Federal judge orders jail for those praying at texas graduation ceremony

[sactoking]

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/education/060311-court-lifts-ban-on-graduation-prayer

 

[werepossum]

Just so that we're clear, because some of you are obviously not, this ruling does not prohibit students from praying at this event, on public property or otherwise. This ruling prohibits organized prayer at these events. It only affects the students in one way: if a student is giving a speech, the student cannot invite prayer from the audience. Students can pray all they want, in silence or out loud.

Many of the comments here suggest that the poster does not understand the ruling, and the Fox News article in the OP invites the miscontruction. I suggest that if you are going to comment on this ruling that you do so with at least a rudimentary understanding of it what it actually is. Comments like "it's preventing anyone from praying on public property" are flat wrong. Why bother discussing any issue if you haven't gotten facts straight first?

Well, perhaps students can pray to themselves and perhaps not. The judge is demanding that anyone using words he deems not appropriate be incarcerated or otherwise sanctioned, so at least by his ruling any student who mentions a deity or uses the term "amen" is to be seized and jailed. Really, how much longer before a judge demands that any student who appears to be praying silently is also jailed?

To those who support this decision - how far should your right to not encounter religion extend? We already have the ACLU working to remove crosses from military graveyards and public property. Should we ban crosses and other religious symbols visible from public-owned lands, like roads and parks? Should we ban crosses and other religious symbols worn in public? After all, allowing someone to wear a cross on a public street is tacitly supporting Christianity and therefore violating your Constitutional right of freedom from religion. (In extreme irony, the Bill of Rights is considered to be enumeration of some of the rights granted by G-d and defended by man's government, so progressives are now corrupting rights granted by G-d to ensure that no one can actually encounter His worship.)

Hat tip to Sactoking for the heads up on the appeal reversal.

 

[fskimospy]

What I'm sure he meant is you have freedom from government sanctioned religion.

Of course, all of our freedoms in the US are explicitly freedoms from government action. People who aren't the government can infringe on your freedom of speech, religion, etc. all they want. (well, so long as they aren't committing some crime while doing so) All the people in this case would be free to proselytize on the street to their heart's content, they just can't do so from a state sponsored platform.

I don't even know if I agree with this ruling, but I definitely know that CAD's argument was dumb.

 

[Fern]

Just so that we're clear, because some of you are obviously not, this ruling does not prohibit students from praying at this event, on public property or otherwise. This ruling prohibits organized prayer at these events. It only affects the students in one way: if a student is giving a speech, the student cannot invite prayer from the audience. Students can pray all they want, in silence or out loud.

Many of the comments here suggest that the poster does not understand the ruling, and the Fox News article in the OP invites the miscontruction. I suggest that if you are going to comment on this ruling that you do so with at least a rudimentary understanding of it what it actually is. Comments like "it's preventing anyone from praying on public property" are flat wrong. Why bother discussing any issue if you haven't gotten facts straight first?

I see your point, to an extent. I haven't read the actual ruling, just going by what's in the OP, but the judge has explicity banned numerous words and students speakers are forbidden from saying them.

I assume the judge is trying to stop an effort to get around a ban on schools officials from holding official prayer. Obviously such a simple ban would be quite easy for some student speaker to get around by deciding to use their speech as an opportunity to lead in prayer.

But I think the judge has taken it to far. We've seen successful cases where (federal and local) government's were prevented from using resources on religious items (no Ten Commandments plaques etc). We've seen cases where government officials are limited in expressing religious type speech/views while acting in their official capacities. But I don't recall ever seeing the oppression of any civilian's religious speech on the grounds that they are on gov property. I think the judge has taken this farther than precedent.

I also think punishing the school officials for student conduct they can't reasonably hope to fully control is a step too far. I could see the judge requiring that school officials publicize that a ban exists and encourage students to follow it. But the judge goes well past that. He is effectively ruling beforehand that any efforts by a student are condoned and encouraged by the school oficials in an attempt to get around his order. I can't see this being upheld.

Bad ruling IMO. I hope some student challenges it because I'd like see how this plays out in appeals and further court rulings.

Fern

 

[DominionSeraph]

The judge is demanding that anyone using words he deems not appropriate be incarcerated or otherwise sanctioned, so at least by his ruling any student who mentions a deity or uses the term "amen" is to be seized and jailed.

Wash that Christian Persecution complex out of your eyes and reread the damn article.

The students are not under threat of arrest.

It's pretty sad to see all the people ITT who can't even defend their minds against the authority of... a thread title.
You'll believe without question anything that aligns with your political beliefs, and you think you're safe watching Fox News? The level of delusion... it astounds me.

 

[waggy]

What I'm sure he meant is you have freedom from government sanctioned religion.

he was never very clear. but you are probably right

 

[Fern]

Of course, all of our freedoms in the US are explicitly freedoms from government action. People who aren't the government can infringe on your freedom of speech, religion, etc. all they want. (well, so long as they aren't committing some crime while doing so) All the people in this case would be free to proselytize on the street to their heart's content, they just can't do so from a state sponsored platform.

I don't even know if I agree with this ruling, but I definitely know that CAD's argument was dumb.

So, you say on a street, which is publically/state owned property, people are free to proselytize.

But then you contend that they aren't free to do so on a "state sponsored platform".

This strikes me as a contradiction. Can you explain?

Fern

 

[waggy]

I see your point, to an extent. I haven't read the actual ruling, just going by what's in the OP, but the judge has explicity banned numerous words and students speakers are forbidden from saying them.

I assume the judge is trying to stop an effort to get around a ban on schools officials from holding official prayer. Obviously such a simple ban would be quite easy for some student speaker to get around by deciding to use their speech as an opportunity to lead in prayer.

But I think the judge has taken it to far. We've seen successful cases where (federal and local) government's were prevented from using resources on religious items (no Ten Commandments plaques etc). We've seen cases where government officials are limited in expressing religious type speech/views while acting in their official capacities. But I don't recall ever seeing the oppression of any civilian's religious speech on the grounds that they are on gov property. I think the judge has taken this farther than precedent.

I also think punishing the school officials for student conduct they can't reasonably hope to fully control is a step too far. I could see the judge requiring that school officials publicize that a ban exists and encourage students to follow it. But the judge goes well past that. He is effectively ruling beforehand that any efforts by a student are condoned and encouraged by the school oficials in an attempt to get around his order. I can't see this being upheld.

Bad ruling IMO. I hope some student cghallenges it because I'd like see how this plays out in appeals and further court rulings.

Fern

thats what i was thinking.

you know damn well some students would say something. either to get the school in trouble or to challenge the ruling.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

So, you say on a street, which is publically/state owned property, people are free to proselytize.

But then you contend that they aren't free to do so on a "state sponsored platform".

This strikes me as a contradiction. Can you explain?

Fern

I know you to be far more intelligent than this, are you playing intentionally obtuse or have i misjudged you?

You do realise that any state sponsored assembly is just that and that it is that simple?

Well there you go or you don't, you can also look into previous rulings in another thread if you want to find out facts before arguing against established US case law.

I hate religion because of this, it's an us vs them issue at all times, exactly why Jesus himself asked christians not to announce they were christians and not pray in public but do Christians EVER follow the teachings of Christ? NEVAR!

 

[sactoking]

thats what i was thinking.

you know damn well some students would say something. either to get the school in trouble or to challenge the ruling.

I know damn well that I would, and that I did in my own circumstance. My senior year in HS a girl was killed by a drunk driver and there was all sorts of outpouring of grief. A couple of months later two more girls were killed in another auto accident and there was all sorts of outpouring of grief. A month later my best friend committed suicide; myself and his other friends were brought into the principal and Vp's offices and told point blank "There are kids at this school who are suicidal. We can't tell you who they are or how many there are. We feel that if your friend was ever to be mentioned in any official capacity these unnamed students might feel like they could get attention by killing themselves. Therefore, from this day forward, you are forbidden to mention your friend on school grounds again under threat of expulsion". I submitted a fake graduation speech for approval and then used my time to rail against the administration and to remember my friend.

 

[waggy]

I know damn well that I would, and that I did in my own circumstance. My senior year in HS a girl was killed by a drunk driver and there was all sorts of outpouring of grief. A couple of months later two more girls were killed in another auto accident and there was all sorts of outpouring of grief. A month later my best friend committed suicide; myself and his other friends were brought into the principal and Vp's offices and told point blank "There are kids at this school who are suicidal. We can't tell you who they are or how many there are. We feel that if your friend was ever to be mentioned in any official capacity these unnamed students might feel like they could get attention by killing themselves. Therefore, from this day forward, you are forbidden to mention your friend on school grounds again under threat of expulsion". I submitted a fake graduation speech for approval and then used my time to rail against the administration and to remember my friend.

lol i would have laughed in his face. that's one of the most idiotic things i have heard.

 

[woolfe9999]

Well, perhaps students can pray to themselves and perhaps not. The judge is demanding that anyone using words he deems not appropriate be incarcerated or otherwise sanctioned, so at least by his ruling any student who mentions a deity or uses the term "amen" is to be seized and jailed. Really, how much longer before a judge demands that any student who appears to be praying silently is also jailed?

To those who support this decision - how far should your right to not encounter religion extend? We already have the ACLU working to remove crosses from military graveyards and public property. Should we ban crosses and other religious symbols visible from public-owned lands, like roads and parks? Should we ban crosses and other religious symbols worn in public? After all, allowing someone to wear a cross on a public street is tacitly supporting Christianity and therefore violating your Constitutional right of freedom from religion. (In extreme irony, the Bill of Rights is considered to be enumeration of some of the rights granted by G-d and defended by man's government, so progressives are now corrupting rights granted by G-d to ensure that no one can actually encounter His worship.)

Hat tip to Sactoking for the heads up on the appeal reversal.

To be clear, because you keep failing to make the distinction, the student in question must be formally delivering a speech to incur those restrictions. Students could start praying out loud at the ceremony if they wanted. There is no "maybe this" or "maybe that." That is arguing from ignorance.

And your thread title "federal judge orders jail" is misleading and hyperbolic. It could be read as meaning that specific people were sent to jail. Even the more scaled back interpretation is problematic. The judge made an order about religious content in addressing an audience at a graduation ceremony. Any court order carries with it the possible citation for contempt for violating the order. That is the law of I believe every state and the federal system. Citation means a fine or jail or both, but jail for violating this sort of order is extremely remote. Regardless, the judge did not make this law. It's already on the books. So it doesn't matter what the judge's order was, jail would be a theoretical possibility for anyone violating it. Since "jail" is a possibility for violating any court order, there is really no point in even mentioning it in an article like that, but then, it should be pretty obvious why this source chose to mention it, and why they chose to quote only those critical of the ruling and no one defending it.

 

[Wreckem]

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/education/060311-court-lifts-ban-on-graduation-prayer

5th overrules

/thread

 

[Zebo]

This is going nowhere. Violates freedom of speech and religion. Couple students will get all god on them get arrested and go to next level.

That didnt take long
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/03/texas.school.prayer/

 

[woolfe9999]

I see your point, to an extent. I haven't read the actual ruling, just going by what's in the OP, but the judge has explicity banned numerous words and students speakers are forbidden from saying them.

I assume the judge is trying to stop an effort to get around a ban on schools officials from holding official prayer. Obviously such a simple ban would be quite easy for some student speaker to get around by deciding to use their speech as an opportunity to lead in prayer.

But I think the judge has taken it to far. We've seen successful cases where (federal and local) government's were prevented from using resources on religious items (no Ten Commandments plaques etc). We've seen cases where government officials are limited in expressing religious type speech/views while acting in their official capacities. But I don't recall ever seeing the oppression of any civilian's religious speech on the grounds that they are on gov property. I think the judge has taken this farther than precedent.

I also think punishing the school officials for student conduct they can't reasonably hope to fully control is a step too far. I could see the judge requiring that school officials publicize that a ban exists and encourage students to follow it. But the judge goes well past that. He is effectively ruling beforehand that any efforts by a student are condoned and encouraged by the school oficials in an attempt to get around his order. I can't see this being upheld.

Bad ruling IMO. I hope some student challenges it because I'd like see how this plays out in appeals and further court rulings.

Fern

Neither the District Court nor the appellate opinion is published on Westlaw as yet. Perhaps tomorrow. There are some articles that give more or different information than the Fox article.

I will say that it is highly doubtful that the judge ordered a per se ban on the utterance of certain words. It's more likely that speakers were not allowed to refer to a speech or presentation as a "benediction," "prayer" or other such term. Fox News is obviously just giving a literal and decontextualized parse of the ruling. In mentioning specific words, the judge is trying to avoid people using "code" to subvert the ruling, i.e. but I didn't say prayer, I merely said "benediction." It's also critical with Constitutional rulings to be specific or else you create a chilling effect. When the court is specific here, not only do they know what they can't say, but they also know what they *can* say.

The more debatable issue is in applying it to students. In response to Cadsorta guy, I was explaining what is likely the court's rationale for that, not wholly endorsing it. My main concern when these things are discussed is that people get the facts straight.

In making these kinds of rulings, you have to balance competing rights and interests. It's a real concern that allowing students to do it is an end around. Students are frequently asked by school personnel to say this or that at school functions. Your idea that the proper balance of competing interests is to require the school to publish the ban but not restrict the students may be a sensible one. Frankly I can see it going either way and it's fine with me if it got overturned on that ground.

 

[ericlp]

I know you to be far more intelligent than this, are you playing intentionally obtuse or have i misjudged you?

You do realise that any state sponsored assembly is just that and that it is that simple?

Well there you go or you don't, you can also look into previous rulings in another thread if you want to find out facts before arguing against established US case law.

I hate religion because of this, it's an us vs them issue at all times, exactly why Jesus himself asked christians not to announce they were christians and not pray in public but do Christians EVER follow the teachings of Christ? NEVAR!

It's fairly obvious that this is basically 99% of all religious people are gonna scream and jump up and down that this is way out of line and see it as "HOW COULD YOU!!!" "Save the Children" arguments... You can't reason with a god mind. The mind virus takes over and distorts and facts or reasoning points.

It's like telling a christain how right abortion really is. You not gonna win...

Just laugh and move on...

 

[Doppel]

Just got his ass beat down by a stronger judge

 

[fskimospy]

So, you say on a street, which is publically/state owned property, people are free to proselytize.

But then you contend that they aren't free to do so on a "state sponsored platform".

This strikes me as a contradiction. Can you explain?

Fern

Because US law distinguishes between different types of public property.

There are public forums such as streets, sidewalks, etc. Here, the government has very little ability to control speech, religious expression, etc. Then there are non-public forums, such as schools, the FBI building, the Capitol building, and things like that. In these non commons, the government exercises far more authority to control speech.

This is the reason why as a general rule if you were yelling about Jesus on a street corner, the government couldn't come and stop you. If you decided to yell about Jesus in the middle of a courtroom, an FBI task force meeting, etc, the government can, and will kick your ass.

Because the government exerts substantial control over what happens in a non-public forum as opposed to a public forum, the actions that take place in a non-public forum have an aspect of government sponsorship to them that doesn't exist otherwise.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I will say that it is highly doubtful that the judge ordered a per se ban on the utterance of certain words. It's more likely that speakers were not allowed to refer to a speech or presentation as a "benediction," "prayer" or other such term. Fox News is obviously just giving a literal and decontextualized parse of the ruling. In mentioning specific words, the judge is trying to avoid people using "code" to subvert the ruling, i.e. but I didn't say prayer, I merely said "benediction." It's also critical with Constitutional rulings to be specific or else you create a chilling effect. When the court is specific here, not only do they know what they can't say, but they also know what they *can* say.

You might find this interesting:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-50486
CHRISTA SCHULTZ, Individually and as parents and Guardians of minor child, C.S., a student in the Medina Valley Independent School District; DANNY SCHULTZ, individually and as parents and Guardians of minor child, C.S., a student in the Medina Valley Independent School District; TREVOR SCHULTZ, Individually,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
MEDINA VALLEY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District ofTexas
Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
On this incomplete record at this preliminary injunction stage ofthe case, we are not persuaded that plaintiffs have shown that they are substantially like· ly to prevail on the merits, particularly on the issue that the individual prayers or other remarks to be given by students at graduation are, in fact, schoolsponsored. We also observe in particular that the plaintiffs' motion may be rooted at least in part in circumstances that no longer exist. For example, the school has apparently abandoned including the words "invocation" and "benediction"
Case: 11-50486 Document: 00511498424 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2011
No. 11-50486
on the program. The motion also did not expressly address the involvement of the valedictorian in the graduation ceremony.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the emergency motion ofthe appellants to dissolve the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is GRANTED; accordingly the temporary restraining order and preliminaryinjunction entered by the district court are DISSOLVED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court for possible further proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the opposed motion ofAngela Hildenbrand to intervene is DENIED without prejudice. She is hereby permitted to proceed as amicus curiae.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the opposed motion of Angela Hildenbrand for relieffrom temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is DENIED as moot.
2
Case: 11-50486 Document: 00511498424 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2011

 

[Fern]

Because US law distinguishes between different types of public property.

There are public forums such as streets, sidewalks, etc. Here, the government has very little ability to control speech, religious expression, etc. Then there are non-public forums, such as schools, the FBI building, the Capitol building, and things like that. In these non commons, the government exercises far more authority to control speech.

This is the reason why as a general rule if you were yelling about Jesus on a street corner, the government couldn't come and stop you. If you decided to yell about Jesus in the middle of a courtroom, an FBI task force meeting, etc, the government can, and will kick your ass.

Because the government exerts substantial control over what happens in a non-public forum as opposed to a public forum, the actions that take place in a non-public forum have an aspect of government sponsorship to them that doesn't exist otherwise.

Congress opens with a prayer.

How do you explain that?

Here's a recent one:

06/02/2011
Reverend Dr. John Sloop
Heavenly Father, we come in prayer knowing that you love us and are very much concerned about what goes on in this chamber today as these Members seek to be stewards of the trust placed in them by "we the people."

We confess our human frailty and pray to be delivered from taking up today's agenda out of self–interest or peer pressure, but rather lead us 'to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God.'

Father, grant each Member
wisdom in their thinking on the issues
grace in their attitudes toward one other, and above all,
courage in their convictions.

And when the day is done may each one hear the Master say,
"well done, good and faithful servant"

Now, Father, with deep respect for the faith traditions of all Members, I offer this prayer in the name of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen

http://chaplain.house.gov/

(Off Topic, but:
Our gov is spending money on religious stuff. Look at the website, they are promoting churches and they are paying a chaplin. (I'm assuming he doesn't work for free, seems no one in our government does)

Fern

 

[AnonymouseUser]

That's too bad that the ruling was overturned. I just hope they can get prayers to address all of the gods worshiped by the students and faculty, and not just the christian god. That should make the all of the religious squirm, not just non-christians.

Dear god, please ban religion. It makes people stupid.

 

[DominionSeraph]

That's too bad that the ruling was overturned.

It wasn't. By what Hayabusa posted, it was a new ruling that, given the changes made by the school system in response to the original ruling, there was no longer a guarantee that the plaintiff's civil rights would be violated.
It does not say that the original injunction, given the original set of facts, was in any way improper.

The 5th is saying that the future event in question is now beyond legal prediction of civil rights violation. So the event will have to go forward and the specific facts uncovered for a court to have anything with which to rule whether civil rights have been violated at that specific event.

If the event goes forward and it's a prayer-fest with obvious official school sanction, the school district's gonna get fucked.

 

[JSt0rm]

lol Christians

 

[AnonymouseUser]

It wasn't. By what Hayabusa posted, it was a new ruling that, given the changes made by the school system in response to the original ruling, there was no longer a guarantee that the plaintiff's civil rights would be violated.
It does not say that the original injunction, given the original set of facts, was in any way improper.

The 5th is saying that the future event in question is now beyond legal prediction of civil rights violation. So the event will have to go forward and the specific facts uncovered for a court to have anything with which to rule whether civil rights have been violated at that specific event.

If the event goes forward and it's a prayer-fest with obvious official school sanction, the school district's gonna get fucked.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Darwin333]

shut the fuck up. keep religion out of the public sphere. you may enjoy it but others sure has hell don't want to see or hear that shit, and we shouldnt be forced to.

I bet the vast majority sure as hell don't want to see or hear the other shit that will be said at the graduation but will be "forced" to nonetheless.

On this particular topic, I think threatening to jail a student for saying a prayer is going way the hell overboard but it still barely even registers on my give-a-fuck ometer when it comes to fucked up things the .gov does.

PS I am an atheist and couldn't give half a shit if someone, including a public official in a public venue, prays in front of me. As long as I am not required to participate and I am not treated any differently in that public venue for not participating I will simply be respectful and shut the fuck up for a few seconds to let them pray to whatever magic being in the sky they believe in. It has not and will not ever cause me "irreparable harm". To even argue that it would is fucking retarded. As I stated, if there is some other real harm then I understand but having to shut the fuck up for a minute and not pray while a bunch of other people do does not hurt you and I frankly don't give a shit which fairy tale they are praying to.

OTOH, I do find it rather ironic that if the story was "Muslim Prayer to be said at graduation" the vast majority of the people against this particular case would be raising holy hell (pun intended) over it and demanding the courts prevent it.