[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Hmmm, the test for a violation of the Establishment clause is whether it amounts to "endorsement" not "proselytizing." Even if a school ceremony did not in effect say "I want you to be a Christian," if it said in effect "this is the religion we like and approve," it would probably fail the test.

Yeah, I know. I was working under the assumption that, in this circumstance (a public high school graduation), proselytization equals de facto "endorsement".


(NOTE: I think I stated this better in my previous post.)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

That is debatable. But then again, secular humanism is not a religion

Not officially. But that is all that stops it from being so. It's a set of beliefs that some people live by. That ultimately they are God.

so it is not likely to run afoul of Constitutional measures designed to prevent a religious person from using a public position to advocate for one religion over another.

No, but they can talk out AGAINST Christianity by doing so.

So right now in the USA, you are allowed in the school systems to promote and go against religious ideals. But not the opposite.

Sad state of affairs. IMHO of course.

I wonder if Kevin is aware that many religious people are secularists too.

Secular Humanism by definition rejects the supernatural. So they are at odds with themselves.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

She was encouraging those that would be interested in such a thing to go that direction. Because it worked for her.

How is that any different from encouraging homosexuals to come out of the closet? If they're in the closet, they might be interested in going in that direction.

What you need to be prepared for is that if it's ok for a Christian to encourage people to join his/her religion in such a setting, then it's ok for people of other beliefs to do so as well.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Secular Humanism by definition rejects the supernatural. So they are at odds with themselves.

Indeed. Yet, most of the western world is secular. People are gradually waking up. It's good to see a re-enlightenment in my time.

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Secular Humanism by definition rejects the supernatural. So they are at odds with themselves.

That's like saying 'Cheeseburger atheists' then saying only atheists like cheeseburgers.

You don't have to be a humanist to be a secularist. They aren't inexplicably linked. Which is why a lot of religious people are also secularists. The importance of secularism is one of the few things that supernaturalists and non-supernaturalists can often agree on.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Not officially. But that is all that stops it from being so. It's a set of beliefs that some people live by.

Not all beliefs are religion. "A set of beliefs that some people live by" is a fair description of a philosophy.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

How is that any different from encouraging homosexuals to come out of the closet? If they're in the closet, they might be interested in going in that direction.

Not different at all. As a matter of fact, earlier in my thread I said what she said was more like above. Then trying to just get anyone to turn gay.

What you need to be prepared for is that if it's ok for a Christian to encourage people to join his/her religion in such a setting, then it's ok for people of other beliefs to do so as well.

Um, prepared? "others" have been "preaching the "word" for awhile. I am well used to it.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Indeed. Yet, most of the western world is secular.

Wah? I'd love to see those statistics.

People are gradually waking up. It's good to see a re-enlightenment in my time.

Waking up? more condescending pretentiousness. As if you know what the "truth" is and aren't just guessing like everyone else.

Originally Posted by Graviton 

That's like saying 'Cheeseburger atheists' then saying only atheists like cheeseburgers.

No, that isn't what I am saying at all.

You don't have to be a humanist to be a secularist.

No indeed. But *I* was talking about secular humanism.

They aren't inexplicably linked. Which is why a lot of religious people are also secularists.

I would say they were more for free will. Just like the "gov" the "big guy" set up for us. He gave us all free will to choose what we want to believe in. I believe in giving humans the same choice God has given IMHO. Most Christians are too.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Not all beliefs are religion. "A set of beliefs that some people live by" is a fair description of a philosophy.

We can argue semantics all day long till the cows come home. To me anything that replaces God in your life has become your "religion" I am using it in a generic way.

Some people socializing is their religion. Some riding bikes is..

Now by saying that I am not saying that YOU TOO have to believe such a thing. I am just giving MHO.

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No indeed. But *I* was talking about secular humanism.

You were responding to what *I* said about "secularism" (you even quoted me).

I would say they were more for free will. Just like the "gov" the "big guy" set up for us. He gave us all free will to choose what we want to believe in. I believe in giving humans the same choice God has given IMHO. Most Christians are too.

Well, "big guy" or no "big guy", I believe in free will as well (not that either of us could prove that we have it).

Many religious people and non-religious people alike call themselves secularists, because all secularism means is that the state does not endorse any specific religion over another. Religion is a private affair and no business of the state.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

You were responding to what *I* said about "secularism" (you even quoted me).

Your response that I was responding to was a response to my post about secular humanism.

Well, "big guy" or no "big guy", I believe in free will as well (not that either of us could prove that we have it). Many religious people and non-religious people alike call themselves secularists, because all secularism means is that the state does not endorse any specific religion over another. Religion is a private affair and no business of the state.

Ok, what part of this was I arguing? Or are we pulling arguments out of nothing again?

[Graviton]

Ok. You're playing games.

Nevermind.

[Monique]

Why do you need to mention Jesus everywhere?

Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to chant his name everywhere?

Can we have a Jewish prayer in ceremonies instead of a Christian one?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Monique 

Why do you need to mention Jesus everywhere?

Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to chant his name everywhere?

Can we have a Jewish prayer in ceremonies instead of a Christian one?

Who are you talking to???

[nonhuman]

It seems to me that one of the very central, if not most important, facets of this issue is being ignored. Even if she had gotten up on that podium and said 'Jesus Christ is your lord and savior, accept him into your hearts and repent your sins or suffer eternal damnation', so what?

This whole 'separation of church and state' thing (which I wholeheartedly agree with) is derived from the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant rights to people, the constitution defines and limits the powers of the government and enumerates certain rights that are so sacrosanct (and that are considered innate to the human condition, not things 'granted' by powers greater than ourselves) that we want to make absolutely clear that the government is not to mess with them. One of those rights is the right to believe and worship as you see fit. As such, the government is enjoined from advocating one religion over another, and in particular from doing so by creating an established church. The courts have (rightly, in my opinion) interpreted this to mean that public schools, which are an extension of the government, should also not advocate one religion over another or encourage students towards any particular religion.

Students, however, are not part of the government. They are private citizens. As such, the Constitution does not limit their powers, instead it guarantees their rights. This girl was not a government employee. She was not a representative of the government or of the school. She was not giving an official speech sanctioned by the government or the school. In as much as her speech was (supposed to be) reviewed and approved beforehand by the school it could be said that her speech would represent the schools views, but she deviated from that. It would have been improper for the school to approve a speech with such a message, but there was nothing improper in her saying such a thing of her own accord. Yes, she should probably get a slap on the wrist for giving a different speech from the one that was approved, but no more.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

How is that any different from encouraging homosexuals to come out of the closet? If they're in the closet, they might be interested in going in that direction.

What you need to be prepared for is that if it's ok for a Christian to encourage people to join his/her religion in such a setting, then it's ok for people of other beliefs to do so as well.

Me? I'm completely prepared. I'm not afraid of free speech no matter who exercises it. As long as it doesn't cause me to die in a stampede or something, I'm cool with it.

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by pixelbaker 

save religion for the baccalaureate service. it has no place in an educational commencement with such a diverse group of people present.

Yep. Religious fundamentalism is not the right thing in ANY of those official places. And she knew it, otherwise she would not have tricked the thing inside her speach that way.

And now she complains and makes a big fuzz of it - and probably she even will get support by religious fanatics or people who don´t think it through.

[Doofy]

And yet the religion of Gaia is actively promoted by government and state establishments.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Students, however, are not part of the government. They are private citizens. As such, the Constitution does not limit their powers, instead it guarantees their rights.

What is the government? It's people, it's citizens. In the case of public schools, it's citizens who are teachers and administrators while they're at work. When they're home praying with their families, they're not the government. In the case of an official program put on by the school, the program involves teachers and administrators and other citizens like students, who become part of the official government-approved graduation ceremony temporarily. The graduation ceremony is an official school program, regardless of who is involved.

Of course a student (or teacher, or anyone who is part of government temporarily while at work) can pray by themselves or with a group, as long as it's not part of the official program put on by the government institution. But what if a student led an officially sanctioned prayer? Would that be OK?

I agree with the current state of the law, which says that schools can't have official religious endorsements like prayers, whether those prayers are led by teachers or students or other citizens. I don't see how else it would work.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

What is the government? It's people, it's citizens. In the case of public schools, it's citizens who are teachers and administrators while they're at work. When they're home praying with their families, they're not the government. In the case of an official program put on by the school, the program involves teachers and administrators and other citizens like students, who become part of the official government-approved graduation ceremony temporarily. The graduation ceremony is an official school program, regardless of who is involved.

Wow. That's quite a stretch. Students celebrating their intellectual achievements have now become "the government". Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers NEVER intended for the limits put on the state to extend to squelching people's first amendment rights just so those who are uncomfortable with ANY exposure to religion can feel good about themselves. When you've got to go down such a slippery slope to justify that sort of government censorship with that degree of "reaching" and rationalization, it's clear that it's not to protect people's rights, but rather to limit them.

