{"id":2778,"date":"2023-10-14T06:44:39","date_gmt":"2023-10-14T06:44:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cccfornews.com\/index.php\/2023\/10\/14\/lawsuit-filed-by-parents-in-california-over-ban-on-christian-instruction-in-charter-schools\/"},"modified":"2023-10-14T06:44:39","modified_gmt":"2023-10-14T06:44:39","slug":"lawsuit-filed-by-parents-in-california-over-ban-on-christian-instruction-in-charter-schools","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cccfornews.com\/index.php\/2023\/10\/14\/lawsuit-filed-by-parents-in-california-over-ban-on-christian-instruction-in-charter-schools\/","title":{"rendered":"Lawsuit Filed by Parents in California Over Ban on Christian Instruction in Charter Schools"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\"\"\/<\/a>\"\"\/<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/header>\n
<\/source><\/picture>
California state Capitol building <\/span> | Getty Images<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A group of Christian parents have filed a lawsuit against California over a charter school policy prohibiting the inclusion of religious materials in homeschool study programs.<\/p>\n

The parents of school-aged children who participate in the independent study programs of Blue Ridge Academy and Visions in Education charter schools seek to include Christian content in their coursework.<\/p>\n

In a complaint<\/a> filed Wednesday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the parents argued that they should be allowed to include Christian instruction as part of their study program.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese schools discriminate against parents who seek to educate their children in accordance with their faith, even if that faith-based education fully satisfies state educational standards,\u201d read the lawsuit, in part.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn particular, these schools have restricted parents\u2019 use of funds to purchase curricula and other instructional materials on the basis of religion and refused to accept or award credit for student work samples that derive from faith-based curricula or reflect religious perspectives.\u201d<\/p>\n

The lawsuit names as defendants Tony Thurmond, superintendent of Public Instruction; Michael Coleman, superintendent of Maricopa Unified School District; board members of the Maricopa USD; Melissa Bassanelli, superintendent of San Juan Unified School District; board members of the San Juan USD; officials at Blue Ridge Academy and officials at Visions in Education.<\/p>\n

First Liberty Institute, a conservative legal group based in Plano, Texas, is helping to represent the parents, along with the law firm King & Spalding LLP, which is based in Atlanta, Georgia.<\/p>\n

Justin Butterfield, deputy general counsel for First Liberty, said in a statement<\/a>\u00a0shared with The Christian Post on Thursday that the plaintiffs \u201csimply want to be able to choose curricula that fits their families’ needs without facing religious discrimination.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThese families love their charter schools and the opportunities those schools provide for families to educate their children in a way that fits the families’ needs,\u201d Butterfield said.<\/p>\n

According to Article 9, Section 8<\/a> of the California state constitution, \u201cNo public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any sectarian [religious] or denominational school, or any school not under the exclusive control of the officers of the public schools; nor shall any sectarian or denominational doctrine be taught, or instruction thereon be permitted, directly or indirectly, in any of the common schools of this State.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since charter schools in California are part of the public school system, the prohibition on public funding of religious instruction that is sectarian in nature is part of their directives.<\/p>\n

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled<\/a> 6-3 in David Carson et al. v. A. Pender Makin<\/em> that Maine could not lawfully bar parents from using a state tuition program to send their children to religious private schools.<\/p>\n

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, writing that “we have repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.”<\/p>\n

“As noted, a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause,” Roberts wrote in Carson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

“Maine\u2019s ‘nonsectarian’ requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.”<\/p>\n

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter <\/a> or Facebook<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Free<\/span> Religious Freedom Updates<\/h2>\n

Join thousands of others to get the FREEDOM POST<\/strong> newsletter for free, sent twice a week from The Christian Post.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n