-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing-shotgun/is-that-a-bible-in-your-hand-or-are-you-just-happy-to-see-our-kids/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
If a rough description of a neurotic is someone who "makes problems where there aren't any," I think you should take your kids request, “Mom, please don’t make a big deal of this, okay?” to heart. It sounds like your "problem" is wider reaching than a couple of religious wonks handing out bibles to passersby.
PARENTAL TIP: Instead of teaching your kids how to be a whining, mom-calling, douchebag, how about using the episode to teach them about the challenges of peer pressure, and "going with the herd?"
Good luck with that.
And digging up all the nitpicky laws, Jeanine...those are tactics that The Man would use to fight Critical Mass, or harass photographers taking art pics in the port. Please don't model double standards to your kids.
As far as her poor kids are concerned, the problem isn't the bible-thumper. It's their own mother.
So in this instance, style really doesn't matter much.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Great article! You raise some interesting questions -- ones which are backed by hard data. I think that most people would agree with you. So don't let the occasional whack job rattle you!
The article is well thought out and brings up some valid points. Don't we have enough war in the name of religion in the world already?
My opinion on this story probably hinges on the age of your child--if he's in elementary or middle school, I don't think anyone has any business handing out bibles outside of campus. If he's in high school...well, challenging, thought-provoking incidents are what high school is all about, and that seems like a pretty harmless one, for all involved.
And as to your comments on the laws, yes those are the exact same laws used to issue permits for photographers. You just helped me prove my point that the laws that can be used to limit free speech on city property appear to be selectively enforced.
Jason, I'm sure the Gideons International is really glad to have your support, you represent them well!
These freedoms were, in fact, tested by the same organization, The Gideon's, in the Key Largo, FL case that Ms. Birong mentions. Apparently, however, she overlooked the eventual result of that case: the charges against Mirto and Simpson were dropped, the case was dismissed and a Federal Court Judge ultimately deemed the Florida law upon which those arrests were made to be unenforceable.
On the other hand, minor school children should be able to walk down the public sidewalk to get to and from school without being approached, accosted or solicited by anyone else and parents who take exception when this happens are right to be annoyed and they are right to put Schools, School Districts and City Government on notice of their annoyance through electronic petitions like that mentioned in the article.
But how do we reconcile the rights of some with the preferences of others in cases like this, especially when both positions have merit? Of greater significance, perhaps: How do we restrict or otherwise intrude upon the rights of some in the interest of what might be considered a greater good...that our children not be accosted in public places?
We know what the Courts are consistently deciding on that matter. But are these case law decisions properly reflective of our society's values?
I'll further discuss this incident and develop this theme in my column published on LBPOST.com. Please watch for it and participate in the discourse there if you are so inclined.
Are you Sgt. John Greet of the Long Beach Police Department?
You identify yourself at the LB Post as a Long Beach city employee, so I am assuming you are Sgt. John Greet.
If you ARE NOT Sgt. Greet (active, retired or promoted), then my entire post can be ignored.
If you ARE Sgt. Greet of the Long Beach Police Department, you are in a unique position to address a central concern of the story, namely: why does it appear that the Long Beach Police Department is selectively enforcing a city ordinance?
I find it hard to believe that a man of your loquacity would not be able to address that Long Beach-specific concern at length.
In fact, for someone who writes regularly about the accountability of our local public officials and employees, it looks hypocritical that you don't own up to being part of the problem Ms. Birong so eloquently describes here.
What gives?
A stand-up kind of guy who is a Long Beach police sergeant shouldn't have to have it pointed out to him that Ms. Birong gave you a tremendous opening to address what she considers a specific problem with the Long Beach PD.
Instead, you evade her concern and your accountability by dealing in interesting but ultimately misleading specifics about Florida case law while choosing to ignore what is happening to children and parents in Long Beach RIGHT NOW.
So can you answer a question?
If, as a Long Beach police sergeant, you arrive at a Long Beach school to discover a Gideon bible distributor standing on a public sidewalk, Holy Bible perched atop his crossed arms with the title facing out as it rests against his chest, a television news crew emerging from their news van across the street while Ms. B. and three other angry moms make all the accusations of harassment of minor children and the selective police enforcement of a city law that Ms. B. makes here --
What do you do?
THAT'S what Ms. B wants to know. Ms. B doesn't want to read selected paragraphs from your general purpose bloviating boilerplate "Our Friend the Constitution" post.
Man up. Answer the woman.
Unless, of course, you are not Sgt. Greet, in which case, um, well,
Never mind.
Connie
But as my descriptor on LBPOST.com clearly disclaims, my views and opinions are my own and in no way reflect the official positions or policies of the City of Long Beach or any of its Departments, nor are they intended to. To put it simpler still; I am privileged to serve and, to some extent, represent our fine City and its Police Department 40+ hours per week while on duty. While off-duty, however, I am just a novice columnist in a very fine independent media organization providing daily commentary, original news on local, statewide, national and international issues impacting Long Beach.
For this reason I am not in the “unique position” you feel I occupy. It is not my place to answer for the City or its Police Department when not on duty. But even when I am on duty I still could not comment officially, without expressed authorization, about matters of Police Department policy or procedure other than to describe, to the best of my ability, what those are and how they are carried out. We have a most excellent Community Relations Division that facilitates such official comments. I don’t set policy and I don’t establish procedures for my Department, I simply make sure, to the best of my ability, that my officers carry both out, to the best of theirs.
That said; I’m at a loss to find any mention of the Police Department in Ms. Birong’s article. She does mention that “it appears the *City of Long Beach* is selectively enforcing the permitting process” but the Police Department isn’t responsible for either permitting or permitting enforcement. My alleged loquacity notwithstanding, I couldn’t possibly explain, either for her or for you, why another Department is or isn’t doing what it is (or what it isn’t).
I was neither directly nor indirectly involved in the incident that Ms. Birong describes so I fail to see how I can somehow be a “part of the problem” she is so eloquently describing. I need not be either a stand up guy or a police sergeant to discuss this issue here or elsewhere and that I most certainly have been doing. I am also, as mentioned, composing a column on this topic and, assuming my editor approves, it will be posted in the coming weeks.
I do not “evade (Ms. Birong’s) concern and (my) accountability by dealing in interesting but ultimately misleading specifics about Florida case law while choosing to ignore what is happening to children and parents in Long Beach RIGHT NOW.”
First, I have evaded nothing. I have in fact, openly discussed this topic in the only manner I am authorized to do…as a private citizen. This is not evasion.
Second, I have no “accountability” in this situation because, as mentioned, neither I nor my Department appears to have been involved.
Third, the specifics of the Key Largo case were not in any way “misleading”. They were quite specific and I offered them because Ms. Birong left the inaccurate impression not only of what Mirto and Simpson were actually arrested for but that the arrests stood the test of judicial scrutiny, which they most certainly did not. This information seems, to me, to be very pertinent to the discussion and not to any degree “misleading”.
Fourth, I “(chose) to ignore” nothing. Had I done so, I never would have commented in the first place.
While I appreciate your hypothetical, that’s all it is…hypothesis. What you describe didn’t happen, at least not according to Ms. Birong. And even if it had, I wouldn’t presume to second guess the actions of any police personnel who might have been at the scene. To do so would be to do them, and our readers, a grave injustice. But, as mentioned, what you describe didn’t happen and likely wouldn’t happen, because what Ms. Birong has described thus far is not a crime.
It may have been annoying and it may have been inappropriate, much as some of your allegations toward me have been, but not, to any degree, criminal.
I have a lot of thoughts about this incident and this topic because I believe they directly relate to the topics of freedom and liberty that are both so very dear to me and that are the focus of my column on LBPOST.com. I’ll develop my ideas there. Feel free to visit and comment if you like.
Assuming, of course, you can stand the “bloviating boilerplate”.
Cute answer. Long, but cute, and not in a good way.
You still need to man up.
Answer the question.
Someone called the cops. What would YOU do arriving on the scene? That's the issue Ms. B is ticked about and wants an answer to. She wants a law enforced and probably feels, like most of us, that the police force of a city is responsible for, you know, enforcing laws -- especially when someone feels their child is being harassed and wants the perpetrator (a creepy adult male, in the eyes of an angry mom) dealt with.
