BlessedCause Main Index
BlessedCause home page

Judges have ruled that it is appropriate for public schools to ask children to pray to Allah, memorize and recite prayers of worship to Allah, "become Muslims" etc., and to "become witches and wizards" casting spells, writing chants etc., because they claim children "do not BELIEVE" they are actually performing witchcraft and becoming Muslims, that these practices are "pluralist" and acceptable.

"Pluralism" is the true belief of judges and educators in regards to religion. As shown below, these beliefs imposed on society are, in fact, in violation of  the U.S. Supreme Court rulings defining the Constitution and the First Amendment.

This "Memorandum of Law" is not complete, many avenues and court cases are still being researched. Some of these cases have yet to be confirmed as "good law." However, lawyers currently engaged in fights for religious freedom are encouraged to consider the issues challenged in this memorandum. Please send any suggestions or comments to BlessedCause. Permission to copy or repost is given as long as the disclaimer below is included.

Memorandum of Law
INCOMPLETE Last update 8/7/04
This document is not fully Sheperdized and will be updated, pure rough form


A woman’s son is about to begin the 7th grade which includes pluralism, the study of various religions (see exhibit A) and a study of Islam which she contends to be inductive. (see exhibit B).

First, this woman asserts that the pluralist belief that "all religions are equal" is an infringement on her religious beliefs. She has submitted exhibit A, Stanford’s definition of pluralism, by the academic elite, admitting that confronting students with the belief that "all religions are equal" concludes there is no one real truth, directly assaulting religious belief, endeavoring students to relinquish their own religious beliefs and is the predecessor to abandonment of beliefs. She believes this humanist tactic is a direct assault on religious freedom, blatantly attempting to perpetrate doubt to young children, and fosters excessive state entanglement with religion.

Secondly, this woman has provided extensive documentation of the disparagement of Judeo-Christian beliefs in the textbook (exhibit C), with heavy favoritism toward Islam (exhibit B).

This woman has provided quotes from the Quran showing direct instructions to kill, maim, terrorize and dominate Christians and Jews, extensive documentation of the Quran carried out with slaughters of Christians and Jews by Muslims, quoting the Quran at the border of Islam governed nations, statements by the 9-11 Commission identifying the threat of Islam, and admissions by various groups that the goal of Islam is world domination. This woman believes that the Quran and the fundamental beliefs of Islam is a hate religion directed at Christians, Jews and non-believers and compares the positive embracement of Islam in public school as comparable to the idea of promoting Third Reich beliefs to Jewish children, asking them to embrace and imagine being a part of the Third Reich, even as the concentration camps and gas chambers were being planned and constructed for the destruction of all Jews.

When her older son attended this course, she filed an administrative complaint (began a lawsuit) and was assured they would be able to "work it out;" however, after the principal sent her on a wild goose chase for social studies classes over the internet approved by the state, (there are none), she was told that there were no other resources and her son would have to attend the Islam course or be home schooled. After reading the Eklund case and how Samantha Eklund was persecuted in school without reprimand from Judge Hamilton, and after the manipulative treatment she received by the principal concerning her older son, this woman is not willing to "opt out" her younger son.


Has the school district’s implementation of "pluralism" violated the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, entangled government in religion, and can pluralism be categorized as a religion in and of itself, or the nature of religious beliefs, as defined under recent court cases and government definitions of religious beliefs? Second, by striving to achieve the pluralist goal of introducing only positive aspects of a religion (except Christianity), has the school district presented a false representation of Islam, compelling children to embrace a religion that in reality directly espouses hatred toward Christians, Jews and all unbelievers and advances a religion that endeavors to slaughter them?


  1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." U.S. Const. art. I

II. "The term 'religion' includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief" 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(j).

III. Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion, 29, C.F.R. § 1605.1, "Religious" - nature of a practice or belief.

  1. THE NATURE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF UNDER TITLE VII, EEOC Notice N-915.022 "Under Title VII an employer is obligated to maintain a working environment free of coercion or intimidation based on religion."

V. More to follow



Pluralist belief #1. There is no one truth when considering mutually incompatible religious claims

"Religious Diversity, (Pluralism)" by D. Basinger is the only article offered in the Stanford University Philosophy Encyclopedia under "Pluralism" and "Religious Diversity". Its placement is approved by a distinguished Editorial Board comprised of academia's elite PhD's and professors nationwide. Basinger quotes numerous university professors and authorities of pluralism, of whom:

  1. claim to "defeat Christian exclusivism" (the belief that Christ is the only way);
  2. demand that Christian exclusivists prove their religious beliefs or relinquish them;
  3. admit the impact of pluralism can "significantly reduce levels of confidence in the truth of certain beliefs" and precipitate belief abandonment, (diminishes faith);
  4. develop formulations to determine whether Christians are "rational." (Thus begins the argument that real faith is a diagnosable mental disorder).
  5. provide a definition of pluralism that meets the legal criteria of religion and thus the Department of Education is in violation of the Establishment Clause.

(See Exhibit A) Following are some of the quotes:

"No philosopher denies that the awareness of (realization of) seeming religious diversity sometimes does in fact have an impact on an exclusivist [believes their way is the only true way] — from causing minor uneasiness to significantly reducing her level of confidence in the truth of certain beliefs to precipitating belief abandonment."- D. Basinger, Stanford University Philosophy Encyclopedia

"[Exclusivists] should provide independent evidence for the claim that they have a special source of religious knowledge … or they should relinquish their exclusivist religious beliefs" (Silver 2001, 11).

"Julian Willard goes even further. He argues that when exclusivists become aware of diversity and cannot demonstrate that their perspective is superior to that of their competitors, they not only lose the right to hold the exclusivistic belief in question justifiably, they have an epistemic obligation to "set about abandoning" the religious practices based on this exclusivistic belief. (Willard 2001, 68)."

See exhibit A article at

Basinger quoted David Silver, who also wrote:

"A defeater for Christian belief would be some other belief (or other epistemic state) the possession of which would make it rationally impossible to continue to believe in the truth of Christian doctrine...I will then argue that the facts of religious pluralism do provide a defeater for his version for Christian exclusivism, and indeed for any version of religious exclusivism that is similarly based on religious experience. This is because such a defense of religious exclusivism faces a dilemma: either it involves a kind of vicious epistemic circularity, or it is highly implausible." – Religious Experience and the Facts of Religious Pluralism by David Silver, Assoc. Prof., Universities of Pennsylvania and Delaware.

This tenet of Pluralism is also evidenced in recent court administration of religious freedom cases, based on the imagined conclusions of a "hypothetical observer" as described by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals when weighing the merits of student participation in witchcraft. "This hypothetical observer is informed as well as reasonable; we assume that he or she is familiar with the history of the government practice at issue." Brown v. Woodland School Dist., 27 F.3d 1373 The court then ruled in favor of children being mandated to participate in such activities.

The application of "pluralism", the government practice at issue, deliberately assaults religious freedom as show above.

Lower courts have ruled in favor of students memorizing prayers of worship to Allah, fasting for Ramadan and "becoming Muslim" because they "cannot be considered to have performed any actual religious activities," derived from the Ninth Circuit’s ruling which deemed expert testimony "irrelevant" and stated: "Rather than consider what effect a challenged government practice has had on a particular public school student, the Supreme Court and this circuit consistently have applied an objective standard for public school Establishment Clause inquiries." The court delegated authority to a "hypothetical reasonable observer. Eklund v. Byron School Dist, not cited; Brown v. Woodland, 27 F.3d 1373; 1994 U.S. App. Lexis 14673

This ruling shows the standard of pluralism, which denies reality of any one truth, this establishing in public education that all religions are false. There is no larger violation of religious freedom. Only a pluralist "hypothetical observer" would conclude that religious freedom is not violated when students are told to pretend they are witches, sorcerers, Muslims, etc. and participate in the practices. If there were even a shred of true faith, this observer would recognize the deep offense in this violation of religious freedom. To deny children and parents the rights to their faith is unconstitutional as demonstrated in Everson v. Board of Education, where the court ruled that the Amendment:

"requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them." Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 71 -72 (1947) at 14-15. (emphasis mine)

Clearly pluralist practices are not adhering to the First Amendment.

Pluralist Belief #2: Without proof, beliefs must be relinquished

California’s elite academic professors describe pluralism in the Stanford University Philosophy Encyclopedia. Philosophy professor D. Basinger writes:

"One obvious response to religious diversity is to maintain that since there exists no divine reality — since the referent in all religious truth claims related to the divine is nonexistent — all such claims are false..."

"Can a person who acknowledges religious diversity remain justified in claiming just one perspective to be correct? If so, is it morally justifiable to attempt to convert others to a different perspective?" –Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia, "Religious Diversity, (Pluralism)" by D. Basinger (Exhibit A)

California’s State Standards reflect this disparaging view of religion::

"Students should understand the intense religious passions that have produced fanaticism and war…"

By pointing out the purported "flaws" of "religious passion," one can recognize a system of measurement and bias against religion.

" well as the political arrangements developed (such as separation of church and state) that allow different religious groups to live amicably in a pluralistic society." History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools pg 23

The more "passionate" the belief, the more blame for societal woes is indicated in the California State Standards, exhibiting prejudice and directs a society of different religious beliefs be replaced with a "pluralistic" society. Though wars over religion have been fought between other nations, internally, different religious groups lived just as amicably before the "separation of church and state." Atheists and humanists have created the majority of religious unrest, dictating their ideology in courtrooms and classrooms since the "separation of church and state." Our nation is in need of "separation of atheist and state."

In an amazing prediction by the court, as if recognizing the future assaults by atheists, humanists and pluralists, the court ruled that:

"powerful sects or groups might bring about a fusion of governmental and religious functions or a concert or dependency of one upon the other to the end that official support of the State or Federal Government would be placed behind the tenets of one or of all orthodoxies. This the Establishment Clause prohibits. And a further reason for neutrality is found in the Free Exercise Clause, which recognizes the value of religious training, teaching and observance and, more particularly, the right of every person to freely choose his own course with reference thereto, free of any compulsion from the state. This the Free Exercise Clause guarantees. Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

In our case, "powerful sects or groups" have fused religion and philosophy and have cleverly merged to form pluralism, fusing governmental and religious functions upon each other designing their own orthodoxies, supporting one or all orthodoxies, one size fits all. THIS the Establishment Clause expressly prohibits. To blend all orthodoxies into one, religious philosophers had to water down beliefs. California’s State Standards demonstrate that endeavor:

"Students need to understand why a democracy needs citizens who value give-and-take on issues,

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | *

BlessedCause home page

*  Disclaimer: BlessedCause/ Jen Shroder is not a  licensed attorney and cannot and does not provide legal advice. You should seek counsel from an attorney licensed to practice within your state. All content of this Memorandum of Law, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, case quotes and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional. BlessedCause is not responsible for misuse of any information given.