2 of 3

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution issued a blistering attack on that argument:

We don't believe there's a place for religious instruction in the public schools, either. But the critical distinction he has missed is the difference between the "public schools" and a public school building during non-school hours. Public schooling is a process, not a place; when the 3 o'clock bell rings, the building becomes walls, windows and doors, suitable for many community functions, none of which may have anything to do with education, none of which has to be interpreted as an activity of the school system.

It's not the Supreme Court but its critics who are out of touch, says the Journal-Constitution.

Some critics of the Supreme Court's decision have ridiculed the majority's conclusion that the Good News Club's efforts to teach children about the Bible and to invite them to become believers are not the same as an ordinary worship service. That commentary is actually quite telling: Perhaps the critics aren't sufficiently acquainted with religion to know the difference between what goes on in a youth Bible-study group and what happens in a church on Sunday. … The fear here is obviously something quite different: The politically correct view is that any effort to teach children about God is tantamount to luring them into drinking Kool-Aid with Jim Jones.

Other papers focus on the aftermath of the Court's decision. "To make the line between church and state clear, Milford's school board is on the verge of barring all outside-led groups, including the long-established 4-H Club, from meeting at the school until late afternoon or evening," says USA Today. "If that's what it takes to maintain the sanctity of the church-state separation, it's a sound move."

Not sound at all, says the New York Post. "Sadly, the Milford district is taking the point in a particularly perverse way. Its officials seem to find religion so terrifying that they're throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater: … Call it spite. Or maybe the district really is that scared of religion." (The Denver Post's AlKnight similarly laments such "sore loser" actions.)

(Weblog is out of time, and this entry is getting awfully long. If you want to see more, there's the response of Child Evangelism Fellowship's Marshall J. Pennell to USA Today, in which he starts off by invoking Columbine, and editorials by the Christian Science Monitor, Detroit Free Press, San Jose Mercury News, The Washington Post, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and The Denver Post. But if you've read this far, you've already got the idea of what folks are saying.)

Religion and politics:

• Pro-life bills may confront roadblock | With Dems majority in Senate, abortion foes vow to regroup (Gannett News Service/The Detroit News)
• Politics of prayer | The face of invocations at public meetings is changing (Chico Enterprise-Record)
• Church moves to oust critics in Parliament | Parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee, which vets church legislation before it reaches the House of Commons, has angered the General Synod by delaying important church measures (The Daily Telegraph, London)
• Ashcroft's hard line on hardcore | Look out, Internet sextrepreneurs: John Aschroft wants you to serve hard time. (Wired News)

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

June (Web-only) 2001, Vol. 45