(CAN) Christian Action Network, Files Appeal to Overturn Islamic Indoctrination Court Ruling

June 15,2018- Christian Action Network, and just when you thought President Trump's Administration of GOP would never lie to the American People, yea right, this is in their face.

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.

  1. Children can be required to learn the Islamic creed of faith: "There is no god but Allah and the Prophet Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."
  2. Children can be required to describe the Quran.
  3. Children can be told to write: "Most Muslim's faith is stronger than the average Christian."
  4. Children can be told to declare: "Islam, at heart, is a peaceful religion."
  5. Children can be told to write: "Muslims conquerors treat those they conquered with tolerance, kindness and respect."
  6. Children can be told: "All children are born without sin." (This is fundamentally opposed to Christianity)
  7. Children can be told: "All people can lead themselves to salvation." (This is fundamentally opposed to Christianity.)
  8. Children can be told to learn the Five Pillars of Islam.
  9. Children can be told to state the laws and morals that Muslims must follow.
  10. Children are told that Muslims and Christians both believe in "One God." (This is fundamentally incorrect. Christianity believes in the Holy Trinity)

“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.”

Views: 43

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

(CAN) Christian Action Network, they sure have made waves and have won several cases.

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.

 You don't say...LMAO at the whole system...:)-

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

 Kavanaugh Accuser Donated   To Hillary Clinton  10 Times,  60+ Liberal Groups 

Reportedly attempted to conceal political activity by scrubbing social media accounts

Over the weekend, a name and face were added to the previously anonymous sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, which is now threatening to derail his nomination. Those looking to obstruct Kavanaugh’s confirmation certainly saved their best for last, as the prior attempts included pathetic stunts such as:

– Claiming to file perjury charges against Kavanaugh, which only Jeff Sessions would have the ability to file.

– Packing the hearings with hysterical protesters, resulting in hundreds of arrests.

– Threatening female Republicans with extortion.

– Cory Booker comparing himself to Spartacus, the escaped slave who led a revolt against the Romans.

The identity of the accuser was revealed as Christine Blasey Ford, who has agreed testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ford reportedly made the allegations back in July in a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Feinstein waited until it was close to the vote to confirm Kavanaugh before making the accusations public.

There’s a record of Ford making the accusation in a 2012 therapy session, though Kavanaugh isn’t named in the session notes that Ford gave to the press. Ford alleges that in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh entered a room drunk, pinned her to a bed, and groped her over her clothing. Kavanaugh “categorically denied” the allegations.View image on Twitter

Fin Gomez @finnygo   NEW: Statement from Judge Brett Kavanaugh:

There is a slight discrepancy in the account Ford provided in her letter to Feinstein and in her therapist’s notes, but that could simply be due to an error on her therapists part.

There are however some other questions that need to be answered which call into question Ford’s motives.

As Grabien reported, they include:

1. Why Ford deleted her public social media accounts before revealing herself.

Ford deleted all of her public social media before she came forward, making it difficult to see the advocacy and partisanship she was engaged in the time leading up to her making her allegation public. Of course, Ford may simply value her privacy, but the act of deleting her public postings will inevitably make some wonder what she didn’t want seen.

2. That Ford may have an unrelated grudge against Kavanaugh, as his mother, once a circuit court judge, ruled against Ford’s parents.

In August 1996, Christine Blasey Ford’s parents, Paula and Ralph Blasey, were foreclosed upon. Kavanaugh’s mom, Martha, was then serving as a judge on the Montgomery Country Circuit Court, and she ruled against Christine Ford’s parents.

3. That Ford is a Democrat who donates to left-wing causes, attended the anti-Trump March for Science, and previously signed an open letter challenging Trump’s border policy.

Ford is a political activist who has made dozens of donations to left-wing causes. According to OpenSecrets, she has made more than 60 donations to liberal causes, with almost four dozen to the pro-abortion group, Emily’s List, alone. Ford also donated to the DNC, Hillary Clinton (more than 10 times), Bernie Sanders, and the progressive organizing group ActBlue.

Ford likewise attended the anti-Trump March for Science, where she wore a hat knitted like a human brain, but inspired by the feminist “pussy hats” worn at the Women’s Marches. Ford also added her name to an open letter from health professionals who argued the U.S. border policy resulting in temporary separation of some families was harmful to children’s development.

There’s no statute of limitations on sexual assault in Maryland, where she claims that the assault happened. Rather than go to the police, Ford went to Dianne Feinstein. If her accusations are true, she should immediately file a police report against Kavanaugh and take him to trial. If she doesn’t, perhaps that’s because she knows the consequences of filing a false police report.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service