High School Teacher Accused of Promoting Christianity, Giving ‘Bible Cookies’ to Students

chalkboardSTOCKTON, Calif. — A high school teacher in California is under investigation after a church-state separation group lodged a complaint that the teacher is promoting Christianity in the classroom and gives out “Bible cookies” to students.

The organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), led by Barry Lynn, an attorney and licensed “minister” in the United Church of Christ, recently sent a letter to officials with the Manteca Unified School district after receiving a complaint from an unnamed complainant.

It alleges that John Alameda, a teacher at New Vision High School in Stockton and sponsor of an after-school Bible club, is using his time during the school day to witness to students about the Christian faith and to invite them to his after-school program.

“We understand that Mr. Alameda not only sponsors the club but also shares his Christian beliefs during school hours and frequently encourages his students to attend the club’s meetings,” wrote legal fellow John McGinnis on behalf of AU. “Furthermore, he offers extra credit for copying Bible verses and gives students ‘Bible Cookies’ as a reward for completing class assignments.”

He asserted that the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution “prohibits Mr. Almeda from sharing his Christian beliefs with students during school hours and incorporating religious content into the curriculum for extra credit and as rewards.” McGinnis, therefore, requested that school employees be prohibited from promoting religion on campus.

While Alameda has not yet commented on the accusations, the district has advised that it is looking into the matter.

“The Manteca Unified School District is currently conducting an investigation into the complaint filed by the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State,” Superintendent Clark Burke wrote in a recent statement. “While respecting the diversity and beliefs of our community, the Manteca Unified School District is dedicated to ensure the separation of Church and State as prescribed by law.”

  • Connect with Christian News

The incident certainly isn’t the first complaint filed against an American teacher who speaks about matters of faith to students. As previously reported, in November, the Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) and the Washington, D.C.-based Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science sent a joint letter to the president of Georgia Southern University alleging that Prof. Emerson T. McMullen (“Tom”) was unlawfully promoting religion to his students.

“McMullen appears to use at least some of his class to preach religion instead of teach history,” the letter read. “Our reports and information indicate that McMullen (1) is known for injecting religion into his classes, (2) gives extra credit to students willing to endure and describe additional proselytizing, and (3) uses his position at a public university to promote religious beliefs like creationism, while undermining legitimate sciences, like biology.”

It further asserted that the professor’s “preaching threatens the integrity of a GSU degree,” and asked that McMullen be investigated and consequently ordered to “cease and desist.”

But as previously reported, the first textbook used in the American colonies even before the nation’s founding, “The New England Primer,” was largely focused on the Scriptures, and was stated to be popular in colonial schools for at least one hundred years. It used mostly the King James Bible as reference, and spoke much about sin, salvation and proper behavior.

“In Adam’s fall, we sinned all,” it read, in teaching children the alphabet, using Adam as an example of the letter A.

In 1647, the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed “The Old Deluder Satan Act,” which required that children be taught to read so they could learn to read the Bible.

“In being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, … and that learning may not be buried in the graves of our forefathers in Church and Commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors, it is therefore ordered by this court and the authority thereof, that every township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased them to the number of fifty householders, shall then forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read,” it read in part.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • James Grimes

    “The organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), led by Barry Lynn, an attorney and licensed “minister” in the United Church of Christ,”
    If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck… Barry Lynn is an Atheist in spite of what he says or how his credentials read. He is totally useless in every way when it comes to the emotional health of the American people.

    • pastoredsmith

      Well said.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Barry is having his fun now. Later, the Judgment. (And it will not be a liberal judge doing it either.)

  • SteveN

    If this guy had taught kid’s how to twerk instead, he probably would have gotten a promotion.

  • Gary

    Americans United for Separation of Church and State constantly lies about the US Constitution. They understand that it does not say or mean what they claim it does, and what they wish it does, so they lie about it in order to try to achieve their goals. They would have no influence at all but for a corrupt and wicked court system that sides with them in denying the rights of Americans to exercise their religion.

    • Ralph Spoilsport II

      So you’re saying AU is wrong, but the courts keep agreeing with them.

      In my book, that means they’re right.

      • Gary

        You have the wrong book.

        • Ralph Spoilsport II

          It seems to win in court.

          • Gary

            That is because the courts are corrupt.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            No, it’s because you’re living in denial.

          • Gary

            What am I in denial of?

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            You don’t seem to realize that supreme court opinions are part of US law. You can disagree with them, but you can’t ignore court opinions.

          • Gary

            I realize that sc decisions are part of us law. But that does not mean they are decisions that are in agreement with the US Constitution. Neither does it mean that I have to honor them.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            But that does not mean they are decisions that are in agreement with the US Constitution.

            What does that possibly mean? Your opinion outweighs supreme court decisions?

            Neither does it mean that I have to honor them.

            You still have to follow them like everyone else. Like I said, they’re part of US law.

          • Gary

            The SC wants everyone to think the Constitution means whatever they say it does. But that not true. The Constitution is in print and anyone can read it. The SC cannot get away with claiming it means X when it does not say X. That would be an abuse of their power.
            I will not obey laws that are immoral, or unconstitutional.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            The SC wants everyone to think the Constitution means whatever they say it does. But that not true. The Constitution is in print and anyone can read it.

            Your amateur legal opinion doesn’t matter. Theirs does.

            The SC cannot get away with claiming it means X when it does not say X. That would be an abuse of their power. I will not obey laws that are immoral, or unconstitutional.

            Have fun in prison.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, and that’s why you would have been fully in support of blacks being declared less than a human being, as SCOTUS once ruled. All in for slavery, are you? And, I am sure you are also in favor of the dismemberment and killing of millions of preborn children in the US – all because SCOTUS said it was legal. As for “have fun in prison,” there appears to be a “long-term” Jail you are headed for. I pray I am wrong. God bless you, Ralph!

          • Oboehner

            Another misnomer, blacks were only counted as 3/5 of a person in regard to representation, it was in an effort to cut down on the undue influence the slaves states had. Freed black (men) were counted as whole.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, it is so nice to see someone defend the SCOTUS ruling to count blacks as only 3/5 of a person!

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Well, it is so nice to see someone defend the SCOTUS ruling to count blacks as only 3/5 of a person!

            Ah, your usual ignorant statement about the supreme court.

            The 3/5ths compromise was not a supreme court opinion, it was part of Article 1 of the constitution.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Yes, and that’s why you would have been fully in support of blacks being declared less than a human being, as SCOTUS once ruled.

            Hey, just vomit out lies about someone you’ve never met.

            God bless you, Ralph!

            Typical hateful Christian liar.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Name-calling, Ralph? Is that the best you can do?!? I don’t hate you, Ralph – I love all a-theists. Used to be one myself. But, the point of my posting was simple: if you believe that SCOTUS is the ultimate judge, then you MUST believe that their final say on things like slavery and abortion is moral. But, if one believes that God is the final Judge, then He trumps SCOTUS with regard to morality. Given your worldview, had you lived during the time of slavery, you would have been perfectly fine with it because it was legal. (By man’s laws.) Again, I say, sincerely, God bless you, Ralph!

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Name-calling, Ralph?

            Wrong. Calling you a liar when you make up lies about me isn’t name-calling, it’s just me pointing out your lies.

            But, the point of my posting was simple: if you believe that SCOTUS is the ultimate judge, then you MUST believe that their final say on things like slavery and abortion is moral.

            Wrong again. You don’t appear to know the difference between “legal” and “moral”.

            But, if one believes that God is the final Judge, then He trumps SCOTUS with regard to morality.

            And murdering cartoonists becomes moral, if that’s what you think your god wants you to do.

            Given your worldview, had you lived during the time of slavery, you would have been perfectly fine with it because it was legal.

            And again, you vomit out lies about me.

            Again, I say, sincerely, God bless you, Ralph!

            Typical hateful Christian liar.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Liar” is a noun. “Hateful” is an adjective. Do a-theists not attend grammar school? 🙂

            Ralph, it is clearly YOU who do not know the difference between legal and moral, since you were clearly holding SCOTUS up as your final judge (on objective morality). But, you, as an a-theist cannot ground objective moral values and duties. Don’t take my word for it: listen to your own “pope” and ‘cardinals” on the subject: https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/an-atheist-explains-the-real-consequences-of-adopting-an-atheistic-worldview/

            Thus, you cannot even say that murdering cartoonists is objectively immoral. It’s just “survival of the fittest” under your naturalistic a-theism. Quit stealing from God, Ralph, by invoking objective morals. God bless you, Ralph!

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            “Liar” is a noun.

            A noun that describes a liar like yourself.

            Ralph, it is clearly YOU who do not know the difference between legal and moral

            BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

            since you were clearly holding SCOTUS up as your final judge (on objective morality)

            Well no, but if you were right, you’d break your losing streak.

