Indiana High School Puts Graduation Prayer Up for a Vote; Valedictorian Sues

What is the argument for saying that having a school prayer at a graduation ceremony in an Indiana school is unconstitutional?

6)Christianity and democracy are like oil and water. Didn’t he read his own holy book?

Would Miko care to provide a statistic that shows most scientists *don’t* believe in evolution?

As for whether this is Christian nation…
it is.

It is also a secular nation. The fight has been raging from day one. It IS a fight, not a debate, not a discussion. Christianity did not rise to power with words, but with war and slavery.

The valedictorian is right to sue, rather than simply complain.

As Mr Jefferson said:

“…though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

Christian principles my arse.

@ Gary
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

#2 maybe?

“The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the “separation” or “no aid” interpretation, while the second approach is called the “non-preferential” or “accommodation” interpretation.”

Lazily and quickly located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

Delphine:

I didn’t that think I was trolling. I thought that I was politely hinting that it might be wise to actually read the First Amendment. If one does that, one finds that it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

Is there something about the distinction between “Congress” and “an Indiana high school class” that seems unclear?

Gary, the “free exercise” stops when it comes to the government (i.e. public schools, courthouses, city councils, federal prisons, etc.) doing the exercising. The individual people who make up the government can obviously still be religious, but the government itself can’t interfere in OR favor any particular religion. A public school (funded by tax money, run by government) can’t favor Christianity by holding a public prayer at a school event like a graduation or an assembly.

Students at such a school are still free to pray on their own and even form prayer groups. I know, because I formed one in high school, as a Christian. We met in the library during lunch hour and prayed quietly in a corner. Teachers and students can even pray together if it’s not during school hours – like they do yearly at “See You At The Pole” events.

A student giving a speech at the event can choose to exercise their right to freedom of religion by praying during their speech, as Hemant mentions in the original post.

The freedoms here are abundant, and perfectly in accord with the 1st amendment.

The school itself – as an established government body – can’t take a stance on religion by favoring, funding, or promoting one. This is to protect religion – by not allowing our government to play favorites or take positions on religions, Americans are assured we won’t end up in the shoes of the early Pilgrims and colonists, many of whom fled to avoid religious persecution by governments that DID meddle in religious affairs and take sides.

Got all that? That’s the reason, in a nutshell. While this case may seem small, it’s still relevant and important to hold a consistent standard that’s in line with the Constitution. Exceptions provide cracks that can spread, and some Americans would absolutely love to see a theocracy established. For those of us who shudder at that thought, it’s important to hold the front line, which includes events like this. The message it’s sending to the next generation (the kids who are graduating) is also important. Should they be given the message that, despite the law, a strong-arming majority can do what they like and get away with it?

JulietEcho:

Your reasoning is beside the constitutional point. True, the school is an established government body. As to whether a class thereof is also an established government body might be a matter for debate. In any case, the school is not an established part of the federal government. Still less is it the Congress of the United States. In order to argue that the actions of the school, or the class, are “unconstitutional,” it seems reasonable that one ought to be able to point to some part of the Constitution with which they conflict. Can you do so?

@ Delphine,
You are correct, Gary’s posts are almost the very definition of trolling. A rather sad attempt to alter reality by arguing “clever points” in a blog comments section. All his yammering and “questions” change nothing. He comes off as just chiming in to arouse arguments and discontent, nothing will be accomplished by his posts and he knows this very well. He is just rattling cages because he desires confrontation. So again yes that is indeed what trolling is.

Gary, honestly, I can’t tell if you’re trolling or not. You hardly seem surprised that people claim it’s unconstitutional because of the Establishment Clause, so why not start out by explaining why you think this practice is OK under the Establishment Clause? Why have this drawn-out mock-confusion where you go, “Huh? Why would it be unconstitutional? Oh, the First Amendment? Huh? Why is that relevant?” I can’t tell if you’re actually trying to troll, but the effect is that you seem to be acting intentionally ignorant in a way that’s pretty counterproductive to actual conversation.

For example, I can answer your question by pointing out that while the First Amendment alone refers only to the federal government, section 1 of the 14th Amendment has been held to apply many of the principles of the Bill of Rights (including separation of church and state) to the states, and thus applies to the actions of the school district. But I’m skeptical that I’m actually telling you anything you don’t know. I suspect, more likely, you’re just waiting for this response so that you can jump back with “Huh? Why does the 14th Amendment incorporate the Bill of Rights? Huh? Where’s this ‘separation’ you mention in the First Amendment?” And thus force me to explain, over several hundred posts, all the constitutional logic and precedent that you probably already know. Which, as you’re not a law professor engaging me in Socratic dialog that I need to pass your class, I’m not inclined to do.

