# Seperation of Church and State IV, A New Beginning **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 1, 2000, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635 "2000-08-01T01:08:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jahn)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2000, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/21 "2000-08-03T22:15:54Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by GLWasteful \* **Which did not happen. The Capitol Square issue looks and sounds like the Klan was allowed to put up their cross. So what seems to be the problem?** _sigh_. If you read why I cited that case, it was to prove to you and Satan that public fora like this actually exist. How was that not clear? You were the one that asked the question, and I quoted the question just before I cited it… Here, I’ll quote you again: “Also, I would be curious to find out where this town is that allows Girl Scouts and the ACLU to post bills to their hearts content.” Now it’s not the ACLU & G/S, but Gay rights groups, the KKK, and the United Way. Similar enough for these purposes. > [@](#): > > \*\*So, at what point was religious speech abridged? \*\* In all of those cases, the Establishment Clause was used as a justification _(among other things)_ to censor the child’s speech (snipping from the court opinions): Duran: “Finally, defendant Nitsche stated ‘I think the students very possibly could have accepted [plaintiff’s report] as something that I believed and promoted myself.’” One of the justifications accepted by the court was to avoid the appearance that the school promoted what a student said (a student completely free to choose any topic). Denooyer: “The school wanted to avoid a situation where other students and their parents would be offended by the religious content of the speech they were required to listen to or would infer the school’s endorsement of the speech presented during class.” Ditto. C.H.: “Furthermore, had the Medford defendants allowed Z.H. to read the ‘Beginner’s Bible’ to the rest of his first grade classmates, the possibility exists that they could have construed the presentation to be an endorsement of the Bible by the teacher.” Ditto again. The schools censored these children because their speech was religious. > [@](#): > > **Therefore, I think that the teacher not only did the right thing, but went out of her way to allow the boy to read the story to her in a one-on-one situation.** Well that’s where you and I disagree. If a child can have a presentation about a tv show, about his two mommies, about how war is bad, about **anything** except his religious belief (in which case he is punished), that amounts to censorship. It tells the child “Religion is bad.” Now you may think that’s a good thing, and I would defend your right to think so, but in actuality it is abhorrent to the Constitution. Yours, jahn ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2000, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/22 "2000-08-03T23:18:04Z")
**jahn** : > [@](#): > > If you read why I cited that case, it was to prove to you and Satan that public fora like this actually exist. Okay, okay, fair enough. I thought you were trying to use it to illustrate your point. > [@](#): > > In all of those cases, the Establishment Clause was used as a justification _(among other things)_ to censor the child’s speech Right. Among other things. However, the cases had to do with what I said they did, nu? That being the case, then the plaintiff in Duran should have known that if she didn’t do the required work, then she wouldn’t get to do the project. Hell, the teacher told her it was all right to use her “Power of God” topic. Then, when she failed to do the same damned thing that her classmates had to do, yet was allowed to present to her teacher, her parents sued the school. Maintaining all the while that her freedom of speech was being abridged. No, it most assuredly was not. Whether or not the students would have believed that the half-assed report was being done with the imprimatur of the school or not, this case should never have been heard. Let alone touted as an example of government using that wicked Establishment Clause to oppress the speech of our young. > [@](#): > > Denooyer: “The school wanted to avoid a situation where other students and their parents would be offended by the religious content of the speech they were required to listen to or would infer the school’s endorsement of the speech presented during class.” Again, I couldn’t find anything on this, so I can’t very well comment on it. > [@](#): > > C.H.: “Furthermore, had the Medford defendants allowed Z.H. to read the ‘Beginner’s Bible’ to the rest of his first grade classmates, the possibility exists that they could have construed the presentation to be an endorsement of the Bible by the teacher.” Okay, context sil vous plait. The students in this case were first graders. I know that if someone had read a bible story in my first grade class, then I would have thought that the teacher was endorsing said story. (Which, BTW, had nothing whatsoever to do with the big pants that I had for my first grade teacher. Well, maybe a little.) Do you mean to tell me that you were so learned in the ways of critical thought at seven years of age to have discerned otherwise? > [@](#): > > The schools censored these children because their speech was religious. Well, no. The young lady in the Duran case was not censored because her speech was religious, she was not allowed to make an oral report to her class because she hadn’t done the required classwork. The boy in CH v Oliva may very well have been. However, his teacher was required to make a judgment call. In doing so, she chose to not allow a young boy to read a bible story to his classmates. She did, however, have him read it to her later while they were alone. And just because I don’t think it can be said enough, “Those kids were seven years old.” Hell, I’ve had words with my daughters Paraprofessional because she was pushing her VBS on a class full of K-3 kids. I just didn’t think that a lawsuit was necessary. Also, I have to wonder, you originally said that you didn’t have a url. Do you have this stuff lying around in hard copy? > [@](#): > > If a child can have a presentation about a tv show, about his two mommies, about how war is bad, about **anything** except his religious belief (in which case he is punished), that amounts to censorship. Well, it’s been a while since I was last in school, but I recall students being told that television shows were unacceptable topics for projects. Also, my wife said the same thing to her classroom just last year. (grades 3-5) I would require some further information on a student doing a project on his mother and her lover. How old were the children in question? After all, some topics are acceptable to a High School audience that wouldn’t fly in elementary school. “About how war is bad”? Well, I certainly can’t argue with that one. Also, way back in the mists of time, I recall students doing class reports on religion, their own as well as that of others. Of course, this was High School. Not first grade. > [@](#): > > It tells the child “Religion is bad.” Oh, bosh! It does no such thing. Particularly if the child is in a home in which they are brought up to believe that their religion is not only good, but correct. And I imagine that any child brought up in a religious home believes that with all of their being. > [@](#): > > Now you may think that’s a good thing, and I would defend your right to think so, but in actuality it is abhorrent to the Constitution. Well, thanks heaps for your defense, but I seem to be doing all right by myself. And if children were actually being told that religion was bad, and that a life of secular humanism was the only way to go, then I would agree with you that it should stop. However, nothing of the sort is happening. And saying that it is doesn’t do a damned thing to further your (or any) cause. Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![jahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jahn)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/23 "2000-08-04T00:33:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GLWasteful \* > **Okay, context sil vous plait. The students in this case were first graders. I know that if someone had read a bible story in my first grade class, then I would have thought that the teacher was endorsing said story. (Which, BTW, had nothing whatsoever to do with the big pants that I had for my first grade teacher. Well, maybe a little.) Do you mean to tell me that you were so learned in the ways of critical thought at seven years of age to have discerned otherwise?** No, but I think that if _every child_ given this assignment was able to choose whatever story he/she wanted (the facts of this case), I don’t think the children or parents would think that the teacher endorsed _every single_ story read. Do you? I don’t think the public schools are that bad yet. Well, maybe. > [@](#): > > **The boy in CH v Oliva may very well have been. However, his teacher was required to make a judgment call. In doing so, she chose to not allow a young boy to read a bible story to his classmates. She did, however, have him read it to her later while they were alone. And just because I don’t think it can be said enough, “Those kids were seven years old.” Hell, I’ve had words with my daughters Paraprofessional because she was pushing her VBS on a class full of K-3 kids.** Then look at the story he wanted to read yourself: “Jacob traveled far away to his uncle’s house. He worked for his uncle, taking care of sheep. While he was there, Jacob got married. He had 12 sons. Jacob’s big family lived on his uncle’s land for many years. But Jacob wanted to go back home. One day, Jacob packed up all his animals and his family and everything he had. They traveled all the way back to where Esau lived. Now Jacob was afraid that Esau might still be angry at him. So he sent presents to Esau. He sent servants who said, ‘Please don’t be angry any more.’ But Esau wasn’t angry. He ran to Jacob. He hugged and kissed him. He was happy to see his brother again.” That was the entire story. Do you seriously think that it is inappropriate for first graders? There’s nothing religious about it (except for where the story comes from). Do you seriously doubt that the only reason it was censored was because of its religious source? Is that right? (quoted from Washington Post columnist reprinted: [http://youthofamerica.com/writing/sub899.htm](http://youthofamerica.com/writing/sub899.htm) . I have no idea who hosts that site, but the text matches the hard copy of the opinion I have.) ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/24 "2000-08-04T01:10:48Z")
\*\*jahn \*\*: > [@](#): > > No, but I think that if _every child_ given this assignment was able to choose whatever story he/she wanted (the facts of this case), I don’t think the children or parents would think that the teacher endorsed _every single_ story read. Do you? No. More below. :: snippage of the story in question, which seems pretty damned benign :: > [@](#): > > That was the entire story. Do you seriously think that it is inappropriate for first graders? Actually, no. > [@](#): > > Do you seriously doubt that the only reason it was censored was because of its religious source? Never doubted for a moment that it was deemed inappropriate based on anything other than it’s source. That said, I probably wouldn’t have had a problem with the story in question. But I’m going to say it again, “The teacher made a judgment call.” In light of the story you have quoted, it was a bit harsh. But the teacher did what she thought was right. I will back a teacher who has to make that sort of snap decision every time. And recognize, unlike the mother of this stalwart young lad, that human beings sometimes screw up. As opposed to her decision that litigation was the way to go. I also have to wonder about the impartiality of the website that you sent me towards. I also notice that you are now focussing solely on this one instance. Does this mean that you are done holding up the absolutely ludicrous examples of what you have termed “censorship”? i.e. the Duran case, the other half of this case? Also, do you have any further information on DeNooyer v Livonia? I would cheerfully comment on it, if only I could find it. I imagine, though, that it will prove to be something equally as ridiculous as 2/3 of what we have discussed here. If not, then I will cheerfully concede that you are correct, and batting .500 on your examples. Pretty damned good for a major leaguer, but woefully inadequate if this is the best that you can do to demonstrate that children are being oppressed. Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![Morgan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Morgan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/25 "2000-08-04T01:13:43Z")
**GLWasteful** , you bring up an excellent point. Censorship _is_ appropriate for children. It simply would not be appropriate to read a story titled “What daddy was doing to mommy when I walked into their bedroom.” That is, of course, an extreme example and I would not presume to equate religious teachings with graphics acts of sex. In fact, many religious teachings are very positive and appropriate for children (love thy neighbor). However, other teachings may not be so well received (Jesus is lord). I don’t think it is apropriate for Cartman (seven years old) to describe the fires of hell and scare Kyle (also seven and has conservative jewish parents) into confessing his sins to a catholic priest. Unfortunately, **GLWasteful** ’s point has nothing to do with this thread. Censorship aimed at protecting children is analyzed under the standards of free speech–not SOCS. However, I don’t blame **GLWasteful** , because **Jahn** led him off-topic when he said: > [@](#): > > If a child can have a presentation about a tv show, about his two mommies, about how war is bad, about anything except his religious belief (in which case he is punished), that amounts to censorship. It tells the child “Religion is bad.” The statement is somewhat misleading. Since the condition (a “child” who apparently still refers to his mother as “mommie” can make a presentation about “anything”) would never occur, **Jahn** avoids offering any real opinion. ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/26 "2000-08-04T01:23:52Z")
\*\*Morgan \*\*: > [@](#): > > It simply would not be appropriate to read a story titled “What daddy was doing to mommy when I walked into their bedroom.” I dunno, provided that they’re able to take notes. I know that it couldn’t have hurt **me** to pick up as many tips as I could. > [@](#): > > That is, of course, an extreme example and I would not presume to equate religious teachings with graphics acts of sex. Right. Now, **violence** on the other hand. . . > [@](#): > > **Jahn** avoids offering any real opinion. Yeah, I know, but sssshhhhhhhh. It’s kinda fun watching him get his beans all steamed over the silly things he calls “censorship”. Note: If **jahn** is not male, then I apologize in advance for making that assumption. I recall all too well the last time, when I referred to **Gaudere** as male. I still wake up screaming, sometimes. Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![jahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jahn)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/27 "2000-08-04T01:38:06Z")
Glad you agree with me that the teacher was wrong. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GLWasteful \* > **…But the teacher did what she thought was right. I will back a teacher who has to make that sort of snap decision every time. And recognize, unlike the mother of this stalwart young lad, that human beings sometimes screw up. As opposed to her decision that litigation was the way to go…** That would make sense, if that were all. However, the parents then approached the teacher later, who stood by her position. Then the principal told the parents that the teacher was right. The the school board ignored the parents’ complaints. The principal also told the parents “that perhaps C.H. should consider removing Z.H. from public school”. How far does it have to go before you recognize the First Amendment violation? (I found the Court of appeals opinion, which tells those facts, at [http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/985061.txt](http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/985061.txt) ). === Not sure what you think I’m trying to prove, but my initial point (before being attacked on my facts which I then successfully defended) was: > [@](#): > > **The point of my post was not to argue one side or another, just to show that one man’s free exercise and free speech rights are another man’s establishment of religion.** In all of those scenarios, anti-religionists believed that anything that smells of religion has to be banished, with no competing interests. My simple point is that the analysis is not as one-sided as that. To use your analogy, I’m batting a thousand. (What did you think I was trying to prove?) Yours, jahn ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/28 "2000-08-04T14:06:57Z")
