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?

[bjs]

The general legal approach in the US has been an all-or-nothing approach. That is, if kids are allowed to post anything at all on the outside of their lockers (assuming that it is not vulgar or supporting an illegal activity) then they have the right to post religious symbols, such as the Ten Commandments. The only legal way to prevent students from posting something religious is to prevent them from posting anything at all.

The same goes for inside the locker. If one student wants a picture of his/her girlfriend or boyfriend inside his/her locker, then another student must have the right to have a copy of the Ten Commandments up – or a copy of the tenants of Humanism, or any other religious or philosophical document.


How do we stop fights in high school? I would recommend removing all the high school students. Baring that approach, good education and firm but fair discipline seems to be the way to go. Remember that they are kids, just as we all once were. If we were not fighting over a girl, or sports team, or a philosophical doctrine, then we would have fought over the color of the walls.


Personally, I favor as much freedom of expression and ideas as possible in high school. Let kids learn to deal with opposing viewpoints while they are still in a somewhat structured environment where the consequences of rash actions are still limited. High school is not just about learning math – it is also about learning how to deal with other people and opposing points of view in a civilized manner.

[Kuan]

I agree with Bjs. The best approach isnt to take aqay all the documents. Teach them about others, teach them to be tolerant. In high school fights are common and are not going to go away. I remember a fight that happened at my school cause someone liked country and the other liked rock music.

[dianaiad]

I feel it's the school's call for stuff posted on the outside of a locker. However, if the posting was meant to be disruptive, then I feel it's the school's responsibility to take it down. For example, a kid walking in with a shirt saying "i hate fags" should definitely be forced to change shirts. Posting religious beliefs is obviously less clear...

In general, the school should stress personal choice/expression as much as possible short of it causing a disruption. A kid wearing a cross cross or yarmukle (sp?) is obviously ok, so its not the act of showing your beliefs that is the problem, just the flaunting of it to provoke others.

If one's freedom of speech is constrained only to that which does not 'provoke others,' then it's not freedom of speech. The entire idea behind the first amendment isn't to make certain that those whose speech is comfortable and agreeable may speak--but that those whose words are NOT comfortable and agreeable may do so. While it may be a problem for schools, as public institutions, to display the Ten Commandments, what a student posts on his or her locker is up to the student--not the school. In fact, to insist that a student may not post the Ten Commandments (or any other statement of religious, political or cultural beliefs) is in itself an institutional imposition of belief; in the case of the Ten Commandments, it is an imposition of atheism upon the student.

The solution, of course, is simple; forbid the posting of anything at all on the lockers (I believe that another poster has eloquently explained that one). However, if a student can put anything on a locker--even a 'go (insert the school football team name)!" sign, then the Ten Commandments should also be allowed.

personally, I think everybody went the wrong way from the beginning. Rather than disallow all mention of religion in public areas, there should have been a universal invitation to all religions to post. Atheism IS a religious belief, if only in one aspect: when atheists concern themselves with the religions of their neighbors, or get upset when religious beliefs are displayed. Therefore the prohibition of all religious items IS an imposition of a religious belief; atheism.

As for me, I think it would be delightful to walk into a hallway full of lockers and see the Ten Commandments, crosses, CTR emblems, crescents, pentagrams, Stars of David, Darwin fish and question marks adorning all the lockers in the place; that would be true freedom--of speech, of religion, and of academia.

[Kuan]

I feel it's the school's call for stuff posted on the outside of a locker. However, if the posting was meant to be disruptive, then I feel it's the school's responsibility to take it down. For example, a kid walking in with a shirt saying "i hate fags" should definitely be forced to change shirts. Posting religious beliefs is obviously less clear...

In general, the school should stress personal choice/expression as much as possible short of it causing a disruption. A kid wearing a cross cross or yarmukle (sp?) is obviously ok, so its not the act of showing your beliefs that is the problem, just the flaunting of it to provoke others.

If one's freedom of speech is constrained only to that which does not 'provoke others,' then it's not freedom of speech. The entire idea behind the first amendment isn't to make certain that those whose speech is comfortable and agreeable may speak--but that those whose words are NOT comfortable and agreeable may do so. While it may be a problem for schools, as public institutions, to display the Ten Commandments, what a student posts on his or her locker is up to the student--not the school. In fact, to insist that a student may not post the Ten Commandments (or any other statement of religious, political or cultural beliefs) is in itself an institutional imposition of belief; in the case of the Ten Commandments, it is an imposition of atheism upon the student.

The solution, of course, is simple; forbid the posting of anything at all on the lockers (I believe that another poster has eloquently explained that one). However, if a student can put anything on a locker--even a 'go (insert the school football team name)!" sign, then the Ten Commandments should also be allowed.

personally, I think everybody went the wrong way from the beginning. Rather than disallow all mention of religion in public areas, there should have been a universal invitation to all religions to post. Atheism IS a religious belief, if only in one aspect: when atheists concern themselves with the religions of their neighbors, or get upset when religious beliefs are displayed. Therefore the prohibition of all religious items IS an imposition of a religious belief; atheism.

As for me, I think it would be delightful to walk into a hallway full of lockers and see the Ten Commandments, crosses, CTR emblems, crescents, pentagrams, Stars of David, Darwin fish and question marks adorning all the lockers in the place; that would be true freedom--of speech, of religion, and of academia.

I completley agree (Great Post!) but I have one question. What about the separation of church and state? Since schools are publicly run by the government, shouldnt there be no religion at all in the schools?

[dianaiad]

I feel it's the school's call for stuff posted on the outside of a locker. However, if the posting was meant to be disruptive, then I feel it's the school's responsibility to take it down. For example, a kid walking in with a shirt saying "i hate fags" should definitely be forced to change shirts. Posting religious beliefs is obviously less clear...

In general, the school should stress personal choice/expression as much as possible short of it causing a disruption. A kid wearing a cross cross or yarmukle (sp?) is obviously ok, so its not the act of showing your beliefs that is the problem, just the flaunting of it to provoke others.

If one's freedom of speech is constrained only to that which does not 'provoke others,' then it's not freedom of speech. The entire idea behind the first amendment isn't to make certain that those whose speech is comfortable and agreeable may speak--but that those whose words are NOT comfortable and agreeable may do so. While it may be a problem for schools, as public institutions, to display the Ten Commandments, what a student posts on his or her locker is up to the student--not the school. In fact, to insist that a student may not post the Ten Commandments (or any other statement of religious, political or cultural beliefs) is in itself an institutional imposition of belief; in the case of the Ten Commandments, it is an imposition of atheism upon the student.

The solution, of course, is simple; forbid the posting of anything at all on the lockers (I believe that another poster has eloquently explained that one). However, if a student can put anything on a locker--even a 'go (insert the school football team name)!" sign, then the Ten Commandments should also be allowed.

personally, I think everybody went the wrong way from the beginning. Rather than disallow all mention of religion in public areas, there should have been a universal invitation to all religions to post. Atheism IS a religious belief, if only in one aspect: when atheists concern themselves with the religions of their neighbors, or get upset when religious beliefs are displayed. Therefore the prohibition of all religious items IS an imposition of a religious belief; atheism.

As for me, I think it would be delightful to walk into a hallway full of lockers and see the Ten Commandments, crosses, CTR emblems, crescents, pentagrams, Stars of David, Darwin fish and question marks adorning all the lockers in the place; that would be true freedom--of speech, of religion, and of academia.

I completley agree (Great Post!) but I have one question. What about the separation of church and state? Since schools are publicly run by the government, shouldnt there be no religion at all in the schools?

Schools (and other public institutions) have no business imposing, or promoting, religious beliefs upon people; that's what "separation of church and state" actually is. It seems to me, then, that the only way to do that is, not to forbid all religious statements, but rather to allow all. As I mentioned, athiesm, while atheists claim that it is not a religion, IS one when atheist opinion runs up against theist opinion; the prohibition of one is the promotion...and approval..of the other.

While religious beliefs have no place in the science classrooms, there is absolutely no reason to prohibit personal religious expression elsewhere--whether theist or 'a.'

[Kuan]

Schools (and other public institutions) have no business imposing, or promoting, religious beliefs upon people; that's what "separation of church and state" actually is.

Fair enough, I agree.

It seems to me, then, that the only way to do that is, not to forbid all religious statements, but rather to allow all.

Again, I agree.

As I mentioned, athiesm, while atheists claim that it is not a religion, IS one

I agree here too.

when atheist opinion runs up against theist opinion; the prohibition of one is the promotion...and approval..of the other.

Now here is where I disagree. The government is not supporting or imposing atheism by this. They are just saying, we dont want any type of propaganda on the lockers.

While religious beliefs have no place in the science classrooms, there is absolutely no reason to prohibit personal religious expression elsewhere--whether theist or 'a.'

Again I agree.

[dianaiad]

[quote="mormon boy51]...Now here is where I disagree. The government is not supporting or imposing atheism by this. They are just saying, we dont want any type of propaganda on the lockers.[/quote]

No...it is saying that it doesn't want religious statements on the lockers. I do not see any history of objecting to any other sort of 'propaganda.'

[Kuan]

[quote="mormon boy51]...Now here is where I disagree. The government is not supporting or imposing atheism by this. They are just saying, we dont want any type of propaganda on the lockers.

No...it is saying that it doesn't want religious statements on the lockers. I do not see any history of objecting to any other sort of 'propaganda.'[/quote]
Well ive been rethinking this now. Im not sure if atheism is a religious view...Non-theism is but atheism is a lack of religion, how can it be religious?

[dianaiad]

[quote="mormon boy51]...Now here is where I disagree. The government is not supporting or imposing atheism by this. They are just saying, we dont want any type of propaganda on the lockers.

No...it is saying that it doesn't want religious statements on the lockers. I do not see any history of objecting to any other sort of 'propaganda.'

Well ive been rethinking this now. Im not sure if atheism is a religious view...Non-theism is but atheism is a lack of religion, how can it be religious?[/quote]

That's the argument that atheist make, yes....but here's the problem: one of the things that makes a religion a 'religion' is having an opinion about deity, and secondarily, having some level of the first of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt have no other god before me." Broadly speaking, it means...."I'm right, you are wrong, and my opinion regarding deity trumps yours." The Jews destroyed idols to Baal. The Christians didn't like pagan statues. The Romans threw Christians to the lions, claiming that they were atheists because they refused to honor Roman deities. Muslims do nasty things to Christians. Christians did nasty things to Muslims and jews.

Atheists insist that their opinion regarding deity trumps any opinion that actually supports the existance of deity. They are imposing their beliefs about deity upon theists, and have managed to make the US government support their opinion.

When you think about it, forcing all public institutions to abandon all mention of deity IS supporting the atheist version of the first commandment of 'thou shalt have no other gods."

I believe that atheists have every right in the world to broadcast their opinion regarding deity, in any public venue they want; on their lawns, in demonstrations, on their lockers, on their car bumpers--as loudly or silently as they want to. What they do NOT have the right to do is to prohibit my right to express my beliefs regarding deity at the same volume and in the same places. As it sits, as long as theists are prohibited from expressing their beliefs in public places, or using public facilities, then the government is absolutely enforcing, and promoting, a state religion; that of 'non-religion,' or atheism.

"Freedom From Religion" is about as frightening an idea as I've come across.

[Goat]

I feel it's the school's call for stuff posted on the outside of a locker. However, if the posting was meant to be disruptive, then I feel it's the school's responsibility to take it down. For example, a kid walking in with a shirt saying "i hate fags" should definitely be forced to change shirts. Posting religious beliefs is obviously less clear...

In general, the school should stress personal choice/expression as much as possible short of it causing a disruption. A kid wearing a cross cross or yarmukle (sp?) is obviously ok, so its not the act of showing your beliefs that is the problem, just the flaunting of it to provoke others.

If one's freedom of speech is constrained only to that which does not 'provoke others,' then it's not freedom of speech. The entire idea behind the first amendment isn't to make certain that those whose speech is comfortable and agreeable may speak--but that those whose words are NOT comfortable and agreeable may do so. While it may be a problem for schools, as public institutions, to display the Ten Commandments, what a student posts on his or her locker is up to the student--not the school. In fact, to insist that a student may not post the Ten Commandments (or any other statement of religious, political or cultural beliefs) is in itself an institutional imposition of belief; in the case of the Ten Commandments, it is an imposition of atheism upon the student.

Freedom of speech is always constrained. You can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater either. In the case of the ten commandments, it isn't an imposition of atheism,,, since there is no requirement for a student to give up their religion , but rather an imposition of being secular in school... leaving the visible symbols of your religion at home. This would be true for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, fluffy bunny pagans, wiccians and Jedi;s