ShamMol

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court does not agree with my esteemed opponent, even though they stand for substantive freedom of speech rights as put forward in Tinker. However, what my opponent failed to mention was what that case was about. It was about the war in Vietnam and standing protest to that ugly battle of wills, not religion in our public schools. It was about standing in solidarity by expressing oneself through wearing armbands, not reading from a purely religious text. That was what that case was about and it has no place in this situation whatsoever.

Therefore, I make the argument that even though students have the right to free speech, religious speech is not necessarily covered underneath that umbrella due to the fact that 1.) schools would unintentionally sponsor religion due to a school sponsoring an school organization and 2.) it could happen, theoretically during school time, not during class. Now, let me explain my argument. Schools usually have to approve clubs and depending on the school, before a school organization can officially meet, they have to get school authorization and school approval to become an official club. Now, while that is not the inherent problem (because state can recognize religion), the other part is. With that authorization comes possible funding because many school organizations get it as a result of becoming an official club. Going off of my personal knowledge, many schools have to give it out to all clubs equally, no matter what they use, what they do, etc. So, this essentially would be state sponsoring religious discussion, because unlike in Stone, this is not a class. The second point is that many clubs meet during the school day, whether it be at lunch or during recess or during a study session-type of period which is now common place in schools. This is completely different from all the other cases cited in which the activity takes place after school hours totally. I contend that this is not permissible.

And to answer the well-written argument put forward in the WSJ, Good News Bible Club v. Milford does not matter in this case for two important reasons: there is a slight possibility that it could meet during school hours and also there is a likelihood that this club, once officially recognized, would receive money from the state (if it is not recognized, then there is no point to this argument). In Lamb's chapel, it was a private group that wanted to use the facilities, but here is a school organization, clearly not private and clearly it breaches the line of excessive entanglement.

Rent is not an issue in this case because it is a school organization from my perspective and thus it cannot change its behavior towards one organization over another - that goes towards funding as well because if they give it to one group, they could not deny it to an officially sanctioned bible study group.

In the link you provided, http://supreme.justia.com/us/374/203/case.html, nowhere does it mention a bible club, it soley mentions reading of a bible voluntarily by students. Nor does it mention the equal access act. Also, in the link you provided, http://www.aclj.org/Issues/Resources...nt.aspx?ID=717, it is true that school officials cannot deny students the right to pray, but they cannot also give it official standing and money which would lead to excessive entanglement and break the third prong of the Lemon Test.

Just a note, I will be unable to respond until tomorrow or until very late tonight. My next post will have more sources in it, but I was unable to do much do to a time crunch (to quote modest mouse, the good times are killing me). Until later, my worthy opponent.

__________________

AlbqOwl

It is true that there are unrelated issues contained in some of the links I have provided to pertinent cases, rulings, and opinions. My worthy opponent can use these of course, but he will almost certainly be ruled off topic when he does. I believe all the references I have provided do contain support for my contention that voluntary Bible study groups on school proeprty are lawful and Constitutionally protected on the basis of free speech and/or equal access/protection. If I have provided a link that does not do this, it was purely inadvertent and I have not referenced such in any argument I have made.

I am unaware of any cases in which any non-school-related group are/was allowed to meet during study hall or otherwise during class hours and a Bible study group was disallowed. I believe, however, that the preponderance of court rulings to date, at least in the last several decades, have been consistent that a private Bible study group cannot be treated any differently from other private groups. If my opponent has evidence to the contrary, I will of course consider that. I do not believe that he can show where the courts have condoned or permitted that.

There is a case pending in Knoxville TN in which an elementary school stopped students from reading and discussing the Bible during recess. While there is a legitimate argument that the children should not be reading anything during recess but should be running and jumping and getting some exercise, again it will almost certainly be ruled that the equal access/free speech principle will apply. If they are allowed to read and discuss anything during recess, they must be allowed to read and discuss the Bible.

