See other Religion Articles
Title: Jewish Family Flees Delaware School District's Aggressive Christianity
Source:
www.jewsonfirst.org
URL Source: http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/indianriver.html
Published: Jun 28, 2006
Author: by JewsOnFirst.org
Post Date: 2006-07-01 08:00:23 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 871
Comments: 47
Jewish Family Flees Delaware School District's Aggressive Christianity by http://JewsOnFirst.org, June 28, 2006 Links to articles and documents cited in our report appear immediately below it A large Delaware school district promoted Christianity so aggressively that a Jewish family felt it necessary to move to Wilmington, two hours away, because they feared retaliation for filing a lawsuit. The religion (if any) of a second family in the lawsuit is not known, because they're suing as Jane and John Doe; they also fear retaliation. Both families are asking relief from "state-sponsored religion." The behavior of the Indian River School District board (some of its members are pictured here) suggests the families' fears are hardly groundless. The district spreads over a considerable portion of southern Delaware. The families' complaint, filed in federal court in February 2005, alleges that the district had created an "environment of religious exclusion" and unconstitutional state-sponsored religion. Among numerous specific examples in the complaint was what happened at plaintiff Samantha Dobrich's graduation in 2004 from the district's high school. She was the only Jewish student in her graduating class. The complaint relates that local pastor, Jerry Fike, in his invocation, followed requests for "our heavenly Father's" guidance for the graduates with: I also pray for one specific student, that You be with her and guide her in the path that You have for her. And we ask all these things in Jesus' name. In addition to the ruined graduation experience, the Dobrich-Doe lawsuit alleges that: * The district's "custom and practice of school-sponsored prayer" was frequently imposed "on impressionable non-Christian students," which violated their constitutional rights. * The district ignored the Supreme Court's 1992 Lee decision limiting prayer at graduation ceremonies -- even after a district employee complained about the prayer at her child's 2003 graduation.. * District teachers and staff led Bible clubs at several schools. Club members got to go to the head of the lunch line. * While Bible clubs were widely available, student book clubs were rare and often canceled by the district. * When Jane Doe complained that her non-Christian son "Jordan Doe" was left alone when his classmates when to Bible club meetings, district staff insisted that Jordan should attend the club, regardless of his religion. * The district schools attended by Jordan and his sister "Jamie Doe" distributed Bibles to students in 2003, giving them time off from class to pick up the books. * Prayer --often sectarian -- is a routine part of district sports programs and social events * One of the district's middle schools gave students the choice of attending a special Bible Club if they did not want to attend a lesson on evolution. * A middle school teacher told students there was only "one true religion" and gave them pamphlets for his surfing ministry. * Samantha Dobrich's honors English teacher frequently discussed Christianity, but no other religion. * Students frequently made mandatory appearances at district board meetings -- where they were a captive audience for board members' prayers to Jesus. The Dobriches said the prayers to Jesus' ruined the graduation experience for Samantha. Mona Dobrich, Samantha's mother, repeatedly called district officials to complain. A board member told her she would have to get the matter put on a meeting agenda -- then refused to put it on the agenda. The school superintendent slipped the topic onto the agenda and then told Mona Dobrich she would need to raise it during the public comment period. School board unyielding The board opened the June 15, 2004 meeting at which Dobrich was prepared to speak with a prayer in Jesus' name. The board was not forthcoming to her request that official prayers be in "God's name" rather than in Jesus' name. The high school athletic director veered from his agenda topic to encourage the board to keep praying in Jesus' name. Board member Donald Hattier followed Dobrich out and offered to "compromise" by keeping graduation free of prayers to Jesus. And, according to the complaint, he warned her not to hire a lawyer. A large crowd turned out for the next board meeting and many people spoke in support of school prayer. Mona Dobrich spoke passionately of her own "outsider" experience as a student in Indian River District schools and of how hard she'd worked to make sure her children didn't also feel like outsiders. Hattier again approached her after the meeting. This time, the complaint alleges, he told her he'd spoken with the Rutherford Institute, a religious right legal group. Talk show calls out a mob The district board announced the formation of a committee to develop a religion policy. And the local talk radio station inflamed the issue. On the evening in August 2004 when the board was to announce its new policy, hundreds of people turned out for the meetng. The Dobrich family and Jane Doe felt intimidated and asked a state trooper to escort them. The complaint recounts that the raucous crowd applauded the board's opening prayer and then, when sixth-grader Alexander Dobrich stood up to read a statement, yelled at him: "take your yarmulke off!" His statement, read by Samantha, confided "I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy." A state representative spoke in support of prayer and warned board members that "the people" would replace them if they faltered on the issue. Other representatives spoke against separating "god and state." A former board member suggested that Mona Dobrich might "disappear" like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the atheist whose Supreme Court case resulted in ending organized school prayer. O'Hair disappeared in 1995 and her dismembered body was found six years later. The crowd booed an ACLU speaker and told her to "go back up north." In the days after the meeting the community poured venom on the Dobriches. Callers to the local radio station said the family they should convert or leave the area. Someone called them and said the Ku Klux Klan was nearby. "Killing Christ" Classmates accused Alex Dobrich of "killing Christ" and he became fearful about wearing his yarmulke, the complaint recounts. He took it off whenever he saw a police officer, fearing that the officer might see it and pull over his mother's car. When the family went grocery shopping, the complaint says, "Alexander would remove the pin holding his yarmulke on his head for fear that someone would grab it and rip out some of his hair." The Dobriches refinanced their home so that Mona and Alexander could move to Wilmington, away from a situation that had become untenable, according to the complaint; Marco stayed behind because of his job, . Ultimately, it continues, the expense of two households forced the Dobriches to sell their home. And Samantha was forced to withdraw from the joint program she attended at Columbia University and the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. She is being treated for depression. The lawsuit states that the Doe family wants to remain anonymous in order to avoid the retaliation experienced by the Dobrich family. Jordan and Jane Doe are also suffering from depression related to their opposition with the Indian River School District's religion policy. Elusive religion policy Even after Mona and Alexander Dobrich moved to Wilmington, the family and its lawyers continued to request the district's policy on religion in the schools and to ask for meetings with the board. Their requests were stonewalled, so in February 2005 they filed suit. In a statement issued through her attorneys and quoted by the Delaware Wave, Mona Dobrichexplained why the families were suing: "We are not trying to remove God from the schools or the public square. We simply don't think it is right for the district to impose a particular religious view on impressionable students." The families seek to recover damages and to compel changes in the school district's policy. That policy, however, remains elusive. At the request of a board member soon after the infamous graduation, the Rutherford Institute, prepared a prayer policy for the school board, according to the complaint. In October 2004 the board reportedly adopted a new policy on religion in response to the Dobrich's complaint. It is unclear if that policy is the one prepared by the Rutherford Institute -- because no one has seen it. The Dobrich's complaint states that the policy was unavailable and when the families requested it the district told them to file a freedom of information request. This June, the board had a reading of a proposed change in the unseen policy. They said the policy and its changes would be posted on their website, http://(www.irsd.net) but on June 27th, it was nowhere to be found among several dozen policy documents. The Rutherford Institute enters the fray At the boisterous August 2004 district board meeting, the head of the Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead, urged the board to set an example for other schools, according to the Daily Times, a local paper. A Rutherford affiliated lawyer, Thomas Neuberger, came into the case representing one of the school board members. Before he left the case last August (because the judge dismissed the individual board members from the case), Neuberger was reportedly feuding with other lawyers. While he was in the case, his client, Reginald L. Helms (pictured at right), reportedly admitted one of the lawsuit's allegations: that school officials invited Pastor Fike to the 2004 graduation. That undermined the district's claim that students chose the speakers. Neuberger was quoted by the Delaware Wave newspaper denying that the Dobrich's son Alex was taunted as a Jew by classmates. "I seriously doubt that it ever occurred," he told the paper, contending that the plaintiffs were using the allegation used to "defame the good citizens who serve on this school board." In its response to the lawsuit, the district reportedly called some of the families' claims "immaterial, impertinent and scandalous," and intended only to cast the district in a negative light. Settlement rejected In February 2006, the board unanimously rejected a settlement offer that would have required renaming "Christmas" and "Easter" breaks to winter and spring, respectively, and to put a Dobrich child at the top of a waiting list for an arts school. It would have permitted board members to continue praying at their meetings. (US District Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., who is hearing the case, ruled last year that the prayer was a historic tradition and could continue.) In April the board's insurance company, which had been representing the district in the lawsuit, filed suit against it (and the individual board members) because they had, against its advice, rejected the settlement offer. The board then fired the attorneys that had been representing them and hired a new set. The insurance company is reportedly refusing to pay for the board's legal defense from the date the members rejected the settlement offer. According to the Coastal Point, the insurance company's complaint is sealed, as is the district's response. The district's taxpayers, who will pay the bill if the insurer prevails, cannot know the details of the case. Attorney Thomas Allingham, who represents the Dobrich family in their case against the school district, says the board's behavior suggests it was not negotiating in good faith. Allingham told JewsOnFirst that several board members attended the settlement negotiations, which were under the auspices of a federal mediator. He said the members approved the settlement during those negotiations. But, when the board voted on the offer, they rejected it unanimously. Allingham said the plaintiffs remained open to the possibility that the case could be settled. But the case is set for trial in June 2007 in Wilmington.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
#2. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
this is exactly the sort of situation that Jefferson, Paine, Franklin and the
rest foresaw when they wrote the first amendment. freedom of religion
necessarily means freedom from a group of Billy Grahms, Ron Phelps and Pat
Robertsons trying to impose their religion upon you by force or force of law.
It also means freedom from the Zionist traitors and spies in the administration.
here are Jefferson's own words on the subject: Separation of Church and State "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, January 1, 1802 Government-Sponsored Prayer and Other Religious Worship "I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and the right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it." --Letter to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808
I do not agree with your 'freedom from religion' comments. people should be able to express themselves freely. and if you don't like it, well that is unfortunate. You have an incorrect view of Jefferso's 'wall of separattion between church & state'. Jefferson of course coinced this phrase, it was his interpretation of first ammendment. He first used this phrase as president when he wrote a letter to a Pennsylvania man. The Pennsylvania man asked Jefferson if the state of Pennsylvania could make the quaker religion the state religion of pennsylvania. Jefferson wrote the man and told him that there was a wall of separation between church & state that restrained the federal government from making any law regarding religion. and that therefore the state of pennsylvania was able to make the quaker religion the state religion of pennsylvania. So Jefferson believed correctly that the first ammendment only restrained the US congress and not the various state governments. there are many historians who interpret these things dishonestly. Many states of course have similar language to the federal first ammendment in their state constitutions and are thus restrained as well from making any law regarding religion. but jefferson of course did defend the state's right to make laws regarding religion if they so chose to do so. but in this case above it seems that nobody has made a law regarding religion. No taxpayer money was spent to support a religion either. What happened apparently according to the article is that somebody expressed themselves in a way that someone else objected to. and thus in the name of freedom of religion some speech must be suppressed. also, when we consider Jefferson on this issue we should be aware that when Jefferson was President of the University of Virginia he did arrange for the taxpayers of Virginia to support the University of Virginia. And he also directed that christian theology be the main subject that the university taught. All who graduated were required to study christian theology. The majority of the courses were theology courses. Each student had a choice between 7 different christian traditions. And the taxpayers paid for it. And thomas Jefferson created this system. this was still not considered legislative support of religion though by Jefferson and his peers. It was considered freedom of religion and simple academic study. The simple facts are that the universities of western civilisation in both Europe and America became great institutions when they focused on christian theology and have become cesspools when they excluded christian theology. your idea of freedom means that other people whom you don't like must be suppressed. After all, a guy gave a speech and said some things, and you are upset over it.
no, it means that religions eager to force themselves on others by use of the courts, or by brute force - groups such as the christian fundamentalists or the moslem fundamentalists - need to be controlled. they can believe whatever they want, but they cannot force their beliefs upon others. the founding fathers lived in a world inhabited by superstitious religious types. as an example, cotton mather a historical Pat Robertson type figure, was still alive at that time. the founding fathers recognized the danger posed to the new republic by ignorant religious fanatics and they provided the first amendment to protect the citizens from these sorts. the reason a great many christian fundamentalists find the amendment distasteful and confining is because it is aimed directly at them, i.e., it is specifically designed to prohibit that which they wish to do - establish a theocracy.
oh I see, if you listen to someone speak, then you are exposed to brute force. that is ridiculous. you feel that others cannot speak because if they speak this will be the application of brute force. the article above talked about a man giving a speech. and you are equating that speech to brute force. you've built up a whole ideology it seems based strictly on hatred.
precisely. exactly right. it is called the 'camel's nose under the tent'. if you apply savage peer pressure to a young child in a public school, and if you do so in order to indoctrinate him into their religion - as was the case here - then it is wrong. the founding fathers recognized this tactic and wrote about it. they drafted the first amendment to prevent esactly - exactly - this sort of thing. there isn't any guesswork invovled here. you can read the letters of jefferson and paine to see their purpose. public areas funded by the state are open to all religions - not just the ones who claim to be superior or those in need of young converts. one shouldn't have to suffer religious harassment to use a facility that you paid for and have a right to use. your children should be free to enter without you fearing that the church of scientology or some fundie sect will interfere with the religious instruction that you have given them. this is why the law is the way it is. you are free to practice your religion as you see fit. you are not free to hijack public institutions to promote your private agenda. this causes huge problems for most fundamentalist sects. the founding fathers recognized this and drafted the first amendemnt to protect us from these people.
well I appreciate your response. I can only say that I find it hilarious what you think. Here's something that we should be able to agree on. Don't you think that taxpayer funds should be used to support the schools that parents select for their children and that in those schools the government should stay out of the curriculum and let the school teach what it wants including religion. Under this scheme the taxpayers would merely fund the schools, but not control them. The parents would be free to select the school they want. The jewish girl who you say was brutalized because she listened to a speaker pray could go to an anti-christian school if the parents so chose and one was available. then everyone would be happy right? you're just obsessed with bashing christians.
yes, and i think that was the basis for the supreme court ruling allowing this back in 1956. it was a catholic school system that originally pressed the case. this has been decided for decades. it is only used now days as propaganda point to instill victimhood in the limbaugh audience.
sorry. but you are ignorant. the system I described we do not have today. Today the taxpayer money is used for government schools where a system of values is inculcated into the students that the large majority of parents dis- approve of. the parents would love to be able to send their children to the school of their choice and for the school to select the curriculum and for the government to stay out other than for the one simple provision that the government's money should be used to fund the schools of the parent's choice. we do not have such a system. people who want freedom would want such a system.
There are no replies to Comment # 36. End Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Morgana le Fay (#2)
Freedom of religion necessarily means freedom from a group of Billy Grahms, Ron Phelps and Pat Robertsons trying to impose their religion upon you by force or force of law.
#4. To: YertleTurtle (#3)
#10. To: Morgana le Fay (#4)
#13. To: Red Jones (#10)
your idea of freedom means that other people whom you don't like must be suppressed.
#15. To: Morgana le Fay (#13)
#17. To: Red Jones (#15)
oh I see, if you listen to someone speak, then you are exposed to brute force. that is ridiculous.
#21. To: Morgana le Fay (#17)
#23. To: Red Jones (#21)
Here's something that we should be able to agree on. Don't you think that taxpayer funds should be used to support the schools that parents select for their children and that in those schools the government should stay out of the curriculum and let the school teach what it wants including religion.
#36. To: Morgana le Fay (#23)
Replies to Comment # 36.