Sunday, October 23, 2005

Jesus And The Kindergarten Poster

Via Joanne, who got it from Betsy, who got it here, comes the story of a kindergarten student who, in a poster on environmentalism, included a picture of Jesus. School officials decided that the "wall of separation between church and state" (damn you, Thomas Jefferson, for using that phrase in a letter and not in the Constitution) required them to cover the image of Jesus when the poster was hung up. You know, the government might be establishing religion or something like that by showing a 5-year-old's poster that included, as one component, a picture of Jesus. The stupidity astounds.

Of course, this merits a lawsuit. And in a perfect example of why we need more conservative judges on the federal bench (and all other benches, for that matter):

In 2000, a New York federal court ruled that the school had the right to censor the poster on the grounds of separation of church and state.

A second court ruled in favor of the school again last year, but on Tuesday, a three judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan unanimously decided that Peck’s constitutional rights may have been violated and recommended the case back to court once again.



Hard to believe. And did you catch that year there? This started 5 years ago. It's taken 5 years and we still haven't determined, once and for all, whether or not a kindergartener's inclusion of Jesus on a poster merits official concern and worry.

I guess that if this were absolutely clear there wouldn't be all this hand-wringing. However it does, in fact, seem perfectly clear to me--the 1st Amendment prohibits government from establishing religion (a la the Church of England), not from recognizing religion exists, or even from supporting religion on occasion. As examples I always hold out the chaplain of the US House of Representatives, the National Cathedral, and chaplains in the military and chapels on military installations. Let's also not forget that we don't tax churches. This "wall of separation between church and state"--perhaps I should read Jefferson's letter that included that comment so I can understand the context in which he was writing, but I doubt it would include not hanging up a 5-year-old's poster.

Now this seems perfectly clear and reasonable to me:

“To allow a kindergarten poster to be displayed for a few hours on a cafeteria wall, along with 80 other student posters, is far from an establishment of religion. To censor the poster solely because some might perceive a portion of it to be religious is an egregious violation of the Constitution," he said.


Of course, this is from the kid's attorney.

And then there's this, highlighting the interesting and oft-overlooked point that Circuit (Appeals) Court decisions are applicable only within the states covered by that particular Circuit Court:

In the Peck vs. Baldwinsville School District case, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals joined with the ninth and eleventh Circuit Courts who hold the view that discrimination--even in the public school setting--is unconstitutional.

Conversely, the first and tenth Circuit Courts opine that discrimination in the public school context is permissible.

This split in opinion could land Antonio in the Supreme Court--something which Staver says he would be all for.



I hope that even my anti-religious/lefty readers can agree that the school's action here was stupid stupid stupid.

Update: Here's an article which discusses the above case as well as other points I've made previously. Perhaps the author is reading this blog :-) Here are a couple tidbits:

This time around, the folks with the magnifying glasses are leaning on the village of Tijeras, N.M., whose seal contains a conquistador's helmet and sword, a scroll, a desert plant, a fairly large religious symbol (the Native American zia) and a quite small Christian cross. "Tiny cross" inspectors are not permitted to fret about large non-Christian religious symbols, only undersized Christian ones, so the ACLU filed suit to get the cross removed....
As if to prove that church-state objections can be found on the right as well as on the left, the band director at C.D. Hylton High School in Virginia pulled the song "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" by the Charlie Daniels Band after a conservative objected. He wondered why the school should be allowed to sing about the devil when they are not allowed to sing about God.

Next week: The ACLU sues to ban deviled eggs from the school cafeteria.




12 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Of course, this merits a lawsuit."

Why?

I thought Republicans didn't like trial lawyers. The artwork of a kindergartner is hardly infringement on Free Excise.

This is a frivolous lawsuit from the extreme right who want to get a foothold in public schools.

Oh well. You win some. You loose some.

I'm going back to watching Hard Core Pornography.

See you later.

Darren said...

Anonymous, you truly believe the school acted rightly here?

Darren said...

Anonymous, I've decided that your anti-Christian zealotry has blinded you to the meaning of the 1st Amendment. Perhaps the kid has a "free exercise" issue :-)

Darren said...

