Yuku | Ch. 4: Religious Expression in Public Schools - Religious Expression and the American Constitution - by Franklyn S. Haiman - Archived Book Discussions - www.BookTalk.org

0 Kudo

Ch. 4: Religious Expression in Public Schools

Author	Comment
Chris OConnor	Ch. 4: Religious Expression in Public Schools		Lead	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 9504 04/12/07 10:16:26 BookTalk Owner	Tags : None Chapter 4: Religious Expression in Public Schools This thread is for the discussion of Chapter 4: Religious Expression in Public Schools. You can use this thread or create you own threads. The choice is yours.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: "Prayer in Classrooms, at Graduation, and at...&	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 05/10/07 19:56:31 OMG I'm Awesome!	In this section, Haiman introduces Lee v. Weisman a case that addressed prayer at public school graduation. He specifically notes Justice Souter's concurring Opinion in Lee v. Weisman. I urge you to read this; it is an amazing piece addressing the nonpreferentialist argument. Souter starts by demonstrating the Court's long-standing precedent requiring government neutrality on religion citing, among other cases, Abington v. Schempp (1968 ): *Quote:* "The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion"; the establishment clause "applies to each of us, be he Jew or Agnostic, Christian or Atheist, Buddhist or Freethinker." Souter then directly addresses the nonprefrentialist argument that the Framers did not require neutrality between religion and irreligion, outlining the significance of the changes in the phrasing of the establishment clause: *Quote:* what we do know is that the House rejected the Select Committee's version, which arguably ensured only that 'no religion' enjoyed an official preference over others, and deliberately chose instead a prohibition extending to laws establishing 'religion' in general. The sequence of the Senate's treatment of this House proposal, and the House's response to the Senate, confirm that the Framers meant the Establishment Clause's prohibition to encompass nonpreferential aid to religion. Souter then addresses the setting that informed the Framers' decisions: *Quote:* Of particular note, the Farmers were vividly familiar with efforts in the colonies and, later, the States to impose general, nondenominational assessments and other incidents of ostensibly ecumenical establishments. Though Souter perceives these discussions as sufficient to deny a nonpreferentialist reading of the Establishment Clause he goes on to explain the inherent necessity that "nonpreferentialism requires some distinction between 'sectarian' religious practices and those that would be, by some measure, ecumenical enough to pass Establishment Clause muster." Souter believes these necessary distinctions would fall wholly outside the purview of the courts: *Quote:* Simply by requiring the enquiry, nonpreferentialists invite the courts to engage in comparative theology. I can hardly imagine a subject less amenable to the competence of the federal judiciary, or more deliberately to be avoided where possible. Souter goes on to address the specific "comparative theology" that would need to be explored in the instant case concluding: *Quote:* Thus, a nonpreferentialist who would condemn subjecting public school graduates to, say, the Anglican liturgy would still need to explain why the government's preference for Theistic over non Theistic religion is constitutional. Kennedy's majority Opinion relied on an implied coercion of the child to attend graduation, claiming that this participation, even if she remained silent, in prayer amounted to coercion. Souter, however, in his Opinion states that coercion is not necessary to violate establishment, citing concurring precedent. He also demonstrates that a coercion test would essentially nullify the establishment clause as coercion is fully addressed in the free expression clause. Souter then returns to history to address the Petitioners claims that because our first Presidents had included religion in inaugural and Thanksgiving Day addresses, the Framers could not have required strict neutrality. He briefly explains both Jefferson's and Madison's positions before stating, essentially, that the Framers were capable of mistakes. He cites the Alien and Sedition Acts as one such mistake, concluding: *Quote:* If the early Congress's political actions were determinative, and not merely relevant, evidence of constitutional meaning, we would have to gut our current First Amendment doctrine to make room for political censorship. Souter also makes it clear that strict neutrality is not hostile to religion as non-preferentialists tend to argue, demonstrating where and how the state can accommodate free religious expression without violating the establishment clause. Addressing the instant case, Souter notes that preventing prayer at graduation does not "in any realistic sense, 'burden' their [Petitioners'] spiritual calling," as they are free to pray at any point before or after the graduation. He poignantly states: *Quote:* Because they accordingly have no need for the machinery of the State to affirm their beliefs, the government's sponsorship of prayer at graduation ceremony is most reasonably understood as an official endorsement of religion and, in this instance, of Theistic religion. Souter succinctly concludes: *Quote:* When public school officials, armed with the State's authority, convey an endorsement of religion to their students, they strike near the core of the Establishment Clause. However "ceremonial" their messages may be, they are flatly unconstitutional. Seriously, I could type this whole thing out in order to get all the great arguments on here. Just read it, and carry it in your pocket as a reference whenever arguing for strict neutrality.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
