Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The American Civil Liberties Union
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 141 (207159)
05-11-2005 3:30 PM


In thread Should Sacred Studies be part of a general public school curricula, a somewhat off-topic discussion about religious liberties in public schools has begun. It started at message 98 with Rosie Cotton's endorsement of unbiased religious instruction in the schools. In the course of discussing her opinions on the subject, Rosie makes the claim that she has been treated unfairly by school officials because of her own religious beliefs.
When Rosie claimed that she had been reprimanded for praying privately over lunch and had had her bible confiscated by school officials, several members responded sympathetically. I suggested she contact the ACLU since this is just the sort of religious liberties issue that they often defend. After that idea was bandied about for a few posts, the moose jumped in to suggest that I create a new topic dealing more directly with the ACLU. This is that topic.
In my opinion, this thread should be open to any and all discussions regarding the American Civil Liberties Union, not just religious liberties. But since it is a religious rights question that sidetracked the original topic, I will begin by asking for opinions on the issues Rosie has raised.
What do you think public school officials should and should not be allowed to do to restrict religious activities of students on campus?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-11-2005 4:06 PM berberry has replied
 Message 10 by Monk, posted 05-11-2005 4:51 PM berberry has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 2 of 141 (207169)
05-11-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by berberry
05-11-2005 3:30 PM


...and had had her bible confiscated by school officials...
I think we need a statement about the precise context that the Bible was confiscated (copy such from previous topic, if it was stated there). I think that in some situations it could well be proper, while in others it would not be proper. Either way, the Bible should have been later been returned to Rosie.
If Rosie was reading the Bible at a time and place (such as in a classroom during class), when she should have been reading or doing something else, she is wrong. In that context the Bible might be subject to confiscation just as any other non-relevant book might be.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by berberry, posted 05-11-2005 3:30 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by berberry, posted 05-11-2005 4:13 PM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 05-11-2005 4:25 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 05-11-2005 4:26 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 141 (207173)
05-11-2005 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
05-11-2005 4:06 PM


I completely agree, but if we take Rosie at her word there was no excuse for the confiscation.
Perhaps I should have also linked to message 125 of the earlier thread, in which Rosie gives a few details about her issues:
It was free reading time, and I was simply reading my Bible. Then they confiscated it. My parents came and forced them to give me my Bible back though. I've had that Bible since I've been 8 and I've marked all my favorite scriptures and everything.
EDITED to add quote.
This message has been edited by berberry, 05-11-2005 03:14 PM

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-11-2005 4:06 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-11-2005 4:25 PM berberry has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 4 of 141 (207178)
05-11-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
05-11-2005 4:06 PM


Separation of Church & State
Delete double post
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 05-11-2005 02:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-11-2005 4:06 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by berberry, posted 05-11-2005 4:33 PM Phat has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 5 of 141 (207179)
05-11-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by berberry
05-11-2005 4:13 PM


From berberry link:
Rosie writes:
It was free reading time, and I was simply reading my Bible. Then they confiscated it. My parents came and forced them to give me my Bible back though.
In that context, it sure seems that Rosie has a legitimate complaint to bring to the ACLU. Unless the "free reading time" was clearly defined to be restricted to materials directly relevant to her classes. If that is the case, then Rosie should have been requested to put the Bible away. If she refused, then confiscation is proper. Regardless, there shouldn't have been a fight over getting it back, say at the end of the day.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by berberry, posted 05-11-2005 4:13 PM berberry has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 6 of 141 (207180)
05-11-2005 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
05-11-2005 4:06 PM


Separation of Church & State
Here is a good opinion on this topic. On a sidenote, many schools do not understand the law and they overreact to any religious activity.
ACLJ.org writes:
Does the Constitution actually require that the "separation of church and state" keep religion out of the public schools?
No! First, the Constitution never mentions the phrase "separation of church and state." That phrase was first used by Thomas Jefferson in an address to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, 13 years after the Constitution was written and accepted as the law of the United States. Neither is the phrase recorded in the notes of the Constitutional Convention. The constitution does say: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]" In fact, the Court has said, on numerous occasions, that separation is impossible. Therefore, the Constitution does not demand that religion be kept out of our public schools. The Constitution only prohibits school-sponsored religious activities. Free Exercise of Religion is our right under the Constitution.
There was a case involving a Bible club. On August 11, 1984, the Senate voted 88-to-11, and the House voted 337-to-77, to pass the Equal Access Act into law. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld it by a vote of
8-to-1, in the ‘Westside Community Schools vs. Mergans case in 1990. Section 4071
(20 U.S.C. SS 4071-74) declares;
Sec.4071. (a) It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum, to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, philosophical, political, or other content of speech at such meeting.
As Justice O'Connor held speaking for the Court in Mergens, "If a State refused to let religious groups use facilities open to others, then it would demonstrate not neutrality but hostility toward religion."
I say more power to them!
{"Edit" button, not "Back" button, Grasshopper. - AM }
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-11-2005 04:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-11-2005 4:06 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 141 (207181)
05-11-2005 4:28 PM


More generally, from what legal basis are schools allowed to confiscate personal property? It's well-established that you don't check your civil rights - including the Fourth Amendment - at the schoolhouse door. Of course our current Supreme Court has not always upheld that.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by berberry, posted 05-11-2005 4:47 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 05-12-2005 3:32 AM crashfrog has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 141 (207184)
05-11-2005 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phat
05-11-2005 4:25 PM


Re: Separation of Church & State
Phatboy writes:
quote:
There was a case involving a Bible club. On August 11, 1984, the Senate voted 88-to-11, and the House voted 337-to-77, to pass the Equal Access Act into law. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld it by a vote of
8-to-1, in the ‘Westside Community Schools vs. Mergans case in 1990.
I remember the case and I have no quarrel with the Equal Access law. However, I do have an issue with the idea that there is no "separation of church and state". While it's true that the phrase doesn't appear in the constitution, I'd like to know just how anyone would propose that both the 1st amendment and the 14th amendment can be honored unless such a separation is inferred.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 05-11-2005 4:25 PM Phat has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 141 (207188)
05-11-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
05-11-2005 4:28 PM


Guns, drugs, bibles and the 4th amendment
crash, I can't remember any specific caselaw concerning this question, but as I understand it the school would have the right to confiscate any items which are either illegal or are being used to disrupt academic activities. If the item is not illegal, it would have to be returned to the student at the end of the school day.
Of course, by "illegal" I don't simply mean something like illegal drugs. For instance, guns are not illegal in society, but it is illegal to take a gun to school.
As for the 4th amendment, I think the word "unreasonable" is the basis of some equivocation.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2005 4:28 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 10 of 141 (207190)
05-11-2005 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by berberry
05-11-2005 3:30 PM


ACLU ok...most of the time
quote:
What do you think public school officials should and should not be allowed to do to restrict religious activities of students on campus?
Officials should not restrict religious activities of students at all IF those activities are non-disruptive to other school activities and IF those activities do not FORCE other kids to be involved.
On the broader topic of the ACLU, I believe they do get a bad rap from the religious right. It seems only the extreme left wing cases are publicized and scores of other cases where the ACLU has defended conservative Christians go unreported. OTOH, I have a problem with the organization in cases where they defend illegal behavior in the name of freedom of expression such as their defense of NAMBLA, (North American Man/Boy Love Association).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by berberry, posted 05-11-2005 3:30 PM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2005 5:06 PM Monk has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 141 (207199)
05-11-2005 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Monk
05-11-2005 4:51 PM


It seems only the extreme left wing cases are publicized and scores of other cases where the ACLU has defended conservative Christians go unreported.
New rule - if you've been defended by the ACLU (Rush, I'm talking to you) you have to stop criticizing them.
OTOH, I have a problem with the organization in cases where they defend illegal behavior in the name of freedom of expression such as their defense of NAMBLA, (North American Man/Boy Love Association).
Naturally, the defense of civil rights from our government is going to require the defense of illegal behavior. I'm not exactly familiar with what they've done for NAMBLA but is your position that men who have sex with boys or teens have no civil rights whatsoever?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Monk, posted 05-11-2005 4:51 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by berberry, posted 05-11-2005 5:19 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 13 by Monk, posted 05-11-2005 5:49 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 16 by arachnophilia, posted 05-12-2005 3:34 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 141 (207207)
05-11-2005 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
05-11-2005 5:06 PM


crashfrog says of the ACLU:
quote:
I'm not exactly familiar with what they've done for NAMBLA...
It's a case of free speech.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2005 5:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 13 of 141 (207215)
05-11-2005 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
05-11-2005 5:06 PM


quote:
Naturally, the defense of civil rights from our government is going to require the defense of illegal behavior. I'm not exactly familiar with what they've done for NAMBLA but is your position that men who have sex with boys or teens have no civil rights whatsoever?
Of course illegal behaviour has a right to be defended. But NAMBLA is encouraging illegal behavior through their website and the ACLU has stated that they have a right to do so. This is different than defending against a crime already committed.
quote:
The ACLU claims this is a case of freedom of speech and association. "For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," said John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU. "It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever."
But it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2005 5:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 05-12-2005 6:34 AM Monk has replied
 Message 18 by berberry, posted 05-12-2005 9:16 AM Monk has not replied
 Message 19 by Dan Carroll, posted 05-12-2005 9:44 AM Monk has not replied
 Message 24 by coffee_addict, posted 05-13-2005 1:50 AM Monk has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 14 of 141 (207217)
05-11-2005 6:09 PM


Question for ROSIE
In Message 131, Rosie Cotton writes:
Personally, I don't like the ACLU...
I would like to know just what she doesn't like about this organization.
Rosie, could you give us some particulars concerning your dislike?

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
select * from USERS where CLUE > 0
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 15 of 141 (207302)
05-12-2005 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
05-11-2005 4:28 PM


precedent
It's well-established that you don't check your civil rights - including the Fourth Amendment - at the schoolhouse door.
quote:
It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate
--TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
tinker v des moines. my favourite case ever. although the ruling was "first amendment" not fourth. however, the principle does, in effect, apply. schools are legally treated like any other governmental property regarding free speech, privacy, weapons, etc. schools have a slightly lower standard for reasonable searches, and prohibiting certain speech, because they have something called a legitimate public or governmental interest in conducting school and teaching classes. therefor, (and i believe you'll even find this in tinker) speech that disrupts the learning process can and should be censored. for instance, yelling "fire!" in the cafeteria and causing the school to be evacuated is not protected under tinker. nor is holding protest that disrupts classes or blocks hallways.
quote:
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring.
...I deem it appropriate to note, first, that the Court continues to recognize a distinction between communicating by words and communicating by acts or conduct which sufficiently impinges on some valid state interest;
-- TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
other speech that may be censored includes anything with the school's letterhead or name on it. for instance, a school can legally censor even an independent school newspaper run and funded by students if they feel it does not properly represent the image of the school they'd like to portray. (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988)
anyways, on to the fourth amendment. luckily, i wrote my conlaw final on this, and took a whole class on the 4th amendment.
Vernonia School District v. Acton 515 U.S. 646 (1995) ruled that random drug testing does not violate student's fourth amendment rights. justice scalia wrote:
quote:
As the text of the Fourth Amendment indicates, the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search is "reasonableness." At least in a case such as this, where there was no clear practice, either approving or disapproving the type of search at issue, at the time the constitutional provision was enacted, [n.1] whether a particular search meets the reasonableness standard " `is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.' " Skinner, supra, at 619 (quoting Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654 (1979)). Where a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing, this Court has said that reasonableness generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant, Skinner, supra, at 619. Warrants cannot be issued, of course, without the showing of probable cause required by the Warrant Clause. But a warrant is not required to establish the reasonableness of all government searches; and when a warrant is not required (and the Warrant Clause therefore not applicable), probable cause is not invariably required either. A search unsupported by probable cause can be constitutional, we have said, "when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable." Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 (1987)
shall i run through more?
New Jersey v. T. L. O. (1985) sets up the standards. let's take a look.
quote:
1. The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials, and is not limited to searches carried out by law enforcement officers. Nor are school officials exempt from the Amendment's dictates by virtue of the special nature of their authority over schoolchildren. In carrying out searches and other functions pursuant to disciplinary policies mandated by state statutes, school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents of students, and they cannot claim the parents immunity from the Fourth Amendment's strictures. Pp. 333-337. [p326]
school's held to fourth amendment standards, and act as government officials, not in loco parentis.
quote:
2. Schoolchildren have legitimate expectations of privacy. They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, noncontraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds. But striking the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject. Thus, school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority. Moreover, school officials need not be held subject to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search. Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a determination of whether the search was justified at its inception and whether, as conducted, it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place. Under ordinary circumstances, the search of a student by a school official will be justified at its inception where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. And such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search, and not excessively intrusive in light of the student's age and sex and the nature of the infraction. Pp. 337-343.
the key phrase here being "striking the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place." it also mentions how that, although school officials ARE held to the fourth amendment, the standards are much more lax. this agreement is consented to by showing up. (under brown v board of education, all students have the right to free and public education, but there other options available)
this not a total waiving of rights. it's not even as tight as an airport would be, where we agree to waive most of our fourth amendment rights for the purposes of safety.
now, i recognize that this is not quite what you were looking for. but it does demonstrate that the school has the right to seize personal property if it encroaches on the schools interest in doing its job.
if rosie had been walking along and minding her own business, and they search her explicitly for the purposes of removing her of her bible, they are violating the above cases. if she was reading it in class, and they confiscated it, they were not. similarly, if rosie were praying quietly by herself before eating her lunch, she cannot be legally punished. but if she's shouting off the school's rooftop with a megaphone in the middle of second period, she can be punished.
editted to add rosie's account:
It was free reading time, and I was simply reading my Bible. Then they confiscated it. My parents came and forced them to give me my Bible back though. I've had that Bible since I've been 8 and I've marked all my favorite scriptures and everything.
I blessed my lunch everyday until in third grade I was told by the lunch moniter that it was "offensive." I've never been caught praying over tests and I still do it.
if this is the whole story, the school is clearly violating both standards i posted above. rosie, can you further elaborate the story some with some more information? what were the other students doing at the time of both occasions?
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-12-2005 03:38 AM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2005 4:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2005 12:23 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024