Brave senior led prayer at school graduation despite ACLU

THE NEW STAR – At Ram Stadium on Friday night, 242 graduates received their diplomas amid slight controversy.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana urged Stacey Pullen, principal of Bastrop High School, to respect the First Amendment and ensure Friday night’s graduation did not include a prayer as originally proposed.

Senior Damon Fowler had reportedly objected to the planned prayer and informed the Morehouse Parish School Board about his objection, saying it violated his right to a ceremony free of government-endorsed religion. After he complained to school authorities — and said he would contact the ACLU if necessary — school officials reportedly removed the prayer from the

program.

However, during the event, fellow senior Laci Rae Mattice called for a moment of silence but expressed her opinion first.

“I want to ask for the Lord’s blessings upon us,” Mattice said, followed by cheers and applause from the audience. She then led the audience in the Lord’s Prayer, “if they wanted to.”

Pullen said Mattice was instructed not to mention anything about religion and only observe the moment of silence. She said she was unsure if the ACLU or Fowler would seek legal action against the school.

Morehouse Parish Superintendent Tom Thrower, who attended the event, had little to say on the matter.

“It speaks for itself,” Thrower said.

In amending the program, school officials suggested that Fowler, and other students who object to school-sponsored prayer, should respect the majority of their classmates, according to a statement from the ACLU.

“The First Amendment prohibition on government endorsement of religion exists to protect the minority from the majority,” said Marjorie R. Esman, ACLU of Louisiana executive director. “Freedom of religion belongs to everyone, not just those whose views may be more popular than others.”

Let me remind you of what the First Amendment actually says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The left will not stop its intellectually bankrupt relentless attack on Christianity in America. The Constitution clearly restricts the making of laws in order to establish religion or to prohibit the free exercise of religion. A prayer said by a senior, listed on a graduation event program is nothing short of the free exercise of religion and has nothing to do with the creation of any law. End of story.

You should go read the comments on the YouTube video. Nothing more than a bunch of useful idiots that couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag who think that a prayer said by a teenage girl at a school ceremony is government endorsed religion. What a bunch of morons.



In any event, I am very proud of Laci Rae Mattice for standing up for her right to exercise her religion by praying the Lord’s Prayer. I hope she continues to plant her feet and stand, just as Allen West has encouraged us to do.

And I love the cheers of the crowd. Makes me love my country even more.

Here’s the video of the prayer:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

84 thoughts on “Brave senior led prayer at school graduation despite ACLU

  1. I think you forgot to write the other article: “Brave senior stands up against entire school to uphold the law”. Sorry to rip on your idea of brave here, but Laci had nothing to lose here other than the possibility of being removed from the microphone. She was in no danger from the ACLU. The school was. She wasn’t even in danger of being embarrassed. She knew she had the majority of attendees on her side. So, please explain how exactly that is brave. 

  2. For all of you who are scared to death of a prayer being offered at a public gathering, let me explain that the First Amendment (however misinterpreted) was not written to keep the church out of the government.  On the contrary, it was written to keep the government out of the church.  There is nothing about it in any form that prohibits a prayer from being offered at a gathering such as this, regardless of what the libs at the ACLU might be trying to sell you.

    The days of minority rule in this country need to come to an end.  God bless America.

  3. Many people feel compelled by their religion to break the law. 9/11 was one of them. Worship in private, making a big show of it, mocks God. The atheist kids rights were violated. 

    1. What rights would that be? Please site the law and where I can find it.

      LAcie did not make a big show. She simply wanted to honor God (Jehovah) and based on those that joined in others did to.

      Her rights were violated when she was ordered not to pray.

  4. Children are compelled to attend school – the supreme court has ruled that a government body (the school) cannot impose religious ceremonies on it’s students. I’m not sure how this is unreasonable. I believe the case where this was decided actually involved a Jewish prayer. I think the conversation would be much different if a student had led a prayer to satan or allah, but to the government it (rightly) makes no difference – each student’s rights are protected against these intrusions. 

    1. The School imposed nothing, an individual praying does not equal coercion. However your repeated attempts to twist the Constitution and your willful mischaracterization of the event, have irritated me. Good Bye Troll.

