Judge Blocks School Graduation Prayers

Newsmax.com ^ | 5/19/06

[Severa]

Even if someone had a problem with it, it should make no difference as far as the Constitution is concerned. Sometimes in life we have to listen to things that we disagree with. I had to suffer through Sen. Patty Murray speaking at one of my kids' graduation ceremonies, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have been allowed to speak, or that there was something illegal about it.

No, you're right on that. I was just saying at the time we had a Baccalaureate and it didn't prompt this type of response. I also don't remember anyone raising a stink over the Ten Commandments being in the classroom. I was just trying to point out how things have changed just in the time I've been out of high school.

[KoRn]

"ACLU needs to be shut down, permanently."

The ACLU isn't the core of this problem. The REAL problem is with judges and juries who let the ACLU's rubbish see the light of day in courtrooms across the nation. If judges would see their cases for what they are and throw out such cases, it would reverse this trend.

[Jacquerie]

Nobody is prohibited from praying on their own time.

Freedom to express one's faith is not conditional on location. To rule otherwise as our leftist blackrobes do is to deny the God given freedoms of the 1st Amendment.

[ViLaLuz]

The complainer is Muslim:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50297

Muslim student, ACLU fight graduation prayer
17-year-old: ‘Terms like Jesus Christ, heavenly father … were offensive to me'

---

Posted: May 20, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

A federal judge in Louisville, Kentucky, granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting a prayer from being said during graduation ceremonies at an area high school after a Muslim student on the planning committee objected and garnered the help of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Arshiya Saiyed, a senior at Russell County High School, said she was working on plans for the ceremony, scheduled for last night, with the senior panel when the issue came up, according to WHAS-TV in Louisville.

"Terms like Jesus Christ, heavenly father, I talked about the fact I was Muslim and the prayers in the past were offensive to me," the 17-year-old said.

Saiyed claimed that almost immediately after objecting to the prayer, she was harassed by a group of students. One student told her he wanted her out of the country, she related to WHAS.

Principal Gary Kidwell, who noted a prayer of some sort has been offered at graduation for years, said he will not tolerate further harassment.

"I'm aware of one isolated incident there was inappropriate conduct I was aware of, and we dealt with those," he said.

The ACLU won't comment specifically on the case, WHAS reported, but a spokeswoman said schools must be careful with graduation speeches.

"The closer it looks like school sponsored, the more likely it's found to be school sponsored," said the ACLU's Lili Lutgens.

Saiyed said she would favor a moment of silence but not a religious prayer.

"We should be able to do that on our own and not at a state-sponsored public school," she said.

Kidwell said he is talking to students and a number of groups to make sure the graduation ceremony is appropriate and legal.

The ACLU contends schools are on safe legal ground if religious prayers or speeches take place in private, voluntary ceremonies outside of graduation.

[jude24]

To rule otherwise as our leftist blackrobes

Judges. They're called judges, and they deserve your respect by virtue of the position they hold - even if you do not agree with them.

Especially when, as here, your disagreement is rooted in a fundamental fallacy. You're looking solely at the one individual praying, and saying "Gee, if I restrict him from praying, I'm infringing upon his rights." What you neglect to see is that this is not just the individual. This is an official government ceremony, and as such, the individuals are acting as a sort of agent for the state. The State can neither aid nor hinder any religion - including secular humanism. It must remain entirely neutral. That means the State cannot have State-sanctioned prayers. As long as you act as an agent of the State, your rights are subordinated to the responsibilities you hold as an agent of the State.

This is not limited to religious expression. We prohibit public employees from electioneering as a term of their employment. Their free speech rights are subordinated to their responsbilities as an agent for a politically-neutral (yeah right) government.

Now, Jacquerie, feel free to disagree with them if you like. Heck, if you pinged me and asked, "I don't see how this fits with the First Amendment," I would have been glad to explain it to you. But this self-righteous outrage - without bothering to learn the law - does not behoove you. It makes you an emotional reactionary - and emotional reactionaries don't effect change.

[ZULU]

They should IGNORE this idiot and say the prayers.

Are they going to send in federal marshals to arrest everybody in the graduation.

Judges like this should be yanked from the bench they are lying phoney criminals.

I bet he's a Democrat.

[Polybius]

The second portion of the establishment clause reads, "(n)or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."............Jacquerie

Nobody is prohibited from praying on their own time. The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a forum. Please stop pinging me every time the law does something you don't like because you don't understand it. Don't pretend you know it all just because you read the Constitution in high school...............jude24

If the First Amendment prohibited the government from providing any forum that could be used for religious expression, the Chaplain Corps in the Armed Forces would be unconstitutional.

