The ACLU is planning to appeal a Federal judge's ruling in Nevada that upheld a Clark County school rule banning religious messages on students' clothing:
"We said from the very beginning this is a decision that would be made at the Court of Appeals," Nevada ACLU lawyer Allen Lichtenstein said Thursday.Lichtenstein said he will appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco...
The ACLU argues that federal constitutional issues are at stake. It filed the case in October representing high school junior Kim Jacobs. She was suspended at Liberty High School in Las Vegas in September for wearing shirts bearing religious symbols.
This is of course one of innumerable cases where the ACLU has fought for the free exercise rights of public school students. Around the country, they have defended the rights of public school students to organize bible clubs that use school facilities, hand out religious literature to their fellow students and wear religious clothing at school. Sure does seem like odd behavior for a group that the religious right continually claims is out to eliminate religion and oppress Christians.
- Log in to post comments
Playing Devil's Advocate:
If it weren't for the ACLU's role in getting established religion out of the schools then there would be no need for them to defend individual's free exercise.
John wrote:
I know you're not serious, but the flaws are still quite easy to spot. These cases are not about the establishment clause but about the free exercise clause. Taking official, school-mandated prayer or bible reading out of schools has nothing to do with whether individual students have a right to form bible clubs to meet after school hours, or hand out religious literature to their fellow students. The ACLU's position has been consistently against official endorsement of religion, but for individual free exercise of religion.
I was being "semi-serious". I am quite certain that before school prayer and Bible teaching were ruled unconstitutional, the school administrators had no problem with individual religious expession.
I agree with the ACLU, but I can easily see how religious fundamentalists can feel that the ACLU set up the battle. So the ACLU gets no credit in their view.
John wrote:
Actually, I would guess that the opposite is true. Aggressive religious expression in schools is more likely a result of the banning of official school prayer. There has been a very aggressive effort from the churches over the last 20 years or so to urge their younger members to proselytize in school by the formation of bible clubs, handing out literature and events like See You At The Pole. This is primarily a reaction to the lack of official proselytization from the schools themselves. But of course, the students have every right to do those things and the ACLU has consistently defended those rights.
The other aspect to this is the exaggerated rhetoric of the religious right in this regard and how it may be influencing some teachers and administrators. Those who opposed the removal of officially mandated prayer and bible reading from schools have, by and large, been very loose with the facts. Time and time again we've seen them say that the Supreme Court "ordered all mention of God removed from schools" or similar rhetoric, ignoring the clear distinction between official endorsements of religious exercises and individual free exercise. I maintain that in some cases this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy as teachers have accepted their exaggerated and distorted depiction of those court rulings as definitive and tried to enforce what they thought the law said, based upon such distortions. In most cases, all it takes is a letter from an attorney explaining what the law actually says to reverse a bad decision from a school official, but one cannot help but be struck to how often those bad decisions reflect the exaggerated rhetoric with which the religious right often portrays various court rulings rather than the rulings themselves.
I can be more devilish than John. Try this:
Of course the ACLU is defending the students. Their clothing was found to be unlawful, so naturally the ACLU is siding with criminals.
How's that?
I don't always agree with the ACLU, but I don't understand why conservatives loathe them. The powerful, the popular and the traditional need no defense. Since when is defending the rights of those who march to beat of a different drummer contrary to conservative thought?
Bloody liberals!
[Joke]
John, "ACLUC" is one of the epithets that consrvative organizations use in fund raising It's all about money.
I've beat on the "all about money" theme on a number of web sites. But that's what it comes down to. And not just about conservative organizations. Other interest groups do the same thing, too.
Similar cases go much further back than that. Recall the anti-Vietnam War cases (black armbands) from the 1960s. They had nothing to do with religion--the issue was freedom of speech. The issue in regards religious messages on t-shirts isn't the "free exercise of religion," it's freedom of speech.