ACLU- the Anti Christian Liberties Union

[74Hunter]

So much for the ALCU not being blatantly anti Christian.

 

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100929/NEWS01/709309855/0#despite-aclu-warning-talk-goes-on

 

Becker never mentioned Christ or Christianity, though he did urge the nearly 80 students in the Cougar gymnasium to take “the narrow road” referred to in the Bible quote and avoid the poor choices that led to the death of his brother, Todd, in a car crash.

 

“My brother chose the highway to destruction,” Becker said.

 

Lyons-Decatur officials chose to host the program at the school northeast of Fremont, despite a warning from the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska that doing so could violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on establishment of religion.

 

Keith Becker's primary message was that poor choices led to his brother's death and that students can avoid his fate by making good ones.

 

Junior Jesse Smith watched the program and said afterward he didn't feel Becker was preaching.

“I really think that's ridiculous,” he said. “He wasn't trying to teach us his religion or telling us his one was the right one.”

 

Chelsea Appleton said she didn't think the program carried a religious message. The message for her was “that I need to change my life.”

 

“We love our kids. They really need to hear that message: Make good choices,” Hansen said.

 

Amy Miller, legal director for ACLU of Nebraska, said Tuesday that the mention of religion during a school program would not be enough for a challenge.

 

“A tangential reference, speaking personally, probably does not violate the First Amendment. But a primarily religious message or an exhortation for students to follow his path does definitely cross the line,” Miller said.

 

Miller said she was disappointed that Lyons-Decatur chose to allow a program by the Todd Becker Foundation when schools can pick from a variety of other drunk-driving presentations.

 

Really?????? So, because the man is a Christian, this idiot Miller would rather have someone who is non-Christian deliver the message, regardless of how powerful the message is or if those in attendance don't feel that he was not preaching? I'm sure if this person were Muslim quoting the Quran she would have no problem with it.

 

If I ever have kids, I'm gonna go to the ACLU and request that they sue public schools so that they don't teach of Muslim, Islam, Bhuddism, Taoism, etc.

 

What a disgrace.

[carlfense]

So much for the ALCU not being blatantly anti Christian.

 

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100929/NEWS01/709309855/0#despite-aclu-warning-talk-goes-on

 

Becker never mentioned Christ or Christianity, though he did urge the nearly 80 students in the Cougar gymnasium to take “the narrow road” referred to in the Bible quote and avoid the poor choices that led to the death of his brother, Todd, in a car crash.

 

“My brother chose the highway to destruction,” Becker said.

 

Lyons-Decatur officials chose to host the program at the school northeast of Fremont, despite a warning from the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska that doing so could violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on establishment of religion.

 

Keith Becker's primary message was that poor choices led to his brother's death and that students can avoid his fate by making good ones.

 

Junior Jesse Smith watched the program and said afterward he didn't feel Becker was preaching.

“I really think that's ridiculous,” he said. “He wasn't trying to teach us his religion or telling us his one was the right one.”

 

Chelsea Appleton said she didn't think the program carried a religious message. The message for her was “that I need to change my life.”

 

“We love our kids. They really need to hear that message: Make good choices,” Hansen said.

 

Amy Miller, legal director for ACLU of Nebraska, said Tuesday that the mention of religion during a school program would not be enough for a challenge.

 

“A tangential reference, speaking personally, probably does not violate the First Amendment. But a primarily religious message or an exhortation for students to follow his path does definitely cross the line,” Miller said.

 

Miller said she was disappointed that Lyons-Decatur chose to allow a program by the Todd Becker Foundation when schools can pick from a variety of other drunk-driving presentations.

 

Really?????? So, because the man is a Christian, this idiot Miller would rather have someone who is non-Christian deliver the message, regardless of how powerful the message is or if those in attendance don't feel that he was not preaching? I'm sure if this person were Muslim quoting the Quran she would have no problem with it.

 

If I ever have kids, I'm gonna go to the ACLU and request that they sue public schools so that they don't teach of Muslim, Islam, Bhuddism, Taoism, etc.

 

What a disgrace.

 

Regarding the bold, you don't have to request that the ACLU sue public schools if they were preaching Islam, Buddhism, or Taoism. They would do it on their own . . . that's sort of the premise.

