Dec 15, 2011
Print This Post
The superintendent of a public school district in Arkansas said it’s time for Christians to take a stand and that’s why he’s decided to reinstate a Nativity scene – in spite of possible legal action.
“Enough is enough,” said Jerry Noble, superintendent of the Green County Tech school district. “It’s His birthday. We celebrate Jesus’ birthday. One person should not be offended by that. We don’t leave it up all year. We’re not promoting religion. It’s not an effort to convert anybody.”
Noble told Fox News & Commentary the controversy surrounds a Nativity scene on a bulletin board at Green County Tech Primary School. The bulletin board also included the words, “Happy Birthday, Jesus.”
Noble said they had received some complaints about the decorations and after consulting with an attorney, he decided to remove the Nativity.
“My personal belief is that we should fight this sort of thing, but I didn’t want to put the school district at risk,” he said. “I could not take it upon myself to get the school in a legal entanglement over separation of church and state because we would have to use tax dollars to fight it and that’s not my job to do that.”
Nativity Bulletin Board - photo by KUAR
But his decision sparked a massive outcry in the community – and one organization offered to cover any legal costs the school system might incur over a lawsuit. That offer helped change the superintendent’s mind.
“To be honest with you, we offended a lot more people by taking it down than leaving it up,” Noble said. “So we put it back up.”
Noble, who is a Christian, said he doesn’t understand why anyone would be offended by the Nativity.
“Personally, I’m a Christian and if I’m going to offend somebody, I’d rather offend the non-believer – if it’s legal to do so,” he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas said told radio station KUAR that the school district must obey the Constitution.
“To say that if you have to offend somebody you’d rather offend those in the minority, well that’s just what the Constitution and the First Amendment are all about – not offending the minority, standing up for everybody’s right to practice their religion whether there is one person in your town or a thousand,” ACLU Director Rita Sklar told KUAR. “That the superintendent and perhaps others don’t have respect for that, I think is very sad.”
The Nativity scene was erected by Kay Williams, a counselor at the primary school. She’s been doing it for more than 20 years without any hint of controversy.
“We do live in the Bible Belt,” Williams told the Paragould Daily Press. “One thing that really disturbed most of [the supporters] was we hear about things like this all the time in other parts of the country. But, this is kind of a first for the Bible Belt, here in Arkansas.”
That, Williams told the newspaper, is why they decided to take a stand.
“I think the people realized [this issue] is here and we better take a stand,” she told the newspaper.
Noble said the community support and the offer for free legal services led to his decision to allow the Nativity back into the primary school.
“The Christians in America have been silent for too long,” Noble said. “That’s why I struggled with it in the beginning.”
FOX News Talk
If this was about him posting something Islamic this whole thread would be freaking out calling him a terrorist.
While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as some note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.
It is important to distinguish between the "public square" and "government" and between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.