Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Reading this letter to the editor of a Mississippi newspaper makes me both hopeful and sad. Hopeful because a freshman in high school had the courage and the eloquence to write the letter, which exposes clearly unconstitutional proselytizing by his school administration; sad because I know without a doubt that this brave young man will now be the target of harassment, intimidation and quite possibly death threats and violence.
How do I know that? Because every other person who has stood up like this has had to face those things, from the Gobitis family in the 40s to Ellery Schempp in the 60s to the plaintiffs in Dover in 2005. Every plaintiff that I know of in every major church/state dispute in the last 70 years has been targeted in that manner; I doubt this young man will be any different. One can only hope that school and local officials will do their job and protect him, but in light of the fact that he is exposing their illegal behavior, I'm not holding my breath. Below the fold, the text of the letter:
I am a freshman at Greene County High School, and I am writing to express my concerns on several assemblies that we have had this year.It is understood that we live in a region of the country called the "Bible Belt," and in this region Christianity does play a significant role in the lives and the views of many people. I not only understand this, but I also respect it.
This school year we have had three assemblies where the speaker was a religious figure. The first person was a local preacher. During this assembly he preached to us on the importance of making the right choices and accepting Jesus as our savior.
The next person was a biker-turned-preacher from the Gulf Coast. His program was focused on making the right choices. He didn't preach to us, but he did mention that turning to Christianity helped him turn his life around.
The other speaker was a preacher from Louisiana. He preached on the importance of living in a Christ-like manner.
These assemblies were all concluded in prayer. We were never given the option to not attend.
I respect all of these people and their commitment to the Christian religion just as much as I respect the Constitution and rights given to us by this document. This time, however, the two are at odds with each other.
The Establishment Clause of the Constitution has been interpreted in many court cases as a wall of separation between church and state.
Moreover, it states clearly in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 that no school official shall mandate or organize religious ceremonies.
I have no problem with the assemblies themselves, but public schools are not the place to preach a religion. The Constitution is the reason that this country hasn't crumbled into a chaotic state.
Now is not the time to overlook this important document. These assemblies, no matter how good of a message they bear, are still technically illegal.
Wesley Crawford
Neely
Well said, young man. Well said.
Comments
I think proselytizing happens a lot in the public schools, especially in the south (I'm in eastern KY).
When I was in school (I'm 26 now) we were taught to say grace before lunch and had bible reading up until 5th grade.
Now I'm a teacher myself and at my school, the teachers meetings are still opened with a little sermon and prayer. I have witnessed teachers proselytizing in the classrooms too.
We had an assembly last semester that was anti-drugs but the woman began her speech with her testimony of when and why she became a Christian.
Take a wild guess on how the gay and lesbian students are treated at my school.
Posted by: JChayne | March 8, 2008 11:11 AM
"How do I know that? Because every other person who has stood up like this has had to face those things, from the Gobitis family in the 40s to Ellery Schempp in the 60s to the plaintiffs in Dover in 2005. Every plaintiff that I know of in every major church/state dispute in the last 70 years has been targeted in that manner;"
Do you have documentation to back this up? A question not an attack.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 8, 2008 12:08 PM
The short answer is "Yes, lots of it," KoI. Most recently, this story from the New York Times. Type the names Ed lists into Google along with the word "threat." Or 'Dover Kitzmiller death-threat' -- not only Tammy Kitzmiller received such threats, but Judge Jones did also after his decision. In the Dobrich case, a right-wing blog published the family's address and phone number, contributing to the pressure that drove them out of town and into financial ruin.
Posted by: Pieter B | March 8, 2008 12:51 PM
King of Ireland- You're not seriously questioning Ed's statement that "Every plaintiff that I know of in every major church/state dispute in the last 70 years has been targeted in that manner" are you?
Posted by: soboco | March 8, 2008 12:57 PM
I guess these schools are adopting religious school assemblies because they have seen how well they have worked in place like the UK over the past 50 years.... [/sarc]
Posted by: tacitus | March 8, 2008 1:10 PM
"King of Ireland- You're not seriously questioning Ed's statement that "Every plaintiff that I know of in every major church/state dispute in the last 70 years has been targeted in that manner" are you?'
In the sense of giving him crap and calling him a liar? No, as I have said ed uses some rhetoric at times I do not like but he seems honest enough to me. I actually believe this. I just want to read it for myself without the commentary. A novel idea in this country nowadays.
Pietr B:
Thanks for the link. Do you have others?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 8, 2008 1:12 PM
There is much documentation of it, but you have to read about each case individually; I merely summed it up. In every single case I have researched from Gobitis and Barnette (both cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to say the pledge of allegiance in the late 30s and early 40s) to Engel v Vitale (removed mandatory school prayer) to Ellery v Schempp (removed mandatory Bible reading) to all of the major evolution cases (Epperson v Arkansas, McLean v Arkansas, Edwards v Aguillard, Kitzmiller v Dover) and all of the major school prayer cases (Lemon v Weisman, etc), all of the plaintiffs were subjected to harassment and intimidation, in most cases involving death threats. In 2005, as Pieter noted, in the Dover case, the lead plaintiff received a death threat, as did the judge in the case. The pattern is so consistent that plaintiffs are afraid to come forward unless offered anonymity (thus the major school prayer case of Doe v Santa Fe, where the plaintiff was just called Jane Doe). In at least two cases that I know of, the harassment was so bad, including vandalism of their homes, that the families were forced to move to different cities to protect themselves.
All of this is not meant to imply that everyone who opposes their legal position supports such behavior, of course. Such threats come from unhinged individuals. But the fact that they've appeared in every such case all over the country over the course of some 70 years suggests that there's a lot more such unhinged people than we'd like to admit.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 8, 2008 1:13 PM
I read the link. This brought tears to my eyes. I have seen kids gang up on many times for many reasons as a teacher. It is the worst thing I think a kid can go through. School has to be a safe place. The reason that I find these things hard to believe is because I am from a big city suburb. This would never be tolerated. I guess it depends on where you live. Bible belt small towns or some Western states are down right scary.(I lived in Western Colorado for a while recently) I hate to use the word "red neck" but I think it fits here more than likely.
I think I agree with the Russian dude who wrote "The Brothers Karazmarov", I spelled it wrong I am sure, when he implied that if Jesus came today the very people that say they would follow him would kill him. Jesus was a Jew for cying out loud. I know the homosexual kids go through this too. It needs to stop. Nothing sadder to see. I did not tolerate even a hint of this crap when I taught.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 8, 2008 1:21 PM
Remember, this is the same state that lost a Supreme Court decision in 1996 for mandatory school prayer/school bible classes. Herdahl v. Pontotoc County Public Schools And as you can read, she and her children were harassed. They have subsequently left Mississippi.
Bravo to the young man, but be prepared for the fallout.
Posted by: Ken in MS | March 8, 2008 1:22 PM
"All of this is not meant to imply that everyone who opposes their legal position supports such behavior, of course. Such threats come from unhinged individuals. But the fact that they've appeared in every such case all over the country over the course of some 70 years suggests that there's a lot more such unhinged people than we'd like to admit."
Like I said above before I saw this, I believe you. I am ashamed to call myself a Christian half the time. This is one of those days when I read about the kid they called "Jew boy". School is not church. Never, never, never. Why can't these people see that?
I have a question for you: What can someone who is a believer really practically do to oppose this crap? To sweep it under the carpet as a church and cry "liberal media" is unacceptable to me. I used to be a big bully and know what I did to people. I met some later in life and was told of how what I said really scared them. To have this done in the name of God could really mess with someone.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 8, 2008 1:27 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
The only thing I can suggest is that you join with other Christians and make your voice heard. Too often these issues get framed as Christians vs atheists (despite the fact that in almost every one of the cases I cited, the plaintiffs were not atheists; in all of the major evolution cases the plaintiffs were predominately Christians and in many cases were ministers and bishops). I am a big advocate of working together with moderate, reasonable Christians to oppose this sort of thing. And there are a lot of you out there, far more than people realize. That's why I've always tried to make clear that my criticisms of Falwell or Robertson or other religious right leaders is not intended as criticism of Christians in general. I really do believe that the average Christian is a lot more tolerant and reasonable than the Dobsons and Sheldons and their followers. I think it's important for mainstream Christians to stand up and make their voice heard in opposition to those who take a more extremist position in the name of their religion. And many have.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 8, 2008 1:57 PM
The proselytizers acknowledge how strong peer pressure is in matters unrelated to religion, yet then deny how strong peer pressure is in matters of religion. A kid that goes against the prevailing religious sentiments of the group is risking being called Jew boy, or fucking Jew (Mikey Weinstein's son at the Air Force Academy), or a swift kick in the nuts. These liars know what pressure there is to conform, but when it comes to saving souls, a swift kick in the nuts is better than eternal damnation in their calculations.
Posted by: soboco | March 8, 2008 2:36 PM
KOI,
I know it sometimes feels lonely on this site for you as there are quite a few bloggers that take joy in attacking your beliefs as a Christian. But Ed is right, there are more Christian moderates out there than people realize and like you they have an interest in human equality and loathe actions by Fundamentalists. You need not be anti-Christian to find this story despicable and against your own Christian principles. It shows you are human and can see how wrong this situation is. Keep your mind and heart open to those on this site that have been willing to engage you thoughtfully and hopefully you can find some peace and like-minded folks both Christian and non-Christian.
Posted by: JoH | March 8, 2008 2:49 PM
The number of religion-themed school assemblies I had to attend while a freshman at my Catholic HS was zero. Even in my religion classes they didn't proselytize as much as these zealots in the public schools do.
Posted by: Patrick Gryph | March 8, 2008 3:20 PM
KOI,
I echo Ed's advice. Speak out against Fundamentalist Christians, organize your fellow Christian moderates to do the same and demand the leadership of your church and denomination speak out as well.
The Fundamentalist Christians continue to exist as a force in this country because the (mostly) silent majority or Moderate Christians remain silent and let the Fundies control the conversation about religion.
Posted by: Lance Brown | March 8, 2008 3:36 PM
King,
In fact Christians speaking out against this will have a more powerful effect than non-Christians speaking out against it. That's why it's especially important to mobilize Christians to defend the First Amendment.
And as the pro-First Amendment Christians I know point out, once government, at any level, has claimed the right to proselytize, how do you know you're the ones who will always be in power, and that it won't someday be your beliefs that are under attack? That is, the First Amendment protects Christians from the state, as much as anyone else.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 8, 2008 3:41 PM
I agree with James 100%. Christians speaking out against this sort of thing have a far more powerful voice than I do because they can't be so easily dismissed as being an enemy. They will get listened to by people who wouldn't give me the time of day (much less a Dawkins or a Hitchens).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 8, 2008 5:50 PM
"I am a big advocate of working together with moderate, reasonable Christians "
uh oh what kind of Christians would that be? oh I know, a christian that dosn't believe the stuff written in one half of the bible..
One who denies the divinity of christ and the ability of a supernatural ruler to act in this world.
That kind of christian? seems like a christian in name only which is fine with me but I don't think there are that many out there.
when people say christ saved me and I want him to do the same to you I tell them they are crazy and to go see a shrink.
Posted by: Kevin | March 8, 2008 10:38 PM
The easy answer is "speak up," but it's hard to be that voice. Just like people wonder, "why don't Muslims speak up about the haters" ... they do. Often. But who's listening? The saying goes "if it bleeds it leads" for a reason.
Posted by: Andrea | March 8, 2008 10:46 PM
Kevin wrote:
Which is why you are absolutely worthless in trying to discuss anything with those people and trying to convince them of anything, while people like Ken Miller, Rob Pennock and Wes Elsberry can actually get them to listen.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 8, 2008 11:31 PM
The comments to that letter chilled me more than the fact of preaching to the kids. Such intentional ignorance!
It might surprise you to know I'm a Christian. I also have enormous respect for the Constitution and I don't believe religion should be taught in schools and I don't believe politics belongs in church. Churchgoers are welcome to be involved in politics, but not from the pulpit and not inside church doors. The same is true of schools.
Where are parents in all of this? Aren't they the ones responsible for imparting their moral/ethical/religious code to their kids? Why hand that off to the schools?
This young man is to be commended for standing up for the right thing and taking it upon himself to write the newspaper. I hope he's got some allies in his town.
Posted by: Karoli | March 9, 2008 1:55 AM
You're right insofar as hard line Christians tend to trust other Christians more than anyone else. In fact, as a Christian-turned-atheist I've learned that many even trust former Christians more than people who have never been Christian. (They see us as "lost sheep" and more likely to be converted than those who've never been Christian before). When you construct your entire identity around a small set of rigidly defined ideas it not only determines your private behavior but how you behave towards others as well.
But the hard line Christians can often be more hostile towards other Christians who don't fall in line than they can towards outsiders. I'm not saying this to pick on Christians. This is true for many of the groups, religious or secular, that could be loosely categorized as "extremist" (although I'm getting tired of that term). Some Feminist groups, some Muslims, even certain libertarians fit the bill--people whose particular ideology is so dominant in their thinking that they see everything through that lens are going to be very hostile towards those who claim to be one with them but whose devotion doesn't meet their standards.
In many instances of social change, the moderates lagged behind the curve. They'll come around, but more slowly. Today the sting of being labeled "not at TRUE Christian" is still pretty potent. A lot of Christians with more moderate, secular views of how the government should be run have good reason to fear being ostracized from the Christian community if they voice their views too openly. If they're ostracized from their community, where can they turn? In many parts of America, religion is so dominant that being shunned by the church is equivalent to being a social outcast.
Anyways, this post is getting too long. Long story short: I'm not surprised that we aren't hearing as many moderate voices as we would like to. The more hard line elements have defense mechanisms for dealing with things like that.
