Is This Ruling Correct?

Kandahar said:

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment extends all the limits on federal power in the Bill of Rights to the state governments as well. And since a local school district is essentially just a creation of the state in which it operates, those restrictions apply to them as well.

Click to expand...

Did the school attempt to force those children into that religion? If the answer is no then you have no case. Just holding a graduation ceremony in a church is not forcing anyone to join that religion. Again, the first amendment only states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". Since no public school can make law the first part of the first amendment is not applicable. The second one would only be applicable if the school tried to force students into a religion.

Kal'Stang said:

Did the school attempt to force those children into that religion? If the answer is no then you have no case. Just holding a graduation ceremony in a church is not forcing anyone to join that religion. Again, the first amendment only states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

Click to expand...

The courts have generally found that needlessly exposing a captive public audience to religious material DOES prohibit the free exercise of religion. It's the same reason why school faculty can't lead their classes in prayer, or why judges can't have overtly religious icons in a court. The government isn't supposed to be doing anything that might encourage or discourage people from practicing religion in general, or any specific religion.

Since no public school can make law the first part of the first amendment is not applicable. The second one would only be applicable if the school tried to force students into a religion.

Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment extends the governmental limits in the Bill of Rights to the states, so you can essentially read the 1st amendment as saying "Congress and the states shall make no law..." The school is a creation of the state in which it operates, and therefore the state is ultimately accountable. If the state is allowing its appendages to indirectly promote religion, that's not fundamentally different than if the state legislature had directly done so.

It's absurd. Who cares? It wouldn't matter to me at all if my kids had graduated in a church or a mosque or a synagog or a temple.

This is the song is perfect for this thread. In my twisted way of looking at the world the song, by fellow Georgian, Tim Wilson, shows how stupid it's all become.

The First Baptist Bar and Grill.

Kandahar said:

The courts have generally found that needlessly exposing a captive public audience to religious material DOES prohibit the free exercise of religion. It's the same reason why school faculty can't lead their classes in prayer, or why judges can't have overtly religious icons in a court. The government isn't supposed to be doing anything that might encourage or discourage people from practicing religion in general, or any specific religion.

Click to expand...

If the audiance was captive then you would have a point, however it should be noted that one does not have to attend a graduation ceremony in order to graduate. As such no one was "captive". Everyone there was quite free to leave or stay or not even come to the ceremony in the first place.

Kandahar said:

The 14th Amendment extends the governmental limits in the Bill of Rights to the states...so you can essentially read the 1st amendment as saying "Congress and the states shall make no law..." The school is a creation of the state in which it operates, and therefore the state is ultimately accountable. If the state is allowing its appendages to indirectly promote religion, that's not fundamentally different than if the state legislature had directly done so.

Click to expand...

Show me where it says that no government entity can/cannot promote religion. It just says that they cannot make laws for or against religion. There is a difference. It is also where our courts that rule against such things have gone wrong.

Kal'Stang said:

If the audiance was captive then you would have a point, however it should be noted that one does not have to attend a graduation ceremony in order to graduate. As such no one was "captive". Everyone there was quite free to leave or stay or not even come to the ceremony in the first place.

Click to expand...

Most reasonable people would conclude that, even if not technically mandatory, attending a graduation ceremony is something that many people would feel obligated to do or at least strongly want to do. It's like saying that a football coach at a public school doesn't have a captive audience if he leads his athletes in prayer, since they can always quit the football team. Although technically true, most people would still consider that to be a captive audience. And the courts largely agree.

Show me where it says that no government entity can/cannot promote religion.

Click to expand...

"Amendment 14, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The bolded part is what extends the protections in the Bill of Rights, and applies them to the states as well as the federal government. Therefore it applies to public schools, which are appendages of the states.

It just says that they cannot make laws for or against religion. There is a difference.

Click to expand...

