Cobb County update

Posted 28 October 2004 by Timothy Sandefur

For those following the Cobb County disclaimer case, the law firm handling the case has informed me that trial has been set for November 8. (Court dates are, of course, always subject to change.)

18 Comments

Great White Wonder · 29 October 2004

More goofy examples of conservative evangelical christian creationists at "work," in our public schools: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/29/forbidden.flier.ap/index.html

LIVERPOOL, New York (AP) -- A fourth-grader and her mother claim a school district violated the girl's constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection by refusing to allow her to distribute "personal statement" fliers to other students because they carried a religious message. ... According to the lawsuit, the school district near Syracuse repeatedly denied Martin's requests for Michaela to pass out a homemade "personal statement" flier to other students at Nate Perry Elementary School. The flier, about the size of a greeting card, starts out: "Hi! My name is Michaela and I would like to tell you about my life and how Jesus Christ gave me a new one." The flier mentions five ways in which Jesus had come into her life. "This is nothing less than viewpoint discrimination," said Mat Staver, an attorney and executive director of Liberty Counsel, an Orlando, Florida-based conservative legal group that is representing Bloodgood. According to the lawsuit, Liverpool officials said Michaela could not distribute it because her flier was religious and that there was "a substantial probability" that other parents and students might misunderstand and presume that the district was "endorsing" the religious statements in the flier. "The idea that people would think the district was endorsing Michaela's statements is simply absurd. Schools do not endorse everything they allow students to distribute," Staver said.

It would be interesting if this case involved a student handing out a pamphlet teaching ID nonsense, which was then used by a student to raise questions in biology class, followed by a concise disembowelment by the teacher of the concept that ID is science. Does anyone doubt that the parent of this child would complain that her child's "viewpoint" was being "discriminated against" by the teacher? Bloody hypocrites.

Timothy Sandefur · 29 October 2004

I strongly disagree. If the facts are as this report says, there is a very good argument that the school is violating Ms. Bloodgood's constitutional right to freedom of speech. In Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the Supreme Court held that students in public schools have a right to free speech, and that schools may not bar students from expressing themselves, unless that expression is disruptive to the school environment. I seriously doubt that Ms. Bloodgood is disrupting the school by handing out such fliers, particularly since, according to this story, she intended to pass out these flyers during non-instructional periods of the day.

Great White Wonder's irrationally extreme contempt for religious people frequently leads him to declare that their constitutional rights should not be respected. I do not believe this is a view that most defenders of evolution share, or that most atheists share, and I very much hope that readers of this blog will not construe his posts as representative of our position.

Wonder also says that "if this case involved a student handing out a pamphlet teaching ID nonsense, which was then used by a student to raise questions in biology class, followed by a concise disembowelment by the teacher of the concept that ID is science," that "the parent...would complain that her child's 'viewpoint' was being 'discriminated against.'" Perhaps. And if so, the parent would be wrong. But that is not even close to the situation we have here. Anyone has the right to criticize a pamphlet when it's handed to him. But the government may not forbid the passing out of pamphlets in the first place (unless it's disruptive to school activity). If the school prohibited the student from passing out the pamphlet to begin with, that student would be correct to complain of a violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects everybody's right to publicize faulty arguments, even in public schools.

Flint · 29 October 2004

Timothy Sandefur:

Does it make a difference that the pamphlet is only handed out during non-instructional periods? Would it make a difference if this led to clear disruption during subsequent classroom instruction? If it did, how might this be established? How does the school make it clear that by permitting or codoning the activity, they are not endorsing the message? Is that important?

It seems nearly overwhelmingly self-evident that this girl is acting as a proxy for a parent who qualifies (at the very least) as pushy and aggressive, and is following parental instructions. Does it matter whose speech is protected at the school, or must the law presume this girl is acting independently? Is there any legal distinction between speaking and soliciting? If someone with a competing message (or many such people with many messages) went into competition during these non-instructional periods, would the school be justified in prohibiting the practice on different grounds? I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.

Timothy Sandefur · 29 October 2004

Flint asks, "Does it make a difference that the pamphlet is only handed out during non-instructional periods?" Not necessarily. In Tinker, the children wore black armbands with peace symbols on them, to protest American involvement in the Vietnam War. They wore these armbands during class. But wearing the bands was not disruptive, and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Flint then asks, what "if this led to clear disruption during subsequent classroom instruction?" The Court in Tinker said that

undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.... In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would 'materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,' the prohibition cannot be sustained.

