For the past two years, high schools in the town of Enfield, Conn. have preferred the indoor comforts of a church for their graduation ceremonies. But lawyers are now moving to stop the practice after it left some students feeling increasingly out in the cold. A federal suit filed in May alleged that the public schools had violated the U.S. Constitution, which restricts government entities such as public schools from endorsing a particular religion, the latest flash point in a growing national debate on whether graduations have become too entangled in religion.
What do you think? Is the venue appropriate? What if there are few options? Is there any way to ensure all the students and families feel comfortable?
Speak2Truth
07-16-2010, 04:39 PM
I have looked through the Constitution and simply could not find where it prohibits government entities from endorsing a particular religion. Nowhere at all.
So I did some reading to learn whether the Founders did intend to eliminate Religion from schools and government.
I DID learn that the Founders, who wrote the Constitution, established an Episcopalean Church right inside the Capitol building that was used until after the Civil war (when the congregation got too big so a new church was built).
I learned that the first official publication of the US Congress was the Christian Bible, to be used in schools to teach Christian morality.
I learned that the Ten Commandments are represented in two different locations on the Supreme Court building.
I learned that the Founders insisted the Republic could only survive if The People learned Religion (Christianity).
I learned that much public education was originally established inside churches that created the foundation of our education system.
I learned that the very first act of Congress and the US President was to establish a national day of Prayer to God giving thanks for the creation of this nation, a Holy-day that we continue to celebrate every November.
I learned that the Constitution of the former Soviet Socialist Republics said:
"In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church."
Oh, maybe THAT is the Constitution the Communist-founded ACLU is really trying to enforce.
The Constitution explicitly protects freedom of religious expression and freedom of speech NOT to ensure everyone feels comfortable but to ensure that those who feel uncomfortable cannot bully others into silence.
If a school wants to hold its graduation ceremonies in a church, that's perfectly in keeping with the nation's founding principles. Fine by me.
theindependenteye
07-16-2010, 07:41 PM
>>>I have looked through the Constitution and simply could not find where it prohibits government entities from endorsing a particular religion. Nowhere at all.
As you know, I'm sure, the Constitution prohibits the "establishment" of a state religion or "preventing the free exercise thereof."
What that means, precisely, has been the subject of a vast number of Supreme Court interpretations. And if you like, you can argue that the authority of the Supreme Court itself is a usurpation of power, starting with Marbury vs. Madison. But as perverted as I (personally) think the Supreme Court is at present, it's the only game in town. If we challenge that authority, then this country becomes the property of whoever's got the most guns.
So I think it's a bit more complex than what you frame it as. And as to the personal religious views of the Founders, I think that's a dead end. Whether they were Deists or hard-rock Christians is kinda beside the point. Fact is, they agreed on wording that left the question to be filled in by court precedent, as is continually happening.
>>>If a school wants to hold its graduation ceremonies in a church, that's perfectly in keeping with the nation's founding principles. Fine by me.
The legality of that is going to be a court decision. For a lot of people, though, myself included (though not a church-goer), a church or other place of worship is a really special place: sacred, consecrated space. Given today's climate and enormous religious diversity, vastly different from the 1780's, it seems extremely naive to assert that a state function held in that sacred space doesn't have a whiff of political agenda, that it's just the same as, say, the high school gym.
So it gets back to the "Founding Fathers' intent." But trying to import the specific social values of the 1780's into the 21st Century, it seems to me, is just plain nutty. To be consistent, we'd need to reinstate slavery, get rid of the 14th & 19th Amendments and all states west of the Alleghenies, and bring back powdered wigs -- not to mention things I'd be happy about, such as the severe restrictions on corporations that were in place then.
The genius of our system, notwithstanding the critics of "activist judges," is that the theory of evolution does in fact apply to our Constitution. Trying to freeze it to an 18th Century America puts us all back in the category of proto-apes.
Peace & joy--
Conrad
Speak2Truth
07-16-2010, 08:12 PM
And if you like, you can argue that the authority of the Supreme Court itself is a usurpation of power
Yes, I fully support that assertion.
And as to the personal religious views of the Founders, I think that's a dead end. Whether they were Deists or hard-rock Christians is kinda beside the point. Fact is, they agreed on wording that left the question to be filled in by court precedent, as is continually happening.
I must insist that the ACTIONS of the Founders leave little room for doubt. Sure, we can argue about Deists and Christians but their ACTIONS clearly demonstrated what they meant by the words they so clearly expressed in the Constitution. That's why I listed their actions in my post above - to demonstrate that modern "interpretations" would be utterly ridiculous to the guys who wrote the law in the first place.
I think that demonstration is rock solid.
So it gets back to the "Founding Fathers' intent." But trying to import the specific social values of the 1780's into the 21st Century, it seems to me, is just plain nutty.
Why? The principles are sound to this day. Your Natural Rights need protection today as much as they did then. The restraints of the Constitution are as valid today - because human nature has not changed one jot, not one tittle.
And, they made so many clear warnings of risks that are today manifested in reality. Jefferson warned of the tyranny of allowing Justices to legislate from the bench. We see that mischief today.
Franklin warned of the danger of limiting free speech in any way - and today we see Democrats calling for "fairness doctrine" and other government meddling.
Many of the Founders insisted that our Republic was a form of government that could only serve a virtuous people steeped in the morality of Christianity - that it would collapse if the mass of The People became degenerated. The reasoning is still sound - when the mass are no long horrified at a candidate who promises to rob someone else and hand some of the loot to them, then the worst kinds of people get into political power.
To be consistent, we'd need to reinstate slavery, get rid of the 14th & 19th Amendments and all states west of the Alleghenies, and bring back powdered wigs
Now, those are silly assertions. Wigs are a clothing formality and have nothing to do with our form of government. Slavery is something the Founders wanted to abolish - and Jefferson wrote the abolition into the Declaration of Independence. But they realized they could not fight that fight while also trying to overthrow their own corrupt government. They were in a situation where, to restore their Rights, the nation would have to fall to the people with the most firepower and determination, and that it was worth such a fight - but they would lose a lot of that firepower if the Southern slaveholders would not join the fight.
They went after the slavery system a little later.
We're past all that now - thanks to the founding principles of those wise Christians.
Back on subject - the Constitution was crafted to protect such things as holding a graduation ceremony in a church. After all, it protected the establishment of an Episcopalean church right inside the Capitol - that was NOT an offense to the Constitution. I don't know why the graduation is not held in a gymn (size?) but there is no offense to the Constitution in holding it in a Church. That can easily be determined by observing the actions of the guys who wrote the Constitution.
The genius of our system, notwithstanding the critics of "activist judges," is that the theory of evolution does in fact apply to our Constitution.
ONLY through the Amendment process. That is how our system of checks and balances prevents Tyranny. If we lose those checks and balances, then unelected Justices, unaccountable to The People, become the legislators and The People have no representation in their own government. What Would Jefferson Do about that?
The 18th Century "proto-apes" as you called them created a form of governance far superior to anything in existence at the time - or even today. Let's not forget the genius of those wise men.
"Mad" Miles
07-16-2010, 08:20 PM
That's why it's called the "establishment clause (https://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm)" and any semi-informed commentator knows this.
I'm really beginning to doubt SpeakaTwoTroot's sincerity here. (Not! I can spot a reactionary preacher from five miles out.)
Perhaps his naiveté is in the service of his attempts to make political brownie points with those not well informed?
And stuff your links, as with your allies here, nothing you're spouting is news to me. Just cause I don't watch, or listen to, Rot Winged RaydeeeO An TeeeVeeee, doesn't mean I don't pay attention to the political debates of our times.
Man, I really need to get some dinner!
Speak2Truth
07-16-2010, 08:23 PM
I'll give an example:
Some years ago, various States allowed women to vote, others did not. There was a huge push to get Federal enforcement of women's Right to vote in all States, due to certain assertions made in the Declaration of Independence. It went as far as the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, understanding its proper function in our government, examined the language of the US Constitution. They did not see it state that women have a Right to Vote. They ruled accordingly.
So, the Legislative Branch performed its function acting on the will of The People, and amended the Constitution to include a Right to Vote for women.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court had Constitutional permission to rule that women do, indeed, have the Right to Vote.
Everything worked as it should. The Constitution evolved to meet the needs of the time. Tyranny was avoided. Thomas Jefferson's admonition that the tree of liberty should be watered with the blood of tyrants was safely kept at bay by the proper exercise of legitimate government.