Reply #110: The case does not seem to have been argued on the basis of church and state...

[apnu]

... it was argued as a 1st amendment rights issue, free speech, I believe, is what they mean by "constitutional rights" There are numerious decisions by the SCOTUS limiting the speech of high school students and, in particular, student newspapers.

Sure there's a question of church and state in the situation, but that was not argued to the SCOTUS. Legally, the school had every right to censor the speech. That's my point.

(Note that I'm not proposing an opinion on the legality of the SCOTUS' decision, just pointing out there's a precedent for the school's actions of censorship. Personally, I think minors should have 1st amendment rights, even if they drivel on about stupid nonsense -- see the "Bong hits 4 Jesus" banner case)

Personally I don't think a public high school speech is an appropriate place to preach any religion and personally I'm glad the school turned off her mike. I would have booed the student off the stage, were I there. That's because I'm a stone-cold atheist who believes nothing good comes from religion.