The Establishment Clause
One of the reasons the Court ruled in the Weisman's favour was as a result of the evident violations of the Establishment Clause. "The District Court held that petitioners' practice of including invocations and benedictions in school graduations violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment... The court applied the three-part Establishment Clause test set forth in Lemon v Kurtzman...The District Court held that petitioners' actions violated the second part of the test... We granted certiorari... and now affirm." (Raskin). “In order to pass ‘constitutional muster’ prayer must be non-sectarian and cannot show a preference of a religion. However, Justice Souter argued that there is no such thing as non-sectarian prayer because all prayers are formulated with the language… of some a religion.” (Nord). Therefore, whether or not the prayer mentioned God, the concept of the prayer still violated the Establishment Clause.
"The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause." (Raskin). "We do not hold that every state action implicating religion is invalid if one or a few citizens find it offensive. People may take offence at all manner of religious as well as non-religious messages, but offence alone does not in every case show violation... We recognize that, at graduation time and throughout the course of the education process, there will be instances when religious values, religious practices and religious persons will have some interaction with the public school and their students. But these matters... are not before us. The sole question presented is whether a religious exercise may be conducted at a graduation ceremony in circumstances where... young graduates... are induced to conform. No holding by this Court suggests that a school can persuade or compel a student to participate in a religious exercise." (Raskin).
One of the reasons the Court ruled in the Weisman's favour was as a result of the evident violations of the Establishment Clause. "The District Court held that petitioners' practice of including invocations and benedictions in school graduations violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment... The court applied the three-part Establishment Clause test set forth in Lemon v Kurtzman...The District Court held that petitioners' actions violated the second part of the test... We granted certiorari... and now affirm." (Raskin). “In order to pass ‘constitutional muster’ prayer must be non-sectarian and cannot show a preference of a religion. However, Justice Souter argued that there is no such thing as non-sectarian prayer because all prayers are formulated with the language… of some a religion.” (Nord). Therefore, whether or not the prayer mentioned God, the concept of the prayer still violated the Establishment Clause.
"The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause." (Raskin). "We do not hold that every state action implicating religion is invalid if one or a few citizens find it offensive. People may take offence at all manner of religious as well as non-religious messages, but offence alone does not in every case show violation... We recognize that, at graduation time and throughout the course of the education process, there will be instances when religious values, religious practices and religious persons will have some interaction with the public school and their students. But these matters... are not before us. The sole question presented is whether a religious exercise may be conducted at a graduation ceremony in circumstances where... young graduates... are induced to conform. No holding by this Court suggests that a school can persuade or compel a student to participate in a religious exercise." (Raskin).
"...if it was reasonable for that student to feel [offended]... then I think that would violate the Establishment Clause. If it was unreasonable...however, I don't think it is a subject of test that can apply no matter how unreasonable the individual's subjective feelings may have been." (Supreme Court Stakeout : Lee v Weisman).
-- Charles Cooper, Attorney for Plaintiff, on offence and the Establishment Clause
Endorsement
One of the reasons the court held that the Establishment Clause had been violated was because religion had been endorsed at the ceremony. "The State's role did not end with the decision to include prayer and with the choice of a clergyman. Principal Lee provided Rabbi Gutterman with a copy of 'Guidelines for Civic Occasions' and advised him that his prayers should be non-sectarian. Through these means the principal directed and controlled the content of the prayers." (Raskin).
One of the reasons the court held that the Establishment Clause had been violated was because religion had been endorsed at the ceremony. "The State's role did not end with the decision to include prayer and with the choice of a clergyman. Principal Lee provided Rabbi Gutterman with a copy of 'Guidelines for Civic Occasions' and advised him that his prayers should be non-sectarian. Through these means the principal directed and controlled the content of the prayers." (Raskin).
"The school officials picked a particular clergy person to deliver the prayers and then distributed to that clergy guidelines that were published by the National Conference of Christians and Jews, which essentially told the clergy what kind of prayer was appropriate a a commencement ceremony. In addition, at Debbie’s graduation, the school principal talked to the clergy... and told him again what kind of prayers were acceptable. That clergy then appeared at a school function and delivered the kind of prayer that school department said was acceptable. And, to me, clearly what the school department was doing was endorsing not only religion, but a particular kind of prayer which the school department deemed acceptable." (Supreme Court Stakeout : Lee v Weisman).