garicker	Re: "Prayer in Classrooms, at Graduation, and at...&	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 262 05/13/07 18:18:55 Smarty Pants	I especially love Souter's conclusion in Lee v Weisman: When public school officials, armed with the State's authority, convey an endorsement of religion to their students, they strike near the core of the Establishment Clause. However "ceremonial" their messages may be, they are flatly unconstitutional. In fact, with a few substitutions, it pretty well conveys what I think should be the position of the Court on all of these cases. Change "public school officials" to "government officials" and "their students" to "the citizenry" and it pretty well states what is wrong with all these "ceremonial" or "traditional" practices. What a shame the courts seem unable to consistently apply that standard. George "Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them." Godless in America by George A. Ricker
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: "Prayer in Classrooms, at Graduation, and at...&	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 05/15/07 15:36:13 OMG I'm Awesome!	*Quote:* However "ceremonial" their messages may be, they are flatly unconstitutional. I voted today in my city's primary. There on the table, prominently displayed in front of the book where voters sign their names, was the King James Bible. Is this just a ceremonial message? If so, then why did it, even a little bit, affect my voting experience? And then I thought, even if I weren't atheist, I still would have been excluded by the display of the King James Bible. Garicker: What a shame the courts seem unable to consistently apply that standard. Garicker, I don't know how we explain this and I certainly don't know how to address it. I must admit, this in depth review of separation jurisprudence, or lack thereof, has left me a little depressed over the last few weeks.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
garicker	Re: "Prayer in Classrooms, at Graduation, and at...&	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 262 05/15/07 18:49:50 Smarty Pants	Rose: I must admit, this in depth review of separation jurisprudence, or lack thereof, has left me a little depressed over the last few weeks. Even more depressing is what we may expect in this area from the current crop of justices. However, the real problem is the seeming indifference of so many Americans to the problem. Far too many of our citizens take the attitude that there's nothing wrong with the state wrapping itself in the trappings of the religion of the majority. It seems so obviously clear that the wall of separation between government and religions protects the rights of conscience of all Americans that it is incredible to me the issue is controversial. George "Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them." Godless in America by George A. Ricker
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Dissident Heart	Re: "Prayer in Classrooms, at Graduation, and at...&	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1868 05/15/07 23:46:19 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Souter's conclusion in Lee v Weisman: When public school officials, armed with the State's authority, convey an endorsement of religion to their students, they strike near the core of the Establishment Clause. However "ceremonial" their messages may be, they are flatly unconstitutional. I am interested in what happens if we replace the word religion with ideology...and the issue becomes, say, public school officials, armed with the State's authority, convey an endorsement of capitalism. I suppose a similar ideological endorsement is taking place when hyper-individualized high stakes test taking is implemented to assess student intelligence and teacher success. Another ideological endorsement will be found in the cafeteria with types of food offered, if it is free or sold, and what degree of corporate sponsorship forces its namebrand onto the schoolground. Another ideological endorsement will be found in the athletic department with types of games reinforcing defensive tribal identities, militaristic attitudes, violent practices, and, again, corporate sponsorship imposing namebrand recognition.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: "Prayer in Classrooms, at Graduation, and at...&	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 05/16/07 09:09:26 OMG I'm Awesome!	