Mat Staver
Posted on 03/30/2006 2:23:12 PM PST by wagglebee
(AgapePress) - The United States Supreme Court may hear a case involving a school district's censorship of an art poster that a kindergartener drew for a school assignment -- a drawing that was partly suppressed by school officials because it contained the child's depiction of Jesus.
The case involves Antonio Peck, who was a kindergarten student in the late 1990s at Baldwinsville Elementary School in Syracuse, New York. The boy's teacher told members of the class to draw posters illustrating their understanding of the environment. Antonio's poster featured children holding hands and encircling the globe and people picking up trash and recycling, along with a picture of Jesus, kneeling with one knee to the ground and his hands outstretched toward the sky.
School officials folded the poster in half in order to cover up the drawing of Christ. They claimed the picture violated "church and state" and would give the impression that the school was teaching religion, even though the drawing was clearly a student's artwork.
According to the pro-family legal group Liberty Counsel, the fold made Antonio's look odd and the student's name on the poster was cut in half, and he felt ashamed of his displayed work, especially after school officials informed him and his parents why his poster was folded. The child assumed he had done something wrong, and when school officials refused to apologize, rectify the situation, or adopt a policy to prevent future censorship, Liberty Counsel filed suit on the Peck family's behalf.
Liberty Counsel president Mat Staver claims common sense should dictate "that no one would assume the school indoctrinated students in religion simply because one kid's drawing contained an unidentified religious figure." He argues that the fact that school officials would go "out of their way to humiliate a kindergarten student in front of his parents and classmates can only stem from antagonism to his Christian viewpoint."
In 2000, a federal trial court ruled that the school had the right to censor the child's poster due to "church and state" concerns. However, a court of appeals reversed that ruling on March 28, 2001, in a 3-0 decision, sending the case back to the trial court. And in 2004, the same trial court judge again ruled in favor of the school, at which point Liberty Counsel appealed.
On October 18, 2005, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals again ruled 3-0 in favor of Antonio. Nevertheless, Staver says the matter remains unresolved because there remains "a conflict among the federal courts of appeals."
Mat Staver
Appellate Courts Render Split Decision on Religious Censorship Case
The Court of Appeals in Antonio Peck's case "got it right," Staver asserts. According to the Second Circuit's ruling, he explains, "when students give responses to a class assignment and as long as they respond within the subject matter of the assignment, you cannot censor their religious viewpoints."
However, the attorney points out, "There are other courts in certain parts of the country that have disagreed with that." While the Second Circuit joined the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits in saying schools may not censor students' viewpoints under such circumstances, the First and Tenth Circuits hold that viewpoint discrimination in the curricular context may be permissible. For that reason, Staver believes there is a good chance the Supreme Court of the United States will hear the case.
"When Justice Samuel Alito was a Federal Court of Appeals judge, he ruled specifically in a case that you cannot censor the Christian viewpoints of students when they give information or responses in response to a class assignment or instruction," the Liberty Counsel spokesman notes. "So I think this would be a great case for the court to take. We'll wait to see."
If the high court does take the case, Staver contends, "it could have a major impact on student free religious expression within the public school system."
In the Supreme Court justices did take up the matter, Liberty Counsel's president says his group anticipates that the court would agree with those appeals courts that say public schools may not discriminate against students' religious viewpoints when the students are addressing permissible subjects in response to class assignments.
I don't think ANYBODY would think that of ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL. Although I'm sure that if the kid had drawn a picture depicting homosexual parents the picture would be in a museum by now.
This is silly. It's the kid's artwork. He drew what he believed. Of course it should be displayed as is. If the SCOTUS takes this one, they'll rule that way, too.
Moronic trial court!
Things like this have happened before. In the instance I'm thinking of, the student ended up getting award $5000 in damages.
School officials are terrified of the ACLU.....Satan's handmaidens.
What's the ACLU going to do, start shutting down schools? (Which would be a really good start by the way.)
Speaking of separation of church and state - has anyone noticed that the Los Angeles City Council provided free parking for the Catholic Diocese buses for the mass demonstration last Saturday?
There is no "wall of separation" in the Constitution, and in this case the only wall of separation lies between the collective ears of the school administration, separating their brains from the rest of their bodies.
No one worries about the elephant feces-painted Mother Mary portrait in NY's art gallery being an endorsement of religion or how about Serrano's "Piss Christ" with NEA taxpayer funding?
"No doubt in my mind his civil rights were violated"
that was probably a very expensive fold. Maybe about a couple of million worth.
He did the assignment, as instructed (they were not told to exclude religious symbols), and due to its religious content has been help up for ridicule by having his work maimed (folded) while on display with all the other kid's works. That federal judge is nuts not to see the clear civil rights violation. At least the circuit court can see it, I hope this moves up to SCOTUS! Maybe we can roll back the over zealous abuse of the "church-state" separation doctrine a bit. Funny, we can't let six year olds express themselves but we tolerate presidential candidates and preachers campaigning from the pulpits so long as the audience is the right minority.
Nobody in this society has any common sense anymore. There is a huge difference between allow students to be religious and teachers mandating religion.
Are the schools sick -- or just evil?
I suspect this story is mostly hype. I'm not sure what the details are of the related holdings by the First and Tenth Circuits, but probably conspicuously different issues, and thus no need for SCOTUS to get involved. Even the perpetually muddle-headed Ninth Circus is clear on this straighforward point.
Hadn't heard that, but it doesn't surprise me. The Catholic Church is a leading promoter of socialism in the U.S. They want a few little exceptions to conform to their religious views on sex and reproduction, but other than that, they're pretty hard-core Marxists.
Last year in 2nd grade, my daughter had to write a paragraph about what she was thankful for. One of the things was Jesus because he died on the cross for our sins.
Her teacher (public school) put it on the wall because it was such a good paragraph.
I'm sure if it had Mohammed or Budha in the picture then it would be okay.
Reminds me of the book, "My name is Asher Lev"
To whom, specifically, are you referring when you say, "The Catholic Church... they're pretty hard-core Marxists"? A particular priest or bishop? The United States Catholic Conference? Pope Benedict XVI? A billion Catholics worldwide?
It was disturbing how many thought it a good idea...
That is a total lie. Nobody is forcing anything.
GA is ALLOWING the Bible to be used as a text in an ELECTIVE history/literature course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.