Sparkle City Headlines: District 7 sued over religion
loading...
From yesterday’s Spartanburg Herald-Journal …
Spartanburg School District 7 is named as the defendant in a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday regarding religious course offerings for high school credit.
In the suit, the plaintiffs, Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation and two District 7 parents, Robert Moss and Ellen Tillett, argue that a religious education course offered to Spartanburg High School students for the past two years is unconstitutional.
The elective course is held at St. Christopher’s Episcopal Church, which is adjacent to SHS, and offered by Spartanburg County Bible Education in School Time. According to the SCBEST Web site, its high school curriculum entails Bible study on “historical background, archaeology, original languages, and other major scholarly discussions.” A second part to the course aids students in examining how to live as Christians.
The suit doesn’t challenge the course itself, but rather that credit is offered. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court approved released-time instruction that allows students to attend off-campus religious education classes with parental permission. In 2006, the S.C. Legislature approved that elective credit could be given for released-time classes in religious instruction as long as evaluations are based on purely secular criteria and no public funds are involved.
George Daly, a Charlotte, N.C., civil rights attorney who is representing the plaintiffs, said the law interferes with First Amendment rights separating church and state.
“The theory is that it not only hurts the government, but it hurts the church,” Daly said. “If the church has to tone things down in order to be acceptable, that interferes with the strength of religion, and if the government has to adhere to religious truths rather than other truths, it interferes with the strength of the government.”
Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said the case against the district is key in getting South Carolina law overturned.
“It is a very troubling precedent, and we felt we couldn’t let it stand,” Gaylor said. “It is an invasion of proselytizers in our school system that puts them on the same footing as a classroom teacher.”
Gaylor said offering credit for the course not only gives Christian students an academic advantage but also crosses the line between educational and devotional.
This is an important story, and I’ll give reporter Lee G. Healy some propers for covering it at all.
I do have one major gripe, which is that we don’t hear anything at all from the opposing side, meaning the story basically just presents the view of the FFRF. There may be reasons why District 7 Superintendent Thomas White declined to comment — he’s been in the media hotseat plenty of recent — but why no comment from one of the administrators of Spartanburg County Bible Education in School Time, or from one of the parents who send their kids to the program?
As it stands, we have the story of why the lawsuit is important, but the view of those who actually use the service is completely cut out. I’m assuming there will be a follow-up story of some kind that will include this content — the SH-J would be fools to let a story like this drop in a community where religious views are clearly part of the conversation — but as a stand-alone piece of journalism, it fails in a fundamental way.
Yes, asking White for a quote technically is an attempt to get the other side. Yes, it means Healy tried, or was at least aware that there was a problem with the story. But the relevant part is that there no opposing view of any kind in the story itself, and it makes the piece seem wildly off balance.
Surely there’s someone in the Spartanburg County Bible Education in School Time group that would have been willing to talk about why they think the program is important, even if they couldn’t speak to the specific constitutional issue at hand. In fairness, I suspect that Healy did try to contact a few people, but without a few “we were unable to reach by press time” notes tossed in, it makes it seem like the SH-J simply didn’t bother trying to get the other side’s take.
As a result, the story is kind of a wash. It presents one side’s view very well, and within that context I’d say it presents the same view in a fair light. It certainly doesn’t come across as activist journalism or anything, just as an incomplete story.
I agree that the story is somewhat one sided. There are several points that are omitted that could bring more substance to this. Such as
1. How many students take this class on a regular basis.
2. How popular is this particular class. Are there people having to wait to take it?
3. How is the class funded seeing how it is following the parameters set for such a thing?
4.How long has this class been offered to students?
5. How many other districts in SC offer such an elective for high school student?
6. I think Gaylor misunderstands what proselyting is, and seems to ignore the fact that religion for the most part has been seen less and less within the schools. Restrictions on public prayer, religious school clubs, etc have been more then norm in recent years. I doubt students or the class offered is attempting to force people into listening to their religious views at all.
Personally I don’t quite understand Gaylor’s claim that this class gives Christian students an advantage over non-Christians. Every student has the same amount of classes they need to take. Every student has the same choice of electives and they vary widely. There are plenty of choices of fairly easy classes in the system to help level that so called playing field.
