Bureaucrats vs. Bible Study in San Diego

My mom and her church small group ministry should be glad they don't live in San Diego. Holding regular meetings in someone's home to discuss Scripture and other religious topics without paying thousands of dollars to obtain a "religious assembly" permit apparently violates county regulations there. Rev. David Jones' weekly Bible study typically attracts about 15 people, less than many ladies' bunco or guys' poker nights. But after a fender bender between vehicles belonging to one of the members of the Bible study group and a visitor to a neighbor of Jones, some busybody called county officials to complain. A code enforcement officer was sent to grill Rev. Jones about the gatherings, after which the county issued a formal citation.

Doesn't San Diego county have more important things to worry about- say the $244 million shortfall in the county budget? Or are the two things related? Christians seem to make easy shakedown targets for Californian bureaucrats these days. The city of San Francisco is trying to levy a $15 million tax on the city's Catholic archdiocese on properties transferred from one administrative arm of the archdiocese to another.

The First Amendment should protect religious groups in these types of cases, but unfortunately activist judges have been chipping away at that protection for decades. And with the election of Barack Obama, I don't foresee the situation improving in that regard any time soon in the Federal judicial system.

Let's pray that the San Diego bureaucrats stop persecuting Rev. Jones and his Bible study group!

British Sikh Girl Wins Right to Wear Religious Bangle

Last fall, I blogged about the plight of Sarika Singh, who'd been expelled from her government-run school in Wales after breaking the school's "no jewelery" rule for refusing to take off her kara. The kara is a slim metal bangle that is worn at all times to remind Sikhs not to sin and is a central part of that religion. Sarika's bangle could not be seen under long-sleeved blouses and she had agreed to remove it for safety reasons during gym and woodworking classes.

A judge of the Welsh High Court has now ruled that the school's action constituted unlawful discrimination, and that the school had failed in its legal obligation to promote "equality of opportunity and good race relations, and to discourage discrimination."

I applaud the judge's sensible decision in this case, and hope that it paves the way for other students to win exemptions from dress codes for symbols of their faith (such as the case of Christian teen Lydia Playfoot and her purity ring).

A Question for the CA Teachers' Assn.

Would you be so quick to intervene if a teacher in a government-run school were accused of repeatedly making disparaging and religiously intolerant remarks about Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or any other non-Christian faith?

Chad Farnan, a student at Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo, filed a lawsuit alleging that his Advanced Placement European History teacher, Dr. James Corbett, violated the First Amendment's establishment clause that prohibits government from promoting hostility toward religion. According to an article in the Orange County Register about the case:

"The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages and attorney fees, alleges that Corbett typically spent 'a large portion of class time propagating his personal views to a captive audience.' He railed against Christianity and traditional Christian viewpoints on topics such as birth control, teenage sex, homosexuality and erectile dysfunction, according to the lawsuit....

Court papers cite statements tape-recorded by Farnan such as 'Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies – that's interfering with God's work' and 'When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth.'"

Fox News had another inflammatory excerpt from Dr. Corbett's class in its article on the case:

"[Corbett] suggested that Christians are more likely than other people to commit rape and murder. Farnan recorded his teacher telling students in class: 'What country has the highest murder rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rape rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rate of church attendance? The South!'”

While Dr. Corbett is free to hold whatever personal beliefs he wants about Christianity, he clearly crossed the line when he used his class time to promote those beliefs and created a climate hostile to those of his students who are Christians such as Chad Farnan.

The California Teachers' Association, of which Dr. Corbett is a member, has filed a motion with the Court seeking to intervene on behalf of the Capistrano Valley School District and Dr. Corbett. The judge has permitted the intervention.

Again, I ask- would the CTA be so quick to defend an anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim teacher?

If it Walks Like a Duck...

Two of the following describe imaginary publicly-funded charter schools and the third describes a real one. Can you separate fact from fiction?

School A: Yigael Yadin Academy shares the headquarters building of Hadassah, and a synagogue. The executive director, Seth Goldstein, is a rabbi, and the school is sponsored by the Jewish Relief Agency. Students pray daily, the cafeteria serves kosher food and "Jewish Studies" is offered at the end of the school day. On the blackboard list of assignments written by teachers, Jewish Studies is the last one- studying the Torah. The students are told to copy it into their planner, along with everything else. After school, no other extracurricular activities are offered- only Jewish Studies. 77% of the students participate in the Jewish Studies program. On Friday afternoons, a "school assembly" in the gym is held. At this assembly, a man in a yarmulke recites the traditional shabbat blessing of the children.

School B: Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy shares the headquarters building of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, and a mosque. The executive director, Asad Zaman, is an imam, and the school is sponsored by Islamic Relief. Students pray daily, the cafeteria serves halal food and "Islamic Studies" is offered at the end of the school day. On the blackboard list of assignments written by teachers, Islamic Studies is the last one- studying the Koran. The students are told to copy it into their planner, along with everything else. After school, no other extracurricular activities are offered- only Islamic Studies. 77% of the students participate in the Islamic Studies program. On Friday afternoons, a "school assembly" in the gym is held. At this assembly, a man in a prayer cap leads the children in Islamic prayer.

School C: Richard the Lionhearted Academy shares the headquarters building of Catholics United for the Faith, and a Catholic church. The executive director, Seamus O'Flannigan, is a priest, and the school is sponsored by Catholic Charities. Students pray daily, the cafeteria serves meatless meals on Fridays, and "Catholic Studies" is offered at the end of the school day. On the blackboard list of assignments written by teachers, Catholic Studies is the last one- studying the Bible. The students are told to copy it into their planner, along with everything else. After school, no other extracurricular activities are offered- only Catholic Studies. 77% of the students participate in the Catholic Studies program. On Friday afternoons, a "school assembly" in the gym is held. At this assembly, a man wearing a brown scapular leads children in praying the rosary.

All of these schools would appear to violate the First Amendment's establishment clause, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in recent decades. Whether or not one personally agrees with the strict prohibition of religion in government-run schools, it is clearly unconstitutional to allow the promotion of one faith by a government-run school but not others. We can't permit one religion to have a government-run school but then turn around and refuse the same right to other religions.

I'm sure that it will not surprise you to learn that the real school is B, the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy. While Mr. Zaman, the school's director, claimed to a reporter from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Tribune that TIZA is "not a religious school", its practices raise major red flags. From outward appearances, it seems to be a taxpayer-funded madrassah.

If this charter school faced accusations of being a Christian school (Catholic or otherwise), you just know the ACLU would be in court filing a lawsuit so fast that it would make your head spin. So why the silence from them about this alleged violation of the First Amendment?

It's time to end the pro-Islamic favoritism- either shut down TIZA or else allow Christians, Jews, and other religions their own charter schools!

UPDATE: In response to the Tribune article, it appears that the ACLU of MN has opened an investigation of TIZA. They discovered that the school's website solicits volunteers for "Friday prayers", and have received reports that prayers, though "voluntary", are organized by school officials.

Freedom of Religion Guaranteed by CA Constitution

I've seen a couple of different bloggers question whether the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is applicable to the Long case, given the issue of states' rights and whatnot. One of them is Joseph Knippenberg of the Ashbrook Center blog "No Left Turns" and the other being a blog I don't feel is appropriate for linkage given that it has a "restricted to adults" warning and content many of my readers would likely find objectionable. So for all you doubters out there, it is not just the U.S. Constitution that guarantees Californians the free exercise of religion but *ALSO* the state constitution:

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 4

Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination
or preference are guaranteed.  This liberty of conscience
does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with
the peace or safety of the State.  The Legislature shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion.

A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because
of his or her opinions on religious beliefs."

Homeschooling is neither "licentious" nor "inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State." Therefore the Longs do indeed have a constitutional right to practice their religion without interference from the California state authorities.

Is There Anti-Christian Bias in the Long Case?

There's been a lot of speculation about whether the ruling of the Second Appellate Court in the case of the Longs was due in part to an anti-Christian bias on the part of Judges Croskey, Klein, and Kitching.

Debbie Schwarzer of the Homeschool Association of California's legal team does not believe that is the case. She posted to the HSC Yahoo group:

"I am convinced that the court did not have any anti-religious bias. I think you could have substituted 'hippie' or 'Jewish' in any mention of religion and, based on the facts presented, the court would have found the same way."

She points out that the Longs are far from the ideal family for a test case of the right to homeschool. Fair enough, but I'm still not convinced that the judges are totally fair and impartial when it comes to conservative Christianity.

I did a little Google search and found out that Joan Klein has been described as "a forthright feminist", "liberal and political", "an active Democrat", and a member of the National Organization of Women's Legal Defense Fund. Now somebody like that couldn't *POSSIBLY* be a teensy-weensy bit biased against conservative Christianity, could she?

It's entirely possible that Debbie Schwarzer is correct and that Judge Klein would've ruled the same against the Longs had they been members of a different faith or of a more liberal branch of Christianity. But radical feminists have been pretty outspoken over recent decades about their disdain for the patriarchy they see in conservative Christianity.

The irony is that Judge Klein was the one who back in 1991 moved the Rodney King trial out of LA out of concern for fairness. Yet she may very well have let her own biases color her ruling in the Long case.

Explanation of Religious Exemption Discussion in Long Case

Debbie Schwarzer from the Homeschool Association of California's legal team posted a useful explanation of the religious exemption discussion in the Second Appellate Court's ruling in the Long case to the HSC Yahoo group. I think that it deserves a wider audience since it has implications for homeschooling beyond just California. Here's what Debbie has to say:

"The court basically meant that unless you're Old Order Amish, it's going to reject your claim that you are constitutionally protected because of your religious beliefs in not complying with your state's compulsory education law (although you would be able to win a claim that you shouldn't be forced to go to public school if a private school that meets state requirements and meets your religious requirements were available). The Yoder case the court mentions was the one in which the Amish were permitted to withdraw their children from school after 8th grade. The Pierce case established that parents have the right to choose religious education, but did not hold that the parents could keep their children out of any kind of school. I am not sure any religious group other than the Old Order Amish would be able to satisfy any court now in the latter respect. We are looking at what the options are. I don't want to say a lot more until I've spoken with the other state homeschool group leaders and with HSLDA, but it is a very worrisome opinion. This is a classic case of bad facts making bad law."

Debbie Schwarzer
HSC Legal Team

The First Amendment right to freedom of worship has slowly been undermined over recent decades. Activist judges hostile to Christianity keep handing down bad ruling after bad ruling. Because of these type of rulings, faith-affiliated organizations are being denied religious exemptions to laws that conflict with the teachings of those faiths. Catholic hospitals are forced to provide the abortifacient "Plan B" pill, Catholic Charities are forced to permit homosexual couples to adopt, Christian pharmacists are forced to dispense abortifacient medicines, Christian colleges are forced to permit homosexual student organizations, and so on. Regardless of whether or not one personally agrees with those policies, the denial of religious exemptions is an infringement upon the rights of the parties concerned to practice their religion. There are plenty of other providers from which those services might be obtained. The inconvenience of the person having to seek a service elsewhere does not justify denying the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Again in the case of the Longs we're seeing activist judges undermining First Amendment rights. Parents with a sincere belief that the Bible calls for them to homeschool (e.g. Deuteronomy 6:7-9, Proverbs 22:6, and so on) should be free to do so regardless of whether they may be a traditional religious school available to them.

CA Judges: "Parents Have No Constitutional Right to Homeschool"

I'd always heard that California was one of the easier states in which to homeschool. So I was shocked to read an article on WorldNetDaily entitled "Judge Orders Homeschoolers Into Government Education." It was a bit unclear from the WND article what exactly was going on in the case of Philip and Mary Long [UPDATE: from the 2/28/08 court ruling, it appeared that the parents' names were Jonathan & Mary Grace. I have since learned that those are the names of the 2 Long children the court has ordered to attend school]. So I dug a bit deeper, and found the full ruling here.

According to the court document, one of the Longs' minor children reported some sort of unspecified physical and emotional mistreatment by Mr. Long [UPDATE: out of concern for the privacy of the Long children, I've decided to take down the link to a different court document detailing the alleged abuse. It is a matter of public record though so here's the gist of it. There was conflict between Mr. Long and an adolescent daughter over her disobedience of his strict rules. The daughter ran away from the family home & claimed that her father's corporal punishment was abusive and that he did not protect her from a family friend whom she alleges was sexually abusing her and her sisters. An older daughter not living with the family made similar allegations. The parents and the other children deny these allegations and basically characterize the two girls as disgruntled with their strict upbringing. The child welfare authorities sent the teen to live with her sister, where she is enrolled in a traditional government-run school. They found no evidence that the youngest two children were subject to abuse so they left them in the home. A follow-up visit 6 months later confirmed they were doing okay.]

The L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services investigated and discovered that all 8 children in the family are or had been homeschooled. The children in question are currently enrolled in the accredited independent study program of the Sunland Christian School. The Longs have stated that they homeschool because of their “sincerely held religious beliefs...based on Biblical teachings and principles” and that they do not believe in the policies of the public school system.

A court attorney was appointed to "represent the interests" of the youngest 2 Long children [whom even the teen making the allegations of her own mistreatment has said were not abused and whom the social workers at the follow-up visit agreed were okay]. This attorney asked the juvenile court to order that the children be enrolled in a traditional public or private school. The reasons given were:

(1) [The children] could interact with people outside the family.
(2) There are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children’s lives.
(3) [The children] could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents’ “cloistered” setting.

[UPDATE: The child welfare authorities were *ALREADY* keeping tabs on the Long family. If, at any point, they become concerned about the safety of these children, they can choose to remove them from the home the way they did the teen. Additionally, enrolling the children in a traditional school is no guarantee of protection from a legitimately abusive situation, should that turn out to be the case.] The juvenile court declined to issue the order because the Longs have a constitutional right to homeschool. The court-appointed attorney for the children then appealed to the Second Appellate District of California.

Judges H. Walter Croskey, Joan Klein, and Patti Kitching of the Second Appellate Court then made an extraordinary ruling. They held that the California Educational Code Section 48222 that exempts private school students from compulsory attendance at government-run schools only applies to those enrolled in traditional private schools. This goes against two previous home school cases handled by HSLDA, that upheld the right of homeschools to operate as private schools: People v. Darrah, No. 853104 (Santa Maria Mun. Ct. Mar. 10, 1986); People v. Black, No. 853105 (Santa Maria Mun. Ct. Mar. 10, 1986).

Under the requirements of the CA Ed. Code, private school teachers are not required to hold a CA state teaching credential or have any specific qualifications aside from being "capable of teaching". The only time a state teaching credential is required is if the parent chooses to act as a "certified private tutor" under Section 48224. Yet the Second Appellate Court judges held Mrs. Long unfit to teach her children at home because she lacks a state credential:

"the fact remains that the children are taught at home by a non-credentialed person. Moreover, the very language of section 48222 is an implicit rejection of the parents’ position that having someone from Sunland Christian School monitor mother’s instruction of the children is sufficient. Section 48222 provides an exemption from compulsory public school education for '[c]hildren who are being instructed in a private full-time day school.' (emphasis added)."

The Long children ARE being educated IN a "private full-time day school". That school just happens to be located at the Long home!

What is the truly scary part of the Second Appellate Court ruling for religious homeschoolers is the rejection of the Longs' right to homeschool based on their religious beliefs. The judges rejected the Longs' claim that that requiring their children to attend government-run schools violates their First Amendment right to freedom of worship. The reason given was that those religious beliefs are "philosophical and personal" rather than specifically mandated by an organized church community based on traditions that are centuries old (such as the Old Order Amish). The judges wrote that:

"[The Longs'] statements are conclusional, not factually specific. Moreover, such sparse representations are too easily asserted by any parent who wishes to home school his or her child."

So the State gets to decide whether a family is homeschooling for religious reasons NOT the family itself. If the State decides the reasons are actually "philosophical" rather than "religious" (talk about vague!) then the parents have no right to educate their own children.

Please join me in praying that the State Supreme Court will overturn this horrendous ruling!

Malaysian Customs Seizes Christian Study Group's Bibles

Yet another example of the persecution of Christians in Malaysia, on the heels of the confiscation of children's books for illustrations showing Biblical prophets such as Abraham and Moses. This time, the victim was a woman returning from a trip to the Philippines with 32 English-language Bibles for a study group. Customs officials at the Kuala Lumpur airport seized the Bibles and told her that all religious materials had to be sent to the Internal Security Ministry's publications control unit for clearance.

Rev. Hermen Shastri, general secretary of the Council of Churches of Malaysia, said that he had never before heard of anyone being told to do this when bringing English-language Bibles into the country.

Rev. Shastri has said that the situation for Christians in Malaysia has gone:

"from bad to worse. This either points to a concerted effort to undermine the current practice of religious tolerance, or the religious enforcement authorities have been given a free hand and they are having a field day."

In a statement, the Council of Churches called on Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badaw to publicly reassure Christians of their rights, and urged authorities to release the Bibles and issue a formal apology.

This kind of persecution is absolutely outrageous! The U.S. provides millions of dollars annually in aid to Malaysia- shouldn't we be putting more pressure on the Abdullah government to reign in the Islamofascist zealots?