 

The Lyons-Decatur issue (near my old hometown!) does sound like a very slim case. It sounds like a positive message that wasn't preaching in any way. If the ACLU filed a lawsuit on this issue I would be very disappointed.

[AR Husker Fan]

So much for the ALCU not being blatantly anti Christian.

 

http://www.omaha.com...ng-talk-goes-on

 

***SNIP***

 

Amy Miller, legal director for ACLU of Nebraska, said Tuesday that the mention of religion during a school program would not be enough for a challenge.

 

"A tangential reference, speaking personally, probably does not violate the First Amendment. But a primarily religious message or an exhortation for students to follow his path does definitely cross the line," Miller said.

 

Miller said she was disappointed that Lyons-Decatur chose to allow a program by the Todd Becker Foundation when schools can pick from a variety of other drunk-driving presentations.

 

Really?????? So, because the man is a Christian, this idiot Miller would rather have someone who is non-Christian deliver the message, regardless of how powerful the message is or if those in attendance don't feel that he was not preaching? I'm sure if this person were Muslim quoting the Quran she would have no problem with it.

 

If I ever have kids, I'm gonna go to the ACLU and request that they sue public schools so that they don't teach of Muslim, Islam, Bhuddism, Taoism, etc.

 

What a disgrace.

I think you've misread it a bit. The article notes that the ACLU had informed schools that using those speakers could violate the constitution. It's reasonable to assume that the reason it phrased it that way is because the Todd Becker Foundation is premised on converting children to Christianity. For example, on its web site, it states: "As we travel around this state, our desire is that our efforts will result in one thing: that young and old alike would turn their lives over, fully over, to Jesus Christ." In other words, the intent of the foundation and its message is to promote Christianity.

 

That's certainly more than enough to raise the concerns of the ACLU or anyone who supports the First Amendment. Note, particularly, that neither Miller or the ACLU said that the particular program presented by the foundation as outlined in the article violated the Constitution.

 

In other words, the article mixes apples and oranges a bit. On the one hand, the ACLU, knowing the avowed purpose of the Foundation and Ron Brown, warned the schools that permitting those speakers could run afoul of the Constitution. On the other hand, neither Miller nor Brown have specifically stated that the specific program given by the Foundation to that specific school, on that specific date, violated the Constitution.

 

Regardless, the fact that a governmental entity provided a forum to an organization that has an avowed purpose of promoting a particular religion would be enough. The intent of the Foundation is unchallenged - it wishes to promote Christianity. It is clearly identified with a promotion of a specific religion - and that connection is well known and well established. Using the Foundation as a speaker, given those facts, certainly smacks of the schools' intent to promote a particular religion. If not, why not use a speaker or organization that is neither identified with, nor has the avowed intent of promoting, a particular religion?

[74Hunter]

I think you've misread it a bit. The article notes that the ACLU had informed schools that using those speakers could violate the constitution. It's reasonable to assume that the reason it phrased it that way is because the Todd Becker Foundation is premised on converting children to Christianity. For example, on its web site, it states: "As we travel around this state, our desire is that our efforts will result in one thing: that young and old alike would turn their lives over, fully over, to Jesus Christ." In other words, the intent of the foundation and its message is to promote Christianity.

I'm sorry, but that argument does not hold water. So this speaker is guilty before proven innocent? Just because he works for or is associated with a Christian organization, even though he does not talk about that in his speech, he should not be able to speak at a public school. I'm playing the BS card on that.

 

Regardless, the fact that a governmental entity provided a forum to an organization that has an avowed purpose of promoting a particular religion would be enough. The intent of the Foundation is unchallenged - it wishes to promote Christianity. It is clearly identified with a promotion of a specific religion - and that connection is well known and well established. Using the Foundation as a speaker, given those facts, certainly smacks of the schools' intent to promote a particular religion. If not, why not use a speaker or organization that is neither identified with, nor has the avowed intent of promoting, a particular religion?

The problem with your argument is that the organization is not making the speech, it is a person affiliated with it, and they are not trying to convert anyone to Christianity. If what you are saying is true, then no person who is affiliated/believes in a religion would be allowed to speak at a public school.

 

I won't buy that explaination.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

So much for the ALCU not being blatantly anti Christian.

 

http://www.omaha.com...ng-talk-goes-on

 

***SNIP***

 

Amy Miller, legal director for ACLU of Nebraska, said Tuesday that the mention of religion during a school program would not be enough for a challenge.

