7.19.2008
The Trouble of Teaching Biblical Content
Ah Texas, outside of South Carolina, it is hard to think of a state with more percolating church-state issues. Their judges sanction religiously-motivated torture of teenage girls, they pass laws that their own research tells them will privilege Christian expression, and they aren't too keen on the religious freedom of non-Christian faiths. So is it any wonder that they passed a controversial law mandating a Bible-study elective in their public schools, or that schools taking advantage of this new freedom are abusing it?
"Mark Chancey, associate professor in religious studies at Southern Methodist University, has studied Bible classes already offered in about 25 districts for the Texas Freedom Network. The study found most of the courses were explicitly devotional with almost exclusively Christian, usually Protestant, perspectives. It also found that most were taught by teachers with no academic training in biblical, religious or theological studies and who were not familiar with the issues of separation of church and state. 'Some classes promote creation science. Some classes denigrate Judaism. Some classes explicitly encourage students to convert to Christianity or to adopt Christian devotional practices,' Chancey said. 'This is all well documented, and the board knows it.'"
You can read Mark Chancey's full report, here. The Texas Freedom Network, far from being an atheist organization, actually supported the legislation that allowed for Bible-based electives. Their problem is that the Texas State Board of Education passed implementation guidelines that they claim throws school districts and teachers "under the bus" due to vague language that will put schools on a collision course for multiple lawsuits.
"The board majority then rammed through a set of vague standards that fail to offer a shred of guidance about the specific content that should be in these courses. Based on extensive research, we know for a fact that classes already based on these general standards in Texas school districts fail to meet even minimal standards for academic rigor. Even worse, those public school districts — sometimes unknowingly — create courses that promote the religious beliefs of the teacher and outside religious groups over those of the students, their families and other taxpayers."
Texas State Attorney General Greg Abbott seems rather unconcerned about these implementation guidelines, saying they "pass constitutional muster". Though it is hard to see how he could know that, since classes developed under the new guidelines haven't been submitted, or tested in a court of law.
The real problem with this law, these guidelines, and "elective Bible study" is that they weren't created in good faith. They were simply another salvo in the ongoing "culture war" between the forces of "godless secularism" and those batting for team Jesus. A real alternative to this conflict would have been to replace "Bible study" with a general religious education course. Spanning history, and including texts as varied as the Iliad & Odyssey, the Bhagavad Gita, the Talmud, the Qur'an, the Tripi?aka, and the Bible. Favoring none, and exploring how these different texts have shaped history, art, and culture.
Instead of a true learning experience concerning religion, we have instead a powder keg of potential lawsuits, sectarian Christian teachers using already existing classes as a cudgel, and students having to pick between no exploration of religion at all, or thinly veiled Christian indoctrination. Religious minorities, as per the usual, are all but silenced in this debate. This is a clear example of why exclusively Bible-oriented classes need to be opposed. Not because we fear the Bible, or hate Christianity, be because such policies almost always lead to abuses, and allow the Christian majority to run roughshod over the freedoms of non-Christians.
Labels: Bible, Christianity, law, litigation, Religion, schools, Texas
6.29.2008
A Troubling Legal Precedent in Texas
Twelve years ago a 17 year-old girl in a Pentecostal church was restrained for several hours on two different occasions for the purposes of exorcism. She experienced rope-burns, carpet burns, and bruises. Feeling emotionally traumatized by this involuntary action, the girl was eventually diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and her parents sued the church for damages and won. However, the Texas Supreme Court has now reversed that decision, saying that the previous ruling unfairly impinged on the First Amendment rights of the church.
"...the state Supreme Court dismissed Schubert's case in a 6-3 ruling, saying her lawsuit violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections on religious expression — the latest in a string of decisions limiting judicial oversight of religious institutions and practice. "The case, as tried, presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church doctrine," said the majority opinion, written by Justice David Medina."
All three opposing judges, including Chief Justice Jefferson, filed dissents. Arguing that this decision will sanction abuse, so long as the offending organization holds a fig-leaf of religion.
"After today, a tortfeasor need merely allege a religious motive to deprive a Texas court of jurisdiction to compensate his fellow congregant for emotional damages. This sweeping immunity is inconsistent with United States Supreme Court precedent and extends far beyond the protections our Constitution affords religious conduct. The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion’s name. Because the Court’s holding precludes recovery of emotional damages - even for assault and other serious torts - where the defendant alleges that the underlying assault was religious in nature, I respectfully dissent."
While this case happened within a Pentecostal church community, one could hypothetically imagine scenarios involving the modern Pagan community that could echo this young woman's trauma. Covener held against his or her will due to a "psychic attack"? Sexual misconduct? Abusive initiations? Inappropriate emotional control? So long as the rest of the group testifies that these practices are normal and accepted by the group, the abusers in question could escape prosecution or having to pay damages. Worse, imagine the fate of Christian minors interested in Paganism who could now be subjected to traumatic "exorcisms" or "re-education" with no recourse after the fact.
"Because providing a remedy for the very real, but religiously motivated, emotional distress in this case would require us to take sides in what is essentially a religious controversy, we cannot resolve that dispute," the Supreme Court ruled. "Determining the circumstances of (Schubert's) emotional injuries would, by its very nature, draw the court into forbidden religious terrain."
While I admire judicial neutrality when it comes to making decisions regarding religion (we don't want judges to favor one faith over another). This carries that ethic too far. Using "neutrality" as a way to avoid causing controversy allows for a multitude of evils to flourish. Abuse done in the name of religion is still abuse. No still means no, even if your abuser thinks a demon said it, and separation of Church and State doesn't mean religion is above the law or judgment. No religious faith should be a law unto itself, and I can only hope this case goes to the Supreme Court and is overturned.
Labels: abuse, law, litigation, Religion Clause, Religious Freedom, Texas
6.09.2008
Oklahoma Takes Stand Against Fake Religious Freedom
Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry (a conservative Democrat) has vetoed the controversial Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act (RTF file). The act, which is nearly identical to one recently passed in Texas, forces schools to adopt policies to "protect" students who "voluntarily" express their religious views.
"Henry said students are already allowed to express their faith through voluntary prayer and other activities. He said the legislation was well-intended, but vague and "may trigger a number of unintended consequences that actually impede rather than enhance such expression." Schools could be forced to provide equal time to fringe groups that masquerade as religions and advocate behaviors such as hate speech."
One of the "unintended consequences" of the act was laid out by the Texas House's own research organization, which stated that the law, if enacted, would most likely privilege the Christian majority (though some feared it would empower "Wiccans and anti-Christians" to spread their message to Christian students).
"The bill's constitutionality is questionable ... The bill could serve as a tool to proselytize the majority religious view, Christianity, in Texas schools. The United States is a nation made up of people of many faiths. Children are required to attend school and should be permitted to do so without someone else's religion being imposed on them ... A school should be a religion-free zone - leaving religion for homes, places of worship, and individual hearts."
I was beginning to wonder if any lawmakers or politicians in the "red" states had the guts to stand up for religious minorities (and real religious freedom). With Texas passing the Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act, and South Carolina passing the Public Invocation Act, its nice to see that Oklahoma won't fall in line with the conservative Christian activists trying to circumvent Church-State separation with vaguely worded legislation and baseless legal challenges. If we had more Governors of conscience, perhaps this anti-religious minority legislation trend would come to an end.
Labels: Christianity, law, Oklahoma, Paganism, Religion, Religious Freedom, South Carolina, Texas
4.09.2008
Updates on Past Stories
Darla Wynne's Political Aspirations: Wiccan priestess Darla Kaye Wynne was not successful in her run for a seat on the Great Falls Town Council. Wynne, who famously sued the town over sectarian prayers back in 2001, garnered only 32 votes.
"A dozen candidates ran for office in this year's town election, including a former mayor, a school resource officer and the Wiccan priestess who sued the town in 2001, claiming Great Falls violated church and state separation by using the name Jesus Christ in prayers."
Wynne was in a three-way race for a vacated seat. Todd Smith won the seat with over 130 votes, while fellow contender Donna Bryan came in second with 61 votes. Meanwhile, speaking of Pagans running for political office, Sacramento, CA mayoral candidate Muriel Strand has a blog up espousing her views on various issues.
The Theological Necessity of Goats: The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has filed an appeal on behalf of Jose Merced, a practitioner of Santeria who sued the city of Euless, Texas over the issue of animal sacrifice.
"Why is it okay to butcher a deer in Euless, but not a goat?" said Lori Windham, legal counsel at the Becket Fund, a Washington-based civil rights law firm that defends all religious faiths against government interference. "The issue of Santeria and animal sacrifice has already been decided by the United States Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure the Constitution of the United States still applies in Euless, Texas."
The appeal will be heard by the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Depending on the outcome there, it is very likely this could go to the Supreme Court. For more on this development, see the Houston Chronicle's article on the appeal.
Vancouver Sex Cult: I originally blogged about this story way back in 2006. It involves a Pagan man who was denied a chauffeur's permit by the Vancouver police due to unfounded accusations that he would use his position to "recruit" people into an imaginary S&M "sex cult". Since then, the Vancouver Police Department has been trying to block the case going to a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, a course of action that has been stuck down by the courts.
"A B.C. Human Rights Tribunal can investigate sexual practices involving "bondage, discipline and submission, sadism and masochism" to determine whether the Vancouver Police Department discriminated against a self-described pagan, the B.C. Court of Appeal says. For the past two years, the department has wasted our tax money trying to prevent the human rights watchdog from investigating a complaint from Peter Hayes, a Vancouver man refused a chauffeur's permit. The province's highest court said it would be wrong to interfere with the tribunal's process at this point and that the objections of the police force were premature."
A preliminary ruling by the Human Rights Tribunal two years ago stated the case had merit and should go forward. The VPD had argued that BDSM-activities weren't an "orientation", and therefore not protected by Canada's human rights laws, a waters-muddying exercise the courts didn't accept as valid. Hearings will now resume unless a settlement is reached.
Will Amazon Hurt Small Pagan Publishers: In a final note, news about Amazon's move to monopolize the Print-On-Demand market (and why that is bad news for small Pagan publishers) has continued to spread. For further Pagan commentary relating to this issue, check out Lupa's journal (particularly this post), and The Spiritual Eclectic's Amazon-related posts.
"We have always lived by our convictions and if not submitting to the monopoly that Amazon.com is trying to create-not just over bookstores and publishers but over the entire publishing industry-means we never sell another book on Amazon.com, then so be it. We sell primarily through our websites as it is, and we will find other alternatives to Amazon.com."
For an extensive overview of this matter, check out the WritersWeekly Amazon BookSurge Information Clearinghouse, anything you could need to know about Amazon's coercive tactics to seize control of publishing's "Long Tail".
Labels: Amazon.com, animal sacrifice, books, California, Canada, Darla Wynne, human rights, Muriel Strand, Paganism, politics, Print on Demand, Sacramento, Santeria, South Carolina, Texas
3.11.2008
Updates on Recent Stories
The Theological Necessity of Goats: A Santeria priest who challenged the animal slaughter laws in Forth Worth, Texas has lost his lawsuit against the city.
"At the end of the one-day trial, U.S. District Judge John McBryde said Euless was protecting the public's health by banning animal slaughtering in the city limits but that Merced could do the rituals elsewhere ... Euless officials said they were pleased with the judge's ruling, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported on Monday. "Public health is one of the most compelling interests that cities protect," said Mick McKamie, the city's attorney for the case."
Of course, their appeal to public health is completely arbitrary since the city does allow citizens to slaughter chickens in their homes. An animal just as capable of transmitting pathogens as a goat. Jose Merced is currently considering an appeal to the ruling.
Even Intolerant Fools Deserve Free Speech: Repent America founder Michael Marcavage has been found guilty of disorderly conduct by a judge in Salem. Marcavage was arrested on Halloween night, while spouting hellfire at the crowds of Pagans and merry-makers that converge on the "Witch City" every year.
"A Pennsylvania preacher who was arrested on Halloween night after defying police orders to stop using a bullhorn was found guilty of disorderly conduct yesterday and fined $200 by a judge, who said Michael Marcavage used "poor judgment" that night ... 'Halloween in Salem is a unique day of the year,' said Salem District Court Judge Michael Uhlarik. 'It's a very small community, and you have 60,000 to 80,000 people crammed into a very tight space. In this day and age, we have to be very careful of controlling crowds. It's not a question of depriving anyone of their free speech rights,' said the judge. 'It's an issue of public safety.'"
According to police, the decision to shut down bullhorn use by protest groups was made because of concerns for keeping the peace amongst an increasingly hostile and drunk crowd. Police also testified that the Repent America group were using the bullhorn in an aggressive and provocative manner (something that didn't make it into their self-serving YouTube video). Repent America promises to appeal the ruling, and has hinted that they may file a civil lawsuit.
Can You Be a Christo-Pagan in Prison: The Washington state Senate has unanimously approved a bill designed to study in-prison programs so they can more effectively build "moral character". The bill also contains a provision that seemingly protects prison chaplains from performing actions contrary to their faith, a response to a controversy created when the Washington Department of Corrections changed their policy to allow for multi-faith allegiance in prison.
"A Page One story in The News Tribune in January explored the conflict that a Catholic priest who works as a chaplain in the state prison system faced in complying with a new rule allowing inmates to select multiple religions. A bill aimed at addressing that issue has cleared the state Legislature and is headed to the governor's desk to be signed into law. Senate Bill 6400, sponsored by Republican Sen. Mike Carrell of Lakewood, contained provisions to protect chaplains after hearing that Tom Suss, a longtime chaplain at McNeil Island, took a leave of absence rather than be put in a position of having to provide religious items to an inmate who claimed both Catholicism and a pagan religion simultaneously. Doing so would have gone against the tenets of his faith, Suss said."
This crowd-pleasing Republican-sponsored bill is, of course, a redundancy, since no chaplain was being forced to perform ecclesiastical duties against their wishes. In fact, Tom Suss, the chaplain this bill was designed to help, is well known for his anti-Pagan views, and his "leave of absence" tantrum stems mainly from Pagan inmates being allowed to buy Christian trinkets. The Bill is currently on the Governor's desk awaiting a signature.
Labels: animal sacrifice, Chaplaincy, Christianity, Christopagans, law, litigation, Michael Marcavage, Paganism, Prison, Repent America, Salem, Santeria, Texas
3.06.2008
The Theological Necessity of Goats
The Dallas Morning News' religion blog reminds us that March 10th will begin the first major trial case involving Santeria since the groundbreaking 1993 Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah decision. Like the famous Florida case, it involves the ritual sacrifice of animals at one's home.
"Santeria priest Jose Merced filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against the city of Euless in December 2006 after officials told him he couldn't sacrifice goats at his home for a ceremony initiating a new priest. Followers of the African-Caribbean religion consider animal sacrifice as essential to Santeria as Communion is to Catholics. Euless says the killing of goats for whatever reason would violate its city-wide slaughtering ban. Last year, the city proposed a settlement that permitted the killing of chickens - which is also involved in the ceremony and allowed under the city ordinance. Mr. Merced rejected the offer, saying that Santeria would cease to exist without the sacrifice of goats as well."
Despite the fact that Merced presented police officers with a copy of the Supreme Court decision allowing for religious animal sacrifice within the home, he was still prevented from going through with the planned initiation ceremony
"...the Supreme Court of the United States held unconstitutional an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida that forbade the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption." The law was enacted soon after the city council of Hialeah learned that the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, which practiced Santería, was planning on locating."
Further complicating Jose Merced's case is the fact that a judge ruled in January that the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act didn't apply since the city's slaughtering ban regulated only conduct, not land use. So it's going to come down to if the theological necessity of sacrificing goats at a initiation ceremony will trump a generalized slaughter ban. Working in Marced's favor is the fact that the slaughter ban isn't absolute, and permits the killing of chickens in the home, which will lessen arguments concerning public safety (chickens can carry as many, if not more, pathogens and diseases as any goat).
There is a very good chance this case will reach the Supreme Court (I can't envision either side letting the matter rest after a loss), and may settle once and for all the question of animal sacrifice for religious purposes. Making it a case that will end up being important for adherents of Santeria, as well as modern Pagan groups interested in reviving animal sacrifice. So come Monday, all eyes interested in the rights of minority faiths should be turning towards Texas.
* It should be noted that the ritually slaughtered goats are then normally cooked and eaten by participants in the ceremony. So in many ways, what they are doing could be considered far more ethical than eating a burger churned out by a industrial slaughterhouse.
Labels: animal sacrifice, law, litigation, Religious Freedom, Santeria, Texas
2.29.2008
Updates on Past Stories
Psychic Wars in Livingston: It looks like a legal battle over a religiously-motivated Livingston Parish ordinance banning fortune telling will be headed to court. Despite being warned by their lawyer that they would most likely lose a lawsuit, the Parish Council decided to not address the issue at their most recent meeting, much to the dismay of some Parish residents.
"Taxpayers might question the council's insistence on spending public money to fight a lawsuit on an issue that has no purpose other than to pacify a particular religious group. The council's attorney, Blayne Honeycutt, has advised that it probably would lose the Wiccan suit if it persists in defending the ordinance. When no member of the council would offer a motion to repeal the soothsaying ordinance, Honeycutt advised the council it needs to hire special counsel to handle such a case. Parish government, which has a history of being strapped for funds, could be putting that money to proper uses on roads, drainage, water and sewage rather than waging war for or against particular religious groups. Instead, the council will spend money it says is in short supply defending a lawsuit against a problem its attorney told council members apparently doesn't even exist in the parish."
The Parish is being sued by local businessman and Wiccan Cliff Eakin, who wishes to offer fortune-telling and divination services at his store, Gryphon's Nest Gifts. Eakin maintains that the ordinance is an attempt to promote Christianity over Paganism.
Thelemites Fight Pedophillia Charges: Australian couple Vivienne Legg and Dyson Devine have been released from prison after apologizing to a judge for defying an order to remove material from their website that groundlessly implicated a local O.T.O. organization in an underground pedophile ring. The couple served two months of a nine-month sentence for contempt of court.
"Yesterday both apologised to Judge Harbison and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and undertook not to repeat, or help anyone else to publish, the vilifying material about the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO). But David Leggatt, for the OTO, complained that the vilification had a "grapevine effect". It had been removed from the pair's website, Gaiaguys.net, in December, but soon appeared on Adam Dodson's site. Simon Moglia, for Mr Devine and Ms Legg, said they had not helped the new website. He said they at first saw their non-compliance as individuals standing for their beliefs. But when they realised that resisting the tribunal encouraged others to disobey the law, they closed down their website."
While the OTO in Australia have certainly won this battle, they may find themselves pestered by dozens (if not hundreds) of conspiracy theorists who see Legg and Devine as martyrs in the quest for "the truth". The original actionable paper written by Dr Reina Michaelson inflated in importance and virally spread across the Internet.
Fighting For (Christian) Religious Expression: Arizona joins Oklahoma in trying to pass a "student religious expression" law similar to the one recently passed by Texas.
"On Wednesday, the Arizona House Education Committee narrowly approved, and sent on to the full House of Representatives, HB 2713, a bill that would prohibit public schools from discriminating against students on the basis of their religious belief or expression. It permits students to engage in prayer and religious activity on an equal basis with other activities, but does not permit the school to require participation in religious activities. It includes provisions prohibiting banning of religious attire and jewelry when similar secular items are permitted and another section that prohibits discrimination for or against a student in grading coursework in which the student expresses a religious viewpoint or religious content."
While these laws may sound innocuous enough to some, they ultimately benefit the religious majority, a point driven home by the Texas House's own research organization who stated: "the bill could serve as a tool to proselytize the majority religious view". These proposed laws claim to protect a student's freedom to express religious viewpoints, but I fear they instead encourage a hostile environment towards religious minorities, dis-empower teachers from keeping order in their classrooms, and give Christian students a sense of immunity from consequences. I encourage Pagan groups in in Arizona (and Oklahoma) to send a message to their representatives ensuring them that Pagans, Witches, and Heathens oppose this legislation, but will gladly use their new "rights" as often and as loudly as possible if it is enacted.
Labels: Arizona, Australia, Cliff Eakin, law, litigation, Livingston Parish, Oklahoma, OTO, Paganism, psychics, Religious Freedom, Texas, Thelema, Wicca
1.05.2008
(More) Fighting For (Christian) Religious Expression
Back in May of 2007 I reported on legislation passed by the Texas House that forced schools to adopt policies to "protect" students who "voluntarily" express their religious views. Despite the fact that the Texas House's own research organization warned that it will most likely privilege the Christian majority, that didn't seem to concern Gov. Rick Perry at all.
"Freedom of religion should not be mistaken for freedom from religion and I want to thank the more than 100 members of the Texas House who voted to give religious expression in our schools the same protection as secular expression"
Now nearly identical legislation is being introduced in Oklahoma in order to fight "religious discrimination" (against Christians).
"Reps. Mike Reynolds and Sally Kern, Republicans from Oklahoma City, have introduced nearly identical bills for the upcoming session called the Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act. The legislation would require that an expression by a student of a religious viewpoint be treated in the same way as an expression of any secular viewpoint. Both measures would prohibit school districts from discriminating against students based on religious viewpoints and would require every district in the state to adopt a written policy to prohibit such discrimination."
The problem with legislation of this sort, besides the fact that it is unconstitutional, are the unintended consequences of trying to privilege one single faith group in a pluralistic society.
"Opponents say that the bill further erodes the separation of church and state. They note that as an unintended consequence, school districts could find themselves obligated to give Wiccans or those with anti-Christian views a chance to lead prayers before football games. 'What are you going to do the first year that a Wiccan calls upon the great mother goddess to watch over the students that day?' said [Texas] Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth. 'You are not prepared to have schools inclusive enough to meet the law.'"
While Wiccans and other minority faiths taking advantage of the law could be embarrassing for the conservative lawmakers, they know such laws ultimately benefit the majority opinion (and aren't easily overturned like policies on a local level). Also, the dictate to treat religious speech in the same manner as secular speech in pubic schools is nonsensical (unless you happen to be teaching a course on religion). A religious opinion or belief isn't categorically the same as a secular statement. There is no workable definition of "treating them the same" in the proposed legislation. If passed into law, all it will do is encourage a hostile environment towards religious minorities, dis-empower teachers from keeping order in their classrooms, and give Christian students a sense of immunity from consequences.
This legislation, like similar legislation being considered in South Carolina, is an attempt by Christian conservatives to muddy the legal waters and create "constitutional confusion" in order to delay and discourage litigation against the laws (once enacted), and ultimately roll back secular advancements. One can only hope that Oklahoma's lawmakers have a better grasp of the constitution than Texas's lawmakers. In the meantime, I encourage Pagan groups in in Oklahoma to send a message to their representatives ensuring them that Pagans, Witches, and Heathens oppose this legislation, but will gladly use their new "rights" as often and as loudly as possible if it is enacted.
Labels: Christianity, law, Oklahoma, Paganism, Religion, Religious Freedom, Texas
5.02.2007
Fighting For (Christian) Religious Expression
It looks like legislation concerning public prayer is all the rage. The Texas House has just passed legislation that would force schools to develop a religious expression policy within the guidelines set by the law.
"CSHB 3678 is an anti-discrimination bill that would serve to protect a student's voluntary expression of religious viewpoints. The bill would not require or suggest that students express religious viewpoints at any time, but would protect students should they decide voluntarily to express their views, religious or otherwise. Under the bill, school children wishing to express their religious views would have the same privileges afforded to students expressing secular views."
The legislation was opposed by some lawmakers who feared that it just might allow minority religious views to be heard.
"Opponents say that the bill further erodes the separation of church and state. They note that as an unintended consequence, school districts could find themselves obligated to give Wiccans or those with anti-Christian views a chance to lead prayers before football games. 'What are you going to do the first year that a Wiccan calls upon the great mother goddess to watch over the students that day?' said Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth. 'You are not prepared to have schools inclusive enough to meet the law.'"
But they shouldn't worry about Wiccans giving the opening prayer at a football game or at a graduation ceremony. The House's own research organization warns that it will most likely privilege the Christian majority, and may be unconstitutional.
"The bill's constitutionality is questionable ... The bill could serve as a tool to proselytize the majority religious view, Christianity, in Texas schools. The United States is a nation made up of people of many faiths. Children are required to attend school and should be permitted to do so without someone else's religion being imposed on them ... A school should be a religion-free zone - leaving religion for homes, places of worship, and individual hearts."
So like pending legislation in South Carolina, this law is constructed to further privilege the Christian majority, not to safeguard the rights of religious minorities. Gov. Rick Perry, a supporter of the legislation, thinks this is just dandy.
"Freedom of religion should not be mistaken for freedom from religion and I want to thank the more than 100 members of the Texas House who voted to give religious expression in our schools the same protection as secular expression"
No doubt a "teacher's religious expression" bill is being written as we speak so as to erase any doubt that schools in Texas are secular institutions.
