S.C. valedictorian ignores FFRF, others

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Good for this kid. At least he still believes in the First Amendment. Pickens county schools are not the best I have ever seen. Putting my kids there was one of my bigger mistakes.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
If Costner went to a Christian school, there would be no discussion, said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. But in public schools, even in a place where there may be a religious majority, prayers such as his are clearly unconstitutional, she said. What’s more, she added, what he did shows contempt for school district policy and a lack of sensitivity for his audience.

Prove it. Show me where it says that, or I'll kick you in the nuts!
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
If Costner went to a Christian school, there would be no discussion, said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. But in public schools, even in a place where there may be a religious majority, prayers such as his are clearly unconstitutional, she said. What’s more, she added, what he did shows contempt for school district policy and a lack of sensitivity for his audience.

Prove it. Show me where it says that, or I'll kick you in the nuts!

The Supreme Court has a couple dozen rulings where it says that. C'mon man <snap snap snap>, gotta keep up!
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yeah, those knuckleheads have been known to be wrong from time to time haven't they.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
The Supreme Court has a couple dozen rulings where it says that. C'mon man <snap snap snap>, gotta keep up!

I can find one, abeit weak, case. Show me the other 11.

Also, this broad said it's in the Constitution... show me where THAT is, since public education, up until the liberal 60s, had prayer in school. These are cases based on FAD, not precedence or intent of the founding fathers.
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I can find one, abeit weak, case. Show me the other 11.
Do your own homework.

Also, this broad said it's in the Constitution...
No she didn't. She said it was "clearly unconstitutional." There's a difference. If she had said, "The Constitution says..." then you'd have a beef. But since the Superme Court rules it unconstitutional, there ya go, clear as day.

These are cases based on FAD, not precedence or intent of the founding fathers.
No, they're all based on precedent.

I do believe the Supreme Court got this one wrong, though. There's a big difference between Congress making a law establishing religion and the freedom to exercise one's religion within a government setting, on free speech grounds if nothing else. Having religion and the State being mutually exclusive is retarded and doesn't reflect society.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
From my understanding the students can bring up religion for discussion but the faculty cannot, although they can answer questions.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
From my understanding the students can bring up religion for discussion but the faculty cannot, although they can answer questions.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

Until someone complains.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Do your own homework.

No she didn't. She said it was "clearly unconstitutional." There's a difference. If she had said, "The Constitution says..." then you'd have a beef. But since the Superme Court rules it unconstitutional, there ya go, clear as day.

No, they're all based on precedent.

I do believe the Supreme Court got this one wrong, though. There's a big difference between Congress making a law establishing religion and the freedom to exercise one's religion within a government setting, on free speech grounds if nothing else. Having religion and the State being mutually exclusive is retarded and doesn't reflect society.

GRUMP GRUMP SNORT! YOU are the one who made the unrealistic claim of DOZENS of cases, Bubba. It's YOUR homework.

No... one case that holds that the STUDENT may not use school (aka government) loudspeaker equipment to broadcast prayer.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
Holding: Students may not use a school's loudspeaker system to offer student-led, student-initiated prayer.
Before football games, members of the student body of a Texas high school elected one of their classmates to address the players and spectators. These addresses were conducted over the school's loudspeakers and usually involved a prayer. Attendance at these events was voluntary. Three students sued the school arguing that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A majority of the Court rejected the school's argument that since the prayer was student initiated and student led, as opposed to officially sponsored by the school, it did not violate the First Amendment. The Court held that this action did constitute school-sponsored prayer because the loudspeakers that the students used for their invocations were owned by the school.


Where is the precedent from Engel v Vitale?

 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
GRUMP GRUMP SNORT! YOU are the one who made the unrealistic claim of DOZENS of cases, Bubba. It's YOUR homework.
OK, fine ya crybaby. Here's 76 of them. These don't even include the virtually countless lower court rulings that the Supreme Court refused to hear. The list would be much longer but I'm limited to 20,000 characters per post.

Gibbons v. District of Columbia (1886)
Should property owned by a religious organization, even if that property is used for commercial rather than religious purposes, be exempt from the same taxes as property which is used for religious purposes? According to the Supreme Court, Congress is free to set the standards for tax exemptions and refuse to grant such exemptions to commercial property owned by church.

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
The Court ruled that the statute requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes was a prior restraint that vested the state with excessive power in determining which groups must obtain a license.

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
In an 8-1 Court Decision, the Court ruled that a school district's interest in creating national unity was sufficient to allow them to require students to salute the flag.

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
The Court unanimously upheld the convictions of Jehovah's Witnesses for engaging in a public parade without a license.

Jones v. Opelika I (1942)
The Court upheld a statute prohibiting the selling of literature without a license because it only covered individuals engaged in an commercial activity rather than a religious ritual.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
The Court ruled 8-1 that a school district violated the rights of students by forcing them to salute the American flag.

Jones v. Opelika II (1943)
The Court ruled the practice of charging a flat fee for people distributing literature was unconstitutional. The freedom of press was not to be restricted only to those who can afford to pay the licensing fee.

Douglas v. City of Jeannette (1943)
The Supreme Court refused to prevent the City of Jeannette, Pennsylvania, from threatening prosecution of Jehovah's Witnesses who were violating a law requiring the licensing of people selling books even while that law was being challenged before the Supreme Court.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)
The Court found that the Jeanette ordinance requiring solicitors to purchase a license from the borough was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.

Follett v. Town of McCormick (1944)
Should people who earn their living by selling or distributing religious materials be required to pay the same licensing fees and taxes as are expected of those who sell or distribute non-religious materials? The Supreme Court held that such licenses are unconstitutional.

United States v. Ballard (1944)
The Court found that neither the courts nor the government have the right to evaluate the religious beliefs of a citizen or group.

Prince v. Massachusetts (1944)
In a 5-4 Court Decision, the Court upheld Massachusetts' restriction on the abilities of children to sell religious literature.

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
Supreme Court decision finding that a New Jersey law providing for reimbursement to parents of parochial school students for transportation costs on public busses is constitutional.

McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)
By a 6-1 vote the Supreme Court agreed with Mrs. McCollum, an atheist mother, and disallowed the practice of having religious education to take place in public school classrooms during the school day.

Burstyn v. Wilson (1952)
Unanimous Supreme Court decision invalidating a New York law which permitted the banning of films if they were found to be "sacrilegious."

Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral (1952)
The Supreme Court ruled that neither the Establishment Clause nor the Free Exercise Clause permitted the New York legislature to pass a statute designating which religious group may have control over a church.

First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles (1958)
Can religious tax exemptions be conditioned on a oath of adherence to some particular political ideas? Can the government require that churches seeking tax exemptions not say, believe, or advocate particular political doctrines?

Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)
In a unanimous decision, the Court found that Maryland's religious test for public office violated Torcaso's right to religious freedom.

McGowan v. Maryland (1961)
The Court ruled that Maryland's Sunday closing laws had evolved into furthering secular ends and therefore did not violate the Establishment Clause.

Braunfeld v. Brown (1961)
An Orthodox Jew challenged Pennsylvania's blue laws, but by a 6-3 vote, with Chief Justice Warren writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court declared them constitutional.

Arlan's Department Store v. Kentucky (1962)
Supreme Court dismissing a case as not having any serious questions for them. Kentucky's mandatory Sunday closing laws had been found by a lower court not to be an establishment of Christianity and, hence, not a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)
The Court ruled 7 to 1 that it was unconstitutional for a government agency like a school or government agents like public school employees to require students to recite prayers.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the woman's right to refuse to work on her Sabbath without relinquishing her right to unemployment benefits.

Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963)
The Court ruled 8-1 against requiring the recitation of Bible verses and the Lord's Prayer.

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
The Court found that an Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution is impermissible because it violates the Establishment Clause and prohibits the free exercise of religion.

Board of Education v. Allen (1968)
Supreme Court decision finding that a New York Law requiring public school districts to purchase text books for private schools, including parochial schools, is permissible and not a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church (1969)
The Court unanimously decided that a Superior Court overstepped its constitutional powers by involving itself in an internal church dispute and that a Georgia law was unconstitutional for giving juries the right to make decisions in theological disputes.

Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of NY (1970)
With the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Burger, the Court upheld the tax exemption for churches by a vote of 8-1.

Welsh v. United States (1970)
The Court ruled that a man could be a "conscientious objector" even though he did not claim the status for religious reasons.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
On June 28th, 1971, the Court unanimously (7-0) determined that the direct government assistance to religious schools was unconstitutional.