Anyone who confuses the exclamations of teenagers during a public celebration as government forced establishment of an official religion is looking for ways to limit other people's right to free expression and right to express their religious beliefs. You can't protect rights by going out of your way to squash those of others via huge dishonest rationalizations, IMO. When a Principle (an official representative of the school paid by the government) forces people to pray during the ceremony or the child in question says something that causes some sort of real harm, I'd buy censoring their speech. Telling Suzy or Bobby that they can't practice what is protected by the first amendment because it might make some uncomfortable I can't buy as any sort of "protection. Sorry, I wasn't born yesterday.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wow. That's quite a stretch. Students celebrating their intellectual achievements have now become "the government". Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers NEVER intended for the limits put on the state to extend to squelching people's first amendment rights just so those who are uncomfortable with ANY exposure to religion can feel good about themselves. When you've got to go down such a slippery slope to justify that sort of government censorship with that degree of "reaching" and rationalization, it's clear that it's not to protect people's rights, but rather to limit them.

It seems crystal clear to me and not a stretch in the slightest: Official school program = no endorsements of religion. The other 99.99% of students' lives where they're not giving the 10-minute speech can be spent praying and converting people if they wish. I'm sorry, but it's not an imposition to ask students to resist trying to convert people to their religion for 10 minutes during an officially-approved program. That's the current state of the law, and I think it's common sense and very logical and the only way to support the constitution. Why do you hate America and our constitution?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It seems crystal clear to me and not a stretch in the slightest: Official school program = no endorsements of religion.

....by private citizens not representing the government. Seems crystal clear that in an attempt to protect people from being exposed to religion (something the founding fathers never intended) by taking away the first amendment rights of others. If the school is seen to represent the government, and the government is telling people who are private citizens NOT paid representatives of the government that their first amendment rights are going to be violated, not because they represent a danger, but because they make some uncomfortable - then it's a clear violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't limit our first amendment rights based on where we are located when we decide to exercise them. In fact, they were put into place PRECISELY to stop this sort of thing. It's another example of improper judicial intrusion caused by the fear of lawsuits from those who only want certain people and groups to have rights.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

....by private citizens not representing the government. Seems crystal clear that in an attempt to protect people from being exposed to religion (something the founding fathers never intended) by taking away the first amendment rights of others. The Constitution doesn't limit our first amendment rights based on where we are located when we decide to exercise them. In fact, they were put into place PRECISELY to stop this sort of thing. It's another example of improper judicial intrusion caused by the fear of lawsuits from those who only want certain people and groups to have rights.

Bingo!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

....by private citizens not representing the government. Seems crystal clear that in an attempt to protect people from being exposed to religion (something the founding fathers never intended) by taking away the first amendment rights of others. The Constitution doesn't limit our first amendment rights based on where we are located when we decide to exercise them. In fact, they were put into place PRECISELY to stop this sort of thing. It's another example of improper judicial intrusion caused by the fear of lawsuits from those who only want certain people and groups to have rights.

The government is composed of private citizens. They're not some alien race separate from normal human beings. By your logic, the President or the Speaker of the House should be able to lead the country in a religious capacity because they're private citizens in their private lives. It's logically no different from a student who speaks at an official school program, but otherwise is a private citizen.

Hey, love it or leave it. If you hate our Establishment Clause, our Constitution, and our laws so much, I'm sure there are governments around the world that have no problem with promotion of religion in their official ceremonies.

[stupendousman]

..and the idea that the intent of the Constitution was to be able use it to stop people from expressing their first amendment rights (both speech and religious expression) when it's CLEAR we are dealing with a personal expression and not an official endorsement from the government is shameful. The 1st was designed specifically to protect forms of speech and expression that makes some uncomfortable. Yet, that's exactly what current unconstitutional laws and regulations do.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The government is composed of private citizens. They're not some alien race separate from normal human beings.

The people in question aren't paid by the government in the capacity they are practicing their first amendment rights, and are clearly expressing their personal beliefs. That is not "the government' by any stretch of logic.

By your logic, the President or the Speaker of the House should be able to lead the country in a religious capacity because they're private citizens in their private lives.

The president expresses his personal faith in speeches to American citizens all the time. Perfect example. Thanks.

Hey, love it or leave it. If you hate our Establishment Clause, our Constitution, and our laws so much, I'm sure there are governments around the world that have no problem with promotion of religion in their official ceremonies.

I have no problems with the "Establishment Clause". I support it fully. I do have a problem with this "separation of church and state" clause that doesn't exist in the Constitution and has replaced the "Establishment Clause" which has be derived to rob people of their first amendment rights when it makes certain people feel uncomfortable.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

..and the idea that the intent of the Constitution was to be able use it to stop people from expressing their first amendment rights (both speech and religious expression) when it's CLEAR we are dealing with a personal expression and not an official endorsement from the government is shameful. The 1st was designed specifically to protect forms of speech and expression that makes some uncomfortable. Yet, that's exactly what current unconstitutional laws and regulations do.

I don't get it. What's so difficult about seeing that when it's a government-sponsored ceremony, it's not private speech?

What about this stupendousman. What if the President had the Pope make religious proclamations about how the Catholic church is the only true church and such, during a State of the Union address. The President wouldn't be doing the religious thing, only the Pope, and the Pope is not a government official. By your logic, I don't see what would be wrong with that. Can you explain the difference, please? Or would you support that, too?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I don't get it. What's so difficult about seeing that when it's a government-sponsored ceremony, it's not private speech?

Because the speech you are asked to give is a reflection of your private thoughts, and not a regurgitation of government policy. Constitutionally, the government can't ask someone to express their private thoughts about a matter (in this case, their personal intellectual achievements), then state that if those private thoughts include religious expression then you are censored from expression. That's a clear violation of the first amendment.

The President wouldn't be doing the religious thing, only the Pope, and the Pope is not a government official. By your logic, I don't see what would be wrong with that. Can you explain the difference, please? Or would you support that, too?

I'm pretty sure that the "State of The Union" is reserved for the President (an employee of the United States Government) to state official government policy. Whether he does that himself or uses a surrogate to do it would be irrelevant and any official policy endorsed or expressed by the President which violates the Constitution would be illegal. The very purpose of the SOTU is for the POTUS to state official policy. The purpose and intent of graduation speeches is for people to express their personal observations on their personal achievements in academia.

I think you're really stretching to find a comparable situation. There's been LOTS of times the President has been acting in his official capacity and personal faith and religion have been brought up by him or others in his presence. Though, he could state that he personally would use his faith and any other faith based device (prayer, voodoo dolls, meditation) in trying to achieve his secular government role during the SOTU and there not be a Constitutional problem. It might seem inappropriate (which I actually think is the case with the "Jesus" in school speeches) but not unconstitutional. The first amendment was put into place protect speech some might find inappropriate or uncomfortable. You can't have it only for the stuff you find appropriate and have the government make up excuses for why they want to censor it when it makes you uncomfortable. That was NEVER the intent of the first amendment.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Students, however, are not part of the government. They are private citizens.

Really? So all the President has to do is take a class at a community college and he's no longer bound to follow the Constitution in his duties?

No. You're posing a false dichotomy here. It is entirely possible to be both a student and an agent of the government. In fact, from what I can tell, all they're asking for here is for the student to acknowledge that she wasn't acting as a representative of the state school when she said that.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Because the speech you are asked to give is a reflection of your private thoughts, and not a regurgitation of government policy. Constitutionally, the government can't ask someone to express their private thoughts about a matter (in this case, their personal intellectual achievements), then state that if those private thoughts include religious expression then you are censored from expression. That's a clear violation of the first amendment.

But that's not the way it works: Schools in general, and in this case in particular, approve of speeches. This is obvious and common sense - a school isn't going to be happy if the student advocates heroin, or sex with children, or whatever. So they approve the speech. It's very revealing to note that in this case, the school had approved a speech by this student, but then the student changed it and asked people to accept Christ into their lives. She knew exactly what she was doing, and she knew it was wrong or she wouldn't have gotten a different speech approved by the school.

I'm pretty sure that the "State of The Union" is reserved for the President (an employee of the United States Government) to state official government policy. Whether he does that himself or uses a surrogate to do it would be irrelevant and any official policy endorsed or expressed by the President which violates the Constitution would be illegal. The very purpose of the SOTU is for the POTUS to state official policy. The purpose and intent of graduation speeches is for people to express their personal observations on their personal achievements in academia.

I think you're really stretching to find a comparable situation. There's been LOTS of times the President has been acting in his official capacity and personal faith and religion have been brought up by him or others in his presence. Though, he could state that he personally would use his faith and any other faith based device (prayer, voodoo dolls, meditation) in trying to achieve his secular government role during the SOTU and there not be a Constitutional problem. It might seem inappropriate (which I actually think is the case with the "Jesus" in school speeches) but not unconstitutional. The first amendment was put into place protect speech some might find inappropriate or uncomfortable. You can't have it only for the stuff you find appropriate and have the government make up excuses for why they want to censor it when it makes you uncomfortable. That was NEVER the intent of the first amendment.

