Court Says No to Religious Gifts in School: 4-year-old had no right...

Focus on the Family ^ | September 22, 2003 | Gary Schneeberger

[Natural Law]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This clearly means that on issues of religion the Federal Government and its courts have no authority to act. I would have no qualms about sending my 4 or 14 year old out tomorrow with religious gifts.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Chidlren don't start public school until the age of 5 or six. Are they talking about Day CAre here?

[sunryse]

This government is making me sadder and sadder. I can wrap my mind around the Ten Commandments, I find that sad too, but I suppose legally I understand. But I do NOT understand a child not able to give a gift with the name Jesus on it.

I think this country is turning it's back on God, and I don't just mean the Christian God, but God in general and the consequences will be brutal. But it will be too late.

Michelle

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Chidlren don't start public school until the age of 5 or six. Are they talking about Day CAre here?

Kindergartners and first-graders…guess the federal judges are mad that the kids weren't aborted in the first place.

[INVAR]

I can wrap my mind around the Ten Commandments, I find that sad too, but I suppose legally I understand.

Actually Michelle, there is no legality upon which that Federal Judge acted except on Judicial Activist Case law Precedent, which is NOT law since only Congress can make law - and the 1st Amendment expressly forbids them to make any law respecting religion.

But since we in America are ignorant of the plain words of our Constitution, our Founding documents, our Rights and have left everything up to the "professionals" instead of being vigilant as our Forefathers warned - we now have federal judges forbidding any exercize of religious faith or expression, if it's Christian.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

May I try that again. Children do not start public school until the age of 5-6. Are they talking about day care here?

[HostileTerritory]

I understand the point, but... the child is four years old. I doubt he can even read. Does anyone really believe the pencils were his idea?

The teacher was probably trying to head off a lynch mob of some of the other parents who, for whatever reason, really don't like the thought of someone trying to spread the good news to their children when they think they're doing alphabet, numbers, and nap time.

[HostileTerritory]

Michelle,

I understand where you're coming from. It's all about the other parents in the class who want some control over what their kids are told in school. And yes, to many parents, "Jesus loves the little children" conflicts with what they teach their kids. Maybe the parents aren't Christian.

Strange as it may seem, there are plenty of four year olds in America who could easily bring in pencils that say "Jesus loves my lesbian mommies" from their own church groups. Would you want the four year old (it's the child doing it, right, NOT the parent, never) to force this issue into your home?

[HostileTerritory]

No, I can be quite certain that pencils saying "Allah is Merciful" would bring in the Other Parent lynch mob the next day in much greater numbers than "Jesus Loves the Little Children" would.

Schools are all about avoiding offending the parents. That's what this case is about. There are many more non-Muslim parents than non-Christians in the U.S. and any teacher who passes out "Allah is God" pencils will be working at Wal-Mart by Monday morning.

[GirlShortstop]

I understand where you're coming from. It's all about the other parents in the class who want some control over what their kids are told in school.

If mommy and daddy are steadfast, set good examples and emphasize their [wholesome] beliefs in their home, the "problem" of Johhny's pencils is nonexistent.

[FLAMING DEATH]

I find it fascinating that, to a liberal...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

means, that government is allowed to take pencils from four year olds that say "Jesus" on them, prohibit students from praying, even to themselves, and pull the Ten Commandments, a religious as well as historical document, from the walls of a public building, while simultaneously believing that...

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech,"

means that we are SO free to say what we want that: the Government will give aid to a deviant who puts on an art exhibition which includes crucifixes in bottles of urine, we can scream epithets at the soldiers who risked their lives for the idiots' freedoms, broadcast television shows that advocate immorality, and burn the flag, but somehow...

"shall not be infringed."

...means that the government has the right to infringe in any area it damn well pleases, including but not limited to: prohibiting shotguns with a short barrel, fully automatic weapons, silencers, rifles with pistol grips, rifles with bayonets, 11 round magazines, flash suppressors, folding stocks, buying guns by mail, buying a handgun in a state other than your home state, carrying your pistol in the post office, or making your own guns for your own private use.

Amazing the difference in the interpretation of these absolutes, ain't it?

[HostileTerritory]

"If mommy and daddy are steadfast, set good examples and emphasize their [wholesome] beliefs in their home, the "problem" of Johhny's pencils is nonexistent."

I think that's a rather awkward standard. Perhaps Johnny's parents don't want Johnny's classmates' parents to test their steadfastness or good example. Perhaps they feel that their four-year-old child Johnny isn't up for a theological debate about why their relationship with Jesus isn't as simple as what the pencil says.

Perhaps Johnny's friend Benjamin comes home in tears because Jesus loves all the kids in school except for him because he goes to temple instead of church and why can't he go to church on Sunday and give Jesus a big hug. Do you think Benjamin's parents have a right to complain--or are they not setting a good enough moral example?

By the same argument, Christian parents should be ok with sex education and gay sensitivity training in schools. If they complain about it, is it because they can't provide a good enough moral example at home for their own children?

[Big Giant Head]

Ah, those pesky religious zealot kids better quit bringing lunch money too, 'cause it says "In God we trust" right there on the front.

Our money might anger some muslim, better ban money.

< /sarcasm >

[just looking]

I guess I'm lucky that my family and I have not run into any of these lunatic liberal teachers.

[pierrem15]

Time for a horse and a rope.

[GirlShortstop]

Perhaps Johnny's parents don't want Johnny's classmates' parents to test their steadfastness or good example.

I think that you may have twisted the pseudonym in my statement:  Johnny *gave away* the pencils.  Where do you think Johnny got the pencils?

Perhaps they feel that their four-year-old child Johnny isn't up for a theological debate about why their relationship with Jesus isn't as simple as what the pencil says.

??

Benjamin comes home in tears because Jesus loves all the kids in school except for him

There appears to have been added quite a bit of text onto Johnny's pencils!

Do you think Benjamin's parents have a right to complain--or are they not setting a good enough moral example?

Again, as I see it, the recipients' parents (not Johnny, not his classmates) have a problem if they can not explain faith, much less *demonstrate* it.  In this case, faith and a kind, charitable message has been turned into something ugly - something for lawyers and judges to argue about and decide "what's best".  Nice example.

[jwalsh07]

By the same argument, Christian parents should be ok with sex education and gay sensitivity training in schools. If they complain about it, is it because they can't provide a good enough moral example at home for their own children?

You're having a problem distinguishing between the state and private citizens. Every state in the union has Constitutionally prohibited the establishment of state religions. The First Amendmnet acknowledges the rights of individuals to speak freely and "exercise" their religion.

What religion has the state established by a 4 year old handing out pencils with a religious message? Should the hall monitors search their bags at Christmas time to ensure that only secular cards are exchanged?

[houndofzeus]

What about the kid whose father is a soldier, and has to sit next to Tinker wearing a black armband, showing detest for the cause his father is fighting for? "Offending" someone isn't a crime under the Constitution, but liberals don't seem to care what the Constitution says anymore. Unless, of course, it fits their agenda.

[Old Professer]

Actually, anyone under the age of majority ought not be recognized as having Constitutional rights as that lessens the right and role of the parent(s); other than that, there is no good answer to your question.

[mountaineer]

In answer to your question, it wasn't day care. It was a public school pre-kindergarten.

Washington Times: The case began in April 1998 when Daniel, then 4, and his pre-kindergarten classmates attended a party at school. All of the children brought treats to share. Daniel came with the pencils, which the teacher confiscated. Daniel's mother, Dana Walz, who was in the classroom at the time as a chaperone, immediately appealed the matter to the principal. The principal, assistant superintendent and superintendent said Daniel could distribute the pencils only during noninstructional time because they did not want the school to be held responsible for endorsing Christianity. ...