AlbqOwl vs ShamMol - Religion in Public Schools

FallingPianos · 06-13-06, 10:21 PM

Topic: Teaching Religion in Public Schools
Should students or organizations be able to conduct voluntary Bible Study groups on school property?

Monitor: independent_thinker2002

Debate Opens at 6:00AM PST Friday

FallingPianos · 06-15-06, 02:56 PM

independent_thinker2002 may post the debate rules. Any posts by competitors before he does so will be deleted.

This forum hasnt been fixed to make it so that only participants can post, so until that happens all posts made by non-participants will be deleted.

independent_thinker2002 · 06-15-06, 11:04 PM

The competitors have not requested any additional rules. This debate will be open form. If the debate comes to a standstill, I will ask questions of the participants. If things run smoothly I will leave things alone. AlbqOwl will be for students or organizations being able to conduct voluntary Bible Study groups on school property. ShamMol will be against it. ShamMol won the coin toss and will post first. Debators will alternate posts. I have copied the rules as a reminder for the competitors and observers. It is also an easy reference and should help eliminate any confusion.

Scheduling and judging:
The debates will last exactly 8 days. There will be a discussion thread for other DP members which will be invisible to the competitors and the monitors.

The next 4 days will be spent on judging. A poll will be opened on the discussion thread. 1/3 based on DP member votes, 1/3 based on moderator votes, and 1/3 based on the monitor vote.

When the judging is completed, the winners will be announced and the discussion thread and polls will become visable to the competitors and monitor. Winners will have "June True Debate Winner" put under their user title.

If the debates go smoothly and it is apparent that little change is needed to the form, sign up for the next debates will go up before these debates are complete. People who participate in these debates may sign up for the next ones in addition to all DP members. The aim is to have 2 sets of debates each month.

Judging Will be Based on the Following Criteria:

1. Uniqueness and Thoughtfulness of Solution: 0-10 points
This is the logical side of the debate. Points will be deducted for logical fallacies and the like. Staying on topic is especially important.

2. Civil Aggressiveness and Eloquence of Posts: 0-10 points
This is how passionately the competitor communicates, and how convincing they are despite logic. Charisma and staying on the offense is important here.

Be Warned The standard of civility in the True Debates is very high.

3. Clarity of Posts: 0-10 points
This is a matter of how well you communicate your ideas. Posts should be organized, concise, and clear. Proper grammer and spelling is expected.

True Debate Rules

Competitors and Monitors Must be Civil
The True Debates are held to a very high standard. Name calling and flaming may result in disqualification of either competitors or monitors. Disqualifications may only be performed by myself or Vauge.

Competitors Must Follow the Format and Rules Given by the Monitor
The monitor is highly encouraged to use the 48 hours before the debate to discuss with their group what the form should be and what further rules are necessary.

The monitor has the (semi) final say in the format, rules, and penalties and may change the format or alter the rules at any time, but there shall be no ex post facto rules. If the monitor feels the need to change the rules or format they are encouraged to discuss this with their team before taking action.

I have the penultimate final say, and Vauge has the Ultimate Final Say.

The Role of the Monitor may be Taken Over by Myself or Vauge if the Monitor does not Step Up to the Plate
The role may also be delegated to another DP member by myself of Vauge.

You Must Cite Your Sources
All online sources must be free, and must not require registration. A link and page number (if applicable) is sufficient for an online source. For offline sources, a full MLA, APA, or other academic citation form must be used. The monitor chooses the form.

Editing your posts is allowed, but discouraged You may edit your posts up to 25 minutes after posting. If you edit your post, you must put a brief explanation of the edit at the bottom of the post. Use the Preview Post feature so that editing is unnecessary.

All Forum Rules (Forum Rules) Apply

FallingPianos · 06-16-06, 02:45 AM

Debate is open

ShamMol · 06-16-06, 03:05 PM

I base my argument for involvement of religion in public schools on the concept of excessive entanglement. 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). Let me first start by examining excessive entanglement (and there are some sources down at the bottom).