Garicker: Even more depressing is what we may expect in this area from the current crop of justices. I know, this is still really up in the air. Garicker: It seems so obviously clear that the wall of separation between government and religions protects the rights of conscience of all Americans that it is incredible to me the issue is controversial. I agree that there should be no question that the Constitution prohibits government endorsement of religion, even "ceremonial," long-standing endorsement. But what bothers me more is that these instances of endorsement are not controversial enough. As you stated, people seem ready and willing to accept the state's endorsement of the majority's religion. D.H.: I am interested in what happens if we replace the word religion with ideology... It would have no constitutional significance and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. D.H., I look forward to your contributions on the free expression and establishment clauses in the First Amendment, but they have nothing to do with capitalism, hyper-individualism, industrial food products, or school sports. Please don't unnecessarily muddy these waters. This might be an interesting discussion, but not appropriate within the context of the First Amendment.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Dissident Heart	Pernicious and Present but not Prayer	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1868 05/16/07 11:15:20 Indisputable BookTalk Master	irishrose: they (free expression and establishment clauses in the First Amendment) have nothing to do with capitalism, hyper-individualism, industrial food products, or school sports. I think they do, especially when these are enforced with State Sanction and School Authority. I think it is a muddy issue, especially since the historical and contemporary threads of ideology and religion are so intimately intertwined. Ideas are enforced explicitly and implicitly althruout the Public School process: beliefs are endorsed, world views provided, enemies named and targeted, and reasons for living and purposes for being alive are taught, implied, exemplified, awarded, trained and punished by full force of State and School authority. It is much easier to reduce free expression and establishment issues in Public Schools to prayer or Bibles or explicit traditional religious ceremony and language; it becomes far more complicated and muddy when we confront the enforcement of world views and belief systems that lack traditional dress or obvious theologies. Reducing the establishment issue to guarding against explicit theologies and religious practices neglects the more pernicious forms of negligence and outright sacrifice of young minds and bodies that goes un-noticed because it is free of traditional theological sanction...but still just as rooted in faith, fantasy, and fear of authority.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: Pernicious and present, but not relevant	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 05/16/07 11:54:07 OMG I'm Awesome!	D.H.: It is much easier to reduce free expression and establishment issues in Public Schools to prayer or Bibles or explicit traditional religious ceremony and language; it becomes far more complicated and muddy when we confront the enforcement of world views and belief systems that lack traditional dress or obvious theologies. That is because free religious expression and the establishment clause in the First Amendment speaks directly to religion and not to ideology. *Quote:* Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Seriously, D.H., I am not saying this an unimportant discussion, it is just inappropriate for this thread, and probably this topic. After reading this book, or even just the posts thus far, this is the most relevant issue you have found to discuss? I don't want to discourage you from participating; in fact, I am incredibly curious where you fall in these discussions. But, I think you are trying to steer the conversation from what this topic is actually about, to what you would like it to be about. Please keep this discussion as relevant to the First Amendment free religious expression and establishment clauses as possible. Start a thread elsewhere if you would like to discuss social ideology in schoolhouses.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
garicker	Re: Pernicious and present, but not relevant	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 262 05/16/07 12:09:54 Smarty Pants	Yes, the book under discussion is, after all, Religious Expression and the American Constitution. D.H., note the first word in the title. While a discussion of the imposition of ideologies, etc., in the classroom may be appropriate in some other thread, it has no value here. I realize you are always eager to kick the conversational ball away from any hint of negatives about religion, but you really ought to try to be less obvious about it. George "Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them." Godless in America by George A. Ricker
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Dissident Heart	Re: Pernicious and present, but not relevant	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1868 05/16/07 13:10:13 Indisputable BookTalk Master	irishrose: That is because free religious expression and the establishment clause in the First Amendment speaks directly to religion and not to ideology. I think there are religious elements to ideology and ideological elements to religion...thus the muddiness. And I don't think the connection between the two is irrelevant for this discussion. I'm not sure if the Founders utililized the word ideology, or what they used in its stead. I'm fairly certain they didn't utilize the terms world view or belief system either. My hunch is that they would recognize the role of ideological control in much the same category of religious indoctrination...thus the pertinence to the discussion at hand. The reasons for non-establishment of Religion in the First Ammendment seem the same for non-establishment of Ideology. Actually, it seems a natural and reasonable and logical progression. I think this reasoning makes sense in the context of Public Schools, and thus, this thread. irishrose: I think you are trying to steer the conversation from what this topic is actually about, to what you would like it to be about. I think social ideology and religious belief are very difficult, if not impossible to clearly delineate. I think the fundamental assumptions and foundational notions of social ideologies rest upon ideas and faiths that are simililar, if not the same as religious beliefs....they are a common family. I think the protections in the First Ammendment against establishing a Religion reasonably and of necessity must apply to social ideology as well. Therefore I think it pertinent and relevant and not a misdirection of discussion. Why the Constitution's architects built safeguards against establishing Religion, is the same why that applies to establishing social ideologies.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: "Pledging Allegiance to the Flag"	#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 05/16/07 17:49:18 OMG I'm Awesome!	Garicker: What a shame the courts seem unable to consistently apply that standard. Speaking of inconsistency, Haiman goes on to discuss the opposite decisions SCOTUS finds in Minersville v. Gobitis (1940) and West Virginia v. Barnette (1943). In Minersville, Justice Frankfurter found that the state had an interest in compelling public school students to recite the "Pledge of Allegiance" in order to "share a common experience at those periods of development when their minds are supposedly receptive to its assimilation, by an exercise appropriate in time and place and setting, and one designed to evoke in them appreciation of the nation's hopes and dreams, its sufferings and sacrifices." He goes on to state that interfering with the school board on a matter not clearly violating the Constitution would extend beyond the scope of the Court's purview. *Quote:* But the courtroom is not the arena for debating issues of educational policy. It is not our province to choose among competing considerations in the subtle process of securing effective loyalty to the traditional ideals of democracy, while respecting at the same time individual idiosyncracies among a people so diversified in racial origins and religious allegiances. So to hold would, in effect, make us the school board for the country. That authority has not been given to this Court, nor should we assume it. Three years later in Barnette, under similar circumstances as Minersville, the courts reversed and found that not just the free exercise of religion was violated by forcing public school students to recite the pledge, but freedom of speech as well. It was in this Opinion that the Court's first recognized a definite "right of silence" as included in the First Amendment. As Haiman notes in the text, Justice Jackson's Opinion is a beautiful piece of jurisprudence, and is very enjoyable to read. Both Minersville and Barnette are linked above. *One quick note of interest, both Minersville* and Barnette were decided a decade before the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
garicker	Re: Pledging Allegiance to the Flag	#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 262 05/17/07 10:46:21 Smarty Pants	This pair of cases demonstrates an ability by the court to correct an error. Haiman notes that two justices, Black and Douglas, reversed themselves. I also think it demonstrates a fair amount of courage for justices to be willing to render such a verdict as the one handed down in Barnette when the nation was fighting in a world war whose outcome, in 1943, was still very much in doubt. No doubt, ruling against the mandatory recitation of the Pledge would have been considered unpatriotic by some. Justice Jackson's opinion is especially noteworthy since he would be called upon by President Truman to serve as chief prosecutor for the American side at the trial of Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg. I can't help wondering how much his opinion was influenced by the image of German children, faces shining, marching in lockstep and proclaiming their allegiance to a different state and to the Fuhrer who led it. Those film clips were shown in many newsreels of the day. He must have seen some of them. George "Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them." Godless in America by George A. Ricker
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: "Pledging Allegiance to the Flag"	#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 05/17/07 13:51:08 OMG I'm Awesome!	Garicker: This pair of cases demonstrates an ability by the court to correct an error. Haiman notes that two justices, Black and Douglas, reversed themselves. Black, joined by Douglas, wrote a brief concurring Opinion in Barnette where they explained their changed position. *Quote:* Reluctance to make the Federal Constitution a rigid bar against state regulation of conduct thought inimical to the public welfare was the controlling influence which moved us to consent to the Gobitis decision. Long reflection convinced us that, although the principle is sound, its application in the particular case was wrong. Black and Douglas concluded that, though the state has an interest in requiring it's citizenry to "conduct themselves obediently to laws which areimperatively necessary to protect society as a whole from grave and pressingly imminent dangers" regardless of "religious faiths," this is not at issue in flag allegiance compulsion. *Quote:* Neither our domestic tranquility in peace nor our martial effort in war depend on compelling little children to participate in a ceremony which ends in nothing for them but a fear of spiritual condemnation. Garicker: I also think it demonstrates a fair amount of courage for justices to be willing to render such a verdict as the one handed down in Barnette when the nation was fighting in a world war whose outcome, in 1943, was still very much in doubt. Good point, I hadn't considered this, though it now seems apparent. Just looking at the quote above, "our martial effort in war," seems to indicate U.S. military action was on the minds of the Justices at the time of their decision. Garicker: Justice Jackson's opinion is especially noteworthy since he would be called upon by President Truman to serve as chief prosecutor for the American side at the trial of Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg. Oh my, all this history that I hadn't even considered, it's like I put jurisprudence and U.S. history in separate boxes. How ignorant of me. Jackson specifically writes in his Opinion: *Quote:* Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religions and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Garicker: I can't help wondering how much his opinion was influenced by the image of German children, faces shining, marching in lockstep and proclaiming their allegiance to a different state and to the Fuhrer who led it. Those film clips were shown in many newsreels of the day. He must have seen some of them. The Opinion itself notes this directly. The adopted resolution required the "commonly accepted salute to the Flag," wherein, according to The National Headquarters of the United States Flag Association quoted in note 3, "the right arm is extended and raised, palm UPWARD." Apparently objections were raised by the PTA, the Boy and Girl Scouts, the Red Cross, and the Federations of Women's Clubs that the salute was "too much like Hitler's."
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	"After-School Religious Club Meetings"	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 05/18/07 12:58:14 OMG I'm Awesome!	To begin, I don't like the subtitle Haiman uses here. "After school meetings," at least those I participated in, were always school-sponsored, school-approved and school-disciplined. In this section, the religious meetings cited are not school-sponsored, but merely take place on school premises, after the school day is over. Here the Court has distinguished in these "limited public forums" between "content" discrimination (permissible) and "viewpoint" discrimination (impermissible). In Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, the school district denied access to the school building for a religious group to present a film and lecture series on family and parenting from a religious perspective. The district stated that because the film "does appear to be church-related," the request was denied. SCOTUS found that, because the film's content-family/parenting-was not prohibited by the district and because the district specifically denied the group's request due to the "church-related" nature of the film, the school district violated the group's free expression constitutional right. Essentially, the school district utilized viewpoint, rather than content, discrimination, which is unconstitutional. I am o.k. with this ruling, assuming that it extends to every viewpoint. So, for instance, if a pro-gay family organization wanted to host a series on family and parenting, their request would not be denied. Likewise, if a non-theist organization wanted to do a lecture series on family and parenting techniques without introducing god or religion into the home, they too would be granted access to the space. I think it is possible to see public school space, particularly in smaller communities with less access to forums, merely as space open to the public without presuming government endorsement or support.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
garicker	Re: "After-School Religious Club Meetings"	#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 262 05/19/07 14:15:17 Smarty Pants	I agree that when school facilities are used for after-school activities by various clubs, then religious groups can't be excluded simply because they are religious. Such activities do not constitute an "establishment" or indicate any preference. However, that does mean the facilities must be equally available to all comers. A free-thought group, an atheist club, an association of gay or lesbian students, all of these also should be permissable. And it is true that in some small communities, the local public schools are the only buildings with adequate facilities to host some events. The schools become community resources at that point. I have known of several churches that actually held their meetings in public school buildings while their own buildings were being either constructed or repaired. As long as the congregation pays the expenses of having the building open, and the services are held during off hours when students aren't normally on campus--which was the case in the instances of which I'm aware--there is no cause for complaint. (In fact I was once the guest speaker at a Unitarian Universalist meeting that was held in an elementary school.) George "Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them." Godless in America by George A. Ricker
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: "After-School Religious Club Meetings"	#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 05/21/07 12:25:12 OMG I'm Awesome!	Garicker: I agree that when school facilities are used for after-school activities by various clubs, then religious groups can't be excluded simply because they are religious. How did you feel about the Milford case that Haiman mentions? Just a reminder of the specifics, the Good News Club petitioned to use the Milford school, immediately after school hours, "for the purpose of conducting religious instruction and bible study." Milford rejected the petition, finding that "the kinds of activities proposed to be engaged in by the Good News Club were not a discussion of secular subjects such as child rearing, development of character and development of morals from a religious perspective, but were in fact the equivalent of religious instruction itself." The majority found that Milford had engaged in viewpoint discrimination by not allowing access to the school for Good News' efforts. The majority also found, though the question was not before them, that there was no Establishment Clause concern if Milford had allowed access to school property for the Good News Club. In a dissenting Opinion, however, Justice Souter draws a distinct difference between viewpoint discrimination as found by the majority and subject discrimination: "It is beyond question that Good News intends to use the public school premises not for the mere discussion of a subject from a particular, Christian point of view, but for an evangelical service of worship calling children to commit themselves in an act of Christian conversion." Souter quotes from a "sample lesson" submitted to the District Court for consideration: *Quote:* "The Bible tells us how we can have our sins forgiven by receiving the Lord Jesus ChristIf you have received the Lord Jesus as your Saviour from sin, you belong to God's special group-His family." Teachers are instructed to "be sure to give an opportunity for the 'unsaved' children in your class to respond to the Gospel." Children who "already believe in the Lord Jesus as their Savior" should be challenged to "stop and ask God for the strength and the 'want'to obey Him." The teacher "invites" the "unsaved" children "to trust the Lord Jesus to be your Savior from sin" and "receive [him] as your Savior from sin." The children are then instructed that "if you believe what God's Word says about your sin and how Jesus died and rose again for you, you can have His forever life today. Please bow your heads and close your eyes. If you have never believed on the Lord Jesus as your Savior and would like to do that, please show me by raising your hand. If you raised your hand to show me you want to believe on the Lord Jesus, please meet me so I can show you from God's Word how you can receive His everlasting life." I think it's quite clear from this sample lesson that Good News Club's intent is to proselytize; I think this particularly apparent with the show of hands for those who have never believed and wish to do so. According to Souter's Opinion, this is not a case of viewpoint discrimination, as Milford's public schools clearly and consistently prohibited access of its buildings for "religious" purposes. He, in accordance with the District Court, found that the Good News Club was not servicing the secular needs of the community from a religious viewpoint, but rather was using the school to address religious and proselytizing goals. Note that other religious organizations that were permitted to use the school did so for secular purposes from a religious perspective (i.e. the Boy Scouts who service the young male community from a religious perspective without the goal of proselytizing or converting). So though I agree with the Court's decision in Lamb's Chapel, and in general agree with the precedent that a forum opened to the public cannot exclude religious viewpoints in addressing community activities, I think the Court made a bad finding in Milford, ignoring the admitted proselytizing goals of the Good News Club. These decisions and J. Souter's dissent reminds me of J. Souter's argument in Lee v. Weisman (prayer at graduation case) where the dissenting