Emerging Skirmishes along the "Religious Freedom" vs "LGBT Civil Rights" as related to Mormonism

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

If someone is raped do we give them a second opportunity to do it again?  

I'm not equating baking a cake for SSM with rape. I'm just thinking that probably no one here would say we should "walk" with the rapist twice.  So there must be a line somewhere. If the baker feels he is hurt when compelled to make a cake for a SSM then what makes it different than walking twice or getting raped twice except for severity?  

Before anyone jumps to conclusions and thinks I am hinting at something or trying to get people to agree with my point I am not.  I have no point as these are real questions not a manipulative agreement tactic. I'm just trying to see if the walking really equates to baking the cake. 

Good question.

Christ commanded the Israelites to do a lot of things that they personally believed would cause them harm (like eating with sinners for example, or subjugating themselves to a roman soldier by being forced to carry his pack for him), so it seems that, wherever the line is, it's not based on whether or not the person feels hurt by the action.  That, by itself, can't be the test to determine whether or not something is acceptable.

 

[thesometimesaint]

On 12/17/2016 at 3:00 PM, LittleNipper said:

What they mean is that Christians are not to behave like everyone else. Christians are not obligated to cooperate with secular values ---- homosexuality included. I thought you once said you loved the Lord?  That always means putting God ahead of the desires of man and that can, and does mean, that like Christ you will be at odds with society and the fashion of the day.

There plenty of homosexuals that are Christians.

[thesometimesaint]

On 12/15/2016 at 7:02 PM, LittleNipper said:

What a Christian should do is between the Christian and the Lord. However, I would have to nicely inform the pair that under the circumstances I felt uncomfortable with designing their cake and would suggest so and so's bakery up the road. However, if all they wanted from me was a cake. I would be willing to sell them a plain cake that they could decorate as they wished.  I would certainly offer them a glass of water if they were thirsty and some bread if they were hungry. However, I would not be able to make and deliver a wedding cake for their affair. If they asked why, I would certainly witness to them concerning God's plan of salvation.

What gives you the right to ask a customer about their sexual preferences?

[california boy]

 

2 hours ago, Rain said:

 

No. I didn't word  it well. In fact it brings many questions to mind.  I'm wanting to know what makes it different.  Is it only severity?  If that is the case then where is the line?  Is it something more? Is it when the action is morally wrong? Is it when the actions hurt the person compelled?  Is walking twice the same as turning the other cheek?

The difference is not at all about severity.  Rape is a physical violation, a breaking of a serious moral commandment, and can result in an innocent child being conceived.  It is also against the law of the country to rape someone.  

You don't physically assault someone when you bake a cake.  You are not breaking any moral commandments when you bake a cake.  There is not the possibility of an innocent child being born when you bake a cake.  And it is against the law of the country to NOT bake a cake.

It isn't about severity, it is that one action is so completely against the teachings of Christ and the other is completely FOLLOWING the teachings of Christ.

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

There plenty of homosexuals that are Christians.

There are Christians that have been child molesters, drunks, wife beaters, drug dealers, adulterers, fornicators. I don't see how homosexuality can be celebrated in light of the Bible.

Edited December 19, 2016 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

What gives you the right to ask a customer about their sexual preferences?

When they ask for a topper of 2 men or two women or have a problem explaining the husband or wife's absence. What does the baker say --- "Sorry, I don't stock such things?" 

Edited December 19, 2016 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

The difference is not at all about severity.  Rape is a physical violation, a breaking of a serious moral commandment, and can result in an innocent child being conceived.  It is also against the law of the country to rape someone.  

You don't physically assault someone when you bake a cake.  You are not breaking any moral commandments when you bake a cake.  There is not the possibility of an innocent child being born when you bake a cake.  And it is against the law of the country to NOT bake a cake.

It isn't about severity, it is that one action is so completely against the teachings of Christ and the other is completely FOLLOWING the teachings of Christ.

Do you honestly believe that Jesus would have attended a "homosexual" wedding?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Do you honestly believe that Jesus would have attended a "homosexual" wedding?

He kept company with sinners regularly, so I don't think we can say for sure that He wouldn't.  My answer is, I honestly don't know what Christ would have done in that specific situation, but I do know that He always chose to embrace mercy more than justice (and thank goodness for that).

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

It isn't about severity, it is that one action is so completely against the teachings of Christ and the other is completely FOLLOWING the teachings of Christ.

To be fair, many Christians believe that a SSM is completely against the teachings of Christ, which is probably why this issue is so difficult.

[thesometimesaint]

31 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

When they ask for a topper of 2 men or two women or have a problem explaining the husband or wife's absence. What does the baker say --- "Sorry, I don't stock such things?" 

There is nothing in law that requires you to bake a cake for anyone, There are laws that say if you make cakes for sale to the public you can't discriminate against them.

There are plenty of wedding cakes without a topper.

SEE http://emmalinebride.com/cake/wedding-cakes-without-toppers/

Again what gives you the right to question a customers sexual preference?

Edited December 19, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[LittleNipper]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is nothing in law that requires you to bake a cake for anyone, There are laws that say if you make cakes for sale to the public you can't discriminate against them.

There are plenty of wedding cakes without a topper.

SEE http://emmalinebride.com/cake/wedding-cakes-without-toppers/

Again what gives you the right to question a customers sexual preference?

And I firmly feel that the Government has no business telling  the citizens of the United States whom they may and may not serve, The only thing the government has the Constitutional Authority to control is their own agencies and businesses that rely on governmental funding.  The Government may not set up an agenda religiously --- no matter how right that belief may seem.  What gives you the right to limit anyone's  questioning. Questioning is a form of freedom of speech. Citizens may certainly refuse to answer questions --- that is their freedom.

It is my hope that under President Trump some of this maybe cleared up, including abortion, and open prayer in public schools. 

Edited December 19, 2016 by LittleNipper

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

And I firmly feel that the Government has no business telling  the citizens of the United States whom they may and may not serve, The only thing the government has the Constitutional Authority to control is their own agencies and businesses that rely on governmental funding.  The Government may not set up an agenda religiously --- no matter how right that belief may seem.  What gives you the right to limit anyone's  questioning. Questioning is a form of freedom of speech. Citizens may certainly refuse to answer questions --- that is their freedom.

It is my hope that under President Trump some of this maybe cleared up, including abortion, and open prayer in public schools. 

To clarify, are you saying you also support religious discrimination, then....? 

Meaning, do you believe it should be acceptable for individuals to refuse goods or service to others based on customers' or employees' religious affiliation....?

Edited December 19, 2016 by Daniel2

[Rain]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

 

The difference is not at all about severity.  Rape is a physical violation, a breaking of a serious moral commandment, and can result in an innocent child being conceived.  It is also against the law of the country to rape someone.  

You don't physically assault someone when you bake a cake.  You are not breaking any moral commandments when you bake a cake.  There is not the possibility of an innocent child being born when you bake a cake.  And it is against the law of the country to NOT bake a cake.

It isn't about severity, it is that one action is so completely against the teachings of Christ and the other is completely FOLLOWING the teachings of Christ.

You are comparing rape with baking the cake, but I'm trying to compare rape with the walk to see what makes the difference so I can then find what difference/sameness might be found when comparing the walk to the cake.

Having to walk with the soldier is a physical violation.  Depending on the condition of the person he could end up lame. 

My first thought with the legality of rape was "Is it against the law in every country?"  But then I wondered if it mattered if it was against the law. The person would be forced to walk the first time and then choose to walk the second time.  With rape someone is forced to have sex the first time and then would choose to have it the second time.  Conceivably the walk could be considered kidnapping or if this was an ongoing problem in society, like rape, it then it could be made to be against the law.  So that doesn't work.   

So is the difference intent? Could be.  Or it could be also that the roman soldier intends to harm besides needing/wanting help carrying items.  

The best I could figure, so far, is that it would have to be a moral problem.  For most, the walking wouldn't be a sin so after being forced to walk, choosing to walk the second mile wouldn't be a sin.  That isn't the case with the rape as choosing to have sex after the rape would, in most cases, be a sin. 

OK, so actions against Christ.  Obviously the walking wouldn't be against Him, in most cases, or Christ wouldn't suggest it.  The rape would definitely be against his teachings, but you can't compare rape with walking twice.  You can only compare it with being compelled to walk the first time and then you can compare the second walk to the choosing to have sex.  I would say choosing to have sex would be immoral.  Others would not. So are there other differences in the second walk and choosing to have sex?   Is the only other difference the possibility of a baby?  Emotional difference too I think.  Maybe.  

Are there other differences?

So the differences would possibly be emotional or moral. And whatever else someone might think of.

Baking a cake would not be against the law or be immoral so that seems to go along with the idea that it is more like the walk than the rape. However, the discussion has never been about "baking a cake".  Not really.  It is about providing a service to celebrate a wedding which one finds immoral.  And that's why things are so sticky ( no pun intended).  And that's where I get stuck.  I would have no problem baking a cake and then finding out a gay couple used it to celebrate their wedding.  I'm not comfortable creating one just for their wedding.  So either it comes back to being a sin or there is some other difference in walking twice and choosing to have sex after rape.  

I know this probably sounds like a bunch of mush.  All this and much more is going around in my head.  You see it as an easy thing. Some see the opposite view as an easy thing.  I'm in the center trying to figure out just where I stand and why.

[LittleNipper]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is nothing in law that requires you to bake a cake for anyone, There are laws that say if you make cakes for sale to the public you can't discriminate against them.

There are plenty of wedding cakes without a topper.

SEE http://emmalinebride.com/cake/wedding-cakes-without-toppers/

Again what gives you the right to question a customers sexual preference?

And I firmly feel that the Government has no business telling  the citizens of the United States whom they may and may not serve, The only thing the government has the Constitutional Authority to control is their own agencies and businesses that rely on governmental funding.  The Government may not set up an agenda religiously --- no matter how right that belief may seem.  What gives you the right to limit anyone's  questioning. Questioning is a form of freedom of speech. Citizens may certainly refuse to answer questions --- that is their freedom.

[LittleNipper]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

To clarify, are you saying you also support religious discrimination, then....? 

Meaning, do you believe it should be acceptable for individuals to refuse goods or service to others based on customers' or employees' religious affiliation....?

They already discriminate against Christians. Try to talk abut Christ in school. Try to promote a Bible club. Try to talk about Creationism in science class. Try to set up a nativity on the court house lawn... When was the last time there was a Christmas or Easter Concert at school. When was the last time they explained about what the Pilgrims and Martin Luther believed in History Class, 

If you wish to not sell me anything because of my beliefs, that's your business. There are other places I'd rather shop. And I certainly wouldn't wish to work for anyone who would belittle my beliefs ---- so you'd be doing me a favor.

Edited December 20, 2016 by LittleNipper

[california boy]

7 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Do you honestly believe that Jesus would have attended a "homosexual" wedding?

Like Rain, I honestly don't know.  Has any General Authority attending a gay marriage?  Would they be condemned if they had?

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

You are comparing rape with baking the cake, but I'm trying to compare rape with the walk to see what makes the difference so I can then find what difference/sameness might be found when comparing the walk to the cake.

Having to walk with the soldier is a physical violation.  Depending on the condition of the person he could end up lame. 

My first thought with the legality of rape was "Is it against the law in every country?"  But then I wondered if it mattered if it was against the law. The person would be forced to walk the first time and then choose to walk the second time.  With rape someone is forced to have sex the first time and then would choose to have it the second time.  Conceivably the walk could be considered kidnapping or if this was an ongoing problem in society, like rape, it then it could be made to be against the law.  So that doesn't work.   

So is the difference intent? Could be.  Or it could be also that the roman soldier intends to harm besides needing/wanting help carrying items.  

The best I could figure, so far, is that it would have to be a moral problem.  For most, the walking wouldn't be a sin so after being forced to walk, choosing to walk the second mile wouldn't be a sin.  That isn't the case with the rape as choosing to have sex after the rape would, in most cases, be a sin. 

OK, so actions against Christ.  Obviously the walking wouldn't be against Him, in most cases, or Christ wouldn't suggest it.  The rape would definitely be against his teachings, but you can't compare rape with walking twice.  You can only compare it with being compelled to walk the first time and then you can compare the second walk to the choosing to have sex.  I would say choosing to have sex would be immoral.  Others would not. So are there other differences in the second walk and choosing to have sex?   Is the only other difference the possibility of a baby?  Emotional difference too I think.  Maybe.  

Are there other differences?

So the differences would possibly be emotional or moral. And whatever else someone might think of.

Baking a cake would not be against the law or be immoral so that seems to go along with the idea that it is more like the walk than the rape. However, the discussion has never been about "baking a cake".  Not really.  It is about providing a service to celebrate a wedding which one finds immoral.  And that's why things are so sticky ( no pun intended).  And that's where I get stuck.  I would have no problem baking a cake and then finding out a gay couple used it to celebrate their wedding.  I'm not comfortable creating one just for their wedding.  So either it comes back to being a sin or there is some other difference in walking twice and choosing to have sex after rape.  

I know this probably sounds like a bunch of mush.  All this and much more is going around in my head.  You see it as an easy thing. Some see the opposite view as an easy thing.  I'm in the center trying to figure out just where I stand and why.

I will leave you to your pondering.  I think I have made my thoughts on the subject pretty clear.  I personally think that Christ has been pretty clear as well.  I would answer this post the exact same way that I answered your previous post.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

And I firmly feel that the Government has no business telling  the citizens of the United States whom they may and may not serve, The only thing the government has the Constitutional Authority to control is their own agencies and businesses that rely on governmental funding.  The Government may not set up an agenda religiously --- no matter how right that belief may seem.  What gives you the right to limit anyone's  questioning. Questioning is a form of freedom of speech. Citizens may certainly refuse to answer questions --- that is their freedom.

Evidently this comes as news to you, but the government has the right to govern all it's citizens. We the people give them that right to govern us.  We the people elect people to pass laws that govern citizens.  There is actually a reason why we have a Congress, Senate, President and Supreme Court.  The civil rights laws have been found to be constitutional under the 14th amendment. It has been the law for over 50 years.  It was passed by your duly elected governmental representatives.  It was determined to be constitutional by your duly appointed Supreme Court.

It is possible that you could repeal the Civil Rights laws.  Get to work.  You just have to convince 51% of every congressman, senator, the President and the Supreme Court that it is constitutional to deny some citizens equality under the law. Good luck with that.  

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

There are Christians that have been child molesters, drunks, wife beaters, drug dealers, adulterers, fornicators. I don't see how homosexuality can be celebrated in light of the Bible.

I find it offensive that you seem to be lumping someone's God given sexual preference in with a bunch of violent and immoral actions.  It is almost like you have never studied Christ's teachings.   He set a pretty good example in both word and deed on how we should treat people.  It's good stuff, and worth a closer read.  I recommend you do so.

[LittleNipper]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I find it offensive that you seem to be lumping someone's God given sexual preference in with a bunch of violent and immoral actions.  It is almost like you have never studied Christ's teachings.   He set a pretty good example in both word and deed on how we should treat people.  It's good stuff, and worth a closer read.  I recommend you do so.

I find it HIGHLY destructive to you and others to even imaging that God plays favorites when it comes to sin. 

^{James 2:8-13}

⁸ If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. ⁹ But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. ¹⁰ For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. ¹¹ For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.¹² Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, ¹³ because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Evidently this comes as news to you, but the government has the right to govern all it's citizens. We the people give them that right to govern us.  We the people elect people to pass laws that govern citizens.  There is actually a reason why we have a Congress, Senate, President and Supreme Court.  The civil rights laws have been found to be constitutional under the 14th amendment. It has been the law for over 50 years.  It was passed by your duly elected governmental representatives.  It was determined to be constitutional by your duly appointed Supreme Court.

It is possible that you could repeal the Civil Rights laws.  Get to work.  You just have to convince 51% of every congressman, senator, the President and the Supreme Court that it is constitutional to deny some citizens equality under the law. Good luck with that.  

Not repeal it, just adjust it so that it once again deals with racial discrimination and not behavioral and choice issues.  

Edited December 20, 2016 by LittleNipper

[Rain]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

I will leave you to your pondering.  I think I have made my thoughts on the subject pretty clear.  I personally think that Christ has been pretty clear as well.  I would answer this post the exact same way that I answered your previous post.

I actually appeciated what you have said as it helped me to break things down a little more. I'm at the point that it seems to hinge on whether the baking the cake for the celebration is sinful or not.  I may go through Christ'showed life to see if I can find a similar situation

A thing that complicates all this in my mind is that I have a child who may get married in the near future.  I'm not sure how to feel about that.  They are living together so morally marriage seems to be the better choice,  but I don't like the circumstances of them being a couple so I have been trying to decide what I would be willing to do for the wedding.  Just to be clear,  they are not same sex so the situation isn't exactly the same. I think most parents would have a hard time supporting this marriage. 

[Daniel2]

14 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

They already discriminate against Christians. Try to talk abut Christ in school. Try to promote a Bible club. Try to talk about Creationism in science class. Try to set up a nativity on the court house lawn... When was the last time there was a Christmas or Easter Concert at school. When was the last time they explained about what the Pilgrims and Martin Luther believed in History Class, 

If you wish to not sell me anything because of my beliefs, that's your business. There are other places I'd rather shop. And I certainly wouldn't wish to work for anyone who would belittle my beliefs ---- so you'd be doing me a favor.

So to summarize what you wrote above:

You believe government already does discriminate against at least some religions by prohibiting certain religious discussions, concerts, or religious-based clubs in public schools and prohibiting religious displays on government grounds.

Additionally, you feel that it's perfectly acceptable for businesses to discriminate against potential customers based on business owner's religious beliefs, and you also feel it's perfectly acceptable for employers to discriminate against their employees based on religious beliefs.

Do I have all of the above correct....?

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Not repeal it, just adjust it so that it once again deals with racial discrimination and not behavioral and choice issues.  

Again, to clarify:  It sounds as if you're saying you agree with anti-discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, but you disagree with anti-discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination where an element of behavior or choice is involved.

Is that correct....?

If it is correct, which of those two categories ("race" vs. "behavior/choices") do you feel that laws prohibiting anti-discrimination regarding interracial marriage would fall...?  Meaning, do you feel that the choice to marry someone of a different race a matter of "race" or "behavior/choice"?

Edited December 20, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

16 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

They already discriminate against Christians. Try to talk abut Christ in school. Try to promote a Bible club. Try to talk about Creationism in science class. Try to set up a nativity on the court house lawn... When was the last time there was a Christmas or Easter Concert at school. When was the last time they explained about what the Pilgrims and Martin Luther believed in History Class, 

By the way, I don't believe Christianity is as abridged in the public realm as you're suggesting.  Here's a few articles that illustrate my point (click on each heading for the article):

Court Lets Religious Clubs Meet in Schools : Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court decides that high schools that allow extracurricular activities on campus must also permit students to gather for prayer.--LA Times, 1990

Religion in the Public Schools: Use of School Facilities by Outside Religious Organizations and Clubs--Anti-Defamation League, 2004

Religion in the Public Schools: Student Religious Clubs--Anti-Defamation League, 2004

Knowing Your Rights in the Public Square: Spiritual Life in God--Christian Broadcast Network, Year unspecified

Supreme Court upholds prayer at government meetings--USA Today, 2014

Christmas Myth/Fact Sheet Re: Public Schools--TheWordOut.net, Year Unspecified

The 'December Dilemma': December Holiday Guidelines for Public Schools--Anti-Defamation League, 2009

This holiday, talking about religion in the classroom is more important than ever--PBS News, 2015

This article by the ACLU also helps bring some clarity to several of the legal issues, as a general summary of what's permissible and what's not:

Quote

Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools

 

Religion In The Public Schools:
A Joint Statement Of Current Law

The Constitution permits much private religious activity in and about the public schools. Unfortunately, this aspect of constitutional law is not as well known as it should be. Some say that the Supreme Court has declared the public schools "religion-free zones" or that the law is so murky that school officials cannot know what is legally permissible. The former claim is simply wrong. And as to the latter, while there are some difficult issues, much has been settled. It is also unfortunately true that public school officials, due to their busy schedules, may not be as fully aware of this body of law as they could be. As a result, in some school districts some of these rights are not being observed.  

The organizations whose names appear below span the ideological, religious and political spectrum. They nevertheless share a commitment both to the freedom of religious practice and to the separation of church and state such freedom requires. In that spirit, we offer this statement of consensus on current law as an aid to parents, educators and students.  