-- Sandra Blanding, Attorney for the Defendant, on the school's involvement with religion.
“Anything that was said at that graduation, anyone who was speaking at that graduation was endorsed.” (Supreme Court Stakeout : Lee v Weisman).
-- Deborah Weisman on the endorsement at the graduation.
On the other hand, the school board argued that the use of prayers in the ceremony was no more an endorsement of religion than the many every items that refer to religious concepts.
"When we were faced with the ruling of the District Court... [it] seemed to be inconsistent with the American way. Because, in Rhode Island, there's a state law that says everyday students are to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Within the Pledge of Allegiance, there is a reference to God... The milk money and the lunch money these kids carry in their pockets everyday is emblazoned with the motto 'In God We Trust'. So we were being told by the district court... you can't mention God in a graduation ceremony, but yet, the kids can be required to say the Pledge of Allegiance on a daily basis and they can spend money that is emblazoned with the [national] motto." (School Prayer : Lee v Weisman. Perf. Joseph Rotella).
-- Joseph Rotella on the prevalence of religious nomenclature.
“Most children, when they finish the graduation ceremonies, they don’t know what was said. They just know they graduated and they’re thrilled… An awful lot of the children, what they remember most is their friends and that it was a solemn occasion, and they’re thrilled over going through it. Not so much who said what or what was done there.”(School Prayer : Lee v Weisman. Perf. Robert E. Lee, Sandra Blanding).
-- Robert E Lee on the insignificance of the prayers.
Nevertheless, the majority wrote, "The First Amendment protects speech and religion by quite different mechanisms. Speech is protected by ensuring its full expression even when the government participates, for the very object of some of our most important speech is to persuade the government to adopt an idea as its own." (Raskin). This right is applied to citizens who are permitted to endorse and certain concept to government in an attempt to persuade towards a decision, however the right does not go both ways. The government does not have the right to endorse a concept to citizens in persuasion. "The method for protecting freedom of worship and freedom of conscience in religious matters is quite the reverse. In religious debate or expression the government is not a prime participant, for the Framers deemed religious establishment antithetical to the freedom of all. The Free Exercise Clause embraces a freedom of conscience and worship that has close parallels to speech provisions of the First Amendment, but the Establishment Clause is a specific prohibition on forms of state intervention in religious affairs with no precise counterpart in the speech provisions." (Raskin).
Government Coercion
The other reason the prayers violated the Establishment Clause was the presence of government coercion. "In the ruling of Lee v Weisman, Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote for the majority... [said] that 'government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise...' For Kennedy, the problem was not that the school or state promoted religion but that it coerced others into participating in the religious ceremony.” (Nord). "State officials direct the performance of a formal religious exercise at promotional and graduation ceremonies for secondary schools. Even for those students who object to the religious exercise, their attendance and participation in the state-sponsored religious activity are in a fair and real sense obligatory... The government involvement with religious activity in this case is pervasive, to the point of creating a state-sponsored and state directed religious exercise in public school." (Raskin).
The other reason the prayers violated the Establishment Clause was the presence of government coercion. "In the ruling of Lee v Weisman, Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote for the majority... [said] that 'government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise...' For Kennedy, the problem was not that the school or state promoted religion but that it coerced others into participating in the religious ceremony.” (Nord). "State officials direct the performance of a formal religious exercise at promotional and graduation ceremonies for secondary schools. Even for those students who object to the religious exercise, their attendance and participation in the state-sponsored religious activity are in a fair and real sense obligatory... The government involvement with religious activity in this case is pervasive, to the point of creating a state-sponsored and state directed religious exercise in public school." (Raskin).
“Even though students were not legally required to attend their graduation, there was social pressure to attend because ‘graduation is one of life’s most significant occasions.’” (Nord).
-- Justice Anthony Kennedy on the near-mandatory attendance to the religious graduation.
