Student broadcaster suspended for 'God bless'

WND ^ | Jan 21, 2003

[missyme]

More Attacks agaisnt GOD!

Sign-off before holiday deemed inappropriate for public institution

A high school student dismissed from his school broadcast program for signing off with "God bless" is rallying community members to his side.

James Lord, a senior at Dupo High School in Belleville, Ill., was suspended for one month from his daily news broadcast on the school's closed circuit television after signing off his Dec. 17 broadcast, the Belleville News-Democrat reported.

Lord told his student audience: "Have a safe and happy holiday, and God bless."

School Principal Jonathan Heerboth has said Lord's comment was inappropriate for public school, the paper reported.

Lord said he plans to appeal the suspension because he claims it violated his First Amendment rights. Geoffrey Surtees, a lawyer with the Virginia-based American Center for Law and Justice who is advising Lord, said he would wait to see the outcome of the board meeting before making a comment.

Ahead of his address to the school board, Lord distributed more than 400 flyers to encourage local people to attend the meeting. The fliers said the school board was to meet last night, but board members say it is scheduled Jan. 27.

Will Lord say "God bless" again when he returns to the show Feb. 1?

"I can't guarantee I won't say it again," the student said, according to the News-Democrat.

School board member Mike Kloess said he had nothing against Lord's actions.

"I didn't have a problem with what he said, but [Superintendent Michael] Koebel knows the rules and knows what people can say and can't say," he told the Belleville paper.

Koebel could not be reached for comment.

James' mother, Beverly Lord, called the school's decision harsh and a suppression of free speech, the paper said.

[4CJ]

Uh, think it's past time to flush the commode, with a plunger handy JIC.

It's been time. I remember having Bible instruction IN school, at a public school. We opened each day with prayer over the intercom by the principal. We just need to abort the ACLU.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Yeah, life was so much better when we had the government telling our children, at school, what religion was better than others. Ah, the good old days....

[Viva Le Dissention]

Do you really not see how this is an establishment clause issue?

Query as to whether saying the words "God Bless" is enough to trigger an establishment clause challenge, but if you argue that it falls under the free exercise clause, you're making the concession that it is religious, which brings it back under the establishment clause. Once you're there, see Santa Fe Ind. School Dist. v. Doe. You can't provide a PA system to someone to make a religious message.

The better argument is that "god bless" is not a religious message, and is not protected under the Free Exercise clause at all.

[Abynormal]

But if the kid was broadcasting from a publicly funded station (school radio station), then the principal was correct in his assessment of the problem.

[Ff--150]

"Yeah, life was so much better when we had the government telling our children, at school, what religion was better than others. Ah, the good old days..."

What BORING rhetoric...go back to DU, por favor.

[pointsal]

ping

[RightOnline]

The inmates are truly running the asylum. Just shaking my head here................................un-freakin'-believable.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I fail to see how this would fall under the establishment clause. This is the free exercise clause. The school does not have the right to violate the freedom of religion."

You see this a lot more clearly than the principal. Even if we accept the notion that the school itself can't "endorse" religion (which is debatable), the student is not a public employee and has the right to express his opinions, whether they be pro- or anti-religion.

[exmarine]

More PC anti-Christian bigotry, and more suppression of the Free Exercise Clause.

[Steve_Seattle]

"But if the kid was broadcasting from a publicly funded station (school radio station), then the principal was correct in his assessment of the problem."

I completely disagree. It is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce a rule in which discussion of religion or expression of religius belief is taboo in a public school environment. Discussions of art, history, and world affairs would be hopelessly compromised if all references to religion - pro or con - were omitted. The constitution does not demand the impossible. Now, if the sole or primary purpose of the radio station was to promote a particular religious belief, you might have an argument. But what you are proposing is content-specific censorship.

[exmarine]

The better argument is that "god bless" is not a religious message, and is not protected under the Free Exercise clause at all.

What part of "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" do you not understand?

Establishment Clause? Does the student equal Congress, or saying "God bless" equal making a law?

The intend of the 1st amendment is clear - the founders made it clear. The "wall of separation of church and state" was invented in 1947 (Everson case) and did not exist before that time. If you say it did, then you need to explain why there was no restriction on religious speech or activity in school or anywhere else prior to 1947. That's 160 years of precedents pal.

[Steve_Seattle]

The Founding Fathers would be utterly amazed to hear the establishment clause invoked to prohibit the voluntary expression of a religious belief in a public school.

[dubyagee]

"I didn't have a problem with what he said, but [Superintendent Michael] Koebel knows the rules and knows what people can say and can't say," he told the Belleville paper.

Ain't freedom 'o speech, grand?

[Eastbound]

"You can't provide a PA system to someone to make a religious message."

Does that mean that military chaplains will now have to use megaphones paid for out of their own pocket?

Then there is always the question about even paying chaplains out of tax dollars. I suppose they could pass the collection plate and get by.

But wait! Shouldn't it also be illegal to preach on a battleship paid for with tax dollars? Time to keel-haul the chaplain. ;'<

Personally, I think it's hypocritical and dysfunctional of the 'powers-that-be' to allow the pledge of allegiance to the flag of our country in tax-funded schools while disallowing the mention of God under whose inspiration our country and our Constitution was founded.

Did we throw out the baby and keep the bathwater?

[exmarine]

Yeah, life was so much better when we had the government telling our children, at school, what religion was better than others. Ah, the good old days....

Ahh, but it's okay if the school tells a kid that he can't say the word God? Or tells a validictorian that he can't mention the word "Jesus" in his speech? That, my friend, is SUPPRESSION of free speech. He can say all sorts of vulgarities, post gay fliers, but can't say the word God? In what instances, pray tell, does the Free Exercise Clause come into play in your world?

This nation was built on the judeo-Christian principles (the bible) - like it or not, and the bible and God were both in schools from the beginning - from 1620 all the up to 1962. Neither original intent or precedent are on your side.

[exmarine]

Good point! The current legal situation with religious speech is SCHIZOID. The 10 commandments are allowed in this district, but not in another; a student can say God in this district, but not in another; the Supreme Court can have reliefs of Moses but a decalog is not allowed in an Alabama courthouse. The inconsistency is a clear indication that these judges and schools have no idea what they are doing - they are just following their agenda or someone else's agenda without any regard to the rights of the student or individual.

[exmarine]

The Founding Fathers would be utterly amazed to hear the establishment clause invoked to prohibit the voluntary expression of a religious belief in a public school.

Yes, especially since they encouraged the use of the bible in schools.

But America of today does not resemble America of then. The America of today has a government is "de facto" atheist. Since secular humanism is a religion according to the supreme court, isn't the promotion of secular humanism (i.e. atheism in practice) tantamount to a true violation of the Establishment Clause? I would say it is.

[exmarine]

Many people would be surprised to learn that the phrase "wall of separation of church and state" did not originate with Jefferson, but was originally used by a Baptist church leader. Jefferson used the phrase because he was speaking to a Baptist congregation (Danbury) and he knew that they would be familiar with the phrase. The context of the phrase in both instances was in the context of the church being protected from the government. Today, however, the marxists, revisionists, liars, and bigots have twisted it to mean protection of the state from the church. It is PEOPLE that need protection (the church), not the State (a non-entity). I suggest everyone read Jefferson's letter to see for themselves! It's quite plain what he meant!

[Eastbound]

"But America of today does not resemble America of then. The America of today has a government is "de facto" atheist. Since secular humanism is a religion according to the supreme court, isn't the promotion of secular humanism (i.e. atheism in practice) tantamount to a true violation of the Establishment Clause? I would say it is."

I would say so too. What ever happened to 'equal protection under the law?' Shouldn't that include 'equal expression' as well? I would say so.

[dljordan]

If he had said "Goddess Bless" he would have been ok.