            For one thing, I don’t think “objective morality” exists, so of course I don’t hold SCOTUS up as a final judge on something that doesn’t exist.

            They DO have a lot to say about US law, even if I think some of their opinions are wrong or stupid.

            But this is obviously too difficult for you to comprehend, so you just make up lies about me.

            Pretty pathetic.

            Thus, you cannot even say that murdering cartoonists is objectively immoral.

            I don’t say ANYTHING is “objectively immoral”; now you’re just doing a straw man attack.

            And quoting Winteryknight? Once again I have to BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Ralph, you write: “I don’t think “objective morality” exists…” Then, stop making objective moral claims! Your claims are just your opinions and have no objectivity or morality to them. I didn’t quote WK: I linked his blog which provided referenced quotes by your “pope” and “cardinals” – Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse. If you have a problem with them, take it up with them. Otherwise, continue with your slavery, baby sacrifice, and Jew gassing, because, as you said in your quote above, you CANNOT condemn those acts as objectively immoral – you don’t even believe in objective morality! What a way to live, Ralph! You need Jesus to fix your moral compass – rapidly. Go back to a-theist school, Ralph, you are a disgrace to those of us who were at least intellectually honest a-theists. God bless!

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Then, stop making objective moral claims!

            I’m not, I’m making moral claims.

            Your claims are just your opinions and have no objectivity or morality to them.

            Your claims are just your opinion; you TRY to claim they are objective morals, but they aren’t. They really are just your opinion.

            I didn’t quote WK: I linked his blog which provided referenced quotes by your “pope” and “cardinals” – Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse. If you have a problem with them, take it up with them.

            No, my problem is with you, falsely claiming they are my “pope” and “cardinals”.

            Otherwise, continue with your slavery, baby sacrifice, and Jew gassing,

            Ah, the usual Christian liar.

            because, as you said in your quote above, you CANNOT condemn those acts as objectively immoral

            Because objective morals don’t exist. I condemn them as immoral. But you seem to be too stupid to understand what I’m even saying.

            You need Jesus to fix your moral compass – rapidly.

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I’m not, I’m making moral claims.” Don’t be silly: if your moral claims are not objective, then they are nothing more than opinions and should be treated the same. If you say “I think that gassing Jews was wrong,” all you are REALLY saying, Ralph, is that you don’t like gassing Jews in the same way you don’t like vanilla ice cream. It really is nothing more than your opinion, because you have stated that you don’t believe objective morals exist.

            I, on the other hand, do believe that they exist, so there is no contradiction in MY making objective moral claims. I am no an a-moral a-theist. If you don’t understand this, then re-read what Dawkins, Provine, Ruse, and the unnamed a-theist are saying. They are saying that you are an inferior a-theist because you are making objective moral claims when they do not exist under the a-theist worldview. Don’t be mad at me – take it up with them. I find their arguments quite compelling: without God, there are no objective moral values and duties. This is what all of the great a-theists have admitted to for centuries, and you are stealing from God when you make an objective moral claim while pretending there are none. In fact, you are sub-consciously admitting that there IS a God when you make objective moral claims – you just don’t realize it!

            Finally, you once again fall into your own self-made trap when you write: “Because objective morals don’t exist. I condemn them as immoral.” Your second sentence refutes your first one. The second sentence is clearly an objective moral claim. If not, then it is just an “ice cream” opinion, and how could you condemn someone for liking a different flavored ice cream (gassing Jews, for instance) than you do?!? You must steal from God to do so. I know that you must be young, but do please try to keep up. Or, share this with a more mature a-theist in your next Freedom From Thought meeting – he will confirm the point I am trying to make. God bless you, Ralph!

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Don’t be silly: if your moral claims are not objective, then they are nothing more than opinions and should be treated the same.

            Which is all you have, too; your opinion. Pretending your opinion is a command from god(s) only makes it worse — people kill people because they think that’s what their god wants.

