The Court Cases that Inspired God's Not Dead: We The People
No one wants to be persecuted more than American evangelicals. They desire persecution so much that they have to make movies with outlandish plots about persecution to get their fill. Most notable in this weird phenomenon is the God's Not Dead franchise.
I recently watched the fourth installment for research purposes. No, really. I was writing about it and rather than relying on the plot summary available online, I thought it would be best practice to actually watch the film in order to depict it accurately. I remembered watching the first movie when I was a hardcore creationist and even at that time, I thought it was terrible. I readied myself for the cringe-factor, but nothing could have prepared me for this installment.
If you haven't seen it, it's about a homeschool co-op that receives an unannounced visit from social services, which then leads to a court case due to their refusal to change their Bible-based curriculum.
This isn't a review of the movie in its entirety, so I'll keep this section short. Wow. It was bad. Within the first five minutes, the characters unironically talked about the severe persecution in China and then proceeded to act out a story that was entirely made-up and not at all representative of homeschooling in America (but we'll get to that). The story also takes place in Arkansas, which, as we know, is home to the popular fundamentalist homeschool Duggar family, so they really weren't going for believability for this one. Also, social services neither cares nor has the time to check up on homeschool families.
In the scene where the social services worker visits the co-op, one of the kids asks if she is a miss or mrs. The social worker looks confused, and the mom explains that the child is asking if she is married. The social worker replies, "I identify as self-partnered." I have yet to figure out exactly which community they were trying to mock, but the looks on everyone's faces made it seem like she said she worships the devil. No one mentioned that it's weird to identify women based on their marital status in the first place.. but I sure thought about it.
Of course, no homeschool power film could be complete without fear-mongering about public school. These writers want you to know that Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) are bad for education (they're not, but okay) and portray them as being forced on a student (they can't be put in place without a formal meeting and parental consent... but okay). They also want you to know that the Common Core Agenda teaches truth doesn't exist (even though Common Core is a set of standards, not a curriculum). They also assert that Christians have stayed out of politics for far too long, which is laughable at best (88% of Congress identifies as Christian, by the way). And of course, the film ends with a dramatic (yet dry) speech that somehow makes the panel look scared and then they win the case.
Of note to me was the list of court cases that inspired the film. I was curious, because throughout the movie I kept wondering what on earth was happening to inspire such a plot. Last I heard, homeschool laws were loosening. But surprising no one, the cases listed had little to do with the plot and some were flat out misrepresented.
I researched each case and listed them below. You'll find the description according to the God's Not Dead writers, the overall facts of the case, my personal take on it (if you care to read), and a rating on how much each case related to the plot of the movie.
Rating key:
2 = relates directly to the plot
1 = loosely relates to the plot
0 = does not relate at all
Doe v. Madison Metropolitan School District (2020)
God's Not Dead description: "Parents sued a Wisconsin school district for instructing school employees to assist students of any age to adopt a transgender identity and to conceal the gender transition from the students' parents. The lawsuit is ongoing. Alliance Defending Freedom and Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty attorneys represent the parents."
The Madison Metropolitan SD released a document in April 2018 titled Guidance & Policies to Support Transgender, Non-binary & Gender-Expansive Students. This was the document that led to the lawsuit in 2020 toward MMSD. The guidance given is as follows:
"Families are essential in supporting our LGBTQ+ students. We believe that families love their children, have incredible dreams for them, and hope to keep them safe from harm. We know that family acceptance continues to have a profound impact on the physical and mental health outcomes of our LGBTQ+ young people. In MMSD, with the permission of our students, we will strive to include families along the journey to support their LGBTQ+ youth."
The document goes on to explain appropriate disclosures to families. "Students identified as transgender, non-binary, and gender-expansive may have not come out to their families regarding their gender identity. Disclosing a student's personal information such as gender identity or sexual orientation can pose imminent safety risks, such as losing family support and housing. ... All staff correspondence and communication to families in regard to students shall reflect the name and gender documented in Infinite Campus unless the student has specifically given permission to do otherwise. (This might involve using the student’s affirmed name and pronouns in the school setting, and their legal name and pronouns with family)."
