Court Opinion

ID: 9558749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:16:21.562352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:34.403121
License: Public Domain

PANELLI, J.,
Dissenting.—The majority holds that the establishment clause of the United States Constitution outlaws the long-standing tradition of including religious invocations and benedictions in high school graduation ceremonies. I respectfully dissent.
I.
Before getting to the merits of the issue before us, I feel constrained to comment on the logical fallout of the majority’s holding.
If the three-part test derived from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 [29 L.Ed.2d 745, 755-756, 91 S.Ct. 2105] (Lemon), prohibits religious invocations and benedictions at public high school graduation ceremonies, then it also requires school officials to censor a large part of our *919nation’s cultural heritage. In comparison with the subdued invocations heard in the Morongo Unified School District, the lyrics to traditional, ceremonial songs like “America,” “God Bless America,” and the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” ring out with religious emotion. Yet these songs have been sung at public school ceremonies for years.1 Is it no longer permissible to ask the audience to stand and sing these or similar songs at high school commencement exercises? If it is still permissible to sing these songs, is it now impermissible to have a speaker read the same words to begin the program?
Despite the majority’s holding in this case, it is inevitable that the language of religion will continue to find its way into public ceremonies. For this reason, the holding is unrealistic and will lead to inconsistency between what is allowed and what is not. I fear that we can expect only more inconsistencies if courts continue to press the Lemon test to its theoretical extremes.
II.
The United States Constitution prohibits laws “respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” (U.S. Const., 1st Amend.) This very general language has not always lent itself to easy application. In one case, returning to fundamental principles, the United States Supreme Court identified the relevant inquiry as whether the challenged state action in reality “establishes a religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.” (Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) 465 U.S. 668, 678 [79 L.Ed.2d 604, 613, 104 S.Ct. 1355].) More often, however, the court has applied complex tests, such as the “purpose and effect” test of Abington School Dist. v. Schempp (1963) 374 U.S. 203, 222 [10 L.Ed.2d 844, 858, 83 S.Ct. 1560], or the “purpose, effect, and *920entanglement” test of Lemon (supra, 403 U.S. at pp. 612-613 [29 L.Ed.2d at pp. 755-756]).
I do not read the high court’s decisions as requiring us to apply any particular test in this case. Although the court recently granted certiorari in a case similar to the one before us (Weisman v. Lee (D.R.I. 1990) 728 F.Supp. 68, affd. (1st Cir. 1990) 908 F.2d 1090 (applying Lemon to bar religious invocations at junior high school graduation ceremonies), cert. granted sub nom. Lee v. Weisman (1991)_U.S._ [113 L.Ed.2d 240, 111 S.Ct. 1305]), the court has not yet spoken on the permissibility of invocations and benedictions at high school graduation ceremonies. I do not take it for granted that the court will apply the Lemon test to such cases, because it has “repeatedly emphasized [its] unwillingness to be confined to any single test or criterion in this sensitive area.” (Lynch v. Donnelly, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 679 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 613].) Indeed, the high court eschewed the Lemon approach altogether in the only case to date involving ceremonial prayer. In Marsh v. Chambers (1983) 463 U.S. 783 [77 L.Ed.2d 1019, 103 S.Ct. 3330], the high court upheld the Nebraska Legislature’s practice of employing a chaplain to open its sessions with prayer. The court reached this result because the First Congress, which drafted the Bill of Rights and submitted it to the states for ratification, also employed chaplains. Against this historical background, the court reasoned that Congress could not have “intended the Establishment Clause ... to forbid what they had just declared acceptable.” (Id., at p. 790 [77 L.Ed.2d at p. 1026].)
The lower courts have taken a variety of approaches to the question of invocations2 at high school graduation ceremonies. Most have applied the three-part Lemon test.3 Three courts, however, each of which came after the decision in Lemon, supra, nevertheless applied the older “purpose and effect” test.4 Finally, one court compared religious invocations to the *921prayers upheld in Marsh v. Chambers, supra, 463 U.S. 783. (Stein v. Plain-well Community Schools, supra, 822 F.2d at pp. 1409-1410, affg. in part and revg. in part 610 F.Supp. 43.)
Unfortunately, it appears that cases such as this are decided not by applying a test but by choosing which test to apply. Of the many courts which have applied Lemon, only two have found invocations permissible. One of these decisions was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which relied instead on Marsh v. Chambers, supra. (Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools, supra, 610 F.Supp. at pp. 46-50, affd. in part and revd. in part 822 F.2d at pp. 1409-1410.) The other is now being reversed by the majority. In contrast, all of the courts which have applied tests other than Lemon have found religious invocations permissible. (See fn. 4, ante, and Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools, supra, 822 F.2d at pp. 1409-1410.)
In short, the majority’s selection of the Lemon test has far more significance than is apparent on the face of the lead opinion. Because controlling precedent does not, in my view, compel the majority’s choice, and because another approach might well lead to a different result, the parties are entitled to ask for a somewhat fuller explanation of that choice than one finds in the opinion.
III.
In particular, the lead opinion’s analysis does not take account of another line of authority which, in my view, would permit us to uphold religious invocations and benedictions at graduation ceremonies. In several opinions the high court has held that the establishment clause permits the government to accommodate expressions of religious belief in public life. (See Zorach v. Clauson (1952) 343 U.S. 306, 312-314 [96 L.Ed. 954, 961-962, 72 S.Ct. 679] (Zorach); Marsh v. Chambers, supra, 463 U.S. 783, 792 [77 L.Ed.2d 1019, 1027-1028] (Marsh); Lynch v. Donnelly, supra, 465 U.S. 668, 672-678 [79 L.Ed.2d 604, 609-613] (Lynch).) Invocations at high school graduation ceremonies are similar to the many accommodations which the Supreme Court has held, or assumed, to be acceptable under the First Amendment.
In Zorach, supra, a 1951 decision, the court upheld a program under which public school students were released from classes to attend off-campus religious exercises. The argument against the program, which obviously *922conferred a substantial benefit on religion, was that it violated the general philosophical principle that church and state should remain separate. The court acknowledged the general principle but emphasized that “[t]he First Amendment. . . does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State.” (343 U.S. at p. 312 [96 L.Ed. at p. 961] italics added.) Under a regime of absolute separation, the court cautioned, “the state and religion would be aliens to each other—hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.” (Ibid. [96 L.Ed. at p. 961].)
Having rejected the goal of absolute separation, the court upheld the release-time program as similar to many other public accomodations of religion which had always been assumed to be constitutional. To have held differently would have meant that “[p]rayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; ‘so help me God’ in our courtroom oaths—these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment.” (Zorach, supra, 343 U.S. at pp. 312-313 [96 L.Ed. at p. 961] .) The court refused “to press the concept of separation of Church and State to the[] extreme[]” of condemning such practices. (Ibid. [96 L.Ed. at p. 961].) Instead, the court reasoned that, through such practices, the state “respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.” (Id., at p. 314 [96 L.Ed. at p. 962] .)
Over the ensuing decades the high court continued to assume that the First Amendment permitted the government to accommodate public expressions of religious belief. In 1962, even while holding classroom prayer unconstitutional, the court took pains to emphasize that “nothing in [its] decision” was “inconsistent with the fact that school children and others are officially encouraged to express love for our country by reciting historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by singing officially espoused anthems which include the composer’s professions of faith in a Supreme Being, or with the fact that there are many manifestations in our public life of belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise [i.e., daily classroom prayer] that the State. . . has sponsored in this instance.” (Engel v. Vitale (1962) 370 U.S. 421, 435, fn. 21 [8 L.Ed.2d 601, 610, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 86 A.L.R.2d 1285], italics added.)
In time, the high court verified its assumption in these early cases that the establishment clause permitted the government to accommodate religion in *923public life. The majority in Zorach, for example, had taken it for granted that “[pjrayers in our legislative halls” did not “flout[] the First Amendment.” (Zorach, supra, 343 U.S. at pp. 312-313 [96 L.Ed. at p. 961].) In 1983 the court expressly held that the Constitution permitted the Nebraska Legislature to hire a chaplain to open its sessions with prayer. (Marsh, supra, 463 U.S. 783.) According to Marsh, “[t]o invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an ‘establishment’ of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the people of this country. As Justice Douglas observed [in Zorach], ‘[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.’” (Marsh, supra, 463 U.S. at p. 792 [77 L.Ed.2d at p. 1028], quoting from Zorach, supra, 343 U.S. at p. 313 [96 L.Ed. at p. 962].)
The court in Marsh did not apply the Lemon test. Instead, it looked directly to the intent of the First Congress, which drafted the Bill of Rights and submitted it to the states for ratification. As the high court explained, “[i]t can hardly be thought that in the same week Members of the First Congress voted to appoint and to pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment for submission to the states, they intended the Establishment Clause of the Amendment to forbid what they had just declared acceptable.” (Marsh, supra, 463 U.S. at p. 790 [77 L.Ed.2d at p. 1026].)
Marsh has profound relevance to the case before us. I do not argue that Marsh validates all practices that are 200 years old, or even all practices that are equivalent to 200-year-old practices. A majority of the high court has recently rejected both interpretations of Marsh. (County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties U. (1989) 492 U.S. 573, 602-609 [106 L.Ed.2d 472, 500-505, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 3106-3109] (County of Allegheny).) Instead, Marsh recognizes, as did Zorach, that the establishment clause was intended to permit the accommodation of religious beliefs through practices which cannot realistically be understood as governmental endorsements of religion.
The high court has itself read Marsh precisely in this way. In Lynch, supra, 464 U.S. 668, the court relied extensively on Marsh in holding that the establishment clause did not prevent a city from including a creche, or Nativity scene, in a holiday display. The first substantive portion of the Lynch opinion does not rely on Lemon. Instead, the court began by emphasizing that the Constitution does not “require complete separation of church and state” and that “it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 673 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 610], italics added.) Having stated its thesis in this way, the court went on—as in Zorach and Marsh—to *924review numerous examples of official accommodation, including presidential proclamations recognizing religious holidays and prayer, the national motto, the language of the Pledge of Allegiance, religious art in the National Gallery, and Congress’s provision of chapels in the Capitol. (Lynch, supra, at pp. 676-677 [79 L.Ed.2d at pp. 612-613].) The high court cited Marsh not as an anomaly, but as one more example of permissible accommodation. In the court’s words, “[i]t would be difficult to identify a more striking example [than Marsh] of the accommodation of religious belief intended by the Framers.” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 674 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 611].)
