Re thinking the 1st Amendment

[berkshirescouter]

Do we as a society want/need/should review how this Amendment is interpreted? As it is now, there is zero tolerance of breaches of the separation of church and state. The unintended consequence is good programs are not allowed to participate, other programs with a secular bent are allowed. Some groups view these secular viewpoints as a type of religion and are troubled when only that point of view is allowed in the state controlled area of ideas.

 

What are the thoughts of everyone here?

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Oh, if you're suggesting gutting the first amendment so your discriminatory private religious club can still have public schools as sponsors (while excluding atheists), I'd say it's time for another armed revolution.

[berkshirescouter]

No thats not what I am asking. One question comes to mind is for the purpose of the 1st amendment what is a religion? By allowing only secular ideas, are you removing non-secular points of view from the public area of discussion. Is that then discrimination? Is it in the public interest?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I think examples would help; I have no idea what you mean.

[fgoodwin]

I don't have a problem with the First Amendment.

 

What I have a problem with is how ACLU and its ilk focus on the first part of the establishment clause (respecting an "establishment of religion") and totally ignore the second ("or the free exercise thereof"), as if the "wall of separation" were meant only to keep religion out of government.

 

In fact the First Amendment was meant to keep government out of religion, but you'll never get the ACLU to admit that.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that BSA, as a private organization, has the right to set its membership standards. So what BSA is doing is fully in line with the Constitution; it is not illegal to have membership standards.

 

But the ACLU cannot stand the fact that they lost on this point and so are looking for every way possible to harass BSA, by having the courts (an arm of the government) interfere with BSA's "free exercise" of its Constitutional rights.

 

If there's a First Amendment violation going on, its by the ACLU and revisionist judges, not BSA or the public schools, military bases, etc.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Fred, you're being completely hypocritical.

 

I pointed out to you months ago that your cub scout pack couldn't legally be chartered by a public school.

 

Stopping public schools from practicing religious discrimination is not "harassment."

[berkshirescouter]

OK. Try this. Lets say planned parenthood made a presentation at a public school, they are secular. But a religious group with an opposing point of view could not. Is this viewpoint discrimination? Now add recruitment to the mix. Allow one, allow all or none. If none, is this in the public interest? Now the school sponsors a GLAD group. Secular, yes. Boy Scouts Cub Scouts religious, no. Is that viewpoint discrimination? Is it in the public interest?

My point of view is if the topic, group ect is in the public interest the state should sponsor it but be religious neutral. Deal with problems locally on a case by case basis.

 

[NJCubScouter]

ITD, I am not sure what you mean either. Discussion of religious subjects by individuals in the "public area of discussion" is not only permitted, but the government is prohibited from prohibiting it, both by the "free speech" clause and by the "free exercise" clause. What is not permitted is when the government itself is engaging in a religious practice or religious speech -- with the exception (apparently, though the Supreme Court has never actually made this completely clear) of certain purely ceremonial acts or statements that have become so commonplace that they have lost most or all of their "religious" character. (Like putting "In God We Trust" on money, for example. There are some things, such as Congress opening its sessions with a prayer, that don't fall neatly into this category, and that quite frankly I can't explain, but the fact that there are a few loose threads doesn't mean you throw out the whole garment.)

 

What I think has become increasingly troublesome in the past few years are individual units of government (like schools) prohibiting "religious" expressions by individuals apparently on the theory that permitting them would constitute a religious act by the school. I am not talking about the case with the prayer at the football game; the ultimate decision in that case was a good one, because the prayer in question was in effect an act by the government, not merely the individual students. I am talking about the schools that have done things like banning the singing of "Silent Night" (a religious song) or even "Jingle Bells" (a non-religious song) from a "holiday concert"; or who will not let a student draw a picture of Santa Claus; or who will not accept an essay from a student solely because it deals with a religious theme or mentions religious concepts. That is going too far, and I don't think it is required by the "establishment clause," and I don't think "the courts" have ever said otherwise. Whether some of these "bannings" may actually violate the "free exercise clause" is an interesting question that I don't think the courts have resolved.

 

Merlyn, I am curious as to whether you would disagree with any of what I have said in this post.

[fgoodwin]

NJ, I agree with most of what you say.

 

What's not clear to me is why its OK to sing religious songs at a school musical, planned and conducted by a public school teacher, but a prayer at a football game isn't -- can you help me understand the difference?

[DugNevius]

actually, our Board of Ed just outlawed the X-mas chorus concert because it was religious in nature and therefore public schools were not to participate in singing such songs.

 

Really, its a backlash against the exploding push for more religion in our country and a very religious Adminstration. I dont want to get into a political debate, and want to keep my bleeding heart liberal mind out of this, but i think a balance is needed and our Board of Ed went too far.

[Hunt]

NJ is right in that some schools have overreacted to Establishment Clause decisions and have gone too far in interfering with Free Excercise. Examples might be efforts to prevent a religious club from meeting at the school, while secular clubs are allowed to meet. That's a no-no. Another example (in my opinion, anyway) would be telling the valedictorian not to mention God in his speech (really a free speech, rather than free exercise point, though).

But I think that some of the posters in this thread have also gotten confused between establishment and exercise. Requiring that schools not sponsor scouting units in no way interferes with the free exercise of religion--those units can still meet in the schools like any other community group. They simply can't be owned by the school, any more than a public school could sponsor a United Methodist Youth Fellowship group. To repeat, the school MUST allow the BSA or the UMYF to meet at the school if it allows other groups to meet there, but it can't sponsor the relgious group.

I think the First Amendment is just fine as it is.

[berkshirescouter]

To repeat, the school MUST allow the BSA or the UMYF

to meet at the school if it allows other groups to

meet there, but it can't sponsor the relgious group.

I think the First Amendment is just fine as it is.

 

The problem here is under budget cuts the schools may charge access to all groups not sponsored by them.

[fgoodwin]

ITD says:

 

The problem here is under budget cuts the schools may charge access to all groups not sponsored by them.

 

========

 

And I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as BSA is treated the same.

 

When my son's old Cub Scout Pack met at a public school in Maryland, we paid the same room fee as every other non-profit group that met there, and we had no problem with that policy, as long as the policy was applied fairly to all.

 

(that particular pack was sponsored by the local Lions Club, not the school, in case anyone was wondering)

[evmori]

Excellent point, Fred! The ACLU never seems to care about the freedom of religion ONLY the freedom FROM religion.

 

I wonder how many church-goers are among the active ACLUers?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says:

 

The ACLU never seems to care about the freedom of religion ONLY the freedom FROM religion.

 

Ed, you have made that statement in the past, despite the fact that examples have been cited of the ACLU defending the freedom of religion, even working with groups that would be considered part of the "religious right." Some of these examples are cited on www.aclu.org, as has also been mentioned in the past. Yet you keep on making the same statement over and over despite it having been proven false.