Jesus Freak

Let's just see what the first amendments says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Any link to religion by a school is not establishing a religion. The constitution is often misquoted as saying "Congress shall make no law respecting THE establishment of religion" I don't believe the founding fathers made a typo. They clearlly said "an" not "the". When read the correct way, thier intentions are clear. The government cannot favor one religion or denomination over another. When read incorrectly it is often interprated as the govenment shall not allow any religion. The founding fathers were not trying to separate religion from the government i.e. schools, they were simply avoiding one denomination or religion over another. To deny the student's right to practice his religion is in direct violation of the second part of the 1st amendment.

hezekiah jones

But you just quoted the First Amendment yourself. It says "no law respecting an establishment of religion," not just "no law establishing a religion." That is a big difference. The government may not endorse religious beliefs, and the public schools in particular have been one forum in which the courts have subjected establishment clause protections to a very high degree of scrutiny.

Be that as it may, I'm not aware that the Supreme Court has ever misquoted the establishment clause. You may disagree with the Court over some specific interpretation, but you'll have to reference the case and offer your objections. For better or worse, there is far more to this issue than simply looking at the text of the first amendment and attempting to come up with some broad interpretation that will cover all the potential situations that may arise.

Whose intentions are clear? Madison? The ratifiers? Others that were involved in drafting the first amendment? Jefferson? If "their" intentions were so clear, the Supreme Court probably wouldn't be operating under three separate methods of evaluating establishment clause claims: the Lemon Test, the coercion test, and the endorsement test. All are currently good precedent, and are applied variously depending on the facts of the case.

That is correct, but that is only one of the many statements the Court has made with respect to the establishment clause.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. The government "allows" religion to go on all over the place. What you need to do is refer to some caselaw and show how the opinion is reading the establishment clause incorrectly. Or else demonstrate why your interpretation is correct.

Once again, that's only part of the story.

No, that's not entirely correct. These cases are not free exercise clause cases, they are establishment clause cases. There is an entirely seperate body of free exercise clause jurisprudence, in which each case is granted certiorari based on its specific facts.

To paraphrase Justice O'Connor, were the courts to respect each and every citizen's potential claims to "free exercise" of their "religion," whatever that may be, such deference would essentially render society unable to function.

Anyway you might want to have a look at this page:

<a href="http://www.au.org/pcases.htm" target="_blank">School Prayer Caselaw</a>

If you want to read any of the opinions that are referenced there in their entirety, you can track them down at <a href="http://www.findlaw.com" target="_blank">findlaw</a>.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

Toto

That's true - a course in comparative religion that examined religion without endorsing any particular one would not violate the establishment clause.

But this case is different - the government is sponsoring a ritual that belongs to one particular religion, which violates the beliefs of others.

If you look at the history of the first amendment, the drafters were trying to separate religion from the coercive power of the state. "No law" was the strongest language they could think of.

As for your free exercise claim, what religion requires or advises its followers to offer official prayers in public in a gathering that includes unbelievers? This sounds quite un-Christian, doesn't it? Think about it.

seebs

Indeed, it does. It's one thing for people to pray on their own, or for a student to thank God in his graduation speech; that's free exercise of religion. Trying to make it a part of the *ceremony* is intrusive and wrong.

Jesus Freak

I believe the govenment must stop serving meat in the school lunch. It infringes on the rights of vegetarians to be in a meat free setting. Can you imagin a little fifth grade vegetarian being forced to sit to someone eating meat. Shame on our government!

Vorkosigan

I see. Ran out of arguments, and now forced to troll....

seebs

While I think his argument isn't a *compelling* one, there is something of a point; mere "exposure" to prayer isn't particularly harmful.

Somewhere between someone forcing you to participate in rituals, and the knowledge that someone, somewhere, may be thinking about God, we should draw the line. The exact line is hard to draw correctly. Should I be forbidden from doing anything in a public school that can be identified as prayer? Should a teacher who, frustrated nearly to the breaking point, closes her eyes and prays for calm, be disciplined for "bringing prayer into the schools"? I don't think so... And yet, when the prayer becomes a part of the ceremony, I *do* think there's a problem.

Still, I think JF's point is not totally nugatory; there *is* some distinction to be made between having to see other people do things you don't want to, and being forced to do them.

The Other Michael

Hi Seebs,

closing your eyes and catching your breath, or praying silently, couldn't be told apart.

What if the teacher is known for dropping to her knees, waving her hands over her head and crying out anguishedly "Lord, give me strength"!

I think that would be a bit disruptive.

What's the deal with all the verbal praying - can't God hear a silent prayer? Verbal praying seems like:

1. Showing off that you are praying (sanctions for that, aren't there?)
2. A tool for making sure that other people are praying for the correct things (when in a group prayer)
3. People praying audibly are comparable to those who can't read silently, but rather have to read aloud (so maybe only newbies have to pray aloud?)

I think that a teacher who is *obviously* praying up in front of the class is sending a signal to the class, whether intended or not.

I've got no problem though with a teacher wearing some sort of religious jewelry as personal adornment - that can be rationalized by the class as just another fashion (religious in this case)statement.

cheers,
Michael

Toto

This is a really inept analogy.

There is no right to be in a meat free setting, or a prayer-free setting, as long as the prayer is private.

The vegetarian has to put up with people eating meat at the next table, just like a Protestant has to put up with a Catholic (private) prayer at the next table, or the believer has to put up with the atheist at the next table who does not pray before the meal, or the fashion model has to put up with classmates who wear dorky clothing.

The problem is when the Christians take the mike and force everyone to participate in their religious ritual by offering an official prayer.

seebs

True. On the other hand, I'm not sure I'm ready to condemn it as a response to disruptive students. Hmm. I'm not *entirely* ready to condemn it, but it does seem inappropriate. Still...

I think we may disagree slightly on the line. I guess, I don't see any reason to prohibit people from being *identifiable* in their beliefs, or their religiously-motivated actions. Asking the students to join in, maybe... but saying the teacher can't do something that the students can easily identify as prayer is making it a bit hard to draw the line fairly.

I don't think individuals should be forced to hide their religion, or make it easy for people to rationalize it away. As an example, one of my coworkers at a previous job was Muslim. Every so often, he'd dress in spotless white clothes for a week, and reserve a conference room five times a day for prayer. I am *vehemently* opposed to any system that keeps him from being allowed to observe his religion, as long as I can't show direct harm to others from his decision to observe his religion in a specific way.

I will, however, point out that I believe that the same rules ought to apply to everyone *else*, too.

Hmm. That might be a useful tack: See what level of "religious behavior" the fundies want to agree on if it's understood that everyone *ELSE* gets to do it too.