WASHINGTON, June 29, 2009

Supreme Court Won't Touch Bible Club Case

Court Declines To Stop School District From Blocking Group Of Students From Forming Bible Club

  •  (AP)

  • Blog Court Watch

    CBSNews.com Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen's new blog on the big issues and analyzes important cases of the day.

(CBS/AP)  The Supreme Court on Monday declined to stop a school district from blocking a group of Christian students from forming a Bible club on campus.

The court refused to hear an appeal from the high school students who wanted to form the Truth Bible Club at Kentridge High School in Washington state in 2001.

The school refused to let the group be chartered as a school club. They cited the group's name, the fact that students would have to pledge to Jesus Christ to vote in the club and that allowing the club in would bring religion into the school. The club's would-be founders then sued the Kent School District, claiming discrimination.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the district did not violate the students' First Amendment rights by requiring them to allow all students full membership in their club.

The case is Truth v. Kent School District, 08-1130, and Kent School District v. Truth, 08-1268.

Separately:

  • The Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

  • The Court refused to allow victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes over charitable donations that were allegedly funneled to al-Qaida.

  • The Court failed to decide on whether a scathing documentary about Hillary Rodham Clinton that was shown during the presidential race should be regulated as if it were a campaign ad.

    More Supreme Court coverage:

    Court Rules For Firefighters In Ricci Case
    Sotomayor Overturned In Firefighters Case
    Tie Goes to Kennedy In Ricci Case
    Supreme Court To Take NFL Apparel Case
    Supreme Court Won't Touch Bible Club Case
    Court Passes On 9/11 Claims Against Saudis
    Court Delays Ruling On Anti-Clinton Movie
    Supreme Court Hands DVR Win To Cable Cos.


    © MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
    Share:
    • Share
    • Yahoo! Buzz
    • Mixx
    Add a Comment See all 38 Comments
    by psk123-2009 August 5, 2009 1:18 AM EDT
    What was wrong with a church hosting this religious group? Isn't that where religion belongs? In a church?

    I agree with this decision. Religion has no place in a public school.
    Reply to this comment
    by Scimajor June 30, 2009 11:09 PM EDT
    They made the correct choice. How could a school allow a club to discriminate against other students based on religious beliefs (or anything else for that matter)? They can't.

    Allowing this kind of club would be as idiotic as my something my sister-in-law encountered. Her daughter is Mormon but her mother was not allow to attend the ceremony because she, the mother, is not Mormon. Nice religion you guys have there.

    Discrimination should be and, already is, illegal. So why is this kind of thing being allowed?

    Oh but then we have Affirmative Action, legalized discrimination, which is allowed also. Hold on, so discrimination IS allowed but only in the name of religion and you can also be discriminated against as long as you are not a "minority" (see affirmative action).

    Sigh. Ok, so discrimination is OK when it's politically correct? Is that the deal?
    Reply to this comment
    by soconcerened July 7, 2009 1:44 PM EDT
    So we should allow kids to be on the football team even if they are not athletic? Or allow

    People join clubs because they are likeminded with others. I can't imagine that anyone would want to join that was a non-believer. We have the FCA and FCS at the schools in my town and I am so happy that we still have that choice here. I realize that I am a miortity in this and that is okay. At least my 14 year old is wanting to go on mission trips to Africa and buid houses for children that have suffered through genocide rather than wanting to fill selfish needs.

    Mormons have a completely seperate book, they do not study the same Bilbe that Methodists, Baptists or Penecostals do. That is a man made rule, not God made. Jesus never turned his back on anyone.
    by formrusmcsgt June 30, 2009 10:39 AM EDT
    Public schools are not dogma centers - churches are.
    Reply to this comment
    by ianlou June 30, 2009 8:48 AM EDT
    Bible Club?
    Is this an Oximoron?
    Reply to this comment
    by woeisme1 June 30, 2009 8:41 AM EDT
    It's ironic, to put it mildly, that the gay marriage activists want protection under equal rights but they don't want equal protection for a harmless religious group.

    This group in this story is being denied their equal rights. I do not agree with the decision at all.

    Some of you are so hypocritical. It's okay when it suits your wants but nobody elses.
    Reply to this comment
    by dartplayer501 June 30, 2009 10:47 AM EDT
    It's not ironic at all.

    Firstly, the US constitution is clear on the National religion idea; the founding fathers did not want one, because the fact that Great Britain did have a state religion is why their ancestors left England in the first place. Allowing school prayer and religious "clubs" on state school, hence government, property is, therefore unconstitutional.

    Secondly; gay marriage supporters are not trying to stop you (Christians) from doing anything. They're quite OK with you having your beliefs. The "bigotry" claim arises becaus you ARE stopping them from doing something that they feel is their right. Nobody has EVER explained to me why allowing gays to get married undercuts anyone else's rights. If gay marriage undercuts basic "Christian" tenets, then divorce certainly does also. Here, I guess R.C.'s are more consistent than other branches of Christianity as they ban both.
    by johndevinejr June 30, 2009 8:36 AM EDT
    by glasshugh June 30, 2009 4:50 AM PDT
    Thank you cs4466... Perfect example I leave you alone and let you believe what you want to believe. But if I want to believe in God you call us craven cowards. I guess you are just as hypocritical as you claim the "Religious Reich" are. Good way to prove your point!


    Chistians don't leave anyone alone. Christians are constantly trying to impose their beliefs on everyone by teaching creationism in school, by constantly attempting to allow prayer in school, interestingly enough, that prayer is ALWAYS Christian prayer, never another religion.

    When Christian beliefs are disagreed with, that is called "attacking Christianity".
    The Constitution is clear. There is NEVER a reason for the government to be involved in religion. And public schools are run by the local government.
    Reply to this comment
    by woeisme1 June 30, 2009 8:46 AM EDT
    Yet when Christians disagree with gay marriage, you call them bigots.
    by glasshugh June 30, 2009 11:28 PM EDT
    If you think Christians are constantly trying to impose their beliefs on everyone..you should go to a muslim country and see what happens when you mock their God.
    by soconcerened July 7, 2009 1:33 PM EDT
    I believe that our country was founded by Christians, for Christians. That is at least what all of the textbooks I studied said.
    by johndevinejr June 30, 2009 8:25 AM EDT
    by cs4466 June 29, 2009 10:04 AM PDT
    "If any group (regardless of its purpose or membership requirements) has access to school property, for activities not associated with academics or athletics, then all groups should have the same access. One obvious exception with be groups formed with the expressed purpose of harming others."

    I would think many people would agree that Religion falls into the category of the "expressed purpose of harming others".


    Ha Ha

    I agree
    Reply to this comment
    by lambor59 June 30, 2009 2:48 AM EDT
    Let's ban all religions and be peace around the world.
    Reply to this comment
    by lambor59 June 30, 2009 2:48 AM EDT
    Let's ban all religions and be peace around the world.
    Reply to this comment
    by cs4466 June 29, 2009 11:47 PM EDT
    "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." --Susan B. Anthony
    Reply to this comment
    by cs4466 June 29, 2009 11:44 PM EDT
    There are no atheists in foxholes.
    by glasshugh June 29, 2009 8:11 PM PDT

    More fairy tales sold to you by the Religious Reich. Fear causes some people to cave. The craven cowards often adopt fantasies to comfort themselves. But not everyone is a craven coward.
    Reply to this comment
    by glasshugh June 30, 2009 7:50 AM EDT
    Thank you cs4466... Perfect example I leave you alone and let you believe what you want to believe. But if I want to believe in God you call us craven cowards. I guess you are just as hypocritical as you claim the "Religious Reich" are. Good way to prove your point!
    by glasshugh June 29, 2009 11:11 PM EDT
    There are no atheists in foxholes. Funny how everyone likes to bash God until they need him. Its a free country and everyone should be able to pray to his or her own god. I'll let you pray to yours but don't tell me I cant pray to mine. The problem with religion today is that some churches (in an effort to boost membership and make people feel all warm and fuzzy) are preaching that you can to anything you want without accountability instead of preaching what the Bible teaches. A lot of people are only interested in "Fire Insurance". I know not everyone will agree with me but I still believe we need to pray for America. Despite all the problems in our country there is still no place on earth that I would rather call home. If you dont think so go visit other countries and you will see just how good we have it here.
    Reply to this comment
    by dartplayer501 June 29, 2009 5:25 PM EDT
    Of course they wouldn't touch this case. If they followed the constitution, they'd have to make a decision that would **** off their sponsors - the republican religious mafia.
    Reply to this comment
    by dartplayer501 June 30, 2009 10:52 AM EDT
    Where do you find the hate in that comment itsjusta? I'm not saying I hate the republican religious mafia, I'm saying that it exists, and that four of the members of the SC adhere to their tenets.
    by drsuz July 1, 2009 7:53 PM EDT
    Quote: by dartplayer501 June 29, 2009 2:25 PM PDT
    Of course they wouldn't touch this case. If they followed the constitution, they'd have to make a decision that would **** off their sponsors - the republican religious mafia.

    If it is the US Supreme Court, of course they cannot touch it. Read the Consitution folks. The Federal Government "cannot" get involved in the runnings of a State. Now a State Supreme Court can get involved.

    However, I do agree that if students want to form a club, they should be allowed to as long as the membership is open to "everyone". And if this type of club is not allowed, then nor should any other type of club whether it be a political, social, straight or gay.
    by noloyalisti June 29, 2009 5:23 PM EDT
    It's like I always say, don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church. Go to church and beat your head like an empty drum.
    Reply to this comment
    by soconcerened July 7, 2009 1:29 PM EDT
    Your comment could have ended with the first statement you made. The latter of the two were completely uncalled for. Nobody is forcing religion down the throats of these kids, nor you.
    by mensarino June 29, 2009 1:13 PM EDT
    Had the club only eliminated the pledge requirement, they would have been in the clear.
    Reply to this comment
    by Martin-in-Arkansas June 29, 2009 1:23 PM EDT
    Lots of Clubs have pledges or creeds. Most exist for the purpose of promoting something of importance to their members.
    by parrots7 June 29, 2009 2:57 PM EDT
    In High Schools ??? This is not about college frats.
    by IndianaGuy June 29, 2009 1:11 PM EDT
    "I would think many people would agree that Religion falls into the category of the "expressed purpose of harming others".

    Many would say G/L/T clubs would fall into the same category.
    Reply to this comment
    by cs4466 June 29, 2009 1:15 PM EDT
    Only the bigots.
    by Martin-in-Arkansas June 29, 2009 1:31 PM EDT
    My comment about Clubs that have the expressed interest in harming others would be like someone wanting to form a KKK Club or Black Panther Club in a school in the 50s and 60s. Today it might be a white supremacist group or islamic jihad group - any group promoting hate and violence against others. Civil differences of optinion, whether the topic is relgion, politics or economics should be welcome in any culture. G

    /L/T clubs should have these same rights if their message is one of inclusion not hate. I still come back to my point - ban all groups.
    by johndevinejr June 30, 2009 8:30 AM EDT
    And those same people are the ones that claim the earth is 6500 years old and all life, birds, fish, elephants, man arrived on earth "abruptly and fully formed"
    by Martin-in-Arkansas June 29, 2009 12:35 PM EDT
    If any group (regardless of its purpose or membership requirements) has access to school property, for activities not associated with academics or athletics, then all groups should have the same access. One obvious exception with be groups formed with the expressed purpose of harming others. Given the current financial crisis experienced by most school systems, perhaps all such groups should be banned from using school property. This would make this issue moot and save school systems money on utilities, cleaning, maintenance and repairs. Unless persons, of any religion, are recruiting or putting pressure on "non-believers" their access to school property should the same as other groups (civic, political, etc). Hiding behind "Separation of Church and State" is not the point in this area - equal access is the point.
    Reply to this comment
    by cs4466 June 29, 2009 1:04 PM EDT
    "If any group (regardless of its purpose or membership requirements) has access to school property, for activities not associated with academics or athletics, then all groups should have the same access. One obvious exception with be groups formed with the expressed purpose of harming others."

    I would think many people would agree that Religion falls into the category of the "expressed purpose of harming others".
    by Martin-in-Arkansas June 29, 2009 1:21 PM EDT
    In my experience most "Religious Groups" in schools were just as "exclusive" and "click oriented" as any other group - they were equally harmless. In my school we had the Glee Club, the Chess Club, the Young Republicans, the Young Democrats, the Young Fellows, the Key Club, the Young Rotarians, the Young Lions, the Young Civitans - the list goes on and on - these clubs, including the "Religious" Key Club were usually made up of popular kids and it was like becoming a member of a College Fraternity or Sorority.

    I doubt that most ?Religious Clubs? would be harmful to anyone unless you simply consider religion harmful in general. If that is the case, you will never understand my point.

    My point was not defending the right of Regilious Clubs in schools but equal access for all groups. In my opinion, because of the cost to taxpayers alone, all of these groups should be banned for using school property.
    by parrots7 June 29, 2009 2:55 PM EDT
    Martin - this is not about cost but strictly about the fact that not all students will have access to the club - They'd set out wanting this as a cult.
    by cs4466 June 29, 2009 12:29 PM EDT
    I also agree with the court's decision in the bible club case. Keep religion out of the schools and in church - where it belongs.
    Reply to this comment
    by John_Merritt June 29, 2009 12:13 PM EDT
    I agree with the Court's decision.
    Reply to this comment
    by skyk-2009 June 29, 2009 12:07 PM EDT
    It's great to see the Court, in light of what we have seen recently from the American Taliban, affirm the Separation of Church and State. The thoughts of someone like Randal Terry having access to our kids in school gives me a real chill. You see I was in Alabama when the court struck down "School Prayer". I know first hand how much hate people can put in children's minds under the cover of Religion.
    Reply to this comment
    by johndevinejr June 30, 2009 8:24 AM EDT
    It is a good decision. republicans / conservatives have been working hard for 30 years to codify their religious beliefs in secular law.

    Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. But the government should not be involved in religion in any way.
    See all 38 Comments
    • MOST POPULAR

    Exclusive Webshow

    The road ahead in Afghanistan, and the crucial decision Obama faces.
    Watch Now

    Latest News
    News in Pictures
    Scroll Left Scroll Right
    Connect with CBS News

    Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: