bounty44
Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
|
just for you comrade pottymouth mammalparts:
(the first part is very long so ive boldened the relevant parts)
School Holiday Celebrations Information Letter
Dear Concerned Citizens:
The American Center for Law and Justice wishes everyone a happy holiday season.
Undoubtedly, students in school districts all over the country are celebrating the holidays in a
variety of creative and entertaining ways. We are aware that some of these celebrations may be
hindered by questions of what is permitted or prohibited by the United States Constitution.
Consequently, the purpose of this letter is to assist local school district officials in addressing
what activities are permissible for schools to engage in, and to protect the rights of student
participation in Christmas or other holiday observances in public schools.
By way of introduction, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is a not-for-profit
public interest law and educational group. Our organization exists to educate the public and the
government about the right to freedom of speech, particularly in the context of the expression of
religious sentiments. Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice,
has argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in several significant cases in this area,
including Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004); McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003); Santa
Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches
School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993); and Westside Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S.
226 (1990). The ACLJ has also submitted amicus briefs in numerous Supreme Court cases,
including Good News Club v. Milford Central School Dist., 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Rosenberger v.
Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995); and Capitol Square
Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995).
Although court decisions permit holiday observances, it is my concern that certain national
public interest groups have been pressuring local school districts to censor religious expression
during Christmas. This letter will attempt to provide answers for those questions which are most
commonly asked regarding the rights of students and teachers to participate in these observances.
I. Are students allowed to sing Christmas carols with religious themes at school
events or in holiday programs?
YES. No federal appellate court has held that the Establishment Clause prevents the singing of
religious Christmas carols by public school choirs. A case that addressed this specific issue
upheld the singing of religious Christmas carols in public schools. In Florey v. Sioux Falls
School District, 619 F.2d 1311 (8th Cir. 1980), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit held that the study and performance of religious songs, including Christmas carols, are
constitutional if their purpose is the “advancement of the students’ knowledge of society’s
cultural and religious heritage as well as the provision of an opportunity for students to perform a
full range of music, poetry, and drama that is likely to be of interest to the students and their
audience.” Id. at 1314.
The Eighth Circuit court in Florey found that religious songs and symbols can be used in public
schools if they are presented in a “prudent and objective manner and only as part of the cultural
and religious heritage of the holiday. ” Id. at 1317. It is important to note that the decision in
Florey was based on two U.S. Supreme Court cases that permit the study of the Bible in public
schools. In School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963), the
Supreme Court stated:
“It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and
historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible
or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of
education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”
Recent Court of Appeals cases have confirmed the central holding of Florey. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District, 70
F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1995), upheld a school’s longtime use of “The Lord Bless You and Keep
You” as its theme song. In its decision, the Court stated:
“A position of neutrality towards religion must allow choir directors to recognize
the fact that most choral music is religious. Limiting the number of times a
religious piece of music can be sung is tantamount to censorship and does not
send students a message of neutrality. . . . Such animosity towards religion is not
required or condoned by the Constitution.”
Id. at 408.
Similarly, in Bauchman v. West High School, 132 F.3d 542 (10th Cir. 1997), a student sued the
school because of, among other things, the religious content of the songs performed by the
school choir. The Tenth Circuit court dismissed the lawsuit, citing Doe and noting that “the
Constitution does not require that the purpose of government-sanctioned activity be unrelated to
religion. ” Id. at 553. Furthermore, the court recognized that “a significant percentage of serious
choral music is based on religious themes or text . . . Any choral curriculum designed to expose
students to the full array of vocal music culture therefore can be expected to reflect a significant
number of religious songs.” Id. at 553-54 (internal citations omitted). It is hardly surprising, then,
that “the Constitution does not forbid all mention of religion in public schools.” Id.; see also
Sease v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 811 F. Supp. 183 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (noting that the Equal
Access Act protects the ability of student-led and initiated choirs to sign religious songs and
access school facilities on the same basis as other student groups).
II. Can schools teach about the biblical origins of holidays such as Christmas
and Easter?
YES. In Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980), the Supreme Court stated, “the Bible may
constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative
religion, or the like.” Therefore, it would be constitutional for a public school teacher to have
students study Biblical passages that relate to Christmas (e.g., Matthew 1:18-2:22, Luke 2:1-20)
if the purpose was to study the historical or literary significance of the passages. In considering
the type of activities that are appropriate in public schools, the federal appeals court in Florey
stated, “[w]e view the term ‘study’ to include more than mere classroom instruction; public
performance may be a legitimate part of secular study. ” Florey, 619 F.2d at 1316. The Florey
court went on to quote the lower court with approval, stating “to allow students only to study and
not to perform [religious art, literature and music when] such works . . . have developed an
independent secular and artistic significance would give students a truncated view of our
culture.” Id. Of course, any student that has ideological or religious objections to participating in
a particular performance should be excused from the assignment.
