• 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


  • Total voters
    38
Sigh. It's sad that people still need to appeal to other's bigotry in order to get them to understand the need for separation of church and state. :(

Wait...

Are you suggesting that those who didn't want their kid to graduate within a church to ALSO be bigotted?
 
Churches don't typically have booths up in the lobby of the Church as you go in to vote, staffed with individuals preaching their message and advertising their church to you.

I know this, my father is a pastor and the church he is the pastor of is also a voting site. They don't do this and I would have a problem if they did. I think it's a bad ruling though to ban churches from hosting graduations because there may be a cross or hymnal visible and then to say that merely having these things on the premises somehow violates the constitution.
 
Depends what you mean by preach. If you mean giving a specific religious sermon, no. If you mean publicly speaking a religious message, then it seems as an arguable yes.

The issue with this case, as explained in the decision that was linked, was the additional presence of actively staffed booths at the ceremony that was advertising and pushing the churches message. It's one thing to use a church's building for just that...a building. It's another thing when your use of the church essentially bestows upon said church an active audiance to be preached and advertised to. The former doesn't give the impression that the school is advocating the religious institution, the other does due to active religious activity at the event the school is running done in such a way as to obviously target the individuals that make up the large portion of the attendees.

And that fits into my expectations. If there's a religious message being actively pushed (as with the booths) then yes...I agree. But if the ruling goes so far as to say "no, never..never in a religious building regardless of circumstances" then it goes too far.
 
The court ruling actually touched on this. It stated that there is nothing inherently wrong with a government institution using a churches facilities as that...facilities.

However, it was the prescense of actively manned booths conducting prostiliticizing of religious programs and messages to the attendees of the graduation that was the issue as it took it from simply using the venue to providing the appearance of the state actively endorsing a religion by allowing the promotion and advertising by the church at a graduation.

Had they simply been uing the venue, and the church simply allowed them to use the venue just as a convention center or other meeting place would simply allow someone to use a venue, that'd be one thing and I'd have no issue with it. However, when the church is using the schools use of their venue as a means of gaining an audience to actively advertise to, that becomes an issue.

Thank you for explaining that. I then would agree with your conclusion.
 
...I fail to see why holding a graduation in a mosque would be a big deal. Again, if you're just renting out the building for your own private uses, if there are no religious ceremonies, observances, or procedures required, then what the hell is the problem?

I understand MTP's point...not in a constitutional sense but in a general sense.

If I'm deeply Christian, and my son's graduating, I don't want to have the memory of his graduation either mentally or with pictures being littered with the holy symbols of a religion that isn't his own because they are symbols that don't represent or apply to him being tied to a major event. I can understand the same way if a Buddist or a Muslim or such would rather not have it in a Church for that same reason.

On a completely different level but analogy...I'd be annoyed and bothered if my son's graduation was done at say, some place with Cowboy's logos all over the place, because I wouldn't want to take pictures of his graduation with a giant Cowboys hat being immortalized in that picture of him for all time. ;)

That's not saying I agree necessarily that for that reason it should be unconstitutional....just that I fully understand why someone would possibly not want to see their kid's graduation occur in a place with religious symbols that are not their own prominently displayed all over.
 
I know this, my father is a pastor and the church he is the pastor of is also a voting site. They don't do this and I would have a problem if they did. I think it's a bad ruling though to ban churches from hosting graduations because there may be a cross or hymnal visible and then to say that merely having these things on the premises somehow violates the constitution.

That's not what happened though. In this case it was banned because additional things, such as the manned booths I spoke about, were enough to give forth the impression that the state was promoting a religion. Since this prevoius post was missed I thought I'd repost it again:

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

Note this part of the decision:

Before advancing the reasoning behind our decision, it
is important to note the limited scope of this opinion.
The ruling should not be construed as a broad statement
about the propriety of governmental use of church-owned
facilities
. Rather, the holding is a narrowly focused one,
as it must be under our Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.
 
Last edited:
Where did he say Fear?

What other reason is there behind it? Someone firm in their own faith doesn't get bothered by stepping into a building used by a different faith. Someone firm in their own faith has no problem witnessing and learning about other faiths. So, IMO, to deny your kid from setting foot inside such a place must be based in some sort of fear, or irrational thought.

Tessa's post reminded me that this summer, in preparation for a literature class this next school year, my son had to read a good portion of the bible. Yes, this is in a public school. They will be studying that and a few other classic works, as pure literature. I have no problem with that.
 
That's not what happened though. In this case it was banned because additional things, such as the manned booths I spoke about, were enough to give forth the impression that the state was promoting a religion. Since this prevoius post was missed I thought I'd repost it again:

Special Thanks for this SCOTUS ruling. Not much new under the sun, is there? ;) They should've known better.
 