Feel free to qualify your judgements and delineate your thinking as you would work the problem before you. You would provide a valuable public service by doing so, if you're up to it. We're not police officers. We want to know what a police officer thinks about in the situation presented, because the reality of what Ms. B presents is so messy. We want the clarity of law enforcement thinking. Who do you approach, what questions do you ask, what do you do with the answers you get, what resolution of this emotional scene do you pursue?
We will stipulate that you do not speak for the LBPD. I'm am more than glad to solve that problem for you. Is that OK with everyone?
To say that you don't know how to respond to hypotheticals is to say you didn't undergo police training, which is little else but examining specifics from police activity of the past and responding to the "what ifs" (also known as hypotheticals) that may present themselves in the field (if what my police officer friends over the years have told me is true).
And where did this fear of yours of not wanting to second guess a hypothetical officer in a hypothetical situation come from? That makes no sense. It's hypothetical! You're so busy avoiding the real issue here that you're losing track of your evasions.
Claiming not to be able to respond to a hypothetical situation, drawn directly, if dramatically, from the concerns expressed by Ms. B in the story we are commenting on, therefore, is mendacious.
I agree with you that this is a difficult issue, fraught with nasty hazards on both sides. So please take another try at this, Sgt. John. Third time's a charm. It's worth it.
And realize that there's hope for you yet. Some of the best people I know are repentant gasbags.
Connie
Since you’ve commented (albeit negatively) on the character of my previous answer I have to assume you actually read it. When you did, perhaps you misunderstood the part where I said:
“…what you describe didn’t happen and likely wouldn’t happen, because what Ms. Birong has described thus far is not a crime. It may have been annoying and it may have been inappropriate, much as some of your allegations toward me have been, but not, to any degree, criminal.”
Things are rarely as clear-cut as they sometimes seem, Connie. There are many variables both in Ms. Birong’s situation as she described it as well as in your hypothetical scenario and the easiest way to explain all of the things that *might* happen should the police, in fact, become involved in this issue would best be delineated on a flowchart.
Here’s a very generic answer. Based upon your confrontational demeanor with me up to this point, I suspect it won’t suffice for you but it’s the only one you’re going to get, at least from me, and in thus forum. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with “manning up” and everything to do with remaining reasonable and circumspect and fair in the face of the heightened emotions that you and Ms. Birong are clearly demonstrating.
Thus, to indulge you in your guessing game for a moment and based entirely upon what Ms. Birong has described thus far:
Were the police to respond to such a call their primary responsibility would be to assure no crimes had been or were being committed and to otherwise keep the peace. Should the complainant insist that some sort of Permit violation had occurred or was occurring, the police would, in virtually all cases, defer to the City Special Events and Filming Bureau on how to best proceed.
In most cases like these, Mr. Ashman or members of his able staff would also respond directly to the scene, deal amicably with all parties involved and arrive at a resolution that can be, if not fully accepted, at least fully tolerated, by all of the players.
The presence or absence of the media in your hypothetical wouldn’t change these generic responses because the facts would not change either way. We deal with the facts of a situation in the real world, Connie, and facts do not change whether or not a camera or other recording device is present.
Your allegation that I “Claim(ed) not to be able to respond to a hypothetical situation”, is false. What I did was to identify your construct for what it was…hypothesis…and then decline to address it. That declination is in no way indicative of my abilities in this area. Just because I choose to not do a thing doesn’t mean I do not have the ability to do a thing. Make sense?
Nor did I evade anything. What I said was that if your hypothetical construct had, in fact, occurred, I wouldn’t presume to second guess the actions of any police personnel who might have been at the scene. Are you able to comprehend the difference? This also means that it’s virtually impossible for me to tell you either what I would do or what another officer/sergeant would do, because the possible answers to the various questions we would ask would change what we might or might not do. Get it?
As I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of factors that could come into play and there are a lot of issues that relate to this situation…all of which I plan to attempt to discuss in my column. That’s the only…and final…answer you’re going to get from me, Connie. I hope it suffices. If not, I suppose you’ll have to learn to better live with disappointment.
One last thing, Connie, you might try to be just a little less confrontational and insulting when you’re seeking information from a person. The manner in which you have written to me has not encouraged me to cooperate with you at any level…quite the contrary. This is unfortunate because Ms. Birong, I and others reading this might have been able to gain a bit more overall understanding on this issue but for your needless condescension and insulting manner.
Consider treating others as you, yourself, would prefer to be treated. It really can work wonders.
Only because you've commented on it twice now, I did know the outcome of the Key Largo case, though I didn't address it specifically I did write, "Overall, however, the judgments on cases involving Gideon’s International have been mixed. In some instances, it has been limited or prevented from the distributing Bibles outside schools; in other cases, the court has upheld Gideon International’s right to freedom of speech, as long as its members stay on public property.: because I felt the area about legal cases was way too long. In addition, Dave W, edited the area to make it more readable. We both felt the outcome of the Key Largo case was covered with my summary statement of all cases I researched.
And for the record, I feel LBPD does a fine job overall--and the department sees to permit enforcement as needed. I personally know the Sarge in charge of Special Events, and he is a fine and reasonable law enforcer. LBPD is adhering to policy and the interpretation of the law that they have been directed to follow.
All I meant to clarify was that Mirto and Simpson were not "arrested on the sidewalk outside of Key Largo School in Key Largo, Fla., for distributing copies of the Bible", as you stated, nor was their arrest ultimately found to be lawful.
Thanks for the comments concerning my Department. I happen to agree (of course). I work with the sergeant you mention quite a bit and for various reasons.
Also, I wish I had seen your comments regarding the Special Events Department. In my working life I deal with these people often, and I respect them. My article is in no way meant to be a criticism of Special Events or the permitting process. However, I know for a fact that the same week the Gideons were on the sidewalk outside my school, the was at least one other group that did apply for a permit to demonstrate on city property.
Permits in no way damage free speech. The law should be applied equally to all.
Till then: I would argue that there should be as few laws governing free speech in public places as possible and no laws other than those which already exist (no blocking the sidewalk or street, no excess noise, no assault, no annoying of minors, etc).
As you know, the primary purpose for our Permitting process is to assure that the various laws that exist including various penal, building, fire and public health codes are abided by, as well as to collect the fees we have chosen to impose upon some Permitees (all Permits have fees attached but some fees get waived).
Certainly Permits are not intended to “damage free speech”, but they are intended, in some cases, to regulate it, to restrict it, and rightly so (i.e. no “hate” speech, no yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, etc). Some have argued, unsuccessfully, that *any* governmental regulation of or limitation upon free speech does it “damage”. The argument being that any government limitation or regulation upon speech adversely impacts its “free” character and thus “damages” free speech.
Free speech isn’t really as free as we like to lead ourselves to believe. If it were there would be zero regulation or limitations upon it, but there are and, as mentioned, rightly so.
But we must be *very careful* with this. Taken to the extreme, limitations and regulations on free speech take on the character of Civil Rights marchers being attacked with tear gas and billy clubs at the Edmond Pettus Bridge outside Selma or of a lone demonstrator facing down a column of main battle tanks in Tiananmen Square.
The slope of regulating speech is exceedingly slippery and the line between that speech that is “harmful” or “inappropriate” and that speech we simply “disagree with” or “do not like” exceedingly thin.
Whenever we cross that line, the free character of our speech is, indeed, damaged and often irreparably so.
The Founders understood this implicitly and this is precisely why the Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment was crafted in the first place…to prevent Congress and, by extension, State and local governments (like Long Beach), from “abridging the freedom of speech”.
This is precisely how the macro of the 1st Amendment drills down and applies to the micro of the Gideons activity on the public sidewalks of Long Beach. How we, in Long Beach, choose to deal with the Gideons, or any other group for that matter, on our sidewalks, in turn, can reverberate upward all the way to the U.S. Constitution and the personal freedoms and individual liberties that historic document was designed to protect.
I asked them while I was writing this-- Special Events told me that fees for non-profits are typically waived for permits. The Gideons planned well enough to have enough bibles for a whole school of kids, coordinate their outfits, and well enough staffed to be at every entrance of the school. You can't tell me they couldn't have coordinated the effort to apply for a permit as well.
