Posted on 05/22/2006 6:46:45 AM PDT by dukeman
Russell Springs, KY - In protest to a court order issued hours before the Russell County High School graduation last Friday night, about 200 seniors spontaneously stood and began reciting the Lord's Prayer, prompting a standing ovation from a standing-room only crowd. The thunderous applause drowned out the last part of the prayer. The revival-like atmosphere continued when senior Megan Chapman said in her opening remarks that God had guided her since childhood. Megan was interrupted repeatedly during her speech by the cheering crowd as she urged her classmates to trust in God as they go through life.
On Friday, May 19, Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., in a short three-sentence temporary restraining order, barred Russell County High School and senior Megan Chapman from including prayer at the graduation scheduled later that day. Liberty Counsel now represents Megan and will request the court to vacate its ruling.
The court's order is invalid, wrong, and limited. First, the court had no authority to order Megan to refrain from prayer as she was never made a party to the case. Moreover, a temporary restraining order which restricts a person's speech cannot be issued without first providing the affected person notice and an opportunity to be heard. Second, the court order runs contrary to the best legal precedent established in Adler v. Duval County School Board, a case successfully litigated by Liberty Counsel. Finally, the order was limited because it only addressed prayer. It did not, nor could it, prohibit Megan from thanking God or sharing her religious viewpoint during her speech.
Megan began her speech by saying that God has guided her since she was a child. The students repeatedly interrupted her with applause as she gave thanks to God throughout her message. Megan said the ceremony turned out better than it would have without the controversy. "More glory went to God because of something like that than if I had just simply said a prayer like I was supposed to."
Anita L. Staver, President of Liberty Counsel, commented: "Students have the right to include religious viewpoints during their graduation speeches. It is inappropriate for a school to censor religious viewpoints from a student's personal graduation message. Our country was founded upon prayer. Our currency acknowledges God. Our legislatures begin each session with prayer. Our students have the right to voluntarily pray during graduation. It is insensitive and unconstitutional to silence student-initiated, voluntary prayer."
As part of its Friend or Foe Graduation Prayer Campaign, Liberty Counsel has a legal memo available at LC.org which addresses the law regarding graduation prayer.
Appointed: Joseph H. McKinley Jr., as U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, August 25.
Appointed by Kwrinton.
Cordially,
You said: Yeah, I can only imagine the horrors of having to listen to someone say a prayer. Oh the humanity....
Personal prayer, fine. You guys have churches for the rest of that.
***
There is also the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
I had read, although I can't remember where, China will be home to more Christians by 2010 than in all other countries in the world combined.
I've noted the transformation of the Christian church in China and that was evidenced by the Wangfujing's East church in Beijing. When I first saw the structure, it was down an allyway hidden behind shanties, old and unkept, but strong - just as the Christian church of China existed under communism. The Chinese have since torn down those shanties, cleaned the stone structure, and relandscaped it, bringing it to front and center of the Wangfujing District. That is how the Christian influence in China is now under the current relaxed rule.
But those aren't the only transformations the Chinese are making. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/23/content_402718.htm
Granted, there are strides yet to be made, but Christ lives and transformes lives, no matter what obstacles my seem apparent.
You said: No. But religious speech should be limited *from* government. A public school graduation is argueably a governemtn function. If the audience wants to say the Lord's Prayer, or fall on their knees, point their butts to the sky and worship Allah, that's their affair, and no law in the land has a word to say about it. If, however, an agent of the government - be it elected official, teacher, principal or (very arguably) a student speaker - chooses to use the power of the government to evangelize.... that's not right.
***
Allowing someone to speak his/her mind is not, in my estimation (despite some Supreme Court authority to the contrary) an establishment of religion. No one is asking anyone else to ascribe to what another is saying, only to listen to it, more correctly, be present while it is said, or even more correctly, be present while it is said, if they wish to be present. I hear lots of things every day that I disagree with, both in public and non-public settings. That I hear them doesn't mean I agree.
I think the tendency now is to hyper-sensitivity to all things religious, when I don't think it is necessary. The constitution bans an establishment of religion, not its mere mention or endorsement by others.
There is also something called a sense of propriety. I didn't say it was illegal, I said I wouldn't appreciate it.
I get the establishment clause thing. But content of speech cannot be regulated by the state unless there is a "Clear and present danger."
Please tell me where I'm wrong here.
You need to go back to the beginning. I never said anything against simple prayer. I did say something against turning a graduation into a religious revival.
Time to remove the tin foil hat and actually read the posts.
> I think it is a stretch to think that a student could be considered an agent of the state.
So do I. However, as memory serves courts *have* ruled that way in the past... when a student is giving an official graduation speech, reading PA announcements, etc. When they're doing stuf *for* *the* *school*, they are operating as agents of the school.
> But content of speech cannot be regulated by the state unless there is a "Clear and present danger."
The content of speech can *often* be regulated. Check with your employer, for instance.
> The student has every right to thank God and/or offer a prayer.
And on his/her own time, they are free to do so. But while on the governments dime... not so much.
Wrong. The government or my employer cannot stop me from mentioning God or from prayer. Granted, if I start a prayer in the middle of a meeting, that is uncalled for. Just as it would be in a church meeting and every five minutes, I offered up a prayer. A student can give a prayer doing a grad speech or whatever. It is called civil disobidience and any law or judge would kill their career having a student, student body, whatever, arrested for doing so. Just because it is a law does not make it right and if it is a bad law or an unlawful order, it is your duty to disobey.
I was using a general example, not summarizing the post. My point stands, but way to evade the issue. That's the best tactic when you have no rebuttal.
> The government or my employer cannot stop me from mentioning God or from prayer.
Your employer most likely *can* stop you from evangelizing on company property. "Stop you" as in "fire you."
> Just because it is a law does not make it right and if it is a bad law or an unlawful order, it is your duty to disobey.
Ah. So we *should* go back to our Viking roots and pillage churches!
But wouldn't that be "private speech?" As you probably know there is a difference between public speech and private speech.
And as for checking with my employer....Naaa, don't have one of those and don't want one. Lol
It was illegal for blacks to be at those lunch counters. Or ride in the front of those buses. Or drink from a particular fountain. Or even to swim in the ocean on a specific beach spot. Yet, all those laws were wrong. And any rule, law, or order to prevent anyone from mentioning God is equally unjust.
Go with God and may He bless you all the days of your life.
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. "
What is the substantive evil that the government would like to protect us from in this matter?
> But my employer cannot stop me from saying a prayer before I eat at my cubicle. They cannot stop me from mentioning God if I am talking to co-worker and am asked about it.
And these same rules apply at schools, too.
> BUT THEY CANNOT PHYSICALLY RESTRAIN ME FROM HAVING THE WORD GOD COME OUT OF MY MOUTH!
Too bad you couldn't restrain your caps lock key.
"Personal prayer, fine. You guys have churches for the rest of that."
Don't sessions of Congress and Senate open in prayer daily?
A prayer, they don't hold religious revivals in Congress.
But that's an interesting point. I personally don't like the fact that my tax dollars pay for a chaplain for a bunch of people with churches all around them that they could go to. Plus, the selection of a new chaplain leads to divisive sectarian strife.
Sorry I hurt your feelings. Caps key was used to emphasis point. And sorry to correct you again, but as has been reported in the news, many schools go so far as to remove students who wear crosses or have Christian themes on their notebooks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.