School officials say prayer law won’t change anything

[rug]

By Catherine Martin
Saturday, August 11, 2012

The so-called "right to pray" amendment passed by voters Tuesday specifically ensures "that schoolchildren have the right to pray and acknowledge God voluntarily in their schools," but Columbia Public Schools Superintendent Chris Belcher said that's a right students already have.

"It won't change anything," Belcher said. "That amendment … is more of a political statement than a change in any structural law. The federal Constitution has always protected religion in schools."

In Columbia schools, kids may have religious clubs, he said, as long as they aren't promoted by the schools. Several district policies deal with religion, including a policy that says all students "shall have the right to exercise freedom of expression." Another policy prohibits discrimination based on a number of factors, including religion.

Hickman High School Principal Tracey Conrad and Rock Bridge High Principal Mark Maus said respecting the religions of students has always been a priority. Both principals pointed to Ramadan as an example of that.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/aug/11/school-officials-say-prayer-law-wont-change/

[cbayer]

1. The ACLU has already filed a suit - something I don't really understand about prisoners.

And they say there are more to come.

So it must change something.

[rug]

2. The amendment is about a right to public prayer, including schools.

The amendment specifically excluded prisons and prisoners. The ACLU suit is about an equal protection violation by specifically excluding prisoners' right to public prayer, or public expression of belief. AFAIK, it's not otherwise challenging the amendment.

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/08/10/3755065/missouris-right-to-pray-amendment.html

[cbayer]

3. But aren't they already covered by 1st amendment rights?

How does excluding them do anything if the law changes nothing?

[rug]

5. The difference is "public expression".

Here's the text:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2012ballot/fulltext_1.pdf

I think this is the nub of the argument:

"the state shall not coerce any person to participate in any prayer or other religious activity, but shall ensure that any person shall have the right to pray individually or corporately in a private or public setting"

While the First Amendment requires states to accommodate the religious beliefs of individual prisoners, the state's concern is that this language would require prisons to ensure, as a constitutional right, public, or corporate religious expression. Hence, the exemption for prisons.

[cbayer]

7. Ok, that makes more sense.

There are apparently some other things the ACLU is looking at.

Overall, I think it was just dumb.

[skepticscott]

4. His opinion is irrelevant

since he won't be the one responsible for any changes. He wouldn't be the one precipitating, encouraging or filing suits based on the new law, and he wouldn't be the one handing down decisions in any suits that are brought.

[rug]

6. As Superintendent, his opinion is far more directly relevant than yours

since he is charged by law with implementing this amendment in all its daily minutiae.

You, of course, are free to continue to comment, relevance aside.

[skepticscott]

8. And if a valedictorian demands

to be allowed to offer a prayer to his Lord Jesus Christ at a graduation ceremony, and uses the "right to pray" amendment as his argument for why he has to be allowed, and if he sues to be allowed after your Relevant Superintendent say absolutely not, and if a judge rules that the amendment gives him that right, what weight will his "relevant" opinion have in the end? None. Or if a group of fundy students demands to be allowed to offer prayers every morning over a school's public address system, and then sues under the amendment when they are shut down? The fact that your Wise and Powerful Superintendent doesn't intend to make any changes under the new amendment doesn't mean new ones won't be imposed on him, now does it? That's really rather basic.

Notice, class, how our poster doesn't think very deeply about things, but only pretends to. Lesson to be learned.

[LARED]

9. And what would be the problem if a valedictorian did in fact

offer a prayer to his Lord Jesus at graduation? Or a prayer to Yahweh, sponge bob square pants, or Vishnu.

As valedictorian he/she has earned the right to give a speech at graduation about whatever they want to say. Free speech is protected and no one should infringe on that right. Period.

[skepticscott]

11. So if you were the principal

and you knew that your valedictorian was planning on giving a graduation speech espousing hateful, racist views about the blacks and Hispanics they were forced to attend school with, and advocating a return to school segregation, you'd just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well, nothing I can do..it's his right"? Of course you would.

You need to learn the difference between the right to pray, and the right to force a captive audience to participate in a prayer (even by listening) at an event sponsored by a government that is prohibited from promoting or endorsing religion.

[LARED]

16. Well reluctantly I would -- I would rather have the rare bigoted moron make a speech

at a graduation than infringe on the first amendment. Thinking the government can regulate free speech of the individual without infringing on that free speech shows a special naiveté.

You need to learn the difference between a captive audience and a high school graduation. You also need to appreciate the difference between an event sponsored by a government and the government asking someone that does not represent that government entity to speak.

It is possible you think a valentidictor that opens in a prayer, or provides a luanatic rant about blacks is a representative of the government school?

Really?

[Goblinmonger]

17. They are a representative of the government since they are using

the government's microphone. There is pretty clear case law on this.

[LARED]

21. So if the microphone broke they stop being a representative?

Or because they are speking at government space at a government function they become a representative of the government even though there are not employed by the government nor represent it in any fashion. Is that the point? And case law interprets that freedom is speech is limited because an 18 year old might thank God for their success or say a prayer as the establishment of religion by the government Is that really where we as a nation want to be?

Do valedictorians know this when they craft a speech or there is case law to guide them about the boundaries of their so called protected right to free speech?

[Goblinmonger]

23. Sorry I went metaphorical; thought you could handle it.

Since the Google must be broken for you, look into Cole vs Oroville Union High School for some on-point reading.

You do know that free speech is limited for students at school, right? They don't have the same rights as adults outside of school.

[skepticscott]

36. I think this one

knows pretty much nothing about everything. Sad the state that the religionists and apologists on this board have come to....

[Gore1FL]

35. It's a government-sponsored event.

If the kids want to have a prayer circle outside of the government sponsored aspect of it then let them. If they want to pray individually then let them. Government-sponsored programs are mutually exclusive to religion.

[skepticscott]

18. A high school graduation is essentially a captive audience

unless you're saying that no one is being FORCED to listen to what is said at graduation, because all they have to do to avoid it is to not attend their son's or daughter's (or their own) graduation. The government cannot avoid responsibility for blatant promotion of religion by making it into that type of choice. And yes, a selected speaker at a government sponsored and funded event IS a representative of the government school for that purpose, since no one speaks at that event without government approval. Both of those things are well-settled law, as I suspect you already know, but are hoping some here don't (and also hoping you can bluster and bluff your past that).

[LARED]

22. You are aware that this is a discussion board and a

so called "well settled law" does not make good law, and it is OK to have an opinion that differs from that law. But frankly some folks fear that religious expression in any form being introduced into any (however meager) government function is a perfectly good excuse to suppress free speech is a road that leads to suppression of all sort of other forms of free speech. Even ones you like.

Progressive? Hardly.

[Goblinmonger]

24. You have the same opinions as a lot of people that are theocrats.

Progressive? Hardly.

[LARED]

27. theocrats?

I forgot this forum has a special definition for theocrat.

[Goblinmonger]

29. So you have nothing to offer on the SCOTUS case

so you decide to deflect with this?

[cleanhippie]

31. If the shoe fits..

[skepticscott]

25. You're welcome to your progressive opinion

that the Constitution should be disregarded. Constitutional provisions don't extend without limit in every direction...they sometimes run into each other. And the Constitutional prohibition of government endorsement of religion overrides the right of government representatives to preach and proselytize. Student valedictorians can stand on a street corner and babble all they want about gawd's love and Jeebus salvation or white supremacy or whatever other damn thing they like, but they have NO, repeat NO right to be granted unrestricted access to a government sponsored forum to present their views.

[cleanhippie]

30. Then that valedictorian is a dick.

Its not his/her graduation, its the graduation of the entire class. They are celebrating graduation from SCHOOL, not the seminary. If the valedictorian wants to pray to his/her god, they are free do so before or after their public speech, the time and place whicj is provided by the public school.

Getting the best grades do not empower one to force everyone else to listen to a prayer during the entire class' graduation.

Just as in the hypothetical situation described to you by SS, the prayer by a valedictorian would be just as inappropriate, disrespectful, and demeaning to those that do not share that view or belief.

Getting it now?

[cleanhippie]

32. Hey LARED, does this organization have anything to do with you or your name?

LaRed Business network? A company teaching a Pat Robertson inspired course on ethics and values?

http://www.lared.org/

"La Red will help you take your church outside the four walls!!!

We will share with you the dynamic living course that will train your people to be problem solvers and pacesetters as God shares the true foundations in a world that is shaking!"
http://www.lared.org/church/

I ask because from the many things you have posted and pontificated on, you sound eerily similar to what this group espouses. Coincidence or not?

And if not a coincidence, what does your screenname mean?

[LARED]

33. No relation whatsoever

Never heard of them until your post.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Have a great day.

[cleanhippie]

37. I'm not disappointed, I'm fascinated at how close the similarities in ideology are.

Add the fact that you share the same name and it becomes downright uncanny.

Wouldn't you agree?

What do you think are the odds of this coincidence?

[LARED]

38. Again

I have no idea what the organization's ideology is about so I can't comment as to any similarities you think exist. I spent a whole 30 seconds looking at your link.

The names are not the same. Theirs is LaRed and my moniker is LARED, so feel read to read into the similarities in any way your heart desires.

I goggled LARED and got 3.8 million hits, so the odds that you projecting what you think my ideology is and a web page having some perceived similarities is hardy uncanny.

BTW do you sell soap?

http://thecleanhippie.com/wordpress/

[cleanhippie]

40. Haha. Ok, if you say so.

But you have to admit that its an eerie coincidence. Some might say it was even intelligently designed.

[LARED]

41. eerie, no

Imagined, yes.

BTW, lame joke.

Have a great day.

[cleanhippie]

42. Not half as lame as your denial.

You took the time to find some soap that had the word hippie attached to it, but couldn't be bothered to read about a xtian business org that advocates and espouses the same theocratic nonsense as you AND has the same name. Coincidence? Pshaw...

[LARED]

43. I'll just add this to the list

of silly things you believe.

[cleanhippie]

45. Silly? Perhaps, but it pales in comparison to the childish, nonsensical, and

downright bizarre beliefs that you hold.

See ya later, LaRed. You have a nice day.

[Dorian Gray]

39. Did you google his name?

[Gore1FL]

34. I'd pray to Satan, myself

I don't believe in Satan. It would be plain silly to pray to gravity.

[rug]

10. This is why his opinion is relevant.

This type of amendment permeates the entire institution, and it's not simply educational institutions.

Since your post has many suppositions, I'll await the reality. In the meantime, however, the execution of this amendment can render them moot.

I take it your point is that the relevant players in this situation are in the judiciary rather than the executive. I don't know what class you're referring to but I do know that question was answered thoroughly in sixth grade civics.

[skepticscott]

12. You took my point wrong, not surprisingly

It is that the "executive" of a school superintendent is not the final authority on all of the things that could arise under the new amendment. The state legislature may have something to say (remember them from civics?), as well as the judiciary. Because I know you're not stupid enough to claim that fundies never bring lawsuits or lobby legislatures over their "right" to inject religion in to schools. Are you? The reality is that it happens. A lot. No need to await it unless you've had your head somewhere else for the last 30 years or so.

[rug]

13. The point is relevance, not final authority.

In this case, the superintendent is indeed the final authority unless he oversteps his bounds. And in regard to this particular amendment, it is not the fundies that are more likely to sue. at least not the religious fundies.

[skepticscott]

14. The point is that his opinion

that NOTHING will change is irrelevant and meaningless, because he is NOT the final authority and does not have ultimate control over what changes may occur. He is not even the final authority over policy for his district if the state legislature tells him he must do something that he wouldn't have initiated himself.

[rug]

15. His opinion is optimistic and probably wrong but it is far from irrelevant and meaningless.

Beyond that, this has become circular.

[skepticscott]

19. His opinion does nothing

to decrease the possibility that anything will change as a result of the amendment. His actions in defending the separation of church and state might matter, should it ever come to that, but that's not the issue here. His assurance at this point that nothing will change means nothing, since he can't guarantee the actions of anyone else.

But perhaps you also feel better because Tom Coburn (a Very Important Person) has personally reassured everyone that global warming is a hoax.

[rug]

20. Congratulations.

You have moved from the circular, passed through the non sequitur, and entered the realm of the ridiculous.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

26. Please look up the Santa Fe Independent School District of TX case.

Students not allowed to say prayers over the PA system at high school football games. Violates the Establishment Clause. Prayers by a religious authority figure at a high school graduation violates the Establishment Clause, Lee v. Weisman.

[rug]

28. That's the "captive audience" problem discussed above.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/99-62P.ZO

The thrust of this amendment is somewhat different. It attempts to give constitutional force to those who want to express their own religious beliefs collectively and publcly, as opposed to broadcasting them to others who don't share them.

What will be interesting is when this state constitutional amendment brushes up against the federal constitution.

[Angry Dragon]

44. As long as I do not have to hear their prayers