pledge of allegance unconstitutional ?

AITB,

Nice tactic, change the attack to the individual. Once again you have shown yourself to be unable to discuss or support your claims as an adult would but choose rather to act like a child on the playground.

If you notice I didn't address you initially in this thread, but Walguy. In the future I'll continue to ignore as I have before.

 

Here's (from the ruling) why the school district got in trouble:

Here's what the Judge in the case found to be permissible, in that it did not interfer with the rights of other students:

This, as you might know, was pretty much the basis of the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, rejected by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it took too much control away from the government.

It certainly seems like a reasonable list. What else would one want to do that wouldn't interfer with someone else's freedom?

Or is that the point?

It appears that the Alabama legislature was the villian here. I don't see why anyone would not find it offensive that the legislature would violate the law, even part of the day.

[ July 02, 2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

http://www.aclu.org/students/slrelig.html

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
-- First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The First Amendment makes it clear that Congress shall make no law respecting a religion or prohibiting it's exercise.

The problem with both the ACLU and the Religious right are extremes. I agree with much of what the ACLU site states such as Public schools cannot promote any religion. Some of the ACLU's errors though leave out "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Note from their site.

The Consituttion does not prohibit students from having a Nativity pageant or even celebrating Hannukah. Does not the Consitution say, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Another quote,

If a Student who is giving a speech at graduation and then closes out with a prayer does the Constitution prohibit the free exercise of this? or suppose they speak of how their religious faith helped them grow as a person? does the Constitution prohibit the free exercise of this? Many things offend me in what people say in their speeches but they have the right of free speech and religious freedom. The ACLU goes into Freedom From Religion and not Freedom of Religion on this issue and shows their leftist bias.

On the other hand many in the Religious right want the Bible taught in the school. Such an idea is not only dangerous but in my opinion violates scripture. The Church has been commissioned to teach Scripture not a English literature teacher or History teacher who may be an Athiest or Agnostic. The Bible is more than a History or book of literature but is a supernatural book that should be taught under Church authority. not State authority! For a Public School to teach the Bible is to cheapen it.

The School prayer issue is a strawman argument of Robertson and Falwell in that School prayer is allowed and practiced at every public school I know of. What is not allowed is the School sponsoring a prayer. If a school prohibits this then take it up with the school.

 

As a member of the 'religious right,' a member of a conservative Bible-believing Christian Church, and one who reads conservative/Christian writers on an ongoing regular basis, I can honestly say that I've never heard of ANYONE from the mainstream religious right call for Bible study in public schools. What we DO support is the right of students to use the Bible as a source for things like book reports or essays, when the teacher gives the choice of material for the assignment to the student; and also that the Bible be included in school libraries along with other important historic religious literature, instead of being arbitrarily singled out for exclusion. The banning of the Bible from school libraries and as voluntary source material for students are two more abuses of the Constitutional rights of Christian students that happen all the time, perpetrated by school administrators who are either ignorant of what the First Amendment really means, or who are as hostile toward Christianity as the ACLU is. Usually it's the ACLJ or some other Christian legal group that has to provide the defense for these oppressed Christians, because the ACLU apparently sees nothing wrong with such situations.
Btw, AITB, the two examples you cited of the ACLU defending religious rights leave something to be desired. In the first case, the minister is a bit of a nut case, invoking the 'graven images' prohibition from the Second Commandment as a reason not to have his driver's license picture taken (personally, I've never seen a driver's license picture that I would want to worship ). In no way does their support of this guy advance the cause of genuine Christian religious freedom, since it's such an obscure, rarely held (if not unique) doctrine that's involved. I'm guessing that the ACLU was willing to take the case because there was NOT a mainstream Christian belief at stake.
In the second case, if you read the story carefully (which you have to, because in Clintonesque fashion the complete truth is carefully concealed to make the protagonist in the story look better), you'll see that the law involved simply banned all vertical displays on graves, for purely aesthetic reasons. The law was not intended as a religious restriction at all, and did not single out any specific religion, or even religious displays generally. It was simply that most of the violations of the law involved religious displays of one kind or another from multiple religions, not just Christianity.
If these are the best available examples of the ACLU defending the religious rights of Christians, I think it establishes my point about them quite well.