Tinker, 393 U.S. at 508-09. Tinker held that schools may silence student-sponsored expression when such expression would "materially disrupt[ ] classwork or involve[ ] substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others...." Id. at 513. See also Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Regional Bd. of Educ., 307 F.3d 243, 253 (3d Cir. 2002) ("Tinker requires a specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance....' In sum, 'if a school can point to a well-founded expectation of disruption---especially one based on past incidents arising out of similar speech---the restriction may pass constitutional muster.'") So how does a school go about establishing when a student's attempted expression is disruptive enough to permit suppression? Unfortunately for students, the courts tend to be very deferential in this respect. In Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), the Court explained that

A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its "basic educational mission," Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v.] Fraser, 478 U.S. [675,] 685 [(1986)], even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school. Accordingly, we held in Fraser that a student could be disciplined for having delivered a speech that was "sexually explicit" but not legally obscene at an official school assembly, because the school was entitled to "disassociate itself" from the speech in a manner that would demonstrate to others that such vulgarity is "wholly inconsistent with the 'fundamental values' of public school education." 478 U.S. at 685-86. We thus recognized that "[t]he determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board," id. at 683, rather than with the federal courts.

Id. at 266-67 (emphasis added). In Sypniewski, 307 F.3d at 255, the court noted that "an expectation of disruption will most likely be 'well-founded' where there have been 'past incidents arising out of similar speech,'" and that "in the absence of such evidence, courts have concluded that school authorities have failed to establish a sufficient likelihood of disruption to support banning" speech. Id. at 254. It concluded that "[w]here a school seeks to suppress...[expression]...it must...point to a particular and concrete basis for concluding that the [expression]...give rise to well-founded fear of genuine disruption in the form of substantially interfering with school operations or with the rights of others. In other words, it is not enough that speech is generally similar to speech involved in past incidents of disruption, it must be similar in the right way." Id. at 257. Establishing what a "well-founded expectation of disruption" means may be difficult, but from the CNN story, it seems to me very unlikely that handing out these flyers could come close to such a thing. Flint further asks, "ow does the school make it clear that by permitting or codoning the activity, they are not endorsing the message? Is that important?" I think it is important---the school may not endorse a religious message. It may send a flier out to parents and students saying "We don't endorse or condemn these flyers" or something of that nature. It may write a policy requiring students who wish to hand flyers out to include a footnote that says "This flyer does not necessarily represent the views of..." I think that would be fine. Merely permitting anyone who hands out a non-obscene flyer, however, seems enough to me. I can't believe anyone would rationally conclude that the state is endorsing religion by allowing Ms. Bloodgood to distribute this flier. There might be a difference between speaking and soliciting, but I think this is clearly a case of speaking, so that's irrelevant. If a "competing" student wanted to hand out a different message---say, an atheist student wanted to hand out a flier on atheism---that would also be constitutionally protected. If there got to be too many fliers, so that it was disruptive, or that there was a problem with litter, then the school could certainly ban all fliers for that reason. But the CNN story mentions that the school has permitted other fliers in the past. Finally, even if we assume that this student is "acting as a proxy" for the parent, I don't see what difference that makes. There's no evidence that this is the case, but even if it were, the parent has the right to free speech as well, and the school may not prohibit her from speaking on school grounds. (Well, it may exclude people from school grounds for non-speech-related reasons, like security, but that's another issue.) So the question of whether the girl is acting independently or not is irrelevant. I believe Tinker to be one of the great cases in Constitutional law, and I hope we long remember the Court's conclusion:
tate-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views... ~~chool officials cannot suppress "expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend."~~
~~393 U.S. at 511.~~

Flint · 29 October 2004
Thanks, that's pretty clear.

