Maryland School Officials Threaten Seventh Grader with Disciplinary Action

[Theophylact]

for Reading Bible During Lunch Time:

GREENBELT, Md. — Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a civil rights lawsuit in defense of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of a seventh grader who was ordered by Maryland middle school officials to stop reading her Bible during free time at school or face disciplinary action. Institute attorneys have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to declare that prohibiting students from reading Bibles or other religious texts during their free time is unconstitutional.

“We live in a country that touts itself as the cradle of freedom and democracy,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “However, what kind of freedom do we really have when a young girl can’t even read her Bible during lunch time without being punished for it?”

On September 14, 2006, seventh-grader Amber Mangum was approached by the Vice Principal at Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle School in Prince George’s County, Md., while reading a Bible in the school cafeteria during her lunch period. In keeping with school policy, students are allowed to read books or engage in interpersonal communications during non-instructional time at school, including lunch periods. Furthermore, published administrative procedure of the Prince George’s County Public Schools provides that “[s]tudents may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may engage in comparable, non-disruptive activities.”

However, as noted in the complaint filed by Rutherford Institute attorneys, the vice principal informed Amber that reading a Bible was a violation of the school’s policy and warned her that she would be subject to more severe disciplinary action if she were found reading a Bible at school again. In defending Amber’s right to read a Bible during non-instructional time at school, Institute attorneys have pointed out that according to the U.S. Department of Education’s 2003 guidelines under the No Child Left Behind Act, students have the right to read Bibles or other religious scriptures during lunch hour, recess or other non-instructional times.

Another example, not of "political correctness" but of pusillanimity. I'll bet that the ACLU files an amicus brief in this case, supporting the student.

[BoomShaker]

I don't get it? It's the kids free time to do with as he or she pleases! So if she was reading playgirl magazine that would be ok cause it's non religious?

[Whipple04]

someones getting sued....

[mad1]

Originally Posted by Theophylact

for Reading Bible During Lunch Time:Another example, not of "political correctness" but of pusillanimity. I'll bet that the ACLU files an amicus brief in this case, supporting the student.

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

[tony_j15]

someone should get fired.

[Theophylact]

Originally Posted by mad1

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

That's because you know nothing about the ACLU. I've been a member for forty years and have a rather better idea of their policies than you.

[osprey4]

Originally Posted by BoomShaker

I don't get it? It's the kids free time to do with as he or she pleases! So if she was reading playgirl magazine that would be ok cause it's non religious?

School have a legitimate interest in maintaining an environment conducive to learning, so the range of reading material during free time is not unlimited. I would suspect materials deemed pornographic, violent, racist, etc. to be on the list of things not allowed by most schools. So Playgirl (or boy)? No.

[mad1]

Originally Posted by Theophylact

That's because you know nothing about the ACLU. I've been a member for forty years and have a rather better idea of their policies than you.

Time will tell who the ACLU sides with, I still stand by the idea that ACLU will side with the school. Lets monitor this incident to see the final outcome on who the ACLU sides with.

[Theophylact]

Well, here's a current example for you:

ACLU of New Jersey Defends Second-Grader's Right to Sing Religious Song

(6/5/2006) NEWARK, NJ -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.

The Frenchtown Elementary School student, whose initials are O.T., wanted to sing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. School officials refused to allow the student to sing her song, saying it would give the impression that the school favored religion. “O.T.” remains anonymous to protect her privacy.

"There is a distinction between religious expression initiated or endorsed by school personnel, and speech initiated by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including religious expression."

In its brief, the ACLU argued that no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the religious message behind the student's song, and that the school therefore had no right to deny her choice of song.

The talent show was open for anyone from the 1st through 8th grades who wished to play a solo instrument, dance, perform a skit or sing karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits.

"We are dedicated to protecting the right of individual religious expression," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "O.T. has our full support in defense of her right to sing a religious song in the talent show."

The ACLU of New Jersey has participated in other cases involving the right of individual religious expression, including recently helping to ensure that jurors are not removed from jury pools for wearing religious clothing and that prisoners are able to obtain religious literature.

The case, O.T. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, was filed in federal court in Trenton.

As I said, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Beemer]

Originally Posted by osprey4

School have a legitimate interest in maintaining an environment conducive to learning, so the range of reading material during free time is not unlimited. I would suspect materials deemed pornographic, violent, racist, etc. to be on the list of things not allowed by most schools.

You're defending the Vice Principal on this one osprey? The Bible contains pornographic, violent, racist, etc material and more of the etc as most of us realise.