Another approach would be to have your kid put his cell phone to his ear while approaching the person in question, and say, "Yes, six feet two, about a hundred and ninety pounds, blue shirt, hold on... Sir, would you not go anywhere for about five minutes? I just need you to stay here for five minutes. Just stay right there. Don't move. Who's on the phone? Uhh.. it's just a friend. Don't move." Then have the kid just go on to school with the cell phone to his ear.
You can either do that, or drive your precious snowflakes to school, and walk them to homeroom. Being a nutty parent can be a tedious responsibility.
exerpt from AP news article:"SAN DIEGO — Respiratory therapist Wayne Albert Bleyle was in New York state on a wintry day when investigators called him about allegations he had molested patients too sick to defend themselves.
When they asked how many children he molested, investigators said, he looked out his window and asked, "How many snowflakes are there out there?""
Get over yourself lady.
See the link below for the 3/19 Grunion Gazette article:
http://www.gazettes.com/articles/2009/03/19/com...
Also, please visit
http://parentsforsafelearning.blogspot.com/
That’s how freedom works.
My lovely wife and I have kids attending both middle and high school. Ours are taught to avoid strangers generally and to not accept anything offered by a stranger specifically - no matter where they may encounter them.
If all children were thus taught by their parents, the Gideons really wouldn’t have many to talk to in front of our schools and fewer would receive their offered bibles, to later leave them littering the school yard.
Right?
Through these recent activities the Gideons are clearly “targeting” school children by virtue of where they choose to offer bibles, just as they “target” the incarcerated when they offer bibles in prisons and when they “target” people who stay in hotels and motels when they place bibles there.
But when our children are walking along a public sidewalk, outside a public school or not, they are not a “captive audience” by any stretch. To refer to them as such is pure hyperbole. Our (wifey's and my) kids, at least, have fine minds and two good legs and if they’re approaching someone on the sidewalk they don’t want to encounter or come near they are quite capable of avoiding them. If such person forces the issue, our kids, at least, are both quite capable of dealing with that eventuality as well…because we have taught them how to politiely but definitively do so.
I join you in your preference that no stranger adult approach any child at any location (especially elementary school-aged children, although, so far, I have only heard of this happening at a Middle and High School). Whether we agree with the Gideons mission or not, that adults would approach minors for any purpose without prior parental consent just feels creepy to me.
But to do so in the manner that the Gideons are doing is not unlawful. Nor should it be.
Also, not everyone who receives a City Permit has been backgrounded. In fact most have not. So requiring the Gideons to obtain a City Permit would not accomplish that for you. According to the Gideons website: “Generally, Christian business and professional men age 21 and older (or retired business and professional men) who adhere to the core spiritual beliefs held by Gideons are eligible to join The Gideons International. In addition to meeting our professional and spiritual qualifications, potential Gideons must also be recommended by their pastors.” This is not the City-sponsored background you would prefer but it would appear that the Gideons make every attempt to assure that people of good character are engaged in their various missions, including that of offering bibles in front of our schools.
Nor does requiring a Permit in this case assume community or school notice. City government is certainly on notice of the activity but that doesn’t mean we, the residents, would be…not until we saw them at the school. So requiring the Gideons to obtain a City Permit would not accomplish that for you either.
Let me ask you this: Let’s say the City had been requiring Permits for all such activity all along. Let’s say that on the day you saw them outside your child’s school they had obtained their Permit and were fully complying with it. What would you have done differently? They still have not been backgrounded and you still were not provided advance notice. So what real difference has the Permit made other than to assure that the Gideons comply with that particular requirement? They’re still doing what they’re doing, where they’re doing it, they still were not backgrounded and you still weren’t told it would be happening.
So what’s changed?
You’d still be annoyed. You’d still object. You’d still admonish your child as you did: “Don’t take one of those! Walk past those men, and do not talk to them.”
So, really, what’s changed?
The only difference between a scenario where the Gideons pulled a Permit and one where they did not is that, in the former, the City Permit Office would have most likely joined the Gideons on your list of entities to be angry with over this. This seems clear because your issue doesn't really appear to be that they didn’t have a Permit, it’s that they were offering bibles to kids in front of their schools. Because you don’t feel the Gideons should be doing this, you likewise no doubt feel that the City should not issue them a permit to do so (since, as mentioned, a City Permit does not pre-suppose a background investigation).
