As you know, several members of the district community and the wider community, including BvT, have filed a suit in federal court, asserting that the South Orange County Community College District has violated the Constitution (and has violated individuals' Constitutional rights) regarding the prohibition against government “establishment” of religion. We believe that the board, on several occasions, has pushed over the line with its prayers/invocations, etc.
One such occasion is described by Judge Gary Klausner*:
…[A]t the August 2009 Chancellor Opening Session, a slide show was presented to the audience while the song "God Bless America" was played. The slide show was selected for presentation at the event by Defendant Mathur. The slides depict a variety of pictures, ranging from scenic American landscapes to patriotic images of men and women of the United States military. The presentation concluded with two slides picturing coffins of United States soldiers, and the following message, “Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you. Jesus Christ and the American G.I. … One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.” Defendant Mathur testified he had not seen these concluding slides before deciding to include the presentation in the event.A while back, Defendants (i.e., the board & Mathur) motioned for summary judgment (if that were granted, defendants would prevail and a trial would be unnecessary). Two days ago, and to everyone’s (or at least our) surprise, the judge, Gary Klausner, issued his ruling**, despite our request for postponement of the ruling until our side can file a similar motion, as per schedule.
Klausner’s decision seems to have a little something for defendants and for plaintiffs.
The Judge sided with us with respect to plaintiff’s "standing" to bring the case.
He ruled that trustee Don Wagner's May 2009 harangue during the Saddleback Scholarship event and the Chancellor’s notorious "God Bless America" slideshow were independent constitutional violations.
He thinks that the evidence we have adduced that the Defendants' prayers are presented with a religious purpose are substantial—and thus may violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (i.e., the notion that government may not “establish” religion). That’s the green light for going to trial. (Of course, he has not yet read our brief for summary judgment. If we are persuasive, a trial will be unnecessary.)He ruled (I think) that John Williams’ notorious “atheists are going to hell” joke was not a constitutional violation:
Before the invocation, I thought I’d tell a little Biblical story. Today’s story is about Jonah. In grade school one day, a little girl spoke to her teacher about Jonah and how he was swallowed by a whale. The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though they’re a large mammal they have very small throats. The little girl said, “But how can that be? Jonah was swallowed by a whale, and the Bible says so.” Again the teacher said it’s physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human. Undaunted, the little girl said, “When I get to heaven, I will ask Jonah.” To this the teacher replied, “What if Jonah has gone to hell?” The little girl replied, “Then you can ask him.”Klausner has denied us “injunctive relief” on the grounds that, in his judgment, our request is over-broad.
Possibly, he held that the prayers do not have the effect that we claimed, but his writing can be hard to follow. For me anyway.
As far as I know, our legal team has not yet had a chance to assess the implications of this ruling to the various issues and motions involved in the case. When they do, they'll confer with plaintiffs.
So, there you are.
*From the Nov. 4 ruling.
Fans of abject right-wingery, here's a particularly interesting pair of paragraph from Klausner's ruling:Defendant Wager’s statement at this Scholarship Event attacked challengers of the invocation practice as “too uncertain in the strength of their own views that they cannot abode [sic] any mention in public of the divine.” He also sarcastically attacked the principle that it is improper for a public official to assert the existence of God. The character of Wagner’s opposition to a student-led invocation at the Scholarship Event, along with the content of the invocation he chose to deliver, raise a fact issue that he had supported the invocations with a religious rather than secular intent.**The Klausner ruling: Case 2:09-cv-08528-RGK -AN
It is questionable whether the motivations of a single trustee could call into question whether secular purposes advanced by the board as a whole were genuine. However, there are indications that other board members were motivated by religious purposes in maintaining the invocation practice. This Order will not outline every piece of evidence submitted that may support this determination. The following is some of the more salient evidence that has been presented: Defendant Fuentes characterized Plaintiff Westphal’s objections to the invocations as an attempt “to drive God from the public square” in an email to a colleague, and he testified that invocations are delivered before the Pledge of Allegiance at campus events because “God comes before country in our nation.” Defendant Padberg offered the response “I agree” to various emails from constituents supporting the invocation practice in terms such as “we must take back our Christian country,” “Please keep God in our community colleges,” and “you are going to be crying out to God soon enough when he releases his wrath upon this nation for turning its back on him.”6 Defendant Mathur approved a slide presentation which contained sectarian messages.7 Defendant Williams stated in an email that he was searching for an invocation to deliver at a campus event that would “liven things up a bit.” He indicated that he was looking for invocations delivered by Bill Clinton, noting that the former president was a devout Baptist.
The footnotes:
6. Notably, Padberg offered more neutral responses, like as “I intend to fight for our right to pray” to more inflammatory emails, such as one condemning the “Muslim influence” in the school system.
7. Defendants allege Mathur was unaware of this content when he approved the presentation. ¶ However, Plaintiff Westphal stated in a declaration to the Court that Mathur emailed the presentation to all faculty and staff even after he learned of the content.
