Public school proselytizing prohibited: Federal appeals court rejects new prayer scheme

[cleanhippie]

Some people who advocate coercive school prayer are relentless. They’re always coming up with a new scheme to impose their preferred form of worship onto impressionable public school students. Sometimes they even try to use children to spread religious messages in schools. Yesterday, a federal appeals court put the brakes on this latest effort to compel prayer in schools.

The case involved a student, identified in court papers as A.M., who wanted to close her middle school graduation speech with a prayer taken from the Old Testament Book of Numbers. The passage, Numbers 6:24-26, is often called the Priestly Benediction.

Officials at the Taconic Hills Central School District in Crayville, N.Y., declined to allow the girl to recite the passage, so her family lined up help from a small Religious Right-oriented law firm in Florida and sued. A federal district court rejected the suit, and now the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed.

When the A.M. v. Taconic Hills Central School District case reached the appeals court, attorneys with Americans United filed a friend-of-the-court brief, siding with school officials. At that time, Americans United Associate Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser pointed out what was really going on here.

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2013/02/public-school-proselytizing-prohibited-federal-appeals-court-rejects-new-prayer-scheme/

[rug]

1. Here's the decision.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/bab8754f-6006-490c-a224-d1d116fc2ac5/18/doc/12-753_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/bab8754f-6006-490c-a224-d1d116fc2ac5/18/hilite/

It's a good summary of the state of the law with the relevant standards and citations.

This is the sole disputed sentence:

“As we say our goodbyes and leave middle school behind, I say to you, may the Lord bless you and keep you; make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you; lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace.”

[LARED]

2. It's getting more difficult each day to figure out whom (who?) are

the wacky fanatics.

How did we get as a society so screwed up at this point that some think this violates the establishment clause?

[rug]

3. I think it's a matter of emphasis.

While this technically violates the law, it says a lot that this sentence literally became a federal case up to the Circuit Court level (so far). Speech and the Establishmnent Clause are the classic slippery slopes s0 I suppose a bright line is necessary. I wish there was a lot more common sense around and a lot less braying about "Victory!" and "Triumph Over Oppression!" Something can be perfectly correct and, still, people make something stupid out of it.

[cleanhippie]

4. "How did we get as a society so screwed up at this point that some think this violates...?"

When christians in this country decided that everyone needed to believe in and live under the god they believe in and the rules that they interpret.

Perhaps instead of expending all of that energy complaining about those that do not want personal beliefs to be the basis of education and legislation you direct it toward getting those that want their personal beliefs to be the basis of education and legislation to stop? Or is that something you want too?

[LARED]

5. Outside of your back-wards view what this country deciding....

meaning, it was more like a few decided that living in a secular society largely based on Christian principles and norms was a problem.

But your revisionist view of history is well established so there is not much to discuss.

There is this bit of silliness.

Perhaps instead of expending all of that energy complaining about those that do not want personal beliefs to be the basis of education and legislation you direct it toward getting those that want their personal beliefs to be the basis of education and legislation to stop? Or is that something you want too?

Perhaps you could explain how a middle school graduation speech that ended with...

“As we say our goodbyes and leave middle school behind, I say to you, may the Lord bless you and keep you; make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you; lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace.”

Is a personal belief about education or legislation? How this is the state establishing a religion. This is clearly a case of the state prohibiting free expression. Why don't you defend that?

[cleanhippie]

6. "Revisionist view of history" - Bwahaha! Says the guy who think the country is based...

On "Christian principles."

Just WHAT are the "Christian principles" this country was founded upon and follow?

[LARED]

7. I see you skipped over the part where

Last edited Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:25 PM - Edit history (1)

I asked you to explain how a middle school graduation speech that ended with...

“As we say our goodbyes and leave middle school behind, I say to you, may the Lord bless you and keep you; make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you; lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace.”

Is a personal belief about education or legislation? As you stated. Or how this is the state establishing a religion.

This is clearly a case of the state prohibiting free expression that you will not defend. Why not answer that?

[cleanhippie]

8. Your reluctance to answer is telling.

It matters not that you understand where i get my opinion on the speech, as the courts have agreed.

Now, back to your claim about Christian principles...please, elaborate.

[LARED]

10. I think your opinion matters a great deal

It would certainly help to understand your view on the limits of government prohibition of religious expression.

So far you seem to favor unrestrained government interference.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. Did you not read the article?

As has been set by judicial precedent, in in the interest of protecting the First Amendment rights of all students, neither faculty nor any member of the student body is allowed, by law, to lead the school in a prayer of any kind.

Is this an abridgement of Freedom of Speech? Technically no, and for two reasons:

1- Students do not enjoy the full protection of the First Amendment while at school. This has been established time and time again. A student is free to express whatever he or she so chooses to the extent that it is not disruptive to the learning experience.

2- You do not have the freedom to infringe upon the freedoms of others.

Now, I asked if you had read the article. Here's why:

“It’s my job to talk about God and see if they like it,” A.M. said in the deposition. “In God’s word, it says that I should – well, I was put on this Earth for a purpose and my purpose was to talk about God and try to get as many people to follow Him….”

The plaintiff freely admits the intention behind including the prayer was to proselytize to the student body. This is verboten, and rightly so.

So why are we having this argument?

[Leontius]

9. They can't answer it all they can do is stretch and distort

any possible reasonable meaning of the word establishment to such extremes that it becomes unrecognizable and absurd.

[2ndAmForComputers]

12. See post 11.

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. Now, that wasn't very nice...

... but hey, not everyone has Google and five minutes to spare. So, I've taken the liberty of doing all of your research for you, just so we're clear what the men who actually wrote the First Amendment thought the word "establishment" entailed.

Here's Jefferson's thoughts on the matter.

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

Hm. Public schools.... funded by public money.... public Schools who push prayer on children do so at the expense of people who fund them. Jefferson says "no". Seems fairly cut and dry to me.

And here's Madison:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

Does any part of this remain unclear to you?

[Leontius]

15. See post #9

It applies to all you cite(distort) as well. I agree with something you posted elsewhere, students First Amendment rights have been legally trampled on by "adults" for quite some time so this case would fall under that type of "protection of school harmony" bs anyway.

[Act_of_Reparation]

16. No, I don't think I will.

You can try qualifying your position instead. If you are unable--and I am willing to bet dollars to donuts you are--then kindly gtfo and take your fail with you.

[Leontius]

17. No need to qualify anything. If you don't know the meaning

of distort ask someone or look it up in a dictionary. May God bless you and keep you.

[2ndAmForComputers]

11. Oh, you dislike this ruling?

Good. Your displeasure is my pleasure.