But the City would issue a Permit (because it has before) and the non-backgrounded Gideons would still be there and you would still be angry.
Since, at least as of this writing, it remains lawful for people on a public sidewalk to approach or solicit in a lawful manner other people on that same sidewalk, perhaps the better response is to teach our children how to react properly whenever that happens to them.
Such a response protects the free speech rights of others and returns ultimate control over the situation to the persons to whom it rightly belongs…our kids and us.
The best part is we can readily accomplish this response entirely on our own, Jeanine. We don't need government to do it *for* us.
I just wanted you to know that I have four versions of the bible at my house--as well as a copy of the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita and many different books about the mythologies and spiritual beliefs of every part of the world. My child is hardly being abused because I think evangelizing my child with a closed minded and closed set of beliefs is inappropriate.
And John, though the article was written with a specific perspective, you should consider that I am not anti-bible. This isn't really about the bible, the Gideons were just the group that made me realize that the law may be weak in regards to permitting various activities around schools. I would've been equally and perhaps more upset, had this been an "AIDS Education" group handing out condoms to the kids. What would "Christians" think about that? Do you think there would be no outrage from them on behalf of their children? No questions about the motives of those on the sidewalk? No safety concerns?
The permitting process requires community notification. As a parent, I feel I could've/should've been notified about this, then I may have taken different action. Or as you may already know, when it comes to events like the marathon or filming, notifying the community makes a big difference in how citizens participate in & receive the events.
Also, did you know that many school districts require parent permission slips for the Gideons to hand out bibles to their kids? I ask other parents before I hand anything to their kids. It's called respect.
“The Gideons claim to be spreading the truth and the light, but they really want your child to abandon your family’s beliefs and customs because they believe your child is ‘lost.’ The Gideons believe they know what is better for your child than you do.”
While I appreciate that this is what you believe to be true about the Gideons; I have read nothing in their literature and seen no evidence in their public conduct that supports your belief.
Other comments in your article raise concerns for me:
“The city and especially the school should be acting on my family’s behalf.” -and- “Instead of being afraid of the politics or the potential legal fight involved, they should be protecting our students.”
It is not, as you assert, governments job (through public schools or otherwise) to serve in the stead of parents unless, of course, the child has been remanded as a ward of the State (but even this only occurs within the strict confines of our State’s juvenile justice system). When birth parents are absent from the child’s life altogether, as in the case of a child who is being fostered or has been adopted, then the legal doctrine of “In loco parentis” correctly applies, but it rightly applies to adopted and foster parents, not to government or government-run schools.
As a legal doctrine “In loco parentis” has, unfortunately, been stretched and twisted and, indeed, entirely usurped to justify all manner of silliness that goes on in our public schools today. From confidential counseling on drug abuse and birth control and prevention and various “lifestyle choices” to limitations on dress and speech; our public schools have, whether by desire or by default, assumed more and more of the responsibilities rightly reserved to parents.
Don’t want to tell your 13-year-old daughter how or where to get an abortion or provide your 12-year-old son with information on condom use? No worries, the school will do that for you, and, as a matter of law, they don’t have to tell you that they have done so. Can’t or won’t teach your child how to dress or speak in a manner appropriate for a learning environment? No problem, the School District has policy that clearly dictates precisely what your child will and won’t wear to school and how they must not speak when they are there.
But, as mentioned, none of this is rightly the job of government or of government run schools. It is *our* job, as their parents. As a society we just tend to conveniently forget this because, as a society, we have become lazy in so very many areas, including that of parenting.
You, Jeanine, have not forgotten and you have not become lazy yet you seem comfortable when the public school acts on your behalf as long as it is providing your children what you, as their parent, want them taught or exposed to. When that’s the case then, as you said: “The city and especially the school should be acting on my family’s behalf”.
Yet when they don’t act on your behalf, as in the case with the Gideon’s, then your preference seems to change. Then it’s: “Don’t parents have some right to control the way and the timing that these topics are presented to their children?”
Like so many other public school parents, you seem to want to have it both ways.
Interestingly enough, it is that very doctrine of “in loco parentis” that you assert applies to public schools that, in part, serves as the basis for some of the things that schools *cannot* do as a matter of law in California.