 

"A tangential reference, speaking personally, probably does not violate the First Amendment. But a primarily religious message or an exhortation for students to follow his path does definitely cross the line," Miller said.

 

Miller said she was disappointed that Lyons-Decatur chose to allow a program by the Todd Becker Foundation when schools can pick from a variety of other drunk-driving presentations.

 

Really?????? So, because the man is a Christian, this idiot Miller would rather have someone who is non-Christian deliver the message, regardless of how powerful the message is or if those in attendance don't feel that he was not preaching? I'm sure if this person were Muslim quoting the Quran she would have no problem with it.

 

If I ever have kids, I'm gonna go to the ACLU and request that they sue public schools so that they don't teach of Muslim, Islam, Bhuddism, Taoism, etc.

 

What a disgrace.

I think you've misread it a bit. The article notes that the ACLU had informed schools that using those speakers could violate the constitution. It's reasonable to assume that the reason it phrased it that way is because the Todd Becker Foundation is premised on converting children to Christianity. For example, on its web site, it states: "As we travel around this state, our desire is that our efforts will result in one thing: that young and old alike would turn their lives over, fully over, to Jesus Christ." In other words, the intent of the foundation and its message is to promote Christianity.

 

That's certainly more than enough to raise the concerns of the ACLU or anyone who supports the First Amendment. Note, particularly, that neither Miller or the ACLU said that the particular program presented by the foundation as outlined in the article violated the Constitution.

 

In other words, the article mixes apples and oranges a bit. On the one hand, the ACLU, knowing the avowed purpose of the Foundation and Ron Brown, warned the schools that permitting those speakers could run afoul of the Constitution. On the other hand, neither Miller nor Brown have specifically stated that the specific program given by the Foundation to that specific school, on that specific date, violated the Constitution.

 

Regardless, the fact that a governmental entity provided a forum to an organization that has an avowed purpose of promoting a particular religion would be enough. The intent of the Foundation is unchallenged - it wishes to promote Christianity. It is clearly identified with a promotion of a specific religion - and that connection is well known and well established. Using the Foundation as a speaker, given those facts, certainly smacks of the schools' intent to promote a particular religion. If not, why not use a speaker or organization that is neither identified with, nor has the avowed intent of promoting, a particular religion?

 

So you would not bring in a vet who later became a Rabbi, to give a talk about the realities of war and how he survived, because he MIGHT say God helped him, and he can help you through your life also? That, my friend, is over the line...

[Manhattan]

Anecdotal evidence for the win...

[AR Husker Fan]

I'm sorry, but that argument does not hold water. So this speaker is guilty before proven innocent? Just because he works for or is associated with a Christian organization, even though he does not talk about that in his speech, he should not be able to speak at a public school. I'm playing the BS card on that.

He appeared, as I understand it, as the representative of a foundation that offers a program to interested parties, and has an avowed goal of promoting a particular faith. Like it or not, he represents that foundation. Offering him up to students is therefore, an endorsement of that organization, and the views it espouses.

 

 

The problem with your argument is that the organization is not making the speech, it is a person affiliated with it, and they are not trying to convert anyone to Christianity. If what you are saying is true, then no person who is affiliated/believes in a religion would be allowed to speak at a public school.

 

I won't buy that explaination.

No organization can make a speech - only the people that represent it. Based on your argument, no organization could ever be determined to be advocating its beliefs since the organizations don't make the speeches - only the people representing the organizations. Again, like it or not, he is the face and the representative of that organization, and the school's proffering of him amounts to the school endorsing that organization. Saying that a person that represents an organization gets a pass just because the person isn't the organization doesn't hold water.

[AR Husker Fan]

So you would not bring in a vet who later became a Rabbi, to give a talk about the realities of war and how he survived, because he MIGHT say God helped him, and he can help you through your life also? That, my friend, is over the line...

Actually, that's not what I said. I said that if you bring in someone as a representative of an organization that promotes a particular faith, and provides his or her views on life for the avowed purpose of converting people to that faith, as is the case here, then the actions of the school act as an endorsement and promotion of that faith. That violates the Constitution.

 

As an example, assume that the vet becomes a Rabbi, and as a representative of his synagogue develops a program to present to schools with the avowed purpose of converting people to Judaism - then the school that brings the Rabbi in to provide that program is endorsing and promoting that faith.

