In Defense of the Student Who Wanted to Hand Out Candy Canes with Biblical Messages on Them

[rug]

January 7, 2014
By Hemant Mehta

Here’s the setup: Just before the holidays, 6-year-old Isaiah Martinez (below) went to Merced Elementary School in West Covina, California with a pack of candy canes in hand to give to his classmates. Each candy cane had attached to it a religious message that told the “legend of the candy cane” which, believe it or not, has everything to do with Jesus dying on a cross.

His teacher, not wanting to get in trouble, removed the messages from the candy canes, then handed them back to Isaiah to give to his friends, apparently telling him “Jesus is not allowed in school.”

So, of course, a Christian group is threatening to file a lawsuit against the district:

He “then nervously handed the candy canes to his classmates in fear that he was in trouble for trying to bring a little Christmas cheer and ‘good tidings’ to class,” said his lawyer, Robert Tyler, an attorney for the Advocates for Faith & Freedom, which works to preserve religious liberty in the legal system.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/07/in-defense-of-the-student-who-wanted-to-hand-out-candy-canes-with-biblical-messages-on-them/

[elleng]

1. Stupid teacher, stupid group,

sweet kid.

[CFLDem]

7. +100

Separation of Church and State applies to the state, not private citizens.

While I do think religious tracts are improper for general public discourse, banning such activity is downright totalitarian.

[elleng]

8. That's why I said 'Stupid teacher.'

I do expect better from our educators, but am continually disappointed.

[CFLDem]

9. Right on.

I was just echoing the sentiment.

[goldent]

12. I don't think teachers should be put into the position of making rulings on ...

1st amendment issues. I don't think it is that difficult to judge most cases, but I suspect that most teachers (and principals for that matter) don't have clear information (maybe something the state boards of education or the Dept of Ed. could provide).

While it is possible that the child's parents were trying to start something, I'd say it is more likely they were not. Certainly, it is not hard to imagine parents sending religious Christmas cards with their children, to be distributed.

[elleng]

13. Teachers shouldn't,

and they should stay out of such whenever they can, and this is a good example of when they can. This was not done by a school, not a prayer in school, was done by a youngster on his own, and teacher should have stayed out of it, imo. Not asking school to distribute, kid was giving stuff to his classmates. A nice gesture, GIFTS at holiday time!

Many problems arise when state boards of education and departments of education try to provide 'clear information,' but as First Amendment is anything but clear, these attempts are most often OVER-interpreted by teachers and school administrators, resulting in disasters. OFTEN.

Happy Chanukah!

[goldent]

14. I think some common sense instruction could be provided

which is not to say the state would be capable of writing it, or if they did that they would not end up spending money in court having to defend it. I am not hopeful because common sense does not exist in areas like this.

But guidelines with a few simple questions like
- is the religious "thing" part of classroom instruction?
- is the religious "thing" initiated, created, or encouraged by school staff?

would go a long way. In this case, it would become clear that bringing religious articles to give to other students is fine and dandy, and the school is free to ignore it, and carry on teaching.

[PDJane]

2. great kid, love him. The teacher did what she had to do.

The rest of them? Meh.

[elleng]

10. No, the teacher did NOT have to do that, at all,

the school was not sponsoring the kid's kind gift giving, it was 100% private/personal.

[LostOne4Ever]

18. HOWEVER

A school class room is a captive audience. That is not okay.

I think the way it should have been handled is that the teacher simply should have told the child he would have to pass out the candy out on his own after class during his own time.

The fact that the teacher said "Jesus isn't allowed in School" implies to me that the teacher, him or herself, has a chip on their shoulder about the whole separation of church and state thing. There were many other ways of explaining the separation of church and state to the kid other than that AND its possible no explanation would be needed at all.

[elleng]

20. Yes, no explanation was needed,

and 'Jesus isn't allowed in school' was a serious breach of teacher's responsibility.

[stg81]

3. this is how dogmatic extremist parents try to get around the law and force

their views on other people's children, going behind parents' back and using little Johnny as a shield. Playing all innocent. What BS.

[cbayer]

4. I'm going to stand with the school in this case.

I don't know whether they handled it in the best possible way. He's a little kid and it seems like a call to the parents might have been more appropriate. Then they could explain the possible unintended consequences of allowing this and inquire as to how they would feel if other religious groups were to do the same.

Although it may be allowed, I think schools should place some restrictions on proselytizing.

Plus I strongly suspect that the idea to do this didn't come from the child, but from the parents.

[WolverineDG]

11. bingo nt

[LostOne4Ever]

19. +infinity (nt)

[dimbear]

21. That's a good summary. The teacher is just caught up in a mesh of circumstances he or she never

expected to face, never wanted to face, never should have had to face. The teacher shouldn't be faulted for not coming up instantly with the wisdom of Solomon. Flash news: teaching?-- it's a mid-level job.

Solomon is down the street at the start-up.

[cbayer]

22. The closest thing to a Solomonic decision I can think of

would be to have made this a teaching moment.

If it could have been used to talk to the kids about differences between individuals and families when it comes to religion. If the teacher could explain how no one should never assume that what they and their family do is what every other family does and how it might make other kids feel uncomfortable for them to push what they believe (or don't believe) on others, it might have served a purpose.

[dimbear]

23. One could wish there was time enough in a school environment for that sort of value.

It doesn't rhyme with what today's schools are, sadly. Underpaid. Over-pushed.

[dimbear]

5. Snopes weighs in and gives thumbs down.........

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/candycane.asp

[rug]

6. He knows.

Oh. And the whole “legend of the candy cane” is pure bullshit, which Robert Tyler might have learned if he spent two seconds researching it online, a skill he apparently never picked up in law school:

[goldent]

15. To be fair

the case is not about whether that story is true.

I think the school administration just needs to explain why this did what they did, apologize for it, figure out how to avoid this issue again, and go back to class.

As I mentioned elsewhere, it is really unfortunate that schools are put in the position of having to choose which clauses of the 1st amendment take precedence in cases like this.

[dimbear]

16. The case is unfortunate for several reasons. It should never have come up, the parents

are most at fault, but it remains that the message that was sent was mere propaganda.

[LostOne4Ever]

17. ASSUMING the teacher actually said that

Anyone here want to bet on the odds of the teacher being a right winger with a chip on their shoulder?