Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I've been waiting for this one for quite some time. The ACLU has filed suit on behalf of several parents in Odessa, Texas over their use of the NCBCPS curriculum for an elective Bible course. The case is called Moreno v. Ector County Independent School District and you can see the full text of the complaint here. Several thoughts come to mind.
First of all, I hope the local police will provide protection for the plaintiffs in this case; if history is any guide, they will need it. Once word gets out, expect vandalism, obscene phone calls and death threats. If happens every time. Second, the legal case here is a slam dunk. This course is riddled with false claims and sectarian religious dogma. There simply is no question that the curriculum does not merely teach about the Bible but rather endorses explicitly sectarian beliefs about the Bible and presents it as the true and accurate word of God. For instance, it says:
First, it (the gospel of Matthew) clearly establishes that Jesus was the Messiah that was prophesized (sic) throughout the Old Testament. Second, it proves that Jesus was the son of God, whom He claimed to be through living a sinless and perfect life.
The sectarian nature of the program is made obvious by many statements throughout the curriculum. The material reflects not merely the Christian understanding of the Bible, but a specifically Protestant one (and a particular type of Protestantism at that). For instance, one section of the curriculum describes the Roman Catholic belief in literal transubstantiation as "warped" and brought on by "mysticism." The curriculum even recommends that students read Foxe's Book of Martyrs, an anti-Catholic diatribe written by an early proponent of the Church of England. It doesn't get much more sectarian than that.
The complaint also notes that the Bible courses in Odessa both show one of David Barton's videos to the class, and notes that at least one of Barton's videos has been banned from classrooms by a Federal judge. It further notes that both that video and the curriculum itself contain numerous fake quotes from the founding fathers about religion, as has been documented here and in many other places. It's going to be fun to watch this case, which I intend to do as closely as I did the Dover trial.
Comments
This course was recently adopted by a local school district directly to the north of where I live. Hopefully, this case will rule it unconstitutional and set a precedence to have it taken out throughout the country.
Posted by: llDayo | May 18, 2007 10:04 AM
It's going to be fun to watch this case, which I intend to do as closely as I did the Dover trial.
If you do that, give a talk about the trial, and post it on youtube!
Posted by: valhar2000 | May 18, 2007 11:07 AM
...and death threats. If happens every time. Second,...
I think the 'If' is supposed to be an 'It'
As always, a very interesting post!
Posted by: meerasedai | May 18, 2007 11:24 AM
Nice. I'm glad for this. I hope it gets appealed up to the highest Court so that every school in the US has to purge this BS from the public school system, and the taxpayer $ that go to support the NCBCPS' theocratic efforts. For god's sake, Chuck Norris is on the Board of Directors, and D. James Kennedy is on the Board of Advisors! What more needs to be said?
Posted by: Daniel Morgan | May 18, 2007 11:33 AM
Damn that ACLU.I have been trying to develop a course on the Bible for secondary schools.I might as well trash my course materials now.I thought it would have been a pretty good course.My working title was:The Bible-a critical examination of how Bronze Age superstition survived into the modern era.Students will examine how dogmatic beliefs in superstition affected human behavior over the last three millennia.This course will explain to students how ignorance can be seen as a virtue.Students will learn how morality was revealed to ancient desert tribesmen,and this moraility is still in use today by a tribe of Trogoldytes.The hell with it.I am not even going to tell you about the revealed science in my course.
Posted by: spartanrider | May 18, 2007 12:29 PM
Surely the school board will settle as quickly as possible to avoid costs?
Posted by: andrew | May 18, 2007 12:57 PM
Surely the school board will settle as quickly as possible and scrub the course to avoid costs in a case they are bound to lose. In that case, would there be any implications for other school boards? A different Board could just re-introduce the course, get sued after a couple of years, settle and then another Board would do likewise, and so on. Just asking.
Posted by: andrew | May 18, 2007 1:01 PM
Apologies for inadvertently sending the first post.
Posted by: andrew | May 18, 2007 1:03 PM
Paging the Thomas More Law Center. Your incredible expertise and record are needed in Texas.
Posted by: Ray S | May 18, 2007 1:15 PM
Andrew-
Not likely, they seem intent on fighting it out. It's the same board that voted for the curriculum, keep in mind, so we're talking serious zealots here. And don't be surprised to see one of the big Christian legal groups come in and do the same thing the TMLC did in Dover, defend them for free. Liberty Counsel might do it. I doubt the ADF will take it, they know it's a losing case.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 18, 2007 1:35 PM
Maybe the geniuses at the ACLJ will take time away from their cute little TV show to come help out?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 18, 2007 1:40 PM
Thanks, Ed. If I may ask another question or 2, I noticed from the NCBCPS website that "over 300 school boards in 37 states" are using the curriculum. I wonder why this is the first challenge? And, assuming the Board loses the lawsuit, what are the implications for the other ~300 Boards? (I know nothing about the applicable U.S. laws.)
Posted by: andrew | May 18, 2007 1:42 PM
I am wondering, if this curriculum is so important to the people of the school district, why they do not make use of a released time program to implement it?
Such programs can be easily crafted to pass constitutional muster - even in states, such as Texas, that do not have state-wide laws governing them. If this particular teaching is so widely desired, I am sure that those who are interested in having it available could arrange for some religious facility to host it.
Necessarily, the school district would have to officially open up the released-time program to other religions (or non-religions) to host their own teaching at their own facilities during the released time period. However, if this particular community is so overwhelmingly Protestant Christian as the quotes in the article imply, there couldn't possibly be all that many of them.
Of course, I don't for one minute think that this has anything to do with Bible education per se, or even with this particular flavor of Bible education.
It is a transparent attempt to illegally use public school resources to promote a particular religion.
Posted by: Poly | May 18, 2007 2:06 PM
andrew wrote:
I've long wondered why there were previous challenges, as the curriculum is so blatantly unconstitutional. If the challenge is successful at the district court level, then it is only legally binding in that judicial district. If it is appealed and wins again, it applies on the whole circuit. If it wins at the Supreme Court, then it applies nationwide. But even if it's not appealed, a win at the lower court level will be cited by other courts and have a big influence over school boards and whether to adopt the curriculum.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 18, 2007 2:48 PM
I wonder whether we ought to take NCBCPS's "300 school boards" claim at face value. It's hard to believe that this curriculum could have already gotten into such widespread use without a court challenge.
I also wonder whether, as this thing gets closer to trial, the school board will look to shut down the Bible course in order to keep the case from going to trial and avoid a bad (for them) precedent being set as in Kitzmiller. Ed, you're pretty familiar with the legal issues -- do you think the school board will be able to do that, or will the plaintiffs be able to get to trial even if the school board voluntarily stops violating the Constitution?
Posted by: Tom | May 18, 2007 3:42 PM
Tom wrote:
That would be a matter for negotiation. They could negotiate a settlement if they agreed to a consent decree saying they won't do it again. It depends on how far the case goes, though.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 18, 2007 4:03 PM
Tom wrote:
This is a good question. It goes to the doctrine of mootness, which requires that there be an actual, live dispute between adversaries at all stages of the litigation. If the facts or the law change in such a way that there is no longer a live dispute, the case may be mooted, leaving nothing for the court to decide.
But there are several exceptions to mootness, and one such exception is for voluntary cessation. If a defendant simply voluntarily ceases the allegedly unlawful conduct, the general rule is that such voluntary cessation does not render the case moot, unless it can be shown that there is no reasonable likelihood that the offending conduct will be resumed in the future. This is a question for the judge to resolve on a motion to dismiss. Would that work in a case like this? Your guess is as good as mine.
Posted by: Dan | May 18, 2007 4:03 PM
What Dan said about mootness, with the addition that District Court Judges really prefer to see cases end without going to trial. Using the voluntary cessation exception to force a trial is pretty rare.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 18, 2007 4:47 PM
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but the NCBCPS already lost once in Gibson v. Lee County School Board in Florida. So much for their claim of never being challenged in court.
Posted by: silverspoon | May 18, 2007 4:48 PM
Posted by: Bill Snedden | May 18, 2007 5:38 PM
I'm a bit surprised you didn't post this yesterday already. I felt like emailing you but figured you'd see it anyways.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.com/news.aspx?id=18567
According to the AP article:
"Backers include David Barton, who operates a Web site that promotes helping local officials develop policies that reflect biblical views and encourages Christian involvement in civic affairs.
Other supporters include the conservative American Family Association, Eagle Forum and Plano-based Liberty Legal Institute"
Posted by: daenku32 | May 18, 2007 5:43 PM
For those who missed it, the NCBCPS's spokesperson is... Chuck Norris (yes, that Chuck Norris).
I bring this up not only for the inherent humor of it, but as an opportunity to link to Chuck's latest bit of nuttery from his WorldNutDaily column: How to outlaw Christianity (Step 1).
I was going to point out one very telling bit from that article (particularly coming from a NCBCPS spokesperson) but I see now that it has been revised. Here's what the original version said (emphasis mine):
Which has been changed to this:
Posted by: jpf | May 18, 2007 6:16 PM