Students suspended for praying

[Guest LadyC]

by the way, hamburger... you're doing fine with one exception. "private" expression does not mean "silent". it means that it is the expression of the individual, not the school.

now, let's look at what the constitutional law regarding schools and student-led prayer really are. italicized parts are my comments.

ak, this is for you. it's the supreme court ruling as it applies to schools: source

[ 11 ] For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," they were not being prohibited from praying before, during or after school

[ 12 ] and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. key words here, on the same terms and conditions that they engage in other speach.... i seriously doubt that these students would gossip about last night's episode of desparate housewives while standing in a circle holding hands.

Likewise, local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, the school has the authority to impose rules of ORDER, and let's face it, creating an obstacle course DISRUPTS ORDER.

[ 13 ] but they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against student prayer or religious speech. For instance, where schools permit student expression on the basis of genuinely neutral criteria and students retain primary control over the content of their expression, the speech of students who choose to express themselves through religious means such as prayer is not attributable to the state and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious content. their prayer was NOT being restricted BECAUSE of religious content.

now, let's continue and read the explanations, although they seem self explanatory.

Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.

schools MAY establish rules as long as they aren't discriminating against the student's religion.

[ 11 ] Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 302 (explaining that "not every message" that is "authorized by a government policy and take place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events" is "the government's own"). [ Return to text ]

[ 12 ] Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 313. [ Return to text ]

[ 13 ] For example, the First Amendment permits public school officials to review student speeches for vulgarity, lewdness, or sexually explicit language. Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 683-86 (1986). Without more, however, such review does not make student speech attributable to the state. [ Return to text ]

now AK, let's talk about the tinker ruling....

Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court. Held:

1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506.

2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507.

3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514.

DISPOSITION: 383 F.2d 988, reversed and remanded. [504]

it does not apply to the case being discussed in this thread because

1. forming a large circle in a busy common area is probably not incredibly noisy, but it IS DISRUPTIVE and it DOES impinge on the rights of others.

3. there was no prohibition on the students expression of opinion or religion, there was a prohibition on WHERE they were doing it, with evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE with the rights of others. therefore the school requesting the students to move IS permissible under the 1st and 14th ammendments.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Again the LAW doesn't say such a thing! Your reading a opinon. That isn't the law. I posted the law in a separate post. This section you chose to make 50 times bigger is nothing. Its rules set by school board. NOT The law.

Oops! Sorry, my apologies, I thought that was a part of the law. Here is a part of the actual law:

[ 11 ] For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day,"

Good so far.

[ 12 ] and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Likewise, local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, [ 13 ] but they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against student prayer or religious speech.

Ok here is the meat and potatoes. Schools possess the discretion to impose rules of order on student activites, as long as they are not created to discriminate against prayer or religious speech. In this situation, the children were suspended because they were viewed as an obstruction, and were asked several times to move. They were not being asked to move because they were praying, they were being asked to move because they were an obstruction. Therefore, it was not an imposition of a rule that was discriminatory, it was a rule that was implemented to maintain order.

For instance, where schools permit student expression on the basis of genuinely neutral criteria and students retain primary control over the content of their expression, the speech of students who choose to express themselves through religious means such as prayer is not attributable to the state and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious content.

Again, the punishment was on the basis of genuinely neutral critera, and the students still retain control over the content of their expression. The school even said they would allow a room for the praying students if they register as a group. It seems like the school has done nothing wrong when you look at the constitution like this.

So here we go. Legally, the school did nothing wrong according to the constitution.

A.K, as to your saying that the students cannot be charged with obstruction unless they are intending to obstruct, I feel that considering the students were apparantly warned several times, the mere fact they refused to relocate tells me that they knew they were being an obstruction. Now obviously there is no way of knowing if they were specifically told "you are being an obstruction, please move", but you would think people would get the hint after being warned a few times.

EDIT: wow... I wrote almost exactly what LadyC wrote. This is getting spooky!

[Guest LadyC]

if the links above were not satisfactory, here's a little more concerning this...