Personally I think there is nothing wrong with offering choice to students of a nice variety. Art, music, culture, technical skills, religion as history and cultural relevance, driver’s ed, computer learning, foreign language all can be great choices for students. What is the problem here?
loading...
“Personally I don’t quite understand Gaylor’s claim that this class gives Christian students an advantage over non-Christians.”
They’re getting school credit for attending the classes, even though the school has no oversight of what’s being taught. The rest of the students have to meet standard requirements and be tested for credits, with the same criteria applied across the board, but kids who take the SCBEST classes are getting credit without having to be subject to that.
If it was just “History and Culture of Christianity” or whatever, there’d be less to be concerned about. But it’s that “second part to the course [that] aids students in examining how to live as Christians” that’s the problem. It’s basically giving school credit for teaching theology, which isn’t what public schools are for.
loading...
I thought today’s follow up was interesting.
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20090619/ARTICLES/906191005/1083/ARTICLES?Title=District-7-urges-talks-to-resolve-religion-dispute
In his statement Superintendent White expressed his surprise at this suit because no one had contacted the district with any concerns or complaints about the course since it had started in 2007.
In typical D7 fashion, someone didn’t do their homework before speaking to the press.
The plantiff went on to point out starting with the first contact in 2007 all the times that he and his attorney met with either a Board member or the district attorney or White, cited a news article where a board member commented on it, etc. about their concerns and intention to move forward with this suit only to get nowhere.
Obviously they complained and reached out to the District on numerous occasions and were ignored. Hard to imagine D7 ignoring constiuent concerns.
loading...
“Personally I don’t quite understand Gaylor’s claim that this class gives Christian students an advantage over non-Christians. Every student has the same amount of classes they need to take. Every student has the same choice of electives and they vary widely. There are plenty of choices of fairly easy classes in the system to help level that so called playing field.”
I disagree. Every student may be able to get all the classes they need, but having a specifically Christian class that provides high school credit is wrong and discriminatory. The only way to make such a thing close to equitable would be to have Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucianist classes as well. Even then it wouldn’t be right because it’s a government agency favoring religion over non-religion. I suppose you could add an “atheist studies” class to the mix, but it would be far, far easier to just cut the program altogether.
What’s wrong with getting that sort of education from Sunday School at your church? Or if you’re that dedicated to it, why not go to divinity college? Is there some logical reason that a public school SHOULD provide religious education? Public schools are not places to learn about the BIble. Send your kids to religious private schools if that’s what you want.
loading...
It’s becoming very hard to take District 7’s School Board seriously, and White in particular.
Healy gets serious credit for the follow-up, although I’m still hoping we hear from some SCBEST representatives arguing why this course is important, and get some of the info Sylvie mentioned about the actual numbers of students taking the class. At present, we don’t have much in terms of the scope of the issue.
loading...
In principal I agree with you Chris, the church and the home is the better place to give that kind of education. I also agree that when there is diversity of faith represented that offering equal footing for possible religious education as an outside elective would be quite fair. That is not the case here, as this area is predominately Christian. It’s just the denominations that vary. But I do think we could add options on other faiths so that we can better understand and respect people and their religious choices. That would be a fair compromise, if it came down to that.
However this is still an elective. No one is forcing any single student to take such elective. They and their parents can choose or NOT choose to take that class, just as they can reject band or media studies. They can also choose to pay out of pocket to take college level classes, if qualified, and take classes such as World Religion as one of my kids did, It wass for them an elective, for high school, but also filled a humanities requirement that most colleges require.
I don’t think public schools should be required to religious studies as part of their curriculum, but its nice that they offer it as an option.
I am also curious why they picked District 7. I know of at least one other school that has opened the door for a Christian based after school program here in Spartanburg for one of the elementary schools. It is also completely optional for students, not funded by the school system either.
I also wonder why people are protesting so much about people of my faith and Christianity and what it can offer without really understanding what it is we are about. As usual much is misrepresented and touted as fact without bothering to check if that misrepresentation is true. I do find that problematic, and just adds to the barriers we should all be trying to break down. Granted people who call themselves Christian can and do my faith a disservice by their words and actions, but they don’t represent the basic tenets of what Christianity is. Sadly it is those very people who are held up as “real Christians”, perpetuating the problem.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and how well District 7 carries itself in this matter. Steve is right. The board needs to do better at being accountable, approachable, believable and taking their job and our kid’s education more serious.
loading...
“I also wonder why people are protesting so much about people of my faith and Christianity and what it can offer without really understanding what it is we are about.”
I don’t think they are. I think the case would have just as much merit if this were a Jewish elective or a Muslim elective. It’s about separation of church and state, not about protesting Christianity.
I know this is a bit off topic, but here goes.
As far as understanding what Christians are about, I don’t think you guys actually agree on much of that yourselves. I don’t want to start some holy war here, but have you noticed there are about a dozen church groups signed up to protest the GLBTIQ Pride march tomorrow? That’s their opinion on loving their neighbor I suppose. At the same time, one of the most prominent churches in the entire county–First Baptist North Spartanburg–will be holding a press conference denouncing the event.
I’m not allowing my daughter to go to the event–though she wanted to–because I fear for her safety. Everyone claims it’s going to be peaceful, but when so many people show up with their particular brand of righteous hate, thoroughly convinced that they have the monopoly on what God believes I can’t help but be a bit fearful. I think we’ve seen recently that no opinion can lead a person to violence quicker than an opinion that person thinks came from God. I hope my fears are unfounded tomorrow, but you’ll have to understand if I’m not willing to cut the “Christians” much slack these days.
I only mention this to say, that it’s pretty hard for a lot of us to not paint most Christians a certain way when so many of them proclaim their hate and intolerance so loudly. I try not to think of all Christians that way, and I know several who do not fit the fundamentalist mold, but to my eyes you guys are a distinct minority.
loading...
I don’t see how this class gives Christians an unfair advantage. One, as others have pointed out, the class is an elective. Two, the grades come from the part on “historical background, archaeology, original languages, and other major scholarly discussions.†Two, the grades are suppoused to be based on “purely secular criteria”. It seems to me like the second part of the class provides a way for non-Christians to explore the faith without subscrubing to it, much like many religion classes offered at colleges in Spartanburg.
loading...
You are right Rachel. Plus the only way this would really be discriminatory is if D7 was prohibiting a group similar to SCBEST from forming and offering a similar Jewish-oriented course, or Muslim-oriented course, etc. The US Supreme Court has already ruled on a similar issue as it pertains to allowing education vouchers to be used for religious-based private school tuition. My guess is that this federal lawsuit against D7 will be dismissed anyway.
loading...
“I don’t see how this class gives Christians an unfair advantage. One, as others have pointed out, the class is an elective.”
An elective that gives school credit without school oversight. Kids who participate in it get grades that contribute to their GPA from a non-school source. It’d be like if you got to get school credit for being on a little league team or the Boy Scouts. The school doesn’t get to control the grades, either, they just have to take the instructor’s word for it that the student earned the grade they were given. That means they students are being treated differently than the rest of the school.
“Two, the grades come from the part on “historical background, archaeology, original languages, and other major scholarly discussions.â€
And “examining how to live as Christians” in the second part of the class. It’s teaching a specific morality and theology to kids during school hours, and giving them credit for it towards graduation. And it’s not like the school offers the same options for people of other faiths.
And why should this be part of the curriculum? If it was part of a World Religions class, there’d be no problem, but it’s teaching theology and morality as well. You can do that outside of school, and there’s no reason it should take place during school hours with public school students.
loading...
I find it sad that there are churches who are taking such a stand about tomorrow’s event. But only a dozen churches signed up?? That’s all? So these groups are a minority of the larger body of the local Christian community.
HMMMM…
Of course If they bothered to get to know people sponsoring or attending the event, they may just get a huge surprise. One of which is that there are people in the G|L community that are themselves Christians. All of these people have families who love them and many are willing to not let their loved one’s unique life choices stand in the way of being a family.
Personally I think these church groups, do not represent my views at all, or emulate, in my opinion how my favorite former carpenter would be handling the situation. Of course I think many today would be quite shocked, as were his peers, at just whom Jesus would be preferring to be found to be spending time with.
I talked with a lady at my church yesterday who’s son is part of the group that helped organize the event. I told her that I was hoping and praying that things would be peaceful on all sides. And that those who sought to sow seeds of discord and bigotry would find no fruitful ground.
I know this is getting off topic, but I just feel the need to repeat that not all Christians can and should be painted with the same broad brush. I am glad however that you always seem to be willing to cut me slack Chris. Our differences of opinions on things does not hinder our respect for each other. Thank you for that.
loading...
“But only a dozen churches signed up?? That’s all? So these groups are a minority of the larger body of the local Christian community.”
“I know this is getting off topic, but I just feel the need to repeat that not all Christians can and should be painted with the same broad brush.”
Sylvie, right on. You hit the nail on the head with these statements.
One of the above commenters said “[]it’s pretty hard for a lot of us to not paint most Christians a certain way when so many of them proclaim their hate and intolerance so loudly. I try not to think of all Christians that way, and I know several who do not fit the fundamentalist mold, but to my eyes you guys are a distinct minority.”
So the Christians who do not proclaim hate and intolerance loudly are a distinct minority of Christianity? I really hope the person making this statement thinks about what he just said. Sylvie, you came back with a reasoned and quite accurate counter-argument–that in fact of all the Christians and Christian churches in Spartanburg alone, from Lutheran to Baptist to Methodist to Episcopalian to Catholic to Presbyterian to non-denominational, etc., the “DISTINCT MINORITY” are the ones who even care enough to show up and vocally oppose a gay rights march.
As for me I’ll be spending the day doing my normal Saturday activities with my family: shopping, out to dinner, maybe a movie–which is what I suspect most Christians and non-Christians alike will be doing while a few handfuls of people march either for or against gay rights.
loading...
I think we need to look at precedents that leave the inflammatory issue of religion alone for the time being. Are there other electives being taught outside of school property that offer school credit without being under the thumb of the school administration? What about those vocational programs…like cosmotology and mechanics? assuming they do give credit toward graduation, I find it highly unlikely that those teachers would have to submit their lesson plans to the principal for review. Even the driver’s ed classes, from what I’ve heard those teachers do pretty much whatever they want.
If there is an interested student population large enough to support a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or any other kind of religion or anti-religion Studies class, more power to them! I bet some states already offer Women’s or Minority Studies on the high school level.
It’s one option among many. You can’t say it puts non-Christian students at a disadvantage any more than Band or Chorus puts non-musically inclined students at a disadvantage. The nature of electives are such that there are some you can and/or want to take, and others you can’t/don’t. As long as there is enough for everybody, and the interest is there, I just think the whole lawsuit is unwarranted.
(Sylvie, don’t anyone put you on the defensive about your faith. Making sure everyone is clear that “I’m not with those guys” quickly becomes a distraction to the call to proactive love.)
And please, if you must continue your discussion of the Gay Pride March, at least take it up to the post Steve has created for it today…
loading...
“I am glad however that you always seem to be willing to cut me slack Chris. Our differences of opinions on things does not hinder our respect for each other. Thank you for that.”
Honestly Sylvie, I think you’re one of the most thoughtful, honest, and tolerant people on the Spark. I didn’t mean any of the things I wrote about those intolerant Christians towards you. I hope you know that. Even when we disagree, I always come out of the conversation feeling like it was all honest and thoughtful.
Lydia: The difference between band class and this is that government agencies are banned by the First Amendment from endorsing any religion over others or from endorsing religion in general over non religion. Having a school district give credit for an overtly sectarian religious class that teaches kids “how to live as Christians” clearly violates that wall of separation that Jefferson wrote about. The court precedents on this are pretty clear, and I expect the case will be successful.
Again, in this debate I’m left with the same question as before: Why can’t you just learn “how to live as a Christian” from Sunday School and at home? Seems like that’s the place for that kind of stuff to me.
loading...
“Having a school district give credit for an overtly sectarian religious class that teaches kids “how to live as Christians†clearly violates that wall of separation that Jefferson wrote about. The court precedents on this are pretty clear, and I expect the case will be successful.”
Well this is your opinion, I guess. Actually, there are also court precedents that suggest this case will be either unsuccessful or, more likely, dismissed. If D7 is not preventing Jewish groups or Muslim groups or Buddhist groups from forming, creating released time religious-oriented classes, and applying to have these courses offered for elective credit, then D7 is probably in the clear on this one.
loading...