Coit v. Green (1971)
Should private schools that engage in racial discrimination be permitted to retain their tax exempt status? This depends upon just why tax deductions exist. If private schools receive their tax deduction simply because they are involved with education, then their discriminatory policies shouldn't matter.

United States v. Christian Echoes National Ministry (1972)
How far can the IRS go in determining whether a religious organization should retain its tax exempt status? The Supreme Court let stand a District Court decision which found that the IRS did not have the authority to total up various "religious" and "political" activities in order to determine which carried more weight for an organization.

Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church (1972)
Should a church continue to receive a tax exemption for property that it is using for commercial purposes? Traditionally religious tax exemptions are conditioned on the idea that the church or organization pursue religious goals - commercial goals which result in a profit do not receive tax exemption.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
On May 15th 1972 the Court ruled 6 to 1 that the compulsory education law in Winconsin did indeed violate the Free Exercise Clause for Amish parents.

Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist (1973)
The Court found all three sections of a New York law providing, among other things, tax deductions and reimbursements for children in parochial schools, unconstitutional. Each of the three parts of the law had the primary effect of furthering religion.

Meek v. Pittenger (1975)
Supreme Court decision invalidating most of two Pennsylvania laws providing for instructional materials and equipment to religious schools because most of that aid could be easily diverted to religious purposes.

Wolman v. Walter (1977)
The Court allowed Ohio to provide standardized tests, therapeutic and diagnostic services to non-public school children. However, the state was not permitted to offer educational materials or subsidize class field trips.

Trans World Airlines v. Hardison (1977)
The Court decided 7-2 that TWA went far enough in attempting to accommodate Hardison's religious beliefs and that the company was justified in firing him when he refused to comply with his work assignments.

McDaniel v. Paty (1978)
The Court ruled that Tennessee's statute forbidding clergy from holding public office improperly forced citizens to choose between exercising two of their fundamental rights.

Jones v. Wolf (1979)
The Supreme Court vacated a lower court's decision that a minority faction had control of a church becaused the lower court failed to use the "neutral principles of law" test properly.

Stone v. Graham (1980)
The Court ruled that a Kentucky law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom in the state to be unconstituional.

McClean v. Arkansas (1981)
The Court found that Arkasas' "blanced treatment" law mandating equal treatment of creation science with evolution was unconstitutional.

Segraves v. California (1981)
A California judge ruled that teaching evolution in public school science classes does not infringe upon the rights of any students or parents to the free exercise of their religion, even if they sincerely believe that evolution is contrary to their religious beliefs.

Larkin v. Grendel's Den (1982)
The Court ruled 8-1 that the Massachusetts law that allowed schools and churches to prevent the issuance of alcohol permits to establishments within 500 feet unconstitutional because it substituted religious Court Decision-making for public legislative authority.

Larson v. Valente (1982)
The Court ruled 5-4 that a Minnesota law imposing greater burdens on minority, non-traditional relgious groups was unconstitutional because was not closely enough related to furthering a specific governmental interest.

Bob Jones University v. United States (1983)
The Supreme Court upheld the IRS's policy of prohibiting tax exempt status to even religious schools with racially discriminatory policies.

Lynch v. Donnelly (1983)
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the city of Pawtucket could continue to display a nativity scene as part of its Christmas display.

Marsh v. Chambers (1983)
The Court permitted the practice of beginning the legislative session in Nebraska with a prayer given by the publicly funded chaplain.

Aguilar v. Felton (1985)
In a 5-4 Court Decision in 1985, the Court overturned New York City's program of paying the salaries of public employees who provided any remedial assistance to low-income students in parochial school environments.

Estate of Thornton v. Caldor (1985)
The Court ruled 8-1 that Connecticut's law requiring that employers give all employees the day off if it was their chosen day of worship was unconstitutional because it had a direct effect of advancing a particular religious practice.

Grand Rapids School District v. Ball (1985)
Grand Rapids School District offered two programs conducted in leased private school classrooms: one taught during the regular school day by public school teachers and the other taught after regular school hours by part-time teachers. Both were found unconstitional.

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)
The Court found that an Alabma law requiring that each school day begin with a one minute period of "silent meditation or voluntary prayer" was unconstitional.

Bowen v. Roy (1986)
In an 8-1 Court Decision, the Court ruled that the government was permitted to require beneficiaries to supply it with their Social Security numbers, even if their religion forbade it.

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
In a 7-2 Court Decision, the Court invalidated Louisiana's "Creationism Act" because it violated the Establishment Clause.

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School v. Grumet (1989)
The Court found that a school district boundary was unconstitutionally drawn to deliberately aid a particular religious group.

Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock (1989)
With Justice Brennan writing the majority opinion, the Court decided that exempting religious publications from the state sales tax violated the Establishment Clause.

Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. California (1990)
Should religious organizations be totally exempt from taxation because the collection of such taxes violates both the Free Exercise and the Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment?

Webster v. New Lenox (1990)
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school boards have the right to prohibit teaching creationism because such lessons would constitute religious advocacy and, hence, such restrictions do not constitute an infringement on a teacher's free speech rights.

Lee v. Weisman (1992)
On June 24th 1992, the Court ruled in a 5-4 Court Decision that a graduation prayer given by a rabbi during school graduation violated the Establishment Clause.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)
In 1993, the Court unanimously invalidated city ordinances outlawing animal sacrifices.

Peloza v. Capistrano (1994)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a teacher does not have a right to teach creationism in a biology class, that "evolutionism" is not a religion or world view, and that the government can restrict the speech of employees while they are on the job.

Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified School District (1994)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that a school district's use of the "Impressions" teaching aid did not constitute a promotion of witchcraft and denigration of Christianity.

Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette (1995)
Supreme Court decision holding that an unattended cross erected by the KKK on public grounds would not give the impression of government endorsement and, hence, is not a violation of the separation of church and state.

Agostini v. Felton (1997)
On June 23rd, 1997, in a 5-4 Court Decision, the Court allowed public school teachers to tutor private school students in their private schools, even if the schools were primarily religious in nature.

Boerne v. Flores (1997)
The Court ruled against an Archbishop and in favor of the city of Boerne, finding that the Congress did indeed exceed its authority by passing the RFRA and that governments did not have to use the "compelling government interest" test.

Good News Club v. Milford Central School District (1998)
Second District Court decision which found that a school district in New York could prohibit a community religious group from meeting in the school building because they would using it for specifically religious purposes.

DiLorento v. Downey USD (1999)
The Supreme Court let stand, without comment, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a school district was within its rights to discontinue a program of paid advertising signs on school grounds rather than accept a sign promoting the Ten Commandments.

Freiler v. Tangipahoa (1999)
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a disclaimer to be read before teaching about evolution ultimately had the effect of furthering religious interests and was therefore unconstitutional.

ACLU v. Ohio (1999)
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Ohio motto, "With God All Things Are Possible" is indeed a religious slogan and, hence, a violation of the separation of church and state.

Indianapolis Baptist Temple v. U.S (2000)
If a religious group believes that paying taxes is a sin, should they become exempt from paying all taxes in order to preserve their right to free exercise of religion?

Santa Fe School District v. Doe (2000)
The Supreme Court ruled that official, student-led prayers before a school football game violated the separation of church and state.

Williams v. Lara (2000)
The Texas Supreme Court decided that an "all fundamentalist" prison section was unconstitutional, even though the prisoners volunteered to be there where other religious beliefs were excluded.

LeVake v. Independent School District (2001)
A federal district court finds that a school may remove a teacher from teaching a biology class when that teacher, a creationist, cannot adequately teach evolution.

FFRF v. Faith Works (2002)
A federal district court decides that the state government cannot give direct, unrestricted funding to a "faith based" drug counseling program which also includes a heavy dose of religious indoctrination.

FFRF v. Rhea County Board of Education (2002)
A federal district court decides that a public school cannot have students from the local Bryan College come in to teach Bible classes.

ESA v. Rylander (2001)
A Texas District Court ruled that a nontheistic Ethical Culture Society deserved a religious tax exemption. The Court rejected State arguments that religion must be defined by a belief in a "Supreme Being."

Where is the precedent from Engel v Vitale?
Engel v Vitale was the Landmark Ruling that established the precedent, actually. But the rule-of-law precedents used by the court for the ruling was detailed at great length in the decision using the history of the issue going back as far as 16th century England. The Court concluded that school prayer is a religious activity by the very nature of it being a prayer, and that prescribing such a religious activity for school children violates the Establishment Clause. The program, created by government officials to promote a religious belief, was therefore constitutionally impermissible.

While the Constitution itself doesn't say "separation of church and state" in those exact words, subsequent lower and Supreme Court rulings, which become part of the Law of the Land, same as the Constitution, has established a clear-as-day constitutional precedent of separation of church and state. The "broad" was correct.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I can't agree that "having religion and government be mutually exclusive is retarded" - it's the only reasonable way to deal with the many forms of religion practiced. And with those who practice none at all, without violating any one citizen's rights.
The establishment of a state religion is what the Constitution was created to prevent, in large part, and 'most favored' status is closer to it than the founding fathers wanted to get. A Christian prayer should be no more or less acceptable to a public assembly than a Muslim prayer. Or Hindu. Or voodoo, either.
That it "doesn't reflect society" is misleading. The Constitution was written to ensure the principles of a constitutional republic, not to reflect the actual practices of society. Society is supposed to reflect the Constitution, not vice versa.

 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I can't agree that "having religion and government be mutually exclusive is retarded" - it's the only reasonable way to deal with the many forms of religion practiced. And with those who practice none at all, without violating any one citizen's rights.
It's a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Since people are people, and most people are religious, to pretend otherwise is reee-tarrrd-ed.

The establishment of a state religion is what the Constitution was created to prevent, in large part, and 'most favored' status is closer to it than the founding fathers wanted to get. A Christian prayer should be no more or less acceptable to a public assembly than a Muslim prayer. Or Hindu. Or voodoo, either.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression should be accepted and welcomed at any public assembly. The establishment of, or even the favoring of a particular religion is certainly unconstitutional, without question, but that doesn't mean the people who make up the government have to renounce all of their religious beliefs in order to govern, that they have to pretend religion doesn't exist. The mere recitation of a prayer aloud by a government official or at a government function is hardly an establishment of religion or a coercion, unless you're incredibly weak and feeble-minded. It's simply a freedom of expression.

You said it yourself, and I absolutely agree, that a prayer of any religion should be no more or no less acceptable at a public assembly than that of any other religion. But that's not what's happening. Some people find a prayer of any kind wholly unacceptable. In this case, the Valedictorian should be able to wax poetic about whatever he wants to talk about, be it the future for his graduating classmates, the issues facing the creation of menus in the school cafeteria, the crabby school bus drivers, his religion, the NSA snooping on our communications, anything he wants. It's his podium. Let him speak.

If a Jewish judge wants to wear a yarmulke while at work, or a Christian judge wants to hang the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, it's not hurting anybody, no one is damaged by it. If a school allows the football team to huddle up and let someone say a prayer, no one is damaged by that. No one.

The spirit of the law is to prevent the government from establishing a religion. But that doesn't mean the people within the government has to pretend religion doesn't exist. The entire reason for the establishment clause is to protect personal freedoms and liberties. When you prevent someone from exercising or talking about their religious beliefs, you are violating the spirit and the letter of the constitution and those freedoms and liberties.

That it "doesn't reflect society" is misleading. The Constitution was written to ensure the principles of a constitutional republic, not to reflect the actual practices of society. Society is supposed to reflect the Constitution, not vice versa.
The Constitution was written to ensure both, actually. Being a government of the people, by the people and for the people, the republic cannot exist without reflecting the practices of society, since it's society that appoints or elects the representatives in the republic representatives who come from the people themselves, and thus reflect society at large.

The Constitution is designed so that laws can be enacted to reflect society and its wishes and practices. If the Constitution didn't have that provision, then it would be accurate to say that society is supposed to reflect the Constitution, as the Constitution would be a static, rigid document. The defining characteristic of a republic is the affairs of state are a public matter (present Administration excepted, of course). Those affairs are to reflect the wishes and practices of the governed.

The history of this country shows undoubtedly that there is an inseparable intertwining of government and religion. That's because the government is inseparably intertwined with the people it represents. There's no getting around it. To have the government and the people it represents be mutually exclusive to each other is, again, retarded. Not to mention impossible unless we move to a monarchy or dictatorship (again, present Administration excepted).

What I said was, having religion and the State being mutually exclusive is retarded and doesn't reflect society.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Good job, Turtle. You've managed to post 75 cases which have NOTHING to do with this case in particular. Goes back to Santa Fe v Doe as the only one that might... and that's a mighty big 'might', as the school had no control over this kid changing his Valedictorian speech at the last second. They would have an awfully hard time proving that he was "establishing" a religion on behalf of the government.
 
Last edited:
Top