ACLU Goes After Gideons
Hat tip:Iowa Voice via Baxter Bulletin
When Pinkston Middle School student Tamsan Mora came home with a pocket-sized Gideon Bible — King James Version, New Testament only — in her coat, her mother was surprised and a little worried. The school district says they handled the Bibles appropriately, but the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas calls the Bible distribution unconstitutional.
Instead of getting upset, Karen Mora said she talked to Principal Michelle McWilliams and Superintendent Dr. Charles Scriber. Her daughter, fifth-grade student Tamsan Mora, already had a King James Bible — Old and New Testaments — and Karen Mora mainly was concerned that her daughter had been exposed to unknown adults at school.
Well, as Brian points out, what is most likely meant by “unknown adults” is “religious nuts”. And if left to far-left liberals to define what a religious nut is, it would be anyone that believes in God. From my memories of the Gideons they were very careful not to attempt in any unwanted pressure or attempt to directly convert anyone. They simply provide a tiny New Testament to anyone that raises their hand wanting one. In this case there wasn’t anyone handing anything out. There was a simple announcement that free Bibles were available outside the cafeteria door for anyone interested.
Take note that this parent’s concern was not over the distribution of the New Testament, but with “diversity”.
Karen Mora contacted The Bulletin to encourage groups from other religions to submit religious materials that broadens the perspective of Mountain Home students.
“I would like to see the students learn more about Islam,” Karen Mora said of the Abrahamic religion that spread out of the Middle East beginning in the seventh century. “We’re in this whole, big war over there.”
Karen Mora is a member of Embracing Diversity Group Inc., a local group advocating diversity. She said she didn’t contact the ACLU after her daughter came home with the Bible, because she thinks the organization goes overboard sometimes.
The ACLU goes overboard sometimes? A bit of an understatement, but the truth. If a similar group representing Islam wants to provide free Korans for students with no attempts of indoctrination, and the school allows this I would have no problem. This would be equal access, and just like allowing the Gideons, in no way promoting a particular religion. If the school were to actively seek out a particular religion for the sake of “diversity” that might possibly cross the line, but allowing these groups equal access in a way that does not indoctrinate, endorse, or disrupt should be the way it works. Of course the ACLU are of a different philosphy.
Rita Sklar, ACLU of Arkansas executive director, said distributing more religious material at school would not make the constitutional problems of Bible distribution in schools go away.
Separation of church and state is a concept introduced in the First Amendment to the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights.
Ummm…no it isn’t. As pointed out numerous times, the First Amendment doesn’t even contain the words seperation, church, or state. The concept, derived from an exchange of letters between Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut was made precedent in 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education. Before this philosphy was adopted, by too many and wrongly in my opinion, I doubt many had ever even heard the phrase.
“In this situation, a school is promoting a particular religion, or religion in general, which is (constitutionally) impermissible,” Sklar said. “This is completely different from standing outside schools on a public street and handing out Bibles. That is completely constitutional, and we support (the Gideons’) right to do so.”
Sklar said a 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruling in 1993 — Berger v. Rensselaer Central School Corp. — struck down the practice of distributing Bibles in school. In the ruling a three-judge panel said the distribution of Bibles by the Gideons to fifth-grade students in Rensselaer, Ind., was “in clear violation of constitutional principles mandating separation of church and state.”
The Gideons in Rensselaer had been giving out Bibles in class and in special assemblies at public schools.
Scriber, Mountain Home schools’ superintendent, pointed out that there was no religious assembly at Pinkston, and school officials didn’t hand Bibles to students but placed them in a hall where students could choose to take one or not.
He said no religious groups other than the Gideons have made a request to distribute literature at schools. If another request were made, Scriber said, it would be subject to the same district policy, adding that the district doesn’t advocate a religion.