Likewise, in Sechler v. State College Area School District, 121 F. Supp. 2d 439 (M.D. Pa. 2000),
the district court upheld a school’s holiday display and song program which included various
references to Christmas, Chanukah, and Kwanza. In finding no “excessive entanglement ” with
religion, the court noted that no clergy were involved in the planning or administration of the
program, and the School District was not involved in any doctrinal questions. Id. at 449. In fact,
the opposite was true; the program and display “sen[t] a message of inclusion and celebrate[d]
freedom to choose one’s own beliefs.” Id. at 451, 453. Consequently, the program and display
did “not offend the Establishment Clause, either as favoring one religion over others or as
favoring religion over non-religion. ” Id. at 453. The court noted that public school officials have
some latitude in designing permissible holiday programs.
In addition, former President Clinton expressed concern to the Secretary of Education that some
public school officials and community members incorrectly assume that schools must be
religion-free zones. To clarify this area of concern, the United States Department of Education
issued guidelines for the nation’s school leaders which address the extent religious expression
and teaching are allowed in public schools. The guidelines state that:
“Public schools may not provide religious instruction, but they may teach about
religion, including the Bible or other scripture . . . . Similarly, it is permissible to
consider religious influences on art, music, literature, and social studies.”
U.S. Dep’t of Education, Religious Expression in Public Schools, available at
http://www.ed.gov/PDFDocs/faith-good- ideas.pdf 57-62 (last visited Nov. 22, 2005). The
guidelines further state that “public schools may teach about religious holidays, including their
religious aspects, and may celebrate the secular aspects of the holidays.” Id. In addition,
“[t]eachers and administrators are prohibited from discouraging activity because of its religious
content, and from soliciting or encouraging anti- religious activity.” Id. These guidelines reaffirm
that students and teachers may celebrate the Christmas holiday without fear of running afoul of
the Establishment Clause.
III.May schools display religious symbols during Christmas?
YES. This issue was directly addressed in Clever v. Cherry Hill Township, 838 F. Supp. 929
(D.N.J. 1993). In Clever, the plaintiffs challenged a school policy which provided for religious
symbols to be used in school calendars and in a Christmas display. After noting the importance
of context and the absence of denominational preference, the court held the policy to be
constitutional. The court noted:
“Christmas and Chanukah are celebrated as cultural and national holidays as well
as religious ones, and there is simply no constitutional doctrine which would
forbid school children from sharing in that celebration, provided that these
celebrations do not constitute an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and are
consistent with a school’s secular educational mission.”
Id. at 939. The court then recognized that religion is an appropriate subject of secular study and
found it “hard to imagine how such study can be undertaken without exposing students to the
religious doctrines and symbols of others.” See also Skoros v. City of New York, 2004 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 2234 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (upholding a public school policy which encouraged schools to
display “secular” holiday symbols such as Christmas trees, Menorahs, and the Star and Crescent
and discouraged the display of more religious symbols such as nativity scenes [in case you think this is something to hang on to comrade, a scene in a play is not a "display" which was in question in this lawsuit] or excerpts from
the Bible, Torah, or Qur’an); Sechler, 121 F. Supp. 2d 439 (upholding a school’s holiday
program which included various references to Christmas, Chanukah, and Kwanza).
IV. Are students permitted to write about the origin of Christmas and the birth
of Jesus or other religious sentiments in school assignments?
YES. Some educators have been misinformed by special interest groups that school officials
must ban all religious speech in the public schools because of the doctrine of “separation of
church and state.” It is well settled, however, that private religious speech—including the speech
of students—is protected by the First Amendment. In Pinette, the Supreme Court stated:
“Our precedent establishes that private religious speech, far from being a First
Amendment orphan, is fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular
private expression. Indeed, in Anglo-American history, at least, government
suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious
speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the
prince.”
515 U.S. at 760 (internal citations omitted). In Mergens, the Court noted: “There is a crucial
difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause
forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses
protect.” 496 U.S. at 250 (emphasis in original). Consequently, students have the free speech
right to “express their beliefs about religion in the form of homework, artwork, and other written
and oral assignments free of discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions.”
Religious Expression in Public Schools.
V. May schools continue to refer to winter and spring breaks as “Christmas”
and “Easter” holidays?
YES. School districts are under no constitutional obligation to rename the Christmas and Easter
holidays. The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged with approval that Congress gives federal
employees a paid holiday on December 25 and calls that holiday “Christmas.” See Lynch v.
Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 675, 680 (1984); see also Ganulin v. United States, 71 F. Supp. 2d 824
(S.D. Ohio 1999), aff’d, 238 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2000) (upholding the federal law making
Christmas a legal holiday).
In the last decade, several constitutional challenges have been mounted to federal and state laws
which designate Christmas and Easter as official holidays. These challenges have been mostly
rejected. See generally Koenick v. Felton, 190 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 1999) (upholding a Maryland
law recognizing Good Friday as a public school holiday); Granzeier v. Middleton, 173 F.3d 568
(6th Cir. 1999) (upholding a practice of some Kentucky state court offices to close on Good
Friday); Cammack v. Waihee, 932 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1991) (upholding a Hawaii law recognizing
Good Friday as a public holiday).
For instance, in Bridenbaugh v. O'Bannon, 185 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 1999), the Seventh Circuit
held that Indiana ’s recognition of Good Friday as a legal holiday did not violate the
Establishment Clause. In reaching this important result, the court noted that:
“the Establishment Clause does not prohibit Indiana from choosing Good Friday as
the day for a legal holiday merely because that day coincides with what, to some,
is a religious day. No court has ever held that the Establishment Clause is violated
merely because a state holiday has the indirect effect of making it easier for
people to practice their faith.”
Id. at 801-802. The Seventh Circuit court added that people are free to celebrate Good Friday as
they choose. Bridenbaugh’s analysis supersedes earlier decisions in the Seventh Circuit to the
contrary. See Metzl v. Leininger, 57 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding unconstitutional an Illinois
law recognizing Good Friday as a holiday and stating that Illinois could enact a constitutional
law in the future); Freedom from Religion Found. v. Litscher, 920 F. Supp. 969 (W.D. Wisc.
1996) (applying Metzl in holding Wisconsin’s recognition of Good Friday unconstitutional).
I hope this letter helps clarify the legal issues surrounding the role of religious expression in the
public schools. The American Center for Law and Justice is committed to defending the
constitutional rights of students on their public school campuses. We are also committed to
ensuring that the rights of citizens in your community are protected. Because of our commitment,
we are available to answer any questions you might have concerning this letter. Please feel free
to share this information with your school’s board, attorney, principals, and staff.
Very truly yours,
AMERICAN CENTER FOR
LAW AND JUSTICE
JAY ALAN SEKULOW
CHIEF COUNSEL
http://media.aclj.org/pdf/schoolholidaycelebrations112005.pdf
more to the very specific point:
In Doe v. Wilson County Sch. System, the district court upheld “the inclusion of a brief two minute nativity scene at the end of a twenty-two minute Christmas program” that occurred after school hours. 564 F. Supp. 2d 766, 800 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). The court cited the Supreme Court’s cases involving nativity scenes and noted that “[a] nativity scene may be displayed as one item among many secular symbols of Christmas and meet constitutional muster. . . . [but] isolating a nativity scene in such a way as to show government solidarity with the Christian faith violates the Establishment Clause.” Id. (citations omitted). The court explained:
[I]n the main secular portion of the Christmas program, students assumed roles with costumes and special clothing, including members of the chorus, the reader, soloist, ballerinas, toy doll, toy soldier, Santa Claus, jack-in-the-box, teddy bear, reindeer, Rudolph, and a mouse. It was much more of an extravaganza with more student participation and fanfare than the rather meager, stark nativity scene placed at the very end. The nativity scene included at the end of the Christmas program was an example of the religious heritage of the holiday and was very limited in duration as compared to the balance of the program. Unlike in the secular presentation, there were no words spoken by the students or narrated by others in the ending portion of the program. The Court concludes that the nativity scene was presented in a prudent, unbiased, and objective manner to present the traditional historical, cultural, and religious meaning of the holiday in America.
Id.
The court concluded,
[c]onsidering the Christmas program as a whole, it was a secular performance with a bit of religious symbolism at the very end to reflect the historic, cultural and religious significance of the Christmas holiday. Taken as a whole, the inclusion of the nativity scene as a part of the program did not offend the Constitution.
Id. at 801; see also County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 601 (1989) (“[G]overnment may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine.”).
http://old.aclj.org/christmas-holiday/holiday-observance-in-public-schools
that all said, again---the idea that allowing students to depict the birth of jesus in a play is akin to the government establishing an official religion, is absurd and to try to connect those dots, is tortuous. and how unfortunate that the left, in their animosity towards god in general and Christianity in particular, so desire to do exactly what the first amendment was designed to protect against---that is, prohibit the free expression of religion.
|
RE: Georgia sheriff installs 'politically incorrect' we... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread