| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
26 Apr 2006 07:21:32 AM |
| Object: |
Justice Alito: good for religious liberty |
More from Alan Keyes clones
Justice Alito: good for religious liberty
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/060425
Michael Gaynor
April 25, 2006
Warning: Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Has Replaced Justice Sandra D.
O'Connor and Public Schools May Not Censor Religious Viewpoints Of Students
In Class Assignments.
Hurray!
Justice Alito's well deserved nomination and bitterly contested
confirmation have borne fruit for those who respect the rule of law and the
religious liberty that the First Amendment was adopted to protect.
As a federal appellate judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, then Judge Alito took the position that schools may not
censor religious viewpoints of students when they address permissible
subjects in response to class assignments or instructions.
There is no reason to believe his position has changed.
On October 18, 2005, in Peck v. Baldwinsville Central School District, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a student
has a free speech claim if school officials censor the student's work based
on its religious content, but rejected the student's Establishment Clause
claim under current United States Supreme Court precedent.
On April 24, 2006, the United States Supreme Court allowed the Second
Circuit ruling to stand.
The federal appellate courts had been divided as to whether public schools
are permitted to censor the religious viewpoints of students in class
assignments. The Second, Third and Ninth Circuits had answered no, while
the First and Tenth Circuits had held that viewpoint discrimination in the
curricular context may be permissible.
The First and Tenth Circuits now have good reason to reconsider: Justice
Alito has succeeded former Justice O'Connor and is not inclined to make
atheism or agnostism America's religion, either officially or unofficially.
The Peck case is a triumph for religious liberty and may be a harbinger of
a return to the constitutional path from which the United States Supreme
Court arrogantly and erroneously departed in 1947, when it embraced
secularism and ruled that government must be neutral as between religion
and irreligion and may not support religion generally,
Kindergarten students at Catherine McNamara Elementary School in
Baldwinsville, New York were instructed to create posters showing what they
learned about the environment in class.
Their teacher sent detailed instructions home informing parents that the
content of the posters should reflect what the students had learned about
the environment in class.
Each student was to be given the opportunity to present his or her poster
to the class, and the posters were to be displayed in the school's
cafeteria during a school-wide environmental assembly.
Antonio Peck's poster depicted a robed figure that appeared to be Jesus
along with several religious phrases.
His teacher took his poster to the school principal, who told her to
instruct Antonio to create another poster.
The teacher notified Antonio's mother that the poster could not be
displayed and Antonio would have to create a second one, bercause the
poster contained religious content and did not reflect what Antonio had
learned in class on the environment.
Antonio's second poster depicted the Jesus figure as well as people picking
up trash and recycling next to a church.
Antonio was allowed to present the entire poster to his class, but he
principal instructed the teacher to fold under the portion depicting the
Jesus figure when hanging it for the assembly.
School officials contended that Antonio's poster violated "church and
state" and would give the impression that the school was teaching religion,
even though the poster was clearly a kindergartner's artwork, unless
folded.
Folding the poster made it look odd. Antonio's name at the bottom was cut
in half and when Antonio saw his poster folded and school officials told
him and his parents why it was folded, he allegedly felt ashamed in front
of his classmates and his parents and assumed he did something wrong and
was being punished.
School officials refused to remedy the matter, apologize or adopt a policy
to prevent future censorship, so, with the assistance of Liberty Counsel,
Antonio's parents filed suit in the local federal district court, claiming
that the school officials' censorship of Antonio's poster violated both
Antonio's free speech rights and the Establishment Clause.
The district court granted the motion of the Baldwinsville Central School
District (BCSD) motion for summary judgment on both claims.
The Second Circuit vacated the district court's ruling on the free speech
claim and remained that claim to the district court for further proceedings
and affirmed the district court's ruling on the Establishment Clause claim.
The Second Circuit rejected Antonio's parents' argument that the poster
constituted personal speech that should be regulated pursuant to Tinker v.
Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969),
which allows regulation of speech only if it materially and substantially
interferes with school operations or infringes on the rights of others.
But, the Second Circuit found that the poster, having been made in response
to a class assignment, constituted school-sponsored speech that can be
restricted under the principle enunciated in Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), that allows restrictions that are
"reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."
The Second Circuit agreed with BCSD that there was sufficient evidence to
support censoring the poster based on its "legitimate pedagogical concerns"
that the portion of the poster depicting the robed figure was not
responsive to the assignment and that the Jesus figure was the work of
Antonio's mother, not Antonio.
Notwithstanding that, the Second Circuit determined that Antonio's parents'
had raised a factual issue regarding whether officials had engaged in
viewpoint discrimination based on the poster's religious content, finding
that some of the evidence construed in a light most favorable to the
parents suggested that officials censored Antonio's poster solely because
it offered a religious perspective on the topic of how to save the
environment and concluding that if the factual dispute was resolved in
favor of Antonio's parents, a jury could find that BCSD officials had
engaged in impermissible viewpoint discrimination based on religion in
violation of Antonio's free speech rights.
The Second Circuit rejected BCSD's contention that Hazelwood permits school
officials to engage in viewpoint discrimination when such discrimination is
reasonably related to "legitimate pedagogical concerns." It noted that
Hazelwood neither addressed nor "even mentioned, explicitly, the question
of viewpoint neutrality" and, in the absence of clear United States Supreme
Court direction, declined to depart from well established law that a
manifestly viewpoint discriminatory restriction on school-sponsored speech
is, prima facie, unconstitutional, even if reasonably related to
"legitimate pedagogical interests."
With respect to the Establishment Clause claim, the Second Circuit applied
the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). It
determined that BCSD's actions did not violate the Establishment Clause,
because the school officials had acted with a secular purpose (concern that
Antonio's poster was not responsive to the assignment); the partial
censorship of the poster that allowed the church to be viewed while only
covering the Jesus figure demonstrated that there was no intent to inhibit
religion; and whatever entanglement with religion that occurred as a result
of the alleged viewpoint discrimination was de minimis.
Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel for Liberty Counsel,
rightfully declared victory for religious speech in general and Antonio in
particular: "We are pleased the Supreme Court allowed this decision to
stand. The school district sent a terrible message to Antonio that his
faith is not welcome, when officials persisted in censoring his artwork. At
the pinnacle of the Bill of Rights is the First Amendment, which enshrines
our first liberty. It's about time that school officials learn a simple
lesson — private religious speech when expressed on public property is
constitutionally protected. Antonio, who began this case while in
kindergarten, is an example of the maxim that one person, no matter the
age, can accomplish great things when they stand for a principled cause."
Congratulations to Mr. Staver, Liberty Counsel, the Peck family and most of
the United States Supreme Court Justices!
***************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
