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

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

[Capt. Canuck]

"She can't give out pencils that mention religion, but I bet in a few years, that same school will give her CONDOMS!"

Hey, how about handing out condoms with Bible verses printed on them (like, Thou shalt not commit adultry), liberals would blow a fuse trying to decide if they should object or not. :-)

[afz400]

Of course the schools are free to perpetuate myths of their own making like "Honest Abe" Lincoln and M.L. King.

[GirlShortstop]

Hey, how about handing out condoms with Bible verses printed on them (like, Thou shalt not commit adultry), liberals would blow a fuse trying to decide if they should object or not. :-)

LOL... throw in "Thou Shall Not Kill" and they'll explode!!

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Thanks I could not get the link to work. I think pre- kindergarten is day care. The public school slook it as a way to make more money and the parents ffeel batter about themselves because the kids is in school after all, not just getting babysat. The whole thing stinks!

[SedVictaCatoni]

What religion has the state established by a 4 year old handing out pencils with a religious message?

The Court's reasoning is probably that the school has unwittingly provided this kid with a captive audience to preach to. Consequently, they are de facto endorsing the child's religion.

This would follow from the line of caselaw which holds that students can organize Bible study groups during non-instructional time, because nobody's being forced to join or pay attention. But a teacher can't lead a prayer, or let a student give a public prayer before a football game, because the school is implicitly giving sanction to that prayer by providing it with a captive audience.

[Old Professer]

These people should have known they were in trouble long before they got to the pencil part - what in the name of creation is pre-kindergarten?

It's no wonder we've got 40 somethings running around with the crack of their asses showing in public, they never had a chance to play in the mud or watch a blade of grass grow or eat a wormy apple in the shade of a tree.

Those of you who have children need to know that they will remember the disappointments long after the cheers have faded.

[HostileTerritory]

"You're having a problem distinguishing between the state and private citizens."

I'm happy to clarify that by going back to my original example. How would you feel if little Jamie brought in pencils from her church reading "Jesus loves my lesbian mommies and me"? Would you be standing up for her rights if the teacher told her it was inappropriate?

[HostileTerritory]

So, should I chalk you up as ok with a four year old bringing pencils that say "Jesus loves my lesbian mommies and me" and "Christ loves us all, gay and straight"?

[Big Giant Head]

I will probably regret butting into your flame war, but you're missing the point. The federal government is NOT establishing a religion here. The school is not.

The child, however, is being denied his constitutional right to "freely exercise" . Bringing up lesbianism is diverting the issue.

[Natural Law]

We agree on all but the understanding of the legal. I think the insertion of the Federal Government in the 10 Commandments case and the religious gifts issue is a perversion of the 1st Ammendment. The founders were adament that our form of self government could not function in the absence of a strict moral code and they turned to Christianity to provide it.

When God is removed from the body politic it will create a vacuum that will be filled by something. I shudder to think what it might be.

[Frank_2001]

Right...no problem with "Allah Akbar", I would think/sarcasm off

[myprecious]

what in the name of creation is pre-kindergarten?

Pick one:

A) Warehouse for storing children so both parents can support the burgeoning tax and regulation burden.

B) Indoctrination Center for producing compliant, dependent citizens.

C) Additional layer of government jobs to placate the teachers union.

D)All the above.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

He gave the pencils out at an EASTER PARTY! Isn't Jesus part of Easter?

[HostileTerritory]

I'm not missing anything--I think people are willing to back up this parent as long as she's using her kid to push her own brand of Christianity and not Islam. People are okay with a loose interpretation of the First Amendment as long as they don't think they need protection.

But if any poster on this thread had a child who came home with little candies wrapped in notes saying "Islam is sweet" and "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet" all of this hair-splitting about what constitutes establishment of religion would fall by the wayside. They'd be in the principal's office so fast it would make your head spin.

The first amendment says that government has to respect all religions equally. If schools are providing a captive audience for an energetic Christian mother to exploit her kid to spread the good news, then they have to let the Muslim mother try to convert your kids with candies and tracts about Allah. Schools don't want any part of it. Parents don't want any part of it. No one here wants their four year olds subjected to daily "peer-led" lessons on why Islam is the way to go Jesus is just a prophet.