The tradition of accommodation recognized in Zorach and Marsh underlies the Lynch court’s holding in a substantial way. According to Lynch, “our history is pervaded by expressions of religious beliefs such are found in Zorach. Equally pervasive is the evidence of accommodation of all faiths and all forms of religious expression, and hostility toward none. Through this accommodation, as Justice Douglas observed, governmental action has ‘follow[ed] the best of our traditions’ and ‘respect[ed] the religious nature of our people.’ ” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at pp. 677-678 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 613], quoting Zorach, supra, 343 U.S. at p. 314 [96 L.Ed. at p. 962].) This reasoning directly supported the court’s holding that the establishment clause did not prohibit the public display of a creche. “To forbid the use of this one passive symbol—the creche—at the very time people are taking note of the season with Christmas hymns and carols in public schools and other public places, and while the Congress and legislatures open sessions with prayers by paid chaplains, would be a stilted overreaction contrary to our history and to our holdings.” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 686 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 618].)
In view of the Lynch court’s strong emphasis on the tradition of accommodation, as well as its reliance on Zorach and Marsh, its application of the Lemon test cannot fairly be read as the sole, or necessary, basis for the Lynch decision. Indeed, the court took pains to avoid that inference by “emphasizing] [its] unwillingness to be confined to any single test or criterion in this sensitive area.” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 679 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 613].) The court reinforced the point by describing the three factors of the Lemon test as “often . . . useful ”—not indispensable. (Ibid. [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 613], italics added.)
The lead opinion’s explanation for applying the Lemon test in this case does not fully address the unbroken line of authority recognizing that the establishment clause permits the government to accommodate religion in public life. To explain its approach, the majority relies principally on Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 482 U.S. 578 [96 L.Ed.2d 510, 107 S.Ct. 2573]. In footnote 4 of that opinion the court stated that “a historical approach is not *925useful in determining the proper roles of church and state in public schools, since free public education was virtually nonexistent at the time the Constitution was adopted.” (Id., at p. 583, fn. 4 [96 L.Ed.2d at pp. 518-519], italics added.) The court did not, however, repudiate its conclusion in Lynch, based in large part on Marsh and Zorach, that the establishment clause permits official accommodation of religion. That conclusion has very little, if anything, to do with the historical basis for the particular practice in question.5
For these reasons, I would interpret Lynch, Marsh, and Zorach as permitting us to hold, without reference to the Lemon test, that the government may accommodate the religious beliefs of its citizens by allowing brief religious invocations and benedictions at high school graduation ceremonies. Invocations and benedictions are so similar to other practices which the court has held or assumed to be permissible that to prohibit them would be to “read into the Bill of Rights ... a philosophy of hostility to religion.” (Zorach, supra, 343 U.S. at p. 315 [96 L.Ed. at p. 963] (maj. opn. by Douglas, J.).)
IV.
I cannot place too much stress on the point that the United States Supreme Court’s opinions do not require us to apply the Lemon test. (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 679 [79 L.Ed.2d at pp. 613-614].) Nevertheless, assuming for the sake of argument that we must confine our analysis to that test’s three factors, I would still uphold the practice of having religious invocations and benedictions at high school graduation ceremonies. Even the Lemon test, if applied without unnecessary hostility to religion, does permit some room for the accommodation of religious belief in public life.
I begin with the high court’s most recent formulation of the Lemon test. “Under the Lemon analysis, a statute or practice which touches upon religion, if it is to be permissible under the Establishment Clause, must have a *926secular purpose; it must neither advance nor inhibit religion in its principal or primary effect; and it must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.” (County of Allegheny, supra, 492 U.S. at p. 592 [106 L.Ed.2d at p. 493, 109 S.Ct. at p.3100].)6
The lead opinion does not discuss “secular purpose,” the Lemon test’s first prong. While I understand the opinion’s statement that a challenged practice violates the Lemon test if it fails any of the three prongs, I question the wisdom of forbidding a practice that is deeply embedded in tradition without stopping to consider its purpose. To do so may suggest an insensitivity to widely held beliefs that the majority probably does not intend.
In my view, both the record and controlling precedent strongly support the school district’s assertion that the invocations do have a valid secular purpose. According to the school district’s superintendent, “the purpose of including the invocation and benediction in current ceremonies is to continue a historical tradition which adds to the ceremonial nature of the graduation ceremony and which has the support of the local community.” The record contains no evidence to the contrary. The lead opinion’s silence on this point suggests that the district is correct: Invocations do confer ceremony and solemnity. As Justice O’Connor has observed, it is sometimes the case that ceremonial acknowledgments of religion “serve, in the only ways reasonably possible in our culture, the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society.” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 693 [79 L.Ed.2d at pp. 622-623] (conC. opn. of O’Connor, J.); see also County of Allegheny, supra, 492 U.S. at p. 595, fn. 46 [106 L.Ed.2d at p. 496, 109 S.Ct. at p. 3102] (opn. of Blackmun, J.).)
Some have objected that it is disingenuous, or that it denigrates religion, to defend religious invocations as having a secular purpose. (E.g., Marsh, supra, 463 U.S. at pp. 797-798 [77 L.Ed.2d at pp. 1030-1032] (dis. opn. of Brennan, J.).) The objection, however, ignores the high court’s clear holding that religious and secular purposes may validly coexist. In Lynch, supra, the court held that the inclusion of a creche in a holiday display was constitutionally permissible despite the creche’s undisputed religious significance. The court expressly rejected the argument that the Lemon test required the government to have “ ‘exclusively secular’ objectives.” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 681, fn. 6 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 615]; see also Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) 472 U.S. 38, 56 [86 L.Ed.2d 29, 43, 105 S.Ct. 2479].) Instead, *927“[t]he Court has invalidated legislation or governmental action on the ground that a secular purpose was lacking . . . only when it has concluded there was no question that the statute or activity was motivated wholly by religious considerations.” (Lynch, supra, at p. 680 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 614], italics added.) Accordingly, even under the Lemon test it is unnecessary to deny the invocations’ religious significance in order to defend them.
The argument that religious invocations add ceremony or solemnity has been advanced in prior cases. Some courts have accepted this as a legitimate secular purpose7 and some have not.8 Because I believe that this purpose does satisfy the first prong of the Lemon test, it is appropriate to examine the reasoning of those opinions which reach the opposite conclusion. In my view, each of those opinions directly conflicts with Lynch, supra.
A few courts have reasoned that religious invocations automatically fail the Lemon test’s first prong, despite their secular, ceremonial purpose, because invocations are a form of prayer and prayer is inherently religious. (Bennett v. Livermore Unified School Dist., supra, 193 Cal.App.3d at p. 1020; Graham v. Central Community Sch. Dist. of Decatur, supra, 608 F.Supp. at pp. 535-536.) Explicitly or implicitly, these cases depend upon the assumption that a state may never use a religious means to achieve an otherwise legitimate state interest. This reasoning openly flouts the high court’s clear holding that religious and secular purposes can validly coexist. (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 680 [79 L.Ed.2d at pp. 614-615].) “Were the test that the government must have ‘exclusively secular’ objectives, much of the conduct and legislation [the Supreme] Court has approved in the past would have been invalidated.” (Id., at p. 681, fn. 6 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 615].)
Other courts have rejected the secular purpose of adding ceremony by reasoning that a state may not use religious means to achieve a secular purpose when nonreligious, or less religious, means will suffice. (Lundberg v. West Monona Community School District, supra, 731 F.Supp. at p. 342; Kay v. David Douglas Sch. Dist. No. 40, supra, 719 P.2d at p. 880; cf. Doe v. Aldine Independent School Dist. (S.D.Tex. 1982) 563 F.Supp. 883, 886.) A *928typical suggestion in such cases is that the state could achieve its purpose equally well by “reading passages from one of Shakespeare’s plays.” (E.g., Lundberg v. West Monona Community School District, supra, 731 F.Supp. at p. 343.) These opinions rely, directly or indirectly, on the least-religious-means test which Justice Brennan proposed in a concurring opinion in Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, supra, 374 U.S. at page 265 [10 L.Ed.2d at page 843]. In Lynch, however, the high court authoritatively rejected Justice Brennan’s test, dismissing as “irrelevant” the argument that the government’s objectives could have been achieved through nonreligious means. (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 681, fn. 7 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 615].)
Thus, on this point the lower court cases rejecting the desire to add ceremony as a legitimate secular purpose are simply wrong as a matter of law. They are also wrong as a matter of common sense. The many persons involved in the decision to have an invocation—the superintendent, the principal, the students—cannot be assumed to share a single objective. Some may desire an invocation as an acknowledgment of religion but others may wish to add solemnity to the proceedings or simply to continue a time-honored tradition. This is to be expected, since “[i]n a pluralistic society a variety of motives and purposes are implicated.” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 680 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 614].)
Having passed over any discussion of the school district’s purpose, the lead opinion begins its application of the Lemon test with a conclusion: Invocations at high school graduation ceremonies convey the message that the state endorses religion. The lead opinion’s reasoning on this point boils down to the proposition that, if the school district did not approve of prayer, it would not permit prayer at its graduation ceremonies.
In my view, the lead opinion mistakes an incidental benefit to religion for a significant one by adopting the “absolutist” approach to establishment clause questions that the high court has expressly disavowed. “Rather than mechanically invalidating all governmental conduct or statutes that confer benefits or give special recognition to religion in general or to one faith—as an absolutist approach would dictate—the Court has scrutinized challenged legislation or official conduct to determine whether, in reality, it establishes a religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 678 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 613], italics added.) Based on this reasoning, the court permitted a city to display a creche, despite its indisputable religious significance, when viewed in context9 “there [was] insufficient evidence to *929establish that [its] inclusion . . . [was] a purposeful or surreptitious effort to express some kind of subtle governmental advocacy of a particular religious message.” (465 U.S. at p. 680 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 614].)