These guidelines come from a place of wanting to keep students safe. Religion is not specifically mentioned in these guidelines but its association with the God's Not Dead franchise prompts the acknowledgement that while religious involvement is often a protective factor when it comes to mental health outcomes and suicide, for transgender individuals, the likelihood of suicidality actually goes up in religious environments. Additionally, MMSD's guidelines point out the following risks for transgender youth:
In the Matter of Scarlett Z (2015)
God's Not Dead description: "The Illinois Supreme Court protected parental rights by ruling that a mother's former boyfriend had no custody or visitation rights to the mother's adopted daughter, following a break-up between the mother and former boyfriend. Alliance Defending Freedom helped fund the attorney who represented the mother."
There is less information out there about this case, but it can be summarized in the following statement from a record on casetext: "Jim and Maria began living together as a couple in 1999. They became engaged in 2000 or 2001. In early 2003, Maria went to Slovakia to visit family. While there, she met Scarlett, a 3 1/2-year-old orphan girl. Maria and Jim decided that Maria would adopt Scarlett, and Maria commenced the process. Under Slovakian law, Jim was not permitted to adopt Scarlett, because he was neither a Slovakian national nor married to Maria. During the year-long adoption process, Maria lived in Slovakia. Jim remained in the United States, but he was involved in the process and traveled to Slovakia approximately five times during that period. In 2004, Maria returned to the United States with Scarlett, and the parties lived together with Scarlett as a family." In 2008, their relationship came to and end. Jim sought custody of Scarlett and the case ensued. Since Jim had not legally adopted Scarlett, he was not able to provide any acceptable argument for visitation.
Personal take: I'm not sure what angle they had for including this one, or why they chose to refer to Jim as a former boyfriend rather than a former fiancé who would have adopted the child from the start if he had been permitted legally. It's also relevant to mention that he contributed financially to the adoption process and in the care thereafter. I couldn't find any indication of poor character or treatment from Jim to be the reason for the breakup or the refusal by Maria for visitation. By all appearances, he was the only father-figure to the child and was given no rights in visitation after the split despite his involvement.
Plot relevance: 0 = does not relate at all
Romeike v. Holder (2013)
God's Not Dead description: "A German family sought asylum in the United States because of the persecution in Germany for homeschooling their children. The family was initially granted asylum by an immigration judge, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the asylum decision. The Home School Legal Defense Association represented the family, and Alliance Defending Freedom filed an amicus brief in support of their petition to the Supreme Court."
The Romeike family left Germany for the United States in hopes of being welcomed into a country where they could practice homeschooling, something that was not allowed in Germany. They opposed sending their children to school in Germany because they "object to the teaching of evolution, the endorsement of abortion and homosexuality, the implied disrespect for parents and family values, the teaching of witchcraft and the occult, sex education, and the ridiculing of Christian values."
Initially, they were permitted to stay. However, "The Board reversed the IJ’s grant of asylum. It noted that the German government 'has the authority to require school attendance and enforce that requirement with reasonable penalties,' and that the law in question had been upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. ... The Board explained that the compulsory-attendance law was a law of general application, and that prosecution for violating the law could not be considered 'persecution' under the INA unless it were selectively enforced—or used to inflict disproportionate punishment—on account of a protected ground, thereby revealing the prosecution to be a 'pretext for persecution.'"
Furthermore, "The Board determined that there was insufficient record evidence by which to conclude that the law had been selectively or more harshly applied against homeschoolers as opposed to other violators, such as truants. ... It also found that the record did not establish that the law disproportionately burdens religious minorities (or the Romeikes’ practice of Christianity), and that there was no evidence that petitioners were targeted because of their political beliefs."
Despite these roadblocks, the Romeikes were granted "indefinite deferred status," which essentially means they are permitted to live in the United States unless they are convicted of a crime.
Personal take: It's interesting to me that this family received so much support from the Christian community while those fleeing communism were mockingly sent to Martha's Vineyard in 2022. To me, both families should be welcomed.
In terms of relevance, it's important to note that this case is more so about immigration policies than it is about homeschooling.
1 = loosely relates to the plot
Greenville Independent School District v. Barrow (2007)
God's Not Dead description: "A federal Texas court ruled that a mother could not be punished for her decision to send her children to a private Christian school. The mother was a public-school teacher and was denied a promotion for refusing to move her children from a private Christian school to public school. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the teacher has a right to enroll her children in private school and cannot be punished for doing so. Alliance Defending Freedom funded allied attorneys who represented the teacher."
This one is pretty straightforward. The court ruled in favor of the teacher.
Personal take: This move was discriminatory on the part of the superintendent... and... I find it to be pretty hypocritical to send your kids to a private school for a better education but still expect parents to send their kids to public school so that you can have a job...
Plot relevance: 0 = does not relate at all
Baars v. Hamilton Children's Aid Society (2018)
God's Not Dead description: "An Ontario, Canada court gave a victory for foster pants when it ruled that a Children's Aid Society violated a foster family's freedoms of conscience, religion, and free speech. The Aid Society revoked the family's fostering privilege because the family decided not to teach foster kids about Halloween, the Easter bunny, and Santa Clause because of their religious beliefs. The court declared the foster family could not be punished for teaching foster kids according to their faith. Alliance Defending Freedom funded an allied attorney that represented the foster family."
Also true. Not to mention, bizarre.
Personal take: This happened during a shortage of foster parents. There was little to no remarks made by CAS, just from the social worker, which is strange to me.
Plot relevance: 0 = does not relate at all
In the Matter of C.J.C. (2020)
God's Not Dead description: "The Texas Supreme Court protected biological parents' rights when it ruled that a biological father had a legal right to sole custody and to make decisions for his daughter after the child's deceased mother's boyfriend tried to obtain custody rights. Alliance Defending Freedom filed an amicus brief supporting the biological father in the case."
The child had been residing with her mother and her mother's fiancé prior to her mother's death. There was an open modification case where the mother had been seeking additional child support and a change in visitation schedule for the father when the mother died, so custody was initially granted to the fiancé. The father sought custody at this point. The fiancé and maternal grandparents tried to make compromises for joint custody but the father refused and was eventually granted sole custody of the child.
Personal take: Custody situations are always messy. I'm inclined to think there could have been issues with the father based on the open case at the time of the mother's death, though those details are not available. Again, I question the misrepresentation of the fiancé in the God's Not Dead description, as if to portray him as having an insignificant role in the child's life.
Plot relevance: 0 = does not relate at all
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020)
God's Not Dead description: "The U.S. Supreme Court protected parents' right to choose where to send their children to school by ruling that Montana's tuition tax credit program cannot discriminate against religious schools and the state must allow both religious and non-religious schools to participate. Alliance Defending Freedom filed an amicus brief in this case."
This description is accurate. The decision was upheld with a 5-4 vote.
Personal take: N/A
Plot relevance: 0 = does not relate at all
In the Matter of Ashley P. and Daniel O. as Next Friends for KDP (2019)
God's Not Dead description: "The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot unilaterally take custody away from parents. The court ordered child services return custody to the child's parents after child services terminated parental custody because of the parent's medical decisions made after the child's surgery. Alliance Defending Freedom filed an amicus brief supporting the parents in this case."
This description leaves out some key details. The parents were reported because medical professionals suspected medical child abuse (sort of like Munchausen's by proxy), which is a very serious accusation that cannot be made lightly. Investigation showed no wrongdoing on the part of the parents. This case was likely included in the list because the family homeschooled their children.
Personal take: No one wants to be wrong about an abuse accusation, and medical child abuse has harmed and killed far too many children. I never want anyone to be wrongly accused, but in order for true cases to be identified, sometimes it happens. Medical professionals have an obligation to report any suspicion of child abuse, not make a definite determination on whether it is happening.
Plot relevance: 0 = does not relate at all
L.B. v. Simpson County School District (2020)
God's Not Dead description: "An elementary school student, through her parents, sued a Mississippi school district because the student's school prohibited her from wearing a mask with the words 'Jesus Loves Me.' The lawsuit is ongoing. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent the student and her parents in the case."
The school district has since updated their policies on what messages are allowed to be worn and displayed in school.
Personal take: The student shouldn't face any disciplinary action unless she breaks the rules under the new guidance.
Plot relevance: 0 = does not relate at all
People v. DeJonge (1993)
God's Not Dead description: "The Michigan Supreme Court protected parents' rights to homeschool their children by ruling that parents did not need a teacher certification to homeschool their children for religious reasons. The Home School Legal Defense Associated represented the parents in the case."
