Showing posts with label Separation of Church and State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Separation of Church and State. Show all posts

Interfaith Alliance Protests Texas Textbooks to Publishers

Friday, March 26, 2010
One of the biggest issues with the Texas textbook controversy is not just what children in Texas will be forced learn but what children in many other states will be forced to learn. The Interfaith Alliance has come out against the Texas textbooks because it forces other states to buy them or create their own. I am glad that a large organization has come out against Texas' textbooks however I wish it was a large secular organization.

If Texas rewrites history, do we all need to read the book?

The national furor created by the curriculum changes approved by the social conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education shows no sign of easing.

Now, the Interfaith Alliance has sent a protest to the top publishing companies. Because Texas is such a behemoth among textbook purchasers, many people fear that its constrained world view will show up in textbooks used in other states.
In its release, the Alliance said:
“We do not take lightly the changes approved by the Texas SBOE, and at this point we are working to ensure that other children across the country are not taught an inaccurate history of our country,” said Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of Interfaith Alliance and author of the letter sent to the publishing companies.

A Christian conservative bloc of the board voted to incorporate the study of the right to bear arms (the Second Amendment) in the curriculum on First Amendment rights and free expression, and to remove Thomas Jefferson from the curriculum that covers the Enlightenment period.  Equally as important as these votes, the Texas SBOE also struck down an amendment that articulated “the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”  The Texas SBOE felt that the Founders did not intend for the nation to have separation of church and state.

“The Texas SBOE members certainly are entitled to believe whatever they want about our country and its history,” Gaddy continued.  “The problem arises when their religious beliefs begin to essentially rewrite history for our children.  Separation of church and state was a core tenet of our nation’s founding.  Whether you like him or not, Thomas Jefferson was a leading thinker during the Enlightenment.  It’s almost unfathomable to think that Texas schoolchildren won’t learn these basic facts now. We urge the publishers to ensure that other children still will.”
Update Friday: Please note that the Interfaith Alliance released the following statement clarifying its original statement:
The proposed social studies standards from the Texas State Board of Education have sparked a national debate, and raised many concerns for those of us committed to protecting the boundaries between religion and government. Based on news reports, Interfaith Alliance issued a press release that implied that the term “Christian Nation” would be included in the new standards; it is now clear that this term is not to appear in the new standards. What is clear, however, is that the amendments proposed to the standards would have the net effect of incorrectly teaching our children that our nation’s founding documents and Constitution were derived from the bible or intended to privilege one religion over another.

Following conversations with Texas State Board of Education member Don McLeroy and others, it is clear that we have differences of opinion about the proposed Texas standards.  That is no surprise.  We remain committed to advocating for standards that are based on history rather than ideology. We will continue our conversations with Mr. McLeroy and other interested parties in an effort to ensure attention is given to our concerns.  Too much is at stake to not challenge indoctrination perpetrated under the guise of education.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Principal Gets Christmas Right

Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Christmas decoration at a shopping mall in BrazilImage via Wikipedia
Much to the chagrin of parents and at least one board member, Principal Erik Brown, has chosen to make Walsh Elementary School's Christmas celebration into a Winter Festival.

Principal Under Fire Over Christmas Spirit

By YVONNE NAVA
Updated 11:27 AM EST, Tue, Dec 8, 2009
A Waterbury principal won’t be getting a holiday card from some parents this year. Erik Brown, of Walsh Elementary School, is being criticized for his downplaying of Christmas symbols.
"If a symbol of Christmas takes away from the joy and spirit of Christmas, then those symbols have to go," Brown told the Republican American. "I'm going to pick kids over the symbols of Christmas."
The hubbub began last week, when Board of Education member Paul D’Angelo told others about his plan to get Brown to allow teachers the freedom to celebrate the holiday, the paper reports. D'Angelo also circulated a policy proposal to the Board on Monday that would allow educators freedom to observe holidays as they saw fit.
Soon after, a firestorm of complaints ensued. The elementary school has received endless e-mails and calls from as far away as Delaware, the Rep-Am reports. And it's been covered all over,  including in the Digital Journal.
The messages were nasty and, according to school staff, one person on the other line said “Merry (expletive) Christmas.”
So far, the district has no official policy and principals in the city's 30 schools and educational programs decide what's appropriate.
"As long as the line is not crossed between "teaching" about a holiday and "endorsing" the religion, this is acceptable, but no public school should promote any religious observance," the holiday gatherings memo on the school district Web site says.
Principal Brown says Jehovah's Witnesses are a big part of their school. They find secular Christmas decorations like Santa offensive distractions from Christ. Other parents agree.
"It's ridiculous," said Lisa Enwerem, who attended a student awards ceremony Monday. "There is separation of church and state, and this is a public school."
On the other hand, many other parents thought extra focus on Christmas would be nice.  Walsh parents and teachers who have spoken out on the issue seem to support Brown.
Walsh's upcoming "Winter Festival" will include songs from Kwanzaa, Hanukkah and Christmas. Shortly after becoming principal, Brown ditched Santa Claus to have someone dressed as Frosty the Snowman pass out gifts at the festival.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Oh Noes! My Christian Beliefs Are Under Attack!

Saturday, December 5, 2009
All I can say is I hope this teacher doesn't teach civics. Because she has no clue about the basics of Separation of Church and State.

Teachers want to revamp school prayer decree 

Vicki Kirsch, a third-grade teacher at Dixon Intermediate School in Milton, told a federal court Wednesday that an agreement to end officially sanctioned prayer in Santa Rosa County schools is at odds with her religious beliefs.
"My Christian beliefs are under attack and ... I wasn't able to do the things that I could do before the consent decree," she testified.
Kirsch's testimony came on the first day of a hearing in which a religious educators group called Christian Educators Association International is asking a judge to allow it to participate in the revamping of the decree.

In August 2008, two Pace High School students sued the School District and Pace Principal Frank Lay, saying school officials routinely pushed their religious beliefs upon students.

Last May, the American Civil Liberties Union, representing the students, and the School District struck an agreement to end the long-standing practice.

Now, the Christian Educators, representing 11 district employees, claims the decree is too vague.

U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers earmarked 2½ days this week to hear why the group should be able to argue for changes in the decree. The ACLU and the School District want the decree to stay as it is.
Attorney Horatio Mihet, who represents the Christian Educators, argued Wednesday that the decree fails to draw a distinction between what teachers can say and do in their official capacity as educators and what they can do as private citizens while in the classroom or attending school events.

"The only reason we are here is to ask for a seat at their table," Mihet said. "We are not trying to turn back 50 years of case law and allow (Christian Educators) members to return to the classroom and turn children into little disciples."

In more than two hours of testimony, Kirsch, a Christian Educators member since 1994, said the consent decree has made her uneasy about what she can and cannot say at school and at school events.
She said she's afraid to say, "God bless you," to a fellow teacher. She's not sure if she's allowed to let students talk about their baptisms in speeches to classes.
"My Christian beliefs are under attack and ... I wasn't able to do the things that I could do before the consent decree," she testified.
Kirsch's testimony came on the first day of a hearing in which a religious educators group called Christian Educators Association International is asking a judge to allow it to participate in the revamping of the decree.

In August 2008, two Pace High School students sued the School District and Pace Principal Frank Lay, saying school officials routinely pushed their religious beliefs upon students.

Last May, the American Civil Liberties Union, representing the students, and the School District struck an agreement to end the long-standing practice.

Now, the Christian Educators, representing 11 district employees, claims the decree is too vague.

U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers earmarked 2½ days this week to hear why the group should be able to argue for changes in the decree. The ACLU and the School District want the decree to stay as it is.
Attorney Horatio Mihet, who represents the Christian Educators, argued Wednesday that the decree fails to draw a distinction between what teachers can say and do in their official capacity as educators and what they can do as private citizens while in the classroom or attending school events.

"The only reason we are here is to ask for a seat at their table," Mihet said. "We are not trying to turn back 50 years of case law and allow (Christian Educators) members to return to the classroom and turn children into little disciples."

In more than two hours of testimony, Kirsch, a Christian Educators member since 1994, said the consent decree has made her uneasy about what she can and cannot say at school and at school events.
She said she's afraid to say, "God bless you," to a fellow teacher. She's not sure if she's allowed to let students talk about their baptisms in speeches to classes.
Benjamin Stevenson, attorney for the ACLU, reminded Kirsch that the cross was on school property.

"You said you put it there to remind you of the Lord?" Stevenson asked.
"Yes," she said.
"It would also remind your students of the Lord?" Stevenson asked.
Kirsch said she didn't know.

The issue

Rodgers reminded Mihet several times to focus on the issue at hand of whether his client has the legal right to participate in renegotiating the decree.

The judge became testy with Mihet when he asked Kirsch to repeat how President Barack Obama ended a recorded speech played for students earlier in the school year. Conservative groups decried the president's speech as possible indoctrination.

" 'Thank you and God bless America,' " Kirsch recalled the president's words.
Rodgers interjected.
"Why would you ask that question, Mr. Mihet?" the judge asked. "President Obama is not an employee of the School District and is not subject to this order."

What Could Possibly Be Wrong With Handing Out Bibles In High Schools?

Friday, November 27, 2009
In an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution by Maureen Downey she ponders why Georgia public schools still allow bibles to be handed out. Downey goes on to give a little history or our "Christian Nation".
Handing out Bibles at a high school: Why do we keep doing this in Georgia?

The zest with which Georgia schools test the church-state divide never fails to stun me.
I wonder if other states grapple with this issue or is this unique to the Bible Belt?
With the threat of litigation, public schools ought to think very carefully about allowing any religious group access to students and the possible charge of proselytizing on school grounds.
Yet, a north Georgia parent sent me a note that Bibles were handed out at her high school last week. She is a Christian and reveres the Bible, but doesn’t think the high school was the right place to hand it out.
Her concern mirrors my own: Our schools are attended by students of all faiths and traditions. All those faiths and belief deserve respect. We risk making many students feel like outsiders when we elevate one religion above all others.
Consider the 1656 warning by devout Baptist Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, on the consequences of mixing religion and government: “God requireth not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.”
More than a century later, Thomas Jefferson allayed the fears of the Baptist Association that the newly birthed United States of America was planning to designate a national religion. Responding to the worried Baptists, Jefferson wrote, “The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Many of you will argue that America was created as a Christian nation. But the 1797 treaty between the United States and Tripoli, written under President George Washington and signed by his successor, John Adams, says that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
But what about the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on our currency? Both grew out of the anti-Communist fervor of the McCarthy era.
In 1954, politicians tacked “under God” onto the pledge; three years later, they engraved “In God We Trust” onto paper money. Concerns were raised even then about blurring the line between church and state, but no lawmakers wanted to risk casting a vote against God.

James Madison believed that the only way to preserve both religion and government is to maintain a safe distance between them. “The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, ” wrote Madison, “beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against the trespasses on its legal rights by others.”
Madison got it right. Too many of our schools are getting it wrong.
Why?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

ACLU Threatens Enfield Public Schools with Lawsuit Over Graduations

Saturday, November 21, 2009
American Civil Liberties UnionImage via Wikipedia
What part of "not in a church" is Enfield Public Schools struggling with. It does not matter whether some or most students prefer the church or if the church saves them money. Having graduation in a church even under the most secular of circumstances sends the wrong message.

Conn. Schools Threatened with Lawsuit Over Graduations at Church

The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have threatened to sue Enfield Public Schools if their graduation ceremonies are not moved out of a church.

"Students and their families should not have to choose between attending graduation and being subjected to proselytizing religious messages," said Alex Luchenitser, senior litigation counsel for Americans United, in a statement Wednesday. "Yet that is exactly the choice that the Enfield Schools impose on students and their families."
According to the two civil liberties groups, Enrico Fermi High School and Enfield High have been holding graduations at The First Cathedral in Bloomfield, Conn., since 2007 and 2008, respectively. The venue was chosen as work was being done on the schools' football fields.
The ACLU first contacted the Enfield Board of Education in 2006 expressing its opposition and arguing that it constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The school district was asked to secure a religiously neutral location for the graduation ceremony.
During an Enfield Board meeting in October 2008, board members Susan Lavelli-Hozempa and Joyce Hall said they heard from students and parents regarding the ceremony venue and they preferred the First Cathedral.
Enrico Fermi High School Student Representative Samantha Reid said the majority of Fermi students wanted to go back to First Cathedral for their graduation while Enfield High School Alternate Student Representative Bryan William Dague said the majority of Enfield students wanted to graduate at the school.
Board members also noted that the church provided a large venue and helped save the district money.
The Board of Education is scheduled to hold two more meetings this year and the civil liberties groups are asking board members to "voluntarily abandon the practice." Otherwise, they will sue.
"Graduating students, their parents, their older and younger siblings, and their other family members and guests are coercively subjected to religious messages as the price of attending high-school commencement – a seminal event in a student’s life," the two groups state in a letter to the attorney for the schools. "The selection of the Cathedral as a graduation venue further communicates to members of the Enfield Schools community that the concerns of religious minorities are not important to the school district, and that the district favors adherents of the majority religion."
Gregory Stokes, the new board of education chairman, told the Hartford Courant that the cathedral "makes it as secular as they can" and that it is "one of the best sites outside of Enfield."
The graduation ceremony site is going to be "one of the first issues we discuss in the next 30 days," he noted, and the decision may come down to resources.
"We may have to make a decision about where we spend our resources," he said, as reported by the local Courant. "A legal battle might end up costing more than using the fields for graduations."
Four other area public schools – East Hartford High School, South Windsor High School, Windsor High School and the Metropolitan Learning Center Magnet School – also have been using The First Cathedral for their graduations.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Anti-Defamation League Provides Secular Training

Sunday, November 15, 2009
Anti-Defamation LeagueImage via Wikipedia
The ADL gave a workshop to principals and directors of Indiana's Washington Township schools on what is and isn't OK for public schools to do in regards to religious display and participation. The ADL is a religious organization committed to stopping the defamation of the Jewish people they are also committed to securing justice and fair treatment of all. Despite being a religious organization they conducted what appears to be a genuinely secular training and of great value. Where are these trainings in other parts of the country? Why can't Christian groups provide this training? Read Robert King's article in the Indy Star about the session. There are some obviously common sense situations described and some that are less obvious.

Religion in public schools is focus of Washington Twp. session 

Washington Twp. session explains how courts have ruled in various scenarios

Posted: November 14, 2009

What would you do, as a public school principal, if some former Colts players want to give a strong anti-drug message to your student body, but the presentation will be heavily steeped in a Christian evangelistic message?

What would be your response to an organization that wants to stage a prayer gathering in front of the school flagpole before classes begin?


And, with the holidays approaching, here's one to consider: What place do Christmas carols such as "Silent Night" and "Away in a Manger" -- tunes that go beyond enchanted snowmen and winter wonderlands -- have in December school showcases?
These are some of the questions Washington Township school leaders discussed recently during a special training program aimed at helping them respect the religious diversity of their students while also avoiding lawsuits.
The nearly two-hour program, called "The Challenge of Religion in the Public Schools," was sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League, which is providing the training around the country and hopes to offer it to more Central Indiana schools. About 30 principals and directors serving nearly 10,000 Washington Township students attended.
The ADL is a civil-rights organization traditionally known for its opposition to discrimination and bigotry against the Jewish people. But it is also concerned about protecting religious freedom, said Clare Pinkert, an ADL attorney who led the training.
"We think that the best way to protect religious freedom is to make sure that government and religion don't interfere with one another," she said. "We think that today, with the extraordinary diversity of religious practice, it is particularly important to ensure that government is not showing favoritism to one group over another."
The ADL doesn't sue public school districts, Pinkert said, when they cross the established lines between church and state. Instead, it tries to work with schools. But the group's training program is intended to show school leaders what the courts have said when it comes to mixing religion and public education.

At Washington Township, Pinkert said she encountered a principal who opted against the visit from the Colts players because their anti-drug message had a strong evangelistic bent -- a no-no for a required school assembly. That principal, Pinkert said, did the right thing.

The flagpole prayer circle before school? That would be OK, Pinkert said, so long as it was student-initiated and student-led and "there's no coercion of students who don't wish to participate."
One caution: Such a ceremony may not be advisable at elementary schools, Pinkert said, because younger students may have a harder time distinguishing between a teacher as an authority figure and a teacher participating on his or her own behalf.
"It could lead to an appearance of the endorsement of religion."
And what about the religious Christmas carols? Not a good idea, Pinkert said. Students shouldn't be compelled to sing songs that may have lyrics that profess a belief they do not share.
"We're not in the war against Christmas by any means," she said. "But there is a real difference between talking about the history of the holiday and the culture and actually encouraging students to celebrate when they are in the taxpayer-funded, government-controlled arena."
Washington Township Schools Superintendent James Mervilde said the training on matters pertaining to religion in the schools is valuable given the religious diversity in his district, including a significant Jewish population.
Mervilde said he understands that some people aren't bothered by blatantly religious Christian messages in schools and that they might prefer it. But he said that is the realm of religious schools, not public ones.
"Frankly, helping children to understand that it is a diverse world -- and that learning how to live in that kind of world is a set of skills -- is a core curriculum in Washington Township and always has been," Mervilde said.
But Mervilde said he also rejects what he calls the "straw man" argument that some people raise -- the notion that schools forbid prayer.
"I'm telling you that we can't lead that prayer," he said. "Your child, probably like a lot of people, does pray in school. We have teachers who pray in school. Even superintendents pray in school. But they don't organize prayer."
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Special Rights for the Religious in Public Schools

Saturday, November 14, 2009
The religious right is trying and succeeded in some cases in getting laws passed in some states that gives special rights to the religious in public schools. These special rights don't really give them any more rights than is already allowed under the First Amendment. However, these laws allow the religious to be protected in what has been traditionally a secular space. Sandhya Bathija of Americans United writes in a blog post about what is happening in Massachusetts and has happened in other states.
Bogus Bill in Boston: Religious Right Targets Mass. Public Schools


November 13, 2009
 
It’s not often that Massachusetts falls under Americans United’s microscope. But this week, the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) has brought the New England state to our attention.
The group, a state affiliate of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, has succeeded in finding bipartisan  sponsors for legislation that will “ensure the existing free speech rights of religious students” while they are in school.
The proposal, according to the Boston Globe, will require school districts to create policies to allow “a limited public forum and voluntary student expression of religious views at school events, graduation ceremonies, and in class assignments, and non-curricular school groups and activities.” The bill was written by MFI public policy director Evelyn Reilly.
It’s nothing we haven’t seen from the Religious Right before. In fact, it sounds strangely similar to a “Religious Viewpoint Antidiscrimination” measure that was passed by the Texas legislature in 2007.
According to Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s Web site, this law “does not expand religious expression in schools,” but makes it so children are “not shielded from religious expression nor exposed solely to secularism in our schools.” Perry, a Religious Right favorite, believes that mere “discussion does not lead to indoctrination; rather, it leads to open-mindedness and personal and educational betterment.”
It’s the same old song creationists have been singing for a long time. For years, it’s been a Religious Right tactic to push for teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution in an effort get religion into the science classroom. These “viewpoint anti-discrimination” bills are just another backdoor effort to do the same.
That’s why Americans United warned against the Texas measure in 2007 and another similar bill that was vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry in Oklahoma in 2008. Henry said the bill, if signed into law, could lead to “an explosion of costly and protracted litigation.” But finding Henry’s veto “totally bogus,” State Rep. Sally Kern introduced a different version of the bill again in 2009. It failed again.
Six other states also introduced similar measures earlier this year, including Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Indiana, Kentucky and Arizona.
“This is a concentrated movement to force public schools to create forums exclusively for religious speech,” said AU State Legislative Counsel Dena Sher. “Students have a First Amendment right to voluntarily pray or read their Bibles in the public schools, but some people are using these bills to proselytize fellow students.”
We already know that students can talk freely about their religion at school and participate in after-school religious activities, such as Bible study.  But the courts have always drawn a distinction when students are addressing a captive audience, such as at graduation, said Ronal Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
“You can’t do it where people have to be in attendance,” Madnick told the Globe.
This proposed legislation specifically states that students should be free to express religious views at school events. That doesn’t sound like the bill is trying to “ensure existing free speech rights” but rather expand them beyond current constitutional parameters.
Besides, we know it would be pointless to pass a bill that merely restates current law. Much more is at stake here, and knowing who’s behind it all, we have a pretty good idea just what that is.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]