Here We Go Again! 9th Circuit Outlaws Banners Mentioning "God"

The 9th Circuit strikes again!

The same three judge panel that decided that "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional is at it again. This time, they have reversed a lower court ruling that allowed Bradley Johnson to display patriotic banners in his San Diego classroom because they mention "God."

I wrote about this controversy in a post called "Finally, A Judge with Sense in California!", in which I celebrated the lower court ruling that enabled the banners to remain. If you are unfamiliar with this controversy, you may wish to review that post from 2008.

2008. Seriously?

So, three years ago, I wrote that Bradley Johnson had been displaying his banners for 25 years. That means it has been 28 years now, and they still have not had any significant complaints, except maybe from Michael Newdow, or some other professional malcontent who lives to see the mention of God eradicated from the public square.

Bradley Johnson is a respected math teacher in the Poway Unified School District - in California, where else? They actually told him to take down his banner in 2007, all the while leaving intact other banners and posters displayed in other classrooms containing photos of the Dalai Lama, Tibetan Prayer Flags, anti-religious song lyrics, and gay and lesbian promotional materials. Whatever your opinion of any of these materials, I guarantee you that they are every bit as offensive to some segments of the population as the mention of "God" in the context of American history.

One phrase, "One Nation Under God" is from the Pledge of Allegiance - the same Pledge that the 9th Circuit judges got their panties in a twist about in 2002. "In God We Trust" is on our money - though in recent years it has been banished to the edges of some coins. "God Shed His Grace on Thee" and "God Bless America" are familiar lyrics from patriotic songs that Americans have been singing for generations.

Here is a photo of the evil banner in question:

Photo Credit: Thomas More Law Center

Here is how it looks in the classroom, where at least half the students have their backs toward it.

The Thomas More Law Center is once again defending Johnson, and in September, announced its intent to petition for an "en banc" review of the decision, which will require the entire voting membership of the 9th Circuit to decide whether the petition should be granted.  If the petition is granted they will have to go before a panel of 11 judges who will be selected from among the voting members.

As I mentioned in my earlier article, this is not specifically about homeschooling, but it certainly continues to underscore the hostility to anything that might be - even erroneously - construed as a religious message. Here are a couple of quotes from the decision, written by appeals court Judge Richard Tallman.

“We consider whether a public school district infringes the First Amendment liberties of one of its teachers when it orders him not to use his public position as a pulpit from which to preach his own views on the role of God in our Nation’s history to the captive students in his mathematics classroom. The answer is clear: it does not.” 

“Though Johnson maintains that his banners express purely patriotic sentiments … it seems as plain to us as it was to school officials that Johnson’s banners concern religion."

“One would need to be remarkably unperceptive to see the statements …. as organized and displayed by Johnson and not understand them to convey a religious message.” 

But it was okay for other teachers to display the Tibetan prayer flags, or lyrics to "Imagine" to captive students in their [insert name of class here] class.

Puhleeze. This is the same court that ruled in 2005 that adopting Muslim names, reciting Muslim prayers, and simulating religious fasting for three weeks was a perfectly acceptable classroom activity, not “overt religious exercises” that would raise concerns under the First Amendment prohibition of “establishment of religion.”

Never mind that these exercises were conducted in the fall of 2001. Am I the only one who gets sick to my stomach when I think about that?

Can you imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth if students were subjected to some Christian themed role playing for three weeks? 

During Ramadan?

I know not everyone homeschools for religious reasons, but rulings like these confirm that those who do are not merely imagining that their worldview is under attack.  It is part of the same phenomenon that caused school officials in Michigan to think it was okayto hold a terrorism drill that depicted Christian homeschoolers as theterrorists. In 2007, Burlington County, NJ school officials held a mock drill that included gun-toting Christian extremists who were upset because the daughter of one of them was expelled for praying in school. Superintendent Chris Manno told the Burlington County Times:

We need to practice under conditions as real as possible in order to evaluate our procedures and plans so that they're as effective as possible.

This isn't MY reality.

I know, I know. This isn't happening in YOUR public school.  First of all, how do you know? And second, when it is, will you do anything about it? Whether you are a Christian or not, it should matter to you that  someone's freedom is being curtailed because of what they believe. Next time it could be some value or belief YOU cherish.

