• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Valedictorian Defies School District and Recites Lord's Prayer [W:618]

Should the school have banned the reading of the prayer by the student?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 27.3%

  • No

    Votes: 60 68.2%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 4 4.5%
  • Total voters
    88
ernst barkmann said:
for some reason, and iam not going to include you, people think they have rights on other peoples property, business, or public property, to execise any rights they chose, and this simply is not true.
Click to expand...


Public property, certainly they do. private property, they do too, but the owners also have the right to ask them to leave.
 
ChezC3 said:
I'm wrong? Why? Cuz you said so? :lamo You can :roll: all you want as well, like that means something? Heh, but there now two of us has handed out permission slips today...

If what a kid says is hate filled, if it incites violence, if it promotes illegal behavior than a school has every right to stifle him. Saying a prayer doesn't meet those qualifications. Schools who DO stifle their pupils, are abusing if not completely usurping authority not granted to them.

Now, anything short of you trying to convince people that by this young man saying the Lord's Prayer -- it was really a rallying cry for the 10th Crusade, the young man hiding his sword and dirk under the podium waiting for some infidel to meet his gaze, than all you're doing is trying to justify the egregious act of stripping people of there natural right because you don't like what they have to say.
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry but you are wrong according to case law and the courts. Again, I will refer you to post #691. :)
 
ChezC3 said:
I'm wrong? Why? Cuz you said so? :lamo You can :roll: all you want as well, like that means something? Heh, but there now two of us has handed out permission slips today...

If what a kid says is hate filled, if it incites violence, if it promotes illegal behavior than a school has every right to stifle him. Saying a prayer doesn't meet those qualifications. Schools who DO stifle their pupils, are abusing if not completely usurping authority not granted to them.

Now, anything short of you trying to convince people that by this young man saying the Lord's Prayer -- it was really a rallying cry for the 10th Crusade, the young man hiding his sword and dirk under the podium waiting for some infidel to meet his gaze, than all you're doing is trying to justify the egregious act of stripping people of there natural right because you don't like what they have to say.
Click to expand...

Did you not see that post? It's on the previous page. :confused: Maybe you're just choosing to ignore it because it proves you wrong. :shrug:
 
ChezC3 said:
I'm wrong? Why? Cuz you said so? :lamo You can :roll: all you want as well, like that means something? Heh, but there now two of us has handed out permission slips today...

If what a kid says is hate filled, if it incites violence, if it promotes illegal behavior than a school has every right to stifle him. Saying a prayer doesn't meet those qualifications. Schools who DO stifle their pupils, are abusing if not completely usurping authority not granted to them.

Now, anything short of you trying to convince people that by this young man saying the Lord's Prayer -- it was really a rallying cry for the 10th Crusade, the young man hiding his sword and dirk under the podium waiting for some infidel to meet his gaze, than all you're doing is trying to justify the egregious act of stripping people of there natural right because you don't like what they have to say.
Click to expand...

Here here!
 
Here's some more from my link, since it STILL does not seem to be sinking in with SOME people. Now pay attention and read carefully.

(
b) State officials here direct the performance of a formal religious exercise at secondary schools' promotional and graduation ceremonies. Lee's decision that prayers should be given and his selection of the religious participant are choices attributable to the State. Moreover, through the pamphlet and his advice that the prayers be nonsectarian, he directed and controlled the prayers' content. That the directions may have been given in a good-faith attempt to make the prayers acceptable to most persons does not resolve the dilemma caused by the school's involvement, since the government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds. Pp. 587-590.
Click to expand...
 
More about the case. All of this is from the link in post #691 BTW.

The case was submitted on stipulated facts. The District Court held that petitioners' practice of including invocations and benedictions in public school graduations violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and it enjoined petitioners from continuing the practice. 728 F.Supp. 68 (RI 1990). The court applied the three-part Establishment Clause test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under that test as described in our past cases, to satisfy the Establishment Clause, a governmental [505 U.S. 577, 585] practice must (1) reflect a clearly secular purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 773 (1973). The District Court held that petitioners' actions violated the second part of the test, and so did not address either the first or the third. The court decided, based on its reading of our precedents, that the effects test of Lemon is violated whenever government action "creates an identification of the state with a religion, or with religion in general," 728 F.Supp., at 71, or when "the effect of the governmental action is to endorse one religion over another, or to endorse religion in general." Id., at 72. The court determined that the practice of including invocations and benedictions, even so-called nonsectarian ones, in public school graduations creates an identification of governmental power with religious practice, endorses religion, and violates the Establishment Clause. In so holding, the court expressed the determination not to follow Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools, 822 F.2d 1406 (1987), in which the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, relying on our decision in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), held that benedictions and invocations at public school graduations are not always unconstitutional. In Marsh, we upheld the constitutionality of the Nebraska State Legislature's practice of opening each of its sessions with a prayer offered by a chaplain paid out of public funds. The District Court in this case disagreed with the Sixth Circuit's reasoning because it believed that Marsh was a narrow decision, "limited to the unique situation of legislative prayer," and did not have any relevance to school prayer cases. 728 F.Supp., at 74.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, sorry but you are wrong according to case law and the courts. Again, I will refer you to post #691. :)
Click to expand...

This Court need not revisit the questions of the definition and scope of the principles governing the extent of permitted accommodation by the State for its citizens' religious beliefs and practices, for the controlling precedents as they relate to prayer and religious exercise in primary and secondary public schools compel the holding here. Thus, the Court will not reconsider its decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 . The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause, which guarantees, at a minimum, that a government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [505 U.S. 577, 578] [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678 . Pp. 586-5

this is where the issue at hand would be held in contention and nothing done infringed on that in any way.

No government entity had anything to do with it. They were expressly left out, therefore, what the kid did was kosher.
 
ChrisL said:
More about the case. All of this is from the link in post #691 BTW.
Click to expand...

What's even further still

The question before us is whether including clerical members who offer prayers as part of the official school graduation ceremony is consistent with the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, provisions the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable with full force to the States and their school districts

The case you provide has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Who wrong? YOU wrong.
 
ChezC3 said:
This Court need not revisit the questions of the definition and scope of the principles governing the extent of permitted accommodation by the State for its citizens' religious beliefs and practices, for the controlling precedents as they relate to prayer and religious exercise in primary and secondary public schools compel the holding here. Thus, the Court will not reconsider its decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 . The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause, which guarantees, at a minimum, that a government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [505 U.S. 577, 578] [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678 . Pp. 586-5

this is where the issue at hand would be held in contention and nothing done infringed on that in any way.

No government entity had anything to do with it. They were expressly left out, therefore, what the kid did was kosher.
Click to expand...

Hello?? Schools are run by local governmental bodies. You are just wrong. Admit it. :lamo The school has every "right" to monitor and disallow certain content if it feels that it even MIGHT be offensive, that includes any kind of school-sponsored events, ESPECIALLY when it comes to religious content.
 
ChezC3 said:
What's even further still

The question before us is whether including clerical members who offer prayers as part of the official school graduation ceremony is consistent with the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, provisions the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable with full force to the States and their school districts

The case you provide has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Who wrong? YOU wrong.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? You MUST be kidding. :shock: This case law SPECIFICALLY deals with prayer during a graduation ceremony. ANY prayer by ANY guest, student or school employee.
 
AGENT J said:
so you have no links or proof to back this up? LMAO classic
Click to expand...

DO NOT expect David Taylor to be specific. Do not expect him to provide sources for any of his wild assed proclamations. He is the kind of poster who will not. Nothing he says has any validity. He is has proven to be a man who lies to promote or should we say pimp his faith.
 
Risky Thicket said:
DO NOT expect David Taylor to be specific. Do not expect him to provide sources for any of his wild assed proclamations. He is the kind of poster who will not. Nothing he says has any validity. He is has proven to be a man who lies to promote or should we say pimp his faith.
Click to expand...