  5. I’d like us to discuss this following question. But before I ask it, you should know: 

    – I am a Christian and a pastor at a non-denominational evangelical Bible Church in Texas. 
    – I love that this girl prayed the Lord’s prayer in public and support it 100%
    – The argument that this violates the First Amendment is incredibly absurd and ignorant

    Now for the question:

    If the girl was a Muslim, and she decided to pray publicly the Qunut prayer (which is free of any violent hate-filled Islamic rhetoric) or any other public Muslim prayer, would you as a Christian still be supportive of a student exercising her right to publicly pray? Aside from the religious nature of the prayer or person praying, would you just as emphatically cheer the event as a victory for public prayer in America? Could you support it? 

    I only ask this question because reading the comments, I agree with many people’s excitement that this girl bravely prayed publicly despite the opposition. Sometimes however the lines of excitement as Americans defending the Constitution and excitement as Christians defending the Gospel can become blurred. In other words, are we celebrating and elating in the fact that an American exercised her rights and prayed publicly? Or are we celebrating and elating that a Christian prayed publicly? Both can be true of course (I’m pumped about both), but if the person wasn’t a Christian and prayed a different prayer from a different religion, would we STILL be celebrating that an American exercised her constitutional rights? Would we STILL be supportive?

    If our answer is yes, then we are truly celebrating Constitutional freedom. 

    If our answer is no, then we are being ignorant hypocrites who may be defending Christianity  but certainly not Constitutional freedom for all Americans.

    What do you guys think?

    1. Thank you for this thoughtful post. The most important point is that we should be working to protect our constitutional and human rights under the law no matter what the law happens to be at the moment – it is what separates the US from the rest of the world and from anarchy. 

      While I DO think Laci’s speech violated the law as it is currently applied, there SHOULD NOT be anything wrong with people giving speeches in their own faith as long as everyone had that same right in that situation. The problem is that people often use the law opportunistically to oppress minorities, so the current solution is to deny everyone the right. Perhaps in the future, all of the US can be more open-minded. =)

    2. It all comes down to the exercise of free speech, as I have previously stated I really don’t care who your hypothetical young lady prays to, that is between her and the deity or deities she happens to pray to.  Your attempt at laying a logical boobytrap, like Doris, has failed. Although I give you credit for creativity.

    3. Do you mean we may be: Contending for the faith
      Jude 1:3
      Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

      Ephesians 6:11
      Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

      So this makes one an ignorant hypocrite, maybe where you are from but not where I am sitting.

      The founding fathers based on historical records never intended for GOD (that is Jehovah and His Son Jesus) neither to be driven from our government nor public life.

      The country was upon the Christian faith. Removal of Christianity from mainstream America is to remove the golden thread that binds us. You may believe as you chose knowing you will answer to an almighty GOD. But we were and we remain a Christian nation.

  6. How exactly were her actions brave?  She had the support of most of her community, who seemingly don’t understand constitutional law.  I’m sure most of the people here will disagree, but your ignorance of the law does not make you immune to its consequences. 

    By knowingly allowing Laci Mattice to recite a prayer during an official school function, the school violated constitutional law.  You can point fingers at liberals and the ACLU if that makes you feel better but the fact is that she intentionally ignored rules put in place to protect the freedoms of ALL AMERICANS, NOT JUST CHRISTIANS. Would you be so supportive if she had been wearing a headscarf and praying to Allah?

    Good luck defending the school district in federal court.  It would literally take a miracle.

      1. Name calling? Really?  Kenneth actually posted a very concise and accurate explanation as to how Laci Mattice’s actions violated the law. 

        But I suppose simple minds prefer simple answers. 

        In short, the school district provided implied endorsement of public prayer by knowingly allowing Laci Mattice to recite that prayer during a school function.  They knew what she was going to do, and they allowed it.  Simple enough for you?

        1. But people are guaranteed free exercise of religion by the first amendment. For them to prohibit her from doing so, would they not be taking that right away?

          1. She is more than welcome to pray at a school function.  Nobody is going to arrest her or persecute her for being observant of her faith.  Her constitutionally protected first amendment rights are absolute. 

            But by law, she is not allowed to lead a public prayer during a school function. 