Generally, students may pray in a nondisruptive manner when not engaged in school activities or instruction, and subject to the rules that normally ertain in the applicable setting.

key word, nondisruptive. these students were being disruptive, were informed of this, were asked to move to another location where they would not be disruptive, and were even offered a classroom if they registered as a student led organization.

my source? that's a direct quote from the US dept. of education. student religious expression in the public schools: u.s. dept of education guidelines

[Eliyahuw]

Eliyahuw,

You are also saying that we do not need to obey the laws or rules of the world since we are Christians. That is not Biblical either. The students were clearly disobeying the authority placed over them. Not exactly a good witness to the Lord. He obeyed the authorities placed over him, even unto death.

Romans 13:1-7 1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Explain to me how this is separation of church and state. Since Christ is the head of the church and God institutes authority figures, i.e. governing authorities. Matthew 22:21 does not separate Church and State. That is taken out of context, they were talking about taxes, which by the way Christians should also do without question. Again, Christ was telling us to obey the authorities He has placed over us.

Separation of Church and State isn't even in the Constitution. It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists.

On the contrary the school was violating the law. The students were not. THey are constitutionally protected from the school.

[Guest LadyC]

more info on this case according to the media:

students informed multiple times they were causing a disruption.

As the group grew, other students questioned the group's failure to comply with rules for all students and clubs, Sosky said,................ One day, a man identifying himself as a youth pastor joined the group, but he would not disclose his church affiliation, Sosky said. He provided a name, but officials haven't determined whether it was legitimate....Strangers on school grounds create a safety and security issue, Sosky said. Visitors who refuse to sign in at the office and state the purpose of their visit can pose a threat, she said....Prayer group students were warned they would be disciplined if they didn't adhere to school policy,

[Eliyahuw]

If these kids had been chanting Satanic spells, would anyone care that they were kicked out!?

THis isn't the point. The point is that the school is violating their constitutionally protected right.

[Guest LadyC]

If these kids had been chanting Satanic spells, would anyone care that they were kicked out!?

THis isn't the point. The point is that the school is violating their constitutionally protected right.

obviously you have a very cloudy and misconstrued grasp of what the law is. read my previous posts. i've provided a link to the guidelines for schools on how to handle this, provided by the us dept of education, in compliance with the constitution and all supreme court rulings.

the school isn't violating ANYthing. the students were. both legally and morally.

[Guest LadyC]

Tinker v Des Moines 1969 i already addressed this one.

Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens 1990

By an 8-1 decision the Supreme Court decided that the students had the right to begin their Christian Club.

that hasn't been violated. the school encouraged these students to do that.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 1943

Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)

The Court found that the Jeanette ordinance requiring solicitors to

purchase a license from the borough was an unconstitutional tax on the

Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.

what does that have to do with THIS particular case?

Lovell v. City of Griffin, GA 1938

Lovell v. Griffin

In this case on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses, a Georgia ordinance prohibiting the distribution of "literature of any kind" without a City Manager's permit, was deemed a violation of religious liberty.

please correct me if my information regarding what this ruling was about is wrong.... and if it's not wrong, show me how it applies to these students.

The Establishment Clause i've addressed this one previously too, i think. nothing in the school's actions violates the establishment clause, nor the right to freedom of expression of religion. the suspension had nothing to do with the religious expression and everything to do with causing disruption/obstruction.

The Equal Access Act (The previous two are acts passed that allow the controversial actions) equal access act prohibits a school from denying equal access OR to discriminate against students ON THE BASIS of religious content. the criteria set forth is as follows:

[Guest LadyC]

tmr, i am a fan of jay sekalov, but even he could not win this one, because the school was clearly within its rights. there is no precedent on which he could get the courts to rule otherwise.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

I think this has been proven sufficiently that the students were the ones breaking the laws here. The school was completely within its lines in the matter, at least in accordance to the information that has been posed.

Of course, this all could be a conspiracy, and the students were actually being inobtrusive, but the school hates christianity and pretended they were obstructing things just so they could suspend some of their students.

Honestly, just because people are practicing Christianity doesn't mean they are in line, according to law. Again, the only reason this is an issue is because it dealt with students who were praying, but as LadyC and I have proven, the students abused their rights, and violated the rights of the others in the school. It was a morally incorrect thing to do, it was a legally incorrect thing to do, and they were given several options to pray in a less obtrusive setting. Case closed, honestly