Maryland School Officials Threaten Seventh Grader with Disciplinary Action for Reading Bible During Lunch Time
Posted on October 3, 2006
Here is a prime example of how the philosphy of “seperation of church and state” being overzealously pushed has confused many school officials into violating student’s Constitutional Rights. The Rutherford Institute will be defending this student’s rights. Somehow it slipped under the ACLU’s radar.
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a civil rights lawsuit in defense of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of a seventh grader who was ordered by Maryland middle school officials to stop reading her Bible during free time at school or face disciplinary action. Institute attorneys have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to declare that prohibiting students from reading Bibles or other religious texts during their free time is unconstitutional.
“We live in a country that touts itself as the cradle of freedom and democracy,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “However, what kind of freedom do we really have when a young girl can’t even read her Bible during lunch time without being punished for it?”
On September 14, 2006, seventh-grader Amber Mangum was approached by the Vice Principal at Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle School in Prince George’s County, Md., while reading a Bible in the school cafeteria during her lunch period. In keeping with school policy, students are allowed to read books or engage in interpersonal communications during non-instructional time at school, including lunch periods. Furthermore, published administrative procedure of the Prince George’s County Public Schools provides that “[s]tudents may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may engage in comparable, non-disruptive activities.”
However, as noted in the complaint filed by Rutherford Institute attorneys, the vice principal informed Amber that reading a Bible was a violation of the school’s policy and warned her that she would be subject to more severe disciplinary action if she were found reading a Bible at school again. In defending Amber’s right to read a Bible during non-instructional time at school, Institute attorneys have pointed out that according to the U.S. Department of Education’s 2003 guidelines under the No Child Left Behind Act, students have the right to read Bibles or other religious scriptures during lunch hour, recess or other non-instructional times.
No one is asking for special rights here. All that is being sought is equal rights. And if students may read the book of their choice during non-instructional time, the religious content of their choice cannot legitimately be used to thwart their choice of literature.
Others: Go Pundit Go
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
8 Responses to “Maryland School Officials Threaten Seventh Grader with Disciplinary Action for Reading Bible During Lunch Time”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
That’s a huge stretch. This administrator was clearly out of line. He wasn’t even following the clear, written policy of the district, let alone the DoE. His interpretation was just plain wrong.
The girl is more than welcome to read her bible, so the ACLU would be wrong to defend the administrator. It’s disingenuous to suggest that the only reason they’re not against this girl is because “it slipped under their radar.”
Your speculation is baseless. If you wish to engage in an honest discussion of the ACLU’s stance on this subject, you should call their spokesperson and ask them to weigh in on it.
I didn’t suggest that the only reason they were not against the girl was that it slipped under their radar. What I meant was that it was a case they should have been chomping at the bit to defend her…yet instead it is being defended by the Rutherford Institute. I was suggesting that the reason they didn’t defend it was that it must have slipped under their radar. Thats all.
Sorry, I misunderstood.
Still, you’re making assumptions as to their position. It’s possible that they are chomping at the bit to defend her, but she chose the Rutherford Institute for some reason. I would be interested to hear what they have to say.
Blogs are frequently criticized as being nothing more than partially-informed editorials. This would be a good opportunity to get your feet wet on the investigative side of journalism.
Also, you should acknowledge that they aren’t as hypocritical and “anti-christian” as is typically portrayed. If they were, they’d be defending the school for attempting to squelch the rights of a christian.
No…you misunderstood again. I am saying that the ACLU SHOULD be chomping at the bit to defend her. By the way, I just called the ACLU of Maryland, talked to the receptionist, and she didn’t know what their position was. Said she would pass my message to an attorney and that I could check back in maybe a week.
By the way, I suggested to her that they should file a friend of the court brief.
When I said
I was trying to imply this: How do you know that they aren’t chomping at the bit?
Excellent, thanks. That’s a little long to wait though. I’m surprised they don’t have a dedicated spokesperson. Ah well. I can’t wait to hear what they have to say!
They don’t need to. The larger point is that most local government officials are plain scared of what the ACLU will do to their local agency that they go above and beyond what is called for just to insure they be left alone. Because the ACLU is a classic example of a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization. Just as the mob does not have to explicitly threaten a restaurant owner to make sure he uses the ‘right’ uniform cleaning service, so too, do local government officials not need the explicit threat of a lawsuit before they act to take away the rights of god fearing americans. The ACLU reputation preceeds them.
Nothing will end a civil servant’s career faster than getting teir their local city/county/whatever involved in a costly lawsuit.
Sorry Ramen, but you offered nothing to back up the slew of allegations that you made. Your argument that the ACLU would get involved if they needed to, but they don’t because their reputation preceeds them is ludicrous, at best.
The administrator was wrong to stop the girl from reading the bible. Heck, I don’t care if it was “It’s Perfectly Normal”, “The Catcher in the Rye” or the Quran. The administrators actions clearly went against the districts policies and they will lose this case because of it. It has nothing to do with the ACLU. If they take a position on this at all, it will likely be on the side of the girl.