tragic_pizza

Hopefully, this was simply an instance of making a political point. The students disagreed with the ruling and were staging a peaceful protest.

Toto

This is more like civil disobedience ("disturbing the peace") than a peaceful protest. It has all the marks of an underhanded attempt to get around the separation of church and state.

tragic_pizza

This would be true if there were evidence of a concerted effort, rather than spontaneous protest.

In any case, one may argue that civil disobedience has its place.

scigirl

At my recent graduation in May, the opening prayer was given by the dean of the College of Native American Studies. While everyone else was wearing their silly robes and obnoxious hats, she was wearing her tribe's native clothing. She did the 'prayer' in her native tongue, than translated. It really was beautiful, and even though I don't believe in "the great spirit," I actually am glad for the experience, and I sometimes think the ACLU goes a bit too far. The chosen words were very tactful, and non-offensive. Although I would be interested to see how Christians viewed it. Perhaps they were angry cuz it was the wrong 'Great Spirit.'

Anyway, I wonder, in our zeal to keep the Christians from shoving "praise Jesus" down our throats, if we are missing out on other opportunities to bridge cultural barriers and such?

Of course, I am not from the Bible Belt - there's not a lot of "blesserize" america here, Montanans value freedom and independence more than God I guess.

scigirl

Mageth

An atheist student at the school had requested the order. And the judge ruled that the student would likely "suffer irreparable harm" by being forced to sit through the prayer. The student stayed home rather than attend graduation.

I'm all for separation of church and state, and against "sanctioned" prayers in schools, but am I the only one who thinks it's highly unlikely that anyone could suffer "irreparable harm" by sitting through a f**king prayer?

I think at least the student who instigated the prayer should suffer whatever disciplinary action, if any, the school had planned for any student causing a disturbance at graduation (they may not have any if graduation is after the school year ends). If they had an organized prayer, and an atheist student stood up and interrupted it in an act of civil disobedience, you can pretty much guarantee the student would have been disciplined.

Toto

Half of the crowd joining in sounds pretty concerted to me.

And what is the principle for which you use civil disobedience? Maintaining a crypto-theocracy where Christians can force everyone else to listen to them?

GaryP

When someone prays out loud, everyone who hears it is forced to participate also. It is obviously a passive participation, but nonetheless, LISTEN is a verb also.

What if there were some type of "anti-prayer" given at activities which should be secular? Would the ACLJ stand by and not protest?

I do see the point about it being more nebulous if student-intiated. But if the school gives the student the microphone, it has granted him/her power which the other kids don't have.

In my city of about 35,000 there are over 50 churches. In 1998, our whole family attended my son's church and they had a service just for the kids.

Then I go to his commencement, and of the 3 songs performed 2 of them were hymns. I would think that if a family wishes a religious slant for their children, they surely can find a church.

Churches can even go together, rent the H.S. Auditorium and have a Baccaulaureate(sp?)service right before graduation if they wish. Why can't they keep the prayers there?

Arrowman

My 5 cents.

1 cent. I agree with Mageth - a "irreperable damage" from having to listen to a prayer? Oh, please. This is the sort of extreme claim which gives C-S activists a bad name. Methinks the student in question could use a lesson in effective activism. I'm surprised the judge swallowed/used that argument, especially when there should be plenty of other grounds for disallowing the prayer. Sounds like the judge was a little too eager to find for the plaintiff. Of course the AP article cited is very brief, and perhaps they just picked out the most "interesting" (ie sensational) part of the judgement.

2 cents. I question the words "student led prayer" used in the article. Sounds more like "staff sanctioned and initiated as a part of the ceremony". By definition (almost) if a student (and court) knows about the prayer in advance, it's school-initiated/sanctioned and therefore unconstitutional.

3 cents. scigirl makes a good point - sometimes we need to pull back a bit and try to be objective/realistic. Native American and other religious rites have sufficient "novelty value" for people to be able to ignore them, while at the same time condemning Christian rites at school ceremonies. Imagine the uproar if a court was asked to prevent the use of a Native American prayer at a graduation! A bit of cognitive dissonance happening here, I think. My personal non-PC view is that NA and other "minority" religious rites should not enjoy exemption simply because of their novelty. On the other hand, I expect that the overwhelming majority of the audience would place no religious value at all on the recitation in question and it would be difficult to establish it as a "school-sanctioned relgious expression" or whatever. Still, it is what it is. And if a fundy member of the audience objected and took offence at a "pagan prayer", I'd be hard pressed to argue against them. After all, that's the argument we so often use to keep "prayer out of schools" - "how would you feel if a (eg) Muslim prayer was used?"

4 cents. I don't think the student actions in any way qualifies as a spontaneous piece of civil disobedience. It sounds quite contrived and very likely with the tacit support of the school. Again, however, I must be wary of hypocrisy - I suspect I would take a different view of a similar action by, say, Tibetan Buddhists in China. But I think motive counts a lot, and I think the motive is clear here. It was a shit-stir, not a genuine expression of agrievement.

5 cents. I think the students in question should be mildly reprimanded (OK, so they've graduated; good luck)on the grounds that they
a. disrespected the moment of silence and disrupted it for others.
b. deliberately flouted a court order (in effect, if not technically) and in the process emabarrassed the school.
Like the school in question is going to do that.

tragic_pizza

Perhaps. And perhaps not. Since I was not there, I cannot discern the antecedents or the motivations.

<strong> The principle by which I use "civil disobedience" is the one used by Martin Luther King Jr. and every other person who protests a government action -- whether I agree with them or not.

Let me pre-emptively clarify: My purpose is not to overdramatize the student prayer by comparing them to Martin Luther King, I'm maintaining that the principle of civil disobedience is constant, whether used by a group of Athiests disturbed by a creche on the courthouse lawn or a group of students upset at a court order.

Toto

"Irreparable damage" is a legal term. It's something the lawyers have to say to get the court to issue an injunction. Don't read too much meaning into it.