"Passing a law" is a nebulous concept, because the state presumably *did* pass a law that established the public education system in that state, which ultimately led to the creation of this school. As far as the US Constitution is concerned, there are only two levels of government: The federal government and the state governments. All local entities like school districts are nothing more than an extension of the state governments.

Redress said:

Federal court rules Wisconsin schools' graduations in church were unconstitutional | Fox News



So the question is, is the ruling that holding a graduation ceremony for a public school in a church unconstitutional correct?

Edit: for our centrist/independent posters, please choose the side closest to your views.

Click to expand...

generally no it would not be unconstitutional,unless the church had actually tried to impose religious indoctination.

in many small towns a church is often used for many other things than a church.it widely depends on the size of the community.if the school had adequate space for a graduation ceremony,the church would have been uncalled for.but like i said many towns dont even have the luxory of a school big enough for a ceremony.


in many towns churches are used for things like graduations,shelters,etc.and students seeing a cross is not religious indoctrinations,or else i could claim political ads as political indoctrinations,or atheist ads on billboards as religious/anti religious indoctrination.


the true question comes on whether they used the building because it was needed,or whether they wanted a religious them.one would be constitutional and one wouldnt,per the first amendment.

Kandahar said:

Most reasonable people would conclude that, even if not technically mandatory, attending a graduation ceremony is something that many people would feel obligated to do or at least strongly want to do. It's like saying that a football coach at a public school doesn't have a captive audience if he leads his athletes in prayer, since they can always quit the football team. Although technically true, most people would still consider that to be a captive audience. And the courts largely agree.

Click to expand...

Where is there a right to be on a football team? Where is there a right to graduate? Where is there a right to be at a graduation ceremony? Just because someone wants to do something, strongly or not, does not mean that they have a right to do something. And no, the only ones that consider it to be a "captive audiance" are those that want to be at one of those functions but don't want things that they disagree with around.

And again, its not the first time the courts have been wrong and it won't be the last. Even you agree that "technically" what I have stated is true. And when it comes to the law that is what counts...what is "technically true". What people personally believe of how a law should be applied should have no bearing on how a law is actually applied.

Kandahar said:

"Amendment 14, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The bolded part is what extends the protections in the Bill of Rights, and applies them to the states as well as the federal government. Therefore it applies to public schools, which are appendages of the states.

Click to expand...

Yes I know. I've known that for a long time now. There's no need to repeat it in every single post. I've not once disputed it.

Kandahar said:

"Passing a law" is a nebulous concept, because the state presumably *did* pass a law that established the public education system in that state, which ultimately led to the creation of this school. As far as the US Constitution is concerned, there are only two levels of government: The federal government and the state governments. All local entities like school districts are nothing more than an extension of the state governments.

Click to expand...

No, passing a law is not a "nebulous concept". A law is passed or it is not...in which case it is not a law. And yes I agree that the schools are an extension of the government. And when a school passes a rule or the government passes a law which state that students must follow a certain religion then you would have a point. However that has not been done here. No one was required to attend that ceremony. Which would put it in the realm of "captive audiance". And from the little information that was provided no one tried to force those churches beliefs onto anyone. Just because it was a church means nothing.

Tell me...what is the difference between what happened with these schools and this...

Kal'Stang said:

And again, its not the first time the courts have been wrong and it won't be the last. Even you agree that "technically" what I have stated is true. And when it comes to the law that is what counts...what is "technically true".

Click to expand...

Incorrect, sir. The courts generally look at laws in the context of how a reasonable person would behave.

What people personally believe of how a law should be applied should have no bearing on how a law is actually applied.

Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. How else could you possibly apply the law? It is you who is arguing that the courts are mistaken in their longstanding interpretation of the 1st amendment...so it seems to me that this is PRECISELY what you "personally believe of how a law should be applied," which by your own logic should have no bearing on the law. Or were you just referring to what OTHER people personally believe, because YOUR personal beliefs on how the law should be applied are somehow special?

