[el chupacabra]

Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

Im so proud of my country. To see that there are some government employees that still take on seriously difficult problems for our society. Im just really happy that a judge prevented one atheist from "suffering irreparable harm" from hearing anyone say the word god at graduation. This could have been really bad if we had allowed prayer to “cause him a great deal of anxiety”. These poor, poor atheists and their difficult challenges through life... I mean what would have happened if this judge hadn't have taken the time out his busy schedule to solve this problem?

[Railroader]

Ironically, the students probably had to listen to four years of "there is no God".

[imitchellg5]

"Irreparable harm?" Wow, we're really just a bunch of pussies, huh? No wonder we can't win our wars, since apparently listening to a prayer is like getting shot in the face.

[Shaddim]

They can just do the minute of "contemplation" and everyone stands and prays the Lord's Prayer, then the bitchy atheists can cry over listening to thousands of people, instead of just one. That's what my HS did when they complained about the official prayer during football games. Pissed the whiners off to no end, but there wasn't anything they could do about it.

[turtle777]

“suffer irreparable harm” ?

Man, those weaklings. What the f*ck happened to the survival of the fittest, because those parents should have never made past age of 1.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They can just do the minute of "contemplation" and everyone stands and prays the Lord's Prayer, then the bitchy atheists can cry over listening to thousands of people, instead of just one. That's what my HS did when they complained about the official prayer during football games. Pissed the whiners off to no end, but there wasn't anything they could do about it.

Awesomeness.

-t

[besson3c]

Bravo for the ruling! I think the whole "Irreparable harm" thing is overblown and bogus, but this was the right ruling for other reasons. A high school graduation is indeed not a church service, those who feel inclined can do their religious stuff on their own time. Otherwise, if you are going to permit religious stuff you are going to have to permit a whole gamut of religions stuff that is inclusive to not only Christianity. Is this something that you'd be prepared to do?

By taking religion out of the equation you are simplifying all of this mess. It just isn't necessary for religion to be a part of a graduation ceremony, just as it isn't necessary for God Bless America to be sung at baseball games.

[OldManMac]

Somewhere between 80 - 90 percent of the country's citizens consider themselves Christian, yet they're "under attack," and they don't see the irony in that. The judge was correct; it is a high school graduation, not a church service. If one wants to pray privately, let them do so. Of course I'm not surprised that most of the respondents here don't get the point.

[Doofy]

Judge needs to be removed from office. Immediately. And re-homed with Bubba.

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

Assuming, of course, that "congress" also applies to those representing its laws.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They can just do the minute of "contemplation" and everyone stands and prays the Lord's Prayer, then the bitchy atheists can cry over listening to thousands of people, instead of just one. That's what my HS did when they complained about the official prayer during football games. Pissed the whiners off to no end, but there wasn't anything they could do about it.

One valedictorian's solution was to "sneeze." Almost the entire school said "god bless you!"

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is this something that you'd be prepared to do?

Yes.

What qualifies you to draw the line as to what constitutes legitimate expression?

[lpkmckenna]

Fncking theocrats. Go to church to worship God. Stop expecting prayer to be an official part of public functions. Trust me: God doesn't give a sh!t about you winning your football game or winning an Oscar. It's really sad that you're so insecure in your beliefs that you need every opportunity to preach about how God is responsible for helping you finish school.

I think it would be awesome if you were to actually listen to Jesus when he ordered you to avoid conspicuous public displays of religious piety.

[Waragainstsleep]

I applaud this decision. I also suspect that the rationale behind the lawsuit is merely a device to get the desired outcome. A pity they had to resort to it but a win is a win I guess.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I applaud this decision. I also suspect that the rationale behind the lawsuit is merely a device to get the desired outcome. A pity they had to resort to it but a win is a win I guess.

a federal appeals court has already overturned this judge's ruling.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Bravo for the ruling! I think the whole "Irreparable harm" thing is overblown and bogus, but this was the right ruling for other reasons. A high school graduation is indeed not a church service, those who feel inclined can do their religious stuff on their own time.

The only problem is that the Constitution doesn't give times, dates or events when someone's rights can be abridged in this regard. I can understand if they say that a an official with the school (which is support by the government) can not do any of this, but not individual students who aren't employees of the school. Seems like a clear first amendment violation to prohibit them from uttering the word "prayer" at ANY TIME.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

a federal appeals court has already overturned this judge's ruling.

Ha. That was quick.

-t

[nonhuman]

The rights of non-Christian students to the free exercise of religion are infringed when Christian prayer is an official part of a government sponsored event such as public school. If the administrators want to have a moment of silence in which anyone can pray or not as they please, great. But a student, who is required by law to go to school, should not be forced to be a part of any sort of religious activity. And to try and claim that they have the option of just sitting there and not participating is to miss the point completely: in a heavily Christian area it can be quite difficult for anyone who's anything but. And by quite difficult I mean things like bullying and intimidation, threats of physical violence, ostracization, insults, and all other sorts of social rejection (including being kicked out of your home by fanatical parents). These things happen every day, and aren't just a matter of Christian children being mean to non-Christian children, the adults participate in the same forms of discrimination against children too, parents, teachers, administrators, everyone. And how would you, as a Christian, feel if your public school just happened to have a Muslim principal who started of your high school graduation with a prayer in Arabic?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The rights of non-Christian students to the free exercise of religion are infringed when Christian prayer is an official part of a government sponsored event such as public school.

It's my understanding that even unofficial, individual student expressed religious speech was banned. I think that having school officials take part can definitely be seen as a gray area, but I can't fathom how it can be Constitutional to abridge the rights of an individual to keep them from expressing their faith regardless of where or when. There is no part of the Constitution which protects us from having to be exposed to the free exercise of the religion of others.

It just doesn't exist. You have to be tolerant of the faith of others - you don't have to "participate" in the expression yourself.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The rights of non-Christian students to the free exercise of religion are infringed when Christian prayer is an official part of a government sponsored event such as public school. If the administrators want to have a moment of silence in which anyone can pray or not as they please, great. But a student, who is required by law to go to school, should not be forced to be a part of any sort of religious activity. And to try and claim that they have the option of just sitting there and not participating is to miss the point completely: in a heavily Christian area it can be quite difficult for anyone who's anything but. And by quite difficult I mean things like bullying and intimidation, threats of physical violence, ostracization, insults, and all other sorts of social rejection (including being kicked out of your home by fanatical parents). These things happen every day, and aren't just a matter of Christian children being mean to non-Christian children, the adults participate in the same forms of discrimination against children too, parents, teachers, administrators, everyone. And how would you, as a Christian, feel if your public school just happened to have a Muslim principal who started of your high school graduation with a prayer in Arabic?

This isn't supposed to be decided by reality; it's supposed to be decided by emotional rhetoric and denial.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

This isn't supposed to be decided by reality; it's supposed to be decided by emotional rhetoric and denial.

Actually, it's supposed to be decided by your Constitution Manifesto.
...which says that the government (or representatives thereof) can't make a law or ruling either way.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Another example of how the left does far more to limit free speech out of fear of true free speech than anyone else. Whiny atheists suffered "irreparable harm" the moment their parents dropped them one time too many on their heads. Why should everyone else have to suffer the ill effects of their brain damage constantly, let alone have it legislated?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Somewhere between 80 - 90 percent of the country's citizens consider themselves Christian, yet they're "under attack," and they don't see the irony in that.

awesome.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's my understanding that even unofficial, individual student expressed religious speech was banned. I think that having school officials take part can definitely be seen as a gray area, but I can't fathom how it can be Constitutional to abridge the rights of an individual to keep them from expressing their faith regardless of where or when. There is no part of the Constitution which protects us from having to be exposed to the free exercise of the religion of others.

It just doesn't exist. You have to be tolerant of the faith of others - you don't have to "participate" in the expression yourself.

Well that is certainly over the line. There's no need or justification for banning personal expression.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Actually, it's supposed to be decided by your Constitution Manifesto.
...which says that the government (or representatives thereof) can't make a law or ruling either way.

That's not actually what it says at all. It says that Congress (later incorporated to apply to the state governments as well by the 14th amendment) can't make a law or ruling regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In other words, the US does not and can not have an official (established) religion. Furthermore, to protect the rights of all people, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof, to freely practice whatever religion they see fit in whatever way they see fit, it is necessarily required that government institutions and agents not promote, protect, or prefer any religious views because to do so would—implicitly or explicitly—prohibit the ability of people who do not hold those particular religious views to freely exercise the views that they do hold.

In other words, freedom of religion requires, and is, in fact, predicated upon, freedom from religion. Religion must be kept separate from government.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

This isn't supposed to be decided by reality; it's supposed to be decided by emotional rhetoric and denial.

Exactly how liberals think everything is supposed to be decided. (Or rather, ranted about incessantly.) See: every other debate about every other subject.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

In other words, freedom of religion requires, and is, in fact, predicated upon, freedom from religion. Religion must be kept separate from government.

Not necessarily. Otherwise, there's a whole host of things like "In God We Trust" which would be unconstitutional.

I don't think that most buy the line that someone in the government, or even the government itself, acknowledging or expressing religious beliefs means that the people it governs must believe the same for fear of prosecution or persecution. THAT is what our founders intended to prevent - not to keep all religious expression out of government or public entities.

While the sentiment you express is shared by a number of judges who have been responsible for deciding cases based on the first amendment, it doesn't seem to jive with what most of the founders and the people who took part in the creation of our country, intended all those years ago. That pretty much trumps whatever the judges personal opinion would happen to be.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not necessarily. Otherwise, there's a whole host of things like "In God We Trust" which would be unconstitutional.

There are plenty of things which are (and by all rights, should be) declared unconstitutional, but aren't for whatever reason.

"In God We Trust" is one of those things.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not necessarily. Otherwise, there's a whole host of things like "In God We Trust" which would be unconstitutional.

Or the very same judge swearing people into his courtroom with their hand on a bible, claiming to tell the truth "So help me God..."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

"In God We Trust" is one of those things.

In what way would this be unconstitutional? Does it establish a state religion? Does it prohibit anyone from practicing their own?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Exactly how liberals think everything is supposed to be decided. (Or rather, ranted about incessantly.) See: every other debate about every other subject.

Another ignorant right w(h)inger. Shouldn't you all be resting today?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

^ As if my point needed a posterchild to prove it!

[ghporter]

The whole ceremony was apparently turned into a prayer meeting, from the way it was reported locally. Somehow evyone in that community, with very few exceptions, seems to have missed the whole part about "freedom of religion" also meaning "freedom from having to participate in other people's religion."

I hope lawsuits aplenty are brought by the numerous attendees who had to sit through "other people's religious practices" for the "privilege" of attending their own family members' high school graduation. What ever happened to a basic, non-denominational benediction, where the place of religion in general was recognized by all, and then just going onward with the original purpose of the event? Note that even agnosticism and atheism qualifiy as "beliefs" in this context, at least as far as I can see.

So one family made a fuss about how the way a school district was allowing students and teachers to impose their religious beliefs on others, and instead of a rational, "we'll work hard at being neutral" solution, it became a media circus AND worse abuse of people who didn't want to participate in other people's services. Wonderful.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Another ignorant right w(h)inger. Shouldn't you all be resting today?

My bad.

Church Cancelled Due to Lack of God | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Doofy]

Constitution Manifesto issues aside, I find it quite weird that a school graduation ceremony would turn into a prayer meet. We actually have a state religion here, and don't have anything like that at school graduations.

I guess you guys need more prayers than we do.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

There are plenty of things which are (and by all rights, should be) declared unconstitutional, but aren't for whatever reason.

"In God We Trust" is one of those things.

Would that include the House and Senate chaplains, and the SOTUS declaring "God save the United States and this Honorable Court!" when they open their session?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not necessarily. Otherwise, there's a whole host of things like "In God We Trust" which would be unconstitutional.

I happen to think it is. But that's neither here nor there.

I don't think that most buy the line that someone in the government, or even the government itself, acknowledging or expressing religious beliefs means that the people it governs must believe the same for fear of prosecution or persecution. THAT is what our founders intended to prevent - not to keep all religious expression out of government or public entities.

I'm not saying that anyone who works for the government is forbidden to have religious beliefs or to express them. What I'm saying is that religion cannot be a part of any official government policy, statement, action, &c. So the principal of a school can openly be a Christian, he doesn't have to hide his religion or pretend it doesn't exist. What he can't do, however, is invoke that religion in his official capacity as principal. He can't, while on the job(!), lead students in prayer, though he could certainly do so off campus, outside of school hours in some other capacity not related to his job as principal (if he were also a deacon, for example).

However I do think that the government itself should not be making any religious statements. What does it mean for someone who doesn't believe in any gods, or who believes in many gods, for that matter, to live in a country where the government explicitly invokes the Christian God at pretty much every opportunity? I can say that for me, at least, it's not a particularly happy situation; I know for a fact that a large portion of the population, including many highly placed government officials, are under the impression that I am a bad, even evil, person simply because I am an atheist (and another large and not entirely overlapping portion believe that I'm a bad, even evil, person simply because I am a Jew...).

There is nothing wrong with religious people being in government. There is nothing wrong with religious people in government talking about their religion. Where there is a problem is when religious people in government try and make their religion a part of their job. The simple act of something so innocuous as an official prayer sends a message to all of us who don't believe in the being that's being prayed to that we aren't welcome.

This isn't about trying to force other people to believe as I do, or even to like what I believe. It's about recognizing that this is a society in which we are not required to believe anything in particular at all. One only needs to look back at our own colonial history to see what happens in a society in which religion and government are allowed to intertwine: many colonies had laws requiring their citizens not only to be Christian, but to be a particular kind of Christian. Some states only allowed Methodists to serve in government, some Baptist, some Anglican, &c. Some even made it a criminal offense to be the wrong kind of Christian (Rhode Island, I believe, was one of these).

There would be a massive uproar by Christians if some Christian students were forced to sit through a Muslim Prayer as part of the graduation ceremony in a public school. And yet, when non-Christians do the same in response to a Christian prayer we're told to simply shut up and remember our place. This is why it's a problem. This is why freedom of religion requires freedom from religion.

While the sentiment you express is shared by a number of judges who have been responsible for deciding cases based on the first amendment, it doesn't seem to jive with what most of the founders and the people who took part in the creation of our country, intended all those years ago. That pretty much trumps whatever the judges personal opinion would happen to be.

First off, no it doesn't. The judiciary exists for the express purpose of interpreting the Constitution and deciding whether or not laws are compatible with it. Nowhere are they instructed to only abide by what we think would probably have been the opinions of the founders. Our Constitution, and nation, was designed to be dynamic and adaptable, founded by fallible human beings who were well aware that they might, some day, be proved wrong in this idea or that.

Secondly, this is not at all incompatible with what it seems at least some of the founders believed. Though the issue was as contentious and murky then as it is now. President John Adams signed into law in 1797 the Treaty of Tripoli which states, in no uncertain terms, that 'the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion'. Thomas Jefferson explicitly espoused essentially exactly what I've said above in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists:

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Would that include the House and Senate chaplains, and the SOTUS declaring "God save the United States and this Honorable Court!" when they open their session?

Yes, I think so. Official government statements mentioning 'God' inherently draw an unnecessary distinction between citizens who do and citizens who don't believe in any gods. I'm sure you agree it would be Constitutionally problematic if they said 'The Lord Jesus Christ save the United States and this Honorable Court!', this is different only in that it offends fewer people.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

In what way would this be unconstitutional? Does it establish a state religion? Does it prohibit anyone from practicing their own?

A straightforward yes to the first, in that it shows preference for one religion over others. The second is more open question. I would say it does, but there's a reasonable argument on the other side.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Would that include the House and Senate chaplains, and the SOTUS declaring "God save the United States and this Honorable Court!" when they open their session?