Great White Wonder · 29 October 2004
Mr. Sandefur writes
Great White Wonder's irrationally extreme contempt for religious people frequently leads him to declare that their constitutional rights should not be respected.
I never said anything of the sort, Mr. Sandefur! I only described what I anticipated would be an example of hypocricy on the part of these would-be preachers in public school hallways, in a hypothetical (but not unlikely) circumstance. And I characterized the brat handing out the pamphlets as "goofy." I agree that it's a close constitutional issue but I would make the following argument. Religious tracts, unlike anti-war statements, YMCA and camp-related literature, -- and particularly fundamentalist religious tracts which I am 99.99% certain these are -- are inherently derogatory to anyone who does not share the flyer distributer's religious views. Those dissenting persons -- including Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and gays -- are not merely "uninformed," they are DAMNED to rot in hell for all eternity. I don't know what the five reasons were for believing in Jesus which were listed on the pamphlet. Would I be surprised if one of them was "only believers will receive eternal salvation." Based on the inherent (or explicit) content of the fundamenalist tract, I would argue that handing out fundamentalist religious tracts in a public school is disruptive to public schooling per se, as they are inherently intolerant and insulting of other students. Would I be permitted to express my "view" with a flyer that says "Only an Idiot Believes That the Bible Is Literally True" ? How is that any difference from the view expressed in the pamphlets? I'm guessing that my view would be considered "disruptive" somehow. Fyi, there's tons more of this all the time because the fundies just can't help themselves. Consider the case of mega-creep Tyler Chase Harper, a 16 year old who has already has all the answers: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040917/news_7m17speech.html Student's message offensive, says lawyer for school district By Onell R. Soto STAFF WRITER September 17, 2004 This photo of student's T-shirt is displayed on the Alliance Defense Fund's Web site. If Poway High School officials can let students promote tolerance of homosexuality, they should allow a religious student with an opposing viewpoint to wear it on his shirt, a lawyer proposed to a federal judge yesterday. A lawyer for the school district said it wasn't that simple. The message on the shirt -- "Homosexuality is shameful" -- is offensive and could have disrupted classes, even though it's biblical, said district lawyer Jack Sleeth. He asked U.S. District Judge John A. Houston to throw out the case. After hearing from the lawyers for 90 minutes without hinting whose arguments he found most persuasive, the judge said he would rule later. He didn't say when. The case landed in federal court after a teacher saw Tyler Chase Harper on April 22 wearing a T-shirt with masking tape on the front and the back. On the tape, the 16-year-old had written "Homosexuality is shameful. Romans 1:27," "Be ashamed" and "Our school embraced what God has condemned." A day earlier, a campus group had taken part in a "Day of Silence," a national observance promoting tolerance of gays and lesbians. Tyler Chase Harper is suing district. The teacher sent the student, who goes by his middle name, to the school office. He refused to take the shirt off or cover the sayings, and he was ordered to stay in the office until the end of the school day. Chase, backed by a Christian legal advocacy group, the Alliance Defense Fund, sued the Poway Unified School District this summer. His lawyer told the judge yesterday that Chase's Christian faith moved him to wear the anti-gay language because he believes homosexuality is dangerous. "He comes not with a heart of hate, but a heart of compassion," lawyer Robert Tyler said. Does anyone need evidence that fundamentalist evangelical Christianity is inherently intolerant and insulting towards others (other than recognition that the core belief of fundamentalist evangelical christians is that unless you believe in the literal truth of the bible you are going to rot in hell until the end of time)? How about this highly relevant news article http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2004/04/02/4 There's more where that came from. Would the United States be a better country if people here placed the secular country and the freedoms it alone can guarantee before the imagined wishes of their gods? Undoubtedly. Hence, the Establishment Clause, which only requires a few more intelligent Supreme Court justices to interpret it as broadly as it should be interpreted.

Flint · 29 October 2004
GWW:
If I understand the legalities correctly, your anti-Christian competitive message would be guaranteed to touch off a small riot, at the explicit instruction to CAUSE a riot on the part of the Christian parents. Now, the law says your message can be prohibited if it "materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school", a circumstance that would be promptly engineered.
I'm reminded of the child who was told to stop pulling the cat's tail, and replied "I'm just holding the tail, the cat is doing all the pulling!" According to Timothy's law, the cat is guilty. Christians are nothing if not politically savvy. If they can't push their views onto others, their freedoms are being denied. If you push back, YOU are causing "material interference" - and they will make DAMN certain you are. Manipulating the letter of the law to violate its spirit is why lawyers exist.
What you're doing is showing that the religious people are always pushing, pushing, pushing for everything they can get away with, and then pushing for a little bit more, and then claiming persecution when they reach the limit and aren't allowed to push any further. And if anyone else tries to defend themselves, the Christians SCREAM, and the law supports them, since those "causing" the screaming are guilty of "material interference with the requirements of discipline." It's a game.
Still, I'm curious how the Cobb County case turns out.

