Court slaps down ACLU

[Galahad]

Hmmm, what was "anti-Christian" about that? I'm pretty sure the same rule would have been applied to other religious texts. Your initial response about being "banned in school" was about my post stating you were free to bring a Bible and read silently to yourself during non-classroom time. "Talking about it in class" is NOT reading silently to yourself, is it?

I didn't say anti-Christian, I said anti-religious. They were not to read their books aloud in class, just bring one and say why they like it. Yep, better keep them religous poeple silent....... I was told they were not free to bring it to school - period.

 

[Galahad]

double post.........

 

[Galahad]

I think Chuck was looking for proof of a school district that banned the Bible from being brought to school to be read silently. Glad to see there apparantly isn't one.

You leap to interesting conclusions. Our experiences on this thread are the sum total of all information about the subject? BTW, he asked for "evidence". He didn't ask for "proof". I would not have offered one anecdote as proof of anything.

 

[Galahad]

There are two citations of similar incidents - one in New Jersey in 1996 and one in Pennsyvania - citing the other case - in 2005, BTW. That was just on the second link.

This was a qoute in response to a school that had banned kids from visably wearing crosses:

"Nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the school house door." President Clinton, 1995-JUL-12.

 

[Chuck S]

I didn't say anti-Christian, I said anti-religious. They were not to read their books aloud in class, just bring one and say why they like it. Yep, better keep them religous poeple silent....... I was told they were not free to bring it to school - period.

Talking about why you like a book in class, whether any part of the book is actually read in class or not, is still introducing the subject matter in a public school class and it is inappropriate for to discuss religion in a public school classroom. It is quite different than simply bringing a book to school to read silently for your own enjoyment during non-classroom time.

If someone at the school told you your son could not bring the Bible to school AT ALL, even to read silently during lunch, then you should have mounted a legal challenge, the ACLU probably would have taken your case. I imagine the school would have changed that part of the policy.

 

[eclectics]

You leap to interesting conclusions. Our experiences on this thread are the sum total of all information about the subject? BTW, he asked for "evidence". He didn't ask for "proof". I would not have offered one anecdote as proof of anything.

And you seem to be under the assumption you are being flamed. I don't believe you are, at least not from me. I was interested in proof or evidence (don't they have the same implication?) of a school district that doesn't allow a child to bring a Bible to school. I thought I made my opinion clear that I believe a child should be able to do so. If I understand you correctly you take offense to my opinion that it should be done quietly. Speaking aloud from the Bible (or any religious text) in a public school is "preaching" and should not be allowed. You apparantly disagree, which is fine. I'm not getting defensive about my views and I don't understand why you feel the need to.

 

[Galahad]

And you seem to be under the assumption you are being flamed. I don't believe you are, at least not from me. I was interested in proof or evidence (don't they have the same implication?) of a school district that doesn't allow a child to bring a Bible to school. I thought I made my opinion clear that I believe a child should be able to do so. If I understand you correctly you take offense to my opinion that it should be done quietly. Speaking aloud from the Bible (or any religious text) in a public school is "preaching" and should not be allowed. You apparantly disagree, which is fine. I'm not getting defensive about my views and I don't understand why you feel the need to.

Understood. I took it as a flame yes. I don't think religious expression, protected by the constitution, is preaching by definition if it is not, if fact, preaching. I took the posts as a indication that since I did not offer evidence of the nature that was asked for that I was merely "full of it". Sorry I mis-read it.

Another citation from a site devoted to banned books:

Any use of the Bible in American schools has been challenged as a violation of the First Amendment. Others have challenged teaching it as literature when they believed that it should be taught only as a sacred text, the word of God as they interpret it. Even the presence of the Bible in schools or school libraries has been widely challenged. In a notorious 1989 case, an elementary school student in Omaha, Nebraska, was forbidden to read or carry the Bible on school grounds.
Some recent cases have been based on its containing indecent material. In 1992 it was challenged in Brooklyn, New York, on the grounds that "the lewd, indecent, and violent contents of that book are hardly suitable for young children." In Fairbanks, Alaska, a 1993 challenge branded the Bible "obscene and pornographic," and a Pennsylvania challenge cited "more than 300 examples of obscenities" and "language and stories that are inappropriate for children of any age."

 

[Galahad]

If someone at the school told you your son could not bring the Bible to school AT ALL, even to read silently during lunch, then you should have mounted a legal challenge, the ACLU probably would have taken your case. I imagine the school would have changed that part of the policy.

They did. I wouldn't have taken it up in any case. I don't like talking to lawyers, even if they are "on my side". Usually the "activists" in cases like this do their child more harm than good in the course of trying to win their point. We were in the military at the time an "temporary" residents of the state we lived in. I felt that it was likely us that were out of step with the locals and since we wouldn't be living there again it sort of seemed none of our business at the time.

 

[Galahad]

Talking about why you like a book in class, whether any part of the book is actually read in class or not, is still introducing the subject matter in a public school class and it is inappropriate for to discuss religion in a public school classroom. It is quite different than simply bringing a book to school to read silently for your own enjoyment during non-classroom time.

FWIW, he liked the book, and started to tell the class, because the character in the story he was citing had the same name as him. He was in the first grade. Theology hadn't really occured to him yet.

 

[Chuck S]

There are two citations of similar incidents - one in New Jersey in 1996 and one in Pennsyvania - citing the other case - in 2005, BTW. That was just on the second link.

This was a qoute in response to a school that had banned kids from visably wearing crosses:

"Nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the school house door." President Clinton, 1995-JUL-12.

Talking about this article banning crosses: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/06/njewel06.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/06/ixhome.html

It seems the school banned ALL jewelry, except as was REQUIRED by a specific religion. If psrt of "being a Christian" required the girl to wear the crucifix, it would have been allowed. While it seems "fair" legally, I think the school used poor judgement. But that was in Great Britian, not the US.

But back to the queston in the OP of this thread, about posting the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, how does not permitting the 10 Commandments to be posted, except as part of a display on the history of law, violate anyones right to worship as they please?

 

[MrsTink04]

Because these are people with seriously shaky beliefs. You can tell a lot about a person and their "faith" by how they respond to this stuff. It's not "worship" it's dumbed-down devotion. Their sense of spirituality is so shaky that it must be shored up by a big slab of rock. Be nice, these people deseve pity. Their Christian beliefs depend upon acknowledgement from a Kentucky court. It seems an insult to the glory of true faith to seek it from Richard Suhrheinrich (who?). But then if they can't have their big stone it will seriously "affect their ways of worship." See?

HOW DARE YOU JUDGE MY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS??!?!?!?! You don't know anything about me! I also DO NOT preach to ANYONE...though I will answer questions ONLY if they are asked of me.
I don't really CARE about the 10 Commandments being placed in a public building!!!! My argument is against the ACLU, which seem to take things to the extreme. I don't care if they get shot down about the commandment thing or if they get kicked out of a McDonalds - I am glad to see someone stand up to them. Read back through my posts...did I ever say I think the 10 commandments should be posted in a publuc place? No! I think my beliefs are right down the middle. So maybe you better begin educating yourself with people's past posts before you start typing.

 

[Galahad]

Talking about this article banning crosses: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/06/njewel06.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/06/ixhome.html

It seems the school banned ALL jewelry, except as was REQUIRED by a specific religion. If psrt of "being a Christian" required the girl to wear the crucifix, it would have been allowed. While it seems "fair" legally, I think the school used poor judgement. But that was in Great Britian, not the US.

But back to the queston in the OP of this thread, about posting the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, how does not permitting the 10 Commandments to be posted, except as part of a display on the history of law, violate anyones right to worship as they please?

LOL! Oh yeah, the OP. Well, IMO it doesn't. But IMO it also doesn't violate the non-religious folks the right not to establish or require religion either.

IMO it's like some of the fringes of the abortion debate. Some people will support late term abortions, not because they really think they are a good idea, but because of who opposed them and why. In this case, some people support posting the 10 commandments in a courthouse because of the vitriol thrown in their general direction by those most vocally opposed to it. It's just human nature.

 

[Chuck S]

FWIW, he liked the book, and started to tell the class, because the character in the story he was citing had the same name as him. He was in the first grade. Theology hadn't really occured to him yet.

FIRST GRADE? The Bible? Surely he wasn't reading and comprehending the entire Bible on his own on first grade? While it was an honest mistake of your son to take the book, how in the world could any adult think it is appropriate to talk about the Bible in a first grade classroom as a favorite book...it is full of violence, sexual situatons, unwed mothers, murders...just as Shakespear's plays would be beyond a first graders comprehension, so is the Bible. If the assignment was to bring a book, and talk about why liked it, why wouldn't it be assumed it is a book at first grade level?

 

[Galahad]

FIRST GRADE? The Bible? Surely he wasn't reading and comprehending the entire Bible on his own on first grade? While it was an honest mistake of your son to take the book, how in the world could any adult think it is appropriate to talk about the Bible in a first grade classroom as a favorite book...it is full of violence, sexual situatons, unwed mothers, murders...just as Shakespear's plays would be beyond a first graders comprehension, so is the Bible. If the assignment was to bring a book, and talk about why liked it, I wouldn't it be assumed it is a book at first grade level?

The Bible is published in versions for young children. It's not like he was reading about Bathsheba.

 

[Chuck S]

Any use of the Bible in American schools has been challenged as a violation of the First Amendment. Others have challenged teaching it as literature when they believed that it should be taught only as a sacred text, the word of God as they interpret it. Even the presence of the Bible in schools or school libraries has been widely challenged. In a notorious 1989 case, an elementary school student in Omaha, Nebraska, was forbidden to read or carry the Bible on school grounds.
Some recent cases have been based on its containing indecent material. In 1992 it was challenged in Brooklyn, New York, on the grounds that "the lewd, indecent, and violent contents of that book are hardly suitable for young children." In Fairbanks, Alaska, a 1993 challenge branded the Bible "obscene and pornographic," and a Pennsylvania challenge cited "more than 300 examples of obscenities" and "language and stories that are inappropriate for children of any age."

Well, I see the point in keeping the Bible from Elementry school libraries, don't you? If they allow the Bible, they would also have to allow other very controverial "adult content" books. The Bible, as a whole, is really not age appropriate for that group.

 

[Chuck S]

The Bible is published in versions for young children. It's not like he was reading about Bathsheba.

So it was not "the Bible" he took to school was it, but a collection of religious stories?

 

[Galahad]

So it was not "the Bible" he took to school was it, but a collection of religious stories?

Stories from the Bible - how is that different - because it wasn't the PG-13 version? Of course it was "the Bible". The Bible is a collection of religious stories.

 

[Chuck S]

Stories from the Bible - how is that different - because it wasn't the PG-13 version? Of course it was "the Bible". The Bible is a collection of religious stories.

We will disagree on that. An edited text of the Bible is not "the Bible". What your child took to school was a collection of Biblically based stories, stories written for the sole purpose of introducing religion to children. Inappropriate in a public school classroom. Would an edited version of the US Constitution still be "The Constitution?" No.

 

[LastTycoon]

My argument is against the ACLU, which seem to take things to the extreme. I don't care if they get shot down about the commandment thing or if they get kicked out of a McDonalds - I am glad to see someone stand up to them. Read back through my posts...did I ever say I think the 10 commandments should be posted in a publuc place? No! I think my beliefs are right down the middle.

Well you said;

Don't affect my way of worship and I will not affect yours.

and

I feel like they are trying to affect my rights to worship as I please.

and

do not infringe on my rights to worship Christ outside of my church

So I stick by my post. The ACLU is annoying and pushy but that doesn't change the fact that there are millions of well-appointed buildings all across the United States, most of them tax-exempt and some of them receiving state subventions, where anyone can go at any time and celebrate miraculous births and pregnant virgins all day and all night if they so desire. These places are known as "churches," and they can also force passersby to look at the displays and billboards they erect and to give ear to the bells that they ring. In addition, they can count on numberless radio and TV stations to beam their stuff all through the ether. If this is not sufficient for you, stand in your living room and preach and pray like there is no tomorrow. If that is not sufficient for you that shouldn't be my problem. Or the government's problem, or (I agree) the ACLU's problem.

 

[Galahad]

We will disagree on that. An edited text of the Bible is not "the Bible". What your child took to school was a collection of Biblically based stories, stories written for the sole purpose of introducing religion to children. Inappropriate in a public school classroom. Would an edited version of the US Constitution still be "The Constitution?" No.

I guess we'll disagree on most of it. The cover of the book of stories had the title "Bible" on it as well. So whether the school intended to prohibit the mention of a story from the Bible or the mention of a story from the Bible once removed, they still, IMO, stepped on the wrong side of the establishment clause. Perhaps they used an edited version of the constitution.