This wasn't unacceptable because it made people feel uncomfortable, it was unacceptable because it was an official government-approved ceremony. If the student had said "accept Jesus into your life" on the street on her own time, it wouldn't have been a violation of our Constitution, no matter how uncomfortable it might have made someone feel. It would have been covered by the Free Exercise Clause. When she is part of a government-sponsored ceremony, it's covered by the Establishment Clause, and she shouldn't do it. It's common sense, it's logical, and it happens to be the law.

I'll ask again: Why do you hate America?

[Dakarʒ]

From what I understand, isn't a high school student's free speech not guaranteed? Regardless, the student purposely didn't recite their 'real' speech in rehearsal, leading one to believe they damn well they shouldn't do it.

Edit: You know, as much as I don't support her actions, I do have to say I think its BS that the school is holding her diploma. Her actions just don't justify that. I suppose there's nothing that the school can do at this point but that, but hey, tough ****. I for one don't mind if students (non-criminally) burn their bridges on their way out, seeing as the school officials pretty much have you by the balls for four years.

[Graviton]

I only ever mention Jesus during sex.

Christ, specifically.

[Graviton]

Actually, that's not true. I also mention him when I see a massive pair of knockers.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

I only ever mention Jesus during sex.

Christ, specifically.

Oh, I was thinking Martinez. I always mention him during sex.

[Dakarʒ]

This thread just got more interesting.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dakar? 

From what I understand, isn't a high school student's free speech not guaranteed? Regardless, the student purposely didn't recite their 'real' speech in rehearsal, leading one to believe they damn well they shouldn't do it.

Actually, I was waiting for someone to bring this up. Yep, it makes sense logically and even constitutionally that schools should be able to restrict some speech which would cause a student harm, encourage illegal activity or if the student chose to engage in obscene expression. I can't fathom a compelling rationale which would invalidate a student's right to free expression of religion since it is STRICTLY prohibited from Government intervention unlike the other examples. Our founding fathers explicited restricted ANY restraint on religious expression. None. ZERO. Nada. Unless you can rationally show how a student explaining their personal relationship with their higher power would be confused by the average person as the Government telling EVERYONE that they too have to worship that power, you're going to be grasping at straws.

Edit: You know, as much as I don't support her actions, I do have to say I think its BS that the school is holding her diploma. Her actions just don't justify that. I suppose there's nothing that the school can do at this point but that, but hey, tough ****. I for one don't mind if students (non-criminally) burn their bridges on their way out, seeing as the school officials pretty much have you by the balls for four years.

Now, if there are rules and she violated them, then punishment is appropriate. But what about when those rules violate the constitution, as the ones in questin do? The student is being told that if they don't retract their free expression of religion (something strictly protected by the Constitution) that the government is going to act to harm them in some way? THAT is government censorship and people who care about such things should be up in arms. Funny, but the ACLU is usually silent in defense of relgious expression when it comes up against the invented "wall" which there is no strict and clear Constitutional requirement for. Again...SCARY.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And yet the religion of Gaia is actively promoted by government and state establishments.

[Dakarʒ]

You know what would have been the appropriate venue for her speech? The baccalaureate they usually hold before graduation.

[wobbly]

Good for them. Kids are about to go out into the real world and start their lives. We would say they are very naive if they had mentioned santa claus, the tooth fairy, or thousands of other 'gods' various cultures have worshiped or believed in throughout time, yet idiots continue to believe in this mythical christian god too.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by wobbly 

Good for them. Kids are about to go out into the real world and start their lives. We would say they are very naive if they had mentioned santa claus, the tooth fairy, or thousands of other 'gods' various cultures have worshiped or believed in throughout time, yet idiots continue to believe in this mythical christian god too.

Trolling works better if it's a little less obvious, dude.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

But what about when those rules violate the constitution, as the ones in questin do? The student is being told that if they don't retract their free expression of religion (something strictly protected by the Constitution) that the government is going to act to harm them in some way? THAT is government censorship and people who care about such things should be up in arms. Funny, but the ACLU is usually silent in defense of relgious expression when it comes up against the invented "wall" which there is no strict and clear Constitutional requirement for. Again...SCARY.

The rules absolutely do not violate the Constitution, they're completely consistent with the law. Look up cases like Santa Fe v. Doe, where the Supreme Court has held that student-led prayer at HS football games violates the Establishment Clause. It's fine and dandy that you disagree with American law, everyone does in some cases, but when you say that the school is violating the constitution, you're replacing the law with your opinion.

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Oh, I was thinking Martinez. I always mention him during sex.

Whatever helps keep the wolf from the door, if you know what I mean.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The rules absolutely do not violate the Constitution, they're completely consistent with the law.

How can a rule which completely invalidates clear first amendment protections (without regard to whether the interest in question is equally weighted) be constitutional? Trick question: it can't. You can probably fine case law out the hooha which will argue (illogically) that you can take away someone's first amendment rights because using them might make others uncomfortable, but you can't actually find it anywhere in the Constitution or in the intent of the founding fathers. In other words...people (especially judges) like to make sh#t up when it suits their political viewpoint regardless of the lack of common sense, logic or intent of those who made the laws.

Look up cases like Santa Fe v. Doe, where the Supreme Court has held that student-led prayer at HS football games violates the Establishment Clause. It's fine and dandy that you disagree with American law, everyone does in some cases, but when you say that the school is violating the constitution, you're replacing the law with your opinion.

Uh..no. I'm simply stating what is in the consitution and what the intent of the founding fathers is. You know...the facts that judges are supposed to take into account when they judge cases - rather than their own personal desires?

I believe though the example you just gave differs significantly from what we are talking about though. I'd say that the "football prayer" example leans more toward the "Bush SOTU" and may very well stray into unconstitutional behavior. If a school administrator who is responsible for planning the football game plans part of the event specifically so that an activity whose sole intent is religious, then they are a government agent acting in their official duties engaging in religious activity, In the case of a graduation speech, the student in question earns the right to express themselves regarding their experience during their academic achievement. The intent is not for religious programing, but for a general expression of the personal reflection of those asked to speak.

In one case, you're specifically requesting that students act in a religious manner and in the other the students on their own are expressing their constitutionally protected rights as part of their speech. It's all about intent. You could be confused into thinking that an "official" lead prayer at a school function might be an expression of establishment since a person acting in their official capacity as a government employee is making time (and school resources like the microphone/PA) for something whose only reason is religion. A reasonable person who listed to a young girl talk about her personal relationship to Jesus...Satan...the Great Noodly Appendage...sorry, I'm not buying it. Not one bit. One is restraint on direct religious action, the other "prior restraint" on personal religious expression and unconstitutional government censorship (especially since she's being punished for her protected expression) no matter how you look at it (if you are looking at it rationally and based on intent).

[Chuckit]

Get it straight: She's not being punished for her protected expression. She's being punished for going behind the school's back to use her official capacity in a school event to promote religion. The school prayer case is very apropos. She was part of a school event. The only functional difference is that the football thing was a passive religious gesture and the commencement speech was openly promoting religion.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Get it straight: She's not being punished for her protected expression. She's being punished for going behind the school's back to use her official capacity in a school event to promote religion.

Her "official capacity" is to express her personal thoughts on her academic experience as a non-employee of the government entity in question. The school has no legal right to unconstitutionally restrict her first amendment rights in the first place if they have asked her for her free expression. In other words, you can't say "hey, we'd like you to write a speech about your academic experience....but when you tell us about it you're forbidden from exercising your first amendment protections by mentioning religion". That's prior restraint regarding something that is specifically and clearly forbidden by the government to censor.

By your logic, if you are employed by the government and they decide that you must first get it's permission to be openly gay at work (permission which is never granted), that being fired after being found to have had gay sex isn't a violation of your personal privacy, but rather you were fired for going behind the government's back to do something which requires it's permission. In both cases, the government has no right to restrict you from your free expression rights so any punishment garnered for doing so is a matter of illegal censorship. You can't logically be fairly punished for not complying with clearly unconstitutional mandates

The school prayer case is very apropos. She was part of a school event.

AGAIN...the Constitution (and the intent of the founding fathers) was not meant to limit where it is your unalienable right to free expression should be protected. As long as it can be shown not to fall under the "fire in a crowded building" standard (causing danger or real harm) or you can logically show how there would be clear confusion that the person in question was not expressing themselves personally, but rather speaking for the government (something that couldn't rationally be assumed during a speech written by a student, expressing their personal reflections) you can't restrict someone's first amendment rights. There is no rationale other than such a thing makes some people uncomfortable given that there is in no way any kind of clear or even likely possibility there would be confusion in this case. The overwhelming interest in in the protection of the persons right to expression, not for someone else to be free from being exposed to it (which is not constitutional).

[BRussell]

stupendousman, you keep talking about what the founders intended and what the constitution means. But people differ on their interpretations of those things. We can't just take the opinion of stupendousman on the internet and say that's the law, because everyone will have a different interpretation of how the constitution applies in a given situation. So we have courts, whose role in the American legal system is to do this. And in this case, I think it's clear that your opinion differs from American law. The Supreme Court (including conservative Supreme courts, BTW) has been quite clear that a violation of the Establishment Clause during a school ceremony is still a violation even if a student does it.

I also disagree with your opinion, and think it's much simpler to say "government event = no endorsements of religion, private events = endorse all you want." But that's a matter of purely subjective opinion and taste. The state of American law is not. If you can find some other cases that support your position, please provide them.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

stupendousman, you keep talking about what the founders intended and what the constitution means. But people differ on their interpretations of those things.

Only when it serves their purpose.

A. The words are pretty clear. They weren't chosen by accident.
B. While there were some founders that wanted stricter controls implemented on the "establishment" (ie: the "Wall" as mentioned privately by some), the majority wouldn't agree to such a thing. It was purposely stated the way it is so that there wasn't a greater importance put on either restricting people from having exposure to religious expression or being stopped from doing so. You don't have to look any farther than how government handled religious expression back during the founder's days to see that they intended no over-reaching limits on people's expression as long as there was no reasonable belief that it could be confused with what would be official government policy. The amendment would make no sense otherwise.

We can't just take the opinion of stupendousman on the internet and say that's the law, because everyone will have a different interpretation of how the constitution applies in a given situation.

You don't have to. You can show me where the majority of the founding fathers intended for religious expression to be so strictly controlled. Not just one or two guys stating what they'd like that the rest of the guys never agreed to, but a fairly clear amount of evidence that the founders intended for their well balanced "establishment" clause to be interpreted that ANYTHING done in conjunction with government must be given greater weight then an individual's right to expression. I've seen it tried, but not without the huge logical leaps and intellectual dishonesty we've seen here in this thread.

So we have courts, whose role in the American legal system is to do this. And in this case, I think it's clear that your opinion differs from American law. The Supreme Court (including conservative Supreme courts, BTW) has been quite clear that a violation of the Establishment Clause during a school ceremony is still a violation even if a student does it.

A conservative Supreme Court has ruled on a situation which is essentially the same as the one we are talking about now?

I also disagree with your opinion, and think it's much simpler to say "government event = no endorsements of religion, private events = endorse all you want." But that's a matter of purely subjective opinion and taste. The state of American law is not. If you can find some other cases that support your position, please provide them.

If you're going to state your argument as: "Well, current courts says it's okay, so it's okay so you are wrong", then you've developed your argument on the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy. Courts are overturned and new precedents are set all the time. I'm arguing based on the actual words and intent...the same things courts are SUPPOSED to decide based on, but often times don't. When judges decide to legislate instead of adjudicate, you'll have "laws" which don't reflect the spirit or letter of the laws they are supposed to be interpreting. If that law has been interpreted that your first amendment protections as an individual are void and null if you're involved in any kind of government action where you are not a paid representative of the government engaging in official business, then the "law" is bulls*t having no relevance to the Constitution or the framer's intent. If you can show me that either the letter of the law, or the majority opinion of the founding fathers would have supported such a thing, go for it. Given that the OFFICIAL government stance of our founding fathers are that "we are endowed by our creator" with the rights in question, it's a pretty huge leap of logic to suggest that they would wish for those rights given by our God to stop just because an individual is involved with some kind of government action in a non-official capacity. I'm simply calling BS on the whole notion. It's a non-starter for anyone thinking critically in the manner the framers intended.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Only when it serves their purpose.

A. The words are pretty clear. They weren't chosen by accident.
B. While there were some founders that wanted stricter controls implemented on the "establishment" (ie: the "Wall" as mentioned privately by some), the majority wouldn't agree to such a thing. It was purposely stated the way it is so that there wasn't a greater importance put on either restricting people from having exposure to religious expression or being stopped from doing so. You don't have to look any farther than how government handled religious expression back during the founder's days to see that they intended no over-reaching limits on people's expression as long as there was no reasonable belief that it could be confused with what would be official government policy. The amendment would make no sense otherwise.

You don't have to. You can show me where the majority of the founding fathers intended for religious expression to be so strictly controlled. Not just one or two guys stating what they'd like that the rest of the guys never agreed to, but a fairly clear amount of evidence that the founders intended for their well balanced "establishment" clause to be interpreted that ANYTHING done in conjunction with government must be given greater weight then an individual's right to expression. I've seen it tried, but not without the huge logical leaps and intellectual dishonesty we've seen here in this thread.

You're still essentially repeating the notion that you personally know best. The words are clear, but they're also extremely general. The Establishment clause exists, but it's very short and sweet. So it's the job of the courts to apply it to specific situations like this one. I think a system of checks and balances, where courts fulfill their constitutional obligation to interpret the law, is critical to our system functioning. That's in the Constitution too, and if you don't want courts to do their job, you're not following it.

Furthermore, the constitution is meant to change, and it has. For example, the First Amendment used to only apply to the Federal Government ("Congress shall make no law...") and not the states. Obviously that changed when a number of states refused to protect the rights of some of its citizens, and allowed slavery, something that the founders approved. So other amendments were passed, and now the Bill of Rights also is the law of the states. That's just another example of how our country doesn't have a "fundamentalist" approach to the constitution.

A conservative Supreme Court has ruled on a situation which is essentially the same as the one we are talking about now?

The Rehnquist Court, in the Santa Fe case I mentioned above as well as at least one other - Lee v. Weisman, ruled that schools violate the establishment clause even if a student is the one doing the talking.

If you're going to state your argument as: "Well, current courts says it's okay, so it's okay so you are wrong", then you've developed your argument on the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy. Courts are overturned and new precedents are set all the time. I'm arguing based on the actual words and intent...the same things courts are SUPPOSED to decide based on, but often times don't. When judges decide to legislate instead of adjudicate, you'll have "laws" which don't reflect the spirit or letter of the laws they are supposed to be interpreting. If that law has been interpreted that your first amendment protections as an individual are void and null if you're involved in any kind of government action where you are not a paid representative of the government engaging in official business, then the "law" is bulls*t having no relevance to the Constitution or the framer's intent. If you can show me that either the letter of the law, or the majority opinion of the founding fathers would have supported such a thing, go for it. Given that the OFFICIAL government stance of our founding fathers are that "we are endowed by our creator" with the rights in question, it's a pretty huge leap of logic to suggest that they would wish for those rights given by our God to stop just because an individual is involved with some kind of government action in a non-official capacity. I'm simply calling BS on the whole notion. It's a non-starter for anyone thinking critically in the manner the framers intended.

You know that's not my position. Everyone disagrees with the law or the courts sometimes, and of course I do on many occasions. But you seem to be suggesting that your personal opinion of what the constitution means somehow trumps the entire history of the courts' interpretations of it. That's just absurd.

And you should be careful talking about the religious beliefs of the founders. Virtually all of them, and many of our early great presidents including Lincoln, would probably be considered atheists today. At the very least, they wouldn't have been elected in an age like today when all politicians of both parties profess conservative religious belief. They were a product of the Enlightenment, in which the importance of religion in people's lives was significantly diminished, and their religious beliefs were, to say the very least, "liberal." It is only in modern America that we have had a resurgence of conservative religiosity.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Wah? I'd love to see those statistics.

Secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[selowitch]

Consider what would happen if this young woman had been a Muslim, and had ascended the stage and declared: "You are all dhimmis (religiously second-class citizens) until you embrace Islam." It would have touched off a riot. The framers and the school board seemed to correctly sense that religion is a very personal issue with a tendency to arouse strong emotions. Why go there? If Christians are allowed to proselytize at school events, what's to stop others from doing the same? It's better not to allow it in the first place.

[stupendousman]

The Rehnquist Court, in the Santa Fe case I mentioned above as well as at least one other - Lee v. Weisman, ruled that schools violate the establishment clause even if a student is the one doing the talking.

As I've already explained, an administrator making time for an religious activity (whose sole purpose is religious expression) is engaging in religious expression as part of his 'official duties' regardless if he carries out those duties or assigns a student to do it.

In this case, the administrator has asked a student for personal reflection on a subject matter. If you do that, you can't logically censor that expression without a clear 1st amendment violation and the INTENT of the administrator is clearly not specifically to create religious express and it is clear that a personal expression from a student not prompted by a pre-planned administrator REQUESTED religious expression that can't logically be seen as a defacto endorsement by the government entity.

My argument is that you're dealing with apples to oranges in these cases. In one, you have a student acting as a surrogate to perform an action whose sole intent is for religious expression on behalf of the administrator. In the other, you have the administrator asking a student to produce a personal reflection and applying prior restraint to that expression by censoring them from practicing their clear first amendment rights. I'd agree with the rulings you've mentioned....but we are dealing with a different thing here and those rulings don't logically apply for the reasons I've given.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

In this case, the administrator has asked a student for personal reflection on a subject matter.

How is encouraging people to join your religion "personal reflection on a subject matter"?