all-encompassingly

3 Responses to “ACLU: church is worse than prison”

1. July 14th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
   al

   And interesting timing considering the recent rulings in the supreme court. I was curious, Travis, what you thought about Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling. I thought it very interesting. I remember hearing some of his thoughts on stari decisis during the confirmation hearing, but I do not recall his position. He did not overturn, but did not exactly follow the precedent either.

   Why are so many academics against religion? Is it truly a case of thinking your way out of church, and rationalizing God out of existence? Or is it liberalism and its hate for the majority? At what point are we going to stand up and say we do believe in freedom for all, including the freedoms of the majority and not just minority? Practicing freedom should not be exclusive to just one group, we know this. But the practice or enforcement of freedom on one group should not hinder or completely do away with the freedoms of another.

2. July 16th, 2007 at 12:11 am
   travis

   the most recent decision dealing with the establishment of religion is hein v. freedom from religion foundation. that was authored by alito. roberts wrote the winning opinion in the bong hits 1st amendment case. are you talking about the latter?

   i don’t think roberts went against precedent in the bong hits case. there is US supreme court-level precedent saying that constitutional rights of students in public schools are not coextensive with those of adults in other settings. Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675 (1986). this is what i call the “duh” principle. roberts gave greater weight to the analysis used in this 1986 case than the earlier case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969), in which the standard for infringement of free speech in this vietnam war-era case was whether the speech “materially and substantially disrupt[ed] the work and discipline of the school.” the 1986 case skipped this analysis, showing that it was not required in the bong hits case. these cases talk about circumscribing otherwise protected speech “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.”

   Subsequently, the Court has held in the Fourth Amendment context that “while children assuredly do not ’shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate,’ … the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school,” Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646, 655-656, and has recognized that deterring drug use by schoolchildren is an “important–indeed, perhaps compelling” interest, id., at 661. Drug abuse by the Nation’s youth is a serious problem. For example, Congress has declared that part of a school’s job is educating students about the dangers of drug abuse, see, e.g., the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994, and petitioners and many other schools have adopted policies aimed at implementing this message. Student speech celebrating illegal drug use at a school event, in the presence of school administrators and teachers, poses a particular challenge for school officials working to protect those entrusted to their care. The “special characteristics of the school environment,” Tinker, 393 U. S., at 506, and the governmental interest in stopping student drug abuse allow schools to restrict student expression that they reasonably regard as promoting such abuse. Id., at 508, 509, distinguished. Pp. 8-15.

   that summarizing quotation is from findlaw. honestly, i don’t know what everyone is so upset about. public school is like hell on earth. i felt like a prisoner every day i was there. and who can forget all those schools banning simpsons t-shirts back in the early 1990s? the notion that there was ever free speech or any real freedom in public schools is pretty dumb.

3. July 16th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
   al

   thanks for the correction and explanation! I knew I could count on you!