“Excessive entanglement” is one prong of a three-part test the Supreme Court used in Lemon v. Kurtzman to decide whether a government program violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. To determine whether a government program involves “excessive entanglement” with religion, a court must examine the nature of the government assistance, the character of the entity receiving the benefits, and the resulting relationship between government and the religious group.1 “Excessive entanglement” is a way of ensuring that government remains separate from religious organizations in addition to being neutral towards them.2

In Lemon, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes that provided financial support to non-public schools by reimbursing them for teachers’ salaries and secular textbooks, and by paying their teachers a salary supplement.3 The Court held both laws unconstitutional, in part because restrictions placed on the schools’ use of the funds required constant monitoring of teachers’ activities and school finances by government officials.4 This monitoring and auditing, the Court stated, created “an intimate and continuing relationship between church and state” that amounted to a form of “state surveillance.” 5

The Court used the “excessive entanglement” prong of the Lemon test until 1992. After that, it considered “excessive entanglement” one means of deciding whether the primary effect of a law was to advance religion.6 In Agostini v. Felton, Justice O’Connor acknowledged that “excessive entanglement” had been a factor separate from a law’s effect in advancing religion.7 Since the test for evaluating entanglement and effect was basically the same, however, she said “it is simplest to recognize why entanglement is significant and treat it . . . as an aspect of the inquiry into a statute’s effect.”8

Recently, the Establishment Clause has been used to challenge school voucher programs. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court decided that a school voucher program was constitutional because the vouchers were given to poor families, and religious schools received assistance only if those families chose to give it to them, not because the government decided to do so.9 After noting that “excessive entanglement” was now used to analyze whether a law advances religion, Justice O’Connor concluded that a program that distributes aid to families, rather than directly to schools, does not advance religion.10 In other words, it does not entangle the government with religious organizations. The government does not need to monitor the schools because the choice to give them government funds is not the government’s, but individual citizens’.

While “excessive entanglement” is no longer a separate test for determining whether the Establishment Clause has been violated, the concept remains important. The closeness of the relationship a program creates between government and religious organizations is key in determining whether it advances religion. Direct aid programs like those at issue in Lemon are much more likely to run afoul of the Establishment Clause than an indirect program like the vouchers challenged in Zelman.

In this case, it is clear that a during-school program is just that, an extracurricular activity - but the point remains that the school is giving official standing to a religious organization, or at the very least an offshoot of one and possibly funding which would be used to advance religions. I welcome the response from my worthy opponent in dictating how this debate will turn.

1 Chief Justice Burger, Lemon v. Kurtzman at 615.
2 Keith Werhan, Navigating the New Neutrality: School Vouchers, the Pledge, and the Limits of a Purposive Establishment Clause, 41 Brandeis L. J. 603, 609 (2003).
3 Chief Justice Burger, Lemon v. Kurtzman at 607-10.
4 Chief Justice Burger, Lemon v. Kurtzman at 619, 621.
5 Chief Justice Burger, Lemon v. Kurtzman at 619, 621-22.
6 John E. Thompson, What’s the Big Deal? The Unconstitutionality of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, 38 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 563, 572 (2003).
7 Justice O’Connor, Agostini v. Felton at 232.
8 Justice O’Connor, Agostini v. Felton at 232-33. See Shelby Slawson, Changing American Schools: The Intersection of Choice and the Constitution, 22 Rev. Litig.759, 771-72 (2003).
9 Chief Justice Rehnquist, Zelman at 649.
10 Justice O’Connor, Zelman at 669.

FallingPianos · 06-16-06, 03:24 PM

discussion for this debate is here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/contes...c-schools.html

independent_thinker2002 · 06-16-06, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShamMol

...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).

I am not sure if you are asking me or AlbqOwl. If you are asking me, I would say that it is an acceptable issue.

