ShamMol

I take classes in Scripture, both Hebrew and Christian, and know that there is a difference between a class, and a bible study group. I have been a part of both at one time (in fact I joined the bible study group to help me with my work in the class). Now, this bible study group was purely religious and when I even raised the question of whether the passage might have been redacted...it was not a pedagogical concern of theirs at all. It was purely analyzing the text from a religious perspective and finding meaning within the confines of Christianity. There is a distinct difference, as a Religious Studies major, between a Bible Class and a Bible Study group. One analyzes, the other preaches.
1.) You are on solid footing, but the state has a responsibility to deny and/or treat differently a group with a purely secular purpose, especially if it is a school organization and thus, possibly receiving money.
2.) I do not understand what you mean by this. I believe that you misstated it and intended to say that the state cannot deny individual members of the community the right to associate on school property. But this is false because we are not dealing with a private organization with no ties to the school, but rather a school-sponsored club that meets at school and has official standing within the state (school).
3.) The State has a right to monitor the groups that it allows to become official. This has been established again and again by the Supreme Court because school is very different from the regular world in their view.
4.) The state assigns staff because it becomes an officially-sponsored club that needs an advisor as such.
5.) No, they don’t. You may want to make that point clearer. The state does not allow a public (state-sponsored) organization to do things with a purely religious intent; there is no doubt about this.
6.) The state cannot withhold benefits from people who participate in a religious activity solely for the reason that they participate in a religious activity, and there has been no doubt at any time about this fact. That would be retaliation and it would never hold up in the court of law.
7.) School/government/state can teach a class on Scripture because that does not have a purely religious intent, and in fact, most of the time has no religious intent whatsoever. That is the difference between a bible study and a bible class.
It might be prejudicial, or discriminatory, or even not fair, but the rule of law is what this nation was founded upon. That part of our lives is so paramount that without it, we would not be able to function as a society. It is so respected by the people of America, in my opinion, that even when they do not agree with the opinion, they will eventually allow it because it was dictated by law. People of faith are entitled to equal access and treatment, but not when it involves school organizations. When it involves school organizations, it is a completely different matter – that would be official sponsorship (making it an official club), assigning state employees to work for a religious purpose (as an advisor), providing school funding, etc., etc. That is the point I have been trying to drive home for a while now. This is not a private entity, it is a public organization/club, and while the private entity would have the right to meet after school hours, such a club does not.

This country is based on the rule of the majority, that is correct, but it is also important to note that the rule of the majority is never to be at the expense of the minority. The minority here are protected by the separation of Church and State, the establishment clause, the court rulings setting up excessive entanglement. I don’t deny that many of the citizens of this country are religious, but I also find it irresponsible to not follow the basic principles this country was founded upon.

How better to promote the common welfare than by honoring founding principles that we fought so hard for instead of just letting them fall by the wayside for political expediency? The use of school is open to mostly everyone, AlbqOwl, but when it crosses that line into state sponsorship of religion as is the case here, it is a dangerous precedent.

__________________

AlbqOwl

Sham writes
One of the most broadly prevalent logical fallacies is that if something is true in one instance, it is true in all. In my Bible study groups where Bible is studied as history, no devotional exercises take place unless somebody is engaged in such silently and privately, and I think you would agree that there is nothing illegal or improper about that. Even if it was proper for the State to dictate the demeanor of a Bible study group, there is no way to know what that demeanor is unless you are a part of it, and no way to know that it is being conducted in any way different from a class unless you are part of it. It only makes things interesting to learn how a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Atheist hears different things in a passage of scripture, and, as often as not, all will be hearing things differently than what the original writer intended to say. That is what comparative religions is all about, and it often begins with a Bible study group.

I wrtoe:
Sham wrote
I disagree profoundly as has court decision after court decision. The State has an obligation to provide equal opportunity, access, and privileges to all, even the religious people.

You have to attached each statement to the preface (which is the response to the question you begged, remember?):

". . . . there is too much state (government) involvement when:
The State presumes to say who can and who cannot attend a Bible study group on school property."

Pretty straight forward wouldn't you say?

