Ä Area: Religious Debate ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Msg#: 399 Date: 10-23-96 08:20
From: Doug Lee Read: Yes Replied: No
To: All Mark:
Subj: ACLU attacking Christiani
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>>> Part 1 of 5...
For the past while there have been some people in HOLY_SMOKE that claim
that the ACLU is "out to destroy Christianity". Now they never actually
said this, however they've made allutions to it. With anything from calling
it the "American Communist League Union"(mostly from Jim Stall and Laurie
Appleton) to a secret attempt by the government to kill off Christianity
in order to bring about complete domination (John Prewett).
So I decided to look into this alittle bit. I decided to start with the
ACLU itself at www.aclu.org
This is taken from their web site:
CHURCH AND STATE
The United States is the most religiously diverse nation in the world. More
than 1,500 different religious bodies and sects, including 75 varieties of
Baptists alone, co-exist and flourish in our nation. We have 360,000
churches, mosques, and synagogues.
Americans are also extremely devout. According to recent surveys, more than
90 percent of Americans profess a belief in God; more than half say they
pray at least once a day, and more than 40 percent say they have attended
worship services during the previous week. The Census Bureau reports that
63 percent of the population claims church membership, a figure that has
remained virtually unchanged since the 1960 census.
How has the U.S. been able to maintain, on the one hand, an extremely
diverse and devout religious population, and on the other an extremely
low incidence of sectarian strife? The American Civil Liberties Union
believes that the answer lies in a time-tested formula: the complete
separation of church and state required by the First Amendment to our
Constitution.
Many people mistakenly believe that separation of church and state
implies official hostility to religion. But, in fact, the opposite is
true: It was their belief in the preciousness and sanctity of religious
faith that engendered the Founders' determination to protect religion
from government interference. They understood that religious liberty can
flourish only if the government leaves religion alone.
For more than 75 years, the ACLU has defended religious freedom and
challenged attempts by sectarians to impose their religious beliefs and
practices on others through government sponsorship.
In 1925, the ACLU defended biology teacher John Scopes, in the famous
"monkey trial," against the charge that he had broken Tennessee's
fundamentalist-inspired ban on the teaching of evolution.
In the 1930s, the ACLU supported the right of Jehovah's Witness
schoolchildren not to salute the American flag, which would have violated
their religious beliefs.
In 1947, the ACLU participated in the landmark case, Everson v. Board of
Education, in which the United States Supreme Court proclaimed:
"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and
state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We would not approve
the slightest breach." In the 1950s and 1960s, responding to numerous
complaints from the public, the ACLU challenged official prayer and bible
reading in the nation's public schools -- and won. the Supreme Court
ruled, in Engel v. Vitale and in School District of Abington
Township v. Schempp, that school prayer and Bible reading are
unconstitutional.
In the 1980s, the ACLU successfully fought bills introduced in 23 state
legislatures mandating that the public schools teach "scientific creationism"
-- the biblical version of the earth's creation. In the early 1990s, the ACLU
joined with religious and civil liberties organizations to fight for
Congressional passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which
strengthens protection for the rights of religious minorities.
Today, as in the past, the main arena of struggle in in the nation's public
schools. And today, as in the past, the ACLU offers legal assistance to
parents, students, teachers, school board members and school administrators
in resisting the efforts of religious groups to impose devotional
activities in the classroom, on sports fields and at graduation exercises.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion and American Public Schools
The History of Prayer in Our Public Schools
>>> Continued to next message...
-!- Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
! Origin: The Cosmic Keyboard [Calgary, AB 403-229-4858] (1:134/67)
Ä Area: Religious Debate ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Msg#: 400 Date: 10-23-96 07:41
From: Doug Lee Read: Yes Replied: No
To: All Mark:
Subj: ACLU attacking Christiani
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>>> Part 2 of 5...
The controversy over officially sponsored prayer in public schools did not
begin in 1962, when the Supreme Court first ruled that such observances
violate the Establishment Clause. It began more than 100 years earlier, in
the 1830s, when waves of Italian and Irish Catholic immigrants came to this
country and objected to compulsory readings of the Protestant King James
Bible and the recitation of Protestant prayers in most public schools.
