• 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!

Is This Ruling Correct?

Is the ruling listed correct

  • I am conservative and I think it is correct

    Votes: 4 10.5%

  • I am conservative and I think it is wrong

    Votes: 6 15.8%

  • I am a conservative and I do not know or am abivelant

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • I am a liberal and I think it is correct

    Votes: 14 36.8%

  • I am a liberal and I think it is wrong

    Votes: 9 23.7%

  • I am a liberal and I do not know or am abilvelant

    Votes: 4 10.5%
  • Total voters
    38
Boring Bob said:
The ruling is ludicrous. Soon schools won't be able to rent out their buildings to churches on Sundays either (something quite common in my area). What the owner of a building uses the building for and what the school used the building for are completely separate, so unless the school subjected the graduating students to a religious sermon no unconstitutional actions were taken.

7 years ago when I was in the high school symphonic band the school building wasn't finished yet, so we had to find another location in which to perform our fall concert. A local church offered us their auditorium for free if the marching band agreed to perform at a church event. Of course the school agreed. Not a single person complained about separation of church and state or any other B.S. We needed an auditorium, they had one, we used it. It doesn't matter that it was a church. Sure, it would have been a problem if we had to sit through a sermon beforehand, but the event we played at was mostly just a party.

These situations are, from all available evidence, exactly the same. No one in my 2400 student public school seemed to mind. Why is it an issue now?
Click to expand...

those situations are even close to the same IMO unless you strip it down to bare basics, school activity in a religious place but a extracurricular activity as a band concert and graduation are not equal.

Neither is your first statement equal either, the school renting their facilities to a religious group is not even close to the school holding their graduation at a church. Nobody has to go to the religious function because of graduation.

Also while I dont think its needed for the ruling the HUGE issue is there were people there handing out flyers and basically recruiting, that makes the issue a done deal and the ruling even more spot on.
 
Arbo said:
Well, we disagree on that. I see all the 'we don't want pictures that have symbols other than what we believe in' as a load of nonsense excuse making. Covering for the fear.
Click to expand...

What exactly is there to fear oh wise one? What could I fear of a mosque? Is it going to suddenly come to life and kill my family and I? Is it going to spew flaming Qurans at me? Is some sort of "Scorpion King" sand wall going to sweep in from Mecca because an infidel stepped inside? Uh, no. I don't want my son in a mosque, I don't want to be in a mosque (I've been in enough of them), and I don't want one of the best moments of my life to occur in a mosque. Why? Because I disapprove of Islam. And nothing more. You can call that intolerant all you want. I call it having personal beliefs that I'm in no way trying to force upon anyone else. It would be fifferent if I was okay with the grad in a church but not the mosque. That would be intolerant. I'm not good with either.
Unlike you my friend, I've actually lived with muslims. I'm not talking going out on a few missions with them. I'm talking eating with, sleeping beside, sharing a toilet (if we had it) with, crying with over lost comrades (of US and Iraqi descent), LIVED with muslims for over a year. I have gotten up and left the room when they prayed. I have been through MANY Islamic funerals with them where the Quran was read and I was expected to close my eyes when a prayer was spoken. I am the furthest thing from intolerant of the religion of Islam. I simply do not want one of my son's best accomplishments at that point in his life to occur in the house of a religion that I do not agree with. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
I think it's an OK ruling. If students don't agree with Christianity, do they go anyway and be uncomfortable? Do they opt to not go? If so, what do they do then?

No, I think graduation should be held where it belongs: in school.
 
Just using a church building would not violate the constitution, imho. However, I agree with the court's ruling because this was not simply using a church building. It was using graduation as a church recruitment opportunity. That IS a violation of the constitution. I believe that holding graduations in a mosque or synagog would be fine as well... unless students were required to adhere to religious dress requirements such as yamakas and head coverings required of females in some religious venues, including certain Catholic and Christian denominations.

A stripped out building is fine. A fully decked out church, synagog or mosque, complete with religious material handouts and religious dress requirements, not so much.
 