The First Amendment does prohibit government from forcing your participation in a religious service but it does not protect you from your fellow citizens willingly exercising their First Amendment Free Exercise Clause rights at a graduation any more than it protects you from hearing some atheist parent shout out "God is Dead!" at a graduation.

But, let's take this discussion out of the hypothetical and straight into reality.

As I answered peggybac in Post 39:

What would happen if a group of students stood and said The Lord's Prayer, and others joined in???........... peggybac

That would be a Constitutional right under the Free Exercise Clause........ Polybius

That scenario is exactly what happened at that graduation:

Judge: No prayer at graduation (But KY students ignore ACLU ruling, recite Lord's Prayer!)

Some might think that is inconsiderate to non-Christians and that "they should have done it on their own time". Some might even believe that it is unconstitutional and that they had no legal right to do so.

Be that as it may, the fact of the legal matter is that those people at the graduation exercised their First Amendment Free Exercise Clause rights and, constitutionally, there is not a damned thing that the Judge or the ACLU or an offended atheist parent can do about it.

[jude24]

If the First Amendment prohibited the government from providing any forum that could be used for religious expression, the Chaplain Corps in the Armed Forces would be unconstitutional.

The chaplaincy corps is a unique situation. Clearly there is a qualitative difference between providing professional ministers to those serving in a military conflict at threat of their own personal safety. Even so, no one is compelled to go to visit the chaplain. Graduation, on the other hand, is an official state ceremony where you get the certificate that says you met your state's legal requirements as a child.

Be that as it may, the fact of the legal matter is that those people at the graduation exercised their First Amendment Free Exercise Clause rights and, constitutionally, there is not a damned thing that the Judge or the ACLU or an offended atheist parent can do about it.

Once again, there's a difference between students spontaneously doing this (without official state sanction) and making it a part of the graduation ceremony. Whether it was inconsiderate is a question that the law has no right to answer. Whether it's legal it give an answer of "yes," unless a government agent - whether an employee of the govenrment or a student acting in an official capacity - instigated it.

[Polybius]

Whether it's legal it give an answer of "yes," unless a government agent - whether an employee of the govenrment or a student acting in an official capacity - instigated it.

It is clear that a paid government employee would be barred from instigating a prayer.

However, the Judge would be on really thin legal ice trying to classify an 18 year old high school senior chosen by fellow students to deliver remarks, or a valedictorian who earned her spot on the podium, as "a student acting in an official capacity" and prohibiting her from mentioning God or declaring that "God is dead" or declaring whether she thinks "Bush lied and people died" or that "Hillary Clinton is a traitor".

The fact is that is exactly what was done.

A federal judge barred prayer during a Russell County High School graduation ceremony last night but it included a religious message nonetheless. Megan Chapman made sure of that. Chapman, chosen by fellow seniors to deliver opening remarks, had planned to include a prayer as had been the practice at commencement for decades. Instead, she talked of her faith and God's love. "God will never leave you or forsake you," she said drawing a loud standing ovation from the 2,000-plus people packed into the gym...........Several students interrupted principal Darren Gossage early in the ceremony to recite a portion of the Lord's Prayer, an act the crowd cheered.

What's the Judge going to do about it?

Constitutionally, there is nothing he can do.

[jude24]

However, the Judge would be on really thin legal ice trying to classify an 18 year old high school senior chosen by fellow students to deliver remarks, or a valedictorian who earned her spot on the podium, as "a student acting in an official capacity" and prohibiting her from mentioning God or declaring that "God is dead" or declaring whether she thinks "Bush lied and people died" or that "Hillary Clinton is a traitor".

Actually, it would seem clear under agency law that the student would be acting in the shoes of the government and so would be considered their agent.

[Polybius]

However, the Judge would be on really thin legal ice trying to classify an 18 year old high school senior chosen by fellow students to deliver remarks, or a valedictorian who earned her spot on the podium, as "a student acting in an official capacity" and prohibiting her from mentioning God or declaring that "God is dead" or declaring whether she thinks "Bush lied and people died" or that "Hillary Clinton is a traitor"......Polybius

Actually, it would seem clear under agency law that the student would be acting in the shoes of the government and so would be considered their agent.......jude24

This is no longer a hypothetical. This actually happened.

So, in this Real World case, since Megan Chapman not only mentioned God but talked at length about God in her opening remarks, how is the Judge going to penalize her and how far do you think it will go up the appellate courts before a higher Court slaps down the Judge for violating Chapman's Free Exercise Clause constitutional rights?