            “School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible
            because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who
            are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the
            political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that
            they are insiders, favored members of the political community. U.S.
            Supreme Court decision, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe,
            2000-JUN-19.

            1. You must have missed the part about the school amending the program. So the school complied, so it now becomes an exercise of the protected right of Free Speech by an individual. Your argument, like Kenneth’s, fails.

            2. That’s unconstitutional then. The first amendment guarantees it no matter who it is ‘sponsored’ by. Free exercise thereof isn’t limited by conditions in the first amendment.

              1. The supreme court exists to decide what is and isn’t constitutional – that is their express purpose. The first amendment is not unqualified. In fact, it is misleadingly simplistically written – it does not give people the right to commit fraud, obscenity, yell “fire” in a crowded theater, threaten or harass people, etc. – even though these are all just “speech.” These have been decided in a series of cases by the supreme court and are not found IN the constitution, but it is the law as of today. 

                In this way, the supreme court has also decided that government institutions cannot coerce religion on others – this protects christians from having to deal with muslims and satanists, in public places like schools, the DMV, etc. and it works the other way around! That is the beauty of the American system! We are all equal before the law, regardless of race, gender, or belief. This is what makes the USA so great and what made it a beacon for the rest of the world for hundreds of years.

        2. You start out ridiculing Kenneth for name calling and then you do the same

          Simple minds prefer simple answers.

          You negated any argument you had.

  7. Christians are the majority, not an oppressed minority.  They are doing the oppressing.  Just look into the death threats and violence offered the young man who asked that his beliefs be respected and no religious benediction be offered.

    I presume you would be cheering just as much if the valedictorian had offered a Muslim prayer?  

    1. How are Christians doing the oppressing? By praying? Close your damn ears but don’t take away the right of a Christian to pray. When you take away that right, then don’t you take away your right as well?

      1. Every death threat made against Damon Fowler (the student who objected to the prayer) is a clear example of Christians oppressing others. 

        1. you guys have no logic or intellectual honesty whatsoever if you believe the tripe you’re spewing. But I’ll give you a chance to show off. How is it Christian oppression for Damon Fowler to get death threats? Explain it please.

            1. Do not be so sure it was Christians making the threats, it was a ripe opportunity for someone to cause further division and bring more persecution to Christians.

                The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

               Even if the student were praying to Buddha I would support her right to do so and yes, I am a conservative Christian, in general we love people, don’t threaten them, disagree with them, pray for them YES we do.  Just as I disagree with you, please know that you are loved and I’m praying for you.

      2. The beauty of the American system is that we DO take away everyone’s right to repress others. The school is a public government entity like the DMV, and we expect people to be treated equally in the ways that legally matter. 

        Am I correct that you would find it offensive to be forced to listen to a prayer to satan or allah at your own graduation at a public school funded with taxpayer dollars? 

    2. It’s an exercise of free speech by an individual, it is not an endorsement of a religious belief, by definition it is a petition or request of a deity.  Valedictorian is an award for academic achievement, not a school position. Whether or not the young man who filed the complaint received death threats (while it would be abhorrent if he did) is irrelevant in the young woman’s exercise of free speech. No one has the right not to be offended, it does not exist, unless of course you reside in some backwards socialist democracy like England.

  8. At the end there I think I saw a glimpse of the TX flag next to the US flag.
    Bastrop is near the heart/center of TX. 

  9. “A prayer said by a senior, listed on a graduation event program is
    nothing short of the free exercise of religion and has nothing to do
    with the creation of any law. End of story.”

    Actually the Free Exercise Clause does not apply to this case. Allow me to explain why.

    First and foremost, any institution established by the government becomes subject to the same limitations upon their powers and abilities as on the government that created it, for if the government is able to establish an institution with greater power than itself, we have tyranny.

    The First Amendment restriction upon Congress implied that all actions of the government begin with Congress. This is why Article I is the longest article in the entirety of the Constitution. Restrict Congress and you restrict the entire Federal government, because the Executive Branch cannot do anything not authorized by Congress, or at least that was how it used to work. Unless Congress says “yes”, the Executive Branch cannot act, and Congress is enjoined by the Constitution in what they can say “yes” to.

