Posted on 06/03/2005 1:02:14 PM PDT by SmithL
A 10-year-old boy is taking his battle to study the Bible at recess to a federal courtroom.
Karns Elementary School fourth-grader Luke Whitson, through his parents, has filed a civil rights lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the Knox County Board of Education, School Superintendent Charles Lindsey and Karns Elementary Principal Cathy Summa.
Luke's parents, Samuel and Tina Whitson, contend Summa barred Luke from holding a Bible reading and discussion group at recess.
Knox County Deputy Law Director Marty McCampbell, who handles school-related litigation, declined comment on the lawsuit. Knox County Schools spokesman Russ Oaks likewise declined but referred to a press release issued last month in which the school system opined that recess was not "free time."
Both Lindsey and Summa were quoted in the release as saying that bringing a Bible to school and reading were allowed on school grounds. But, they said, any organized study group must be conducted "outside the classroom environment."
Summa has denied ever talking to Luke about reading the Bible or holding a recess study group.
Attorney Charles Pope, who is representing Luke along with attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund, said Thursday the core issue is the school system's contention that recess is not free time.
"Our position is the Constitution says yes to Bible reading and discussion outside class time," he said. "The principal and other school officials have contended that recess is not free time. We disagree."
He said the Whitsons tried to negotiate with the school system and only filed the lawsuit as a last resort.
"We feel like we had no choice but to file suit," he said.
In the lawsuit, the Whitsons allege that Luke and a small group of his friends began reading and talking about the Bible at recess at some point during the school year. An exact date is not specified.
At some point, the lawsuit alleges, a parent complained to Summa.
Summa "abruptly interrupted certain fourth-grade students while they were in the midst of a Bible discussion during recess, demanded that they stop their activity at once, put their Bibles away and, from that point forward, cease from bringing their Bibles to school," the lawsuit alleges.
"Principal Summa then, in the presence of the children on the playground, escorted one of the participating students into a room by himself to warn him about the Bible activity," the lawsuit alleges.
That student is not identified in the lawsuit.
The Whitsons are asking a federal judge to issue an injunction that would stop school officials from "banning or threatening to ban religious expression in the form of Bible reading and discussion at Karns Elementary School during recess."
They also seek to have any policy banning Bible reading at recess deemed unconstitutional. Although the lawsuit asks the court to "grant" the Whitsons "an award of compensatory and/or nominal damages in an amount deemed appropriate by the court," no specific demand for money is made.
Jamie Satterfield may be reached at 865-342-6308.
You have got to be kidding me - recess just like scheduled coffee breaks and lunch hours ARE PERSONAL TIME.......
meanwhile Janie and Tommy are reading the Rainbow Party at recess and the teachers say nothing, if not encouraging it, I'll bet........
oh I see the kid was precocious and holding Bible Study at age 10
still don't see the problem if a kid wants to study the bible with some buddies versus groping girls at the swingset or playing dice around the corner hey
I always wonder if there are missing facts from these stories, but this story does a better job than many of getting to the heart of the legal issues. It's apparently the student's free speech and freedom of religion rights versus the school's contention that recess time is still official school activity and is therefore subject to restrictions on reading material. My question would be whether any other student has had similar restrictions imposed on him/her, and - if so - why. Would the school intervene, for example, to break up students discussing Oprah's book of the month?
Do those words apply only to Congress or to all government agencies?
I cannot believe this is happening in Knoxville. Boston, yes, but Knoxville? Bet if it was the Koran, the kid would get some special "diversity" award.
1) Let's say I am in highschool, and I am sitting reading my Bible, why should that offend anyone?
2) If I join a group of friends in quiet prayer during lunch time how does that offend anyone?
3) If the basketball team has a prayer before their game, and it offends ONE person (a spectator), why should the team stop praying? As in, if it is ok to stop the prayers because one person was offended, shouldn't it be alright as well to RE-START the prayers because more people were offended by the prayers being stopped?
4) Back to the first question .....what is so threatening about a kid reading his Bible?
