Quote:
Originally Posted by evil nickname
So I still stand by my original assertion that Meat got his facts wrong on this one.
|
Did he get his facts wrong or is his interpretation of the US Constitution differing from the legal precedent that has gone before? A very unique part of the US Legal System is for Judges to have the ability to interpret law, as well as steer law in one direction or another. Yes, the girl has freedom of religion and felt offended; however, depending on whether the school is "public" or "private" would depend on the level of freedom of speech the educational institution has for posting whatever they wish. As an entertainer, I have freedom of speech and can say whatever I want during my act; however, I must also put the intended audience's reaction into account when I write my material. There is nothing in the US law that says I cannot make racial slurs during my comedy act; however, for example, I must weigh loosing my audience if I make reference to the president's race and make off color references as such.
In the case of this school prayer, my personal opinion would go toward Meat's in this situation. If this is a private school, then leaving the prayer up on the wall should be totally upheld. The student/parent of the student has made a conscious decision to attend the school, and should have paid attention to what was posted on the walls prior to voluntarily enrolling. If this school is a public institution, the student/parent does not really have a choice - unless there is reciprocity of school district boundaries, which allow for students to "travel" outside the physical realm of the district where they physically live. Then the case should be up for further evaluation.
We could open up a whole new can of worms about the separation of Church and State with reminders that when Massachusetts converted from a Colony to a State, there was a state established church for quite sometime and no one said anything...but that is another can of worms for another thread altogether.