There is perhaps no group besides American Atheists and the ACLU who consistently challenge Christian signs, symbols and Christian tradition more than the Freedom From Religion Foundation, FFRF. The group has been victorious in many lawsuits and is a thorn in the side to many Christians who find their tactics to be militant atheism, and indeed, they are right.
On March 8th, FFRF is proudly commemorating the 65-year Anniversary of the 1948 landmark Supreme Court decision in McCollum vs. Board of Education, which banned religious studies in public schools.
The case was brought by atheist Vashti McCollum whose son attended public school in the Champaign, Ill., school district. The classes were voluntary, but McCollum declared her son was ostracized for not participating. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that religious classes on school property were a violation of the separation of church and state.
Justice Hugo Black in a portion of his opinion wrote: “Here not only are the state’s tax-supported public school buildings used for the dissemination of religious doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an invaluable aid in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of the state’s compulsory public school machinery. This is not separation of Church and State.”
Annie Laurie Gaylor, Co-President of FFRF posted a column commemorating the anniversary both on the groups Web site as well as their Facebook page.
Gaylor’s essay, entitled, “Give thanks to the McCollum Family,” is clearly a take on Christian’s giving thanks to God. Gaylor also notes she is en route to a celebration in Champaign to celebrate the anniversary.
“In the face of bitter defeat in two lower courts, social shunning, hate mail, reprisal against herself, her family and her children, Vashti did not give up. She was rewarded with a historic decision, 8-1, in her favor,” Gaylor writes.
“FFRF daily invokes the McCollum precedent in our legal letters of complaint over state/church violations in public schools,” notes Gaylor.
The group lists 12 ongoing lawsuits on its Web site challenging everything from a painting of Jesus in a school, to a graduation prayer, to a Catholic Shrine on a mountain. (Details of the lawsuits can be seen here: http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/ongoing-lawsuits/
Gaylor also writes of the 65-year old ruling, “While we take a moment to savor this strong ruling, it must be noted that the Supreme Court has egregiously deviated from the principles in McCollum in its 2001 Good News Club v. Milford Central School District decision. What the court stopped during the school day, it now blesses as soon as the bell rings at the end of the school day.”
Clearly, the Supreme Court has been inconsistent in rulings. In addition to Gaylor’s aforementioned lawsuit, there have been divergent rulings in lawsuits that were seeking to remove 10 Commandment Displays – some have ruled the monuments can stay, while others rulings forced the removal of the monument in question.
Clearly, Gaylor and her cohorts at FFRF are very proud of this decades old victory that banned religious study in schools. Vashti McCollum and those like her that have stood against religion and won are the group’s and followers heroes.
Many Christians would argue that since these court decisions, schools have gone downhill with bullying, shootings, and many children with a general disrespect and disdain for authority.
In the 1940’s, mothers didn’t send their children to school with the thought that their child could be a victim of a mass shooting. Indeed, the thought never entered anyone’s mind. I personally know of one mother who pulled her child out of public school after the Newtown, Conn., shootings. And really, who could blame her?
What lack of religion and lack of God in schools has done is evident. We haven’t gotten better as a society, we’ve steadily gone down that slippery slippery slope of Godlessness. And that is no cause for celebration.
7 comments:
In 1948 there was segregation and there were regular lynchings. Women had few rights, neither women nor people of color had the right to equal pay, to equal education, to equal opportunities. The half century before saw two major wars, a suppression, several smaller conflicts, and several recessions. At the start of the century addicts were a tremendous problem and we started the practice of controlled substances. Alcohol was banned because it was a problem, and it only got worse with deadly adulterated alcohol.
I really do not think that things have gotten worse since 1948, I think they are far better.
So Mary, how would you feel if Muslim Religion classes ( not just history either) were offered at your childs public school with the hope that children will convert to Muslim? I bet you would have a problem with that, and that is how I feel about ANY religion being taught in school, including Christianity. Not everyone who is a citizen of this country is Christian, so Not every parent wants their kid robe exposed to this religion when they go to a public schools. If one religion is allowed in, then ALL religions need to be represented. If you want to really be persecuted against (as noted in your bio that you fight Christian persecution ) that go oversees and live in a theocracy where practicing Christianity is illegal, then maybe you will have a new perspective and appreciation that we have freedom of and freedom from religion.
You said, "Clearly, the Supreme Court has been inconsistent in rulings. In addition to Gaylor’s aforementioned lawsuit, there have been divergent rulings in lawsuits that were seeking to remove 10 Commandment Displays – some have ruled the monuments can stay, while others rulings forced the removal of the monument in question."
There's no inconsistency in the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence. In Van Orden v. Perry, the Supreme Court upheld the display of the Ten Commandments erected by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1961 on the Texas state capitol building. The Court distinguished the case from Stone v. Graham striking down Kentucky's statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in public schools and McCreary v. ACLU striking down the display of the Ten Commandments located at the McCreary courthouse:
"This case, moreover, is distinguishable from instances where the Court has found Ten Commandments displays impermissible. The display is not on the grounds of a public school, where, given the impressionability of the young, government must exercise particular care in separating church and state. . . This case also differs from McCreary County, where the short (and stormy) history of the courthouse Commandments' displays demonstrates the substantially religious objectives of those who mounted them, and the effect of this readily apparent objective upon those who view them. . . That history there indicates a governmental effort substantially to promote religion, not simply an effort primarily to reflect, historically, the secular impact of a religiously inspired document. And, in today's world, in a Nation of so many different religious and comparable nonreligious fundamental beliefs, a more contemporary state effort to focus attention upon a religious text is certainly likely to prove divisive in a way that this longstanding, pre-existing monument has not."
There's also no contradiction between the Supreme Court's decision in McCollum v. Board of Education and Good News Club v. Milford Central School District. The Court distinguished the case from McCollum:
"Milford also cites Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. No. 71, Champaign Cty., 333 U. S. 203 (1948), for its position that the Club's religious element would be advanced by the State through compulsory attendance laws. In McCollum, the school district excused students from their normal classroom study during the regular schoolday to attend classes taught by sectarian religious teachers, who were subject to approval by the school superintendent. Under these circumstances, this Court found it relevant that "[t]he operation of the State's compulsory education system .. . assist[ed] and [wa]s integrated with the program of religious instruction carried on by separate religious sects." . . . In the present case, there is simply no integration and cooperation between the school district and the Club. The Club's activities take place after the time when the children are compelled by state law to be at the school."
Also, in another case, Zorach v. Clauson, the Supreme Court upheld New York City's program permitting students to be released from school to attend religious instruction. The Court distinguished the case from McCollum:
"In the McCollum case the classrooms were used for religious instruction and the force of the public school was used to promote that instruction. Here, as we have said, the public schools do no more than accommodate their schedules to a program of outside religious instruction. . . ."
You also said, "Many Christians would argue that since these court decisions, schools have gone downhill with bullying, shootings, and many children with a general disrespect and disdain for authority."
There's no correlation between the Supreme Court's decision in McCollum v. Board of Education and the increase of school shootings. There were hundreds of shootings in public schools between the 1700's and 1948.
Here is a list of school shootings in the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
The majority of the shootings in the 1800's and 1900's were one on one. They were nothing like what we are experiencing now where 10 or more are shot at once.
As for the Milford case, it was Ms. Gaylor who made the comparison, not me.
"The majority of the shootings in the 1800's and 1900's were one on one. They were nothing like what we are experiencing now where 10 or more are shot at once."
This has nothing to do with the 1948 ruling and has everything to do with gun technology. I think if today's shooters only had single action rifles and six shooters available to them, then the majority of the modern world's school shootings would continue to be one on one.
Post a Comment