Monday, January 30, 2012
PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SCHULTZ vs. MEDINA VALLY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
http://www2.mysanantonio.com/PDFs/MedinaValley.piopinion.pdf .
Although it has been nearly fifty years since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decisions removing state-sponsored prayers in public schools, it still remains hot topic today. A lawsuit was filed in Texas on June 1st 2011 by an agnostic family against Medina Valley HighSchool. The Schultz family urged the courts to ban prayers at their son’s graduation ceremony claiming that “the inclusion of prayers at Medina Valley High School graduation ceremonies violates the Established Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”. They also claimed their son would “suffer irreparable harm if the prayers are not enjoined”. The U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery ruled in favor of the Schultz family ordering the school district to remove the words “invocation” and “benediction” and replacing them with “opening remarks” and “closing remarks” on the program for the ceremonies. The students and speakers were also ordered to reframe from asking those in the audience to “stand”, “join in prayer” or “bow their heads”. The Attorney for the Schultz family argued that the prayers at the graduation ceremonies were not student-initiated, but government –sponsored, and that it put pressure on audience members to participate against their beliefs. Following Judge Beery’s ruling, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an emergency appeal at the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of allowing prayers at the graduation ceremonies. A Dallas-based Liberty Institute also filed a lawsuit on behalf of Angela Hildenbrand,(the valedictorian that was set to pray as part of the speech she had prepared ) in Castroville, Texas, asking the 5th Circuit Court to overturn Judge Biery’s ruling before the school’s commencement ceremony that Saturday. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ended up dissolving Judge Biery’s injunction, ruling that the Schultz family had not persuaded panal of judges “that the individual prayers or other remarks to be given by students at graduation are, in fact, school-sponsored”.
http://www2.mysanantonio.com/PDFs/MedinaValley.piopinion.pdf .
Although it has been nearly fifty years since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decisions removing state-sponsored prayers in public schools, it still remains hot topic today. A lawsuit was filed in Texas on June 1st 2011 by an agnostic family against Medina Valley HighSchool. The Schultz family urged the courts to ban prayers at their son’s graduation ceremony claiming that “the inclusion of prayers at Medina Valley High School graduation ceremonies violates the Established Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”. They also claimed their son would “suffer irreparable harm if the prayers are not enjoined”. The U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery ruled in favor of the Schultz family ordering the school district to remove the words “invocation” and “benediction” and replacing them with “opening remarks” and “closing remarks” on the program for the ceremonies. The students and speakers were also ordered to reframe from asking those in the audience to “stand”, “join in prayer” or “bow their heads”. The Attorney for the Schultz family argued that the prayers at the graduation ceremonies were not student-initiated, but government –sponsored, and that it put pressure on audience members to participate against their beliefs. Following Judge Beery’s ruling, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an emergency appeal at the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of allowing prayers at the graduation ceremonies. A Dallas-based Liberty Institute also filed a lawsuit on behalf of Angela Hildenbrand,(the valedictorian that was set to pray as part of the speech she had prepared ) in Castroville, Texas, asking the 5th Circuit Court to overturn Judge Biery’s ruling before the school’s commencement ceremony that Saturday. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ended up dissolving Judge Biery’s injunction, ruling that the Schultz family had not persuaded panal of judges “that the individual prayers or other remarks to be given by students at graduation are, in fact, school-sponsored”.
Religion and government in the United States are governed by the first Amendment to the constitution. The main constitutional issues that come into play in this situation involves: The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause (together known as the “religious clause”) of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Here is the language of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (“establishment clause”), or prohibiting the free exercise (“free exercise clause”) thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Although the First Amendment forbids religious activity sponsored by the government in cases such as this, I believe it’s important to make a distinction between government speech that endorses religion, which the Established Clause forbids, and a private speech which endorses religion, which the Free Speech and Exercise Clause protect. The prayer was not planned to be lead by a public school teacher or official, but by a student. Students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Monines indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506(1969). Previously in a similar case the Supreme Court has made clear that “private religious speech” is fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression. “Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. V. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995). In this case I believe the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals made the right ruling by overturning the initial ban by Judge Fred Biery. Valedictorian Angela Hildenbrand’s speech and prayer, is a “privately initiated religious expression” and as such is protected by her First Amendment rights.
The main/landmark cases from the US Supreme Court seem to be
1. Engel v. Vitale (1962)
2. Wallace v. Jaffree(1985)
3. Lee v. Weisman (1992)
4. Santa Fe Independent School v. Doe (2000)
Tags:
1. Engel v. Vitale (1962)
2. Wallace v. Jaffree(1985)
3. Lee v. Weisman (1992)
4. Santa Fe Independent School v. Doe (2000)
0 Responses to “ ”
Post a Comment