Despite ruling, prayer recited at graduation

Despite ruling, prayer recited at graduation

May 20, 2006

RUSSELL SPRINGS, Ky. – A federal judge blocked a southern Kentucky high school yesterday from including prayers in its graduation ceremony, prompting students to begin reciting the Lord's Prayer during the opening remarks. About 200 students interrupted the principal's comments with the prayer, drawing thunderous applause and a standing ovation from the crowd.

Earlier in the day, a judge banned prayers from the ceremony in response to a lawsuit filed this week by the American Civil Liberties Union. The lawsuit sought a restraining order on behalf of an unidentified student at Russell County High School in Russell Springs, 90 miles south of Louisville.

Later in the ceremony, senior Megan Chapman told the crowd that God had guided her since childhood. She was interrupted repeatedly by cheering as she urged her classmates to trust in God as they go through life. Superintendent Scott Pierce said he was pleased with the students' response to the ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that clergy-led prayer in public school graduations and sporting events is prohibited.

Associated Press


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060520/news_1n20nation.html

Students have always had the right to pray in school. The difference being that the students themselves initiate the prayer and not the school.

I don't have a problem with what the kids did yesterday.

my stock answer to "liberals have banned prayer in school" is "show me a math test, and i'll show you prayer in school."

students have always had the right to do this sort of thing. why it is that the wingnuts can't be satisfied with spontaneous and student-led religion in schools is beyond me.

not volunteered... they don't believe in freedom at all.

There will be no state-sanctioning of religion.

Sounds like the school district and the superintendent are in contempt.

L-

there is nothing that PREVENTS the students from saying a prayer.

they probably would have been lynched, or at the very least "black-listed" by the community.

These moral zealots are hypocrites. They do not want equal rights, they only want privilleges for their particular brand of religion, and the government is the tool they use to sock it on everyone. The ACLU is dead right, and I hope they file two new suits (one against the superintendent for "praising" the sectarian prayers, and one against the high-school for not holding the students accountable).

#1: What are you going to do to graduating seniors...tell them to repeat the year
#2: Young people caring enough about something and coming togther to present protest on their freedoms. Yes it is a school function. But this is their ceremony. If they had the opening prayer as part of the ceremony, 1/2 would yawn right through it. Tell someone that they can't do something, and they will find a way to do it.
#3: These are perspective party-line potentials. Don't boo them just yet.

Yeah, they came together to piss all over the non-christian students.

Do you honestly believe their right to preach their bigoted religion at a school function is more important than the rights of the other students?





Fuck the Constitution, eh?

It's just another old piece of paper, after all.

how is it violative of the constitution if the kids decide they want to pray?

It's only a violation if the school is the one that does/initiates the prayer, not if kids spontaneously do it.

Or are you just ignoring the fact that my reference to the Constitution was a response to the statement:

These are perspective party-line potentials."

Christians like the poster I was responding to expect people like me to put up or shut up because we might "hurt" the party.

They are more than happy to dismiss the first amendment rights of minorities and let the moral majority decide what's best for this country.

#1: I believe most high-schools insist students behave maturely and respectfully at graduation if they want to receive their diplomas. What about the students who chose to respect the law and not make a scene? Do they get anything for doing the right thing?

#2: Straw man, If it's "their" ceremony, than what about the kids who are not x-tian. Oh, right. Everyone in the US is X-tian, and if we deny it, we're slamming the country's heritage.

#3: They were spitting on the Constitution and intimidating their fellow-students, while using a school-function to cram their beliefs on everyone. I'm going to boo this regardless of political expediency. You're defending this?

I think that is hard to get kids these days to care about issues. My mom tells me of what it was like to grow up in her era... and it was so different. It may be an issue that offends some people, but at least they are paying attention to their rights. Its sad when American Idol is more popular than politics. And I do think this is a political subject. It pissed enough of them off.... that they all learned the Lord's prayer.

They learned a lot more than that.

Like how the religious majority believe they are entitled to more rights than non-christians.

Way to go.

I really take offense to how much everyone here seems to slam a Christian and embrace a Muslim or a Buhdist. I probably sound like I came from the elephants trunk... but I think that when you protect freedoms... you protect all of them. I realize that the majority of Americans say they have Christian beliefs... but stand outside of a Church and count... Most of them aren't there on Sunday.

The right of christians to force others to live by their rules and involuntarily practice christianity only exists in the minds of the Amerikkan Taliban.

I take offense at having to listen to so called liberals dismissing my constitutional rights.

these are whackjobs. Don't EVER equate the two.

to prove you are a Christian?

If you think the Bill of Rights is a tool for majoritarianism and harrassment, you need to learn some of the history behind that document. Your rights end where mine begin. If these kids go into the world believing they can be obnoxious and disruptive in the name of religion, they're going to be in for a rude awakening.

The Lord's Prayer is not a "political subject."

her little South Dakota town was run by Baptists which was about half Baptist and half other/Catholic but the Baptists ran the town and outlawed dancing. So, in order to have a school dance at the PUBLIC high school, they (anyone other than Baptist) had to go ANOTHER county. The law was finally overturned but not after a lot of bad blood between the different religions. See what happens when religion becomes part of government? Who's to say that The Lord's Prayer was the proper one? What about the other religions and the non-believers? They have rights too. The best result is to keep prayer to yourself, your home and your church. I think the Bible says something about praying in private......

good grief, this is NOT a constitutional violation.

So you are basically saying that if a single christian (or any other religion) student wants to ON THEIR OWN say a prayer that they should not be allowed to?

That's insane, and in and of itself probably not constitutional.

I'm not religious at all, but it's separation of church and state, not separation of church from people who dont want to ever have to hear it.

They made a scene during graduation 'cause they didn't like a judge respecting the rights of non-Xtians. These kids were shouting fire in a crowded theater, and that is most certainly not covered the first amendment. Yes, they were spitting on the constituion, and the superintindent giving them a pat on the back clearly gives an endorsment to their rude zealotry.

If you can honestly tell me a Muslim or non-X-tian would feel at home in this atmosphere, I don't think you know what it's like to be different in a hostile setting.

You're supporting harrassment, and turning a blind eye on the non-X-tian kids.

Do the kids who respected the rules and honored the principal get anything?

A judge prohibits prayer in the official graduation ceremony: POWER.

Students hold spontaneous prayer, exercising their First amendment freedom: SPEAKING TRUTH.

That is the real meaning of the Quaker phrase, "Speaking Truth to power".

As progressives, you should be applauding it, instead of condemning it.


The Pagan Preacher
Proudly defending free speech and the free exercise of religion for 43 years.

If you had stood up to give a prayer of your choice, "Pagan Preacher," I somehow doubt the response would have been the same.

This is your idea of "speaking truth," to others? As a progressive, I shun actions that leave "different" students in the cold.

They were enforcing their own brand of power by overriding the Constitutional rights of others.

If they want to have a prayer, or a prayer service, they can do so any time they wish so long as it isn't on the public's dime. The graduation was a publicly-funded ceremony of a publicly-funded school. They do NOT have the right to inflict their religion on others in that forum. The court upheld the Constitution's prohibition on state-funded religion.

Just FYI, folks: this separation of church and state thing was not an immediate status provided by the Bill of Rights. Many states continued to have tax-supported official religions into the 1800s. As the country became more religiously heterogenous, courts and legislatures reinforced Jefferson's wall between the two.

Forcing a captive audience in a public venue to listen to sectarian prayer is WRONG. The fact that the school has failed to instruct the students as to the proper behavior under the Constitution is, imho, an indication that the school, its administration, and even some of its teachers are not capable of producing law-abiding graduates. The fact that the superintendent applauds the students for disobeying the law should be grounds for his being slapped with a contempt of court citation and then fired.



Tansy Gold

And non-christians?

I mean, as long as it's a free speech issue and they use authentic christian dogma just like Fred Phelps, what's the harm?

The kiddies with the "God hates fags" posters and t-shirts are speaking truth to power too, right?


Damn those godless commies at the ACLU who believe the rights of minorities are just as important as the rights of the moral majority.

What do you think would happen to you if you stood in front of these people and recited a pagan prayer?

I am a Pagan minister, and very public in my Paganism. I am a member of the Interfaith Alliance of XXX (City), as the Pagan and Heathen representative. I have been interviewed for local and regional news articles, as a leader of my Pagan religious community. I have made Pagan and Heathen prayer in public venues, including at the funeral of a Heathen soldier killed in Iraq. I have dealt with evangelical, fundamental, and Pentacostal Christian family members on several occasions- it comes with the territory in mixed marriages.

I am not a Wiccan, but I have worked with a Wiccan high priestess to conduct public weddings and rites of passage for Wiccans in my community. I have worked "tag team" with Christian ministers in performing weddings.

I am a member of the American Legion Riders and the Patriot Guard Riders, and I wear an Ancient Riders (Pagan and Heathen bikers association) patch on my vest. I don't have problems, even at Legion events or Christian soldiers' funerals.

I am a veteran of the United States Army, and a strong defender of our Constitutional rights, such as "freedom of speech" (spoken prayers are certainly "speech") and "freedom of religion" (with two parts: no establishment of a religion by the government, and no restriction on the free exercise of religion by individuals.) I support the free exercise of religion: mine, theirs, and yours. If you don't have one, I am not going to force you to take mine or theirs. No one of us has the right to prevent someone else from practicing his own religion.

If the voluntary recitation of the Lord's Prayer bothers some of you, the obvious option for the easily offended is to ignore it. Pagans do it every day.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

Seriously. When they stop the ceremony and yell and applaud it is hard to ignore. What if you were the child that the ACLU defended? Then this happens and it is like the entire town, and all of the officials of the school who are supposed to be everyone's advocate, turns against you and mocks you. It wasn't spontaneous. It was a response. That is bullying. That is intimidation. It's unAmerican to have the majority's rights outweigh the minority like this. The only way to be fair, all-inclusive in a public setting is to be non-denominational. Everyone who earns it should be entitled to a day of celebration not a day for some but not all.

How Non-Libertarian Right Wing Fundy REPUBLICAN of them.

When I (and I believe most people) pray, I do it quietly. After all, I'm trying to reach GOD. God doesn't respond better to more people, louder, and in cadence prayers. There's no "boot camp" in how to communicate with our higher power.

Yes, these are the new pledges to the "Young Republicans" of the College Scene.

ceremony for the kids who WANT TO ATTEND at the CHURCH
of their CHOICE?

Would it be OK for me to show up a someones wedding and
shout out a Wiccan Prayer, or start speaking in tongues
or something?

The graduation ceremony is supposed to be for EVERYONE
who graduates, it is NOT a X-tian ceremony.

by exercising their right to free expression????????????????? and freedom of religion?????

They were spitting on the constitutional rights of the non-christian kids to hold their own beliefs w/o the school's interference. Or are you saying the non-Xtian kids do not have the same rights as the rude ones who interrupted the ceremony?

the non-christians could have begun reciting their own prayer or citing quotations from Darwin's Origin of Species.

the school did not interfere with students' beliefs.

It would have been interesting to see the reaction of the kids who prayed had someone started a Buddhist Chant or a Muslim prayer.

There would have been a riot.

What he was saying is that it is inappropriate for a prayer to be led at a public high school graduation. I agree with him. My point was that the kids who prayed anyway have absolutely no respect for other viewpoints. They wanted to pray and come hell or high water they were going to. It was wrong of them to force the graduation at a public high school to have religious overtones. They want religion, let their parents pay tuition at a religious school. Keep it out of public school.

I look forward to seeing many more of your posts.

:hi:

All prayer not specifically Christian prayer would be wrong.

If it was a private school there would be no arguement. It was a public school, state funded so therefore the state could not support a religious expression. It's very clear, very basic and is ultimately the only true DEMOCRATIC (as in democracy) position. If every view can't be included then the only course of action is to have no view represented. A public school event should be about public school and places of worship should be about worship. No judge is saying people cannot pray. The judge was just upholding the constitutional principle of separation of church and State. In this instance, The state (public school) clearly favored one religion over any other as well as non-religious views. An atheist student is excluded by the very act it implies that this day is not about all students but some students. I imagine that would feel very shitty on what would suppose to be a happy day.

for these people, the Lord Prayer is non denominational :puke:

:eyes:

Oh we have BOTH kinds... Country AND Western. ;)

The Court has ruled that students cannot have prayer at football games - even if school led, because (1. the administration has authority over their speeches, and (2. graduation, though technically optional, is not like a extracurricular club. Schools can have prayer groups as long as they are not teacher/staff led. The club can have a sponsor for supervision but the sponsor does it on his or her own time - just like political clubs. I read an article in Newsweek or Time recently about a public school in Alabama that has "prayer boxes" in the hall! Unbelievable!

Tell a teenager they can't do something, and boy do they go to the opposite extreme trying to protest it. If it wasn't such a hot button item and wasn't being dredged up by everybody... they simply would not be as impassioned. Think of it this way if you can. The Vietnam war was a huge amassed huge protests, not only in dissent for the war but also for the draft. When you are told you have no choice, when all your life you have been taught you have freedoms and rights, then there is a tendency to rebel. Its about protecting the Consitution not just the Freedoms that benefit you.

Keep telling yourself that christians are being persecuted in this country while your fellow true believers turn it into a theocracy.

How fucking delusional does one have to be to think that little christian waifs are being robbed of their precious freedoms by the godless liberals and atheist judges because they can't force others to sit through christian prayer services in public schools?

to them that's persecution. Megalomaniacs feel the same.

They do not want equal rights, they only want privilleges for their particular brand of religion...

We seem to forget that the Enlightenment brought us our "equal rights," not religion. Religion is a tool for crowd control and certainly not a force behind "equal rights."

Particularly when it comes to the role of women (as pastors, elders, etc.) and the right to "scrutinize" scripture and reach your own conclusion. That was a big step to "free" religion from the hands of corrupt autocrats in Rome.

Also, you seem to equate religion exclusively to Christianity, whereas other religions have a long history of encouraging equality and acceptance (Buddhism, Taoism, etc.), to say nothing of Wicca or Paganism, which are mostly "liberal" minded.

Religion seeks to unify and dissolve differences, and when wielded properly can be a great proponent of equality.

thunderous applause.

... for non-christian students to make a stand....

Yup, that's what I said alright.

Lynching was probably a harsh word, but I stand by my statement that a non-Christian in this situaiton would be blacklisted. I am certain there were no non-Christians praying.

"I guess civil disobedience is only allowed if it complies with your belief structure."

Civil disobedience is not allowed. That is why it is called "civil disobedience." Find a dictionary.

"Cindy Shehan is a hero for speaking out but these kids are "moral zealots are hypocrites" for doing the exact same thing."

Cindy Sheehan is a hero, but the civil disobedience she takes part in (sit-ins) is not protected speech, either, and that is why she does it (the mass-arrests gain attention). It is an excellent example where the law can be broken for a far greater cause (ending the War).

I have to drive to another city if I want to rent a copy of Brokeback Mountain and yet the shelves in the christian owned video stores in my town are overflowing with copies of The Passion of Christ and The Dukes of Hazard.

Think of the children.

So glad I don't live around there!

turned into a revival?

I appreciate the whole "student-led" business, but this sort of thing always leaves someone out in the cold and at least one someone was left out this time.
It may have been the majority of the class that wanted this, but I suspect that it wasn't as monolithic as all that; one can only imagine the amount of pressure the minority was under to shut up and stand up while their religious peers turned their graduation into a statement.

One.

Against all of the other students.


Imagine how he must feel.


I guess nobody else will ever make that mistake again.

backward little burg very soon.

Lexington and Louisville are bastions of blue but most of the rest of Kentucky is as intolerant as Russel Springs.

Admitting that you don't believe in the christian god just isn't a good idea around here.

The closets are full in the bible belt.

If we have to regress in time, couldn't we have stopped off at the Enlightenment before we flipped back to the Middle Ages?

damn.

If we're going into the way back machine, why not skip the Dark Ages altogether.

Just think how much more technologically advanced we would be right now.

Not to mention how much more humane.

Imagine no religion . . .
(with apologies to John Lennon for freestyle verse appropriation)

These little religious burghs have always been like this, the difference is just that we've traditionally overlooked them.

interupted the speaker. later, one of the students spoke about god guiding her life, to thunderous applause from those who should have been getting their educations in parochial schools.

What the hell are you talking about?

I was referring to the fact that one student brought suit against the school for including prayer in the ceremony.

Maybe you should read my post a bit more carefully.

Jeesh.

One kid dared to dissent.
Edited on Sun May-21-06 03:18 AM by beam me up scottie
One.

Against all of the other students.


Imagine how he must feel.


I guess nobody else will ever make that mistake again.

Apparently you skipped over all of my OTHER posts in this thread criticizing the christian students, not to mention my sig line.

Yeah, BMUS is really cryptic. :eyes:

Apology accepted.

Maybe it is because I was having the same thought that I even wrote about somewhere in this thread. I can't help but wonder what the student who was represented by the ACLU went through during that spectacle. How ostracized he/she must have felt? It took courage to stand up for yourself and it must have felt like such betrayal to have the faculty choose sides against them. Such Christlike behavior. :sarcasm:

If any parent had the option to afford private over public school... Private it would be. Public education sucks... here's a test. Pass this and everything is just fine... now in life we will always try to provide a, b, c, and d. answers.

to private ones that gives them the right to force the non-christian students to attend prayer services at graduation?

I am a PROUD product of public schools.
They are the backbone of democracy.

My children attend public schools.

Many aren't even accredited, and use extremely questionable textbooks, don't encourage critical thinking or learning, teach intolerance and antiquated gender roles, etc.

Nice little meme you have going here, with the anti-separation of church and state and the "public education sucks."

Gee that is news to me. I have spent nearly 3 decades teaching in public schools and I have never worked in one that sucked.

They must be really awful where you went to school. Seems fairly obvious they don't teach critical thinking.

zealots, what part of this did you not comprehend:


RUSSELL SPRINGS, Ky. – A federal judge blocked a southern Kentucky high school yesterday from including prayers in its graduation ceremony, ***************prompting students to begin reciting the Lord's Prayer during the opening remarks. About 200 students interrupted the principal's comments with the prayer,******** drawing thunderous applause and a standing ovation from the crowd

they interupted the speaker, displaying a complete lack of manners, and there is NO defense for that. I am sick and tired of little xian zealots thinking they have a "god-given right" to FORCE their damned prayers on those who are not gawd-smacked.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

not to mention the action of reciting the prayer is free expression.

When the free expression is from a state POV (public school) it is against the first clause of respecting an establishment of religion.

the students said it anyway. State sponsored prayer versus free expression by the students. See the difference???

And it's not like they didn't just stand back and let it happen. No one stopped it or disciplined people. That is implicit support of one side.

I've never said laws were broken. I just disagree with the actions of these students and the faculty condoning them. Everyone involved knew they were responding to a person in the room who wanted a secular public school ceremony. It wasn't just people feeling the "spirit" it was an organized F-you to the student who brought the lawsuit. Meanspirited and divisive. Jesus would be so proud. :sarcasm:

their rights? the faculty can support whomever they please. the only thing the state (school) can't do is plan, require, or program prayer in the school function.

Who stood up and interrupted the graduation ceremonies period. It would not matter what they said. To interrupt a ceremony, the principal is speaking, to radically stop the event for whatever purpose should not be allowed.

Have you ever seen a play? What if you got up and started praying loudly in the middle of it? Would everyone welcome that behavior and allow you to continue or would you be quickly ushered out?

It was a staged, planned event for everyone and it was highjacked by the students. They could have been staging an anti-war protest and my thoughts would be no different as far as whether the school should stop the protest, remove the protesters, and continue with the ceremony as planned.

Do we all have constitutional rights to pray? Of course. Do you have the right to pray anywhere, anytime, loudly and disruptively? No. There are acceptable ways of behaving in society, ways of showing respect. These students were protesting the concept that there are places that should be secular, that secularism is appropriate because it respects all viewpoints.

who prayed. and the school officials and one student could have stayed for the duration of the ceremony. now would they do that??? no.

if you "protest" you certainly can be removed. however, when the protesters constitute 90% of the audience its doubtful that is going to happen.

There is no mention of 90% of the audience or that only 1 student was affected. Do you always quote made up statistics to prove your point? Isn't it possible to expect someone just saying "Stop this" while it was happening? It seems that the other alleged 10% of the people there are just irrelevant to you.

and their families and friends?

since the article is not going to touch on any non-Christian graduates or guests who were marginalized by that display.

than their actions.

This rule of law, respect others shit is due to your disagreement with these particular students.

Otherwise, where are you on the McCain & Condi Rice threads excrotiating those students for their actions of disruption and disrespect to those who don't share their views?

I'll tell you why I am not on those threads, because that's their right to do so. I am on this thread because people seem to throw out the 1st amendment when its someone they don't like.

means I can't have an opinion on this? Thanks very much, but your refusal for me to pass means jack shit to me.

My disagreement with these students stems from the fact that, because a judge refused to make organized prayer part of the ceremony, these assholes decided to hijack the ceremony. That hardly compares to the situations in the McCain and Rice examples you cited.

I respect those who exercise their free speech to challenge authority because there is a consequence to that action. These assholes were applauded by the mob. Comparing them to the disruptors at the McCain and Condi Rice speeches is asinine.

"My disagreement with these students stems from the fact that, because a judge refused to make organized prayer part of the ceremony, these assholes decided to hijack the ceremony."

Organized prayer was part of the ceremony already a judge removed that. The students didn't like it so they protested.

You are the one bemaoning disruption of the ceremony. And how wrong any disruption is. That's why I brought up the other "disuptions" at graduation ceremonies.

"I respect those who exercise their free speech to challenge authority because there is a consequence to that action.These assholes were applauded by the mob. Comparing them to the disruptors at the McCain and Condi Rice speeches is asinine."

You don't have to respect their beliefs, you do have to respect their right to state them. You should not seek to undermine such rights under the couching of "disruption","courtesey" and respect for the rule of law simply because you didn't have the stones to be more direct about it.

Why?

Because the ACLU fought for them to be there.

You can pray all you want to, even be given time to pray ("silent reflection"), as long as it's not commanded by the school itself.

Great..no problem. The problem is that these kids prayed aloud in a graduation ceremony from a public school. That in and of itself is forcing their particular set of beliefs on everyone there. If they had "silently reflected" we would not be having this conversation.

Human nature being what it is, a couple of students (who may not even be religious) may have felt pressured to either join in or refrain from complaining. That is the problem here. The kids who did this have a good case of Bushitis...."you are are either with us or against us."

It was an example of arrogance and did not belong in that setting.

high school in California in the early '70s, a non-denominational service held either on a weekend or earlier on the day of graduation. All interested students were invited. However, those who didn't wish to participate weren't inconvenienced in the least. There were Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Mormons, Buddhists and Shinto . . . those were the religions I remember were present at the school, and they shared a common service for purposes of their faith. It may have even have been held on campus, though I don't recall if it was and don't mind if they did.

My point is, they could and did hold a ceremony of faith in honor of their graduation and no one was inconvenienced or made to feel they had to participate. Why can't they do something similar today? Or is the purpose merely to flaunt the word of Christ and make a mockery of his admonition about prayer in private? Seems if faith -- its power and its recognition -- were the purpose and intent, it'd be best served in the company of those who share it. Or at the least, in the company of those who accept similar beliefs.

