Student told to not read Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sir_Knight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sir_Knight

Guest
tinyurl.com/k7nxd …
Student told to not read Bible, suit claims

The mother of a seventh-grader at Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle School has filed a lawsuit against administrators at the South Laurel school, claiming her daughter was barred from reading the Bible during lunch period and threatened with punishment if she did it again.

In her complaint, filed Sept. 29, Maryann Mangum of Laurel, the grandmother and adoptive mother of 13-year-old Amber Mangum, claimed the administrators’ actions were a violation of Amber’s First Amendment rights and of the school system’s own policy.

“Contrary to the fundamental liberties enshrined in the United States and Maryland Constitutions, Amber Mangum was ordered, under threat of disciplinary action, to cease reading her personal Bible during her lunch period,” the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, states.
 
I once did some work in a middle school that had a student-parent handbook expressly forbidding any kinds of religion-related meetings among students on-campus, and also forbade teachers and students meeting at any time for religious purposes, on or off campus, unless they just happen to go to the same place of worship. The language of the handbook on this issue was subtly threatening, in my opinion.

But, at the last school I worked at, there was a student-run christian club on campus, that was allowed to invite teachers to come and talk at their meetings. They held bake sales on campus. I never heard any complaints.

This country was not only founded on freedom of religion, but freedom of thought as well (of which religious freedom is a part). If you read the first amendment, that is very clear. Freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly are all essential if we are going to have true dialogue in this country about matters spiritual, philosophical, and political. Some people are forgetting that the constitution is not about keeping us from being offended, but about protecting our ability to respond if we are offended.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top