Stephen Maturin
August 22, 2003, 11:51 AM
Seems the good folks in Madison County, Nebraska, or at least their elected representatives, are rather fond of state-sanctioned prayer at public school graduation ceremonies. The parent of a graduation high school senior found out that the school district scheduled formal invocation and benediction prayers for her son's graduation ceremony. Mom contacted the ACLU, which in turn contacted the district. Two days before the ceremony, and apparently after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, the school board agreed to drop the prayers.
So far, so good.
Graduation day rolled around and the school board president opened the ceremony with an announcement. He basically told those assembled that we're all kinds of sorry about this, but there won't be any prayers at the ceremony thanks to the ACLU. Later in the ceremony, the president introduced another member of the school board who announced that he had "a few words to share." The board member stepped to the podium and gibbered as follows:
I promise to make this uh fairly short for me. There is a saying that when the door closes another one opens. We have been prohibited from doing some things at today’s ceremony and it’s brought me to a lot of reflections over the last couple of days. And when I have to reflect, I usually turn and ask for guidance. And one of the things that I usually do is to recite. So I am going to recite something, and I would ask and more so, encourage, any of you that this sounds familiar [sic] to please join in. Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. May God be with you always.
Please, please take a seat. Back to my original discussion. You need to think about in [sic] the rest of your life in setting goals. And the real challenge is twofold. If you meet that goal, to reset an even higher goal. The bigger challenge, however, is when you set the goal and you’re unable to obtain the goal, not to lower the goal. We will all have failures – physically, mentally and spiritually. Your charge is not to lower the bar, to keep the bar high. I’ll leave you with this. From what we learned Wednesday, we learned the meaning behind in [sic] how to say good-bye. May God be with you always. Congratulations.
An Establishment Clause violation? A state actor abusing his authority in a singularly flagrant manner?
Nope. The board member's recitation of the Lord's Prayer was constitutionally protected "private speech," or so says the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
One judge on the panel had enough testicular fortitude to tell it like it is in a brief but spot-on dissenting opinion:
I dissent from the part of the court's judgment that upholds Mr. Scheer's quite transparent effort to use his public office to thwart the efforts of the anonymous plaintiffs to ensure that the Constitution is observed. The court refers to all the apposite authorities, but, with respect, I believe that it applies them incorrectly. In my view, in the context in which Mr. Scheer was operating, it is apparent that an objective observer could see his actions as state-sponsored. He was acting as a member of the school board in an environment in which the recent school prayer controversy had already been alluded to; indeed, the school board president, instead of merely passing the matter by, had intentionally expressed his displeasure that the first amendment had been invoked and the plans for an invocation abandoned. It is at the very least a jury question whether an objective observer would regard Mr. Scheer's "speech" as state sponsored.
It needs saying directly, though the court does not say so, that Mr. Scheer was not merely speaking, he was praying. He invoked the deity. He "spoke" in the vocative case and he invited others to join in. He recited a prayer that must have been familiar to everyone who was present. This was a religious act, pure and simple, at a state-sponsored event by a state actor who, or so at least a reasonable person could conclude, was determined that the ceremony would be outfitted with a benediction despite the school board's decision that it would not be. This was the manifest purport of Mr. Scheer's statement that "there is a saying that when the door closes another one opens." For that action, Mr. Scheer should be required to respond in damages. (Citation omitted.)
Anyone who's interested can find the entire decision in PDF here (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/024135P.pdf).
So far, so good.
Graduation day rolled around and the school board president opened the ceremony with an announcement. He basically told those assembled that we're all kinds of sorry about this, but there won't be any prayers at the ceremony thanks to the ACLU. Later in the ceremony, the president introduced another member of the school board who announced that he had "a few words to share." The board member stepped to the podium and gibbered as follows:
I promise to make this uh fairly short for me. There is a saying that when the door closes another one opens. We have been prohibited from doing some things at today’s ceremony and it’s brought me to a lot of reflections over the last couple of days. And when I have to reflect, I usually turn and ask for guidance. And one of the things that I usually do is to recite. So I am going to recite something, and I would ask and more so, encourage, any of you that this sounds familiar [sic] to please join in. Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. May God be with you always.
Please, please take a seat. Back to my original discussion. You need to think about in [sic] the rest of your life in setting goals. And the real challenge is twofold. If you meet that goal, to reset an even higher goal. The bigger challenge, however, is when you set the goal and you’re unable to obtain the goal, not to lower the goal. We will all have failures – physically, mentally and spiritually. Your charge is not to lower the bar, to keep the bar high. I’ll leave you with this. From what we learned Wednesday, we learned the meaning behind in [sic] how to say good-bye. May God be with you always. Congratulations.
An Establishment Clause violation? A state actor abusing his authority in a singularly flagrant manner?
Nope. The board member's recitation of the Lord's Prayer was constitutionally protected "private speech," or so says the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
One judge on the panel had enough testicular fortitude to tell it like it is in a brief but spot-on dissenting opinion:
I dissent from the part of the court's judgment that upholds Mr. Scheer's quite transparent effort to use his public office to thwart the efforts of the anonymous plaintiffs to ensure that the Constitution is observed. The court refers to all the apposite authorities, but, with respect, I believe that it applies them incorrectly. In my view, in the context in which Mr. Scheer was operating, it is apparent that an objective observer could see his actions as state-sponsored. He was acting as a member of the school board in an environment in which the recent school prayer controversy had already been alluded to; indeed, the school board president, instead of merely passing the matter by, had intentionally expressed his displeasure that the first amendment had been invoked and the plans for an invocation abandoned. It is at the very least a jury question whether an objective observer would regard Mr. Scheer's "speech" as state sponsored.
It needs saying directly, though the court does not say so, that Mr. Scheer was not merely speaking, he was praying. He invoked the deity. He "spoke" in the vocative case and he invited others to join in. He recited a prayer that must have been familiar to everyone who was present. This was a religious act, pure and simple, at a state-sponsored event by a state actor who, or so at least a reasonable person could conclude, was determined that the ceremony would be outfitted with a benediction despite the school board's decision that it would not be. This was the manifest purport of Mr. Scheer's statement that "there is a saying that when the door closes another one opens." For that action, Mr. Scheer should be required to respond in damages. (Citation omitted.)
Anyone who's interested can find the entire decision in PDF here (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/024135P.pdf).