What other reason is there behind it?

The desire for a memorable childhood event to occur in a place that is either neutral or in line with that child's principles and faith rather than one that runs askew to it?

It doesn't seem that MTP thinks somehting horrible is going to ecome of his son if he goes into a mosque or it's some kind of danger to him...but rather that simply he'd not want that moment of his son's life happening with a Star and Crescent in the background. His son is Christian, he believes in the Christian God and the bible as their particular interpretation of it goes, and as such see's no reason why he needs to be in the building of another persons faith.

I imagine many feel the same way about having it in a church, and such is perfectly understandable. That doesn't mean they "FEAR" christians...it simply means they don't want to have their children forced / coerced into a place that is religious in nature that is different than their own by the choice of the government.

Now...I'm not very religious, and going to that extent that you hope they never step foot in such a place seems kind of silly to me, but I don't see it as inherently based in FEAR or some horrible bigoted or intolerant notion.
 
Wait...

Are you suggesting that those who didn't want their kid to graduate within a church to ALSO be bigotted?

I'm suggesting that people who have no problem with holding graduation in a church, until it's pointed out to them that other religions would also benefit from such a policy, are bigots. I don't see why it's that hard to empathize with non-Christians not wanting a governmental function being in a church. People are remarkably quick to impose their own religious views on others until the shoe is on the other foot.
 
Last edited:
That's not what happened though. In this case it was banned because additional things, such as the manned booths I spoke about, were enough to give forth the impression that the state was promoting a religion. Since this prevoius post was missed I thought I'd repost it again:

Thank you, Zyphlin...:)
 
I understand MTP's point...not in a constitutional sense but in a general sense.

If I'm deeply Christian, and my son's graduating, I don't want to have the memory of his graduation either mentally or with pictures being littered with the holy symbols of a religion that isn't his own because they are symbols that don't represent or apply to him being tied to a major event. I can understand the same way if a Buddist or a Muslim or such would rather not have it in a Church for that same reason.

On a completely different level but analogy...I'd be annoyed and bothered if my son's graduation was done at say, some place with Cowboy's logos all over the place, because I wouldn't want to take pictures of his graduation with a giant Cowboys hat being immortalized in that picture of him for all time. ;)

That's not saying I agree necessarily that for that reason it should be unconstitutional....just that I fully understand why someone would possibly not want to see their kid's graduation occur in a place with religious symbols that are not their own prominently displayed all over.

Zyph, I'm going to PM you a video that will make you crack the eff up.
 
I'm suggesting that people who have no problem with holding graduation in a church, until it's pointed out to them that other "unacceptable" religions like Islam would also benefit from such a policy, are bigots.

Really? So when people realize something based on the "put yourself in someone elses shoes, how would you feel? "logic it shows that they're a bigot because it took them looking at it from another direction to realize it?

They didn't have any issue with it, becuase they're viewing it from the eyes of a christian having to do it in a christian building. However, when they step back and think about it as "Well, what would I feel if it was me being forced to go into a non-christian building, would that bother me?" and realize what it is that they would be requiring of others by saying it's okay, they decide to go against it.

It's not much different than when someone's yelling about how they want Westboro shut up and then someone points out how, if they act against their speech then the government could act against your own as well, causing them to rethink and change their mind. Sometimes people just aren't viewing an issue from a certain angle, and then putting themselves in the other persons position allows them to get a better view of it and realize that there's a problem.
 
That's not what happened though. In this case it was banned because additional things, such as the manned booths I spoke about, were enough to give forth the impression that the state was promoting a religion. Since this prevoius post was missed I thought I'd repost it again:



Note this part of the decision:

If they were promoting a religion with manned booths then I support the ruling, I had only read the quoted text in the OP. My dad told me part of the agreement is that no one can physically promote any religious function and that no church sponsored religious activity can happen within 100 feet of the property. Having a physically manned booth would violate this. However, having to cover crosses or other things isn't necessary.
 
Largely ambivalent.

But in this case, was this graduation only being held in this Church, or was this just one venue?
 
Now...I'm not very religious, and going to that extent that you hope they never step foot in such a place seems kind of silly to me, but I don't see it as inherently based in FEAR or some horrible bigoted or intolerant notion.

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.
 
Really? So when people realize something based on the "put yourself in someone elses shoes, how would you feel? "logic it shows that they're a bigot because it took them looking at it from another direction to realize it?

They didn't have any issue with it, becuase they're viewing it from the eyes of a christian having to do it in a christian building. However, when they step back and think about it as "Well, what would I feel if it was me being forced to go into a non-christian building, would that bother me?" and realize what it is that they would be requiring of others by saying it's okay, they decide to go against it.

