Supreme Court Rejects Religion Case

[Ben]

This is an interesting one. All my opinions are based on this article. I don't know if there's is more data.

If it is acceptable to force a student to write, "Allah is the one true god" (and watch a Muslim indoctrination film to teach said student a lesson for not doing so), then it seems to open the door to a few other class assignments.

"The Christian God is the one true God."
"Judaism is the one true religion."

Apparently even some Muslim scholars and religious leaders think this is absurd.

https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/supreme-court-rejects-case-of-christian-teen-forced-to-write-islamic-conversion-prayer

[brimic]

Its pretty telling when a Muslim scholar is the voice of reason in this story

“Jasser said the High Court should have taken the case. He said it would have been an opportunity to challenge the ideologies of a brand of Islam that has produced ISIS and other terror groups.

“The theocratic interpretations of Islam are really what we need to defeat, which is the establishment of the Islamic leadership," Jasser added, "and the Establishment Clause in America is really the … nuclear way to defeat political Islam.””

[RoadKingLarry]

Does SCOTUS give reasons when they refuse a case?

[Hawkmoon]

Its pretty telling when a Muslim scholar is the voice of reason in this story

That pretty well sums it up.

[charby]

Does SCOTUS give reasons when they refuse a case?

I was thinking the same thing

[sumpnz]

Does SCOTUS give reasons when they refuse a case?

Occasionally.  Usually not.

[MechAg94]

That is odd.  A state run school forcing a student to do a religious exercise.  That should not have gotten anywhere near the SC.

[makattak]

That is odd.  A state run school forcing a student to do a religious exercise.  That should not have gotten anywhere near the SC.

Oh, but see, it's NOT a religious exercise.

Because they say it isn't.

[cordex]

I wish there were a good source for steelmanned positions from opposing sides.  Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris had a series of debates and they led off most of them with each trying to give the strongest argument for the other's position.  That's so much more useful than biased reports strawmanning the opposition.

At first blush this seems like an obvious case of religious infringement, but presumably there is another side to it and I'd love to hear what it is.

Then again, maybe there isn't ...

[fifth_column]

I wish there were a good source for steelmanned positions from opposing sides.  Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris had a series of debates and they led off most of them with each trying to give the strongest argument for the other's position.  That's so much more useful than biased reports strawmanning the opposition.

At first blush this seems like an obvious case of religious infringement, but presumably there is another side to it and I'd love to hear what it is.

Then again, maybe there isn't ...

I hadn't heard the term 'steel man' before, other than in the context of Superman.  I like the concept, I'll have to check out those debates.

[makattak]

I wish there were a good source for steelmanned positions from opposing sides.  Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris had a series of debates and they led off most of them with each trying to give the strongest argument for the other's position.  That's so much more useful than biased reports strawmanning the opposition.

At first blush this seems like an obvious case of religious infringement, but presumably there is another side to it and I'd love to hear what it is.

Then again, maybe there isn't ...

While a simplification of their position, I'm fairly certain I haven't strawmanned it.

The school and the courts find that even though Islam teaches that all you have to do to become a Muslim is to state (or write) that very statement, that was not the school's intent, so it wasn't a religious exercise.

[cordex]

While a simplification of their position, I'm fairly certain I haven't strawmanned it.

The school and the courts find that even though Islam teaches that all you have to do to become a Muslim is to state (or write) that very statement, that was not the school's intent, so it wasn't a religious exercise.

To be clear, I wasn't accusing anyone here of knowingly strawmanning, but as with most news reports I'm not convinced we've been exposed to the information needed for us to come to informed conclusions.  All available news sources exhibit bias and consistently strawman the side they disagree with.  Our interpretation can be no better than the information we have.

[makattak]

To be clear, I wasn't accusing anyone here of knowingly strawmanning, but as with most news reports I'm not convinced we've been exposed to the information needed for us to come to informed conclusions.  All available news sources exhibit bias and consistently strawman the side they disagree with.  Our interpretation can be no better than the information we have.

Here's the appellate court decision:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/appeals-court-sides-with-public-school's-lesson-on-islam/c836f5d1-c8d0-414a-bfd9-5a35509169ce_note.html?questionId=47a69699-3dd1-4686-8724-8338fecbd72d

And here's the legalize of what I summarized and simplified:

The first prong of the Lemon test asks whether the government’s conduct has an
“adequate secular object.” McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 865. This directive requires an
“inquiry into the subjective intentions of the government.” Mellen, 327 F.3d at 372
(emphasis added). This part of the Lemon test imposes a “fairly low hurdle,” requiring
the government to show that it had a “plausible secular purpose” for its action. Glassman
v. Arlington County, 628 F.3d 140, 146 (4th Cir. 2010). Notably, the government’s
purpose need not be “exclusively secular.” Brown v. Gilmore, 258 F.3d 265, 276 (4th
Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Rather, it is only “[w]hen the government acts with the
ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion” that it violates the
Establishment Clause’s “touchstone” principle of religious neutrality. McCreary County,
545 U.S. at 860 (emphasis added). So long as the proffered secular purpose is “genuine,
not a sham, and not merely secondary to a religious objective,” that purpose will satisfy
Lemon’s first prong. Id. at 864; see Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 270 (“A legitimate secular
purpose is . . . sufficient to pass muster under the first prong of the Lemon test, unless the
alleged secular purpose is in fact pretextual.”)

Further in the decision, it appears that rather than write the statement, the worksheet was a "fill in the blank" section that already contained the statement that must be completed.

So they said that she wasn't, therefore, writing the statement and her first amendment rights were not being violated.

[dogmush]

I mean...yeah? 

I'm disagree with making a kid write that, and many of the "let's just gloss over the recent brutality and inherent human rights issues with Islam" that much of America loves, but that actually seems pretty legit.

I strongly doubt that the school district actually intended mass conversions of the populace.  It's much more plausible that this lesson was the same kind of annoying Social Justice claptrap they put everywhere else they can shoehorn it in.  So it's bullshit, and commie, but it's a secular purpose, which would seem to fit:

So long as the proffered secular purpose is “genuine, not a sham, and not merely secondary to a religious objective,” that purpose will satisfy Lemon’s first prong.

Unless your argument is that the case law is wrong? Or the quoted portion of the decision misapplies that law?  I confess I'm not well schooled in this particular area of law.

And I'm actually pretty prejudiced against Muslims.  I think, after not insignificant exposure to it as it is practiced in Southwest Asia, that Islam is a pretty horrible belief set, and folks that practice it and I don't share many common values.

[Ben]

I mean...yeah? 

I'm disagree with making a kid write that, and many of the "let's just gloss over the recent brutality and inherent human rights issues with Islam" that much of America loves, but that actually seems pretty legit.

I strongly doubt that the school district actually intended mass conversions of the populace.  It's much more plausible that this lesson was the same kind of annoying Social Justice claptrap they put everywhere else they can shoehorn it in.  So it's bullshit, and commie, but it's a secular purpose, which would seem to fit:

Unless your argument is that the case law is wrong? Or the quoted portion of the decision misapplies that law?  I confess I'm not well schooled in this particular area of law.

And I'm actually pretty prejudiced against Muslims.  I think, after not insignificant exposure to it as it is practiced in Southwest Asia, that Islam is a pretty horrible belief set, and folks that practice it and I don't share many common values.

I'm not necessarily arguing against the ruling. I'm just curious (and I guess I know the answer) on the results of the same lesson plan, but using certain other religions.

[cordex]

Thanks for that link Mak!  That helps.

Based on the facts as presented in the appellate decision I think the comparative judgement about the earnestness between the average Muslim and the average Christian was mildly inappropriate (whether true or not) but I'm not sure the "fill in the missing bits of the shahada" component is equivalent to compelled speech or enforced conversion.  Considering the subject was Islam, evaluating information from the lesson in the context of a test is not inherently inappropriate.

Had the questions been on a different topic I still wouldn't have had an issue.  I.e. ...
"Marx stated that he believed that society should operate from each according to his _____ to each according to his _____"
"Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that certain unalienable rights were endowed to all men including Life, _____, and the pursuit of ____"
"The 'Four noble truths' of Buddhism are  ____, _____, ____, and ____"

Insert whatever you want there - they're not requiring you to believe in the things, just identifying what you've learned (or not).

According to the story as presented by the appellate decision the consequence to the student for not answering those questions was a lower percentage score but not a letter grade change.  A minor issue at most.

Could the school - or the parents - have handled it better?  Sure.  Was this something that needed a Supreme Court decision?  Probably not.  Was this a case of religious infringement?  Doesn't seem like it to me.  This is exactly why I like to see the other side.