BlessedCause Main Index
BlessedCause home page
BlessedCause Main Index
BlessedCause home page
Memorandum of Law 3
INCOMPLETE Last update 8/7/04
This document is not fully Sheperdized and will be updated, pure rough form
"Innovative curriculum practices" are found in Houghton Mifflin textbooks to include pluralist beliefs and practices programmed to compare each religion "equally" with the lure to conclude that if all religions are equal there is no one truth, thereby directly attacking religious belief.
These tactics are exemplified in the textbook series by Houghton Mifflin.
California’s approved textbook "MODERN WORLD HISTORY" adheres to the pluralistic tenets and displays humanistic beliefs as fact while applauding Karen Armstrong, who denounced her Catholic faith:"ANALYZING PRIMARY SOURCES"
"In her book, A History of God, Karen Armstrong explains why religion is such a powerful force in people's lives:
A VOICE FROM THE PAST
Human beings are spiritual animals. Indeed, there is a case for arguing that Homosapiens is also Homoreligiousus. Men and women started to worship gods as soon as they became recognizably human; they created religions at the same time they created works of art... These early faiths expressed the wonder and mystery that seem always to have been an essential component of the human experience of this beautiful yet terrifying world. Like art, religion has been an attempt to find meaning and value in life, despite the suffering that flesh is heir to."
Karen Armstrong's atheist beliefs that man created religion and reducing religion to an attempt to find meaning is written without refute, without explanation as one person's beliefs, she is introduced as a "primary source" displaying the underlying attack on religious beliefs.
(same page) "Write a persuasive speech in order to convince someone that Confucianism can be considered a religion. Write a dialogue between two people in which each explains the workings of one of the major religions to the other."
What possible conclusion would a pluralist hope for when asking children to explain religions they have barely skimmed? As pluralist philosophy professors have already explained, children will come to the conclusion that they are told, that all religions are equal leading them to the conclusion that there is no one truth. They will become frustrated as they CANNOT POSSIBLY explain a religion they don’t understand and will come to the predetermined assumption that there is no God. They will accept what Karen Armstrong was applauded for stating: that man created religion.
The forced establishment of pluralism is demonstrated in college course curriculums. Cuesta College of California has now included a "Diversity Requirement" to their course catalog. It lists the required classes for an AA and states:
"These classes emphasize ‘prejudice reduction and an understanding of cultural differences; the disciplined use of critical thinking and reasoning skills to challenge the biased assumptions and behaviors of individuals and societal institutions; a focus on inter-group relationships within categories of identity: such as race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, or age; and a focus on struggles for power, justice, and access to resources."
Don't miss: "To challenge the biased assumptions and behaviors of individuals" which have proved to be the religious beliefs of individuals as so many of these "diversity" classes dissect religious beliefs, directly violating the Constitutional right of religious freedom.
Indeed, General Education Requirements at Cuesta College include pluralist beliefs, "moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views." (see Exhibit D, copy of Cuesta requirements)
According to the EEOC, if the employer, (or in our case, teacher/education system) of a "new age" program (i.e. pluralism) believes there is no religious basis for the training or techniques used is irrelevant to determining the need for accommodation. If an employee believes that some aspect of the training program conflicts with his/her own beliefs, an employer may only inquire as to what the employee's beliefs are and consider the sincerity with which the employee holds those beliefs. The employer may not base its decision to accommodate the employee's religious beliefs on its (the employer's) own evaluation of whether the training or the techniques used actually conflict with the employee's religious beliefs. An employer may not reject an employee's request for accommodation on the basis that the employee's beliefs about the "new age" (i.e., pluralism) training seem unreasonable. EEOC Notice N-915.022
Under this rule of law, teachers should accomodate the religious beliefs of students without questioning and evaluating the sincerity of those beliefs in consideration of payment (an A). (Ironically, it is public education's whitewashed versions of various religions that cannot bear scrutiny.)
The EEOC explains an employer may also be liable where the training program is explicitly based upon religious beliefs and in this case, pluralist or religious philosophy beliefs. Under Title VII an employer is obligated to maintain a working environment free of coercion or intimidation based on religion. Requiring teachers or students to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of "ethics, philosophy and the role of religion in human experiences" as per pluralism, for a degree or credentials violates Title VII. In this situation, an educational institution discriminates not only against potential teachers and students whose individual religious beliefs conflict with the training program but also against potential teachers and students who choose not to have religious beliefs. EEOC Notice N-915.022, C.D. No. 72-0528, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973); 6316 State of Minnesota v. Sports and Health Club, 392 N.W.2d 320, 41 EPD 36.617 (1986) Young v. Southwestern Savings and Loan Association, 509 F.2d 140, 9 EPD 9995 (5th Cir. 1975) n. 16.
Teaching credentials, degrees and good grades are rewards just as benefits, compensation and jobs in the following cases:
Here, [an] employee was put to a choice between fidelity to religious belief or cessation of work" "Neutral objective standards must be met to qualify for compensation." Thomas v. Review Bd. Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981)
"Where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial. Thomas v. Review Bd. Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981).
How much more offensive it is put substantial pressure on children to violate their beliefs, led by a "teacher," from whom the child is instructed to learn from. Public schools must also be an "environment free of coercion or intimidation based on religion."
Implementing "innovative techniques" admittedly coercing relinquishment of religious beliefs, applying "critical thinking" demanding objective proof (when Christians walk by faith not by sight), analyzing religious beliefs through a humanist pluralist lens are a philosophist’s dream-come-true and are NOT neutral objective standards. Indeed, if every shred of belief in God is to be stripped from public education, then every shred of otology, the challenges and criticisms of said beliefs, must be eradicated as well. Otherwise , we are not "free of any compulsion from the state." Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 By compelling adherence to modification of behavior and violation of beliefs is a governmental intrusion of religious liberty. Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Court Rulings of the First Amendment
The First Amendment specifically protects religious freedom and are echoed in numerous rulings. In Justice Black’s opinion favoring "separation of church and state" he wrote:
"The people [of Virginia], as elsewhere, reached the conviction that individual religious liberty could be achieved best under a government which was stripped of all power to tax, to support, or otherwise to assist any or all religions, or to interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group." Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
"...that no person, either believer or non-believer, should be taxed to support a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a society required that the minds of men always be wholly free; and that cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established religions." Id.
Justice Black quoted the preamble to the 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty' by Jefferson:
"Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either...; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern..." And the statute itself enacted "That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested or burthened, in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or beliefs." Id.
"This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and Jefferson played such leading roles, had the same objective and were intended to provide the same protection against governmental intrusion on religious liberty as the Virginia statute." Id.
The law guarantees the right of every person to "freely choose his own course in religious teaching, free of any compulsion from the state." Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203
When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, clearly they meant to protect religious freedom, not to be separated from actual faith. They did not write that all religions should be treated as myths, lumped into one and treated with disparagement. The assaults on religious freedom are attempted through comparing all religions, identifying them as equal, and then expecting children to attempt to "imagine" and play act being of different faiths. Children are then asked to defend the tenets of that faith and when they cannot, are led to the conclusion that there is no one truth. As Julian Willard put it, (quoted in the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy), when Christians "become aware of diversity and cannot demonstrate that their perspective is superior to that of their competitors, they not only lose the right to hold the exclusivistic belief in question justifiably, they have an epistemic obligation to "set about abandoning" the religious practices based on this exclusivistic belief." –Julian Willard as quoted in Religious Philosophy, Pluralism.
Pluralism is in clear-cut violation of the intention of our founding fathers: "Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness." –Thomas Jefferson in the preamble to the 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty' quoted by Justice Black in Everson v. State Board of Education, supra
If there is any semblance left of following the Constitution, then pluralism in public education MUST CEASE.
ARGUMENTS
State Objectives, Extent of Accommodation and Scope
It will be argued that such a broad elimination of objectionable material will "leave public education in shreds" and impede state interest.
"The state action at issue here is a school board policy of academic freedom and refusal to remove from the curriculum a book that offends Grove's religious sensibilities. Three factors are relevant in our analysis: (1) the extent of the burden upon the exercise of religion, (2) the existence of a compelling state interest justifying that burden, and (3) the extent to which accommodation of the complainant would impede the state's objectives.
"The state interest in providing well-rounded public education would be critically impeded by accommodation of Grove's wishes.
"If we are to eliminate everything that is objectionable to any of [the religious bodies existing in the United States] or inconsistent with any of their doctrines, we will leave public education in shreds.
Grove v. Mead School District, 753 F.2d 1528; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28861 [listing the following in argument] Florey v. Sioux Falls School District 49-5, 619 F.2d 1311, 1318 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 987, 101 S. Ct. 409, 66 L. Ed. 2d 251 [*1534] (1980) (quoting McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 235, 68 S. Ct. 461, 477, 92 L. Ed. 649 (1948) (Jackson, J., concurring))."
But the Court has expressed it’s deep conviction that the separation of church and state must prevail:
"While there were strong dissents in the Everson case, they did not challenge the Court's interpretation of the First Amendment's coverage as being too broad, but thought the Court was applying that interpretation too narrowly to the facts of that case. Not long afterward, in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 , we were urged to repudiate as dicta the above-quoted Everson interpretation of the scope of the First Amendment's coverage. We declined to do this, but instead strongly reaffirmed what had been said in Everson, calling attention to the fact that both the majority and the minority in Everson had agreed on the principles declared in this part of the Everson opinion. And a concurring opinion in McCollum, written by MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER and joined by the other Everson dissenters, said this:
"We are all agreed that the First and Fourteenth Amendments have a secular reach far more penetrating [367 U.S. 488, 494] in the conduct of Government than merely to forbid an `established church.'. . . We renew our conviction that `we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion.'" McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203
Such conviction cannot be applied unfairly. Justice must be for all. Justice is not served when extreme impositions and strict adherence of the law is demanded to strip all faith from the government yet not protect it, not apply the same standards to one pluralist religion and belief bent on destroying all other religious beliefs.
* Disclaimer: BlessedCause/ Jen Shroder is not a licensed attorney and cannot and does not provide legal advice. You should seek counsel from an attorney licensed to practice within your state. All content of this Memorandum of Law, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, case quotes and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional. BlessedCause is not responsible for misuse of any information given.