Skip to comments.

Posted on 12/11/2001 10:44:10 AM PST by ICE-FLYER

To see the original thread and article for which I wrote to this Principal about click here

I got a letter in the mail today from the Principal of Division Street Elementary School in Saratoga Springs School District in New York. As I only live a matter of 40 minutes away his response was quick to get back to me. I faxed him the following last week:

Thomas Mele
Principal Division Street Elementary School
220 Division Street
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866

RE: Enclosed Article

Dear Mr. Mele,

I am often in debate with folks on history and the significance of the 1st Amendment and what it may or may not mean. I am not writing to berate you nor to imply that your intentions are either sincere or not sincere, but rather to get you to understand that there is great significance in what you do as a principle and in education.

I am sure that you do know that the words “Separation of Church and State” do not at all exist in any government document. Not in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution. It is inferred by people that it is in the constitution. I am sure as an educator that you know of its origin. Since President Jefferson had NOTHING to do with the Constitution, he was in France at the time of its creation, he did not write it in there. Rather, he wrote it in a letter and it was used later, many years later.

For your benefit, here is the Congressional record on the debate about the first amendment and its religion clause:

August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State[s]...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.
(Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834, Vol. I pp. 757-759, August 15, 1789)

I did not invent this. It is our founders and framers words. It is very clear. There is no room for invention of meaning. Our Constitution is not some fluid document to change with whimsy or someone’s “feeling”; it is a document of absolutes with a vehicle for change called an Amendment.

Jefferson was very thoughtful in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in which the famous misused phrase comes from. He wrote at one time when asked about Constitutional interpretation:

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed"
[Thomas Jefferson, memoir, Correspondence and Miscellanies From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson. (Boston: Gray & Bowan, 1830)

Jefferson knew full well that the intentions of people to distort the meaning of the constitution had to be fought.

Following this is information regarding case precedent related to schools and religious holidays. I hope it helps you to see that decorations in the classroom are protected. It is a right of the students to express their faith or their celebration of this Christmas holiday, or that of Hanukkah, or other such holiday.

Are students allowed to sing Christmas carols with religious themes at school events or in holiday programs? YES. You should be aware that no court has ever banned the singing of religious Christmas carols by public school choirs. A case that addressed this specific issue upheld the singing of religious Christmas carols in public schools. In Florey v. Sioux Falls School Dist., 619 F.2d 1311 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 449 U.S. 987 (1980), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the study and performance of religious songs, including Christmas carols, is constitutional if the purpose of the study and performances is the "advancement of the students' knowledge of society's cultural and religious heritage as well as the provision of an opportunity for students to perform a full range of music, poetry, and drama that is likely to be of interest to the students and their audience." Id. at 1314. The federal appeals court in Florey found that religious songs and symbols can be used in public schools if they are presented in a "prudent and objective manner and only as part of the cultural and religious heritage of the holiday." Id. at 1317. It is important to note that the decision in Florey was based on two U.S. Supreme Court cases that permit the study of the Bible in public schools. In School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963), the Supreme Court stated, "It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment."

In Bauchman v. West High School, 132 F.3d 542 (10th Cir. 1997), a student sued the school because of, among other things, the religious content of the songs performed by the school choir. The court dismissed the lawsuit, noting that "the Constitution does not require that the purpose of every government-sanctioned activity be unrelated to religion." Id. at 553. Furthermore, the court recognized that "a significant percentage of serious choral music is based on religious themes or text. . . . Any choral curriculum designed to expose students to the full array of vocal music culture therefore can be expected to reflect a significant number of religious songs." Id., (internal citation omitted).

Can schools teach about the biblical origin of the Christmas holiday?
YES. In Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980), the Supreme Court stated, "the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like." Therefore, it would be constitutional for a public school teacher to have students study the Biblical passages that relate to Christmas (e.g., Matthew 1:18 - 2:22 and Luke 2:1-20) if the purpose was to study the historical or literary significance of the passages. The federal appeals court in Florey defined what activities are considered a part of the word "study," by stating that "[w]e view the term 'study' to include more than mere classroom instruction; public performance may be a legitimate part of secular study." Florey, 619 F.2d at 1316. The Florey court went on to quote the lower court with approval by stating that "to allow students only to study and not to perform [religious art, literature and music when] such works . . . have developed an independent secular and artistic significance would give students a truncated view of our culture." Id. Of course, any student that had ideological or religious objections should be excused from the assignment.

