▁religious ▁nature ▁of ▁the ▁speech . ▁ ▁Second , ▁to ▁the ▁extent ▁the ▁Club ' s ▁speech ▁would ▁be ▁perce ived ▁as ▁co er ci ve , ▁that ▁co erc ion ▁would ▁be ▁felt ▁by ▁the ▁parents ▁rather ▁than ▁the ▁children . ▁ ▁After ▁all , ▁parents ▁must ▁give ▁their ▁children ▁permission ▁to ▁attend ▁the ▁Club ' s ▁activities . ▁ ▁Mil ford ▁did ▁not ▁suggest ▁that ▁the ▁parents ▁would ▁be ▁confused ▁about ▁the ▁religious ▁nature ▁of ▁the ▁Club ' s ▁message . ▁ ▁Third , ▁and ▁related ly , ▁the ▁Court ' s ▁Est ab lish ment ▁Cla use ▁juris pr ud ence ▁never ▁" ext ended ▁... ▁to ▁forec lose ▁private ▁religious ▁conduct ▁during ▁n ons ch ool ▁hours ▁merely ▁because ▁it ▁takes ▁place ▁on ▁school ▁prem ises ▁where ▁elementary ▁school ▁children ▁may ▁be ▁present ." ▁ ▁In ▁Lee ▁v . ▁We is man , ▁, ▁the ▁religious ▁speech ▁involved ▁was ▁a ▁prayer ▁at ▁a ▁mand atory ▁high ▁school ▁gradu ation ▁function . ▁In ▁Santa ▁Fe ▁Independent ▁School ▁District ▁v . ▁Do e , ▁, ▁the ▁religious ▁speech ▁involved ▁was ▁a ▁student - led ▁prayer ▁before ▁a ▁high ▁school ▁football ▁game ▁which , ▁of ▁course , ▁is ▁a ▁school - sp ons ored ▁event . ▁In ▁Edwards ▁v . ▁Agu ill ard , ▁, ▁the ▁religious ▁speech ▁involved ▁was ▁a ▁prohib ition ▁on ▁teaching ▁evolution ▁in ▁public ▁school ▁science ▁classes . ▁Un like ▁these ▁three ▁cases , ▁the ▁religious ▁speech ▁at ▁issue ▁in ▁this ▁case ▁took ▁place ▁after ▁school ▁and ▁not