What Vas said. If tomorrow the majority of people decided that the quoted pastor should be thrown out to sea, would he agree to it since it’s majority rule? Our system of government is set up to (at least sometimes) keep minority rights from being extinguished.

The school will do the only reasonable thing and that is to just cancel the graduation ceremony.

Gary,

Congressional law: All children must receive an education. For those whose parents aren’t qualified or able to provide that education and cannot afford private schools, public schools will be provided; hence, there are no exceptions to this law (and dire consequences to any parents who attempt to evade it).

Would you agree that
1) If the law mandates attendence of public school, and
2) The public school mandates attendence of religious ceremonies (e.g. group prayer) Then
3) There is a law respecting the establishment of religion?

If not, please help me identify where I’m losing you. In your response to my post, could you start by answering this hypothetical: would a law which explicitly required parents to take their children to a church service every Sunday, on penalty of imprisonment, be considered a “law which respects the establishment of religion”?

Also

6) we aren’t a democracy, we are a democratic republic, whose founding document limits government specifically to stop it from forcing majority rule on its citizens

I would love to see the valedictorian lead a bull on to the stage, set down a (prop) 10 gallon can of gasoline, and make as if to sacrifice a burnt offering right then and there.

Oh, the horror 🙂

Gary –

I don’t see why you are having such a hard time understanding that the 14th amendment applies to incorporate the school’s responsibility for protecting the rights of the students in a public school. Please re-read a summary of the Lemon Test. That explains it all. It basically states that our rights are protected from state and local intrusion as much as they are from the Federal.

You really should take a Civics class to understand how case law works. You seem to be stuck on the establishment clause being limited to Congressional actions.

I like the Fark headline:

American Family Association: “Part of being an adult is learning to tolerate speech you don’t like.” Super Bowl Nipple unavailable for comment.

with an “Ironic” tag attached, of course.

Please read the “Things That Trouble Me” column on this site. http://www.challengernewspapers.com/Things%20That%20Trouble%20Me.htm. No one is trying to convert you to a Christian (although I will pray for you) but this IS and ALWAYS has been a Christian nation. It is what our country was founded on and while atheists certainly have a right to be atheist, they do not have the right the few of them to force their beliefs upon the majority of the rest of us. Why do atheists have to make a fight out of everything and run to court. I have been to many an atheist event as well as many a homosexual event and even a few Muslim events. I do not agree with any of these issues but never object to them following their practices. And as for the soldiers in Iraq, I would not expect them to pray a Muslim prayer but I would also be just as harsh on them if they ran to court to try to stop them from having a Muslim prayer at their high school graduation.

Actually, there’s a whole bunch of misquoting of the law here. It’s anything but black and white.

Part of the reason for putting it up for vote is to try to distance the school district from any potential prayer.

If you want a secular synopsis – go here.

If you want a pretty good discussion while showing you the cynical and manipulative ways of the religious right – go here.

Actually from the news report I thought they were going on a 14th amendment equal protection/due process argument. However, the online petition goes strictly on 1st amendment grounds.

As Dawkins said there is no such thing as a “Christian Child”

There could be a “Christian Nation”, but the United States is NOT.

But as this post shows there is such a thing as a “Christian Idiot”.

The only thing controversial is is “Christian Idiot” redundant.

Mike Haubrich writes:

You really should take a Civics class to understand how case law works. You seem to be stuck on the establishment clause being limited to Congressional actions.

I am indeed stuck on the Establishment Clause being limited to congressional actions, because it is limited to congressional actions. That is expressly what it addresses, and no one here has made the case that it had, or could have had, any other meaning prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The question on the table is whether the Fourteenth Amendment CHANGED the First Amendment in such a way as to alter the words “Congress” and “law” in “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion…” such that it not only could be reasonably read, but MUST be read, “A high school class shall say no prayer….”

Just a few days ago the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opined, “In contending the Pledge [of Allegiance] is an unconstitutional religious exercise, plaintiffs erroneously fixate solely on the words “under God” and disregard the context in which those words appear. True, the words ‘under God’ have religious significance. This, however, does not turn the Pledge into a religious exercise.” Am I, like the plaintiffs in this case allegedly were, “erroneously fixating” on the wrong thing? Is the court’s opinion beyond criticism because it is, after, the opinion of a court?

