Atheist student sues high school over graduation prayer

Originally Posted by America

The way I see it, it went down like. Correict me if my simplistic runthrough of events is wrong, this is just what I've gathered from the articles involved:
Kids: Can we pray at graduation?
School: Eh, sure. If everyone's okay with it.
Kids: *vote* Oh, the majority says yes!
School: well, okay then.

*graduation comes*
Kids: *pray*
Atheist Kid: *gets upset because non-Christians who didn't even ASK to have their beliefs represented aren't getting it* I'M GOING TO SUE YOU. SCHOOL.

I like how it's now all about the motives of the kid. Doesn't matter if he's doing this as part of a diabolical plot to destroy all happiness forever, his point stands by itself.

Now, see, that first part? Where the school endorses having a prayer? That violates the constitution.

If the valedictorian had just stood up and prayed? No issue. But that's not what happened. The school added a prayer to the proceedings. Why they did so is, from a legal point of view, irrelevant.

Of course, that's just my understanding, I could be wrong.

The way I see it is that the school just let the kids pray because they asked if it was okay, and the school saw no problem with it. So they just put it in, just like if someone had asked to speak at the graduation.

And if they'd all voted to, as I said earlier, explicitly wish all white people good luck?

If a minority (Buddhists, lets say) asked to have a meditation period, or an atheist asked to have a "good luck everyone" thing and the school said no, I'd be more willing to say the lawsuit is a good idea.

How do you know they didn't say 'no'? But while that would strengthen the case, it's not needed.

For comparison: It's like those copies of the 10 commandments that so many US government buildings had. They're against the constitution, even the ones donated by private individuals, because by allowing them to be there the government is explicitly endorsing a specific religion.

This is no different.

As stands, I just think it's really dumb. It might be ruled one way or another, but I'm hoping it's ruled in the school's favor because it just seems... really oversensitive.

Get back to us when your government starts saying you aren't a true citizen because of your beliefs, then we can talk about sensitivity.

Originally Posted by mattj

Respectfully, this isn't a case of the tyranny of the majority. Its a case of the tyranny of the minority. This is a case of a single student telling other students they shouldn't have the right to do something that harms no one, that they all voted on, and that is completely legal.

Tyranny of the minority only works if that minority has a hell of a lot of power, else the majority just ignores them.

Anyways, my point was that there being a vote doesn't justify it.

I understand that minorities should be protected, but they absolutely should not be able to tell the majority how to run their lives.

When did anyone do that?

That is not protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority, that is giving the minority the right to rule the majority, which is akin to what is happening in some Middle Eastern governments. That is completely un-democratic. I mean this with all due respect, but if you think that the courts have ruled one way every time on these cases, you don't know these cases.

AASA :: Handling Student-Led Prayer at School Events

There have been several cases where courts have ruled that student led, student initiated prayers at various school events are completely legal and do not conflict with the establishment clause.

(Emphasis mine). Yes, but this wasn't. Which is our entire point. Holding a vote before hand doesn't make a prayer "student initiated".

If the faculty had held a vote to see if people should be thrown off a roof, would they then no longer be responsible for what happened next? Obviously not.

Originally Posted by mattj

I mean this with all due respect, but if you think that the courts have ruled one way every time on these cases, you don't know these cases.

AASA :: Handling Student-Led Prayer at School Events

There have been several cases where courts have ruled that student led, student initiated prayers at various school events are completely legal and do not conflict with the establishment clause. Thus far the courts have nearly completely agreed that school led, school initiated prayers are illegal, but student led, student initiated, student carried out prayers are legal. Considering that every story I've read on this case has said the class itself voted and decided to have a prayer, which was carried out by a student and not faculty, this sounds like a case of student initated, and led prayer, which has thus far been admissable. The problem with the Santa Fe case was that it wasn't just student led, the school hatched the idea and got things together. Here, at least according to all the information I've seen, the students decided to do it, and got it together, and did it.

On the contrary, I'm well aware of them. In fact you linked to one of the articles I looked at before I even posted. however, I'm very leery of the opinions of circuit courts when there is already an existing precedent from the supreme court when it comes to cases like this. Rulings such as the one passed down from the 11th circuit court are troublesome to me because they spend so much time pointing out loopholes in established precedent that they prevent us from coming up with definitive standards. If we had a clear cut list of what is permissible when it comes to religion in public schools, then cases like this probably wouldn't come up as much.

I just wish that greater tolerance was what people were aiming for as opposed to "keep that ♥♥♥♥ away from me".

Originally Posted by mattj

I understand that minorities should be protected, but they absolutely should not be able to tell the majority how to run their lives.

once again I have to ask: Do you honestly not see the difference between an individual practicing their faith and a government incorporating that practice into an official ceremony?

nobody is telling anybody how they should run their lives. That's not the problem here. We're simply telling the government how to run their public schools; that is, according to the laws of the United States Constitution that have been put in place specifically to tell the government how they are to run things.

Why couldn't they have just done a moment of silence? That way, they could all pray/meditate quietly to themselves, and no one would get their feelings hurt over this.

I dunno, the whole thing seems a bit...overly-sensitive. Yes, I can kinda see the kid's point, but c'mon! Did he not know until the last minute that they'd be doing a prayer thing? If he felt that bad about it, he could've asked to have someone do a 'good luck!' speech that didn't mention God/Jesus.

I also don't see how this is tyrannical. They voted, and the majority won. That's democracy for you. It's not like the school said, "We WILL have a prayer service conducted, and you WILL visit, and you WILL pray out loud along with us!" If they had done that, then I could see reasons for him to speak out. If they had cut down any and all ideas like speeches that didn't include God/Jesus, then I could see reasons.

They voted, and the majority won. It sucks, but that's how it works.

Originally Posted by Iron Man

Well no, see, the vote is actually immaterial. Just because the majority agree on something doesn't make it right. What's important is that no-one who didn't want to pray was forced to. Everybody did just what they individually wanted and nothing more. That's why I don't see why this is a suing matter.

Right. I agree with you!

EDIT: At least I hope you know I was! xD I'm kinda new to this section, still.

Whether this was a battle worth picking, whatever the student's actual motives are, etc. are not what's at issue here.

For me, the main thing I'm interested in is the principle of the thing. Is it right for a school to sponsor a prayer promoting one single religion for a student body of diverse religions, including some students with no religion at all? I just don't see how that's the right thing to do. (A moment of silence on the other hand, as has been pointed out above, is far more universal and covers all bases.)

Even as a Christian myself, I don't want to impose my beliefs and practices on non-Christians. It's alienating, insulting, and patronizing. Let people freely choose Christian faith if they want, or find their own path. I can't conceive of subjecting people to my worldview against their will, especially when such is obviously hurtful to some of them.

At the end of that day, it's common courtesy, you know?

Originally Posted by Gamzee

Well, um, I don't really feel that it's fair to compare a class voting to have a quick prayer to the segregation of the 1900's. I mean, I get what you're saying: the majority is not always the fairest opinion, but a prayer isn't the same as being forced into understaffed schools, beaten, and seen as less than a human by society.

Right, I wouldn't even begin to claim that what atheists experience is even remotely close to what blacks experienced (and still do) in the US. Don't mistake me!

But I deliberately chose an extreme example to show that a majority vote (or what Link the Zora above indicated as "that's democracy for you") is not always a good or desirable thing.

Originally Posted by John

Now, see, that first part? Where the school endorses having a prayer? That violates the constitution.

A school allowing a student initiated, student led, student carried out prayer is not an example of a school endorsing having prayer. It is allowing having a prayer. When the superintendent says "Okay, we're having a prayer at your graduation. Do you want me to do it, or will one of you do it." The courts have ruled that THAT is an example of the school endorsing prayer.

Originally Posted by John

If the valedictorian had just stood up and prayed? No issue. But that's not what happened. The school added a prayer to the proceedings. Why they did so is, from a legal point of view, irrelevant.

Honestly, if the valedictorian had just stood up and prayed, and it wasn't scheduled, the superintendent would have been perfectly justified in politely walking him off the stage and moving the graduation along. You can't just adlib a graduation. Because you've got so many people that have to have diplomas handed out to, and awards given, and names read, you've got to organize it and stick to the plan. The students voted and said the majority wanted a prayer. The prayer was scheduled so as to keep things moving.

Originally Posted by John

And if they'd all voted to, as I said earlier, explicitly wish all white people good luck?

Obviously, the act of voting on something does not make anything moral or justified in and of itself. But the act of voting does prove that the prayer was student initiated.

Originally Posted by John

How do you know they didn't say 'no'? But while that would strengthen the case, it's not needed.

Because in the OP's story the suing student admitted that he didn't complain or say anything.

Originally Posted by John

For comparison: It's like those copies of the 10 commandments that so many US government buildings had. They're against the constitution, even the ones donated by private individuals, because by allowing them to be there the government is explicitly endorsing a specific religion.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...9/feb/09022607
North Dakota: Ten Commandments Monument Upheld
Nebraska: Ten Commandments Monument Upheld
The supreme court, and lower courts have not said that any display of or reference to religion in any government run situation is unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by John

Tyranny of the minority only works if that minority has a hell of a lot of power, else the majority just ignores them.

I'd say that atheist student sure does have a lot of power. If he wins he could quite possibly cost that school millions of dollars. Even if he loses, the school still has to fork over lawyer fees. Its a win win situation for him. Either way, the school has to pay money because they ticked him off. This is absolutely a case of a minority pressuring the majority to change their lifestyle to fit the minority's opinion.

Originally Posted by John

Anyways, my point was that there being a vote doesn't justify it.

Again, I'll totally agree with you that a vote doesn't make a single thing moral, or justifiable in and of itself, but the vote absolutely does prove that this prayer was student initiated, which is completely significant concerning the legality of this particular prayer.

Originally Posted by John

When did anyone do that?

When this minority student took the school to court for allowing the majority to do what they wanted to do.

Originally Posted by John

(Emphasis mine). Yes, but this wasn't. Which is our entire point. Holding a vote before hand doesn't make a prayer "student initiated".

Respectfully, it does. Had the superintendent said "Okay, you guys are having a prayer." it wouldn't have been student initiated. The students were the ones that decided a prayer was in order, not the school. I don't know how you can get any more student initiated than to have a vote on it. What does student initiated mean to you?

Originally Posted by John

If the faculty had held a vote to see if people should be thrown off a roof, would they then no longer be responsible for what happened next? Obviously not.

Again, again, a g a i n, I'm not saying that taking a vote makes anything moral or justifiable. I'm saying that because the students voted it was student initiated and not school initiated, which makes it legal.

Originally Posted by Bromion

On the contrary, I'm well aware of them. In fact you linked to one of the articles I looked at before I even posted. however, I'm very leery of the opinions of circuit courts when there is already an existing precedent from the supreme court when it comes to cases like this. Rulings such as the one passed down from the 11th circuit court are troublesome to me because they spend so much time pointing out loopholes in established precedent that they prevent us from coming up with definitive standards. If we had a clear cut list of what is permissible when it comes to religion in public schools, then cases like this probably wouldn't come up as much.

Actually, the supreme court itself has supported student initiated, student led prayer post Santa Fe v Doe.

Originally Posted by Nyarlko

once again I have to ask: Do you honestly not see the difference between an individual practicing their faith and a government incorporating that practice into an official ceremony?

I have no problem whatsoever with a government incorporating anybody's religious practices into an official ceremony as long as it is initiated and led by the individual. And as far as I've seen, the courts have agreed.

Originally Posted by Nyarlko

nobody is telling anybody how they should run their lives. That's not the problem here. We're simply telling the government how to run their public schools; that is, according to the laws of the United States Constitution that have been put in place specifically to tell the government how they are to run things.

Respectfully, this minority atheist is telling his classmates how they should run their lives. Graduation is one of the most important events in anyone's life, and he's telling all the rest of his classmates that they can't do something that is completely legal, and that they voted on, something that he himself didn't even speak up or complain about beforehand. He's telling them that one of the biggest events in their lives has to be run his way. He is telling them how to live their lives.

Originally Posted by John

I like how it's now all about the motives of the kid. Doesn't matter if he's doing this as part of a diabolical plot to destroy all happiness forever, his point stands by itself.

Now, see, that first part? Where the school endorses having a prayer? That violates the constitution.

If the valedictorian had just stood up and prayed? No issue. But that's not what happened. The school added a prayer to the proceedings. Why they did so is, from a legal point of view, irrelevant.

Going off what mattj said, which I'm going to assume is true because I'm not exactly an expert in the court rulings on schools and religion, it can go either way still. It might be ruled one way, or another. It all depends on the court and who's doing the deciding.

I personally see no problem with it, and can see the court saying that the students ran it, and that the school allowed it. If the school had said "no, you can't pray at graduation" it's equally likely that someone could have sued it for that.

If the school simply allowing religion in the ceremony is illegal I could sue a school because the valedictorian thanked God in his speech. Which would be incredibly ridiculous.

Originally Posted by John

And if they'd all voted to, as I said earlier, explicitly wish all white people good luck?

Because that's not really what prayers usually are...? Because usually a prayer might be from Christians, but still wishes everyone involved good luck? Prayer might be religious in nature, but it's almost never saying "good luck... as long as you're Christian". The few prayer services I've been at (all located in my school but with no school officials there, now that I think about it) have never been anything more than saying good luck to everyone.

That's hardly the same thing.

Originally Posted by John

How do you know they didn't say 'no'? But while that would strengthen the case, it's not needed.

I don't, but that'd be the type of thing I'd have brought. It shows the school was SINGLING out one religion. But since it isn't in any of the articles there's no evidence to say the school refused to acknowledge other faiths.

You shouldn't have to actively try to bring in every single faith. You should, however, allow them if they are asked. This isn't treating one religion better than the other at all. If a white man asks for money and you give him money, and then a black man doesn't ask for money, is that favoring the white man? It's the same way in this case I think.

Originally Posted by John

For comparison: It's like those copies of the 10 commandments that so many US government buildings had. They're against the constitution, even the ones donated by private individuals, because by allowing them to be there the government is explicitly endorsing a specific religion.

This is no different.

It's only endorsing a specific religion if they flat-out refuse to host similar things from other religions. If they take in any similar signs from other religions, then they aren't. If they refuse to then there's a problem.

Maybe the current interpretation is different than that, but I'm not arguing that. This is my interpretation of the Constitution and what is right and what is wrong.

Originally Posted by John

Get back to us when your government starts saying you aren't a true citizen because of your beliefs, then we can talk about sensitivity.

I'm trying to link the current topic of the kid to being told he isn't a true citizen.

Nope. Not able to find any links from him being upset over a prayer that he could have easily complained about prior.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for separating church and state. I personally would have voted saying no to said prayer. But I just don't see the reasoning behind him claiming the school owes him money because of it. I could see taking it to the school board, asking for either all religions in the school or none to be represented at graduation, but... I don't know.

For me personally, it being right or wrong goes down to the school's treatment of other religions when they ask to be represented in the ceremonies.

Originally Posted by mattj

Respectfully, this minority atheist is telling his classmates how they should run their lives. Graduation is one of the most important events in anyone's life, and he's telling all the rest of his classmates that they can't do something that is completely legal, and that they voted on, something that he himself didn't even speak up or complain about beforehand. He's telling them that one of the biggest events in their lives has to be run his way. He is telling them how to live their lives.

uh, once again, no, this isn't what's happening. This "minority atheist" isn't telling his classmates anything. He's not suing his classmates, he's suing the public school, an entity of the government. He's telling the public school how it should be run, according to the United States Constitution.

he is not telling anybody how they should run their lives. He's merely telling the government that they should run their schools according to their own laws.

Originally Posted by mattj

I strongly disagree with this. Why should he, the minority, have the authority to forbid the majority from doing what they want to do, and what the courts have fairly regularly conceded is legal to do? They voted on whether or not to have a prayer, and it was student led. Those types of graduation prayers are, as far as I've ever read, heard, or seen, completely legal. Had this been a school led, school administered prayer, then he would have had a case. But as it stands, based on the stories google has found for me, he's going to lose this frivolous lawsuit.

Because the rights of the majority always win out over the rights of the minority. =/

Originally Posted by Intrigue

I'm an atheist in a christian school. I put up with the compulsory services and stuff, just keep quiet during the creed. It's a great time for napping. Making RS a compulsory GCSE is maybe taking it a bit far, but I wouldn't go as far as taking my school to court for its faith. I chose to go there, after all (even if by me I mean my parents), and atheists are a minority group, as you're all saying. It's not as if rubbing along with the religious stuff is going to have any serious consequences or anything - if anything it will educate you, make you more tolerant and understanding.
If the person who sued his school couldn't handle people with different views just for a day then I fear for him out there in the world.


...uh oh, I posted in SD

RS is an important thing to learn. It teaches people about tolerance and so on, and prevents people thinking that mosques are 'terrorist training centres'.

On-topic... I think that sueing is a bit extreme. Unless he was told something like 'if you don't take this prayer you'll be in the ♥♥♥♥'.
I appreciate that this may be the wrong way of thinking about it, but I view it like this:
It's like vegetarianism. The school sells meat, but if you don't want it you don't eat it. If the principal is sitting up there eating his burger, and a lot of the people around you are also eating burgers, but you are allowed to stick to mycoprotein, it's okay.
In the same way, the school does prayer, but if you don't want to join in you don't have to. If the principal is praying, and a lot of people around you are praying too, then you can just be contemplative for a bit.

I think what I'm saying is that it's okay to cater for the majority as long as the minority aren't having burgers rammed down their throats.

____
/''''''''\
I__I

Me in my flame shelter.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Because the rights of the majority always win out over the rights of the minority. =/

Rhodesia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apartheid in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feudalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Great White North

Rhodesia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apartheid in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feudalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait, GWN, are you disagreeing with a sarcastic point and saying that the majority does win? Or saying that when the majority wins it's a bad thing? Or saying that this isn't as bad as other times? Or that we're on a slippery slope?

Those are useful links, but your point is confusing.

Also, thank you Zoralink.

Edit: 300th post .

I'm curious as to what the response would be if the school had decided to dedicate a few minutes of the graduation ceremony to a preorganized, student-led, majority supported Luciferianist Satanist worship ceremony. If this isn't an issue, suppose we extend the example and imagine a school in which the first few minutes of each school day are dedicated to a majority supported, student-led Satanist worship ceremony.

Originally Posted by 8bit

I'm curious as to what the response would be if the school had decided to dedicate a few minutes of the graduation ceremony to a preorganized, student-led, majority supported Luciferianist Satanist worship ceremony. If this isn't an issue, suppose we extend the example and imagine a school in which the first few minutes of each school day are dedicated to a majority supported, student-led Satanist worship ceremony.

Satan worship would be difficult, as it would be

a) actively offending all religious people there (and a fair few non) and

b) be against the law for so many non-religion-oriented reasons, possibly including murder, nudity, cruelty to animals, horrific imagery, and incitement to violence.
Not to mention attempted murder, as the very point of raising the devil is to have him kill people, basically meaning that even if you are a freaking psycho with no connection with reality, and even if it is pointless and never going to work, then what you are trying to do is kill people.

Which is illegal.

But yeah, sure, ♥♥♥♥ it.

Originally Posted by Mister Blak

Satan worship would be difficult, as it would be

a) actively offending all religious people there (and a fair few non) and

b) be against the law for so many non-religion-oriented reasons, possibly including murder, nudity, cruelty to animals, horrific imagery, and incitement to violence.

Not to mention attempted murder, as the very point of raising the devil is to have him kill people, basically meaning that even if you are a freaking psycho with no connection with reality, and even if it is pointless and never going to work, then what you are trying to do is kill people.

Which is illegal.

But yeah, sure, ♥♥♥♥ it.

It's quite funny that that's what you think Satanism is. It's possible to be a Satanist without believing in human sacrifice.

Luciferianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Great White North

Rhodesia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apartheid in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feudalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not only are they not useful links, but they do not clarify your point. You have taken me to examples where the majority's wishes result in injustice to the minority, despite the fact that rights, as a concept, are enforceable against the world if you are found to have them. Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Further, it'd have been much easier to cite Nazi Germany, since that too is an example of majority will overruling that of the minority. As you may have heard, it did not end well. Which is precisely the point I was making - if we treat majority will as the be all and end all of whether or not something is acceptable, then there is no justice. Justice is not a mathematical exercise.

Originally Posted by Mister Blak

Satan worship would be difficult, as it would be

a) actively offending all religious people there (and a fair few non) and

er, how so? Having a religious belief is offensive to everybody that doesn't share that religious belief? Why doesn't this apply to Christianity?

b) be against the law for so many non-religion-oriented reasons, possibly including murder, nudity, cruelty to animals, horrific imagery, and incitement to violence.
Not to mention attempted murder, as the very point of raising the devil is to have him kill people, basically meaning that even if you are a freaking psycho with no connection with reality, and even if it is pointless and never going to work, then what you are trying to do is kill people.

er, that's not...how Satanism usually works, actually. At the very least, Satanism is just any religious belief system that involves worshiping Satan. And, well, that's not illegal. You're allowed to believe whatever you want and worship freely.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

It's quite funny that that's what you think Satanism is. It's possible to be a Satanist without believing in human sacrifice.

Luciferianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think what's funnier is that you linked me to luciferianism, one of the more intellectual and idealistic aspects of satanism. Some aspects of satanism don't involve human sacfrifice. Some do. It's an even more fractal religion than the monotheistic three (Christianity, Judaism and Islam), and that is saying something.

Satanism was suggested in this discussion purely for the shock value in comparison, and I responded as such, pointing out the problems with worshipping this version of satanism in schools.

Seems I erected my flame shelter a little early.

The kid is either intolerant or looking to make money, as mentioned before. If he didn't want to take part in the prayer, he didn't have to. Everyone else, save for Nielson and two others, decided that they wanted to by vote. This was not a case of trying to force non-religious people to pray, nor was it a case that attempted to show religious superiority - it was simply a prayer that the student body wanted to partake in. There is no tyranny of the majority here. If it was up to me personally, I'd tell the kid to shut the hell up and leave people alone instead of forcing his own beliefs on them. They never said he had to pray with them.