Connery said:
No not fear....In order to understand the reason behind the first amendment all one has to do is look to Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists 1802 where Jefferson speaks of a "Wall of Separation" between the feral government and religion. This was the thought process and framework for the First Amendment.




Background​

"Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted."

Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Jefferson's reply​



To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & 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 eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

[Jefferson first wrote: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that." These lines he crossed out and then wrote: "concurring with"; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience"; next he crossed out these words and wrote: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."]
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - Library of Congress Information Bulletin
Click to expand...

this wasnt the thought or framework of the first amendment,madison wrote the first amendment,jefferson only had some inspirational speeches that inspired parts of the constitution,but didnt write or even sign the constitution or bill of rights.

madison was the largest contributor to the 1st amendment,madison and jefferson both agreed on govt and religion being seperates,but jefferson took it to higher levels.madison believe the govt should be influenced by,or fund religion.jefferson believed they shouldnt be in contact with eachother.


the simple fact is the word seperation of church and state didnt come about until well after the first amendment was written and signed by a person who didnt do either.
 
Arbo said:
Cut out all the fat to get the heart of it. Just as I initially said... All the fat is just excuses.
Click to expand...

You intially said I was intolerant. I have shown I'm not.
Then you said I was somehow fearful of Islam. I have shown I'm not.
What is it now? Where do you plan to move the goal posts? Because it would be the third time you've done so. You're issue is you don't know why you believe what you believe. You just believe it. That, or you are not articulate enough to express why you believe what you believe. Its not my fault nor my concern that you can't do so. Don't attempt to attack my stance and support thereof simply because you just believe something and can't tell me why. Also, you're SuperPAC like splicing of my comments is very misleading and, frankly, expected of you.
 
Wake said:
I think it's an OK ruling. If students don't agree with Christianity, do they go anyway and be uncomfortable? Do they opt to not go? If so, what do they do then?

No, I think graduation should be held where it belongs: in school.
Click to expand...

Just FYI: Most regular high school graduation ceremonies do not take place at the school. Schools rent out time at local community centers, colleges, concert venues, etc more often than not. Hell, even my cousin's graduating class of 40 people had a ceremony off campus (outside the Shiner Beer factory in Shiner, TX).
 
tessaesque said:
Just FYI: Most regular high school graduation ceremonies do not take place at the school. Schools rent out time at local community centers, colleges, concert venues, etc more often than not. Hell, even my cousin's graduating class of 40 people had a ceremony off campus (outside the Shiner Beer factory in Shiner, TX).
Click to expand...

not saying you are wrong because frankly I dont know but everyone in my area is held at the school on on the football field ive been to graduations in 14 different school districts so I wouldnt say thats true, id say it varies.
 
Objective-J said:
not saying you are wrong because frankly I dont know but everyone in my area is held at the school on on the football field ive been to graduations in 14 different school districts so I wouldnt say thats true, id say it varies.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's regional? 'Cause in Michigan, Texas, and Indiana I've only known of ONE graduation ceremony that took place on district property.
 
tessaesque said:
Maybe it's regional? 'Cause in Michigan, Texas, and Indiana I've only known of ONE graduation ceremony that took place on district property.
Click to expand...

Every high school graduation I've ever been to around here has been at the school itself. I know that's the case at local schools, I've driven past them and seen it.
 
MarineTpartier said:
You intially said I was intolerant. I have shown I'm not.
Click to expand...

Being around a group you are intolerant of does not not mean you are tolerant of them. It's sort of like when people say 'but I have black/gay friends'. The rest of your rant is just diversion.
 
Phys251 said:
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...

Looks like we have our answer.

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...

Bam. Lemon Test failed. The court got this one right.
 
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...

The ruling is correct, and consistent with a 1985 ruling against the state of Alabama, stating that government must take a stance of "complete neutrality toward religion".
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Firstly, just because it IS undesireable to some people to not attend their graduation ceremony doesn't mean anything objectively. Secondly, your "football prayer" example is a poor one. The player doesn't have to quit the team. He can choose to not participate in the prayer.

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.
Click to expand...

