Prayer sessions at a public high school graduation?

Post Reply New Topic

We had graduation practice yesterday and something really shocking caught my attention. During our graduation ceremony, there will be 2 prayer sessions in the speeches that will be given. Not only that, but they passed out Bibles at the end before we got our final report cards.

We practiced where we will be walking, etc, etc. and the people who would be doing the speeches practiced by walking up to the podium, then said the first couple lines and last couple lines of their speech. I know these are defenate prayer sessions because one of the students said "Heavenly Father - Amen" and we are expected to take our hats off and bow our heads. I dont have a problem with religions or prayer...but I find it extremely disrespectful and inconciderate that the school isnt at least acknowledging other religions. I dont care if my area is predominately Christian/Catholic. Plus, im pretty sure this is illegal in the US. If I werent the way I am, I would threaten to sue. It really isnt that big of a deal, so ill just ignore it. Its just the principal of the thing. I want to go through my graduation ceremony, but I really dont want religion in it. Thats what Vespers is for. Vespers is a Christian ceremony, so its prefectly fine to do all that during Vespers. Not graduation. I was under the impression I attended a general public high school for 4 years, not a private Christian school. During the actual ceremony later today, ill take my hat off, but im not going to bow my head. If they throw crap at me like I was being disrespectful, they can suck it because I can still respect another's religious beliefs without participating in it. Graduation ceremony is volunatry, so prayer better be as well.

And about the Bible thing...wow. Completely unexpected. We didnt have to take one, but did they seriously need to pass out Bibles during graduation practice? Im trying to wrap my head around what purpose that was for. Yeah we have freedom of religion, but come on. Theres boundries, I know there is. Im thinking of passing out copies of the Q'uran at the stadium entrance gate before graduation. Im not muslim, its just an example to help prove my point. It would be interesting to see how the school principals react to it. I mean, if they think they can pass out Bibles and have Christian prayer sessions at a general public high school, I sure as hell better be allowed to pass out copies of the Q'uran. People would be offended, but hey, im sure non-Christians are already being offended but what the school is doing. I know for a fact that not everyone at this ceremony is a Christian. Probably about half arent.

Now before people send me a rain of flaming arrows about this, please understand my point. Not only is it illegal to hold prayer sessions at a public high school graduation ceremony, but it is also extremely inconciderate and a bit disrespectful to those who arent Christian. Do any other schools do this?

I'm all for passing out the Q'uran!!

Public school should be a place strictly for education, not religion. That they're placing an importance to one specific religion is indeed offensive to those not under that religion. The fact that they passed out Bibles is a real slap in the face to anybody not under the Christian religion.

If it was a single prayer that was under the school's full democratic approval, that would be another thing, but this is really going too far.

If you really want to get active about it, you should write your local news networks an article or something about it... hell, it'd be a good story, and it'd raise awareness of the ethics behind such ceremonies. Remind who you can that they don't have to do this if they're offended by that... they surely can't hold your Diploma from you for not practicing a religious act; that would surely be illegal.

My school is in Tennessee, and they had no religious plug, thank god.

The constitution is pretty clear on this. Its kinda a shame there is a discussion =/.

Is it?

That is pretty clear, but not the way most people think it is.

Now, you might interpret this more loosely based on original intent, or some such (but *not* on the principle of the constitution as a "living document" or some such, as that implies something not clearly contained in the original text), but that makes matters worse, because in the original framing of the constitution, the First Amendment was not seen as binding on the states, but only on the Federal Government. It *is* the case, however, that the First Amendment is seen as binding on the states now, based on the Incorporation Doctrine, but that wasn't established until the 1890s, and I don't think that the First Amendment was viewed as "incorporated" until a 1925 ruling (and prior to these the Court had ruled quite the opposite).

Given that it took over a century for the First Amendment to even have been ruled as binding on the states, on top of the original phrasing which makes only reference to passing laws on the issue, no, it is absolutely not clear in the constitution how a case like this should be dealt with.

Though the wording itself can be confusing, That is Jefferson's own words. And it's why the supreme court rules in favor of separation of church and state. It should be pretty clear to understand, the roots of our country are grounded in this idea. We were founded by people escaping the binds that a government with religious ties creates.

People do tend to find it odd when they learn our founding fathers were deists.

I frankly don't care what Jefferson said; he was frankly a bit of a whack-job anyway (generational sovereignty anyone?), and our government and constitution are more than just the sum of the Founding Fathers' ideals, but include what was actually agreed upon. If the constitution is unambiguous, there should be clear support in both the actual text of the constitution and the implementation of it from the beginning. There is not, ergo we must conclude that some later accrual on the constitution must be relevant in order to suppose that the issue is settled.

There are a lot of unclear things in the constitution, but this is expected. It would be impossible for the Founding Fathers to write laws for every single thing for the present and future. Times change, technology develops, the world changes. Plus, I think they had some unclear things in the consitution to allow for change. If its not specifically stated, then whether it is illegal or how something should be run, then it could go any way allowing for important flexibility.

I like the idea of writing a letter though. Ill have to think about how ill go about doing it. Id defenatly have to do some research on the consitution so I dont look like an idiot. Then somehow contact a newspaper and see if I can submit an article, or help with one. If I ever get about doing that, ill defenatly let you guys know.

Oh by the way...
As a counter arguement to this issue, people may say "this country was founded on Christianity/religion". Is this even completely true? And regardless, I dont care what religion a country was founded on. Times change and laws need to be flexible for the well-being of the countries.

I do think this is a violation of the law, given that the First Amendment now applies to the states.

I strongly believe the original intent of the First Amendment was for the government to be totally neutral in matters of religion (neither endorsing nor persecuting it).

It is worth noting that an alternative wording that would have effectively said only that the government couldn't endorse a specific sect (that is, an established church) was rejected by Congress in favor of the much more restrictive version that was enacted.

Here (warning: PDF) is a paper explaining the history of separation and the First Amendment in the US by a constitutional lawyer I know who supports strict separation.

The bottom line: this would appall me, and if it happened to me, I would probably challenge it. (Not I can imagine it happening where I live, as there are way too many non-Christians who would be very, very offended.)

Definitely not.

Some of the colonies that now make up the USA were founded on a religious basis but the USA itself was most certainly not.

Heh, if they did that at my school alot would of had fits, more than half of the graduating class consisted of atheists. I don't even know if I'd attend.

And there you have an example of the cultural differences between the Pacific Northwest and Western Pennsylvania.

(The Pacific Northwest is the least religious part of the US. Pennsylvania, outside the major cities, is basically the Bible Belt.)

Western PA is also very conservative it seems. Especially in the mountainous areas where there are a lot of farms. My dad's side of the family are all very conservative and probably wouldnt be too happy I expressed this sort of opinion on this thread. They even dont like the fact that I have long hair. Well groomed hair, but long nonetheless. They would freak if they saw me with a lip ring, which is precicely why I thought about wearing a fake one last Christmas. Then when we would go to leave, tell them its fake.

Heh, strange, I'm surrounded by a bunch of jesus freaks irl.

I wouldn't even take my hat off. I personally am an Atheist, so I would act like one with no problem. If this were my graduation, at the first sign of it being religious, I'd be on the phone with the ACLU or American Atheists, even if there isn't time to fight it this year, they could help those in the years following yours. I wouldn't take my hat off, I wouldn't bow, and I would refuse to take a bible.

I always thought it was pretty much common practice to have a baccalaureate service prior to graduation. Are you also having one of these? Maybe your school is just lumping them into one.