One must question how granting specific religious rights to children attending public school can be a violation of the Bill of Rights. Immediate thoughts may be heading towards prayers, creation and the Christian view of holidays; but it really comes down to a child being able to say Merry Christmas or talk to a teacher that attends the same church about what is coming up at church without a reprimand or other consequence. The School Children’s Religious Liberties Act of 2007 does not specifically support nor violate the bill, but it could be classified as being on the borderline of violating the Bill of Rights (Howard, Chisurn, et al, 2007).
In order to properly understand how close it is to violating the Bill of Rights, it is essential to know what the School Children’s Religious Liberties Act of 2007 is. The School Children’s Religious Liberties Act protects school districts in the event a student talk s about a religious topic in assignments, public prayers at school gatherings such as graduation and football games, participate or organize a religious meeting, hand out information with a religious content and similar actions from a lawsuit as long as there are guidelines in place (Brooks and Hopp, 2007) The act also protects the student from being admonished for these actions (Brooks and Hopp, 2007).
The act did not pass by a slim margin in the House, it was definite as 110 votes in favor and 33 opposed the vote. "Freedom of religion should not be taken as freedom from religion," Gov. Rick Perry said. "This was a vote for tolerance of diverse views in our education system so that students are not admonished for wishing a soldier overseas a 'Merry Christmas' or for any other harmless forms of expression” (Brooks and Hopp, 2007).
Upon reading that statement by the Governor, one may believe that this fundamentally supports the Bill of Rights. When one looks at the House of Representatives act H.R. 2679, the "Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005" one would have the same opinion that the bill fundamentally supports the Bill of Rights (ACLU, 2006). The bill defines a process in which attorney’s fees would not be recoverable to anyone who won a lawsuit in which they asserted their constitutional and civil rights in any case tried under the First Amendment (ACLU, 2006).
The ACLU believes that the bill would allow great access of the government on an individual’s religious expression (ACLU, 2006). The bill will actually undermine the religious freedom an individual has not protect it (ACLU, 2006).
The 2007 act will bring about some consequences that are not intended but nonetheless serious. In 1998, a 13 year old Seattle Middle School student who practices the Jehovah Witness faith refused to participate in the pledge of allegiance (Hudson, 2009). This student was forced to stand outside of the classroom as a form of punishment for acting on his religious freedom (Hudson, 2009). This was unconstitutional as 1943 decision West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette which gives the students the opportunity to choose not to participate in the pledge for any reason they choose without free of punishment (Hudson, 2009). Obviously, teachers and students were not fully aware of the fact that punishment was not to be enforced.
This relates specifically to the 2007 Schoolchildren’s Religious Liberties Act as the children should have the ability to express their religious preferences; however this opens the door for anyone to share their religious views anywhere and anytime in the schools. David Koresh, Jim Jones and Charles Manson all believed their religion was the one true religion and all three led their followers to a certain death. Any individual can develop their own religion and have the freedom allotted to all individuals, religious freedom (Leibowitz, 2007). It does not matter what the individual believes, the individual has the right to share these beliefs to the school population as a result of the Schoolchildren’s Religious Liberties Act of 2007 (Scharrer, 2007).
Concerns about how a student will hand out written religious material to fellow students and if there will be any forced delivery of the materials (Scharrer, 2007). This could certainly cause issues with the constitutional rights of the offended student’s religious freedom and the disruption of their learning environment.
Questions have been raised about the grading policies regarding an evolutionary assignment where a student chose to defend creationism (Brooks and Hopp, 2007).
Legislation designed to give public school students opportunities to express religious viewpoints tentatively cleared the Texas House on Monday despite warnings that it will create unintended consequences.
The bill would require school districts to adopt a policy allowing student speakers to express a religious perspective during limited public forums, such as football games, graduation ceremonies and school assemblies.
"This bill provides protection for students and school officials. Right now we have confusion in the schools about religious expression and students are being discriminated against," said Rep. Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land, author of House Bill 3678.
A separate bill that would make it easier for school districts to offer courses in the Old and New Testaments is expected to reach the House floor soon.
The House tentatively voted 110-33 for the Schoolchildren's Religious Liberties Act. The legislation likely will head to the state Senate for consideration after receiving final House approval today.
If the Senate approves, student leaders will be allowed to summon Jesus Christ in prayer to help calm student nerves before a TAKS test, Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, said of the hypothetical situation.
Or a student leader can call on Allah if he or she is a Muslim, other members said. Or a student leader can tell other students that it's sacrilegious to pray to Jesus for comfort because "Jesus was not the son of God, Jesus was not the messiah," Hochberg told his colleagues, noting some discomfort in their facial reactions.
"And yet this is the serious religious viewpoint of a lot of people in this state, a lot of students in this state," said Hochberg, who is Jewish and against the bill.
The legislation would require school districts to develop a neutral method for selecting students to speak at school events, and the policy could not discriminate against a student's religious expression.
taking care of the written word.com
dannielyn
http://takingcareofthewrittenword.com
http://dannettfreywrites.wordpress.com
http://ladyofproverbs31.blogger.com
No comments:
Post a Comment