Gimme That Old Time Litigation
One of my more hypertensive pet peeves is seeing legislators or other “public servants” — typically local councils but sometimes prosecutors or state legislatures or even Congress itself — pass a law that any reasonably trained law school graduate knows is patently unconstitutional. Remember, almost all politicians are law school graduates, and government bodies have their own counsel on the payroll or on retainer. Someone, somewhere along the way, ought to stand athwart yelling “Stop!”
For example:
A federal appeals court should order a public school district in Missouri to stop permitting Bible distribution in its elementary schools, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
…
The AU brief asserts that board members in the district knew full well their actions were legally dubious. The district’s attorney had advised against allowing Bible distribution, and the district’s insurance carrier announced it would not defend the district in the event of a lawsuit. The district’s former superintendent, Homer Lewis, resigned when the board refused to stop the distribution scheme.
How else to describe a panel of brazen theocrats who ignore every unbiased, informed opinion on a constitutional matter before them but to condemn them for “political malpractice”? It would not be entirely outrageous for the State of Missouri to intervene and dissolve the school board entirely and start anew (which, remember, states can generally do — states are “sovereign,” not school districts).
The case is Doe v. South Iron R-1 School District, pending before the Eighth Circuit. The (sternly worded) trial court order, No. 06-392 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 5, 2006), granted a preliminary injunction against the school district (PDF – 25 pages).
—
However, for every positive Establishment Clause development, there apparently must be an equal and opposite Establishment Clause development:
A Michigan public school district is under pressure to provide a constitutionally suspect and factually flawed Bible course to its high school students.The curriculum being pushed by a parent in Howell, Mich., is the product of a North Carolina-based group called the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. The Council was founded in 1993 and has peddled its curriculum relentlessly nationwide. Its Web site* argues that public schools are failing students by not focusing their attentions on the Bible. “The Bible,” the Council maintains (inaccurately), “was the foundation and blueprint for our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, our educational system, and our entire history until the last 20 or 30 years.”
…
U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich in Gibson v. Lee County [1 F.Supp.2d 1426 (M.D.Fla. 1998)] concluded that the course improperly sought to teach New Testament stories, such as the resurrection of Jesus, as secular history.
At least with “intelligent design” and other creationist gobbledygook, the theocrats make a superficial attempt to pretend that there is something scientific or at least secular in their proposed curriculum. But the New Testament? As secular history? If you’re going to have an ulterior motive, at least make it ulterior and not so insolently overt.
Fortunately, the school district (sorta kinda) saw the light and abstained on the proposed evangelical indoctrination program. A committee will, however, revisit the issue in April. Stay tuned.
*Back to that theocrat website: I didn’t realize that Horace Greeley (1811 – 1872) was a “Founding Father.” Note also that they misspelled his name. So much for their stated goal of “improving” education.
—
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case this term that could make it harder for private citizens to file lawsuits such as these in the context of President Bush’s abominable “faith-based initiatives” program, which every unbiased observer acknowledges is nothing more than back-door theocracy via the government’s spending power.
The issue in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, No. 06-157, is a relatively complex question of who has “standing” to sue over such faith-based spending; ACSBlog has a nice summary.
—
Speaking of old-time litigation:
Similar Posts:
- Time for Some More Textbook Stickers?
- Your Money’s No Good Here
- What Part of “Establishment” is Unclear?
- Activist Legislators: Better Five Wasteful Monuments Go Up…
- No Child Left Race-Unassigned?
Filed under: Uncategorized
Keep talking about religion! It doesn't kill my brain like the other stuff!
The Missouri school district's policy didn't strike me as stupid as it seems to strike you. Remember the general rule of thumb for establishment cases: You must favor everyone or no one. The article says nothing about the school preventing other religious or non-religious groups from distributing their own material to the students. The case was murky to me, with my major reservation being the status of the students as a captive audience.
Then I read the injunction.
"[The superintendent] further stated that if the Board wanted to allow the distribution of Bibles at school, it should adopt an “open forum” policy that would not allow discrimination against any organization. The Board did not approve the suggested open forum policy, but instead voted to “pretend this meeting never happened, and to continue to allow the Gideons to distribute Bibles as we have done in the past.”
This passage implies there was a CLOSED FORUM policy! However, the school board subsequently adopts a completely sane and acceptable policy allowing anyone to distribute material to the students in a non-coercive manner. At this point I'm starting to sympathize – a little! – with the defendents.
The judge began dropping in a two very important notes here and there: 1. The minutes say the policy was supported for the express purpose of pushing Christianity onto the students. 2. The school board is strongly suspected of doctoring the minutes to say things happened that didn't actually happen.
Now I'm firmly in the 'Screw the schoolboard' camp.
—-
The bible curriculum in question has been thoroughly trashed. There's a competing curriculum, The Bible Literacy Project, that is supposed to be objective and secular.
[Kip replies: Your second sentence is incorrect where the classroom is concerned. The state cannot force any religion, period, on students in the classroom, where they are a "captive audience." Viewpoint-neutral access to school facilities in general is another matter (e.g., setting up a table in the lobby or after-school rallies in the gym), but the classroom itself is strictly off limits.]