Here's how I answer my own question: And to restate the question: What constitutional support is there for telling Mrs. Smith that she can't evangelize from the school podium; secondary question, what reason can be given to have a parent/student right to be free of religion in the classroom.
First, there is no constitutional basis for ruling against the teacher, if you deal purely with the text of the First Amendment. Secondly, there is no basis for ruling against the teacher with an appeal to original intent or historical context of the times of the Framers. However, were I a Supreme Court justice and this case came before the bar, I would rule against Mrs. Smith. While I am sympathetic to Mrs. Smith's plight as a zealous believer in her faith, our society has evolved into a more pluralistic environment than the Founders could ever have imagined. Beth's analogy of hate speech in the work place does have an appropriate context here: Hate speech may be a protected form of free speech, but an employer has an obligation to provide a work place that is free of hostility. One of the primary issues in sexual harassment is that it creates a hostile workplace. As Michael has demonstrated, over zealousness in religion can raise ire and create hostility. Students are no less afforded the opportunity to be educated in an environment free of hostility than workers at their place of employment. Both, in a manner of speaking, are compelled to be at these places. There are all kinds of laws that infringe on our rights. As Justice Holmes noted, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The 1st Amendment was not intended to create anarchy. All rights are subject to rules of appropriate time, manner and place. Mrs. Smith was hired to be an educator, not an evangelist (as, I think, Beth noted). The school has a reasonable expectation that Mrs. Smith will not use class time for activities and subjects not sanctioned by the lesson plan. So, while just about all who ventured into this thread provided a piece of the answer, none where willing to venture forth the obvious fact: The plain language on the Constitution does not prohibit Mrs. Smith's activity. You must draw on the evolution of constitutional law to rule against Mrs. Smith. I pursued this issue because I think it's important to really understand what the Constitution says. Only then can we achieve true religious tolerance, which is really what the First Amendment is all about. Now I have an ancillary question, which I'll pose in a new thread. H. ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
