We read:
"LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — In the wake of a federal court order that halted a Pulaski County Special School District flier policy, district officials have settled a lawsuit with Alliance Defense Fund attorneys representing a 3rd-grade student and her mother who had been denied permission to distribute fliers for church-sponsored activities.
“All students should have the freedom to express their beliefs. The Constitution clearly prohibits bans that single out a religious viewpoint,” said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Matt Sharp. “This settlement means that fliers for ‘church-related’ activities will be treated with the same respect given to fliers for numerous other community programs and events.”
In October 2009, a Sherwood Elementary School 3rd-grade student and her mother requested permission to distribute fliers inviting friends and classmates to a church-sponsored swimming event the following month at a local pool. School officials, including Sherwood Elementary School’s principal, said that the fliers could not be distributed because they were “church-related.” However, the district freely permitted fliers promoting numerous other activities, such as ones sponsored by the 4-H Club, Boy & Girl Scouts, local youth sports teams, karate lessons, summer camps, book and consignment sales, and PTA fundraisers at local restaurants.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, issued a preliminary injunction that halted the policy in March of last year. The court wrote, “Indeed, the record clearly shows that defendants’ regulations, as presently enforced, merely stamp out certain viewpoint-based speech.”
To settle the suit, district officials eliminated its ban on “church-related” fliers, which may now be distributed by students during non-instructional time at school and which also may be included with all other community fliers at a table or distribution rack near each school’s front entrance. The district also agreed to pay for the student’s attorneys’ fees.
Source
13 comments:
The war on Christianity goes on. Don't expect the Left to ever stop trying. And to Christians i say, that's enough with the "turn-the-other-cheek" thing. Remember the Knights Templar.
The ACLU wont like this and neither will the SPLC and thats good news for christians
"The district also agreed to pay for the student’s attorneys’ fees"
Well wasn't that nice of them, violate constitutional rights, lose in court, and "agree" to pay the attorney fees... geez
The school district board consists mainly of professional educators; the board does not usually consist of lawyers. The board takes recommendations from staff lawyers or ones that consult with the board. So, district policy is primarily determined by input from lawyers. When that policy is in conflict with the constitution (which BTW is interpreted differently by various groups), it is a judge that adjudicates the case and determines the appropriate remedies. If there is anyone to blame for these constitutional conflicts, it is the lawyers. That is my opinion; I may be wrong.
You mean the Board of Educators are realy nothing but a bunch of profesional brainwashers annon 6:29
Had the fliers been for a Muslim group-sponsored event, I bet the school would have backed it in a heartbeat.
I don't see what the problem is... as long as the event is not held on school property, there is no violation of church & state policies.
It sounds like everything turned out correctly in the end, so what's the problem?
The problem is that it was a problem in the first place.
"The problem is that it was a problem in the first place."
It was a problem only to conservatards like you.
Yeah they would have annon 8:09 without a doupt the school district of pansies would have backed without hesitation
Anon 9:21 - Absolutely! Plus, there is no 'church and state policy' to be violated. The only 'church and state' policy is the one that the educators routinely violate and that is in the First Amendment - 'freedom of religion'.
As an aside to the militant atheists who post on this blog, since I'm refuting the idea that the Constitution prohibits expressing religion, please begin the childish name-calling and discussions of my 'imaginary friend' or 'delusional state' whenever you like... If you don't have an actual argument, insulting my belief system is the next best thing, right?
This was clear and obvious viewpoint discrimination from the start.
Why do some schools seem to not get it - you cannot treat religious discourse differently from other discourse.
It's really not that hard - but they seem to have some anti-religious paranoia.
Post a Comment