PA: Judge bans Bible from kindergarten Show & Tell
We read:
"A U.S. court says a kindergartner’s mother cannot read Scripture during show and tell, even if the Bible is the boy’s favorite book. Monday’s ruling is a victory for the Marple Newtown School District in suburban Philadelphia.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says the school’s decision does not violate First Amendment rights given the nonpublic nature of the classroom and the tender age of the children. The mother, Donna Kay Busch, argues the students heard stories related to Passover, Christmas and other religious holidays. The appeals court says there is a ’significant difference’ between identifying those holidays and reading from Scripture.”
Source
Where does the 1st Amendment mention something being "nonpublic" or the age of the citizen?
23 comments:
Assuming this is in fact a public school, how can the classroom be non-public? And while i agree that a classroom is not an appropriate place to read Scripture, especially to students who may not be Christian, i also agree with Jon, in that the First Amendment makes no mention of age or place. (other than the well-known "yelling fire in a theater" exception)
Of course, i would be very interested in knowing if this ban applies to other religions as well.
Reading text directly from any ancient "holy book" will be meaningless for most kindergarten kids, and seems more like it's just satisfying the religious bent of the adults involved.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Congress shall make no law...but apparently the courts shall-prohibiting the free exercise of religion in schools, government, etc.
I'd be willing to bet that the reason the Bible is the favorite book of a kindergartener is because the mother told the child it was his favorate book. I've never met a little boy or girl who's favorite book didn't have lots of pictures.
To Anon 2:20, I'd also like to see if it applies to other religions. Either way, proselytizing seems out of place in a kindergarten class. I wonder if the woman who read the scripture believes a Muslim person should be able to read to her child.
"I'd be willing to bet that the reason the Bible is the favorite book of a kindergartener is because the mother told the child it was his favorate book"
---You would lose that bet. Maybe he has watched Bible-inspired cartoons on DVD so he associates the DVD's with the actual bible. Nothing wrong with that.
"I wonder if the woman who read the scripture believes a Muslim person should be able to read to her child."
---Sure she does, and if a muslim kid had brought the koran, it wouldn't have been a big deal and if somebody had complained, that person would be accused of being islamophobic.
See how it works? When a muslim talks about his faith, it's multicultural awareness. But when a Christian does it, it's fascist proselytizing. No wonder people are pissed off with progressives.
As long as the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT isn't the one doing the proselytising, it's protected speech under the 1st ammendment.
Freedom OF religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion after all, no matter what anarchists and other leftists might think.
Of course with a Muhammedan president it won't be long before kids are being taught to pray to Mecca 5 times a day.
"--You would lose that bet. Maybe he has watched Bible-inspired cartoons on DVD so he associates the DVD's with the actual bible. Nothing wrong with that."
That doesn't actually mean he'd lose the bet, only that there's a chance he would.
One question though, why is the mother reading the book and not the kid? It's HIS show and tell, not hers. And if he can't read it himself (which I'll grant as being likely), then why would it need to be read? If it's the kids favourite book, then he should know some of it quite well.
This whole situation does sound a little like a set up from the mothers side. "Pick the bible johnny. Oh, and why don't I come in and read an excerpt from it?"
Past court rulings state that the government and by extension the schools cannot establish or endorse a religion. How is reading of the Bible by a student's mother establishing a religion? The teacher is the only school representative in the room and she is not the one doing the reading.
"If Stupidity Got Us Into This Mess, Then Why Can't It Get Us Out?"
- Will Rogers
Religion...any religion.... is acquired by indoctrination. Whether it is parental, peer or private institutional indoctrination.
Believe it or not "structured religion" is not innately acquired. It has to be taught. But not taught in a secular public institution. No matter how subtle the message it must be banned from the public school arena.
Public schools should not be involved in religious indoctrination in any way, shape or form.
Bobby Said, "[I]f a muslim kid had brought the koran, it wouldn't have been a big deal and if somebody had complained, that person would be accused of being islamophobic."
I see what you mean, but I don't agree that it wouldn't be a big deal. I do agree the people who spoke up would be labled islamophobic, but that's a different issue.
I think reading any religious text to people who don't follow the religion is a form of proselytizing (though not fascist. Not sure where that comes from)and is out of place among kindergarteners. That being said, the fact that a US court got involved is ridiculous. You'd think they have more important things to worry about than show-and-tell.
bogsidebunny said...
Religion...any religion.... is acquired by indoctrination. Whether it is parental, peer or private institutional indoctrination
Then why is it that so many people from former communist countries just knew that all of this was not an accident and that there had to be a God that created it? Those countries were athiest and generations were never taught religion.
"I think reading any religious text to people who don't follow the religion is a form of proselytizing (though not fascist."
---Proselytizing is when you actively try to convert someone to your idea, you know, like the people that try to get you to join multi-level marketing schemes or the insurance salesman that wants you to sign up for a policy.
There are christians who try to get you to say a little prayer and accept Jesus into your life that very day.
But this isn't one of them, this was an exchange of ideas without a demand for compliance.
"But this isn't one of them, this was an exchange of ideas without a demand for compliance."
To kindergartners? The kids who will pretty much believe anything an adult tells them?
You actually expect a fair exchange of ideas with 4 year olds?
"To kindergartners? The kids who will pretty much believe anything an adult tells them?"
---Kids can be as stubborn as adults, ask any parent.
"You actually expect a fair exchange of ideas with 4 year olds?"
---Look, kids in kindergarten are learning about the environment, global warming, recycling, and a bunch of other bullshit. So what's wrong if one of their peers decides to talk about Jesus? That's the whole point of show & tell.
For God sakes, if the kid's favorite thing had been a toy, we wouldn't be discussing this.
i know a koran would be allowed. they would not want to insult obama by forbidding his holy book.
"---Look, kids in kindergarten are learning about the environment, global warming, recycling, and a bunch of other bullshit. So what's wrong if one of their peers decides to talk about Jesus? That's the whole point of show & tell."
And I would have no problem with that. BUT. It wasn't one of the children's peers, was it? It was his mother who was reading the scripture, not him.
"---Kids can be as stubborn as adults, ask any parent."
You're comparing not wanting to go to bed, or wanting a candy bar to being taught math?
And you're exactly right. If it HAD been a toy, it wouldn't be an issue. Well, no more of an issue then why the kids mother is in class to tell them about her child's favourite toy.
"And I would have no problem with that. BUT. It wasn't one of the children's peers, was it? It was his mother who was reading the scripture, not him."
----Because the kid doesn't know how to read.
"You're comparing not wanting to go to bed, or wanting a candy bar to being taught math?"
---Math was my worst subject, my parents had to fight with me to get me to study. I would day-dream, get distracted, procrastinate. Don't take me wrong, I wasn't one of those Jerry Springer kids, but I was no saint either.
"And you're exactly right. If it HAD been a toy, it wouldn't be an issue. Well, no more of an issue then why the kids mother is in class to tell them about her child's favourite toy."
----So why is it ok to talk about your favorite toy and not your favorite God? It makes me sick that any kid can talk about how much they love the environment, or how the rich should give their money to the poor, or any number of really PC issues, but the moment you mention God is like you've done something obscene.
Remember, schools are supported by taxpayers, most of which believe in God. Why should the secular-nazis impose their values on them?
----Because the kid doesn't know how to read.
The kid didn't pick out the passage that was to be read. The mother picked it out. The decision makes a distinction in something the child likes, and something the parent picks out for the child. In the end, the parent picking the passage sunk the woman's case.
----So why is it ok to talk about your favorite toy and not your favorite God? It makes me sick that any kid can talk about how much they love the environment, or how the rich should give their money to the poor, or any number of really PC issues, but the moment you mention God is like you've done something obscene.
Who said it was not allowed for the kid to talk about God? Go and read the decision. This was part of a program that basically shared who each kid was with their peers. The child made a poster that included his love of God, the Bible and his church in the poster. The school let that stay. The problem came up when the mother wanted to read a specific passage to the class. Not the child...... the MOTHER. The principal (who is also an evangelical Christian) thought that allowing the mother to read a passage of her chosing in the classroom would violate the establishment clause.
Schools have to allow non disruptive religious expression and religious speech when done by the student. They do not have to allow such speach or expression when done by an adult. That is what happened here.
"Remember, schools are supported by taxpayers, most of which believe in God. Why should the secular-nazis impose their values on them?"
Because Jesus told me so.
"Schools have to allow non disruptive religious expression and religious speech when done by the student. They do not have to allow such speach or expression when done by an adult. That is what happened here."
---Some schools have career days, where parents tell a class what they do for a living. With your standard, a parent would not be allowed to say anything in school.
"Because Jesus told me so."
---You're wrong, I'm a property owner, I pay property taxes that fund public schools. That is my money and as a taxpayer, I should have a say on how my money is used.
The education nazis think that just because they have a masters degree they are better than John Q. Taxpayer. If secularists want religion-free zones, they are free to set up their own private schools where the kids can worship Al Gore, Obama, Oprah, John Edwards, and all the other personality cults and objects of secular worship.
"----So why is it ok to talk about your favorite toy and not your favorite God? It makes me sick that any kid can talk about how much they love the environment, or how the rich should give their money to the poor, or any number of really PC issues, but the moment you mention God is like you've done something obscene."
And I have absolutely no problem with the CHILD talking about his favourite God or other imaginary friend. But it WASN'T the CHILD talking. Was it?
Why can you not grasp the exceedingly simple fact in this case that it wasn't anything the CHILD did? It was his MOTHER!
---Some schools have career days, where parents tell a class what they do for a living. With your standard, a parent would not be allowed to say anything in school.
There is a difference between discussing what a parent does and reading from the scriptures in order to proselytize.
In other words, a parent can discuss being a missionary, but they cannot use the schools as missionary field when they are asked to talk about what they do.
Post a Comment