She has been at this for years and she is starting to PISS me off. First of all she is trying to control what other people can and cannot read, and then she argues it’s bad to promote a certain religion while silmulteaniously shoving hers down our throats.
She’s whining about taxe money while wasting OURS by taking up valuable time in our court systems.
It seems to me like she’s trying to gain power and control while forcing her biased beliefs on other people. Now who does that remind me of?

There are cases where people are not allowed to bring their case before a judge. If someone were to bring a frivolous argument before the Tax Court, they can be hit with a $25,000 penalty and immediatly have their case thrown out. I had a professor tell me that other judges had a similar power, but I have not heard of it being used, even when it should be.

Ok, I think we’re talking about different things. When I say “she shouldn’t have sued”, I mean that if I were in her shoes, I wouldn’t have wasted my money. I mean, it’s a fact that anyone can and will sue anybody for anything. Surely, no one can really assert that anyone should be barred from filing suit. That doesn’t make sense. Who would decide which cases be barred? A court, so what’s the point.

I still think Matt’s posting is arguing the legal case, and not against the positions posted here.

I will defend Matt Guyette. I actually did say above she should be allowed to sue. I did so using the same reasoning that allowed the ACLU to sue the government over letting Boy Scouts use government property for a weekend.

Now, Matt, would you argue that that case had no merit and should not have been brought? Here is a link to the opinion in the case. Yes, the ACLU lost, but should they even have made it to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals? What is the difference between the ACLU (people who wouldn’t be using the park and could choose to get another location) and your critique of Mallory in your comment above?

I choose to be consistent. Either both cases are wrong and should be thrown out immediately, or both cases are legitimate and deserve to be heard.

You are apparently under the impression that someone here has argued that Ms Malloy should have sued or should have prevailed. Nobody here has taken that position, so you’re arguing against a straw man.

Courts generally take one of three approaches to the Establishment Clause:
1.) Strict separationist approach–Religion is religion and the state is the state, and never the twain shall meet.
2.) Neutralist approach–Religion in a public setting is ok so long as all viewpoints have an equal opportunity to be heard.
3.) Accomodationist approach–Religion supported by government is GOOD so long as the government doesn’t coerce belief.

Laura Malloy seems to be advocating a fourth viewpoint: Religion in public school is OK, so long as it’s the “right” religion.

Just for some background, the strict separationist approach is very rarely encountered in American jurisprudence today. Even liberals and moderates tend to go for the neutralist or accomodationist approach. Still, under these more religion-friendly approaches, Ms. Malloy simply has no valid argument.

That this case was even heard in Court is a travesty. Ms. Malloy had no standing to bring the case because she failed to demonstrate any particularized injury. Mere distaste for a particular book is no grounds for a lawsuit.

Ignoring this glaring procedural issue, her argument on the merits is incredibly weak. Harry Potter books have nothing to do with the Wiccan religion, or ANY religion for that matter. (Except that everyone at Hogwarts celebrates Christmas for some strange reason) It’s FANTASY….as in….NOT REAL. The books were entirely “conjured up” by J.K. Rowling. So how on earth can shelving the books in public school libraries be a violation of the Establishment Clause under ANY of the three approaches?

Moving beyond even this obvious problem, Ms. Malloy still has no case because her children were not forced to be subjected to any “objectionable” material whatsoever. I’m sure they are perfect little Rods and Tods. No one is making them read Harry Potter, so even if Harry Potter was the holy book of the Wiccan Religion itself, there was no coercion. Without coercion, there’s simply no problem from the Accomodationist point of view. And as long as there are books from a good sampling of other religious perspectives in the library, the neutralist would also have no issue allowing Harry Potter books to be checked out (still assuming, remember, that the books have anything to do with religion at all).

Of course, Harry Potter books have nothing to do with religion, advocate virtuous behavior, and are getting millions of children to read and use their imaginations. The real problem for fundamentalists like Ms. Malloy is that they are unable to distinguish between the absurd superstitions they so desperately cling to and the equally made-up world of flying broomsticks, magic wands, giants, and dragons.

“It continues to amaze me that in this day and age there are still people who would impose their views on others”

Wait a minute. The school is actually imposing its viewpoint on her. Why should she have to pay court costs? If you really want the best solution that doesn’t trample on anybody’s liberties, get rid of public schools. If she is not forced to pay taxes to support Harry Potter, she has no case. But because the school is forcing her to fund their district, she has a right to argue against having Harry Potter. Simply dismissing her as a “zealot” ignores the fact that HER religous liberty has been trampled. So, aren’t you judging her?

Actually, that’s what the public school systems do. The only reason for anyone to believe that government run schools is the only way is because they want to indoctrinate children.

>> Public education is a keystone of our democracy and needs to be supported with our tax dollars

One can make an argument that a free and prosperous society requires educated citizens, but it doesn’t have to be one public entity. This goal can be achieved with vouchers. In fact, if education is good for society, then a better education is even better for society. Therefore, let’s use competition for customers to spur schools to educate better.

>> But, your tax dollars and those of the other tax payers who currently don’t have children in school should be used to support the public school system

Why? Why should my tax dollars be used to pay for schools that are really incompetent and bad for kids.

>> You and your children are free to go and metriculate where you like, but,

Well, thanks, you are so kind. You don’t even know how statist you sound.

>> your tax dollars belong to the public school system

What happened to the right to property? I guess you don’t believe in that. And you want to indoctrinate our children not to believe in the right to property.

Details about your particular belief system is definitely changing the subject. Hitch, I think you better read my post again. I included that link as an explanation of why this lady is upset. It seems like you don’t really agree with: Congress shall pass no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

>> makes banning the book part of their daily routine ought to

I made it clear that it would not be correct to remove the book from the library. Besides, no one was trying to ban a book. There is a very good argument to be made that one’s tax dollars should not be used to support religions one does not support. I presented a good solution, but instead of supporting this position, you launch into an anti-religious diatribe.

>> How many innocent lives have been lost due to wars and genocides linked to religion?

Hmmm, besides being completely off point, I’ll comment. Actually, the death toll from aethiestic communism is 149,469,610.

Gunner and all the voucher people. Public education is a keystone of our democracy and needs to be supported with our tax dollars and with community and parental involvement. You are free to take your children out of the publicly funded system. But, your tax dollars and those of the other tax payers who currently don’t have children in school should be used to support the public school system.

You and your children are free to go and metriculate where you like, but, your tax dollars belong to the public school system.

Viva la Harry Potter.

Exorcisms are not real. Evil is not real. Witchcraft is not real. All of those things are juveniles acting out in unintelligent ways because they’ve been offered no better alternative or intellectually stimulating path to route their rebellious, disappointed energies.

Anyone who thinks Harry Potter is promoting witchcraft and makes banning the book part of their daily routine ought to reconsider their own values and religious ties. How many innocent lives have been lost due to wars and genocides linked to religion? Then compare that number to how many lives have been lost in the name of Harry Potter.

The disparity might be enlightening.