AlbqOwl · 06-16-06, 09:38 PM

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

ShamMol · 06-17-06, 01:30 AM

In looking at your own source, AlbqOwl, I decided that perhaps excessive entanglement may not have been the best route to take due to the preponderence of cases that weight against it. One that was brough up was Milford, a case that clearly enumerates the reasons why this bible group should not be allowed to study during school. Let me post this excerpt and then I will go on to explain.

Quote:

The State of New York authorizes local school boards to adopt regulations governing the use of their school facilities. In particular, N. Y. Educ. Law §414 (McKinney 2000) enumerates several purposes for which local boards may open their schools to public use. In 1992, respondent Milford Central School (Milford) enacted a community use policy adopting seven of §414’s purposes for which its building could be used after school. App. to Pet. for Cert. D1—D3. Two of the stated purposes are relevant here. First, district residents may use the school for “instruction in any branch of education, learning or the arts.” Id., at D1. Second, the school is available for “social, civic and recreational meetings and entertainment events, and other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community, provided that such uses shall be nonexclusive and shall be opened to the general public.” Ibid.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-2036.ZO.html

Now what does this mean? It means two things - The Supreme Court does not authorize time during public schooling and the SCOTUS is not interested in what people do after school as long as there is no exchange of money. Now it is a completely different thing if they are meeting after school, but if it is a student organization, as I suppose it is, then in no way shape or form does it come close to that found in Milforrd, at least in my opinion.

My worthy opponent, AlbqOwl, failed to realize as well that Lambs Chapel deals with the same issues because it was one of the first such cases to broach the topic of outside organizations using school property for a religious purpose, while getting no money. Previously, the Warren court would most likely (I think) have struck this down, but consensous ruled out and a law prevailed. But again, the vauge language of our prompt leaves so much doubt as to whether this case is applicable or not due to the fact that we do not know when these organizations are meeting - during school, after school, for a school purpose, as a school-sponsored organization (as most clubs are).

I propose to look at the funding issue, the core of the excessive entanglement argument (or the third part of the Lemon test). Let me quote from an opinion posted:

Quote:

According to separationist scholars Barry Lynn, Marc Stern, and Oliver Thomas, the fact that a law may have a "religious purpose or be motivated by religion does not mean it is unconstitutional as long as it also has a bona fide secular or civic purpose" (The Right to Religious Liberty, p. 3). Similarly, "a law that has a remote or incidental effect of advancing religion is not unconstitutional as long as the effect is not a 'primary' effect" (p. 3). Finally, the Court has allowed some entanglement between church and state, as long as this entanglement is not "excessive" (p. 3). Hence, the Court has built some leeway into the test so as not to invalidate laws that have only remote connections to religious practice. This is not, in other words, the work of a Court that was hostile to religion. On the contrary, Justice Burger, a Nixon appointee, is generally reckoned as a conservative on social issues.

We note also that the Lemon test is squarely grounded on the principles articulated in Everson v. Board of Education. Accomodationist legal scholar Stephen Monsma, for example, notes that Burger's opinion is:

Deeply embedded in...the sacred-secular distinction and the Supreme Court's evaluation of the state's attempts to separate out the two and subsidize only the latter. His opinion noted that at the trial-court level several teachers had testified "they did not inject religion into their secular classes." And the District Court found that religious values did not necessarily affect the content of secular instruction. Burger agreed, but made the additional, crucial observation that "the potential for impermissible fostering of religion is present." He then went on to conclude that under such circumstances state attempts to assure a strict separation of the sacred and the secular would require continuing state administrative supervision and surveillance, resulting in state entanglement with religion (When Sacred and Secular Mix: Religious Non-Profit Organizations and Public Money, pp. 32-33)

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/eclause2.htm

I contend that the only purpose of a bible-study group is to promote religiosity, not to promote the secular thoughts that a traditional biblical study class would learn (like the Historicity or origins of the writers of the bible). Instead, its purpose is a purely religious one in which the state inadvertantly lends itself to excessive entanglement through providing funding (if this really occurs), giving it official standing within the community and allowing it to function both during (the key part) and after school (the allowed) hours. My worthy opponent contended that excessive entanglement had little to nothing to do with the topic at hand (I believe the word was irrelevant). I contend otherwise.

AlbqOwl · 06-17-06, 01:31 PM

As argued in my previous post (which was unfortunately an inadvertent double post), the issue is not when the group meets or the subject matter of the meeting, but whether a Bible study group may be discriminated against by the school (government). As the Cub Scouts or Quiji Board Association (I made that one up) or a Literary Club are also not likely to be allowed to conduct their meetings during class time, then neither would it be an issue to deny a Bible study group class time to do their thing. But if other groups are allowed to meet on school property outside of class time, then it logically follows that it would be discriminatory to forbid a Bible study to meet on school property outside of class time. This is also the opinion of the Supreme Court as previously shown.

My opponent’s contention that “the only purpose of a Bible-study group is to promote religiosity’ is also disputed in Supreme Court rulings:

Quote:

In Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court said, "the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like." [FN42] Thus, it would be constitutional for a public school teacher to have students study the biblical passages that relate to Christmas (e.g., Matthew 1:18-2:22 and Luke 2:1-20) if the purpose was to study the historical or literary significance of the passages. Of course, any student that had ideological or religious objections to reading the Bible should be excused from the assignment.
http://www.aclj.org/Issues/Resources...nt.aspx?ID=717

Bible study might be employed by my opponent’s team to find ammunition for a debate rebuttal, or by the American Atheists to prepare a case for civil action. It also can be taught from a purely historical point of view as recognized by the Supreme Court. It would be a clear violation of the establishment clause as well as the excessive entanglement principle for the school/government to dictate the thoughts or point of view of those engaged in the Bible study unless they did the same in all other groups utilizing school property.

From the funding angle, it can be argued that there is a financial aspect to using rent free facilities on government property. While most schools see a practical social advantage to supporting community activities and most do so without charge, there is no law preventing a fair usage charge assessed to all groups using school property for meetings. The Courts have ruled, however, that the school may not charge a religious group while waiving fees for other groups:

Quote:

On November 17, 2004, in Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Lenz, a federal court in California struck down the Upland School District's policy of charging religious groups a "usage fee" for use of school facilities, which was not charged to other private groups. The Civil Rights Division submitted an amicus brief to the court opposing the selective fee. Assistant Attorney General R. Alexander Acosta applauded the decision: "The Constitution does not tolerate a sliding fee scale based on one's religious views. . . ."
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/religdisc/n...er/focus_8.htm

Again the only practical way to look at this issue is from the stance of First Amendment rights of free exercise and free speech and also from the stance of equal access/protection under the law. Government cannot promote religion, but religious people nevertheless have as much right to be accommodated by their government as do any other people.

The Supreme Court agrees with me.

Quote:

Relying on a long line of Supreme Court precedent, the Good News Club filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee forbids Milford from excluding the club simply because it teaches morals and values from a Christian perspective. Our Constitution, the club insisted, does not permit governments to discriminate against groups because of the "viewpoints" they espouse. The Supreme Court agreed. . . . .

. . . . The court also rejected the argument that the constitutional prohibition on established religion required Milford to exclude the Good News Club, and reaffirmed that the equal treatment of religion is not the establishment of religion. For Milford to treat the club like other groups--no better, no worse--is not to coerce children to engage in religious activities, but rather to communicate a respect for religious pluralism and diversity of viewpoints.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95000634

Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Equal Access Act constitutional in an 8-1 decision. The case involved the Westside Community Schools of Omaha, Neb., which maintained several non-curriculum clubs. A group of Christian students was prohibited from forming its own extracurricular club, which was to include Bible study, prayer and fellowship.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Bible club, stating that the Equal Access Act did not violate the establishment clause in the First Amendment, and that all student groups qualifying under the act are to be treated equally by school boards.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/374/203/case.html