Considering the context, it is difficult to believe that invocations at graduation ceremonies benefit religion in any significant way. The prayers, if one chooses to call them that, are brief—often less than a minute. They are a fleeting part of a civil ceremony that recognizes a one-time, secular achievement. The ceremony, at which attendance is voluntary, is primarily intended for mature young adults who have completed the educational process that society deems necessary for full, intelligent participation as a citizen in society. In this context, traditional invocations are not likely to be interpreted as “governmental advocacy of a particular religious message.” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 680 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 614].)
It may be true that religion receives a slight, incidental benefit whenever God is mentioned. However, slight, incidental benefits to religion do not by themselves invalidate a practice under the establishment clause. The high court’s “precedents plainly contemplate that on occasion some advancement of religion will result from governmental action.” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 683 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 616], italics added.) Moreover, “[t]he Court has made it abundantly clear . . . that ‘not every law that confers an ‘indirect,’ ‘remote,’ or ‘incidental’ benefit upon [religion] is, for that reason alone, constitutionally invalid.” (Ibid. [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 616], quoting from Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist (1973) 413 U.S. 756, 771 [37 L.Ed.2d 948, 962, 93 S.Ct. 2955].) Indeed, much greater benefits to religion have been found constitutionally permissible.10
That some speakers might choose to employ the language of religion to confer solemnity should come as a surprise to, and confuse, no one. Modern life abounds with examples. The United States Supreme Court opens its *930sessions with an entreaty for God’s protection. Presidents and governors place their hands on the Bible while taking the oath of office. Presidents declare Thanksgiving Day to be a national holiday. Witnesses, in some states, seek God’s assistance when swearing to tell the truth. Citizens reciting the Pledge of Allegiance state that our nation is “under God.” Our coins bear the legend, “In God We Trust.” As Justice Brennan once wrote, such references to a deity “are uniquely suited to serve such wholly secular purposes as solemnizing public occasions, or inspiring commitment to meet some national challenge in a manner that simply could not be fully served in our culture if government were limited to purely nonreligious phrases.” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 717 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 638] (dis. opn. of Brennan, J.); see also id. at p. 693 [79 L.Ed.2d at pp. 622-623] (conc. opn. of O’Connor, J.); County of Allegheny, supra, 492 U.S. at p. 595, fn. 46 [106 L.Ed.2d at p. 496] (opn. of Blackmun, J.).)11
High school graduates, who have lived long enough to see that religious symbolism pervades life, are mature enough to understand that not every use of religious language conveys an official message of endorsement. The maturity of the audience, together with the ceremonial, noninstructional context, strongly distinguish religious invocations at commencement exercises from the daily classroom prayers that the high court has disapproved. (See, e.g., Wallace v. Jaffree, supra, 472 U.S. 38; Engel v. Vitale, supra, 370 U.S. 421.)
Indeed, the high court has expressly recognized that the reasoning which prohibits classroom prayer does not prohibit ceremonial references to God. In Engel v. Vitale, supra, the leading case holding classroom prayer unconstitutional, the court was careful to note that “nothing in the decision” was inconsistent with the “many manifestations in our public life of belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise” that classroom prayer would represent. (Engel v. Vitale, supra, 370 U.S. at p. 435, fn. 21 [8 L.Ed.2d at p. 610].)
The lead opinion concludes its exposition of the Lemon test by predicting that invocations will entangle the state excessively in religious matters by necessitating governmental supervision of their content. I do not agree. The lead opinion’s argument is based on the assumption that opening remarks at graduation ceremonies must be purged of religious allusions to pass the *931Lemon test. However, in view of the high court’s holding that religious and secular purposes may validly coexist (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at pp. 680-681 & fn. 6 [79 L.Ed.2d at pp. 614-615]; Wallace v. Jaffree, supra, 472 U.S. at p. 56 [86 L.Ed.2d at p. 43]), there is no need to censor invocations to ensure pristine purity from religious influence.
In another case where the context made public prayer otherwise acceptable under the establishment clause, the high court observed that “[t]he content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where . . . there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief. That being so, it is not for us to embark on a sensitive evaluation or to parse the content of a particular prayer.” (Marsh, supra, 463 U.S. at pp. 794-795 [77 L.Ed.2d at p. 1029].) I see no greater need for censorship in this case, since a brief, traditional invocation at a civil ceremony intended for mature young adults does not entail a realistic risk that a private speaker’s use of religious language will be seen as an official endorsement of religion.
In summary, I do not view the Lemon test as requiring us to order the school district to purge its invocations and benedictions of all religious language. Invocations and benedictions have the secular purpose of adding tradition and ceremony to the graduation even if they also happen to include religious language. For this reason, and because their primary effect is not religious and because they need not entangle the state excessively in religious affairs, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion.
V.
Three justices of this court would also hold that religious invocations and benedictions at high school graduation ceremonies violate the California Constitution. (Lead opn. of Kennard, J., ante, at pp. 882-883 (Mosk, J., and Broussard, J., cone.); cone. opn. of Mosk, J., ante, passim (Broussard, J., cone.).) While the court does not today resolve this issue, I consider it important to give voice to the other side of the debate.
Since 1849 the state Constitution has begun with a religious invocation: “We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.” (Cal. Const., preamble, italics added; cf. Cal. Const, of 1849, preamble.) This language, as well as the history of how it came to be included, eloquently refute the argument that the framers of the state Constitution intended to prohibit ceremonial prayer.
Ceremonial prayer pervaded the Constitutional Convention of 1849. “The first regular session was ‘opened with prayer to Almighty God for His *932blessing on the body, in their work, and on the country.’ On the following day provision was made whereby the Convention should be opened each day with prayer. The clergy of Monterey, consisting of Rev. Padre Antonio Ramirez and Rev. [Samuel Hopkins] Willey, were requested to act as chaplains; and it was unanimously agreed ‘That the officiating clergy of this House be admitted to the privileged seats of the House.’ ” (Hunt, The Genesis of California’s First Constitution (1895) at pp. 40-41, fns. omitted; see also Conmy, The Constitutional Beginnings of California (1959) at p. 18; Report of the Debates in the Convention of California on the Formation of the State Constitution in September and October, 1849 (1850) at pp. 19, 54 (hereafter Debates of 1849.) The two clergymen alternated, “thus illustrating that there was religious harmony.” (Conmy, supra, at p. 18.)
The preamble’s religious language arose out of a pointed debate about the propriety of ceremonial references to God. The majority of the drafting committee, the Select Committee on the Constitution, proposed the religious preamble. (Debates of 1849, supra, at pp. 378-379.) The minority favored a much longer preamble which did not refer to God. (Ibid.)
The select committee’s report provoked heated debate in the committee of the whole, where the preamble was frankly recognized as a prayer. Lansford W. Hastings objected to having any religious language in the Constitution, declaring that he could not “see the necessity of inserting in an instrument of this kind a prayer to Almighty God.” (Debates of 1849, supra, at p. 379.) Myron Norton took the other side, saying that he “hope[d] some of the members of this House perceive that necessity. I think it is proper, doing so solemn an act, that we should make a due reference to the Supreme Being.” (Ibid.)
Unable to agree, the delegates took up the matter again a few days later. Francis J. Lippitt and Charles T. Botts proposed alternative preambles which did not refer to God. Botts argued that he “had always been opposed to the abuse of the language of prayer and thanksgiving on occasions of this kind. He thought there was an inappropriateness in it.” (Debates of 1849, supra, at p. 416.) Botts also objected to putting a prayer in the mouths of the voters, who would be asked to adopt the instrument. (Ibid.) In response, Myron Norton had “but a single word to remark in regard to this reference in the preamble to the Supreme Being. I think it is very appropriate; and although we may not (some of us at least) be in the habit of praying, where an opportunity occurs when it would be not only appropriate but proper to do so, that we should do it.” (Ibid.) In the same spirit, W. M. Steuart urged that the convention “should make a due reference to the Supreme Being in performing a work of such magnitude and importance as this.” (Id., at P- 417.)
*933Following this debate the committee of the whole voted to recommend Botts’s nonreligious preamble to the full convention. That same evening, however, the convention rejected Botts’s preamble and adopted, with minor amendments, the religious preamble originally proposed by the select committee, including its expression of “grat[itude] to Almighty God.” (Debates of 1849, supra, at p. 417.) The preamble continues, with minor changes, in the present Constitution.
It was against the background of daily prayer, and the well-debated decision to thank God in the preamble, that the delegates adopted a provision ensuring the free exercise and enjoyment of religion “without discrimination or preference.” (Cal. Const, of 1849, art. I, § 4; see present Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.) Three justices of this court suggest that the “discrimination or preference” provision independently prohibits religious invocations at high school graduation ceremonies even if the United States Constitution does not. However, I cannot believe that the same delegates who began each day of the convention with an invocation, and went so far as to include one in the preamble, would have intended to outlaw similar invocations at graduation ceremonies.
The debates on article I, section 4, itself, offer no support for such an interpretation. The only reported substantive debate on the provision concerned whether or not to include language expressly withholding constitutional protection from illegal activities carried out in the name of religion. Botts feared that such language might be invoked to justify the suppression of unpopular sects. (Debates of 1849, supra, at pp. 39, 292.) Other delegates thought that such language was necessary to protect “decency and public order.” (Id., at pp. 39, 293 [see remarks of Myron Norton, Winfield S. Sherwood, Henry A. Tefft, and Thomas L. Vermeule].) In the end, the convention rejected Botts’s position and included the proviso that “the liberty of conscience, hereby secured, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.”12 (Cal. Const, of 1849, art. I, § 4; see Debates of 1849, supra, at p. 293.) The present Constitution includes language to the same effect. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4 [second sentence].)
I find nothing in the history of this provision to support the conclusion that its framers intended to erect a “wall of separation” higher than that *934established by the federal establishment clause. Indeed, to the extent the concept of “separation” might counsel official toleration of illegal acts compelled by religious belief, the framers appear to have intended a somewhat lower wall.
