Search This Blog

Monday, September 17, 2012

Current Case #1

Read the summary of Santa Fe v. Doe.

Do you agree or disagree with the decision? Why or why not?

Are there other cases that have challenged this ruling?

Remember to post your own response and respond to another.

Due by 11:59:59pm on Friday September 21st.

81 comments:

  1. I agree with the decision the Supreme Court made. Whether or not it was a student who said the prayer, they are still violating the Establishment Clause since the prayer would be broadcasted over the public address system. As the article stated, the "prayers constituted an endorsement of religion".

    There were other cases in which the Establishment Clause was challenged like the Abington School District v. Schempp case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Linh because the prayer was in wrong doing as it was projected over the intercom in a very diverse public place.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Linh because the prayer was said in a public place. It forced other people to listen to it without their consent.

      Delete
    3. i agree with Linh because the prayer was said to many people who have there different beliefs. One prayer from one peroson's belief shouldnt be spoken in the intercom because people might think that belief is dominant than the rest of them.

      Delete
    4. I agree with Linh by allowing a student to pray to an audience at a public location with or without the same religious belief is still violating the Establishmetn Clause.

      Delete
  2. I agree with the decision of the supreme court in the case of Santa Fe v. Doe. The prayer that was said favored one religion over all other religions non affiliated with said prayer. It was deemed to violate the Establishment Clause because of the broadcasting happened in public through a school system. The prayer should have been said on a much smaller scale and with those who want to listen to the prayer.

    Many cases that have clashed with the establishment clause and have been brought to court, such as Minersville school district v. Gobitis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Ryan's statement that the prayer should've been said on a smaller scale because then people would have a choice whether to listen or not.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Ryan because as Ryan said it was broadcasted over a public school function things would of been different if it were a private school function.

      Delete
  3. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision in the "Santa Fe V. Doe" case. The school and the student violated the "Establishment Clause" when they broadcasted the prayers during the football games. They forced other people to listen to their prayers and beliefs; This act presented a message saying " my religion is the best" because it was the only religion to say a prayer. There is lots of religions in this world and the prayer violated or insulted all of those. Another reason why I agree with the Court's decision is that the schools promoted political factions with the religions in school. This also violated the "Establishmet Clause" and ensured that only the majoritarian religious voice would be heard.

    Yes, There were other case that challenged the "Establishment Clause". Such case include Flast v. Cohen, Lee v. Weisman,Board of Education v. Mergens, and many more.

    Website to Court cases challenging the "Establishment Clause"- http://candst.tripod.com/table1.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Jonathan. He states the school could be inferring 'my religion is the best.' By this inferences, the school would be making one religion more dominant than the other.

      Delete
  4. I agree with the courts decision. The reason i agree with the Supreme Court's decision os that the school technically "forced" them to listen to the prayer. The school only prayed for that one religion and not the parent's religion. By doing this, the school would be putting one religion over the other, which goes against the establishment clause.

    Another case that might challenge the Santa Fe V. Doe ruling would be the Lee V. Weisman. In this case, a prayer was said at a graduation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I agree with Fernando's statement that the school put that particular religion over all the hundreds of beliefs and religion that where in the game.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Fernnado because by giving the speech its forcing the students to hear a prayer that might not fall under their beliefs of religion.

      Delete
    3. i agree with Fernando that the school did kind of force the student to hear the prayer.

      Delete
    4. I agree with Fernando because the school did single outone religion, and force it upon the students.

      Delete
    5. I agree with the Pachuca, because the event that they did in a way show superior in one religion

      Delete
  5. I agree with the decision the Supreme Court made about the "Santa Fe V. Doe case. I agree with the decision they made because saying a prayer out loud in middle of a game forces everyone who is at the game to listen the prayer just because they at right there at that place. You never know maybe there religion is against hearing other prayers or beliefs.

    There are some more cases that violate the "Establishment Clause "Bradfield v. Roberts", "Quick Bear v. Leupp", "Zorach V. Clauson" and many more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Lucia because the people are being forced to listen to the prayer since it is in a public area and it might be again other peoples beliefs.

      Delete
  6. I agree with the court decision because its basically making the whole audience listen to a prayer that might not be part of their religion. Everyone has different beliefs over religion and should not have to feel "forced" to listen to a prayer at a public place.

    Cantwell vs. Connecticut is kind of similar to the Santa Fe vs. Doe because it dealt with the state enactment of any law respecting religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Brenda because people do have their own rights. If they don't want to hear the prayer they have no choice because it is on the microphone. How can people get their rights if there is no way to have them?

      Delete
    2. I agree with Brenda because like she says "everyone has different beliefs over religion" and onee shouldn't be forced to say or do something that its going against their religion.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Brenda because people shouldn't feel "forced" to listen. You cannot have someone listen to prayers or beliefs that they don't personally believe in. This goes against the religion of others.

      Delete
  7. I agree with the decision because it did violate the Establishment Clause. The reason why is because the school controlled what the speech maintained and thus making it a government preference of religion witch violates the Establishment Clause.

    Another case that challenged the Establishment clause was the Wallace vs. Jaffree.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1.) I would agree with the Supreme court's ruling because it violates the "Establishment Clause". The student said a prayer outloud in the speaker and many people had to hear the prayer even though they dont believe the same religious beliefs like they do.

    2.) Other cases that ruled against the ruling of prayer to public is the case of Lee v. Weisman

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1. I agree with the supreme court ruling because saying the prayer before a game (school event) does not stick with the seperation of state and religion since it is being said through the speaker.
    2. Many other cases also violated the establishment clause like board of education vs.mergens and lee vs. weismen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Amy's response. The Establishment Clause was the separation of church and state. With the prayer being broadcasted, it would violate the clause.

      Delete
  10. I agree with the supreme court decision on the case of Santa Fe v. Doe. The school violated the Establishmenet Clause by allowing a student to say a prayer through a public address system forcing other students from different religion to listent.

    McCallum v. Board of Education is one of many another court cases that has challenge the Establishment Clause.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with the Supreme Court decision because the prayer wasn't really a "private speech" since it was encouraging prayer to the public.

    Lee V. Weisman is another similar court case but in the event it was about a prayer said at graduation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. esme.romero aka mordiSeptember 20, 2012 at 11:00 AM

      it may or may not be to encourge people to listen to the prayer but i dont like the fact ther they have to listen to a prayer when they dont believe in anything

      Delete
  12. 1. I agree with the decision over all because not everyone believes in the same god or thing. Many other religions might get offended by the prayer it might offend their god.
    2. Lee v. Weisman is a perfect example because prayers can't be held at graduation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with vicky's responce because it is true that people have different believes and they will get offended if they say prayer's that are not from their specific religion.

      Delete
  13. I agree with the supreme court decision because i dont think its right having to listen to a prayer at a football game one because its unfair that they favor one religion more then the other one and also i dont think is 'cool' to have to listen to a prayer when you dont even believe in any religion.another case involve with preyer is Lee v. Weisman .The case is about prayers being held in a gradution and how its unconstitutional

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Esme because the fact that the prayer was in public it made people from different religions to listen to it even though they may not believe it and this makes one religion to be favored and its not fair to the rest.

      Delete
    2. i agree with this... its like sitting in the wrong church.. lee v. weisman was another that had to chellenge against this.

      Delete
  14. I agree with the decision the court made because it is against people's rights to hear the prayer. To be elected who does the prayer by the students is not right either because some students might not want to vote. I have heard cases like that before but do not know the names of them. I feel that it is okay for you to pray with the team before a game - it being your choice - but not for everyone to hear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Yesenia overall. I also think that it is okay to pray to your god/s before a game, but only if you keep it to yourself, in private, or with individuals who shared your same beliefs .

      Delete
  15. I agree with the courts decision, because some people may not be able to hear the prayer. They may be from another religion, and it goes against it. Lee v. Weisman is another case that challenges the ruling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with maritza in that some people may belive in another religion or they might take it offensive for them to hear a prayer from another religion.

      Delete
  16. 1) I agree with the decision that the Supreme Court establish in the case of Santa Fe V. Doe because this was in violation of the Establishment Clause, everyone has different religions and a public prayer during a football game is disrespectful towards the people that do not share the same religious views.
    2) Other cases that have challenged this ruling are cases such as Lee V. Weisman and Engel V. Vitale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Cecilia's answer in #2 because Lee v. Weisman was a case that challenged the ruling due to it dealing with the religion views not being respected at a graduation.

      Delete
  17. 1. I agree with the decision made in court because it is not right to make other people hear the prayer who do not want to hear it. This did violet the Establishment Clause because the school was basically favoring one religion over the others by making the prayer be said in public.
    2. They are many other cases in which have challenged the ruling they are Lee vs. Weisman, Board of Education v. Mergens and there are many others.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 1) I personally agree with the Supreme court decision because even though we as humans have freedom of speech, assoon as the student said the prayer in a public place it violated the "Establishment Clause" by forcing other students from other religions to hear the prayer.
    2) The Lee V. Weisman is another case that have challenged this ruling. (:

    ReplyDelete
  19. 1. I agree with the court ruling because the saying of prayer directly goes against the Establishment cause, because not everybody at the football game may be of the same religion, and they should not have to listen to a particular prayer. Also the fact that the speaker had to be chosen by voting automatically excludes the minority's voice.
    2.There is a case that also clashed with "prayer in school" such as Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree with the Supreme Court ruling since it was a public high school function meaning its funded by taxpayers so there is no reason why members of a different religion had to sit and listen to something they did not believe.
    There had been other cases trying to challenge this ruling like the Abington School District v. Schempp case.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 1- I agree with the decision in Santa Fe v. Doe because the Supreme Court is reasonable with its ruling that is based on the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause was violated when the religion of a student was portrayed as he prayed in "public" and not in "private" before a game. Everyone in the footbal game was aware of this, and their religion rights were not respected, which lead to the reason of the ruling.
    2- A case that has also challenged the Establishment Clause, would be Lee v. Weisman, which dealt with prayers being made during a graduation ceremony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree with Nati on her first response but agree with the second one it being Lee v. Weisman another case challenging the Establishment Clause.

      Delete
  22. I disagree with the Supreme Court ruling because the students had the opportunity to elect the student whom would say/give the prayer, in this case students could elect the student whom's beliefs were most similar to theirs. Yes, there are many different religions, but also all those religions are based under one same God. If there wouldn't be prayer violent kids would keep being violent; but if a prayer is said, those who are violent may reflect on their actions and take less violence to the field in their games. "George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day or 'public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.'"

    Another case challenging this ruling is Lee v. Weisman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>>>>>>Remember we all have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.<<<<<<<<<

      Delete
    2. I disagree with your first comment. Although it was elected Christians hold the majority throughout the United States and the world. It is unfair to those of other religions to participate in prayers not associated with their own religion. Jews, Buddhist and Muslims would be forced to join in the prayers because of their small numbers.

      Delete
    3. I disagree with the first answer because even though it is true that everyone has freedom of speech & freedom of religion, Nobody should be forced to sit down & listen to something that goes against what they believe in. It shouldnt matter how many people have the most similar beliefs, if the speech wasnt meant for everyone, it shouldnt be said at all.

      Delete
    4. I agree with the Nancy's comment because according to the Bill of Rights, we have the right to say whatever we want, although with restrictions, but if a minority group such as Buddhist felt uncomfortable with the prayer to a different deity, then all they have to do is just respectfully ignore the prayer, the same method in which we are not forced to say the pledge of allegiance but we hold respect to the nation and the majority.