We had a heavy Catholic and Jewish population in our school... but we also had a heavy Buddhist population, too...

- began the prayer to thunderous applause and to a standing ovation from the crowd. It is obvious that the prayer was not offensive to the majority and that it was not school or state sanctioned.

Freedom's work both ways. I have no problem with what the kids did and can only respect them for standing up for their rights and for what they believe in.

This is how it's supposed to work.

Peace.

majority -- it protects the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

If an individual student wishes to give a speech thanking her god for guiding her through school and making her the success she is, that's fine. That's HER speech and it's protected.

If a group of students, even a majority, want to take over the public proceedings by shrieking their brand of religion in a manner that makes it clear they are in charge and they are not going to be silenced and everyone better pay attention or risk the consequences, then that is religious tyranny. It has no place in this country under this Constitution.

If there were even one student who did not wish to have that brand of christianity shoved down her/his throat at her/his graduation, then that's student right to "freedom of religion" is as inalienable as the right of the majority to hold their belief. The line is drawn when one group or individual tries to usurp the rights of the other.


Tansy Gold, an unoffical whackjob atheist

tyranny of the majority"

In today's Right Wing Whacked Fundy BushWorld and the Supreme Court of Scalito, I regret the opposite is true.

So says the Ministry of Love. :P

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

and actually it is more of an issue of free expression than free religion. the students' recitation of the prayer.

Have you ever read the Constitution?

If not, I'd hurry up and do so before this administration finishes destroying it so that good little christian students like those in Russell Springs Kentucky don't have to worry about offending those pesky little non-saved heathens anymore.

Yay Theocracy! :patriot:

There is no right to not be offended, and there is no right to not hear other peoples voices. Your only right regarding religion is that your government can't push or promote one to you.

If you're unlucky enough to live in a backwards little burgh where crowds of people burst into spontaneous prayer, you're options are: 1) Move 2) Recite your opinions back at them 3) Ignore it. Your rights aren't being violated unless it's being promoted by a government agency.

"Too tired to move to the back of the bus? Move to a different state, lady? Jeesh...talk about crybaby!"

Rosa Parks was confronting government sponsored limitations on her freedom. The kids in Kentucky aren't the government, and they aren't limiting anything. They are simply speaking.

And, because it wasn't offensive to a bunch of intolerant jerks, it's okay? Wanna bet that racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic speech would have also been okay? I bet it would have... guess that would have been okay, too.

You don't get it -- they broke the law, and trampled over people's CIVIL RIGHTS.

sounds to me like it was free expression. you are for freedom of speech and expression aren't you??

"Animal (F*ck Like a Beast)"....or, more topical, lyrics to an Eminem song, that would have been fine-dandy?

It doesn't matter if they were speaking in tongues or in scripture....a disruption is a disruption is a disruption.

more than likely if one moron did that,everyone else would have shouted them down. disruptions aren't illegal. you may get removed, but they are not illegal.

but I think it's interesting that the kids get a pat on the back for their obnoxious disruption of their graduation ceremony while virtually any other type of disruption would have resulted in the kids getting shot on sight (exaggeration alert)

screaming wildly during a symphony orchestra is considered disruptive needless to say, but not during a college football game. the audience and the situation set the stage for types of behavior that are acceptable. we do not live in a world of absolutes.

obviously the students behavior was met with approval. if some students started yelling profanities, it probably would not have been given the same reception.

where a group of people interrupting a speaker with a loud rant is acceptable?

"Obviously the students' behavior was met with approval"....you mean, because the mob ruled, decorum and respect for others was thrown out the window.

When McCain was heckled during a graduation if the students (who i agree with) were disciplined during or after their protest I wouldn't bat an eye. No one has "the right" to do something like this. If people just had all of these "free expressions" all of the time we would live in chaos.

In another post I cited an example of someone getting up during a play and talking or praying loudly. Who could support such disruption? If I was graduating,worked hard for it, dressed up, invited proud family members to it I would be superpissed if the ceremony was just highjacked even if it was 200 people chanting "George Bush is a war criminal." I would agree but I'd be angry that they ruined my graduation. It's just inappropriate and rude.

But of course the handful of contrarians on this thread ignore these points and just keep repeating "Constitutional protected free speech" as if that settles everything.

It's not just believers vs. a smaller # of non-believers. It's just an attitude of acceptance of everyone or an enjoyment of excluding others. The thing all these people never acknowledge is that these students weren't disagreeing with just a judge but ANOTHER STUDENT. Some are more equal than others I guess.

The point of the protest was that non-believers are wrong which is an acceptable belief among many unfortunately. If they got up to quote Leviticus to rage against any gay students would that be as defensible I wonder?

Well put.

and the home crowd disrespects him. poor baby.

I didn't realize that St. Mary's was holding their graduation at halftime of the Clippers game.

I know you aren't seriously comparing a high school graduation to a sports event, right?

there are often light moments at ceremonies and at the end, the students break out in celebration. my point is that a graduation is not a funeral, a classical music concert, or a golf tournament.

you are no longer even discussing a free speech issue any more. you are simply now arguing what you believe is appropriate. we disagree.

Interrupting the principal as light comedy? When I went to school, I would have sent to Gitmo for sneezing during the principal's opening remarks.

I don't doubt that there are graduation ceremonies that aren't as rigidly organized and somber as others, but that's beside the point....This was a disruption of the ceremony that was intended to be neither funny nor celebratory.

And yes, I believe loud, obnoxious disruptions of high school graduation ceremonies are inappropriate and I fail to see why I should feel strange about that.

wow, that is news to me.

its fine you feel that way. again, now the discussion is not even about free speech, its about what you feel is appropriate. there certainly was nothing illegal about what the students did wouldn't you agree?

I said this disruption wasn't meant to be part of the celebratory nature of the graduation...it was intended to be an obnoxious "Fuck You" to the judge who ruled on the ACLU's complaint.

on edit: Yes, I agree that what the students did wasn't illegal, but it is certainly worthy of my disrespect.

though I think it was a bit rude to interrupt the principal's remarks. Perhaps they could have chosen a better time?

But the thing about prayer in schools is about the school leading prayer. If students choose to pray that's a completely different thing.

the adults want prayer in school...
if the adults told the students that they should think about including other religions, it would be a different story.... like to see the hail mary, a few latin chants, a few buddhists chants, muslim, hindu, etc.

I'd love to see a wiccan stand up in public...

and would conclude with an atheist's statement saying that all preceding viewpoints were ludicrous? See how silly that is? There is no way to make things equitable unless it is secular and non-religious.

Personally, my problem with prayer in school has little to do with whether it's being led by teachers. What concerns me is that we're supposed to be a country which respects freedom of religion, i.e., all religions, not only Christianity. Since public places like schools and courts and such are, by definition, public, i.e. open to everyone, again, not only to Christians, no member or group of members of any particular denomination has the right to claim such a public venue as its own. I would have less of a problem with this particular incident not if it were incited by students versus teachers, but if it provided equal time to members of every faith to celebrate their religious beliefs on that particular occasion - then at least no one would be denied the same opportunity. Even then, though, the event is supposed to be about an academic event, not about individuals' religious practices for which there is an appropriate time and place: it's called a church. So if these christofanatics have a problem with me wasting their time at a school function by conducting a voodoo witch doctor ceremony, then maybe they'd better practice their personal faith someplace where it doesn't waste my time.

the purpose of separation of church and state is that the state (or a public body such as a public school) can't give preference to any religion. So if the students do it on their own without any leadership from the school, the school establishment hasn't stated preference for any religion, the students have expressed their religion for themselves.

Individuals (students) have a right to express their religious views. The governmental body invovled (the school) does not have the right to establish a religion.

by reciting the Lord's Prayer. the school did not plan it.

via the court not to do it. The Administration of the school therefore had a duty to prevent the prayer. The administration did not perform its duty as an arm of the "government."

Once again, it is not the spontaneous reciting of a prayer, any prayer, that is wrong here. It's the fact that the school -- the supportive administration, the teachers, etc. -- permitted, supported, and/or encouraged it in violation of the court order.

At least one student in that school protested the "plan" to have a member of the xtian religious community give an official prayer. That's why the ACLU was brought in. That student now has seen how her/his rights have absolutely no meaning, no validity. He/she has been shown that only xtians have rights. Not only do only xtians have rights to the free practice of their religion, whenever and wherever they please, but they also have the right to FORCE everyone and anyone else to listen.

"Don't like our prayer? Then get the fuck out of our town! Or shut the fuck up while we pray, in your face, asshole heathen! And don't give us no shit about no fuckin' ACLYou, because we spit on them, and on the Constitution, too. We got rights, but you don't!"


Tansy Gold, who needs to stop hearing voices. . . . . .

The ruling was not that prayer could not be said but that the school could not lead it. The Supremes have held that student led prayer (at the podium) could lead prayer before and after graduation ceremonies(the benediction etc). Even this kid's ACLU lawyer said as much. This was a case of neither student nor admin led prayer but the students praying themselves with out lead. Was it coordinated? I would certainly guess so. But unless the school was involved, it does not matter.

If the school was acting as an arm of government to prevent people from praying in public as you wish for them to THAT would have been a violation of their 1st amendments rights.

"The Supremes have held that student led prayer (at the podium) could lead prayer before and after graduation ceremonies(the benediction etc). Even this kid's ACLU lawyer said as much. "

This is dealing with private ceremonies not part of the official graduation.

the students did.

The constitution protects my child who is being raised without religion from having her school establish a religion and therefore exclude her.

The constitution also protects the rights of Chrisitan children (or children of any other religion) to express their religion. So long as they're doing it themselves without the school leadership making their religion (or religion as a whole) the established religion of the school, they have the right to do it.

I wouldn't personally be too happy about it either, in a large part because I think it's simply rude to interrupt speakers at a graduation ceremony with a personal message whatever that message is, but that doesn't mean it isn't a constitutionally protected right.

I'm sure he's pleased. He sure showed those nonChristian heathens! And I'M so impressed that I think I'll run out right now and accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior.

:sarcasm:

Misspelling intentional. They are so religious that they haven't read their own holy book?

You know. The think about going into your closet to pray. Hiding your light under a basket. Praying in public an act of the hypocrit.

Or is it that they only believe that those PARTS of it they agree with are the word of god?

I wish some of those myth believers would tell this non believer just why hypocrisy and religion seem to be so intertwined. And it's particularly egregious in the big three western monotheistic myths.

And don't jump on my use of the word myth. Religion is defined as myth: "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society"

http://www.tfd.com/myth

This citing of a Biblical verse dealing with public prayer by self indentified non believers always cracks me up.

You do understand that Christianity has many different disciples and there are varying views throughout these different sects. There are churches that beoieve the earth is only 6000 years old andf there are chruches that see genesis as allegorical and believe evolution is no threat to their bibical vision of how we came to be.

But hey thanks for continuing the myth that non believers are complete dicks when it comes to respecting others beliefs.

not to make a big thing of it in public, or of charity, etc.

That's what bothers me most; I'm most suspicious of those who seem to have a talk about it in public, especially in a display like this. It does not seem sincere to me.

yet demands adherence to by those who do believe (even though those beliefs cover a broad spectrum).

This public nature has long been part of the culture of certain churches, I think it is disingenious to question the sincereity of these kids in terms of their prayer. That is what they have grown up with.

On edit: I wanted add that I would qualify myself as a lapsed Catholic in terms of religion.

Believers DO say they believe in the Bible. What it says is important to THEM. Quoting a bible verse while debating with a Xian is just the same as quoting the Republican party platform or the actions of Shrub with a Republican. Do we not do that becaise we don't support the party? Bull!

And you are being disingenuous here. Sure there is a huge spread of Xian belief but we're not talking about some obscure dietary exclusion in Leviticus here. The verse in question is one of the relatively few direct quotes from JC himself. I mean surely if there is something we can assume ALL Chrsitians place great emphasis on it's the actual words of Christ?

I suspect it "cracks you up" because it makes you feel uncomfortable. While I'm fully aware that the Bible is full of contradicting and vague statements that allow believer s to pick and choose what they believe, I can't think of one off the top of my head that says something like "to heck with what the guy himself said - pray out loud every chance you get - and make sure everyone else does too!" for this particular one to be a subtle exegetical question.

"While I'm fully aware that the Bible is full of contradicting and vague statements that allow believer s to pick and choose what they believe"

Exactly.

"
I can't think of one off the top of my head that says something like "to heck with what the guy himself said - pray out loud every chance you get - and make sure everyone else does too"

No but his statements have been interpreted by and large that prayer for the purpose of pride or acclaim is wrong. Otherwise nearly every denomination of Christianity is in the wrong for holding church services.

"
I mean surely if there is something we can assume ALL Chrsitians place great emphasis on it's the actual words of Christ"

Do you go to Chruch? Do you feel that is in violation of Jesus's teachings?

Only believers know what it really means when someone says don't pray to get attention?

And a misunderstanding of the great variety sects that in Christianity. Some follow Jesus a little more closely, are they then the correct religion?

That's really my point. To assert one belief as the correct one when one is an insistent that they do not believe in any of it is ridiculous.

In other words, much like people should not be told what god to believe in, they shouldn't be told what is the "correct" way to believe.

and their actions is moot because there are so many versions of the beliefs?

Pardon me....:wtf:

I don't think anyone here is telling anyone else what to believe (that's the job of these students...future little James Dobsons and Phyllis Schaflys all), but rather, using the words of their Savior to illustrate the inherent and ongoing hypocrisy exhibited by Fundamentalists in this country.

ALL of the Christian denominations share a common belief that Jesus was (and still is) actually God himself. I know there's a lot of hair-splitting about how the trinity is supposed to work, but you've still got either all or some of God there as Jesus.

To assert (as some do) that Jesus is God ... BUT ... that there's no need to pay attention to what he said during his last visit...

I'm sorry, but THAT story contradicts itself.

...in public.

Many have interpreted the words of Jesus dealing with public prayer as a condemnation of prayer for the purpose of pride.

Here's a good resource that discusses this.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/prayer.htm

it seems like the courts are trying to find the fine line as to what constitutes state endorsed religion. I think if students are praying at school/graduation or passing out flyers, then it doesnt violate seperation because they arent employees of the state. Now if a teacher is trying to pray at a graduation ceremony, i think thats where the line is crossed. People have a right to free expression, and i think the individual person needs to retain that right. its no different than kids wearing shirts that say "i worship the devil" or "george bush sucks." I think the ACLU might be a little off target on this one.

The ones who dare exercize individuality by declining this version of X-tianity are left in the cold by your interpretation of the law.

People do have a right to free expression, but not during a principal's speech at a graduation. That is being disruptive and obnoxious to others, and is most certainly not "free expression."

This situation is strikingly similar to the recent interruption and heckling of an invited guest speaker at a college commencement. Oddly, there was a thread here that actually commended the students for heckling the speaker during the address and exercising their freedom of expression. Yet this thread says that these students were out of line and had no right to free expression during their commencement.

Is the difference that one was a principal and the other an invited speaker? That one was a high school graduation and the other was college? Or that one was the heckling of McCain and the other was students invoking a prayer?

Freedom's go both ways and are not just reserved for the opinion that you may agree with.

The New School was certainly within its rights to discipline the students who heckled McCain. I'd even argue they should, as it was unfair to the students who followed the rules, and had their friends, families in attendence. However, that was probably not a civil liberties issue, as it did not involve religious sectarianism (and I'm pretty sure The New School is private). I am not a hypocrite here, so please do not paint me as one.

There is a much more pressing matter for the school to hold the students in KY accountable, as their outburst represents religious intimidation TO OTHER STUDENTS, whereas the heckling at The New College was directed at a politician with very dubious positions.

The "Freedom" you talk about is intimidtion and disruption, and does not exist in our laws.

More like an attempt to push religion into PUBLIC TAX PAYED schools. And on top of it all, it is their OWN God. Get it? How arrogant, rude and blasphemous....


There is a seperation of Church and State for a really good fucking reason. It's so that nuts don't start religious wars on other countries, and don't impose their own religious views on everybody else in THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL. When you mix the two, you have State Sponsored Religion which in itself tends to discriminate against all other peoples and their views. DUH!

Freedom of expression my ass.

I cite for you the freedom of speech and religion clause in the 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Do you disagree with the Seperation of Church and State or NOT!?

program it or plan it. even the principal as a representative of the state probably could not lead the prayer.

neither the students nor the audience represent the state.

What Church do they go to? I don't believe for a second they did this on their own.

or if Jesus told them to do it. it was not officially sponsored by the State (school). that is the only salient point in the matter.

I am sorry you can't see the difference between freedom of speech versus state sponsored prayer services.

The entire point of free expression is to ensure that people can protest, interrupt, and make their voices known WHEN THE STATUS QUO DISAGREES WITH THEM. Free expression isn't just there to enable state-approved speech at appropriate times. That's the kind of thinking that leaves us with "free speech zones".

this was a case of students expressing themselves. not the school forcing them to recite the prayer.

"Free expression isn't just there to enable state-approved speech at appropriate times"

or block women from abortion clinics, they get a thumbs up from you?

If anything, free speech requires the cooperation of the state and "secular" authorities, in order to ensure that everyone's speech is heard. That means that every student gets an equal platform to pray and promote his/her religious beliefs, which is not what happened here. These kids decided to say a prayer to thumb their noses at both the school (who were trying to accomodate ALL the students) and the non-Christians. This kind of blatanat intimidation is certainly not covered by the 'First.

You do not have a right to shout fire in a crowded theater, and that's exactly what these kids were doing. They need to be penalized by the school for the sake of all the kids they were bullying.

did does not conflict with it, at all.

This country has managed to increase the production of modern (i.e. self-maintaining) slaves. Which is the very best way to maintain profit. And, here as elsewhere, religion still is the most efficient way to do that. Contrary to the "democratic" credo, free beings are becoming extremely few. But they will survive. My heart goes to the very few kids who flip their finger at slavery.

Im not pulling any punches here I find these tasteless displays of dogma and self gratification revolting and the utter disrespect shown to those who aren't in the 'club' to be pathetic. It doesnt have to be religious dogma, it can be racial, poltical, nationalistic etc...

I wouldn't be so ticked off by this if I didnt think that most of those who participated in this little "rebellion" are utter hypocrites, mainly because I have seen SO many, especially amongst the young ones. If you spend much time around these young "crusaders of the Word" you will find most of them to be quite the opposite of what they preach. One minute they will be telling you how you are unsaved, then the next minute they will be braggin about who consumed the most alcohol and drugs the previous weekend (including Sunday, few of them ever go to church). Next perhaps will follow the comparison of notes amongst the boys on how to maximize their number of sexual encounters with bitches (their term for all women, not mine) in a given time period; but dont use a rubber, thats a sin against the Lord, and "it doesnt feel as good" either. Meanwhile the 'ladies' will be working on the clothes to wear to the next 3 or 4 clubs they intend on visiting, I mean, when you are dry humping on the guy you just met 2 minutes ago, you wouldnt want him to get the wrong impression, being that you won't fuck him if he buys you another 2 drink, why, you'll do it for only one!

and they have the nerve to call everyone else immoral? (and yes, I have witnessed all of these things).

At my HS graduation we had one prick who went on and on about how he lives a life of God (and how we all should too). Thankfully it was just one, he didn't recieve much of an applause, the rest were much more dignified.

I do hope the ACLU keeps on this and sees what legal remedies/punishments can be brought up.

rant over.

and the ACLU would not be against what they did, either.

(Remember, I taught US Government)decided to pray in her Valedictorian speech in the Middle of Conservative, redneck, after 9/11 Florida...

She prayed to ALLAH!!!

And before she did, she had everyone take off their hats and bow their heads... How's that for a political statement!

For all the Freeper lurkers out there... FREEDOM cuts both ways!

at their graduation, you can sing their praises, 'cause after all, "freedom cuts both ways." :eyes:

Well at least I know to ignore you.

(against orders and creating an uproar) when I graduated a San Francisco high-school back in 1967. I guess kids always feel they have to rebel against the perceived 'Authority' telling them what they can and can't do.




(Edited for spelling)

it's the anchor that weighs society down.

Before I start in on this, I googled up Russell Springs, Kentucky. In 2004, there were about 2500 people living within the corporate limits of Russell Springs. To serve the religious needs of these 2500 people, there are 20 churches. (Russell County, Kentucky, has 36 churches; the other 16 are in Jamestown, which is the county seat.) Thirteen of these churches claim affiliation with one of the Baptist traditions. One is a "Christian Church," two are Church of God, one's Lutheran, one's Pentecostal, there's a Methodist church in Russell Springs and one is "other." You know there's a Christian league or some other thing that provides lines of communication between these 20 churches of compatible traditions.

I also googled Russell County. 2000 stats: The whole county has population of around 16,000 spread over 250 square miles, and the population lends itself to this kind of display: it's 98 percent white. Nine percent of the population has a college degree, bachelor's or above--and they've got doctors and lawyers. Less than 70 percent of the adults in this county have graduated from high school. Nonfarm employment is about 25 percent of the population. And three-fifths of the population lives in the same house they did five years ago. There are a brazillion of these counties in the United States. The sons go to school until the 10th grade, then drop out to work on the family farm. The daughters graduate from high school because someone's got to work in the businesses downtown. They marry early, settle down and make babies. And their only social conduit is a big building with a cross on the roof. They lead a life they believe is good, and that's fine with me as it should be with you. But it is also a life which produces a lot of Christians and a lot of Republicans.

What I think happened:

Step 1: Federal judge informs the Russell Springs school they can't "have prayers" at their graduation ceremony.

Step 2: The Christian backchannel kicked in at that point. The youth ministers were all informed to tell their charges, "when the principal starts speaking, get up and start reciting the Lord's Prayer just as loudly as you can." (The valedictory address? Got news for ya: she was gonna spend the whole time talking about God no matter what the judge said.)

Step 3: The kids went to graduation and did it.

This is just too orchestrated to have been a "spontaneous" display.

But you go into furtive imagination mode when it could just have easily been done on myspace.

in their actions. I would like to know the students' reaction to a student led recitation of the "Charge of the Goddess." Methinks these students are very one-sided in their support of constitutionally protected freedom of religion or surely young Megan would have included the other students' gods in her recitation.

always look back at their high school graduation as The Moment in their lives when they "rebelled."

Well whoop-dee-DING-dong! too bad their zeal and enthusiasm don't extend beyond their superstitious, petty concerns to people outside of their caveman community who are starving or being tortured, falsely imprisoned, murdered in gruesome ways, etc. etc. by their Lord & Savior's obscene wars, or even to the people down the road who are out of work and barely getting by because of their hero's commitment to turning what used to be the greatest nation on earth into a cesspool of failed economic policies in favor of globalist robber-barons.

Students prayed to protest that decision but the law does not forbid people from praying in public.

intent of mocking the judge and the rule of law. Were they personally enjoined by the Court order from 'protesting'...probably not...but did they RESPECT the rule of law that applied to all the other students who did not interrupt the proceeding to pray to Mecca or elsewhere...hell no, they thumbed their nose at the Judge's reading of the CONSTITUTION.