Nor do I find support for a “separationist” interpretation of article I, section 4, in the fact that the delegates rejected alternative language from the Constitution of Virginia. The language in question, which Botts proposed as a substitute, declared “[t]hat religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” (Debates of 1849, supra, at pp. 38-39.) The argument against Botts’s proposal was based not on its express acknowledgment of Christianity but instead, as already discussed, on the absence of language to protect society “from any violation of the peace.” {Id., at p. 39 [remarks of Myron Norton].)
Our earliest interpretation as a court of the “preference or discrimination” clause does not support a ban on ceremonial invocations. At issue in Ex parte Andrews (1861) 18 Cal. 678 was the constitutionality under article I, section 4, of a Sunday closing law. We unanimously upheld the law, despite the recognition that it benefited religion, because it did “not discriminate in favor of any sect, system, or school in the matter of their religion.” (18 Cal. at p. 684, italics added.)13
Chief Justice Field’s opinion illuminates our early understanding of the “preference or discrimination” clause: “We understand [the clause] to be an interdict against all legislation, which invidiously discriminates in favor of or against any religious system. It does not interdict all legislation upon subjects connected with religion; much less does it make void legislation, the effect of which is to promote religion, or even advance the interests of a sect or class of religionists. On the contrary, the interests and even the rites of sects have been oftentimes protected by law, as by acts of incorporation of churches, exemption from taxation in some States, protection of meetings *935from interruption, and the like acts. While the primary object of legislation, which respects secular affairs, is not the promotion of religion, yet it can be no objection to laws, that while they are immediately aimed at secular interests, they also promote piety.” (Ex parte Andrews, supra, 18 Cal. at p. 684, italics added.)
In summary, I cannot find in the “preference or discrimination” clause an intent to erect the absolute “wall of separation” that would justify a decision to ban religious invocations at high school graduation ceremonies. Instead, the clause appears to add only the requirement that the state not prefer, or discriminate against, a particular sect. (See Ex parte Andrews, supra, 18 Cal. at p. 684.) This requirement can be met by having the invocation delivered, on a rotating basis, by speakers representing various points of view. But the practical impossibility of accommodating all points of view on each occasion does not amount to discrimination. As we held in Fox v. City of Los Angeles (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 792, 797 [150 Cal.Rptr. 867, 587 P.2d 663], “[i]n the California Constitution there is no requirement that each religion always be represented.”
Three justices of this court also would hold that a ban on religious invocations is compelled by article XVI, section 5, of the state Constitution, which prohibits any “appropriation,” “pay[ment],” or “grant” in aid of religion. (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 5, formerly Cal. Const, of 1879, art. IV, § 30.) I cannot agree.
The religious-grants provision derives from California’s second Constitution, which was drafted and adopted in 1879. The debates in the constitutional convention of that year do not demonstrate that the framers of this provision intended it to embody a complete wall of separation. Although some of the delegates were of that view, others were not and successfully resisted efforts to incorporate it in the Constitution.
When the committee of the whole debated the draft of the religious-grants provision, the main point of contention was whether the provision would preclude the state from supporting charitable religious institutions, such as orphanages. Abraham C. Freeman proposed an amendment which would expressly have authorized such grants. (2 Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of California Convened at the City of Sacramento, Saturday, September 28, 1878 (1880) at p. 819 (hereafter Debates of 1878-1879).) Volney E. Howard argued against the amendment, declaring his “opposition] to all measures by which any connection between church and State can be run in.” (Ibid.) He thought that “[i]f the authors of the American revolution achieved anything, or one thing more particularly than another, it was the separation of church and State.” (Ibid.)
*936Although Howard’s “separationist” view prevailed in committee, the full convention later rejected it time after time. The convention amended the committee’s draft of the religious-grants provision to make it clear that grants to charitable religious institutions were permissible.14 (3 Debates of 1878-1879, supra, at pp. 1272-1273.) This amendment survives in the present Constitution. (See Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 5 [final clause].) The convention also adopted a provision expressly authorizing the Legislature to fund certain religious institutions. (3 Debates of 1878-1879, supra, at pp. 1262-1264; see Cal. Const. of 1879, art. IV, § 22.)15 This provision also survives. (See Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 3, subd. (6) [first clause].) Perhaps most tellingly, the delegates rejected an amendment intended to prohibit religious education in state-supported religious institutions by requiring the wards to attend public school. (3 Debates of 1878-1879, supra, at pp. 1264-1265.) The delegates clearly recognized that rejection of the amendment would lead to religious education in state-supported religious orphanages despite language in another provision prohibiting appropriations “for the support of any sectarian or denominational school.” (Cal. Const. of 1879, supra, art. IX, § 8; see present Cal. Const., art. IX, § 8; see also 3 Debates of 1878-1879, supra, at pp. 1264-1266 [see remarks of Volney E. Howard, William P. Grace, Alphonse Vacquerel, V. A. Gregg, J. A. Filcher, and C. J. Beerstecher].)
Any attempt to invoke the religious-grants provision to bar religious invocations must also reckon with the preamble. This is because the delegates to the 1879 convention, just as their predecessors in 1849, voted to *937retain the preamble’s religious language despite substantial controversy. The 1879 convention received several petitions requesting that the Constitution include language “expressing] our acknowledgment of Almighty God as the source of all authority in civil government” and declaring that “California is a Christian commonwealth.” (Id., at pp. 89, 120, 156, 217-218.) Another petition expressed opposition to mentioning God in the Constitution. (1 Debates of 1878-1879, supra, at pp. 602-603.) Such petitions were referred to the Committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights (ibid.), which considered and slightly modified the preamble’s language.16 In the end, the full convention rejected the petitions’ theocratic suggestions but retained the expression of gratitude to “Almighty God.” (Cal. Const, of 1879, preamble.)
In short, the debates on the religious-grants provision do not demonstrate that the delegates to the 1879 convention intended the provision to embody an absolute wall of separation. Assuming for the sake of argument that a wall of any sort exists, it has always had holes large enough to permit state aid to religious institutions, religious instruction in such institutions, ceremonial prayer in the state constitutional convention, and a religious invocation in the Constitution, itself. By failing to consider some of these points, previous discussions in our opinions of article XVI, section 5, have greatly exaggerated the historical case for separation. (See Fox v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 799-803 (conc. opn. of Bird, C. J.); California Educational Facilities Authority v. Priest (1974) 12 Cal.3d 593, 604 [116 Cal.Rptr. 361, 526 P.2d 513].)17
To be sure, the religious-grants provision shows that the framers did not want the state to fund religious organizations, with certain exceptions. However, a ban on governmental funding rests on a much narrower principle than total separation. The jump from the former to the latter finds no *938support in the history of article XVI, section 5. Our current interpretation of the religious-grants provision does involve that gap in logic. In California Educational Facilities Authority v. Priest, supra, 12 Cal.3d 593 (Priest), we interpreted the religious-grants provision to prohibit “any official involvement, whatever its form, which has the direct, immediate, and substantial effect of promoting religious purposes.” (Id., at p. 605, fn. 12, italics added.)
Even under the Priest standard, however, I would hold that religious invocations at high school graduation ceremonies do not violate article XIV, section 5. In Priest we held that this provision did not prohibit the state from making low-interest, government construction bonds available to private, sectarian colleges. (12 Cal.3d at pp. 596, 598 fn. 5, 603-606.) We relied in part on our earlier decision upholding tax exemptions for parochial schools. (Lundberg v. County of Alameda (1956) 46 Cal.2d 644 [298 P.2d 1]; see Priest, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 605.) If the material financial assistance to religious schools approved in these cases is not a “direct, immediate, and substantial” benefit (see Priest, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 605, fn. 12), then neither is a costless, brief, traditional invocation at a high school graduation ceremony.
VI.
The narrow question before us is the validity of the trial court’s injunction. Under its terms, defendants are forever “prohibited and enjoined from directly conducting, or attempting to conduct, religious invocations and benedictions at public school ceremonies in the Morongo Unified School District.”18 This extremely broad injunction would be proper only if no conceivable invocation or benediction could ever pass constitutional muster, no matter how slight its religious content. By affirming the injunction, the majority hold this to be the case. I cannot agree.
The lead opinion’s principal error is to focus too closely on specific invocations and benedictions. Even if one were to assume that particular speakers occasionally overstepped the requirement of governmental neutrality by, for example, asking the audience to stand and join in prayer, it does not follow that no religious invocation or benediction can ever pass constitutional muster.
In my view, the injunction is too broad even under the three-pronged Lemon test. First, invocations that contain religious language may still have the secular purposes of respecting tradition and conferring ceremony and *939solemnity. The government need not have exclusively secular objectives. (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 681, fn. 6 [79 L.Ed.2d p. 615].) Second, even if the civil, ceremonial context of the invocations and benedictions did not remove all hint of governmental endorsement, the school district could go further by identifying the speaker’s views as his or her own. If despite such a disclaimer the choice of a particular speaker were thought to suggest a preference for a particular religious point of view, the district could go still further by rotating among speakers. Finally, having presented the invocations and benedictions in an appropriate context, the district need not become entangled in the content of the speaker’s remarks. “The content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where, as here, there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.” (Marsh, supra, 463 U.S. at pp. 794-795 [77 L.Ed.2d p. 1029].)
In short, even under the Lemon test it is possible to conceive of religious invocations that would not violate the establishment clause. Because it is possible, it is our constitutional duty to vacate the injunction as overly broad. I fear that the majority’s unwillingness to consider this aspect of the problem reflects the absolutist view that the establishment clause prohibits any practice that some observers will view as religious. However, the United States Supreme Court has never endorsed such a proposition. Instead, the court has emphatically rejected the goal of absolute separation and stressed that the Constitution “affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility towards any.” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 673 [79 L.Ed. p. 610]; see also Zorach, supra, 343 U.S. at pp. 314-315 [96 L.Ed. at pp. 962-963].) I cannot reconcile that mandate with the majority’s holding in this case.
For these reasons I respectfully dissent.

 For example: “Our fathers’ God to Thee, / Author of Liberty, / To Thee we sing: / Long may our land be bright / With freedom’s holy light; / Protect us by Thy might, / Great God our King.” (“America,” 4th verse.)
Judge Wellford, in his dissent in Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools (6th Cir. 1987) 822 F.2d 1406, eloquently points out the absurd results that holdings such as the majority’s will cause. He wrote: “I note that had the speaker or leader at the time and place of the invocation read or led the audience in singing these words: ‘My Country ’Tis of Thee’ or ‘Our Father’s God to Thee, Author of Liberty,’ I doubt that this court, or any other, would find this activity unconstitutional. Had the speaker read, or guided the audience in a benediction with Irving Berlin’s famous words, ‘God Bless America,’ or Julia Ward Howe’s opening expression in the Battle Hymn of the Republic referring to the ‘glory of the Lord,’ again I doubt any finding of constitutional offense. These words in favorite songs, used at innumerable public ceremonies, including graduation ceremonies, contain plain and repeated reference to the Deity and ask His Blessing or give thanks for His guidance and assistance. They are both a form of invocation and benediction which in content is known in advance; yet they do not violate the first amendment. The remarks used to open and close the ceremonies in this case are no more violative of the constitution than are these expressions referring to the Deity.” (Id., at p. 1417 (dis. opn. of Wellford, J.).)

