Schools' freedom of religious speech

[MrVersatile48]

BreakPoint with Charles Colson
http://www.breakpoint.org


First Amendment Follies
By Chuck Colson

Religious Speech at School

The school season is in full swing across the country, and parents are
crossing off items on all sorts of checklists: school supplies, clothes,
bus schedules, to name but a few.

But as Mark Earley discussed last week on "BreakPoint," there's another
item parents have to contend with: just how far their kids can go in
expressing their faith in school. It's an issue that arises out of a
distorted reading of the First Amendment.

That's a lesson that a New Jersey second-grader is learning the hard way.

Her school has an annual talent show open to all students. The kids can
sing, dance, play an instrument, or even perform a skit.

The second-grader chose to sing the song "Awesome God."

And that's when trouble began.

After reading the song's lyrics, the teacher said that the principal would have to approve the student's choice, which, predictably, she did not.
The principal informed the child's mother that the song's "religious content" was "inappropriate."

Why? Because the talent show involved a "captive audience of . . . quite young children."

"Captive audience?"

Are we talking about a school or a prisoner-of-war camp?

And what exactly does the principal think will happen to those kids
if they listen to a 7- or 8-year-old sing about God for two minutes?

Remember, these are kids who are exposed to sexually charged and violent
mass media on an almost-hourly basis!

Not surprisingly, the second-grader's parents are suing the school
district. But what is surprising is that they are being represented by the
ACLU.

If this proves too disorienting, don't worry: In Nevada, the ACLU has sided with a school district that cut off a valedictorian's microphone just in
time to spare the exquisitely sensitive from being exposed to perceived
obscenities like "God," "Lord," and-horror of horrors-"Jesus."

Like their Jersey counterparts, Nevada officials feared that the student's
words would be construed as a governmental sanction of religion,
specifically, Christianity.

These latest episodes of First Amendment follies led columnist Nat Hentoff
to note in USA Today that "educators and, for that matter, some ACLU
chapters-don't have a clear understanding of the First Amendment."


Hentoff provides a much-needed lesson: While the Establishment Clause
prohibits government actions that favor one religion, "a student can
express his or her personal religious beliefs in an assignment or as a
valedictorian."

Now people aren't stupid; they know these kids are speaking for themselves.

But the way we have turned the First Amendment on its head is stupid.

The Establishment Clause, which was intended to protect the free exercise of
religion by getting government out of the religion business, is being used
to repress religious expression.

People are being told that religion, unlike sex, is something that must be
practiced behind closed doors. Our reply, like the valedictorian's, must be
a polite "no."

Allowing people to express their religious beliefs in public is a hallmark, arguably the most important one, of a free society.

And be sure your kids understand this.



Back to link related threads in this vital battle for the true freedom that only Christ can give...

@ chaplains, in uniform, banned from praying in Jesus' Mighty Name:-

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=24834

This links others

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=24514

'Whoever the Son sets free is free indeed!"

"Stand fast, therefore.........."

God bless!

Ian

 

[Quath]

I think a good way to look at this is to imagine if the opposite happened. What if the girl wanted to sing "Awesome Satan"? Or "All Infidels Should Be Killed by Allah"?

So there are reasonable limits on what kids should be allowed to sing. We just need to make sure they are applied fairly and across all religions and beliefs.

 

[Poke]

I think a good way to look at this is to imagine if the opposite happened. What if the girl wanted to sing "Awesome Satan"? Or "All Infidels Should Be Killed by Allah"?

I think the girl should have the right to satanic speech in school, even though I don't think satanic speech should be allowed in school.

The problem is the intrinsic tyranny of a government-operated school system. Someone has to be censored or someone has to be exposed to speech their parents object to.

The solution is to close all the government-operated schools. But, a tyrant does not want a solution to tyranny.

 

[Quath]

I think the girl should have the right to satanic speech in school, even though I don't think satanic speech should be allowed in school.

I don't understand this. Do you think the girl should be allowed to say something Satanic or not?

The problem is the intrinsic tyranny of a government-operated school system. Someone has to be censored or someone has to be exposed to speech their parents object to.

I guess that is why the try to compromise on religious neutrality.

The solution is to close all the government-operated schools. But, a tyrant does not want a solution to tyranny.

Then rich kids would get a good education and poor kids would get none, which would further hurt the poor kids.

 

[Poke]

I guess that is why the try to compromise on religious neutrality.

You mean, censorship of religious speech and de facto indoctrination of atheism.

Why not "neutrality" in other areas of contoversy? Why just nominal neutrality in religion?

Then rich kids would get a good education and poor kids would get none, which would further hurt the poor kids.

The government can still pay for education, just as long as they don't run the schools.

 

[Quath]

You mean, censorship of religious speech and de facto indoctrination of atheism.

Neutrality of religion means that all religions are equally treated. That is not pushing atheism. After all, during winter, schools can put on a display so long as they try to include all represented religions. So they can have a nativity scene, Santa Claus, winter festival, Quanza, and a Hanukkah Candelabrum. This does not promote atheism.

Why not "neutrality" in other areas of contoversy? Why just nominal neutrality in religion?

This is due to separation of church and state.

The government can still pay for education, just as long as they don't run the schools.

If the government pays, it wants to make sure it get what it pays for. So they would have to have oversight. That would also mean they would have to set the standards (or else some schools could skip on math and other skip out on art). In the end, the government will have a big say so in education if it funds it.

 

[peace4all]

why does the fact that a school doesn't implicitly recognize Jesus, or "God" mean it is atheistic? The muppets don't, are they a tool of atheism? Many books don't, are they a tool of atheism? Do food labels and instruction manuals promote atheism, because they do not mention faith?

 

[Poke]

Neutrality of religion means that all religions are equally treated. That is not pushing atheism. After all, during winter, schools can put on a display so long as they try to include all represented religions. So they can have a nativity scene, Santa Claus, winter festival, Quanza, and a Hanukkah Candelabrum. This does not promote atheism.

You can't be neutural on religion when religion has relevancy. If you teach science without giving credit to God for the creation, you're teaching atheism (the Evolution/Creation debate aside). If you give equal time to conflicting religious celebrations, the message is that none of them are valid. When you teach humanistic values and conduct your day in a purely secular fashion, you're teaching atheism.

[quote:b8b2d]Why not "neutrality" in other areas of contoversy? Why just nominal neutrality in religion?

This is due to separation of church and state.[/quote:b8b2d]

The First Amendment was not intended to apply to schools nor to be be used to oppress religion. But, that's not the question I'm asking. If you want schools to be religiously neutral, why not be neutral in other controversial areas, for the same reasons?

If the government pays, it wants to make sure it get what it pays for. So they would have to have oversight. That would also mean they would have to set the standards (or else some schools could skip on math and other skip out on art). In the end, the government will have a big say so in education if it funds it.

Details don't affect the principle. But, for example, private schools could be accredited in similar fashion to colleges.

 

[Quath]

You can't be neutural on religion when religion has relevancy. If you teach science without giving credit to God for the creation, you're teaching atheism (the Evolution/Creation debate aside). If you give equal time to conflicting religious celebrations, the message is that none of them are valid. When you teach humanistic values and conduct your day in a purely secular fashion, you're teaching atheism.

I talked to a scientist that went to Catholic school. I can't quote tell his religious beliefs, but I know that he has a lot of respect for the Catholic system and he believes in modern science (i.e. Big Bang, evolution, etc.) He says the difference in science and religion is that science is "how" and religion is "why" and there is always trouble when one steps into the field of the other.

I tend to agree. There was a time when Christians said the Earth does not move because the Bible said so. Yet science said it did. We have to let science talk about what we see and observe and not cloud it with the many possible interpretations you can get from a holy book.

The First Amendment was not intended to apply to schools nor to be be used to oppress religion. But, that's not the question I'm asking. If you want schools to be religiously neutral, why not be neutral in other controversial areas, for the same reasons?

I agree. It was not intended to apply to the state level. However, the 14th amendment changed all of that. So now, it is part of our Constitution.

We do have other areas where we have to be neutral. For example, school teachers can not ask their students to vote for one party or the other. So we have some political neutrality. We have some morality neutrality as well. However, a lot of that usually ties back into religion.

Details don't affect the principle. But, for example, private schools could be accredited in similar fashion to colleges.

But who decides if the education was good. For example, should children be taught evolution? Should one school accept another schools student that skipped out on a lot of the science. What if one school wanted to teach up to Calculus 3 and skip out on English and another did the opposite?

I think there has to be a spelled out standard of what is expected from schools if they are to be supported by the people.

 

[Poke]

He says the difference in science and religion is that science is "how" and religion is "why" and there is always trouble when one steps into the field of the other.

Would Hitler be any less of a tyrant if you agreed with his beliefs?

I agree. It was not intended to apply to the state level. However, the 14th amendment changed all of that. So now, it is part of our Constitution.

The First Amendment has been corrupted far beyond anything that can be justified by the 14th Amendment.

But who decides if the education was good. For example, should children be taught evolution? Should one school accept another schools student that skipped out on a lot of the science. What if one school wanted to teach up to Calculus 3 and skip out on English and another did the opposite?

Why should those be issues, except to people who want to spread FUD? They're hardly issues for college accreditation.

I think there has to be a spelled out standard of what is expected from schools if they are to be supported by the people.

Tyrants will attempt to oppress people regardless of the structure of government. But, anything that makes that oppression more difficult is a step in the right direction.

 

[MrVersatile48]

http://www.radiocity.co.uk Pete Price phone-in @ both 1015/25pm & 1.35/50am should be online 7 days

Another twist in this tangled thread 4 ya:-

Al Qaeda Attacks Pope After Comments Monday September 18

Al Qaeda militants in Iraq have vowed to wage war on the "worshippers of the cross" following the Pope's controversial comments about Islam. The group said it would "break the cross and spill the wine". Pope Benedict XVI caused anger in the Muslim world over the weekend with comments earlier in the week that seemed to endorse a view that Islam was a violent religion.

He apologised for the remarks but that has done little stem Muslim anger.

In Iraq's southern city of Basra, up to 150

demonstrators chanted slogans and burned a white effigy of the Pope.

"No to aggression!", "We gagged the Pope!", they chanted.

An elderly nun was shot dead in Somalia while there were attacks on churches in Gaza and the West Bank.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood deputy leader Mohammed Habib said: "It does not rise to the level of a clear apology. We're calling on the Pope to issue a clear apology that will decisively end any confusion."

However, the Muslim Council of Britain said the apology was "exactly the reassurance many Muslims were looking for".

French President Jacques Chirac urged the Pope to use more diplomatic language.

The head of the world's Anglican church, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, also defended the Pontiff.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OH: http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool 12.25-40pm will also be online 7 days

& as I had to tell Pete Price on http://www.radiocity.co.uk 3/4 times, @ 1.35-1.50am Sun night, "Of course I'm a sinner: saved by the sheer grace of God thru faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice" - as in John 3 & Romans 2, Galatians 2:15-16 & Ephesians 2:8-9

I was rung & put on air, both @ 10.15pm & 1.35am

2nd time, a caller was first to return to Tony Robinson's 2-hours Sat night TV docu @ Revelation

He said, "if there's anyone out there who knows solid evidence that we are nearing the end of days, do ring up & tell us, as I'm fascinated!"

I told the producer I'd already been on, but had just talked about how the Matthew 24 birthpains of all kinds of natural, socail & spiritual disasters were coming more fequently & more intensely to bring on the instant airlift Rapture rescue of all who love Jesus, before the worst time ever starts - what Tony R had so foolishly mocked - as in 2 Timothy 3 - to keep folk from finding saving faith in Christ

Both he & http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool Roger Philips used the technique of asking the same question @ 4/5 times over, with no gap for reply, as a way of shouting down my ansers - inc using the volume control on the 10-seconds delay loop all radio stations have

Roger did that to blast over this site's url twice

Only when I began one late reply with http://www.ChristianForums.net did I take him by surprise & get it in clearly - tho actually, on playback, http://www.ChristianForums.net is audible 4 times despite his efforts to drown it


This is part of the prophesied 'spirit of antichrist' - 2 Thessalonians 2

As also prophesied @ this climax generation of history, "Evil folk will get worse & worse...reject the truth & believe the lie..will no longer endure sound teaching, but will instead gather to them teachers who say only what they want to hear"

This pick-&-mix generation forgets Galatians 6:7

Back to topic - God chooses to save anyone who will repent, ask Christ to forgive all sins & ask Him into their heart as Saviour & Lord - as in John 3 & Romans 3

Both broadcasts kept online 7 days

I had to say on both, "The truth will set you free"

Satan is 'the father of lies..the great deceiver' said Jesus

& Dan 11:32 says the Antichrist gains power by deceit & flattery

Said about any other politician, I'd be thought shrewd, wise & canny

Say it @ the worst global tyrant ever & U R labelled a fanatic

Mind you, Odeon is 'fanatical about film' & that's OK

Folk fanatical @ some pathetic TV/film/pop/sports star are deemed normal

Footnote - 'enthusiastic' comes from Greek en theos (= in God)

Romans 12:1 shows that the only rational, reasonable response to all the wonderfgul things God has done for uis is to be 100% dedicated & devoted to Him

Like me, if you hear those 2 radio playbacks, you can proclaim, "As on Radio City last night & Radio Merseyside @ lunchtime...

Coming soon: Jesus...

All the signs the Bible forecast show Jesus IS coming soon: get ready..

Pentecostal churches: God bless you..

& it's great weather for fishing on http://www.ChristianForums.net !"

Enjoy the fishing - http://www.ChristianForums.net !"

Relevance to topic?

See how playbacks compare with freedom of speech: media tolerate anything but the God's Honest Gospel Truth

Must go!

Ian

 

[MrVersatile48]

____________________________
BreakPoint with Charles Colson
http://www.breakpoint.org


UNLEASHING THE DOGS
Mark Earley

Why Are Christians Being Attacked?

Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark
Earley.

Watching the news in the last few weeks, I couldn't help but wonder: Who
let the dogs out? And who decided to sic them on Christians?

At the University of Virginia, the school paper, The Cavalier Daily,
recently ran two cartoons that deliberately offended Christians.

One, titled "A Nativity Ob-scene," features Joseph asking Mary about a nasty
rash. Mary tells him her rash was "immaculately transmitted."

The second comic is titled "Christ on a Cartesian Plane." It depicts the
Crucifixion with a parabolic graph superimposed on the figure of Christ.

The Cavalier Daily initially refused to apologize for giving offence-even
though editors apologized last year for a cartoon homosexuals found
offensive. After more than two thousand angry calls and e-mails, the
editors and cartoonist finally did apologize.

And then there were those charming comments from Rosie O'Donnell, speaking on the ABC TV program The View.

While discussing the September 11 anniversary and the war in Iraq, O'Donnell compared "radical Christianity" to the beliefs of Islamo-fascist terrorists who murdered three thousand people on September 11.

She declared, "Radical Christianity is just as
threatening as radical Islam in a country like America."

Her comment shocked co-host Joy Behar, who said, "But Christians are not threatening to kill us. There's that difference."

O'Donnell refused to back down.

Today even Christian vegetables are not immune to attacks. NBC recently
began airing the popular VeggieTales cartoons on Saturday mornings. Each
cartoon ends with a Bible verse. That is, they are supposed to. But just
two weeks before the first episode was due, NBC ordered the producers of
VeggieTales to edit out all biblical references. After all, they might
offend people!

Is this the same network that tells parents that if they are offended by prime-time sex and profanity to just turn the channel or use a
V-Chip? Is this the same network that will allow Madonna to sing a song
from her tour-the one she performs while suspended from a crucifix?

Evidently, blasphemy and four-letter words are fine, but any positive
mention of God is so offensive it has to be censored.

I may be particularly sensitive these days to religious bigotry because of
what Prison Fellowship has lately endured. Last June, a federal judge shot
down the InnerChange Freedom Initiative, an extremely effective pre-release program for prisoners launched by Prison Fellowship.

Why? Not because of what the program did, but because of who we are. And we, as he defined us, were evangelicals who could not say or do anything without intending to convert someone else.

When we Christians see our faith treated with such hostility, our blood
starts to boil. But we should remember that the Church was born into a
hostile environment.

Throughout history, the Church has always made its most profound witness when it was under attack.

Why? Because then, more than at any other time, we have the opportunity to demonstrate the unmerited love, patience, mercy, and grace of God.[/b]

Indeed, when the culture sets the dogs on us, we have a biblical
responsibility to speak the truth, yes, but to speak it in love.

In so doing, we provide our greatest witness and unleash the greatest power

That's the power of the love of God in Jesus Christ.