Check out THIS story from the NYTimes:

School Board to Pay in Jesus Prayer Suit

By NEELA BANERJEE
Published: February 28, 2008
A Delaware school district has agreed to revise its policies on religion as part of a settlement with two Jewish families who had sued over the pervasiveness of Christian prayer and other religious activities in the schools.

One family said it was forced to leave its home in Georgetown because of an anti-Semitic backlash. ...

This is precisely why secularism is so important.

Amen Doug.

If citizens in the USA cared about keeping evangelizing and proselytizing out of the schools, the Constitution would be accompanied by laws imposing fines and other punitive measures for doing it. Teachers would be suspended, depending on the severity of the violation, and students reporting a violation would be given rewards. Families forced to move because of community reactions like this one would receive full compensation from the school district for every provable loss, including the full costs of relocation and all economic losses associated with necessary career changes for the parents.

No doubt the major political candidates will get right on it.

PLaClair - 29 February 2008 01:21 PM

If citizens in the USA cared about keeping evangelizing and proselytizing out of the schools, the Constitution would be accompanied by laws imposing fines and other punitive measures for doing it. Teachers would be suspended, depending on the severity of the violation, and students reporting a violation would be given rewards. Families forced to move because of community reactions like this one would receive full compensation from the school district for every provable loss, including the full costs of relocation and all economic losses associated with necessary career changes for the parents.

No doubt the major political candidates will get right on it.

Apparently we need laws restricting the free exercise of religion.  For example, a law that forbids a school from inviting a pastor to provide an invocation at a school where he might express a religious idea or three.

The funny part is that people like PLaClair don’t see that as turning the Constitution upside down.

Bryan - 29 February 2008 03:12 PM

Apparently we need laws restricting the free exercise of religion.  For example, a law that forbids a school from inviting a pastor to provide an invocation at a school where he might express a religious idea or three.

So I take it you were in favor of the proselytization and anti-semitic behavior evinced in that article, then. After all, it did include a minister “proclaiming Jesus as the only way to the truth” at the daughter’s high school graduation. And anti-semitic behavior is simply the free exercise of religious opinions that Jews are destined to go to hell for not believing in Christ.

Bryan - 29 February 2008 03:12 PM

The funny part is that people like PLaClair don’t see that as turning the Constitution upside down.

The funny part is that you don’t see state-based religious indoctrination as turning the Constitution upside down.

... I should add that PLaClair is the right person to discuss this with, since he’s had to deal with it personally.

dougsmith - 29 February 2008 04:09 PM

Bryan - 29 February 2008 03:12 PM

Apparently we need laws restricting the free exercise of religion.  For example, a law that forbids a school from inviting a pastor to provide an invocation at a school where he might express a religious idea or three.

So I take it you were in favor of the proselytization and anti-semitic behavior evinced in that article, then.

I see no reason to object to the proselytizing reported in the story.  Just because I support Constitutional free speech, however, doesn’t mean that I support anti-semitic acts.  You’re usually one of the more level-headed folks here, Doug.  I’ll admit a hint of surprise that you’ve taken out your broad brush for this response.

After all, it did include a minister “proclaiming Jesus as the only way to the truth” at the daughter’s high school graduation. And anti-semitic behavior is simply the free exercise of religious opinions that Jews are destined to go to hell for not believing in Christ.

Jesus was Jewish, according to my recollection.  So the anti-semitism to which you refer could only be a slight to the religion of Judaism at worst--certainly the sort of thing one must be willing to tolerate if one takes freedom of religion and free speech seriously.  But no doubt you did not post in order to prove my point ...

Bryan - 29 February 2008 03:12 PM

The funny part is that people like PLaClair don’t see that as turning the Constitution upside down.

The funny part is that you don’t see state-based religious indoctrination as turning the Constitution upside down.

... I should add that PLaClair is the right person to discuss this with, since he’s had to deal with it personally.

That’s how I know whereof I speak when I mention “people like PLaClair.”

What are the facts in this case?  Was the pastor an employee of the school?  Did they give him a script from which to read his evangelical statements?

Doug, it is exceptionally doubtful that the Framers of the Constitution would have had any problem at all with the facts described in the story.  If you’d agree with me on that, then your contention that I’m the one turning the Constitution on its head seems to be the position in need of a cogent explanation.

Bryan, it sounds for all the world as though you are supporting the Christian anti-semites discussed in the story. You say you don’t support “anti-semitic acts”, but do those include the sort of speech that was evinced there? Referring to Jesus as Jewish is exactly the sort of sophistry one routinely encounters with anti-semitic Christians. (E.g., “Jesus was Jewish so nothing I say pro-Christian can possibly be anti-semitic.") Either that, or the tired trope that “semitic” isn’t the same word as “jewish”, etc. The point here is that religious proselytization has no place in state-sponsored education. This is implicit in the First Amendment. But you knew that already.

dougsmith - 29 February 2008 05:19 PM

Bryan, it sounds for all the world as though you are supporting the Christian anti-semites discussed in the story. You say you don’t support “anti-semitic acts”, but do those include the sort of speech that was evinced there?

Referring to the necessity of Jesus?  No.  No more than it is anti-Christian for a religious Jew to say that Jesus was not the messiah; most likely even less.

relating to or characterized by anti-Semitism; hating Jews
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisemitic

Referring to Jesus as Jewish is exactly the sort of sophistry one routinely encounters with anti-semitic Christians. (E.g., “Jesus was Jewish so nothing I say pro-Christian can possibly be anti-semitic.")

I’m pretty sure I explained myself on that point in a manner that fails to agree with your characterization of it.  But if you choose to ignore it I suppose there’s not much I can do.

Either that, or the tired trope that “semitic” isn’t the same word as “jewish”, etc. The point here is that religious proselytization has no place in state-sponsored education. This is implicit in the First Amendment. But you knew that already.

Is graduation an educational event?  The point is for students to learn who is graduating--that sort of thing?

I’d say the point is that the minute Congress OKs a law that forbids proselytizing they’ve violated the First Amendment.  You can deal with that point or not.  Apparently you’d rather try to tar me as an antisemite.

dougsmith - 28 February 2008 05:47 AM

Check out THIS story from the NYTimes:

School Board to Pay in Jesus Prayer Suit

This is precisely why secularism is so important.

Thanks for the story Doug—this is really sad. 

I don’t know what that district was thinking....

[quote author="Bryan"]I see no reason to object to the proselytizing reported in the story.  Just because I support Constitutional free speech, however, doesn’t mean that I support anti-semitic acts.  You’re usually one of the more level-headed folks here, Doug.  I’ll admit a hint of surprise that you’ve taken out your broad brush for this response.

This may not be quite on topic but don’t Christians regard Jews as “Christ-Killers” or some such?

Kyu

Bryan - 29 February 2008 07:06 PM

I’d say the point is that the minute Congress OKs a law that forbids proselytizing they’ve violated the First Amendment.  You can deal with that point or not.  Apparently you’d rather try to tar me as an antisemite.

Bryan, did you read the NYT article.

At Samantha’s high school graduation in 2004, a minister’s prayer proclaiming Jesus as the only way to the truth nudged Mrs. Dobrich to ask the school board to consider more generic and less exclusionary prayers, she said.

The accord stipulates that school officials may not organize prayer at graduation.

Although the settlement resolves many complaints in the suit, against the Indian River School District, the parties are proceeding with litigation over the school board practice of beginning its sessions with prayer.

I was a school board member for a local district for 9 years. It’s really inappropriate for the district to promote a specific religion. 

In NY State the Decisions of the Commisioner are all posted to the WWW at
http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/
For example
http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume41/d14651.htm

The school district should be mindful that the United States Constitution prohibits government action that tends to support or sponsor a particular faith or religious group (see Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 2266 [2000]). Similarly, a school may not offer a particular religious group or faith privileges or access to school property that is not generally available to the public (see Good News Club v. Milford Central School, ___ U.S. ___, 121 S.Ct. 2093 [2001]; Santa Fe, supra).

Bryan, the free exercise clause comes after the establishment clause. And the Fourteenth Amendment extended due process to the states as well. That’s why Jackson’s quote of the NY State Commissioner are apt. Neither state nor federal governments can act in any way that sponsors any particular faith. This includes inviting people to proselytize.

It’s very easy to be in favor of proselytization when it’s your religion that’s responsible. It’s even easier when your religion is the majority religion. The whole point of secularism and the First Amendment is to eliminate state support for sectarian religious behavior, and to avoid a tyranny of the majority. (It is vanishingly unlikely to find a minority religion proselytizing on any public fora, since almost by definition public fora are controlled by the majority). Religious practice is a private matter.

Kyuuketsuki UK - 01 March 2008 01:30 AM

[quote author="Bryan"]I see no reason to object to the proselytizing reported in the story.  Just because I support Constitutional free speech, however, doesn’t mean that I support anti-semitic acts.  You’re usually one of the more level-headed folks here, Doug.  I’ll admit a hint of surprise that you’ve taken out your broad brush for this response.

This may not be quite on topic but don’t Christians regard Jews as “Christ-Killers” or some such?

Kyu

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/11/20/jews-should-be-portrayed-as-christ-killers.htm

Jackson - 01 March 2008 05:42 AM

Bryan - 29 February 2008 07:06 PM

I’d say the point is that the minute Congress OKs a law that forbids proselytizing they’ve violated the First Amendment.  You can deal with that point or not.  Apparently you’d rather try to tar me as an antisemite.

Bryan, did you read the NYT article.

Yes.

At Samantha’s high school graduation in 2004, a minister’s prayer proclaiming Jesus as the only way to the truth nudged Mrs. Dobrich to ask the school board to consider more generic and less exclusionary prayers, she said.

The accord stipulates that school officials may not organize prayer at graduation.

Although the settlement resolves many complaints in the suit, against the Indian River School District, the parties are proceeding with litigation over the school board practice of beginning its sessions with prayer.

1) Samantha wanted the school board to dictate the content to a guest speaker, from what I can tell.  Is that supposed to be evidence of the government promoting a specific religion?

2) Does the stipulation that school officials may not organize prayer at graduation indicate that school officials organized prayer at graduation?

3) Congress has traditionally started its sessions with prayer.  The school board doing the same is not a strong indication of unconstitutional activity.

I was a school board member for a local district for 9 years. It’s really inappropriate for the district to promote a specific religion.

Are you talking in terms of an objective and universal morality or in terms of the First Amendment? 

In NY State the Decisions of the Commisioner are all posted to the WWW at
http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/
For example
http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume41/d14651.htm

The school district should be mindful that the United States Constitution prohibits government action that tends to support or sponsor a particular faith or religious group (see Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 2266 [2000]). Similarly, a school may not offer a particular religious group or faith privileges or access to school property that is not generally available to the public (see Good News Club v. Milford Central School, ___ U.S. ___, 121 S.Ct. 2093 [2001]; Santa Fe, supra).

I remain mystified as to where you see support of a particular religious group in the facts of the story.

dougsmith - 01 March 2008 07:45 AM

Bryan, the free exercise clause comes after the establishment clause.

I’m sorry, is that supposed to be significant?  If I call somebody ugly and stupid does it really matter in what order I place the adjectives?

And the Fourteenth Amendment extended due process to the states as well.

Perhaps I should remind you that the 14th Amendment comes after the First Amendment? 

Thanks to the courts, the 14th Amendment went beyond the intent of that law and rewrote First Amendment (in part) as follows:  “Congress, nor state legislatures, nor city and county governments, nor any agent of the government shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion.”

And supposedly we get all that from this:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you wanted to rewrite the First Amendment the way I showed, is that way you would do it?  With Section 1 of the 14th Amendment?

That’s why Jackson’s quote of the NY State Commissioner are apt. Neither state nor federal governments can act in any way that sponsors any particular faith. This includes inviting people to proselytize.

I missed the part of the story that indicates that the pastor was invited to proselytize.  Perhaps you could isolate the quotation?  Don’t worry about context.  I’ll be able to find that for myself.

It’s very easy to be in favor of proselytization when it’s your religion that’s responsible.

Oh.  I must be a hypocrite, then.  Except I’d have no problem with corresponding free speech from a Jew, Hindu or Muslim (to name a few).

It’s even easier when your religion is the majority religion.

Quite.  And it’s important to note how that a particular religion being dominant establishes regional culture.  It should be appropriate for regional culture to be strongly reflected in the ceremonies of the region.  If that isn’t the case, then government by the people and for the people is questionable.  Instead, an overarching government foreign to the region has overruled local culture.

The whole point of secularism and the First Amendment is to eliminate state support for sectarian religious behavior, and to avoid a tyranny of the majority.

That certainly wasn’t the point of the First Amendment, which was solely aimed at acts of Congress and therefore the reach of the federal government.  Though it’s certainly true that secularists have wrapped themselves in an understanding of the First Amendment that would make even Madison’s jaw drop.

And allowing a pastor to speak at graduation without the government’s stipulation (that is, censorship) ensuring that he cannot engage in proselytizing turns into a protection from the tyranny of the majority.  Sounds specious to me.

(It is vanishingly unlikely to find a minority religion proselytizing on any public fora, since almost by definition public fora are controlled by the majority). Religious practice is a private matter.

And if the religious fail to realize that religion is a private matter, then the government will just have to force them to realize it.

In the name of freedom, of course. 

Bryan - 01 March 2008 11:42 AM

I’m sorry, is that supposed to be significant?

Yes, it is. The state cannot respect an establishment of religion. That is the most important clause, so it comes first. And then the second clause is that the state cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. They come in that order to avoid theocracy, whereby someone claims that in order to freely exercise his religion he has to establish it as the state religion. (E.g., Sharia law). Most important is to avoid religious tyranny. Prohibiting free exercise of religion is important as well, but clearly must be violated in some cases where exercise of religion infringes on the rights of others. E.g., your right to practice your religion ends where my nose begins. The Thuggees do not have the right to steal and murder, even if their religion says that this is the holy life.

I don’t know what you mean by your digression on the 14th amendment. If you mean to imply that it doesn’t remit on the states all of the rights and protections expressed of the Federal government in the other amendments, you’re going against the entirety of jurisprudence.

Bryan - 01 March 2008 11:42 AM

I missed the part of the story that indicates that the pastor was invited to proselytize.  Perhaps you could isolate the quotation?  Don’t worry about context.  I’ll be able to find that for myself.

Who would have expected a minister to proselytize when given the opportunity? What a shock!

That said, this clearly occurred in an atmosphere of religious indoctrination, as was made clear in the article. I doubt that anyone would have made such a claim or took it particularly seriously if this were an isolated incident in this particular school district. The point is less about a single incident than a pattern.

Bryan - 01 March 2008 11:42 AM

Oh.  I must be a hypocrite, then.  Except I’d have no problem with corresponding free speech from a Jew, Hindu or Muslim (to name a few).

Yes, as I say, very easy to make empty claims, isn’t it? I wonder what you’d say in other circumstances, like perhaps if you were an orthodox Jew sending your kids to a nominally secular school.

Bryan - 01 March 2008 11:42 AM

Quite.  And it’s important to note how that a particular religion being dominant establishes regional culture.  It should be appropriate for regional culture to be strongly reflected in the ceremonies of the region.  If that isn’t the case, then government by the people and for the people is questionable.  Instead, an overarching government foreign to the region has overruled local culture.

... yes, a “foreign” government set up by the people themselves to enshrine secular doctrines of fairness and the rule of law. It appears “foreign” only to those out for unfair advantage. The fact that they press this advantage from a position of overweening power simply makes their grab all the more grotesque.

Bryan - 01 March 2008 11:42 AM

And if the religious fail to realize that religion is a private matter, then the government will just have to force them to realize it.

In the name of freedom, of course. 

Hollow laughter. You do protest too much. As you well know, this sort of public proselytization goes on all the time. Only a handful of these sorts of cases are ever brought to the public’s attention or prosecuted, for the simple and obvious reason that doing so is dangerous to one’s health. Just look at the sort of antisemitic backlash that occurred when one family attempted to assert their constitutional rights. Still not sure whether and how much you were opposed to that backlash, BTW.

Just out of curiosity, which sort of Christian theocracy would you have the US institute? Baptist? Catholic?