Excellent Church/State Ruling : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« The DI Press Release | Main | Fisking the DI's "Study" on the Dover Ruling »

Excellent Church/State Ruling

Category: Church and State
Posted on: December 12, 2006 12:45 PM, by Ed Brayton

The Worldnutdaily reports on a very good ruling in a ridiculous church/state case in New Jersey. A 2nd grader wanted to sing a religious song in the school talent show and was told she couldn't. When they were told, correctly, that they were violating the first amendment by doing so, the school foolishly decided to take it to court. The judge granted a motion for summary judgement on the student's behalf. A profoundly silly case with the right outcome. Oh, and before the STACLU crowd warms up its attack machine: the ACLU filed a brief on behalf of the student in this case.

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

Oh, and before the STACLU crowd warms up its attack machine: the ACLU filed a brief on behalf of the student in this case.

You know, you could have held this back and let those fools shoot themselves in the foot AGAIN.....

Posted by: gwangung | December 12, 2006 1:15 PM

At the speed they think, they may still shoot themselves in the foot.

Posted by: bourgeois_rage | December 12, 2006 1:48 PM

Naturally, the World Nut Daily had an article on this case, that does not mention the ACLU's position:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53335

Posted by: Russell | December 12, 2006 2:17 PM

At the speed they think, they may still shoot themselves in the foot.

I was going to say, They are so stupid they could read this and still look like fools. And apparently they have. See above.

Posted by: chris | December 12, 2006 4:32 PM

This is off-topic somewhat but if these hypocrites (STACLU) really cared about information and freedom, they should press a little harder to get Reagan's papers released from the dark Presidential approved dungeon where they current exist. Now that would be interesting!

Posted by: nukular | December 12, 2006 6:03 PM

Don't these schools have lawyers who can tell them they haven't got a case? It's not like this is a controversial area of jurisprudence.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | December 13, 2006 4:54 AM

Ginger makes a very good point here. If they denied her right to sing her little song without consulting a 1st Amendment attorney then they are out of their collective minds. This one wasn't even a close call, but if you rely on press reports describing other cases in this area when making your decision it would lead you to the wrong conclusion. The media always has a reaction to an Establishment Clause decision provided by some religious nut who is screaming to the high heavens about how "God is being taken out of (fill in the blank)!" This gives the impression that nothing is allowed. The religious often lie about the jurisprudence involved. I think they do this because to be a victim for their cause is more important to them than being truthful. They must have very little faith if they feel the need to put on their public displays at every opportunity. Unless they think they are fooling their God with this martyr act. I have had Christians tell me, "We can't pray in public schools." I say, "Yes, you can; and I'm sure it happens every day.....'Pop-quiz! Oh Lord, help me!'" They can pray, it just can't be endorsed by the school or be disruptive of the school's function.

Posted by: TomMil | December 13, 2006 7:57 AM

Those who cry "freedom of religion", don't really want freedom of religion, they want their religion to take centre place. If a hindu child wanted to sing a hindu religious song to krishna, for example - I figure all the christian parents would be screaming for separation of church and state.

Posted by: beepbeepitsme | December 13, 2006 8:25 AM

Wow, I have never seen such a display of self-righteousness in my life.

Merry Christmas by the way!

Posted by: Beth | December 13, 2006 9:11 AM