Finally, a judge with sense in California!

"That God places prominently in our nation's history does not create an Establishment Clause problem requiring curettage and disinfectant of Johnson's classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God." - Judge Robert T. Benitez


For the last 25 years, math teacher Bradley Johnson has had a banner on the wall of his classroom measuring 7 feet by 2 feet, on which are inscribed the words "In God We Trust," "One Nation Under God," "God Bless America" and "God Shed His Grace On Thee." He has had a second banner for 17 years that quotes the Declaration of Independence by including the phrase, "All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator."

Even though 4,000 students have passed through Johnson's classroom without a single complaint in 25 years, in January, Westview High School principal Dawn Kastner told him his banners were no longer permissible because they convey a Judeo-Christian perspective.

Right. Now I have heard everything - trying to ban a quote from The Declaration of Independence from a classroom. And this from a school district that allows other teachers to hang Buddhist, Islamic, and Tibetan prayer messages on their classroom walls.

The Thomas More Law Center sued on Johnson's behalf. The school district fought to have the suit dismissed, on the incredible grounds that "because Johnson was a teacher, he had no First Amendment protections in his classroom."

Only in California.

But this time, a judge got it right! Last week, Judge Robert Benitez strongly disgreed with the school district's argument, saying that it amounted to to saying that Johnson has no free speech rights at all because he is a government employee. He even quoted (the audacity!) a 1952 Supreme Court ruling, Zorach v. Clauson: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."

This is a welcome ruling. While it doesn't specifically mention homeschooling, the events that prompted the lawsuit are not as few and far between as we would like to think, and are indicative of an increasing hostility on the part of the educational system to God or any suggestion that He had a hand in the blessing of our land.

Last month I posted several times in this blog about the suit pitting the University of California against Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murietta. The ruling in that case was in favor of the university.

One of the issues that was debated in the case was the use of texts that attributed historical events to divine providence.

I received several excellent comments on that one, including a very insightful one by "Mary", who is affiliated with the University. She actually presented a clear explanation of the university's position and how the particular restrictions on curriculum content in this case did not actually interfere with either Calvary Chapel's right or ability to teach alternative worldviews, or Calvary students' ability to take the required courses and be accepted into UC schools. I had to concede that the regulations did not discriminate against Christian students.

But she didn't seem to ever grasp my point about the Judeo-Christian worldview being increasingly under attack by those in the educational system, or my concern that the California ruling, which today is directed at specific students and their specific high school texts, could ultimately morph into some kind of monster statute that would penalize all Christian high schoolers, and Christian home schoolers seeking to enter institutions of higher learning in California. People who believe that "God created..." or "God shed His grace on Thee..." are currently marginalized, prohibited from attributing their academic success to Him in valedictory speeches, and taught that it is okay for them to believe that God created the heavens and the earth or that He governs in the affairs of men, as long as they understand that the "real truth" is what the secular schools teach instead.

This Westview High School case result is good news. But that the case existed in the first place is further evidence that my concerns about our worldview being under attack are not unfounded.

Utterly Off Topic Wednesday will actually be tomorrow, as I remember September 11.

If you missed the excitement, the other posts in the series about Calvary Chapel and UC are located below:

1. For All You Single Issue Voters Out There
2. California Dreamin'
3. Faith and Science - A Response to "Anonymous"
4. As I was Saying
5. "Anonymous" Revealed
   

Be sure to read the comments in order to really follow the rest of the posts.

Faith and science - a response to "Anonymous"

I was going to respond to you on the comment that you left, but this got so long I decided to make it a general post. I'm sorry you didn't leave your name. You needn't have posted anonymously. As long as someone uses a respectful tone, I am open to anyone posting comments. I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

Anyway, "Anonymous," thanks for your response. Once I got going, I did get off on the Santa Claus tangent :-) - which is definitely a more emotional topic. But I don't believe I ignored reality at all.

The reality is that my worldview is increasingly under attack, and my concern is that this ruling, which today may be directed at specific students and their specific high school texts, will ultimately be redirected to penalize all Christian high schoolers, and Christian home schoolers who would like to attend UC schools.

