Religions > Atheism > Justices Decline Church-State Case Involving a Kindergarten Poster of Jesus
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
26 Apr 2006 07:21:29 AM |
| Object: |
Justices Decline Church-State Case Involving a Kindergarten Poster of Jesus |
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/details.cfm?id=42572
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/washington/25scotus.html
Justices Decline Church-State Case Involving a Kindergarten Poster of Jesus
April 25, 2006
Linda Greenhouse
The New York Times
WASHINGTON, April 24 — The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a
contentious church-state dispute, declining to hear a case concerning a
public school district's refusal to display a picture of Jesus submitted by
a kindergarten student in response to an assignment to design a poster on
the environment.
The child's parents sued the school district, in Baldwinsville in central
New York State, on the ground that the school's response to their son's
artwork violated his right to free speech and amounted to official
discrimination against religion.
The suit was dismissed by the federal district court in Syracuse but
reinstated last October by the federal appeals court in Manhattan. That
court held that the school's action was suggestive of antireligious
"viewpoint discrimination" that could be justified only by an "overriding"
government interest.
The appeals court sent the case back to the district court for further
examination of whether there was discrimination and, if so, whether it
might be justified, for example by the need to avoid the appearance of
religious endorsement. The prospect of further proceedings in the case,
which concerns events that occurred nearly seven years ago, meant that the
Baldwinsville Central School District could not present the Supreme Court
with a final judgment.
While the justices usually turn down cases that are still under review, the
school district argued in this case that the appeals court had reached a
legal conclusion on which the lower federal courts are divided and that
needed the Supreme Court's attention, regardless of future developments in
that dispute. The justices offered no comment in refusing the case,
Baldwinsville Central School District v. Peck, No. 05-899.
The Supreme Court has not directly addressed this issue. Nor has it
examined students' free-speech rights in elementary school. Its infrequent
rulings on student speech have been in cases from high schools and
universities. In 1988, the court ruled in Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier that a public high school principal's censorship of the student
newspaper was justified because the paper was part of the curriculum and
the school's control over its content was "reasonably related to legitimate
pedagogical concerns."
In the Baldwinsville case, Judge Guido Calabresi of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the case came "within the core of
Hazelwood's framework." Further, Judge Calabresi said the question of
whether the Supreme Court meant to give school administrators latitude to
single out particular viewpoints for censorship was "anything but clear."
Nonetheless, his opinion for the appeals court concluded that "a manifestly
viewpoint-discriminatory restriction on school-sponsored speech" would be
"unconstitutional even if reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical
interests," unless justified by a "sufficiently compelling state interest."
The school argued in its Supreme Court appeal that the appeals court
misunderstood the Hazelwood decision. The federal appeals courts in Boston
and Denver have concluded that neither the precedent nor the Constitution
required that the regulation of school-sponsored speech be neutral as to
viewpoint.
The decision "robs teachers of the appropriate and necessary control of
their classrooms" and will encourage "frivolous lawsuits," the school
district told the court, adding that schools were surely free to sponsor
speech against drug use or irresponsible sex without also presenting the
opposite point of view.
The kindergartner's parents, Joanne and Kenley Peck, were represented by
Liberty Counsel, a legal organization based in Maitland, Fla., that
describes itself on its Web site as committed to "restoring the culture one
case at a time."
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Decline Church-State Case Involving a Kindergarten Posterof Jesus |
27 Apr 2006 12:47:08 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/details.cfm?id=3D42572
=20
and
=20
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/washington/25scotus.html
=20
Justices Decline Church-State Case Involving a Kindergarten Poster of J=
esus
April 25, 2006
=20
Linda Greenhouse
The New York Times
=20
WASHINGTON, April 24 =97 The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a
contentious church-state dispute, declining to hear a case concerning a=
public school district's refusal to display a picture of Jesus submitte=
d by
a kindergarten student in response to an assignment to design a poster =
on
the environment.
The problem this case has is that the child and his parents were unable
to follow the instructions, "What did you learn in class about the
environment?" Jesus wasn't the subject matter. They offered to let him
do it over and again made a Jesus poster. Should have just given him an
F and not hung his poster at all.
The child should feel ashamed that he can't follow instructions. Has
nothing to do with religion. Jesus didn't lower himself to picking up
trash anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Decline Church-State Case Involving a Kindergarten Poster of Jesus; the child didn't break any law |
27 Apr 2006 01:44:41 PM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/details.cfm?id=42572
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/washington/25scotus.html
Justices Decline Church-State Case Involving a Kindergarten Poster of Jesus
April 25, 2006
Linda Greenhouse
The New York Times
WASHINGTON, April 24 - The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a
contentious church-state dispute, declining to hear a case concerning a
public school district's refusal to display a picture of Jesus submitted by
a kindergarten student in response to an assignment to design a poster on
the environment.
The problem this case has is that the child and his parents were unable
to follow the instructions, "What did you learn in class about the
environment?" Jesus wasn't the subject matter. They offered to let him
do it over and again made a Jesus poster. Should have just given him an
F and not hung his poster at all.
The child should feel ashamed that he can't follow instructions. Has
nothing to do with religion. Jesus didn't lower himself to picking up
trash anyway.
Please reference the law that the child broke for not following
instructions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Decline Church-State Case Involving a Kindergarten Poster of Jesus; the child didn't break any law |
27 Apr 2006 02:49:14 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146163481.852907.164320@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dave wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/details.cfm?id=42572
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/washington/25scotus.html
Justices Decline Church-State Case Involving a Kindergarten Poster of
Jesus
April 25, 2006
Linda Greenhouse
The New York Times
WASHINGTON, April 24 - The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a
contentious church-state dispute, declining to hear a case concerning a
public school district's refusal to display a picture of Jesus
submitted by
a kindergarten student in response to an assignment to design a poster
on
the environment.
The problem this case has is that the child and his parents were unable
to follow the instructions, "What did you learn in class about the
environment?" Jesus wasn't the subject matter. They offered to let him
do it over and again made a Jesus poster. Should have just given him an
F and not hung his poster at all.
The child should feel ashamed that he can't follow instructions. Has
nothing to do with religion. Jesus didn't lower himself to picking up
trash anyway.
Please reference the law that the child broke for not following
instructions.
You can't sue a teacher for a "bad grade," unless you can demonstrate
"damages" that resulted from the "bad grade," that the "bad grade" was
intrinsically unfair, and that the "bad grade" was the result of malicious
and discriminatory action towards you. Such lawsuits are, of course,
extremely rare and almost always occur at the graduate level. And, few
lawsuits are ever won! Having said that, teachers can grade their students
"however they wish," and it is up to the school administration to set the
standards at any level of academic study.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Decline Church-State Case Involving a Kindergarten Poster of Jesus; the child didn't break any law |
28 Apr 2006 09:04:47 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dave wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/details.cfm?id=42572
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/washington/25scotus.html
Justices Decline Church-State Case Involving a Kindergarten Poster of Jesus
April 25, 2006
Linda Greenhouse
The New York Times
WASHINGTON, April 24 - The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a
contentious church-state dispute, declining to hear a case concerning a
public school district's refusal to display a picture of Jesus submitted by
a kindergarten student in response to an assignment to design a poster on
the environment.
The problem this case has is that the child and his parents were unable
to follow the instructions, "What did you learn in class about the
environment?" Jesus wasn't the subject matter. They offered to let him
do it over and again made a Jesus poster. Should have just given him an
F and not hung his poster at all.
The child should feel ashamed that he can't follow instructions. Has
nothing to do with religion. Jesus didn't lower himself to picking up
trash anyway.
Please reference the law that the child broke for not following
instructions.
Who said that the child broke a law?
The child failed to follow instructions. Why should the school be
obliged to display his poster?
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Decline Church-State Case Involving a Kindergarten Poster of Jesus |
01 May 2006 12:26:49 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:47:08 -0500, Dave wrote
(in article <5OCdnTFJgMMGnszZ4p2dnA@giganews.com>):
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/details.cfm?id=42572
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/washington/25scotus.html
Justices Decline Church-State Case Involving a Kindergarten Poster of Jesus
April 25, 2006
Linda Greenhouse
The New York Times
WASHINGTON, April 24 — The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a
contentious church-state dispute, declining to hear a case concerning a
public school district's refusal to display a picture of Jesus submitted by
a kindergarten student in response to an assignment to design a poster on
the environment.
The problem this case has is that the child and his parents were unable
to follow the instructions, "What did you learn in class about the
environment?" Jesus wasn't the subject matter. They offered to let him
do it over and again made a Jesus poster. Should have just given him an
F and not hung his poster at all.
The child should feel ashamed that he can't follow instructions. Has
nothing to do with religion. Jesus didn't lower himself to picking up
trash anyway.
If the kid wanted to do a "Jesus poster", all he had to do was having Jesus
giving the finger to George W C Bush43 being surrounded by the signs from all
the oil companies and saying, "For pieces of silver, you are destroying the
Earth and murdering my people."
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is inevitable but suffering is optional.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