The issue before us neither references nor relates to any organization that is promoted or sanctioned by the school such as the Science Club or Chess Club or any other group that is authorized and staffed by teachers. The issue is that of outside groups afforded the privilege of meeting on public school property. As we have effectively ruled out excessive entanglement as pertinent to Bible study groups meeting on school property, and we have effectively shown how free speech and/or equal access/protection has been the basis for allowing such groups, lets address the other argument raised by my opponent which is that of funding.

My opponent suggested that waiver of rent or other contributions in kind afforded private groups meeting on school property is not an issue. How can it not be an issue when utlities, wear and tear, janitorial services, etc. are costs to the government when they accommodate such groups? My opponent is wrong that government funding in this case is irrelevent. And I have shown that a private Bible study group may legally access these in the same way as any other private groups.

Any government cash contributed provided to private groups must also be equitably distributed.

One example is the following case in Shoreline, WA:

A voluntary Bible study group is legally and Constitutionally protected under free speech and equal access/protection provisions of our U.S. Constitution and citizens engaging in such an activity have as much right to be at the school as any other group.

(Edit to correct an embarassing typo)

__________________
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

ShamMol

I apologize to my worthy opponent and to the monitor for the lateness of this response, but I asked a few of my law school friends for a wee bit of help with the research and there was also a small family emergency, both of which contributed to the lateness of this response. This is a case that was tried in the District Court (recently) of SoCal and is unpublished as of now, but I can get you the full text if you wish. I will give all the info below. This quote is from the "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Application for Preliminary Injunction."

Now this would seemingly go for my opponent's argument, but I contend that it is in fact expressly directed against AlbqOwl's for the express reason that, while there have been previous court cases in which Bible Study groups were about teaching other things besides religion, they have since evolved in America to become a bastion for religious zealotry that only talk about religion. Thus, this case is completely different from Milford because they do not teach from a religious viewpoint, but instead teach religion. This is not the Boy Scouts or the Quiji Board Association (I want to join), this is a bible study group which wants to promote religious views, whether it only be within the group or outside the group.
The point of this little phrase is to make my point that no non-religious group does the same thing as the religious group known as Bible Study, which studies the bible and talks about Christianity. No secular group does that, at least within the confines of a school or as a school organization.

You contend that this organization is one that is not sanctioned by the schools, or that does not have any official standing. You in fact argue that this is an outside group. My point is that this case is so vauge that we do not know and thus must assume the worst. If they are in a school in the first place, we must assume that it is being run by students. IF it is being run by students it is a school organization. If it is a school organization, before it can meet officially, it has to get authorized. If it gets authorized, then there is an issue of school funding possibly. My worthy opponent is assuming the best possible situation while I feel that it is more productive for the argument to assume the worst, in all cases.

I contend that the waiver of fees in not an issue here because it is a school organization for the express reasons I explained before. No other school organzation would ever be asked to waive fees and that is why it is not an issue here.

With regard to the link about studying at recess (http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/...px?story=2721), there is no court decision or even case. But theoretically, they would be allowed to discuss within a group of students that is not school-authorized at lunch or whenever, as long as it did not meet regularly...do you see where I am going? Once it becomes a normal club-type of event, it is not allowed because that would go against the establishment clause. Again, with the link about the high school (http://www.rutherford.org/articles_d...rticle_id=463), there is no court case. We do not know what would have happened had it gone to trial and it was just a school running scared like they always do away from litigation.

Here is the case that I cited. I will use it more in the future, as well as a few others.
CHILD EVANGELISM FELLOWSHIP, INC., SAN FERNANDO VALLEY CHAPTER, Plaintiff, vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, and JOHN LIECHTY, individually and in his official capacity as assistant superintendent of Beyond the Bell Branch of Los Angeles Unified School District, Central District of California Case No. CV 01-1329 MMM (VEKx)

AlbqOwl

Note: I'm still here but cannot respond until later today. Never fear. I shall return at that time however.

AlbqOwl

My worthy opponent writes
Without being redundant, I will refer to court rulings previously linked that are explicit that there is no problem with voluntary groups, even those focusing on religious subjects, meeting on school property. The argument that won in the case referenced and linked below describes how the public schools can become community centers hosting a broad variety of groups and activities. Again and again the courts have ruled that citizens engaged in a voluntary Bible study have the same right of free speech and equal access as anybody else meeting on school property. If the activity is legal anywhere, it is legal at school no matter what they want, are promoting, or are discussing.

Evenso, despite his passionate statement, my worthy opponent has not established by any means what such groups want to promote. I have cited two examples in which the converse might be true. In a Bible as literature or History class, it would not be at all unusual to deal with no personal theology at all , and such classes are frequently interesting and enjoyable for non religious people as well as people of faith.

My opponent writes
I would ask my opponent to support his statement that ‘no secular group does that’ (studies the Bible and talks about Christianity) when I have suggested some secular groups that might indeed do that. This is purely to illustrate his unprovable and errant conclusions, however, as his point is irrelevant to the issue. What the group studies and talks about has Constitutional protection as I have already shown in previous posts.

My opponent writes
Please show support for your argument that any student group that meets on school property is authorized by the school any more than any other group meeting on school property. If such was the case, I do not think there would have been so many court cases that rule against the school and rule for the private group to enjoy free speech and equal access even for a Bible study group. Why would the school authorize a group and then deny it access?

My opponent writes
Again my opponent is in error of fact. The school organizations are not asked to waive fees. But the school has lost in cases in which they assessed fees to a Bible study group or similar group while not assessing fees to other groups meeting on school property. To wit the following case:
In CHILD EVANGELISM FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA - POMONA VALLEY CHAPTER ET AL Vs P. JOSEPH LENZ ET AL, DEFENDENTS
the court ruled for relief for the Bible study group that was being charged by the school while other non-religious groups were not charged the fee.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/briefs/lenzbrief_final.pdf

My opponent writes
We can safely speculate that the students had a good case based on the plethora of rulings of similar cases that have gone to trial and have resulted in wins for the religious groups.. In this particular case, however, the Rutherford legal team was sufficiently persuasive to convince the school that they were on solid legal and Constitutional ground allowing the Bible Club the same access and privileges enjoyed by other volunteer student groups.

My opponent writes
I could not find the specific case my opponent cites for future reference. He cites websites that I have been unable to access. Good links would be helpful.

independent_thinker2002

ShamMol, I also have not been able to get those links to work.

__________________
==]:{o

ShamMol

You can get the links from AlbqOwls post then since they were just copies of his. I will post my response later, but as I stated earlier, I cannot provide a link for the last thing because it is "unpublished" which means it is not for the public...yet. If this is not allowed, fine, but it's research is solid.

independent_thinker2002

I don't think that you should use something that can't be verified. I think you can argue the point without it.

I would like to hear how the individual competitors themselves feel about the ramifications and implications of allowing or disallowing a Bible Study Club. We have heard what the courts think. There are issues that the courts haven't addressed yet. I would like to see how the competitors think about this. I would like to see how you view things "should be" instead of how the courts have decided "they are". It is okay to agree/disagree with the courts, of course, and to cite them.

ShamMol

Alright, on the point that independentthinker would like the competitors to address, I will beg the question what is too much state involvement and how far should they attempt to keep the state from endorsing religion. To a certain point, I wanted to argue con for bible study in school, when in fact that is what I do for a significant portion of my college experience. You see, I am a double major in Religious Studies and Government, but keep them seperate (I know, bad joke). When I get to class, I study the bible and hewbrew texts from a purely historical perspective, the way I think Bible Study should be-that way you can see how the Church and religions have evolved.

However, I see a danger in allowing a voluntary bible study group into a public school environment. Sure, people are allowed to talk about religion and the bible in public school, but that doesn't mean that the school should be allowed to endorse it as an official club, and after that point, give it money to function as a school organization typically does. I see a danger there that many others, including my worthy opponent, refuse to see: the state saying that it is ok with the promotion of religion with state money. Now, if other groups such as a Muslim group started up, it wouldn't change the situation because the state is still giving money to a purely religious organization for religious purposes.

