Roll Over, Thomas Jefferson

[crimresearch]

Unless the parents are picking up their kids, and signing them *out* of school for these trips to the church, then this is still government sponsored religion, even if the church sends over its own transportation.

Once the kids walk through the door in the morning, the school is 'in loco parentis' till the end of the day...and even with permission slips and 'opt out' clauses, the school is responsible.

Now if they are sending the kids to a mosque one week, a temple the next, and a synagogue the following week, (which in Staunton VA is highly unlikely) then this could be covered under a broad educational mandate...but if that were the goal, why not hold it in the regular classrooms, with a certified teacher?

 

[varwoche]

Once the kids walk through the door in the morning, the school is 'in loco parentis' till the end of the day...and even with permission slips and 'opt out' clauses, the school is responsible.

Isn't this per state law? The local public high school (WA state) allows students to leave campus at lunch hour. I don't see how they can let kids leave campus and still maintain responsibility.

 

[pgwenthold]

Unless the parents are picking up their kids, and signing them *out* of school for these trips to the church, then this is still government sponsored religion,

Nonsense.

By this argument, I used to have "government sponsored dentist appointments" when I was in high school, because, even though my parents arranged for me to leave, they never picked me up nor "signed me out." Heck, that was even during class time that I left!

You seemed to have missed the part about having to have parental permission to go to release class. Effectively a sign-out.

There were other kids who, if they had last period free, would get out for the day for work release. Was that "government sponsored work"?

In answer to varwoche's comment, I don't even think it is a state level mandate, and could even be districtal. I know Boulder High School in CO has an open campus, and students are free to come and go if they want (as long as they are in scheduled classes - kind of like college with a strict attendance policy)

 

[crimresearch]

And you seem to be completely ignorant of the legal doctrine of 'in loco parentis'...when the state takes your children into their care, anything the state arranges for the children to study is government mandated.

If this curriculum is set up during school hours, by the school, with the school, through the school, it is a government function, no matter how many weasel words right wing apologists want to expend defending it.

 

[drkitten]

And you seem to be completely ignorant of the legal doctrine of 'in loco parentis'...when the state takes your children into their care, anything the state arranges for the children to study is government mandated.

Of course, the legal doctrine of "in loco parentis" (with regard to schools) has not actually been part of US law for the past fifty years.

 

[pgwenthold]

If this curriculum is set up during school hours, by the school, with the school, through the school, it is a government function,

What "curriculum" are you talking about?

The only "curriculum" the school has set up is that students are allowed, with parental permission, to attend activities unrelated to school education, especially when they do not interfere with instructional time (heck, even in some cases they can).

So, where is the problem?

Some students use that release time to work. Some use it to gain driving time for driver's ed. Some use it to go to the dentist. Some use it to go to religion class. Were my dentist appointments "government functions"? The school had exactly as much to do with my dentist appointments as they did religion class.

This is the basis for the religious claim that, in fact, NOT allowing students to go to religion class during these periods is actually a violation of their freedom of religion. If the school allows the time to be used for non-school related secular activities, which it does, then it has to allow it to be used for non-school related religious activities.

 

[pgwenthold]

Of course, the legal doctrine of "in loco parentis" (with regard to schools) has not actually been part of US law for the past fifty years.

*snort*

No wonder I hadn't heard of it...

 

[varwoche]

anything the state arranges for the children to study is government mandated.

I agree, if this activity is arranged by the school then it's a problem. Is it arranged by the school?

If this curriculum is set up ... by the school, with the school, through the school, it is a government function

Agreed. Is this the case?

no matter how many weasel words right wing apoligosts want to expend defending it.

And this advances the debate how...?

 

[crimresearch]

Of course, the legal doctrine of "in loco parentis" (with regard to schools) has not actually been part of US law for the past fifty years.

50 years? No part? Nice try, but you need a new sundial.
In loco parentis has been modified, argued, and the subject of differing opinions, but you are completely wrong with the above statement.

"it is the very rare lawsuit alleging "negligent in loco parentis" that has been held by courts as being without merit."
http://www.calif-legal.com/Articles/oct_article_02.html

People v. Jackson, 319 N.Y.S.2d 731, 736 (Sup. Ct. App. Term. 1971) stated that in loco parentis is "compelling in light of public necessity"...

Gonyaw v. Gray, 361 F. Supp. 366, 369 (D. Vt. 1973) held, "Of necessity, parents must delegate some disciplinary authority over their school children to the teachers "...

"When minor children are entrusted by parents to a school, the parents delegate to the school certain responsibilities for their children, and the school has certain liabilities."
http://www.britannica.com/search?query=in+loco+parentis&submit=Find&source=MWTEXT

"There are several reasons why violations of student rights are upheld by the courts. One of the most basic reasons is known as in loco parentis. This Latin phrase basically means that while a student is in the custody of a school, the school can and often should act as a parent. In this duty of the school, many decisions can be made that are outside the normal governmental purview. The other basic reason for violation of student rights has to do with the goal of school - to educate. If an act of a student can interfere with the educational process, that act may, in many cases, be suppressed."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html

"This doctrine holds that school authorities can act in place of parents while the student is in school. In the true implementation process, the doctrine must be somewhat tempered for school authorities, since parents obviously are not required to provide the procedural due process before initiating disciplinary procedures. Rules should not be contrary to the basic wishes of parents as a whole. Although courts fully realize the responsibility of the school system to establish proper educational settings, one must remember that school board members are elected and thus act in the capacity of representing their constituents or parents of a given political jurisdiction."
http://teched.vt.edu/VCTTE/VCTTEMonographs/VCTTEMono2(Discipline).html

 

[drkitten]

50 years? No part? Nice try, but you need a new sundial.
In loco parentis has been modified, argued, and the subject of differing opinions, but you are completely wrong with the above statement.

That's the most impressive collection of out of context quotes I've seen presented by someone other than a young earth creationist.

I only have one reference for you. Tinker vs. Des Moines. Which, at the Federal level eliminated "in loco parentis" as legal doctrine. Of the few of your quotes above I checked, more than half referred to the Tinker case, so you should have no problem finding it.

 

[Ipecac]

I continue to be amazed at how blatantly these folk distort reality to push the religious agenda. Here are some quotes from some of the state delegates who support the bill.

Washington Post Article

Our government has become anti-religion, and this is an attempt to rebuild institutional and constitutional respect by government for religion. Not for a particular religion, but religion in general.

I think the American people and the courts have been saying that the wall in the separation of church and state has gone too far, and it's suppressed -- I'd even say oppressed -- the Christian faith and silenced it.

There is now a poisoned environment for religious expression that the founders never, never desired.

Disingenuous. Scary.

 

[SlippyToad]

Of course, the legal doctrine of "in loco parentis" (with regard to schools) has not actually been part of US law for the past fifty years.

That's funny, because I was talking to the vice-principal of a school just the other day, and he certainly seemed to think that he was responsible for what happened to children right up until they entered the door of their parents' house.

A little context: the gentleman and I are Tae Kwon Do students, and we were discussing the behavior of fighting children. This came up because he said if a child goes home and is followed by another, and they get in a fight on the front lawn, it is the school's responsibility. However, if the children go home, enter their houses, and then return directly to the lawn to brawl, the school is off the hook.

So let me know how someone who works for a public school system doesn't know this and you do.

 

[CapelDodger]

Brown, your posts are one of the primary reasons I enjoy this board, and this one is an excellent example why.

Seconded. Thirded. Whatever.

I notice from the preamble that Jefferson's god "who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do" wasn't the one that Moses heard. For what it's worth.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Roll Over, Thomas Jefferson

What freaks me out is that this man's tirade has passed in the House of Delegates!

Virginia is a very, very nutty place.

By a very narrow vote, they just decided not to enact a bill that would require schoolteachers to notify parents when a child didn't say the Pledge of Allegiance.

After all, you'd want the schools to let you know if you were harboring a seven-year-old Red, wouldn't you?