            If you say “I think that gassing Jews was wrong,” all you are REALLY saying, Ralph, is that you don’t like gassing Jews in the same way you don’t like vanilla ice cream

            Not at all. I see you have very poor morals.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Here you go again, Ralph – stealing from God TWICE more:

            “Pretending your opinion is a command from god(s) only makes it worse — people kill people because they think that’s what their god wants.” THAT is an objective moral claim right there – you just refuted yourself. (Assuming that you believe that killing for “god” is objectively wrong, of course, and not just your flavor-of-the month ice cream. :-))

            “I see you have very poor morals.” ANOTHER objective moral claim! You really are addicted to stealing from God, aren’t you?!? On the plus side, I note that you have admitted the existence of God by asserting these objective moral claims – thank you once more for making my point! 🙂

            Please, please, please, take a course in A-theism for Dummies, Ralph! Or, when you graduate from high school, please take a course in basic logic – should you go on to university. You really are failing today, and your fellow a-theists are quite ashamed of your performance (or lack thereof).

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            “Pretending your opinion is a command from god(s) only makes it worse — people kill people because they think that’s what their god wants.” THAT is an objective moral claim right there

            No, it’s a moral claim. You keep trying to add “objective”, when I don’t consider objective morals to exist.

            I realize that YOU believe they exist, but I don’t use your assumptions.

            “I see you have very poor morals.” ANOTHER objective moral claim! You really are addicted to stealing from God, aren’t you?!?

            No, humans have morals. Gods don’t exist.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Ralph, if your moral claims are not objective, then they are nothing more than your claims that you like vanilla ice cream and not chocolate. They are just opinions, and nobody cares about your ice cream desires. When you write “Pretending your opinion is a command from god(s) only makes it worse — people kill people because they think that’s what their god wants.” you are merely saying that you think it’s “worse” in the same sense that you think chocolate ice cream is “worse.” And, “killing people because that’s what their god wants” is “bad” in the same sense that chocolate ice cream is “bad.”

            But, the truth is that those are objective moral claims whether you want to call them so or not. You are stuck: if you want to keep stealing from the Christian God, at least have the courage to become a Christian and stand on your principles! Otherwise, you are just talking about ice cream flavors, and no one wants to hear such nonsense.

            Please go back and read Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse’s statements more closely. You are an a-theist who is stealing your morality from Christians. If you want to remain an a-theist, then you cannot assert objective moral claims anymore: it’s all survival of the fittest for you, and you can rape and murder at will. All the great a-theists of the past agreed, and the New A-theists’ “pope” and ‘cardinals” agree too. God bless you, Ralph!

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Ralph, if your moral claims are not objective, then they are nothing more than your claims that you like vanilla ice cream and not chocolate.

            Wrong. But I’ve pointed out before that you don’t really have very well developed morals.

            They are just opinions, and nobody cares about your ice cream desires.

            As I don’t care what you think your god thinks is moral. But you don’t appear to realize that.

            But, the truth is that those are objective moral claims whether you want to call them so or not.

            No, they aren’t objective, no matter how much you stomp your feet.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Wrong. But I’ve pointed out before that you don’t really have very well developed morals.” Another objective moral claim! Ralph, you are not learning this too well. You have stolen from the Christian God here – not nice for an a-theist to do.

            “No, they aren’t objective, no matter how much you stomp your feet.” And that, my dear a-theist friend, is an objective truth claim, just an assertion with no backing whatsoever. You have stolen from the Christian God here too. But, I am sure you don’t believe in objective truth either. Ask your a-theist friends if you are making objective claims or not. They can explain it to you, Ralph.

            Face it, Ralph: under a-theism, you cannot even begin to objectively condemn slavery, the Nazis, or abortion. And Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse agree with me here. If you don’t catch up on your a-theism fundamentals, the Big 3 will ex-communicate you from the Church of A-theism. 🙂

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            “Wrong. But I’ve pointed out before that you don’t really have very well developed morals.” Another objective moral claim!

            No, a moral claim. You aren’t intelligent enough to grasp the difference.

            “No, they aren’t objective, no matter how much you stomp your feet.” And that, my dear a-theist friend, is an objective truth claim, just an assertion with no backing whatsoever.

            It’s a truth claim, not an “objective truth” claim. You keep trying to shoehorn your metaphysics into me, which is a dishonest way to debate.

            Face it, Ralph: under a-theism, you cannot even begin to objectively condemn slavery, the Nazis, or abortion.

            Because I never pretend to use “objective morals”. That’s something you pretend to do.

            Under theism, you have no comeback if someone claims their god approves of slavery, the Nazis, or abortion. All you can do is stomp your little feet and say YOUR god is real and THEIRS is imaginary. But they make the identical claim against you.

            Nobody is using any reasoning, just argument from imaginary authority. That’s all you’re doing.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Please explain how your moral and truth claims are not objective, Ralph. You REALLY are not getting this. Why would you spend so much time arguing over your opinion if it is not a moral or truth claim? I am arguing morality and truth – you are arguing ice cream. if you don’t believe me: take it up with your “pope” and “cardinals.” They get it – you are just an inferior a-theist who steals from God.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Please explain how your moral and truth claims are not objective, Ralph.

            You said it yourself — morals are people’s opinions. Yours, mine, everyone else’s. That’s one reason why people have such different ideas of what is moral, including people who claim to be following the morals of the same god.

            Why would you spend so much time arguing over your opinion if it is not a moral or truth claim?

            Why not? You appear to have no idea what motivates me.

            I am arguing morality and truth – you are arguing ice cream.

            Like I said, you have no grasp of actual morality. You argue from your imaginary authority.

            if you don’t believe me: take it up with your “pope” and “cardinals.”

            I don’t have any. I see you can’t learn things.

            By the way, how to you argue with someone who says their god has different morals from yours? You realize many Nazis were Christian, don’t you?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I see you did not address my challenge. To explain how your moral claims, which are appealing to some objective standard, are not objective. Again, if it’s ice cream you are arguing about just say so. Say “I think Christians are immoral, but I have no objective basis for believing this – it’s just my feminist feelings and cultish ideology that are speaking.” Why is that so hard?!?

            “By the way, how to you argue with someone who says their god has different morals from yours?” I look for evidence of the existence of their god versus mine. That evidence can take many forms: scientific, historical-forensic, philosophical, logical, documentary, etc. And, sadly for you, the evidence is on the side of a Universe Creator, not an eternal universe or a universe that magically pops into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything, as you a-theists wish were true. Really, it DOES take so much blind faith to be an a-theist.

            “You realize many Nazis were Christian, don’t you?” You realize that every Stalin, Mao, and most pro-aborts are a-theist don’t you? (MUCH higher body count too!) You are confusing behavior with doctrine. Stalin, Mao, and pro-aborts behave very much in line with their Darwinistic a-theism. Nazis who were “christian” violated basic Christian doctrine and behaved like Darwinists, attempting to accelerate macro-evolution. Additionally, under a-theism, you cannot even objectively ground that the Nazis were evil! I mean, it’s all “survival of the fittest” to you, Ralph. 🙂 That’s why it’s usually the a-theists who support eugenics and abortion.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            I see you did not address my challenge. To explain how your moral claims, which are appealing to some objective standard, are not objective.

            No, I TOLD you that morals are just everyone’s opinions.

            I look for evidence of the existence of their god versus mine.

            Yep, just your opinion.

            Checkmate.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Looking for evidence is an opinion?!? I praise the One True God that you are not an engineer or in any technical field, Ralph. We cannot afford to have planes falling out of the sky, buildings collapsing, etc, because your feelings decided that they didn’t need as much metal as was called for. 🙂 God bless you, Ralph!

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Looking for evidence is an opinion?!?

            Deciding whose god is the “real” one is ALWAYS opinion.

            I praise the One True God

            Again, it’s just your opinion that you are addressing the One True God. Sorry, that’s only your opinion.

            It’s only ever your opinion. Checkmate.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Are you using the term “checkmate” to agree that you have been checkmated? 🙂

            “Deciding whose god is the “real” one is ALWAYS opinion.” Is that statement YOUR opinion? If so, why are you asserting it as fact?

            “Again, it’s just your opinion that you are addressing the One True God. Sorry, that’s only your opinion. It’s only ever your opinion.” Again, are those statements YOUR opinions? If so, why are you asserting them as fact?

            Do you realize, Ralph, that you are refuting yourself? Are you an absurdist or an a-theist? Is a-theism synonymous with insanity?

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Are you using the term “checkmate” to agree that you have been checkmated?

            No. Every single one of your assertions about “objective morals” are your subjective opinion.

            Is that statement YOUR opinion? If so, why are you asserting it as fact?

            I’m not.

            Do you realize, Ralph, that you are refuting yourself?

            I’m not “refuting” myself. You’re just tossing out red herring arguments now. Your “objective morals” are just the result of your opinion, and you can’t get around that, but instead of addressing it, you try to dodge the issue.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            1. “Every single one of your assertions about “objective morals” are your subjective opinion.” Is that a fact?!?

            2. “You’re just tossing out red herring arguments now. Your “objective morals” are just the result of your opinion, and you can’t get around that, but instead of addressing it, you try to dodge the issue.” Is that a fact?!?