Here is another reality: "As California goes, so goes the nation." Once the first inch is ceded, it is only a matter of time before they take the mile as well. So "all UC schools" could eventually become "all schools".

I firmly believe in evolution, if defined as the observed changes in populations of organisms over time. But I did teach my children that they were under no obligation to believe the "Theory of Evolution" as dogma.

I tell a story earlier on in this blog about using Bill Nye the Science Guy in my elementary science curriculum, which provided many opportunities to talk about science and faith and that the two are not mutually exclusive. In oversimplified terms, we considered science the "how" and faith the "why." Once in high school, we used an excellent science curriculum that supported our worldview, but I still made a point of familiarizing my children with the evolutionary curriculum and terminology they were expected to "know", using texts that contained evolutionary material.

In public schools this is called "teaching to the test." Perhaps this is what you meant by "adapting the teachings to fit the requirements." See, we didn't disagree after all!

I guess my main beef is that the theory of evolution has evolved - pardon the pun - into a kind of competing religion from which no dissent is tolerated. Kind of like the Inquisition, minus the burning at the stake.

Homeschooling IS Legal in California!

Hallelujah!

The Three Blind Mice of the Second Appellate District Court in California reversed themselves and unanimously conceded that homeschooling is, in fact, legal in California, to wit: "California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education."

We give all the glory to God for this victory!

We saw some pretty strange bedfellows in this fight - Arnold Schwarzenegger and Focus on the Family. Christian Home Education Association and the California superintendent of public instruction. Alliance Defense Fund and the California Attorney General.

Wow. Take a look for yourself by clicking the title link or here

Let's not assume that the fight is ended. Every year some politician introduces a bill trying to place restrictions on homeschooling in one or more states.

Perhaps they are afraid for their political careers. Home schoolers are way more likely to participate in the political process than other Americans. The report "Homeschooling Grows Up," a summary of the research conducted by Dr. Brian Ray on the adult behavior of former homeschooled students includes the eye opening statistic that 76% of those 18-24 have voted in a state or national election within the previous 5 years, compared to 29% of the general US population, and a staggering 95% of those 25-29 have voted versus 40% of the general population.

This would bode ill for legislators of all stripes who were virulently opposed to homeschooling.

Ill wind blows for homeschooling

This has been a tough couple of years for homeschooling.

Even as homeschooling is enjoying more widespread public acceptance than ever before, and more evidence that it is not only viable, but a superior method of education, there is also evidence that teachers' unions, state boards of education, and governments want to eliminate it - and if they cannot do that, severely restrict it.

Witness the ruling in California that effectively banned homeschooling unless the parents held a teaching license qualifying them to teach in public schools.

Witness homeschoolers specifically excluded from a contest sponsored by Subway Restaurants that any student of an institutional school could enter and win.

Witness the gross persecution (and prosecution!) of parents in Germany.

Witness the first time in 15 years that a jurisdiction has enacted laws that increased homeschooling regulations.

Drip. Drip. Drip.

Now, some of these situations have actually been resolved, like Subway apologizing to home schoolers, and a number of positive developments in the California case.

Presidential candiate Ron Paul actually had homeschooling as an active part of his platform.

But the last congressional elections swept in swarms of Democrats and confirmed Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. An Obama presidency is not out of the realm of possibility.

It is interesting that the rabid supporters of other kinds of deadly "choices" do not support educational choice.

Now, I am not interested in debating the relative merits of the candidates, because at the moment I am a "None of the Above" supporter. Neither do I think someone should vote for a candidate based solely on his position on homeschooling. I realize there are entire groups of home school families who support each candidate for various reasons.

But a candidate's stance on educational choice speaks volumes about what he or she really thinks about parental rights, and whether he trusts parents to raise their own children. Whether he thinks the state should have carte blanche for 12 years to disabuse your child of any archaic notions he may have gotten from his stupid parents about God, right and wrong, American sovereignty, or anything else that might keep her from becoming a good global citizen.

It doesn't look the same as the current prosecution of home schoolers in Germany, but it is the germ of the same idea. Eventually it WILL look the same if we are not vigilant.

Have you really thought through what each candidate's policies as president will mean for your right to home school?