In the event you were not aware, according to the California Attorney General: California Schools must excuse minors during the school day for “confidential minor consent medical care”, Schools cannot adopt a policy that requires parent consent when the minor is excused from school for “confidential medical care”; and Schools cannot adopt a policy that requires parent notification when the minor is excused from school for “confidential medical care”.
In these opinions, which have since been translated into State law, “Confidential medical care” and “Confidential medical services” includes care and services to minors of *any age* for: pregnancy prevention and treatment; diagnosis and treatment of sexual assault and HIV testing. “Confidential medical care” and “Confidential medical services” also includes care and services to minors of *12* or older for: treatment of an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease (Fam. Code, § 6926); care related to the diagnosis or treatment of rape; care related to the diagnosis or treatment of drug-related or alcohol-related problems (Fam. Code, 6929) and mental health treatment, counseling, or residential shelter services (Fam. Code, § 6924.)
So if a 12yr old girl attends public school in California, she can check *herself* out of school claiming she is leaving for any of the listed “confidential minor consent medical care” and that school *must* permit the child to leave and not only *will not* but by law *cannot* either notify her parents that she has left school grounds or require their consent before she do so.
Now let’s say that girl is 11, is sleeping with her 15yr old boyfriend (happens all the time) and wants to learn more about how to not get pregnant but doesn’t want to ask her parents or her friends. According to California Family Code Section 6925 she can seek out and receive that information without her parent’s notification or consent and according to the California Attorney General she can check herself out of School to visit, say, a family planning free clinic to receive this information without her parent’s notification or consent and the school must allow her to leave.
“In loco parentis” indeed!
In these cases the government, through both law and public school, is, in fact, not just acting “in place of parents” but circumnavigating parents altogether! I find that pretty chilling, don’t you?
In light of laws and public school policies like those I have listed, I’m thinking a couple of well-intentioned people behaving lawfully while occupying a public sidewalk in front of our schools should be the *least* of your concerns!
In the case of the Gideons, the school is not endorsing a specific religious perspective or providing a bible to our children. The Gideon’s are. And they are doing so on the public sidewalk, where it is lawful for them to do it. So the failure here is not on the part of either the government generally or the school specifically.
As we’ve learned, a City Permit might be issued or it might not but even if a Permit is issued the general public is *not* (contrary to your assertion) assertively notified of that fact. Events and activities like these *might* appear on the Events Calendar on the City’s Special Events and Filming Office website but there is no indication whether a given event or activity has been issued a Permit. If parents don’t remember to check that calendar, they may never know about the Gideons’ activities and, even if they do, the activity may or may not be listed and even if it is, there will be no indication of whether or not a Permit has been issued. So the failure here is not on the part of the City Special Events and Filming Office.
The Gideons, agree with them or not, are simply doing what they have a 1st Amendment protected right to do and they are doing it in a lawful manner. So the failure isn’t on their part either.
If there’s a failure here, then, the only two parties left in the equation are the parents and the children. I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
So we return to what I believe to be the best solution; the solution you, yourself availed yourself of: to direct your child to not talk to the Gideon’s or to accept a Bible from them. In my opinion every parent concerned about this should so direct his or her child. But if they do not, it is not the job of either the school or of government to do so for them.
Our public schools have enough on their plate just trying to properly educate our children with the tools and the funds they are given and the union-imposed constraints they are forced to deal with. Let’s not also ask them to be responsible for Constitutionally- protected conduct on our public sidewalks too shall we?
Our government is already doing far too many things for us that we should rightly be doing for ourselves. Public safety is the proper purview of government but the Gideons have not been demonstrated to pose a threat to public safety in any manner nor to any degree.
So, once again, the best answer to this challenge will not be derived from government or from our public schools. The best answer is within us, as self-governed people in a free society, and in the reasoned and common sense approaches we should all be able to apply, and teach our kids to apply, in cases such as these.
public schools in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana- case involved bible give away on school property -Gideons lose
Key Largo School in Key Largo, Fla- Bibles distributed on a bike path/public sidewalk - Gideons win
No mixed results - the line is the sidewalk
Anyone have a case that says otherwise?