Judge issues extreme ruling against Texas high school graduation prayer
And I say extreme for a couple of reasons. One, the judge, Fred Biery, didn’t just rule that no one can offer a prayer at a public school graduation. We’ve all been down that road before, and what usually happens is someone ends up offering a non-sectarian prayer to a non-specific deity. But Chief US District Judge Fred Biery went farther — much farther. He ruled:
Judge Biery’s ruling banned students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches. Among the banned words or phrases are: “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.”
And:
The ruling bans students and other speakers at the event from using religious language including terms such as “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” or even the words “amen” and “prayer.” Furthermore, he ordered the district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the printed graduation program. The judges order states that the terms “shall be replaced with ‘opening remarks’ and ‘closing remarks.”
The judge didn’t just ban a prayer, he is telling speakers to remove specific words from their speeches because they might have a religious connotation. This is secular tyranny.
And the ruling impacts the graduation at Medina Valley High School in Castroville, which is in a deeply Catholic part of Texas. The majority want the prayers and the freedom to use other English words that may or may not carry religious import. It’s just one family, recently moved in from South Dakota, who do not. So rather than suffer a few seconds of what they consider to be mumbo jumbo, they sue to force their opinions on everyone else, and thanks a judge, have succeeded.
Do I need to note that Biery is a Clinton appointee, and then note further that elections matter? Well, elections do matter, and electing Democrats nearly always delivers activist judges who turn into tyrants on the bench. Such is the case with Judge Fred Biery, Clinton appointee, graduate of Texas Lutheran and Southern Methodist University.
Good court decision. I’m sure many readers would be angered if they were asked to go to their knees and face east during a school ceremony. Some of us just do not wish to bow our heads to any god or pray at all. Simple as that. Great call Judge Biery.
Jason, like many that post in the same vein as he does, is a seagull poster – he flies in, squawks and flaps around, and leaves disgusting little piles and smears all over, then leaves. Posters like Jason don’t stick around to defend their posts or offer any intelligent discussion about the points they make.
Ignore him and his ilk and make sure he and his political idols are defeated at the polls. Their apoplectic rants when they’ve been defeated are amusing to read.
I’m sure many readers would be angered if some self-appointed social arbiter cheered the defilement of the First Amendment, too. This is an anti-crusade to banish majority respect for religion from the public square.
Such petty tyrants don’t just anger some of us, they infuriate. ‘Jason Bates’ can anonymously snivel in praise of the Judge’s bad decision, but it’s better that he not show his face and own his Commissar’s arrogance in public.
Actually, Jason, I’m one reader who wouldn’t give a rat’s fundament. Not a prayin’ man myself, but I don’t begrudge others whatever comfort and social cohesion it offers them. As long as they’re not currently chopping people’s heads off, censoring books, or telling me I’m not allowed to masturbate, I don’t care what religious people do. There are many more urgent things to get angry about than people’s expressions of belief in the supernatural. You might want to ask yourself why you take other people’s beliefs so personally – to the point of obession, evidently. It doesn’t seem mentally healthy.
No, when I was attending a graduation ceremony in 1999, there was, no fooling, a pagan-goddess devotee who delivered a prayer. Knowing what was going on, when she asked us to unite in her prayer, I just didn’t. That’s all. And the Republic still stands!
Jason Bates – you are using a tortured analogy to attempt to prove your point. I am an agnostic, but recognize that our nation grew out of ancient Christian, Judaic, and humanist traditions – whereas the Muslim religion seeks to annihilate everything we have accomplished in our republic. It is mendacious to compare our Christian culture with that of our Muslim enemy. Further, the Islamic tradition mandates in it’s doctrinal texts that all other faiths and traditions are to be treated as inferior. That impulse, which was also sometimes evident in Christian and Judaic traditions, (and which, it could be argued, was a deviation from the Christian doctrine), has long since ceased to be taken seriously – this deserves to be recognized as a huge difference between the religions which you attempt to lump together.
It is a straw man argument to suggest that any Christian or Jew would attempt to force you to bow to their observance. You would face no danger if you refused, and most Cjristains and Jews would support your absolute right to refuse to observe. Try that in any Muslim culture and you would be in grave danger for your life.
The hatred and bigotry displayed against Christians and Jews by many atheists and agnostics blinds them to the chasm of differences between our culture of origin, and the barbarous culture of Islam. This illustrates a bizarre form of self loathing for their culture of origin, and exhibits an ignorance of circumstance which is quite dangerous.
Jason,
so who puts a gun to your head and forces you to? Last time I checked, you could just say…”no”. But instead, you want everyone to suck up to you and do it YOUR way!!! There is no reason a speaker can not use or invoke religious language, any more than a liberal invokes Marxism. When I hear libs’ vitriol, I just ignore it. But why do your types have to insist that EVERYONE be restricted? Maybe because you want everyone to be as miserable as you all are? I don’t know, but this is NOT constitutional, in spite of what 9 justices decided. This is not an honest interpretation of “religion non-establishment”. Go figure.
Instead of the free exercise of religion, we have the imposition of secular humanism instead.
“We had to destroy the First Amendment in order to save it.”
Morton Doodslag, big bob and perhaps Bryan Preston, reveal a complete and utter failure to understand the role of government. They plainly believe that because they happen to agree with praying (anywhere) to their special Sky Daddy, it must be okay if a government institution or its representatives engage in the same practice. (The same principle applies to Marxist & Environmentalist indoctrination.) It is NOT okay
Freedom of religion *specifically* means NOT having any government institution engage in or support any particular religious practice. When government becomes the arm of one religion, all other religions suffer and taxpaying citizens will certainly be *paying for* and subjected to ideas and influence with which they disagree. That is not freedom – it is a denial of Liberty and Property Rights. It is UN-American.
Public schools *must* be entirely secular, because that is where government indoctrination of thoughts and values on which citizens disagree are FORCED to pay for. (I am sure quite a few religionists want *their* religion in schools, so as to indoctrinate children in that religion).
Once the U.S. Constitution was established, many religious people and groups have struggled to turn the U.S. into a religious government, even making the ridiculous argument that Individual Rights came from God —not the nature of man that makes IRs necessary & that the Founders realized, but the actual IRs were from God. The Baptists were particularly opposed to any religion in government. They understood that government has the guns, and religious persecution is always at its WORST when controlled by the government (Christian history, and present day Islam are obvious proof).
Christianity can be just as vicious as Islam & history that Morton knows proves him wrong. His criticism of Jason is disingenuous, to put it more politely than is deserved.
Christians, Jews and other religions accept the same fundamental God premise as the Muslims. That premise requires a certain self-subordination to the God, obedience to what are believed to be Gods morals, and an expectation that others also do so. Muslims are MORE consistent in that belief system than most. They are comfortable with forcing people into religious belief, and so are those who insist public schools present prayers to children!
Others should not have to shut up and wait while your doctrine is imposed. You &/or your children can silently offer prayers while everyone gets on with their lives, FREE of your damnable religious impositions.
So it is OK to force me through finances to attend public, government monopoly schools and at the same time, dictating my lack of input as to what should be taught. How convenient for you.
Anon, it’s quite clear that you’ve decided not to talk about what is actually in the blog above. The school is not supporting or engaging in religious practice. Free citizens are speaking at a graduation ceremony. They are free to express each of their religious beliefs, and the gov’t institution cannot interfere in any way. The first amendment does not allow establishment of a religion (not happening when a graduation speaker mentions something religious), or impeding the free exercise of religion, which is what you are demanding here.
Clearly you do not understand the first amendment. The gov’t may never prevent free exercise of religion. Period. You being afraid to hear of other people’s faith is a problem for you and the team of therapists that you seem to require….
Civil disobedience on a grand scale. Let’s clog the courts with ‘Patriots’. Eventually, the movement grows to overrun the current ‘justice system’. IGNORE the judge!!!
This judge’s ruling goes very much too far, and for the reasons Preston gives:
“The judge didn’t just ban a prayer, he is telling speakers to remove specific words from their speeches because they might have a religious connotation. This is secular tyranny.”
The judge is intended to be subordinate to the Consitution, not over it and pissing on it. The speakers–certainly all of them who are not public employees–have a 1st amendment right to not have the government limit their speech or make their limiting their speech a precondition of them participating in the public event.
The “atheists” who will be offended by public references to any religion however vague need to realize they are at fault for not acepting the fact they are surrounded by a very great majority who have a right to say and hear words and concepts the “atheists” have no use for.
The “atheists” need to get a helmet, you have no right not to be offended.
I think that if you believe prayer is an important part of school, you should not attend a public school. Religious service is perfectly acceptable in private schools – but in public schools not everyone has the same faith going in. If you believe it was only a single non-Christian family that was concerned you’re naive. The first amendment isn’t about getting to say whatever you want all the time – freedom of religion means that the public school system can’t take a side in favor of one religion. And that is really what you want if you think that it’s okay to lead a public school in prayer – favoritism for Christians.
So I assume that you are willing to forgo the financial coercion put upon the middle class to attend public (government monopoly) schools in turn? You cannot have it both ways philosophically – both mandating a certain behavior that limits my constitutional rights and at the same time implicitly compelling me (via finances) to attend the ‘educational’ institution of your designation. Either allow my behavioral choice in the public institutions, or stop compelling me to attend said institutions. Liberals know all about choice – but only in one unfortunate arena.
Matt, the school is not taking the side of one religion over others. Free citizens are speaking their mind at a graduation ceremony. The gov’t is expressedly forbidden from stopping the “free exercise of religion” in any way. The school would be violating the first amendment if they restricted the speakers in this case. Not allowing the entire audience to be lead in prayer is right on the edge. Preventing any mention of words that might sound religious to those frightened to hear of other peoples’ faith is a clear violation of the “free exercise of religion” and the “freedom of speech”. Perhaps if the faith of others scares you, a sharia law nation might just be the place for you. No one can mention any religion other than Islam there.
It comes down to Americans cannot proclaim their faith but must say words that a judge order them to say. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, …
All those “congregated” should pray together with or without the judge’s permissions. Wonder what the judge would do, send them all to jail? How about WH prayers, Congress’s, Supreme Court’s,…? Isn’t there a separation of Church and State there? Does it mean only the powerful could pray?
Can you say “good bye”? it’s a contraction of God be with you. (“Noo you must say ‘Buh Bye’”)
How about “Go in peace”? (How about, “get lost”)
“May the wind be at your back”? (NO FART JOKES)
“God bless America?” How about “USA, A-OK?”
We need civil disobedience, pref. by a student, charges filed and a three ring trial, appeal; whatever it takes to return common sense to the common folk for the common good.
When I went to deliver my high school graduation speech, it was two sentences long. I handed it to my principal for review and he threatened me, “If you say anything other than these words, I will unplug the microphone immediately. I’m warning you! I’m not kidding around!”
At my 20th reunion, classmates told me they remembered my speech two decades later. This summer is my 25th. Makes me smile.
People care 25 years later, so … this stuff matters, it really does.
Discussion questions:
1) Was Justice Abe Fortas wrong? Do students shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door?
2) Is it different because of who runs the show? (i.e. “if you throw your own graduation party, you can say what you wish, but when *I* foot the bill, you play by my rules”) House rules?
3) Have you ever noticed how people choose which constitutional rights they like based upon political alignments?
Here is his office fax number…(210) 472-4246
I think that the reasonable thing to do would be to hold a parallel, private, open to all, (and at the same time as the official school function) “graduation celebration.” There is no government involvement, and therefore no oportunity for quashing freedom of speech in the name of freedom of religion. I bet I know where everybody would go (including the Souyth Dakotan contingent.)
It’s part of the first clause of the first amendment “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” So, you can either stand up (or more appropriately kneel down) for your unalienable right to thank God, or you can sit down, shut up, and wait for a judge to tell you what you can or cannot do. I know there would be one person at Medina Valley High School willing to say the Lord’s Prayer in thanks for all our blessings. The question is whether the rest of the town will join in in unison or sit quietly while the one brave soul is arrested and persecuted by the order of one judge.
The entire problem of this and so many other court decisions is the coerced attendance at these ‘public’ schools in the first place. Many talk about choice, and then become strangely silent when it comes to such in education. The public schools are a weapon of indoctrination used forcefully against the freedom-loving individual and used to the advantage of the statist-socialist.
I cannot afford to pay substantial sums in property taxes to fund public schools, and, at the same time, send my kids to a private institution of my _choice_. I should not be forced into this financial constraint in the first place.
These atheists should get help.
Prayerphobia must have a cure.
If they had any grasp of the concept of “live and let live”, then they would simply IGNORE prayer.
Instead they embark on a jihad against public prayer.
Seek help.