Posted on 10/08/2008 8:24:03 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
A public school's decision to fold over a portion of a kindergartner's poster to hide an image of Jesus did not violate the youngster's right to free speech, a federal judge has determined.
Antonio Peck's teacher and school principal had "legitimate pedagogical concerns" when deciding to edit the boy's poster for a school display promoting environmental awareness, Northern District of New York Judge Norman A. Mordue ruled in Peck v. Baldwinsville Central School District, 99-cv-1847.
Those valid concerns of Antonio's teacher, Susan Weichert, and the principal, Robert Creme, were that parents at the Catherine McNamara Elementary School in Baldwinsville, outside Syracuse, N.Y., would think Weichert was teaching religion if they saw the image of Jesus on Antonio's poster about ways to protect the environment, according to Mordue.
The ruling was the third the judge has made in Peck. Each time Mordue decided in favor of the school district and its employees.
In February 2000, he granted summary judgment to the defendants on all of the claims brought on Antonio's behalf by his mother Jo Anne Peck.
Following remand for discovery by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Mordue again dismissed the action in its entirety in August 2004.
The 2nd Circuit then remanded the case a second time to the judge.
A circuit panel agreed with the judge's finding that the actions of school officials did not represent state inhibition of religion and violate the establishment clause.
But the appeals court held there were disputed factual questions surrounding the plaintiff's First Amendment claim, namely whether the school would have censored Antonio's poster had he used a nonreligious image and if the actions by the school officials and Baldwinsville Central School District amounted to viewpoint discrimination.
Mordue last week again dismissed the claim of a free speech violation
(Excerpt) Read more at law.com ...
Wow. I draw a picture of Jesus and the government makes me hide it so no one can see it.
But this is not violating the constitution where no law shall be made regarding the free expression of relgion.
I don’t know where they get these judges. If I can read a simple sentence better than them, they should put me on the bench and pay me their salary.
Would they have done the same for a poster with a pic of Mohammed?............
How much longer can Western civilization survive when the image of the One on whose teachings it is based must remain hidden?
The Founding Fathers would all have commended this child.
Norman A. Mordue (born June 26, 1942), is a United States District Judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
Mordue earned the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, and the Distinguished Service Cross while serving as a captain in the U.S. Army in the Vietnam War from 1966 to 1968[1]. He graduated from Syracuse University in 1966 and from the Syracuse University College of Law in 1971. From 1972 to 1982, he worked for the district attorney in Onondaga County, New York, the last six years as chief prosecutor. He was a county court judge from 1982 to 1988, and a State Supreme Court justice in Onondaga County from 1986 to 1998[2].
Upon the recommendation of Senator Alfonse D’Amato, President Bill Clinton nominated Mordue to replace Rosemary S. Pooler on the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York in July 1998. Mordue was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in October 1998, and took office on December 4[3].
He has been Chief Judge of the court since 2006[4].
—Wikipedia
“The Founding Fathers would all have commended this child.”
And shot the judge..
“Wrong” way of approaching a decision there.
You think that they should just read the law and apply it to the case.
The way leftist judges come to a decision is different:
1) What is the desired social outcome.
2) Rule in order to advance that social outcome.
3) Justify the decision.
Those valid concerns of Antonio's teacher, Susan Weichert, and the principal, Robert Creme, were that parents at the Catherine McNamara Elementary School in Baldwinsville, outside Syracuse, N.Y., would think Weichert was teaching religion if they saw the image of Jesus on Antonio's poster about ways to protect the environment...
Not unless a braindead liberal couldn't tell the difference between a kindergartner's drawing and an adult's ............
That’s OK.
I feel sorry for the Teacher and for the Judge, because Jesus was watching both of them and will one day call them into account.
“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
Jesus wasn’t kidding.
The 1st freedom considered in the 1st Amendment.
I think we should rewrite the First Amendment. It should state:
Americans have a right to First Amendment Rights except in government schools.
Government will have the right to order children ( who have committed no crime) into prison-like buildings.
The government will order that child ( who has committed no crime) to shut up for nearly all of their imprisonment day.
Parents too will be ordered by the government to shut up in these prison-like buildings.
The government will forbid free expression of religious belief throughout most of the child's imprisonment day.
The government will forbid free assembly during this imprisonment. As in common prisons it will be the government who will order with whom the child will assemble.
Since it is axiomatic that no school is religiously neutral, the government will indoctrinate the child in rhe religious worldview of the most politically powerful. ( At the moment atheistic Secular Humanism)
The government will sell at sheriff's auction the home and business of any citizen who refuses to fund the travesty of human rights listed above. If the citizen resists the government will imprison him. If he is sufficiently resistant the government will shoot him.
If parents resist the government imprisonment of their children, they will be given the option to ransom their children. The ransom will consist of paying extra to homes or privately school their child. If the parents resist this, the parents will have their children placed in government foster care. If the parents resist, they will be imprisoned. If they resist with enough force, the government police will shoot them.
If the child ( who has committed no crime) **rationally** resists being treated like a prisoner, the government will send him to real “hard-time” prison.
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, school can simultaneously do both. Therefore, government must get out of the education business.
Solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Let parents, teachers, and principals of private schools determine privately the religious worldview of the school.
A religiously neutral education is impossible. It is axiomatic.
All schools must suppress **all** First Amendment Rights to maintain order, safety and effectiveness. That is why all schools should be private. Government must never be in the education business.
If our Founding Fathers could have foreseen government K-12 schools of today, they would have put prohibition of the establishment of government schooling in Constitution.
Please read post #13. Government schools, the First Amendment, and freedom of conscience are utterly and totally incompatible! No judge will ever address this fundamental conflict.
Public Schools: A prison for children who have committed the crime of being born.
Huh. You’d think that someone who spent time in the US Army, was apparently wounded, would understand this one simple sentence.
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.
I don’t know what kind of guy this judge is. He was nominated by D’Amato, but appointed by Clinton. D’Amato was a pro-life conservative, but also a huge porker, so he might have given clinton someone he knew he would like.
Confirmation was unanimous, but in those days the Republicans were under the delusion that a president—even clinton—should be able to choose his appointees as long as they passed review by (liberal) lawyers.
A few people emerged from the Vietnam War twisted by the experience. As I say, I don’t know how this guy reacted to it. But keep in mind that Murtha was once a Marine.
I’m sure a picture that included Mohammed or two homosexual men holding hands would not have been ‘folded over’.
Government schools violate all of the above.
Government schools establish the religious worldview of the most politically powerful. Why? Because no school is religiously neutral.
Government schools prohibit the free exercise of religion during all or most of the compulsory imprisonment day.
Government schools forbid free speech during all or most of the imprisonment day.
Government schools forbid free press during most of the child's imprisonment day.
Just as in prison, it is the government who dictates with whom the child will assemble.
Government schools, the First Amendment, and freedom of conscience are utterly incompatible.
Please read post #13.
So could someone tell me why in the world so many believe that freedom of speech is guaranteed to minors when most of their other rights are curtailed or taken away entirely?
Do you think an amendment to the First Amendment would pass if phrased in the manner outlined in post #13?
So?...Why should the government be ordering children ( who have committed no crime) into prison-like buildings and trashing their First Amendment rights?
While parents have every First Amendment right to control children, government does not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.