A bitter conflict erupted, including riots, the expulsion of Catholic
children from public schools, the burning of convents and even some deaths.
In the 1950s, as the religious diversity of our society increased, school
prayer became a divisive issue once again. Now Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu,
Moslem and atheist parents objected to Christian practices in the public
schools.
Out of this conflict arose Engel v. Vitale, a 1962 case in which the
Supreme Court ruled against officially sponsored and organized school
prayer: "We think," wrote Justice Hugo L. Black for the Court, "that by
using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents'
prayer [a nondenominational prayer created by the government], the State
of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the
Establishment Clause." The following year, in School District of Abington
Township v. Schempp, the Court held that Bible readings in public schools
also violate the First Amendment.
President John F. Kennedy, the country's first Catholic president, urged
respect for the Court's decision in Engel: "We have in this case a very
easy remedy, and that is to pray ourselves. And I would think it would be a
welcome reminder to every American family that we can pray a good deal more
at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we
can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of our
children."
But not everyone agreed with the President. Within a month, over 25
resolutions, calling for constitutional amendments to override the Court's
decision, were introduced in Congress -- including one that urged adoption
of a "Christian amendment." Organized efforts to circumvent the Engel ruling
have continued ever since, and schools and school districts throughout the
country have continued to sponsor prayer in violation of the rights of
religious minorities.
What's wrong with official school prayer?
Officially organized and sponsored devotional exercises in the public
school setting are inconsistent with the principle of religious liberty in
several ways. Such exercises make children feel they must participate or
face the disdain of their teachers and fellow students. Children whose
religious beliefs are different from those of the majority must not be made
to feel like outsiders in their schools.
Official school prayer also usurps the right of parents to determine if,
how, when, where and to whom their children should pray. When schools
sponsor prayer or any other religious activity, they infringe on parents'
right to choose the religious tradition in which they raise their children.
Muslim, Jewish or Hindu parents don't want their children to participate in
Christian observances. Atheist parents don't want their children to pray at
all. Parents should not have to fear that the public schools are
indoctrinating their children in beliefs that are counter to their families'
beliefs.
Can students ever pray in school?
Of course. Religious speech, like other speech, is protected by the First
Amendment. Public school students have the right to read the Bible, recite
the rosary, pray before meals and examinations and discuss their religious
views with their fellow students, as long as they do so outside of the
educational process. Students do not, however, have the right to impose
their religious expression on a captive audience of other students -- for
example, by broadcasting religious pronouncements or prayers over the
school public address system -- nor to compel other students to engage in
any religious activity.
What about "student-initiated" prayer?
The issue of "student-initiated prayer" has arisen in the context of
graduation ceremonies. Until 1992, it was common in some parts of the
country for a member of the clergy to offer a prayer during graduation
exercises. But that year, the Supreme Court ruled in Lee v. Weisman that
including prayer in a school-sponsored and -supervised graduation ceremony
>>> Continued to next message...
-!- Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
! Origin: The Cosmic Keyboard [Calgary, AB 403-229-4858] (1:134/67)
Ä Area: Religious Debate ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Msg#: 401 Date: 10-23-96 07:41
From: Doug Lee Read: Yes Replied: No
To: All Mark:
Subj: ACLU attacking Christiani
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>>> Part 3 of 5...
violated the Establishment Clause. Justice Anthony P. Kennedy, writing for
the Court, explained:
"The prayer exercises in this case are especially improper because the State
has in every practical sense compelled attendance and participation in an
explicitly religious exercise at an event of singular importance to every
student, one the objecting student had no real alternative to avoid."
As with the Engel decision 30 years earlier, an outcry from certain
religious quarters greeted the Weisman ruling. Seizing upon what they
viewed as a loophole, some religious leaders argued that though the Court
had prohibited clergy from delivering prayer at graduations, it had not
barred students from doing so. "Student-initiated prayer" must be allowed,
they said. Some school administrators and school boards proceeded to allow
graduating classes to vote on whether or not a student volunteer would
deliver a prayer at graduation. This led to another round of lawsuits by
students and parents opposed to any form of organized prayer at graduations.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled in this latest struggle.
The ACLU believes that the Court's ruling in Weisman is as crystal clear in
prohibiting "student-initiated prayer" as it is in barring prayer by members
of the clergy. Why? Because a graduation ceremony is a public school event.
Time for prayer at that event can be reserved only with the school
administration's consent. Thus, no matter who initiates the prayer, whether
students, teachers or parents, school officials presiding at that school
event are the prayer's sponsors -- which violates the Establishment Clause.
As for the claim that students should be free to vote a prayer up or down,
that directly infringes on the fundamental constitutional rights of
students and parents who belong to minority religions.
Fundamental rights, being inalienable, are not subject to a vote. Justice
Robert H. Jackson best explained this principle in his 1943 opinion
recognizing the right of Jehovah's Witnesses not to salute the flag:
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from
the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach
of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be
applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free
speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other
fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome
of no elections." (West Virginia v. Barnette)
But wouldn't prayer in school help restore moral values to our classrooms?
Concern that a crisis of values exists in our society is widespread in the
face of violent crime, troubled and disintegrating families, and many young
people's seeming hopelessness and lack of direction. Many Americans look to
religion as the primary source of values and urge a stronger role for
religion in public life. Prayer and perhaps other religious observances,
they argue, would be an antidote to today's social problems. Some even
contend that a steep moral decline in the nation was caused mainly by the
removal of organized prayer from the schools in accordance with the 1962
Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Vitale. These viewpoints are problematic
on several counts:
It is simplistic to think that mere recitation of a necessarily watered
down, nondenominational prayer every morning could have any impact on
complicated social problems that are rooted in poverty, inequality and
lack of opportunity.
If removal of organized prayer from the schools caused the alleged "decline
in moral values," how is it that Americans are as religious today as ever?
Nostalgia for a presumably "moral" United States of the past ignores the
reality that before 1962 organized school prayer coexisted with Jim Crow
laws in the South, official discrimination against women in education and
employment, and political repression in public life. If anything, our nation
is a more moral place today given the vigorous attempts to eradicate
bigotry from our political, cultural and social institutions.
Public schools do and should impart moral values to our children, including
the civic virtues of honesty, good citizenship, ethics and respect for the
rights and freedoms of others. But religion should be practiced in the home,
the church, the synagogue, the temple and the mosque and not at official
events.
Do student clubs have the right to use school facilities?
Yes. The Equal Access Act, passed by Congress in 1984, protects the right of
>>> Continued to next message...
-!- Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
! Origin: The Cosmic Keyboard [Calgary, AB 403-229-4858] (1:134/67)
Ä Area: Religious Debate ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Msg#: 402 Date: 10-23-96 07:41
From: Doug Lee Read: Yes Replied: No
To: All Mark:
Subj: ACLU attacking Christiani
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>>> Part 4 of 5...
secondary school students to hold religious club meetings on public school
grounds during noninstructional time, if other, noncurriculum-related
student groups -- such as political clubs, community service clubs,
etc. -- are also allowed to meet at a school. The Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of the Act in 1990, in Westside Community Schools v.
Mergens. The Court indicated, however, that schools must treat religious
clubs differently from other student clubs. To guard against improper
governmental support for religion, school employees may not initiate,
direct or participate in religious club meetings -- although a school staff
person may be present to keep order an ensure safety.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The First Amendment, in what is called the Establishment Clause, guarantees
the separation of religion from the government, and in the Free Exercise
Clause prohibits the government from interfering with individuals' right to
worship as they choose. Together, these principles protect our freedom to
practice any religion or no religion at all.
The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, but it took two centuries for a
body of law on the church/state relationship to evolve. Indeed, not until
the 1940s did the U.S. Supreme Court begin to articulate whether a
particular law, rule or practice runs afoul of First Amendment principles
with respect to religion.
The Establishment Clause
In the year that the First Amendment was adopted, no state had a single
"established" church, as in England, but five states had multiple
establishments, with the power of the government behind them, the
established denominations often persecuted the members of various minority
religions. Baptists, Quakers, Jews and others were denied the right to hold
public office and were required to pay taxes to support the established
churches.
By the time the Constitution was framed, many of its framers had come to
believe strongly in "disestablishment." For example, Thomas Jefferson wrote
of the need for "a wall of separation between church and state," and in
1785 James Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance that "religion
is not helped by establishment, but is hurt by it." In 1791, when the Bill
of Rights was adopted, it reflected this view.
More than a century and a half later, in 1971, the Supreme Court's decision
in Lemon v. Kurtzman put forth a three-part test for determining whether a
law or government policy has breached the wall between church and state.
The Lemon test, still used by the courts today, asks (1) whether the
government's action has a religious purpose; (2) whether the primary effect
of the government's action is to advance or endorse religion; and (3)
whether the government's action fosters excessive government "entanglement"
with religion. If the answer to any one of these questions is "yes," then
the law or policy violates the Establishment Clause.
The Free Exercise Clause
The roots of the Free Exercise Clause reach back to the country's early
colonial history. Roger Williams, who fled religious persecution in England
and, in 1644, founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious minorities,
said it was God's command that "a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish,
Turkish, or Antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men
in all Nations and Countries."
In spite of this sentiment, intolerance has occasionally threatened
minorities' freedom of worship. The Supreme Court, therefore, beginning in
1940, handed down a series of decisions that formed a bulwark of protection
for religious liberty.
In 1940, the Court upheld the right of Jehovah's Witnesses to proselytize on
a street corner (Cantwell v. Connecticut).
In 1943, the Court ruled that Jehovah's Witness children could not be
forced to salute the flag in public schools (West Virginia v. Barnette).
>>> Continued to next message...
-!- Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
! Origin: The Cosmic Keyboard [Calgary, AB 403-229-4858] (1:134/67)
Ä Area: Religious Debate ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Msg#: 403 Date: 10-23-96 07:41
From: Doug Lee Read: Yes Replied: No
To: All Mark:
Subj: ACLU attacking Christiani
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>>> Part 5 of 5...
In 1963, the Court held that a Seventh Day Adventist could not be denied
unemployment insurance because she refused to work on Saturdays
(Sherbert v. Verner).
And in 1972, the Court overturned the conviction of an Amish parent who
refused to send his children to school beyond the eighth grade
(Wisconsin v. Yoder).
Not all religious practice is protected, however, even though the freedom to
believe is absolute. To determine whether a particular religious ritual is
covered by the Free Exercise clause, the Supreme Court developed a test:
A person or group must show (1) that the ritual is motivated by "sincere
religious belief," and (2) that the state has imposed a "substantial
burden" on the practice. If these two criteria are met, the government
must accommodate the religious practice -- unless the government can show
that it has a "compelling interest" in restricting the practice, and that
its restriction is the most lenient way possible (the "least restrictive
means") of serving that interest.
In 1990, the Supreme Court changed the test, seriously undermining the
right to religious freedom. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court
upheld the denial of unemployment benefits to two members of the Native
American Church who had been fired from their jobs for smoking peyote --
a hallucinogen which has been an integral part of Native American religious
practices for centuries. This ruling eliminated the requirement that the
government prove a "compelling interest" in restricting a religious practice.
Now the government merely had to show that, in restricting a practice, it
was not singling out a particular religion for discriminatory treatment.
The Court reasoned that since peyote was prohibited for everyone,
Native Americans were not being singled out and, therefore, had no free
exercise claim.
A broad coalition of civil liberties and religious organizations quickly
formed to demand that Congress repair the damage to religious liberty
caused by the Smith decision. Answering the call, Congress passed the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, which restored the previous
"compelling interest" test for all restrictions on the free exercise of
religion.
A C L U American Civil Liberties Union,
132 West 43rd Street, New York, N.Y.
10036
Copyright 1996, The American Civil Liberties Union
... There is no justice. There's....just us.--Judge Dread
-!- Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
! Origin: The Cosmic Keyboard [Calgary, AB 403-229-4858] (1:134/67)