I mean, if you want to argue that the courts have decided church-and-state cases incorrectly for the past several decades, I'm willing to hear that argument...but don't tell me that your opinions are the only valid ones (ESPECIALLY when your interpretation is not the judicial consensus), as I'll just roll my eyes.

Yes I know. I've known that for a long time now. There's no need to repeat it in every single post. I've not once disputed it.

Click to expand...

Well, you were the one that asked me to show you where it said no government entity could promote a religion. If you already know the answer and you're just going to get annoyed hearing it again, maybe you shouldn't ask the question in the first place.

No, passing a law is not a "nebulous concept". A law is passed or it is not...in which case it is not a law. And yes I agree that the schools are an extension of the government.

Click to expand...

Then we agree that the limitations on state power found in the Bill of Rights and 14th amendment also apply to schools.

And when a school passes a rule or the government passes a law which state that students must follow a certain religion then you would have a point. However that has not been done here. No one was required to attend that ceremony. Which would put it in the realm of "captive audiance". And from the little information that was provided no one tried to force those churches beliefs onto anyone. Just because it was a church means nothing.

Click to expand...

Then what was the purpose of holding the graduation ceremony in a church? Like I said in my original post in this thread, I'm OK with it if it served some legitimate purpose (such as a lack of available secular venues)...but otherwise it serves as a completely unnecessary way of putting public school students (and their families) in an environment in which they may not be comfortable. And you are wrong about a "captive audience"; it doesn't necessarily mean that they are literally unable to leave or that they are required to attend. It can apply to any situation where opting out is impractical or undesirable.

Tell me...what is the difference between what happened with these schools and this...

View attachment 67131757

Click to expand...

Those crosses are on individual people's graves and are meant to honor them personally. If you have a loved one buried in Arlington, you can use a religious symbol on their grave if you want, or no symbol at all. If Arlington Cemetery was regularly advertising or cheerleading for a specific religion, that would be a problem.

Ummm... Kandahar... opting out of a graduation ceremony is neither impractical or undesirable. Attending is completely subjective and has no bearing on whether someone graduates or not.

Based on the facts presented in the OP I agree with the decision. Using the church building itself, though, I don’t have a problem with. If you are going to get tax exempt status I am all for allowing your facilities to be used for public events. The cross and the pamphlets, though, are a no-go if you want to keep it Constitutional IMO. Had those been removed for the ceremony I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But removing the cross might not have been practical.

Here's a little more information that I dug up in regards to ONE of these situations. This situation concerns the Elmbrook School District. Apparently, they held their graduation ceremonies in a supposedly non-denominational Christian "mega-church" for years, due to lack of comfort and air conditioning in their school's gym. The plaintiff's case cites that religious symbols were NOT covered up (the district asked, but the church refused) AND that there was some evangelism of students outside before graduation ceremonies commenced. Pamphlets proselytizing were also there. Seems to me that this goes a bit beyond just having the ceremony in a building. The church was absolutely wrong for their refusal to NOT do these things, but it was the district's responsibility. Seems to me that in this case, this was a good call.

Here is the article discussing this:

UPDATE: Elmbrook Schools Chief Disappointed in Church-Graduation Ruling - Brookfield, WI Patch

CaptainCourtesy said:

Here's a little more information that I dug up in regards to ONE of these situations. This situation concerns the Elmbrook School District. Apparently, they held their graduation ceremonies in a supposedly non-denominational Christian "mega-church" for years, due to lack of comfort and air conditioning in their school's gym. The plaintiff's case cites that religious symbols were NOT covered up (the district asked, but the church refused) AND that there was some evangelism of students outside before graduation ceremonies commenced. Pamphlets proselytizing were also there. Seems to me that this goes a bit beyond just having the ceremony in a building. The church was absolutely wrong for their refusal to NOT do these things, but it was the district's responsibility. Seems to me that in this case, this was a good call.

Here is the article discussing this:

UPDATE: Elmbrook Schools Chief Disappointed in Church-Graduation Ruling - Brookfield, WI Patch

Click to expand...

This is one of those situations where your better off safe than sorry. The school district should have just found another place to hold the graduations to avoid all this.

lpast said:

This is one of those situations where your better off safe than sorry. The school district should have just found another place to hold the graduations to avoid all this.

Click to expand...

Yeah, as soon as the church refused to remove symbols and ESPECIALLY pamphlets, the red flags should have gone up. A hot football field is better than a lawsuit.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Yeah, as soon as the church refused to remove symbols and ESPECIALLY pamphlets, the red flags should have gone up. A hot football field is better than a lawsuit.

Click to expand...

Thats what made them wrong in my mind and caused the controversey...its a shame that so much today always has to wind up in a courtroom, which alot of times causes more animosity and friction when it could so easily be avoided most of the time.

The ruling was correct as far as I am concerned. To allow this would be to ignore the 1st and 14th Amendments and to allow this would act to endorse a religion in contravention to the aforementioned amendments and established law.


The facts according to the case include: "The first time Central held its graduation in the sanctuary, the cross was covered, apparently by accident. During subsequent graduations, the Church refused Superintendent Gibson’s requests to veil the cross, in keeping with a general Church policy against covering its permanent religious displays. The Church did agree, however, to remove any non-permanent religious symbols from the dais. The chapel used by Central for its senior honors night also contains a cross.

During the ceremonies, “graduating seniors . . . sit down in the front, center rows of pews of the [sanctuary’s] main level.” Guests sit in the other pews. The parties agree that “Bibles and hymnal books remain in all the pews,” as do a “yellow ‘Scribble Card for God’s Little Lambs,’ a pencil, a donation envelope entitled, ‘Home Harvest Horizon: offering to the work of Christ,’ ” and other religious literature. There is no evidence that any of these materials were placed in the pews specifically for the graduation ceremonies."

Finally, the court ruled: "conducting a public school graduation ceremony in a church—one that among other things featured staffed information booths laden with religious literature and banners with appeals for children to join “school ministries”—runs afoul of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause....We conclude that the practice of holding high school graduation ceremonies in the Elmbrook Church sanctuary conveys an impermissible message of endorsement. Under the circumstances here, the message of endorsement carried an impermissible aspect of coercion, and the practice has had the unfortunate side effect of fostering the very divisiveness that the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent."

http://www.au.org/files/2012-07-23 (89) Opinion on rehearing en banc.pdf

WTF? The government needs to stay neutral on matters of religion to avoid needlessly pissing people off and wasting government money in reparations and stupid lawsuits. Is it really all that ****ing hard to keep your raging Jesus stiffies in your pants while acting with official government authority?

I think the ruling was correct.

First of all, if this was the first time the graduation was held there, what happened to the place(s) it was held in previous years?

Secondly, I have trouble believing some of the "it's just a building" people would feel the same way if something inappropriate happened in "God's House" or "House of Worship".

Lastly, schools have used not attending a graduation ceremony as a punishment for kids when they act out on the last day of school. The "don't like it, don't go" attitude seems like a punishment for not wanting to attend a house of worship. You have a right to not be coerced into attending a church. Since public funds pay for the ceremony, a church should not be the place for the ceremony.

Phys251 said:

Lemon Test time. Remember, it has to satisfy all three criteria to pass.

I'm guessing they were just looking for a venue at a reasonable cost? If so, Pass.

That would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. But if religion is advanced as a byproduct of the ceremony, and not the primary goal, then Pass.

This is probably going to be the biggest question of the three. What are the conditions of holding the ceremony in the church? Will ministers be speaking at all during the ceremony? Will any religious literature be available? Etc. If any of that happens, Fail. Otherwise, we'll talk.

Click to expand...

Good reading of it. Had the pamplets and individuals prostilitizing on the way in not occured, even without the covering up of every symbol, I would've likely sided with the notion that it was okay. Those things however push it over the top for me.

Also, I don't quite get the "I wouldn't want to see my kid graduating under the symbols of another religion, so I understand why people wouldn't want to possibly have their kids graduating under the symbols of a religion different then their own, so even though I don't personally have an issue with my kid graduating in a church I understand why that would be problematic in general and am in favor of not allowing it" is "religious intolerance". I would think it was religious intolerance if the people were going "Yeah! Have it in a church, just not in a damned mosque". But it seems more the notion of their kid graduating in a place that isn't part of their religion, and understanding the notion of how that could be a problem for people. I think MarineTP was strawmanned a bit too with the insinuation that he thinks all muslims are terrorists. He suggested no such thing, but rather made it clear he'd simply rather not see the symbols of another religion in the backdrop of his son's graduation. I fully get that, as much as I'd fully get a Jew perhaps not wanting to have the cross in the background of their childs graduation.

Zyphlin said:

Good reading of it. Had the pamplets and individuals prostilitizing on the way in not occured, even without the covering up of every symbol, I would've likely sided with the notion that it was okay. Those things however push it over the top for me.

Click to expand...

Where did it say there were people prostilitizing on the way in? As to pamphlets and bibles being in the pews, so what. It seems the court based it on people seeing religious symbols and items. As has been said before, nobody has a right to freedom FROM religion. It just simply does not exist. This is all knee jerk overreacting from intolerant people.

Next thing you know people will be suing to have churches remove their 'symbols' from outside of their buildings because someones kid walks down that street. Stupidity, pure and simple.

Arbo said:

Where did it say there were people prostilitizing on the way in? As to pamphlets and bibles being in the pews, so what. It seems the court based it on people seeing religious symbols and items. As has been said before, nobody has a right to freedom FROM religion. It just simply does not exist. This is all knee jerk overreacting from intolerant people.

Next thing you know people will be suing to have churches remove their 'symbols' from outside of their buildings because someones kid walks down that street. Stupidity, pure and simple.

Click to expand...

From the OP it was stated that:

religious pamphlets on middle school and high school ministries

Click to expand...

See the OP, post #36, and post #40 for the information

As shown in post #40:

one that among other things featured staffed information booths laden with religious literature and banners with appeals for children to join “school ministries”

Click to expand...

This is not simply having religious items in view of people. This isn't like having the normal, every day items in the pews remain or refusing to cover the Cross...both of which I would fully understand (The latter more than the former). This is the church actively utilizing this graduation ceremony as a means to prostilitize, educate, and recruit for their religion through methods aimed specifically at school aged individuals. While you do not have freedom FROM religion...you do have freedom from the state taking action that specifically leads to your children being exposed to additional religious recruitment. Additionally, because the school was using the church for its graduation ceremony and the church was using the graduation ceremony as a means of advertising their religious views, I agree that it presents a situation where it gives the appearance of state sponsorship to said advertisement becuase of the seemingly joint venture.

Had this simply been a graduation using a church with the Church...without the church actively engaging in prostilitizing and advertisement of it's message....I would suggest it was acceptable, albiet perhaps a bit ill concieved. However, because the church utilized the graduations as a means of gaining an audience that they could then preach and reach out to with literature and messages specifically aimed at the school aged kids, then I agree that it traversed into the realm of a violation of the 1st amendment as it gave the reasonable appearance of state sponsorship of a religion.

Ruling is zealotry, pure and simple.

Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


No one is telling anyone to prefer one religion over another, or anything else.

Zyphlin said:

From the OP it was stated that:

Click to expand...

You are making a lot of assumptions. It doesn't say if those 'pamphlets' were normally there or not. Based on my experience, that sort of thing is normally out and visible in most churches.

In my community, we cast our votes in a church. I certainly do not feel I am the victim of religious indoctrination while I am voting. If that is permissible, why not a high school graduation?

CaptainCourtesy said:

Ummm... Kandahar... opting out of a graduation ceremony is neither impractical or undesirable. Attending is completely subjective and has no bearing on whether someone graduates or not.

Click to expand...

To many people it *is* undesirable to not attend their graduation ceremony, as evidenced by the large number of people who normally choose to attend such events. To illustrate this point, consider the following situation: A football coach at a public school leads his students in an Islamic prayer at the beginning of a game. Do you think this is OK? After all, they can choose to quit the team; their attendance is completely optional. I think most of us would agree that this is still a captive audience, even if attendance is not strictly compulsory.

In any case, there's also the issue that the taxpayers presumably footed the bill for the graduation ceremony. And taxpayer money generally cannot be spent on promoting a religion.

Kandahar said:

Incorrect, sir. The courts generally look at laws in the context of how a reasonable person would behave.

Click to expand...

When it comes to criminal cases yes. When it comes to whether something is Constitutional however they are not suppose to.

Kandahar said:

That doesn't make any sense. How else could you possibly apply the law? It is you who is arguing that the courts are mistaken in their longstanding interpretation of the 1st amendment...so it seems to me that this is PRECISELY what you "personally believe of how a law should be applied," which by your own logic should have no bearing on the law. Or were you just referring to what OTHER people personally believe, because YOUR personal beliefs on how the law should be applied are somehow special?

Click to expand...

How about base it off of what they meant when they made the law and not on someone's opinion 200+ years later? After all wouldn't it make sense to apply a law in the way that it was meant to be applied and not how someone 200+ years later thinks it should be applied?

Kandahar said:

I mean, if you want to argue that the courts have decided church-and-state cases incorrectly for the past several decades, I'm willing to hear that argument...but don't tell me that your opinions are the only valid ones (ESPECIALLY when your interpretation is not the judicial consensus), as I'll just roll my eyes.

Click to expand...

And that is the arguement I am presenting. There's plenty of evidence that those that wrote the 1st amendment had no intention of shielding people from religion. Just in shielding religion itself. No matter the religion. Otherwise no school would have ever been held in a church setting. No courtroom would have had the 10 Commandments from the get go. I could prolly come up with more, those are just off the top of my head.

Kandahar said:

Well, you were the one that asked me to show you where it said no government entity could promote a religion. If you already know the answer and you're just going to get annoyed hearing it again, maybe you shouldn't ask the question in the first place.

Click to expand...

But that is not where it says that a government entity could not promote religion. It just says that the rights in the BoR must apply to State governments as well as the Federal government.

Kandahar said:

Then we agree that the limitations on state power found in the Bill of Rights and 14th amendment also apply to schools.

Click to expand...

When those limitations are applied correctly yes. Ex: No school can force someone to follow a particular religion.

Kandahar said:

Then what was the purpose of holding the graduation ceremony in a church? Like I said in my original post in this thread, I'm OK with it if it served some legitimate purpose (such as a lack of available secular venues)...but otherwise it serves as a completely unnecessary way of putting public school students (and their families) in an environment in which they may not be comfortable. And you are wrong about a "captive audience"; it doesn't necessarily mean that they are literally unable to leave or that they are required to attend. It can apply to any situation where opting out is impractical or undesirable.

Click to expand...

Why not hold it in a church? What is inherrently wrong with such a venue? So what if it makes some people uncomfortable. Last I knew there was no right to be free from uncomfortable situations. So long as they are not forced to attend an actual religious ceremony then I see no problem with it.

Kandahar said:

Those crosses are on individual people's graves and are meant to honor them personally. If you have a loved one buried in Arlington, you can use a religious symbol on their grave if you want, or no symbol at all. If Arlington Cemetery was regularly advertising or cheerleading for a specific religion, that would be a problem.

Click to expand...

And all of it is provided free of charge from and by the government.