Timothy Sandefur · 30 October 2004
Great White Wonder says
Religious tracts . . . are inherently derogatory to anyone who does not share the flyer distribut[o]r's religious views . . . .[Therefore] handing out fundamentalist religious tracts in a public school is disruptive to public schooling per se.
This is a clumsy argument for censorship. Tinker, Hazelwood, and other cases have upheld the government's authority to regulate the manner in which students express themselves, but the First Amendment does not permit the government, in any context, to declare that because a viewpoint is "inherently derogatory" to those who disagree with that viewpoint (and what viewpoint isn't?) that it may be banned wholesale. I am an atheist. I have contempt for religion. Under Wonder's view, I could have been prohibited from ever defending my views in my history class, when we talked about the Crusades. I am a libertarian. I have contempt for socialists. Under Wonder's view, I could have been prohibited from ever defending libertarianism in my high school economics class (where, I'm happy to say, I was quite outspoken). The First Amendment, at least, embodies the notion that an idea, so long as it is not presented in a disruptive manner, is practically never "disruptive per se," due to its content. Hatred of particular races, for example, is entirely protected by the First Amendment (although particular forms of its expression, such as cross-burning, might not be). Declaring an idea to be "disruptive per se" due to its content, is an extraordinarily dangerous proposition, and certainly one which, if it were to be adopted, would quickly fall into the hands of people who would use it to suppress atheism, which is probably the most persecuted idea in the history of humanity. The proper view is that expressed by Justice Brandeis---a view which once went by the name "liberal"---in his famous dissent in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-76 (1927):
Those who won our independence . . . valued liberty both as an end and as a means . . . . They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine . . . They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law---the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed . . . . Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced . . . [and] that the danger apprehended is imminent . . . [and] serious . . . . [E]ven advocacy of violation [of the law], however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on.
How extremely ironic that Wonder would end his call for censorship by appealing to "the freedoms [secularism] alone can guarantee"! Yes, I agree that secularism alone can justify principles of freedom. But Wonder has provided us with one of the weakest arguments for that proposition that I have ever witnessed. His call for censorship betrays those principles. Far better is the view of Thomas Jefferson, no fundie himself:
[ I]t does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg . . . . Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only . . . . Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter.
Now, Flint writes "Christians are nothing if not politically savvy. If they can't push their views onto others, their freedoms are being denied." Sadly, that's an accurate observation. Religious conservatives make a great deal of political profit off of portraying themselves as victims. When school districts pull stunts like this, what upsets me most is that it adds fuel to their claims of being a persecuted minority---which they most assuredly are not! And it is also true that many religious conservatives believe that their right to expression includes forcing their opinions onto other people's lifestyles. As I've written before, they think that if you tell them they must mind their own business, that you're somehow robbing them of something. They are, of course, wrong about that. But in this case, they would appear to be right. This girl does have a Constitutionally protected right to express herself by handing out leaflets if she wishes, and if the government stops her, it is violating her rights. That much, at least, is not "a game," nor is it "Timothy's law." It is, rather, the supreme law of the land, which declares "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . ."

Jack Krebs · 30 October 2004
Thanks for your two posts, Tim, and thanks for the discussion from everybody.
This is a very important issue. As Jefferson said, in different words, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me," and this is a lesson that students need to learn in school as well as in society at large. What I notice, in students in school and among adults also, is that people get mad at the expression of ideas with which they disagree, and then they react with anger, and the "discussion," such as it is, spirals downhill from there. The resulting atmosphere makes everyone reluctant to speak up because the prospect for civil and constructive argument is so small.
In the case of this girl and her fliers, the girl should be prepared for (although this might be asking too much of fourth graders) children challenging her view - such as pointing out that they have different religious views (or none), or challenging her specific propositions about Jesus and Christianity.
Good schools, if they truly aspire to be learning communities, understand that the interactions among the students is part of the learning - not everything is a one-street from teacher to student, and would thus encourage students learning to express themselves and strive to teach students, by word and by example, that when you express yourself you need to be prepared to respond to disagreement with civility. From such experiences children might learn to both engage in civil discourse (rather than the divisive and dichotomous argumentation that we see so often) and to tolerate both disagreement and a diversity of opinion.

Timothy Sandefur · 30 October 2004
Well said. I think it's terrible that people consider the merits of religion to be off-limits for discussion. In no other realm of life would it be considered wrong to challenge someone's belief in a ridiculous proposition; if someone claimed to be entertained every night be green elephants tap-dancing on the front porch, you could say "Oh, come on, surely you don't believe that!"--but when they claim that the holy spirit enters them when they consume a wafer on Sunday morning, it's socially unacceptable to react with skepticism. The mores of skepticism, which have built a magnificent model society in the scientific world, still have a long way to go.