I am betting my money that the Judge's response to Chapman's action will be:

[jude24]

how is the Judge going to penalize her

If she's an agent, he can't. Respondeat superior - the school district is on the hook for the actions of their agents.

and how far do you think it will go up the appellate courts before a higher Court slaps down the Judge for violating Chapman's Free Exercise Clause constitutional rights?

The student's free exercise rights are temporarily subordinated to the State's obligation to remain religously neutral. This is cut-and-dried law, not judicial activism. You may not like it, but this is the state of the law today. (Personally, my faith is secure enough that I don't need the governemnt to enforce it.)

[jude24]

"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." - Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 6:5-6.

[Polybius]

This is cut-and-dried law, not judicial activism. You may not like it, but this is the state of the law today.

If that is the case, then we should be hearing from the outraged Judge very shortly so that the "cut-and-dried law" is not flaunted with impunity.

My prediction is that the Judge will do absolutely nothing.

Let's meet on this thread again on 20 June 2006 and whoever was correct will get braggin' right. :-)

[Polybius]

"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." - Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 6:5-6.

That's all very well and good but I'm an agnostic and I am simply defending the people's Free Exercise Clause rights.

[Fury]

The student's free exercise rights are temporarily subordinated to the State's obligation to remain religously neutral. This is cut-and-dried law, not judicial activism. You may not like it, but this is the state of the law today. (Personally, my faith is secure enough that I don't need the governemnt to enforce it.)

Agreed. I suppose the issue becomes what does a district do if a student deviates from the script of their remarks and recites something like the Lord's Prayer? They could cut the PA off, perhaps remove the student (by force?), but that opens up other issues.

The district where I serve on the BOE is having a Baccalaureate service at the school. We were advised to ensure that no school personnel are supervising the event, no names of Superintendent or BOE Members appear on the program, program is not printed using District paper, copier, etc. These things have been complied with, and the service will go on, as it has for 30+ years.

[Polybius]

I suppose the issue becomes what does a district do if a student deviates from the script of their remarks and recites something like the Lord's Prayer?

"Sometimes, when the pressures of school were bearing down on me, I would kneel down besides my bed and recite, "Our Father, who art in heaven; hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread;........"

If a student deviates from the script, that is obviously a personal exercise of the First Amendment by a private citizen just the same as if the student takes the opportunity to say "Bush lied and people died".

They could cut the PA off, perhaps remove the student (by force?), but that opens up other issues.

Well, when I file a lawsuit against the school district for such treatment of my daughter, I would be claiming that the school was violating the Establishment Clause by establishing atheistic speech as the only option allowed in the personal comments of a citizen.

As an agnostic, I find the school district's establisment of atheism as a violation of my First Amendment rights.

I would also be claiming a violation of the Free Exercise Clause in that the school district took active steps to take away my daughter's First Amendment free exercise rights while she was making a personal statement.

I would also be claiming that, under the First Amendment, the district had the right to allow the Muslim or the atheist student to make their personal statements if they so desired or they could have banned all students from making any personal statements whatsoever but that they did not have the right to allow personal statements only as long as the personal statements were censored of all religious content in violation of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

[Jacquerie]

Don't pretend you know it all just because you read the Constitution in high school. Jude24

Spoken like an elitist.

The Constitution is obviously too deep, nuanced, algore-like for a non blackrobe to understand. You forget that the Constitution was debated for the common man in newspapers and became known as the Federalist Papers.

As for my high school Constitution class we never read it. Like many law schools we studied case law. I learned about penumbras and emanations, that the right to abortion was hidden in several amendments, there is no personal right to bear arms, public prayer is a violation and that the Constitution is a living, breathing document.

It took a while, but I eventually unlearned all that nonsense. Apparently you did not.

[do the dhue]

Freedom to express one's faith is not conditional on location.

Congress shall pass no law to establish a religion or limit the free exercise there of.

Congress can not make a law that says you have to go to the Catholic or Baptist or Hindu church. It is unlawful for Congress to limit your right to freely exercise your religion.

In this case a Judge is limiting our right to pray. If Congress has no right to make law that limits the free exercise of religion, then who and what is giving this Judge the right to take away a inalienable right (a God given right)? Is this Judge a higher power? A higher power that is allowed to take away our God given rights? How are we going to stop this? I am going to write O'Reilly. I don't know if that will work, but sometimes he is all over this kind of story. I am going to contact my Congress too. Anybody got any other ideas besides calling in a air strike?

[Steve_Seattle]

"It is clear that a paid government employee would be barred from instigating a prayer."

Not according to the way the Constitution was interpreted for about 170 years. The Founding Fathers would be shocked to learn that the First Amendment is now being used to justify federal oversight of things such as high school commencement speeches.