Sunday, April 04, 2010



Indiana School Not Canceling Graduation Prayer Without Judge Order‏

We read:
"A central Indiana district isn't calling off a planned high school graduation prayer unless a federal judge orders it.

Greenwood School Board president Joe Farley says the district wants the judge to decide the merits of a lawsuit filed by the school's top-ranked senior. Greenwood High School student Eric Workman is asking a federal judge to stop a student-led prayer that the senior class voted to approve.

The lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on the 18-year-old's behalf claims that the prayer and class vote unconstitutionally subject students to religious practice.

Source

13 comments:

Tequilazo said...

First off, I think the school should do the prayer no matter what the judge says - the student body approved it.

And 2nd - someone needs to take Eric Workman out back and punk him until he understands "Freedom of religion" does not equate to freedom from religion

Tequilazo said...

7:07am
Not in Texas - it's 2:37 in the afternoon

Jonathan said...

I think that it is your correspondent, Tequilazo, who needs to understand the distinction, if any, between freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Freedom of religion requires that any student body should be permitted to arrange a religious service, advertise it, and carry it out on campus.

Freedom from religion requires that, if people come together in a room for a purpose that is connected with education at the school or with other activities that have nothing to do with the practice of religion, then one group of people should not have the prerogative of compelling others who have come into the room to submit to a religious service.

I find the attitude of Tequilazo troubling and I find it all the more troubling because I am deeply involved in religious practice myself.

Look at Tequilazo's outrageous statement:
"Someone needs to take Eric Workman out back and 'punk' him"??

What does this mean?? Is it a return to the old nursery rhyme: "There I met an old man who wouldn't say his prayers. I took him by the left leg and threw him down the stairs"?
Is this what Tequilazo advocates: "Shut up or we'll "punk" you into submission."

Is this a tenet of Tequilazo's religion that its acceptable to assault someone because that person is reluctant to join in a religious service you wish to compel on people who have entered a room for a different purpose???

Wait a moment..... I've suddenly understood Tequilazo. He's a Muslim, right???? That explains it!!

Anonymous said...

They just can't have it both ways. What I don't understand is why when a school (either the board or the students) approves something, on one hand is the school considered to have authority in the matter, yet in another it does not?

Case in point: A school writes a dress code that ultimately prohibits a student from wearing a pro-life or a conservative message. That is somehow deemed constitutional. Yet a school plans a prayer, (which is in line with the Constitutional establishment clause) and it is considered unconstitutional. WTF?

Anonymous said...

Jonathan said, "Freedom of religion requires that any student body should be permitted to arrange a religious service, advertise it, and carry it out on campus."

That is exactly what happened in this case. The student body (likely the majority of the students) arranged (voted in favor) a religious service (a voiced prayer) advertised it (let everyone know) and now wants to carry it out on campus (at graduation.)

This seems to be right in line with what you are saying. If the "offended" person does not want to participate, then they have the right to choose to not participate.

Anonymous said...

I'll bet it the proposed prayer was a Muslim prayer, it would be a very different story.

Anonymous said...

"I'll bet it the proposed prayer was a Muslim prayer, it would be a very different story."

You betcha, Anon.

Dear Leader will extend his open hand to all of Allah's children.

Prayer mats, foot baths, 5-prayer breaks a day free buqa dry-cleaning chits and halal food in the lunchroom.

Paid for by the Christian taxpers.

Anonymous said...

Workman. That's jewish, isn't it. And what a surprise that he would call on the nations largest jewish lawfirm, the aclu, for help in denying others their religious rights.

Anonymous said...

Organize a private commencement ceremony. Do it off campus, raise funds (car washes, bake sales, solicit donations) rent an auditorium, hire or solicit a speaker. Make it better than the public version.

Robert said...

Better yet, counter-sue the ACLU for attempting to violate the individual students' 1st Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion, and make the ACLU pay triple damages for civil rights violations.

Anonymous said...

What a great way to start off your post-graduation life, by going against the majority of your fellow graduates. Going against a democratic process, done, I am guessing, by the student body, to make your minority values be enforced over the majority.

If it was the school that initiated the vote, I would be against the prayer. If it was the senior class officers though, the will of the students should be preserved.

If they dropped the prayer due to a judicial order, and I had voted for it, I would not go to the graduation out of protest. After all, walking across a stage to get an empty diploma holder is not all that important. Maybe someone would get the hint if a majority of the senior class didn't show up.

Robert said...

Another thought comes to mind. The article does say that the prayer was approved by the senior class. All students in the class who want to pray should go ahead and do so, and any student who gets static from it can respond with a line one of the speakers at my high school graduation mentioned he used often - "So sue me, I'm only 17."

Anonymous said...

I am not a constitutional scholar so I just read it as it was written. It seems to me that the courts are violating the constitution when they forbid the any mention of God. By doing so they are establishing atheism as the national religion. Because if it is forbidden to acknowledge that there is a God the courts are in effect inferring that there is no God. So the courts are in violation by not allowing both sides their rights.