Sure, they have a right to spit on the Constitution which established the separation between church and state, but that doesn't mean they are RESPECTING the Constitution when they are spitting.

they are exercising their free speech rights explicitly granted to them by the Constitution.

in publically tax payed institution. You know this is what is going on. Seperation of Church and State.

the students were exercising their right to free expression. the school did not plan or program the prayer. they were not allowed.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

But you're right- that's what those kids were doing. They didn't go against the law, either.

It's not in the Constitution, It's not in the Constitution, It's not in the Constitution, It's not in the Constitution, It's not in the Constitution...

nope... just a fundi now trying to use our Constituion to shove his/her religion on all others. I have no respect for people who would even THINK of doing what they are doing. Do you want state sponsored religions... where do you draw the line... what religions, and what happens to those of us who don't believe in your narrow intolerant "man made" rules on morality?

Disgusting! Buh bye Freedom of Religion... stupid people are here to destroy that too.

I very much respect the students for doing that. I certainly don't want the state to tell me that I can't express myself because I may offend someone.

if you really really believe in free expression then you will have to be willing to protect free speech that you don't even agree with.

most of the anti-students here are missing the point entirely. it was not the school who planned or led the prayer. it was the students who planned, spontaneously, or otherwise exercising free speech.

.

with the intent of defying a court order express or implied in the Constitution.

IMHO, it is equivalent to obtaining rights to march on a particular day on a particular street. As it turns out, some other party has right to march on that particular day on that particular street--maybe a group more pluralistic and less Christian. The Christian group decides that they will go ahead with their march anyways. The Pluralistic group gets the wind of it and asks a Judge to issue an injunction. Both parties have their day in Court and the Pluralistic groups wins.

So, instead of honoring the Courts injunction, the Christian group (or a subsection thereto) decides to march anyway in protest of the injunction thereby disrupting the Pluralist's groups march--then they have the moxie to call the protest march free speech.

"Free speech" it may be, but it was also disresptful to the originally scheduled ceremony and to the Judge who heard the case on its merits and issued a lawful order.

Call it what you will--but respectful to the spirit and intent of the Judge's order--IT WAS NOT. If the high and mighty school students had a real Constitutional issue with the Judge's order, they should have had their parents who were clapping in the audience to submit a notice of appeal and attack the legal merits of the Judge's order.

INSTEAD, they attempted to circumvent a decree of the Court for their own selfish reasons--and to hell with the ceremony, the speeches, the RULING of the Court, and integrity of the students who had the civility to contact the ACLU to challenge the "prayer" on its legal merits in a Court of law.

Lesson learned: maybe it is just more efficient to be disrespectful of the ENTIRE ceremony--next time why bother approaching the Court for an injunction, just interrupt the entire PRAYER with a rousing protest of one's own. Apparently, honoring a Court order has little bearing on one's respect for the rule of law.

Free speech maybe -- respectful recognition of the rule of law, not by a long shot.

Frankly you are dead wrong on the rule of law.

The injuction was that the school couldn't lead the prayer based on past Supreme Court decisions.

The Supremes have decided that student led prayer before or after the ceremonies are okay. Even the kid's ACLU lawayer mentions this in the article.

But the rub is that this wasn't even student led prayer, this was students simply praying, in unison of course but not as an official part of the ceremony.

You could give two shits about the rule of law, this has to do with who did the disrespecting, at least admit that much.

Yes, I am aware that the injunction applied to the school officials and not directly upon the students; and

yes, I am aware that student prayer before and after the ceremonies are okay -- but this protest was neither before nor after but during -- and doing so in AS A RESPONSE to the Court's ruling. It was done with intent to MOCK the ruling; and

yes, even a minimalist sympathetic reading of my response to this incident will reveal, that I do not believe they disobeyed the letter of the law (the order was not issued directly toward students) but they did violate the intent and spirit of the Court's ruling.

Should I readmit that since you apparently missed it the first four times.

No they did not. The Court's ruling(and by extension the judge's) is to prevent the appearance of government endorsement of religion, that is it. If the school had announced that anyone praying during the ceremony would not get their diploma or face some kind of disciplinary action, they would have been sued. In fact that has happened with valedictorian speeches for both religious and political reasons.

The students CANNOT violate the spirit or intent of a ruling that does not apply to them. I guess you could make a weak argument that the school did because one admin praised the protest or that they didn't stop the prayer. But last I checked one can still grumble about a court decision as long as one honors it and with the latter we get into the decision I described above.

The students were aware of this--yet, they interrupted the principles speech anyways. Unless, you are attempting to argue that their prayer was somehow a religiously neutral protest activity, then IMHO, your free speech defense of the their behavior toward the Court order is misplaced.

Again, I realize the order wasn't issued directly against the students and I realize that they have protest rights, but to ignore the CONTENT and TIMING of their PRAYER borders on missing the entire point of the Schempp rational for limiting school prayer--maintaining religious neutrality at school events where students of many religious persuations and non-persuasion are required to attend.

The maintaining of neutrality at school events is based on government endorsement of religion through its agents public school administrators/teachers etc. Part of this is the captive audience factor at events like graduation but the restriction on religious expression is limited to the official ceremonies. But you cannot apply this to individuals or individuals seeking to act in cooperation.

This is very much a case of the government being unable to tell you when to pray, they couldn't hold official prayer during graduation and they could not stop individuals from praying.

and intent of the law -- religious neutrality, religious neutrality, religious neutrality.

No one is saying that the students OUGHT TO BE SUED. I am saying that they violated the intent and spirit of the Judge's order (it is a very narrow distinction that I am drawing, however, uncomplicated that it may be).

Instead of the govt telling the other students WHEN to pray, some students took in upon themselves (with their motive being to mock the court order) to DISRUPT the ceremony of a captive audience, to interrupt the principles speech without regard to the other students whom may have wanted to hear the principle OR more probably who may have been their as a CAPTIVE audience who had no INTENT to PRAY or participate in the students' prayer.

If you want to congradulate them for violating the principle of religious neutrality and common respect for the ceremony and lord forbid they actually respect the feeling of other students who took the initiative to have a neutral legal arbiter consider the legal merits of religious neutrality at this particular event. Those students, who initiated the law suit, may have lost on the legal merits and as a captive audience they would have anticipated the doctrine of religious neutrality being thrown out of the window by a neutral judge. Or having lost, they could have skipped the entire event.

Instead, the student who initiated the legal process, won in a court of law, and attend the event with some assurance that religion would not be an issue----then lo and behold, the doctrine of religious neutrality is thrown out the window anyways by a group of disgruntled legal losers.

Are you really questioning whether a graduation ceremony is an offical ceremony?

Are you really questioning whether the spirit and intent of the Schemp test is to maintain religious neutrality?

Are you really questioning whether the students who initiated the action AND WON are a captive audience having to sit through the protest prayer with the attendant applause after making the effort to resolve their dispute in a Court room?

Are you really doubting that the protest prayer student would have been better served and more respectful of the law and the rights of their fellow students by waiting until AFTER the ceremony to have their gotta-have-a-prayer-and-gotta-have-in-now-moment?

I'll repeat this again: NO ONE is suggesting that the prayer students ought to be arrested or held in contempt--only state actors are subject to the protections of the establishment clause...I am only suggesting that the prayer protest was disrepectful to the Judge, the Judicial system, the principle and their fellow students in so much as the protests timing and content violated the spirit and intent of the Judge's order restricting prayer at the ceremony by interrupting the principle's speech.

want to, and (virtually) however, and absolutely TO whoever. Or, not at all. That's what the 1st Amendment is all about.

Everyone maintained that choice in this decision, AND at the actual graduation. It was correct.

graduation ceremony that included the principles speech to the graduating class were subjected to a PRAYER by SOME, to THEIR GOD, at THEIR CHOICE, HOWEVER (during the principle speech).

Based on your reading of the Schempp test, animal sacrifices in the name of Zeus or calls to worship over a bull horn would be allowed at the ceremony as long as it was done by a few disruptive zealots as long as the State didn't authorize it.

What people expect is a graduation ceremony and some remarks by the president, not a call to worship whether it be by a Christian evangelical or a Muslim separatists--we expect religious neutrality at these ceremonies. If you want to pray, you have a right to take your goat, your protesters, and your bullhorn elsewhere to do so after the ceremony is over.

"Are you really questioning whether a graduation ceremony is an offical ceremony?"

Is it your contention that the student prayer was part of this official ceremony?

"Are you really questioning whether the spirit and intent of the Schemp test is to maintain religious neutrality?"

Not all but that spirit and intent is limited to the state and its actors not individuals or groups.

"Are you really questioning whether the students who initiated the action AND WON are a captive audience having to sit through the protest prayer with the attendant applause after making the effort to resolve their dispute in a Court room?"

He/she won, the state did not lead the prayer. Whether he/she is part of a captive audience to a protest is irrelevant. I doubt that fact that student was a lone voice was a new one to them.

"Are you really doubting that the protest prayer student would have been better served and more respectful of the law and the rights of their fellow students by waiting until AFTER the ceremony to have their gotta-have-a-prayer-and-gotta-have-in-now-moment?"

Better served in what way? Just plain courtesey? Tactically? Just plain old taste?

NOT the students.

You can't force students to be non-religious any more than you can force them TO be religious.

a Judge, it takes a little civility, a basic social understanding of community norms (ie. parents and students realizing that the Judge has spoken) and a whole lot of respect for one's neighbors and fellow students to garner RESPECT for the law.

No law can force an ATHEIST or an EVANGELICAL from making an ASS out of themselves at an official ceremony where the attendees are a captive audience, but a little respect for the spirit behind the law, the formality of the ceremony and the ruling of the Courts can go a long ways on most occasions.

These students put themselves and their protest before the ceremony and the spirit of the judge's ruling and to hell with what my fellow student's might think or believe. They had to have their God, their religion, their pray right then and their before the Principle finished the speech.

No, the law can't force you to be civil...even when the Judge's takes so much time to point out what being civil means.

can not LEAD prayer. That would be the state sanctioning a religion.

But people can pray any time they please. These kids decided they wanted to pray. And, while it was TACKY AS HELL, and interrupted the ceremony, on an individual basis they had every lawful right to do what they did.

I'm a member of the ACLU. That's the way this works. That's freedom.

See also 163 for further 'opinion'

The ruling was against a member of the administration or clergy leading the student in prayer. The Supreme Court has not ruled definitively in regards to student led prayer before or after the ceremony.

What you had here was students interupting remarks by reciting prayer and the valedictorian thanking God. There is no law against that.

"
Sure, they have a right to spit on the Constitution which established the separation between church and state, but that doesn't mean they are RESPECTING the Constitution when they are spitting."

Where is the state establishing religion? What wall has been broken? Is freedom of expression only okay when we agree with it? Or only when it has the proper sanctioning of the state?

be to appeal the judge's ruling...instead of disrupting the ceremony and disrespecting the judge's ruling???? There is a Constitutional right to appeal...or was that too respectful of the law.

What part of that do I misunderstand??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

and not in one.

God or the law. Do I read you correctly here?

this is about disputing people who are maintaining that what the students did was unconstitutional.

1. You clearly come down on the side of this incident being a 1st AMEND Freedom of Expression matter. To which, I reply then: this has less to do with prayer and honoring God than it has to do with disrupting the graduation ceremony just to spite the Court and just to spite their fellow students because they can (after all it is not illegal to be a jackass). Can I get a praise the lord from the praise the lord crowd?

2. Where did you get the idea that I am one of those people who believe what the students did was unconstitutional? I have repeated suggested that it was disrespectful toward the ruling on a Constitutionally recognized authority (the Judge) and to the Constitutional rights of their fellow students in the audience who had an expectation of religious neutrality at a ceremony where they were a captive audience...but being a disrespectful jackass is not strictly speaking a Constitutional violation in and of itself.

So, if this is about disputing people who maintain that the students actions were unconstitutional, then your objections to my line of thought are misplace.

However, if you agree that this is really about the rights of a certain few to protest as loudly and abnoxiously as possible in clear disrespect the spirit and intent of a court order and furthermore to directly disrespect their fellow students who took the initiative to turn to the law for some guidance regarding the principle of religious neutrality, then I am hearing you when you say this has nothing to do with respecting God or the law and everything to do with being an unaccountable jackass just so long as you can do so with legal impunity?

Its a graduation ceremony. The injunction was granted all of 10 hours beforehand.

I suppose they could have just canceled the ceremony and appealed the decision. Or the students could have sought a counter injunction to not allow the graduation untill their appeal was heard. Or quite a few other legal avenues that are time consuming and costly.

Even then, what they did followed the law. You don't seem to understand that people are allowed to pray in public, even coordinate those activites provided the state is not involved. If the admin had recited the prayer or encouraged the kids to bow their heads or had some clergy do so, you would have a point. But that is not the case.

...one must obey an injunction or risk liability for contempt; even if the injunction is reversed on appeal, it is ordinarily binding until that reversal actually occurs. For these reasons, the defendant who intends to seek review may seek that review immediately; ALTERNATIVELY, SHE MAY ASK THE TRIAL JUDGE OR AN APPELLATE JUDGE TO STAY THE INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL.

I acknowledge that the injunction was directed toward the students--so, no Court of law will hold them in contempt. But, was their behavior contemptuous and respectfully to the Court's ruling, IMHO, it was.

Folks REALLY need to bone up on their Constitutional law.

Prayer can not be LED by school officials. Kids can pray any damned time they please- and THAT is the ACLU's position.

The End.

:sarcasm:

From the ACLU lawyer

Lutgens said earlier this week that student-initiated prayer before or after the ceremony would be OK.

understanding of these principles?

A whole lot of people don't understand the difference.

From defending the Nazis in Skokie, to Larry Flynt, to brave kids like the one who challenged the school leading the prayer, EVERYONE should get equal rights. Not just the ones we agree with or are sympathetic too.

And what is up with the rules are rules the students should be punished crowd?

They weren't advocating an interruption of the ceremony.

And so we don't play the semantics game, the Supremes have held that student led prayer to open or close the graduation ceremony is okay.

This wasn't even student led prayer, just student prayer.

"Student-led prayer" carries the assumption that is is an accepted part of the ceremony. Since a judge prevented them from ramming organized prayer into the ceremony proper, they decided to bum-rush the ceremony with a disruption...one that is neither endorsed nor defended by the ACLU:


Federal Judge Prevents Russell County High School from including Prayer at Graduation Ceremony - May 19, 2005

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order today to prevent Russell County High School from including prayer during its graduation ceremony tonight.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky sought the order on behalf of a Russell County senior who believes that the planned prayers would have been an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and of specific religious views by the school.

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday and the order was issued this morning by U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr.

“This case is not about whether people can or should pray; it’s about families and individuals deciding for themselves whether, when, and how to pray,” said Lili S. Lutgens, staff attorney at the ACLU of Kentucky, who is representing the student. “Our founders intended that these religious decisions be made by individuals and families, not the government.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the inclusion of clergy-led prayer at public school graduations and student-led prayer at school sporting events. “The Constitution forbids the state to exact religious conformity from a student as the price of attending her own high school graduation,” the court wrote in its 1992 Lee v. Weisman decision.

Students who want to pray are free to organize a private, religious baccalaureate service before or after graduation, Lutgens said, but including prayers in the official graduation ceremony is a violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition on government-sponsored religion.


http://www.aclu-ky.org/news.html

Like I said upthread, it doesn't matter if the students all got up and started speaking in tongues. They led an obnoxious disruption of a graduation ceremony that, while it certainly wasn't illegal, was disrespectful to their fellow students, their guests, their principal and their school.

This wasn't about the disruption but who was doing the disrupting.

This thread is dying for your attention

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2298639