Taking bets that the person who is applying pressure to this case is a lib.
This young man should absolutely be allowed his Bible to read, during recess breaks if he chooses.
Terrorist suspects at G'itmo are allowed a Qu'ran for Pete's sake.
later pingout.
In actuality, Yes. They were originally meant to apply only to the federal goverment. Leaving it to the seperate states to implement their own laws or non-laws regarding religion.
SCOTUS decisions since then, as in other things, have corrupted the clarity of The Constitution.
How do we know that? Because, when the Constitution was ratified most of the 13 new states had taxpayer-supported religions
Those who like to make up Constitutional dictates first began to pretend that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment applied to the states in 1947. The Court in the Everson case claimed that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states. Of course, the 14th Amendment had been ratified 80 years earlier but, all of a sudden, the Court decides..."hey, you know what, we just "discovered" that the Congress and states that ratified 14th Amendment actually meant to apply the 1st Amendment against the states."
Of course, that is a lie. There is no doubt that it is a lie because in 1875 (just 7 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified) the House passed what was known as the Blaine Amendment...the Blaine Amendment, which provided in part "No state shall make any law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Essentially, the Blaine Amendment just replaced the word "Congress" with "states"
The Blaine Amendment was narrowly defeated in the Senate. Most telling is that not a single Congressmen (many of whom were in the Congress or state legislatures that ratified the 14th Amendment 7 years earlier) ever stated, during debate over the Blaine Amendment..."we already incorporated this 7 years ago"
They never said it because its a lie...the Supreme Court in 1947 just made it up...and we all just accept its illegitimate ruling
In fact, when the Blaine Amendment was sent to the Senate, it was proposed by Senator Frelinghuysen, former Attorney General of New Jersey and a leader of the Congress which had passed the 14th Amendment. Senator Frelinghuysen noted that the First Amendment was "an inhibition on Congress, and not on the States." He continued:
The [Blaine Amendment] very properly extends the prohibition of the first amendment of the Constitution to the States. Thus the [Blaine Amendment] prohibits the States, for the first time, from the establishment of religion, from prohibiting its free exercise, and from making any religious test a qualification to office.
Senator Eaton of Connecticut found the Blaine Amendment offensive. "I am opposed," he said, "to any State prohibiting the free exercise of any religion; and I do not require the Senate or the Congress of the United States to assist me in taking care of the State of Connecticut in that regard." Senator Whyte agreed: "The 1st Amendment to the Constitution prevents the establishment of religion by congressional enactment; it prohibits the interference of Congress with the free exercise thereof, and leaves the whole power for the propagation of it with the States exclusively; and so far as I am concerned I propose to leave it there also."
Sadly, only Justice Thomas has continually noted this fraudulent line of law...only Justice Thomas has indicated that he would rule to end application of the establishment clause against the states
Yes, why is the ACLU not up in arms over the United States Government actually providing Religious Materials and playing PRAYERS over public speakers at a detention facility?
The answer is that it isn't the Bible, and the prayers aren't Christian.
But we live in a Christian Theocracy, don't forget. Maureen tells us so.
Everytime I hear that 'theocracy, theocracy!!' crap I just laugh.
If you keep insisting that there be "separation of church and state", can you stop me from practicing my religion?
Hm. Recess is free time?
Tell me something. If a kid is on his own time, and gets hurt, will the school be sued? If a kid is at recess and gets hurt, will the school be sued?
I don't think recess is free time. It's time for the kids to play, yes, but they are still at school, under school staff supervision, and the staff is responsible for the kids safety and behavior. There's plenty of things kids can do on their own time that they can't do on school grounds, like practicing their whittling skills.
Now, whether or not running a Bible instruction class during recess should be allowed is another thing. But I back the school when they say recess is not free time.
1 entry found for free time.
free time
n 1: time when you are free to do things that you enjoy [syn: spare time] 2: to that is free for leisure activities
Recess IS free time.
Maybe they should try studying geology or glass marbles.
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.