Our Views — Clarifying the obvious
We wish we could be as optimistic as Donald Sweeney about U.S. District Judge Ira DeMent's ruling concerning religious activities in Alabama public schools.
Responding to DeMent's clear outline of what is and isn't permissible conduct for public school officials in regard to religious matters, Sweeney, an attorney who often provides legal advice to school boards, said, "No longer will well-intended persons, political or otherwise, be able to argue to our principals or educators that 'the law is not clear, or the law doesn't apply in your city or county so do what you want and what we want you to do. You won't get in trouble.'"
Unfortunately, we doubt that those who have used these arguments in the past will give up simply because another judge has stated what should have already been clear. They will continue to distort for their own political purposes what the U.S. Supreme Court, lower courts and now DeMent have ruled in regard to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and religion in public schools.
The amendment forbids government and its agents — which includes teachers and other public officials — from organizing or officially sanctioning religious activities for the students in their charge. At the same time, individual religious expressions by students may not be forbidden simply because the expressions are religious in nature. Extracurricular activities and organizations of a religious nature must be allowed on the same terms as any other extracurricular activity. Furthermore, religious texts and artwork can be used within an academic context.
These distinctions are not hard to understand. A little common sense, some historical knowledge of why religious freedom is so important and recognition that principals, teachers and other school employees hold state-granted power over students — however benignly that power may be exercised — should be all it takes for school administrators to see what they can and cannot do.
However, since there is clear evidence that administrators in some schools and school systems have not been able to make these distinctions — or have chosen not to make them because of real or perceived political pressures — DeMent's ruling serves a useful purpose. And by making it a ruling of statewide application, he had removed any excuses for school officials who violate the First Amendment's guarantees of religious freedom.
The Birmingham News/Birmingham Post-Herald, Saturday November 1, 1997
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 21:52:03 0600
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re: Courier Editor
I read about it in the paper (or at least what someone thought was important for me to know about). If you have an electronic copy that you can share, I'd appreciate it.
...I personally agree with the result, as we've discussed generally in the past....
I thought of you when I read the article. I knew you would be pleased. Yes, we differ on this issue. I just think it is sad when a community of neighbors are ordered by outsiders to stop praying (as at ball games) if they want to. It is a thing between them and their God. No religion pushing, no evangelizing, no anti-Semitism! The courts and the government just needs to stay the heck out of their business! But it is typical of the intolerance of the "left" (who hark "tolerance" out of the other side of their mouths). Were someone to take the time to do a poll on why people want prayer before games and what it means to them, they'd find (much to the disappointment of some who look for such) there is NO intent to put anyone down by it. Sorry, I don't mean to instigate another long dialog (that we've had before). I just needed to vent a little. My patriotic soul just grieves when yet another of our hard won, long cherished liberties is ripped away by some activist (tyrant) judge! One day, he too, will stand before a just God and give account for his actions.
I'll keep my "hat" on. ; )
Regards,
Frank
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment