New PBS Doc: An Atheist Mom Goes to the Supreme Court - and Wins
Imagine that you are a religious minority sending your child to public school, only to find out that the school has implemented a "voluntary" program of religious instruction that reaffirms the doctrines and creeds of the largely Christian community. Like most people, you don't want to make waves by challenging the views of the majority, so you allow your child to participate in this program, hoping that it will emphasize education, not indoctrination. Your child soon comes home with artwork and other materials, however, that indicate that the program is little more than a Christian Sunday school, having nothing to do with objective education and everything to do with instilling Christian beliefs.
Fed up with the blatant proselytizing, you advise the school that you do not want your child to participate in the "voluntary" program. Since it is conducted during ordinary school hours, not after school, and since your child is the only one who is not participating, the school must now decide what to do with your child while everyone else participates. To resolve this dilemma, the school orders your child to sit in the "detention chair," a highly visible seat outside the principal's office normally used for disciplining children who have been misbehaving, while all the other children participate in the religious instruction program.
The above facts, unfortunately, are not fictional. They are part of the story of the McCollum family of Champaign, Illinois, and they set the stage for one of the greatest church-state confrontations in American history. This story is being brought to life in a superb new documentary, called "The Lord is Not on Trial Here Today" that will begin airing on PBS in May.
The documentary, produced by Jay Rosenstein, tells the story of Vashti McCollum's struggle to defend her children - and the wall of separation between church and state - against majoritarian religious bullying, a fight that went from a small courthouse in Champaign all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The legal case culminated with an historic 8-1 Supreme Court victory for the McCollums, a landmark 1948 precedent that was the first case to successfully apply the Constitution's Establishment Clause to state action under the Fourteenth Amendment. (One earlier case, the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, had ruled that the Establishment Clause applied to the states, but nevertheless decided that the state action in question didn't violate that clause. McCollum was the first such case wherein the plaintiffs won.)
The McCollum family's victory infuriated religious conservatives, who had won every stage of the legal battle until it reached the Supreme Court. It also laid the foundation for many other church-state victories that followed, such as Engel v. Vitale (1962) which banned official school prayer, Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) which ended school-sponsored Bible study, and numerous others.
Rosenstein covers the legal chronology well, but the documentary's most compelling moments are those that recount the blowback experienced by the family, the senseless hostility directed toward them for standing up for their principles. Hate mail, intimidation, a mutilated pet, threatened careers, and other repercussions all flowed from their simple act of resisting public religiosity. Many of the good Christians of Champaign and America, it seems, weren't feeling very Christ-like.
The documentary is made priceless by the frequent inclusion of interview segments with Vashti, who was 92 when Rosenstein sat with her, and who has since died. Throughout the film viewers see numerous photographs of the younger Vashti, whose natural beauty shines through, and one can sense from those photos that she was probably an ordinary wife and mother and a reluctant warrior. The late-life interviews, where viewers get to see and hear the real Vashti, only confirm what one suspects. She's smart, to be sure, but far from a rabble-rouser and no more feisty than your typical 90-something. She conveys a sense that, had the school system been even slightly reasonable, she never would have been a litigant.
But having been pushed to litigation by the esteemed men of her community, men who showed her little respect and were dismissive of her concerns, Vashti took them to the mat and taught them a lesson. As a result, church-state law in America rests on a foundation built by the mother of three from Champaign.
Attendees at the American Humanist Association's recent annual conference got a special screening of the film, and the response seemed unanimous - this is one documentary that you won't want to miss, and that you'll want your kids to see.
And I'll add one post-script not mentioned in the documentary. Vashti also served as president of the American Humanist Association from 1962 to 1965.
Recent Blogs
David Niose's Recent Posts
BLOGROLL
- Atheists in Foxholes News
- Atheist Media Blog
- Camp Quest
- Friendly Atheist
- Greta Christina's Blog
- Institute for Humanist Studies
- No God Blog
- On Faith
- Our Humanity, Naturally
- Pharyngula
- Rant & Reason
- RichardDawkins.net
- Sam Harris blog
- Secular Coalition for Alabama
- Secular Student Alliance
- The Meming of Life
- The Wall of Separation
- Young Atheist
The opinions expressed here by our bloggers, viewers, and posters do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Secular Coalition for America. These views are those of their individual authors alone.

Comments
As a regular contributor to a rationalist forum (namely Rational Skepticism), I encounter this particular brand of ideological stormtrooper for doctrine on a regular basis. Indeed, I have been repeatedly schooling one of them with respect to the *actual* meaning of separation of church and state, as opposed to his duplicitous apologetic fabrications with respect thereto. In keeping with the precedents that have been set repeatedly in the past by others of his ilk, he pretends, wholly mendaciously, that said schooling has never happened, and continues to parrot robotically his patently false assertions, as if doing so will magically convert them from falsehoods into truth. This stonewalling tactic will be familiar to anyone who has had even the most tentative of dealings with certain brands of fundamentalist, and points to the dangers of allowing these people *any* of the vast panoply of privileges that they consider themselves entitled to, because they will abuse those privileges on a scale that would make even the most egregious of totalitarian dictators blanch at their blatant disregard for the rest of humanity.
In addition, the assertions that such people erect, when viewed under *proper* critical lighting, constitute nothing more than a gigantic whinge, a piece of petulant and infantile foot-stomping, to the effect that the nasty state won't allow them to usher in their theocratic nightmare, drag America kicking and screaming back to the 12th century, and start the warm-up for an anachronistic revival of Inquisitional religio-politics. These people are either unable, or, more likely, mendaciously unwilling, to learn the elementary concept, that statutes such as the Establishment Clause exist to keep *all* mythologies and their adherents out of the faces of the rest of us, and that their particular pet mythology isn't being singled out for special treatment, despite the specious braying emanating from these individuals that they are somehow being "persecuted". Preventing a group of manifest bullies from riding roughshod over the rights of others isn't persecution, and the sooner these people are taught this lesson in a vigorous manner, the better.
If you wish to see some of the supernaturalist duplicity I have alluded to above in action, you can do no better than visit this thread on the forum in question:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/how-many-antievolution-bil...
The duplicity in question starts here, and continues in much the same robotically parroted vein throughout the thread:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/how-many-antievolution-bil...
For example, the lie that fundamentalist views are being "censored" because the Establishment Clause prevents mythological assertions being taught as scientific fact in science classes, is rendered wholly false by FACTS from the real world. Such as the fact that fundamentalists have thousands of churches within which their assertions may be freely disseminated, have entire publishing houses devoted to propagandising for their doctrines, and are permitted to erect globally visible websites, maintained by organisations enjoying tax-free status, that are also well-financed and politically well-connected. The idea that this constitutes "censorship", is one of those lies that needs to be exposed as such, and exposed vigorously.
Feel free to drop in to the forum, and take part in the defence of reason, reality, valid science and proper concepts of human rights. :)
Post new comment