I wonder what's next...

[fieldsofwind]

Well sauron... you can go around trying to be the word police, but that isn't how the courts work. They go off of the constitution as much as possible. It is very clear here. It is the most important freedom that we have, and any student can speak about it anywhere he likes.

I bet you wouldn't have like the prayer that I said before a public school audience of about 2000 people. It started as follows--oh yea... it was in the lunch room too, during lunch for that matter--

Jesus Christ, I give you my praise, for you alone are the Living God....

 

[Chuck_Darwin]

Of course I got got expelled for wearing my "Christainity is Stupid" T-shirt back when I was in High School many years ago. I guess the times they are a-changing......

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Sauron
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.

 

I agree that that could cover the situation if it is really the case that they have a history of enforcing that policy in all cases.  We don't know.   However it does seem that the school focused in on the religion issue pretty closely.  It would be interesting to see if the school really does enforce that policy in all cases and regardless of the type of literature.  I am doubtful. But it is possible. Again, we don't have that informaiton.

However I think that it one could argue that a total ban on all such speech would also be seen as unconstitutional.

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.

Under what circumstances could a school constitutionally prohibit the distribution of all non school related literature?  Wouldn't an ironclad ban on all such activities likely be seen as unconstitutional?  What is the compelling state interest in supressing all non-school related literature (speech) if such literature is distributed in such a way that it creates no disruption? 

It would be interesting to see if there has ever been a case on that.

 

 

 

[Doctrine1st]

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?

take care

FOW

Hmmm....I always thought the KKK trumpeted themselves as a Christian organization? No?

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Clay
whether i know it or not, theres still no need of little remarks like that

{unecessary comments meant to inflame}

 

 

[crazyfingers]

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

 

However it would be interesting to see if Outspoken has anything to say about that rather huge and inexcusable "mistake" in that "news" report by WorldNetDaily.

 

 

 

[Clay]

sauron, you cant deny that it only takes little remarks in these threads to set something off. you're title is veteran so i know you know that. this thread could be an excellent debate, and it would be a shame for us to have to shut it down for little extras, no matter how big or small. if everyone just keeps this on an intellectual level, then we all may learn something from it.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
Well sauron... you can go around trying to be the word police, but that isn't how the courts work. They go off of the constitution as much as possible. It is very clear here.

Unfortunately for your argument, this has nothing to do with being "word police".  The courts will decide this, and (given the Boston Globe more accurate explanation of events) it appears that the school is sufficiently covered legally. They did nothing wrong, and their acts were fully constitutional.

It is the most important freedom that we have, and any student can speak about it anywhere he likes.

Incorrect again, FOW.  All freedoms have limits - of place, of time, etc.  Those limits apply to all people, including students.  You obviously are unaware of how civil liberties work.

I bet you wouldn't have like the prayer that I said before a public school audience of about 2000 people. It started as follows--oh yea... it was in the lunch room too, during lunch for that matter-

Your act was unconstitutional.  I'm not surprised that you liked doing it - but it was still unconstitutional.  They used to do the same thing in my school.  But since christians exerted peer pressure and acted like bullies, nobody spoke up about the fact that the christians were getting special privileges and breaking the law.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Sauron
You don't understand how WorldNutDaily got its name, I take it?

 

 

 

[Brimshack]

Yes, the wording of the prayer itself illustrates precisely why such things should be unconstitutional:

"Jesus Christ, I give you my praise, for you alone are the Living God...."

FOW isn't so much addressing God, and speaking to the students there, telling them if they woship anyone else they are wrong. Children of other faiths were thus exposed to a direct assault on their faith, all in the guise of a prayer. We constantly hear Christians try and pretend that such prayes are innocent, and pose no imposition on non-believers. Next time I here someone ask for evidence of that Christian prayers will be used to impose on non-believers, I will just show them this post. But I wonder if God wouldn't have some concerns about someone including such duplicities in their prayers.

 

[fieldsofwind]

no... they weren't children... they were college students at a public school. The rule is that the name of Jesus cannot be mentioned--however, I "broke" the rules didn't I. Was I unconstitutional--being a student? According to some here, yes. Would I do it again, yes. Was it respected by the students, yes. Why, because noone else has ever said it before. So, it was cheered. Was this to be expected--not at the Citadel.

take care

 

[Brimshack]

"…public school audience of about 2000 people"

This phrase would normally indicate that you were taling to an audience of K-12 students. If that is not what you are talking about, then perhaps you should explain the whole thing rather than bait us with equivocations.

 

[Outspoken]

"what about if it were the Gay & Lesbian Tolerance Commitee, Outspoken? "

I had friends in high school that were gay and they clearly expressed it. I don't see what you're objecting about, they never get yelled at.

"you can't use the public school grounds for proselytization activities during school hours."

HUH? what part of nonclass time did you not see? I think you need to read the article and crazyfingers posts Sauron.

"you might consider something besides WorldNutDaily next time you want to post a news article. "

Sorry I forgot my sauron literature approved red marker.

 

[juiblex]

I had friends in high school that were gay and they clearly expressed it. I don't see what you're objecting about, they never get yelled at.

not the point. if there was a GLBT commitee handing out rainbow coloured candy-canes at christmas, or some similar item at a Gay Pride Week, and the same thing happened to them, would you have posted this story in exactly the same way with the line:

"no billy you cant talk about who you are"

?

 

[Nathan David]

I disagree with Sauron. Yes it was evangelization, but it was done by students not the school. I'm glad the ACLU is supporting the students.

 

[Nelzador]

Wow, anyone would think these guys were selling hard drugs the way people react. I understand the seperation of Church and state rule, but getting stressed out over candy and a little message seems a bit OTT to me.

 

[Nathan David]

Originally posted by Nelzador
I understand the seperation of Church and state rule, but getting stressed out over candy and a little message seems a bit OTT to me.

Separation of Church and State shouldn't have anything to do with it, as the students aren't agents of the state. Some schools have rules against distributing candy, which I'm sympathetic to, but suspending a violator would be going way to far.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Brimshack
"…public school audience of about 2000 people"

This phrase would normally indicate that you were taling to an audience of K-12 students. If that is not what you are talking about, then perhaps you should explain the whole thing rather than bait us with equivocations.

 

I agree.  FOW needs to provide more information if he wants to actually discuss this.

If what he describes too place in k-12 public school his actions would have been unconstitutional and morally wrong. 

So, I am looking forward to seeing more detail from him.  Otherwise there is not enough information to have a discussion.

 

 

[Clay]

seperation of church and state simply means and ONLY means that the state (or government) can NOT under any circumstances set up a national religion or one approved religion. all must be allowed freely. it does not mean you cant bring a Bible into a school or anything like that.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Clay
seperation of church and state simply means and ONLY means that the state (or government) can NOT under any circumstances set up a national religion or one approved religion. all must be allowed freely.

Actually, it means that the government must stay neutral on the subject. It must neither favor one religion over another or favor religion over nonreligion.

So while it is correct that the government can not set up set up a national religion and the state must not have an aproved religion, it means much more than that.  The state must be neutral on the subject of religion.

it does not mean you cant bring a Bible into a school or anything like that.

There are some restriction and these have to do with the use of state resources or authority to force others to listen to bible reading.

Specifically, these are the rules related to prayer and bible reading in public school:

[font="Arial, Helvetica"]1. Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student listeners. In the classroom students have the right to pray quietly except when required to be actively engaged in school activities (e.g., students may not decide to pray just as a teacher calls on them). In informal settings, such as the cafeteria or in the halls, students may pray either audibly or silently, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other speech in these locations. However, the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate.  [/font]

Source

Here is a more detailed description of what is and is not OK regarding children's religious expression in school



Student prayer and religious discussion: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit purely private religious speech by students. Students therefore have the same right to engage in individual or group prayer and religious discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activity. For example, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may engage in comparable nondisruptive activities. Local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and other pedagogical restrictions on student activities, but they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against religious activity or speech. Generally, students may pray in a nondisruptive manner when not engaged in school activities or instruction, and subject to the rules that normally pertain in the applicable setting. Specifically, students in informal settings, such as cafeterias and hallways, may pray and discuss their religious views with each other, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other student activities and speech. Students may also speak to, and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics. School officials, however, should intercede to stop student speech that constitutes harassment aimed at a student or a group of students. Students may also participate in before or after school events with religious content, such as "see you at the flag pole" gatherings, on the same terms as they may participate in other noncurriculum activities on school premises. School officials may neither discourage nor encourage participation in such an event. The right to engage in voluntary prayer or religious discussion free from discrimination does not include the right to have a captive audience listen, or to compel other students to participate. Teachers and school administrators should ensure that no student is in any way coerced to participate in religious activity.

Source US Department of Education