• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

4th Circuit tosses order barring religious group's fliers

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
I see this as a good thing perhaps the small battles can help our citizens relize there is nothing in the constituion that seperates church and state.
what do you think?
Source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13645


4th Circuit tosses order barring religious group's fliers

By The Associated Press
07.01.04
RICHMOND, Va. — An evangelical group’s plan to distribute fliers to students in two Montgomery County, Md., elementary schools does not amount to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, a divided federal appeals court ruled yesterday.

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a judge’s ruling blocking the Child Evangelism Fellowship’s access to the Montgomery schools’ take-home flier program. The court sent the matter back to U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte of Greenbelt, Md., for further proceedings.

Messitte’s ruling barred CEF from giving literature to students at Mill Creek Towne Elementary School in Rockville and Clearspring Elementary School in Damascus. The materials, to be taken home to parents, invited students to attend Good News Club meetings, which offer Bible lessons and other religious activities after school.

CEF had asked in August 2001 to include fliers and permission slips in informational packets compiled by the school and sent home with students. Packets typically include day-care information, forms for community sports leagues and fliers from a variety of groups.

Among the religious organizations that have been allowed to send fliers home are the Norbeck Community Church, the Jewish Community Center and the Holy Redeemer Summer Play School, the appeals court said.

The school district said it barred CEF because the flier program is not open to “proselytization” or “evangelical groups.” The appeals panel said that amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

The court relied in part on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling Good News Club v. Milford Central School, which required public schools to give CEF equal access to school space for Good News Club meetings.

Montgomery school officials claimed their case was different because teachers or other employees would be distributing the fliers during school hours, when students are required to be in school.

Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote that “simply issuing a communication involving a religious organization during school hours does not render the communication state speech, nor does it invariably create a perception of endorsement or coercion by government officials.”

She also said teachers’ involvement was minimal and that distribution of the literature did not rise to the level of unconstitutional government coercion.

Students have received hundreds of fliers promoting environmental, athletic, artistic and religious activities.

“Directing them to take home these diverse materials does not coerce them to engage in a religious activity, any more than it coerces them to engage in an environmental activity,” Motz wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by Judge Dennis Shedd.

Judge M. Blane Michael wrote in a dissenting opinion that the distribution of CEF fliers would, in effect, force students to engage in religious activity in violation of the Constitution.

“The school system’s interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation should prevail in order to protect the individual freedom of the students,” Michael wrote.
 
Top Bottom