Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A new lawsuit has been filed against the Cheatham County, Tennessee school system over a range of church/state violations including allowing Bible distribution in classrooms, teacher-endorsed prayer at football games and school-sponsored prayer at graduation ceremonies and the teaching of intelligent design, among other things. You can see the complaint here (PDF). Among the allegations:
And teachers using instructional time to teach out of the Bible:
And teaching about intelligent design:
And handouts of "Christian Nation" nonsense:
This will be an interesting case to watch.
Politics
Comments
That point 29 seems inconclusive to me, relative to our discussion of the other graduation speech.
But the last one--the AP teacher--is trouble for the school and the teacher in more way than one. AP is very picky about curriculum--AP teachers have to have their syllabus approved now, though that is mainly to protect the AP trademark. But an AP US teacher who does such a thing endangers his right to teach under the AP trademark, and having your AP endorsement withdrawn would be pretty catastrophic for a program that wants to take itself seriously. Imagine how the parents would react if they learned that their kids' transcript was affected because one teacher couldn't resist foaming at the mouth over that BS.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | November 23, 2009 9:22 AM
Look at all those First Amendment violations! Why, it's almost as if the Cheatham County, Tennessee school system knowingly set out to break the law and cause a stink. Conspiracy?
And when they lose in court, can we finally change the law so that the individual teachers and administrators are liable to repay court costs, rather than the school district itself? Please?
A guy can dream...
Posted by: Rick R | November 23, 2009 9:33 AM
I find the most troubling part of that complaint is not in the school officials actions but in the fact that they appeared to have condoned, encouraged and acquiesced to the religious behavior of certain students.
To me, this suggests that a certain amount of discrimination and bullying is taking place among the student body based on religious beliefs, and that the school is encoraging that behavior.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 23, 2009 9:47 AM
As someone who was taught under the rural Tennessee public school system, and whose relatives are still being taught under that same rural Tennessee public school system, I can no longer work up the suitable amount of outrage at these kinds of things. I have no doubt they happened, just as I know they're happening all over rural Tennessee and have been for, well, a very long time. I seriously hope no harm comes to Jennifer Doe and her family, because knowing the area like I do, it won't be long before everyone knows exactly who Jennifer Doe really is.
@Rick R: These teachers are doing what they do with the full knowledge and consent of not only the administrators, but any members of the public who pay even the slightest bit of attention to their school system. It's entirely appropriate to make 'em all pay, not just the teachers.
Posted by: Shygetz | November 23, 2009 9:51 AM
Ice9, it looks like #29 is not a claim of any wrongdoing in and of itself, but rather shows that the school, by reviewing, editing, and approving student speaches, is giving it the government imprint. Essentially, because of the control they assert over the content and expression, the school cannot later assert that religions utterances of the students were spontaneous and personal, and outside of their ability to control. IOW, it makes the students presentations government speech.
Posted by: Divalent | November 23, 2009 10:01 AM
Point 48 sounds inconclusive to me. I was taught the bible as literature in public school. There was no endorsement at all.
Posted by: Fishyfred | November 23, 2009 10:38 AM
Point 29 seems to me to be not a problem in the letter of the policy, but could be in application. It seems reasonable to reserve the right to review a student's speech given at an official school event for anything offensive or illegal - exceptions to the first amendment. However such a policy could be applied selectively, and by doing so cross the line into first amendment violation territory.
This lawsuit illustrates again why we should no longer play the role of the quiet, meek, tolerant, closeted atheists. No more Mr. Nice Atheist!
Posted by: TGAP Dad | November 23, 2009 10:47 AM
Fixed that whopper of an error there.
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | November 23, 2009 10:56 AM
Fishyfred, To support a contention that the assignment was a discussion of the “literature” of the bible, the school would need to provide proof that said discussion included the historical context of the work and its various editions. Further, if you are going to classify the bible as literature, then you need to identify it’s place within that classification. Did the instructor classify the bible as English Literature? American Literature? Middle Eastern Literature? There are dozens of different versions of the bible commonly available. Which version was being taught? What would have happened if a student wrote a report on creation as per the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
If the school can not provide evidence that such distinctions were made, then it would appear that including this in a literature class was simply a work around to get creationism taught in the school.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 23, 2009 11:07 AM
Chilidog: Yeah, I know, and you're almost certainly right that it was meant to sneak religion into the classroom. It's just that I read "On information and belief, these assignments were in no way related to the general curriculum of the class" and I know the idea is to prove this with evidence in court. I just wouldn't be 100% sure until I actually saw the evidence.
Posted by: FishyFred | November 23, 2009 11:30 AM
I would assume that the cross is Mr. Jones personal property.
This raises an interesting issue. I am aware of a major Public School System that leases, charters or outright owns a number of school facilities that were originally constructed as private (religious) schools. Many of these structures have religious symbols incorporated into the building architecture and in most cases it is not possible to remove or cover up these symbols. Is the fact that these symbols are on buildings used by a public school system a violation of the establishment clause?
Posted by: Chilidog | November 23, 2009 11:44 AM
TGAP Dad, it's just not no more Mr. Nice Atheist, it's more like it's no more Mr. Nice Guy for anyone with a shread of respect for the Constitution. I know a number of believers who would rather not have these folks sell their brand of faith, science or US history in a public school.
Posted by: katydid13 | November 23, 2009 12:37 PM
Chilidog @ 11:
I think that would depend on the circumstances surrounding the lease/ rental/ purchase of the property. If the particular property was chosen solely for the original religious purposes of the building then maybe it would be a violation. Otherwise, probably not.
Posted by: Jeremy S | November 23, 2009 12:51 PM
The incidents are described in sufficient detail that any pretense of anonymity for the students is a joke.
Amazing Mental Powers time: those kids and their families are going to be harassed to the point of having to leave the State and perhaps change their names.
My hat's off to them, because I don't think I would have had the courage to do anything of the sort when mine were kids.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 23, 2009 12:53 PM
Here's the Tennessee law "relative to authorizing the state board of education to develop and adopt a curriculum for a state funded elective course consisting of a nonsectarian, nonreligious academic study of the Bible and its influence on literature, art, music, culture, and politics."
Posted by: Bill Ware | November 23, 2009 12:53 PM
Point # 49 is moot. The ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education came out in December 2005, right in the middle of the 2005-2006 school year.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 23, 2009 1:02 PM
Bill, I would put it to you that a "nonsectarian, nonreligious academic study of the Bible" is a contradiction in terms.
Posted by: Chillidog | November 23, 2009 1:04 PM
Chillidog @17,
Regardless of whether it is possible to construct such a course, I doubt seriously that a TN school district or any bible belt school district even tried. Far more likely that the law Bill links to was passed to get around the SoCaS rather than comply with it.
I'd like to see what would happen if a "nonsectarian, nonreligious academic study of Religion" were created complete with qurans and other non-xtian religious texts. That would raise some eyebrows (and firearms too) in TN no doubt.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 23, 2009 2:17 PM
We did Job as a story in my English class. Zero religion was interjected.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 23, 2009 2:27 PM
Chilidog, I would say that it is possible to have a "nonsectarian, nonreligious academic study of the Bible", thought I will say I was in private school at the time, so they could have taught anything. Anyway, we read and discussed the "turn the other cheek" bit, and how that's all about sticking it to the Man (Romans). On the other hand, that's not a terribly religious section, and it was the only part of the Bible we covered as part of our ethics class (we spend more time on the Bagrava Gita).
But these people? No way in hell.
Posted by: JustaTech | November 23, 2009 2:30 PM
I agree that, perhaps at a college level, it would be entirely possible to have a "nonsectarian, nonreligious academic study of the Bible." But, to do so would require working form the premise that the bible is a literary work, but not a literal one. Talk about irony.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 23, 2009 3:24 PM
Actually, I cover several books of the bible as part of the foundations of Western literature for my AP Lit. course. My juniors and seniors have no trouble (well, most of them) working with literary archetypes that are derived from those books.
Posted by: tripmaster | November 23, 2009 5:33 PM
Actually it isn't moot. Dover took place in the 3rd District, Tennessee is in the 6th. This ultimately could work to the positive if the 6th were to rule that this were unconstitutional repackaging of religion (like Dover) it would expand the precedent established in Dover to another district thereby firming the legal foundation for the ID = creationism stance.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 23, 2009 5:48 PM
Regarding the general reaction to Point #29 - note the clause "including 'invocations'." The specific inclusion of that phrase makes me wonder if the editing or demands for editing involved the school officials adding or requiring religious invocations for each event. That would make Point #29 a much more explicit violation.
Posted by: BobApril | November 23, 2009 8:27 PM
I'm not sure why the Christian creation story incident was a big deal. In my 9th grade English class at a fairly liberal public high school involved studying creation myths (although it was made very clear that these were all myths) and each student had to do a presentation on their myth (I had the Nordic religion), and it devolved into the general mockery of religion (by the students, not the teacher). It was one of the best class periods of my life.
Posted by: ESC | November 23, 2009 9:42 PM
ESC,
It would depend on the standards for that year of English. According to the plaintiff it had nothing to do with the curriculum or standards and didn't relate to the subject of instruction. This could be the case, or it could be something where they looked at a variety of myths and mythology. I have a hard time believing that a competent attorney would let this part of the complaint go through if there wasn't a case of special access, or a Christianity only format to the class. They'd look like idiots if the class went on to discuss or write about Ancient Greek, Roman, Norse, etc., mythologies.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 24, 2009 11:15 AM