Maryland School Officials Threaten Seventh Grader with Disciplinary Action

[mad1]

Originally Posted by Theophylact

Because it's the Rutherford Institute's main concern. Also, the ACLU has many civil liberties issues to deal with, not just the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment. And they have only a finite amount of money. That's why I think they'll file an amicus brief, which doesn't involve the huge effort and expense that bringing the suit itself does.

Whether or not they do, though, all past experience shows what side they'll be on, which is why I said you have no clue whatsoever.

The ACLU strongly supports the seperation of church and state, per their website. "Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state."The school official was attempting to remove any reference to the Christian faith from that school, thru not allowing the student to read the bible during lunch period. This is a infringement on the students freedom of religion but the ACLU views the seperation of church and state a greater issue. I see the decison from the ACLU will be not to file a lawsuit, thus supporting the stance of the school official.

[BBA]

Originally Posted by mad1

I'll wager that the ACLU will side against the student.

I would agree. If it's not one of the following: anti christian; anti semetic; african american or liberal, the ACLU won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

[clancy]

Looking at this list of ACLU's Defense of Religious Liberty, I would have to say that the ACLU has a history of defending religious rights in situations like the topic of this thread.

[mrniceguy]

this is rediculous, separation church and state, in relation to schools, is to keep schools from forcing religion on a student. It's hard to believe a teacher would idiotic enough to do something like this if the kid was really just reading the book. Maybe the girl was trying to preach to fellow students

[Beemer]

Originally Posted by osprey4

So then how would this supposed "secular purpose" lend itself to defense of religious liberty?

Ya. It doesn't fit with the previous sentence at all. Rushed post is my excuse. I'm going to remove that part.

[mad1]

removed.

[Pexster]

mad1 posted --

I see the decison from the ACLU will be not to file a lawsuit, thus supporting the stance of the school official.

Your logic is truly beyond the grasp of mere mortals.

(I wondered how you would try to wiggle out of your original claim.)

[mad1]

Originally Posted by Pexster

mad1 posted -- Your logic is truly beyond the grasp of mere mortals.

(I wondered how you would try to wiggle out of your original claim.)

My original claim," I'll wager that the ACLU will side against the student."

My second quote," I see the decison from the ACLU will be not to file a lawsuit, thus supporting the stance of the school official."

Did you attempt to read the qoutes, not likely?Both statements have idential meanings.

[Pexster]

Stop before you further embarrass yourself. Maybe a logic class? Dunno.

[mad1]

Originally Posted by Pexster

Stop before you further embarrass yourself. Maybe a logic class? Dunno.

When loosing the arguement with facts revert to personal attacks, it is useless to attempt a civilized discussion with such a person as you.