Michael Farris:
At the time of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in the Mozert case, I was convinced that their ruling represented a bias in the judiciary against conservative Christians. Later, I came to see that it actually represented something more serious: a growing trend of anti-parent bias in the federal courts.

The Mozert court held that there was no “burden” on religious freedom or parents’ rights when a school forced children to read religiously offensive books as a condition of attending public schools. This burden test is important to understand.

According to the doctrine of the current Supreme Court, whenever a case arises under the First Amendment or related freedoms, including parental rights, there are a series of questions that must be answered in the proper order. Think of the process like a series of hurdles. If a parent fails to clear the first hurdle in the case, it ends there.

The first hurdle in these cases is always the burden test. The test is designed to determine whether or not the plaintiff’s rights have been violated. A claim can be considered so insubstantial that it fails on this threshold issue. If the court doesn't think that your rights are really burdened, then your case is over—no further questions asked.

So in the Mozert case, when the court said that the parents’ rights were not burdened, what they meant is that no parent can ever stop the public schools from forcing a child to be taught religiously objectionable material. That is an unacceptable conclusion. I’m Mike Farris.