Posted by Hemant Mehta in While we’re talking about new blogs, here’s one by Professor Stephen D. Solomon of New York University. Solomon went to Georgetown University for law school and has a new book coming out late next month:
Ellery’s Protest: How One Young Man Defied Tradition and Sparked the Battle over School Prayer
On November 26, 1956, Ellery Schempp protested mandatory Bible reading and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer at Abington (Pa.) Senior High School by reading silently from the Koran. After he was thrown out of class, Ellery sued the school district. In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Abington School District v. Schempp that devotional exercises in the public schools violated the First Amendment guarantee against the establishment of religion
Ellery is one of the main reasons mandatory school prayer was abolished. He’s a hero for any young atheist out there. Not only for his courageous actions in 1956, but also because he is just a really nice, humble guy.
You can read a moving personal story Ellery wrote about his Supreme Court experience in a past issue of the Secular Student Alliance eNewsletter.
[tags]atheist, atheism, Stephen D. Solomon, New York University, Georgetown University, Ellery’s Protest: How One Young Man Defied Tradition and Sparked the Battle over School Prayer, Ellery Schempp, Abington Senior High School, Koran, Supreme Court, Abington School District v. Schempp, Secular Student Alliance, eNewsletter[/tags]
Not just a hero for atheists, but for anyone who thinks that the separation of church and state is a good idea, and who think that the marriage of the two was one of the greatest sell-outs of the gospel message in the history of Christianity.
You can also listen to Ellery Schempp tell his story on the Humanist Network News Audio Podcast #15.
Separation of Church and State, I think, is one of the most important issues atheists can work towards. With this issue, you can even become allies with believers who want the same thing.
Separation of Church and State is vital to our form of government. I can’t wait until we get someone in the White House that understands that so we can boot out all of Pat Robertson’s little robots, like Monica Goodling, from our government.
Here’s what some of our fellow-citizens in the state of Texas have to say about separation of church and state:
This is from the 2006 Texas Republican Party Platform. Forgive me if I’m boring anyone here, but I can’t resist quoting a few more of these nuggets of faith-based political theory:
We’ve got our work cut out for us.
Sooo, the Texicans want to forcibly shove their “Judeo-Christian” crap down our throats, but they want to “sanction any foreign government that persecutes its citizens for their religion.” Have I got that right? Is this like quantum politics or something, where you can know where something is but not how it’s moving, or you can know how it’s moving but not where it is? This lunacy is Lewis Carroll meets Franz Kafka.
And what do they mean by the “original intent of the First Amendment?” They mention that twice but don’t define it. Wait, I can guess. Congress shall make no gall-durn law prohibitin’ Texicans from doin’ whutev’r they damn well please, y’hear?
Mike C.,
When I was a kid, the in-class Bible reading was struck down by the Supreme Court. My mother was quite upset. But our neighbor, who was Roman Catholic, was much relieved because, with her husband suddenly unemployed, she could not afford to continue to send her kids to parochial school.
Suddenly, the public schools — with their Protestant based Bible readings — no longer so offended her Catholic faith that she felt confident about sending her children there.
Richard Wade:
This is great! May I steal it for occasional use?
That Threatened Texocracy is mind-numbingly stupid. Across the board, no part of it makes any sense when compared to facts or reality. But this one is really puzzling to me:
We decry any unconstitutional act of judicial tyranny
WTF? The courts don’t have much to do with tyrannical acts, that’s what the Chief Executive and Legislatures have a tendency to do when the Judiciary is not an independent branch of government. The courts merely rule on whether federal law has been followed or violated.
I don’t think any other branch of the government has been historically willing to protect the citizens from the excesses of the government the way the US Courts have. It’s nut-job pronouncements like the one above that make me very glad that the federal bench is not an elective position.
MTran,
As I said to Mike, use my stuff as you like, just don’t make the villagers come after me with pitchforks and shovels. I love “Texocracy,” I’ll use that, fair trade.
I think “unconstitutional acts of judicial tyranny” probably referrs to the many, many times their unconstitutional state laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court. I’d bet more come out of that region than all the rest of the nation put together. Any court decision that hampers their agenda they call tyranny.
As for the federal courts being independent, remember they have been carefully stacked for years with good ole boys by two Texan presidents.
[...] Washington Post ran a terrific profile of atheist activist Ellery Schempp the other [...]
[...] videos showcase Julia Sweeney, Christopher Hitchens, and Ellery Schempp. Technorati Tags: atheist, atheism Share This Popularity: 1% [...]
Hello,
We would like to ask permission to use your photo of Dr. Solomon’s book for a documentary we are making. Thank you
Monty