            Two more objective assertions tonight, Ralph! You just cannot escape objectivity, try as you might. Thank you for refuting yourself and continuing to make my point for me. Keep trying to make a statement that is not objectively worded without sounding like “I like chocolate ice cream, waaah, waaah, sniff, sniff.” 🙂 God bless you, Ralph!

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            1. “Every single one of your assertions about “objective morals” are your subjective opinion.” Is that a fact?!?

            Is it?

            2. “You’re just tossing out red herring arguments now. Your “objective morals” are just the result of your opinion, and you can’t get around that, but instead of addressing it, you try to dodge the issue.” Is that a fact?!?

            Is it?

            Two more objective assertions tonight, Ralph! You just cannot escape objectivity, try as you might.

            Is it?

          • http://www.robinlionheart.com/ Robin Lionheart

            If you’re trying to sanctimoniously condemn non-Christian morals, referencing the Holocaust rather undermines your position. And also cedes the moral high ground.

          • Gary

            Obviously, if the SC said you have to go to jail, you would go turn yourself in, and apologize for not being there earlier.
            Some of us value our freedoms more than to let them be abused by tyrants.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Obviously, if the SC said you have to go to jail, you would go turn yourself in, and apologize for not being there earlier.

            Obviously, you’ve recognized that you can’t argue your position, so you’ll just make up lies.

            Some of us value our freedoms more than to let them be abused by tyrants.

            So why aren’t you taking up arms against the supreme court? Coward.

          • Gary

            You side with the tyranny of the courts, and the us government’s abuse of its citizens. That makes you a danger to people.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            You side with the tyranny of the courts

            You’re the one calling it “tyranny”, hypocritical coward. I don’t.

            But for someone living under “tyranny”, you’re just full of hot air. Why aren’t you building pipe bombs or something?

          • Joe Soap

            I’ll think you’ll find it can. The clue is in the name “Supreme” .

          • Oboehner

            Nope, only Congress can legislate, NOT the SC. Court opinions are just that – opinions, not law.

          • Gary

            Constitutionally, you are correct. But the SC gets whatever they want. When was the last time Congress stood up to the SC?

          • Oboehner

            Whose fault is that? It’s the fault of the people.

          • Gary

            I agree. When will we change that?

          • Oboehner

            When people educate themselves, get off their posteriors and do something about it.

          • Gary

            Like what? The more we vote the worse things get.

          • Oboehner

            Voting isn’t even a good start, there is a lot more that can be done – education is huge.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Nope, only Congress can legislate, NOT the SC. Court opinions are just that – opinions, not law.

            They aren’t movie reviews; their opinions are part of US law.

            They can strike down law but not make it.

            I didn’t say they make laws.

          • Oboehner

            “…but you can’t ignore court opinions.” They are not law.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            “…but you can’t ignore court opinions.” They are not law.

            You still can’t ignore them. Duh.

          • Oboehner

            They are still not law, and any jury worth it’s salt would know that.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            They are still not law, and any jury worth it’s salt would know that.

            This wouldn’t be a jury decision, matters of law are decided by judges.

          • Oboehner

            Legally as yea or nay only, they do not have the authority to legislate – period.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            I’ve never said they authority to legislate. They strike down unconstitutional laws, and their rulings are part of US law. The executive branch can’t enforce a law after it has been struck down. That’s a real effect on US law.

          • Oboehner

            Which law did they strike down to get the “never mentioned in the Constitution” separation of church and state thing? You know the one in your book that’s right.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Everson v. Board of Education
            McCollum v. Board of Education Dist.
            Burstyn v. Wilson
            Torcaso v. Watkins
            Engel v. Vitale
            Abington School District v. Schempp
            Epperson v. Arkansas
            Lemon v. Kurtzman
            Stone v. Graham
            Wallace v. Jaffree
            Edwards v. Aquillard
            Allegheny County v. ACLU
            Lee v. Weisman

            Those are just some, and only from the supreme court from 1947 – 1992, not lower courts.

          • Oboehner

            That’s all very nice, but which law did they strike down to get the “never mentioned in the Constitution” separation of church and state thing? You just posted proceeding that resulted opinions – or are they law?

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            That’s all very nice, but which law did they strike down to get the “never mentioned in the Constitution” separation of church and state thing?

            Read those opinions. They refer to the laws being struck down. I’m not your personal tutor, educate yourself.

