|
On June 06 2011 07:52 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 07:44 Elegy wrote:
School prayer is unconstitutional when that prayer is mandated, suggested, or written by the state, or given a timeslot in any school function or event.
There have been several people in this thread would apparently disagree with this, and they are, simply put, wrong.
If a school, on its own accord, attempts to have official prayer, it is blatantly unconstitutional. School cannot require prayer, nor are they allowed to promote prayer as it would be a state-sponsored activity promoting religion. The government is theoretically completely outside the sphere of religion in all such matters and has no place providing for prayer (denominational prayer, in this case) in any official activity. Naturally, you cannot separate "government" from public schools, which seems to be part of what you are arguing, and is strange at best. Actually, you are wrong. Here are cases the Supreme Court has decided, and has not explicitly overruled, about prayer in government institutions: Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, the Court upheld "the constitutionality of the Nebraska State Legislature's practice of opening each of its sessions with a prayer offered by a chaplain paid out of public funds" In direct regards to school prayer: Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, To uphold the constitutionality of school prayer, the Court must find that "the prayer must (1) reflect a clearly secular purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion." The Supreme Court has never flat out said that prayer in school is unconstitutional.
Please don't.
Try Engel, Lee v Weisman, and Santa Fe v Doe.
|
On June 06 2011 07:54 Imhotep wrote:
Speaking of this "separation of church and state" discussion (since im not american please educate me), if the government should keep its hands off religion (according to the constitution) why is the president sworn in on the bible? Isnt that "biased" towards christianity? Why not use the constitution or a law book?
The same reason I can't buy alcohol on Sunday. Old laws / traditions that can't be undone because attempting to would be political suicide.
|
On June 06 2011 07:55 Elegy wrote:
Try Engel, Lee v Weisman, and Santa Fe v Doe.
Try explaining your arguments.
|
On June 06 2011 07:59 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 07:55 Elegy wrote:
Try Engel, Lee v Weisman, and Santa Fe v Doe. Try explaining your arguments.
Santa Fe v Doe
It held that these pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer" are not private, but public speech. "Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval."
Stamping denominational prayer with the approval of the state is obviously unconstitutional.
I don't understand what you are trying to argue, the progression of SCOTUS cases is reasonably clear since Engel set the precedent....maybe if you outline why you think its not unconstitutional would help, because it's a pretty one sided debate if you don't.
|
Of course its a contemporaneous comment. Tough shit.
Then why shouldn't Christians say "tough shit" when you whine about them praying?
This has nothing to do with respect. It has nothing to do with practicing faith. It has nothing to do with panties in any state of twistedness.
All that matters is whether schools are allowed to promote, by their official actions, religious activity of any sort, and the answer to that is unequivocally no.
Your panties are so twisted I think they might have turned into a black hole.
Christians are going to pray, "tough shit." They're going to keep trying to get prayer back into schools, "tough shit." They already got "moments of silence" which we all know are prayers because otherwise there would be a huge political uproar which the Christians would win, "tough shit." They're going to keep making prayers part of events, "tough shit." People who disagree and make a court case out of it are going to keep getting ostracized, "tough shit." If a court says no, Christians will sometimes do it anyway, "tough shit."
See how easy it is to just be a jerk and have nothing be accomplished? This kind of attitude promises nothing but never-ending conflict. There's no room for compromise at all. Christians, shut up, since you're so contemptible.
And since the Christians are the majority (and 90%+ of Americans still believe in God), they're going to win more often than not. "Tough shit."
"Tough shit" for real bro. For real. "Tough shit" all around.
|
On June 06 2011 08:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:Then why shouldn't Christians say "tough shit" when you whine about them praying? Show nested quote +This has nothing to do with respect. It has nothing to do with practicing faith. It has nothing to do with panties in any state of twistedness.
All that matters is whether schools are allowed to promote, by their official actions, religious activity of any sort, and the answer to that is unequivocally no. Your panties are so twisted I think they might have turned into a black hole. Christians are going to pray, "tough shit." They're going to keep trying to get prayer back into schools, "tough shit." They already got "moments of silence" which we all know are prayers because otherwise there would be a huge political uproar which the Christians would win, "tough shit." They're going to keep making prayers part of events, "tough shit." People who disagree and make a court case out of it are going to keep getting ostracized, "tough shit." If a court says no, Christians will sometimes do it anyway, "tough shit." See how easy it is to just be a jerk and have nothing be accomplished? This kind of attitude promises nothing but never-ending conflict. There's no room for compromise at all. And since the Christians are the majority (and 90%+ of Americans still believe in God), they're going to win. "Tough shit." "Tough shit" for real bro. For real.
My god, what a fascinating response.
You do know that it is illegal for the government to affiliate itself with religion, correct? That's why Christians aren't allowed to say "tough shit". Tough shit is reserved for people with a position based on law.
The "compromise" you suggest is ludicrous. Sorry Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Rastafarians, etc, but you aren't allowed to have prayer in school. That's it. Sorry. It's the law.
The law doesn't care if someone is a jerk.
The government is non-denominational and secular. Completely. Not slightly, not partially, not just sometimes, but completely. That means Christians don't get prayer, Muslims don't get prayer, no one gets prayer barring a thinly veiled "moment of silence".
Again: All that matters is whether schools are allowed to promote, by their official actions, religious activity of any sort, and the answer to that is unequivocally no.
|
there is nothing wrong with religion, but lets face it, some people take it waaaaaaaaaaaay to far
|
Freedom of speech , equality in rights regardless of race or religion its a noble idea .
But in reality is not noble nor ideal its often illogical and cruel.
I sympathize with what this student is experiencing as i too face a lot of difficulties in life (due to my race and religion )
However i must question his action , does he not know that discrimination is a lasting philosophy? he could have pretended to pray but instead he report it and make a big deal out of it.
Is his right being violated by pretending to pray? absolutely but it does not cause him any bodily harm , the damage done if any is in the "idea" of freedom of speech.
Religion may have play a part here but its not the main problem , the main problem is the human psychology that seeks affirmation from others and discriminate against those who are different from them (it could be race,gender,or even political beliefs)
I wish that people could think for themselves so that these things does not happen but its no likely gonna happen.
Freedom in speech and beliefs came at a very high cost its not something that one can that for granted.
|
On June 06 2011 08:02 Elegy wrote:
It held that these pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer" are not private, but public speech. "Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval."
Stamping denominational prayer with the approval of the state is obviously unconstitutional.
I don't understand what you are trying to argue, the progression of SCOTUS cases is reasonably clear since Engel set the precedent....maybe if you outline why you think its not unconstitutional would help, because it's a pretty one sided debate if you don't.
The facts of Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, involved a state law which created a state agency that outlined mandatory exercises for all public schools, thereby originating the nexus between 'Congress shall make no law' and the 'establishment of religion'. The requirement of this nexus has deteriorated as time went on; but that's another issue.
Now the test from Lemon is the test used for determining constitutionality of state acts and the establishment of religion (arguable due to its inconsistent application, but it hasn't been overruled and the Court last cited it in a 2000 decision), that test being: "the act [prayer] must (1) reflect a clearly secular purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion."
The question is whether a prayer can be secular, have a non encouraging or discouraging effect on religion, and avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. What 'prayer' can pass this test? For example, while the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is arguably religious, or contains religious material, it would probably pass the Lemon test. Likewise, people can say grace before meals in a non-religious manner. When I was in Boy Scouts, they would regularly give secular prayer-like talks that completely avoided the topic of God. (I was militantly atheist at that time, and would voice my atheism at any given opportunity, yet these things didn't offend me). So on that note, I think it is possible to give a prayer which would pass the Lemon test and thus, be constitutional.
The question as to what prayer can pass this test ultimately doesn't matter, it could conceivably exist. Thousands of school officials probably think they put on such prayers, and proceed accordingly. I think the Court also shares a similar view, because if they wished to flat-out rule all school prayer put on by school officials they could do so without dancing around the subject of the Lemon test, which they don't (they in fact use the Lemon test to in their analysis of Sante Fe v. Doe). Ultimately, because the courts are reactive, not prescriptive, we don't know. As far as I know there hasn't been a final word from the SC, and I'm too lazy to research whether a Circuit Split on the issue exists or not. I'm sure there's a host of District Court and Appellate Court decisions holding certain prayers constitutional; these cases were never appealed to the SC or the SC refused to hear them.
|
As an atheist myself, I think we all know how I feel.
|
Greece227 Posts
The kid did not deserve that, but he is still an asshole.
What kind of dick knowingly ruins a tradition like that? It really does seem like he was just trying to get himself attention and be an asshole. I applaud the previous atheists of that school who didn't try to pull a stunt like this. Prayer at graduation doesn't affect him in anyway and he should just put up with it because (based on atheist beliefs) they're just thinking thoughts in their head to a God that doesn't exist.
He is an ignorant little prick, but that doesn't justify what happened to him. The world would be a much better place if people like him were not in it and the same goes for the people who are treating him like this. If he could have just accepted the fact that there are people in this world with different beliefs then him, then he would be happily living with his parents right now, but insteade had to make a big deal out of nothing.
It isn't like the school was doing a ritual sacrifice at graduation, it was just a helpless little prayer.
What is the big fuckin deal?
|
I am a Christian, but this is disgusting. The kid is 100% right, and I am very sorry the community is that stuck in the 1800s. And mad props to the people who helped him and/or are helping him.
It would be very unfortunate if someone extrapolated that community's actions to all religious people, because that would be in no way accurate. Similarly to how, as OP stated, it would be completely inaccurate to say (and experimentally proven false) that atheists are selfish. But, in either case - I completely agree that the kid was legally and morally 100% in the right, and I applaud him. And I am a Christian. But I am also not from the American South, so maybe that's why.
|
On June 06 2011 08:57 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 08:02 Elegy wrote:
It held that these pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer" are not private, but public speech. "Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval."
Stamping denominational prayer with the approval of the state is obviously unconstitutional.
I don't understand what you are trying to argue, the progression of SCOTUS cases is reasonably clear since Engel set the precedent....maybe if you outline why you think its not unconstitutional would help, because it's a pretty one sided debate if you don't. The facts of Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, involved a state law which created a state agency that outlined mandatory exercises for all public schools, thereby originating the nexus between 'Congress shall make no law' and the 'establishment of religion'. The requirement of this nexus has deteriorated as time went on; but that's another issue. Now the test from Lemon is the test used for determining constitutionality of state acts and the establishment of religion (arguable due to its inconsistent application, but it hasn't been overruled and the Court last cited it in a 2000 decision), that test being: "the act [prayer] must (1) reflect a clearly secular purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion." The question is whether a prayer can be secular, have a non encouraging or discouraging effect on religion, and avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. What 'prayer' can pass this test? For example, while the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is arguably religious, or contains religious material, it would probably pass the Lemon test. Likewise, people can say grace before meals in a non-religious manner. When I was in Boy Scouts, they would regularly give secular prayer-like talks that completely avoided the topic of God. (I was militantly atheist at that time, and would voice my atheism at any given opportunity, yet these things didn't offend me). So on that note, I think it is possible to give a prayer which would pass the Lemon test and thus, be constitutional. The question as to what prayer can pass this test ultimately doesn't matter, it could conceivably exist. Thousands of school officials probably think they put on such prayers, and proceed accordingly. I think the Court also shares a similar view, because if they wished to flat-out rule all school prayer put on by school officials they could do so without dancing around the subject of the Lemon test, which they don't (they in fact use the Lemon test to in their analysis of Sante Fe v. Doe). Ultimately, because the courts are reactive, not prescriptive, we don't know. As far as I know there hasn't been a final word from the SC, and I'm too lazy to research whether a Circuit Split on the issue exists or not. I'm sure there's a host of District Court and Appellate Court decisions holding certain prayers constitutional; these cases were never appealed to the SC or the SC refused to hear them.
The Lemon Test is meant to gauge the constitutionality of government legislation and, by extension, state creatures such as schools, courthouses, what-have-you.
Forbidding prayer in school certainly has a secular purpose.
Forbidding prayer in school has little to no effect of inhibiting religion.
Forbidding prayer in school is certainly not excessive entanglement; quite the opposite.
What more could you ask for when SCOTUS declares even a student-initiated and student-led prayer at a school function (extracurricular, at that) unconstitutional? That's as close to declaring school prayer unconstitutional as it gets.
Your last paragraph is puzzling. School prayer by school officials is unconstitutional, and it has been repeated a dozen times in this thread that it is.
Organized prayer in the public school setting, whether in the classroom or at a school-sponsored event, is unconstitutional. The only type of prayer that is constitutionally permissible is private, voluntary student prayer that does not interfere with the school's educational mission.
Your post fails to address the clear fact that school prayer has been considered unconstitutional for years. There is no debating this. Prayer in public schools, outside of voluntary private activity, is utterly forbidden. Any school that disputes this is in the wrong.
"Moment of silence" is as close to school prayer as anyone is ever going to get, and even that comes with a baggage of problems.
Going to one of your earlier posts...
You don't have the right to be free of criticism, nor are you free from the reasonably foreseeable reactions of private citizens. The school's reaction to this individual was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. In the absence of a state, or local law mandating the prayer, the prayer however, was not ostensibly unconstitutional. If the school, of its own accord, decided to institute prayer (which seems to be the case here
There is clearly no way you could possibly argue that this example of school prayer doesn't run directly against the Santa Fe ruling. It's virtually the exact same situation
|
On June 06 2011 09:13 Elegy wrote:
The Lemon Test is meant to gauge the constitutionality of government legislation and, by extension, state creatures such as schools, courthouses, what-have-you.
