Catherine's+Blog

The following was originally published January 29, 2009 at http://badolato-cat.blogspot.com/2009/01/good-news-v-milford-case.html



A Fine Line Education and Religion For generations there has been a fine line between religion and education. It is almost impossible to talk about one without mentioning the other. Prime examples of this are the two main ideals of evolution. Education in Science declares that we have evolved and emerged from homo-sapiens, while religion declares humanity was established by God with Adam and Eve. Educating students on these sensitive topics has been controversial and somewhat problematic for centuries. Even when the U.S. Constitution was created, 220 years ago, the subject of separation between the church and state was contemplated and instituted in the very first Amendment. Our First Amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

In the Good News Club v. Milford Central School court case, issues of religion and school once again clashed. A nonprofit organization called CEF organizes community outreach programs in some public schools, which includes the Good New Club. One way they advertise their meetings is by passing out fliers to students to take home. Yet Coopertown Elementary School denied CEF’s outreach tactics and its gathering on the school’s property. Principal Angela Sorrention rejected them because of the “religious nature of the proposed flier and the club’s religious after-school meeting activities”. Steven Landman, a Good News instructor, declares the school is being discriminatory and is violating the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act. The school retaliates that the Good New Club violates the separation of the church and state, and also illegally promotes religion in the school.

Essentially, “neither schools nor teachers can officially encourage student prayer, however, prayer is permissible when student initiated and when it does not interfere with other students or the functioning of the school” (Introduction to Teaching 293). The Coopertown Elementary administrator’s reaction to the Good News Club’s purpose is a bit excessive and stubborn. Passing out fliers is an innocent way to promote their organization. If a parent does not want their child to attend they can simply discard the hand out. And since the Good News Club assembles “peaceably” after school, it is not interfering with other students or the normal functioning of the school. The consequence of the Club’s gatherings provides more positives for the students than negatives. Regardless of the content the Club may preach, it contains good intentions for its members. Static’s in 2001 show that 47 percent of serious juvenile crimes occur after school from 3:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. The Good New Club and organizations like it can help diminish that number because it will help keep kids off the streets and out of trouble.

After looking at more cases and events where religion and education battle, I came across two other events that were almost identical; and correlated to religion/education in the Good News Club Court Case. In New York, (Engel v. Vitale, 1962), its education system adopted a school prayer to be said before the start of each day's classes. The case ruling for this situation stated that it was not permissible because it goes against the First and Fourteenth Amendment, and also the separation of Church and State law. The ruling ceased ritual daily prayer, but continued to allow prayer when voluntary. But this was not the last time a Case like this was heard. In 2008, in Illinois, a federal judge ruled against a state law requiring public school students to observe a "moment of silence" meant for prayer or personal reflection at the start of each school day. Its ruling too mirrored the ruling of the case in New York.

The New York and Illinois situation is outlandish and unlawful because of their mandatory, daily morning prayers. Where as the Good New Club’s intentions are not illegal because they are not forcing religious connotations on anyone. It is completely acceptable if a student wants to participate in a moment of silence in school when designated, not enforced. And it is acceptable if a student wants to attend a prayer service after school. The dominate focus should be whether or not students want to partake in any religious activities at school. Whatever one decides, they are protected by the law to practice and speak what they will as long as he/she is peaceful and non-interruptive to the school’s functioning.

In the end, the ruling in the Good News Club v. Milford Central School Court Case favored the Good New Clubs to hold such meetings based on “equal access and freedom from viewpoint discrimination”. As long as the students are not forced to attend the meetings nor are distracted from their educational obligations, the student’s have the freedom to go to the meetings if desired. Just because the meetings are held on school property does not mean the school is promoting religion. It is fair and tolerable for the Good News Club to meet on school ground as long as the Club’s content and activities are separated from the school’s responsibilities and operations.

Sources:

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2008/10/31/news/doc490a7e571969f677609168.txt

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2009/01/22/religion-in-schools-debate-heats-up.html

http://www.allabouthistory.org/school-prayer.htm

__Introduction to Teaching: Becoming a Professional.__ Eggen, Paul and Donald Kauchak. 2008.