(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: 46

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 Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

 Judge Orders Mueller To Prove  Russia Meddled In Election 

Judge Dabney L. Friedrich

A Washington federal judge on Thursday ordered special counsel Robert Mueller’s team to clarify election meddling claims lodged against a Russian company operated by Yevgeny Prigozhin, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to Bloomberg.

Concord Management and Consulting, LLC. – one of three businesses indicted by Mueller in February along with 13 individuals for election meddling, surprised the special counsel in April when they actually showed up in court to fight the charges. Mueller’s team tried to delay Concord from entering the case, arguing that thee Russian company not been properly served, however Judge Dabney Friedrich denied the request – effectively telling prosecutors ‘well, they’re here.’

Concord was accused in the indictment of supporting the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian ‘troll farm’ accused of trying to influence the 2016 US election.

On Thursday, Judge Freidrich asked Mueller’s prosecutors if she should assume they aren’t accusing Concord of violating US laws applicable to election expenditures and failure to register as a foreign agent.

Concord has asked Dabney to throw out the charges – claiming that Mueller’s office fabricated a crime, and that there is no law against interfering in elections.

According to the judge’s request for clarification, the Justice Department has argued that it doesn’t have to show that Concord had a legal duty to report its expenditures to the Federal Election Commission. Rather, the allegation is that the company knowingly engaged in deceptive acts that precluded the FEC, or the Justice Department, from ascertaining whether they had broken the law. -Bloomberg

On Monday, Friedrich raised questions over whether the special counsel’s office could prove a key element of their case – saying that it was “hard to see” how allegations of Russian influence were intended to interfere with US government operations vs. simply “confusing voters,” reports law.com.

During a 90-minute hearing, Friedrich questioned prosecutor Jonathan Kravis about how the government would be able to show the Russian defendants were aware of the Justice Department and FEC’s functions and then deliberately sought to skirt them.

“You still have to show knowledge of the agencies and what they do. How do you do that?” Friedrich asked.

Kravis, a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, argued that the government needed only to show that Concord Management and the other defendants were generally aware that the U.S. government “regulates and monitors” foreign participation in American politics. That awareness, Kravis said, could be inferred from the Russians’ alleged creation of fake social media accounts that appeared to be run by U.S. citizens and “computer infrastructure” intended to mask the Russian origin of the influence operation.

“That is deception that is directed at a higher level,” Kravis said. Kravis appeared in court with Michael Dreeben, a top Justice Department appellate lawyer on detail to the special counsel’s office. -law.com

Concord pleaded not guilty in May. Their attorney, Eric Dubelier – a partner at Reed Smith, has described the election meddling charges as “make believe,” arguing on Monday that Mueller’s indictment against Concord “doesn’t charge a crime.”

“There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn’t,” said Dubelier, who added that Mueller’s office alleged a “made-up crime to fit the facts they have.”

Dubelier added that the case against Concord Management is the first in US history “where anyone has ever been charged with defrauding the Justice Department” through their failure to register under FARA.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service