Supreme Court Should Ignore Elmbrook Church Graduation Case

[cbayer]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/just-say-no-supreme-court-should-skip-elmbrook-church-graduation-case



By AUSCS, Wed, December 26, 2012

Public schools should not hold graduations in religious environments. Doing so sends a message that non-believers should stay away.

Five days before Christmas, the Religious Right delivered a most unwelcome gift to the U.S. Supreme Court – a petition asking the high court to hear a case involving public school graduation ceremonies held in a church.

Back in 2009, Americans United filed suit in federal court on behalf of nine students, graduates, and parents who objected that the Elmbrook School District near Milwaukee, Wisc., used Elmbrook Church to host high school graduation ceremonies.

Americans United explained that holding graduations in the religious environment of the church violates the Constitution. The mega-church outside Milwaukee failed to remove religious symbols and texts during the graduation ceremonies. In fact, students and parents sat in pews with Bibles and hymnal books directly in front of them, and also saw church promotional materials telling children that they were “God’s Little Lambs” and inviting all attendees to return to the church so that they can “know how to become a Christian.”

more at link

[Warpy]

1. I agree, unless religious services are being held

it's just a building like any other, religious tchotchkes nonetheless.

If prayers are forced, then there's a problem. If it's a high school graduation in a building with pews and a few crosses sprinkled around, no problem.

I don't think people need to be protected from seeing other folks' religious materials. They do need to be protected from being bullied into bowing before other folks' gods and praying other folks' way.

Non believers aren't precious little hothouse flowers, to be kept from ever being offended by the presence of religious articles. The constitution protects us from official bullying, not from being offended once in a while.

[dballance]

2. Great, then let's hold the next graduation in a Mosque

Or a Jewish Temple. Will that work okay for you? Maybe we can find a Satanic temple in which to hold the graduation. Surely pamphlets promoting the ways of Satanism in the pews should not be offensive to the Christians. And, by your own argument, so what if they are. Those Christians aren't delicate flowers that need to be kept from ever being offended by the presence of others' beliefs.

A few Stars of David sprinkled around or the Crescent Moon of Muslims shouldn't be a problem right?

When there are perfectly good secular alternatives available rather than a Christian church for graduation ceremonies there is absolutely no reason to have the ceremonies in a church, temple, mosque or religious building of any sort.

[pinto]

5. Good points. Yet I see AU's take in that the setting could be seen as sanctioning a religion

by a public, state-funded school district. And, fwiw, the State St./Church St. picture is prominent on the legal firm's website. They have a clear agenda.

[gcomeau]

7. You agree? Did you read the article?

Because the article is saying the Supreme Court should ignore the case because the lower court already ruled the school CAN'T hold the ceremony there because it is NOT just another building. And that that ruling is correct so they should just let it stand.

I agree, but you are arguing the opposite.

And it was not just a mater of "seeing other folks religious materials". They had STAFFED BOOTHS with people there trying to get attendees of the ceremony to join the church for cripes sake... another indication you didn't read before replying.

[cbayer]

8. I think you may have misread this, warpy. I agree that SCOTUS

should not hear this. The decision by the higher court seems correct to me.

It's not just the presence of religious objects, it was the active intrusion of the church into the ceremony that seems to be the problem.

[Warpy]

12. If the preacher insisted on pushing his god onto the students,

yeah, there was a problem.

If the school just rented the building, I don't see a problem.

[cbayer]

13. I agree with you, but it looks like they really pushed it.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. How magnanimous of you to give away other people's rights.

[okasha]

14. How maganinimous of you

to defend the fundies. This must be a first for DU.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Reading comprehension?

I am not defending fundies. The person I responded to is actually siding with the religious right, arguing that no violation of rights has occurred. He is stating that we should just put up with the intrusion of a homophobic evangelistic relgious institution into a secular school system, apparently because it is no big deal.

[okasha]

16. My bad.

Your post appears to have nested under cbayer's, who defends the 7th. Circuit's decision.

[pinto]

3. Good call by AU to appeal to a full 10 judge panel, which ruled 7-3 in their favor.

The district's petition to the SCOTUS is being handled by the Becket Fund. Apparently a big DC law firm that specializes in religious based litigation. For a fee. Part of the petition that I could find stated that a number of students and parents felt the school's gymnasium was uncomfortable, lacked air-conditioning, was generally inappropriate for a graduation. And the district notes that it has used the church facilities for a number of years.

This is about religious freedom?

Obviously, this is a maneuvered legal stand off from all angles. AU brought the original case and the district and Becket has chosen to petition SCOTUS to rule on the final 7th Circuit decision.

AU's case and the Circuit's decision seem sound to me. I'd wager SCOTUS declines to take it up.

(aside) My high school graduation was held outside on the school's football field. No one thought twice about it. We sat in folding chairs on the field, friends and family sat in the bleachers. A fine time was had by all.

[dballance]

4. Why did the lower courts rule in favor of allowing the ceremonies in a Church?

What the heck was wrong with the Federal Judge and the Appeals court? I'm going to have to go read their rulings to see how they thought this was okay to drag people who were non-religious and probably some Jews and Muslims into a Christian church. The non-Christians clearly had no choice in the matter. That's wrong. Isn't it sacrilegious for Jews to enter a Christian Church? Forcing them to do so for their kids' graduation or forcing their kids to forgo the graduation ceremonies is so wrong. Especially when there were secular alternatives available. We used the high school gym where I'm from. It accommodated all the people who wanted to attend without any bowing to a particular religion.

[Thats my opinion]

6. It is to be hoped that these ceremonies would not be held in a religious institution.

However, there are small communities in which the only building big enough to hold the crowd would be a church. In that case the school board would need to rent the building--as is the case when the building is used by other outside groups. The graduation ceremony should have no welcome by the minister of the church, as if all were the church's guests.
It's not a perfect solution, but one that could survive the compromise.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. As noted in the case, no steps were taken at all to secularize the space,

Other non religious facilities were available in the area and were used by other school systems, and the church appeared to have gone out of their way to use the event to advertise their religion. The details of this case were basically indefensible.

[okasha]

11. If SCOTUS declines to hear this appeal, as it should,

the decision of the 7th. Circuit judges will stand. It seems to me that if the community is large enough to support a "mega-church," which implies one with several thousand members, it ought to be large enough to support a civic auditorium and/or a reception hall that could be rented for such events as graduations.