British Govt. Agency: "3 Little Pigs" Offends Muslims

While the Malaysian government is busy censoring Christian kids' books, the British government has excluded a digital version of "The 3 Little Pigs" from its educational technology awards for "concerns about the Asian community and the use of pigs [raising] cultural issues." The feedback from the judges explaining why they had rejected the CD-ROM highlighted that they "could not recommend this product to the Muslim community".

The book's creative director, Anne Curtis, dismisses the government's criticism that the idea that including pigs in a story could be interpreted as racism. In a statement, she said her company is committed to an ethical approach to business and its products promote a message of mutual respect. Banning such traditional stories, she asserts, will "close minds rather than open them".

I have numerous Jewish friends who, like Muslims, do not eat pork products. I have never once heard any of them complain about "The Three Little Pigs" being offensive to them. I have Hindu friends as well, and haven't heard them complaining about children's stories featuring cows. I'm virtually certain that my Jewish and Hindu friends would find the suggestion that they would take offense at animal stories to be as ludicrous as I do. They know what is a legitimate cultural insensitivity and what is political correctness taken to a ridiculous extreme.

Malaysia Censors Christian Kids' Books

Officials of the Publications and Al-Quran Texts Control Department, part of Malaysia's Internal Security Ministry, raided bookstores in mid-December and confiscated English-language Christian children's books. The authorities claimed that the illustrations of Biblical prophets such as Moses and Abraham violate Islamic Shariah law.

In a January 17th statement, the head of the Council of Churches-Malaysia, Rev. Dr. Hermen Shastri, questioned how the books could be offensive to Muslims when they were not meant for them. In the strongly worded statement about the seizures, Rev. Shastri said government officials “have no right and have overstepped their bounds by confiscating Christian literature.”

Article 11 of the Malaysian Constitution 11 protects the right to religious freedom. However, the prime minister, Abdullah Badawi, is an Islamic scholar who promotes the concept of "Islam Hadhari" or "Islamic Civilization."

Rev. Shastri accused the government of persecuting Christians and of ceding jurisdiction over civil matters to Shariah courts.

This type of censorship is absolutely outrageous! The Islamofascist thought police have no right to impose their rules on non-Muslims. Moses, Abraham, and the other prophets were part of the Bible thousands of years before Muhammad founded Islam. Christians have every right to portray these figures in books aimed at educating their own children about their own faith.

British School Bans Sikh Girl From Wearing Religious Bracelet

Yet another British teen is fighting her school for the right to wear a religious piece of jewelery. Abedare Girls' School in Wales suspended 14-year-old Sarika Singh Monday after she refused to remove her kara. The kara is a slim metal bangle worn at all times to remind Sikhs not to commit sins and is a key part of that faith.

The school argues that Miss Singh's kara violates the dress code, which allows the wearing of only a wrist watch and one pair of plain metal stud earrings.

The Singh family has stated that the teen will remove the kara for safety reasons during gym and woodworking classes but that the total ban violates her right to practice her religion. "We feel very strongly that Sarika has a right to manifest her religion - she's not asking for anything big and flashy, she's not making a big fuss, she just wants a reminder of her religion."

This is reminiscent of the ruling against Lydia Playfoot back in July. Miss Playfoot is a Christian teen whose school banned her from wearing a silver chastity ring inscribed with a Bible verse.

I just don't understand why this is even an issue in Britain. It should be a no-brainer to allow students to wear small, non-distracting pieces of religious jewelery unless it creates a health or safety risk (such as in gym class). Whether it's a Sikh wearing a kara, a Protestant wearing a chastity ring, a Catholic wearing a patron saint medal, or a Jew wearing a Star of David, they all should have the right to practice their respective faiths without interference from school officials.

One more reason to be thankful that the Founding Fathers specifically included the freedom of religion in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution!

British Christian Loses Appeal to Wear Chastity Ring

Back in May, I discussed how British teen Lydia Playfoot was banned from wearing a chastity ring to school, even though the school allows students of non-Christian faiths to wear religious adornments. She challenged the ban in court on the grounds of religious discrimination. Unfortunately, Deputy High Court Judge Michael Supperstone ruled against her, saying that the purity ring was "not an integral part of the Christian faith".

I agree that a chastity ring is not a required religious adornment, but it is quite clearly an expression of Lydia's Christian faith. It's got a Bible reference engraved upon it (1 Thessalonians 4:3-4) and it's a symbol of her pledge to live by Biblical teaching against premarital sex. How is banning her from wearing it NOT interfering with her freedom of worship, something protected by the European Convention on Human Rights?

After the judge ruled against her, Lydia said:

“I am very disappointed by the decision this morning by the High Court not to allow me to wear my purity ring to school as an expression of my Christian faith not to have sex outside marriage. I believe that the judge’s decision will mean that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organizations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practicing their faith."

She is considering an appeal of the judge's decision. I hope she does, and I pray that the appeal will be successful!

British School Bars Christian from Wearing Chastity Ring but Allows Muslim Headscarves

On the heels of the British Airways banning one of its employees from wearing a small cross necklace while allowing Muslim employees to wear headscarves, a British girls' high school has banned a minister's daughter from wearing a silver chastity ring inscribed with a Bible verse. The same school allows Muslim and Sikh students to wear religious adornments such as headscarves and kara bracelets.

16 year old Lydia Playfoot is now challenging the school's ban in court on the basis of religious discrimination. According to her mother, Heather, "We have only ever asked of the school that there is a level playing field for children from all faiths and to treat Christians with respect."

Under the student uniform guidelines issued by the British Department for Education and Skills, schools "should act reasonably in accommodating religious requirements," under human rights legislation unless there is a health or safety reason for the restriction.

I fail to see how allowing Lydia to wear her chastity ring during normal classes poses a health or safety risk to anyone. I could certainly understand a shop class banning jewelery out of a concern that they could get caught in the machine tools. The complete ban, however, does strike me as an infringement upon Lydia's right to practice her faith. The fact that the school permits students of other faiths to wear much more visible (and therefore potentially disruptive) religious adornments is unfair and religious discrimination.

I hope that Lydia's legal challenge to her school's discriminatory ban is successful. Students should be free to wear religious jewelery such as a chastity ring, cross, Star of David, or patron Saint medal, and religious clothing such as a headscarf, yarmulke, or turban so long as it does not pose a health or safety risk to anyone.

The University of California vs. Academic & Religious Freedom

The Association of Christian Schools International, a group representing private Christian schools serving over 1 million students, has filed a lawsuit against of the University of California charging religious discrimination. In California, students wishing to apply for admission to the UC system must complete UC-approved courses in history and social science; English; mathematics; lab science; foreign language; visual & performing arts; and electives such as psychology, economics, journalism, computer science, speech & debate, etc.

First of all- doesn't the University of California have more important things to worry about than micromanaging the curriculum of California's high schools????? Such as oh, I don't know, providing a quality education to the 209,000 students currently enrolled?

In filing its lawsuit, the ACSI stated: "defendants routinely approve courses which add viewpoints such as non-Christian religion, feminism, an ethnic preference, a political viewpoint, or multiculturalism, or that focus on religions such as Buddhism or Judaism, (and plaintiffs believe they should evenhandedly approve such courses), but disapprove courses which add viewpoints based on conservative Christianity."

For example, while UC has approved courses in the history of India, Mexican history, Irish history, Jewish history, "Feminist Issues Throughout U.S. History"and even "The Environmental History of Europe", it rejected "Christianity's Influence on American History" as "too narrow/too specialized". “Christianity and Morality in American Literature” was rejected but "Gender Roles in Literature," "Feminine Perspectives in Literature," "Literature from the 60's Movement" and "Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature", and even "Industrial Poetry" all were approved.

A physics textbook published by Bob Jones University was rejected not because UC found its scientific content problematic but simply due to its Christian viewpoint. UC officials confirmed "that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved."

According to Burt Carney of the ACSI, "It's egregious how they are treating Christian schools in California. They are basically saying that any textbooks that include overt Christian content or themes, they're going to reject it automatically."

This is clearly religious discrimination, and I hope that ACSI is successful in its legal challenge to the UC system. I may not agree with the views promoted in these textbooks and courses, but I absolutely support the right of a private school to decide what will be taught there. If I disagree with what the school teaches, I simply won't enroll my child!

As ACSI has stated, the lawsuit is about "defending the right of Christian schools to have the religious and academic freedom to choose their courses, curriculum, and teaching methods and to allow equal opportunity for graduates of these schools to gain admission to the college or university of their choice."

Regardless of whether one agrees with the religious beliefs taught in ACSI schools, it's an infringement upon the First Amendment for UC to disapprove their courses simply because of those beliefs.