Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

This wasn't voicing a view, however. This was worship, prohibited by the First and Fourteenth amendments, as we've established.

We don't know what the content of the song was. If a classmate speaker stood up at graduation and said "now, let's all join in singing 'Rock of Ages'", I would find that unconstitutional. So too would I find it unconstitutional if she offered a three-minute prayer in lieu of a speech; so too do I find it unconstitutional to offer a three-minute religious song. Should they have to, if that behavior is unconstitutional?

Indeed. So they're not a captive audience, now are they? School curricula are generally avaliable for inspection in advance. Was the graduation ceremony, and the woman's song performance, avaliable for the same prior inspection?

I don't see how it's in the least different than book worship.

So? Like I said we don't know the content of the song in question. Unless one of us wants to try to look it up or something. If they both sing a song that's all "praise be to God", then no, I don't see a difference. I don't see what your question had to do with unconstitutionality. Could you elaborate? Ok, but what happened was the latter, not the former. I have no problem with a statement of religious belief. Praising God through song is something I would have a problem with, if it wasn't something that I had knowingly signed up for.

"State-mandated religion." Does that about cover it? Aside from the level of penetration into the state apparatus, what's the difference between that and Christian intolerance in this country? Not even when you say this not two paragraphs later? But, hey, that's not theocracy, right? We know it's not because "theocracy" is such a dirty word, and we all know that it could never happen in the US, right?Look, you can believe what you like. The facts spell a different story and I question the judgement of anyone who can't see it. Well, I'd like to think so, but so long as Republicans are the ones that own the voting machines, when do you think that's likely to happen?

Part of your rationale seemed to be that it wasn't unconstitutional if it was only a slight violation, or didn't take long. I didn't understand that reasoning, but it's possible that I've misunderstood you. Well, then let me ask you this. How long would a worship service have to be before it would be unconstitutional to make you attend, even if you didn't have to actively participate? In your view, how long does a religious presentation have to be before it's unconstitutional? Does it have to, for my constitutional rights to be violated? Now I understand how you view your question as relevant, which is what I didn't understand before. You're equivocating constitutional infringment with harm or inconvinience to my person. I don't see what the two have to do with each other. Do I have to be harmed for my rights to be violated? Do I have to be pained? I don't see that I do, and no, that's not "us[ing] that same claim to back up [my] position."This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-28-2005 05:20 PM

You keep asking that, and my answer is always the same - none of that matters in regards to the unconstitutionality of her speech.It's like we disagree on every point. She was acting as an agent of the state; the state appoints student speakers not for the purpose of their individual expression, but to represent the school and the student body. The piece she performed was religious in nature, and not simply a personal expression of faith; it was a three-minute worship service. What others? The state does allow certain public facilites to be privately rented to individuals for whatever purpose they see fit, including religious ones. Presumably no one is there but those who have been invited and have chosen to attend.Would you feel the same way if a teacher chose to devote a half-hour of class time to personally expressing her faith via a worship service? The schoolchildren there are a captive audience with no option to leave. So too these graduation attendees.It's a tricky case. You've admirably defended your side; I believe that the ruling was correct. The Constitution doesn't interpret itself, and neither does the law, so it's not surprising that two entirely reasonable persons would come to opposite conclusions. I caare about my constitutional rights and their defense. That said I wouldn't have pressed forward with this case. But whoever did had that right, and apparently a court found their case compelling.

Atheism isn't a religion. Though I might consider it a "religious-equivalent position." Possibly. It's difficult to see how "Imagine" could be construed as some kind of atheist worship hymn or as anything beyond a personal expression of atheism.I dunno. Maybe your characterization of hypersensitive is correct. I don't believe I would have pressed the case.

It was specifically stated. That's what it means when someone speaks at a graduation. They're speaking for the school.Don't you think that, before a student gives their speech, the pricipal probably tells them something like "hey now, you're representing our school, so no fart jokes, ok?" What do you think that means?Of course the speakers are agents of the school. They're allowed to speak in order to represent the school. A student who becomes a state actor is an agent of the state. For instance a school can't do an end-run around the constitution by appointing the class president to do their dirty work. Well, the thing is, it did hold up to scrutiny, by the people who's precise job it is to put these things to scrutiny. I haven't seen your law degree and trust me, I have none of my own, so who are we to say? Hrm. Well, schools have a certain latitude to censor student speech when the student is in a position to speak for the school. I don't see that the school would have even had to substanitate unconstitutionality of speech in order to have a legal case to tell her she can't do or say something. Students who speak at graduation do so at the pleasure of the school, and therefore, are state actors and subject to whatever restrictions the school sees fit. Much as if you hired someone to speak on your behalf; you would have a right to make sure they said what you wanted them to. I wouldn't expect the organization on whose behalf I was speaking to affford me absolute tolerance of whatever I chose to say. I would expect them to excert influence over what I said when my speech would be representing them, and I find that reasonable.

I'm a person. You're saying I don't get constitutional rights just because I disagree with you?

!That's the most beautiful thing I've ever heard.

Nonsense. Why else would the school be in a position to moderate the speech of that student?Of course the student is acting as a state agent. Let's not be ridiculous, ok? So, what you're saying is, it's impossible to talk about the Bible without it being religion?You're asking us to come to a lot of conclusions about speech with no indication of what was actually said. I don't find that a legitimate position from which to debate. It's a hell of a lot better than the argument from ignorance we're currently engaged in. Exactly what information do you have that the court did not? Exactly what legal principle are you aware of that the court was not?If it's just your opinion, well, that's fine. I have an opinion too. More importantly, the judge had an opinion, and he/she is the only party here actually apointed for the purpose of delivering legal opinions. It is beyond my ability to question. That's not to say that I agree with it, but there are no legal options avaliable to me for challenge. An opinion was given; that opinion was not the one I liked but it's the one we got.And I'm not a lawyer. It's entirely possible that there's a finer point of law that's simply beyond me. Unlike some around here I don't presume that my expertise extends to literally every field of human endeavor. But that's not the standard that must be met. I never said they were a state employee. But they are a state actor.That's how it works. That's the legal principle. If you can be reasonably seen to be acting on behalf of a state body - such as giving a speech at their pleasure - then you're a state actor, and subject to the same restrictions of the state.It's funny, but true. If I impersonate a police officer, I'm subject to the same restrictions on the gathering of evidence, etc, that don't apply to private citizens. The state doesn't have to put me on the payroll for me to be an actor for the state. Who said they were? Clearly the terminology we're employing has gone right over your head.

Because "agent" doesn't mean "employee". It's really just that simple. Student speakers who speak at the pleasure of their school, or who operate a student newspaper at the pleasure of the school, are state actors.It's a well-established legal principle that you don't seem to be aware of. Absolutely false. No; to substantiate the growing trend of Christian interference in our private lives via the mechanism of the state. Remember? Hey, that's fine. But in a fairly ambiguous case, some professional legal minds came to a different conclusion than you, one I find defensible.Why does that drive you so goddamned crazy? Of course. I seem to recall retracting from that claim. Try to keep up, ok?

The school doesn't elect certain few students to go to dances or be in plays, so your counterexamples fail to be relevant. The critical factor you seem to miss is that speakers at graduation have been appointed by the school to speak. Thus, they represent the school as state actors. No, of course it's not different. You don't think the principal of the school is in a position to determine who represents the school and who does not? Ridiculous. How do you figure that a student graduation speaker isn't being delegated authority? Obviously, they're being delegated the authority to deliver public address at an official school function. Thus, they are actors for the state. Don't you get it? I'm not making the argument from authority; I'm simply pointing out the fact - incontrovertable fact - that neither of us have the legal background needed to countermand a judge's reasonable decision in an ambiguous case.Anybody can come to the right decision in the easy cases, Holmes. C'mon. If she hadn't been a speaker, but just an audience member, and had stood up mid-ceremony and sung, would you still hold the same position? Is the right to free speech absolute?Or doesn't the school have a legitimate right to direct speech at its own school functions? I get a little frustrated because you insist on getting ridiculous about this stuff. It's really hard to argue with you because, once again, you're making every possible effort to distort my position, and in bringing in counterexamples that lack crucial, relevant characteristics. How on Earth is a school dance, open to the entire student body, relevant to a situation where the school is electing students to speak on its behalf? I don't know if it would have been unconstitutional or not. That's not relevant to the school excercising moderation over the content of speech on its behalf.