Ch. 4: Religious Expression in Public Schools

Dissident Heart

irishrose: That is because free religious expression and the establishment clause in the First Amendment speaks directly to religion and not to ideology.

I think there are religious elements to ideology and ideological elements to religion...thus the muddiness. And I don't think the connection between the two is irrelevant for this discussion. I'm not sure if the Founders utililized the word ideology, or what they used in its stead. I'm fairly certain they didn't utilize the terms world view or belief system either. My hunch is that they would recognize the role of ideological control in much the same category of religious indoctrination...thus the pertinence to the discussion at hand.

The reasons for non-establishment of Religion in the First Ammendment seem the same for non-establishment of Ideology. Actually, it seems a natural and reasonable and logical progression. I think this reasoning makes sense in the context of Public Schools, and thus, this thread.

irishrose: I think you are trying to steer the conversation from what this topic is actually about, to what you would like it to be about.

I think social ideology and religious belief are very difficult, if not impossible to clearly delineate. I think the fundamental assumptions and foundational notions of social ideologies rest upon ideas and faiths that are simililar, if not the same as religious beliefs....they are a common family.

I think the protections in the First Ammendment against establishing a Religion reasonably and of necessity must apply to social ideology as well. Therefore I think it pertinent and relevant and not a misdirection of discussion.

Why the Constitution's architects built safeguards against establishing Religion, is the same why that applies to establishing social ideologies.

George Ricker

I would hope we can distinguish between programs and discussions about religion and programs and discussions that proselytize on behalf of religion. The first have a legitimate education objective. The latter do not belong in public schools.

It may be the line is just too fine to walk. If the choice is between allowing groups to proselytize in public schools and keeping them out altogether, then I would prefer a total ban. I see nothing in the Constitution that suggests it should be OK to use the public schools as a recruiting ground for any religious organization.

George

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker

JulianTheApostate · Junior Joined: 23 Jul 2005 Posts: 308 Gender:

Part of me is still amazed that the Supreme Court didn't strike down daily prayer reading in the schools until 1962. I have a similar reaction to the fact that the law actively discriminated against Blacks until a few decades ago. Many freedoms and liberties, which I view as an intrinsic part of what America is all about, didn't exist for the first 80% of the nation's history.

While I was familiar with that issue, I hadn't heard about the Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe case, which ruled 6-3 against student-led prayers at football games. In 2000, three supreme court justices viewed such prayer as constitutional! ::70

The After School Meetings section described a Supreme Court ruling regarding schools:

Quote:
...once it had opened its forum for general use by all recognized student groups it could not engage even in content-based discrimination without demonstrating a "compelling interest" in doing so.

What's the Constitutional justification for that opinion? I understand limitations on what the government can do, but why is the government obligated to provide school resources in certain situations?

irishrosem · Doctorate Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 536 Gender:

The government is not required to provide school resources in any situation. But once they open their doors up for use, schools can't discriminate between groups because that would violate constitutional equal protection and opportunity. The Justices created the separation between subject discrimination and viewpoint disrimination. Schools are allowed to discriminate according to subject, but not according to viewpoint. I think this leaves a lot of gray area and the Milford case demonstrates this. If a school essentially preaches and proselytizes, but they also discuss morality or moral issues, is this a group about proselytizing or is it a group that educates students on morality? The Justices ruled that the discrimination was viewpoint, and not subject, based.


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT