My worthy opponent’s opening argument is brilliantly conceived, competently presented, eloquently expressed, and is based on the principle of excessive entanglement accompanied by impressive documentation.
It .is also entirely irrelevent to the question of whether students or organizations should be able to conduct voluntary Bible Study groups on school property.
Even a cursory examination of the Court rulings based on excessive entanglement show that excessive entanglement is entirely a matter of activities requiring regular and consistent government regulation, monitoring, and oversight. No such regulation, monitoring, and oversight is expected, required, or prudent in the volunteer programs and activities conducted by private organizations on school property. Any school official who wanders through to see what’s going on will certainly look in on all groups, including the Bible study group, but will not be specifically monitoring the Bible study group. No excessive entanglement thus exists.
This is a free speech and equal protection issue. If your group can meet to explore the mysteries of Ouiji boards or study astrology, my group can meet to study the Bible. If the school allows your group, it has to allow mine. If the school prohibits my group, it is required to ban yours. If one group is afforded free speech privileges, then all groups, even religious groups, must be afforded free speech privileges. Equal protection principles include people interested in religious things as well as those interested in secular things.
The Supreme Court has been consistent in not applying the excessive entanglement principle and in applying the free speech/equal protection principles to voluntary non-school-sponsored Bible study groups conducted on school property.
Quote:
BY RICHARD W. GARNETT
Sunday, June 17, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT
On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the First Amendment does not require--in fact, it does not permit--government to discriminate against religious people, organizations and ideas. No doubt some will complain that the court's 6-3 decision in Good News Bible Club v. Milford, permitting a Christian youth group to meet after school hours in public-school facilities, somehow lowers "the wall of separation" between church and state. It does not. Instead, Justice Clarence Thomas's clear and well-reasoned majority opinion honors our constitutional traditions of religious freedom and pluralism by welcoming, on equal terms, the faithful to the public square.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95000634 |
Quote:
Lamb’’s Chapel v. Center Moriches School District (1993)
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that religious organizations must be treated equally in the use of public school facilities after hours, striking down a ban imposed by a New York state agency that prevented churches from utilizing public school facilities and other government buildings after hours for religious activities. This groundbreaking decision ensured that churches and other religious organizations would receive the same treatment given to non-religious organizations in the use of government-owned facilities –– particularly public schools. Jay Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments in the case.
http://www.demossnewspond.com/aclj/p...ljcasework.htm |
Quote:
Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990)
In one of the most far-reaching decisions of its time, the Supreme Court cleared the way for public school students across America to express their religious faith openly and constitutionally. The Court further determined that the Equal Access Act was constitutional and applied to the formation of student-led and student-initiated Bible and prayer clubs on campuses at public schools across America. Jay Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments in the case.
In its decision, the Supreme Court said, ““There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”” (Emphasis in original court opinion)
The Mergens decision has resulted in the formation of more than 15,000 religious clubs in public schools across America and remains one of the most cited cases in the Supreme Court’’s jurisprudence on the impact of religion in public places.
http://www.demossnewspond.com/aclj/p...ljcasework.htm |
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/religdisc/n...er/focus_7.htm http://www.clsnet.org/clrfPages/amic...ncDecision.pdf http://www.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/facilities.asp http://www.ou.org/public/statements/1999/nate11.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/religdisc/n...er/focus_8.htm http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religi...y/1272487.html http://www.demossnewspond.com/aclj/p...ljcasework.htm