It's not much different than when someone's yelling about how they want Westboro shut up and then someone points out how, if they act against their speech then the government could act against your own as well, causing them to rethink and change their mind. Sometimes people just aren't viewing an issue from a certain angle, and then putting themselves in the other persons position allows them to get a better view of it and realize that there's a problem.

Fair enough, I overreacted. Probably because I just read about this lawmaker: ;)

Louisiana Republican: When I Voted for State Funds to go to Religious Schools, I Didn’t Mean Muslim Ones
 
This is simply not how our judicial system works, and never has. Context is always important, and if there is any element of coercion (either against the attendees or the taxpayers) then the government is infringing on First Amendment rights. And a graduation ceremony most definitely applies to both, as it's a common event that most people want to attend.

Context and how "a reasonable person would behave" are often two entirely different things. Hell...if we were all reasonable then there would be no need for courts. IE one persons reasonableness is another persons insanity. Hence why the courts generally, in matters of the Constitution, go by what the Constitution says or meant and not by what you or I think is reasonable. So yes, they go by context...but not "how a reasonable person would behave".

No, actually that would not make any sense at all. Because the First Amendment didn't even apply to the states at the time it was ratified (that didn't come until nearly 100 years later). And because public education was rare or nonexistent at the time. And because the people who ratified the First Amendment were not a monolithic entity, and therefore didn't mean to apply it in ANY particular way. Trying to decipher what they would have thought about a church being used for a public school's graduation ceremony is a futile exercise and not particularly relevant to the world in 2012.

Actually it makes perfect sense. If something else should come up in which the correct interpretation is not sufficient then a new amendment should be made. Not have the original arbritrarily changed because of some nebulous reasoning based upon current events. There is a reason that the FF's made it to where the Constitution could be changed...and why its considered a "living document". From what I read right here you appear to be one of those people that are quite willing to change the meaning and intent of the Constitution just so you can have your way. That path leads to tyranny and rights being applied unequally.

The government doesn't need to "shield people from religion" in the sense of restricting the actions of private entities. But it DOES have a responsibility to shield people from religion in its own affairs. The state is spending taxpayer money and the school is holding a public event that most participants will want to attend. Therefore they do have a responsibility to not spend it on anything religious, for the same reason that the state can't outright build a mosque with taxpayer money and open a DMV inside.

No actually it doesn't. The only responsibility that the government has towards religion is to make no laws against it or prevent others from practicing thier prefered religion. That was the whole ideal behind "seperation of church and state". The state could not make any laws against religion. Ironically the State can make laws based upon religion...example...DOMA. Now yes I know that one court deemed DOMA unconstitional..but it did not do so because DOMA is based on religious grounds.

I'm not sure what you think this proves, other than that some courts once had a different interpretation of the First Amendment than they do now (or just didn't enforce it as well). It says nothing about which interpretation is "correct" (whatever that means).

The point was to show that the 1st amendment was never meant to prevent public entities from being in a church or stop a court room from displaying the 10 Commandments. It was just there to prevent the government from making laws against any religion period.

So in your view, would it be constitutional for teachers in public schools to start preaching Scientology and actively try to convert their students, as long as they didn't force them? What if the school made conversion to Scientology a requirement in order to participate in after-school events, which are entirely optional?

Preaching yes. Actively trying to convert yes. Both are a form of coercion. But simply having a graduation ceremony in a church (no matter the denomination) then yeah...I have no problem with it. Simply having the 10 commandments in a courtroom...I have no problem with it. Even if those 10 commandments were based in Islam or Scientology I wouldn't care.

The problem is that when you put people in a religious atmosphere like that, it's essentially an advertisement for that religion.

So what? Are people such sheep that they can't think for themselves? Again, its freedom OF religion...not freedom FROM religion. It makes a HUGE difference in interpretation.

I don't really have a problem with it since it's on individual people's graves. If Arlington Cemetery had religious iconography that weren't for specific people or groups of people (and I don't know if they do), I'd be more likely to have a problem with that. Although they probably get more leeway than public schools, since it's an historical site and monument.

But it is still provided by the government and is on government property. Is that not a form of advertisement? Arlington is after all open to anyone. Along with the other cemetaries for our soldiers.
 
I dont see how anybody thinks it was the wrong ruling, a church is sacred ground to RELIGION period. Its protected by special laws that deem it so. How on one hand do we lawfully allow the church to discriminate against anybody they want and on the other hand force people to go to the same place for a graduation? thats plan stupid and why its should not be allowed.