BTW, how's the porn?

Anonymous said...

Excellent, thanks for asking. These days, I find myself particularly aroused by 50+ year old women partnered with Afro-Americans. I like things that make me blush.

Referring to your other question, I don't know how to answer. Aside from censorship, I'm not sure what the school actually did. Remember, this case was brought to court by the "victim," not the school. Furthermore, I have no idea why they censored the poster. It could have been simply to cover their butts. In the current PC environment, who can blame them?

Now, I did make the claim that this was a frivolous lawsuit filed by right wing extremists.

Turns out I was right.

"Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based public-interest law firm, filed suit over the second poster."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46920

A quick glance at the Liberty Counsel's website reveals their true objectives.

http://www.lc.org/aboutus.html

The biggest problem that I have with this group is that they champion legal issues solely on behalf one religious group, not all religious groups. They are about the aggressive expansion of their Christian faith, similar to Wal-Mart and McDonalds.

Unfortunately for them, they already lost the war. America is no longer a Christian society. They dare not fight the big battles: violence in video games, pornography on the internet, political correctness, etc. Where they to do so, they would quickly learn how marginalized they have become. When their religious beliefs come into conflict with corporate profits, they are utterly annihilated.

On their horizon, they can look forward to more defeats, the wide spread acceptance of homosexual marriages, gays in the military, the secularization of Christmas, etc.

If the religious content of a poster from a 5 year old is the battleground, Christian society lost the war.

Darren said...

Libs always care about the *motivations* behind actions. I care about the actions themselves.

These groups should support Christian causes, but should support all religions? Why? Do you really want to go down this road? Advocacy groups all over the political spectrum would go belly-up.

And while I think our country is getting further from the Christian ideal, you're mistaken in thinking we're no longer a Christian country. I can't remember if it was census or survey data, but a greater percentage of Americans attend church now than at the time of the Revolution.

You seem mighty concerned about Christians, a group that's supposedly "marginalized". I thought you libs blame Christians for getting Bush elected. Twice.

Anonymous said...

I prefer the label "freethinker."

"These groups should support Christian causes, but should support all religions? Why? Do you really want to go down this road? Advocacy groups all over the political spectrum would go belly-up."

I won't fall down that slippery slope. I feel that the ACLU attempts to fairly represent all religious beliefs. How successful they are today depends on more specific circumstances of individual cases, but they have in the past represented a broad spectrum of American society during the course of their history.

"And while I think our country is getting further from the Christian ideal, you're mistaken in thinking we're no longer a Christian country. I can't remember if it was census or survey data, but a greater percentage of Americans attend church now than at the time of the Revolution."

Church attendance alone does not a religious person make. According to some census/survey, I am a Christian (giggle, sincker).

We live in a society where hard core pornography earns more money than the NFL, and yet we get outraged at an accidental bare breast at the Super Bowl. That is ironic.

You may argue that pornography and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. To do so, of course would imply that there is a potential market in "Christian Friendly Porno."

Maybe this is a potentially a new avenue for Christians to spread the faith, through embedding Christian messages and values into pornography.

Genius!

What do you think?

Darren said...

I think you're moderately pathetic, and your comments lack intellectual rigor. And sense.

Anonymous said...

"I think you're moderately pathetic, and your comments lack intellectual rigor. And sense."

Christian Friendly Porno is a bad idea then? I'll bring it up at my next focus group, and see what the panel thinks.

Darren said...

And talk about timing! Here's an article about a paper written by some prominent Democrats. Surprise! They don't see the shrinking of the Dem Party stopping until the Dems rediscover religion :-)

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin254483318oct25,0,4759936.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

Personally, I'm not a big fan of proselytizing. But if Christianity can tweak a few libs, Praise Jesus! And pass the potatoes.

Anonymous said...

The Reverend Jackson & Sharpton are religious leaders and important voices in the Democratic Party.

Why the Democratic Party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Darren said...

As long as those two remain "important voices" in the party, the party is doomed.

They're black advocates far more than they are "reverends", even though they have the titles.