[huskertim]

Gotta disagree with you AR. The government cannot regulate a citizens intention only his actions.

To invoke restriction in this manner would constitute a "govenment hostility to religion or religious teachings" a violation of both the first and fourteenth amendment .

To qoute Justice Hugo Black "For the First amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and govenment can best work to acheive their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere" (majority opion McCollum v Board of Education 1948). This is clearly a two way street.

Mere use of a public school facility does not constitute an endorsement of a religion any more than the Gay Lebian Allience meeting at Central High School is an endorsement of homosexuallity or the needle exchange program in San Francisco is an endorsement of drug abuse. (see Zorach v Clauson 1952 [or am I being to anecdotal]).

[AR Husker Fan]

Gotta disagree with you AR. The government cannot regulate a citizens intention only his actions.

Actually, the correct statement is that the government cannot regulate a citizen based only on his or her intentions. Put another way, the government regulates intention when paired with action. As an example, if you fire a gun in the woods and kill someone, the government regulates that conduct - but it does so after determining intent. If you intended to kill the person, it becomes a murder charge. If you didn't, it becomes manslaughter or other lesser crime.

 

Another example is the "free speech" example of shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. If you do so with the intention of warning the theater-goers of a danger that requires their evacuation, then the speech is protected. If you do so for the intent of causing panic, then it is not.

 

However, more pertinent is the fact that the conduct and intent that is at issue is that of the school - not the speaker. The speaker provides the message, but the issue is whether the school's action constitutes a violation of the Constitution.

 

 

To invoke restriction in this manner would constitute a "govenment hostility to religion or religious teachings" a violation of both the first and fourteenth amendment .

Nope. See above. While the government cannot regulate based on intent alone, it can regulate intent when coupled with action. Again, however, the pertinent issue is the acts of the school district. The intent of the speaker is a fact in judging the acts of the school.

 

 

To qoute Justice Hugo Black "For the First amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and govenment can best work to acheive their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere" (majority opion McCollum v Board of Education 1948). This is clearly a two way street.

Mere use of a public school facility does not constitute an endorsement of a religion any more than the Gay Lebian Allience meeting at Central High School is an endorsement of homosexuallity or the needle exchange program in San Francisco is an endorsement of drug abuse. (see Zorach v Clauson 1952 [or am I being to anecdotal]).

The current legal standard is a three-prong test known as the "Lemon Test". See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). Under that test, the three prongs, as applied to a school, are:

 

1. Whether the district adopted its policy or practice with a neutral or non-religious purpose.

2. Whether the policy's or the practice's principal or primary effect is one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.

3. The policy or practice must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.

 

Applying the test in the order listed above:

 

1. If the school district adopted a policy or practice to promote some kind of anti-drug or alcohol program, why utilize a foundation who's avowed purpose is to promote Christianity when non-religious alternatives exist? The school recognized that the program promoted a particular fairth; if not, why did the school provide, as noted in the article, a study hall for students that did not want to attend?

2. Again, the school seemed to be aware that the program was designed to promote a particular religion, else it would not have provided an alternative to the program. If the program did not promote a particular religion, the school could have made attendance mandatory. If the intention of the policy or practice was to instruct students in the danger of drugs and alcohol, then it could have easily found a program that did not promote a particular religion and then made attendance mandatory.

3. Again, the school district recognized the intent of the presentation, which is why it offered an alternative. Continuing to offer the presentation, with that knowledge, constitutes endorsement, which in turn constitutes an excessive entanglement of government with religion.

[carlfense]

It's like ConLaw II all over again.

[AR Husker Fan]

It's like ConLaw II all over again.

LOL!

 

What'll you get my bill for educational services rendered!

[huskertim]

Actually, the correct statement is that the government cannot regulate a citizen based only on his or her intentions. Put another way, the government regulates intention when paired with action. As an example, if you fire a gun in the woods and kill someone, the government regulates that conduct - but it does so after determining intent. If you intended to kill the person, it becomes a murder charge. If you didn't, it becomes manslaughter or other lesser crime.

 

Yes, but intent is never the crime, it is the action. (I guess maybe consirisy would negate that statement) The gun must be fired, the shout must be shouted, then intent can be established, not before. Yes, the speech was given, now if religious instruction didn't occur, as most the quotes seem to suggest, than how do you impune intent without action.

 

. If the school district adopted a policy or practice to promote some kind of anti-drug or alcohol program, why utilize a foundation who's avowed purpose is to promote Christianity when non-religious alternatives exist? The school recognized that the program promoted a particular fairth; if not, why did the school provide, as noted in the article, a study hall for students that did not want to attend?

 

Why indeed? If the program has been shown to be effective and the stated purpose of the program is not of a religious nature then I submit that seeking groups specifically to avoid any religious affiliation is bias against this group based on thier religious beliefs which is the whole point of the sepation of church and state to begin with. As to why offer alternatives (study hall)? I would suggest that would be to avoid the apperance of inpropriety that might trigger a sue happy parent or obtrusive political union to explore costly litigation. Frankly, I would have avoided this group altogether for that very reason.

 

2. Again, the school seemed to be aware that the program was designed to promote a particular religion, else it would not have provided an alternative to the program. If the program did not promote a particular religion, the school could have made attendance mandatory. If the intention of the policy or practice was to instruct students in the danger of drugs and alcohol, then it could have easily found a program that did not promote a particular religion and then made attendance mandatory.

 

By particular religion, are l you suggesting that general religious expression and instruction would be acceptable? Isn't that kind what the message was? Where does one draw that line?

 

 

3. Again, the school district recognized the intent of the presentation, which is why it offered an alternative. Continuing to offer the presentation, with that knowledge, constitutes endorsement, which in turn constitutes an excessive entanglement of government with religion.

 

Excessive entanglement could be interpeted to mean passing association by this broad of a standard, after all Lemon did not strike down or invalidate Zorach v Clauson and it didn't criminalize religious interaction with th community at large, even the school system.

 

As much as we are lead to belive that absolute separation is the only acceptable measure to the courts, they still use religious programs for deversion. If this isn't the very heart of the legal system endorseing religion, then certainly an anti drug program put on by a religious oganization must at least be considered on the merit of it's message and not on the beliefs that organization may hold. They were very careful not to cross that line.

[huskertim]

Sorry, I haven't quite figured out how to use that partial quote thing yet. Given my disdain for all this technical crap, I'll have to ask my teenager to show me how it's done.

[AR Husker Fan]

Actually, the correct statement is that the government cannot regulate a citizen based only on his or her intentions. Put another way, the government regulates intention when paired with action. As an example, if you fire a gun in the woods and kill someone, the government regulates that conduct - but it does so after determining intent. If you intended to kill the person, it becomes a murder charge. If you didn't, it becomes manslaughter or other lesser crime.

Yes, but intent is never the crime, it is the action. (I guess maybe consirisy would negate that statement) The gun must be fired, the shout must be shouted, then intent can be established, not before. Yes, the speech was given, now if religious instruction didn't occur, as most the quotes seem to suggest, than how do you impune intent without action.

No, the action standing alone doesn't constitute the crime; criminal statutes always combine action with intent - it's part of the definition. Take statutory rape - most people think that the action (having sex with a person defined as "too young" as compared to the other person) is the crime. It isn't - it's the act of having sex with an underage person coupled (no pun intended) with the intent to have sex with that person. Another example in which the act alone would seem to be the basis of the crime is DUI or DWI. A lot of people believe that the crime is the act of driving after drinking even if the person lacked the capacity to form an intent to violate the law, or the inability to recognize the degree of impairment. The intent, however, is the intent to drink. A defense to DUI (kids, don't try this at home) is to show that you were forced to drink at penalty of death, and then had to drive to escape the threat. You had no intent to drink - you were forced to. You had no intent to drive - you were forced to. When you form the intent to drink, you are still responsible for your acts thereafter. The crime is always intent coupled with the action. And intent doesn't have to be established after the act. The intent is actually established before the act - did he aim the gun at the person, recognize he was a person, decide to pull the trigger because he wanted to kill him, then pulled the trigger. I think what you mean is that a third party will try and determine the intent and that necessarily happens after the act is committed - the police officer is called out to the scene in which the act occurred, then looks to the facts to determine the person's intent. But that's not the criminal act - that occurred when a person intends to do something, commits an act in furtherance of that intent, and then does it.

