ACLU not Happy with Free Speech in Tennessee

Against the wishes of the ACLU, Tennessee legislators passed, and the governor signed into law, a bill that clarifies students’ freedom of religious expression in class as well as at events and graduation ceremonies. The Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act will become law for the 2014-2015 school year. Critics of the law (including the ACLU) wring their hands that this will expose students to a fellow student’s specific religious beliefs as if student speakers now have the freedom to preach the Gospel and have an altar call at a graduation.

With convoluted logic, the ACLU of Tennessee asserted in a press release that suppressing religious freedom actually preserves religious freedom: “We are asking Governor Haslam to veto this bill to ensure that Tennessee schools are moving forward, welcoming all students and preserving their religious freedom.”

Huh? Does the ACLU now assert that free speech should only occur when everyone in the room agrees with the speaker?

The law amends existing state law and gives greater detail regarding the freedom students have to express their faith in homework assignments, class discussions and oral presentations. The language of the law parrots the 2003 guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Education:

“Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions.”

Regarding graduation ceremonies, the law also clarifies that students have the freedom to express themselves at school events. However, it is very specific about the parameters of student speech at ceremonies. For instance, regarding graduation ceremonies, the law states:

“The subject of their addresses shall be related to the purpose of the graduation ceremony, marking and honoring the occasion, honoring the participants and those in attendance, and the student’s perspective on purpose, achievement, life, school, graduation, and looking forward to the future. The subject shall be designated for each student speaker, the student shall stay on the subject…”

The law continues regarding religious expression:

“The Local Education Agency (LEA) shall treat a student’s voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner the LEA treats a student’s voluntary expression of a secular or other viewpoint on an otherwise permissible subject and may not discriminate against a student based on the religious viewpoint expressed by the student on an otherwise permissible subject.”

Students are not employees of the state. They have First Amendment freedoms to express who they are and what they think, whether it is in a classroom speech or a graduation speech.

While religious expression at graduations tends to get a lot of press, the day-to-day power of this law is the clarity it brings to religious expression in classrooms throughout the school year. Unfortunately, it is far too common for public schools educators to believe (erroneously) that religion expression is forbidden in class. It is this “culture of censorship” that must be corrected.

My hat is off to Tennessee lawmakers for standing up for religious freedom. Now, the real task will be for local school leaders across the state to: (1) make sure their educators are well informed about the freedom students have; and (2) make sure all students from kindergarten through high school understand that they are welcome to express their faith in class.

 --------------------

To promote greater awareness of students’ freedom of religious expression, ask your church to distribute to its students and congregation Gateways’ pamphlet, Free to Speak: What the U.S. Department of Education say about public school students’ religious liberties.

‘Tis the Season for Censorship

The holiday season is fast approaching. Christians as well as atheist activists both relish this time of year, but for completely different reasons. People of faith see this time as a heartwarming opportunity to enjoy deeply held traditions in the American culture. Atheist activists, on the other hand, see this as the proverbial “golden opportunity” for their cause. They can hardly wait for the publicity they gain from attacking schools and town councils. In many of America’s schools, the atheists have been effective in censoring mention of the religious nature of holidays. For example, too often educators teach that Thanksgiving is merely a nostalgic remembrance of what happened 400 years ago between the Pilgrims and the Native Americans. Students get the idea that besides some dusty old origin, Thanksgiving is about Turkey, football, and being the day before Black Friday retail sales.

A few years ago, Americans United for Separation of church and State got mad at us because we “encourage teachers to use Thanksgiving to explain how the country thanks ‘God for His blessings.’” Guilty as charged. We encourage educators to actually educate their students about the meaning of Thanksgiving as expressed by the President of the United States in his annual Thanksgiving Proclamation.

For example, last year, President Obama proclaimed, “This day is a time to take stock of the fortune we have known and the kindnesses we have shared, grateful for the God-given bounty that enriches our lives… Let us spend this day by lifting up those we love, mindful of the grace bestowed upon us by God and by all who have made our lives richer with their presence.” But if atheist activists had their way, the President’s words would be censored from the classroom.

And when it comes to Christmas, many educators have been so intimated by atheist threats they censor traditional Christmas carols and references to the birth of Jesus. Consequently, the lesson students absorb is that Christmas is just a merry commercial enterprise.

During the Christmas season last year, the atheist extremists of the Freedom From Religion Foundation couldn’t resist trying to be offensive to Christians in Arlington Heights, IL, who got proper permission to set up a Nativity scene in a park. Instead of merely setting up their own display celebrating some atheist holiday in an expression of multicultural diversity, these extremists put up a display directly across from the Nativity scene with a heartwarming banner that read: “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth & superstition that hardens hearts & enslaves minds.”

Hopefully this year school boards and town councils won’t join the atheists in singing “’Tis the Season for Censorship.”

Atheist Group Sues to Impose Its Values on Others

The atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) recently attacked a South Carolina school board for opening its meetings with an invocation. They find it unacceptable that a group of elected officials begin their meetings with an invocation like the one board member Beth Watson recently offered: "Our Creator and Sustainer, we pray for the health and well-being of our students and their families. We pray for all our employees who work so hard on behalf of all our students." However, the school board's prayer is in keeping with the practice established by Congress and upheld by the courts, and reflects the sentiment of South Carolina's constitution which begins "grateful to God for our liberties."

Our friends at the Alliance Defending Freedom have written an excellent defense of the practice of public meetings opening with prayer. Attorneys Brett Harvey and David Cortman remind us that:

The central case on this subject is Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), where the Court approved the Nebraska Legislature’s practice of opening each day of its sessions with a prayer by a chaplain paid with taxpayer dollars. Marsh has been repeatedly mischaracterized by some advocacy groups in recent months, but its holding is clear. In Marsh, Chief Justice Burger concluded:

The opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country. From colonial times through the founding of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.

In fact, the Court noted that agreement was reached on the final language of the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789, just three days after Congress authorized opening prayers by paid chaplains. Clearly then, “To invoke divine guidance on a public body . . . is not, in these circumstances, an ‘establishment’ of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.”

We need to keep in mind that the Freedom From Religion Foundation is not some benign group that merely wants to maintain what it thinks should be a separation of Church and State. FFRF is an aggressively anti-religious organization that sees religion as a threat to civilization. For instance, it characterizes the Ten Commandments as epitomizing "the childishness, the vindictiveness, the sexism, the inflexibility and the inadequacies of the bible as a book of morals." It encourages people to abandon their faith and its website offers a "DeBaptismal Certificate" which states "I categorically reject the creeds, dogmas, and superstitions of my former religion."

President George Washington in his Farewell Address on September 19, 1796 urged the nation:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them."

Thomas Jefferson, whose statement about a separation of Church and State atheists love to misinterpret, gave America this warning (which is carved into his memorial in Washington, D.C.):

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

Make no mistake, Atheists groups like FFRF do not want to merely preserve a so-called separation of Church and State. They want to remake America into something that the Founders never intended, and which, as they warned, will destroy the fabric and freedom of the nation.

Why "Under God" Must Remain in the Pledge of Allegiance

This Wednesday (Sept. 4), Massachusetts’ highest court will consider the constitutionality of having students recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The practice is being challenged by an anonymous atheist couple who object to the words “under God” in the Pledge. The clamor by some people about this acknowledgement of God stems from a misunderstanding of why the phrase is so important to the American concept of government. Here are five reasons why “under God” must remain in the Pledge of Allegiance:

1. Thomas Jefferson explained why being "one Nation under God" is important.  Thomas Jefferson and our other Founding Fathers understood that the government does not give us our freedom. Our freedom comes from God, and the government was established to protect that God-given freedom. That was their justification for the American Revolution as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wrote: 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government laying its foundation on such principles…"

No king or emperor, no president or congress, no court or crowd gives us our rights. They come from God himself and are unalienable. And the Founders built America's "foundation on such principles."

2. Abraham Lincoln explained why being "one Nation under God" is important.

Abraham Lincoln understood that the nation's unity and freedom depended upon being one nation under God. In the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln used the exact phrase, "nation, under God," echoed in the Pledge of Allegiance. He began his address by referring to the Founding Fathers' foundation in God-given rights:

"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

As Lincoln closes his remarks honoring the fallen soldiers at Gettysburg, he offered this inspiring vision:

"...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth." (emphasis added)

3. Martin Luther King, Jr. explained why being “one Nation under God” is important.

Dr. King's famous "I have a dream" speech reflects his ideals rooted in the Founders’ belief that our rights come from God. King relied on the Declaration of Independence’s reference to the Creator when he said:

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'"

In every century of American history, arguably the most significant document or speech of that century references the rights of Americans being derived from our Creator: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in the 18th century, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in the 19th century, and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech in the 20th century.

4. It doesn't matter that the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge in the 1950s.

Some people argue that "under God" was not in the original Pledge and was inserted over 50 years later. But, that only proves it took over 50 years to get it right!

5. The phrase "under God" does not make the Pledge a prayer.

Some people argue that "under God" is a form of prayer, and thus it is unconstitutional to have schoolchildren recite it. However, a careful reading of the Pledge of Allegiance reveals that we are not pledging allegiance to God. We are, instead, pledging allegiance to a republic. The Pledge describes the republic as one nation under God and indivisible. In other words, it is a statement of fact. It is a fact that our Founders established our government on the proposition that freedom comes from God, not the state.

As Jefferson, Lincoln, and King attest, the American people's freedom--the freedom of your neighbors, your co-workers, your children, and their teachers, are because we are one nation under God. Take that principle away, remove it from our national consciousness, and we will lose the very basis for the freedoms we so easily take for granted.

Thomas Jefferson warned of the dire consequences of forgetting this important principle. On the Jefferson memorial his warning is carved:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?

Lincoln said it well, "Now we are in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

In this war of ideas, people will not defend what they do not cherish, and they will not cherish what they do not understand.

Teachers Tell Their Stories

Listen to four teachers tell how Gateways' seminar, "Faith, Freedom & Public Schools," helped them overcome their fear to teach about the importance of the Bible and Christianity as they relate to history, culture, and values.