And we are dealing with private organizations/groups/people utilizing school property which is opened for their use. It is not for government to say who can access the groups that are meeting. And, as I have already established, those that want to study the Bible instead of whatever the Literary Club is studying are every bit within their Constitutional rights to do so. This holds true for noncurricular student groups as well as other groups.

Sham writes
We're not talking about State sanctioned or official groups, however. We are talking about volunteer student or private citizen led groups. There is a huge difference.

Sham writes
That is not the case with any of the examples I have used, and the examples I have used addresss the specific question of volunteer led groups with purely voluntary members. I have agreed that involvement of government staff would cross the line into excessive entanglement, and that is why I say it is inappropriate for government to assign staff to monitor a voluntary Bible study group.

Sham writes:
Again you have to attach the universal preface which makes my statement read:
". . . .there is too much state (government) involvement when:
5) The state permits coercive practices committed by a Bible study group meeting on school property.

The school would be in error to allow a group to strong arm or in any way coerce people to participate in a Bible study. That would cross the line into what would be unacceptable religious infringement on government. But there is no problem with allowing the Bible study group equal access to bulletin boards or other means of announcement provided to all other groups. The fly tieing club--I was once President of one of those--might be made up of all Druids of the Moonlight who spend most of their meeting time conjuring up wood spirits. The quilting bee might be little old ladies discussing what they thought about last Sunday's sermon. What the groups talk about or whether they do anything 'religious' or not is not the concern of the State, nor should it be.

Sham writes:
Yes! This is what I have been arguing in some detail. I'm glad to see that you're coming around to my point of view on that. :smile:

I will refer you to the earlier point. It doens't matter what subject the people are discussing in any group or what their state of mind is. So long as the group is not engaged in illegal activity, and participation is purely voluntary, they are entitled to free speech and equal access as much as any other citizens are.

------CONTINUED IN THE NEXT POST-------------

__________________
"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

AlbqOwl

......CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST.........

I wrote:
Sham responds:
.

The rule of law affords all people, even the religious ones, the right to free exercise of religion, free speech, and equal access. Until you can show how anybody's unalienable, legal, or Constitutional rights, their property, opportunities, right of consortium or ability to pursue happiness or any other right you can think of is in any way infringed by the presence of a volunteer Bible study group, even a very religious one, meeting on school property alongside the Ladie's Sewing Guild and the Cub Scout den meeting, then you simply can't make a case that any 'minority' is being harmed in any way.

The founding principles were quite explicit that government would not establish any religion meaning that no religious group could expect or would receive any special favors or rewards or privileges more than any other religious group, and also that no religious group need fear any form of punishment, retaliation, or disfavor from the government based on what their particular religious beliefs were. The founders were also quite clear that they expected that people of faith would be part of the government, involved in government, and evident in government. They certainly would not have tried to ban a voluntary Bible study group meeting in the cafeteria before or after classes.

independent_thinker2002

I have requested an extra day for closing statements. Each post will be the debators' final post. Thank you.

__________________
==]:{o

AlbqOwl

My closing argument is the same as my beginning argument, and is the same argument that the Constitution states and the Courts have affirmed.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . " This means that our government cannot punish, disfavor, reward, or favor us in any way for what we do or do not believe. The Court has repeatedly ruled that a voluntary Bible study or relgious activity meeting on school property is in no way an 'establishment of religion' when government staff/authorities have no involvement in the content of such study or activity.

The First Amendment goes on: ". . .or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The government (school) cannot exclude a student led or other private group purely because it has a religious theme or discusses something religious.

The First Amendment goes on: ". . .or abridging the freedom of speech. . ." Because of world history spanning many millenia in which governments imposed oppressive religions on people or punished people for their religious belief, the Founders in their wisdom thought it necessary to build safeguards into the Constitution and laws to ensure that our govrnment could do not that. It was no coincidence that "free speech" was tied to that protection for the people and reinforces the principle that all speech, including religious speech, is the right of the people. It would be inappropriate and unConstitutional for the govenrment school to dictate what manner of speech would be engaged in a voluntary Bible study group or to prohibit such a group from discussing something that appears religious.

And finally the First Amendment says: ". . .or (abridging) the freedom of the press or the right of the people to peacably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere in here does it exclude religious print or say that all groups may assemble but religious groups or that religious people can't protest discriminatory treatment.

In the Fourtheenth Amendment sometimes referred to as the 'equal access' amendment. . .
the intent is clear that all people are afforded equal treatment and protection by their govrenment. The intent did not exclude religious people or people of faith from inclusion or protection.

The bottom line comes down to this:

The Founders were most men of faith determined to ensure that people would not be able to use government to force others to believe or not believe anything including religion. Our beliefs, thoughts, opinions, and convictions, shared or unshared, including those of a religious nature, are our unalienable right to have. The government can neither reward us nor punish us nor favor us nor discriminate against us for exercising this right.

When the government/school opens the public property of the people to the people for private purposes such as group meetings, the private Bible study group, whether composed of students or random people from the community, or other, is as appropriate and as legal as any other group that meets on the school property. The school cannot staff it. But unless the Bible study group in any way infringes on the unalienable, Constitutional, or legal rights of any other persons or in any way violates somebody's property or opportunities or pursuit of happiness, etc, it must be treated the same as all other groups.

Religous people and people interested in the Bible for whatever reason, including religious ones, are citizens too and are entitled and granted all freedoms, protections, rights, and privileges as all other people. That includes being treated the same as any other volunteer groups meeting on school property.

So say the courts. So say I. And so should say everybody.

AlbqOwl

On a personal note, I would like to extend compliments to my worthy opponent who, I think had the much more difficult duty in this debate. And while I think his side was indefensible on the face of it, he did a great job making it look like it was. My compliments.

ShamMol

I'd like to apologize for not responding earlier, but my grandfather has been in the hospital and I just got to a computer yesterday to be able to check email. I will have my response up sometime today.

independent_thinker2002

I understand. My mother has been in the hospital as well. After ShamMol's post we will close the debate.

ShamMol

I first stated what this issue was about when I first started this debate: the excessive entanglement between church and state. I stated it quite clearly the first time, and I will reiterate that now: "While it may not appear that an ordinary bible study is entangled within government, it is quite clearly entangled for three reasons: official standing within student government, ability to use the school property for a purely religious purpose, and possible funding issues due to school policy (I would ask whether that is an issue here before I broach it due to most schools giving some kind of stipend to active clubs in many public schools)." This is still held to be true.

But now I add a new element to this case, one not based on law, but based on the founding principles of this nation. When we came over on the Mayflower, we came to escape the persecution of those who had become so enamoured of Church mingling with State that it crossed the line. They came with one idea: Never Again. We still hold that to be true, but we never lost our religiosity like many thought we would. Instead, we set up checks and balances to insure that this country would thrive and flourish without the help of Church, with the hinderance of state. While we may not like that today, we must respect it because it is what helped to found our nation.

Would Thomas Jefferson be annoyed that people are allowed to meet after school hours for a religious event? Absolutely not. And that is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court held up that end of the case (among other completely legal reasons). But would he and other founding fathers become angered at the sight of the American government giving money to a sponsored religious school organizion which this clearly is? Yes, yes they would. My opponent argues that the first ammendment garuntees that we shall not punish religious groups, but I state here and now that we must keep them seperate from state to honor our constitution.

I have stated this repeated, and I will finalize my argument by doing so - the SCOTUS does not recognize the religious free speech as the same thing as purely protected free speech, especially in a school zone. So, what does this mean? It means that while free speech is important, it is also important to realize that there are important steps taht must be taken to insure that the consitution is upheld, especially when schools and our most vulnerable are involved. That is why when it is a school-sponsored club, when it could possibly receive school funding due to its club status, meet on school grounds, recieve a school advisor, meet during school times, etc., etc. it is important to realize it is more than just a free speech issue. It becomes a matter of constitutionality and perserving the sanctity of seperation of Church and State. The 1st and 14th Amendments are important, but so is the intent behind those amendments.

ShamMol

And I apologize profusely for how late this is...but my grandfather has been in the hospital and still is. I actually am writing from there right now. Again, I apologize and would like to offer my congratulations to my opponent for a great debate. It was really fun.