Posted by: Wes | March 9, 2008 9:58 AM
'think it's important for mainstream Christians to stand up and make their voice heard in opposition to those who take a more extremist position in the name of their religion. And many have."
The problem is that moderate to you means something different to a evangelical. I think I seem moderate to you in many ways. But to them I am a sell out in some ways but conservative in others. Moderate unfortunately means "liberal" as in the whole fundementalist vs. liberal debate of Protestantsim the last century. These labels do not work anymore, too narrow.
The Washington Post had a good article Sunday by EJ Dionne about the death of the Religious Right. This is true in one sense and naive in another. Moralism will never die. But there present strategy has not gone to the next generation in numbers. But just like the Pharisees of old you do not need numbers to carry influence. They are going local to try and influence the next generation. I think you see it.
But I think you should look at the whole generation gap, post modern influence, and what I think will be the realignment of politcal parties. To be honest I think you may have to change your stance on Intelligent Design some to accomplish your goal. Do not make the same mistake that the Fundementalists made years ago in the state laws that made it illegal to teach Evolution. It was seen as unfair and a backlash came. Just a thought. History repeats itself and like it or not this is political.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 9, 2008 2:13 PM
Getting back on topic... To mostly reproduce a comment & question I left on FriendlyAtheist.com about this student's letter:
There seems to be a lot of typing being expended in the newspaper comments section, over the question of whether or not there was an "opt out" offered for students who didn't want to attend the religious indoctrination assembly. Can Ed or someone else here tell us if that's relevant in a constitutional/legal sense?
Ethically and pedagogically, it seems beside the point. A school shouldn't be allowed to proselytize its students, or give over school time and resources to allow others to proselytize its students, period. It doesn't matter if all the students attend, or half of them, or only one, and it doesn't matter if it's "voluntary" or "mandatory."
"If you don't want to go to the Jesus rally like everyone else, just stand up and raise your hand, and then you'll be allowed to go sit in the corner by yourself" is hardly a decent alternative, especially in a setting like high school where the twin forces of adult authority and peer pressure are both so powerful.
But I seem to recall that there is precedent from at least one court case that an "opt out" doesn't excuse the school in a case like this. Am I extracting this from my hindmost quarters?
Posted by: MPW | March 9, 2008 10:55 PM
Amen, Wesley. Amen.
Posted by: Utah | March 9, 2008 11:24 PM
MPW wrote:
No, it's not particularly relevant. Nor is it particularly relevant that, according to one woman in the comments there, the group called the school and requested an assembly rather than being recruited by the school. If they want to establish an open forum and let any group have an assembly with an opt out, that would be one thing - but no school is going to do that, for obvious reasons. The fact that the school allows religious groups in to do religious events is all that really matters from a constitutional standpoint.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 9, 2008 11:46 PM
In the Santa Fe, Texas case a few years back, where there was a prayer at football games, one of the defenses the school district put forth was that students didn't have to attend. A local reporter in my area (who is Catholic)wrote a sarcastic column bemoaning the plight of the "poor, offended atheists". Only thing was, the case was brought on behalf of a Mormon family and a Catholic family that were subjected to harassment. This Catholic reporter didn't even bother to check out the details of the case.
Posted by: soboco | March 10, 2008 12:01 AM
Ignoring the by-now-really-rather-tiresome believer-vs-atheist debate the more important question must be - is there any way we can send our support to this kid?
Posted by: David Durant | March 10, 2008 10:04 PM
I heartily applaud the young man for braving the establishment and saying no more. Something I have noticed, and deplored, in every question concerning the Constitution and Rights. Combing the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence with the legalities of the Constitution leads me to believe that the Constitution does not "give us rights", that our rights are inborn, that our rights exist because we are human and cannot be "given" to us and that the Constitution express the legalities of guaranteeing our rights rather than giving them. I think that referring to the rights given by the Constitution leads to thinking that because our rights are "given" by a legal document that another legal document can take them away. This may seem too fine a point, but lawyers, demagogueries, and tyrants thrive on fine points. What say you Ed?
Posted by: Jim Spencer | March 11, 2008 7:42 AM
This thread is a little old, I know, but this question continues to nag at me: how relevant is the supposed "mandatory" or "voluntary" nature of the assembly in question? Ed above says "not particularly," but does that mean "no"? In this followup article from yesterday, an ACLU of Mississippi director more or less says "yes"... I think:
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080316/NEWS01/803160360/1002
Again, I don't see why this should be relevant, but an ACLU official seems to disagree.
Posted by: MPW | March 18, 2008 12:18 AM
No, there's no contradiction there. He refers to groups of students hosting events at the school, which of course they can do in many cases. But if the school administration continually brings in religious speakers, even if they're not mandatory to attend, there's a constitutional problem.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 18, 2008 1:11 AM