Yes to the chaplains.

As for the SCOTUS, are they legally bound to declare that?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

A straightforward yes to the first, in that it shows preference for one religion over others. The second is more open question. I would say it does, but there's a reasonable argument on the other side.

As to the first:

The motto was first challenged in Aronow v. United States in 1970, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."

I couldn't agree more with the ruling.


And I've never heard a single reasonable argument as to how it's even possible that a slogan printed on money could prevent anyone from practicing their own religious beliefs- or lack thereof. But I'd love to hear one!

This is the kind of 'issue' that tells me that we've evolved to a society to where we apparently don't have enough real issues to worry about anymore, so we have to manufacture them out of molehills of pure nothing. Now that's progress!

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

As to the first:



I couldn't agree more with the ruling.


And I've never heard a single reasonable argument as to how it's even possible that a slogan printed on money could prevent anyone from practicing their own religious beliefs- or lack thereof. But I'd love to hear one!

This is the kind of 'issue' that tells me that we've evolved to a society to where we apparently don't have enough real issues to worry about anymore, so we have to manufacture them out of molehills of pure nothing. Now that's progress!

Would you have a problem if the motto on our coinage was 'IN THE TRIUMPH OF REASON OVER RELIGIOUS SUPERSTITIOUS NONSENSE WE TRUST" would you feel the same way? Even if you would, can you honestly say you don't believe there would be a huge uproar about it and successful challenges against it? The United States government officially espouses a belief in a divine power, thus establishing this as a theistic nation. It thus explicitly states that non-theists (which does not exclude the religious) cannot be considered equal participants in the citizenry (as we do not, by definition, trust in any god).

The only reason anyone can pretend that this is not a clear cut violation of the first amendment is through the conceit that those of us who do not believe in gods simply do not exist or do not count somehow. Until we are free from the assumption of religious belief, no one is truly free to hold their own religious beliefs any more than a prisoner has the 'freedom' to stay in his cell all day.

As for the reason you can't understand how the motto on our coinage could be relevant, that's because you fail to recognize that religion has no more validity than the words on a piece of paper. If people can get so worked up over what's printed on one piece of paper, then why not another?

And if you find that offensive, then understand that this is exactly what we have to deal with every day.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Bravo for the ruling! I think the whole "Irreparable harm" thing is overblown and bogus, but this was the right ruling for other reasons. A high school graduation is indeed not a church service,

calling a couple of god blesses mentioned here and there at graduation "a church service" is also a bit overblown.

if you are going to permit religious stuff you are going to have to permit a whole gamut of religions stuff that is inclusive to not only Christianity. Is this something that you'd be prepared to do?

At my HS graduation a Native American gave a little religious story about something in his culture and did his own short little ritual. Everyone was with him and it wasn't an issue. But that was a different time I guess, when people weren't so focused on what is offending them and conflicting with their beliefs. Before the liberalization of america... I remember an Indian guy giving a little speech once in college too. I dont think anyone gave it a second thought, so yes we are prepared for that.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Would you have a problem if the motto on our coinage was 'IN THE TRIUMPH OF REASON OVER RELIGIOUS SUPERSTITIOUS NONSENSE WE TRUST" would you feel the same way?

Yeah. Do you get all worked up over E pluribus unum as well? That must offend people that don't read latin.

Surely 'Liberty' offends people that are into bondage.

It's amazing how words can do so much discriminating!

The United States government officially espouses a belief in a divine power, thus establishing this as a theistic nation. It thus explicitly states that non-theists (which does not exclude the religious) cannot be considered equal participants in the citizenry (as we do not, by definition, trust in any god).

Yup, so hand over all your green. It's clearly useless to you, as you're not considered an equal participant. The bondage people that hate Liberty can hand over their cash as well.

The only reason anyone can pretend that this is not a clear cut violation of the first amendment

*yawn* As courts have ruled, it clearly doesn't represent any attempt to establish a state religion, or prevent anyone the free exercise thereof (the only definitions that would violate the 1st Amendment) And it's obvious to most anyone the government never has done this citing 'In God We Trust' on the currency as a reason. You doing the equivalent of holding your breath, stomping your feet, and insisting otherwise doesn't change that. But like I said, feel free to hand over your legal tender.

By the way, the irony here is, I'm totally with you when their really are attempts by people to use the government to push their religion. But only *ACTUAL* incidents of that, not 'In God We Trust' on the money, or what a bunch of people want to do at their high school graduation for pete's sake. Crying wolf over every imagined infraction to me is useless, and makes people wary when an *ACTUAL* example pops up.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

In other words, freedom of religion requires, and is, in fact, predicated upon, freedom from religion. Religion must be kept separate from government.

A student is not a State, he/she is an individual and you can't suppress their expression simply because they are in the majority or because you don't like it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

There are plenty of things which are (and by all rights, should be) declared unconstitutional, but aren't for whatever reason..

...because they aren't. Our founders never intended for us to be a godless nation. Otherwise, they wouldn't have made it clear that out rights were endowed by one.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Yeah. Do you get all worked up over E pluribus unum as well? That must offend people that don't read latin.

Surely 'Liberty' offends people that are into bondage.

It's amazing how words can do so much discriminating!

Yes, ha ha. That's so funny and completely relevant to this conversation!

Yup, so hand over all your green. It's clearly useless to you, as you're not considered an equal participant. The bondage people that hate Liberty can hand over their cash as well.

Or maybe, instead, I'll try and change things. Why are you so opposed to my point if view being voiced?

*yawn* As courts have ruled, it clearly doesn't represent any attempt to establish a state religion, or prevent anyone the free exercise thereof (the only definitions that would violate the 1st Amendment) And it's obvious to most anyone the government never has done this citing 'In God We Trust' on the currency as a reason. You doing the equivalent of holding your breath, stomping your feet, and insisting otherwise doesn't change that. But like I said, feel free to hand over your legal tender.

Amazingly, the courts are not infallible, and we do not have to simply accept their rulings as divine writ.

Also, the only ones making a scene here are the people that are so offended by the idea that some of us might not be completely happy with the status quo. We point out that we don't particularly like the way things are, and everyone else gets all uppity and offended.

By the way, the irony here is, I'm totally with you when their really are attempts by people to use the government to push their religion. But only *ACTUAL* incidents of that, not 'In God We Trust' on the money, or what a bunch of people want to do at their high school graduation for pete's sake. Crying wolf over every imagined infraction to me is useless, and makes people wary when an *ACTUAL* example pops up.

In other words, you only care about your own point of view and don't give a shit about what people who don't agree with you think. You want an actual example? There are plenty. I've even got one that involves a high school graduation!

High School Student Stands Up Against Prayer at Public School and Is Ostracized, Demeaned and Threatened | Belief | AlterNet

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

There would be a huge uproar because the majority of the people like the motto the way it is. Welcome to democracy. And I'd have no problem with it if it was what the majority of people wanted. But for now the motto is compatible with most religions and beliefs so people will not be voting in your motto any time soon. Im sorry if the motto makes you "feel like you're a prisoner in your cell all day".... because a motto can't imprison you... you are free to express whatever religious beliefs you want.

The United States is not a democracy, and does not operate on the principle of majority rules. We value and protect the rights of minorities. At least, that's what we're supposed to do.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A student is not a State, he/she is an individual and you can't suppress their expression simply because they are in the majority or because you don't like it.

Which is completely consistent with everything that I've said. I've explicitly stated that individual expression should not, and legally can not, be prohibited. What is prohibited, though the prohibition is so often ignored, is for people acting in official capacities on behalf of the government (such as teachers and administrators at public schools) leading prayers (among other, similar acts).

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...because they aren't. Our founders never intended for us to be a godless nation. Otherwise, they wouldn't have made it clear that out rights were endowed by one.

Actually, the founders (some of them, anyway; amazingly they weren't all in complete agreement about everything!) were quite explicit about keeping gods out of government. I've already provided two specific citations to this effect from Adams and Jefferson.