Its wrong.

not to mention its not for you to decided, simply entering the building of another/different religion's place of worship maybe sinning to someone so thats the end of the discussion, you would be infringing on their rights.

Its no over blown PC per the law its proper and what is right.

What if:
it was a devil worshiping church
a strip club
a hall owned by the KKK with its symbols and literature on the walls and front
a hall inside an abortion clinic with its adds and name on the walls and front
a hall of an anti-gay org, anti-woman org

now some of my examples have nothing to do with the constitution or religion but I was just using them to show how people may get mad, upset, uncomfortable real quick.

its the totally wrong venue for such matters and the court ruled properly on this no brainier.
 
Context and how "a reasonable person would behave" are often two entirely different things. Hell...if we were all reasonable then there would be no need for courts. IE one persons reasonableness is another persons insanity. Hence why the courts generally, in matters of the Constitution, go by what the Constitution says or meant and not by what you or I think is reasonable. So yes, they go by context...but not "how a reasonable person would behave".

If it's in the context of an event in which a person is technically able to leave or not attend, but few people would choose that option because they want to participate, then it's not really a free choice and there's still a captive audience. And in any case, the taxpayers presumably paid for the graduation ceremony.

Actually it makes perfect sense. If something else should come up in which the correct interpretation is not sufficient then a new amendment should be made. Not have the original arbritrarily changed because of some nebulous reasoning based upon current events. There is a reason that the FF's made it to where the Constitution could be changed...and why its considered a "living document".

The fact that the Constitution has only been amended 15 times in the last 200 years (only 6 of which were major changes, and 3 of those were done at gunpoint) should tell you something about how well our amendment process works.

From what I read right here you appear to be one of those people that are quite willing to change the meaning and intent of the Constitution just so you can have your way. That path leads to tyranny and rights being applied unequally.

The Constitution has been interpreted in ways that the framers could never have envisioned (and probably wouldn't have wanted within the context of their own society) since at least 1803. Yet here we are 200+ years later, and we aren't quite North Korea.

No actually it doesn't. The only responsibility that the government has towards religion is to make no laws against it or prevent others from practicing thier prefered religion. That was the whole ideal behind "seperation of church and state". The state could not make any laws against religion.

So if the government wanted to spend 20% of our GDP tithing to a particular church, would you have any constitutional objection?

The point was to show that the 1st amendment was never meant to prevent public entities from being in a church or stop a court room from displaying the 10 Commandments. It was just there to prevent the government from making laws against any religion period.

But there has never been a point in our nation's history when simultaneously both the 1st amendment was applied as its authors would have intended, and when the 14th amendment was applied as ITS authors would have intended. So even if one were to care about such things, the fact that schools were allowed more leeway with churches in the past has no real bearing on the "original intent" of such amendments.

Ironically the State can make laws based upon religion...example...DOMA. Now yes I know that one court deemed DOMA unconstitional..but it did not do so because DOMA is based on religious grounds.

Probably because nothing about God or religion appears in the text of the law, to my knowledge.

So what? Are people such sheep that they can't think for themselves? Again, its freedom OF religion...not freedom FROM religion. It makes a HUGE difference in interpretation.

Yes, people are sheep, and yes, it's an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of religion (particularly if the taxpayers paid for the ceremony) unless there's a damn good reason such as a lack of available secular venues.

But it is still provided by the government and is on government property. Is that not a form of advertisement? Arlington is after all open to anyone. Along with the other cemetaries for our soldiers.

Again I'd go back to the question of whether there is any legitimate government purpose for the religious iconography. In the case of a graduation ceremony, the public purpose might be that it was the only available venue. In the case of Arlington, it's to honor specific soldiers or groups of soldiers in accordance with their wishes, and to serve as an historical site. Unless there is some legitimate purpose, the government has no business promoting ANY religious iconography.
 
Last edited:

Yeah. See I have two distinctly different feelings between people who go:

"I want this, but only for my [x]. I'm against it for their [x], but still want it for my [x]"

and people who go

"I wanted this for my [x], but I realize I wouldn't want it for their [x], which makes me understand why I can't/shouldn't have it for my [x] so I no longer want it"

The lawmaker seems to have wanted something, didn't think it all the way through, and is getting pissy with what happened with it. I see that different from what some people expressed in this thread.
 


wow I read this and theres only one conclusion to come to.

Valarie Hodges is a bat ****, ape crazy, bigoted, selfish, hypocritical moron and she is one of many of the embarrassments of our judicial system/office holders. She even says the religion of our founders? Wow does she even have a clue what she is talking about. This womens urine needs checked every hour on the hour and get her a CAT scan ASAP. LMAO
 
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.

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
 
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom