Dark Jedi

I sent this today, curious as to what response I get.

In your letter to the Byron Union Elementary School District (<a href="http://www.aclj.org/infoletters/islam_in_school2.asp" target="_blank">http://www.aclj.org/infoletters/islam_in_school2.asp</a>) You outline all the reasons why religion and upbringign should be left to the parents of children, and not imposed by the government or the schools.
Yet, in <a href="http://www.aclj.org/news/pressreleases/020125_nyc_god_bless_you.asp" target="_blank">http://www.aclj.org/news/pressreleases/020125_nyc_god_bless_you.asp</a> and in <a href="http://www.aclj.org/news/pressreleases/020125_vmi.asp" target="_blank">http://www.aclj.org/news/pressreleases/020125_vmi.asp</a> you take the exact opposite stance.
Which is it to be? Are the parents to be the religious indoctrinators and decision makers for their children, or are the schools?
Or, is it that you only oppose the establishment of religions that are not your own?

{edited by Toto to fix URL}

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Seeker630

I agree with you but there are two different issues here from the legal standpoint. In the Calif. school district instance, there are children actually being forced to say a prayer from another religion than their own. This is clearly wrong and I'd agree with the ACLJ's stance on that one, on condition that they are also not forced to say ANY other prayers either. That would cover your objection to favoring one over the other or any at all. It also brings us back to square one on the whole school prayer issue. They can't have it both ways.

On the other hand--the issue of "God Bless" signs in NYC and other places--while a violation of 1st amendment principles due to being on school property, does not really have any coercive element involved. I don't think anyone could make a case that mere exposure to a religious statement constitutes coersion. No one is being forced to pray or practice any religion, nor can anyone be made to even believe in anything just by posting those signs. I just don't think this carries nearly the weight of the forced prayers. I think it would also be argued in court very differently than the other cases for that reason.


The VMI thing is another animal yet again, although in principle it is much closer to the Calif. school issue. In the VMI case though, I'm not sure if the cadets were actually forced to recite a prayer, or if they were just expected to sit and listen while someone else said a prayer. It might make a difference on the next round of appeals.

I find it ironic that the ACLJ is using case law precendent which in some cases was originally filed by the ACLU to make their own stand in this particular case.

gallo

No, it doesn't. Wallace v. Jaffree (472 U.S. 38 (1985)) was a suite brought to challenge an amendment made in 1981 to a 1978 Alabama law. The suite was later amended to include another provision in 1982.

The original law allowed a minute of silence in public schools "for meditation." The first amendment modified the wording to read, "for meditation or voluntary prayer." The second amendment authorized teachers to lead "willing students" in a prescribed prayer to "Almighty God . . . the Creator and Supreme Judge of the world."

The Court first reaffirmed the principle of incorporation of the individual freedoms of the First Amendment under the Fourteenth Amentment.

Second, the Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it had no secular purpose (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)). In fact, the Court found that the entire purpose of the amendments were to advance religion by characterizing prayer as a favored practice.

Third, the Court found that the legislative record of the laws indicated that there was no secular purpose expressed by the legislative sponsors. They had, in fact, expressed clearly their religious motivations.

Interestingly, the majority opinion, two concurring opinions and three dissents all agreed that a minute of silence at the beginning of each school day was acceptable. The Court explicitly stated that it was permissable for teachers and/or students to say silent prayers during that time, and in fact, that that opportunity had existed before the enactment of the 1978 law. The law as originally amended was enough, i.e., the words "voluntary prayer" were sufficient to make the law unconstitutional without even considering the second amendment.

More to the point in the VMI case is Lee v. Weisman (505 U.S. 577 (1992)). This case involved non-denominational prayer at a Rhode Island Middle School led by a member of the clergy. Part of the decision included the finding that because the state (school principle) had specified the content of the prayer by offering printed guidelines and suggestions (about how to keep it non-denominational), it was unconstitutional. The government may not determine the nature or form of religious practice. But even more fundamentally, the Court said that there was psychological coercion on those who might not want to participate. The students were required to rise and stand in respectful silence while the prayers were being said. A student who dissented could not be distinguished from one who agreed with the religious behavior. There was no difference between participation and merely showing respect.

I haven't seen the VMI decision, but I wouldn't be surprised if it cited Lee v. Weisman. The actions of the students at VMI, whether they are participants in the prayer or whether they are not, are the same. A dissenting student, while merely showing respect for the religious practices of others might be perceived by others as agreeing with the religious exercise.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: gallo ]</p>

Dark Jedi

Just an update, no reply as of yet. I do not really expect one, but I am hoping to see their take.

Dark Jedi

New update:

A form letter thanking me for my support and a free subscription to their newsletter.

Doug

Jay Sekulow and his crew at ACLJ make me fuming mad. This is typical of their uneven application of the law.

This organization's sole purpose is to ultimately get organized prayer back into public schools. They raise loads of money from scared grandmas and right wing zealots by filing lawsuits over obscure misapplications of school rules barring organized religion, then beating their chest about how they are fighting for religious freedom from the tyranical US government.

Newsflash Jay, administrators make mistakes occasionally. It isn't a concerted effort by Satan and his atheist minions to end Christianity as we know it. Of course, Jay and his big brother Pat Robertson know this, but they also know how to use the system to reach their ultimate goal: Christian indoctrination of children in our nation's public schools.