posted
Well, first, I just wrote an email to the Bush Library, asking for a verification or repudiation of the quote. Who knows if or when they'll answer, but I figured I'd go straight to the source.
As for your case, it's the people who are "afraid they'll be sued" that bother me. One of my pet peeves is that the cases that have won in court were not situations where a religious student (or school official) wanted to express their personal religious views, but rather, cases where the school was creating a situation where students felt they were expected to pray. The point being that when someone says "prayer isn't allowed in schools," they are misunderstanding the intent of the ruling, and the Supreme Court has been careful to draw that distinction.
What I find, however, is that a lot of this fear is intentionally created by religious fundamentalists, who create stories about people who have been told they aren't allowed to pray, etc. and accuse atheists of "kicking God out of our schools."
Your case is a little less cut and dried, I think. I would support you, but I know a lot of atheists who wouldn't, since you were asking for school (public) funds with which to publish your paper. It seems to me that this is an issue of equal funding for student organizations, not school support of religion. (I am assuming that the school has an existing policy of funding student run papers)
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah after all freedom has to go both ways. (agree about the impact of religoius fundimentalist). School clubs are a great way for religous groups to create a presence on campass, and they leave the choice of joining and participatin up to the individual.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your case is a little less cut and dried, I think. I would support you, but I know a lot of atheists who wouldn't, since you were asking for school (public) funds with which to publish your paper. It seems to me that this is an issue of equal funding for student organizations, not school support of religion. (I am assuming that the school has an existing policy of funding student run papers)
This is how I viewed the case. The school funded 15 publications, including political journals/tabloids, newspapers, arts magazines, and general interest magazines. The only case where the content of the paper was examined to determine if it was fundable was mine.
My take on the subject is that if government is funding or subsidizing speech in which the content is provided by private groups, it cannot examine the content of the speech in deciding what is eligible for funding.
In other words, it was a free speech, not free exercise of religion, case.
You're also right that some fundamentalists ratchet up the fear of the decisions. BUT, I know for a fact there are many, many bureaucrats who do not appreciate the difference between equal access and establishment.
posted
Dag, do you think that the funds go directly to a third party publisher (instead of to the religious student group, which spends them as desired) makes a difference (well, or that it would make a difference to the SC)?
I'm a member of my the primary student group funding board at my U, so this isn't a purely academic question, though it hasn't come up yet.
Also, I'm not up on the exact nature of your content. Can funds obtained be used to advocate Christianity, or just positions informed by Christianity?
posted
I just have to say that atheist activism troubles me, how they have taken over the Freemasons and Alcoholics Anonymous. Not that I think it would have been right for any elected official to question their fitness to be citizens. Since I believe in a God that judges one's whole life and not just the title one embraces.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just have to say that atheist activism troubles me, how they have taken over the Freemasons and Alcoholics Anonymous.
What are you talking about, pooka? I know a bunch of people who are either currently in or were formerly in AA, and the last I heard the 12 steps still involve accepting God.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, do you think that the funds go directly to a third party publisher (instead of to the religious student group, which spends them as desired) makes a difference (well, or that it would make a difference to the SC)?
I'm a member of my the primary student group funding board at my U, so this isn't a purely academic question, though it hasn't come up yet.
In our case, that was cited as a reason, but it was not definitive. I believe subsequent cases have said that this is a good indicator that the funds are being used for a secular purpose, but that it is not necessary. I'd have to do more research to confirm, though.
quote:Also, I'm not up on the exact nature of your content. Can funds obtained be used to advocate Christianity, or just positions informed by Christianity?
There was both advocacy and reporting of positions informed by Christianity. The key finding was that as long as the funds go for an educational activity (putting together a magazine and publishing it), the religious nature of the content cannot be used to deny funding to the organization.
Would such reasoning likely apply similarly for political speech? That is, so long as the "activity being funded" wasn't the advocacy, in a reasonable way of thinking (that is, they weren't just printing up flyers created by some partisan off-campus group), but was instead "creating a newspaper" or "creating a magazine" or "running a radio show" or somesuch, but the advocacy was merely the content of the activity being funded, it would likely be allowable? (heck, not just allowable, but required)
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our case was preceded by Student Council's attempt to defund a conservative political magazine 2 years earlier. That one never got to Court, because the WSJ and other newspapers took up the cause and the University backed down. The lawyers around at the time said they would almost definitely win, because they had all the strength of the free speech argument and none of the baggage of the establishment clause.
The irony was that the magazine was mostly about activities of groups that received funding. So a NOW rally to require the release of names of accused rapists by the otherwise confidential University Judiciary Committee wasn't political, but an editorial complaining about the rally was.
Dagonee Edit: Oh, and it's only required to be funded if the University generally funds expressive activities, and the university is a public institution.
posted
Both those are true in this case. *sigh* time to get in a ruckus with the Dean of Students office, because they're currently telling people nearly the opposite.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just remember that the original political magazine case never went to court, and I'm relying on newspaper accounts of lawyers' reasoning behind the decision - always risky with legal issues.
posted
Well, the Bush library's server rejected my email, I got a message saying my server will continue to try to deliver it for 5 days.
I wonder if I need some special access. I thought the presidential libraries were supposed to be open to everyone.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, they've been saying similarly with religious things as well, that's definitely going to be nipped in the bud (particularly as our rules amount to third party payer setups -- the monies are kept in accounts we control, and we approve by line item, so money for printing goes to printing, et cetera).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'll just pester the administration until they get someone to do it .
Though I'm almost tempted to form a political group of such a sort, apply for funding, have it rejected, then sue. Almost (actually, not even that, but its amusing to think about).
I think I can get the policy changed just by having them read the decision in your case.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops, sorry. Rivka's post is right on. It used to be very tedious, and was basically done to make sure you weren't citing an overruled case.
Now, with electronic databases, it's a little less tedious, and an amazingly quick way to grab a set of related cases simply by knowing one seminal case.
quote:Funny, I had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep from being discriminated against based on the Christian content of my speech. And that was against Virginia, home of Falwell and Robertson.
Dagonee
"I'm a bigger victim than you" isn't a viable argument in this situation. Neither of you should have to deal with discrimination. It's as simple as that.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait. "Shepardize" isn't about to enter mainstream vocabulary, is it? That was one of our best codewords. Drat, now we're going to have to find a whole new set of terms to separate ourselves from the rabble.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't worry, we still have our useless latin phrases, disingenuous double talk, and indecipherable legalease to fall back on.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I'm a bigger victim than you" isn't a viable argument in this situation.
And since that's clearly not what I meant, I'm not sure why you put it this way. Overzealous enforcement of church-state separation is at least anecdotal evidence that we're not about to be overwhelmed in a wave of state-sponsored televangelists.
quote: I just have to say that atheist activism troubles me, how they have taken over the Freemasons and Alcoholics Anonymous
BTW..does anyone actually know what the Masons believe?
I am a Mason, and I will answer what I can...the only things I can't discuss are the forms and rituals....but I can discuss the background those rituals are based on.
And the only thing I am aware of that would stop a person from being a candidate for Freemasonry is atheism. You have to believe in a higher power, although not a specific God.
There are some chapters arranged around the Bible, for Christians....some around that Torah, for Jewish people......you get the picture.
But if you don't believe in God, in some form or faith, then you are not eligible.
So how have Atheists taken over Freemasonry again?
posted
Yeah, same goes for alcoholics anonymous. When it comes up on alt.atheism, after a little diatribe about how much prostyletizing goes on in Alcoholics Anonymous, someone usually points to Rational Recovery as a secular alternative.
[ October 13, 2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
This article sums up my experience, that everytime I hear someone argue that religion has no place in school, they are reacting to the law as depicted by the religious right, rather than actual legal finding.
I actually had to argue with my college proffesors that I could ask my students the question: "The author asks the question, whom did God punish? Whom do you think God punished?" (as a writing prompt for the book "Holes") because they were convinced that the question violated separation of church and state. They said it would upset atheists. I told them I'm an atheist, and that the question was central to the book, so either the book should be banned, or we'd better be prepared to deal with the question.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was glad to hear both candidates mention the right not to worship at the debate tonight. In some ways, at least, this nation has come a long way since the '80s.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, I don't have time to provide a comprehensive list, but there are many court cases on the subject of unconstitutional exclusion of religious activity from public schools and other public areas.
Some quickies (with no links unfortunately):
Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98:
quote:Respondent school opened its facilities to activities that served a variety of purposes, including discussions of subjects such as child rearing and of the development of character and morals. However, the community use policy prohibited use by any individual or organization for religious purposes. Petitioner club applied to use the facilities for after school meetings, but respondent denied the request, finding that the proposed use was the equivalent of religious worship. Petitioners sued respondent, alleging free speech violations. The parties agreed that respondent created a limited public forum. On certiorari review, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent. The Court determined that respondent engaged in impermissible viewpoint discrimination when it excluded petitioner club from the after school forum. Such violation was not justified by respondent's concern that permitting petitioner club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause; the meetings were held after school hours, not sponsored by respondent, and open to any student who obtained parental consent.
Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. of Educ., 331 F.3d 342:
quote:The church sought to meet at a school each Sunday morning, to engage in singing, the teaching of the Bible to adults and children, and social interaction among the members of the church, in order to promote their welfare and the welfare of the community. The meetings were open to all members of the public. The school district's denial of the church's request to rent school space was based on its standard operating procedures that allowed school premises to be used for a variety of community activities as long as they were non-exclusive and open to the general public, however, religious services or instruction was not permitted in school facilities. Since it was a policy that led to the denial that directly limited plaintiffs' speech, irreparable harm was presumed. The circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiffs were substantially likely to establish defendants violated their First Amendment free speech rights. It could not be said that the church meetings constituted only religious worship, separate and apart from any teaching of moral values.
Hsu by & Through Hsu v. Roslyn Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 3, 85 F.3d 839:
quote: Plaintiff students brought an action against defendant school district under the Equal Access Act (act), 20 U.S.C.S. ยงยง 4071-4074, U.S. Const. amend. I, XIV and other laws. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court reversed in part and required an injunction. The court held that the Bible club's Christian officer requirement, as applied to its president, vice-president, and music coordinator, was essential to the expressive content of the meetings and the club's purpose and identity and was protected by the act. The court held that the club's leadership policy provision was a form of speech and affected the religious content of the meetings within the meaning of the act. The court held that an exemption from the school's policy against religious discrimination was required to provide equal access. The court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their equal access claim, and that they had suffered irreparable harm. The court held that defendant's recognition of the club would not violate the establishment clause of U.S. Const. amend. I or the equal protection clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Daily v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth., 221 F. Supp. 2d 390:
quote:The tenant was a resident of one of the approximately 1,500 apartments in a public housing development owned and operated by NYCHA. Following the events of September 11, 2001, she requested permission to use the development's community center to conduct Bible studies to help, comfort, and encourage local residents and to let them know that all is not lost. Citing NYCHA regulations that prohibit the use of any NYCHA property for religious or political activities, the request was denied. The court held that the tenant had shown both that she would suffer an irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction and a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that denial of her request to use the community center violated the First Amendment. The NYCHA had created a nonpublic forum at times and a limited public forum at other times, and the restrictions that were used to deny the tenant access to the community center were not viewpoint neutral, but rather discriminated against religious viewpoints since the NYCHA admitted that it would permit residents to hold informal discussions about the events of September 11. The restrictions were not reasonable.
Walz v. Egg Harbor Twp. Bd. of Educ., 342 F.3d 271
quote:Over a period of a few years, the student had not been allowed to distribute gifts that contained religious messages to his classmates at holiday classroom parties. On two occasions, he had been allowed to distribute them outside of the classroom. On another occasion, the gifts had been confiscated by the teacher. The court held that it was well within the school's ambit of authority to prevent the distribution of these items during the holiday parties. The seasonal holiday parties were instructional activities, as much a part of the curriculum as "show and tell" or art class. The subsequent exchange of gifts was intended as a teaching tool to promote sharing. The gift-giving from one student to another was not intended to promote a particular religious message. Therefore there was no deprivation of the student's First Amendment rights. The court held that it was appropriate for the school to confiscate the gifts given its educational goal which was at cross-purposes with proselytizing speech.
Second, you said, "This article sums up my experience, that everytime I hear someone argue that religion has no place in school, they are reacting to the law as depicted by the religious right, rather than actual legal finding."
These things generally take years to finish adjudicating. There are cases just like this going on now. In other words, there's lots of opportunity to hear people in power arguing that religion has no place in school, taking steps to make that argument reality, and basing their actions on someone other than the religious right's interpretation of the law.
But actually the point is that the law has a pretty clear dividing point between what is freedom to excercise one's religion and what is the school putting students into the uncomfortable position of feeling that they are expected to participate in a religious exercise.
We shouldn't need to have all these lawsuits. The basic issue has been settled. But what we hear loudest is the voice of the religious right claiming that "god has been kicked out of our schools," and so forth.
The example I gave above; that my proffesors wouldn't let me use the question posed by the author of Holes as a writing prompt, came from fear that this question would result in a lawsuit or something. Where did they get this fear? And why was it associated with atheists? Bear in mind that, aside from Murray-Ohaire, most of the winning cases have brought by minority RELIGIOUS people, who felt that the majority religion was using the school to prostyletize.
The lawsuits happen (as I see it) for two reasons.
1. Lawsuits are filed against religious prostyletizers who intentionally try to subvert the law (providing a microphone specifically for the purpose of leading the school in prayer, or who claim their club "meets" in the hallway so they can form a gauntlet which the school body must pass through, etc.). The prostyletizers lose in court.
2. Lawsuits that come from administrators who fear reprisal if they allow "illegal" religious activities in their schools. I'm guessing that this is what happened to you. The administrators lose in court.
Bear in mind that most school officials believe in God, so it's certainly not because they don't want God in schools.
Now, of course, there are the atheistic gadflies that will hang around and make derogatory comments about the whole process. They buy the claim that prayer in school is illegal, not because they know where the courts actually stand, but because they heard it from the religious right.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that the law on this is clear at all. Our case was decided 5-4, and we lost in 3 lower court decisions.
I also don't quite buy your conclusion that people are excluding religious speech from public forums because the religious right dominates the perception of the law. It's often the religious right leading the charge to overcome these ridiculous rulings by local authorities.
Oh, and it's not just fear of reprisals that lead to exclusion. There were plenty of comments about religious viewpoints having no place in the university community. There was a lot of philopsphical opposition, especially among student leaders.
I sent him a congratulation when he got nominated. Now that I'm going to be looking for a clerkship next year, I'm kicking myself for not staying in touch with him through the years.
posted
There's also the fact that I'm tired of being away from Eve during the week, and I've got 20 months before I graduate, so I'm not going to tack on 2 extra years no matter how good the clerkship is.
But I do intend to get back in touch with him somehow. Can't hurt to know a judge, right?
quote: Thank you for the request for information about a statement supposedly made by Vice President Bush concerning atheists. He supposedly made comments questioning the patriotism and citizenship of atheists during a campaign visit to Chicago, Illinois on August 27, 1987 during the 1988 presidential campaign. These supposed comments were distributed in the newsletters of various atheist organizations, which caused some people to write the White House expressing their concern. Vice President Bush did visit Chicago on August 27 for one day, flying in and out of O'Hare Airport in between meetings with several Republican groups. One of the atheist newsletters claimed that Bush made the comments in response to a question from a reporter at the airport. The exact comments made by the Vice President can not be confirmed because there is neither a video or audio tape of this visit in the collection of the Bush Library and these were supposedly off-the-cuff comments not part of a speech or formal press conference.
There are presidential records concerning this issue at the Bush Library buth they are not available for research at this time.
Sincerely, Debbie Carter Archivist George Bush Presidential Library National Archives and Records Administration
posted
What really bother me about this whole thing is that it would be a simple matter for Bush to say: "I don't remember saying anything like that, but I know perfectly well that there are atheists that are citizens of the U.S."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
