Lee v. Weisman
Writing for the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy said "If citizens are subjected to state‐sponsored religious exercises, the government itself fails in its duty to guard and respect that sphere of inviolable conscience and belief which is the mark of a free people"
Was the case, in your opinion, and establishment clause violation?
posted by CitizenPatriot at 3:59:00 PM
7 Comments:
I believe that this case was not an establishment clause of the U.S. This is an example where you can compare the case to the pledge of allegiance. It is like saying under god in the pledge. This wasn't changed even though it refers to god and nor shall having a priest come in. Also, if you don't have to participate, it is not a big deal because you do not care if they are praying. You can not listen, say your own prayer or anything you want as long as it is not a distraction. Also, nowadays, the SCOTUS is getting very strict upon religion rights. Even if the slightest action occurs such as in Engel v. Vitale by saying all mighty god, this is like saying under god in the pledge. Yet, they took away the prayer but not the pledge.
Also, Mr Elbaum, your age says you are 252. HAHAHAHA
5:54 PM
I agree that the SCOTUS is being very strict. like EVERYTHING religious is beign placed under a microscope. HOWEVER, I don't think a public school graduation is the place for anykind of prayer. I mean, This is one thing where it should defiently be religiously neutral. Besides, like we said in class, you don't have to go to your graduation if the prayer upsets you that much, but who wouldn't want to go to their graduation? Public schools should be religiously neutral.
12:03 AM
I think that the case shouldn't of even happened in the first place. The Weismans god mad over something SO SMALL that no one else would pay attention to. I understand where they are coming from, but come on. Half of the stuff that the people say at the graduation ceremonies no one even pays attention to. I remember I almost fell asleep during my own graduation until they started calling people up. It's not that big of a deal, but it is still against the law (if you want to get THAT technical). It is technically against the law, but I don't think the Weismans should have seud for it. They could have just said that they were unhappy with it and went on with their lives. Plus, with a name like Weisman, THEY'RE PROBABLY JEWISH ANYWAY. I just don't understand why they would throw such a fit over something so small and insignificant.
6:24 PM
I think it was an establishment clause violation. Honestly, I disagree with Shreeraj. I think the Pledge of Allegiance is a violation as well. Wasn't it added into the pledge as a dose of anti-communism or something? Well, we're not actively fighting communism anymore. I think the SCOTUS needs to reexamine the pledge. I never say the "under God" part. Even though I'm Jewish (yes, I did say it), it still bothers me that that is part of our pledge. It makes it sound like the only reason we're a strong country is that God helped us or something. Which I think is so not true. We can accomplish things for ourselves, thanks.
Maybe the Weismans overreacted, but the thing is, if people don't complain about small offenses, they can't be changed. I think that in this case, it's important that the school doesn't take any position on religion. By having religion at graduation, it implies sort of that the high school and its graduates actually are religious. That might be a stretch, but I think this is different than the praying athletes (like praying mantises, except not...). The athletes' prayer isn't state-sponsored like the graduation prayer. If we don't respect atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, etc, then we aren't truly respecting freedom of religion, and I think it's an establishment clause violation.
Since I don't know where else to put this, what do you guys think about John McCain's request to postpone the debate? Personally, I think Obama's right... The people need to hear from their future president on the issues. Also, I think that McCain is just trying to save face at this point. I mean, he said that the economy is sound, but now that it's evident that it isn't, he's trying to make up for his mistake. I admire that he's doing that, but I still think the debate should go on.
And did anyone watch Bill Clinton on CNN? I watched a few minutes of his interview. I liked that he spoke favorably about everyone. If he was running again, I would probably support him over McCain OR Obama. He knows what he's talking about, and he knows how to manage the economy. One reason that I feel confident about Obama is because of Clinton. Today, he said that he's looked at both Obama's and McCain's economic plans, and he says that Obama's plan is stronger. And I think that that's definitely important right now.
Sorry for the super long, rambling post (that probably contains MANY typos).
9:47 PM
I think you're right becca about the idea of the small offenses and how that's how it gets noticed, but still. Instead of seuing the school like the weismans did, they could have just said to the principal,"Hey. Principal Lee, we wanted to talk to you about the rabbi speaking at the graduation ceremony. We didn't like the idea of you bringing religion into the school. Just for future ceremonies, you might want to take that out because someone could get really angry about it." And that would be that. None of this would happen. Plus, unless the Weismans had a younger child than Deborah, THE KID WASN'T GOING TO THE SCHOOL ANYMORE ANYWAYS! It was a graduation! If you don't want to, you don't have to take another step in that school again because your child doesn't go there. You're right, though. It is an Establishment Clause violation. I just think the SCOTUS is being too technical about it and just thrown the case out.
9:21 PM
But you know, I think that the Weismans WERE the ones who GOT really angry about it (as opposed to just bystanders warning the school against future anger). They weren't just looking out for the future, they were protecting themselves. You raise good points, but I still think that the Weismans had every right to complain without being branded as freaks by us. (Okay, you have every right to think of them as freaks. But I think that they deserve our respect, even if they are maybe a LITTLE freakish.) I think MAYBE they overreacted, but I also think that I probably would have too. The people ensure that the Constitution remains a strong presence in our society. It's the people who ensure that it stays current. It's our RESPONSIBILITY to protect the Constitution by bringing cases (such as Lee v. Weisman) to the Supreme Court, even if they are seemingly trivial. And I think the SCOTUS was protecting our rights by taking the case seriously.
10:19 PM
I do not think this is an establishment clause violation; the school was not preaching/promoting a specific religion. Also, no one is required to attend graduation.
6:41 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home