\*\*jahn \*\* > [@](#): > > I found the Court of appeals opinion, which tells those facts Yeah, I noticed that. It also says: > [@](#): > > The defendants respond that, **in the context of a first-grade classroom, a teacher must be able to take cognizance of the fact that state-compelled exposure of young children to religious material is a matter of great sensitivity among members of a school community.** Defendants insist that students of this age are very impressionable and cannot be relied upon to distinguish between those things their teacher endorses and those things she merely allows to be expressed in her classroom. Accordingly, the defendants urge that the situation confronted by Ms. Oliva held a realistic and substantial risk of the school’s being perceived by the students and their parents as endorsing the Bible before a **captive and vulnerable audience.** They conclude that teachers must be permitted to avoid subject matter holding this kind of potential for disruptive controversy. Bolding mine So, again, we are back at your contention that this school censored this poor lad’s speech, and mine that the school made a decision that was very probably a little on the heavy handed side, but that they did what they thought was right. It just turned out that the courts backed the school. In part, I imagine, because of the bolded sections above. > [@](#): > > Not sure what you think I’m trying to prove, but my initial point (before being attacked on my facts which I then successfully defended) I’m sorry, I must have been dozing off. At what point did you successfully defend your facts? Was it when you threw three court cases at me, one of which (Duran) not only had nothing to do with your contention, but that you have dropped as a topic of discussion? Or was it the first half of the Oliva case (which sounds for all the world to me as if this boy’s mother is just looking for something to sue someone over) wherein his picture was put back up on the wall? You are at least trying to keep in mind that these were children, aged 5-7ish, aren’t you? Or was it the DeNooyer case? Where you dropped a quote from what you claim is the court decision, but without the ability to find out anything further, I will simply say to you once again, “Give me some urls.” Until then, you haven’t done a damned thing to defend it. > [@](#): > > The point of my post was not to argue one side or another, just to show that one man’s free exercise and free speech rights are another man’s establishment of religion. Yeah, whatever you say, Sparky. I think that you wanted to prove that the youth of the US are being willfully and systematically denied the ability to speak about topics of their choice. Especially religious topics. And you have yet to do so, so you have chosen 1/2 of one case that might, possibly, back you up, and now you want to run with it. > [@](#): > > In all of those scenarios, anti-religionists believed that anything that smells of religion has to be banished, with no competing interests. Bullshit. Also, when you use terms like “anti-religionists” then I’m even more inclined to think that you have to prove that “they” are destroying the rights of “our” children. Well, it’s not happening, someone will keep you apprised, though, so why don’t you lie down and take a nap? > [@](#): > > My simple point Is most assuredly that. > [@](#): > > To use your analogy, I’m batting a thousand. No, laddie, you’re not even doing that well. Do the math. Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![jahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jahn)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/29 "2000-08-04T15:23:49Z")
I have presented you with an example where a child who wanted to read an **age-appropriate** story as an assignment that **all students got** (and therefore couldn’t be rationally attributed to the teacher) was censored simply because of its **religious source** by a decision that was **backed up by the principal and school board**. You: Big deal. So your general point seems to be (as evidenced in your responsed to me & Ted) that although sometimes children’s religious expression is censored inappropriately in school, who cares. Fine. What can I say to that? That little violations of the First Amendment don’t matter? Heck, the black armband in _Tinker_ wasn’t that big of a deal. Why are separate drinking fountains a big deal? Both have water. That the the repeated admonitions of the Supreme Court that government should be neutral between religion and irreligion are irrelevant here? Or does it only work one way: against religion? That President Clinton and the Department of Education issued guidelines forbidding exactly this kind of censorship? [http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html](http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html) From the DoE: “Student assignments: Students may 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. Such home and classroom work should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school.” What a novel concept . . . . (BTW, I don’t quite understand how you think _Duran_ is irrelevant, that is, unless you think I made the quote up. **One** of the justifications used by the school was to avoid “endorsement of religion.” I also did not make up the quote in _Denooyer_, nor did I make up the fact that that school used the same justification (among other reasons). I gave you the cite. If you can’t find a federal case, I’m not going to type in the entire opinion.) [QUOTE] \*Originally posted by GLWasteful \* > [@](#): > > Yeah, whatever you say, Sparky. I think that you wanted to prove … [continuation of unfounded assumption].\*\* So, all-knowing one, if you know what I’m thinking, what color underwear am I wearing? > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > My simple point > > Is most assuredly that.\*\* Yes, it is very simple. Unfortunately not as simple, though, as the large number of people that don’t believe it, and think that no competing interests exist to challenge their claims of “Endorsement! Endorsement!” A search should give you a number of organizations supporting the school in what even you called a “screw up.” Unfortunately my point is not simple enough so that they understand it. See: [http://www.au.org/pr102799.htm](http://www.au.org/pr102799.htm) “Americans United for Separation of Church and State, one of the groups that filed a brief in support of the school, applauded the decision as a victory for church-state separation and common sense.” [http://www.adl.org/presrele/rel\_chstsep\_90/3245\_90.html](http://www.adl.org/presrele/rel_chstsep_90/3245_90.html) “ADL [Anti-defamation League] filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that the boy did not have a constitutional right to read the story.” Now tell me, do **you** applaud the decision? Do you agree that no rights were touched upon by the censorship? ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/30 "2000-08-04T15:56:39Z")
\*\*jahn \*\* > [@](#): > > I have presented you with an example where a child who wanted to read an **age-appropriate** story as an assignment that **all students got** (and therefore couldn’t be rationally attributed to the teacher) was censored simply because of its **religious source** by a decision that was **backed up by the principal and school board**. And I said that what the school did seemed heavy handed. I also said that I would not have had a problem with the story being read. The teacher, the principal and the school board overreacted. So did the kid’s mother. So, for that matter did the courts. Look, I’m terribly sorry that you seem to think that this one instance has buttressed your arguments, but all it has done, as best I can tell, is point out the level of paranoia that schools deal with in regards SOCAS. Sometimes they go overboard, as they did in this one specific instance. Sometimes they allow prayers to be read over a PA system. They ought to have pointed out to them that neither of these behaviors is acceptable. That is not the equivalent of, “Big Deal.” It is, rather, recognizing that behavior takes place that should not. Sometimes the audience needs to be taken into consideration. As it was in this instance. Again, were you so learned in the ways of critical thought that you would have been able to discern that your first grade teacher wasn’t endorsing the Bible? > [@](#): > > Why are separate drinking fountains a big deal? Both have water. Well, yes. As to why are they a big deal? They are illegal. > [@](#): > > Or does it only work one way: against religion? That President Clinton and the Department of Education issued guidelines forbidding exactly this kind of censorship? Oh, stop that. I have already said that I would fight anyone who wanted to push **any** religion on my child. Now, just because you seem to have missed it: \*\*This[b/] portion of this case was handled badly. As far as the picture? It was replaced. If you want to find a poster child for oppression by the state, maybe you ought to find a case without a litigious happy parent. > [@](#): > > BTW, I don’t quite understand how you think _Duran_ is irrelevant, that is, unless you think I made the quote up. No, I know that you didn’t make the quote up. What you did was fail to read the entire summary of what happened with a critical eye. Not the only time, either. > [@](#): > > I also did not make up the quote in _Denooyer_, nor did I make up the fact that that school used the same justification (among other reasons). I gave you the cite. If you can’t find a federal case, I’m not going to type in the entire opinion. I never claimed that you made it up. Please work on your reading comprehension, then get back to me. If you have a url, that much the better. I tried to find some information, but was unable to do so. > [@](#): > > So, all-knowing one, if you know what I’m thinking, what color underwear am I wearing? Again, learn to understand what you read. At no point in time did I say that I knew what you were thinking. > [@](#): > > Now tell me, do **you** applaud the decision? Do you agree that no rights were touched upon by the censorship? Okay, at the risk of repeating myself for what? The third time? The fourth? Read what I said. Hell, you acknowledge that I referred to this as a “screw up,” do you think that I applaud it? Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/31 "2000-08-04T16:02:52Z")
Sorry about the bolding. I suppose I could blame it on the damned HTML code, but I will instead accept responsibility for my own mistake. Mea culp, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![Morgan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Morgan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/32 "2000-08-04T17:41:56Z")