I sometimes use the term “invocations” to refer to both invocations and benedictions.

 Weisman v. Lee, supra, 728 F.Supp. 68, 71-73, affirmed 908 F.2d 1090, certiorari granted sub nom. Lee v. Weisman, supra,_U.S.._ [113 L.Ed.2d 240, 111 S.Ct. 1305]; Lundberg v. West Monona Community School Dist. (N.D.Iowa 1989) 731 F.Supp. 331, 341-346; Bennett v. Livermore Unified School Dist. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1019-1020 [238 Cal.Rptr. 819]; Kay v. David Douglas Sch. Dist. No. 40 (1986) 79 Ore.App. 384 [719 P.2d 875, 879-880], reversed on other grounds (1987) 303 Ore. 574 [738 P.2d 1389]; Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools (W.D.Mich. 1985) 610 F.Supp. 43, 46-50, affirmed in part and reversed in part (6th Cir. 1987) 822 F.2d 1406; Graham v. Central Community Sch. Dist. of Decatur (S.D.Iowa 1985) 608 F.Supp. 531, 535-537.

 Gross berg v. Deusebio (E.D.Va. 1974) 380 F.Supp. 285, 289; Wiest v. Mt. Lebanon School District (1974) 457 Pa. 166 [320 A.2d 362, 365]; Wood v. Mt. Lebanon Township School District (W.D.Pa. 1972) 342 F.Supp. 1293, 1295.
Perhaps the reason these courts did not apply the Lemon test is that the test’s third factor, “excessive entanglement,” was formulated to address administrative problems arising from public financial support of religious institutions. (See Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) 397 *921U.S. 664, 674 [25 L.Ed.2d 697, 704-705, 90 S.Ct. 1409]; Lemon, supra, 403 U.S. at pp. 612-613 [29 L.Ed.2d at p. 756].) For this reason, it was not immediately apparent that the “entanglement” factor might have any relevance in other contexts.

 Perhaps long tradition strengthens the case for accommodating a particular practice. If so, religious invocations at graduation ceremonies present a very strong case, indeed.
According to one commentator, “the academic ceremonies of graduation date back before the foundation of our country, and indeed are largely drawn from religious ceremonies. The modem pattern is still largely a carbon copy of the ancient rites, ‘consisting] primarily of an invocation, a commencement address, the awarding of earned degrees, the awarding of honorary degrees and the benediction.’ Other features such as the academic procession, direct descendant of the clerical procession, identify the religious roots of the entire graduation ceremony. Indeed one author suggests to school administrators: ‘The churches . . . have had centuries to work out the details to provide maximum dignity and impressiveness—when one is in doubt, [one] should follow the clerical pattern.’ ” (DuPuy, Religion, Graduation, and the First Amendment: A Threat or a Shadow? (1985-1986) 35 Drake L. Rev. 323, 358, footnotes omitted, quoting Sheard, Academic Heraldry in America (1962) at pp. 69, 71, italics in original.)

 In a more recent establishment clause case, Board of Education v. Mergens (1990) 496 U.S. 226 [110 L.Ed.2d 191, 110 S.Ct. 2356], the lead opinion’s treatment of the Lemon test did not receive five votes. (See id., at pp._-_ [110 L.Ed.2d at pp. 214-218, 110 S.Ct. at pp. 2370-2373].)

 Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools, supra, 610 F.Supp. 43, 50, affirmed in part and reversed in part 822 F.2d 1406; Wiest v. Mt. Lebanon School District, supra, 320 A.2d 362, 366. To these opinions one must add the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case before us.

