-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Northwest Rankin High School is a public high school located in Flowood, Mississippi. On Tuesday April 9th, a student, representing Pinelake Baptist Church, addressed an assembly at the school and showed a video of two young men who had been “saved” from drugs and sex. Several students reported the mandatory assembly, during school hours, to the Appignani Humanist Legal Center (AHLC). AHLC coordinator William Burgess sent a letter of condemnation to principal Charles Frazier.
Rankin County School District released a statement saying the assembly was not mandatory:
Our students have the freedom to organize student-led and planned meetings and the assembly in question was student-led and organized.
However, the AHLC letter claims that the assembly was mandatory and an e-mail, shown here with names redacted, from Frazier to faculty members bears this out. As the AHLC letter notes: “Making attendance voluntary would not cure the constitutional infirmity.” This is borne out by the Court’s 
opinion in Lee v. Weisman (1992), where J. Kennedy wrote in the opinion of the Court: “the government may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use more direct means.” The school can take no part any private student meetings promoting religion.
The AHLC letter notes that having a student deliver the presentation does not “absolve the school and its officials from liability.” That the presentation was school-sponsored and held on school property during class-time is sufficient for a violation of the Establishment Clause. The violation is exacerbated by Frazier’s promoting student attendance of the assembly as a requirement.
The AHLC letter also claims that several students, who tried to leave, were harassed by a principal and told to sit back down. One has to admire the students’ courage, in the face of official intimidation, in attempting to escape the proselytizing.
In her concurrence in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), J. O’Connor wrote:
The purpose prong of the Lemon test asks … whether, irrespective of government’s actual purpose, the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval. An affirmative answer to either question should render the challenged practice invalid.
Clearly, school officials used the authority of their office to require and maintain attendance at a Christian proselytizing meeting. This is a blatant example of Christian privilege and a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Rankin County School District better rein in Frazier, or they’ll have to use taxpayer funds to pay for defense lawyers in a civil suit.
The intent of the Establishment Clause is found in the words of the founders, whose envisioned a “perfect separation” between church and state. The progression towards that “perfect separation” requires constant vigilance. History shows us that those in power will use that power to maintain their dominance. New converts are essential for religions to maintain the status quo. Let religion obtain those converts using the persuasion by argument, rather than the coercion by authority. The historical predominance of the latter testifies to the ineffectiveness of the former.
H/T: Hemant Mehta.
As would I, AY, but for the invasion of the smart phones.
Well, I was just looking at the time of the postings…. And if they are in civics…. Which is a good idea….. Shouldn’t they be paying attention in class as opposed to blogging….. That is why I am skeptical….
“That is why I am skeptical”
AY,
I’m a little skeptical also and have been so all along. We don’t know if these are kids or not and if they attend that school or not..
I suggest “Civics”, AY.
Call me a skeptic… But shouldn’t these so called children be in class…..
lol
And what OS said.
gmta, OS.
Lucy,
This is a blog that focuses primarily on Constitutional law and law in general. You can expect to see bashing of any religious institutions that try to violate or otherwise circumvent the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment. True, not all sects of Christianity are guilty of this kind of behavior, but in fact some are and this compulsory assembly is an example of that. In engaging in this kind of behavior, these institutions are acting in a blindly dangerous manner not just to the religious liberties of others, but to their own religious liberties. The 1st Amendment and the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State does not just protect “a chosen few” from the religious edicts of a particular dogma from being forced upon them by law and government. It protects everyone from the religious edicts of a particular dogma from being forced upon them by law and government. It is as if no one ever stops to ask “What if someone else’s religion gains sway over the law?” Demographics change. Religious beliefs evolve and fall in and out of favor with the majority and the minority. In trying to inject religion into government and law, would be theocrats don’t see that they are creating a weapon that could just as easily be turned against them by changes in future circumstance. Our government was specifically created to be secular to avoid these kinds of problems in the first place by keeping government’s house the house of all the people regardless of their religious beliefs (or even lack thereof). It was one of the wisest decisions made by our Founding Fathers.
Lucy,
This has nothing to do with whether people are comfortable or uncomfortable. It has to do with the requirement that government must keep religion and government separate. A public school is a government agency, and all activities conducted by a school carry the full weight of the government behind it. The First Amendment says, in what is called the “Establishment Clause”:
The Establishment Clause is followed by the Free Exercise Clause, which states, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. These two clauses make up what are called the “Religion Clauses” of the First Amendment.
In legal terms, this means that all governmental agencies which are controlled by Congress are bound by the Religion Clause. If you think your school is not controlled by Congress, think again. Public schools get money, either directly or indirectly from the government; i.e., Congress. Congress has to approve all expenditures of taxpayer money. The Department of Education is a Cabinet level agency created by Congress.
In short, your school is in violation of the law by having a religious assembly, using school property and school resources. You say you were comfortable. Would you have been as comfortable if the assembly had been sponsored and presented by a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Wiccan group? How about an Atheist group?
The Free Exercise Clause allows you to do your own thing anytime you want to. Say Grace over your meal in the school cafeteria, for example? Of course you can. However, you cannot ask (or demand) that everyone else in the cafeteria pray with you.
You say you dislike “…all the Christianity bashing…” Let me say that we dislike the Constitution bashing done by your school administration. They should be advocating for the Constitution, not trying to shred it. The school administration acted illegally, in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. That is the whole thing in a nutshell.
I believe that everyone has a right to believe what they want but I believe it’s wrong when people begin to try to convert others to their religion when the people openly state that they feel uncomfortable this is the fault of the administration to allow such a meeting to be held there are your hand full of Christians that leave everyone else alone and do what they wish in the privacy of their home or church but the constant quest for global convertion is what began to drive me away from Christianity the feeling of being constantly judged and looked at like a criminal are the reasons for me leaving the church I don’t have a problem with Christians and Christianity it’s the way they go about trying to change other people regardless of if they like it or not
I am a Senior and we were the first to go to the assembly. I am Baptist Christian and I am proud of my religion but I do not condone the assembly as being just or right. That does not mean that I like all the Christianity bashing that seems prevalent in these posts. True, many people were uncomfortable but that does not mean that all Christians are shoving religion down peoples throats.
Lucy, I am glad you did not condone the manner and means of this assembly. I only wish that more of your denomination would feel the same way, and since I live in the Bible Belt of the Southern Baptists, I have some questions about them. Do you know when and if the SBC renounced slavery since it was founded primarily to promote and defend slavery? The same question is about the SBCs positoin on segregation if they still defend that too, or have they changed positions?
I have to admit if find it quite humourous that the SBC and the like promotes “freedom”, but does its best to get rid of it for others. It reminds me of the communists who pointed to their Constitution that said there was full freedom in the Soviet Union. At least they had the wit and some decency to give at least lip service to the idea. The founders of the SBC did not.
http://www.upworthy.com/the-one-word-you-can-t-put-on-your-package-if-you-want-it-delivered-on-time?c=cc1
The word apparently is “atheist”
Mike A.,
As always, very valid points. What is strange though is that unlike many other religions, some sects of Christianity *do* think that they have some exclusive use of the word.
************
Hayden,
No. That observation was not lost on some of us.
If you haven’t noticed its only people who believed in what the rally was about are the ones saying that it wasn’t mandatory I bet if I held one trying to change everyone to the way I see there would be a completely different story about inequality and infringing on others constitutional rights also just because you can put your opinion on a site without giving your name then going to be mysterious and come at jake really that’s super intelligent and since you are such a strong believer in what this rally is saying if all people are like you and are willing to angry and possibly violent what makes you think any of us want to listen to anything you have to say when we just want our opinion heard we aren’t starting a riot or anything we are just asking to be heard
Pete,
Good catch.
NWR Student
1, April 23, 2013 at 12:05 am
I went to the assembly and I was not forced to go or stay there by anyone. Especially since there was not even a principle in the room.
==========================================================
freudian slip?
LOLOL, good notice of the spelling (principle in the room) and a perfect point.
I find it interesting that the only students asserting the “voluntary” nature of the assembly were anonymous posters. Hardly convincing. But more to the point is the fact that religious assemblies are inappropriate in public schools unless held outside of school hours, paid for by outside groups and open to the general public. I would also remind our young friends that Christianity is not a religion. It is a vast and growing family of religions having equally vast doctrinal and theological differences. The word “Christian” is not a copyrighted possession of fundamentalists, evangelicals, dominionists, pre-millenialists, post-millenialists, neo-Calvinists or snake handlers. Finally, students should understand that this “assembly” is merely the latest ploy designed to avoid the prohibition against religious instruction in public schools. It is part of a concerted effort by a particular branch of fundamentalism that rejects separation of church and state and wishes to eliminate religious pluralism entirely in favor of a government based upon scriptural literalism and Old Testament legal codes. It is a subversive movement in the truest sense of that word.
“I don’t need his number I already have it. We are a lot closer than you may think Jake.”
Thinly veiled threats aren’t cool, or endorsed by any religion or moral code that I can think of. (Although if I was running the site I’d take a screenshot of that comment, and make a note of NWR student’s IP address just in case Jake gets beat up).
Oh, and lest I forget . . .
“There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad intentions, and wooooords.” – George Carlin
And what Nal said.
To be clear, I’m attacking your euphemistic language. Euphemistic language is inherently a dishonest form of presentation. It is used by people seeking to obscure meaning – like advertisers and propagandists and proselytizers. People who want something from you and don’t want to be upfront about it.
The world is full of enough bullshit as it is.
I’m a cut through the bullshit kinda guy.
And if you found the language offensive? Too goddamn bad. You don’t have a right not to be offended.
You have a right to believe whatever you want. Just like Jake and Hayden and me and every other citizen. You have a right to talk about it too. Just like Jake and Hayden and me and every other citizen. But what you don’t have is the ability to force your beliefs upon others using either the mechanisms, institutions or laws of the government. This is not a “Christian Nation” and our government was expressly formed to be secular, maintaining a separation of church and state. This is not only evident in the jurisprudence surrounding the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, but in the writings of the Founders themselves. Particularly in the writings of Madison – the primary drafter of the Constitution – and the writings of Jefferson. They had seen the mess made in Europe by both theocracies and by state established/sanction churches and the Founders wanted no part of that. That is ultimately what is at issue here: using government money and facilities to proselytize while framing something as science – creationism – that is not science at all.
I don’t need his number I already have it. We are a lot closer than you may think Jake.