Pages: 1
Please Help Distribute An Important Letter
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: bsperlazzo
AFA Action Alert
American Family Association
Dr. Donald E. Wildmon, President
Tim Wildmon, Vice President
Buddy Smith, Editor
P.O. Drawer 2440
Tupelo, MS 38803
Phone (662) 844-5036
Fax (662) 842-7798
URL: http://www.afa.net
*************************
Please forward this Alert to a friend and encourage them to subscribe. To Subscribe go to http://www.afa.net/news_issues/Action_Alerts/action_alerts.html or send e-mail to: afalert-joi**lyris.afo.net
NOTE: No further information is required of you; simply send the email to the above address and you will automatically be subscribed.
*************************
August 24, 2000
HELP AFA DISTRIBUTE AN IMPORTANT LETTER TO ALL HIGH SCHOOL OFFICIALS IN YOUR DISTRICT
[ Online Format: http://www.afa.net/alert/aa000824.htm ]
Dear AFA Alert Member:
In an effort to overcome the disinformation campaign of certain left-wing legal groups about the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the Center for Law & Policy of the American Family Association has joined with other Christian civil liberties groups and prepared a letter to school superintendents and administrators explaining the Court’s ruling and detailing the rights of students of faith. Students and parents are encouraged to provide this letter to the appropriate school officials in their district.
The groups who prepared and signed the letter are members of the Alliance Defense Fund ( "ADF" - http://www.alliancedefensefund*****/ ) which is responsible for this unified effort. Don Wildmon, President of the American Family Association, is one of the founding members of the ADF.
Sincerely,
Brian Fahling
Senior Trial Attorney
AFA Center For Law & Policy
http://www.afa.net/Services/CLP/clp.html
ACTION NEEDED
Please print the below letter and distribute it to all public school officials in your district. AFA strongly suggests that you place copies in the hands of Superintendents, Principals and School Board members.
Click here to print a formatted copy of the letter -
http://www.afa.net/Activism/santafe.shtml
***********************
Text of the letter:
August 21, 2000
School Superintendent
RE: Religious Liberties on Public School Campuses
Dear Superintendent and/or School Administrator:
On June 19, 2000, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe in which it held that the district's policy creating a venue as part of a government-initiated program for students to pray at football games was a violation of the Establishment Clause. The gist of the Santa Fe decision is that it violates the Establishment Clause for a school district to take affirmative steps to create a vehicle for a prayer to be delivered at a school assembly. The decision is limited in its scope as it is based on a unique set of facts that existed in the Santa Fe school district. Santa Fe, slip op. at 9, 23. The undersigned legal organizations and attorneys, all specializing in First Amendment issues, are concerned as we have heard much confusion and many false conclusions about the Santa Fe decision.
The Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional a school football game policy (1) of "government speech" (government initiated prayer), (2) that included the use of the word "invocation" so as to put prayer to a student majority vote, (3) in a forum specifically not open as to student expression, and (4) in a district with an unquestionable history of promoting student prayer. Santa Fe, slip op. at 11-25. The Court placed great weight on the peculiarities of the challenged policy (the same student delivers the message the entire season; policy confines content and topic of student's message; policy text encourages or suggests an "invocation"), the degree of school involvement in determining the election process, the context of the pregame message, past practice in the Santa Fe district, and the evolution of the school policy itself. Id. Very few schools in the country would ever fit such an unusual situation. The conclusion is that the vast majority of schools can continue what they have always done - allow and encourage student involvement, participation and speech in school programs and activities.
Nothing in Santa Fe calls into question the right of students to engage in religious expression through Bible Clubs, one-on-one discussions, literature distribution, student-initiated activities (e.g., "See You at the Pole"), and a myriad of other channels of communication. Nor does Santa Fe affect the right of students to engage in religious expression where students are otherwise already free (within broad parameters of relevance) to select the content and viewpoint of their expression (e.g., talent shows, class assignments, show-and-tell, oratorical competitions, message-bearing clothing or jewelry).
The Court explicitly endorsed voluntary student prayer "at any time before, during, or after the schoolday," Santa Fe, slip op. at 21. The Court stated, "[b]y no means do these commands [Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment] impose a prohibition on all religious activity in our public schools." Id.
Free speech rights of students outside the context of school organized events are unaffected by the Santa Fe decision. The conclusion is that the vast majority of schools can continue what they have always done - allow and encourage student involvement, participation and speech in school programs and activities. For this reason, we have prepared this letter to state clearly what rights students continue to possess and enjoy on public school campuses.
The children in your schools still possess the constitutionally protected right to:
** read their Bibles or other scripture texts, individually or as a group;
** say a prayer before meals or pray before a test, individually or as a group, and even pray, individually or as a group, before a school sporting event;
** attempt to persuade, proselytize, their peers concerning religious topics, just as they do with regard to political topics;
** use religious themes, express their beliefs about religion, in their homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments, with said work being judged by ordinary academic standards;
** distribute religious literature to their schoolmates during
non-instructional times, before or after school, in between classes, or during any other non-instructional setting;
** be excused from lessons that are objectionable on religious or other conscientious grounds;
** wear clothing displaying religious themes or messages which may not be singled out for suppression;
** form and participate in religious groups at public secondary schools that have the same right of access to school facilities as is enjoyed by other comparable student groups, and to exclude from these groups those who do not share the group's religious beliefs;
** meet together and conduct a prayer service or other worship exercise as well as jointly participate in Bible reading during said meeting and;
** use the public address system, the school newspaper, and the school bulletin board to announce their meetings, on the same terms as other student groups.
Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990); Tinker v. Des Moines I.S.D., 393 U.S. 503; Religious Expression in Public Schools, U.S. Dept. of Education Guidelines, Secretary Richard W. Riley, August 1995, Revised and Reissued, May 1998.
In short, public schools can and must allow religious, student speech to the extent that comparable secular speech is allowed. What Santa Fe says is that public schools may not devise plans designed to perpetuate or initiate religious invocations. That is what had happened in the Santa Fe school district and it was on that fact that the Supreme Court based its ruling.
Santa Fe does not question the protected status of genuinely private student religious speech. Santa Fe, slip op. at 10, 18, 21. Thus, whenever a student speaker is otherwise free to control the content or viewpoint of a message, that freedom includes the use of religious speech. For example, a valedictory speaker who is free to thank parents can also thank God. A class president who speaks on moral character development can also address the topic from a religious perspective. A club representative at a club fair can recruit for a Bible Club to the same extent as for a Young Democrats Club. (If the school were to selectively restrict otherwise permissible student speech because of its religious dimension, this would violate the First Amendment under cases like Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384 [1993] and Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 [1995]). Importantly, no special policy is needed to allow students these rights!
As stated, the Santa Fe case does not have the broad application that some may attempt to confuse you into believing. In fact, a misapplication of this decision beyond its holding may very well violate numerous constitutional rights of students and have a negative impact on religious expression in public schools. Certainly this must, and can, be avoided.
Each of the undersigned legal groups and attorneys stand ready to assist, free of charge, any school district or student seeking assistance regarding these important First Amendment freedoms. It is our firm desire to ensure that every student's constitutional freedoms remain unimpaired.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this very serious matter and for your distribution of this letter to every employee in the district.
Sincerely Yours,
Steven M. Crampton
Chief Counsel
AFA Center for Law & Policy
P.O. Drawer 2440
Tupelo, MS 38803
(662) 844-3886
Matthew Staver
Liberty Counsel
P.O. Box 540774
Orlando, FL 32854
(407) 875-2100
Allen E. Parker, Jr.
President and Chief Counsel
Texas Justice Foundation
8122 Datapoint Drive, Suite 812
San Antonio, TX 78229
(210) 614-7157
George W. Dent, Jr.
Schott - van den Eynden Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve Univ. School of Law
11075 East BlvdCleveland, OH 44106
(216) 368-3311
Rick Nelson
President and General Counsel
American Liberties Institute
P.O. Box 547503
Orlando, FL 32854-7503
(407) 786-7007
Kelly Shackelford
Chief Counsel
Liberty Legal Institute
903 East 18th Street, Suite 230
Plano, TX 75074
(972) 423-8889
Steven W. Fitschen
President
National Legal Foundation
2224 Virginia Beach Blvd., Ste. 204
Virginia Beach, VA 23454
(757) 463-6055
Jordan Lorence
Northstar Legal Center
P.O. Box 2074
Fairfax, Virginia 22031
(703) 359-8619
Richard Thompson
Chief Counsel
Thomas More Center for Law and Justice
3475 Plymouth Road, Suite 100
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 2550
(734) 827-2001
---
To Subscribe send e-mail to: afalert-joi**lyris.afo.net
NOTE: No further information is required of you; simply send the email to the above address and you will automatically be subscribed.
---