Lundberg v. West Monona Community School Dist., supra, 731 F.Supp. 331, 342-343; Bennett v. Livermore Unified School Dist., supra, 193 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1020; Kay v. David Douglas Sch. Dist. No. 40, supra, 719 P.2d 875, 880, reversed on other grounds 738 P.2d 1389; Graham v. Central Community Sch. Dist. of Decatur, supra, 608 F.2d 531, 534, 535.
As does the lead opinion, one court concluded that religious invocations at graduation ceremonies violate the establishment clause without considering whether such invocations have a secular purpose. (Weisman v. Lee, supra, 728 F.Supp. at p. 71, affd. 908 F.2d 1090, cert, granted sub nom. Lee v. Weisman, supra, U.S. [113 L.Ed.2d 240, 111 S.Ct. 1305].)

 “In this case, the focus of our inquiry must be on the creche in the context of the Christmas season.” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 679 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 614], italics added.) Compare County of Allegheny, supra, 492 U.S. at page 598 [106 L.Ed.2d at page 498, 109 S.Ct. at *929pages 3103-3104] (“Here, unlike in Lynch, nothing in the context of the display detracts from the creche’s religious message.”) (italics added).

See the high court’s list of such cases in Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at pages 681-682 [79 L.Ed.2d at pages 615-616]: Marsh, supra, 463 U.S. 783 (legislative prayers); Roemer v. Board of Public Works (1976) 426 U.S. 736 [49 L.Ed.2d 179, 96 S.Ct. 2337] (noncategorical grants to church-sponsored colleges and universities); Tilton v. Richardson (1971) 403 U.S. 672 [29 L.Ed.2d 790, 91 S.Ct. 2091] (federal grants for college buildings of church-sponsored institutions of higher education combining secular and religious education); Walz v. Tax Commission, supra, 397 U.S. 664 (tax exemptions for church properties); Board of Education v. Allen (1968) 392 U.S. 236 [20 L.Ed.2d 1060, 88 S.Ct. 1923] (expenditure of public money for textbooks supplied to students attending church-sponsored schools); McGowan v. Maryland (1961) 366 U.S. 420 [6 L.Ed.2d 393, 81 S.Ct. 1101] (Sunday closing laws); Zorach, supra, 343 U.S. 306 (release-time program for religious training); and Everson v. Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1 [91 L.Ed. 711, 723, 67 S.Ct. 504, 168 A.L.R. 1392] (expenditure of public funds for transportation of students to church-sponsored schools).

 We need not accept Justice Brennan’s further argument that such examples of religious language in official life are constitutional only “because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.” (Lynch, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 716 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 638] (dis. opn. of Brennan, J.).) We need not accept the argument because the majority opinion in Lynch, as already discussed, teaches that religious and secular purposes can validly coexist. (Id. at pp. 680-681 & fn. 6 [79 L.Ed.2d at pp. 614-615].)

In full, former article I, section 4, provided: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State: and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience, hereby secured, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.” (Cal. Const, of 1849, art. I, § 4; see present Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)

 In his concurring opinion, Justice Mosk cites Chief Justice Terry’s separate opinion in Ex parte Newman (1858) 9 Cal. 502, 504, as evidence that an “absolute separation of church and state was firmly recognized from the initial days of California jurisprudence” and that the concept of separation inheres in article I, section 4. (Conc. opn. of Mosk, J., ante, at p. 908.) Chief Justice Terry, however, wrote only for himself. Each of the court’s three justices wrote separately. Justice Field dissented. Three years later, the court unanimously overruled Newman and adopted Justice Field’s dissenting opinion in that case. (See Ex parte Andrews, supra, 18 Cal. at p. 685; see also McGowan v. Maryland, supra, 366 U.S. at pp. 435-437 [6 L.Ed.2d at pp. 404-405.)

 Former article IV, section 30, as amended and adopted, declared in relevant part that “[n]either the Legislature, nor any county, city and county, township, school district, or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation, or pay from any public fund whatever, or grant anything to or in aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose, or help to support or sustain any school, college, university, hospital, or other institution controlled by any religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever;. . . provided, that nothing in this section shall prevent the Legislature granting aid pursuant to section twenty-two of this article.” (Cal. Const. of 1879, art. IV, § 30, italics added; see present Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 5.)

 Former article IV, section 22, provided in relevant part that “no money shall ever be appropriated or drawn from the State Treasury for the use and benefit of any corporation, association, asylum, hospital, or any other institution not under the exclusive management and control of the State as a State institution . . . ; provided, further, that whenever any county, or city and county, or city, or town, shall provide for the support of minor orphans, or half orphans, or abandoned children, or aged persons in indigent circumstances, such county, city and county, city, or town, shall be entitled to receive the same pro rata appropriations as may be granted to such institutions under church or other control. . . .” (Cal. Const. of 1879, art. IV, § 22, italics added; see present Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 3, subd. (6).)
This provision illustrates the delegates’ inability to agree on questions of church-state separation. While the provision expressly authorizes state financial aid to charitable religious institutions, the proponents of the underlined language hoped that it would encourage local governments to take over such functions.

The delegates to the convention of 1879 added the italicized language: “We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.” (Cal. Const, of 1879, preamble (italics added); see present Cal. Const., preamble (identical language).)

In California Educational Facilities Authority v. Priest, supra, 12 Cal.3d at page 604, we relied on the Court of Appeal’s examination of the 1879 debates in Gordon v. Board of Education (1947) 78 Cal.App.2d 464, 472-473 [178 P.2d 488] (Gordon). However, we mentioned only the Court of Appeal’s introductory statement that the delegates “proposed to insure separation of church and state . . . .” (Gordon, supra, 78 Cal.App.2d at p. 472; see Priest, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 604.) We omitted the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that “[o]ur pioneer forefathers did not have the remotest idea that they were laying the foundations of the great Commonwealth of California that was to be as a jejune, godless state; they believed one of the great pillars of our national strength to be the general acceptance of religion by our people.” (78 Cal.App.2d at p. 473.) In Priest we also neglected to mention that the court in Gordon upheld a law permitting public school students to be released for religious education. (Gordon, supra, 78 Cal.App.2d at pp. 473-476; cf. Zorach, supra, 343 U.S. 306.)

 Although the injunction refers to “public school ceremonies,” the only question before the trial court, and thus properly before us, is the constitutionality of religious invocations and benedictions at high school graduation ceremonies.