Lee v. Weisman: School Prayer at Graduation Ceremonies
...n, select/approve of religious participant, and provide the guidelines for prayer. The Court then stated that such “state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercises” creates “subtle, coercive pressure for participation and conformity of belief” [505 U.S. 577 (1992)]. The Court also stated that the school requires participation in a religious exercise because not attending one’s graduation is really not an option. The Court found that this coercion to participate in the prayer violates parts one and two (purpose and primary effect) of the Establishment Clause. The Court determined that graduation prayers put pressure on students to participate. One dissenter was Justice Scalia. Scalia believes that prayer is a common and accepted practice that brings people together and the government should be allowed to promote it. The Lee v. Weisman decision did not overturn the Lemon test as hoped by the school administration. The ruling, however, further extended the exclusion of school prayer to graduation ceremonies. The Court developed the idea that students could be harmed if compelled to stand during prayers of which they do not share the message. I will critically analyze the significance of the Weismans religious affiliation, the role of school administration pertaining to graduation exercises, the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia, and the harm of prayers on students. Critical Analysis The term rabbi refers to a person ordained for leadership in a Jewish congregation. I found it interesting that the Weismans, a Jewish family, would have reservations against a rabbi’s benediction. In my experience, I have found that people have problems with religious doctrines alternative to their own. Because the Weismans disagreed with a prayer consistent with their own religious faith, I concur that they filed the suit because they believed the prayer was inappropriate for the setting or for some other political reason, not necessarily religious reasons. Although I do agree that school/government involvement in religious exercises at graduation causes entanglement between church and state, I do not agree with the Court findings that schools coerce students to participate in prayer. Student participation for graduation exercises is not mandatory. Students will graduate without attending the ceremony. Therefore, students and parents have the option of not attending. And because advance preparations are made and relayed to students and parents prior to these exercises taking place, parents and students can opt to not attend if they disagree with the religious exercise scheduled. Also, students and parents are not constitutionally obligated to participate in religious exercises in any forum, including graduation. If they disagree with the message of the prayer given, they do not have to participate. I agree with Justice Scalia’s opinion that prayers are common and widely accepted. I have attend several non-religious ceremonies in which an invocation or benediction was given. These were meant, as Justice Scalia determined, to bring those involved together. I do not, however, agree that the government should consent to prayers being used as a tool for promoting unity and togetherness because it causes entanglement. Finally, I do not agree with the Court that students would be harmed by standing or hearing a prayer with a message that they do not share. Students are not being forced to agree with the message of the prayer or even consider the message for personal interpretation. And, as aforementioned, students and parents do not have to attend graduation, or, if they do attend...