Appeals court erases student's gift of pencils with Christian message

A federal appeals court's ruling that a child may not give pencils bearing the inscription "Jesus [loves] the little children" to his classmates is "yet one more ludicrous example of the federal courts' attempt to help governments at every level to enforce a rigidly secular bias on our public spaces," said Southern Baptist church-state specialist Richard Land.

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a federal judge's decision that a New Jersey school system acted constitutionally in prohibiting a 4-year-old student from distributing the pencils at a spring class party. A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed the school system had not violated the child's rights under the First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religion and freedom of expression nor the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantees.

In 1998, Daniel Walz sought to distribute pencils inscribed with "Jesus [loves] the little children" -- with a heart symbol for the word "loves" -- to his pre-kindergarten classmates during a party in the classroom shortly before Easter. His teacher confiscated the pencils and reported them to the school superintendent of Egg Harbor Township. The superintendent decided the pencils could not be passed out because students and parents might interpret distribution as a school endorsement of the message.

Walz "was not attempting to exercise a right to personal religious observance in response to a class assignment or activity," Chief Judge Anthony Scirica wrote for the panel. "His mother's stated purpose was to promote a religious message through the channel of a benign classroom activity. In the context of its classroom holiday parties, the school's restrictions on this expression were designed to prevent proselytizing speech that, if permitted, would be at cross-purposes with its educational goal and could appear to bear the school's seal of approval."

Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said, "The idea that a child should not have the right to share his faith at an appropriate, discretionary time when other gifts are being shared is to mangle the First Amendment's religious freedom protections beyond recognition. Actions like this decision illustrate the extreme secular bias of our nation's courts and many of our nation's public institutions, including the public's schools. I would strongly encourage the residents of this township to hire employees who would ditch these ludicrous and offensive restrictions."

John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute called the decision "probably one of the worst I've ever read," according to CitizenLink. "What they're saying to schools in the Third Circuit is that 'you have total control, and kids have no freedom at all.'"

Whitehead told Family News in Focus, "All we're asking here is for freedom of religion and the right of this little boy to be treated like everybody else in the class who are handing out all kinds of things with Christmas messages and Hanukkah messages on them."

The Rutherford Institute is helping represent Walz and his mother, Dana. He will appeal to the full Third Circuit Court and, if necessary, to the U.S. Supreme Court, Whitehead said.

After Daniel Walz's efforts to give away the pencils were spurned, he sought to distribute another gift at the class holiday party the next December. He attempted to give away candy canes attached to copies of a story titled "A Candy Maker's Witness, " which told of the Christian symbolism of the candy. The school did not allow him to pass them out during the party but did permit him to do so in the hallway after class.

The appeals court panel acknowledged students do not forfeit their free speech rights when they go on school property but said school officials rightfully must limit some speech to control behavior. "As a general matter, the elementary school classroom, especially for kindergartners and first graders, is not a place for student advocacy," the panel wrote.

The school system has an unwritten policy barring the distribution during school hours of items bearing religious, political or commercial messages, superintendent Leonard Kelpsh said.

The appeals court ruling, which was released Aug. 27 to little notice, seems certain to add to calls to bring the federal judiciary under control. Many conservative Christians and some religious liberty organizations have contended in recent years the federal courts are acting as lawmakers and overreaching their constitutional authority.

A recent example of what critics describe as judicial tyranny occurred in the 11th Circuit, where the appeals court agreed a Ten Commandments display in Alabama's judicial building was unconstitutional and must be moved.

Why did the teacher decide to have a party "shortly before Easter?" Why didn't they expect a student to bring in Easter gifts at a party so close to Easter? You can't have a party associated with a religious event and deny the religious aspect, even if the party is euphamistically named.

When will the schools rename the word "holiday" because holy days endorse religion? When will schools abandon calendars and the 7-day week because 7 days comes from Genesis?

-PJ -PJ

It is fascinating that school districts are doing everything that they can to accomodate the religious practices of Muslim students. I wish school districts would do the same for students of other religions.
____________________________________________________-

WVW says prayer room decision will stand up in court

By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer 09/19/2003

Wyoming Valley West School District officials are confident a decision they made to provide "a quiet place" for two Muslim students to pray was correct and will hold up in court if legally challenged.

Charles Suppon, director of pupil services, Tuesday acknowledged the district provided a place to pray in the State Street Elementary Center in Larksville and the Chester Street Middle School in Kingston at the request of the parents of two Muslim students.

Suppon said no district personnel would encourage or participate in prayer with the students. He stressed it would be up to the students to engage in prayer.

District Solicitor Michael Hudacek said the issue would be researched to insure the district is on solid legal ground.
Superintendent August Piazza penned a memo Thursday to WVW School Board members assuring them the decision was a good one.

"Courts have reviewed this in much detail," Piazza stated. "It has been concluded that as long as the school district does not promote, encourage or support this practice, it is permissible.

"Meditation has not interfered with instructional time of the student," he added. "In the future, if there is a change, it will be reviewed."

Literature enclosed for school directors' review included a statement from Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

"Public schools are not permitted to sponsor worship, but that does not mean that they must be 'religion free zones.'
In order to clear up some of the misunderstandings about religion and the public schools, it is important for Americans to have the facts.

"... It's important that our public schools respect the beliefs of everyone and protect parental rights. The schools can best do this by not sponsoring religious worship. This principle ensures that America's public schools are welcoming to all children and leaves decisions about religion where it belongs ... with the family," it stated.

The group also referred to Engle versus Vitale, a 1962 Supreme Court case, in which justices ruled official prayer had no place in public education.

"This decision is widely misunderstood today. The court did not rule that students are forbidden to pray on their own; the justices merely said that government officials had no business composing a prayer for students to recite," the Americans United for Separation of Church and State literature points out.

"The Engle-Vitale case came about because parents in New York challenged a prayer written by a New York education board. These Christian, Jewish and Unitarian parents did not want their children subjected to state-sponsored devotions. The high court agreed that the scheme amounted to government promotion of religion," it continued.

The group contends, "Nothing in the 1962 or 1963 rulings makes it unlawful for public school students to pray or read the Bible (or any other religious book) on a voluntary basis during their free time. Later decisions have made this even clearer.

"In 1990, the high court ruled specifically that high school students may form clubs that meet during non-instructional time to pray, read religious texts or discuss religious topics if other student groups are allowed to meet," the group adds.

The statement concludes that "objective, balanced and non-devotional" approaches to religion "present no constitutional problem."

Another statement by the American Civil Liberties Union concludes it's all right to pray in school.

"Individual students have the right to pray whenever they want to, as long as they don't disrupt classroom instruction or other educational activities or try to force others to pray along with them," the ACLU statement reads.

"If a school official has told you that you can't pray at all during the school day, your right to exercise your religion is being violated. Contact your local ACLU for help."

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.