Dear Editor:
In a May 23 posting on its website, KIRO-TV, Seattle, printed information from an AP story about a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled a Scottsdale, Arizona, school district cannot refuse to post ads on its bulletinboards relating to Bible camps if it posts ads for secular camps.
However, the Court apparently also ruled the school district "can censor its content to remove any proselytizing." Webster's dictionary defines proselytize as (1) "to induce someone to convert to one's faith" and (2) "to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause: to recruit or convert esp. to a new faith, institution, or cause."
Therefore, serious questions should be raised. Is the Court saying Bible camps are not in any way designed to recruit or induce conversion to a new faith, institution, or cause? To the contrary, it is common sense to assume such Bible camps are indeed ultimately designed to proselytize. Perhaps the judges have never been to a Bible camp?
Nevertheless, if a school district cannot ban ads promoting Bible camps, it cannot ban Koran camps. Further, the Court has apparently ruled ads promoting David Koresh camps, Aryan nation camps, and/or any other such "secular" camps, by any Webster's definition, are permissible?
The Court misreads the Constitution. The First Amendment makes a distinction in regard to "religion" and prohibits government (at all levels) from establishing "religion" as a part of its responsibilities. In America religion is to be voluntary. Government is the essence of coercion. School districts are not private religion organizations.
Religion flourishes in America, and religions are free to promote religion on their own; but, government institutions should not be compelled to support, endorse, or promote any religion organization whatsoever. The Ninth Circuit judges have missed the point.
Gene Garman
Copyright 2003 Gene Garman