire community. For what? HIS comfort? Please.
Once again, we as citizens have the right to civil disobedience if we believe a law to be unjust. At the end of the day who is being harmed by the prayer? It's just a few words to bring comfort to the individuals who wish to hear them. Is the agnostic person being harmed? NO. That's why the original ruling was overturned. The agnostic failed to prove he or his son was being harmed.

 

[1751Texan]

Whether Sante Fe ISD v. Doe was an incorrect rulling or not, the Constitution gives remedy to that ruling. Since the framers of the Consitution incorporated a way to amend the Constitution; they knew that the document was neither perfect nor complete. To further that point, the framers of the Constitution designed the Supreme Court to have 9 justices. Why 9? If the constitution was so clear in its intent...why 9 justices to form opinions?

The Question before the Court was not if the student had Constitutional right to free exersice of her religion, it was whether the public school by allowing the student to lead a prayer before a school fuction, made that prayer "state sponsored".

In a 6-3 ruling the Court held that

..."the District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause."

A court has to go by precedent to be consitant...[whether one believes the court to be consitantly wrong or not]. If the Supreme Court ruled student-led prayer before a public school football game violates the Establishment Clause, how is student-led prayer before a public school graduation ceremony not violate the Establishment Clause?

 

[daveman]

Butthurt leftists think their rights trump everyone else's.

You still haven't answered the question posed in the original post.

I support the valedictorian's choice to invoke whatever higher power he wishes, or none at all.

Butthurt leftists want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. **** 'em.

Geaux, next time you stamp your feet demanding an answer, you might want to acknowledge it when you get it, or you may never get another one.

 

[geauxtohell]

That's where you are wrong. At a certain point contemporary community standards will take precedent.
People of a community demand a certain way of life. They think alike. They act alike. Their kids play together, go to school together. This is what makes a community. People work hard to find these zones of comfort and security. They help each other.
IN light of that, these people are entitled by God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No government can take that away. The Founding Fathers saw to that.
To that end, if a community wishes to include or exclude, as long as their is no harm, they have that right. So if a community objects to the celebration of something as evil as satan, that is their right. If the people who wish Satan to be worshiped feel that strongly , they can seek relief from the courts. Even then let's say a judge who thinks the Establishment clause was written in Sanskrit decides Satan worship to be a religion, rules in favor of allowing a prayer to Satan, that does not mean the community will allow it.
It is our right as citizens to demonstrate civil disobedience when we believe collectively that a law or judges ruling is unjust.

The establishment clause is a federal mandate and has supremacy over "community standards".

That is true but not accurate.
Example...In a small town near here the government opened every town meeting with a short payer. This has been done for many many years in this town and was more traditional than secular.
A few years ago, a woman who claimed to be a worshiper of a Wiccan sect attended a council meeting and when exposed to the prayer decided to hire an attorney. She filed suit claiming the town violated ( here we go again) the "separation of Church and State".
The town had a great defense but decided to not fight it due to budgetary issues. The attorney representing the plaintiff handled the case pro bono.
Fast forward to today...The town of Great Falls, SC still opens their meeting with a prayer but keeps the prayer non denominational.
At the end of the day, we get to run our lives the way we want so as long as we bring no harm to others.
There are those who like to say things such as "federal mandate and has supremacy over "community standards", to make themselves feel better.
That's ok. The procedure by which one must lodge a complaint leaves so much lag time, the process of government intervention is really quite useless.
Once again, we're talking about liberty life and the pursuit of happiness vs a person who sees things differently in the realm of religion who has a bone to pick.
People in general are sick of complaining whining "special needs" people who at the slightest inconvenience run to the courts which then rule in favor of the lowest common denominator.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. The masses need not suffer but for the actions or desires of a few.

We say that the establishment clause has precedence over community standards because that is a factual statement.

By reading your post: basically the communities who still adhere to their community standards do so because they haven't been challenged yet. The ones that do, fold.

A purely utilitarian view point "the needs of the many" is not carte blanche to violate someone's constitutional rights.

The "needs of the many" has been used in the past to justify things like segregation.

Again, the issue is that we are a nation of laws.

 

[geauxtohell]

That's where you are wrong. At a certain point contemporary community standards will take precedent.
People of a community demand a certain way of life. They think alike. They act alike. Their kids play together, go to school together. This is what makes a community. People work hard to find these zones of comfort and security. They help each other.
IN light of that, these people are entitled by God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No government can take that away. The Founding Fathers saw to that.
To that end, if a community wishes to include or exclude, as long as their is no harm, they have that right. So if a community objects to the celebration of something as evil as satan, that is their right. If the people who wish Satan to be worshiped feel that strongly , they can seek relief from the courts. Even then let's say a judge who thinks the Establishment clause was written in Sanskrit decides Satan worship to be a religion, rules in favor of allowing a prayer to Satan, that does not mean the community will allow it.
It is our right as citizens to demonstrate civil disobedience when we believe collectively that a law or judges ruling is unjust.

The community may not allow it but the LAW must. Funny thing about the law, it does not just protect your freedoms. It protects ALL our freedoms. If the school is all right with prayer in the speech, a policy that I would agree with, then they must allow any form of prayer. I would agree that offensive and derogatory items can and should be controlled and a prayer to Satanism quite likely has those elements and could be prevented from that angle but no if it were not derogatory. The most important time to protect people’s rights is when they disagree with you.

Interesting you should put it that way. This agnostic person is using his rights to subvert the rights of a great many people. And for what purpose other than to prove a point? Nothing. All this guy did was cause a great deal of angst for an entire community. For what? HIS comfort? Please.
Once again, we as citizens have the right to civil disobedience if we believe a law to be unjust. At the end of the day who is being harmed by the prayer? It's just a few words to bring comfort to the individuals who wish to hear them. Is the agnostic person being harmed? NO. That's why the original ruling was overturned. The agnostic failed to prove he or his son was being harmed.

Who are you to say the agnostic person wasn't being harmed? If that is the arguement you are going to make, is the religious person being harmed by being denied the ability to pray at a graduation ceremony?

Even though over-ruled, the agnostic family had a reason to believe the laws were being violated. As citizens, they had the right to seek legal recourse. They don't have to show emotional trauma.

 

[manifold]

Even though over-ruled, the agnostic family had a reason to believe the laws were being violated. As citizens, they had the right to seek legal recourse. They don't have to show emotional trauma.

Sometimes busybody assholes don't prevail.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[geauxtohell]

Whether Sante Fe ISD v. Doe was an incorrect rulling or not, the Constitution gives remedy to that ruling. Since the framers of the Consitution incorporated a way to amend the Constitution; they knew that the document was neither perfect nor complete. To further that point, the framers of the Constitution designed the Supreme Court to have 9 justices. Why 9? If the constitution was so clear in its intent...why 9 justices to form opinions?

The Question before the Court was not if the student had Constitutional right to free exersice of her religion, it was whether the public school by allowing the student to lead a prayer before a school fuction, made that prayer "state sponsored".

In a 6-3 ruling the Court held that

..."the District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause."

A court has to go by precedent to be consitant...[whether one believes the court to be consitantly wrong or not]. If the Supreme Court ruled student-led prayer before a public school football game violates the Establishment Clause, how is student-led prayer before a public school graduation ceremony not violate the Establishment Clause?

Good post.

The actual ruling by the 5th circuit of appeals was really a ruling on a "temporary restraining order" against the prayer (not the student) that was made by a federal judge in West Texas.

As such, it was a very simple ruling that really didn't cover the matters of the law. I am not sure if the case can and will go forward from here, but I am interested to see what happens, if anything.

 

[geauxtohell]

You still haven't answered the question posed in the original post.

I support the valedictorian's choice to invoke whatever higher power he wishes, or none at all.

Butthurt leftists want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. **** 'em.

Geaux, next time you stamp your feet demanding an answer, you might want to acknowledge it when you get it, or you may never get another one.

I guess I didn't read an answer in that, but noted.

Question two; will people have a shit fit if a Muslim student does choose to pray at a graduation ceremony?

 

[geauxtohell]

Even though over-ruled, the agnostic family had a reason to believe the laws were being violated. As citizens, they had the right to seek legal recourse. They don't have to show emotional trauma.

Sometimes busybody assholes don't prevail.

But whatcha gonna do?

Why demonize the plaintiffs? They were simply doing what they thought was right and they had a long standing issue with the school, which they deemed to be promoting religion.

 

[manifold]

Question two; will people have a shit fit if a Muslim student does choose to pray at a graduation ceremony?

I'm sure you could find a few people who would have a shit fit, and perform all manner of mental gymnastics to defend one and condemn the other. But I think I speak for most reasonable people when I say 'no'.

 

[manifold]

Even though over-ruled, the agnostic family had a reason to believe the laws were being violated. As citizens, they had the right to seek legal recourse. They don't have to show emotional trauma.

