Islamic Terrorism Unit In Course Does Not Violate 1st Amendment

Religion Clause ^ | 8/19/20 | Howard Friedman

[marshmallow]

In Sabra v. Maricopa County Community College District, (D AZ, Aug. 18, 2020), an Arizona federal district court dismissed a suit challenging the manner in which a community college faculty member taught a portion of a World Politics course. Plaintiffs contend that the instructor's primary message in teaching the Islamic Terrorism module of the course was disapproval of Islam. The court rejected both Establishment Clause and Free exercise challenges, saying in part:

Examining the course as a whole, a reasonable, objective observer would conclude that the teaching’s primary purpose was not the inhibition of religion. The offending component was only a part of one-sixth of the course and taught in the context of explaining terrorism. One aspect of terrorism is Islamic terrorism. Only in picking select quotes from the course can one describe the module as anti-Islam.... [T]he primary effect of Dr. Damask’s course is not the inhibition of the practice of Islam. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claims must be dismissed....

[Campion]

Imagine if there were a lawsuit everytime a college professor said something against Christianity. No, I can’t either.

[AndyJackson]

What courthouse do we need to burn down now?

[rockrr]

Why take a chance - burn them all!

/s

[SunkenCiv]

an Arizona federal district court dismissed a suit challenging the manner in which a community college faculty member taught a portion of a World Politics course. Plaintiffs contend that the instructor's primary message in teaching the Islamic Terrorism module of the course was disapproval of Islam. The court rejected both Establishment Clause and Free exercise challenges, saying in part:

Examining the course as a whole, a reasonable, objective observer would conclude that the teaching’s primary purpose was not the inhibition of religion.

And plus, up yours.