This is how it should be in my opinion. Equal access to all without endorsement or prohibiting the free exercize as long as it does not distract from the learning environment. I just don’t understand what the ACLU finds so threatening about allowing kids access to religious materials at school. As for the merits of the case, Private Pigg does a good job in a comment at Iowa Voice:
As Ms. Sklar pointed out, Berger is a 7th Circuit case, which makes it controlling over Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana only. The Supreme Court denied cert. Therefore, that case did not broadly strike “down the practice of distributing Bibles in school.” It did so in those three states. Arkansas is in the 8th Circuit, like Iowa, and the 8th Circuit can interpret the 1st differently.
For example, the 4th Circuit held that outsiders could hand out Bibles in school as long as there was some sort of a disclaimer saying this wasn’t the school handing them out, plus a few other things. The 4th Circuit governs Maryland, the two Carolinas, and the two Virginias. I don’t have time to research exactly what the 8th Circuit has said on the subject, but I’m guessing they haven’t said anything on point, or Sklar would have quoted it, rather than the 7th Circuit.
I love it how Sklar just quotes a case as matter-of-factly being “the law.” Most people will read that and assume she is right and figure there is no point in standing up to the ACLU. The school should fight it as far as they can, because Berger is not a controlling case.
Email This
Posted by Jay on November 29, 2006 1:09 pm
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, News
Trackback URL:
- The American Israeli Patriot: The UN Calls On Desmond Tutu
- Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense » Blog Archive » It’s time to define “Church and State” pinged this post.
Comments
20 Responses to “ACLU Goes After Gideons”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
If that mother was really interested in teaching her daughter Islam, she would buy a Koran and some history books on the Muslim religion and teach her child about it. Instead of being “concerned” about a box of free bibles at school without the presence of korans, she should just go out and purchase a load of korans and place them in a box at the school house. Anyone can talk about the need for diversity, but to actually put your money where your mouth is something else.
The ACLU doesn’t have a valid case here. Their whole argument hinges on the liberal lie of “Separation of Church & State”. Not only are these words missing from the First Ammendment of the Constitution but, the only place something similar occurs is Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation” in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Two points stand out.
First, Jefferson didn’t write the Constitution, so trying to tie his letter to the Danbury Baptists to the Constitution is a stretch that cannot be accomplished.
Second, Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation” comes down in favor of the Danbury Baptists. The same is true of what the Constitution actually says regarding religion. The Government is not permitted to interfere with the individual’s religious choice or expression thereof.
Trying to maintain that a box of free Bibles in a school is establishing a State Church is as ludicrous as maintaining that a box of free books on space travel is converting the school into a division of NASA.
In these days when kids are bringing guns to school and going on killing sprees,when kids play “choking games”, when kids are beginning to drink, smoke and experiment with drugs we have a lot more to be focused on than a box of free bibles.
If the ACLU were truly interested in bettering America it would focus its attention on these problems, instead of picking on what probably is not a bad idea in the first place- a free choice to consider a moral code to follow as oppossed to the chaos that is happening to our youth.
Sklar may have overreached in characterizing the effect of the Berger holding.
On the other hand, however, district courts often look to holdings from the various circuit courts of appeal to support decisions concerning unsettleled law or cases of first impression in their own circuit. While not controlling, Berger is certainly persuasive in this instance.
Bottom line: public schools have no business hading out Bibles to children. Furthermore, the litany of problems identified as potential problem areas for the ACLU to focus – e.g., “killing sprees – are problems for parents, not the ACLU.
They went about it in a very subtle, non-confrontational way, so this incident is clearly less of a problem than the “I prayed today” stickers from a couple months ago.
But I still fail to grasp why this happened. Why is a public school a distribution point for anything unrelated to the curriculum? Can I set up a table offering pamphlets that happens to have my company’s contact info on it? I would really like to know more about the district policy that this fell under.
Yeah, this happens far too often, but it’s not just the ACLU. Everyone with a microphone states their arguments as if they were fact. It’s on the reader to be smarter than that. If we become a more discriminating public, they’ll have to change. Until then, they’ll spew rhetoric because it works.
beginning? Clay, you must not have gotten in much trouble early in life.
