The San Diego ACLU has taken contradictory positions on expressions of religion in public places. It wants the Soledad cross removed, but it has fought for religious banners to remain in Bradley Johnson's Poway classroom. Perhaps in San Diego the ACLU can't get enough donations from people who believe in civil liberties, so it simply follows the desires of whoever happens to donate the most money.
Obama administration says San Diego cross should stay
The solicitor general, in an appeal to the Supreme Court, says the government should not be required to remove a war memorial atop Mt. Soledad because it is not an endorsement of religion.
By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times
March 17, 2012
The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow a 43-foot-tall cross that serves as a war memorial to remain atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego, arguing that the cross has been there since 1954 and is not an endorsement of religion.
The government should not be required "to tear down a cross that has stood without incident for 58 years as a highly venerated memorial to the nation's fallen service members," Solicitor Gen. Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said in a new appeal to the high court.
He urged the justices to reverse a decision last year by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that said the cross was primarily a Christian symbol and therefore unconstitutional. Its prominent display on public land in La Jolla amounted to an official "endorsement of religion" in violation of the 1st Amendment, the panel of judges said in a 3-0 ruling.
If the Supreme Court takes up the case this year — which is likely — the justices could be forced to finally resolve whether religious symbols, such as crosses or depictions of the Ten Commandments, can be prominently displayed on public land.
Two years ago, the high court rejected a challenge to the display of a small cross in the Mojave National Preserve, but the five justices in the majority disagreed on the reasons. The 9th Circuit's latest opinion mostly ignored that ruling.
Since 1989, lawsuits from several veterans have challenged the Mt. Soledad cross, arguing that a single religious symbol did not speak for all veterans. But the San Diego city government and, more recently, Congress have intervened to preserve the cross.
Critics say the cross is unquestionably a religious symbol, not a universal symbol that honors all fallen soldiers. The 9th Circuit judges said the cross "has never been used to honor all American soldiers in any military cemetery." For example, Jewish soldiers often have a Star of David on their headstones in military cemeteries.
The 9th Circuit judges also noted that until the 1980s, the Mt. Soledad cross was a gathering place for Christians and a scene for Easter services. Its role as a war memorial came only after the litigation began, the judges said.
Defenders of the cross say it serves as a symbol of sacrifice and a memorial to honor the nation's fallen soldiers dating back to World War I. In 2006, Congress moved to take possession of Mt. Soledad and its cross to preserve the memorial.
If the Supreme Court were to deny the appeal, Verrilli said the cross would have to be taken down. Such an act "unnecessarily fosters the very divisiveness" over religion that the Constitution was designed to avoid, he said.
The justices are likely to decide this spring whether to hear the case, known as U.S. vs. Trunk.
Showing posts with label Johnson v. Poway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Johnson v. Poway. Show all posts
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Appeal of Poway Unified’s God Banner Ban Filed with U.S. Supreme Court
See new posts re David Loy and earlier posts under his former name of David Blair-Loy.
Update: Appeal of Poway Unified’s God Banner Ban Filed with U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to overturn a decision allowing the district to prevent a math teacher from displaying classroom banners about God.
By Shauntel Lowe
Rancho Bernardo Patch
January 24, 2012
A Michigan-based public interest law firm has filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court objecting to a lower court’s decision allowing the Poway Unified School District to prevent a math teacher from displaying classroom banners with messages about God.
The ruling is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech in a public forum because other types of speech—such as another teacher’s poster with the lyrics to John Lennon's Imagine—are allowed, argues The Thomas More Law Center in its appeal filed Jan. 19 and announced Tuesday.
“What you really had was an egregious demonstration of a double standard,” Richard Thompson, president of the law center and chief counsel, told Patch. “The double standard was used again to censor Christian speech.
“There is this agenda that is out there supported by the ACLU, supported by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, that is trying to cleanse the public square from any kind of Christian message and they’re using the courts to do it.”
In September, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 2010 decision by a federal judge in San Diego that said the district had violated the First Amendment rights of Westview High School math teacher Bradley Johnson in 2007 by ordering him to take down the banners. They bore messages such as “In God We Trust” and “All Men Are Created Equal/ They Are Endowed By Their CREATOR.”
In September 2010, the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties filed a brief with the 9th Circuit Court supporting the district’s decision to have Johnson take the banners down, saying, “The banners’ repeated emphasis on ‘God’ and the ‘CREATOR’ creates a serious risk that reasonable persons would believe the District is endorsing religion.”
September’s ruling found that the district’s ban upheld the Establishment Cause prohibiting endorsement of religion.
The Thomas More Law Center—which describes itself as a “not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life”—argues that this is a cherry-picked ban on Judeo-Christian speech. Another teacher displayed Tibetan flags with no recourse, and Lennon’s Imagine promotes an anti-religious point of view but was allowed, showing a bias against Christian speech, the center argues.
But this isn't about clamping down on Christian messaging, said David Loy, legal director for the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties which believes the banners and the Tibetan prayer flags should have been taken down.
"It's our position that both of those were unconstitutional," Loy said. "Public school teachers should not be in the business of promoting religion in the classroom."
The large size of Johnson's banners and that they had been there so long—particularly in a math class and not in a philosophy or literature class—could lead a "reasonable" student to believe that they indicated an endorsement of religion by the school district, Loy said.
Johnson, in a 2007 lawsuit against the district, said the banners are not a means to proselytize but represent historical messaging about the country’s origins. Thompson, too, said the banners are just a means of educating students about the role of Christianity in the nation’s development. Taking the banners down and removing Christian messaging from the classroom runs counter to that, he said.
“It really is a way of indoctrinating our students into believing that our nation was founded on principles other than Christianity,” Thompson said.
The school district, in a statement from its attorneys, said it would file a written opposition to the appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.
"We believe that the Ninth Circuit properly followed the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent in ensuring that all students have a proper environment for learning," attorney Jack M. Sleeth Jr., of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, said in a statement. "The Ninth Circuit correctly found that teachers have no First Amendment right to espouse their personal religious beliefs in the classroom."
The issue about the banners in the classroom of Johnson, who had been with the district for three decades, arose when a fellow teacher questioned the school’s principal about them in late 2006. Johnson, according to court files, said he had had the banners up in some way since 1982. In January 2007, district officials had Johnson take the banners down and he soon filed suit against the district and school board, which approved the decision to take down the banners.
In February 2010, Johnson won his suit, arguing that the district had violated his First Amendment rights, but in September 2011 that decision was overturned on appeal. Poway Unified Superintendent John Collins, in a statement at the time, said the decision to overturn Johnson’s victory was “very consistent with the legal and educational rationale the District has used since the very beginning of this case. We are pleased with the outcome after more than four years in the courts.”
Whether the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case has not been determined. The Court received more than 7,800 requests in the term running from October 2010 to October 2011, but only agreed to hear about 1 percent of the cases.
Update: Appeal of Poway Unified’s God Banner Ban Filed with U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to overturn a decision allowing the district to prevent a math teacher from displaying classroom banners about God.
By Shauntel Lowe
Rancho Bernardo Patch
January 24, 2012
A Michigan-based public interest law firm has filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court objecting to a lower court’s decision allowing the Poway Unified School District to prevent a math teacher from displaying classroom banners with messages about God.
The ruling is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech in a public forum because other types of speech—such as another teacher’s poster with the lyrics to John Lennon's Imagine—are allowed, argues The Thomas More Law Center in its appeal filed Jan. 19 and announced Tuesday.
“What you really had was an egregious demonstration of a double standard,” Richard Thompson, president of the law center and chief counsel, told Patch. “The double standard was used again to censor Christian speech.
“There is this agenda that is out there supported by the ACLU, supported by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, that is trying to cleanse the public square from any kind of Christian message and they’re using the courts to do it.”
In September, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 2010 decision by a federal judge in San Diego that said the district had violated the First Amendment rights of Westview High School math teacher Bradley Johnson in 2007 by ordering him to take down the banners. They bore messages such as “In God We Trust” and “All Men Are Created Equal/ They Are Endowed By Their CREATOR.”
In September 2010, the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties filed a brief with the 9th Circuit Court supporting the district’s decision to have Johnson take the banners down, saying, “The banners’ repeated emphasis on ‘God’ and the ‘CREATOR’ creates a serious risk that reasonable persons would believe the District is endorsing religion.”
September’s ruling found that the district’s ban upheld the Establishment Cause prohibiting endorsement of religion.
The Thomas More Law Center—which describes itself as a “not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life”—argues that this is a cherry-picked ban on Judeo-Christian speech. Another teacher displayed Tibetan flags with no recourse, and Lennon’s Imagine promotes an anti-religious point of view but was allowed, showing a bias against Christian speech, the center argues.
But this isn't about clamping down on Christian messaging, said David Loy, legal director for the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties which believes the banners and the Tibetan prayer flags should have been taken down.
"It's our position that both of those were unconstitutional," Loy said. "Public school teachers should not be in the business of promoting religion in the classroom."
The large size of Johnson's banners and that they had been there so long—particularly in a math class and not in a philosophy or literature class—could lead a "reasonable" student to believe that they indicated an endorsement of religion by the school district, Loy said.
Johnson, in a 2007 lawsuit against the district, said the banners are not a means to proselytize but represent historical messaging about the country’s origins. Thompson, too, said the banners are just a means of educating students about the role of Christianity in the nation’s development. Taking the banners down and removing Christian messaging from the classroom runs counter to that, he said.
“It really is a way of indoctrinating our students into believing that our nation was founded on principles other than Christianity,” Thompson said.
The school district, in a statement from its attorneys, said it would file a written opposition to the appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.
"We believe that the Ninth Circuit properly followed the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent in ensuring that all students have a proper environment for learning," attorney Jack M. Sleeth Jr., of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, said in a statement. "The Ninth Circuit correctly found that teachers have no First Amendment right to espouse their personal religious beliefs in the classroom."
The issue about the banners in the classroom of Johnson, who had been with the district for three decades, arose when a fellow teacher questioned the school’s principal about them in late 2006. Johnson, according to court files, said he had had the banners up in some way since 1982. In January 2007, district officials had Johnson take the banners down and he soon filed suit against the district and school board, which approved the decision to take down the banners.
In February 2010, Johnson won his suit, arguing that the district had violated his First Amendment rights, but in September 2011 that decision was overturned on appeal. Poway Unified Superintendent John Collins, in a statement at the time, said the decision to overturn Johnson’s victory was “very consistent with the legal and educational rationale the District has used since the very beginning of this case. We are pleased with the outcome after more than four years in the courts.”
Whether the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case has not been determined. The Court received more than 7,800 requests in the term running from October 2010 to October 2011, but only agreed to hear about 1 percent of the cases.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
9th Circuit overturns decision about religious banners in Johnson v. Poway Unified School District
I don't understand why the ACLU would be trying to take down the Soledad cross and at the same time trying to preserve religious banners in a public classroom. The only thing that I can take away from this is that the San Diego ACLU has a very piecemeal, unprincipled approach to legal issues.
I can't say I'm shocked, though, that the San Diego ACLU would be on the wrong side in a First Amendment case. I have come to understand that the San Diego ACLU is different from the typical ACLU organization. The San Diego ACLU board and its head counsel, David Blair-Loy, seem to pander to political interests rather than adhering to principles of justice.
I would never expect to be allowed to present one-sided religious points of view to my students. The California curriculum framework tells teachers that we should present a minimum of three different religions anytime we teach about religion.
Click HERE for opinion.
Johnson v. Poway Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. - Sept. 13, 2011)
by Shaun Martin
California Appellate Report
September 13, 2011
This may well be the best opinion I've ever read from Judge Tallman.
It's really, really good. Regardless of whether you agree with it -- and it involves a controversial issue -- it's incredibly coherent, comprehensive and tight. It's written extremely, extremely well. It's an extremely good primer on the issue. Well done. Very.
I'll not tell you how the case comes out. You should read the opinion for yourself. But here's the issue:
A public school teacher down here in Poway (a suburb of San Diego), Bradley Johnson, teaches mathematics (at Westview High School). He hangs two large banners -- each about seven feet wide and two feet tall -- on the wall of his classroom. One has red, white, and blue stripes and states in large block type: “IN GOD WE TRUST”; “ONE NATION UNDER GOD”; “GOD BLESS AMERICA”; and, “GOD SHED HIS GRACE ON THEE.” The other states: “All men are created equal, they are endowed by their CREATOR.” You can look at pictures of the banners in the appendix to the opinion if you'd like. He's the faculty sponsor of the Christian Club, but says that his banners are purely patriotic, with no religious purpose.
The school district tells him to take down the banners but is free to put up these things in context if he'd like (e.g., to put the entire Declaration of Independence on his wall). Johnson refuses, saying that he has a protected First Amendment right to say what he wants on these issues, whereas the school district contends that he's a government employee so his speech rights are limited. Johnson ultimately complies with the order and takes down the banners, but promptly sues. He also visits other classrooms shortly after filing suit and photographs other teachers' walls that he believes display sectarian viewpoints, including Tibetan prayer flags; a John Lennon poster with “Imagine” lyrics; a Mahatma Gandhi poster; a poster of Gandhi’s “7 Social Sins”; a Dalai Lama poster; a poster that says, “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality”; and a poster of Malcolm X.
Who should win?
It's far from a no-brainer. The district judge, Judge Benitez, granted summary judgment to one side. The Ninth Circuit reverses -- unanimously -- and orders the granting of summary judgment to the other side. So clearly reasonable minds both can and do differ.
Plus, check out the lineup of the amici. You can easily (and accurately) guess which side the Thomas More Law Center is going to be on, which side the National School Boards Association supports, and where Americans United for Separation of Church and state stands. But what about the ACLU? Which side do you think they're going to come down on?
All good questions. Which make the opinion only even more worth reading.
I can't say I'm shocked, though, that the San Diego ACLU would be on the wrong side in a First Amendment case. I have come to understand that the San Diego ACLU is different from the typical ACLU organization. The San Diego ACLU board and its head counsel, David Blair-Loy, seem to pander to political interests rather than adhering to principles of justice.
I would never expect to be allowed to present one-sided religious points of view to my students. The California curriculum framework tells teachers that we should present a minimum of three different religions anytime we teach about religion.
Click HERE for opinion.
Johnson v. Poway Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. - Sept. 13, 2011)
by Shaun Martin
California Appellate Report
September 13, 2011
This may well be the best opinion I've ever read from Judge Tallman.
It's really, really good. Regardless of whether you agree with it -- and it involves a controversial issue -- it's incredibly coherent, comprehensive and tight. It's written extremely, extremely well. It's an extremely good primer on the issue. Well done. Very.
I'll not tell you how the case comes out. You should read the opinion for yourself. But here's the issue:
A public school teacher down here in Poway (a suburb of San Diego), Bradley Johnson, teaches mathematics (at Westview High School). He hangs two large banners -- each about seven feet wide and two feet tall -- on the wall of his classroom. One has red, white, and blue stripes and states in large block type: “IN GOD WE TRUST”; “ONE NATION UNDER GOD”; “GOD BLESS AMERICA”; and, “GOD SHED HIS GRACE ON THEE.” The other states: “All men are created equal, they are endowed by their CREATOR.” You can look at pictures of the banners in the appendix to the opinion if you'd like. He's the faculty sponsor of the Christian Club, but says that his banners are purely patriotic, with no religious purpose.
The school district tells him to take down the banners but is free to put up these things in context if he'd like (e.g., to put the entire Declaration of Independence on his wall). Johnson refuses, saying that he has a protected First Amendment right to say what he wants on these issues, whereas the school district contends that he's a government employee so his speech rights are limited. Johnson ultimately complies with the order and takes down the banners, but promptly sues. He also visits other classrooms shortly after filing suit and photographs other teachers' walls that he believes display sectarian viewpoints, including Tibetan prayer flags; a John Lennon poster with “Imagine” lyrics; a Mahatma Gandhi poster; a poster of Gandhi’s “7 Social Sins”; a Dalai Lama poster; a poster that says, “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality”; and a poster of Malcolm X.
Who should win?
It's far from a no-brainer. The district judge, Judge Benitez, granted summary judgment to one side. The Ninth Circuit reverses -- unanimously -- and orders the granting of summary judgment to the other side. So clearly reasonable minds both can and do differ.
Plus, check out the lineup of the amici. You can easily (and accurately) guess which side the Thomas More Law Center is going to be on, which side the National School Boards Association supports, and where Americans United for Separation of Church and state stands. But what about the ACLU? Which side do you think they're going to come down on?
All good questions. Which make the opinion only even more worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)