Harrison Bolter · 30 October 2004
Would Mr. Staver and his Liberty Counsel be involved if this were a case of a Muslim child handing out religious material? Or a Hindu? Or a Buddhist? Or a Wiccan? Or a Satanist? Or any faith other than an evangelical Christian sect? Perhaps, but I seriously doubt it.
IMHO, the reason these types of propagandizing should not be allowed during the school day (besides that pesky church-state argument) is simple: which religions do you permit and which do you bar? What's to prevent all or some of the above-mentioned faiths to insist on their points of view being distributed?
Far-fetched? I don't think so. No doubt I will be criticized, however, as some sort of anti-religious bigot...which seems to be the response du jour from evangelicals...

Jack Krebs · 31 October 2004
From a legal point of view, if you allow an opportunity for one, you must offer the same for opportunity for all. If a student wanted to hand out "Why I am a Wiccan," or "Why I am Not a Christian" fliers, he or she wuold have to have the same rules applied as the girl handing out the Jesus fliers. That's the price we pay for free speech.

Timothy Sandefur · 31 October 2004
I don't know, of course, whether Liberty Counsel would be involved if Ms. Bloodgood were a Muslim or Wiccan. I'd be surprised. But consistency would require it. And Mr. Bolter is right to ask whether anything would prevent all of the various religions from insisting on their points of view being distributed. But let us be clear: Ms. Bloodgood is not "insit[ing] on [her] point of view being distributed." Rather, she is insisting that the government must not interfere when she tries to distribute her point of view. There is an essential difference between these two. The state is legally prohibited from distributing a religious point of view, under the Establishment Clause. But it is also legally prohibited from interfering when a private person seeks to distribute a point of view, under the Free Exercise, Free Speech, and Free Press Clauses.
Ms. Bloodgood does have a right to be free from interference when she seeks--in a non-disruptive manner--to distribute her point of view. And, as Mr. Krebs correctly states, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, atheists, and all advocates of all other points of view have the identical right, fortunately.

Flint · 31 October 2004
Ms. Bloodgood does have a right to be free from interference when she seeks---in a non-disruptive manner---to distribute her point of view. And, as Mr. Krebs correctly states, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, atheists, and all advocates of all other points of view have the identical right, fortunately.
You noticed what I wrote, but don't seem able (or inclined?) to apply it. Bs. Bloodgood's leaflet campaign is non-disruptive because those around here ALLOW it to be non-disruptive. As I wrote earlier, "the law says your message can be prohibited if it "materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school", a circumstance that would be promptly engineered." Do youi have even the slightest doubt that the community Christians would engineer a discipline problem as soon as "advocates of other points of view" attempted to exercise "identical rights"? Of course, the leaflets of others would be banned on discipline grounds rather than speech grounds, and you cited a case showing that the school was empowered to make such a decision. I can assure you that here in Alabama, the school officials woulod almost surely "suggest" such a tactic (albeit in a deniable manner) if the Christian parents didn't adopt it on their own, and would be extremely quick to determine that discipline was threatened. So don't tell me this isn't a game. The entire episode would play out legally, but other viewpoints would not get aired in the schools, whatever this required. Anyone ELSE, using this same tactic, would of course be denying the freedoms of the Christians. You need to look beyond the letter of the law, to the politics being manipulated here.

Jack Krebs · 1 November 2004
From a practical point of view, as opposed to legal, Flint is right - the issue of what is "disruptive" is an administrative judgment call that leaves lots of room for unbalanced treatment.
On the one hand, as Tim Sandefur pointed out earlier, just the concern for possible disruption is not enough, but on the other hand, as soon as someone becomes upset or protests, does that become a disruption? And who, then, is the disruptee? - the person handing out the flier or the person getting upset?
This depends so much on the administrator in the school - his or her tolerance for conflict as a necessary part of learning vs. his or her need for administrative control and order. Certainly in many schools a student handing out fliers on why one should be an atheist would arouse enough protest that many administrators would declare a disruption; and yet in those same schools few would be willing to protest against a Christian flier.

KeithB · 2 November 2004
Though Timothy could probably write this himself, here is a document prepared by the ACLU with input from lots of people about current law and what is and is not allowed:
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9007&c=139

Jim Harrison · 9 November 2004
These issues need to be put to a practical test.We need to come up with age-appropriate materials that calmly lay out the many factual and ethcial problems with traditional religion beliefs and provide propagandized children and teen agers with the alternatives denied them by their parents and teachers.

steve · 9 November 2004
Those books and FAQs exist. You can find them at atheist sites.