Clay means that is during the school years that the kids begin these things.
The school wasn’t “handing out” anything. They were there for the voluntary taking. Don’t want one, don’t pick it up. By the way Jeff, there are many businesses that cater to youth that are provided access to push their commericial or business there. Many companies do fundraisers, childrens books, supplies, public programs, etc. Colleges come in to advertise in highschools. I know many annuals are sponsored with business advertisements as well as football programs, etc. There are channels for equal access that is not distracting.
Jeff makes an excellent point on how lawyers interpret court holdings to the particular needs of the client.
For example, see some of the opinions drafted by Alberto “the sellout” Gonzales and his friends at Justice that support “torture” a la Dickus Cheney style.
Guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
I understand. If this was truly done under a general policy, I don’t challenge it on establishment grounds.
But this is the part that irks me. I don’t send my child to school to be “accessed”, equally or not. He’s there to learn the curriculum. He’s there to learn to work with peers. He’s there to learn respect superiors. He’s there to learn to think. That’s pretty much it.
Yeah, some businesses tie into that goal and it makes sense to utilize them. I’m sure we can all agree that college fairs, book fairs, and fundraisers are all relevant to the school’s goals.
If the Gideons want to provide bibles free of charge to a comparative religions class, that’s fine by me. That would be relevant to the curriculum and it would save the school money.
But this seems totally unrelated to the school’s function. It was just a matter of “hey, we want to give stuff your kids.” “Yeah, sure. Just set them over there. We’ll let them know.”
Even if it was something totally uncontroversial, like yo-yos, what’s the school doing offering access to my kid?
Another excellent point, Jeff. But Gideons has no interest in handing out free Bibles to students in comparative religion classes. That would be like drug dealers handing out joints to known high-school pot smokers. What would be the point?
I don’t understand that analogy. Are you asserting that only Christians take comparative religion classes?
I guess I understand how you feel Jeff. I don’t think it is the schools place to provide “access” to my children to learn things like “gay tolerance”, or for liberal groups to have “access” to pass out condoms to them. These things have nothing to do with the learning curriculum. I guess what it comes down to is giving no outside groups access, or giving them all equal access. Allowing the Gideons to provide free Bibles is a good way of teaching religious tolerance as well. I think other religious groups should try something similar so they can be exposed to some “diversity”.
It all depends on the context. I certainly don’t want GLAD giving away books in the hallway and I don’t think I want a garbage can full of condoms out in the open either.
But if a small portion of a social studies class talks about respecting the rights of consenting adults to engage in certain relationships (without giving obscene details, of course) that could fit within the curriculum. And if condoms are distributed in health class so that students see how they work, that could also fit within the curriculum.
And even the Gideons can become involved in the curriculum if it’s handled properly. It’s just that it should be initiated from within the district with a clear, legitimate educational goal.
I’m not saying it has to be in the curriculum. Some of these issues are very controversial and should be left up to the community. All the more reason that this sort of thing should be initiated from within the district.
“But this is the part that irks me. I don’t send my child to school to be “accessed”, equally or not. He’s there to learn the curriculum. He’s there to learn to work with peers. He’s there to learn respect superiors. He’s there to learn to think. That’s pretty much it.”
And I don’t send my kids to be exposed to liberal views on Sex Education, or Sex Education for that matter. Nor do I appreciate the schools using my child as a guinea pig for their liberal programs such as “creative spelling” and programs like “Outcome Based Education” where they at the risk of offending little Johnny who makes an F when Sally gets an A, so therefore trying to “level the outcome”.
I fail to see what the big deal about a box of bibles free for the taking really is in the end, beyond nit-picking. If you really want your kids to learn and think, then if they choose to pick a bible up and make an independant choice of their own regarding its contents, then great! They’re being exposed to more options to consider. Isn’t complete education a matter of presenting all options to consider?
“But if a small portion of a social studies class talks about respecting the rights of consenting adults to engage in certain relationships (without giving obscene details, of course) that could fit within the curriculum. And if condoms are distributed in health class so that students see how they work, that could also fit within the curriculum.”
What does teaching children about gay relationships among consenting adults doing in a school environment that is supposed to either be preparing our children for college, or for the ability to enter the workplace with the necessary skills to make it.
If a parent finds it important to address “tolerance” to homosexuals, shouldn’t that take place in the confines of the home. I don’t see its relevance in school cirriculum.
Nor do I. I would certainly oppose these things if came before the local board.
Replace “bible” with “NAMBLA booklet” and tell me if you still like that logic?
Bottom line: The school board, with the community’s input, decides the curriculum. If that curriculum involves a comparative religions class, I’m all for it. I intend for my son to be well versed on the various religions. But if school board decided third parties such as the Gideons have no place to introduce such material to my child.
Good question. If it’s in your district’s curriculum, feel free to ask your board. My point is that if the board decided against including it in the curriculum, would you want a third party introducing it?
I need to go to bed… That was supposed to be:
“But if school board decided against it, third parties such as the Gideons have no place to introduce such material to my child.”
“If the school were to actively seek out a particular religion for the sake of “diversity” that might possibly cross the line, but allowing these groups equal access in a way that does not indoctrinate, endorse, or disrupt should be the way it works.” Jay
I would have no problem with the school seeking out a particular religion for the sake of diversity. I do have a concern with Islam because it appears to be a violent religion as the percentage of Muslims in jail in relationship with their population is twice that of Blacks and Blacks are both poor and the victims of a broken culture. I am still willing to take the chance with it. I am not really concerned if the government endorses another religion either as the no endorsement can be taken to an extreme. I am concerned if they indoctrinate children into a particular religion but not into the moral values that are common to the vast majority of religions.
“Separation of church and state is a concept introduced in the First Amendment to the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights.” Jay quoting ACLU
The key word in that sentence is church is a religious organization and not religion itself. The First Amendment does state that Congress is not to make a law respecting a particular religious organization. I guess the ACLU does not understand the English Language.
That letter to the Danbury Baptist also mentions natural law which is called the Law of Nature and Nature’s God in the U.S. Declaration. The ACLU is not only misinterpreting what the separation of church and state means but they are also cherry picking the letter.
“Replace “bible” with “NAMBLA booklet” and tell me if you still like that logic?”
What? You need to come up with a better comparison than NAMBLA. How does a book advocating pedophilia being distributed in schools compare to bibles? If you had said the Koran, or The Book Of Mormon it would have made sense, but booklets by NAMBLA? Come on.
Of course I would be offended by the distibution of pamphlets by NAMBLA as I would with books on “How To Commit Suicide”, and “How To Slaughter Your Teachers And Classmates”. So would you, unless you are amoral, which I doubt.
You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Distributing pamphlets by NAMBLA to our school children would never be allowed because pedopholia is against the law. As far as I can tell, distribution of bibles isn’t against the law, at least not yet.
Again, exactly what is the big deal about free bibles in schools? Nothing, except to cause a lot of nitpicking arguments about it’s alleged harm.
“Bottom line: The school board, with the community’s input, decides the curriculum. If that curriculum involves a comparative religions class, I’m all for it. I intend for my son to be well versed on the various religions. But if school board decided third parties such as the Gideons have no place to introduce such material to my child.”
Nowhere in the story has it been indicated that the school board decided that third parties like Gideons weren’t allowed to introduce their bibles for free in the school. Only Mrs. Mora with her hypocritcal “concern for diversity” has raised the issue.
As far as cirriculum goes, what does the presence or absence of a comparitive religion class have to do with a box of free bibles? If you are trying to make the case that only materials that are part of the school’s cirriculm should be allowed to be distributed, then say goodbye to Scholastic Book Fairs, and even school newspapers for that matter.
Again, I fail to see any real damage being done by allowing students to take a free bible if they wish.
As I’ve already demonstrated this is in no way a violation of the First Ammendment, but perhaps what you and the ACLU are advocating is?
I already acknowledged that in comment #9: “If this was truly done under a general policy, I don’t challenge it on establishment grounds.”
Undisputed. In fact, the district came right out and said this was consistent with their policy. I take issue with that policy. I’m not saying it’s unconstitutional or even illegal. I’m just saying I would fight my board tooth and nail because I don’t want third parties using school grounds to make things available to my child unless the school has specifically invited them to contribute to the curriculum.
A bible’s only place as an educational tool in a public school is in the context of either a comparative religions/philosphies lesson or a relevant history lesson.
I used the phrase “relevant to”, not “part of”. That would be broad enough to allow activities such as book fairs and college fairs.
My analogy was valid, but it was easy to miss because it wasn’t specific. I’ll explain.
First, I’m going to assume that NAMBLA is creative enough to create a pamphlet that discusses things relevant to their beliefs without directly advocating illegal acts. If fail, it would be pretty easy to bar their pamphlet, so the rest of the conversation is moot. It really wouldn’t be that hard to do, though. All they’d have to do is focus on the platonic aspects of a relationship… hype up camping, sports, and pinewood derbies.
- Both parties would be offering unsolicited materials to the students.
- In neither case are the materials relevant to the curriculum
- In neither case are the materials offered in such a way that would be construed as “active distribution.” They are simply “making them available.”
The only difference in the matter is that NAMBLA advocates things that most people, and the law, find dispicable.
You could challenge them on these grounds, but you would have one heck of a first amendment battle on your hands.
The only difference in the matter is that NAMBLA advocates things that most people, and the law, find dispicable. -Jeff Molby
That whole “law” part is where your analogy becomes breaks down. I see where you are trying to go with introducing children to lifestyles their parents don’t agree with. But seing how the whole NAMBLA thing introduces an illegal lifestyle (please don’t start with it’s a valid lifestyle, if you are trying to sleep with a child it’s wrong). I have to agree with Clay in saying a better analogy would have been any other religious text.
“You could challenge them on these grounds, but you would have one heck of a first amendment battle on your hands.”
Although I still think your NAMBLA example is weak, you would have been much better off comparing apples to apples (i.e. reference Koran, Torah, Book Of Mormon etc), the same thing then is true regarding the removal of free bibles with respect to having a first ammendment battle on your hands.
Besides, if NAMBLA did somehow manage to get the school’s permission (which is so HIGHLY unlikely to the point that it makes your use of it to compare to the free bibles all the more inane) the parents would be in such an outrage those pamphlets would be quickly removed.
In the NAMBLA example their would be an outcry of the majority. In the free bible case it would me down to a few minority, yourself, Mrs. Mora and maybe some of her cronies. The majority should not have to sacrifice what they want for the egos of a few (ref Michael Newdow). That is plain wrong. The liberal cry for diversity and tolerance goes both ways. You can easily tolerate a box of bibles by paying no attention to it. You could instruct your children to stay away from it.
In the end, a box of free bibles sitting in a corner in a school hallway is NOT causing any harm in the grand scheme of things. It is egotistical nitpicking that shouldn’t be an issue in the first place. I know it wasn’t 10 to 20 years ago.
“I used the phrase “relevant to”, not “part of”. That would be broad enough to allow activities such as book fairs and college fairs.”
Sorry, still no school newspapers or book fairs, they aren’t relevant to the school cirriculum.
You are cherry picking here.
“bible’s only place as an educational tool in a public school is in the context of either a comparative religions/philosphies lesson or a relevant history lesson.”
Who said a box of free bibles was being used as an “educational tool” in the first place? I don’t recall any mention of Gideons planning on returning after the bibles have been taken and teach the bible in the school anywhere in the article. I believe that they just want to ensure that any one who would like a bible can have one. I fail to see any problem there.