Replies

I do disagree with their judgment; for it says the only way the government can be "neutral" is by ridding the public square of all religious expression. That doesn't sound like "neutrality" to me. That sounds like open and active hostility to all forms of voluntary public religious expression -- which the second phrase of the religion clause absolutely forbids.

Just throwing this out there: When little Molly comes home to her Christian parents with stories about how she skipped her normal Bible study at public school because her new friends were doing this really cool chant around a tree and praying to the Earth Goddess, how will they feel? Do you really want children able to express themselves freely at this age in a public forum on concepts they might not quite understand fully yet? Those black cloaks looked awfully cool, and after school they were going to practice their "craft" using goat milk and spider legs! Kids are very impressionable at that age and allowing religious expression and prayer time at school might just be catastrophic when the new cool kid from Europe teaches them some new things to worship... Thoughts?

When little Molly comes home to her Christian parents with stories about how she skipped her normal Bible study at public school because her new friends were doing this really cool chant around a tree and praying to the Earth Goddess, how will they feel?

Hi B. Rabbit! Either we are going to have a rule of law -- i.e., follow what the Constitution says -- or we are going to have a rule of men. The federal Constitution says nothing about having Bible classes -- or Gaia worship -- in the public schools. The public schools are supposed to be under local governance; therefore state constitutions would apply to these questions.

I imagine that if a majority of citizens in a local community wanted to have religious instruction in their public schools (which I personally think is a bad idea, and would probably be in the minority on this question) then, unless the state constitution prohibits this (and it probably does), they should be free to make whatever arrangements they deem appropriate. Remember, ours is supposed to be a system of self-government under law.

Note the above refers to formal religious class instruction in public schools. The issue of invocations or prayer at public school functions such as graduations, sporting events, etc., is another question altogether. But certainly the "free exercise" of religion cannot be said to be "free" if it must confine itself to a closet; i.e., if it is prohibited from voluntary expression in public venues.

Of course, this is only the way our constitutional system is supposed to function. The reality is far different; for the federal government has a ton of "bribe money" to make sure that local public schools do things "the fed way." But also please remember -- the Constitution does not give the federal government any mandate whatever to interject itself into public education matters. If it does so, it is acting without constitutional warrant; i.e., it is acting unconstitutionally.

One last point: If such decisions were in fact left up to the local community, acting according to state law, then the issue of Gaia Worship of Satanism would probably not even come up. Outside of Cambridge, Mass., or Berkeley, Calif., it would be difficult (I imagine) to come up with a majority that would consider such "religions." Thus -- if left to the people -- the issue is, for all practical purposes, moot. The LAST thing you want is the federal government defining/deciding this issue for you.