The San Diego Union Tribune reports
A San Diego public school has become part of a national debate over religion in schools ever since a substitute teacher publicly condemned an Arabic language program that gives Muslim students time for prayer during school hours.Carver Elementary in Oak Park added Arabic to its curriculum in September when it suddenly absorbed more than 100 students from a defunct charter school that had served mostly Somali Muslims.
After subbing at Carver, the teacher claimed that religious indoctrination was taking place and said that a school aide had led Muslim students in prayer.
An investigation by the San Diego Unified School District failed to substantiate the allegations. But critics continue to assail Carver for providing a 15-minute break in the classroom each afternoon to accommodate Muslim students who wish to pray. (Those who don't pray can read or write during that non-instructional time.)
Emphasis mine. Now, is it me or would such a practice be absolutely anathema for a school district if it involved Christians? Fifteen minutes of classroom time during the school day? If a public school attempted this with religious Christians, the ACLU would be in court so fast that Carl Lewis would be impressed. But in the San Diego case, they're merely "monitoring developments."
The San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations supports the Carver program.“Our country is transforming demographically, religiously,” said Edgar Hopida, the chapter's public relations director. “Our country has to now accommodate things that are not traditionally accounted for before.”
Is that right? Not if these "things" are constitutionally impermissible, Mr. Hopida. Accommodation is a two-way street, with the onus usually on those who make the move TO a particular country, not the other way around!
Right here in Delaware approximately three years ago, the Christina School District "accommodated" Muslim students by giving them a separate room in which to pray -- during the school day and supervised by a school employee -- during Ramadan. Amazingly, the News Journal then opined (rightly, in my opinion) against Christina's actions, but there was -- surprise! -- no word on any legal action against Christina by the Delaware ACLU. An e-mail from me to the civil rights group about the situation -- another surprise! -- went unanswered.
Straw man alarm: "If a public school attempted this with religious Christians, the ACLU would be in court so fast that Carl Lewis would be impressed." ==> Hube
I am surprised, Hube, that you do not understand that prayer is permitted in school, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, ....
Nor do you have a perspective on the involvement of the ACLU on the school prayer issue, as your knee-jerk attitude suggests.
The distinction is whether prayer is required such that all students must participate actively and/or passively, or merely permitted under certain specified conditions.
I think you will get a more nuanced view of the kinds of cases in which the ACLU has risen to the defense of prayer in school. Note: I said defense of prayer in schools! Check this out: http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html
Posted by: Perry Hood at July 5, 2007 03:35 PMStraw man alarm: "If a public school attempted this with religious Christians, the ACLU would be in court so fast that Carl Lewis would be impressed." ==> Hube
I am surprised, Hube, that you do not understand that prayer is permitted in school, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, ....
Idiot-Who-Can't-Read Alert: I am WELL aware that individual prayer at any time (silently) is permitted in schools, as well as after school hours on school grounds. What ISN'T allowed is permitting students DURING THE SCHOOL DAY to be excused from class and/or use a school facility monitored by a SCHOOL EMPLOYEE. The ACLU said so itself:
"There is a distinction between religious expression initiated or endorsed by school personnel, and speech initiated by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York. (Link.)
What's funny about the above is that it is one of the cases you provide as "proof" that the ACLU is "religion-friendly," yet proves my point perfectly about how Christina and the school in San Diego went over the line!
The ACLU's contempt for things Christian is well known as Google will demonstrate if you're capable of actually typing in the correct words. Here's one site. And here's another. There are many, many more. Based on these many experiences, I reiterate that if these Muslims were Christian, the ACLU would be filing suit in a heartbeat.
Incidentally, when I mentioned that the ACLU never responded to my e-mail inquiry (in this post) about the Christina case, they DID respond point-by-point to my e-mail questions regarding the Dobrich-Indian River case! One pertained to Muslims, the other, Christians. ACLU involved in the latter, not the former.
Bam.
Posted by: Hube at July 5, 2007 04:00 PMDoesn't the ACLU need a plaintiff, an aggrieved student, before it can bring legal action? The article doesn't make clear how many, if any, students in the language program opt out of prayers. Maybe nobody but the substitute teacher has complained.
Posted by: Nels Nelson at July 5, 2007 05:25 PMPerry, the link you have does not have any specific instances of a child's right to pray during school hours defended by the ACLU.
Preaching in public-yes, distributing pamphlets - yes, singing - yes, religious t-shirts - yes, religious yearbook entries - yes,prayer during class time - no, - accomodation for a specific relgious group - no.
On another link it says:
Public schools themselves should not, however, be in the business of promoting particular religious beliefs or religious activities. While it is permissible for public schools to teach about religion, it is not permissible to promote particular religious beliefs. While public schools should not be leading children in prayers or religious ceremonies, they should be respectful of the religious beliefs of students. Further, public schools should protect children from being coerced by others to accept religious (or anti-religious) beliefs. Public schools should seek to create an environment conducive to learning by all students and not act as vehicles proselytizing for religious or anti-religious beliefs.
I'll be happily corrected if I am wrong.
Posted by: Miss AO at July 5, 2007 05:30 PMThis link provides some excellent examples of the ACLU's hypocritical religious stances.
Posted by: Hube at July 5, 2007 06:42 PMPerhaps the fact that, in Islam, Muslims are required to pray five times a day, at set times, is why these students are excused from class.
And they cannot do silent prayer at their desks, as prayer in Islam requires kneeling on the floor and kowtowing to God.
This stipulation does not exist in the Christian faith, so big shocker you wouldn't think other people could do it another way.
And also, what are you saying? That because the ACLU would (apparently) be all over this school if they excused Christians from class, Muslims should not be allowed to follow their faith?
Just thought I'd inform you before you wrote anything else.
Posted by: Gloria Erin at July 8, 2007 06:43 AMPerhaps the fact that, in Islam, Muslims are required to pray five times a day, at set times, is why these students are excused from class.
Unfortunately, according to the ACLU and others, this violates the Establishment Clause. What Muslims "have to do" is irrelevant to this. It's incumbent upon these Muslims to accommodate this fact, not the other way around, if they wish to be educated in public schools.
And also, what are you saying? That because the ACLU would (apparently) be all over this school if they excused Christians from class, Muslims should not be allowed to follow their faith?
Total non-sequitir. Muslims are completely free to follow their faith as long as it doesn't violate the Establishment Clause as litigated -- in large measure by the very same ACLU which hasn't lifted a finger in these cases.
Posted by: Hube at July 8, 2007 09:13 AM