ACLU to fight religious harrassment in rural Louisiana school (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sat through a lovely nativity play during a school assembly that ended with the principal reminding the students that Jesus is the reason for the season. That was 1996 in a rural public school in Louisiana. Doubt they have changed much since then, although shortly before I began teaching there they had removed the Ten Commandments from the classrooms. Everything changes at a different pace down there. The kids I taught were much more racially tolerant than their parents, but that tolerance had not yet been extended to gays or religion. In 30 more years they will likely be years behind much of the country but still trending toward acceptance.

 

[pollardsvision]

However, unwilling to subject C.C. to further emotional and physical distress, the Lanes agreed to

transfer him to another school.

win/win!

Not really.

Paragraph 14:

14. C.C. is currently enrolled as a sixth-grader at Many Junior High School (“Many”

or “MJHS”), where he remains subject to the customs, policies, and practices of Defendants

Sabine Parish School Board and Superintendent Ebarb. To attend MJHS, C.C. must be driven to

school by a parent every day, more than 30 minutes each way from his home. During the day, he

is separated from his siblings, who remain at Negreet. And, even at MJHS, District officials

continue to promote Christianity and impose religious exercise on students.

 

[Tiger Fan]

Awful

 

[bigbottom]

Jesus

 

[Captain Quinoa]

it's hard to believe that there's a school district flashing Bible verses on an electric marquee outside.

It's hard to believe that it is unconstitutional to do so, but here we are.

Shirley, you can't be serious.

Maybe you can quote the part for us where it suggests that it's unconstitutional to flash bible verses on a highschool marquee.. Maybe improper, but it's not unconstitutional..

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Not a "state religion." Religion. Full stop.

What other type of religion would Congress establish other than a state religion?

 

[Captain Quinoa]

However, unwilling to subject C.C. to further emotional and physical distress, the Lanes agreed to

transfer him to another school.

win/win!

Not really.

Paragraph 14:

14. C.C. is currently enrolled as a sixth-grader at Many Junior High School (“Many”

or “MJHS”), where he remains subject to the customs, policies, and practices of Defendants

Sabine Parish School Board and Superintendent Ebarb. To attend MJHS, C.C. must be driven to

school by a parent every day, more than 30 minutes each way from his home. During the day, he

is separated from his siblings, who remain at Negreet. And, even at MJHS, District officials

continue to promote Christianity and impose religious exercise on students.

yeah FYI I didn't really think it was a 'win'. But why would they bother changing to another school in the same district? That seems silly

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Obviously we are right to be disgusted by the actions of this teacher the Sup. but none of this would have happened without the support/consent of the parents in the district.

 

[Koya]

The utter lack of respect shown by people of the majority faith in this nation astounds me. The very people that cloak themselves in the flag and a false veil of patriotism have no idea what that flag truly represents, nor the harm that they do to others by imposing their concept of faith/religion on others.

If only such cowards were brave enough to embrace freedom not just for themselves nor other who see the world through their eyes' lense, but for all.

 

[pollardsvision]

Jesus

Well, to be fair. There's no way that white guy pictured was really Jesus.

 

[timschochet]

The utter lack of respect shown by people of the majority faith in this nation astounds me. The very people that cloak themselves in the flag and a false veil of patriotism have no idea what that flag truly represents, nor the harm that they do to others by imposing their concept of faith/religion on others.

If only such cowards were brave enough to embrace freedom not just for themselves nor other who see the world through their eyes' lense, but for all.

Aren't you over generalizing here? One small school district in Louisiana is hardly representative of anything.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Jesus

Maybe that's what the Superintendent looks like.

 

[timschochet]

Obviously we are right to be disgusted by the actions of this teacher the Sup. but none of this would have happened without the support/consent of the parents in the district.

It's not the responsibility of the parents to know how the law works affecting schools and religion. We have to hold the authorities up to a higher standard. Still you're right to the extent that this lawsuit won't change any minds; it will only result in resentment against the Indian family and the ACLU.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

The utter lack of respect shown by people of the majority faith in this nation astounds me. The very people that cloak themselves in the flag and a false veil of patriotism have no idea what that flag truly represents, nor the harm that they do to others by imposing their concept of faith/religion on others.

If only such cowards were brave enough to embrace freedom not just for themselves nor other who see the world through their eyes' lense, but for all.

Aren't you over generalizing here? One small school district in Louisiana is hardly representative of anything.

Forget it, he's rolling.

 

[pollardsvision]

However, unwilling to subject C.C. to further emotional and physical distress, the Lanes agreed to

transfer him to another school.

win/win!

Not really.

Paragraph 14:

14. C.C. is currently enrolled as a sixth-grader at Many Junior High School (“Many”

or “MJHS”), where he remains subject to the customs, policies, and practices of Defendants

Sabine Parish School Board and Superintendent Ebarb. To attend MJHS, C.C. must be driven to

school by a parent every day, more than 30 minutes each way from his home. During the day, he

is separated from his siblings, who remain at Negreet. And, even at MJHS, District officials

continue to promote Christianity and impose religious exercise on students.

yeah FYI I didn't really think it was a 'win'. But why would they bother changing to another school in the same district? That seems silly

I know.

Not sure why they'd change schools. I'd guess they thought they'd take a shot at a school without that specific teacher and principal. The district seems to allow and maybe encourage Christianity in the classroom, but obviously, some teachers will take that and run with it more than others. A different teacher could ease the uncomfortable experience for the kid, even in this type of environment.

Even in this district, you'd have to think a change would be unlikely to result in another teacher as idiotic as Roark.

 

[bigbottom]

Obviously we are right to be disgusted by the actions of this teacher the Sup. but none of this would have happened without the support/consent of the parents in the district.

It's not the responsibility of the parents to know how the law works affecting schools and religion. We have to hold the authorities up to a higher standard.Still you're right to the extent that this lawsuit won't change any minds; it will only result in resentment against the Indian family and the ACLU.

The kid is Thai, and I suspect he may be adopted.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Scavenger hunt:

Find ONE non-white teacher on staff here

http://www2.sabine.k12.la.us/mes/faculty.htm

http://www2.sabine.k12.la.us/mes/myron_warren.htm

 

[timschochet]

At least one a week the ACLU is attacked by conservative talk show hosts such as Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck etc. according to these guys and probably to the millions of Americans who listen to them, it is the ACLU, and not the authorities, who are the problem in stories like this one.

 

[timschochet]

Obviously we are right to be disgusted by the actions of this teacher the Sup. but none of this would have happened without the support/consent of the parents in the district.

It's not the responsibility of the parents to know how the law works affecting schools and religion. We have to hold the authorities up to a higher standard.Still you're right to the extent that this lawsuit won't change any minds; it will only result in resentment against the Indian family and the ACLU.

The kid is Thai, and I suspect he may be adopted.

Sorry my mistake.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Neither here nor there about a dispute at a small parish district on the upper East TX border, but curious about this:

Scott and Sharon Lane and their three children. According to the complaint from the ACLU and its Louisiana chapter, the Lanes enrolled their son — a lifelong Buddhist of Thai descent ...

"Lane" does not sound like a particularly Thai name...

Just curious if he's adopted.

 

[bigbottom]

Neither here nor there about a dispute at a small parish district on the upper East TX border, but curious about this:

Scott and Sharon Lane and their three children. According to the complaint from the ACLU and its Louisiana chapter, the Lanes enrolled their son — a lifelong Buddhist of Thai descent ...

"Lane" does not sound like a particularly Thai name...

Just curious if he's adopted.

Upon further reading, the child is the stepson of the plaintiff-father. So the mom, the boy's biological father, or both, appear to be Thai.

 

[Henry Ford]

Scavenger hunt:

Find ONE non-white teacher on staff here

http://www2.sabine.k12.la.us/mes/faculty.htm

http://www2.sabine.k12.la.us/mes/myron_warren.htm

You linked to the janitor.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Scavenger hunt:

Find ONE non-white teacher on staff here

http://www2.sabine.k12.la.us/mes/faculty.htm

http://www2.sabine.k12.la.us/mes/myron_warren.htm

You linked to the janitor.

I know, I thought it was humorous.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

CQ with some good in here.

 

[Henry Ford]

Scavenger hunt:

Find ONE non-white teacher on staff here

http://www2.sabine.k12.la.us/mes/faculty.htm

http://www2.sabine.k12.la.us/mes/myron_warren.htm

You linked to the janitor.

I know, I thought it was humorous.

The social worker looks funnier.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Neither here nor there about a dispute at a small parish district on the upper East TX border, but curious about this:

Scott and Sharon Lane and their three children. According to the complaint from the ACLU and its Louisiana chapter, the Lanes enrolled their son — a lifelong Buddhist of Thai descent ...

"Lane" does not sound like a particularly Thai name...

Just curious if he's adopted.

Upon further reading, the child is the stepson of the plaintiff-father. So the mom, the boy's biological father, or both, appear to be Thai.

Thanks.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Obviously we are right to be disgusted by the actions of this teacher the Sup. but none of this would have happened without the support/consent of the parents in the district.

It's not the responsibility of the parents to know how the law works affecting schools and religion. We have to hold the authorities up to a higher standard.Still you're right to the extent that this lawsuit won't change any minds; it will only result in resentment against the Indian family and the ACLU.

It's called being an informed citizen/voter. Even my 8th graders know this crap.

 

[danielmclark]

However, unwilling to subject C.C. to further emotional and physical distress, the Lanes agreed to

transfer him to another school.

win/win!

Not really.

Paragraph 14:

14. C.C. is currently enrolled as a sixth-grader at Many Junior High School (“Many”

or “MJHS”), where he remains subject to the customs, policies, and practices of Defendants

Sabine Parish School Board and Superintendent Ebarb. To attend MJHS, C.C. must be driven to

school by a parent every day, more than 30 minutes each way from his home. During the day, he

is separated from his siblings, who remain at Negreet. And, even at MJHS, District officials

continue to promote Christianity and impose religious exercise on students.

yeah FYI I didn't really think it was a 'win'. But why would they bother changing to another school in the same district? That seems silly

I know.

Not sure why they'd change schools. I'd guess they thought they'd take a shot at a school without that specific teacher and principal. The district seems to allow and maybe encourage Christianity in the classroom, but obviously, some teachers will take that and run with it more than others. A different teacher could ease the uncomfortable experience for the kid, even in this type of environment.

Even in this district, you'd have to think a change would be unlikely to result in another teacher as idiotic as Roark.

They may not have much of a choice. That part of the country? The family is probably not rolling in dough. If they could up and move to a more friendly part of the nation, they probably would. If all they could do was get the kid out of a toxic environment while he's the focal point of a lawsuit...? Not sure how much more should be expected of them considering the party at fault here is a public school.

 

[danielmclark]

Obviously we are right to be disgusted by the actions of this teacher the Sup. but none of this would have happened without the support/consent of the parents in the district.

It's not the responsibility of the parents to know how the law works affecting schools and religion. We have to hold the authorities up to a higher standard.Still you're right to the extent that this lawsuit won't change any minds; it will only result in resentment against the Indian family and the ACLU.

It's called being an informed citizen/voter. Even my 8th graders know this crap.

I agree with you on this. I respect Tim's assertion about the legal knowledge of your average citizen, but on the other hand, come on... I think most people know it's not A-OK to turn a public school into a Christian school. And they certainly know that singling out non-Christians for ridicule isn't acceptable. And unless they're completely absent, the parents at that school are quite aware of all the Christian propaganda going on and either directly or tacitly approve of it.

 

[matuski]

Jesus

He is watching you from above, with the camera above him.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Obviously we are right to be disgusted by the actions of this teacher the Sup. but none of this would have happened without the support/consent of the parents in the district.

It's not the responsibility of the parents to know how the law works affecting schools and religion. We have to hold the authorities up to a higher standard.Still you're right to the extent that this lawsuit won't change any minds; it will only result in resentment against the Indian family and the ACLU.

It's called being an informed citizen/voter. Even my 8th graders know this crap.

I agree with you on this. I respect Tim's assertion about the legal knowledge of your average citizen, but on the other hand, come on... I think most people know it's not A-OK to turn a public school into a Christian school. And they certainly know that singling out non-Christians for ridicule isn't acceptable. And unless they're completely absent, the parents at that school are quite aware of all the Christian propaganda going on and either directly or tacitly approve of it.

Exactly.

You know who else didn't pay attention/do anything while their officials just did what they wanted?

Germans in the 1930s and 1940s.

 

[pollardsvision]

I don't think tim's saying parents aren't or shouldn't be informed.

It's just that the school district employees are the ones ultimately responsible here (legally). A parent shouldn't have to file a lawsuit to get the district to obey the law.

I assume this family isn't the first to dislike these practices in the school, but the other families weren't willing to file a lawsuit. There a number of understandable reasons for that.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not suggesting the parents have no culpability. In only saying the school authorities should be held to a much higher standard. It hey are the ones who have to uphold the law.

 

[Koya]

The utter lack of respect shown by people of the majority faith in this nation astounds me. The very people that cloak themselves in the flag and a false veil of patriotism have no idea what that flag truly represents, nor the harm that they do to others by imposing their concept of faith/religion on others.

If only such cowards were brave enough to embrace freedom not just for themselves nor other who see the world through their eyes' lense, but for all.

Aren't you over generalizing here? One small school district in Louisiana is hardly representative of anything.

I am not referring just to this district, nor am I over generalizing, since I specifically have called out those to whom I refer.

Plenty are on these boards, plenty more across the nation.

 

[fatness]

Jesus

He is watching you from above, with the camera above him.

That's the Jeezocam.

 

[Koya]

The utter lack of respect shown by people of the majority faith in this nation astounds me. The very people that cloak themselves in the flag and a false veil of patriotism have no idea what that flag truly represents, nor the harm that they do to others by imposing their concept of faith/religion on others.

If only such cowards were brave enough to embrace freedom not just for themselves nor other who see the world through their eyes' lense, but for all.

Aren't you over generalizing here? One small school district in Louisiana is hardly representative of anything.

Forget it, he's rolling.

Just how so? If I inferred that these were "most people" then I apologize. Perhaps I should have been more specific about "Those people" who are of the majority religion AND have this myopic and selfish viewpoint. Hardly meant to generalize to all folks of Christian faith, that was not at all my intent.

There are plenty out there, including some whom I will not name right now, that are posting in this very thread. And if they don't know who they are, they should.

 

[danielmclark]

I'm not suggesting the parents have no culpability. In only saying the school authorities should be held to a much higher standard. It hey are the ones who have to uphold the law.

Truth. That wasn't quite the way you worded it the first time, I think there was some misunderstanding. You're right, the school authorities should be held to a higher standard, because the buck stops with them. It's their school, their responsibility ultimately.

 

[Henry Ford]

Obviously we are right to be disgusted by the actions of this teacher the Sup. but none of this would have happened without the support/consent of the parents in the district.

It's not the responsibility of the parents to know how the law works affecting schools and religion. We have to hold the authorities up to a higher standard.Still you're right to the extent that this lawsuit won't change any minds; it will only result in resentment against the Indian family and the ACLU.

It's called being an informed citizen/voter. Even my 8th graders know this crap.

And who informs them? Presumably the same school, which they went to, if they even finished high school? The per-capita income for the Parish is about $15K a year, with about 25,000 people in the entire Parish. These are not well-educated or informed people.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Obviously we are right to be disgusted by the actions of this teacher the Sup. but none of this would have happened without the support/consent of the parents in the district.

It's not the responsibility of the parents to know how the law works affecting schools and religion. We have to hold the authorities up to a higher standard.Still you're right to the extent that this lawsuit won't change any minds; it will only result in resentment against the Indian family and the ACLU.

It's called being an informed citizen/voter. Even my 8th graders know this crap.

And who informs them? Presumably the same school, which they went to, if they even finished high school? The per-capita income for the Parish is about $15K a year, with about 25,000 people in the entire Parish. These are not well-educated or informed people.

Point taken.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

it's hard to believe that there's a school district flashing Bible verses on an electric marquee outside.

It's hard to believe that it is unconstitutional to do so, but here we are.

Shirley, you can't be serious.

Maybe you can quote the part for us where it suggests that it's unconstitutional to flash bible verses on a highschool marquee.. Maybe improper, but it's not unconstitutional..

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Not a "state religion." Religion. Full stop.

What other type of religion would Congress establish other than a state religion?

It doesn't say establishing a type of religion. It says establishing religion. Government employees leading a non-denominational prayer in school does not establish any type of religion or a state religion. But it establishes religion.

 

[L5UT1ger]

I was born and raised in rural, LA. I now live there after living elsewhere for nearly 12 years. AMA!

 

[Captain Quinoa]

it's hard to believe that there's a school district flashing Bible verses on an electric marquee outside.

It's hard to believe that it is unconstitutional to do so, but here we are.

Shirley, you can't be serious.

Maybe you can quote the part for us where it suggests that it's unconstitutional to flash bible verses on a highschool marquee.. Maybe improper, but it's not unconstitutional..

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Not a "state religion." Religion. Full stop.

What other type of religion would Congress establish other than a state religion?

It doesn't say establishing a type of religion. It says establishing religion. Government employees leading a non-denominational prayer in school does not establish any type of religion or a state religion. But it establishes religion.

ahh I see where you were going now.

back to your previous statement:

Now unless you don't accept the argument that the 1st Amendment applies to all government actions, and not just laws enacted by Congress

Do you think that was the original intent of the amendment? I mean Mass. had an official state religion for what, 50 years after the Bill of Rights? Now clearly the 14th strikes that down, but I just can't get from the language of the 1st Amendment to it being unconstitutional for the town of East Broomstick, OH to put up a nativity scene. And if the people of Somewhereville want to have Hindu or Wiccan or Branch Davidian symbols on their courthouse then have at it.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

it's hard to believe that there's a school district flashing Bible verses on an electric marquee outside.

It's hard to believe that it is unconstitutional to do so, but here we are.

Shirley, you can't be serious.

Maybe you can quote the part for us where it suggests that it's unconstitutional to flash bible verses on a highschool marquee.. Maybe improper, but it's not unconstitutional..

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Not a "state religion." Religion. Full stop.

What other type of religion would Congress establish other than a state religion?

It doesn't say establishing a type of religion. It says establishing religion. Government employees leading a non-denominational prayer in school does not establish any type of religion or a state religion. But it establishes religion.

ahh I see where you were going now.

back to your previous statement:

Now unless you don't accept the argument that the 1st Amendment applies to all government actions, and not just laws enacted by Congress

Do you think that was the original intent of the amendment? I mean Mass. had an official state religion for what, 50 years after the Bill of Rights? Now clearly the 14th strikes that down, but I just can't get from the language of the 1st Amendment to it being unconstitutional for the town of East Broomstick, OH to put up a nativity scene. And if the people of Somewhereville want to have Hindu or Wiccan or Branch Davidian symbols on their courthouse then have at it.

There's no doubt that the Framers of the 1st Amendment didn't mean for it to apply to the States. Most states had official state religions. But that's not the question. The question is whether those who amended the Constitution with the 14th Amendment meant to apply the 1st Amendment to the states.

I think that's kind of an impossible question to answer, which is why I think originalism is stupid. I've read enough to know that the people who ratified the 14th Amendment all had a bunch idiosyncratic ideas of what it meant.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There's a difference between religious (free) speech and establishment of religion.

Children and parents want to put on a nativity play at the local public school? Fine.

School administrators get together and say "Hey we're going to put on a nativity play this year, send out an email to all the children and parents." No, not ok.

Children want to gather after school in a classroom to have a prayer group? Fine.

School makes attendance at a prayer class mandatory as detention? No, not cool.

Players kneeling at a public high school game? Fine. Parents's group calls priest to say pre-game prayer? Fine. Principle calls priest for pre-game prayer? Not ok.

 

[sporthenry]

Scavenger hunt:

Find ONE non-white teacher on staff here

http://www2.sabine.k12.la.us/mes/faculty.htm

I went through all that and only found one worth looking at.

http://www2.sabine.k12.la.us/mes/heather_brooks.htm

 

[joffer]

The utter lack of respect shown by people of the majority faith in this nation astounds me. The very people that cloak themselves in the flag and a false veil of patriotism have no idea what that flag truly represents, nor the harm that they do to others by imposing their concept of faith/religion on others.

If only such cowards were brave enough to embrace freedom not just for themselves nor other who see the world through their eyes' lense, but for all.

Aren't you over generalizing here? One small school district in Louisiana is hardly representative of anything.

http://youtu.be/HhGOOArVAkMO'rly?

 

[timschochet]

The utter lack of respect shown by people of the majority faith in this nation astounds me. The very people that cloak themselves in the flag and a false veil of patriotism have no idea what that flag truly represents, nor the harm that they do to others by imposing their concept of faith/religion on others.

If only such cowards were brave enough to embrace freedom not just for themselves nor other who see the world through their eyes' lense, but for all.

Aren't you over generalizing here? One small school district in Louisiana is hardly representative of anything.

http://youtu.be/HhGOOArVAkMO'rly?

Well damn. I gotta admit that's pretty scary.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

it's hard to believe that there's a school district flashing Bible verses on an electric marquee outside.

It's hard to believe that it is unconstitutional to do so, but here we are.

Shirley, you can't be serious.

Maybe you can quote the part for us where it suggests that it's unconstitutional to flash bible verses on a highschool marquee.. Maybe improper, but it's not unconstitutional..

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Not a "state religion." Religion. Full stop.

Now unless you don't accept the argument that the 1st Amendment applies to all government actions, and not just laws enacted by Congress or you somehow believe the 1st Amendment was not incorporated against the States by the 14th Amendment, I can't see how you'd have a non-trivial argument (grounded in the text of the Constitution) that the establishment clause applies.

I also find it amusing that the very people arguing for the most restrictive (textually ludicrous) interpretation of the establishment clause somehow interpret the free exercise clause to prevent laws of general application from applying to religious people if it somehow offends their beliefs. Which is something like 1000 times more fanciful as a matter of textual or historical interpretation.

Explain how flashing a bible verse in a marquee is making a law....

 

[timschochet]

it's hard to believe that there's a school district flashing Bible verses on an electric marquee outside.

It's hard to believe that it is unconstitutional to do so, but here we are.

Shirley, you can't be serious.

Maybe you can quote the part for us where it suggests that it's unconstitutional to flash bible verses on a highschool marquee.. Maybe improper, but it's not unconstitutional..

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Not a "state religion." Religion. Full stop.

Now unless you don't accept the argument that the 1st Amendment applies to all government actions, and not just laws enacted by Congress or you somehow believe the 1st Amendment was not incorporated against the States by the 14th Amendment, I can't see how you'd have a non-trivial argument (grounded in the text of the Constitution) that the establishment clause applies.

I also find it amusing that the very people arguing for the most restrictive (textually ludicrous) interpretation of the establishment clause somehow interpret the free exercise clause to prevent laws of general application from applying to religious people if it somehow offends their beliefs. Which is something like 1000 times more fanciful as a matter of textual or historical interpretation.

Explain how flashing a bible verse in a marquee is making a law....

Really?

 

[Henry Ford]

it's hard to believe that there's a school district flashing Bible verses on an electric marquee outside.

It's hard to believe that it is unconstitutional to do so, but here we are.

Shirley, you can't be serious.

Maybe you can quote the part for us where it suggests that it's unconstitutional to flash bible verses on a highschool marquee.. Maybe improper, but it's not unconstitutional..

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Not a "state religion." Religion. Full stop.

Now unless you don't accept the argument that the 1st Amendment applies to all government actions, and not just laws enacted by Congress or you somehow believe the 1st Amendment was not incorporated against the States by the 14th Amendment, I can't see how you'd have a non-trivial argument (grounded in the text of the Constitution) that the establishment clause applies.

I also find it amusing that the very people arguing for the most restrictive (textually ludicrous) interpretation of the establishment clause somehow interpret the free exercise clause to prevent laws of general application from applying to religious people if it somehow offends their beliefs. Which is something like 1000 times more fanciful as a matter of textual or historical interpretation.

Explain how flashing a bible verse in a marquee is making a law....

Read the third paragraph again.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

it's hard to believe that there's a school district flashing Bible verses on an electric marquee outside.

It's hard to believe that it is unconstitutional to do so, but here we are.

Shirley, you can't be serious.

Maybe you can quote the part for us where it suggests that it's unconstitutional to flash bible verses on a highschool marquee.. Maybe improper, but it's not unconstitutional..

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Not a "state religion." Religion. Full stop.

Now unless you don't accept the argument that the 1st Amendment applies to all government actions, and not just laws enacted by Congress or you somehow believe the 1st Amendment was not incorporated against the States by the 14th Amendment, I can't see how you'd have a non-trivial argument (grounded in the text of the Constitution) that the establishment clause applies.

I also find it amusing that the very people arguing for the most restrictive (textually ludicrous) interpretation of the establishment clause somehow interpret the free exercise clause to prevent laws of general application from applying to religious people if it somehow offends their beliefs. Which is something like 1000 times more fanciful as a matter of textual or historical interpretation.

Explain how flashing a bible verse in a marquee is making a law....

Really?

Flashing a bible verse on a school marquee is not unconstitutional..