Justices (nonpreferentialists) insisted that a distinction could be made between sectarian (unacceptable) and non-sectarian (acceptable) prayers in public ceremonies. J. Souter wrote in response to this claim that such a decision would "invite the courts to engage in comparative theology. I can hardly imagine a subject less amenable to the competence of the federal judiciary, or more deliberately to be avoided where possible." I think that J. Souter's statement rings true here. The courts are, thus, required to find between secular instruction from a religious viewpoint and pure religious instruction. Perhaps that introduces too much gray into the case, and requires too much involvement of the courts with religion. In some such cases, the school district's only recourse is to reject all non-school groups from using the public forums, which is certainly a disservice to the community. Perhaps, in order to best serve their community and ensure its strength, organizations with highly-offensive or highly-charged viewpoints could refrain from enjoining the schools, and forcing these clubs' acceptance in public schools. Or perhaps that's just a pipedream and schools will continue to be required to close their doors to all non-school groups and organizations, to protect from the threat of inviting offensive material into their halls.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
misterpessimistic	Re: Ch. 4: Religious Expression in Public Schools	#17	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 4113 05/21/07 16:02:35 Indisputable BookTalk Master	I will be jumping in soon...just finished Chapter 5 and I have a few points in mind to discuss... Mr. P. But atheism is no more a religion than not playing chess is a hobby. - Robert Sawyer - Sci Fi Author I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll) The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P. What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	"The Teaching of Evolution"	#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 05/21/07 19:33:42 OMG I'm Awesome!	Because this book was published in 2003, Haiman's last reference to intelligent design efforts was the Ohio State Board of Education meeting in March of 2002. Since then, as probably everyone on this forum knows, there was a major ruling on intelligent design by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. This is a long Opinion, but it does not pull any punches on its scathing depiction of the history of creationism/ID, and its Conclusion, starting on p. 136, is pure entertainment: *Quote:* To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. And these are only the juicier nuggets of the Conclusion. In truth, the 139 Opinion was a little long for me and I only skimmed the bulk of it, though the scientific subject matter might be of more interest to others on this forum. Incidentally, shortly after this ruling, the board members who had supported intelligent design "instruction" for the district were voted out of office, and the Board made a statement that they did not intend to initiate any appeals. As far as I know, ID in public schools has, for now, been put to rest. Does anyone know of any further pending cases?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
garicker	Re: The Teaching of Evolution	#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 262 05/22/07 18:06:54 Smarty Pants	I also have a problem with the Milford decision. When outside agencies try to proselytize students, even when it's under the guise of an after-school club, I think they've gone beyond any reasonable bounds. What I had in mind was clubs initiated by students with, maybe, a faculty advisor to be sure things stayed on point. The sort of activity conducted by the Good News Clubs goes beyond what is acceptable, and I think Justice Souter's argument was on much firmer ground than the majority ruling in this case. On ID, I don't think there are any more cases pending at the moment. Since the Kitzmiller ruling, the Discovery Institute, which is the organization behind most of the ID nonsense, is licking its wounds. However, this crowd will be back with some other strategy. They aren't going to let little things like scientific evidence or the Constitution stand in the way of advancing their dogma. George "Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them." Godless in America by George A. Ricker
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: "After-School Religious Club Meetings"	#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 05/23/07 14:22:48 OMG I'm Awesome!	Garicker: I also have a problem with the Milford decision. When outside agencies try to proselytize students, even when it's under the guise of an after-school club, I think they've gone beyond any reasonable bounds. But do you think this necessity for school boards and/or courts to make distinctions between what is inherently religious subject matter and what is a secular discussion from a religious viewpoint requires too much entanglement between religion and government? If so, should the courts be making these decisions at all?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

About BookTalk.org

BookTalk.org NEWS

Ch. 4: Religious Expression in Public Schools

Ch. 4: Religious Expression in Public Schools