In addition, it is important to note that President Clinton expressed concern that some school officials and community members incorrectly assume that schools must be religion free zones. To clarify this issue, President Clinton requested the Secretary of Education, Richard W. Riley, to issue guidelines which address the extent religious expression and teaching are allowed in our nation's public schools. In response, the United States Department of Education provided guidelines to the nation's school superintendents stating that "[p]ublic schools may not provide religious instruction, but they may teach about religion, including the Bible or other scripture. . . . Similarly, it is permissible to consider religious influences on art, music, literature, and social studies." Religious Expression in Public Schools, Directive of Richard Riley, Secretary of Education, Page 3. The guidelines further state that "public schools may teach about religious holidays, including their religious aspects, and may celebrate the secular aspects of the holidays. . . ." Id. In addition, "[t]eachers and administrators are prohibited from discouraging activity because of its religious content, and from soliciting or encouraging anti-religious activity." Id. The guidelines clearly establish that students and teachers may celebrate the Christmas holiday without fear of running afoul of the Establishment Clause.

Are students permitted to write about the origin of Christmas and the birth of Jesus or other religious sentiments in school assignments?
YES. Some educators have been misinformed by special interest groups that school officials must ban all religious speech in the public schools because of the doctrine of the "separation of church and state." It is well settled, however, that private religious speech is protected by the First Amendment. In Pinette, the Supreme Court stated:
Our precedent establishes that private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression. Indeed, in Anglo-American history, at least, government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince. 515 U.S. 760, 115 S.Ct. at 2446 (internal citations omitted). In Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990) (emphasis in original), the Court held: "[t]here is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." Consequently, students have the free speech rights to "express their beliefs about religion in the form of homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free of discrimination based on the religious contents of their submissions." U.S. Dept. of Education Guidelines at 4.

May schools continue to refer to the winter vacation as "Christmas" break?
YES. School districts are under no constitutional obligation to rename "Christmas vacation" as "Winter Vacation" or some similar name. The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged with approval that Congress gives federal employees a paid holiday on December 25 and Congress calls it "Christmas." See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 675, 680 (1984).

If you have any questions that you feel I may be of help with please call me and I will gladly do research for you.

Regards,

SIGNED

Here is his reply to me dated December 7, 2001:

Dear Mr. ++++++++,

Thank you for your fax. I will add it to my file on religious observations. I have also enclosed an article written by the Managing Editor of the Saratogian, Mrs. Barbara Lombardo.[see after this letter] As you can see, the story written the day before by their school reporter was completly incorrect.

I have responded to all the e-mails, facsimilies, phone calls and letters regarding this event. To say the least I am deeply hurt by their irresponsible behavior. I have been an educator for 28 years with an exemplary record and a reputation of being a true advocate for children. I am an unfortunate victim of yellow journalism.

Our school is always decorated according to the season. We pride ourselves with our proactice approach toward meeting the diverse needs of our students. We are truly a school that works. Feel free to visit us if you are in Saratoga.

Sincerely

SIGNED ----------------------------------

Article writte by Managing Editor of Saratogian:

CLARK BELL/The Saratogian Principal Tom Mele stands in the main office at Division Street Elementary School Wednesday, surrounded by holiday decorations. SARATOGA SPRINGS -- The holidays will go on -- and there will be signs of them in the Division Street Elementary School and other schools in the Saratoga Springs school district.

A newly adopted district policy prompted Division Street Principal Thomas Mele to hold a staff meeting Wednesday to discuss how to handle ceremonies and observances tied to religion. Contrary to reports on this page Tuesday, Mele said he did not take down snowflakes, holiday ornaments or anything else from any classroom. ''I have snowflakes hanging in the main office,'' Mele said Wednesday. Mele said he left it up to a teacher to decide last week whether to display children's ornaments, some of which were Christmas balls saying ''Merry Christmas.'' The teacher decided not to hang the ornaments, but did post children's writings about the holidays, Mele said. The Saratoga Springs public schools, like districts across the country, face the challenge of abiding by the U.S. Constitution, being sensitive to students and considering community sensibilities. The district's policy emphasizes recognizing the pluralism of religious beliefs and showing respect for others. The policy basically prohibits the display of religious objects or symbols except when being used for instructional purposes, such as examples of cultural or religious heritage. It also states that ''symbols that are secular and seasonal in nature such as Santa Claus, decorated trees and Easter bunnies can be displayed in seasonal context.'' The gist of the directive, as described by Superintendent John MacFadden, is to ''use good judgment. Try to be diverse, try to be sensitive.'' Each school is likely to handle the holidays a little differently, MacFadden said, but overall, there probably won't be much of a difference from how things were done the year before. At Division Street, Mele said, ''Our school prides itself on the ethnic diversity of our student body and works diligently to meet their individual needs, instructionally, emotionally and socially.''

©The Saratogian 2001

BARBARA LOMBARDO I don't know Tom Mele, the principal of Division Street Elementary School, but I know about class, and I can tell you he has it.

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.