Subject:
|
Re: Separation of Church and State
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 19:59:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
338 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > Where I agree about the 'separation of church and state' means that 'official
> > school sanctioned religious prayer' is a no-no, people getting together and
> > praying to their deity, unofficial like and not school supported at all is
> > quite fine.
>
> Absolutely! And if someone tries to prevent those people from praying, I'll
> be first in line to defend their right to pray as they choose. The right to
> worship is Constitutionally protected, even on school property (provided that
> it's not done in any official, school-sanctioned, school-organized, or
> school-led format).
There is a minor problem here about clubs. My inclination is that clubs
should be allowed so long as the school does not use religion to
determine if the club is allowed (i.e. a religious club could be
disallowed if it proposes some activity that is dangerous, but not just
because it wants to pray to Satan). There is still a danger that a club
for the majority religion would create an appearance of support. There
is no way to totally eliminate this. For example, would it be wrong in a
school where a significant number of students take some religious
holiday off to not schedule tests for that day, or even make that day a
non-school day because not enough students will be there? This last
reason may be a sufficient justification for December 25th being a
school holidy.
The best solution of course is to privitize the schools...
> > > > If, say, I was a teacher at this school, and I had a card with the 10
> > > > commandments on my desk, is that violating C & S?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > And here I disagree--If I'm a teacher, and it's my desk, I should have the
> > ability to 'decorate' my desk as I see fit, as long as the decorations fall
> > into the lines of decorum and such. Is like if I have a cross on a necklace-
> > -neither are officially school sanctioned so the C & S do not apply.
>
> In my view, the teacher is the personification of the school, and therefore
> the laws that apply to the school likewise apply to the teacher. Obviously, the
> teacher is also a private citizen, but in the capacity of "teacher" in the
> public school system, he or she is subject to the laws governing such
> institutions. I'd go further to say that crucifixes, even as a part of jewelry,
> are inappropriate if worn in plain sight, just as pentagrams, Stars of David, or
> the like.
I think it really depends on the appearance created. Would we require a
Moslem woman to not wear a face covering (excluding legitimate security
concerns that might force the woman to reveal her face in some
circumstances)? I am not concerned about anyone wearing a cross on a
chain around their neck (ok, perhaps if it's huge that's a problem). I
do not have a problem if the teacher keeps a copy of the 10 Comandments
in her desk drawer. I do have a problem if the 10 Comandments are
visible in such a way that a student might believe they were school or
classroom rules they MUST follow. The constitution does not mean that in
order for a Unitarian Universalist to have religious freedom that
Catholics can not be visibly identified (thus demonstrating the huge
difference in populations).
> It's much the same as for the office of the President: Dubya the citizen is
> certainly free to practice whatever religion he chooses, but President George W.
> Bush absolutely must not endorse any religion (even if that religion is simple,
> generic monotheism). Every time he (or any President, or member of congress, or
> government official) says "God Bless America" while speaking in an official
> capacit, he is violating the First Amendment.
I think I disagree here. I think a "prayer" during a governmental
meeting (including sessions of Congress etc.) is a problem. The
President giving a State of the Union address is different. Such an
address is a _personal_ statement from the President about their
perception. It is not law. It is not the government endorsing a
particular view.
> Someone might say that such common phrases as "God Bless America" or "In God
> We Trust" are nationalistic slogans without religious content, but I disagree.
> Besides, even if the phrases are non-religious, then the utterance of such
> phrases is a violation of the Second Commandment.
>
> > > > If a child wants to do for her artwork presentation, a pic of Moses hefting
> > > > the stone tablets down from the mountain, would that violate the C & S?
> > >
> > > No, unless the child's artwork presentation was included in some kind of
> > > school-sponsored or school-endorsed exhibit (even if that exhibit is on or
> > > within school property).
> >
> > Again I would have to disagree--if the art teacher asks in class for his or
> > her students to make a portrait of their favourite hero, or their fav. scene
> > from a book, and little Julie paints Jesus, et al, in the boat during the
> > storm--the artwork is 'officially' requested by the teacher for the
> > 'official' art class, but telling Julie that her artwork can't be shown in
> > the hallway like all the other kids in her class, just because of the C & S
> > issue is taking the letter of the law over the spirit of the law.
>
> Like I said, my argument on this point isn't that great. Still, I have to
> disagree with your example on several grounds. An easy way to consider the
> matter is to ask "what if 8-year-old Julie paints Satan standing victorious over
> the smoldering corpse of Jesus?" Do you agree that such a representation might
> cause a stir? Should her work therefore be omitted from the hallway display
> because it might offend certain religious sensibilities?
> One could also explain to Julie that the school is a public institution, and
> therefore the school can only display (ie, endorse) artwork that conforms to the
> requirements of law. The school (and local citizens) probably wouldn't hesitate
> to censor her artwork if it were shockingly violent, or if it were a fictional
> representation of the Principal committing bestiality. A school is widely
> considered to have discretionary power over certain kinds of expression, even
> when nebulously defined. Isn't it therefore reasonable to allow the school to
> exercise similar discretion in a case that's very clearly defined, such as in an
> expression of religion? Obviously, someone could still try to sneak a religious
> message into a work, but that's not really the point. The problem occurs when
> the school knowingly endorses such a work.
>
> Some might reasonably disagree with my handling of that last paragraph, and
> I'm eager to hear other viewpoints. I'd maintain, however, that legal precedent
> supports schools' rights to enforce certain standards of behavior, expression,
> and display. It's not perfect, but at the moment it allows schools to exercise
> control over what sorts of artwork are displayed on school grounds.
You raise an interesting issue here. I'm starting to think more and more
that these various issues are good justifications for privitizing the
school system. Then there is no public endorsement of art created in
class, teacher's personal religion, etc. Religion causes much less of a
problem in things like courts because they are dealing (or should be
dealing) in facts. It is a fact that I am a Unitarian Universalist, so
my wearing a religious symbol when I take the stand isn't a state
endorsement of my religion (however, the bit about swearing on the bible
is a real problem, though I understand many courts have sidestepped the
issue by allowing objectors to supply their own similar document, but it
would be nice if we just switched to using a copy of the constitution).
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Separation of Church and State
|
| (...) The practising Catholics were always easily identifiable come Ash Wednesday. You are not supposed to wash the ashes off your forehead (except as a byproduct of washing yourself in general) and I have never heard of a school forcing them to (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Separation of Church and State
|
| (...) In my slightly rural high school, Thanksgiving vacation included the following Monday. This was widely considered to be due to the fact that buck hunting season began on that day, so a great number of kids would skip school anyway. Your point (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Separation of Church and State
|
| (...) Absolutely! And if someone tries to prevent those people from praying, I'll be first in line to defend their right to pray as they choose. The right to worship is Constitutionally protected, even on school property (provided that it's not done (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
