Screenshot of the CNN headline. Click here to see it larger.

In a headline long enough to spill onto five lines, CNN seemed intent on generating ire against atheists: An Atheist Couple Who Complained About Holiday Celebrations Gets $9,000 After Their Daughter Is Barred From Preschool.

I admit I had a reactions upon reading the headline — before reading the story. I assumed the headline writer had misrepresented the events. Because I’ve read several of these stories before, and they usually should read: “School Ordered By Court To Obey Constitution”, but they never do. They’re almost always slanted to make atheists look like perennial complainers about tiny things that shouldn’t matter — and “activist liberal judges” who side with them.

This story was different, though.

First, it’s in Canada, an odd area near the North Pole that suspiciously fails to be bound by the U.S. Constitution. So, who knows what kind of weird icebound atheists they have up there? Secondly, the verdict was handed down by a “human rights tribunal”, which sounds like something the United Nations might force on the ousted authoritarian government of a third-world country but is probably actually a good thing. Third, from the facts it sounds like the headline-writer was spot-on this time.

The CNN writer (Lauren Kent) doesn’t say whether the school in question — Bowen Island Montessori School — is a public or private school (the school’s website also doesn’t say). Kent also doesn’t say whether that makes a difference in Canada like it does in the U.S. Nor does the story give any background on or explanation about possible religious freedom rules in Canada that might or might not differ from those in the U.S. Does this mostly uncharted Arctic region even have laws? The story doesn’t say.

With apologies for my tongue-in-cheek comments in the previous paragraphs, I did actually search out information on Canada’s law regarding religion in schools and it’s more complex than I anticipated — and quite a bit different than U.S. rules on this (which are complex in a different way). My family’s own school district made the national news (and international!) two years ago over a Bible-verse poster in a middle school (the same middle school my children will eventually attend), which was first forced to be removed and then later reinstated when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (who has his own ongoing criminal indictments but who keeps getting reelected anyway) said it’s okay for public school employees to preach religion to students. And my children’s current elementary school currently has a Bible verse on display.

Regardless, this Canadian story is different from the ones we usually hear in the U.S. For one thing, the atheist family in question is apparently on the school board, so they do have some degree of a voice in the matter. For another thing, what they first complained about was “plans for the preschoolers to decorate elf ornaments” — which doesn’t seem at all like the promotion of religion, since elves (to my knowledge) aren’t inherent to any of the usual-suspect religions. Thirdly, several other school board members attempted to placate the complainants by including activities related to Hannukah, but atheist Gary Mangel “said he objected to any religion in the curriculum”. He suggested adding “alternative atheist ornaments”, one with the single word “skeptic” but another with a photo of the World Trade Center’s twin towers and the caption “Atheists don’t fly airplanes into buildings”. All fair and balanced, but...

“Over the next few months, the dispute grew from tense emails about ornaments, books on the nativity, and dreidels to an argumentative meeting where Mangel ‘began doing the Nazi salute and marching around while he sung a different version of “O Canada” in which he substituted his own lyrics’, according to the court brief.”

CNN

Another major difference in this case is that the ruling — in the end — wasn’t about whether the school was allowed to or barred from any mentions of religion. The ruling was about Mangel’s daughter “being barred from preschool” — her registration was “held hostage” until the parents signed “a letter agreeing to the school’s multicultural curriculum”. It was for that infraction that the court awarded the relatively small payment of $12,000 (Canadian dollars).

My only real issue with the journalism here, then, is that the author didn’t explain (for its primarily U.S. audience) any differences between U.S. law and Canadian law — I suggest inserting a sentence or two explaining: “Canadian law requires...” or “allows...”, or whatever. And one other thing:

The story, near the end, refers to “the family’s own belief in atheism”. This is an absurdity, and proof that the writer (and editors) don’t understand what the word atheism means. Atheism is a description of a person’s lack of belief in the gods asserted by others. There aren’t any tenets or catechisms or creeds. Just a: “No, I don’t believe you.”

My position on religion in schools is fairly simple: (1) Schools have a duty to make students aware of various religious practices/symbolism, though perhaps not as early as preschool. But (2) Schools, if receiving any government funds, should never promote particular religious sects over others.

And I’m unsure of the context of Mr. Mangel’s alleged “Nazi salute”, but I don’t think that’s ever a good idea — regardless of one’s position on religious matters.