United States Supreme Court (1992) in the case of Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992), by only a one-vote majority, Justice Kennedy wrote the decision that a commencement prayer is not to be given by clergy. In a strong dissenting opinion, Lee v. Weisman; 120 L. Ed. 2d 467, 509 (1992), Scalia, J. (dissenting), Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Byron White and Justice Clarence Thomas, stated that invocations and benedictions may continue to be offered, provided a notice is included in the commencement program that participation is voluntary:
<That obvious fact recited the graduates and their parents may proceed to thank God, as American have always done, for the blessings He has generously bestowed on them and their country.
From our Nation's origin, prayer has been a prominent part of governmental ceremonies and proclamations.
The Declaration of Independence, the document marking our birth as a separate people, "appeal[ed] to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions" avowed "a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."
In his first Inaugural Address, after swearing his oath of office on a Bible, George Washington deliberately made a prayer a part of his first official act as President....
Such supplications have been a characteristic feature of Inaugural Addresses ever since. Thomas Jefferson, for example, prayed in his first Inaugural Address....
In his second Inaugural Address, Jefferson acknowledged his need for divine guidance and invited his audience to join his prayer....Similarly, James
Madison, in his first Inaugural Address, placed his confidence "in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being...[with] fervent supplications and best hopes for the future."...
The other two branches of the Federal Government also have a long-established practice of prayer at public events....
There is simply no support for the proposition that the officially sponsored nondenominational invocation and benediction read by Rabbi Gutterman-with no one legally coerced to recite them-violated the Constitution of the United States.
To the contrary, they are so characteristically American they could have come from the pen of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln himself.
As its instrument of destruction, the bulldozer of its social engineering, the Court invents a boundless, and boundlessly manipulable, test of psychological coercion....
The opinion manifests that the Court itself has not given careful consideration to its test of psychological coercion. For if it had, how could it observe, with no hint of concern of disapproval, that students stood for the pledge of Allegiance, which immediately preceded Rabbi Gutterman's invocation?....
[S]ince the Pledge of Allegiance...included the phrase "under God," recital of the Pledge would appear to raise the same Establishment Clause issue as the invocation and benediction.
If students were psychologically coerced to remain standing during the invocation, they must also have been psychologically coerced, moments before, to stand for (and thereby, in the Court's view, take part in or appear to take part in) the Pledge.
Must the Pledge therefore be barred from the public schools (both from graduation ceremonies and from the classroom)? Logically, that ought to be the next project for the Court's bulldozer.
[N]othing, absolutely nothing, is so inclined to foster among religious believers of various faiths a toleration-no, an affection-for one another than voluntarily joining in prayer together, to God whom they all worship and seek....
The Baptist or Catholic who heard and joined in the simple and inspiring prayers of Rabbi Gutterman on this official and patriotic occasion was inoculated from religious bigotry and prejudice in a manner that cannot be replicated.
To deprive our society of that important unifying mechanism...is as senseless in policy as it is unsupported in law.
The reader has been told much in this case about the personal interest of Mr. Weisman and his daughter, and very little about the personal interests of the other side. They are not inconsequential.
Church and state would not be such a difficult subject if religion were, as the Court apparently thinks it to be, some purely personal avocation that can be indulged entirely in secret, like pornography, in the privacy of one's room.
For most believers it in not that, and has never been. Religious men and women of almost all denominations have felt it necessary to acknowledge and beseech the blessing of God as a people, and not just as individuals, because they believe in the "protection of divine Providence," as the Declaration of Independence put it, not just for individuals but for societies; because they believe God to be, as Washington's first Thanksgiving Proclamation put it, the "Great Lord and Ruler of Nations."
One can believe in the effectiveness of such public worship, or one can deprecate and deride it. But the longstanding American tradition of prayer at official ceremonies displays with unmistakable clarity that the Establishment Clause does not forbid the government to accommodate it.
The narrow context of the present case involves a community's celebration of one of the milestones in its young citizen's lives, and it is a bold step for this Court to seek to banish from that occasion, and from thousands of similar celebrations throughout this land, the expression of gratitude to God that a majority of the community wishes to make.
The Court lays waste a longstanding American tradition of nonsectarian prayer to God at public celebrations.
Our Nation's protection, that fortress which is our Constitution, cannot possibly rest upon the changeable philosophical predilections of the Justices of this Court, but must have deep foundations in the historic practices of our people.> 1992US001
--
American Quotations by William J. Federer, 2024, All Rights Reserved, Permission granted to use with acknowledgement.
1992US001. William J. Federer, American Quotations (2014). United States Supreme Court, 1992, Lee v. Weisman, 112 S.Ct. 2649 (1992). Dissenting opinion given by Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Byron White and Justice Clarence Thomas. Eugene H. Methvin, "Let Us Pray" (Pleasantville, NY: Reader's Digest, The Reader's Digest Association, Inc., November 1992), pp. 75-79. Lee v. Weisman; 120 L. Ed. 2D 467, 510-511, 516, 518, 519 (1992), Scalia, J. (dissenting). Candy Berkebile, One Hundred Years of the Pledge (Washington, D.C.: Family Voice, Concerned Women for America, October 1992), p. 13. The American Family Association Law Center, (AFA Law Center, P.O. Drawer 2440, Tupelo, MS. 38803), has compiled a "Students Bill of Rights" guaranteed by the United States Constitution: 1. You have the right to meet with other Christian students on campus for prayer, Bible study, and worship. The First Amendment guarantees the right of freedom of association with others. 2. You have the right to form and meet with Bible clubs and prayer groups on campus. The U.S. Supreme has held the federal Equal Access Act gives students the right to organize and participate in Bible clubs and prayer groups, just like any other club that is not related to curriculum. 3. You have the right to share your Christian faith on campus. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, which can not be prohibited on school grounds without significant justification. 4. You have the right to wear Christian T-shirts or symbols to express your beliefs through your clothing, jewelry, buttons, etc. 5. You have the right to carry your Bible, and read it during unassigned reading time, on campus. 6. You have the right to publicize the gospel or hand out tracts on campus. First Amendment free speech rights include the right to hand out literature, use school bulletin boards, school newspapers, or other methods of communication available to students. 7. You have the right to include religious themes or points of view relevant to school projects. Nothing in the Constitution prevents the mention of religion or religious beliefs in school. In fact, religion can be legitimately studied, if the school does not try to advocate a particular faith. 8. You have the right to study and to observe Christmas and Easter holidays on campus. These have been held to be part of the culture and heritage of our country. 9. You have the right to voluntarily participate in prayer at school. The only prayers which have been held unconstitutionally are those which are mandatory, and initiated by the school administration. Student-led, student-initiated prayers are allowed. 10. You have the right not to participate in activities (or possibly classes) that conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs.