Religion
Related: About this forumSophia Investigates The Good News Club
" Published on Feb 7, 2013
Do you think children should be told they are evil and deserve to die? This is what the Good News Club teaches -- in Public Elementary Schools, no less.
In 2001, a conservative Supreme Court overthrew a New York public school's policy of excluding adult-led religious proselytizing groups like The Good News Club from operating in its schools, turning the Establishment Clause on its head. Since then the Good News Clubs have been on a tear, and now can be found in well over 3000 public elementary schools across America...."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)The video is 36 minutes long and contains a lot of fluff - I'd like to see the part where they tell children they are evil and deserve to die - any idea about what time that part occurs?
Jim__
(14,077 posts)The anecdote is told by Katherine Stewart, author of The Good News Club. It is about 2 girls, Ashley and Zoe. Ashley, who just started attending the GNC, tells Zoe that she doesn't believe in Jesus so she is going to hell. I don't know if there is documentation of this in her book.
Also at about 10:00 minutes in they describe how the story of Saul and the Amalekites (sp) is presented by GNC. Essentially, they are told that if God tells you to commit genocide, you are obligated to do it or you will die.
At about 30:00 minutes in they talk about evolution. I can't remember the details, but they are telling children that they cannot believe in evolution and if they do they will die.
goldent
(1,582 posts)It's unfortunate that they claim
because I could see no evidence for that (maybe they didn't think it was important enough to include). But the spooky sinister-sounding music was a hoot!
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)This video is pulling directly from the official Good News Club curriculum and textbooks.
About 3:10 into this video is where they start talking about the teachings directly, starting with the "Wordless Book" which features a black heart that is a symbol for man's sinful nature.
At 3:24 in the video, a quote directly from GNC material:
It is sin! That is what this DARK page reminds us of. Sin is anything you think, say, or do that does not please God, like lying, cheating, being selfish, or hurting others. The Bible says "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." --- Romans 3:23. That means everyone, big or little, young or old! No matter where you live or who you are, you have sinned! Everyone is born with a "want to" to do wrong. God says that sin must be punished (Romans 6:23), and the punishment for sin is to be separated from God forever in a place of suffering.... a place called Hell. But God has a wonderful plan so that you will not have to be punished for your sin!"
Jim__
(14,077 posts)The decision can be found here.
An excerpt:
1. Milford violated the Clubs free speech rights when it excluded the Club from meeting after hours at the school. Pp. 511.
(a) Because the parties so agree, this Court assumes that Milford operates a limited public forum. A State establishing such a forum is not required to and does not allow persons to engage in every type of speech. It may be justified in reserving its forum for certain groups or the discussion of certain topics. E.g., Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829. The power to so restrict speech, however, is not without limits. The restriction must not discriminate against speech based on viewpoint, ibid., and must be reasonable in light of the forums purpose, Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 806. Pp. 56.
(b) By denying the Club access to the schools limited public forum on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, Milford discriminated against the Club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the Free Speech Clause. That exclusion is indistinguishable from the exclusions held violative of the Clause in Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, where a school district precluded a private group from presenting films at the school based solely on the religious perspective of the films, and in Rosenberger, where a university refused to fund a student publication because it addressed issues from a religious perspective. The only apparent difference between the activities of Lambs Chapel and the Club is the inconsequential distinction that the Club teaches moral lessons from a Christian perspective through live storytelling and prayer, whereas Lambs Chapel taught lessons through films. Rosenberger also is dispositive: Given the obvious religious content of the publication there at issue, it cannot be said that the Clubs activities are any more religious or deserve any less Free Speech Clause protection. This Court disagrees with the Second Circuits view that something that is quintessentially religious or decidedly religious in nature cannot also be characterized properly as the teaching of morals and character development from a particular viewpoint. What matters for Free Speech Clause purposes is that there is no logical difference in kind between the invocation of Christianity by the Club and the invocation of teamwork, loyalty, or patriotism by other associations to provide a foundation for their lessons. Because Milfords restriction is viewpoint discriminatory, the Court need not decide whether it is unreasonable in light of the forums purposes. Pp. 611.
2. Permitting the Club to meet on the schools premises would not have violated the Establishment Clause. Establishment Clause defenses similar to Milfords were rejected in Lambs Chapel, supra, at 395where the Court found that, because the films would not have been shown during school hours, would not have been sponsored by the school, and would have been open to the public, not just to church members, there was no realistic danger that the community would think that the district was endorsing religionand in Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 272273, and n. 13where a universitys forum was already available to other groups. Because the Clubs activities are materially indistinguishable from those in Lambs Chapel and Widmar, Milfords reliance on the Establishment Clause is unavailing. As in Lambs Chapel, the Clubs meetings were to be held after school hours, not sponsored by the school, and open to any student who obtained parental consent, not just to Club members. As in Widmar, Milford made its forum available to other organizations. The Court rejects Milfords attempt to distinguish those cases by emphasizing that its policy involves elementary school children who will perceive that the school is endorsing the Club and will feel coerced to participate because the Clubs activities take place on school grounds, even though they occur during nonschool hours. That argument is unpersuasive for a number of reasons. (1) Allowing the Club to speak on school grounds would ensure, not threaten, neutrality toward religion. Accordingly, Milford faces an uphill battle in arguing that the Establishment Clause compels it to exclude the Club. See, e.g., Rosenberger, supra, at 839. (2) To the extent the Court considers whether the community would feel coercive pressure to engage in the Clubs activities, cf. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 592593, the relevant community is the parents who choose whether their children will attend Club meetings, not the children themselves. (3) Whatever significance it may have assigned in the Establishment Clause context to the suggestion that elementary school children are more impressionable than adults, cf., e.g., id., at 592, the Court has never foreclosed private religious conduct during nonschool hours merely because it takes place on school premises where elementary school children may be present. Lee, supra, at 592, and Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 584, distinguished. (4) Even if the Court were to consider the possible misperceptions by schoolchildren in deciding whether there is an Establishment Clause violation, the facts of this case simply do not support Milfords conclusion. Finally, it cannot be said that the danger that children would misperceive the endorsement of religion is any greater than the danger that they would perceive a hostility toward the religious viewpoint if the Club were excluded from the public forum. Because it is not convinced that there is any significance to the possibility that elementary school children may witness the Clubs activities on school premises, the Court can find no reason to depart from Lambs Chapel and Widmar. Pp. 1220.
goldent
(1,582 posts)I understand that school admin often get nervous about religious orgs using school facilities as they don't fully understand the establishment and free exercise concepts of the first amendment. It is also possible that personal bias enters into it.
Jim__
(14,077 posts)The full opinion is here, Stevens dissent start on page 130 (you can search on stevens, dissenting).
An excerpt from Justice Stevens, dissenting.
its facilities for educational and recreational purposes, but
not for religious purposes. Speech for religious purposes
may reasonably be understood to encompass three
different categories. First, there is religious speech that is
simply speech about a particular topic from a religious point
of view. The film in Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches
Union Free School Dist., 508 U. S. 384 (1993), illustrates this
category. See id., at 388 (observing that the film series at
issue in that case would discuss Dr. [James] Dobsons views
on the undermining influences of the media that could only
be counterbalanced by returning to traditional, Christian
family values instilled at an early stage). Second, there is
religious speech that amounts to worship, or its equivalent.
Our decision in Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263 (1981),
concerned such speech. See id., at 264265 (describing
the speech in question as involving religious worship).
Third, there is an intermediate category that is aimed principally
at proselytizing or inculcating belief in a particular
religious faith.
A public entity may not generally exclude even religious
worship from an open public forum. Id., at 276. Similarly,
a public entity that creates a limited public forum for the
discussion of certain specified topics may not exclude a
speaker simply because she approaches those topics from
a religious point of view. Thus, in Lambs Chapel we held
that a public school that permitted its facilities to be used
for the discussion of family issues and child rearing could
not deny access to speakers presenting a religious point
of view on those issues. See 508 U. S., at 393394.
But, while a public entity may not censor speech about
an authorized topic based on the point of view expressed
by the speaker, it has broad discretion to preserve the
property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully
dedicated. Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828, 836 (1976); see
also Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66)
v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226, 275, n. 6 (1990) (Stevens, J., dissenting)
(A schools extracurricular activities constitute a
part of the schools teaching mission, and the school accordingly
must make decisions concerning the content of those
activities (quoting Widmar, 454 U. S., at 278 (Stevens, J.,
concurring in judgment)). Accordingly, control over access
to a nonpublic forum can be based on subject matter and
speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable
in light of the purpose served by the forum and are
viewpoint neutral. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense
& Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 806 (1985). The novel question
that this case presents concerns the constitutionality of
a public schools attempt to limit the scope of a public forum
it has created. More specifically, the question is whether a
school can, consistently with the First Amendment, create a
limited public forum that admits the first type of religious
speech without allowing the other two.
Distinguishing speech from a religious viewpoint, on the
one hand, from religious proselytizing, on the other, is comparable
to distinguishing meetings to discuss political issues
from meetings whose principal purpose is to recruit new
members to join a political organization. If a school decides
to authorize afterschool discussions of current events in
its classrooms, it may not exclude people from expressing
their views simply because it dislikes their particular political
opinions. But must it therefore allow organized political
groupsfor example, the Democratic Party, the Libertarian
Party, or the Ku Klux Klanto hold meetings, the principal
purpose of which is not to discuss the current-events
topic from their own unique point of view but rather to
recruit others to join their respective groups? I think not.
Such recruiting meetings may introduce divisiveness and
tend to separate young children into cliques that undermine
the schools educational mission. Cf. Lehman v. Shaker
Heights, 418 U. S. 298 (1974) (upholding a citys refusal to
allow political advertising on public transportation).
Lawyers are wordsmiths and their public writing almost always sounds logical. It's fascinating to have a lawyer explain a decision to you - they usually see much more than I do. Certain words in the decision may carry legal implications that the layman misses. Stevens goes into different aspects of Lamb's Chapel v Center Moriches Union Free School District than the main opinion.
goldent
(1,582 posts)Thanks for posting this, and the constructive discussion...
In the opinion you quote, Stevens refers to these after-hours uses of the school building as "A schools extracurricular activities." I don't see that at all in this case. As I understand it, the school was allowing use of its building after-hours for a wide range of uses, and I can't see these being "extracurricular activities" in the normal meaning of that term in America. In other words, the physical location of those activities does not make them any more "extracurricular activities" just as holding a high school team soccer practice on non-school fields makes it any less an "extracurricular activity". What matters is the relationship between the school and the activity.
In the opinion he references (Widmar, 454 US) he says this:
This seems totally inapplicable - as far as I know the school did not in any way "encourage students" to participate in these after-hours activities (or at least, that was not the point of the lawsuit).
In my view, he has an extreme view of the establishment clause that a reasonable person would not agree with. These kinds of views seem to come and ago, and I would guess that in 50 years people will scratch their heads over all of this.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)no other word for this. i almost wish i hadn't watched that.