Re: Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

by Aaron Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:34 pm

Whether it was 1925 or 1890, it really doesn't matter. WV's mandated compulsory attendance laws in 1931 and at that point, the law that Cato says was not is meaning he's still wrong.

by SamCogar Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:15 am

Aaron wrote:West Virginia has had compulsory attendance laws since 1931.

as every state has compulsory attendance laws,

Has anyone told Stephanie about that? geek

by SamCogar Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:37 am

Aaron, Im' curuious, don't youse unnerstan dat in 2008 the Commerce Clause became ..... "Congress can pass any law dat it wants to about anything it wants to because anything and everything that exists or happens in the US can be associated with or connected to in-state, inter-state and/or foreign commerce".

Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony - Page 5 33948

by Aaron Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:55 am

I like wikipedia Mike and I've found that it's generally right, as it is here. Regarding incorporation, it appears that we were both at least partially right in what we said as you will see below.

For the record, that's one of the reasons I still come here and to the few other forums I do. In having these conversations, I do study all sides of the issue and am willing to change my mind when I'm wrong or back my opinion when I think I’m right.

At any rate, here’s a little on incorporation of the 14th Amendment.

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1890s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

History

The genesis of incorporation has been traced back to either Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago (1897) in which the Supreme Court appeared to require some form of just compensation for property appropriated by state or local authorities (although there was a state statute on the books that provided the same guarantee) or, more commonly, to Gitlow v. New York (1925), in which the Court expressly held that States were bound to protect freedom of speech. Since that time, the Court has steadily incorporated most of the significant provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Source

While Gitlow is commonly agreed upon as one of the first cases to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states, it only dealt with part of the 1st Amendment, neither of which was religion.

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain provisions of the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states.

Source

Everson is the court case that incorporated the Establishment Clause to the states and that didn’t happen until 1947.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1][2] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the religion clauses in the country's Bill of Rights to state as well as federal law. Prior to this decision the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"[3] imposed limits on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.[4] This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.

source

As is easily seen, there's a reason the government didn't interfere in schools and religion for more then 160 years and that's because it took them that long to incorporate that part of the Establishment Clause to the states.

One can argue whether or not the Establishment Clause should have been incorporated to the states or not but it's really a moot point. It has been and the law is as clear, schools CANNOT establish a religion by giving preference of one over another.

And in looking back through this entire thread, it appears that you and I basically agree in that a student should be allowed their "free speech" to mention whom ever they want in a speech. I don't believe that a school should be allowed to conduct a school sanctioned prayer though and while you've hinted that you agree (mostly because you don't believe in that type of prayer for religious reasons is what I gather), I'm curious as to your thoughts on schools sanctioning these types of prayers. You're an intelligent man, do you believe that schools should allow this or not and if so, how do you deal with the Jew or Muslim who wants their time to say a prayer as well?

by SamCogar Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:22 am

School Censors Religious Words in Graduation Speech

A high school valedictorian in Vermont was forbidden by school administers from delivering nearly half of his graduation speech in which he discussed how Jesus had changed his life.

“I was just sharing a story about my life and how it was changed,” said Kyle Gearwar, the valedictorian at Fair Haven Union High School. “And as an American and as a valedictorian I felt that I should have been able to do that.”

Gearwar, 18, said he had submitted his speech to the principal and the following day he was summoned to the office.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/17/school-censors-religious-words-in-graduation-speech/?test=latestnews

by Aaron Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:51 am

“You can burn a flag but we’re not able to speak about God,” he said. “I just don’t agree with that.”

I don't agree with it either. The young man should have been allowed to give his speech in it's entirety as there is nothing I've found in my reading that prevent him from doing so. There is a HUGE difference in speaking about what God has done for you or for giving thanks to your savior and in a school sanctioned prayer in which EVERYONE present is forced to participate.

There was one aspect to this story that kind of shoots to hell one of the theories posted here.

During the graduation ceremony, several audience members encouraged Gearwar to read the censored and redacted portions of his speech. The Christian teenager declined to do so, explaining that he had given his word to the principal and the assistant principal that he would abide by their decision.

“You’re supposed to respect your authority,” he said. “Even in the Bible it says you should respect the authorities of the land. I wasn’t going to disappoint these men.”

by **SheikBen** Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:16 am

Aaron,

To the south of where I used to live sits a neighborhood that is predominately Muslim. I think we are close to agreeing in that I would have no problem at all with a student graduation speaker mentioning allah, but I would not have any "litiguous" problem with her or him praying, either. When in Rome, let them speak Latin.

Of course, I would not join such a student in prayer, just as atheists, Jews, and Muslims needn't join a West Virginian in prayer, either. And if the prayer drones on and on, speaking to the crowd rather than to God, I say it is in bad form.

The issue, however, is whether the courts should be making these kinds of threats, and I tell you they should not. The right of someone to speak freely is more important than the right of others not to be offended.

I have often found myself in "spiritually uncomfortable" situations, being the evangelical son of very liberal parents, one of whom is a pastor in a church that I reject with the strongest of feelings. However, when I have to be there (such as for the baptisms of my neices and nephew, or my dad's funeral), I keep politely quiet, and then get out of dodge as soon as possible. I have been to a funeral in a synagogue and a wedding in a unitarian church, and both times I was uncomfortable but accommodating.

When the great majority of people have a particular faith, even in a public setting, I think the government can be neutral and yet still allow religious expression. The government is not condoning it, but rather the majority of those assembled.

by **SheikBen** Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:19 am

I think really our primary disagreement Aaron is not in whether there should be an organized prayer but rather whether should be legal reprecussions against it.

by Aaron Sat Jun 18, 2011 2:54 pm

In most cases I would agree Mike. A graduation is not one of them. It is a public gathering and financed by public dollars and to me, I would rather that the majority be upset then to force the minority to set through something they fundamentally disagree with.

Now were the majority like you and were willing to set through a Muslim prayer I might feel different but as the majority would raise holy hell if the prayer was to Allah yet somehow have the misguided notion that setting through a Christian prayer is then perhaps I might think differently.

And if the principals of these schools would allow a Muslim, Jewish or Wiccan prayer, then I would say the government could remain neutral but as the vast majority would NEVER consider allowing those types of prayers, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

I believe that not only should the courts be what you would be making threats (I believe what they are doing is upholding their oath to protect the the Constitution) to eliminate public sanctioned religion, but for the principals of those schools that do allow it and in essance are violating the Establishment Clause, should lose their jobs.

by SamCogar Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:04 am

(I believe what they are doing is upholding their oath to protect the the Constitution)

Well now, I'm sure glad someone is ....... because those 3 or 4 minute prayers and praying in the Public Schools are going to be the downfall of this great country iffen they don't put a stop to it.

YA let one widdle thing like praying in the Public Schools get by with violating Constitutional Law and for ya know it it won't be very many years before the President, the Congress, Federal Agencies, Judges, etc. will be doing the same thing ......... and then you will have one hell of mess.

So yup, nip it in the bud, put a stop to all Public School praying. The future of the United States of America is depending on all you concerned citizens insuring that the Public Schools obey the Laws.

Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony - Page 5 395770

by Aaron Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:18 am

If I supported this Sam you would be against it. As you hate religion, I'm sure it pains you to take that stance.

by SamCogar Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:58 am

HA, when ya get as old n' decrepit as me, ....... then you like to be leaning against something just to prevent those stance pains from occurring.

And it sure helps in keeping ya from peeing in the floor or on the back of the commode.

by Aaron Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:21 am

Thanks for proving my point Sam.

by TerryRC Sat Jul 09, 2011 7:20 am

Then Congress is in violation of the US Constitution when they open with prayer. Additionally, all churches on government property , like military bases is in breech of the 1st amendment.

Yes.

by TerryRC Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:17 am

I think really our primary disagreement Aaron is not in whether there should be an organized prayer but rather whether should be legal reprecussions against it.

Without legal repercussions, how do you keep organized prayer from being publicly funded?

by Keli Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:03 am

TerryRC wrote:I think really our primary disagreement Aaron is not in whether there should be an organized prayer but rather whether should be legal reprecussions against it.

Without legal repercussions, how do you keep organized prayer from being publicly funded?

Another judge overruled the original judge, does that it right to allow prayer? If not, why not? We are governed by judges--aren't we?

by TerryRC Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:09 am

Another judge overruled the original judge, does that it right to allow prayer?

No. It will now likely go to a higher court to be decided.

If not, why not? We are governed by judges--aren't we?

Partly. They interpret the rules that we are required to live by. They can't overturn the COTUS, however.

Publicly funded prayer is wrong. Fund it through your tax exempt church, if you absolutely must wear your religion on your sleeve.

by **SheikBen** Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:59 am

TerryRC wrote:I think really our primary disagreement Aaron is not in whether there should be an organized prayer but rather whether should be legal reprecussions against it.

Without legal repercussions, how do you keep organized prayer from being publicly funded?

Welcome back, TerryRC.

You don't keep organized prayer from being publically funded. One cannot completely remove public funding from any controversial behavior. Students in a classroom are going to say and write about matters that others find inappropriate, as will teachers. Public lands are going to have something on them that bothers somebody. Members of Congress are going to hold views that others find offensive and speak about them during the session.

It comes down to a "choice of rights," really. I don't suppose I'd care for about 50% of the agregate of what Army Chaplains say during their services, but the right of soldiers to worship is more important than my right not to be offended or bothered by what people on the public payrolls are saying and doing. I don't suppose I care for the prayers of a great many public school children, but their right to practice their faith and to speak freely is more important than my right to impose my theological standards (or in the case of others, their lack thereof) upon them.

by **SheikBen** Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:01 am

TerryRC wrote:Another judge overruled the original judge, does that it right to allow prayer?

No. It will now likely go to a higher court to be decided.

If not, why not? We are governed by judges--aren't we?

Partly. They interpret the rules that we are required to live by. They can't overturn the COTUS, however.

Publicly funded prayer is wrong. Fund it through your tax exempt church, if you absolutely must wear your religion on your sleeve.

Although we obviously disagree here, I think you make a good point that there are plenty of churches in which religious activity can occur. I think it was JFK who indicated that those who were upset by the ban on school prayer should "pray more at home."

by Sponsored content