And lesbianism is *not* diverting the issue--there are churches that believe that they have a special mission to bring acceptance of non-traditional families. Those lesbian parents have the same rights as Walz to express their faith. Why can't people acknowledge that when they defend people like Walz and Judge Moore, they're also defending Muslims and lesbian parents who want to convert *their* kids? If you'd only accept that, I'd be fine with your view of the First Amendment. But I've seen too many nasty threads on FR about how GLSEN and Muslims are invading the schools and trying to convert children to trust people to really stick to principles.

[rudypoot]

it's worse than I thought :(

[INVAR]

The Court's reasoning is probably that the school has unwittingly provided this kid with a captive audience to preach to. Consequently, they are de facto endorsing the child's religion.

Only the CONGRESS is prohibited from establishing any religion according to the Bill of Rights, Article I. U.S. Constitution. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that forbids or prohibits schools endorsing or promoting a religious precept, we have done so in America for the better part of 200 years without problem until the last two to three decades by a minority of morally-devoid relativists and Activist Judges.

This would follow from the line of caselaw which holds...

Ahhh, now we come to it...CASELAW. Sorry, according to the Constitution itself, CASELAW is NOT law - except by those whom accept the whims of a Judge as the Ultimate Lawgiver, which the Supreme Law of the Land prohibits. ONLY CONGRESS can make law - the Judiciary is to rule UPON WRITTEN LAW PASSED by the Legislatures, or to measure a case based upon the written laws, not "interpret" law as they see fit to mean.

But since Americans are now ignorant of our very Foundations, and we have left the running of the Republic to the "professionals" and the High Priesthood of Secular, Humanist, Liberal Lawyers - we have defacto law of judicial precedents being accepted as "law".

Wonder how long and how comfortable all of you are going to be when some Judge rules that political speech that is hostile to the Administration or government is subversive and therefore not 'protected' and can be prohibited? Once that precedent is set, imagine all the laws that will stem from that false foundation.

[INVAR]

,i.I think people are willing to back up this parent as long as she's using her kid to push her own brand of Christianity and not Islam.

For roughly 200 years, America accepted and even expected the promotion of Christianity and religious precepts in our schools and institutions. In-fact, our Founders and early Institutions themselves considered it imperative for the survival of the Republic for them to do just that:

"Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life, John 17:3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of Him." - Rules and Precepts of Harvard.

The first amendment says that government has to respect all religions equally.

Really? Where are those words written? Article I, Bill of Rights reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercize thereof..." Sorry, I still don't find the words "government has to respect all religions equally."

In-fact, one of our first Legal Scholars who advised our Founders warned us against doing that very thing:

"An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indiference, would create universal disapprobation, and universal indignation." - Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice 1811

Why can't people acknowledge that when they defend people like Walz and Judge Moore, they're also defending Muslims and lesbian parents who want to convert *their* kids?

America was founded on the Laws of God in scripture, codified in the 10 Commandments, the cornerstone which was Jesus Christ. The Founders understood this Republic would only last as long as the people were beholden to that foundation.

Because we have devolved into debauchery and redefined morality, bending and reworking our foundations to accomodate our newfound tolerances and acceptances of hostile doctrines and precepts is still going to turn this Republic into a tyrannical secular democracy and ultimately be destroyed. We already see the fruits of this in our culture - it is all downhill from here.

"No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian religion applied and accepted by all the classes. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance, men are certain to shed their responsibilities for licentiousness and this great experiment will then be surely doomed" - John Jay

Moral relativism, indifference and acceptance of traditions and new beliefs hostile to the very pillars of our existance, will result in our complete collapse into pure tyranny and eventual annihilation. Our Founders warned us of this, God in scripture warns us of this - and We the People have not heeded, and are being governed by our own ideas and suppostions of morality.

We will go the way all the Republics before us have gone, and in short order.

[sunryse]

Well, actually "Jesus loves my lesbian mommy" is a little absurd and I don't even think that should be used as an example. Lesbian is a sexual term and what business does sexual terms have in a four year olds classroom? I would be just as offended if a child brought in something saying My mommy likes it doggy style. Totally inappropriate and no reason for it.

Now, if a child brought something saying "Allah loves the little children, or Maeve loves the little children" that would fine with me. It's up to me as a parent to teach that there are different religions. To me, a parent is not doing thier job if they pretend like their religion is the only one out there. They can believe that theirs is right, thiers is better, or whatever. But it isn't the only one and I don't know a soul who doesn't know this.

Michelle