Two unrelated school incidents illustrate the kind of censorship that is demanded by those liberals, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, who regularly shout so loudly against censorship.
The ACLU sent a letter to Lee’s Summit High School in greater Kansas City, Missouri threatening suit because of the alleged “Christian focus of the candlelighting ceremony” to be held at an assembly shortly before the Christmas holidays.
Dick Kurtenbach, executive director for the America Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Kansas and Western Missouri, said that three of those who registered complaints are ready to go to court if necessary. The school promptly discontinued the 30-year tradition.
The original script for this assembly was written by the Lee’s Summit National Honor Society in the 1950s. When the ACLU letter arrived, however, school authorities quaked in their boots and promptly cast tradition aside. The school board voted to disallow the ceremony.
Students protested the board’s action with a sit-in during school. The school board then authorized students to write a new script in order to “find some common ground.” The new 45-minute program is to reflect the historical aspect of Christmas and the traditions of various other religions including Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, native American religions and Hinduism.
Students who object to censorship of the candlelighting ceremony have now filed suit to have it restored. Their lawyer suggests that the ACLU’s action would have been far different if someone had complained that the school was “supporting a Satanic holiday by decorating and sanctioning the wearing of costumes” for Halloween.
The other incident took place in Denver, where what is known as the “Bible censorship trial” attracted much attention in December and is expected to be decided in early 1989. The case started during an open house in September 1987 when a parent noticed two books with religious titles in the 239-volume 5th grade classroom library.
The parent complained to the principal, Kathleen Madigan, who instructed the teacher, Ken Roberts, to remove them. Roberts removed the challenged books, The Bible in Pictures and The Story of Jesus, but stated that he did not think the principal’s actions were proper.
The library is used by students during their 15-minute daily silent reading time when they do not have another book to read. Book selection is left up to the student, not influenced by Roberts.
The principal later repeated her order in writing, basing her decision on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. She wrote, “The law is clear that religion may not be taught in a public school. To avoid the appearance of teaching religion, I have given you this directive. Failure to comply with this directive will be considered insubordination and could result in disciplinary action.”
The written order also directed Roberts to hide his Bible, which he sometimes kept on his desk amidst his papers and books. Roberts sometimes read the Bible during silent reading time but states that he never read from the Bible aloud to the children and never proselytized about his faith to the students.
The teacher, joined by some parents and students, brough suit against the principal and the school district. The case involves two main issues: the censorship of the two classroom library books plus the subsequent removal of the Bible from the school library, and whether a teacher may read the Bible silently in class and put it on his desk.
In court, the school district argued that the Establishment Clause requires the school to keep out all religious materials because students are impressionable. The plaintiffs cited Supreme Court decisions which state that “the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like,” and “it certainly may be said that the Bible is worth of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as a part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”
When the plaintiffs pointed out that the school has other religious books, the district replied that books about religion are permissible but that primary source books for a religion, such as the Bible, are unconstitutional. The plaintiffs told the judge that the district was “talking about the Bible like it’s toxic waste or asbestos, and children shouldn’t be in the same room with one.”
It looks like the liberals are really in favor of some kinds of censorship, aren’t they?