          • Oboehner

            So now Jefferson’s opinion is law.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            The courts’ opinion is law. Notice when prayer in school was struck down, public schools had to stop doing it?

            Engel v. Vitale, Abington School District v. Schempp

          • Oboehner

            “The courts’ opinion is law.” There you go saying the courts can legislate again. Prayer in government schools wasn’t struck down, the courts legislated it away – non-law.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            “The courts’ opinion is law.” There you go saying the courts can legislate again.

            No, I’m not. Learn to read.

            Notice how the word “legislate” is not in my statement?

            Prayer in government schools wasn’t struck down, the courts legislated it away – non-law.

            And the courts’ opinion that it’s unconstitutional is part of US law. And no, they didn’t pass any legislation. Do you even know what the word means?

          • Oboehner

            “The courts’ opinion is law.” “Notice how the word “legislate” is not in my statement?” Nonsensically ignorant stupidity. If the court’s decision is law how did it get that way, magic or by the process of creating said law or…. say it with me now… legislating.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Nonsensically ignorant stupidity. If the court’s decision is law how did it get that way, magic or by the process of creating said law or…. say it with me now… legislating.

            No, it’s part of US law because they invalidated an unconstitutional law passed by congress. They DO NOT legislate.

            LEGISLATE: verb — make or enact laws.

            They don’t CREATE laws, they effective REMOVE them by making them null and void. There are parts of state constitutions that are null and void due solely to supreme court decisions, like the states that say atheists can’t hold public office. Torcaso v. Watkins struck those clauses down, they can’t be enforced.

          • Oboehner

            “No, it’s part of US law because they invalidated an unconstitutional law passed by congress.” Do tell which law Congress passed in the separation of church and state vein, then how shooting down a state law (which is a state issue, not a federal one as it doesn’t affect other states directly) blankets the rest of the country.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Do tell which law Congress passed in the separation of church and state vein

            The first amendment; also article VI of the constitution, and the 14th amendment applies the 1st to the states.

            then how shooting down a state law (which is a state issue, not a federal one as it doesn’t affect other states directly) blankets the rest of the country.

            Because the 14th applies the same protections against state governments. Without that, states could still have official state religions supported with tax money, and jail people for belonging to the “wrong” religion.

            Here’s a question for you — since you keep saying the supreme court must be passing legislation, give me a cite for one of these laws. Something like 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(ii).

          • ZaphodBeeblebrox

            Well done Ralph on the above “debates”! I would have lost patience long ago with the whole repetitive objective vs subjective morality BS.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Legally as yea or nay only, they do not have the authority to legislate – period.

            And I never said they did, so I don’t know why you’re babbling about it.

          • Oboehner

            Saying that their opinions on a matter are legal is saying they can legislate, they cannot. Their opinions while noteworthy, are not legally binding as they cannot legislate.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Saying that their opinions on a matter are legal is saying they can legislate

            Ridiculous. Learn to read.

          • Oboehner

            You first.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            What have I misread? You kept harping on a point I never made.

          • Oboehner

            “So you’re saying AU is wrong, but the courts keep agreeing with them. In my book, that means they’re right.”

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Yeah? Like I said, you can’t read. The courts DO agree with AU lots of times. That doesn’t mean the courts are somehow passing legislation.

          • Oboehner

            There agreement or disagreement is irrelevant – It’s still not law.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Uh, when a law is struck down, the executive branch can’t enforce it any more. The law changes. Get over it.

          • Oboehner

            Which law exactly changed?

        • Tim Raynor

          You might want to look up the Lemon Test. Several other SC cases dealing with separation of church and sate, too. Well, you have heard of the internet, yes?

          • Gary

            I refuse to accept a SC decision that contradicts the US Constitution.

          • pax2u

            you may not understand this but the Supreme Court definds what is Constitutional

    • TheBBP

      Lies mean nothing to a population fed by headlines and whatever opinion that the media wants to sell. All they need to do is shout it enough times and the general population believe it as truth. “Hope and Change” comes to mind.

  • Fundisi

    Barry Lynn is an enemy of Christ, the Church and the Constitution. I pray he will repent and be saved before it is too late.

    However, if this teacher gave special credits for copying Biblical Passages and special Christian themed cookies to students completing assignments, or if he openly tries to convert children to Christ in his classroom during school hours, I fear he has crossed the line into endorsement of a religion and that is Constitutionally prohibited. The details following an investigation will shed more light, but we Christians should not, IMO, endorse using a public classroom for openly evangelizing.

