Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 05-25-2002, 09:00 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by seebs:
I am *vehemently* opposed to any system that keeps him from being allowed to observe his religion, as long as I can't show direct harm to others from his decision to observe his religion in a specific way.

Seebs, we all are. But the issue is government sponsorship of religion.

Hmm. That might be a useful tack: See what level of "religious behavior" the fundies want to agree on if it's understood that everyone *ELSE* gets to do it too.

The proper level of government sponsored religious behavior is zero. What people do on their own time is their own business, so long as they don't bother others.

Vorkosigan

seebs · 05-25-2002, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:

Seebs, we all are. But the issue is government sponsorship of religion.

The problem comes with the definition of "sponsorship". Imagine, if you will, that we wish to give tax breaks to charities. Should we give them also to religiously-based charities? Probably - but that could be argued to be "sponsorship" of religion. If I tithe, and the government hires me, my religion is being "sponsored", indirectly, out of my paycheck.

To give some examples, and my feelings about them:

Teacher keeps Bible in desk, or on shelf in office: Should be allowed.

Teacher lectures students based on Biblical passages (outside of class on religion): Shouldn't be allowed.

Teacher uses Bible in compulsory assignments (or punishments, such as "copy this 500 times"): Shouldn't be allowed, except for assignments in classes having to do with religion.

Teacher quotes Bible or makes topical reference to Bible during lecture: Should be allowed.

My concern is that it's pretty easy to call it "sponsoring" of religion if religious people are being funded or supported by the state... I am wary of being too reactionary, and ruling out reasonable behaviors.

The Resistance · 05-26-2002, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seebs:


The problem comes with the definition of "sponsorship". Imagine, if you will, that we wish to give tax breaks to charities. Should we give them also to religiously-based charities? Probably - but that could be argued to be "sponsorship" of religion.

As along as ALL religious charities (and non-religious) are tax deductible, then it's okay. If you can accomendate ALL religions than it's okay, because the government isn't showing favoritism to one religion versus another.

In school, it's simply impractical too accomendate all religions, so none of them can be accomendated.

seebs · 05-26-2002, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Resistance:

As along as ALL religious charities (and non-religious) are tax deductible, then it's okay. If you can accomendate ALL religions than it's okay, because the government isn't showing favoritism to one religion versus another.

In school, it's simply impractical too accomendate all religions, so none of them can be accomendated.

Hmm. I'm not even sure the government should favor "all religions equally".

The difficulty comes in clearly distinguishing between the private exercise of religious freedom by a single staff member, and a school establishment favoring a religion. This is especially hard because the majority of the religious people will have a *particular* religion in common. It's very hard to tell the difference between something done by half of the individual staff, and a school policy.

This frustrates me, because, as a Christian, I really don't want fellow Christians restrained from acting as their faith dictates... but at the same time, the *practical* effects are harmful enough that I don't think many religious practices in a school can be condoned in a manner consistent with those same morals...

It would, of course, be much easier if people all around had a bit of restraint and common sense. Also, I want a pony.

Writer@Large · 05-27-2002, 07:05 AM

Jesus Freak, you seeem to be following an all too typical pattern in this discussion, one I see a lot in web pages and message board discussions on C/S Separation from people without a lot of working knowledge of the issue:

1) Cite and offer a very strict, very basic reading of the Establishment Clause, without reference to or acknowledgement of case law, court rulings, and 200+ years of C/S history since its writing.

2) When the flwas in the above approach are pointed out to you, ignore your mistakes and continue ignoring history, and instead offer up a bad analogy to the situation at hand that you hope will make the original case seem ridiculous.

Why not look at the entire situation, in context, and with a full understanding of the precedent? If you're looking for an analogy to this case, find an apt one: the Santa Fe, Texas public PA prayer before football games. In that case, the Supreme Court cleary ruled that a school holding an official vote for prayer, and then handing over a mike for prayer, was unconstitutional. So now, we have people at another school, in another state, trying to do essentially the same thing as that which has been declared unlawful.

Granted, there is spin here, but the article <a href="http://www.aclu.org/news/2002/n052302a.html" target="_blank">the ACLU has posted on the suit</a> contains more detail than the AP Wire article:

Quote:

According to the ACLU lawsuit, a Christian minister delivered a prayer at the graduation ceremony every year until the spring of 2001, when Sean, a math teacher at the school, protested to school officials. The school responded by substituting a student-delivered "message" on the graduation program last year. The senior class was permitted to vote on whether the message would be a prayer. When the seniors voted not to deliver a prayer, the lawsuit states, community members complained. The school then organized a second vote in which the seniors complied with community pressure and voted to deliver a prayer.

In other words, the students had the chance to make (and apparently made, originally) the right choice. Not that the vote should ever have taken place, but at least the students originally rejected it.

Jesus Freak, this is the way a debate works. I've just provided current case law, and a very analogous example, showing that this school is wrong, and their actions unconstitutional. Now, if you wish to counter, feel free; but you'll need to do so with more than assertion or badly concieved hypothetical analogies.

--W@L

Toto · 05-28-2002, 10:23 AM

It looks like a miscarriage of justice

<a href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_1168209,00.html" target="_blank">Littwin: Answer to prayer in Plainview</a>

Quote:

The answer to the prayer question at the high school graduation was in plain sight, which is not quite the same thing as Plainview.

But close. So close you have to wonder how all the legal talent missed it.

. . .

At Plainview, before Shields arrived two years ago, they used to have clergy speak at graduation. Last year, they decided to let the seniors choose -- prayer, no prayer or a moment of silence. The seniors voted for the moment of silence, only to have the community, not so silent, make objections so loud there was a re-vote. Yes, prayer won. You can make your own judgments about coercion.

This year, there's a new superintendent, Johnny Holcomb, who has, according to his lawyers, gotten religion on this issue. When Shields said there might be some problems with prayer at Plainview, Holcomb consulted lawyers and started changing policy. He learned, for example, that it may not be the best thing to hand out Bibles on school grounds. Of course, he'd only been in education for 29 years.

And when the ACLU called this spring, Holcomb changed graduation policy. There would not be any school involvement in prayer. But what there could be is a student message, which just coincidentally happens to be in the same place in the graduation program they used to have the invocation.

. . .

So, what could be wrong with the Plainview plan? Only one thing. It would be a problem if Plainview's new policy was put in place as a way to slip in school prayer -- with the well-known nod and wink -- while pretending the message is about something else.

So, why didn't anyone ask Trista Harris? She has the answers. All of them. She was on the witness list. She was the Plainview senior in plain sight -- there in the front row. And nobody asked her.

She had made the 3 1/2-hour drive with three of her classmates in the senior class of six. And even though she was at the heart of the case -- she's the one delivering the, uh, message today -- she was never called. And when the verdict went her way, she said, "Thank God."

There's your clue.

Reporters asked her why she had volunteered to deliver the message -- she won't say whether it's a prayer -- she didn't need to take an oath.

"Because," she said, "I believe in the Lord, and that's how I was raised."

When I asked Harris if the new rules were simply put in place so that prayer could continue at graduation, she looked at me as if I were clueless -- you know, like most adults.

"Yeah," she said.

And who could argue? I mean, besides all the lawyers.

Judge Krieger said the plaintiffs didn't make their case. From the evidence, she said, it was ambiguous what Plainview's motives might be, and ambiguity wasn't good enough.
. . .

Toto · 05-30-2002, 09:53 AM

<a href="http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/prayer29.htm" target="_blank">American Atheists legal analysis</a> (good legal cites on student-led prayer.)

Quote:

The constitutionality of "student led" prayer has drawn mixed signals from the nation's judiciary. Other forms of organized religious exercise in public schools -- led by teachers, clergy or others identified with the government -- have been struck down as clear violations of the First Amendment's establishment clause. School prayer advocates have tried a number of ruses, though, including moments of silence or meditation. Depending on the specific wording of the statute, these laws have elicited a wide range of findings in the courts. In WALLACE v. JAFFREE (1985), for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law mandating a period of silence "for meditation or daily prayer." But a U.S. District Court judge in Virginia upheld that state's law in 2000 which required that students observe a 60-second period of quiet during which they could "meditate, pray or engage in any other silent activity."

School prayer advocates have also rallied behind <a href="http://www.atheists.org/schoolhouse/" target="_blank">"student led" prayer</a> which, they argue, distances any government (in the form of the public school) from the planning or execution of the religious ceremony. They add that this transforms the prayer into a "message" which is protected as a form of free speech. Supported by groups such as televangelist Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, prayer supporters encourage school districts to implement policies similar to the one in Colorado which allow students to vote on whether to have a "message" during a graduation or similar event. The fact that the school does not compose the prayer, they say, allows the policy pass constitutional muster.

Critics say that this is simply an end-run around state-church separation; and at least in the case of "student led" prayer at high school football games, the Supreme Court agrees.

In June, 2000, the court ruled 6-3 that a Texas school district policy permitting <a href="http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/prayer14.htm" target="_blank">"student led" prayer at athletic events was unconstitutional.</a> Writing for the majority in SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE, Justice John Paul Stevens opined:

"School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."

Stevens continued: "The delivery of such a message -- over the school's public address system by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer -- is not properly characterized as private speech."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-25-2002, 09:00 PM	#21
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	[QUOTE]Originally posted by seebs: I am vehemently opposed to any system that keeps him from being allowed to observe his religion, as long as I can't show direct harm to others from his decision to observe his religion in a specific way. Seebs, we all are. But the issue is government sponsorship of religion. *Hmm. That might be a useful tack: See what level of "religious behavior" the fundies want to agree on if it's understood that everyone ELSE* gets to do it too.** The proper level of government sponsored religious behavior is zero. What people do on their own time is their own business, so long as they don't bother others. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.