Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Stephen Maturin · 05-23-2003, 12:21 PM

Chalk one up for the religious folk in the ongoing conflict between school districts trying to comply with the Establishment Clause and outside groups claiming a First Amendment right to distribute religious literature on school property. From an opinion issued yesterday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:

Quote:

In this case, we again confront the often confusing intersection of First Amendment rights and the delicate balance which must be struck by our public schools in insuring the right to Free Speech but avoiding endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. Striking this balance has never been easy and this appeal demonstrates just how difficult it can be.

Joseph Hills appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant Scottsdale Unified School District (the "District"). The District permits nonprofit organizations to distribute literature through its schools, promoting events and activities of interest to students, but prohibits any flyers of a "commercial, political or religious nature." After some back and forth, the District ultimately refused to distribute Hills's brochure for a summer camp that included, among nineteen course offerings, two classes on "Bible Heroes" and "Bible Tales." Application of Supreme Court precedent requires the conclusion that the District discriminated against Hills on the basis of his religious viewpoint, and requires us to hold that the District violated Hills's First Amendment rights by denying him equal access to the District's schools.

Hills v. Scottsdale Unified Sch. Dist. (PDF)

hezekiah jones · 05-23-2003, 12:37 PM

Goddamn 9th Circuit San Francisco atheist liberal swines.

hezekiah jones · 05-23-2003, 01:02 PM

Maybe this dude is not out of the woods quite yet:

Quote:

For example, Hills�s brochure contained the language "Did you know that if a child does not come to the knowledge of JESUS CHRIST, and learn the importance of Bible reading by age 12, chances are slim that they ever will in this life? We think it is important to start as young as possible!" This language was promotional not only of the class but of religion, and went beyond a description of the organization�s general religious mission to directly exhort the reader to involve children in religious observance. We stated in Prince that the World Changers Club could announce its meetings using the school�s facilities but could not in so doing "pray and proselytize." 303 F.3d at 1087. Likewise, the District is not obligated to distribute material that, in the guise of announcing an event, contains direct exhortations to religious observance; this exceeds the purpose of the forum the District created. Exclusion of such material would not be based on viewpoint, but on subject matter. In other words, the District cannot refuse to distribute literature advertising a program with
underlying religious content where it distributes quite similar literature for secular summer camps, but it can refuse to distribute literature that itself contains proselytizing language. The difference is subtle, but important.

After all, it is a limited public forum.

Stephen Maturin · 05-24-2003, 04:46 PM

Excellent point, Hezekiah. The immediately preceding paragraph reads:

Quote:

We do not, however, mean to suggest that the District must distribute Hills�s brochure as it was originally proposed.5 The District believed that all of the Bible course descriptions had to be excised, along with any religious symbols, because these indicated that the Bible would be taught from a Christian viewpoint. As discussed above, this premise constitutes viewpoint discrimination. However, because the District has created only a limited public forum, it could still exercise some control over the content of Hills�s brochure, to the extent that some of the language in the proposed brochure exceeds the scope of the District�s forum.

5 Indeed, Hills does not specifically seek such a remedy.

The quoted text is plenty clear in and of itself, but in the between-the-lines material the court seems to be suggesting a compromise along the lines of a kinder, gentler version of what the school district originally proposed. And so the one immutable truth of litigation stands up yet again: judges love settlements. Sounds downright reasonable, especially coming from a bunch of prancing, tree-hugging, scruffy, sandal-wearing, communist hippie freaks like the Ninth Circuit.

Peregrine · 05-25-2003, 04:08 PM

Clearly it is an equal access ruling. When you open a forum (permiting non-profits to distribute literature) you cannot discriminate against any viewpoint. On that point, all it takes is an atheist group to try to distribute literature to close the forum.

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

05-23-2003, 12:37 PM	#2
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Goddamn 9th Circuit San Francisco atheist liberal swines.

05-25-2003, 04:08 PM	#5
Peregrine Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 385	Clearly it is an equal access ruling. When you open a forum (permiting non-profits to distribute literature) you cannot discriminate against any viewpoint. On that point, all it takes is an atheist group to try to distribute literature to close the forum.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.