‘Bible Man’ Assemblies Expelled from Tennessee Schools Following Atheist Complaint

Prayer VI pdGRUNDY COUNTY, Tenn. — Presentations from a character identified as “Bible Man” have been halted in a Tennessee school district following a complaint from a prominent atheist activist organization.

Horace Turner has been presenting assemblies at Grundy County schools for approximately 40 years without issue. He sings songs, presents Bible lessons, distributes literature and erects Christian displays for the children. Attendance is voluntary.

But last month, after receiving a complaint from a parent—whose name has not been disclosed—the Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) sent the district a letter asserting that Turner’s presentations are unconstitutional.

“It is deeply troubling that the district allows these assemblies to take place. It is well settled that public schools may not advance or promote religion,” the letter, which pertained to a presentation at Coalmont Elementary School, stated. “Allowing anyone access to public school students to proselytize, and including the events in the school’s calendar, is illegal district endorsement of the speaker’s religious message, in this case a Christian message.”

FFRF referred to Turner as a “wolf,” alluding to Christ’s words in Matthew 7:15, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

“[W]hile some Christian evangelizers come as wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing, this wolf comes dressed as a wolf,” the letter stated. “‘Bible Man’s’ overtly religious and proselytizing messages are explicit.”

The organization asked that Turned be prohibited from conducting future assemblies, referencing the need for children to be protected from “predators.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“The district must ensure no more ‘Bible Man’ assemblies or other religious assemblies are being scheduled or taking place in its public schools, thereby protecting children under its care from predators and upholding their constitutional rights,” the letter stated. “We also wish to be assured Bible Man is not given other access to district students, such as in lunchrooms, etc.”

But a number of parents throughout the area do not want the district to heed FFRF’s demands. They feel that Turner is being booted from school campuses, and want to ensure that he can continue to share the gospel with children.

“If people of other religions did not want to go see Mr. Turner, they were not forced to,” parent Ann Partain told the Grundy County Herald. “They had a choice.”

“At the last board meeting, there were several concerned citizens wanting to make sure that Bible Man or Mr. Turner will continue to be in Grundy County,” Dr. Willie Childers, interim director of schools, told WRCB-TV.

He explained that the district is working on an alternative where students may participate in after-school clubs, which may include a religious club with Turner. Childers said that Turner is not being banned from schools altogether.

“I believe the perception was that we’re trying to get rid of him, and that was not the perception we wanted to present,” he stated. “We are trying to make sure that the procedures that we do are legal and constitutional for every citizen.”

Turner has no affiliation with Bibleman, the televised character played by Willie Aames.


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
  • UmustBKiddinMe

    “He explained that the district is working on an alternative where students may participate in after-school clubs, which may include a religious club with Turner. ”

    Such an easy fix.

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    ” the mother who initiated the complaint told the station she has been getting threats on Facebook as a result. One included the words: “He was an outsider and against the Bible Man coming to our schools, so we threw him a house warming party,” along with a picture of a burning home.”

    Just goes to show the intolerance, hypocrisy, and militancy of Christians.

    • Theo

      Yep. Those christians are beheading and killing people.
      Those intolerant, loving christians. It’s bad
      when people actually care about others.

      • Woody Chuck

        They would be if it was allowed in the US.

      • Woody Chuck
        • Theo

          I still love you Woody. Even when you spew
          Intolerant hateful comments. That’s what it is
          all about. I accept your views, but I still care to
          say Jesus loves you.

          • Woody Chuck

            LOL!

            If Jesus actually loved me, then he would tell me, not some stranger on a comment board.

          • Theo

            He has. A whole book that tells of his love. Countless eyewitnesses
            to Jesus’s death, burial, and resurection. Just as it takes faith
            to believe in a creator God, it takes faith to believe in evolution.
            That is actually what Christians are to do, tell others
            about Jesus. There is hope.

          • Woody Chuck

            “A whole book that tells of his love.”

            LOL! A book written by superstitious, ignorant goat-herders 2,000 years ago (that doesn’t mention that Jesus loves ME).

            http://www.evilbible.com/

          • Paul Hiett

            Faith in evolution? You don’t understand science, obviously.

          • Woody Chuck

            First of all, evolution is irrelevant to this issue and discussion.

            Second, evolution is a fact, not a belief or faith.

          • Theo

            Ok. Prove to me that something can evolve
            from absolutely nothin. It cant be proven. That
            is where faith comes in.

          • Woody Chuck

            “Prove to me that something can evolve from absolutely nothin.”

            Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance, especially about evolution. Evolution doesn’t involve evolution from nothing.

          • Theo

            so you do believe in creation since you agree that nothing can come from nothing.
            let me ask you something. Since you do not believe in God why are you so determined to disprove him? What if you are wrong?

          • Woody Chuck

            “why are you so determined to disprove him? ”

            I’m no more trying to disprove god than I am trying to disprove Santa Claus. Try to stay on topic.

            “What if you are wrong?”

            What if I am? Is your maniacal god going to torture me for eternity because I disbelieve in him?

          • Theo

            ok ok. I’ll just say this.God is holy nothing that is unholy can come in his presence therefore the need for Jesus.jesus paid the price for your sins. you need only accept His sacrifice.my maniacal God will not be the one punishing you it will be your God which is Satan.but it will be because of your choice no one elses.it is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgment. Without Jesus you will experience the second death which is eternal seperation from God.you believe how you would like to and I will believe what I believe. But God still loves you. The choice is yours. Good day.

          • Woody Chuck

            “But God still loves you.”

            LOL! Why doesn’t he love the millions of innocent children who die every year from famine, disease, war, and natural disaster?

          • FoJC_Forever

            He does. They are in His presence right now.

          • Woody Chuck

            You know no such thing.

          • FoJC_Forever

            I do and they are. When the Innocent (those who don’t truly understand the concept of Sin) die, they are received into the Presence of God forever.

          • woody__chuck

            “When the Innocent (those who don’t truly understand the concept of Sin) die, they are received into the Presence of God forever.”

            Source for that claim?

            If God knows that they “don’t truly understand the concept of Sin” then why does he murder them?

          • FoJC_Forever

            God isn’t murdering, and has never murdered, anyone.

          • woody__chuck

            He never murdered innocent children in the Great Biblical Flood?

          • FoJC_Forever

            So you believe the Great Flood actually took place, or are you just failing to understand who God is and that He is over all things.

            God does not murder. People murder.

          • woody__chuck

            You didn’t answer my questions.

            If God didn’t murder innocent children, then what is your explanation for their deaths in the Flood, or did the Flood not occur?

          • FoJC_Forever

            And you didn’t answer mine.

            You try to argue against God using God’s written Word, which, by all accounts, you don’t believe is Truth.

            God does not murder. Murder is a sin. God cannot sin. Sin is anything not of Faith, which comes by hearing the Word of God, Jesus Christ. God causing someone’s body to die, if He so chooses, isn’t a sin. He is God, and He has commanded that we not take a human life apart from His command to do so.

            All the children whose bodies died as a result of the Great Flood were ushered into God’s Presence to abide forever.

          • woody__chuck

            “those who don’t truly understand the concept of Sin”

            So, if a person sins, but doesn’t understand the concept of sin, they go to heaven?

            Where does a person find “the concept of Sin?”

          • FoJC_Forever

            Mankind is not sin free. Not knowing something is a sin and committing it is proof that Sin is in the nature of every male and female, apart from Jesus Christ, who has been born on the earth. Innocence is the condition of not knowing Good from Evil, as is the case in young children. Innocence doesn’t make the sin okay, just that the child committed it unknowingly.

            All young children who die are ushered into the Presence of God to abide forever.

            God reveals the nature and presence of Sin to you when you are mature enough to understand it. That is the point when you are responsible and accountable to God for the sins you commit. A child merely repeating doctrine taught to them doesn’t mean they truly understand that Sin is present in them. There is a point when this is revealed to them, as I have stated previously.

          • Kara Connor

            “nothing unholy…”
            If your god is omnipotent that is meaningless. He can do or decide anything. Sacrificing himself to himself because he made up that rule is simply inane.

          • woody__chuck

            “Without Jesus you will experience the second death which is eternal seperation from God”

            How can I be separated from something to which I’m not connected?

          • FoJC_Forever

            You are currently living in the earth. The Holy Spirit is here now, drawing people to Salvation through Jesus Christ. When this Work is complete, those who reject this Salvation will be cast into a place completely void of all Good. Those who End up there not only deserve it, but also wanted it.

            You seek a life completely void of God. If you continue to seek that, you will find it.

          • woody__chuck

            “You seek a life completely void of God.”

            No, I don’t. I seek the truth. If it contains God, then I accept that. Ignoring that God doesn’t reveal himself, you and your ilk are the some of the worst possible spokesmen for God. But your delusion is too strong to realize that.

          • FoJC_Forever

            You won’t find Truth, if you think God is optional. Jesus Christ is the Truth. If you are honestly seeking Truth, then one day you will find Jesus Christ. Upon doing that, you will realize, among others things, all of the futile and irreverent things you’ve said and wrote about God. Fortunately for you, and all of us, God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ covers this Sin as well.

            If you keep seeking a truth which holds God as optional, you will plummet deeper into Darkness and one day wind up in a place where abiding in God’s Presence is not an option.

          • woody__chuck

            So, the truth is some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh & telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

          • FoJC_Forever

            No.

            Jesus isn’t a zombie. The reference to eating His flesh and drinking His blood was communicated to reveal He was the “sacrificial lamb”. These are constructs of the Covenant we have with God trough Him.

            Telepathy doesn’t exist.

            Jesus Christ is LORD, whether people “accept” Him or not.

            His forgiveness does cleanse our spirits of Sin. His Word transforms our souls. We will receive a new, uncorrupted body when Salvation is complete.

            Sin is present within humanity because Adam and Eve both sinned. It is not laid upon the woman alone.

          • woody__chuck

            “If you keep seeking a truth which holds God as optional”

            It’s God who makes himself optional.

          • FoJC_Forever

            You’ve stated a Lie.

          • Paul Hiett

            FYI, if we’re wrong, it doesn’t mean you’re right. You should learn to expand your knowledge of religions.

            Also, evolution has nothing to do with Creation or the source of life.

          • Woody Chuck

            “What if you are wrong?”

            What if you believe in and worship the “wrong” god?

          • Theo

            also in reply to the earlier comment about the stupid goat herders. The Bible was written by all sorts of people over a period of 2000 years Matthew was a tax collector, Luke was a doctor, and Paul was one of the most educated people of his day. Paul took a lot of joy in persecuting Christians until he had a personal encounter with Jesus. God can use anyone to do anything

          • Woody Chuck

            “God can use anyone to do anything”

            Apparently he can’t do anything himself.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            he made the highly coded and complex DNA that governs your body

          • Woody Chuck

            Which god?

          • penny0314

            After 3 years of Koine Greek, I can tell you that, of those you listed, only Paul had a sufficient command of Greek to have ever written any of the sciptures.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            Evolution is a theory not necessarily fact that has over the years been accepted by faith that it was a fact ….many of it tenants have been recently called into question by newly revealed scientifically facts ….blanket statements on evolution will get one in trouble even in the evolution community …

          • Paul Hiett

            No Gail, it is a fact, you simply don’t know what a ‘theory’ means in the scientific community.

            I suggest you educate yourself on Evolution before you continue to debate from a stance of ignorance.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            established fact is one thing ….but even Evolution is subject to new facts that come to light and has to be adjusted …leaving the old fact lost in the wind of discovery ….theory best fits evolution.

          • Woody Chuck

            “theory best fits evolution”

            Wrong, theories only attempt to explain how it happens, not whether or not it does. Regardless, evolution, fact or theory, is irrelevant to this issue.

          • jjhot254 .

            Micro evolution is a very well tested theory, macro-evolution is not

          • penny0314

            And the threats against her, her family, and home are proof positive!

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Love goes both ways you know. If you try to love Christ, you would be surprised at what he will tell you. Then again, you won’t do that, so don’t expect an answer that you don’t want anyway.

          • Woody Chuck

            “Jesus loves you.”

            Me? Why doesn’t he love the literally millions of innocent children who every year die from famine, disease, natural disaster, and war?

          • cobalt100

            Jesus doesn’t love atheists.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        I know, right? It’s terrible what’s happening in the CAR.

    • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

      Christian intolerance/violence is wrong period ….hope there is as much concern about teaching the 5 pillars of Islam in our schools

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        I hope so as well.

      • Woody Chuck

        LOL! There would be if it were happening, and most of the concern and OUTRAGE would be expressed by xians, not atheists

      • SpeakTruth

        There will be, if it ever happens.

    • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

      If that in fact is true, then the people who are giving threats do not represent the Jesus Christ I know and love.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        I have no reason to doubt what she said. I completely agree with your point. I have no doubt that the threats this woman received were NOT representative of how the vast majority of Christians would respond, which was the point of my comment.

        It would be absurd to suggest that the actions of a few individuals would be representative of how everyone in a group views things. Yet, when the owner of the pizza shop in Indiana got one death threat, the talk was about “THE homosexuals” “see how intolerant homosexuals are” “see how militant homosexuals are”. Which is also absurd.

        • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

          Your right. I agree with you on that as well. I think as a nation we are overblowing every single situation now. It needs to stop. I think the media is as much to blame (social media too) for these injustices. People that are behind the screens of computers can be some of the cruelest in the world with no regard for another person.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Agreed. Further, we have no idea the sexuality (or religion) of those people. We know virtually nothing about them, yet some feel completely comfortable assigning traits to them, and then expounding out to everyone in the group.

            These types of generalizations do absolutely nothing to move us forward or assist in civilized discussion. There will always be differences of opinions. Our ability to address, and respect, those differences without hyperbole and generalizations, is essential to a civilized society.

            People can say very cruel things, particularly when they are able to hide behind the anonymity of the internet. It is my opinion that they are the most cowardly, and insecure, ones among us. I feel sorry for them.

            On the other hand, I think we also need to be a bit more dismissive of off-hand remarks and comments, particularly when made online. People need to toughen up a bit, stand up, and quit whining just because someone from a completely different part of the country said something mean. I mean, seriously.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I’m in agreement with you on that as well. I know you stand up for you’re beliefs. I try to, but your also right that if the discussion is about an issue, make a stand. That way even if there is disagreement, people SHOULD be mature enough to stop making it personal. But then again most people turn it into a personal thing. It’s issues and the article that should be discussed that is the reason for comment sections

  • The Last Trump

    “Horace Turner has been presenting assemblies at Grundy County schools for approximately 40 years without issue.”

    Hmmm. Wonder why this “unconstitutional” practice was never considered unconstitutional before!? Weird….

    Actually, I don’t wonder. None of the Christians here wonder.
    We’ve been waiting expectantly for such a generation as this.

    Not long now….. 😉

    • Woody Chuck

      “We’ve been waiting expectantly for such a generation as this.”

      One that isn’t inbred.

      • Tj Evans

        No, the last generation.

        • Woody Chuck

          The last generation that isn’t inbred.

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      It takes someone to question something before its constitutionality is examined.

      It’s only “weird” if you don’t understand how our system works.

    • Nullifidian

      Ah, yes, the second coming. 2,000 years of any day now.

    • Rebus Caneebus

      Wonder why this “unconstitutional” practice was never considered unconstitutional before!?

      It was, and has been, considered unconstitutional for decades now — the problem is that some Christians ignore the law.

      • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

        Jefferson and Madison never thought it was a problem to attend church services in the US capital building …..they did it regularly during their presidencies …and they are the most quoted on separation

        • Rebus Caneebus

          What does that have to do with government schools promoting Christianity? Oh, nothing.

          Do you really want government officials telling other people’s children what religion they ought to follow?

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            it should be noted that many of this nations schools used the Bible to teach reading …and I viewed a textbook of my great great great grandmother aprox 1818 and it clearly had religious text in it ….the foundations is there and is slowly eroding away ….use to clearly understand right and wrong …now all standards are thrown to the wind and the rudder is gone ….

          • Paul Hiett

            So what? What makes you think everyone should have to live under the rule of thumb of your Bible?

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            just making the case that those that promoted separation of church and state did not intend the exercise of that faith to be excluded from the public square of ideas ….being a christian is a choice that can be either accepted or rejected …I or any other Legitimate christian will not force you into the kingdom if you do not wish to go ….unlike Islam

          • Rebus Caneebus

            just making the case that those that promoted separation of church and state did not intend the exercise of that faith to be excluded from the public square of ideas

            That has nothing to do with school officials telling other people’s children what religious they ought to follow.

            I or any other Legitimate christian will not force you into the kingdom if you do not wish to go ….unlike Islam

            So you’re defending Christians violating the religious rights of other people because Muslims are worse?

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            I am defending the “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; “of the first amendment that everyone seems to ignore …some Folks would have Christians be totally silent in the public square when it comes to their faith which runs contrary to the second half of the second amendment ….had it been the intent of folks like Jefferson and Madison to silence Christians in the public square they would have started by stopping religious services in the capital building and certainly would not have attended them there ….

            today we have made the school system a battle ground for this issue …..certainly the school officials should not be the ones shepherding religious expression in schools ….but they also shouldn’t stop students from exercising their first amendment rights …particularly in their free time ….the same right should be extended to Muslins,Buddhist and Hindus in their free time …

          • Rebus Caneebus

            I am defending the “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; “

            By allowing school officials to push their religion on other people’s children.

            Like I said, you hate religious freedom. The courts have long ruled that events like the case here is a violation of the students’ religious rights and their parent’s rights to raise their children in whatever religion they see fit.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            Rebus… Actually I agree this School probably needs to rethink how it allows this particular organization to present its program…even to the point of it being presented of campus and only presenting the students with location and time should they choose to attend …I will allow you to have your opinion of my view of religious freedom …the last sentence of my last post reflects where I see the balance ….have a great day ….

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Actually I agree this School probably needs to rethink how it allows this particular organization to present its program.

            Your initial reply indicated you supported the school doing this.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            I may have highlighted that in the past century schools were more favorable to to the christian faith and that as result of its exclusion from or schools there has been a loss of the moral ruder ….I will settle for the students right to read their bible or other religious sarad material(IE Koran) ,write essays relating to their faith with out fear of expulsion .and talk about their faith during their free time as long as it is not staff directed .other faiths should have the same possibility …

          • Rebus Caneebus

            may have highlighted that in the past century schools were more favorable to to the christian faith and that as result of its exclusion from or schools there has been a loss of the moral ruder.

            Like I keep saying, you don’t want religious freedom, you want the government to push YOUR religion.

            ….I will settle for the students right to read their bible or other religious sarad material(IE Koran) ,write essays relating to their faith with out fear of expulsion .and talk about their faith during their free time as long as it is not staff directed

            And they’ve always had these rights. The school in question was violating them, and you were defending the school instead of the students.

          • KenS

            Yes, they already ave these rights, but there have been instances with overzealous school teachers telling a student that they cannot paint a picture depicting God or Jesus or give a speech with their personal beliefs if it mentions God or even read the bible during their free time. One teacher even took a student’s bible from him because he was reading it during the break between classes before class time. Teacher and schools are going to far because they are afraid of organizations filing a lawsuit for perceived establishment of religion.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            I think some teachers and schools are going to far because of cries of “prayer in school is banned” by people who don’t know the law, and some school officials think that statement is actually true.

            The best way to solve this is NOT to defend any unconstitutional practices but to keep people informed, such as the 1995 statement “Religion In The Public Schools: A Joint Statement Of Current Law”

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            Quote “And they’ve always had these rights”
            true…however I keep seeing instances where teachers and or school officials ignore that and discipline students for praying ,writing about a faith subject or reading the bible in their free time ….

            Schools in the neutral zone of religion may be nice and Ideal

            these same children will graduate into a world that is driven by Ideological and religious zealots that won’t be bashful about aggressively reforming that neutral stance into their form of thinking ….
            You might not want christian principles of love ,respect ,forgiveness and charity to be imparted to the children as apart of their moral foundation …but in this world that is rift in violence and hate …a lack of a measuring rod /rudder …allows those with the loudest voice to take command of their direction in life ….; Yes we have to live under our laws as they are given .so the impartation of moral foundations must respect those laws and remain outside the schools and let unknown secular values keep the helm …

          • Rebus Caneebus

            these same children will graduate into a world that is driven by Ideological and religious zealots that won’t be bashful about aggressively reforming that neutral stance into their form of thinking

            And you kept defending such people as in the case with this school.

            You might not want christian principles of love ,respect ,forgiveness and charity to be imparted to the children as apart of their moral foundation

            What I don’t want is your false dichotomy that pushing your religion is the only way to impart good morals. That’s actually a very immoral thing for you to do.

            And now you seem to be waffling on whether you DO support this school violating the religious rights of students. From what you just wrote, it looks to me like you’re OK with pushing Christianity in public schools.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            as it stands now the schools are obligated to follow the standards laid down by law …the Law is subject to change should the congress and courts chose to change it. Whether it is christian ,Muslim, Jewish or secular we will all advocate for standards that best suits our standard of morals …that is not immoral …I am willing to live with laws as written but that should not obligate me to silence in pushing for laws and the enforcing of laws that are already on the books which are favorable to my position ….you have the same and equal opportunity to do the same .

          • Rebus Caneebus

            …I am willing to live with laws as written but that should not obligate me to silence in pushing for laws and the enforcing of laws that are already on the books which are favorable to my position

            And that’s why I keep saying that you don’t like religious freedom.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            and you don’t like my freedom to express my viewpoint and would rather I remain in silence …so much for freedom of expression for Christians …have a great and productive day Rebus 🙂

          • Rebus Caneebus

            and you don’t like my freedom to express my viewpoint and would rather I remain in silence …so much for freedom of expression for Christians

            Stop lying about me. I disagree with what you advocate — that does not mean I think your opinions should be illegal for you to spout.

            YOU, on the other hand, advocate that public school officials really OUGHT to have the authority to push their religion on other people’s children.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            don’t mean to suggest you are lying … I just need to define where you really stand …you keep reminding me I don’t like religious freedom …

            ….I will plead guilty of advocating for christian influence in the school system as you will advocate to limit it … I will live with laws relating to school systems and the faith and if changed will work within that system . I am for completely keeping doctrinal teaching out of schools Period !….that is indeed the job of the church …but principles that reinforce honesty,love for ones neighbor, forgiveness and charity …should be fair game as it affords society positive values.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            you keep reminding me I don’t like religious freedom

            Because you don’t.

            I will plead guilty of advocating for christian influence in the school system as you will advocate to limit it

            That’s why I say you don’t like religious freedom. You actually WANT school officials to tell other people’s children what religion they “ought” to follow.

            …but principles that reinforce honesty,love for ones neighbor, forgiveness and charity …should be fair game as it affords society positive values.

            Your earlier remarks about those principles suggested that they can be reinforced only by Christianity, which would mean pushing Christianity in public schools.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            “Your earlier remarks about those principles suggested that they can be reinforced only by Christianity, which would mean pushing Christianity in public schools.”

            are you and any other religious advocacy group limited from promoting your view points in schools ?

            if not limited that means you also can push your views and values …and as I see it under our laws that is your right ….

          • Rebus Caneebus

            are you and any other religious advocacy group limited from promoting your view points in schools ?

            What does that have to do with you advocating that Christianity be promoted in public schools? I have no illusions that the religious majority would dominate.

            if not limited that means you also can push your views and values …and as I see it under our laws that is your right ….

            Not in public schools. You seem schizophrenic on this point — in one post you agree it’s illegal, next you say it is.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            Sorry even reading my own question back to myself …it was not what I intended to say … but rather it should have been ….are you and any other religious advocacy group limited from promoting your view points ON schools in public forums ,blogs and via legislation…

            and ” if not limited that means you also can push your views and values ” should read …if not limited that means you also can push your views and values in those same forums ,blogs and legislation … obviously pushing them in schools is absolutely wrong …

            my wife was pressuring me to hurry and shut down the computer so we could go and do chores for my mother …so I hurried thru the post without proof reading …
            my apology ….

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            Will get back to this discussion later – must do some chores for my mother this afternoon … take care 🙂

          • Woody Chuck

            “however I keep seeing instances where teachers and or school officials ignore that and discipline students for praying ,writing about a faith subject or reading the bible in their free time ”

            Funny – this is rare when compared to the frequent reports of flagrant violations such as this one.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            “Funny – this is rare when compared to the frequent reports of flagrant violations such as this one.”

            guess that depends on where your or my focus and concern is ……. and that is OK …it allows for spirited and necessary discussion …

          • FoJC_Forever

            The programs weren’t pushing anyone, The children had a choice to attend or not.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            The programs weren’t pushing anyone

            That isn’t the standard. Having “optional” programs pushing religion aren’t constitutional, either. Read, say, Abington v. Schempp, where optional prayers were struck down.

          • Woody Chuck

            Try to get this through your thick head – the public schools aren’t the public square, and Constitutional jurisprudence already settled this issue, regardless of your ignorance or stubbornness.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            With respect Woody …Constitutional jurisprudence also has spoken about the students rights to exercise their faith in their free time in school …time and again the court has came down on the right of students to be able to express their religious faith…the school just can not be the director of it except when it conflicts with their normal classes

          • Woody Chuck

            “exercise their faith in their free time in school”

            Which isn’t the issue here.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            Woody – I will concede that point here …And as in at least one other response I have given on this Blog .the school needs to re-think and re-direct that group to hold their talk/presentation off campus and letting (with a disclaimer of support )students know if they wish to attend where it will be held …

          • Woody Chuck

            “did not intend the exercise of that faith to be excluded from the public square of ideas ”

            Straw-man – the public schools aren’t a “public square of ideas.”

          • Rebus Caneebus

            it should be noted that many of this nations schools used the Bible to teach reading .

            Which, of course, violates the religious rights of non-Christian students and their parents.

            Why do you hate religious freedom?

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            Who said anything about hating religious freedom ? just pointing out what the foundations were when this nation was born when 90% of folks claimed to have christian foundations …at that time there were very few Muslims a,Hindus or Buddhist….certainly the statistics reflect differently today … obviously my bias is toward the christian faith …but unlike Islam that is practiced in the mid-east I won’t force you to convert or die….I may share my faith in the public square with the option of accepting or rejecting and let it go at that…..part of religious freedom is sharing ones faith with others whether you are Christian ,Muslim Buddhist or Hindu…even atheist have the freedom to share their viewpoint .

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Who said anything about hating religious freedom ?

            You did, by arguing in favor of school officials telling other people’s children that they aren’t following the right religion and telling them they should be Christians.

            part of religious freedom is sharing ones faith with others whether you are Christian ,Muslim Buddhist or Hindu…even atheist have the freedom to share their viewpoint .

            Not when it’s school officials pushing their religion on students.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’m not sure it does, especially if the assemblies were voluntary.

            However, it’s irrelevant whether the kids’ religious freedoms were affected because thus is an Establishment Clause issue, and the Establishment Clause was clearly violated here.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Optional doesn’t help, that goes way back to Abington v. Schempp.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I didn’t say the assemblies were constitutional. They’re not. I said they didn’t violate any of the students’ religious rights.

          • Woody Chuck

            FYI – this isn’t 1818.

      • FoJC_Forever

        It wasn’t unconstitutional when the Constitution was ratified. America, as a nation, has strayed from the original intent and meaning of the Constitution.

        • Rebus Caneebus

          It wasn’t unconstitutional when the Constitution was ratified.

          Neither was slavery.

          America, as a nation, has strayed from the original intent and meaning of the Constitution.

          The constitution has also been amended numerous times; the 14th amendment, for example.

          • FoJC_Forever

            The Amendments to abolish slavery didn’t alter the original intent of the document, they merely clarified what had not been precisely included in it. To my knowledge, having slaves was never a Constitutional right prior to these Amendments.

            The agenda to keep Christians, whether genuine or fake, from expressing their religion in schools, government, and the public square is going against the Constitution, not clarifying something which was left out.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            The Amendments to abolish slavery didn’t alter the original intent of the document, they merely clarified what had not been precisely included in it.

            What?! The original intent of the constitution acknowledged slavery, slaves counted as 3/5 of a person for House representation. Outlawing slavery changed the constitution.

            The agenda to keep Christians, whether genuine or fake, from expressing their religion in schools, government, and the public square is going against the Constitution

            Not when it’s school officials allowing religious proselytizing it isn’t, not according to the courts. People have religious rights as individuals, but not when acting as state employee — they represent the state in that case, and are restricted by the “no establishment” clause.

    • The Skeptical Chymist

      2000 years of “Any time now…”. I wouldn’t count on it.

  • william shiver

    I am a christian and have stopped through grundy county. They are very nice folks. With that said folks can not judge all christians by a few mesled folks that may or not be christians. For all we know they may be trolls stirring the pot so to speak. I feel that everyone one should have a choice in what they believe. In my opinion that by my choice if i am wrong and there is no here after then i won but knowing what i know if the non believers are wrong they have lost everything.

  • Judy Ameil

    I don’t believe Christians should be making threats, that is wrong…but they do have a right to be upset, their first amendment rights have been violated. The first amendment does not say freedom of atheism. If you hate the Constitution, Flag, Christians, our
    Culture, Freedom of Religion….then you are in the wrong country. We have
    American Pride here! The Constitution is NOT up for debate or sold to the
    highest bidder. It is written in stone and sealed with the blood of every brave
    American who has fought and died for our Constitution and our Religious
    Freedom!

    • Woody Chuck

      “they do have a right to be upset”

      They don’t have any “right to be upset” about this issue.

      “died for our Constitution and our Religious Freedom!”

      A Constitution that doesn’t mention god or xianity, and only mentions religion once – no religious test (Article VI, paragraph 3). Furthermore, “Religious Freedom” requires freedom from religion, as the Constitution provides.

      You have no way to know the values for which any soldier fought.

    • Nullifidian

      Courts have interpreted the first amendment to mean that public entities, including schools, must be completely neutral in matters of religion. This is well-established jurisprudence.

      Either a school allows any and all religious literature to be distributed, or it allows none at all. They don’t get to play favorites with one religion or another.

    • Paul Hiett

      So only Christian Americans fought and died for our Constitution and our Religious freedom?

  • Woody Chuck

    “He explained that the district is working on an alternative where students may participate in after-school clubs, which may include a religious club with Turner.”

    There are tax-subsidized places for that – they’re called churches.

    • Judy Ameil

      The constitution does not specify where we are confined. It says freedom of religion and government shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof. You added prohibited to inside the church. Christianity is a lifestyle that is not confined to just inside the church. Christ tells us to go into the world and speak the gospel to everyone. Freedom of Religion allows us to do just that.

      • Paul Hiett

        Freedom of Religion doesn’t allow you to promote religion in our public schools. Why do so many Christians not understand this?

        • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

          wouldn’t worry about Christians ….in several public schools around the nation the pillars of Islam is being taught and barely a peep out of folks like your self

          • Paul Hiett

            Islam is not being taught in the fashion you think it is. Kids are simply being being educated since it’s in the news more.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            I have read about instances where they are taught that Allah is the one true God and they are taught how to use a prayer rug ….

          • Paul Hiett

            No, they are not being taught that. Not in public schools.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            do a google search …I tried to post a link to demonstrate an example …it may not appear

          • Woody Chuck

            Your specialty must be logical fallacies.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            no ,however just a concern folks beating up christians and giving a pass to Islam being taught in our schools

          • Woody Chuck

            Make that logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            😉 Gotta love the put down arguments …. just hope when a secular article dealing with Islam in the classroom …you are just as vigorous in dealing with Islamic posters…. 😉

          • Woody Chuck

            You’re confused – observations aren’t “put down arguments.”

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            Perhaps Woody …however this is not a class in perfect logic…it is an opinion blog …logic though important isn’t necessarily going to happen to yours or my standard …you are welcome to your observations as you call them

      • Woody Chuck

        Huh? I didn’t mention “prohibit” or “confined,” and not to “inside the church.” I only mentioned that the church is a place for holding religious meetings, but not the only place. Try to keep-up.

        “Freedom of Religion” (which doesn’t appear in the Constitution) doesn’t allow you to preach your delusion anywhere, anytime. Constitutional jurisprudence specifically prohibits preaching in public schools.

        • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

          Do you realize A government building the Capital building of the united states was used as a church on sundays for the first 60 or 70 years of this nation and the two most quoted proponents of separation regularly attended services there during their presidencies …Jefferson and Madison ….

          • Paul Hiett

            And did you realize that we also owned slaves?

          • Woody Chuck

            Do you understand that Constitutional jurisprudence has already settled this issue, or are you actually that ignorant?

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            sometimes settled jurisprudence hinges on political winds of the time ….in the early years of this country separation was not the issue it is today most supreme court appointments are subject to the standards of the president and congressional makeup of the time …and many of the recent judges often reformulate law from the bench ….there is a swing back in forth between liberal and conservative over time … judges even though they are suppose to follow the law .are human and are occasionally influenced by their own druthers…surely you don’t think they are super human incapable of being influenced by their own bias …

          • Woody Chuck

            Woulda, coulda, shoulda is a very weak argument.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            🙂 yes Woody that may be …but it a better one than put down arguments that go nowhere 😉

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        “Freedom of Religion allows us to do just that.”

        Not without conditions.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Watch for fake prosecution reported to be from Christians. Those who reject Jesus Christ are tools of Satan and will pretend to be Christian while assailing others.

    Some Christians attend public schools and they have a Constitutional right to express and follow Jesus Christ while at school. As long as no one is forcing a child to participate in Christian activities, nor punishing them if they choose not to, then the “State” is not promoting a legalized religion.

    It has bee well established and settled that the Constitution does not ban religious expression in government and the public square, but only limits the government from creating a legal religious sect in which all must swear allegiance and support.

    • Woody Chuck

      Straw-man – this issue isn’t about the “right to express and follow Jesus Christ while at school.”

      Now, back under the rock from which you crawled.

      • FoJC_Forever

        No “straw man” content in my comment. People like you love to pull out your debate labels, even when they don’t apply. My comment wasn’t made in order to be defeated, it was posted to remind people of the Truth.

        If you’re going to criticize, at least do it with integrity.

        • Woody Chuck

          Whenever people like you refer to truth with a capital T, it’s always their version of the truth.

          This is the truth – Constitutional jurisprudence has already settled this issue, regardless of your ignorance of it or refusal to accept it.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Liars like you have forcibly put Christians in duress and are requiring them, against their Constitutional Rights, to live in fear of expressing their religious beliefs.

            Liars like you will repeat a lie over and over again, knowing that foolish people will succumb to your nagging and threatening, allowing you to get your way.

            And, I know that regardless of what I, or anyone else of the Truth, would say or type, you’re going to forcibly journey your way to Eternal Damnation.

          • Woody Chuck

            “Liars like you”

            What lie did I post here? I want to see a quote, not some vague reply.

        • Woody Chuck

          “at least do it with integrity.”

          As you did when you misrepresented the issue by writing:

          “Some Christians attend public schools and they have a Constitutional right to express and follow Jesus Christ while at school. As long as no one is forcing a child to participate in Christian activities, nor punishing them if they choose not to, then the “State” is not promoting a legalized religion.”

          The issue is “Allowing anyone access to public school students to proselytize, and including the events in the school’s calendar, is illegal district endorsement of the speaker’s religious message, in this case a Christian message.”

    • Paul Hiett

      “… Constitutional right to express and follow Jesus Christ while at school.”

      No, they most certainly do not.

      • FoJC_Forever

        “Freedom of Religion” = First Amendment Right. Under original USA law, they most certainly do too.

        Under Paul Hiett law, people have to cower under the barrage of inflammatory hatred and lies, and like it.

        • Paul Hiett

          Nope…you can scream and cry and stomp your feet all you want. Public schools can’t be used to push any religion, even yours. The first amendment does NOT give you that right.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Liars like you have forcibly put Christians in duress and are requiring them, against their Constitutional Rights, to live in fear of expressing their religious beliefs.

            Liars like you will repeat a lie over and over again, knowing that foolish people will succumb to your nagging and threatening, allowing you to get your way.

            And I know that regardless of what I, or anyone else of the Truth, would say
            or type, you’re going to forcibly journey your way to Eternal Damnation.

          • Woody Chuck

            “And I know that regardless of what I, or anyone else of the Truth, would say or type, you’re going to forcibly journey your way to Eternal Damnation.”

            You “know” no such thing. You’re a bonafide, delusional nut-case – exactly the kind from which children in public schools should be protected, just as it will be done in this school in barring this nutcase from poisoning the minds of these children.

          • FoJC_Forever

            But I do know. You don’t know Jesus Christ, so you are already condemned. You can know Him, however, if you will honestly ask Jesus to save you from your Sin.

            And, on a different note, I realized last night you’re a Voyager fan. It is befitting of your personality and intent of your comments that your avatar pic would be that of the enemy who hunted Voyager and its crew.

        • Woody Chuck

          “Freedom of Religion” = First Amendment Right.

          First of all, “Freedom of Religion” doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution nor Bill Of Rights.

          Second, there are no absolute freedoms of any kind.

          Third – “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices. . . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.” – Reynolds v. United States

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      “As long as no one is forcing a child to participate in Christian activities, nor punishing them if they choose not to, then the “State” is not promoting a legalized religion.”

      The courts disagree. Public schools are not allowed to promote religious belief. If they do this as an after-school activity – no issue. But to have it as part of the scheduled school day is a violation.

    • MisterPine

      “Those who reject Jesus Christ are tools of Satan and will pretend to be Christian while assailing others.”

      And what about those Christians you say are not Christians at all, like the Catholics, as you said earlier? Seems like you don’t approve of ANYBODY who isn’t your exact brand of Christian.

  • danielistical

    if
    you are a SATANIST

    if you are a CHRISTIAN

    if you are a MUSSLIM

    keep your phony baloney religious superstition OUT OF MY CHILDS
    SCHOOL,,,,,reason why conditioning minor children into and
    superstitious/religious belief should be a felony. It is child abuse and
    destroys ability to think critically for life.

    Religion is the biggest mental illness that is left untreated in human
    existence.

    • FoJC_Forever

      If Christians send their children to public schools, it’s their child’s school as well. Christians in public schools have the Right to express their Faith and follow Jesus Christ while at school. If you don’t like it, you can always put your children in a private, non-religious school.

      • Woody Chuck

        “put your children in a private, non-religious school.”

        Public schools are “non-religious” (secular) schools.

        • FoJC_Forever

          Public schools are just that, public schools. They serve the entire community around them, which includes Christians. You, as an unbeliever, have no Constitutional right – endowed by the Creator – to stop them. What you do have is a bad legal interpretation of the Constitution which allows you to hound and harass Christians.

          The Declaration of Independence is as much of a foundational legal document of this nation as the Constitution. Unfortunately, people who hate God want to see it differently.

      • danielistical

        YES it is the CHILDS school NOT their relidgeion no matter what relidgeion,it may be AND THE RELIDGEION is what is not allowed,,,,TURN OFF FIX NEWS and buy a clue,,,,caus you dumb as a doormat

      • Paul Hiett

        No, they don’t. You simply don’t know the law, which is why you post inaccurate responses such as this.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        “Christians in public schools have the Right to express their Faith and follow Jesus Christ while at school. ”

        Yes. Within certain bounds. The right is not an unfettered one.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        “If you don’t like it, you can always put your children in a private, non-religious school.”

        No need. Public schools are non-religious.

  • James Staten

    But in the last day or so by my understanding my Tennessee Legislators have passed a Law making the Bible the State Book of Tennessee. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize unless Jesus doesn’t come soon for the Body of Christ, they will be coming for me!!!!! Praise the Lord. Tradition has it the Apostle Paul ran the last few steps to the chopping block? I pray when I am being threatened with beheading that I may do the same. Even So Come Lord Jesus

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      “But in the last day or so by my understanding my Tennessee Legislators have passed a Law making the Bible the State Book of Tennessee.”

      That is incorrect.

      • James Staten

        If you read what I wrote. I said that by my understanding they had passed that bill? I live in Tn. and I saw a headline that basically said that in the last few days. Two southern states had rejected a similar bill, but regardless it really doesn’t change very much. Thanks for correcting me!!!!

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          House passed it. Senate tabled it. Next year at best for consideration by the Senate.

          You’re welcome.

          • James Staten

            Thanks again. I saw a headline and I should have read more, but you and I sound like we are on the same page. Bandaid on a gaping wound!!!!

  • James Staten

    One more comment. It’s taken me a long time to realize that there is truly on one question in life? What will you do with that dead Jew who got up and walked out of that Tomb? Your eternal destiny depends on Him.

    • Rebus Caneebus

      Do I get eternal torment for a mistaken opinion if I’m wrong?

      • James Staten

        You will be able to say at least I was told.

        • Rebus Caneebus

          So your answer is “Yes, you will be subjected to eternal torment for a mistaken opinion.”

          That’s insanely immoral.

          • James Staten

            1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is the answer. Let’s say that you are found guilty of murder, and after the gavel falls and the verdict is given, the Judge stands up and removes his robe, and then walks down and stands next to you, and says “I will die in your place”…Believe me this is the short version.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            So if my mother was the person murdered, you think that would be an acceptable action by the judge? I should be HAPPY if the person who murdered my mother goes free? What if he murders the rest of my family?

            And, by the way, your answer really IS “Yes, you will be subjected to eternal torment for a mistaken opinion,” right? You keep avoiding a direct answer.

          • James Staten

            Let’s place this on a bigger scale. America has aborted nearly 60 million babies since Rowe vs Wade passed, the Supreme Court will this summer probably allow gay marriage, our nation is throwing Israel under the bus as we write. Not only is judgment pending for every individual but nations also. Read the book of Jude..the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah as an example. In Ezekiel 38-39 there is a latter day invasion of Israel, and in the last couple hundred years there have been several scholars that believe Russia will lead this invasion? In Ezekiel 38:5 the first nation listed in this coalition with Russia is Persia. They changed their name to Iran in approx 1935…Judgment is coming…You need a good Jewish Attorney…again the short version…Jeremiah 50 and 51, Revelation 17 and 18, Isaiah 47 and portions of Isaiah 13-18 describes a nation in the last days that is destroyed in “One Hour’s Time” great riches come to absolute nothing. The Rabbis have for centuries said that “the hindermost of the nations” is understood to be a young nation compared to others, she is an end time nation, the last of the great nations that sits on many waters, she is rich beyond measure, she has a large Jewish population, she is a mingled people from her beginning. She is the Hammer of the earth an idiom for the Policeman of the world, and she gets destroyed in a surprise attack. Does any of this sound like front page news? If you were Russia might you take out the strong man first? They have been telling the US and the world they will pull out the Nukes. Regardless the Lord’s arsenal is soon to open? God’s Word is True

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Let’s place this on a bigger scale.

            Let’s you answer my questions:

            Do I get eternal torment for a mistaken opinion if I’m wrong?

            So if my mother was the person murdered, you think that would be an acceptable action by the judge? I should be HAPPY if the person who murdered my mother goes free? What if he murders the rest of my family?

          • James Staten

            Life for a Life, the Judge sentenced you, he then has a right to carry out the subsitute. And from a scriptural perspective that’s exactly what happened when Christ was on the cross “Rebus Caneebus” was on His mind. I don’t expect you to believe this.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Life for a Life, the Judge sentenced you, he then has a right to carry out the subsitute.

            So you’re saying it’s OK with you if a murderer goes free if someone else is killed in his place.

            And you STILL haven’t answered if I get eternal torment for a mistaken opinion if I’m wrong.

          • James Staten

            You were born a sinner. You are not a sinner because you sin. It doesn’t matter if you are a murderer etc. etc. Everyone is born “Spiritually Stillborn” to God, and unless your sins are placed on Christ then your sins will remain on you. Yes, You will go to a Christless eternity. There is an old saying “everyone pays his own way to Hell, but Heaven is a Free Pass”…Time is short. It’s your choice? Whosoever will may come!!!!

          • Rebus Caneebus

            So your answer is “Yes, you will be subjected to eternal torment for a mistaken opinion.”

            That’s insanely immoral.

          • James Staten

            The Lord demands a blood offering. Science tells us just as the scriptures say “Life is in the blood” Not only in this world , but the world to come. Christ blood was poured out…I can’t make you believe, only by His Holy Spirit can one come to understand, and believe the Gospel. The Gospel means Good News, and a good start is read the Book!!!!

          • Rebus Caneebus

            So your answer is “Yes, you will be subjected to eternal torment for a mistaken opinion.”

            You worship a primitive god who demands blood offerings.

          • Woody Chuck

            LOL! You believe that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh & telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

            It’s 2015, people. The time for worshiping gods was 500 years ago…….