I understand perfectly well how case law works. Sometimes I am troubled by the results — as for example, when it is held by some court (again with reference to the the Fourteenth Amendment) that the word “person” encompasses within the scope of its proper meaning the term “corporation,” or when it was held, by another court at another time, that the word “person” does NOT encompass within its legal meaning either “black man” or “black woman.”

Gary

Dude – your backtracking is making you look pretty embarrassing but maybe the homeschool is a little light on the Constitution.

You started out with this:

What is the argument for saying that having a school prayer at a graduation ceremony in an Indiana school is unconstitutional?

Then you followed up with this little gem:

What in the Constitution can reasonably be construed as prohibiting a high school class in Indiana from holding a prayer during their graduation ceremony?

Now you’ve finally come around (I guess Google is your friend, huh?) You’re at least making the argument that before the 14th Amendment and a bunch of cases in the 1890’s the the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states.

That argument is true however it doesn’t negate the first two moronic arguments.

The fact is, from the moment they step onto the public school campus to the moment they graduate, public school students enjoy substantial rights to free speech, free press, assembly and religion. The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and the federal Equal Access Act confer important liberties on public school students that no school official may abridge unless the exercise of those rights materially and substantially interferes with school discipline.

As the Department of Education Guidelines state, school officials must be neutral toward student religious expression. They may impose rules of order and place some restrictions on student activities, but they cannot structure or administer such rules in a way that discriminates against religious activity or speech.

Teachers and administrators are prohibited from discouraging activity because of its religious content, and from soliciting or encouraging antireligious activity.

The Watcher writes,

Except now we have a 14th Amendment, so it doesn’t really matter what the First Amendment meant before it.

Or, indeed, after it. The First Amendment, which expressly prohibits “an establishment of religion,” pertains to acts of Congress (and only to acts of Congress). The Fourteenth Amendment declares that states may not do certain things but does not expressly say whether, or to what extent, those things involve religion. If you are to find a prohibition against a prayer by a high school graduating class in the Fourteenth, you have to find it in the Due Process Clause (“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”).

Can you make a compelling case (1) that a high school class is a “state,” and (2) that its holding a prayer during a graduation ceremony constitutes said “state” depriving some person of liberty?

Ron writes,

You’re at least making the argument that before the 14th Amendment and a bunch of cases in the 1890’s the the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states.

I’m making the case

(1) That the First Amendment didn’t apply to the states either before or after the 14th Amendment because the First Amendment refers to acts of Congress, not to acts of states, and

(2) That the argument that the 14th Amendment “incorporates” the First Amendment seems to be based on nothing stronger than the claim that “the courts have said it, therefore it must be true” (from this it would be reasonable to infer that if the courts reverse themselves, as they do from time to time, we should then have to conclude that the claim is false).

I would add that the Supreme Court’s “incorporation” of the First Amendment into the 14th did not occur in the 1890’s, but in 1947, seventy-nine years after the ratification of the 14th.

Gary

Like I said – very nice backtracking and trying to cover the first few moronic statements.

Anyway, I’ll play along –

what part of

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

would not support the enforcement of the Bill of Rights upon the States?

I am glad that you learned something today. Perhaps if you get out of home school more often you wouldn’t make inane statements in the beginning.

Gary –

Did you read my question? It had nothing to do with religion. You totally ignored the question and then proceeded upon your predefined script that you were trying to make when you started this inane thread.

Read the question again and this time try to answer, OK?

Gary

Answering a question with a question is simply a way to avoid answering the question.

So I assume by your answer that you’re saying that the Bill of Rights is not “a privilege and immunities” of a United States citizen?

The question is pretty simple – stop being a moron.

Ron in Houston writes:

So I assume by your answer that you’re saying that the Bill of Rights is not “a privilege and immunities” of a United States citizen?

The First Amendment expressly reserved privileges and immunities vis-a-vis congressional action (and, by implication, not against state action). Amendments 2-9 asserted privileges and immunities, but did not specify against whom or what such privileges and immunities were reserved. In 1833 the Supreme Court asserted, in Barron v Baltimore , that they were reserved only against the federal government, not the states. The Tenth Amendment declared that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” without enumerating which powers might be reserved to the states and which powers might be reserved to the people. The 14th Amendment did not expressly assert an “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights against state action.

The courts have generally NOT held that the Second Amendment has been incorporated against the states. There have been exceptions (as within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from Apr. to Sept. 2009). The Third Amendment was only incoporated against the states within the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Seventh Amendment has never been incorporated anywhere, at any time.

If you’re implying that the 14th Amendment provided for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights in toto against the states, the record of the courts would plainly say that you are mistaken. There’s a reason that the doctrine of Selective Incorporation is called selective incorporation.

