Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I wrote last month about a magistrate judge recommending a preliminary injunction against a released time program in Indiana where kids are let out of school to attend religion classes on school grounds. The federal judge in the case accepted that recommendation and issued the injunction.
The ruling analyzed the situation under both the Lemon test and the Supreme Court's ruling in McCollum, which invalidated a released time program where the religious instruction took place on school property, as opposed to Zorach, where the court upheld a released time program where the religious instruction took place off school property. On the McCollum/Zorach analysis:
The court is persuaded by Magistrate Judge Cosbey's excellent analysis of this issue, noting that McCollum's core principle prohibited "the use of tax-supported property for religious instruction" and "the utilization of tax-established and tax supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith." Further, defendant offers no rebuttal to the cases the report and recommendation cites, all of which note the importance of where a religious instruction program is located. Indeed, as Magistrate Judge Cosbey stresses, while courts have upheld religious time release programs held off of school grounds, defendant cannot point to a program conducted on school property that has been held to be constitutional. Accordingly, the court agrees that the comparison of McCollum and Zorach with this case supports plaintiff's contention that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her case.
And on the Lemon test analysis:
However, the court strongly agrees with the magistrate judge that defendant fails to survive Lemon's "effects test." In this portion of the Lemon test, the court must determine whether allowing ACHC to conduct religious instruction on school property during school hours conveys a "message of endorsement or disapproval." When the court finds "that a reasonable person could perceive that a government action conveys the message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred, the Establishment Clause has been violated."
Politics
Comments
I continue to increase the strength of my opinion that religious indoctrination of children is a form of child abuse.
We know that our public school education "system" (inclusive of the obligations of parents and oversight boards) in general is failing relative to global best in class methods and results. Yet there are still parents, school boards, school administrators and teachers that want to divert attention from education to religious indoctrination. And I use the term "indoctrination" precisely; there's no pure academic objective in these types of classes, it's mere proselytization given their use of mostly discredited premises (or premises which are not rational and lack any empirical evidence, e.g., "intercessory prayer can heal you").
Parents already have total freedom to indoctrinate their kids during non-school days and hours. But that's not good enough, clearly we have adults looking to promote their religious worldview beyond their own immediate family even though we know that this will further compromise the education and career opportunities of children. I call that abuse.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 29, 2009 10:13 AM
My first post here. Hope I don't make a fool of myself in front of all the nice people.
So, when
If a released-time program is in effect, couldn't an atheist student participate, too, to practice his ... whatever ... which would be effectively a get-out-of-school pass? The school day would simply end early, since all the students would be gone. Not saying that's a good thing, but my sense is that, while the religious get more religion, the children left behind are probably just doing busy work.
Or is that when they teach evolution?
Posted by: ERinSTL | March 29, 2009 10:30 AM
ERinSTL stated:
Providing a LOL moment where we laugh with you rather than at you is probably a great way to introduce to yourself.
I think my point above addresses your rhetorical question. Why are we releasing children early when we know we're not adequately educating them during school hours (and I state this as a parent whose kid is grown who thinks today's students are often given too much homework to do after school when kids should be experiencing a broader range of educational activities, like after school clubs and/or sports).
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 29, 2009 10:39 AM
Thanks for the welcome, Michael.
I wasn't addressing the pedagogical insanity of released-time programs, though they certainly are that. More turning the law against them by making them suddenly "not at all what we meant" when suddenly they are applied equally. The school couldn't refuse, could they, because that would be favoring religion over unreligion (irreligion? areligion?).
I'm thinking parents wouldn't be as self-satisfied that their kids are in religion class when others are out playing. They get all of that they need on Sundays.
Posted by: ERinSTL | March 29, 2009 11:22 AM
There are a number of problems with our education system, this is just one of them. People do want to take time out of an already limited educational day to send kids (not just their kids) to be indoctrinated in religious "woo." They also want us to take care of their kids health and sexuality questions, keep them from being obese, help them solve their problems of teenage angst and anxiety, and, I believe, make a significant dent in solving world hunger and ending global conflict. [/end sarcasm]
Seriously though, you have two competing ideas regarding public education and, because they each get their time controlling the laws and funding that deal with public education, the public schools get slammed with all of the demands and the budget cuts, accountability, etc.
On the conservative side they want public schools (if they don't want them eliminated completely) to make the students into good conservative Christians who will save themselves for marriage and pray daily. They seem to want us to do this with no funding, no books/computers, in old run down buildings while conducting major high stakes tests weekly.
On the liberal side they want public schools to combat all of the problems of our society. Racism, obesity, STDs and teen pregnancy. They aren't much better with funding, usually only undoing the cuts the conservatives put into place when they were in charge.
Many libertarians, for a fun filled third perspective, want public schools to be privatized or at least to make private schools an option. The problem is, education isn't a profit making venture. You can't tell little Sally that '09 was a down year, sorry kid, better luck reading next year. You don't get to lay off little Billy because he wasn't pulling his weight learning fractions and his test scores are hurting the stock value of the school. As Milwaukee, Cincinnati, and Phoenix have shown, unregulated (or under-regulated) voucher and charter schools are usually a bigger fiasco than failing public schools.
We need to revamp the system, not replace it, probably from the top on down. This is likely going to make state's rights and local control folks freak the heck out, but in reality local control is the reason we have problems like this case. Local districts lead to underfunded districts when a local community is in economic trouble. It leads to Dover, Freshwater, and this case in Indiana. We already don't have enough time in the day to cover all of the standards that are established and they want to muddy the water with science, preach to the kids, and take them out of the classroom to tell them fairy tales about the invisible man in the sky who loves them but will send them to a pit of fire and brimstone for all eternity if they touch their winkie.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 29, 2009 1:14 PM
dogmeatib - one causal factor that's established why some countries' are better at educating from 5 to 17 years old is curriculum development at the national level, rather than the state or local level.
That finding corroborates your argument and caused my support for absolute federal control of curriculum and minimal standards (where states and localities can push for higher standards, but not compromised standards).
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 29, 2009 1:23 PM
Michael Heath:
"...my support for absolute federal control of curriculum and minimal standards (where states and localities can push for higher standards, but not compromised standards)."
That's the proble with all you people. You wanna take the state's job away from 'em. Everbody knows that the federal gummint just messes up everything. Next think you know there would be a "National Building Code"--and you know that would never work!
Posted by: democommie | March 29, 2009 1:30 PM
As an Indiana progressive (there are such things, believe it or not) I welcome the injunction. My state needs to grow up, this isn't a Theocracy we're living in!
Posted by: Raymond Minton | March 29, 2009 2:13 PM
I am entirely uncertain of what exactly just happened to reality, but it has suddenly gone all twisty on me here.
Michael -
That finding corroborates your argument and caused my support for absolute federal control of curriculum and minimal standards (where states and localities can push for higher standards, but not compromised standards).
There are several problems with this approach, not the least being the ways the fed uses the authority they have now. I have, for example, had way too many conversations about condoms and safe sex with young people lately, to be terribly comfortable with the notion that the fed should be developing curriculum standards.
The political winds in the U.S. are just way too whimsical to make this a reasonable proposition. Honestly, I would love to see taxes cut at the federal level and pretty much get them out of the schools altogether. I have no problem with the fed writing suggested curriculum. I think it would be great for the fed to publish definitive and clear guidelines for schoolboards, that let them know the sorts of behavior that will get them sued. I would also love to see minimal standards that if not met, can also get schools sued. But I think that the fed's authority should be limited to the courts.
Posted by: DuWayne | March 29, 2009 3:18 PM
DuWayne - I do concede that just because other developed countries can set policy objectives at the national level on social issues doesn't mean we can given our frequent propensity to elect ideological idiots. My argument obviously assumes we won't do that in the future where we very well might, which would cause your caution about my faith in federal government to be warranted.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 29, 2009 6:53 PM
Michael Heath:
That's quite an assumption, a bit like saying we can solve global warming by assuming burning coal doesn't emit CO2. Can you imagine the fun creationists could have with a national curriculum? There wouldn't be a decent schoolbook on evolution left in your whole country.
dogmeatib:
All that it takes for something to be a profitable venture is for there to be a sufficient number of people willing and able to pay for the service. Vouchers ensure this.
That's the wrong analogy. Children are customers of the school, not employees.
I think its fair to say that vouchers must be implemented properly for it to work well. Of course that's true of every other policy as well.
Posted by: James K | March 30, 2009 12:36 AM
James K -
That's the wrong analogy. Children are customers of the school, not employees.
Tell that to the fucking charter school teacher who told us that our son who has severe ADHD, wasn't a good fit in her classroom. We had already concluded that the school wasn't a fit for him, because they weren't what they had fucking advertised themselves to be, but it was just fucking peachy to hear that from her.
I think its fair to say that vouchers must be implemented properly for it to work well.
The fact of the matter is, that they will never work properly. There are a very few private or charter schools out there that can effectively deal with any but the average students. They can't manage kids with neurological issues, the exceptionally smart kids or kids who are below average.
Of course if we divert all that money from the regular public schools, they won't have the resources to handle them either.
Posted by: DuWayne | March 30, 2009 1:07 AM
Thanks for covering this issue. I grew up in Huntington and went to the "Bible Trailer" once a week throughout my elementary years. It felt less like "being let out of school" and more like just going to another classroom that happened to be in a trailer in the parking lot. For very young kids, there's nothing to tell them that what they hear inside the building is fact and what they hear in the trailer is fable. Considering myself both a "reasonable person" and a product of the "Bible Trailer", I definitely feel that Christianity was not only favored and preferred, but it was presented with no immediately discernible distinction from our other studies.
On a purely emotional note, I felt bad for the Jewish girl in our class who had to sit alone back in the classroom in the school building while the rest of the class (including me) went off to the "Bible Trailer". The poor girl was left out and must have felt awful to be systematically separated from her friends. She was forced to explain to us why she couldn't come with us to the trailer, and she ended up the subject of a number of pointed questions because of it. In this respect, the "Bible Trailer" provided a vehicle for religious segregation and descrimination (leading to potential ridicule and abuse). No child should be abused via the tax-payers dime.
Posted by: Nate | March 30, 2009 3:05 AM
James K stated:
I'm convinced a minimum national curriculum would be far better protected from creationists given the historical precedents at the Federal District Court level and the Supreme Court have consistently been on our side. Mere federal law changes or revised regulations can't stop that, only a Constitutional Amendment or even more conservatives than what is currently comprised of SCOTUS can - and I assume we won't be adding more conservatives to the court over the next several years.
Creationists are successful where there are no plaintiffs willing to come forward, that would not be true at the federal level.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 30, 2009 7:18 AM
It blows my mind that in a country we are failing our children that parents do not have the right to direct the upbringing of their children. We pay for the school but forfeit our rights to release the kids for an hour of Bible study. Children only attend if they have parental permission and it cost the taxpayers nothing.
Posted by: Grayson Hartgrove | March 30, 2009 7:36 AM
Grayson Hartgrove stated:
How exactly are we failing are children when we cut their school day short to send them to Bible Study? Please insure your answer is within the context of the test courses of kids from other countries where those scores are superior to our kids.
If you want your kids to be indoctrinated into your religious beliefs, what is wrong with early evenings and weekends? Why do you want to limit their education in critical thinking, science, math, and reading and writing skills?
Also, you don't have to send your kids to a government school, you can send them to a religious school where they will get a much more limited education, be poorly taught in science, and indoctrinated into discredited bronze age myths (I exclude Catholic schools from this description). Or you can even home school your kid to increase the odds you're desire to brainwash them has a better chance of succeeding. You as a parent have that right.
What you don't have the right to do is use the power of the government to force "Bible Study" onto other people's kids. And I would argue it's also bad policy to cut the school day short for kids to receive such indoctrination given the state of our educational system versus those countries whose kids are testing far better than ours - which are provide secular educations and leave the religious indoctrination to parents.
And yes, there is a difference between education and indoctrination. I'd bet money you have no desire to educate your children on the historicity of the Bible along with the source of positive teachings that emanate from it - like how those lessons predate the civilization that wrote, edited, and originally published the Bible where some of these traits, like altruism, are even common attributes to other highly developed animals, and therefore providing them with an evolutionary advantage while also arguing for common descent.
Instead I'm betting you want kids to convince other parent's kids that Jesus was God, was resurrected, and magically healed people - except amputees of course, not even God has shown that ability.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 30, 2009 8:06 AM
Because they hold the classes on government property (which, contrary to your belief, does not cost the taxpayer nothing), and only hold classes for one sect which constitutes an endorsement of the sect. Do try and keep up; they settled this kind of thing decades ago.
Posted by: Shygetz | March 30, 2009 8:53 AM
"It blows my mind that in a country we are failing our children that parents do not have the right to direct the upbringing of their children."
You can direct it all you want; at home, or at church, outside of regular school hours. I got no problem with ALL religions being accorded the same privileges as you want--privileges, not rights--I think there are some swell pagan faiths that have extensive fertility rituals.
Posted by: democommie | March 30, 2009 10:07 AM
I'm curious if Grayson Hartgrove would feel the same if the school their child attended had a weekly hour of study from the Koran with the same implied level of state imprimatur??
Posted by: FastLanr | March 30, 2009 11:01 AM
Fastlane stated:
To more accurately reflect what I think Hartgrove implies when referring to "Bible Study", I would modify your comment to:
I would then assume we'd see an a-historical rebuttal containing "Christian Nation" propaganda to distinguish between Muslims and the special rights conferred upon Christians to leverage their government's power.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 30, 2009 11:26 AM
Since when have public schools been any good at handling any but the most average students? And citing a lack of resources is a classical unfalisfiable hypothesis. DC spends almost $30k per student per year and their system still sucks. Governments are really bad at running things, and there is no reason to believe that there is something magical about schools that makes them different.
Posted by: James K | March 31, 2009 1:42 AM
James K:
Yeah, let's get the government out of the edumicashun business. While we're at it, let's get them out of the military, social security, roadbuilding, safe food and drug and public safety business as well.
You're fulla crap.
Posted by: democommie | March 31, 2009 7:21 AM
Democommie, don't forget the Post Office. Boy o boy, the government really sucks at running the mail system in this country!
Posted by: Rachel | March 31, 2009 9:25 AM
Boy o boy, the government really sucks at running the mail system in this country!
The USPS doesn't offer nearly as many features as their private competition, such as delivery attempt notices that fall off the door, or are ignored when I sign to authorize delivery, or that lead to a series of phone calls requesting that my package be held at the depot for pickup that somehow result in my package going out for delivery anyway, and being returned to sender when delivery (surprise!) fails.
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | March 31, 2009 3:25 PM
democommie:
Do you have an argument for public schools that isn't simply a slippery slope argument or a straw man? How about I have a go for you?
1) Now it is clear to me that a pure private system would make education unaffordable for some, but that's why I favour vouchers. Hell, I'll go so far as to say that the vouchers could be progressive, lets get those poor inner city schools some more money shall we?
2) As DuWayne noted, another possible weakness of vouchers is children that don't fit the cookie-cutter for whatever reason. I would favour increasing the size of vouchers for special needs children. I don't know by how much you would need to increase funding, and I admit that this wouldn't be easy to do, but I think the problem is solvable.
3) Quality control. This is a real issue, if you let people decide for themselves what to teach their kids, some of those kids will get taught some pretty stupid things, like the Earth goes round the Sun or FDR saved America from laissez-faire capitalism. There's no easy fix for this, the more restrictions government places on curriculum the less stupidity you get (unless the stupid people are writing the curriculum, and they outnumber us), but the less experimentation you get, which means lower quality schools in the long run. There's a real balancing act here, and it would take some careful thinking to get it right. But then that's true of public schools as well, expect that there's no risk of going out of business in a public schools so the most potent check on inanity is blocked.
Now that I've shown you what a rational argument against a policy proposal looks like, would you like to have a go?
Posted by: James K | April 1, 2009 3:42 AM