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.

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.

As I’ve already demonstrated this is in no way a violation of the First Ammendment.

I already acknowledged that in comment #9: “If this was truly done under a general policy, I don’t challenge it on establishment grounds.”

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

I used the phrase “relevant to”, not “part of”. That would be broad enough to allow activities such as book fairs and college fairs.

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.

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.

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 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.

“But if school board decided against it, third parties such as the Gideons have no place to introduce such material to my child.”

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”.

Nor do I. I would certainly oppose these things if came before the local board.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.