Yes, we live in a country of perpetually offended people.

Good decision. Definitely a violation of the establishment clause.

Absolutely n. o. t. a violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution-- in no way was the Elmbrook School District attempting to establish a religion. I would contribute to a legal action fund with a specific intention to fund a successful appeal of this ruling to the United States Supreme Court. Sitting in an atmosphere of patriotism to attend an event does not make you a patriot. Sitting in a synagogue to attend an event does not make you a Jew. Sitting in an operating room to attend an event does not make you a surgeon. If you think I'm wrong, specifically what religion did the Elmbrook Schools create by holding graduation ceremonies in a facility because it was: a) large enough to handle the crowd; b) air-conditioned for the comfort and health of those attending; c) equipped with adequate restroom, gathering and pre-event facilities; d) equipped with professional-quality audio-visual and lighting applications for an audience and ceremony that size; and, e) outfitted with adequate and safe parking? The only thing being lauded and worshipped was common sense-- that, again, has been sacrificed on the Altar of Idiot Liberalism. Perhaps that's what we ought to ban. Appeal it, School Board. It's important. And, let's learn the identities of our accusers rather than continuing to allow the cowards to hide behind their attorneys and shield their faces. If they live in this community and choose to take this community to court, let us know who they are.

So where would the nine families like the ceremony to be held? If you are going to complain, be prepared to be involved in creating the solution.

"An unacceptable amount of religious endorsement and coercion occurred when the District held important civil ceremonies in the proselytizing environment of Elmbrook Church,"

Really? No offense to those who attend this church but the first time I stepped foot in this church, which was for my son's graduation, I remember thinking (coming from a Catholic Church background) that the facility looked more like an airport than a church with it's simple lines, tv monitors, and it's large capacity. Seeing I was there for the graduation ceremony I didn't dwell on the intricate details but was so grateful for the air-conditioning, comfortable seats and the ability to see my child receive his diploma close up with no interference with the aid of the jumbotron. So NO I do not agree with this ruling. Andy I think your comment was well stated.

What does the new superintendent have to say about this? So far, all I see is he is unavailable for comment.

Glad to see this very common sense ruling. Separation of church and state is what this country fought for...why can't people remember that? If you want faith-based education, there are many private schools in the area.
Sure, parking might be tight and you might wish for better air conditioning, but isn't your child worth the discomfort and inconvenience?

Hope this never happens in my own community..the local church lets our high school use their building for SO many events... band/choir concerts, standardized testing, national honor society induction, breakfast after the prom mystery trip, just to name a few...and there is no religious meaning behind it at all, the congregation is just being kind and supporting the school. I think the situation was probably similar in Elmbrook, and it's a shame it had to come to this.

Unbelievable they even did it in the first place. Did I wake up and get transported to Iran? Many Christians have such an entitlement mentality, if this was a Mosque they would have been up in arms, but since it was a Christian church that makes it ok.

Constitutionally we all have a right to face our accuser. What about the rest of our rights?

Whenever we approach the line separating religion and state, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of deciding what is a constitutional violation and what is not. The question; if a building has a primary purpose of religious activity and observance is that a necessary and sufficient condition to ban any and all government functions from occurring in such a space?

What seems to happen is that the dominant religious majority usually takes the position that it is not a violation while the minority sees it as such a violation. I think what is germane to the discussion is that the full intent of the constitution is to protect the minority from the will of the majority. In our democratic republic, the majority rules through a specific political process. However, the limits on majority rule is placed precisely at the point that would violate inalienable and alienable rights of a minority, as provided through the social contract of the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, in this case the appealite court ruled correctly to protect the minority position. If one errs, it is better to err on the side of minority rights. This is not strictly a ruling on religious establishment, but the protection of minority rights.

If that's unconstitutional then what's next, you can't have a polling site in a church because that may influence your vote??

@ Jill Berger - My question is, where should it have been held instead? Wendy makes an excellent point. As soon as the fieldhouse was constructed, Elmbrook immediately moved back to the school campus. I am not "opposed to the opposers," but I am yet to see an opponent of the church's use propose a feasible alternative. Prior to 2002, commencement was held in the school gymnasiums. It was a sweltering environment - people dressed up and gowned up, packed like sardines into an inadequately ventilated space. Each graduate was limited to a certain number of people (perhaps 3-4). Those with large families had to choose between which relatives, siblings, etc, to attend. And even with a "capped" attendance, the heat and humidity became a health hazard, and a crowd of such size was an unacceptable fire hazard. It compromised safety, comfort, and health. Forced to look elsewhere, the District sought out that alternative.

I also want to point out one very, VERY important detail - the selection process. As an Elmbrook alum who graduated at Elmbrook Church, I want to add that the senior class VOTED on the facilities. We were given three options: Elmbrook Church, the school gymnasium, or the Waukesha County Expo Center. This was not made my officials and administrators. We, as students, overwhelmingly chose this year after year. The Expo Center would have been an enormous cost - rental, podium/chair setup, logistics. And I doubt the district could reserve it for a weekend in June.