          • James Staten

            actually from a Jewish perspective it’s been approx 4,000 years, and from a recorded history as we know it 6,000 years.

          • Woody Chuck

            Apparently my omission of the word “over” confused you.

          • James Staten

            What the time for worshiping gods was 500 years ago. 500 or 6,000 what the heck!!!

          • Woody Chuck

            “You were born a sinner”

            You were born an idiot.

          • James Staten

            Praise the Lord…He often has an idiot override!!!!!

          • Woody Chuck

            When are you going to use it?

          • James Staten

            As I sit here and attempt to be kind. He reminds me that once I was just like you.

          • Woody Chuck

            “As I sit here and attempt to be kind”

            Lying isn’t an expression of kindness, so sit there and stop doing it.

          • James Staten

            Let me be totally honest with you “Woody” the scriptures make it crystal clear, this is not my opinion, it is Scripture. An Unbeliever is Spiritually dead just like this wood telephone pole outside my home. You were born spiritually stillborn..dead on arrival, and unless you are born again..You will die in your sins the Second Death..1 Corinthians 15:1-4

          • Woody Chuck

            You repeating a lie is still a lie.

          • James Staten

            When you don’t read the “Owner’s Manual” you get the results!!!

          • Woody Chuck

            ” I don’t expect you to believe this.”

            Duh, I wonder why? Hint: it’s not believable, it’s delusional.

          • James Staten

            Woody, You win, but if you stay in your Unbelief, you will have an eternity to think about this exchange!!!!!

          • Woody Chuck

            More children are naturally aborted or stillborn than are aborted by humans…abortion is irrelevant to this issue, and like evolution, is a red-herring used to deflect from the inability to support the Constitutional violations perpetrated my xian nuts.

    • Woody Chuck

      What will I say to your zombie carpenter? I will ask him why every year he allows literally millions of innocent children to die from famine, disease, drought, and natural disasters, but some how he died for your “sins.”

  • Reason2012

    “..Attendance is voluntary.”
    Yet atheists will not complain where islam is now being taught in more and more of our schools, it’s in more and more our school textbooks and they take them on trips to mosques, get them to pray, get girls to dress up in the appropriate garb.

    Google islam school field trip

    Shows this is nothing but hate against God’ truth: Christ Jesus, not any sort of balanced effort to keep beliefs out of schools.

    • Rebus Caneebus

      It would help if you didn’t lie about atheists.

      google ffrf islam
      google ffrf muslim

      • Woody Chuck

        “It would help if you didn’t lie about atheists.”

        It’s the ONLY help he has.

    • Woody Chuck

      “Yet atheists will not complain where islam is now being taught in more and more of our schools”

      Unlike xians, atheists are honest, and will fight against proselytism of all religions.

      • Reason2012

        Honest? It’s not honest to claim “nothing can create something” or “something can exist for an eternity and require no creator” then claim to not believe in the supernatural when that’s exact what they start with.

        Evolutionism is a belief system and you support it, which again is not honest. It’s the one belief system you promote while censoring all others.

        Any belief system can be brought up If the majority in that instance want it and since the VAST majority of this country is Christian, that’s the belief that will be brought up most often. That’s liberty and that’s freedom. Your version: censor anyone bringing up Christ except where we give you permission.

        Instead atheists are enforcing their beliefs by force of law by default by eliminating all others, which is them doing what you say they do not do.

        They also dishonestly claim the Constitution says government must silence and censor speaking about Christian beliefs except where they are given permission to talk about it.

        • Woody Chuck

          So-called “atheism” and evolution aren’t beliefs nor belief systems. You’re an intellectually dishonest fraud who’s desperate to defend his delusion by stooping to the lowest level.

          • Reason2012

            It’s not “physics” to say “nothing can create something” – it’s just more storytelling.

            How do I “know”? You just believe. It’s that simple. But I’m not passing off my belief as science, so attacking my beliefs does not excuse passing off your beliefs that never happen as science.

            The claim “there’s no God in the universe” is only a belief – to claim it’s fact is dishonest, unless the person is claiming to be omniscient about everything in the entire universe.

            I’m lying that Christians are not censored?
            You mean valedictorian’s microphones are not turned off if they mention Christ?
            You mean people are not forbidden from talking about Christ in a classroom?
            You mean people are not bullied for handing out tracts on the street about Christ and with greater frequency shut down by police?
            You mean crosses are not forcibly removed anywhere except at a church?

            If you read other news sources besides liberal propaganda networks, you’d know more facts and not have to resort to calling those who know things you’re ignorant of “liars”.

            So please show nothing creating something, not someone saying they believe it’s possible because of equations they put on paper.

          • Woody Chuck

            “How do I “know”? You just believe.

            LOL! Thank for admitting that you don’t know. The rest of your reply can be as easily dismissed as what you believe, not what you know. Thanks for playing.

            P.S. Research the meaning of the word “science” before you further embarrass yourself by misusing it – if that’s possible.

        • Woody Chuck

          “If the majority in that instance want it and since the VAST majority of this country is Christian, that’s the belief that will be brought up most often. That’s liberty and that’s freedom.”

          WOW! You’re dumber than I thought. The law of the the land is the Constitution, not xian majority mob rule. The Bill Of Rights is expressly designed to protect INDIVIDUAL rights from mobs such as yours -THAT’S liberty and THAT’S freedom. Don’t ignore the tyranny of the majority simply because you belong to that
          majority.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, the Constitution is the law of the land, and by the Constitution on a case by case basis We The People have the right to decide to exercise our religious beliefs by talking about them if we so choose.

            And yet your atheist mob is the one you think has rights over everyone else.

            If a certain place wants to put up a display showing how bananas and human beings supposedly have the same great………great grandparents (what evolutionists are forced to claim to believe in), and most of the people in that area agree with it, then have at it. You have that right.

            If a certain place wants to put up a display about God, and most of the people in that area agree with it, then they can have at it. They have that right.

            Except according to you – you’re demanding only you have the right to do any such thing. Thanks for showing you’re about mob rule, tyranny and more, but call all others attempts at expressing other views as “mob rule”, “tyranny” and so on.

            The difference between us: I don’t try to censor you – you try to censor Christianity and then call THEM “mob rule” – the irony is almost humorous.

            Take care – since you’ve sunken to immature insults, I leave it up to readers to decide.

        • Paul Hiett

          Yet you seem to have no issue in believing in a deity that also formed from nothing.

    • Paul Hiett

      Now see, this is the hypocrisy I am talking about. You have no issue with Christianity being pushed in public schools, but then take issue when students are exposed to Islam.

      Admit it, you want a theocracy in this country where your religion is the only legal one to follow.

      • Woody Chuck

        Hypocrisy, deceit, and dishonesty is the foundation of xianity.

        • Paul Hiett

          “Hypocrisy, deceit, and dishonesty is the foundation of religion”

          Slightly adjusted…

          • Woody Chuck

            I would say that xianity and islam are intentionally dishonest while some older religions are simply the result of ignorance.

          • Paul Hiett

            They had no choice but to be dishonest, otherwise those religions would also have died out much as the others have, but they also had the sword to help “spread” their beliefs. I have no doubt that had Constantine adopted Islam as the official religion of Rome, that the US would be Muslim at this time as well.

          • Woody Chuck

            “They had no choice but to be dishonest…”

            You hit the nail on the head.

  • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

    “He explained that the district is working on an alternative where students may participate in after-school clubs, which may include a religious club with Turner. Childers said that Turner is not being banned from schools altogether.” This seems like a good solution. Nobody should be forced into something they don’t want to be involved with. I as a Christian do not support the FFRF and other efforts I’ve seen, however in this particular case, I think a group setting where he can come teach the gospel will keep the FFRF off of the back of the school. However, if all of the parents except for one, were to say it’s ok if my child attends this assembly, and there is one parent that doesn’t want their child there, it may be relevant to point out that those parents that don’t mind would have an equal right to the parent that does mind, to include their children, as the one parent would exclude their child. But I’m convinced that a group setting is a more appropriate response in this situation.

    • Paul Hiett

      Perhaps they should host it at a local church?

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        Although they could, since the children and possibly the parents are already at school it makes sense to hold it where the kids are. I see no reason to isolate it to a church. We all have freedoms to express in public those things appropriate, in this particular situation appropriate would be to those that would want to attend.

        • Paul Hiett

          Public schools are not grounds for pushing religion, sorry. Tax payers pay for these schools, and not all tax payers are Christian. This is why we have laws in place that prohibit pushing religion, ANY religion, in our public school systems.

          Churches enjoy being tax-free…this is where things like this belong, period. This is also why the law supports the expulsion of this “Bible man” and his assemblies.

          Furthermore, who is this guy trying to convert? Why is he at a public school in the first place? Schools are not responsible for preaching religion to children, that is the parents responsibility, and, if they so choose, that of their Priest/Pastor, etc. It seems to me that Christians are lobbying for this man to be at public schools in order to try and convert children who are not Christian.

          This is exactly why we need to continue to enforce the separation of Church and State.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I understand your position. I’m an advocate (though some will disagree) for putting God back into schools. In this situation if the majority of taxpayers are supporting this man and his efforts it should be they, the parents that have the ultimate say in that matter, again in this particular situation. Nobody will be forced to attend, from what I see. I’m from the grey hair generation where there was no problems or no efforts by an FFRA group against prayer, or the words “under God” when the pledge of alliagance is said in schools as an example. I don’t remember their being as much disrespect from us as kids back then, as I do now in the public school systems. These are not mandatory things that parents or kids have to attend, they are supported by the majority of the taxpayers in this situation, at least according to the article. There was only one complaint made. Again, groups would be the best way to resolve this issue, making them voluntary. If the government mandated a particular religion that would be a violation of the constitution, but it’s not a mandated issue. Religion is still a part of our government in the form of prayer meetings and the placement of religious symbols in state capitals and even in the Chamber of Congress. There seems to be some confusion related to separation of church and state. It was designed in order that our government could not mandate a particular religion to citizens.

          • Woody Chuck

            ” putting God back into schools”

            “God” was never in public schools, not to the degree that you want to believe or that you want us to think. Furthermore, “God” is an imaginary being that, regardless of the Constitution, has no more business being in the schools than does Zeus or Mohammad.

            “Again, groups would be the best way to resolve this issue, making them voluntary.”

            Those already exist at churches of any religion. This issue is about proselytizing to school children, nothing else. Stay out of schools.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Oh please spare me the atheist line.

          • Woody Chuck

            There is no “atheist line” anymore than there is an “aleprechanist line.” What you label an “atheist line” is simply the reaction against the “theist line.”

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Argue against this person: I just happen to agree with the book.

            Finding Truth: Five Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes.

            A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself….

            An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.

            But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.

            Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement?

            Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.

            Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie.

            Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide.

            Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false.

            To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.

            So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.

            A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.”

            On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.”

            Darwin’s Selective Skepticism

            People are sometimes under the impression that Darwin himself recognized the problem. They typically cite Darwin’s famous “horrid doubt” passage where he questions whether the human mind can be trustworthy if it is a product of evolution: “With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.”

            But, of course, Darwin’s theory itself was a “conviction of man’s mind.” So why should it be “at all trustworthy”?

            Surprisingly, however, Darwin never confronted this internal contradiction in this theory. Why not? Because he expressed his “horrid doubt” selectively — only when considering the case for a Creator.

            From time to time, Darwin admitted that he still found the idea of God persuasive. He once confessed his “inward conviction … that the Universe is not the result of chance.” It was in the next sentence that he expressed his “horrid doubt.” So the “conviction” he mistrusted was his lingering conviction that the universe is not the result of chance.

            In another passage Darwin admitted, “I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man.” Again, however, he immediately veered off into skepticism: “But then arises the doubt — can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?”

            That is, can it be trusted when it draws “grand conclusions” about a First Cause? Perhaps the concept of God is merely an instinct programmed into us by natural selection, Darwin added, like a monkey’s “instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.”

            In short, it was on occasions when Darwin’s mind led him to a theistic conclusion that he dismissed the mind as untrustworthy. He failed to recognize that, to be logically consistent, he needed to apply the same skepticism to his own theory.

            Modern followers of Darwin still apply the theory selectively. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote, “Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature,” in which “mind, spirit, and God as well, are just words that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity.” In other words, God is an idea that appears in the human mind when the electrical circuitry of the brain has evolved to a certain level of complexity.

            To be logically consistent, however, Gould should turn the same skepticism back onto Darwin’s ideas, which he never did. Gould applied his evolutionary skepticism selectively — to discredit the idea of God.

            Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”

            Just so. Science itself is at stake. John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that according to atheism, “the mind that does science … is the end product of a mindless unguided process. Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn’t trust it. So, to me atheism undermines the rationality I need to do science.”

            Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.

            The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments.

          • Woody Chuck

            Wow, you’re desperate enough to C&P paragraph after paragraph of something that you don’t even understand, thinking that I’m getting into some half-ass debate with you over it? Think again.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            So don’t have a debate with me. You mean to say I don’t understand what? You made the statement that Evolution is fact not me.

          • Woody Chuck

            I only made that statement in response to some idiot introducing it into the discussion as it being a belief when it isn’t.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Ok glad you cleared that up.

          • Paul Hiett

            The best way to handle this situation is for this “Bible man” to host his assemblies at a church, where it belongs, and NOT in a public school.

            Now, if the school wants to rent out the auditorium for an after school program, no big deal.

            During school hours? Kids have to see that in their face? Nope. I would have complained as well.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I know you would, because you don’t believe in God. What you consider to be the best situation is not what I consider to be the best situation. The Word of God belongs to the world. It always has. I’ve already stated that groups seem the most appropriate.

        • Woody Chuck

          “I see no reason to isolate it to a church.”

          Nobody mentioned “isolate it to a church.”

          But while you’re at it, why not allow any group with an agenda to present it at a place “where the kids are?”

          What you and your ilk don’t understand is that public schools aren’t a public place. Never mind the Constitution, that you can’t see the stupidity of such ideas is incredible.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            There has been plenty of discussion on that topic. Primarily that is what the FFRA wants to do. Remove God from the public, keep him in the privacy of their own homes and churches. I ask why? If people want to attend these gatherings, they should be able to without someone going nutso over it. You’re saying that public schools aren’t public places? Is a state capital a public place, is the Chamber of Congress a public place. Of course it is a public place. When you say any group, what group or groups are you referring to? I said appropriate, and included in this particular situation.

          • Woody Chuck

            Really? You think a school is a “public place?” Try simply strolling into a public school classroom and see what happens.

            “what group or groups are you referring to? I said appropriate”

            Who decides what’s appropriate? You?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Again, what group or groups are you referring to. I can enter a public school and get my child out for most any reason. Is that public. Yes, I believe it is.

        • Woody Chuck

          LOL! The public school that your child attends is a place at which you have business when you have a reason to be there. You’re desperate…

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            When it comes to a discussion like this, there is nothing desperate about it. You moved way beyond the issue, and the article. Why continue a circular logical fallacy?

          • Woody Chuck

            Beyond the issue? The issue is about allowing a school to be used for the purpose of xian proselytizing, and my comment about a school not being a public place is relevant to that. There’s no circular logical fallacy involved.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Of course there is. You’re saying the same thing over and over again as if by chance something will change. The reality is you’re opinion is your opinion. I don’t agree with it. That should be clear by now.

          • Woody Chuck

            You obviously don’t understand the concept of a circular logical fallacy.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Really, I have a whole list of logical fallacies. So far you have met most of them.

            Ad Hominem–Attacking the individual instead of the argument.

            Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn’t possibly be true.

            Example: I figured that you couldn’t possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.

            Appeal to Force–Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.

            Example: If you don’t want to get beaten up, you will agree with what I say.

            Example: Convert or die.

            Appeal to Pity–Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.

            Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.

            Example: Oh come on, I’ve been sick. That’s why I missed the deadline.

            Appeal to the Popular–Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

            Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.

            Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn’t you?

            Appeal to Tradition–Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.

            Example: This is the way we’ve always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.

            Example: The Catholic church’s tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.

            Begging the Question–Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.

            Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.

            Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple: I will vouch for him.

            Cause and Effect–assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.

            Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.

            Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.

            Circular Argument–See Begging the Question

            Fallacy of Composition–Assuming that what is true of the part is true for the whole.

            Example: That engine is blue. Therefore, the car is blue.

            Example: You are weird. That means that your family is weird, too.

            Fallacy of Division–Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.

            Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue.

            Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird, too.

            Fallacy of Equivocation–Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.

            Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.

            Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.

            False Dilemma–Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.

            Example: You either did knock the glass over, or you did not. Which is it? (Someone else could have knocked the glass over).

            Example: Do you still beat your wife?

            Genetic Fallacy–Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim.

            Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not buy a VW Beetle because of who started it.

            Example: Frank just got out of jail last year; since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can’t trust him.

            Guilt by Association–Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone whom is disliked by another.

            Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad.

            Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you.

            Non Sequitur–Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.

            Example: We know why it rained today: because I washed my car.

            Example: I don’t care what you say. We don’t need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine.

            Poisoning the Well–Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person’s argument.

            Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let’s hear what Frank has to say about the subject.

            Example: Don’t listen to him because he is a loser.

            Red Herring–Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand.

            Example: I know your car isn’t working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you’d not be having problems.

            Example: I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you.

            Special Pleading (double standard)–Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself.

            Example: You can’t possibly understand menopause because you are a man.

            Example: Those rules don’t apply to me since I am older than you.

            Straw Man Argument–Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it.

            Example: The government doesn’t take care of the poor because it doesn’t have a tax specifically to support the poor.

            Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.

            Category Mistake–Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property. Attributing facts of one kind are attributed to another kind. Attributing to one category that which can only be properly attributed to another.

            Example: Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.

            Example: Saying logic is transcendental is like saying cars would exist if matter didn’t.

        • Lark62

          Public schools have no business gathering up students so religious people can proselytize more efficiently. Student run clubs that meet outside of school hours are legal, and can be religious, secular or whatever. School personnel cannot lead or direct religious clubs.

          If adults want to proselytize to a captive audience of small children, they have to gather the children themselves. They cannot use governmental authority to help promote their religion.

  • Nedd Kareiva

    I can tell you with virtual certainty that there is no plaintiff in this case. The rabid FFRF always mentions a phantom whiner as reason to stop things like this. The FFRF is essentially threatening litigation on its own because of its own hatred for Christianity. They need to be called out and demanded to identify their plaintiff or else withdraw. The FFRF is evil.

    • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

      I have to agree with you on your point.

      • Woody Chuck

        Of course you do. Nuts of a feather, flock together.

        • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

          Again off subject

          • Woody Chuck

            The subject isn’t the FFRF being good or evil.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Who said the FFRF was being God? Strange statement. Are you in support of the FFRF? I would say based on the comments you’re making it is exactly what his point was. Your an angry atheist, but why are you angry? Just because someone doesn’t agree with you should not be a reason for you to moan about it. Just relax and talk about the article. At least there will be a point you can make. The rest of what you say has been hyperbole

          • Woody Chuck

            God was a typo that I immediately corrected to good – as if the content wasn’t clear enough for you to understand anyway.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            lol, oh ok. Not important.

          • Woody Chuck

            Not important now that it makes you and you friend look like idiots.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Another logical fallacy, keep going, I’m sure you’ll include them all at some point lol.

    • Woody Chuck

      “The FFRF is evil.”

      Compared to men of god, aka Catholic priests, I’d say they’re not at all evil.

      • Nedd Kareiva

        OK, I see where you’re going by the small “g” so I’m not going there. That aside, we’re also not talking about Catholic priests. You’re off the subject. It’s obvious you have a grudge with the Christian faith. That’s too bad cuz you will answer to Him one day, regardless of whether you believe He exists. Because He does.

        • Woody Chuck

          You have no knowledge of that, making you a liar.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Prove it! The burden of proof is upon you, dufus.

          • Woody Chuck

            I already did prove that you’re a liar, unless you want to provide evidence of your sky fairy.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Sky fairy? You’re funny. That avatar – is that what you look like? You are hilarious.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            I see you are still trying to figure what to say. Well, don’t worry. I’m ready when you are. You’re not going to win this one, I guarantee it.

          • Paul Hiett

            So prove your deity exists. If it’s true, it shouldn’t be that hard.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            You prove that He doesn’t, Paul. Seriously, you’re going to tell me that the earth, the universe and all its structure one day came together just by happenstance? I have a bridge over Chicago to sell you if you seriously think that. The burden of proof is upon you to prove there is no God. That is a gargantuan task. Good luck at it. Ps. 14 & 53 says the fool says there is no God. In God’s eyes (and mine), you are one.

          • Paul Hiett

            Were your parents Christian?

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Both deceased, one backslidden.

          • Paul Hiett

            But were they Christian too?

        • Paul Hiett

          “regardless of whether you believe He exists. Because He does.”

          Said every follower of every religion ever created.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            The burden of proof is upon you to prove that God doesn’t exist.

          • Paul Hiett

            Let me get this straight…the burden of proof is on me to prove the FFRF’s plaintiff exists, but then the burden of proof is also on me to prove your deity doesn’t exist?

            Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statements?

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statements?

          • Paul Hiett

            I can see why you are a “former” director. Got the boot, did you?

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Nope, didn’t but that is none of your business anyway.

          • Paul Hiett

            Thought so. When you don’t have the maturity to respond to a question, but instead parrot it, it exposes your character.

            Just thought you’d like to know.

    • Woody Chuck

      “I can tell you with virtual certainty that there is no plaintiff in this case”

      I can tell you with absolute certainty that you don’t have a clue about what you speak.

      • Nedd Kareiva

        I can tell you with absolute authority that I know a heckuva lot more about the legal arena than you ever will & you don’t know what the hades you are talking about. Don’t think so? I’ll challenge you to a public debate on this. So put up or shut up.

        • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

          Excellent.

        • Woody Chuck

          I challenge you to provide ANY FFRF case wherein there wasn’t a plaintiff. Your legal knowledge or lack thereof is irrelevant to any knowledge about a specific case and its plaintiff.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            I would but you see, all you want to do is argue. You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re not entitled to the facts. But since you claim I am wrong, the burden of proof is upon you that I am. I don’t think you can cut the mustard, bub.

          • Paul Hiett

            If the burden of proof is now on the person claiming the positive, by all means, prove that your deity exists.

            I doubt you can “cut the mustard, bub”.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            The earth, the universe, mankind, animals, etc. all prove there is a creator. The onus is on you to prove God doesn’t exist.

            I’m waiting.

          • Woody Chuck

            “The earth, the universe, mankind, animals, etc. all prove there is a creator.”

            Why?

    • Paul Hiett

      So you have proof that there’s no plaintiff? By all means, prove it.

      • Nedd Kareiva

        You prove that there is. Contact them on Monday.

        • Paul Hiett

          I don’t need to prove that there is. You are the one making the claim that there isn’t a plaintiff. Ergo, the burden of proof is now on you.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Nope, I don’t have to, Paul. But I can tell you from being the former director of Stop the ACLU that I have read many cases like that. When certain public officials facing these suits want to know who the complainant is, FFRF or the ACLU or similar group won’t release the name of the person or reveal even the minutest details. In certain cases the ACLU will write letters to communities (Arkansas is one of those states) to ask the public if they would join them in a legal challenge. Most of the time no one responds, thus they cannot sue or they will try with a phantom plaintiff. I can assure that there are way too many with the FFRF that it is highly unlikely they have anyone. I can back that up by telling you that on their website they often do list plaintiffs’ names when they have them. You can choose not to believe me; that is your prerogative but I know what I’m talking about.

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you have proof that the FFRF does not have a plaintiff? It’s a simple question, requiring either a “yes” or “no” response.

          • Paul Hiett

            Funny…when you can’t provide any proof, you run.

    • Lark62

      Read about Jessica Ahlquist and others who dared to ask that their government remain neutral on religion – fhe rape and death threats were so bad she had to drop out of school. It is common for complainants to remain anonymous to avoid all that jesus love.

      • Nedd Kareiva

        I am familiar with that case as that involved a high school girl from Rhode Island. I do not dispute that there were some unsavory elements that railed on her but I also believe the parts about death threats (not aware of the rape ones) were exaggerated by the media. Whilst I cannot condone threats against such individuals, when one person claims to be offended at the expense of 98% of those that had no issue with the long-standing banner, that is a problem. Jessica was a rabble rouser inspired by her atheist dad. The FFRF was involved with that case as well. And if memory serves me correctly, the FFRF tried forcing a florist who refused to create a bouquet of flowers for Jessica under a veiled threat of law to do so. For a group like them to force a private business to compel them to do a transaction they are not comfortable in doing smacks of tyranny at the highest level. Would you not agree that threatening legal action for not doing a business transaction is an act of tyranny? This is one reason they are despised even more than the American Communist Lawyers Union.

        The 1st Amendment absolutely guarantees freedom of speech and belief but it does mean gov’t officials check their 1st Amendment rights at the door either. Whining atheists gotta stop being offended by every little thing. No one forced Jessica to view that banner and as such, the school had no business removing something that had not offended anyone for nearly half a century. That poor soul needs help.

        • Paul Hiett

          Why is it so hard for you to understand that NO religion has a place in our public schools?

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Why are you such a [email protected] that you can’t understand the 1st Amendment?

          • Paul Hiett

            Ah yes, the Christian method of talking…resort to play ground insults. By the way, I did a little research on you.

            Found a letter by you regarding the Dobrich case, the one where you start off with “dykey is bigoted”.

            I see you love to resort to personal attacks. I think we’ve seen all we need to see from you, to know exactly what kind of a person you really are.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            I see you couldn’t answer the question why you are such a [email protected] You’re no different than the Pharisees that existed in Jesus’ day.

            Ask me if I care about whatever research you did, little boy.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re a shining beacon for Christianity.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Thank you.

          • Paul Hiett

            I think we know why “stop the aclu” is a joke and shut down in 2012. Meanwhile, the ACLU keeps on trucking!!!!

          • Nedd Kareiva

            It shut down far before 2012.

            Yeah, the ACLU continues trucking, as you say. But I’ll give them this much: they don’t publicly express hatred for Christianity like the FFRF wack jobs.

            I see you don’t have much of a life since you seem to get your joys out of attacking those you disagree with. I pity you, little boy.

        • Lark62

          It is well established that freedom of speech does not include the right for a place of business to refuse to serve a person based on religion. To refuse to deliver flowers because you dislike a person’s religious view is illegal. It is also petty, nasty and plain mean. An elected official publicly referring to Jessica as an “evil little thing” was also nasty.

          You know that keeping religion out of schools has nothing to do with “being offended” and has everything to do with respect for our nation, our Constitution and the freedom we cherish. No public school or other arm of the government gets to pick one religious viewpoint to promote as the good religion. This protects christians too.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Why do you support forced business practices? That is a tyranny our Founders would condemn. Anyone should feel free to refuse to do business with homosexuals the same way they might refuse to do business with a Muslim or someone who is improperly dressed. I am a big free market person and I do not condone people like you that feel businesses should be compelled to serve others – FOR ANY REASON.

            Now granted, if a business owner chooses not to service someone and ultimately goes out of business because of racist or religious practices, that’s just the way it goes. If you want to do business with someone & that person refuses, you are free to go elsewhere to spend your money. You cannot coerce anyone to do whatever it is you want them to do. The 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion applies to all, even to those you do not personally approve of.

            For the record, there is a quite a difference between educating someone in a non-classroom setting about the Bible and another one preaching the tenets of the Christian faith. The former is constitutionally permitted. The latter is not.

            If you cherish freedom, let people express their faith the way they wish. You are free to ignore those whom you doctrinally disagree with. You’re not free to shut them up.

            Thanks for writing.

          • Lark62

            I support anti discrimination laws because that’s the type of world I prefer to live in. I don’t want to live in s society where people cannot eat at a lunch counter because if the color of their skin, even though my skin color is different.

            I believe that businesses prosper in part because of the infrastructure of roads and utilities and police and fire protection and other features of our society. Don’t believe me? How well would a bakery thrive in Somalia? With rights come responsibilities. We as a society have determined our society works best and prospers without discrimination. Business owners have a responsibility to treat people equally.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            You don’t cherish freedom, pardner. To compel someone to do business with someone they don’t want to is unAmerican. Now if that business is subsidized with tax dollars (which none should but the Obama Administration has done so with certain automakers and environmental groups), then you have a case. Business owners have a responsibility to financially ensure their establishments are safe for all and they contribute a fair portion in tax dollars. They should not be compelled by the likes of you to comport with anyone they do not wish to for any reason. To do so is tyrannical. Unfortunately, that’s what you seem to support which is repugnant to me.

            As to your last paragraph, you created a straw man. We’re not talking about restaurant owners saying we’re not going to serve you. We’re talking about establishments like florists, bakeries, photographers putting their personal imprimatur on specific orders. I never said or implied a restaurant should deny anyone service (though if they reek of alcohol, then absolutely). Most people don’t have a conscience issue serving anyone hetero or homo. If I ran a buffet, I would welcome all to eat with me. But if I’m asked to cater a celebration of two men or two women getting married, that’s an entirely different story.

            Then again, maybe I should. I could then tell them that the entire cost of doing so will go to a cause they oppose, like a pro-traditional marriage group. You know, there is a way to fight fire with fire if push comes to shove.

          • woody__chuck

            “They should not be compelled by the likes of you to comport with anyone they do not wish to for any reason.”

            First of all, following the law is not being “compelled by the likes of you.”

            Second, how is following the law not to discriminate “putting their personal imprimatur on specific orders?” If I ask a baker to make a cake for someone who turned fifty that says “YOU’RE WAY OVER THE HILL NOW!” on it, is that baker “putting their personal imprimatur” on the “worth” of that person?

          • Nedd Kareiva

            I think you need to find yourself a paid job instead of endlessly wasting your time (and mine) trying to convince those who do not concur with your specious arguments. I would have far more respect for you if you simply said, “I hate Christianity & Christians and want their voices shut up”.

            As for someone who is well over 50, I know I’m getting over the hill. But I can’t control that. Someone is not likely to refuse to making a cake for someone because of their age, something one can’t control. However, it’s quite a difference from endorsing acts & behaviors from people whose [email protected] choices are contrary to natural & human order. In short, one cannot change their age. One can change whom they share their bodies with. Big difference. Huge difference. Thanks for writing.

          • woody__chuck

            “I think you need to find yourself a paid job instead of endlessly wasting your time (and mine) trying to convince those who do not concur with your specious arguments.”

            LOL! You make such a comment after what you did with stoptheACLU?!

            “Someone is not likely to refuse to making a cake for someone because of their age”

            That’s not what I asked you about. You either can’t read or you intentionally changed the example in order to avoid the obvious answer.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            OK, my answer to your last silly question is YES, HE IS.

            There, do you feel better now?

            Meanwhile, a suggestion – keep your big trap shut (AKA hands on keyboard) so you don’t put yourself in litigation risk as you did earlier cuz the next time I see a slanderous, libelous or defamatory name about me on a public post from you will be the next time you hear from my lawyer (can you say financial damages?).

          • woody__chuck

            “OK, my answer to your last silly question is YES, HE IS.”

            So, when a baker places a slogan “YOU’RE WAY OVER THE HILL NOW!” on a cake he is “putting their personal imprimatur” on the “worth” of that person without meeting or knowing anything about that person for whom the cake was made (the person whose birthday it is)? Do I correctly understand you?

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Yup. Now run along & find something more productive to do with your time.

          • woody__chuck

            Thanks for admitting that in your world a slogan on a cake amounts to a “personal imprimatur” of the baker.

            Now we know in what context to place your comments and claims.

            “Now run along & find something more productive to do with your time.”

            Says the “former director of Stop the ACLU.”

          • woody__chuck

            “You don’t cherish freedom, pardner.”

            I do – the freedom to conduct my life without discrimination on the basis of my sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation – or any other basis. That would include my freedom to operate a business as a member of any one of those groups even if my community objected to it, as well as my obligation to extend that freedom from discrimination to my customers.

            If you don’t want to bake a cake for people you don’t like, then don’t be in the cake baking business – it’s pretty simple.

            Just as you see freedom as the right to discriminate, others see it as freedom from discrimination. What makes your version right and theirs wrong?

            Don’t ignore the tyranny of the majority simply because you belong to that majority.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Are you a [email protected]? Are you brain dead (judging by your avatar, I would say so)? I told you this discussion is over. You’re not going to persuade me and I’m not going to persuade you. What part of “this is over” don’t you understand?

          • woody__chuck

            I’m not attempting to persuade. I’m simply asking you to explain your position and why one that isn’t yours is wrong.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            If you’re not trying to persuade me, then why do you continue wasting your time & mine trying to do so? I’ve posted many comments about this issue & why I believe what I believe is right so I don’t know what else you want me to say that I haven’t said. If you want to meet somewhere in a public setting and have a debate on the Constitution and matters like this, then that is a debate I am delighted to have. Let me know & I’ll be happy to make the arrangements.

          • woody__chuck

            I have the same right to express my opinion here as you.

            You also have the right not to respond, or if you don’t like people responding to you comments, then don’t post comments.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            And I have the right to ask Christian News to ban you, which I am going to do. The Huffington Post is calling you.

          • woody__chuck

            Is discrimination a two-way street. For example, if a predominately white city decides to ban black owned and operated businesses, how would you react to that?

        • woody__chuck

          “I do not dispute that there were some unsavory elements that railed on her”

          aka, xians.

          “but I also believe the parts about death threats (not aware of the rape ones) were exaggerated by the media.”

          What you believe is irrelevant.

          “Whining atheists gotta stop being offended by every little thing.”

          You mean like xians do when they are forced BY LAW to stop proselyting in public schools?

          “the school had no business removing something that had not offended anyone for nearly half a century.”

          Xian mob rule isn’t the law. The Constitution and Constitutional jurisprudence is. Do you ever ponder why you’re always on the wrong side of it?

          “That poor soul needs help.”

          Oh, the irony…

    • FoJC_Forever

      Those who reject Jesus Christ also reject Truth, for He is Truth. They will lie and scheme, because they are under the control of their carnal nature and its father, the Devil.

      They gloat and revel in their arrogant unbelief now, and maybe one day they will see the Light and receive Salvation, but they won’t be gloating or reveling when they appear before Jesus Christ for Judgement.

      • Nedd Kareiva

        Right you are on all counts – and I hope that judgment comes soon. Thanks for a good message and a counter to the evil supporters posting here.

        • woody__chuck

          Which “evil supporters posting here?”

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Hey, bozo, listen up & listen good. If you write me one more post, just one more, I will write the moderator & ask the he remove all your posts & ban you. I’ve had enough discussions with you. If you are too idiotic to have nothing else to do but engage in useless banter, then that is your problem. Do not write & harass me any more. Am I clear (don’t answer with a response)?

    • Woody Chuck

      “I can tell you with virtual certainty…”

      Because that’s all he has. If he had any actual evidence, then he would present it. I could say that Nedd needs ” to be called out,” but there’s no reason to when it’s obvious he’s a fraud.

      • Nedd Kareiva

        If I’m a fraud, then the onus is on you to prove it. If you can’t, then I can initiate litigation against you for making a reckless statement that the public can see in a forum like this that can harm my reputation as a peaceful law abiding Christian. I suggest you publicly retract your comment before you hear from my lawyer. I am unafraid to go after worthless debris like you.

        • woody__chuck

          OK – I retract use of the term fraud.

          Is it your OPINION that FFRF is “evil” and “The rabid FFRF always mentions a phantom whiner as reason to stop things like this?” Which FFRF plantiffs are “phantom whiners?” Define how the FFRF is “evil.”

          Would you consider the FFRF to be “evil” if there was a “Koran-man” issue to similar to this one? That is to say, an outsider coming to a public school to promote Islam?

    • woody__chuck

      “there is no plaintiff in this case.”

      What case? Has a case been filed?

  • Lark62

    Read what the parents said “We want our children to hear about jesus.” Don’t you think it is petty likely their kids already have heard about Jesus? So what is reason, really? It is either to use the public school to get other people’s kids to disregard the religious instruction they they at home, or to make christian kids feel good by telling them the school authority says their religion is the good one.

    Neither is a good reason.

  • FoJC_Forever

    A child has the Right, endowed to them by their Creator, to express the Faith, Hope, and Love of Jesus Christ when they are at school.

    • Lark62

      Yes they do. Students have the absolute right to practice the religion of their choice. Which is exactly why TEACHERS cannot direct, instruct, encourage or otherwise coerce children to pray to someone else’s god. That is why the Principal cannot pick one religious tradition to promote.

      Get it?

      Every single child gets to attend public school without being told by school employees that his religious beliefs are wrong.

      • FoJC_Forever

        That’s not what happened in this school.

        Atheists not only want to quell a students right to freedom of expression, they also want to remove any reference to God and Christianity by anyone in the schools. This is not only a violation of the Constitution, it’s a violation of people’s individual Rights – as endowed by the Creator.

        Expressing religious belief in a public school is not establishing a specific sect of religion which has to be joined and obeyed by law.

        • woody__chuck

          “they also want to remove any reference to God and Christianity by anyone in the schools.”

          Just as xians want with Allah and Islam in the schools.

        • Lark62

          No.They.Do.Not.

          I am an atheist, and I do not want that. I have never talked to any atheist who wants to deny STUDENTS their constitutional rights.

          This is about the taxpayer paid adult employees in a public school bringing in an adult to talk to a captive audience of children to get the children to adopt the preferred religion of the adults. This is illegal. It is also wrong. This is also unkind, disrespectful, arrogant and nasty.

          This is the use of the government authority to promote one religious view, and it has been repeated found to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

          Can you put yourself in someone else’s shoes? Would you like it if the principal at your kid’s school actively tried to get your children to abandon the religious instruction you taught them? Would you like it if the teachers clearly and repeatedly communicated that “good children” are not christian?

          I will fight for the right of EVERY SINGLE STUDENT to practice their chosen religion or non-religion free of any interference from the school. I will fight for the right of EVERY SINGLE STUDENT to be free from religious coercion. This means that the adults at the school must refrain from promoting one religion with prayers or assemblies or posters.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Atheists have continued to assault our religious rights as stated in the Constitution.

            “Attendance is voluntary.” Stated plainly in the article.

            Children were not compelled to attend.

          • woody__chuck

            “Atheists have continued to assault our religious rights as stated in the Constitution.”

            Which religious right? Please quote it from the Constitution.

          • FoJC_Forever

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

            A teacher or school administrator allowing a person to come into a school and speak about his religious beliefs is not passing a law to establish a religion. Atheists want all religious reference, especially that of Christianity, removed from schools. Schools are also protected from the government limiting the expression of religion.

          • woody__chuck

            “A teacher or school administrator allowing a person to come into a school and speak about his religious beliefs is not passing a law to establish a religion”

            You obviously don’t understand the concept of a non-sequitur – which your reply is. You didn’t quote any right that was being “assaulted” by atheists.

          • woody__chuck

            “Schools are also protected from the government limiting the expression of religion.”

            Public schools are, in effect, the government.

          • Lark62

            It is settled case law that a person acting with the authority of the government cannot pick one religion to promote. In their private life, that’s different.

          • FoJC_Forever

            All “settled” case law can be changed. This law should be changed, if it is truly settled as you claim, to protect the rights of every citizen whether in private or the public square.

            The real issue is that the Wicked want to ban Christianity from being expressed and will dicker over terms in their quest to promote the Antichrist’s agenda.

            Judgement is coming.

          • Lark62

            Ooohhh. Someone online threatened me with hell. I’m sooooo scared.

            Seriously, you and all other christians and every citizen of this country has the right to practice their own religion. I will stand with you to defend that right.

            But you do not have the right to use government authority to cause someone else to observe your religion. And I will fight any attempt by any person to use government authority to declare one religious viewpoint as the favored one or preferred one.

          • woody__chuck

            “Children were not compelled to attend.”

            Children aren’t adults and most aren’t capable to think as adults. Children are cruel to other children that aren’t a member of a peer group. In order to avoid being persecuted, children will submit to peer pressure in order to fit in. They are “compelled.” This is one reason why such assemblies shouldn’t be held during regular school hours, or even at the school at all. Why is it an issue for such programs to held at a place other than public schools not during school hours? If a parent wants their child to know Jesus, then a church is the place for it.

            From news reports:

            The mom, who chooses to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, told WCRB in Chattanooga that she did not intend to make people angry, she just wanted her child to have an alternative to Bible Man’s proselytizing.

            “We don’t want people to be mad, we just want people to make sure there’s an alternative something for the kids to do,” she told the NBC affiliate. “At first he did not know that he didn’t have to go. As he got older, it bothered him that he had to sit through this because it’s not his religion.”

    • Woody Chuck

      “the Right, endowed to them by their Creator”

      Obviously this creator is better at endowing rights in some parts of the world than he is in others.

    • YouSoSilly

      Amen!

    • woody__chuck

      “A child has the Right..”

      But only to a limited degree, and not at the expense of other children’s rights. Xians aren’t entitled to special rights, even though they think they are.

    • woody__chuck

      “the Right, endowed to them by their Creator”

      US rights are established in the Bill Of Rights, whose authority is “We the people,” not some imaginary creator.

      • FoJC_Forever

        God isn’t imaginary. This Truth you will discover one Day.

        • woody__chuck

          Really? One would think that your imaginary god would simply reveal himself now instead of one day.

  • Woody Chuck

    Remember this when “debating” with an xian – this isn’t about Constitutional rights nor “Freedom Of Religion.” This is about right-wing xian nuts demanding access to school children for the simple purposes of proselytizing to, indoctrinating, and brainwashing them to be a part of their cult of xianity. If this was Koran-man rather than Bible-man, you can bet your ass they would be up in arms over it.

    • YouSoSilly

      HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!! Cult…You so silly

      • woody__chuck

        Cult – a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

        Jesus – also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity,whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God. Christianity regards Jesus as the awaited Messiah (or “Christ”) of the Old Testament and refers to him as Jesus Christ.

  • Lizard

    Religious people are creepy.

    • YouSoSilly

      Coming from a guy who has a once famous musician who OD’d on drugs as a profile pic. You’re a credible source

      • woody__chuck

        “You’re a credible source”

        Says the person who believes an avatar is indicative of credibility.

  • Bor1am

    I wonder how well Koran Man would go over?

  • penny0314

    What inaccurate reporting! The requirements are that (1) the assemblies not be mandatory; (2) it be made abundantly clear to kids and parents that the activity is 100% voluntary; and (3) suitable alternative activities need to be made available for those children who do not want to attend, or whose parents do not wish them to attend. This was NOT a request that this guy be banned from the schools, unless these conditions are not met. This woman did not want her name published because some of you lovely Christians have threatened her with physical violence and the arson of her home. Really? Is that Christianity in operation? I wouldn’t want any part of that kind of Christianity, either!

  • woody__chuck

    “Constitutional Kryptonite: ‘Bible Man’ Assemblies Banned At Tenn. Public Schools”

    Read more at au dot org

  • YouSoSilly

    lol!!! Silly Athiests, here how it works in the end (which is when it matters), if Christians die and we are wrong and you are right then NOTHING is lost; ultimately, we lived a more fulfilled life aiming for a greater eternity and living a more fulfilled existence. However, if Christians are right and there is a God then He will decide ALL of our fates.

    • woody__chuck

      YouSoSilly – fitting name for someone who doesn’t understand the fallacy of Pascal’s wager or any version thereof.

    • woody__chuck

      “He will decide ALL of our fates.”

      If he decides our fates, then we can’t change them. So much for choice…

  • YouSoSilly

    Plus, why are Athiests so determined to kill God for everyone?! If God was so fake then why is it so necessary to try so hard to fail so miserably at proving Him false? If God were so fake you wouldn’t have to try so hard. Maybe keep your miserable selfish existence to yourself and stop trying to drag other people down into the abyss of worthlessness with you while Christians are happy believing in a higher power that promises eternity of paradise? Granted, not all Christians are good but that is the general census of society, hypocracy. Maybe mind your own business and stay away from Christian sites where no one cares about your Anti-God rants, you’re convincing us as much as we are convincing you

    • woody__chuck

      “Plus, why are Athiests so determined to kill God for everyone?!”

      First of all, atheist isn’t a proper noun.

      Second, an imaginary god can’t be killed.

      Third, atheists have no need to kill an imaginary god.

      “If God was so fake then why is it so necessary to try so hard to fail so miserably at proving Him false?”

      There’s no evidence for your imaginary god to be falsified.

      “Maybe mind your own business and stay away from Christian sites where no one cares about your Anti-God rants,”

      Maybe mind your own business and keep your delusion out of public schools.

      “you’re convincing us as much as we are convincing you”

      Another part of your delusion – this isn’t about convincing you of anything,