If the proselytizing and evangelism had not happened there would have been no promoting of religion just because it was held in a building.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Religious intolerance, once again, is me telling someone else they can't practice their religion. I'm not saying that. I'm saying I don't want my son inside a mosque. Which I have a perfect right to say. If someone wants to practice Islam, more power to them. If they want to build a mosque, have at it. If they want to force me into the mosque in order to see my son graduate, I now have a problem with that. My course of action would be to just hold my son out of graduation. I wouldn't force everyone else to bend to my beliefs. However, thats the way this was handled in our lawsuit happy country so here we are.
Click to expand...

You sound like allowing your son to be in a mosque will corrupt him in some way. To me, that sounds like religious intolerance. I do agree with the last few lines of your post, though.
 
I don't think people should be required to go to a religious building for a state supported secular event. There is no switch that can flipped which makes a religious building non-religious for a period of time.
 
beerftw said:
this wasnt the thought or framework of the first amendment,madison wrote the first amendment,jefferson only had some inspirational speeches that inspired parts of the constitution,but didnt write or even sign the constitution or bill of rights.

madison was the largest contributor to the 1st amendment,madison and jefferson both agreed on govt and religion being seperates,but jefferson took it to higher levels.madison believe the govt should be influenced by,or fund religion.jefferson believed they shouldnt be in contact with eachother.


the simple fact is the word seperation of church and state didnt come about until well after the first amendment was written and signed by a person who didnt do either.
Click to expand...


There are many more qualified authorities who would disagree with you. "The Supreme Court turned the spotlight on the "wall of separation" phrase in 1878 by declaring in Reynolds v. United States "that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment."

The high court took the same position in widely publicized decisions in 1947 and 1948, asserting in the latter case, McCollum v. Board of Education, that, "in the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" Since McCollum forbade religious instruction in public schools, it appeared that the court had used Jefferson's "wall" metaphor as a sword to sever religion from public life, a result that was and still is intolerable to many Americans."
 
Last edited:
Arbo said:
Being around a group you are intolerant of does not not mean you are tolerant of them. It's sort of like when people say 'but I have black/gay friends'. The rest of your rant is just diversion.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is a homphobe or racist can have black or gay friends? Wouldn't that make them, I don't know, not a homophobe or racist? I'm slowly seeing why you are a mockery on this website. You are not offering debate in any terms. You have a stance, you don't know why you believe it or how to express it, and anyone that debates your stance is just wrong. The funny part is, your stance is telling me how I feel lol. When evidence is lacking, stonewalling is the best route to go eh?
 
MarineTpartier said:
So what you're saying is a homphobe or racist can have black or gay friends? Wouldn't that make them, I don't know, not a homophobe or racist? I'm slowly seeing why you are a mockery on this website. You are not offering debate in any terms. You have a stance, you don't know why you believe it or how to express it, and anyone that debates your stance is just wrong. The funny part is, your stance is telling me how I feel lol. When evidence is lacking, stonewalling is the best route to go eh?
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a lot of work to divert from your own issues. But if it makes you feel better about yourself, go for it, you obviously need it.
 
Arbo said:
Wow, that's a lot of work to divert from your own issues. But if it makes you feel better about yourself, go for it, you obviously need it.
Click to expand...

I do feel better because I now realize the exercise in futility that is conversing with Arbo. I can now unsubscribe from this thread and move on to other threads that are populated by users who are actually here to debate and not tell people what they believe, be proved wrong, then attempt to stonewall them by throwing out 1 or 2 line posts that have nothing to do with the initial topic.
 
It can be held in any church that recognizes Barack Obama as our Messiah.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I do feel better because I now realize the exercise in futility that is conversing with Arbo. I can now unsubscribe from this thread and move on to other threads that are populated by users who are actually here to debate and not tell people what they believe, be proved wrong, then attempt to stonewall them by throwing out 1 or 2 line posts that have nothing to do with the initial topic.
Click to expand...

You are the one that has repeated the line (paraphrase) "I would not let my son set foot in a mosque". Your words are your own cross to bear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom