Freedom of Religion in Schools

[micatala]

This thread is motivated by the following short article and accompanying video form the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/0 ... 30530.html

After a large posting of the Ten Commandments was removed for the second time from a Giles High School wall, kids began hanging the Commandments on their lockers, WVVA reports. Students of other religions began posting their beliefs as a response, a move that kids say has caused some tension.

"The students that want them taken down -- they got mad about the people who want them up. And it almost broke out into a physical fight because someone called someone else an atheist."
The Ten Commandments wall posting was removed after parents contacted Freedom From Religion, which threatened to sue the school board. The Madison, Wisc.-based organization said they'd be be monitoring the school -- in conjunction with the ACLU of Virginia -- to make sure they don't re-post.

Questions for debate:


1) Are students violating the constitution by posting the 10 commandments on their lockers?

2) Would the school's administration be violating the constitution by allowing them to do so? Are they violating the constitution by NOT allowing them to do so?

3) What actions should schools take in these types of situations to enhance the edcucation of students?

[dianaiad]

First off, religious rights should be equal. If I am allowed to display a symbol of my lack of religion, then you should be allowed to display a symbol of your particular religion. If you are prohibited from using common public resources to promote your religion, then I should be prohibited from using common public resources to promote my lack of religion.

To me this issue is not about freedom of speech, but public space. Is the outside of a locker, supplied to the students by the public institution to store their stuff, under law to be considered like their own private space. Or is it, like the public address system, the school newspaper or the school auditorium, to be considered part of the public institution.

To me, the restrictions are not telling the religious students that they must be atheist, but that they cannot use the public institution as a vehicle to promote their private religious beliefs. They are not being told to worship other gods or even to stop worshiping their deity. To imply that they are is to exaggerate this to the extreme.

Just as freedom of the press means that you have the freedom to publish at your own expense, whatever opinion you want. But it does not mean that you have the right to expect that an existing newspaper will carry your opinion.

I would agree...if that limitation of public space includes the expression of ALL private opinion, not simply religious opinion. If, however, that particular space is available for the expression of any opinion regarding any topic at all, then it must be available for opinions regarding religion, as well. To do anything else is just plain...wrong.

[nygreenguy]

Apples and oranges... Unless, of course, you are insisting that the reason the sun is rising in the west is because Apollo made a U-turn. A declaration that there is no god is a religious statement because it is a statement about religious belief.

You cant USE a word to DEFINE a word. You are defining religion as a belief which is religious. Its circular reasoning.

You are correct; atheism has neither..oh, wait...aren't Budhists atheists? No deity?

There are aspects of buddhism with a diety. And those without most do, in fact, regard as a philosophy and not a religion.

The thing is, even the word 'atheism' is defined by theism; that is, 'without theism." Atheists, when they consider themselves AS atheists, absolutely have a belief regarding the supernatural (there is no deity) and they do have a dogma (there is no deity). Sorry...but that does make any statement made regarding religion---a statement regarding religion, or, yes..a religious statement.

Making a statement about religion doesnt make something a religion. If I say I dont like stamp collection, that doesnt make me a stamp collector.

Your logic is terribly flawed.

[dianaiad]

Apples and oranges... Unless, of course, you are insisting that the reason the sun is rising in the west is because Apollo made a U-turn. A declaration that there is no god is a religious statement because it is a statement about religious belief.

You cant USE a word to DEFINE a word. You are defining religion as a belief which is religious. Its circular reasoning.

You are correct; atheism has neither..oh, wait...aren't Budhists atheists? No deity?

There are aspects of buddhism with a diety. And those without most do, in fact, regard as a philosophy and not a religion.

The thing is, even the word 'atheism' is defined by theism; that is, 'without theism." Atheists, when they consider themselves AS atheists, absolutely have a belief regarding the supernatural (there is no deity) and they do have a dogma (there is no deity). Sorry...but that does make any statement made regarding religion---a statement regarding religion, or, yes..a religious statement.

Making a statement about religion doesnt make something a religion. If I say I dont like stamp collection, that doesnt make me a stamp collector.

Your logic is terribly flawed.

No, yours is....saying that one does not believe in a diety does not make you a thiest...but it does, since you have defined yourself in terms of theism, make any actions you take as result of your belief regarding deity a religious action, because it IS about deity.

If it makes you feel better, it's 'anti-deity,' but you need to take a leaf out of science here; matter and anti-matter behave very much alike--it's only in their mutual distruction when combined that makes them different.

As far as I can see, if a belief system defines itself by reference to deity--any type of deity or the lack of any deity, then it is a religion.

[McCulloch]

There is a constitutional separation of church and state. The state is not to promote or prohibit the the practice of religion. There is no constitutional separation of sport and state. The state is not enjoined to refrain from promoting or prohibiting sport. Private opinion with regard to religion has a different constitutional status than other private opinions.

[nygreenguy]

No, yours is....saying that one does not believe in a diety does not make you a thiest...but it does, since you have defined yourself in terms of theism, make any actions you take as result of your belief regarding deity a religious action, because it IS about deity.

Theism and non-theism is not at all the same as religion. Theist is defined as someone who believes in a deity, and an atheist is simply someone who does not. This has nothing to do with religion.

As far as I can see, if a belief system defines itself by reference to deity--any type of deity or the lack of any deity, then it is a religion.

There is no belief system in atheism. It is a total lack of a belief system. To have an opinion about a belief system is not the same as adhering to a belief system.

Not collecting stamps, or saying collecting stamps is stupid does not mean I am a stamp collector.

[dianaiad]

There is a constitutional separation of church and state. The state is not to promote or prohibit the the practice of religion. There is no constitutional separation of sport and state. The state is not enjoined to refrain from promoting or prohibiting sport. Private opinion with regard to religion has a different constitutional status than other private opinions.

Er...there is no constitutional separation of church and state. What there IS, is a prohibition against the state imposing a specific religion upon people. That might go for the school not officially putting religious displays up, but in terms of what individuals do, that doesn't apply. Forbidding individuals from expressing their religious opinions is very much an imposition of a state belief system. Call it 'atheism' or 'secularism' or whatever you want, it is the state imposing a religious attitude and belief system.

there is a difference between the school putting a Nativity scene on student square---and an individual student doing the same thing in, or on, his locker.

Just as there is a very big difference between a school mandating public prayer---and an individual student group meeting by the flag pole and having a private one on Finals Day.

The problem I see is that those who think that 'Freedom From Religion" is a right that supercedes 'freedom OF religion" can't see the difference--and think that imposing their own preferences upon others is OK.

Remember; putting the Ten Commandments on your locker door doesn't force anybody to read them or to obey them. there is no coercion there. However, forcing someone to take those Ten Commandments OFF the locker door very much is.

[nygreenguy]

Er...there is no constitutional separation of church and state. What there IS, is a prohibition against the state imposing a specific religion upon people. That might go for the school not officially putting religious displays up, but in terms of what individuals do, that doesn't apply. Forbidding individuals from expressing their religious opinions is very much an imposition of a state belief system. Call it 'atheism' or 'secularism' or whatever you want, it is the state imposing a religious attitude and belief system.

there is a difference between the school putting a Nativity scene on student square---and an individual student doing the same thing in, or on, his locker.

Just as there is a very big difference between a school mandating public prayer---and an individual student group meeting by the flag pole and having a private one on Finals Day.

The problem I see is that those who think that 'Freedom From Religion" is a right that supercedes 'freedom OF religion" can't see the difference--and think that imposing their own preferences upon others is OK.

Remember; putting the Ten Commandments on your locker door doesn't force anybody to read them or to obey them. there is no coercion there. However, forcing someone to take those Ten Commandments OFF the locker door very much is.

It has long been case law that students at a school do have limited rights. There has been many cases with students wearing clothing that is either offensive or is generally distracting and they are forced to change. There has been cases of students lockers being searched, despite people claiming a "right to privacy". Students, at school, do have limited rights, and for a good reason. The only function of school is education. Things like this which distract from that, should be dealt with.

[dianaiad]

It has long been case law that students at a school do have limited rights. There has been many cases with students wearing clothing that is either offensive or is generally distracting and they are forced to change. There has been cases of students lockers being searched, despite people claiming a "right to privacy". Students, at school, do have limited rights, and for a good reason. The only function of school is education. Things like this which distract from that, should be dealt with.

this is true: Distracting and offensive items may be prohibited...gang attire, for instance. As well, if the school prohibits the posting of ANYTHING on lockers, then making students remove religious posts from them is also fine.

However, it is wrong to discriminate against religious postings simply because they are religious. That, indeed, IS imposing a 'state religion." [/i]

[McCulloch]

There is no constitutional separation of church and state.

I think that we might have located one problem in this debate with this statement. Thomas Jefferson, one of the framers of your constitution, was under the impression that there was such a constitutional separation. The courts agreed, in 1878 and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. While the term itself does not appear in your constitution, it does say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The courts, who do have the job of interpreting the constitution, have consistently ruled that this means that public resources should not be used to promote or prohibit religion, and that it applies equally to religion as well as to specific religious denominations.

If your considered legal differs from this consensus, please cite some constitutional experts who agree with your view.

We are not arguing about what an individual is allowed to do. We are debating about whether the space, the outside of a locker, is under the private control of the individual or whether it is part of the public institution.

State imposed atheism is as wrong as state imposed religion. However, there is a vast and important difference between atheism and secularism. Secularism is the political belief that governments should exist separately from religion and religious beliefs. It is the declared position of the US Constitution. Imposing the practice of secularism on individuals is as wrong as imposing the right to a fair trial.

To me, there is no difference in principle, between a school putting a Nativity scene on student square and the school allowing an individual student to use his locker to promote a religion.

Freedom of religion cannot truly exist without freedom from religion.

Allowing the posting the Ten Commandments in a public place, implicitly provides an endorsement of a religious viewpoint by the public entity.

[nygreenguy]

this is true: Distracting and offensive items may be prohibited...gang attire, for instance. As well, if the school prohibits the posting of ANYTHING on lockers, then making students remove religious posts from them is also fine.

However, it is wrong to discriminate against religious postings simply because they are religious. That, indeed, IS imposing a 'state religion." [/i]

If you followed the whole story, that was not the case. It caused a large distraction and students were almost fighting over it.