Alito defends student Thanksgiving poster
By Andy Kaiser
Article ID: 1110
Looking back on this conversation, I get pretty frustrated. I’m frustrated that I didn’t take the time to communicate my thoughts in detail. I’m also frustrated that I didn’t notice or respond to the tactics used during the conversation (redirecting the subject from the poster display to just easier-defended ”Muslim writing an opinion”, to using Godwin’s Law to further misdirect the issues).
So what would you have done if you’d received this email?
As we get ready to celebrate Thanksgiving, I wanted to highlight for you a dissent filed by Judge Samuel Alito in 2000 that shows his strong support for the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
The case involved a kindergarten student whose Thanksgiving poster was removed from his public school because the poster thanked Jesus. It was another outrageous example of the courts imposing an unconstitutional secular mandate.
The kids were encouraged to make the posters expressing their thanks during the Thanksgiving season. But this one child’s poster was removed because the child wanted to thank Jesus.
The 3rd Circuit Court upheld the school’s actions.
But Judge Alito “stood on the wall” in opposition and filed a blistering dissent that stated, “Public school students have the right to express religious views in class discussion or in assigned work.”
Alito added: “this was quintessential viewpoint discrimination.”
Read a full report on this case, and Judge Alito’s dissent.
You might respond like this:
I’m not sure I agree with Alito’s opinion. If the student had instead put up a poster expressing “thanks for Allah“, would that have been allowed to remain on the walls of a public school? If not, that’s discriminatory. If so, how would the non-Muslim taxpayers feel about that?
I thought the separation of church and state (and the existence of secular schools) was meant to prevent issues like this.
Which, then, might generate a response like this:
OK, I totally disagree with your opinion,
If a student is given an assignment in school, and then his assignment or opinion is discriminated against by some atheist authorities and removed from the school, think how this can adversily effect the student. Even if a Muslim were to write an opinion about Allah, his opinion shold not be obliterated.
Separation of Church and State does not mean complete obliteration of Religious expressions. It means that any one Religion should not be required by the State.
Then you’d have no choice but to send a response like this:
So we have to bend laws to prevent hurting people’s feelings?
I didn’t mention atheists here, and don’t think they apply, unless you just meant that as an example. In terms of the First Amendment, I agree. In a private school, I agree. But taking public schools into account, I disagree, depending on where and how the poster was
displayed (which I couldn’t find information on). A public school needs to be careful not to advocate any particular religion, for then it *would* be interfering with the First Amendment.
This issue seems very similar to the removal of the 10 Commandments display from the front of an Alabama courthouse.
The question is one of intent and implied meaning. Yes, this was just a kid, expressing thanks for God. But under what conditions was the picture displayed?
Separation of Church and State does not mean complete obliteration of Religious expressions. It means that any one Religion should not be required by the State.
Agreed, with the addition of “and the State should not endorse one religious belief over another“.
“School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. ” U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Santa Fe v. Doe, (2000).
Inevitably, you’d receive an answer like this:
I still think that it is not against the Constitution nor against the doctrine of separation, to display religious articles in public schools, as long as all religious views are allowed on an equal basis. I can remember the days of Hitler and Stalin and some other States who did and do prohibit the free expression of Religious views. There was persecution in those countries and people were put to death for doing so.
You should remember that it was an Atheist who brought suit against the display of Religious views in the public school. I don’t want, and I do believe, that if this is prohibited, that the chances of this country becoming an adherent to Atheistic views is totally possible.
I still think that it would be good if Alito were to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Podcast
Support
Email alerts
RSS
Facebook