Let me get into what I mean by a purely religious organization for religious purposes. Bible Study, unlike it was cited in that Supreme Court case, is not an organization that attempts to build secular morals with a religious message. It is an organization that attempts to find meaning in the bible (or tell their members meaning) and is only focused on religion. When it is focused solely on religion, I cannot find a secular purpose. This is unlike Catholic Charities which has a secular purpose of helping people avoid starvation. It is perfectly acceptable to give state money to a program like that because they are performing necessary secular tasks, even if they are accompanied by a religious message.

That is my main non-legal point. I just don't find it acceptable for the state to give money or aid or recognition to a purely religious organization that has no secular purpose. I even feel so strongly on this point that I disagree with the Supreme Court on whether a private organization should be allowed to use schools for a nonsecular purpose. I question the logic because they are operating in a supposedly secular environment, yet still it is ok for them to be purely religious. But I concede the point that a private religious organization is allowed to use school grounds after hours because that is the legal ruling and I am a firm believer in the rule of law triumphing over all.

Now, the difference here is that I believe this case to be a public organization, a official school club. When a school allows a club to be on the premise, it is giving it official standing within the state and with that comes possible aid. That is the difference as I see it in this case. I welcome comments from AlbqOwl over his inherent stance to religious organizations in public schools.

AlbqOwl

To put the matter of a Bible Study group having no secular purpose to rest, I have been writing and teaching adult curriculum on the Development of Christian Thought, the Bible as History, and also comparative religions for some years now. The classes I have taught have been mostly nondemnominational, quite ecumenical, and whole periods have been devoted to intense Bible study with focus on the chronology, history, the development of liturgy, theology, dogma, etc. that have been incorporated into multiple belief systems, and the law. All is brought forward to show how the ancient beliefs/ways/laws/customs have impacted the present. I have had multiple persons in my classes who professed no religious faith and indeed admitted they were agnostic or atheist, but who were fascinated by this line of study and were some of my most interesting students. I would guess that would be the case on most highschool and/or college campuses offering various courses with 'religion' in the title.

My worthy opponent writes
I believe I am on solid footing when I say there is too much state (government) involvement when:

1) The State presumes to deny students the right to meet and study the Bible or treats a volunteer Bible study group differently than it treats other volunteer groups that meet on school property.
2) The State presumes to say who can and who cannot attend a Bible study group on school property.
3) The State presumes to influence or dictate what can and cannot be taught, offered, discussed in a Bible study group meeting on school property.
4) The state assigns staff to monitor a Bible study group when such staff is not assigned to other groups meeting on school property.
5) The state permits coercive practices committed by a Bible study group meeting on school property.
6) The state favors, rewards, or allows benefits to a Bible Study group when other groups are not provided the same favors, rewards, or benefits or punishes or discriminates or withholds benefits from any persons participating in a volunteer Bible Study group on school property.
7) School/government staff is assigned to mentor or teach the class.

When the vast majority of Americans profess some sort of religious faith, and a substantial majority express that religious is very or at least somewhat important to them, to deny expression or study of Bible/religion/faith is not only seriously against the letter and intent of the First Amendment, but it would be discriminatory and prejudicial on the face of it, court rulings notwithdstanding. People of faith or people just interested in the Bible as history or literature are as worthy and as entitled to equal access, treatment, and consideration as any other interest groups.

To back my claim that most Americans are religious, here are results of numerous recent polls from various polling groups on that very subject:
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm

Edited to add an afterthought:

In the Preamble to our Constitution is the phrase: ". . .promote the common welfare." How better could government promote the common welfare than to open the faciltiies and properties of the common people for their use in play, study, fellowship, or learning? The use of a school as a community center is a wonderful thing. And that Bible Study group belongs there as much as any other group does.