    • http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/ JBenning

      Why not? Stupid Muzzies do it all the time. Want to tell them they have crossed the line? Na, didn’t think so.

  • bowie1

    I don’t imagine they after them for the sugar content! That happens too with the concern for diabetes, etc.

  • jmichael39

    I’m surprised Moochelle doesn’t have him arrested for giving out cookies. Isn’t that against her new “Marie Antoinette for the Twenty-First Century” mantra…”Don’t let them eat cake…or cookies or anything else they might like.”

  • Gary

    God’s enemies have been fairly successful in restricting the rights of Christians in any context that involves government or business. They are trying to come up with ways to restrict our rights in other areas of life as well. Given the corrupt nature of the courts, I expect new efforts to restrict and harass Christians will be coming.

  • MattFCharlestonSC

    I see — and any of you would be okay if they were giving out extra credit for completing Islamic assignments and passing out Quran cookies?

  • Tim Raynor

    The closing arguments are ridiculous (pre-Constitution) and have no baring on the current laws. Would not matter if every single colonist read only the Bible and used them in schools and nothing else. What maters is everything after the Constitution and the current laws on the books, which do separate religious practices from public schools. You may not agree with it, but it is what it is.

    • Gary

      A person’s rights are not suspended when they enter a government building.

      • JasonJoyner

        They are if they work for the government and try to use their rights to infringe upon the rights of others, which is exactly what this teacher was doing.

  • Richard French

    If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. John 15:18-19

  • John Mark IB

    nice one Mr. French and Amen! good verse exactly!! keep up the good work please send them the hope found right here at the end (please see sites),

    but here we go again! uh oh! oh boy! those dirty, rotten, evil murderous killers, terrible, horrible Christians are at it again, they’re worse than those poor religion of peace? muslims, ha ha really bad they are!! the Christian bad guys once again?? haha well let’s just see here, isn’t funny to my fellow true believers in The True and Living Christ, here we go once again folks did you catch it?? it’s always the so called false church of who?? who is it again same as always these guys the so called “united? church? of who? Christ?” united ? yes, a church? well maybe an assembly but definitely not Christian! and of Christ? not hardly! they are united against Christ as such they are venomous heretical lost blasphemous shameful apostates despisers of the Truth of Jesus Christ, sorry just trying to be biblical here call a spade a spade licensed ministers?? and here is what they are called by Our True and Living Blessed Christ they are anti Christs! sad fact of the matter is these folks who name the name of Christ whom they hate, need to get biblically saved, then they’ll begin the True work of loving lost sinners to Christ!! and who need to really get with The LORD’S Truth program and 1) repent and 2) be born again, 3) seek The LORD’S forgiveness, here’s the hope please pass it on and plant the seeds of true life giving faith at the following see: thanks for allowing this forum, and my posts, and to the ChristianNews.net and fellow readers may GOD bless you and have a blessed day and weekend with love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen!! let’s pray for these enemies of The Cross of Christ, incredible!!

    here’s the hope please read it and share it to all as many as you can and if at least one get’s saved it’s a joyful blessing !!

    http://faithsaves.net

    http://www.pillarandground/home/?page_id=36

    http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com

    http://www.discoverthebible.org/

    http://faithsaves.net/the-book-of-daniel-prophetic-proof-the-bible-is-the-word-of-god/

  • Craig Ewoldt

    Wow, Dawkins complains about teaching religion at the college level? He is promoting his religion all day long in a university.

    • Ralph Spoilsport II

      Dawkins complains about teaching religion at the college level?

      No, someone from the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, not Dawkins, and it’s unlawful for a public schoolteacher to promote his religion in a public school.

      He is promoting his religion all day long in a university.

      He is? He retired from his professorship in 2008. He writes books and gives speeches now.

  • Tabby Kat

    Okay, so let me get this straight? We can force our kids to not only learn but recite the Islam conversion prayer in school, but cannot even mention christianity? Especially in History class, this is hard to do concidering christianity used to be a BIG thing. In schools, every day life, marriage, ect…… If this man goes to jail or worse, loses his license, then the school that forces Islam should be shut down and never allowed to reopen.

  • Dr. Dee Tee

    secularists are all the same–intolerant

  • Penance

    I am sure all the Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and atheist kids were overjoyed to handed Christian propaganda, with a little side of hellfire.