Court Won't Hear Case of Graduation Hymn Ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beau_Ouiville
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Beau_Ouiville

Guest
Well, everyone is free to be free from other folks’ religion.

"(CN) - The Supreme Court on Monday refused to disturb a 9th Circuit ruling backing a Washington public high school’s decision to bar a student from playing “Ave Maria” at graduation. Justice Samuel Alito argued that the high court should have taken the case, because the ruling “is not easy to square with our free speech jurisprudence.”
Code: 
 Administrators at Everett School District No. 2 told Kathryn Nurre that she couldn't play an instrumental version of the hymn at the Henry M. Jackson High School graduation in 2006, because it might be seen as an endorsement of religion.

 Officials said they banned all religious music at graduation after receiving several complaints the previous year, when a high-school principal in the same district allowed students to sing "Up Above My Head," a choir piece referring to God, heaven and angels."
courthousenews.com/2010/03/22/25775.htm
 
I suppose if they are banning ALL religious songs that is fair.
 
So, I suppose that they can’t say the American Pledge of Allegiance? Or sing the American anthem? They both refer to God, don’t they?
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Well, everyone is free to be free from other folks’ religion.
Click to expand...
In official state atheism, such as a Communist dictatorship. Not in the USA. Except maybe in the USA as taken over by liberal activist jurists.

Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. Freedom from religion is the suppression of religious expression. That is something supported by Richard Dawkins, the devil, and the OP.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Well, everyone is free to be free from other folks’ religion.
Click to expand...
It never ceases to amaze me that you continue to post this. It is so contrary to the meaning of First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 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.
Click to expand...
The combination of free exercise of religion and freedom of speech make it apparent that we are not “free from other folks’ religion.” 🤷 Do you post such nonsense just to bait people, or do you actually believe it? :confused:
 
While it may be borderline, I have to stand with the majority of the court against review, since I think the school does have a leg to stand on.

The school has a certain latitude to restrict student speech to fit the occasion. So if a student wanted to attribute his academic success to a personal struggle against the popery he was subjected to in younger years, and the inspiration he received by following L Ron Hubbard, I think the school could prevent this as potentially offensive. To avoid having to vet and get entangled in each religious message, the school might simply prohibit any proselytizing, or even any religious message - which seems to be the case here.

I’m not sure a public college has as much authority to restrict these things, but it probably wouldn’t be necessary to do so anyway - the whole “marketplace of ideas” is one of the things people are paying for the privilege of experiencing. High school events, on the other and, are pretty much forced on most of the population, and in addition the school is acting in loco parentis.
 
Digitonomy said:
While it may be borderline, I have to stand with the majority of the court against review, since I think the school does have a leg to stand on.

The school has a certain latitude to restrict student speech to fit the occasion. So if a student wanted to attribute his academic success to a personal struggle against the popery he was subjected to in younger years, and the inspiration he received by following L Ron Hubbard, I think the school could prevent this as potentially offensive. To avoid having to vet and get entangled in each religious message, the school might simply prohibit any proselytizing, or even any religious message - which seems to be the case here.

I’m not sure a public college has as much authority to restrict these things, but it probably wouldn’t be necessary to do so anyway - the whole “marketplace of ideas” is one of the things people are paying for the privilege of experiencing. High school events, on the other and, are pretty much forced on most of the population, and in addition the school is acting in loco parentis.
Click to expand...
An “instrumental” of Ave Maria is proselytizing? How so? How many Mozart and Beethoven pieces are now going to be banned from schools because they are parts of a Mass? This rule is stupid.
Dissenting from the panel decision, Judge Milan Smith Jr. pointed out that “religious pieces form the backbone of the musical arts.” Smith expressed concern that the majority’s ruling would “chill or even kill” musical and artistic presentations that “contain any trace of religious inspiration.”
Click to expand...
Code: 
 Justice Alito noted that all 9th Circuit judges, even those in the majority, recognized that the graduation ceremony was a "limited public forum."
Click to expand...
Code: 
 "In such a forum, we have held, the State 'must not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint,'" Alito wrote, quoting the high court's decision in Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001).
Click to expand...
Code: 
 "Our cases also make it perfectly clear that discrimination against religious, as opposed to secular, expression is viewpoint discrimination. And our cases categorically reject the proposition that speech may be censored simply because some in the audience may find that speech distasteful."
Click to expand...
The court should have heard the case.
 
rlg94086 said:
An “instrumental” of Ave Maria is proselytizing?
Click to expand...
First off, I never said the song was proselytizing. However, an important thing to consider in issues like this is where to draw a line between religious speech and proselytizing, if you’re planning to draw a line.

Thanks for point out that it was to be an instrumental - that really is stretching it on the part of the school.

I trust that Justice Alito is more familiar with this issue than I am. If his points are all as clear-cut as his statement suggests, I’m sure we’ll get more opportunity to clarify this matter.
 
"Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

~~ Matthew 28:18-20
 
Digitonomy said:
Thanks for point out that it was to be an instrumental - that really is stretching it on the part of the school.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. Take the German National Anthem written by Joseph Haydn, for example. The same melody is used to sing Tantum Ergo. So, if you hear the instrumental version - is a religious song or a secular one?
 
rlg94086 said:
Do you post such nonsense just to bait people, or do you actually believe it?
Click to expand...
Free exercise of religion means nothing if the religious views of the majority are imposed on the minority. Take care what you refer to as ‘nonsense’.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Free exercise of religion means nothing if the religious views of the majority are imposed on the minority. Take care what you refer to as ‘nonsense’.
Click to expand...
No one is “imposing” their views…they are expressing them. Take care in what you refer to as ‘impose.’ 😛

I guess that means you really mean what you posted. How sad. You have shown that you have a twisted, pathetic concept of freedom of speech and religion, so your legal ‘expertise’ has no standing anymore imo.
 
rlg94086 said:
No one is “imposing” their views…they are expressing them. Take care in what you refer to as ‘impose.’
Click to expand...
Try being a minority and a child in a school situation funded by tax dollars where the majority holds differing views. It is not a comfortable place and it is an imposition.
rlg94086 said:
You have shown that you have a twisted, pathetic concept of freedom of speech and religion, so your legal ‘expertise’ has no standing anymore.
Click to expand...
Easily said. Throw in a ‘for instance’ and a reference to legal reasoning and constitutional theory.
 
Justice Alito said it nicely with “Our cases also make it perfectly clear that discrimination against religious, as opposed to secular, expression is viewpoint discrimination. And our cases categorically reject the proposition that speech may be censored simply because some in the audience may find that speech distasteful.”
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Try being a minority and a child in a school situation funded by tax dollars where the majority holds differing views. It is not a comfortable place and it is an imposition.
Click to expand...
Please. :rolleyes: Playing an instrumental version of Ave Maria is going to make someone uncomfortable? That would be comical, if you didn’t actually believe it.
Beau Ouiville:
Easily said. Throw in a ‘for instance’ and a reference to legal reasoning and constitutional theory.
Click to expand...
For instance, I’ve read all your threads. A fifth grader understands the First Amendment better than you do. Please show where “freedom from religion” is mentioned anywhere. By your standards, I should be protesting the imposition of secular viewpoints, as Justice Alito explains.

Are you in favor of anything with an atheist or anti-religious viewpoint being removed from the schools? I mean, you wouldn’t want anyone feeling imposed upon. :rolleyes: 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top