 

Intent is established by the third party based on the facts - the statements of the person committing the act, witnesses or others, the way the act was commited, etc. As to the speech, one of those facts is that the foundation through its representatives intends its program to promote a specific religion. It isn't simply the words used in the speech; it is the reason the program was created - there are myriad factors. As examples - when the school promoted the program (and by "promote" I mean advertise or inform students of it), did it post notices? Did those notices include a reference to the foundation, its web site, or its Chirstian mission or affiliation? Did the speaker provide additional materials that pointed to the web site, or state the purpose of the foundations, etc.? I don't know - but I wouldn't be surprised either way. But those are facts from which intent can be inferred. The one fact we do have is that the foundation, through its representatives, intends the program to "bring people to Jesus Christ." So, there is at least one fact that shows the intent of the speaker. There may be others. This is why the ACLU has said that using the particular speakers it named may violate the Consititution. But given what little we know, it is not unreasonable to see an intent to promote a religion by the speaker; that's why the program was created as stated by the program creators. Now, knowing that, the intent of the school can also be inferred - again, absent other facts. But for the school, there is the additional fact that it apparently felt that there was enough of an issue to offer students an alternative to the program, and to not make the program mandatory.

 

1. If the school district adopted a policy or practice to promote some kind of anti-drug or alcohol program, why utilize a foundation who's avowed purpose is to promote Christianity when non-religious alternatives exist? The school recognized that the program promoted a particular fairth; if not, why did the school provide, as noted in the article, a study hall for students that did not want to attend?

Why indeed? If the program has been shown to be effective and the stated purpose of the program is not of a religious nature then I submit that seeking groups specifically to avoid any religious affiliation is bias against this group based on thier religious beliefs which is the whole point of the sepation of church and state to begin with. As to why offer alternatives (study hall)? I would suggest that would be to avoid the apperance of inpropriety that might trigger a sue happy parent or obtrusive political union to explore costly litigation. Frankly, I would have avoided this group altogether for that very reason.

I would agree that, if the program had proven to be an effective deterient to drug abuse by teens, and if the stated purpose of the program was not of a religious nature, then there is nothing wrong with it, and I agree that not using them (if they meet all qualification) is bias. It would be the same if a city decides to construct a road - they can't ignore a particular vendor based on the vendor's religious views. But if the vendor had equipment that had religious slogans on it, and the vendor made clear that the reason for his taking jobs was to promote his religion, then the city couldn't do it. The problem is that the program was, by admission of the program itself, is of a religious nature, and is designed to "bring people to Jesus Christ."

 

 

2. Again, the school seemed to be aware that the program was designed to promote a particular religion, else it would not have provided an alternative to the program. If the program did not promote a particular religion, the school could have made attendance mandatory. If the intention of the policy or practice was to instruct students in the danger of drugs and alcohol, then it could have easily found a program that did not promote a particular religion and then made attendance mandatory.

By particular religion, are l you suggesting that general religious expression and instruction would be acceptable? Isn't that kind what the message was? Where does one draw that line?

I'm not sure that there is such a thing as "general religious expression and instruction." Would that be a belief in a god or diety? What about belief systems that do not speak to a diety? They exist, and if the general religious expression and instruction includes the belief in a diety, then it promotes one form of religion, or a specific religion, over another.. Beyond that, you get into the specifics of a religion of some sort, which becomes the promotion of that religion.

 

3. Again, the school district recognized the intent of the presentation, which is why it offered an alternative. Continuing to offer the presentation, with that knowledge, constitutes endorsement, which in turn constitutes an excessive entanglement of government with religion.

Excessive entanglement could be interpeted to mean passing association by this broad of a standard, after all Lemon did not strike down or invalidate Zorach v Clauson and it didn't criminalize religious interaction with th community at large, even the school system.

 

As much as we are lead to belive that absolute separation is the only acceptable measure to the courts, they still use religious programs for deversion. If this isn't the very heart of the legal system endorseing religion, then certainly an anti drug program put on by a religious oganization must at least be considered on the merit of it's message and not on the beliefs that organization may hold. They were very careful not to cross that line.

I disagree that the organization must be judged on the merits of its program. The program may, in fact, be sucessful in diverting children from drugs. In that case, it has merit. But the issue is whether the program promotes a religion. If it does, then by extension so too does the school that utilized the program; it acts as an enabler of the intent of the program. An excessive entanglement in religion.