 

Originally posted by Walguy:

Usually it's the ACLJ or some other Christian legal group that has to provide the defense for these oppressed Christians

Oh, yeah, those poor oppressed Christians...do everything without complaining or arguing - until someone treads on your toes...I wonder how they'd manage if they ever faced any real persecution.

So much for learning to be content; so much for being blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ; so much for being more than conquerors.

How odd that all these things are true and yet we whine when non-Christians behave exactly like we'd expect and they refuse to let us impose standards on them there's no reason to think they would follow!

If these are the best available examples of the ACLU defending the religious rights of Christians, I think it establishes my point about them quite well.

I'm sure you do think that.

I had no doubt that you were confident you are right.

 

Walguy you said,

No, they have called for the right for the Bible to be taught as literature in Public schools or from a historical perspective. They suceeded in one parish (or county if your not from La) here in Louisiana. Anyone who has ever took such a course in a public University knows that it is basicaly an unorthodox study of the Bible. All Public Universities I know of have Bible courses but I would not suggest you take them unless you want to hear a leftist, higher critical view of the Bible. Do we really want such courses in Public schools as the Religious right espouses here in Louisiana?

I agree. There have been cases where one could not do a book report on the life of Jesus and this is clearly unconstitutional and should be taken up with the school since it is illegal. Students should be allowed to use the Bible in Book reports and papers and most public schools here in my area allow Bible clubs and one up in Shreveport use to has Prayer at the Flagpole every morning before school.

 

Some of the mistaken restrictions on students doing book reports on Jesus - or whatever it is that was restricted - no doubt stem from nervousness about where the line is exactly to be drawn rather than a hatred of Jesus. (Imo)

Maybe if Christians were a bit more chilled out about this then everyone else wouldn't have got so tense about it too.

Maybe if we really could be like St Francis of Assisi said "Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words" - showing by our very nature that we are different and new creations then we'd understand that it's not just about 'words'.

In fact if we can't show that maybe the less we proclaim we are Christ's representatives, the better it would be, for the cause of Christ in this world...

[ July 03, 2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: AITB ]

 

Of course not. However, as the ACLU points out, doing so at school inevietable involves teacher participation, thus state endorsement.

If these hypothetical students somehow managed to have a nativity scenes sans any teacher involvement, such would be constitutional.

Although, admittedly, the "appearance of endorsement" might come into play. I'm unsure how the law works out.

Wrong again. Student graduations speeches are vetted and approved by the administration. I have yet to hear of a school that does not do this. As such, their words are not free, but chosen by the administration.

Where the valadictorian allowed to speak his or her mind without school approval, prayer would be allowed.

But, as it is, the administration approves those remarks ahead of time, which means anything spoken is endorsed by the school.

JUst a note: I attended public school, and we did an entire section in 10th grade English classes on religious literature. Including, I might add, sections of the Bible. Such is fully supported by the ACLU.

 

Just on the local news last night, a young man did a school report on the person who had the greatest influence on his life, Jesus Christ. The teacher (Brookfield School District) told him he could not do that because "Jesus is not a real person." He was also admonished "never to bring up Jesus Christ again here at school for assignments" and was forbidden to "even talk about Jesus Christ." His parents are filing a law suit. This was reported last night on Channel 27.

There is a definite agenda out there which is being propagated by the Left and the NEA.

I have a friend who was a biology teacher in Minnesota in public school who left the system when she became REQUIRED to teach homosexuality as an alternative life style. She is now teaching in private school.

Wake up, America.

 

Morat you said,

But the U.S. Constitution is not bound by a school administration. I do agree with you that the Administration should have some editing and say but with limits. Just recently a girl was forbidden to simply mention that the greatest influence on her life was Jesus Christ in a graduation speech. The principal however relented when the girl's lawyer threatened to take the school to court. I can understand how somebody might be offended but so what... get over it. As long as profanity, insulting comments or racist comments are not made I see no problem. If a student wished to state that the greatest influence on his life was the teachings of Buddha or the Koran ..as much as I detest those statements, I cannot see where the U.S. Constitution would prohibit it. It would be the same as saying the greatse influence on their life was Martin Luther King, Ganhdi or Ronald Reagan. You may have a argument if the speech was a sermon but I don't see a problem with giving one's testimony.

 

Hi rsr,

Always good to hear your insights.

You have a good point I must confess. The U.S. Constitution protects our speech even if it is offensive. I at times am concerned about thought police from both the extreme left and the extreme right. I understand that a graduation is a school sponsored event but I also understand that the speaker does not speak for the school but for his or her self. So on second thought I believe you have a great point.

[ July 03, 2002, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

I forgive you for being so woefully ignorant of both history and the current world situation.
Christians are vigorously persecuted and frequently killed in many countries today, especially Muslim and Communist countries. True Christians face real persecution with courage and faith. Whether we persevere or get killed, we do so confident that God's will is being carried out - just as many, many Christians down through the centuries have done when faced with real persecution (such as being crucified or fed to the lions in the early decades of Christianity; no group of people has ever been persecuted any worse than that, but it couldn't stop God's Church).
Yes, not being allowed to do a report about Jesus in school is a relatively minor form of persection. But please remember, we're not talking about adults in those situations. We're talking about KIDS, impressionable children who are being given the message from important authority figures in their lives that there is something wrong with them because Jesus is important to them. In places like China or the Sudan, where there is no freedom, this would be expected. BUT IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN IN AMERICA. When it does, when innocent children in this supposedly free country are made to feel bad for being Christians, it DOES merit a little righteous anger, and a LOT of willingness to fight back. You are right, however, that we shouldn't get TOO angry, and should use a loving approach as much as possible. And, of course, not forget to forgive.

Kiffin: sorry for misunderstanding your point. I'm aware of 'Bible as literature' courses at the college level, but haven't heard that they happen very often at earlier education levels, which is what we are primarily talking about here.
I agree that the Bible should not be taught in any real detail in such classes, and in many cases it would probably be better if the courses didn't exist at all. The Bible should be prominently mentioned when teaching religious history (along with other major religions). More importantly, the role of Biblical principles in the founding of the United States should be central to the teaching, as they were to our founding. Far too often these days both public school and college courses actually revise (i.e. lie about) the central role of Christianity in the founding of the USA, as well as how committed most of our Founding Fathers were to God and the Bible. Contrary to what the ACLU types would have us believe, it does NOT violate the Establishment Clause to teach the TRUTH about how our country came to be, and why we have the Constitutional rights that we do.

Finally, the question of commencement speeches is an interesting one. Because it is a school-sponsored event, I think the administration does have the right to decide who should speak, and to impose limits on what may be said and for how long. It's much the same as the way the administration has the right to control the content of the school newspaper: yes we have freedom of the press, but the school district owns the press, not the students.
However, the ultimate authority over the public schools rests (in most places, anyway) with the School Board, which is elected by the people. If a Principal is telling student speakers that they cannot say anything religious in nature, the people can go to the School Board to override this; and if the Board is unwilling to do so, they can be voted out of office and replaced with people who will treat student speakers with more respect and less personal bias. Unlike dealing with the court system, where idiot judges can and often do go against the will of the people, the Constitution, and common sense, in dealing with the schools there can be direct accountability, the American system of liberty and representative government working the way it's supposed to.
Until the ACLU gets involved, of course.

 

You're right when it's a forum that has been declared open for student input/opinion (as discussed at the link you provided). In that case a contract exists between the parties, and free speech protection does kick in. I believe in such cases offensive phraseology or libelous content could still be edited out, though.
In all other cases, however, not allowing the administration absolute editing power would violate the rights of the owners of the press (the public, represented by the School Board and then the school Principal). Of course, students and parents are both free to petition the elected representatives if they feel the control is not being exercised properly, and work for election of others if they are unresponsive.

 

A man from the western part of the middle east was gazing into a ditch here in our city. A reporter happened to notice him and asked him what he was looking at, for all he could see was grass and weeds. He replied, "I'm looking at the things I cannot see: the starving beggars, the maimed children, the polluted and undrinkable waters, the strewn garbage, the open raw sewage--those are the things I don't see when I look at such a beautiful sight as this though it be but a ditch." Thank God for the freedoms that we enjoy in a beautiful land that God has given to us. Have a happy July 4th.
DHK