Dont worry i dont lol
he has proven what you said to be true many many times. no respected posters take him seriously. Not only because of his lies but also because he believe man waled with dinosaurs and that the earth is only 10K years old.
 
Carleen said:
A speech that is given to a variety of religious views should not single out one view. The prayer should have been omitted.
Click to expand...

That is censoring speech based on what you find desirable and acceptable. Either do not let him speak at all, or let him speak freely. It is his valedictorian speech. I do not think the class room standard for disruption would be applicable here.
 
Zyphlin said:
People having an issue with it, but not claiming its "unconstitutional".

I think there's a big difference between "It's going to offend the crowd, don't do it" and claiming "That's unconstutional! You can't do it".
Click to expand...

I don't know about others but I never said what the boy did was unconstitutional. I said his speech was not protected by the Constitution.

Take a look at this case if you don't believe me: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Geoist said:
I don't know about others but I never said what the boy did was unconstitutional. I said his speech was not protected by the Constitution.

Take a look at this case if you don't believe me: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Wrong case, not on-point. Lee v. Weisman addresses this specific point. And to post it again for those who missed it:

Are valedictorians and salutatorians permitted to make religious remarks as a part of their speeches?

Yes, although such remarks must be “non-proselytizing” and “non-sectarian” in some jurisdictions.
When a school selects a student to speak at graduation through neutral, even-handed criteria (e.g., valedictorians or salutatorians selected to speak due to their grade point averages), and the student is given primary control of the content of the speech, such expression should not be limited due to its religious content. One Guideline issued by the U.S. Department of Education in 2003 that directly deals with this issue is entitled “Prayer at Graduation.”

School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation or select speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech such as prayer. Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker’s and not the school’s.

Id. (emphasis added). Thus, valedictorians and salutatorians should be able to include religious content in their speeches, at least where they “retain primary control over the content of their expression,” because they are selected on the basis of neutral criteria.

The key question regarding speeches provided by valedictorians and salutatorians at graduations is whether such expression would be viewed as bearing the approval of the school and, if so, whether regulations of such expression are required to be viewpoint neutral.1 In the absence of a controlling opinion on these issues in a particular jurisdiction, graduation speeches by valedictorians and salutatorians should be reasonably understood as the student’s own expression rather than speech controlled or sponsored by the school. A reasonable person in attendance at a graduation ceremony understands that valedictorians and salutatorians are selected due to academic criteria and their remarks typically reflect their own views. Valedictorians and salutatorians should be able to share how their faith has impacted their lives without fear of censorship by school officials.
Click to expand...
 
winston53660 said:
This is a moderated site. You realize what that means correct?
Click to expand...

That's right. And anytime our posts are deleted or if we are banned/suspended for anything offensive our 1st Amendment rights are being violated! :2razz:
 
ChrisL said:
If it is a school sponsored event, the school has the authority to censor speeches and other things that THEY feel may be offensive.

Jackpot!

FindLaw | Cases and Codes



Read it and weep buddy! :lol:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you cherry picked the wrong part of the decision. The quoted portion ONLY applies to when the school has a hand in the speech. Otherwise, it's the STUDENT's view that is expressed, and that is protected.
 
Oh Oops! I missed that link. My mistake. :lol:
 
Geoist said:
The point of posting the Hazelwood case was to demonstrate that the school had the right to review and not accept the boy's speech if they chose. I am not making an argument over religion here.
Click to expand...

Which then comports with Lee making it the student's protected speech and not the school's barred speech.
 
ChrisL said:
Please post a link to this. Now this is my second request.
Click to expand...

My goodness Chris, the link has been posted now three times and is indeed included in the post above. Use your eyes.
 
ChezC3 said:
Saying a prayer doesn't meet those qualifications.
Click to expand...

Essentially the prayer has nothing to do with the real issue: and that is do school administrator's have the authority to review and even censor parts of a speech? I say they do in this case because the child was in a position of privilege. If he was in a classroom or in the hallways then that is another matter. Even then, students and faculty don't have complete freedom of speech as they can be disciplined for cursing and other forms of offensive language.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom