Posted on 05/16/2002 6:16:24 AM PDT by LarryLied
WASHINGTON, May 14 (JTA) – A U.S. Supreme Court ruling barring prayer at public school graduations has been on the books for 10 years, but the issue remains a source of controversy.
A number of situations arise each year that test the matter anew. School boards are willing to risk litigation and school officials are looking for a way to include some kind of prayer in the end-of-year ceremonies.
“A school board that is hell-bent on having prayer at graduation has means available to do it,” said Marc Stern, the co-director of the American Jewish Congress’ legal department.
Just this week, the AJCongress found out they had successfully argued in U.S. District Court that an Iowa school board was wrong to include the Lord’s Prayer in graduation ceremonies.
Judge Charles Wolle ruled Monday that he found “no basis for ignoring or disavowing the clear teachings” and controlling the Supreme Court precedent.
The AJCongress had joined a brief declaring that the Iowa school board’s policy was a “crude invasion of the right to be free of state-sponsored religion.”
Wolle noted the 1992 Lee v. Weisman ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which barred prayer from public high school graduation ceremonies. The 5-to-4 decision held that government involvement created “a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school.”
Wolle also agreed with the AJCongress that a graduation ceremony is not a “public forum designed to accommodate the free speech and free exercise of religious rights of the students.”
The case was known as Donovan Skarin and Ruby Skarin et al. v. Woodbine Community School District and Board of Education for Woodbine Community School District.
It might have been resolved differently elsewhere in the country, Stern said.
Different courts have dealt with the prayer issue in different ways, so in Utah or Texas the case would have been much more difficult to win, Stern said.
The 1992 Supreme Court case is the controlling precedent, but a 2001 case that allowed religious groups to use school facilities after school hours has made some rethink the issue of prayer at graduation.
In the 2001 case, the high court came close to saying explicitly that there should be equal treatment of religious and secular speech. Some school officials may take that as a sign that prayer at graduation may not be such a problem after all.
Many school officials feel there ought to be prayer at high school graduations, Stern said, but there still is no “wave” of cases, and school attorneys often advise their clients not to push the issue.
Every year around graduation time, the Anti-Defamation League responds to a number of phone calls from people concerned that the ceremony will include school-sponsored religious content.
“There are always those who believe this is a Christian country and the Constitution gives them and the government the right to have prayer at graduation,” said Steve Sheinberg, assistant director of legal affairs of ADL.
Many of the situations are dealt with informally without resort to the courts, so the number of actual court cases does not accurately reflect the problem, Sheinberg says.
Stern agrees, speculating that prayer may be part of graduation ceremonies in many places, but no one challenges it.
“More goes on than we know about,” he said.
Bush judicial appointees will not be creating law from the bench so your wish for more of them, if you admire this decision, is rather puzzling.
"...speculating that prayer may be part of graduation ceremonies in many places, but no one challenges it...“More goes on than we know about,” he said."
Just sounds so totally out of line with any form of religious tolerance - like prayer and kiddie porn were both "going on more than (proper folks) know about. And,
Although I support Israel almost totally, American Jews would be able to make a better case for their fellows if they had not spent the past several decades yammering about the encroachment of Christianity and popularizing the whole 'victimization' thing.
Sorry, three points; when I did my manual spell check on 'religion' I note that the word is used only four times in the article; 'prayer' and general oppositon to it seems to have become an accepted substitute for discussing religious freedom (meaning the ability to express it).
(And, no, I don't go to any church and I don't wear a white sheet and hood.)
We are not supposed to mention which groups are trying to drive faith out of the public square? The AJC,PFAW, the ADL and the ACLU have been extremely effective. They are one reason Bush's judicial nominees are being held up in the senate. Should their agenda not be exposed? Many on FR have maintained this is purely a constitutional issue and has nothing to do with faith. This article puts the lie to that claim.
Perhaps if what is being done gets more exposure, these groups might back off somewhat. Considering the loyal support Christians give to Israel, that would be the decent thing for the NJC and others to do.
Lawsuits also create hostility. Nobody wins even if they think they do. These matters can and should be worked out locally.
Not at all, Larry. It just seems that you have a "special enthusiasm" for identifying the Jewish ones.
The AJC,PFAW, the ADL and the ACLU have been extremely effective.
Not familiar with the PFAW, but surely not even you would classify the ACLU as a "Jewish group". As to the AJC and the ADL, their "jewishness" is a matter of convenience, not faith.
They are one reason Bush's judicial nominees are being held up in the senate.
If there are other reasons, you don't seemed to be as concerned with them as you are with these "Jewish" organizations.
Should their agenda not be exposed?
You expose their agenda and others expose yours. Is it not all fair?
Many on FR have maintained this is purely a constitutional issue and has nothing to do with faith. This article puts the lie to that claim.
Give it a rest, Larry. One article puts a lie to the claim?
When I was young, I had to recite a prayer in the public school I attended. I can understand why some are uncomfortable with it.
Perhaps if what is being done gets more exposure, these groups might back off somewhat.
I doubt it. They don't seem to be at all embarrassed by the public exposure since they believe what they are doing is right.
Considering the loyal support Christians give to Israel, that would be the decent thing for the NJC and others to do.
Ah, payback time. Christians support Israel for a variety of reasons. Somehow I doubt they are looking to be "paid back" for that support by having organizations with the word "Jew" in their names pursue Christian objectives.
Lawsuits also create hostility. Nobody wins even if they think they do.
What are you saying here, Larry? That these lawsuits somehow justify hatred and violence towards Jews? LOL...Larry, someone who hates Jews will use any excuse to justify that hatred...such as the conduct of these quasi-Jewish organizations. The truth is that they hate because it is in their nature or they were educated that way.
These matters can and should be worked out locally.
In some cases, no doubt. However, there are cases where the local establishment can misuse its power to run rampant over the constitutional rights of the minority. In those cases, what do you suggest? That the minority move out?
Using this sort of reasoning . …. Foreign aid to Israel should also be banned!
Btw...don't you find this article offensive? Imagine if a Christian group was high-fiving it because they won a lawsuit against Jews. Imagine if there were national Christian groups as well funded as these which spent most of their time suing Jewish groups.
Just Israel?
Where? Couldn't these people say what they wanted to say outside the school?
How would like to be told that your criticism of your government is outlawed because it might offend the minority?
I don't see that their "criticism of the government was outlawed". Maybe you could point it out to me.
If they can sing ANY song, they should be allowed to sing what they want. The "Lord's Prayer" is no more invasive than "God Bless America". If a Muslim group wanted to sing a Muslim song and the majority agreed, they should be allowed. You cannot allow a minority to dictate the free speech of the majority.
Is he Jewish? Are you sure? Why is that important to you?
The Bronfman family are big supporters.
They also support the so-called "peace process". So what?
It is the most powerful of the groups on the left which oppose Christian conservatives.
They only oppose Christian conservatives? How do they feel about the Jewish ones?
PFAW tried to block Ashcroft.
And they failed. What did their failure do to your theory of "Jewish control"? BTW, a lot of other liberal organizations also tried to block Ashcroft. I know that's probably irrelevent to you, but it is true.
They did block Pickering. Now they are after the nomination of Judge Brooks Smith. If you check around the businesses Bronfman et al are involved in, you will see why they don't want Christians or conservatives on the bench.
I thought he was in the booze business. Maybe you better spell it out for me.
BTW, do they want Christian or Jewish liberals on the bench? If so, perhaps their main focus is political affiliation rather than religion. Unlike your focus.
Btw...don't you find this article offensive?
Yes, I do. You see, Larry, I am a faithful Jew. I take my religion seriously and don't appreciate those whose "religion" (which they falsely claim is a "branch" of Judaism) is really the Democratic Party with holidays.
Imagine if a Christian group was high-fiving it because they won a lawsuit against Jews.
You are naive enough to think it hasn't happened?
Imagine if there were national Christian groups as well funded as these which spent most of their time suing Jewish groups.
Please, Larry, your ignorance can't be that great. There are no Christian groups which don't have this kind of funding? What about the evangelicals, Larry? And what Christian groups have done to Jews is a lot worse than a couple of lawsuits.
BTW, if you ever decide to focus on an issue instead of the religion of some of the people who are taking sides, let me know. Who knows? We might agree.
 |
Founders Norman Lear (Jew), Larry talks about him a lot They were joined on the initial board of advisers by: William P. Thompson, United Presbyterian Church (Shhh, not a Jew) Current President is Ralph G. Neas, a Notre Dame grad, but don’t know his religion. Don’t know about the rest of the officers But who knows about the donors? Hollywood types, probably NL himself. Probably all Jews. Don’t you love larry’s lies. |
Sorry, from your earlier question, "How would like to be told that your criticism of your government is outlawed because it might offend the minority?", I got the impression that criticism of the government WAS outlawed. Now I see you're doing something else. I don't see prayer as "religious speech" but it's a hair I don't see any point in splitting. Be that as it may, the speech is not illegal, it is prohibited within a certain context. These people are free to pray elsewhere. I would even argue that they should be free to use the school building for prayer sessions as long as the facilities are available to other religious groups who want to use it for similar purposes. And, to be honest, I really have no problem with prayer in schools as long as those who don't agree with the particular religion get equal time and are not made to feel ostracized.
The tyranny of a repressive court forced the suppression of free speech.
Get off the soapbox with this prejorative language. It may make you feel better, but it adversely impacts your argument.
If they can sing ANY song, they should be allowed to sing what they want.
What if they wanted to sing a song which espoused violence towards a particular group? Where do you draw the line?
The "Lord's Prayer" is no more invasive than "God Bless America".
There are people who don't want that either. They also want "In G-D we trust" off the money.
If a Muslim group wanted to sing a Muslim song and the majority agreed, they should be allowed. You cannot allow a minority to dictate the free speech of the majority.
Really? What if the Muslim song was about murdering Jews and then a couple of kids got worked up and went out and tried to murder some? What if they were successful?
Let's look at it from another perspective. What if this were a majority of one that decided to sing the song? Should there be no consideration for the half that didn't want to hear it sung? Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you have to do it. Unfortunately, because people don't understand consideration for others, we get nasty lawsuits like the one above. And Larry was right about one thing. There are no winners in this situation.
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.