    The Fourteenth Amendment extends the limitations of the Bill of Rights upon the States and municipalities.

    School boards are created by acts of law of the governments of each State, thus the same limitations upon the legislatures are inherited by the individual school boards, and thus the individual schools and their administrations, including the principal. Graduation ceremonies are official school functions, sanctioned by the school and school board by official act. School administrators may not design official school functions in such a way that it exceeds the limitations they have inherited from the very government that grants them any authority at all. This includes the limitations of the First Amendment.

    These limitations are also inherited by those who are chosen by the school to speak during the ceremony — they are enjoined by the same limitations that enjoin the government due to their appointment by the school for the school function. Thus Laci Mattice exceeded the scope of her appointment by her attempt to join everyone together in prayer, thus she violated the First Amendment.

    1. Kenneth, you are incorrect.  The Constitution prohibits CONGRESS from establishing a religion, in other words, there will be no Church of the United States of America like there is a Church of England, or the Lutheran Church in Germany being supported by mandatory tax revenues.  The Constitution does not prohibit any of the States from establishing an official Church for that State, but that is not what happened here.  The First also prohibits Congress (or the Courts for that matter) from prohibiting the free expression thereof.  So, the Courts have been incorrect in their rulings favoring the ACLU and their efforts to expunge religion from the country in the guise of not allowing Congress to “establish” a religion.
      The girl done good.

      1. True, the US constitution applies..and so does the Louisiana state constitution. You seem to draw a lot of big ideas from just a few facts. Be careful about that. 

        §8. Freedom of ReligionSection 8. No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    2. Spoken like a true “Big government Progressive”, trying to extract recondite meaning from the document to support a position that is without merit. Your attempt to use the Fourteenth to support your assertion is also in error. The young woman is exercising her right to free speech guaranteed under the First, she is not proselytizing or “advocating” a religion nor is she a governmental official acting in an official capacity.
      “Consent of the Governed”, yes I know it is from the Declaration, however it establishes the founders intent and views on just which direction power and authority flow in our system.
      The People
      The Local Government
      The State Government
      The Federal Government
      I would surmise from your position that you are also one of those of the view that the so-called “Supremacy Clause” grants the Federal Government ultimate legal authority in all matters. Which would also be in error as the “Supremacy Clause” only applies to those powers granted the Federal Government in the Constitution in cases where a State or Local law directly contradicts one of the enumerated powers.
       You are not the first to come on this site to try and twist, wring and extrapolate meaning from the wording of the Constitution to fit your “progressive” views (probably will not be the last), in closing I will leave you with this quote from a man who had more understanding of our Constitution in his little finger that you obviously possess.

      451. XV.  In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it.  Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or judicial research.
      They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.
      ~ Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Vol.1
       by Justice Joseph Story

    3. That impunes her FREEDOM OF SPEECH doesn’t it??? So the school’s order violated her rights…

      In reality the 1st amendment does not apply here, except for her right to freedom of speech.

      Congress did not enact any laws regarding the HS graduation, nor did they endorse it.

      Here is the thing, why doesn’t America’s Crazy Lawyers Union keep it’s hand out of community affairs?

    4. That impunes her FREEDOM OF SPEECH doesn’t it??? So the school’s order violated her rights…

      In reality the 1st amendment does not apply here, except for her right to freedom of speech.

      Congress did not enact any laws regarding the HS graduation, nor did they endorse it.

      Here is the thing, why doesn’t America’s Crazy Lawyers Union keep it’s hand out of community affairs?

  10. Love how ACLU will only protect people who object to others saying words in reference to God, but will never protect those who wish to say those words.

    ACLU contradicts their own name all the time…but with how they’ve gone about in recent years, we all know how they stand….

    1. Well said, Zytekfan.
      I totally agree.

      And haven’t you heard?
      The ACLU doesn’t seem to have a problem with hearing “Allah” in public places.
      Muslims have been demanding prayer rooms and foot baths in public buildings, and getting them…while the ACLU turns a blind eye.  

      1. Since you seem to accept this statement as fact, then you shouldn’t have any trouble providing a few examples.  How about just one?  Take all the time you need.

    2. Right. They stand somewhat like Gollum from Lord of the Rings, constantly ready to snap. Eliminating Christian expression, their it’s menacing “pweshus”.

    3. *NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

      Because in reality, the ACLU defends everyone’s rights:  http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

    4. Actually, the ACLU fights for Christians a LOT. http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

  11. ACLU is lib-code for hypocrites, in other word’s “For me but not for thee”. Kudos to the the young woman for exercising her right of free speech under the First.

    1. Hi Ken, 

      Would you feel the same way if Laci had led a prayer to satan or allah? I would have no problem with Laci’s prayer except that I know that if she HAD prayed to a less popular figure, she would have been vilified. The real beauty of the American system is that we protect everyone’s beliefs, no matter how un/popular they happen to be. We are a nation of laws, not impulsive reactions.

      If you’re not ok with allowing students to sit through a prayer to satan in order to attend their own graduation, then the view you expressed is truly hypocritical.

      1. Well, in all honesty I don’t care who they pray to, that is between them and whomever they are praying to.  If you are trying to pull me into exchange over this issue, attempting poorly played ad hominem arguments won’t get you anywhere. But, trolling here with worn out liberal talking points like comparing someone praying in public to an individual willfully shouting “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire ( a misdemeanor in most states unless injuries are sustained then it can be elevated to a felony) and trying to pass it off as a legitimate constitutional argument on the topic of free speech, will get you banned.

  12. Way to go, Laci Rae Mattice!
    Such courage is an inspiration to us all.
    You make us proud.
      

  13. Way to go, Laci Rae Mattice!
    Such courage is an inspiration to us all.
    You make us proud.
      

  14. At the end they were going to say the Pledge of Allegience and sing the National Anthem, both of which reference God.  I guess that is violating the 1st Amendment also – sheesh!

    1.  Not only that, but they were presenting the American Flag there at the end too. That must have really made the liberals, hypocritical, ass-ploding heads spin ’round.
      Major kudos to this teen for having the courage to stand up and do what she felt is right. I pray that more teens, and adults find the courage to stand up and rebel against the anti-American sentiment that runs so rampant through our society.

      Thank you for posting this video, Scoop.

  15. If we go down thie path we better damn sure be serious and drive it right back to the principles of the founding fathers. A Constitution, Bil of Rights and form of government based on Judeo-Christian value.

    If we do not stand strong and then water it down with the typical moral relativism the Conservatives always fall for, we are going to end up with a few hundred Muslim arses staring us in the face at the next Michigan of Virgina graduation.

    1. Which Judeo-Christian values would that be?  Help the poor?  Oh, I guess not, since we’re defunding medicare.  Turn the other cheek?  So about invading Iraq and Afghanistan.  I don’t recall capitalism being a Judeo-Christian value.  Maybe you can enlighten me as to which portions of the Bible endorse paying fewer taxes so that you don’t have to help those that have less than you.

      1. If you know the Bible, you know that no where does Jesus tell those to give more to government to help the poor.  Each one of us is responsible for our own actions whether to help the poor or not, and every Christian I know- even those of us hit hard by the economy help those who are less fortunate than we are.  Private citizens, Christians especially, have always done a better job serving and donating time, goods and money to the needy than any government has ever done.  As for turn the other cheek, Jesus is talking again, personal. If someone slaps me, I am not to slap back.  He never says anything about a country defending itself or others.  Paying fewer taxes is something only the poor get to do.  I do not know anyone who has more than I who pays less taxes.  Chistians know the render under Caesar what is Caesar’s but Caesar has been digging into others’ pockets for a long time now and taking what is not his!
        The poor will always be among us, as Jesus says, but it is individuals who help them, not up to the government to supply what they could work for.

      2. I’m wondering which part of the Bible you were reading that says the GOVERNMENT is the one that is supposed to be helping the poor?  No, Astraea, YOU are supposed to be helping them, as am I.  That is what the Bible says – better take another peek – medicare isn’t in the Bible!  And none of the players in the Good Samaratin story Jesus told was a government employee, nor did the Good Samaratin use his tax dollars to help the guy.

      3. Benevolence is a Christian trait which many practice.

        However, forced benevolence is “robbery”. I>E> taxes

        I think God sasid “thou shalt not steal”

      4. Benevolence is a Christian trait which many practice.

        However, forced benevolence is “robbery”. I>E> taxes

        I think God sasid “thou shalt not steal”

  16. If you click on the Youtube version… and read the comments from the leftist haters ~

    It is WAY PAST TIME America… to stop playing their game of “If you DON’T OFFEND US… we MIGHT, MAYBE, SOMEDAY, TO SOME SMALL DEGREE… like you (no mention EVER of changing their ways/heart).

    BE WHO and WHAT YOU ARE, America!

    If you have given your life to GOD… LIVE FOR HIM!!!!!!!  ALL THE TIME!!!!

    …if a man’s convictions (whether it be about the King of kings, or our Constitution) are so thin and shallow that a damn ‘lawsuit’ can stop us in our tracks, as the ENEMY-Domestics MARCH ON…

    …then he has NO CONVICTIONS.  He only has temporarily convenient ‘likes’.

    Stand up, America!  DAMN IT, STAND!!!
    CM Sackett

    1. If loving Jesus Christ and telling others that He is the Truth, the life and the ONLY way makes me an intolerant biggot- I am a happy intolerant biggot.  My only wish is that people who spew the tolerance word would know the dictionary meaning of the word.  I tolerate a lot of things I don’t like:  doing laundry, mopping the floor and I even tolerate my son’s hyperness while I try and teach him.  I tolerate many things in society, but it seems to me, many are very intolerant in their comments and actions against Christ and all who know Him. 

  17.  Freedom OF religion, not Freedom from religion. If you dont like the prayer, dont bow your head and close your eyes.

    1. We should ask ourselves how committed we are to this and just how “tolerant” we plan to be.

      This can easily fall prey to moral relativism and backfire if we do not have extreme courage in our convictions. What I want is a resurgence and return to the Judeo-Christian values that our country was founded on. I want to see its proper place in government, as it always was.

      If we make issues like this about “religion in general”, we open the door for the Islamists, masquerading as a religion, to drive a truck right through it.

      I would stand with the the senior who spoke but also realize America will be in deep trouble when we also usher in the graduation where they bend over with their heads to Mecca and the asses to the audience.

      Some will call me intolerant. I will say I know my enemies.

      1. Intolerant?
        No…I don’t think so sDee.
        It is Islam which preaches intolerance and declares “Death to all infidels”.
        So being intolerant towards intolerance is merely upholding our basic belief in tolerance.
         

        1. Dat made my head hurt a little Perse. I like it. If my head ’tweren’t ‘sposed to hurt, the Good Lord wouldn’t have made tylenol. 

          Good say.

          1. Thanks.
            Sorry for any noggin discomfort that may have induced.

            It’s a good thing then, that I deleted what I had typed about the ACLU using tolerance as a blunt instrument to club people over the head with their intolerant stance on religious tolerance…when they in fact are guilty of being tolerant of the intolerance of Islam.
            I figured that would merit a penalty for piling on.
            😀
             

      2. If everybody did their thing, we would see who is who. Those whose asses look us right in the eye might be the Islamists. Of course we Christians with every head bowed and every eye closed won’t notice it. It works no matter what…Freedom. Atheists will watch the entire spectacle in shock and disbelief 😀

  18. ” A prayer said by a senior, listed on a graduation event program is nothing short of the free exercise of religion. End of story.” (Scoop)

    Scoop is 100% correct here of course, and the ACLU has given young people something to rebel against. Rebels with a cause. Salute!

    Amen.

    1. I hope the younger generations soon realize that who they need to reject are the radical youths of 60’s who used “peace and love” to push their socialisy/Marxist ideology. The ones who never grew out of it to find productive roles in America now run the government and courts.

      The youth of the 60’s thought they had something to rebel about. The youth today really do.

