By Martin Fisher, PRB News
Christian Action Network Correspondent
On June 15, Christian Action Network (CAN) filed a “friend of the court” brief to overturn a federal court ruling upholding Islamic indoctrination programs in the public schools. CAN is based in Forest, VA.
The brief focuses on the legal battle between a father and daughter, Kevin and Caleigh Wood, and the Charles County Board of Education, a case that is now on appeal at the 4thCircuit Court of Appeals.
Martin Mawyer, president of CAN, said his organization is joining the Thomas More Law Center, lead counsel in the case, to get the court ruling overturned.
“This school clearly advanced Islam over Christianity, violating the neutrality principle they are supposed to abide by,” Mawyer said.
“Whatever their intentions were, forcing children to recite words that favor one religion over their own is both offensive and unconstitutional on its face.”
U.S. District Court Judge George J. Hazel ruled in March that 11th-grader Caleigh Wood of La Plata High School, MD, and her former-marine dad, could not sue the school district for violating their First Amendment rights.
The Wood family sought the federal lawsuit because of what they called compulsory assignments catered to force students to “profess” tenets of Islamic doctrine.
CAN’s 33-page legal filing, known as an “Amicus Curiae,” is highly critical of ten activities children were forced to complete during a World History course.
“Answering questions on Muslim customs, laws, and morals, as well as describing the Qur’an, either requires the student to read and study the Qur’an or to regurgitate the religious teaching of the teacher,” the brief reads.
“A teacher offering students a single-line correct answer to these questions of faith is an unconstitutional attempt to give a religious opinion disguised as an academic fact.”
In his ruling, Judge Hazel ruled these exercises to be “purely academic.”
“If forcing children to recite the Islamic creed of faith is ‘purely academic,’” Mawyer said, “the court would be hard pressed to define what would become ‘purely religious.’”
“This is a clear violation of the Supreme Court ruling in the Edwards v. Aguillard case,” Mawyer stated.
In that 1987 case, the court ruled:
“Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family. Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary.”
“I remain hopeful and prayerful,” Mawyer said, “the appellate court will clearly see what Judge Hazel turned a blind eye to: That La Plata High School’s Islamic teaching program is pure religious indoctrination and is, therefore, unconstitutional.”
Nice find Tif
Individual parents should not be paying for these actions... they should be brought by the Federal Government or the State's... however, it is the fed and states that have colluded with CAIR to indoctrinate our children in the doctrines of Islam... as if it were a state religion.
The problem with lawsuits is that they only apply to that case... and if there is no underlying criminal law there is no real penalty for the bureaucrats who abuse their power and knowingly operate outside of the statutes and court rulings... I have yet to see any judge jail a public school administrator for violating the laws or previous court judgments... no contempt charges or jail sentences.
The judiciary is corrupt and it is very time consuming and expensive to take these cases to court as PRIVATE CITIZENS OR GROUPS... the government itself should do so. However, it is the government that is forcing these Muslim dictates upon us and they are not willing to sue.
In the meantime CAIR continues to force their propaganda on our children and public schools continue to support them... while private citizens end up bankrupt trying to sue them everytime they pop up.