The wording of this description is misleading. The law at the time in Michigan was that home education required that certified instructors were in the home teaching the children. That was the law. This family decided to homeschool and break the law. As the case made its way through the legal system, the law was eventually changed. Parents are now free to homeschool their children without certified instructors in the home.
Personal take: This is a prime example of fake persecution. It was against the law to homeschool without certified instructors. What else do you expect to happen when you break the law but to face legal consequences?! The fact remains that People v. DeJonge ultimately changed the reality of homeschooling in Michigan.
1 = loosely relates to the plot
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (2011)
God's Not Dead description: "The U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona program that allowed organizations to give out scholarships funded by tax-deductible gifts to students attending Christian schools and ruled that a handful of taxpayers had no right to sue over someone else's private donations. The decision protected parent school choice for children. Alliance Defending Freedom represented the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization in the case."
The decision was made 5-4.
Personal take: N/A
Plot relevance: 0 = does not relate at all
State v. Melin (1988)
God's Not Dead description: "Homeschooling parents challenged North Dakota's law that required homeschooled children be taught by a person 'legally certified to teach.' The North Dakota Supreme Court, contrary to how many other states have ruled, found that the law was constitutional. The Home School Legal Defense Association represented the parents in defending their right to homeschool."
This case is comparable to People v. DeJonge.
Personal take: Of note to me is that the Melin family was using a curriculum from the Advanced Training Institute (ATI) which was founded by Bill Gothard. Anyone who cares about humans in general, let alone children, should be opposed to such a curriculum, but I digress.
1 = loosely relates to the plot
A.H. v. French (2020)
God's Not Dead description: "Parents, students, and the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont sued the state of Vermont because it prohibits religious schools from participating in the state tuition voucher program, thus treating religious schools worse than secular schools. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent Vermont high school students and their parents, as well as the Diocese of Burlington."
The state of Vermont does not prohibit religious schools from participating on the basis of religiosity but on the basis of funding: "Rice [A.H.'s school] did not apply to participate in the Dual Enrollment Program in the 2019-2020 school year; had Rice done so, the request would have been denied because the school does not receive public tuition funding."
Personal take: This isn't about "treatment" but about the flow of funding. I was not permitted to use government educational benefits of which I was eligible at my undergraduate institution because it did not accept government funding of any kind, even for an individual student's education. It sucks, but it's not about intentional discrimination.
Plot relevance: 0 = does not relate at all
Leeper v. Arlington Independent School District (1994)
God's Not Dead description: "The Texas Supreme Court protected parents' rights to homeschool their children by ruling that homeschooling met the definition of 'private school' under Texas law and therefore homeschooled children did not violate Texas' compulsory attendance law. The Home School Legal Defense Association joined the suit challenging the improper enforcement of compulsory attendance law."
Similar to the Michigan and Arizona cases.
Personal take: N/A
1 = loosely relates to the plot
Deeter v. Harner (2007-2010)
God's Not Dead description: "A biological father fought for sole custody of his daughter when the daughter's mother's second husband sought custody of her. A Pennsylvania state court granted split custody, but unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Alliance Defending Freedom and allied attorneys represented the biological father in the case."
I could not find any information on this case except for ADF's write-up on their website.
Personal take: I find it strange that ADF takes the stance that the biological parent is always the best fit for the child.
Plot relevance: 0 = does not relate at all
In summary, none of the fifteen cases cited had anything to do with a spontaneous home visit from social services to a homeschool co-op that led to prosecution or even threat of prosecution. I have such a problem with Christians playing the victim by making up fabricated stories about persecution that isn't happening for the purpose of... what? Feeling powerful at the end of the movie? It's disgusting. Homeschool Christians have it so good and refuse to acknowledge it. They want a battle to fight... a chance to show that they will do anything for their children. I'm wondering about the psychology underlying all of that... that's a topic for another day.
If they wanted a relevant case to cite for this film, they should've cited that time Christians forcibly removed indigenous children from their families and put them into boarding schools where they faced disease, abuse, and ridicule. But I guess being the oppressor in that situation doesn't lend itself well for this manufactured persecution story...
Comments
Post a Comment