Forbidding prayer in school certainly has a secular purpose.
Forbidding prayer in school has little to no effect of inhibiting religion.
Forbidding prayer in school is certainly not excessive entanglement; quite the opposite.
You're not applying the Lemon test correctly, the correct method is to query whether the controverted act meets each prong of the test, not whether forbidding the act meets the prongs.
What more could you ask for when SCOTUS declares even a student-initiated and student-led prayer at a school function (extracurricular, at that) unconstitutional? That's as close to declaring school prayer unconstitutional as it gets.
Don't get ahead of yourself, the Court has never stated that a student-initiated and student-led prayer at a school function is unconstitutional. The issue has never come up before the Supreme Court and there is a Circuit split on that issue. [Chemerinsky on Con Law 12.5.2.1]. Sante Fe v. Doe dealt with the school sponsorship and encouragement of student-led prayer at school functions.
Calling a student-initiated and student-led prayer unconstitutional leads to serious balancing of interests with Freedom of Speech
Your last paragraph is puzzling. School prayer by school officials is unconstitutional, and it has been repeated a dozen times in this thread that it is.
To be honest I was wondering about the shift the Court took in including the Executive branch of the government under the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." when there was no law in question that mandated certain action by the Executive branch. It's something I want to look into, I was just bouncing shit around.
|
School sponsored prayer is the only thing that matters.
School sponsorship of a student-led prayer at a public function is unconstitutional per Santa Fe. That means no prayer at football games, no prayer at high school graduation ceremonies, and no prayer in classrooms.
Schools are forbidden to have prayer sessions at public functions, which is, again, all that matters.
Explain to me how, in the case in the OP, the prayer was constitutional. Explain to me the difference between not allowing school prayer at graduation, and not allowing student-led prayer with school sponsorship at a football game.
The fact that no one seriously thinks school prayer in this scenario is constitutional should be evidence enough that the atheist mentioned in the OP was legally in the right.
|
Nothing in the OP suggests the prayer was school sponsored, only that the prayer was traditionally held at graduations. What if, in recognition of this tradition, the student council put together the schedule and planning for graduation (as may be the case in many high schools across the country), and the student council implemented a student-led prayer?
It is entirely student-initiated and student-led. Is is unconstitutional? The school district has nothing to do with it, nor the superintendent, nor the principal, nor the teachers. They could all be atheists. There's no facts in the OP to suggest this wasn't the case. In fact, the OP is entirely devoid of the situation surrounding the prayer, other than to state that it was tradition.
|
On June 06 2011 09:32 MozzarellaL wrote:
Don't get ahead of yourself, the Court has never stated that a student-initiated and student-led prayer at a school function is unconstitutional. The issue has never come up before the Supreme Court and there is a Circuit split on that issue. [Chemerinsky on Con Law 12.5.2.1].
lol @ the Chemerinsky cite
|
On June 06 2011 09:55 MozzarellaL wrote:
Nothing in the OP suggests the prayer was school sponsored, only that the prayer was traditionally held at graduations. What if, in recognition of this tradition, the student council put together the schedule and planning for graduation (as may be the case in many high schools across the country), and the student council implemented a student-led prayer?
It is entirely student-initiated and student-led. Is is unconstitutional? The school district has nothing to do with it, nor the superintendent, nor the principal, nor the teachers. They could all be atheists. There's no facts in the OP to suggest this wasn't the case.
....
...
If the prayer is part and parcel of an official school function (graduation, football game), it is school sponsored. It is school approved, it is "stamped with the approval of the state" or whatever that quote from Sante Fe I used above says.
The school has everything to do with this, because the administration is the one that, in the end, is responsible for running and approving the school's official graduation ceremony.
|
I'm pretty sure they broke the first amendment by ostracizing him for following his beliefs. I would not ever pray to any god because I am an atheist. I think it a waste of time. However, if someone feels that religion guides them through life and help them, then they can just keep on following that religion and I ain't got nothing against that. However, when a situation similar to that of shinosai arises, then that is annoying and stupid. Sure, the first amendment allows someone to say that but me refusing to pray =/= shoving your religion down someone else's throat.
|
On June 06 2011 09:08 Fourn wrote:
The kid did not deserve that, but he is still an asshole.
What kind of dick knowingly ruins a tradition like that? It really does seem like he was just trying to get himself attention and be an asshole.
...But Fowler... contacted the school superintendent to let him know that he opposed the prayer, and would be contacting the ACLU if it happened.
Then Fowler's name, and his role in this incident, was leaked.
It says it, in the OP, that his name and role were leaked. He didn't amass a group of people and beat signs and call the local news. He contacted an official to take care of the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
