Courts allow Muslim course in public schools

[McCulloch]

Is this really happening? Is Islam being treated differently than Christianity under the US Constitution? Where is the ACLU?

Court decision allowing Muslim course in public schools is ‘double standard’

Ann Arbor, Jun. 07, 2006 (CNA) - The Thomas More Law Center has requested the United States Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that it is constitutional for a California public school to offer an intensive course on how to "become Muslims."

"This case cries out ‘double standard,’" said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the same court that decided the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it contained the phrase "under God."

"Yet they allow a three-week intensive course on how to become Muslims, including class memorization of Islamic prayers and participation in Islamic religious rituals," said Thompson.

For three weeks in 2001, 12-year-old students in a California public school were placed into Islamic city groups, took Islamic names, and wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the Star and Crescent Moon.

The were also handed materials that instructed them to "Remember Allah always so that you may prosper," completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting, and memorized and recited the "Bismillah" or "In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate," which students also wrote on banners that were hung in the classroom.

A California federal trial court and the Ninth Circuit determined that these practices did not violate the Constitution.

"Although a public school may teach about religion, the school district here went far beyond an explanation of the historical or literary significance of Islam and placed these seventh graders into the position of becoming trainees in that religion," said Edward White III, the trial counsel handling the case. "These young children were indoctrinated in Islam, which the Constitution forbids."

The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to review this case within the next few months.

Related Stories:

• Thomas More Law Center
• William Perry Pendley at Townhall.com also cited at Mountain States Legal Foundation
• Ninth U.S. Circuit Endorses 'Other' Religions by Richard Reeb at The Claremont Institute

[sue]

Is this really happening?

The pdf of the Eklund v. Byron Union School District ruling is here. The primary rationale for the decision is quoted below.

It is worth noting that the context of the community, and the timing of the teaching, indicates a secular, not a religious, motive in the instruction. The community at issue is clearly not a Muslim community, nor was the teacher involved a Muslim teacher. In this non-Muslim community, the issue of Islam was addressed in the context of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and specifically during the same time that many students used derogatory terms to describe Muslims. Under these circumstances, given the state curricular guidelines, the clear need to use interactive techniques in teaching, and the related contextual facts about the community and the timing of the instruction, there can be little doubt that the school would not be seen by an objective observer to be endorsing Islam.

C. The Court Should Give Deference to a School District’s Asserted Secular Purpose

Given these legitimate pedagogical reasons for using the challenged instructional practices like games and simulations, case law is clear that courts should give deference to the asserted secular purpose and find no Establishment Clause violation. As stated by the Supreme Court in Santa Fe, “[w]hen a governmental entity professes a secular purpose for an arguably religious policy, the government's characterization is, of course, entitled to some deference.”

Is Islam being treated differently than Christianity under the US Constitution?

Well, it's being treated differently under the 9th circuit court in California. The Supreme Court can decide if it's constitutional or not. If they take the case, maybe they can shed more light on the separation of church debate.

[Cataclysm]

I don't see the problem here at all. What about teaching theology could possibly violate the non-existant "seperation of church and state" that's NOT in the Constitution?

[youngborean]

I believe they should teach about all religions in sociology-type classes. I think to seperate it from learning about the reality of our world and the influence it has had on our history and present is just silly. Not teaching about religion only promotes more ignorance and judgement about what people do not know, which seems to be the real underlying cause of most conflict.

[Galphanore]

I don't see the problem here at all. What about teaching theology could possibly violate the non-existant "seperation of church and state" that's NOT in the Constitution?

So these are not seperation of church and state? :

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Or, from the bill of rights, :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

[Curious]

Is this really happening? Is Islam being treated differently than Christianity under the US Constitution? Where is the ACLU?
...
...

Of course Islam is treated differently, how else are the governments of non-muslim countries going to incite their respective populations against Islam? In Britain it has been "leaked" that muslim criminals will not be arrested during Ramadan. Muslim leaders in Britain have condemned this move as insane, saying that a criminal must be apprehended regardless. In Derby (England) a certain statue was barred from being exhibited because it might offend muslims, much to the anger of local residents. A survey of local muslims though showed that the said statue did not cause offence and that the suggestion that it might was ridiculous. The vast majority of muslims in Britain want to be treated the same as any other citizen. Unfortunately, there seems to be a non-muslim contingent who are actively directing policy with the apparent aim of causing disharmony between ourselves and our muslim brothers and sisters.