(Follow above article link to view original article with photos/PDFs.)

An Indiana couple claimed science education interfered with their kids' "religious beliefs as a Christian"

Sep 01, 2024

Teaching evolution is still legal in Indiana, according to a federal judge, thank goodness.

The reason that was ever in peril stems from a baseless lawsuit brought forth by parents Jason and Jennifer Reinoehl in May of 2023. The Reinoehls said they had four kids who graduated from the Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation (a public school district in Mishawaka) and a fifth who would eventually attend Penn High School.

The Reinoehls were very concerned that their last child would learn about “the state-sponsored, atheistic, religious Theory of Evolution” as well as “the state-sponsored, atheistic, religious Big Bang Theory.” (Which is to say that any reasonable person would have known this lawsuit was ridiculous by page 3.)

They said evolution was false because no species “has ever been observed to change into another”—which isn’t how it works—and that most scientists presented with Ken Ham-style critiques of evolution “admit that the Theory of Evolution is highly flawed as a scientific theory.” (Really?! Who?! No citations are given.) Finally, they say that even though evolution has been “scientifically disproven,” which is news to me, it’s taught as scientific “truth” in schools.

What about the Big Bang Theory? The lawsuit spends pages rehashing Creationist ignorance about the topic before concluding it could never have happened. There are references to Newton’s First Law, the Hubble telescope, and thermodynamic. They go on to say geological dating and the fossil record are also hoaxes.

Ultimately, they argue, their children were taught these things as if they were true, and that violates their “religious beliefs as a Christian.” It’s not just the kids who had to endure all this either, apparently, because the Reinoehls say they and their daughter Sarah “suffered emotional pain and suffering because [the school district] violated their Constitutional Rights.”

That’s how good it is to be a Christian in a red state: Their best example of religious persecution is that public school teachers educate their kids about reality.

The family sued the district, the school board, and the head of the Indiana Department of Education because teaching science violated their First Amendment rights—after all, they claimed, teaching evolution meant “endors[ing] the specific religious viewpoints and beliefs of atheists.” They also said teaching science violated the Indiana Bill of Rights by using state funds to promote a “sectarian education.” (Which is something conservative Christians usually fight for, not against.)

In addition to demanding that the courts declare the teaching of evolution to be unconstitutional, the Reinoehls wanted the removal of “all literature and media promoting or describing” evolution. And they wanted money. The family members represented themselves because no credible lawyer would ever waste everyone’s time like this.

Looks like they’ll have to find another hobby.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker finally ruled on the matter… by tossing out the lawsuit.

Barker never gets into the science—and never gets snarky—because she argues that the Reinoehls have no business filing this lawsuit at all. There’s no evidence that their daughter (who took those classes and already graduated) “faces any immediate or impending risk of harm.” And even if the family thinks evolution amounts to the teaching of atheism, that’s not a basis for a legal argument. Just because evolution and atheism have a lot of overlap doesn’t mean teaching one is the same as teaching the other:

Despite Plaintiffs' assertions to the contrary, the purported similarities between evolution and atheism do not render the teaching of evolution in public schools violative of the Establishment Clause, which has never been understood to prohibit government conduct that incidentally "coincide[s] or harmonize[s] with the tenets of some or all religions."

Similarly, if a sociology class taught students that friendships are good for your mental health, something many church youth groups would also agree with, you can’t argue that the sociology class is endorsing Christianity.

It looks like this lawsuit is dead, thankfully. It is a reminder, though, of what one family with a lot of time and no discernible common sense can do when they’re motivated by their ignorance.

Jennifer Reinoehl has pulled this kind of shit before. In 2021, she sued the CDC, Krispy Kreme, Sephora, AMC Theaters, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and many other government agencies and individuals all because she felt face mask mandates discriminated against her.

Why Krispy Kreme? Here. Let her explain:

… Jennifer Reinoehl went to the Krispy Kreme Store where there was an extremely long drive-thru line that wrapped around the building and did not appear to be moving. There were only two people in line inside the store.

Jennifer Reinoehl was forbidden entry into the store without a mask. She explained to the store manager that she had a medical disability and could not wear a mask but was still denied entry.

Jennifer Reinoehl, having promised her daughter doughnuts, returned to the car, donned a mask, and waited in line in the store for 10 minutes to get the doughnuts. She had an asthma attack in the store as a result of wearing the mask.

What a nightmare she is. Reinoehl’s entire lawsuit was like this, too. She’s someone who demands everyone accommodate her and doesn’t give a damn who might get hurt as a result of her selfishness.

For the record, while there were medical exemptions to mask mandates in certain places, no one has to go to a particular restaurant, much less stand inside because the drive-thru isn’t their preferred option.

That lawsuit was also dismissed—on technicalities, not merits, because Reinoehl has no clue what she’s doing—and the judge in that case didn’t hold back:

Holistically Ms. Reinoehl’s complaints have been unintelligible due to their length; excess and impertinent information and exhibits; arguments made rather than facts pleaded; tangential mentions of liability under numerous constitutional provisions, statutes, and agency rules; and the joinder of mostly unrelated claims against sixteen defendants. 

So far, she’s been hindered by her own incompetence. But all it takes is one right-wing judge to use her lawsuits as a green-light to rule however he or she wants, and Reinoehl could create the chaos she seeks.

That hasn’t happened yet but it very well could.