You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
ACLU Helps Restore Biblical Verse to High School Yearbook
2004-05-12
Associated Press. Is this a sign of the Apocalypse?

STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. — The American Civil Liberties Union, perhaps better known for helping keep religion out of the classroom, came to the defense of a high school graduate whose yearbook entry was censored because it contained a biblical verse.

The organization’s Michigan chapter announced a settlement Tuesday with Utica Community Schools that restores Abby Moler’s message to Stevenson High School’s 2001 yearbook.

Moler, the class of 2001 valedictorian, was among a group of students asked by school officials to offer their thoughts for the yearbook. Her entry included the biblical verse, Jeremiah 29:11: "’For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ’plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."’

The entry was deleted from the yearbook because of its religious nature, school officials told Moler at the time. She responded by asking the ACLU for help.

Wonder of wonders, they actually helped!

. . . "The Supreme Court has said there can be school oversight in official publications, but the schools still have to honor the constitutional rights of their students," said Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan.

In other news, pigs flew, cats and dogs were seen lying down together, and Turkish pundit Murat endorsed the reelection of George W. Bush. Today’s weather forecast for greater Hell and vicinity: continued cold temperatures, with heavy snow and blizzard-like conditions . . .
Posted by:Mike

#3  I agree with you.
Posted by: Old Guy   2004-05-12 5:36:22 PM  

#2  OG: I'd agree with you, and the ACLU, that this was not a case of government endorsement of religion, and that the Constitution clearly protected the student's comment.

However, one often finds the ACLU opposing what should be protected speech, usually in situations where the speech they oppose is also opposed by elite liberal opinion (e.g., peaceful protest outside abortion clinics).

I'm glad to see the ACLU live up to its principles here--just wish they'd do it more often.

(Besides, the pigs-fly hell-freezes-over Murat-endorses-W combination was too good to pass up.)
Posted by: Mike   2004-05-12 4:00:49 PM  

#1  The ACLU is not against religion, at least not formally.

The ACLU is against anything threatening "the separation of church and state" (words that are not part of the 1st Amendment). Many American religious believers read those words as an attack on religion, especially Christianity.

In this case, the yearbook's printing of the student's quotation from the Bible is not against "the separation of church and state." The reason is that apparently every student had a chance to include some words of their own in the yearbook. Hence, the government created a "public forum." In a public forum, the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech clause applies. The 1st Amendment certainly covers religious expressions, including a quotation from the Bible. Therefore, not only would the ACLU consider the inclusion of her quotation allowable by the government, the ACLU considers it mandatory. And indeed, although I ain't no lawyer, I believe the law agrees with the ACLU as to that conclusion.

Of course, religious conservatives would bypass that argument. As the Rantburg "highlight writer" would say, religious expressions should always be protected, including when they are made by the government.

In short, the ACLU and the conservative position here agree. Unfortunately, conservatives typically do not want to "hear" the ACLU position, and thus are surprised to learn whenever the ACLU is not diametrically opposed to them. The ACLU does have significant differences with the conservative view, but it is not diametrically opposed.
Posted by: Old Guy   2004-05-12 3:39:56 PM  

00:00