Sometimes busybody assholes don't prevail.

But whatcha gonna do?

Why demonize the plaintiffs? They were simply doing what they thought was right and they had a long standing issue with the school, which they deemed to be promoting religion.

I'm not demonizing them. I'm saying they're busybody assholes. That doesn't make them bad people necessarily, just misguided.

 

[martybegan]

The community may not allow it but the LAW must. Funny thing about the law, it does not just protect your freedoms. It protects ALL our freedoms. If the school is all right with prayer in the speech, a policy that I would agree with, then they must allow any form of prayer. I would agree that offensive and derogatory items can and should be controlled and a prayer to Satanism quite likely has those elements and could be prevented from that angle but no if it were not derogatory. The most important time to protect people’s rights is when they disagree with you.

Interesting you should put it that way. This agnostic person is using his rights to subvert the rights of a great many people. And for what purpose other than to prove a point? Nothing. All this guy did was cause a great deal of angst for an entire community. For what? HIS comfort? Please.
Once again, we as citizens have the right to civil disobedience if we believe a law to be unjust. At the end of the day who is being harmed by the prayer? It's just a few words to bring comfort to the individuals who wish to hear them. Is the agnostic person being harmed? NO. That's why the original ruling was overturned. The agnostic failed to prove he or his son was being harmed.

Who are you to say the agnostic person wasn't being harmed? If that is the arguement you are going to make, is the religious person being harmed by being denied the ability to pray at a graduation ceremony?

Even though over-ruled, the agnostic family had a reason to believe the laws were being violated. As citizens, they had the right to seek legal recourse. They don't have to show emotional trauma.

One always has the right to seek legal recourse, and I have the right to call them asshats for doing it.

To me the establishment clause comes into play if and only if a government agent or agency tries to set up the prayer/worship/reference. As the valordictorian the girl had the choice of what she wanted in her speech, subject to guidelines by the school. In this case, I see the "free practice" part of the amendment as the key, as any restriction by the school would basically be the state restricting religous speech by a private individual.

 

[martybegan]

Sometimes busybody assholes don't prevail.

But whatcha gonna do?

Why demonize the plaintiffs? They were simply doing what they thought was right and they had a long standing issue with the school, which they deemed to be promoting religion.

I'm not demonizing them. I'm saying they're busybody assholes. That doesn't make them bad people necessarily, just misguided.

Thats why I like the term "asshat." I can also be used in the form of "asshattery"

 

[manifold]

Interesting you should put it that way. This agnostic person is using his rights to subvert the rights of a great many people. And for what purpose other than to prove a point? Nothing. All this guy did was cause a great deal of angst for an entire community. For what? HIS comfort? Please.
Once again, we as citizens have the right to civil disobedience if we believe a law to be unjust. At the end of the day who is being harmed by the prayer? It's just a few words to bring comfort to the individuals who wish to hear them. Is the agnostic person being harmed? NO. That's why the original ruling was overturned. The agnostic failed to prove he or his son was being harmed.

Who are you to say the agnostic person wasn't being harmed? If that is the arguement you are going to make, is the religious person being harmed by being denied the ability to pray at a graduation ceremony?

Even though over-ruled, the agnostic family had a reason to believe the laws were being violated. As citizens, they had the right to seek legal recourse. They don't have to show emotional trauma.

One always has the right to seek legal recourse, and I have the right to call them asshats for doing it.

To me the establishment clause comes into play if and only if a government agent or agency tries to set up the prayer/worship/reference. As the valordictorian the girl had the choice of what she wanted in her speech, subject to guidelines by the school. In this case, I see the "free practice" part of the amendment as the key, as any restriction by the school would basically be the state restricting religous speech by a private individual.

Schools are allowed to restrict free speech. At least according to the ample precedent provided by SCOTUS rulings on the subject.

But I agree wholeheartedly with your asshat sentiment.

 

[daveman]

I support the valedictorian's choice to invoke whatever higher power he wishes, or none at all.

Butthurt leftists want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. **** 'em.

Geaux, next time you stamp your feet demanding an answer, you might want to acknowledge it when you get it, or you may never get another one.

I guess I didn't read an answer in that, but noted.

Q: [W]ould you accept a Muslim student calling their classmates to prayer at the podium of their graduation?

A:I support the valedictorian's choice to invoke whatever higher power he wishes, or none at all.

You have to be making a special effort to NOT see an answer in that.

Question two; will people have a shit fit if a Muslim student does choose to pray at a graduation ceremony?

It depends on the community.