Several posts up, **GLWasteful** said: > [@](#): > > Never doubted for a moment that it was deemed inappropriate based on anything other than it’s source. That said, I probably wouldn’t have had a problem with the story in question. But I’m going to say it again, “The teacher made a judgment call.” In light of the story you have quoted, it was a bit harsh. But the teacher did what she thought was right. I will back a teacher who has to make that sort of snap decision every time. As I understand it, this is your basic point. Maybe you have more trust in teachers than I do. If I believed a teacher was indoctrinating her students with inappropriate teachings (violence is appropriate, Mexicans are inferior, woman should not be allowed to vote) I would not hesitate to go to the principal or the school board. I would raise hell if a teacher knowingly allowed a student to read a report “how the dirty jews brainwash people.” If I did not get satisfaction with the principal or the school board, I would hire an attorney and litigate. This, however, seems to be what you disagree with. You think litigation is an overreaction. Maybe it was an overreaction in the cases that have been discussed, maybe it wasn’t. But, if this is your only point, then I would have to side with **Jahn**. Namely, it is a violation of the constitution (censorship) to prohibit speech based _ **soley** _ on religious content. The courts are where one goes when the constitution has been violated. Before, **Jahn** gets too excited, let me also say that I am almost certain that I would disagree with him concerning _what_ religious speech is age-appropriate and what is not. Any mention of heaven, hell, or any divine intervention would, in my opinion, be absolutely prohibited until the children are well past the age where they believe in santa clause and the tooth fairy. Any sciency report on creationism would receive the poor grade it deserves. And, although religious clubs would be allowed, if they said “you are going to hell” to anyone on school property, they would be punished the same way anyone who insulted anyone else would be punished. ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/33 "2000-08-04T18:43:14Z")
\*\*Morgan \*\*: > [@](#): > > Maybe you have more trust in teachers than I do. Not always, no. But I’m going to cast a jaundiced eye toward a parent who starts screeching that her child was denied his right to free speech when he was in first grade. Oh, and kindergarten, too. Don’t wanna forget kindergarten. > [@](#): > > If I believed a teacher was indoctrinating her students with inappropriate teachings (violence is appropriate, Mexicans are inferior, woman should not be allowed to vote) I would not hesitate to go to the principal or the school board. I would raise hell if a teacher knowingly allowed a student to read a report “how the dirty jews brainwash people.” If I did not get satisfaction with the principal or the school board, I would hire an attorney and litigate. And you’d have to push me out of the way to do so. But the half of this case that **jahn** keeps harping on had nothing of the sort happening. A teacher made a decision. In retrospect it was more than a mite toward harsh, but she was doing her job. She was also trying to cover her ass as far as the school, and the school board were concerned. And again, these kids were in first grade. > [@](#): > > You think litigation is an overreaction. Maybe it was an overreaction in the cases that have been discussed, maybe it wasn’t. No, it was. C’mon, did you read what the Duran case was about? I challenge anyone to explain to me why that case should have been heard by any court, anywhere. Or the first half of the Oliva case? This single issue is the only one that has been handled badly. > [@](#): > > Namely, it is a violation of the constitution (censorship) to prohibit speech based _ **soley** _ on religious content. The courts are where one goes when the constitution has been violated. Agreed and granted. But we are talking about kids who were in first grade. I’ve gone on record saying that this case was badly mishandled, but we’re still talking about children who range in age from 6-7. Were you also capable of discerning that what was read in your first grade classroom didn’t carry the imprimatur of the teacher, and therefore the school? > [@](#): > > I would disagree with him ( **Jahn** ) concerning _what_ religious speech is age-appropriate and what is not. Which is where this whole damned thing seems to get bogged down. Maybe I was just too freakin’ simple as a first grader, but I guarantee you that if a classmate had read a Biblical story to my class, I would have assumed that it was being done with the approval of the teacher and the school. Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![jahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jahn)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/34 "2000-08-04T19:39:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GLWasteful \* > \*\*But I’m going to cast a jaundiced eye toward a parent who starts screeching that her child was denied his right to free speech when he was in first grade. \*\* And this is where I disagree with you. I know you would raise bloody hell if the teacher were promoting religious views to your child’s class: “No, little Johnny. You cannot read your story because it’s not Christian enough.” I know some people would be in court that afternoon (myself included–assuming the decision was backed up by the principal and the school board). So why “cast a jaundiced eye” at the opposite? There is no rational reason for treating the two situations differently. – > [@](#): > > _Morgan_ > **I would disagree with him (Jahn) concerning _what_ religious speech is age-appropriate and what is not.** Did you read the story I quoted? I can’t imagine that anyone would think that the story is not age-appropriate for first graders. ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/35 "2000-08-04T19:50:31Z")
\*\*jahn \*\*: > [@](#): > > I know you would raise bloody hell if the teacher were promoting religious views to your child’s class: “No, little Johnny. You cannot read your story because it’s not Christian enough.” I know some people would be in court that afternoon (myself included–assuming the decision was backed up by the principal and the school board). So why “cast a jaundiced eye” at the opposite? There is no rational reason for treating the two situations differently. Damn skippy I would. Also, my daughter’s name is “Hannah,” not “Johnny.” Although I often refer to her as “Bob.” As far as why I would “cast a jaundiced eye”? Because I grew up around people who reacted that way to every other damned thing that came down the pike. I realize that I’m allowing my adolescence to color my outlook as an adult, but hey, I’m a human being. The things written on public restroom walls notwithstanding. So, have you given up on using any other of the cases to try and make your point? Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![jahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jahn)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/36 "2000-08-04T20:12:01Z")
Teacher: “You can only have an assignment about anything Christian.” Waste: “Sue sue sue.” Teacher: “You can only have an assignment about anything but Christianity.” Waste: “Well we have to give the teacher leeway, everyone makes mistakes, children are impressionable–but only impressionable toward religion, not against it, yadda yadda, I look suspiciously upon anyone that would complain.” Just doesn’t seem consistent. Yours, jahn ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/37 "2000-08-04T20:49:58Z")
\*\*jahn \*\*: > [@](#): > > Teacher: “You can only have an assignment about anything Christian.” Waste: “Sue sue sue.” Are we talking about a public school? If so, under what circumstances would a teacher require that an assignment deal exclusively with Christianity? I can’t imagine one offhand. I’ve no doubt, though, that if one exists, I can rely on you to dig it up. > [@](#): > > Teacher: “You can only have an assignment about anything but Christianity.” Waste: “Well we have to give the teacher leeway, everyone makes mistakes, children are impressionable–but only impressionable toward religion, not against it, yadda yadda, I look suspiciously upon anyone that would complain.” Again, are we in a public school? And has there ever been an instance of either of your quotes happening? Y’know, over-simplification doesn’t do a whole hell of a lot to further a cause, either. Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![jahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jahn)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/38 "2000-08-04T21:36:28Z")
You would sue at the first sign of an Establishment Clause violation (endorsing religion) by the teacher in first grade, and, I assume, would support anyone else who did. Yet, you say: “But I’m going to cast a jaundiced eye toward a parent who starts screeching that her child was denied his right to free speech when he was in first grade”. What’s the difference? Is one part of the Constitution more important to you than the other? Yours, jahn ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635/39 "2000-08-04T22:35:28Z")
\*\*jahn \*\*: > [@](#): > > You would sue at the first sign of an Establishment Clause violation (endorsing religion) by the teacher in first grade, and, I assume, would support anyone else who did. Damn! Am I **that** transparent? > [@](#): > > Yet, you say: “But I’m going to cast a jaundiced eye toward a parent who starts screeching that her child was denied his right to free speech when he was in first grade”. Okay, fair enough. To put it another, more correct, way: You’re damned right I’m going to look archly toward a parent who starts pissing and moaning that her son’s right to free speech was abridged in first grade. **Especially when she already pitched a bitch when he was in kindergarten over something that was patently ridiculous**. Or are you going to now attempt to use that issue to back up your claims that this child was ridden roughshod over? Again, if you want a case to use as a cudgel, it would behoove you to find one where someone was egregiously shat upon. Instead of this penny ante nonsense. > [@](#): > > Is one part of the Constitution more important to you than the other? Well, I suppose that it falls to me now to prostrate myself before you and beg your forgiveness? Because you are so much more pure and righteous than I, a person who looks at things in context? Or was that little dig supposed to accomplish something else? Since I never received a response before, I shall ask again: Have you now decided that attempting to use the other case, you know, the one where the student didn’t do the required assignment, and wasn’t allowed to present to her class, isn’t going to advance your point? Or how about the other half of Oliva? Or DeNooyer? Are you going to use **anything** else at all? Or are you going to do your damnedest to get every last ounce of flesh off of this one? Waste Flick Lives! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state-iv-a-new-beginning/27635.md?page=1)