|
Highlights of Judge Alexander Williams Jr.'s Federal Court Decision
"The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion ... The State may not adopt programs or practices ... which aid or oppose any religion.... This prohibition is absolute. The Supreme Court has found that discrimination against religious speech among religions is subject to strict scrutiny. …when we are presented with a state law granting a denominational preference, our precedents demand that we treat the law as suspect and that we apply strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality. The Revised Curriculum also implies that the Baptist Church’s position on homosexuality is theologically flawed. The materials state that theologians and Biblical scholars agree that “Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality.” The materials also note that many seemingly innocuous activities were deemed abominations by the Bible, such as “wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber, and eating shellfish, like shrimp and lobster,” inviting the reader to draw the conclusion that not all activities that were banned in the Bible are still morally objectionable today. The Court would again note that the strength Montgomery County Public Schools’ substantive theological arguments are irrelevant — it is their exclusive nature that the Court finds troubling."
"Most disturbingly, the Revised Curriculum juxtaposes this portrait of an intolerant and Biblically misguided Baptist Church against other, preferred Churches, which are more friendly towards the homosexual lifestyle. The Revised Curriculum states: Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church. The Nation Council of Churches of Christ, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches support full civil rights for gay men and lesbians, as they do for everyone else."
"The Court is extremely troubled by the willingness of Montgomery County Public Schools to venture —or perhaps more correctly bound — into the crossroads of controversy where religion, morality, and homosexuality converge. The Court does not understand why it is necessary, in attempting to achieve the goals of advocating tolerance and providing health-related information, Montgomery County Public Schools must offer up their opinion on such controversial topics as whether homosexuality is a sin, whether AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuals, and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically solid ground. As such, the Court is highly skeptical that the Revised Curriculum is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest… Viewpoint discrimination consists of state action in which “there is no ban on a general subject matter, but only on one or more prohibited perspectives.”. When government restrictions “target notsubject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination.” …“the government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.”. In this case, Montgomery County Public Schools open up the classroom to the subject of homosexuality, and specifically, the moral rightness of the homosexual lifestyle. However, the Revised Curriculum presents only one view on the subject — that homosexuality is a natural and morally correct lifestyle — to the exclusion of other perspectives. Indeed, the Revised Curriculum advises teachers that the information concerning homosexuality is to be presented to students as facts and that “no additional information, interpretation or examples are to be provided by the teacher.” As such, the Court is deeply concerned that the Revised Curriculum violates Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum’s and PFOX’s free speech rights under the First Amendment..."
"The wisdom of approving a curriculum which prohibits students from discussing one viewpoint of a controversial subject goes to the very essence of that First Amendment faith. The merit of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum’s and PFOX’s viewpoint — be it right, wrong, discriminatory, or just — is of no consequence. Rather, the Court is concerned with ensuring that Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum’s and PFOX’s free speech rights are not restricted merely because they voice an unpopular viewpoint. No matter the importance of an idea to its believers, or how objectionable it may be to its detractors, the diversity of our democratic fabric is sewn together by the belief that the path to freedom lies in the opportunity for rival positions to be equally heard and discussed."
"This case pits a potential loss of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum’s and PFOX’s First Amendment freedoms against what amounts to mere inconvenience to Montgomery County Public Schools. It is in the public interest for the Court to guard against any chipping away at Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum’s and PFOX’s First Amendment freedoms, particularly where Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and PFOX have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits."
Back to Top
|