      Delete
    5. I also disagree with Nancy's opinion,
      because although we do have speech and freedom of religion and yes we are equal, that does not mean that we are exactly the same. Everyone has their own thought in religion. Some might hate & others might love. The decision made by the Supreme Court was a clever one to stop the chance of war and future violence.

      Delete
  23. I strongly agree with the court decision in Santa Fe v Doe because not only did it violate the Establishment Clause, but religious groups within the school now became "rival political factions." Voting for certain speakers only made the majority vote be counted towards one religion that not all students followed or believed in.

    Yes, there are other cases that challenged the ruling of the establishment clause like Zorach v. Clauson. A New York law offered a program that allowed students to attend religious classes off school grounds during the school day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Sandra because saying a prayer over the speaker did violate the Establishment Clause. Some religions didn't recieve the same advantage as others.

      Delete
  24. 1)I agree with the Supreme Court's decision because the broadcasting of a prayer over a loudspeaker directly violates the establishment clause and caused religious groups to become rival factions. Your religion is cool but pushing it on others isn't
    2) Another landmark cases that have challened the establishment clause is Lee v Weisman in which religious officials led prayers at graduations

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Adrian because having a group of individuals listen to a prayer by force is not right, and unlawful.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Adrian because forcing your religion on others isn't cool

      Delete
  25. 1. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision because it was wrong how they just said that prayer over the announcment and thats forcing the people to listen which is basically saying that their religion is superior than others.
    2. There had been other cases trying to challenge this ruling like the Abington School District v. Schempp,Lee v Weisman,Zorach v. Clauson.. all had been forced to either go to religious classes or forced to listen to a prayer of a different religion.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I agree with the decision the Supreme Court made in the case of Santa Fe v. Doe because people have different religion preferences and can feel offended by the beliefs of others. Praying before a game is okay, but only if you do it in private.
    The Abington School District v. Schempp case is another example that has challenged this ruling.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Luis because as he said, people may feel offended by others' beliefs which means the prayer should had been done in private.

      Delete
  27. I agree with the Supreme Court in the case of Santa Fe V. Doe because when they announced the prayer on the speaker it violated the Establishment Clause. They should have prayed in private because students shouldn't be forced to listen to others beliefs.

    Another case that challenged the ruling of the Establishment Clause is Epperson V. Arkansas. The case argues about making the teaching of evolution illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I agree with the court case decision because they forced the audience to listen to a prayer for a specific relgion that they might not follow or believe. It violated the Establishment clause and went against what the people wanted. Another case that has violated this ruling has been the lee v weisman, a case about if a prayer shoulD be able to be said at a graduation.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I agree with the court case decision because it was wrong how they forced the audience to listen to a prayer of a specific relgion that may not be thiers.
    A similar case is Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Alex. It ruins equality, and that is not American...

      Delete
  30. I agree with the court in the case of Santa Fe vs Doe because the student said his prayer over the speaker which forced the audience to hear it and thats against the Establishment Clause. It would had been okk if he had done it in private or in a private school but since it was a public school, he had to respect the other peoples' beliefs and religion.
    A similar case is Lee vs Weisman in which a prayer was said during a graduation.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 1.I agree with the decission the supreme court made because when the student said the prayer it violated the Establishment Clause.
    2.Another case that has challenged this rulling is Lee Vs Weisman in which they said a prayer during a graduation ceremony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Alejandra that this would violate the Establishment Clause, giving preference to one religion over another is not allowed in state. This clause states it. It would make other feel uncomfterable, since we all don't believe the same religion.

      Delete
    2. I agree with alejandra's # 1 answer because the Estalishment Clause was violated. Not being the only right violated for the individuals were force to listen to the prayer that might have not been part of their beliefs or religion.

      Delete
  32. I agree with the decision made that a student cannot give a prayer at the pre- game. This would contradict with the establishment clause, there are many religions. So doing this can make some people feel uncomfterable with their beliefs. Also if let's say in another religion they way they pray is different this can contradict with their believes, or the fact of many religions having the right to make a prayer in the way their religion practices it should have been allowed if it was allowed. Such case as the one of Emerson v. Board of Education in 1947 was the case that established the establishment clause. A New Jersey taxpayer argued that kids who go to private church schools and public schools had to be reimbursed funds for the transportations of kids to and from school. The court found this to be constitutional so it was passed but the state had that separation with church still. This was just made equal and allowed all kids to get transportation. But obviously there was that separation of church and state.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 1.I agree with the Supreme Court decision because the Establishment Clause was violated.The religious speech before the game was not private, so it made other individuals of different religions be forced to listen and go against their own beliefs.
    2.There are some other cases that have challenged the Establishment Clause, one example would be Lee v.Weisman.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I agree with the Santa Fe V. Doe because by saying the prayer over the speakers, they were forcing the students to listen to it, even if they had different beliefs. It was a violation of the Establishment Clause.

    The case Zorach V. Clauson was also a case that challenged the Establishment Clause when a New York law school forced students to attend religious classes.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 1. I agree with the supreme court's ruling on the case because the school violated the Establishment clause by making a public speech before the game & causing the audience who have different religious views & beliefs to feel uncomfortable. People shouldnt have to be forced to listen to a speech that goes agains their beliefs.
    2. Lee Vs. Weisman is another case that has challenged this ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I couldn’t agree more with the decision of the Supreme Court in the Santa Fe v. Doe case ,because both the school and the student violate the Establishment Clause since the prayer was broadcasted over the public address system in the football game.I also agree with the decision because it was a public school and the rest of the people didn’t had to hear that and because they shouldn't favor one religion from another one.

    Board of Education v. Mergens was another case that had challenged the Establishment Clause.

    ReplyDelete
  37. 1. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. Although a simple prayer may seem harmless to anyone, the problem behind this case was that there were too many people present at the moment of prayer and it violated the Establishment Clause. Many people of the audience may have felt uncomfortable due to the prayer which kinda brought everyone to believe in one deity, whether you believe in one or not.
    2. Another case which had challenged the Establishment Clause was Lee v. Weisman which was another case of prayer during a graduation ceremony.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I agree with the Supreme Court decision. It endorses one religion over another, and that ruins equality. Lee v Weisman also had a similar issue with prayers being led at graduations.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I agree with the supreme court because the school put one religion's prayers and made all students listen to it. This is forcing one religion on all students, students who may be of different faiths, and shows favor to only one religion instead of all religions equally.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I agree with the court's decision because it violated the "Establishment Clause" because they pretty much "forced" the students to listen to the prayer when they said it over the intercom. It would have been alright if it was in a small prayer group because then if wouldn't have been as if they were forcing people to believe in only one God. Another case that is similar to the Santa Fe v. Doe case would be Lee vs Weisman because a prayer was said during a graduation.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I agree with the decision made by the Supreme Court after the Santa Fe v. Doe case. Obviously the entire audience is/ would not always be filled of people believing in the same religion, everyone has his/hers own absolute being &’ hearing another broadcast a prayer could really discomfort the crow. Another reason statements like this can’t be done is because it violates the Establishment Cause as well.

    Lee v. Weisman is a similar case that has challenged this ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I agree with the decision made by the Supreme Court in the case of Santa Fe v. Doe. In such a large audience there would have been people from many varied religions, so you are forcing people to listen to something they dont want to hear about religion, which violates the establishment clause. McCollum v. Board of Education is another case that has tried to change this ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I agree with the decion of the Supreme Court in the Santa Fe v. Doe case. There is no way that everyone in the audience could have been of the same religion, so you are forcing people to listen to beliefs different from theirs. This violates the establishment clause and is unconstitutional.
    Another case that challenged this ruling is McCollum v.Board of Education

    ReplyDelete
  44. I agree with the supreme court because students cant perform religious speeches in front of other people because they dont all have the same beliefs its just not right to do that.
    Lee v Weisman was a case that involved prayers led by religious people at public school graduation, ceremonies and events.

    ReplyDelete