I will concede the theoretical possibility that you could be right and the courts wrong about the meaning of the Constitution. To claim this right, you need to concede that the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean what the courts say it means.

Ron in Houston writes,

This is wrong on many levels. The case that first applied the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment was decided in 1947. The beginning of the “incorporation” doctrine began with the 14th amendment and was pretty much a decided doctrine by the mid to late 1890’s. I don’t remember exactly when the first 1st amendment case was but his statement is wholly inaccurate.

You know, your case would be much strengthened if you could remember exactly when the Supreme Court incorporated the Establishment Clause against the states, and cite the case. The various rights enumerated in the First Amendment were actually incorporated at different times, from 1925 to 1947, in different cases. Whether the right to petition for redress of grievances has ever been incorporated is unclear. The case that incorporated the Establishment Clause was Everson v Board of Education.

“State” action is actually any action by government. No matter how low on the totem pole they may be. Not only does it apply to government established school districts but also things like government established water boards or transportation agencies.

And is a high school class “government”? You’re begging the question again.

Gee Gary

I see that you’re good at using Google to rescue you from being labeled as a total and complete moron, but it really doesn’t matter that I didn’t cite Everson by memory.

It’s also quite nice that you back tracked from your statement that “the Supreme Court’s “incorporation” of the First Amendment into the 14th did not occur in the 1890’s, but in 1947” and now put the dates as between 1925 and 1947.

That statement shows your complete and utter ignorance – first the 1st was not “incorporated” into the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment “incorporated” the first into the “privileges and immunities” clause and applied it to the states.

But hey, the latrine is getting really deep – you’re all covered in crap at this point.

Watcher

Think about it – religion is nothing more than a form of wishful thinking.

Oh yes, Gary, of course you just “misspoke.” That’s why you’ve gone from “What in the Constitution can reasonably be construed as prohibiting a high school class in Indiana from holding a prayer during their graduation ceremony?” to well it’s all about “selective incorporation.”

I tell you what – Google this: Charles Allen Wright. He was my Con Law professor in law school. While I certainly don’t claim to be some constitutional law scholar I do know enough to know that you’re totally and completely full of crap.

The Watcher asks:

So then, your argument is that had a whole bunch of rulings gone differently, you’d be right?

No, my argument is that, since my arguments are right, some rulings reasonably should have gone differently — and because my arguments are right, existing precedent could be overturned by a future Court without straining the Constitution. I’m not doing anything different than would be done in any classroom on constitutional law.

You can, of course, argue that my arguments are not right, but wrong. In the context of the present discussion, mentioning court opinions in the course of your argument is a perfectly correct way of pointing out how the Constitution has been and is currently applied by the courts. It does not necessarily follow that a given court opinion represents the most logical interpretation of the Constitution — that is, that it’s a good opinion. Else, by golly, you’d better just say that “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is perfectly constitutional, and that’s the end of that.

In 1857, Horace Greeley wrote in the New York Tribune, describing Dred Scott, “This decision, we need hardly say, is entitled to just such moral weight as would be the judgment of a majority of those congregated in any Washington bar-room.” Abraham Lincoln put it somewhat more judiciously (pun intended) in 1861 when he declared, “I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” My own comments are somewhat in the spirit of those like Lincoln and Greeley who criticized the Dred Scott opinion — just because the Supreme Court had issued it didn’t mean it wasn’t a piece of crap (to coin a phrase).

Yes, Gary, you’d be right, if everything were different from the way it actually is, and more like the way you wish it was.

I don’t think I’ve said or implied very much about the way I wish things were. I simply draw a distinction between what I wished the Constitution said and what it actually says.

Hey, Gary, I’m still curious: would you consider a [state] law which explicitly required parents to take their children to a church service every Sunday, on penalty of imprisonment, to be constitutional? If not, on which grounds would it fail?

JulietEcho:

Sorry, didn’t mean to ignore you. I wasn’t sure whether your comment was direct at me.

OK, it seemed to me you were making an ex cathedra statement or series of statements, not an argument about constitutional interpretation. I say that because you made no attempt to justify them by reference to anything the Constitution actually says, so I thought maybe you were simply expressing some kind of personal preference.

I think I’ve made it clear that I believe that your statements would be weak on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, and would fail completely on First Amendment grounds. If you applied your statements to the House and Senate and their chaplains and opening prayers instead of to a high school class, you’d certainly have a compelling First Amendment case as far as I’m concerned. All I can say say is “good luck” getting either Congress or the courts to agree with you there. Don’t you agree that it’s rather odd that what appear to be clear violations of the Establishment Clause are ignored by the courts with regard to congressional (and military) chaplains, the national motto, and the Pledge of Allegiance, while the courts at the same time have tripped all over themselves in finding “violations” of the Clause in things that might well not be so?

We’ll have to see what the ruling is in the Greenwood, Indiana case — if there is one. Eric Workman says that he “objects to prayer at graduation because he does not believe that anyone should be involuntarily subject to prayer and religious exercise. The people participating in, and attending, graduation should not be compelled to be involved in a religious exercise.” Does this present a compelling reason for the court to agree that he has standing to sue, or is it weak enough that the court can assert that he has no standing and refuse to consider the case on the merits? I don’t know, but a court might be happy to take the opportunity to punt on a case of this nature, as courts are wont to do. It seems to me that, if Workman’s argument gives him standing to sue, you’d have standing too, because, (a) like Workman, you appear to believe that no one participating in a graduation exercise should be subject to having to listen to a prayer conducted during the exercise, and (b) it’s not likely that you would be prohibited from attending the ceremony if you wanted to show up. And yet I can’t imagine a court agreeing that you have standing.

If the court does rule on the merits, I don’t know what the ruling will be, but if the ruling contradicts your statements, would that “prove” that your statements must have been wrong? Why or why not?

Howdy Gary,

“…not the actions of a group that are not
themselves a state agency.”

Point of clarification: are the school administrators who
1) Put the question on a poll, “should there be a prayer at the graduation ceremony?”
2) Delivered poll to the students
3) Collected and tabulated the poll results
4) Incorporated a religious ceremony into the graduation ceremony on the basis of said poll results
…members of a state agency?

“Second, I would argue that such a law would infringe on the liberty of parents to raise their children as they see fit, subject to some minimal standards of reasonableness.”

Is it within these “minimal standards of reasonableness” for parents to decide which religious ceremonies their children will and will not need to attend? Is it within the “minimal standards of reasonableness” to expect that a student who has met the graduation criteria, particularly one who achieved the honor of valedictorian, to be able to attend his or her graduation ceremony without having to also attend a religious ceremony which is contrary to his or her religious beliefs?

Finally, setting all legalese aside, here’s more of an ethical question: would you consider it a hardship on the students or administration, had the administration simply *not* put the “prayer option” on the poll in the first place? If your son or daughter came home from school and said, “I really wish we could do a group prayer during graduation, but my teachers didn’t poll the student body to see if a majority of students also wanted that.”, would you think her freedom of religious expression was being infringed upon? What if we replace “graduation” with “spelling bee”, “geography quiz bowl”, “after school soccer game”, or any other public school activity? If your answer is “no reasonable person would construe the lack of such a poll in this context to be an infringement of religious expression”; and you can hopefully see how those of a minority religious view *might* reasonably consider such polling to *be* an infringement of their religious expression; could you at least agree that the polling in question here is the less ethicially upstanding route for the administration to take?

I never knew there were ANY third amendment cases. I’d actually be interested to see how in the heck that case ever came to be in the court system.

Ron, you can google Engblom v. Carey if you’re curious.

2) Does anyone really believe he’d start praising Allah at a graduation ceremony if he lived in a Muslim nation?

Of course not. But, he may be willing to sit quietly and politely through a ceremony invoking the deity of choice for everyone around him – insane as that deity is.

I don’t have a problem with majorities being able to dictate their will respecting trivial matters like graduation, or prom, or just about anything else having to do with HS.
If a majority want to be all about Jesus for a few minutes I’m be OK with the rest having to sit and bear it. In this case, I’d tolerate the Jesus-talk. What I wouldn’t do is waste taxpayer money and limited local resources on yet one more battle in the culture war brought to you by demagogues and fanatics.

He’s valedictorian. Won’t he be given a podium whence to address his classmates? He could’ve used that as an opportunity to expound on separation of church and state.

Even if he wins…so what.

Hemant,
While I agree completely with your stance on this issue and I appreciate you making it visible to a larger public, the second line of your text–“It’s illegal, it’s unconstitutional, it’s… Indiana. That explains it”–was unnecessary and condescending. Plenty of people here in Indianapolis stand behind this young man, and it may surprise you but the second largest religious group at this Greenwood High School is Sikhism, due to a community of around 2 or 3 thousand families living in the area. In all likelihood the school will withdraw the prayer before this goes to court, because we know it doesn’t stand a chance of winning. You make it sound like Indiana is an anomaly here, when these sort of prayers-in-school controversies still take place all over the country, and not just in the “red” states (or “purple” like Indiana seems to be these days).