Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
In a very important ruling, a Federal district court in Missouri has ruled that allowing the Gideons to come into elementary schools and distribute Bibles to students is a violation of the establishment clause (see full text of ruling here). This is a key ruling that could be replicated nationwide, where many schools still allow the Gideons to go into schools and do this. The ruling was by summary judgment. The ruling notes:
The undisputed evidence shows that both the old practice and the new policy were undertaken for the purpose of promoting Christianity and they have the effect of endorsing religion to impressionable elementary school students.
The practice of allowing the Gideons to distribute Bibles to students is as old as anyone can remember. The Gideons would come in to classrooms one at a time, introduce their organization and invite students to take a Bible. The Bibles they passed out included a page for the student to sign to acknowledge "My Decision to Receive Christ as My Saviour."
In 2004, the superintendent of schools realized that this policy might be unconstitutional and he sought out legal advice. He was told that it was unconstitutional by the school district's lawyer, by Missouri Council of School Administrators' attorney, a member of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, an attorney with the District's insurance carrier, and one other attorney.
The superintendent presented all those opinions to the school board in a private meeting and advised them that if they wanted to continue the program they had to declare an open forum and allow all groups to distribute literature to students on an equal basis. The school board rejected his advice and voted to "pretend this meeting never happened, and to continue to allow the Gideons to distribute Bibles as we have done in the past."
They held yet another meeting about it, at which their own attorney and the attorney for their insurance carrier once again informed them that their policy was unconstitutional and that they would get hammered in court if they continued it. The school board still voted to continue the same policy, prompting the superintendent to resign. Even after being told that their insurance carrier would not be liable for their court costs, they still refused to change the policy. Sound familiar?
The school board then hired Liberty Counsel to represent them. A week before the trial began they suddenly changed their policy to allow outside groups to come in to distribute literature in specified areas of the schools, but not during class time. That policy required groups to submit any material they wanted to distribute to the school and gave the school board final say in what could be distributed and what could not. They then changed the policy again just before the court was to issue its ruling.
The court essentially said that the board's repeated refusal to recognize that their actions were unconstitutional and their repeated attempts to change the policy immediately before a ruling was to come down and then to argue for mootness suggested that there is a genuine risk that the board would seek to return to its old policy once the case was dismissed. The court noted:
The School Board defendants may have voted to pass the new policy, but there is absolutely no indication that they did so because they realized that their old practice was flawed and possibly unconstitutional. To the contrary, they continue to argue that their past practice was proper, and statements from their depositions show that many of them do not view the new policy as either a necessary or a positive change.
The court decided to issue the injunction to prevent a return to the old policy. The ruling does not affect or overturn the current policy, but the fact that the school board plans to appeal this injunction against the old policy clearly suggests that the court is correct that what they really want to do is return to the old one once the case is gone.
Comments
SSDD
Posted by: jufulu, FCD | January 11, 2008 10:12 AM
Ed, is it possible for residents of a school district to do anything about a case like this other than vote out the board members? Say I'm a resident of that district and most of other residents back the board. Can I get some kind of legal remedy to keep them from essentially screwing me over on property taxes for years just so they can pursue a hopeless legal challenge? Or am just stuck with the options of either eating my share of the legal bill or moving?
Posted by: SeanH | January 11, 2008 10:13 AM
The members of the school board can't be sued as individuals for actions taken in their role as elected officials.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 11, 2008 10:24 AM
It's about time. These religionists need to stop being given a free pass to our kids and students and parents should not be put in a position of either enduring it or objecting and risking the possibly dangerous wrath of their neighbors.
Posted by: Donna | January 11, 2008 10:30 AM
Now that I've thought it over I can see why that's for the best in the big picture. Really sucks for the reasonable people in that community though.
Posted by: SeanH | January 11, 2008 10:35 AM
"The members of the school board can't be sued as individuals for actions taken in their role as elected officials."
Ed, please educate me. Even against all written legal advice from their own lawyers that they are blatantly and openly violating state and federal law, they cannot be personally, or as a group, sued? What kind of a loop-hole is that?
Posted by: RAM | January 11, 2008 11:22 AM
To think that district is within 50 to 75 miles of my house.
[shudder]
I don't live in a back-woods state. I don't live in a back-woods state. I don't live in a back-woods state.
Posted by: No One of Consequence | January 11, 2008 12:18 PM
I must live under a rock--I never knew that this stuff happened. I knew the Gids gave out free Bibles but I never knew it was in public schools during class time whilst the principal blocked the only means of escape.
The actions of the school board do not surprise me one bit. Before I started reading your blog, they would have, but not anymore.
One thing to note from the opinion is the number of other appellate cases that were directly on point. These cases stretch back to 1953 (!). I doubt that this case will change anything--it is just another in a long line of cases.
Posted by: David C. Brayton | January 11, 2008 1:08 PM
If someone gave my child a bible @ school, I imagine she'd bring it home and we'd highlight all the "good" parts (like giving your daughter to townsfolk to be raped, etc) and she'd go back to school with it to "share".
Not like there's a big risk of that happening here in ultra-liberal Sebastopol, CA. Though she did have a teach freak out when she asked what an 'atheist' was. An English teacher no less. Sigh.
Posted by: Robert Thille | January 11, 2008 1:08 PM
When I was in middle school, the Gideons didn't come into the school itself but they showed up outside, on school grounds, to distribute bibles as we were coming out at the end of the day. Is that unconstitutional as well?
Posted by: Gretchen | January 11, 2008 1:17 PM
I grew up on Long Island and went to public school. I never saw a Gideon Bible until I stayed in a motel.
My kids went to public schools in Kentucky. No Gideons there either, unless my children chose not to accept the books and not tell us. Maybe the Gideon thing is only in Missouri?
BTW, I have met a real Gideon, that is, a member of the organization. He was kind of creepy, like he might chop off your head while handing you a Bible. They have a real "army of God" complex.
Posted by: wheatdogg | January 11, 2008 1:53 PM
Gretchen wrote:
The same principle applies: if it is an open forum and anyone can do it, then it's constitutional; if they only allow Christian groups to do it, then it's not.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 11, 2008 2:01 PM
When I was in school (Indiana several decades ago), what the Gideons handed out was the New Testament only. Not that it was any better to do that, but it does exclude the sensational parts.
Posted by: OriGuy | January 11, 2008 2:43 PM
SeanH asked:
Apply to the school for permission to distribute copies of the Koran to their children.
Posted by: Tristram Brelstaff | January 11, 2008 2:58 PM
Really? I went to school in Louisville and I remember distinctly that once a year the Gideons would show up and hand out bibles. Of course, at my school they didn't actually come into the classes, they were loitering along the sidewalks after school and handing them to us as we left.
And when I went to college in Indiana, once a year they'd show up on campus handing out bibles. Once I accepted their bible and in return gave them a copy of the Bhagavad-Gita.
Posted by: Skemono | January 11, 2008 2:59 PM
In my town in northwest Ohio the tradition is a New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs in fifth grade. You might get another copy in the Boy Scouts. In my day they came into the classroom. When they tried to come to my son's school six years ago, my wife politely but forcefully explained the legal implications and her likely course of action to the principal. I think that they have not been back since. It is interesting that our district seems to have no formal policy, but leaves it up to building leaders. I think that it is time for me to look into this more closely.
Posted by: barkdog | January 11, 2008 4:23 PM
OriGuy writes:
The New Testament writers gambled on Revelation as a big-bang ending, but reviewers complain that it feels tacked on. Writing a sequel is always a tricky business.Posted by: Ex-drone | January 11, 2008 7:13 PM
Ex drone wrote- "The New Testament writers gambled on Revelation as a big-bang ending, but reviewers complain that it feels tacked on. Writing a sequel is always a tricky business."
Smells more like studio tampering to me. See 1982 theatrical version of "Blade Runner".
Posted by: Rick R | January 11, 2008 7:46 PM
I remember getting a permission slip to take home when I was in elementary school in a Vancouver BC suburb - parents had to sign it in order to get your red NT with proverbs & psalms from the Gids - and that was in the late 70s, maybe as late as 1980.
I'm amazed they're still able to get them into the schools anywhere - I don't think they even attempt it here anymore.
interesting note - the Banff Springs Hotel (or at least the room I stayed in) also had a book of Buddhist teachings in the drawer with the Gideon bible.
Posted by: CanadianChick | January 12, 2008 12:26 AM
Pat Robertson (who predictably whined about the ruling last night on the 700 Club), Donald Wildmon and others would of course have no problem with the public schools allowing a Muslim or Hindu group to distribute Korans or Bhagavad Gitas on school grounds to children...just as Rush Limbaugh would have no problem with President Bush picking Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 12, 2008 1:12 AM
The decision is already being appealed on the grounds that previous rulings found it perfectly legal to distribute bibles in school providing it was on equal access grounds - that is, anyone is officially able to distribute any religious text, but somehow only bibles actually get handed out while anything else is rejected on some excuse.
Even if that fails, I can easily see the Gideon's being relocated from the school to, say, just outside the school gates ready to ambush the pupils as they leave and so allowing the school to claim that as its on neither school time nor property its not their responsibility.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | January 12, 2008 2:14 AM
2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
The New Testament did not exist when 2nd Timothy was written. It must be referring to the Hebrew scriptures. Even if Gideon's doesn't give it to you, it doesn't mean it's not there.
This garbage poison's children's minds.
Posted by: Matt Young | January 12, 2008 12:27 PM
In various schools (from inner city to a school so small it housed K - 12 in one building, we moved around a lot) in upstate NY, I never once got a Gideon though I did get early release for religious instruction at a nearby church in the inner city school.
In middle school in Denver, they waited on the public sidewalk outside my daughter's school and when I complained the school said they couldn't do anything about a public sidewalk even when I pointedly remarked that I doubted they'd tolerate it if anyone else was out there trying to approach the children, if some stranger was there saying psst, little girl, like some candy (which this is too creepily similar to).
I had to be at work when she walked home from school but a whole group in the neighborhood walked together to stay at home moms and babysitters. It really creeps me out that they think it's okay if kids are approached by strangers as they come and go from school but, of course, they think I should be a stay at home Mom barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and somehow miraculously simultaneously picking up one kid from the elementary school at the same time big sibling is picked up at middle school.
Posted by: Donna | January 14, 2008 12:25 PM
I need free english pocket bibles to distribute in my poor school so will you please send me 100 free bibles to given address N.Sudheer d/n 7-19-160/79,Mallikarjunapet 5/3 ext.,Guntur Andhra Pradesh, India.
Posted by: sudheer | May 26, 2010 9:31 PM
I think it is wonderful to recieve bibles in schools and every where. I support Gideon. You are doing Gods work God is always by your side. Please send us in Mozambique, in Chimoio town like before (1999).
Posted by: Raema Assane | July 6, 2010 6:44 AM
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that parents will go to reclaim some stability in their home, respect from their children, or simply the return gratitude for the parents sacrifices. Yet it seems they neglect to recognize the standard of which they are asking for. What you want is for your children to observe certain rules for living, without a standard. It is impossible to have moral absolutes without a religious principle. Demanding moral behavior by contrition is dictatorship at its finest, but loving devotion comes from sacrifice, investment, and their is none greater than the sacrifice of Christ. Your thoughts are there is no proof...you may even think we as Christians are delusional. Better to live a life delusional, with the respect, gratitude, love, devotion and reverence that comes from such a delusion than to live a life of frustration trying to accomplish the same on your own merits alone. Want recipe for proof...watch a non-religous film called Contact. Then in your quiet & darkest closet ask "if your there, become real to me" Be prepared to become one of those creepy men or women handing out the word of God.
Children's Ministry Administrator
Louisville,KY Qualified Gideon's International Speaker
Devoted Father of 7
Devoted Husband
Honorer of my Father & Mother
Non-Thief
Non-Adulterer
Non-Lier
Posted by: Jackson Baker | July 18, 2010 9:04 AM
"It is impossible to have moral absolutes without a religious principle."
You're either lying or not much of a thinker. Pick one.
"Better to live a life delusional, with the respect, gratitude, love, devotion and reverence that comes from such a delusion than to live a life of frustration trying to accomplish the same on your own merits alone. Want recipe for proof...watch a non-religous film called Contact."
I've seen it. I suspect that I got a different message from it than you.
Posted by: Captain Mike | July 18, 2010 9:44 AM
"What you want is for your children to observe certain rules for living, without a standard."
Not quite. What I want is for my children to develop their own rules for living. Expecting them to use mine would be ridiculous. I certainly hope they use the same standards as I did, because I know from experience that they work.
Posted by: Captain Mike | July 18, 2010 9:48 AM
Let me quote part of Ed's comment in 12 for you, Jackson, since you can't seem to be bothered to look:
That's it. Full stop.
Jackson, you have projected an atheism on this matter of constitutionality that isn't apparent to anyone who would have actually bothered to understand it. And perhaps that is your problem: You see a neutral policy as biased against you.
But that has more to do with your own psychology than atheism.
Oh, and that list of credentials you end with? Include 'Non-Speller'.
Posted by: NJ | July 18, 2010 9:48 AM
Then how about living with the respect, gratitude, love, devotion, and reverence that comes from accomplishing the same on our merits alone? Win-win!
Seriously, though, you seem to be labouring under a great many mistaken notions about what atheists and their lives are like. To put it bluntly, you've been lied to. Atheists are no less moral, nor are their lives any less fulfilling, than religious people.
It seems to escape your attention that Contact is fiction.
Doesn't work. Again, you've been lied to.
Posted by: DaveL | July 18, 2010 10:08 AM
Jackson Baker, #26: Yet it seems they neglect to recognize the standard of which they are asking for.
This is a contradiction. If parents set rules, then those are the standards. Standards are rules. You may not like the rules that are set, but that seems to be more of a problem for you than for those parents. Your not believing in the principles upon which those standards are based is not the same thing as there not being any standards.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 18, 2010 10:33 AM
@Jackson
Then in your quiet & darkest closet ask "if your (sic) there, become real to me"
Did that, lying in my hospital bed, in partial isolation for 3 weeks, during my bone-marrow transplant, afraid that each time I closed my eyes would be my last (since my sister died during the same procedure), and you know what happened?
I became an atheist.
During my subsequent heart-attack, and the most prolonged agony I have ever known and had never imagined, I did not call out for God, I called out for my wife to make sure she knew about the small life insurance policy I had as I wasn't sure if we had ever discussed it. I faced imminent death with concern for my wife, not with selfish prayers to a fictional being.
Comments like Jackson's just piss me off in their small-mindedness.
Posted by: Aaron | July 18, 2010 12:01 PM