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.
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:
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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.
More From Supreme Court
Add a Comment See all 38 Comments
- 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
- 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
-
- 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.
- So we should allow kids to be on the football team even if they are not athletic? Or allow
- Public schools are not dogma centers - churches are.
- Reply to this comment
- Bible Club?
Is this an Oximoron? - Reply to this comment
- 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
-
- 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.
- It's not ironic at all.
- 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
-
- 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 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
- Let's ban all religions and be peace around the world.
- Reply to this comment
- Let's ban all religions and be peace around the world.
- Reply to this comment
- "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
- 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
- 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
- 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
-
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- Had the club only eliminated the pledge requirement, they would have been in the clear.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Lots of Clubs have pledges or creeds. Most exist for the purpose of promoting something of importance to their members.
- "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
-
- 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.
- 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
- 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
-
- "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".
- 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.
- "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 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
- I agree with the Court's decision.
- Reply to this comment
- 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
The road ahead in Afghanistan, and the crucial decision Obama faces.