Many of the organizations listed below are actively involved in litigation about religion in the schools. On some of the issues discussed in this summary, some of the organizations have urged the courts to reach positions different than they did. Though there are signatories on both sides which have and will press for different constitutional treatments of some of the topics discussed below, they all agree that the following is an accurate statement of what the law currently is.  

Student Prayers

1. Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student listeners. In the classroom students have the right to pray quietly except when required to be actively engaged in school activities (e.g., students may not decide to pray just as a teacher calls on them). In informal settings, such as the cafeteria or in the halls, students may pray either audibly or silently, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other speech in these locations. However, the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate.  

Graduation Prayer and Baccalaureates

2. School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation, nor may they organize a religious baccalaureate ceremony. If the school generally rents out its facilities to private groups, it must rent them out on the same terms, and on a first- come first-served basis, to organizers of privately sponsored religious baccalaureate services, provided that the school does not extend preferential treatment to the baccalaureate ceremony and the school disclaims official endorsement of the program.  

3. The courts have reached conflicting conclusions under the federal Constitution on student-initiated prayer at graduation. Until the issue is authoritatively resolved, schools should ask their lawyers what rules apply in their area.  

Official Participation or Encouragement
of Religious Activity 

4. Teachers and school administrators, when acting in those capacities, are representatives of the state, and, in those capacities, are themselves prohibited from encouraging or soliciting student religious or anti-religious activity. Similarly, when acting in their official capacities, teachers may not engage in religious activities with their students. However, teachers may engage in private religious activity in faculty lounges.  

Teaching About Religion

5. Students may be taught about religion, but public schools may not teach religion. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "it might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization." It would be difficult to teach art, music, literature and most social studies without considering religious influences.  

The history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other scripture)-as-literature (either as a separate course or within some other existing course), are all permissible public school subjects. It is both permissible and desirable to teach objectively about the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries. One can teach that the Pilgrims came to this country with a particular religious vision, that Catholics and others have been subject to persecution or that many of those participating in the abolitionist, women's suffrage and civil rights movements had religious motivations.  

6. These same rules apply to the recurring controversy surrounding theories of evolution. Schools may teach about explanations of life on earth, including religious ones (such as "creationism"), in comparative religion or social studies classes. In science class, however, they may present only genuinely scientific critiques of, or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but not religious critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology). Schools may not refuse to teach evolutionary theory in order to avoid giving offense to religion nor may they circumvent these rules by labeling as science an article of religious faith. Public schools must not teach as scientific fact or theory any religious doctrine, including "creationism," although any genuinely scientific evidence for or against any explanation of life may be taught. Just as they may neither advance nor inhibit any religious doctrine, teachers should not ridicule, for example, a student's religious explanation for life on earth.  

Student Assignments and Religion

7. Students may express their religious beliefs in the form of reports, homework and artwork, and such expressions are constitutionally protected. Teachers may not reject or correct such submissions simply because they include a religious symbol or address religious themes. Likewise, teachers may not require students to modify, include or excise religious views in their assignments, if germane. These assignments should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance, relevance, appearance and grammar.  

8. Somewhat more problematic from a legal point of view are other public expressions of religious views in the classroom. Unfortunately for school officials, there are traps on either side of this issue, and it is possible that litigation will result no matter what course is taken. It is easier to describe the settled cases than to state clear rules of law. Schools must carefully steer between the claims of student speakers who assert a right to express themselves on religious subjects and the asserted rights of student listeners to be free of unwelcome religious persuasion in a public school classroom.  

a. Religious or anti-religious remarks made in the ordinary course of classroom discussion or student presentations are permissible and constitute a protected right. If in a sex education class a student remarks that abortion should be illegal because God has prohibited it, a teacher should not silence the remark, ridicule it, rule it out of bounds or endorse it, any more than a teacher may silence a student's religiously-based comment in favor of choice. 

b. If a class assignment calls for an oral presentation on a subject of the student's choosing, and, for example, the student responds by conducting a religious service, the school has the right -- as well as the duty -- to prevent itself from being used as a church. Other students are not voluntarily in attendance and cannot be forced to become an unwilling congregation.  

c. Teachers may rule out-of-order religious remarks that are irrelevant to the subject at hand. In a discussion of Hamlet's sanity, for example, a student may not interject views on creationism.

Distribution of Religious Literature

9. Students have the right to distribute religious literature to their schoolmates, subject to those reasonable time, place, and manner or other constitutionally- acceptable restrictions imposed on the distribution of all non-school literature. Thus, a school may confine distribution of all literature to a particular table at particular times. It may not single out religious literature for burdensome regulation.  

10. Outsiders may not be given access to the classroom to distribute religious or anti-religious literature. No court has yet considered whether, if all other community groups are permitted to distribute literature in common areas of public schools, religious groups must be allowed to do so on equal terms subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.  

"See You at the Pole"

11. Student participation in before- or after-school events, such as "see you at the pole," is permissible. School officials, acting in an official capacity, may neither discourage nor encourage participation in such an event.  

Religious Persuasion Versus Religious Harassment

12. Students have the right to speak to, and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics. But school officials should intercede to stop student religious speech if it turns into religious harassment aimed at a student or a small group of students. While it is constitutionally permissible for a student to approach another and issue an invitation to attend church, repeated invitations in the face of a request to stop constitute harassment. Where this line is to be drawn in particular cases will depend on the age of the students and other circumstances.  

Equal Access Act

13. Student religious clubs in secondary schools must be permitted to meet and to have equal access to campus media to announce their meetings, if a school receives federal funds and permits any student non-curricular club to meet during non-instructional time. This is the command of the Equal Access Act. A non-curricular club is any club not related directly to a subject taught or soon-to-be taught in the school. Although schools have the right to ban all non-curriculum clubs, they may not dodge the law's requirement by the expedient of declaring all clubs curriculum-related. On the other hand, teachers may not actively participate in club activities and "non-school persons" may not control or regularly attend club meeting.  

The Act's constitutionality has been upheld by the Supreme Court, rejecting claims that the Act violates the Establishment Clause. The Act's requirements are described in more detail in The Equal Access Act and the Public Schools: Questions and Answers on the Equal Access Act*, a pamphlet published by a broad spectrum of religious and civil liberties groups.  

Religious Holidays

14. Generally, public schools may teach about religious holidays, and may celebrate the secular aspects of the holiday and objectively teach about their religious aspects. They may not observe the holidays as religious events. Schools should generally excuse students who do not wish to participate in holiday events. Those interested in further details should see Religious Holidays in the Public Schools: Questions and Answers*, a pamphlet published by a broad spectrum of religious and civil liberties groups.  

Excusal From Religiously-Objectionable Lessons

15. Schools enjoy substantial discretion to excuse individual students from lessons which are objectionable to that student or to his or her parent on the basis of religion. Schools can exercise that authority in ways which would defuse many conflicts over curriculum content. If it is proved that particular lessons substantially burden a student's free exercise of religion and if the school cannot prove a compelling interest in requiring attendance the school would be legally required to excuse the student.  

Teaching Values

16. Schools may teach civic virtues, including honesty, good citizenship, sportsmanship, courage, respect for the rights and freedoms of others, respect for persons and their property, civility, the dual virtues of moral conviction and tolerance and hard work. Subject to whatever rights of excusal exist (see #15 above) under the federal Constitution and state law, schools may teach sexual abstinence and contraception; whether and how schools teach these sensitive subjects is a matter of educational policy. However, these may not be taught as religious tenets. The mere fact that most, if not all, religions also teach these values does not make it unlawful to teach them.  

Student Garb

17. Religious messages on T-shirts and the like may not be singled out for suppression. Students may wear religious attire, such as yarmulkes and head scarves, and they may not be forced to wear gym clothes that they regard, on religious grounds, as immodest.  

Released Time

18. Schools have the discretion to dismiss students to off-premises religious instruction, provided that schools do not encourage or discourage participation or penalize those who do not attend. 20. Schools may not allow religious instruction by outsiders on premises during the school day.  

Hope the above helps educate regarding the freedoms that you and others continue to have, LittleNipper.

Daniel

Edited December 20, 2016 by Daniel2