I wonder what's next...

[Outspoken]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30489

 

No billy you can't talk about who you are at school at all.

 

[Lacmeh]

Well Outspoken, then it must be allowed to dish out candys with Wiccan messages as well, without protest from Christian groups. It must be possible to wear pentacles without protest from Christians. As long as I don´t see that happen, I view those people as hypocrites.

 

[Outspoken]

"out candys with Wiccan messages as well, without protest from Christian groups. "

Hmm...sure if you do it during your winter solostace talking about the orgins I might take one, I like history though I hope you wouldn't force people to take it. I don't see people saying, no you can't wear keep your hair long, its against the school policy.but sir, its my religion, oh oh, that's okay then....or hey, you can't wear that shirt with celtic images on it, its offensive to me...but sir, its free speech..oh..okay.

 

[Nelzador]

I'm just glad I live in a country where religious expression is as much a part of a childs school life as physical education

 

[juiblex]

what about if it were the Gay & Lesbian Tolerance Commitee, Outspoken? Would you still have posted it in this context with the appropriate line:

"No billy you can't talk about who you are at school at all."

 

[crazyfingers]

Interesting how the WorldNetDaily story quoted Falwell railing against the ACLU despite the fact that the ACLU even sent a letter in support of the students to the school superintendent and the school principal.

They rail against the ACLU even though that fact was also in the Boston Globe story that they quoted. I'd say that that is not just bad reporting but outright dishonest reporting. What do the 10C's say about making false witness?

I'd say, Outspoken, that if you rely on news from the WorldNetDaily, you are probably getting not just badly distorted and incomplete information, but disinformation.

From a Boston Globe story from yesterday:

William C. Newman, an attorney in Northampton who represented two South Hadley students in the mid-1990s in a successful freedom-of-expression claim, said the Westfield students have a strong case.

''Students cannot be punished for exercising their rights of free speech unless that speech causes material disruption in the school,'' said Newman, also director of the western Massachusetts office of the American Civil Liberties Union, which wrote to McDowell on the Westfield students' behalf earlier this month.

Boston Globe story

I'd also say on this bit:

But Peter T. Elikann, a Boston attorney and vice chairman of the Massachusetts Bar Association's individual rights and responsibilities section, said he thinks the school district could argue that allowing the candy canes' distribution would be endorsing the students' religious message, a violation of federal law.

He said the school's effort to avoid that scenario was part of ''a time-honored tradition'' by government.

While I think that it's a weak argument that allowing candy canes to be distributed could be construed as the school endorsing the student's religious message, the "time-honored tradition" that they are talking about is government trying to avoid endorsing any religious point of view.  And that is a very good thing.

In any case, I've argued many times that it seems to me that local officials need to be educated on the law. This is just one more example as far as I'm concerned.  The goal should be to educate local officials.  The news is full of stories where local officials violate the law on both sides of this issue.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by juiblex
what about if it were the Gay & Lesbian Tolerance Commitee, Outspoken? Would you still have posted it in this context with the appropriate line:

"No billy you can't talk about who you are at school at all."

Schools try to express toleration, but, often not very well.  And teachers who suppress regular expression are kind of dumb, but who can blame them for wanting to not wind up on the wrong side of a lawsuit?  When our son started public school we spoke to the principal and teacher right off about the two mommies stuff and they were all okay.  Of course now they expect twice as many cookies from us.  Maybe I can make Easter cookies with John 3:16 or something on them;  I doubt it would faze people here, but, this is the Bible Belt.    

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Outspoken
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30489

 

No billy you can't talk about who you are at school at all.

This wasn't some student talking about themselves.  This was an attempt at mass evangelization.  Which is illegal - you can't use the public school grounds for proselytization activities during school hours.  Easy enough to understand - if one has read the law at all.

One other thing, you might consider something besides WorldNutDaily next time you want to post a news article. 

 

[fieldsofwind]

Are the candy canes disrupting class? Are they causing harm to the students? Are they forced?

Nope. So, they can be handed out to anyone who WANTS one. It is completely legal. If a student has the right to invite friends to a party, then they have the same right to invite them to church.

take care

FOW

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
Are the candy canes disrupting class? Are they causing harm to the students? Are they forced?

Three irrelevant questions that miss the point.

The activity in question did was not "talking about oneself", as claimed.  It was evangelization. 

The activity was in violation of separation of church/state.  That is the only issue here, and the only point that matters.

 

[fieldsofwind]

No, if you restrict it, then it becomes a violation of free speech. What is the 1st amendment? If the students want to talk about football, are they able to? If they want to talk about God, are they able to? According to the FIRST thing the founders put in the bill of rights, yes!

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Sauron
This wasn't some student talking about themselves.  This was an attempt at mass evangelization.  Which is illegal - you can't use the public school grounds for proselytization activities during school hours.  Easy enough to understand - if one has read the law at all.

I'm sorry to disagree with you Sauron but I don't believe that's true.  While we don't have a lot of info on the exact circumstances, it does not seem that this was done during class time. So long as it was not during class time, so long as they were not discrupive, and so long as no one was tried to coerce them onto others, I do believe that they have the right.

According to the US Department of Education,

Students have a right to distribute religious literature to their schoolmates on the same terms as they are permitted to distribute other literature that is unrelated to school curriculum or activities. Schools may impose the same reasonable time, place, and manner or other constitutional restrictions on distribution of religious literature as they do on nonschool literature generally, but they may not single out religious literature for special regulation.

Now to the extent that the school actually enforced any general ban on the distribution of all other types of stuff, they can ban the distribution of religious ligerature too.  But, it's very unclear from the circumstances that the issue really was about distribution of anything, the school seems to have focused right in on the religious aspect and apparently singling it out for special treatment. If that's the case, and if it was not disruptive, etc, I don't believe that the school can prohibit it - assuming candy canes are the same as religious literature.

There might be other circomstances that we don't know about but on the face of it it appears taht what the kids did was not illegal, obnoxious yes, but not illegal.  And I doubt very much that in this case one could argue that they kids were agents of the state.

One other thing you might consider something besides WorldNutDaily next time you want to post a news article. 

This I agree with.  WorldnetDaily seem to care little for truth.

 

[crazyfingers]

Here is an ACLU joint statement on religion in public schools.

The relevent section says:

[font="Arial, Helvetica"]"9. Students have the right to distribute religious literature to their schoolmates, subject to those reasonable time, place, and manner or other constitutionally- acceptable restrictions imposed on the distribution of all non-school literature. Thus, a school may confine distribution of all literature to a particular table at particular times. It may not single out religious literature for burdensome regulation.  "[/font]

Source: Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools

So again, we don't really know much about the actual situation, place, etc.. but it appears that a blanket prohibition on distributing the candy canes would be against the law and unconstitutional.

 

 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
No, if you restrict it, then it becomes a violation of free speech.

No it does not.  Do you really think that free speech is unlimited?

The 1st amendment does not provide for unlimited expression during school hours.  It never has.  If your simplistic viewpoint was correct, then someone could jump up in the middle of the lunchroom cafeteria  and hold a KKK rally. 

 

 

 

[fieldsofwind]

Really? I didn't know that Christians went around shooting their fellow schoolmates? I wasn't aware that they are involved in hanging black people either?

take care

FOW

 

[Clay]

Originally posted by Sauron
One other thing, you might consider something besides WorldNutDaily next time you want to post a news article. 

your maturity is truly an example to us all on how to debate an issue. 

{note to Clay ~ that's why I'm editing out all references}

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by crazyfingers
Here is an ACLU joint statement on religion in public schools. 

 
 

Here's the key point, from the Boston Globe:

In a Dec. 18 letter, McDowell said that school policy prohibits students from disseminating any informational materials on campus that aren't school-related.

If the school has a blanket policy that bans all non-school related materials, then it would apply in a nondiscriminatory way against these christians and their candy canes.  Because such a policy would apply to the Boy Scouts, to the Rotary Club, to bake sales and garage sales, fundraising triathlons, etc.  

Based upon this school's policy, I think they've covered themselves legally by simply ruling out ALL such activity.  That way no one can say they are discriminating against religious activity.

 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
Really? I didn't know that Christians went around shooting their fellow schoolmates? I wasn't aware that they are involved in hanging black people either?

Two more irrelevant questions that have nothing to do with the example at hand.

I used the KKK example to show why your supposition of unlimited 1st Amendment expression is flawed.

That does not mean that I accuse christians of KKK behavior. 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Clay
your maturity is truly an example to us all on how to debate an issue. 

You don't understand how WorldNutDaily got its name, I take it?

 

[Clay]

whether i know it or not, theres still no need of little remarks like that just to steam someone. id love to see one of these threads without any such remarks, and if or any of the other mods have to, we will edit or fully remove such posts. whatever the situation, its always uncalled for.