So Namvet, you want to know where the concept of God gets defended despite the cases you cited. Well, let's look at the ten commandments court case.
Obviously, this case meant nothing because people still want to have it pulled from schools.
A day after he shocked the nation by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a federal appeals court judge put his ruling on hold Thursday.
Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who wrote the 2-1 opinion that said the phrase "under God" violates the separation of church and state, stayed his ruling until other members of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decide whether to change course.
The appeals court can rehear the case with the same three judges, or an 11-judge panel.
Perhaps they want the pledge pulled because it's still there. I know it's still in the various schools I've worked in (including the "under God" part).
BTW, I loved how in your article, it said the judge got threats. Why no condemnation of that? It's not like it was Christian to do.
I'd like to know the name of the schools that were pushing the pro-Obama politics so I could find updates on them.
Now, here's some information on some court cases.
Personally, I blame the gangs more than anybody else on this. How dare they use religious symbols and bring their war into the schools. That's a rant for another time. Anyway, notice the highlighted part. The Christians got to wear their symbols.
1999-AUG; Mississipi: A 15 year old Jewish student, Ryan Green, was not allowed to wear a Star of David necklace at his Biloxi MS high school. This is a six-pointed star which is the universal symbol of Judaism. Ryan's father is Jewish and his mother is Christian. He was brought up in both faiths. During the summer holidays, his grandmother talked to him about his Jewish heritage and gave him a Star of David to wear. He wore it to school, but was told to wear it inside his shirt for his own good. The next day, a teacher told him to take it off. The Harrison County school board voted unanimously on AUG-16 to back the teacher. They will retain their policy that forbids students from wearing anything that could be considered a gang symbol. The board discussed forbidding crosses and crucifixes, but decided to continue to allow Christian children to freely wear them. Tom Green, Ryan's father told the school board: "I don't appreciate calling the Star of David a gang symbol." The American Civil Liberties Union filed a suit in the U.S. District Court in Biloxi, MS on AUG-19. 4
So Smith won. Kids get told they can't wear stuff. Their parents take it to court, and they win. They win.
1999-OCT-18; Alabama: Kandice Smith is in 6th grade at Curry Middle School in Jasper AL. She brought a lawsuit against the Walker County Public School System and her school's principal because she was allegedly told on two occasions to wear a gold cross out of sight inside her shirt. She was represented by the Fundamentalist Christian American Center for Law and Justice. A school district attorney, Russ Richardson, said that the policy's intent was to "keep distractions down" in the schools. The system's policy is that "No neck jewelry of any type is allowed, religious or otherwise." The school carefully regulates the allowable type, color and size of articles of clothing. He expected to "vigorously contest" the lawsuit. He admitted that the clothing policy limits "one medium of religious expression." But he said that students could express themselves religiously "in other ways." The case was settled out of court in early 2000-MAR in favor of Ms. Smith. The settlement agreement requires the school to revise its dress code "to mandate religious accommodations in accordance with the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment."
Now, if you wish to take up for anybody in the schools, take up for the teachers. They're held to a supposedly higher standard.
Other courts have reached similar results in teacher dress code cases. For example, a federal court in Mississippi upheld the discharge of a teacher's aide for refusing to abide by the dress code of the school.4 The aide asserted she had a constitutional right to wear berets to show her African American heritage and her religious beliefs. The school district countered that the berets were "inappropriate attire." Ultimately, the court sided with the school board, finding that the teacher failed to communicate to school district officials that she had a religious basis for her conduct. However, the court noted that the "[d]istrict is required, under the First Amendment and Title VII, to make some accommodation for the practice of religious beliefs when it pursues an end which incidentally burdens religious practices."5
Note: Not a Christian, a Muslim.
Despite this statement in the McGlothlin case, other courts have rejected claims that state statutes restricting teachers from wearing religious clothing are unconstitutional. In United States v. Board of Education, for example, the Third Circuit rejected a Title VII6 religious discrimination claim against a school board for prohibiting a Muslim substitute teacher from wearing her religious clothing.7
While it was a Muslim fighting for her rights in that case, that rule would apply to Christians too.
Similarly, the Oregon Supreme Court rejected a free exercise challenge -- under the First Amendment and a provision of the state constitution -- to an Oregon statute prohibiting teachers from wearing religious clothing.9 The teacher, who was an adherent to the Sikh religion, argued against the constitutionality of a state law that provided: "No teacher in any public school shall wear any religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher."
The Oregon high court upheld the statute, writing that "the aim of maintaining the religious neutrality of the public schools furthers a constitutional obligation beyond an ordinary policy preference for the legislature."10
People have the dumb idea that making a teacher wear neutral clothing makes them more or less fair of a teacher when it really doesn't.
Let's talk about students groups such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
1993 Court says that school districts cannot deny churches access to school premises after-hours, if the
district allowed the use of its building to other groups. (Lamb's Chapel et al. v. Center Moriches Union Free
Our government even gives parents money to assist with sending their kids to a religious school.
1990 The court rules that the Equal Access Act does not violate the First Amendment. Public
schools that receive federal funds and maintain a "limited open forum" on school grounds after
school hours cannot deny "equal access" to student groups based upon "religious, political,
philosophical, or other content." (Board of Education v. Mergens)
Namvet, we have an awesome country.
Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
Certain school voucher programs are constitutional.
The Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program allowed certain Ohio families to receive tuition aid from the state. This would help offset the cost of tuition at private, including parochial (religiously affiliated), schools. The Supreme Court rejected First Amendment challenges to the program and stated that such aid does not violate the Establishment Clause.