Non-Theist groups in Schools?

**WickedTribe** · 03-01-11, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur Persona

Well that's insane, and patently unconstitutional.

How so? I can see a bit of gray area here, but I don't see how it would be "patently unconstitutional."

**Beige Lantern** · 03-01-11, 10:56 AM

Seriously?

It violates both freedom of speech AND freedom of religion in one sweep.

Granted, we've seen a hundred times where a minor's constitutional rights are not absolute, but they are to be compromised only when the safety or successful running of the school are at stake. If you can tell me how students choosing to meet after school blatantly threatens either of those things to the point that it justifies denying them two different tenets of the 1st Amendment I'd be all ears.

You accuse school boards of having an agenda, but when you tell me you're all for freedom of speech until it's religious, I question yours.

**triggerhappy2005** · 03-01-11, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur Persona

Seriously?

It violates both freedom of speech AND freedom of religion in one sweep.

Granted, we've seen a hundred times where a minor's constitutional rights are not absolute, but they are to be compromised only when the safety or successful running of the school are at stake. If you can tell me how students choosing to meet after school blatantly threatens either of those things to the point that it justifies denying them two different tenets of the 1st Amendment I'd be all ears.

You accuse school boards of having an agenda, but when you tell me you're all for freedom of speech until it's religious, I question yours.

Who said that the kids can't convene? The only issue I see is that the school needs to be involved in any way. That shouldn't happen.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-01-11, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur Persona

Seriously?

It violates both freedom of speech AND freedom of religion in one sweep.

Granted, we've seen a hundred times where a minor's constitutional rights are not absolute, but they are to be compromised only when the safety or successful running of the school are at stake. If you can tell me how students choosing to meet after school blatantly threatens either of those things to the point that it justifies denying them two different tenets of the 1st Amendment I'd be all ears.

You accuse school boards of having an agenda, but when you tell me you're all for freedom of speech until it's religious, I question yours.

See but it has been argued that chilren do not share the same right as adults due to the special protection afforded to them by law. In many places in this country a child is actually considered and treated as a possesion until they turn of legal age to make and feel the full consequenses of their decisions. So did they really have THEIR rights violated? I would say no.

**Warprosper** · 03-01-11, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Who said that the kids can't convene? The only issue I see is that the school needs to be involved in any way. That shouldn't happen.

Precisely..

**Beige Lantern** · 03-01-11, 11:13 AM

"So after school chess club meets in Mr. Soren's room, Student Government will meet in Mrs. Baxter's room, Speech and Debate will meet in Mrs. Galida's room, and Bible Study? You have to meet at Bill's house."

You don't see the problem there?

**Beige Lantern** · 03-01-11, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

In many places in this country a child is actually considered and treated as a possesion until they turn of legal age to make and feel the full consequenses of their decisions.

That is completely and totally inaccurate. I don't have time to look up court cases right now, but it has been well established that while minors can more readily have their rights compromised, as American citizens they DO have them. You need a good reason to deny them. "I don't like religion" is not a good reason.

**triggerhappy2005** · 03-01-11, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur Persona

"So after school chess club meets in Mr. Soren's room, Student Government will meet in Mrs. Baxter's room, Speech and Debate will meet in Mrs. Galida's room, and Bible Study? You have to meet at Bill's house."

You don't see the problem there?

Separation of church and state.

Problem solved.

**Beige Lantern** · 03-01-11, 11:27 AM

No, it's not solved. Because students are not part of the state. They are independent citizens with the right to express themselves except when doing so "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others". (Tinker vs. Des Moines)

You're paying attention to the "no law respecting an establishment of religion" and ignoring the "or prohibiting the free practice thereof". You don't get to win this debate with a sentence fragment.

**triggerhappy2005** · 03-01-11, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur Persona

No, it's not solved. Because students are not part of the state. They are independent citizens with the right to express themselves except when doing so "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others". (Tinker vs. Des Moines)

You're paying attention to the "no law respecting an establishment of religion" and ignoring the "or prohibiting the free practice thereof". You don't get to win this debate with a sentence fragment.

You would be right if the state (public schools) were not involved in the discussion. You keep framing the argument as a free speech issue when no one denies that these kids should be allowed to convene concerning religious matters. The issue is why the public school has to be involved. Could you please answer that question?

And concerning separation of church and state, it's about the states' neutrality towards the issue. That means that while it won't inhibit the practice of religion, it won't at the same time aid in the practice of it. By involving a public school, i.e. the State, it would be aiding in the practice of religion thus casting aside it's neutrality.

NEUTRALITY. That's the key word. Not for or against.