      Here is a glimmer of hope and a bit of insight…

      “A recent informal survey of 500 post-grads primarily between the ages of
      22 and 28 — 83 percent of whom voted for President Barack Obama in 2008
      — found just 27 percent of Obama’s previous youth supporters plan to
      vote for him again”

      http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/20/survey-recent-college-grads-wising-up-about-obama/

    2.  No, Scoop is 100% wrong here.  There is no civil right that proclaims any person must be allowed to stand up in front of a microphone at a state-sponsored ceremony and say a sectarian prayer over a PA system paid for by tax dollars at an event paid for by tax dollars, while being watched and clapped for by employees paid by tax dollars.  In fact, the Supreme Court — those best qualified to interpret the Constitution — explicitly disagrees with Scoop on this one.  What we all have and should protect is every student’s right to say whatever prayers they choose quietly (on their own or in groups) in their home, at their churches, in the schools, and at school functions.  This kind of illegal grandstanding actually ENDANGERS that right.

      The school took the prayer out of the program and (allegedly) told Laci to do a moment of silence instead — a moment she and everyone else could have and should have used for silent or soft prayer not broadcast over a loud speaker — because, after consulting their attorneys, they were told in no uncertain terms that a broadcast prayer done as part of the ceremony violated the law.  Had this not been the case, the attorneys wouldn’t have given this advice.  So, the issue here wasn’t whether people would have been allowed to pray or not.  Everyone could have prayed either way.  The issue was whether to have a broadcast “official” sectarian prayer or not.  Having one inherently favors only the religion of the broadcaster and marginalizes all those who don’t follow that religion.  That’s what the Supreme Court found.  That’s why it’s illegal. 

      Unfortunately, Laci really failed here on perhaps the most important civics test she’ll ever take.  First, she failed in her Christian duty to do unto others as she’d have them do unto her.  She exercised spite against a classmate she disagreed with instead of Christian love.  Her 30 seconds of PA time to promote her religion over his was more important to her than the core tenets of Christianity itself.  Big, BIG FAIL on her part.  She doesn’t know her Bible very well.  She forgot the warnings of Matthew and others about prayer used as a public display of peity.  And when given a choice of upholding the Constitution and taking a stand for obeying the law or breaking the law, she chose to violate the Constitution, disregard the Supreme Court, and disrespect her elders, the school administrators, who explicitly told her not to do what she did.  These are not praise-worthy actions.  So much for the Biblical mandate to respect your government and elders! 

      Lastly, the suggestion that the majority should get its way here is wrong.  It is exactly this attitude that the Bill of Rights was set up to protect AGAINST.  It’s this attitude exercised by the European nations that drove the Pilgrims to America in the first place.  It is wrong for the majority to use their power to suppress or intimidate an unpopular minority, whether that minority be racial (e.g. whites suppressing blacks) or religious (Christians versus any other religious group in the US).

      You are better than this (I hope). 
       

      1.  “the ACLU has given young people something to rebel against.”

        Oh, by the way, the ACLU could have given that student absolutely no help at all had the thing he was protesting not actually been illegal.  So, you’re placing the blame on the wrong people.  It was the school that was attempting something illegal here and who gave the student something to ‘rebel against.’  The student and the ACLU were only pointing out the illegality of the school’s actions –something the school and town didn’t like (who would?) — but even the school’s own attorneys were forced to agree with the ACLU that the school’s actions were, in fact, illegal.

      2. WHy is it that our heritage is thrown out the window? For decades, we prayed at graduations, football games, etc… Now within the past decade it is now a sin.

        Why must the Christian (80% of Americans profess to be Christian) remain silent out of respect. Why can’t the others respect us, since they are the minority?

        This interpretation of the 1st Amendment is an adulterated view. Our history proves it. Simply because the Supremes were chosen to wear long robes does not make them the supreme in knowledge leagl or not. Jefferson warned of an oligarchy which is what we have.

        Lacie did exactly what she should have according to Eph 6. She stood against the evil of our day. There are public and private prayers. Since you want to refer to Matthews warnings, lets take them in context. Matthew warned against repetitive prayers done to be seen. Lacie’s prayer was to honor God at a very important time in her life and according the response others agreed.

        The idea that her prayer goes against the core tenets of Christianity is as much a stretch as her prayer defying the 1st Amendment.

        There is a fire brewing in this nation and it will burst into flames soon. Being silent about your faith when told is not Christian, it is cowardice. You practice your weak kneed yellow back compromising religion as you see fit, but look for more and more Christians with a backbone to do just as Lacie did.

Comments are closed.