However, this idea of coercion was not accepted by everyone :
"Let's not forget that the federal government passed a law saying that our national motto, our enduring principal, our guiding principal, is 'In God We Trust'. Now, that clearly endorses a religious belief and... if the Supreme Court's endorsement test... it would have to be struck down [as well]...The graduation ceremony is just that : a ceremony -- quite analogous to any number of civic ceremonies that are familiar in our society and most civic ceremonies have some type of reference to God accompanying them. President Bush's inauguration ceremony, for example. The ceremony in the graduation context is really quiet indistinguishable...from a full range of other types of civic ceremonies. The classroom, however, the very purpose of the classroom is indoctrination, learning and receiving lessons from the teacher who is a role model and authority figure. The children are in the classroom without their parents, whereas in a graduation ceremony, their parents are traditionally with them. I think the classroom prayers might be come out differently if the parents were with the children in the classroom." (Supreme Court Stakeout : Lee v Weisman).
-- Charles Cooper on the prevalence of religious practices
While Cooper's argument was in a general sense valid, it could not disprove the fact that government entanglement with religion had occurred. "Petitioners argue, and we find nothing in the case to refute it, that the direction for the content of the prayers were a good-faith attempt by the school to ensure that the sectarianism... be removed from the graduation ceremony... The school's explanation, however, does not resolve the dilemma caused by its participation. The question is not the good-faith of the school in attempting to make prayer acceptable to most persons, but the legitimacy of its undertaking that enterprise at all when the object is to produce a prayer to be used in a formal religious exercise which students, for all practical purposes, are obliged to attend." (Raskin). “Graduation is a school sponsored event, and public schools receive money from the state, therefore any religious practices in public schools are tied to the state government.” (Nord). "The act was especially improper because the state had essentially compelled attendance to the ceremony and participation and conformity during the religious exercise in such a way in which an objecting student could not avoid." (Raskin).
Outside Party Participation
Another factor that may or may not have affected the outcome of the case was the involvement of several religious groups on the side of the defendants -- the Weismans. "One of the issues that is neglected in this case is the affect of religious groups... A number of religious organizations have filed briefs in support of the Weismans. My name is Oliver Thomas... I am here on behalf of the Baptist Joint Committee... alongside the National Council of Churches, the Leading Jewish Association, The Presbyterian Church and others who filed amicus briefs in this case supporting the position that [the Weismans] laid out... What's a stake in Lee v Weisman is much, much more than commencement prayer... many of the questions today have not seen past the prayer. In a word, the Justices have been asked in this case to replace [Thomas] Jefferson's wall of separation with Justice Kennedy's picket fence... That's why this case is important... Now, more than ever, we need the separation of church and state, not just for government, but for religion. We are now a nation of more than 3 000 different religious denominations and any attempt by government to promote religion... is bound to be a disaster." (Supreme Court Stakeout : Lee v Weisman).
Another factor that may or may not have affected the outcome of the case was the involvement of several religious groups on the side of the defendants -- the Weismans. "One of the issues that is neglected in this case is the affect of religious groups... A number of religious organizations have filed briefs in support of the Weismans. My name is Oliver Thomas... I am here on behalf of the Baptist Joint Committee... alongside the National Council of Churches, the Leading Jewish Association, The Presbyterian Church and others who filed amicus briefs in this case supporting the position that [the Weismans] laid out... What's a stake in Lee v Weisman is much, much more than commencement prayer... many of the questions today have not seen past the prayer. In a word, the Justices have been asked in this case to replace [Thomas] Jefferson's wall of separation with Justice Kennedy's picket fence... That's why this case is important... Now, more than ever, we need the separation of church and state, not just for government, but for religion. We are now a nation of more than 3 000 different religious denominations and any attempt by government to promote religion... is bound to be a disaster." (Supreme Court Stakeout : Lee v Weisman).
"We released just yesterday a letter signed by over 200 religious leaders including the head of President Bush's own church and including Rabbi Gutterman, the rabbi in this case, to President Bush urging the President to reconsider the attempt by his administration to tear down that wall of separation between church and state... for religious freedoms to be truly protected, they must be separated from the state.” (Supreme Court Stakeout : Lee v Weisman).
-- Elliot Mincberg of People for the American Way, on the involvement of religious groups.