It was a wonderful venue where both of my children's ceremonies were held. I was so grateful for for the amenties: air, comfortable seats, great audio and visual. It is too bad that the few ruin it for so many.

Where should the ceremonies have taken place? At a non-religious site. Sounds like there were options given to he students/families. The rights of minorities are being protected with this decision. Everyone is not Christian! Property taxes in Brookfield- are much lower than surrounding communities. Perhaps a small increase would pay for a school auditorium that would be big and air conditioned with plenty of parking.

How would you feel if the graduation service was held in the new Brookfield Mosque? Would you feel AT ALL (even 0.001%) uncomfortable, or questioning? It's just a religious institution, right? Even if you feel the slightest smidgen of "uncomfortable-ness," perhaps that will help you empathize with those who felt Elmbrook Church was not an appropriate place for a high school graduation.

To me, it's not an issue of constitutionality. However, as a liberal, free-thinking, open-minded, empathetic, Unitarian Universalist raised in Elm Grove, I would certainly balk at a graduation ceremony in Elmbrook Church. I THANK GOD(S) that my parents raised me to think of others' needs, wants, and life-style choices* (See definition of empathy, below). Empathy, people...it's the titanium rule--to treat people how THEY wish to be treated, not how you think they should be treated. For god's sake (Oh my goodness this Unitarian Universalist does believe in God!!), THINK OF OTHERS.

* Definition of empathy from Alvin Goldman: "The ability to put oneself into the mental shoes of another person to understand her emotions and feelings."

This decision is a load of (quoting Bart Simpson) "crappy, crap, crap". If a graduation was held at a Synagogue, I as a Christian would NOT CARE. As long as the facility was the best venue.
I am soooo sick of political correctness. Common sense says use the best facility available, even if it is a church. This is still a Christian nation, I don't care what Obama thinks.

The First Amendment was not violated, in my opinion. So many people cry violation, because they need to call it violating something. It was a violation of some people's comfort, sure. I feel for them. But some people think that the establishment clause is violated any time religion and government so much as cross.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." ...this was not violated.

In precedent, many courts have decided an action is not establishment if:

1.the statute (or practice) has a secular purpose;
2.its principal or primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion; and
3.it does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

It was a non-religious, secular graduation.

The establishment clause was created to prevent the federal government from creating a national church and to keep the government from corrupting the church. One should read, in context, Jefferson’s letter before using this term so out of context.

As long as no one is forced to participate, and no preference is given to a single denomination, then it is constitutional. That is elementary constitutional law.

Except there was no religious service, noone spoke of God. Also, the government was not there with the intention of acting out any new law with respect to the church that the ceremony was held at. Congress did nothing. The school was merely using the facilities for a secular ceremony, with a purpose that did not advance any religion. No denomination was favored unless there was talk of God. It was merely a facility that had all of the amenities that were needed and apparently favored by the students who voted on the facilities. This is a civil thing, is all I am saying.. where a few people got their feathers ruffled because they were uncomfortable and needed to make it something big. Fine, we also have freedom of Speech..But the First Amendment was not violated. The idea behind separation of church and state (which that exact wording is not in there), using the words in the Constitution, was not violated. Thats all I'm saying! People go around with every little thing that could even remotely call into the question the "separation of church and state" if it has to do with religion in any sense. But they need to read the actual Constitution and the establishment clause. Our government has not tried to establish one religion. This whole thing was brought about to stop our government from making something big and powerful, "Church of England"-style. This was definately not the case with a secular graduation ceremony that one school had at a church facility.

If I had to actually do things to my body in order to be there, I would be offended. But I am not sure I would be offended if they didn't enforce any rules to make me feel like they were trying to conform me to their religion while I was there. Just simply seeing their symbols, etc. would mean nothing to me. Because, not being my religion, they wouldn't hold any meaning to me. If they tried to control my dress, that isn't appropriate.

If the church had said that everyone had to wear dresses and slacks and noone could wear shorts, et cetera, that would seem like them pushing their views and values on them. Do I think they could have covered their cross? Absolutely, they could have. It was the churches own First Amendment right to display it. It was the students decision to overlook it and continue to hold the ceremony there. But I still don't see where the First Amendment was violated in this case. I am not that old (getting older!), but I remember prayer in schools, so it couldn't have been that long ago that it was allowed. We also said the pledge every day. That was such a pride of our beloved country and the principles on which it was founded.

I do not judge others religion or beliefs. It is unfair to do so as everyone has the right to their freedom of religion. To each their own. But, I stand by my thinking that the constitution was not violated in this case. It's just too far of a reach. That is just my opinion, everyone has their own. Even the courts! ;)

1962. I remember it well because we eighth graders had a joke:

Teacher: What are you kids doing whispering at the back of the class?

Students: We're telling dirty jokes.

Teacher: Thank goodness - I was afraid you were praying.

This was a grey area in regards to the Constitution, which was why it had to go through the courts.

By the way, even at the age of ten I had begun to leave the words 'under God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance. The government has no business putting religious sentiments into my mouth.