So here's a fascinating -- and by fascinating, I mean appalling -- case
that the ACLU is filing on behalf of a local family, against a Louisiana
school district and several officials/teachers. The family suffered a
tremendous litany of unconstitutional behaviors directed against them,
but they are perhaps best represented by the words of plaintiff
Scott Lane, husband of plaintiff Sharon Lane, father of plaintiffs S.L and M.L, and stepfather of plaintiff C.C.
He gives examples of some of the issues his Buddhist stepson
encountered, and the disregard for constitutional separation of church
and state is simply staggering:
On a science test, their teacher had included a fill-in-the-blank question: "ISN'T IT AMAZING WHAT THE _____
HAS MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" When my stepson didn't know
the answer ("Lord"), she belittled him in front of the entire class.
When he wrote in "Lord Buddha" on another exam, she marked it wrong. As
she was returning that exam to students, one student proclaimed aloud
that "people are stupid if they think God is not real." In response, my stepson's teacher agreed,
telling the class, "Yes! That is right! I had a student miss that on
his test." The entire class broke out in laughter at my stepson.
The same teacher also told our children that the Bible is "100 percent true," that the Earth was created by God 6,000 years ago, and that evolution
is "impossible" and a "stupid theory made up by stupid people who don't
want to believe in God." She's also told the class that Buddhism is
"stupid." (emphasis added)
While this particular teacher, Rita Roark, was especially problematic,
Lane gives a number of other examples of the general atmosphere of the
school, including that of defendant and school superintendent Sara
Ebarb:
When we went to the school to meet with the
principal, we saw a large picture of Jesus over the school's main doors,
a Bible verse on the school's electronic marquee, and numerous
religious posters and pictures on the walls. Religious images and
messages are displayed throughout the school, in fact.
We learned from our children that official prayers, typically
led by the principal or teachers, are routinely incorporated into class
and school events like assemblies, and sporting events. The school even
requires students to attend "See You at the Pole" each year, where they must take part in prayer and worship.
We discovered that school officials were distributing religious
literature to students. For example, one of our other son's teachers passed out copies of a book from the "Truth For Youth" program, a revivalist ministry. The book included the entire New
Testament of the Bible as well as cartoons that denounce evolution and
trumpet the evils of birth control, premarital sex, rock music, alcohol,
pornography, homosexuality, sorcery, and witchcraft. (emphasis added)
Supporting evidence is provided.
But the embrace of religiosity and disregard for constitutional
protections goes much higher than teachers and event coordinators. When
the Lanes took their complaints to the school superintendent,
she told them
that “[t]his is the Bible Belt” and that they would simply have to accept that teachers would proselytize students. She also asked whether C.C. had to be raised as a Buddhist and whether he could “change” his faith, and she suggested that C.C. transfer to another district school – more than 25 miles away
where, in her words, “there are more Asians.” The day after meeting
with the Lanes, the Superintendent sent a letter to Negreet Principal
Gene Wright stating that she approved of Negreet’s official religious
practices. Wright read the letter to the entire Negreet student body
over the school’s public address system. (emphasis added)
The superintendent's complete lack of comprehension of religious freedom
is made more clear in the complaint, which details how she told the
Lanes
that “[t]eachers have religious freedom.” She further
stated that “if they were in a different country,” Plaintiffs would see
“that country’s religion everywhere,” and that, therefore, they
“shouldn’t be offended” to “see God here.” Purporting to illustrate her
point further, she noted that, because she did not find it offensive
that “the lady who cuts [her] toenails has a statue of Buddha,”
Plaintiffs should not be bothered by Roark’s in-class proselytization.
In her mind, "freedom" is not a freedom to hold a belief, but a freedom
to force others to hold that belief. The illogicality of such a position
is made apparent when one considers what happens when you have people
who hold different beliefs exercising this "freedom". Furthermore,
Erbarb's response to the family -- that C.C. should go elsewhere,
because he was in the Bible belt -- illustrates that her view of
religious freedom is entirely one sided. It is not freedom, and it
extends only to Christians.
It is worth noting that, while C.C. did transfer, he is still subject
to much of the same religious harassment. Even if that were not the
case, it should go without saying that no child, and no family, should
have to go half an hour out of their way each morning simply to avoid
being harassed and intimidated -- much less by authority figures -- for
praying to Lord Buddha (or not praying at all) rather than Lord Jesus.
And while C.C.'s troubles are not over, neither are those of his siblings (one of whom is a Christian):
Plaintiffs S.L. and M.L. are minor children and brothers
to C.C. They are both enrolled at Negreet High School, where they are
subject to the customs, policies, and practices of Defendants Sabine
Parish School Board, Superintendent Ebarb, and Principal Wright.
Although M.L. attends church, he believes that faith is a personal
matter. He believes that he should be able to decide, with the guidance
of his parents and religious leaders, which beliefs he will follow and
when, as well as how to express those beliefs, without pressure from his
teachers and school officials. S.L. is a non-believer who does not
subscribe to the religious beliefs promoted by schools officials.
It's simply mind boggling that adults would think that doing this to children was in any way appropriate, much less legal.