Youth Minister No Longer Allowed to Reach Students at Illinois School Following Atheist Complaint

lunchroomHARRISBURG, Ill. — A Baptist youth minister is no longer allowed to reach students at an Illinois high school after a professing atheist organization lodged a complaint, asserting that his presence violated the U.S. Constitution.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) had sent a letter to the Harrisburg School District this past February after an unidentified community member advised the group that the minister was leading a Christian club of sorts during the lunch period at Harrisburg Middle School.

Students had been sent home with permission slips to occasionally meet with the Baptist leader during lunch breaks, who also provided students with pizza and soda.

But FFRF told the district that the concept was “predatory” and urged officials to ban the youth minister from the premises.

“It is inappropriate and unconstitutional for the district to offer religious leaders access to befriend and proselytize students during the school day on school property,” the letter, written by attorney Ryan Jayne, read. “This predatory conduct is inappropriate and should raise many red flags.”

“The district cannot allow its schools to be used as recruiting grounds for churches during the school day,” it stated.

FFRF asserted that the minister’s presence violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“This practice demonstrates an unlawful preference not only for religion over non-religion, but also Christianity over all other faiths,” the letter contended. “Public schools have a constitutional obligation to remain neutral toward religion.”

Superintendent Michael Gauch responded to the correspondence by advising that he would submit the matter to the Board of Education, which would then decide whether or not to allow the youth minister to continue meeting with students during the lunch period.

As FFRF did not receive an update for several months, it sent a second letter in June. On Aug. 24, the organization announced that it had received notification that the youth minister is no longer welcome.

“Please be advised that the Board of Education did consider the matter of a local minister meeting with students during lunchtime last semester,” Gauch wrote. “Following the school board’s directive, school administration instructed the local minister that he would no longer be allowed to come onto school property and meet with students during the lunchtime or anytime during the instructional day.”

FFRF applauded the outcome.

“We were taken aback when we learned about a minister being allowed to preach to middle school kids on the premises during school hours,” Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. “We’re pleased we played a part in getting this outrageousness ended.”

As previously reported, the first textbook used in the American colonies even before the nation’s founding, “The New England Primer,” was largely focused on the Scriptures, and was stated to be popular in public and private schools alike until approximately the early 1900’s. It used mostly the King James Bible as reference, and spoke much about sin, salvation and proper behavior.

“Save me, O God, from evil all this day long, and let me love and serve Thee forever, for the sake of Jesus Christ, Thy Son,” it read.

Many of the Founders’ children learned to read from the primer.

Harvard University, the first university founded in America, possessed the motto “Truth for Christ and the Church.” It was named after minister John Harvard.

“Let every scholar be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life. Therefore, to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning,” the institution declared.


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
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    US schools and colleges were established to learn God’s way through studying the Holy Bible, His Word. The US youth needs Christian instructions to get a life; USA has no other value system. Atheism only kills and destroys and pollutes. (John ch.8-10) May the American children seek what is true and good and right and return to God and live. America’s atheism resembles Nazi Youth movement. Destructive godlessness was forcibly imposed, but the victims were the children themselves at the end. Sad is the fate of any nation that elevates sinful humans over the holy God. USA should stop playing with evil and submitting to atheists, to do what is right for all its children.

    • james blue

      The Nazis were not atheists or at least the Nazi movement was not. They certainly persecuted churches that wouldn’t bow to their political ideological goals, but they attempted a nazification of Protestantism using their perverse version of Christianity to reject the Jews for example.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Nazis were Darwinian humanists. Hitler used the German churches because the Germans would never give up Christianity, unlike the Soviets who did. It’s like today’s Western mainliners who support Sodomy against Christian teachings and corrupt the Christendom.

        • wahoosam

          Nazi Germany was 94 percent Christian.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            They were defeated by 100% Christian USA.

          • MenageriePass

            The USA has never been 100% Christian.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes, it was until about the 70’s. All the white men’s nations claimed to be Christian. USA started becoming weird sometime in the 70’s by being conscious of too powerful and being too well-fed. Many empires are that way.

          • MenageriePass

            Hmm, the Native Americans, Jews, deists, etc. in history will disagree. You are entirely lacking in facts. You should really just give up.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You guys should leave USA so that others can have the land,

          • uninvitedguest

            get used to the disappointment of that never happening

          • Roni Jo Froemming Lester

            Excuse me? Who in the hell do you think you are? Go to your church and stop trying to cram your beliefs down everyone’s throat.

          • Amos Moses

            You are the one on a christian site, with christians talking about christianity …….. no one is cramming anything down anything of yours …… you chose to be here ………. the door is this way .>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

          • Brian_Bray

            Since when did support for law breaking become a Christian talking point?

          • Brian_Bray

            How about you leave so that those who respect the constitution can do so in peace?

          • uninvitedguest

            proof?

          • DoctorDan118

            Grace, you are an ignorant twit. Look up the Founding Fathers and “deism”. Most of our Founding Fathers REJECTED Christianity. They chose appeals to science, logic, and reason over blindfolded beliefs in antiquated mythology. Seriously, you might as well have said the earth was flat. Do FACTS mean anything to you????

          • Rookheight

            You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

          • Brian_Bray

            Okay, now you’re just manufacturing your own version of history, and it’s a ludicrous one.

          • uninvitedguest

            nope. the usa has bever been 100% xtian . liar for christ

          • Roni Jo Froemming Lester

            LOL, ever hear the term “Atheists in fox holes” This country has never been nor will it be a christian nation.

          • Amos Moses

            “ever hear the term “Atheists in fox holes””

            WOW ……… you need to go back to school or read more ……….

            Reverend William T. Cummings, who served at Bataan, is famous for declaring “There are no atheists in foxholes.” In addition, Lieutenant Colonel Warren J. Clear, who also served at Bataan, used the expression in an interview printed in U.S. newspapers in the middle of April.

            Chaplain F.W. Lawson of the 302d Machine Gun Battalion, who was wounded twice in wartime, declared “I doubt if there is such a thing as an atheist. At least there isn’t in a front line trench.”

            Hannah More wrote: “In agony or danger, no nature is atheist. The mind that knows not what to fly to, flies to God.”

          • smokert5555

            And they would all be wrong. There are many atheists who’ve served our country, me being among them. Please do a bit of research instead of quote mining people who deny i and others exist. It’s just wishful thinking on their part.

          • Amos Moses

            do you have perfect knowledge of every thing ……………

          • smokert5555

            No, i don’t. And neither do you. I know who i am and have personally known others with a similar non-belief. I also know of official atheist military organizations. With this knowledge, i can safely say sayings such as “There are no atheists in foxholes.” is blatantly wrong. The foxholes are filled with believer and non-believer alike. Anybody who denies my and others existence are demonstrably wrong.

          • Amos Moses

            Good … so you admit it …………… so how can you possibly know if God exists or not ………

          • smokert5555

            I don’t. But so far, nobody has been able to veritably demonstrate there is a god, let alone a specific god. So i reject all claims of a god.
            May i ask you the same question? If you are claiming there is a god, how can you prove it? Why do you believe as you do?

          • Amos Moses

            “I don’t. But so far, nobody has been able to veritably demonstrate there is a god, let alone a specific god. ”

            So not open-minded at all …….. BTW ………. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ……… so again ….. so how can you possibly know if God exists or not ………..

          • smokert5555

            I don’t see how i’m not open-minded. I don’t say “There is no god.”. I say “I reject your claim of a god until you can present verifiable evidence for it’s existence.” There’s a big difference.
            Again, i don’t claim there is no god. But if you’re willing to try to prove it to me, i’m willing to listen. Hopefully, you’re just as willing to listen to me too.

          • Amos Moses

            so are you saying he does not exist or you do not know ………….

          • smokert5555

            I thought i was pretty clear, but i will try to elaborate for you. Yes, there could be a god. Or what we might consider a god. But since there is no evidence to support that conclusion, i can’t endorse the idea there is one. I understand absence of evidence proves nothing. But it does indicate that since there is no evidence to make that conclusion, it’s unreasonable to accept it.

            Let me ask you: If i claimed there’s an invisible dragon in my garage, would you believe me? If not, why not?

          • Amos Moses

            so you are saying you do not know ………………..

          • smokert5555

            I’m sorry you’re having trouble comprehending what i’m writing. Concerning a god in general, yes, i do not know. Are we talking about a non-specific god or do you have one in mind?

          • Amos Moses

            so you are not an atheist

          • smokert5555

            Yes, i am an atheist. An atheist is one who rejects any claim of any god.

            a·the·ist
            ˈāTHēəst/
            noun
            noun: atheist; plural noun: atheistsa person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

          • smokert5555

            Why aren’t you answering any of my questions?

          • Brian_Bray

            Oh my, you are a dense one, aren’t you? How many times does he have to say it?

          • Amos Moses

            Ok …. this is what you said ……. “I thought i was pretty clear, but i will try to elaborate for you.” … and you also said ….. “Concerning a god in general, yes, i do not know” ………… now you are being very clear ….. i agree ……..

            A-theist …… without god
            Agnostic ………… without knowledge

            your statement was ….. “Concerning a god in general, yes, i do not know” ………. so you are not an a-theist ….. you admit you are an agnostic ….. without knowledge …….

            Agnostic definition, a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable

            by your own admission …. you are not an atheist ……..

          • WallsK

            That is inaccurate.

          • Amos Moses

            and nazis were occultist and followers of HPBlavatsky …….

        • ElvisKnucklehead

          Ummmm, no. Just, no.
          Not only are you wrong, but you are DEMONSTRABLY wrong.
          Hitler order Origin of Species burned.
          The German uniforms had “GOD WITH US(in german) on their uniforms.
          Take your lies elsewhere.

        • james blue

          No, they took not breeding with “the unbelievers” thus ensuring the purity of their “master race” to extremes.

          • Amos Moses

            Yep …… and they got that from the American Eugenics movement ………

          • james blue

            The American Eugenics movement wrote the bible?

          • Amos Moses

            is that a scientific opinion ………….. or just your opinion …… actually it was the southern democrats that did that … had nothing to do with the bible ….. it came about AFTER the civil war as a means to further eliminate the black population by eliminating their children and ability to procreate ……………. look up the MAAFA …………..

          • james blue

            Why are you going on about the American Eugenics movement?

            The Nazi’s took their master race purity from their perverted view of the bible. They viewed the “unbelievers” (those not of their brand of faith as well as non aryan whites) as lower humans.

          • Amos Moses

            Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany’s racially based social policies that placed the biological improvement of the Aryan race or Germanic “Übermenschen” master race through eugenics at the center of Nazi ideology. (here is a clue ….. they took some of that from Darwin ….. and Evolution ……… as well as eastern mysticism ….) – Wiki

            But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn’t originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little-known, role in the American eugenics movement’s campaign for ethnic cleansing.
            SFGate

            Which country pioneered forced sterilization in the 20th century, Germany or the United States of America? The German program began in January 1934, but the U.S. state of Indiana passed a forced sterilization law (for mental defectives) in 1907 (when Adolf Hitler was 18 years old). Before the German program began, at least seventeen U.S. states (including California) had ‘forced sterilization’ laws. Before 1930 there were 200-600 forced sterilizations per year (in the U.S.A.) but in the 1930s the rate jumped to 2,000-4,000 per year.

            Sanger was an atheist …………

          • james blue

            Much as you’d like to connect the two they are unconnected.

          • Amos Moses

            Much as you would like to deny it ……….. you cant …………

        • Brian_Bray

          You have absolutely no credible evidence to back this assertion.

    • Roni Jo Froemming Lester

      Wrong, wrong and wrong. Take your kid to church if that’s all you want them to know.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        The society is against the Church.

        • ElvisKnucklehead

          The church is stupid and primitive.

    • smokert5555

      You’re proposing ideas as fact that you can’t possibly prove as fact. And do you ideas stem to countries that worship different gods than yours?

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        America knew the God of Jesus Christ alone and no other, because He is the one true living God.

        • smokert5555

          And that would be wrong. Most of the founding fathers, if they were believers, were deists, not christians. They believed in a higher power, just not the specific one mentioned in christianity.
          The point must be made that no god, let alone the christian one, is mentioned in the constitution. Religion is purposely separated from gov’t in the constitution. You can practice as you please, but the gov’t is to keep itself out of religion. Which means for all Americans, any god is ok to worship or no god at all. It’s up to the individual. There is no majority rule concerning religion.
          So you may feel free to worship as you please, as long as you don’t impose your beliefs on those who don’t want to follow them. Using your gov’t to proselytize your particular brand of religion is illegal.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            American founders stole everything good from the Holy Bible and British Christian thinkers. Americans invented stuff but not thoughts. You know not a thing because you don’t read the Origin.

          • smokert5555

            No. A good number of the founders thought christianity was a bad thing. Look to the writings of Thomas Jefferson, among others. James Monroe said specifically this country is not a christian nation. Pleas do your research.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Founding Fathers said it is Christian nation submitting to God alone. Yes, do the research. To Americans, being Non-christian meant being illiterate savages.

          • Roni Jo Froemming Lester

            You really should get a proper education Grace, I see you state that you are a christan home school type. That explains all your unfounded facts.

          • james

            The founding fathers were British! Duh

          • MenageriePass

            Where is George Washington’s birth certificate !!!!????

          • Scott Davenport

            So you were there to talk and worship with the founding fathers, you eternal dumbass???

          • smokert5555

            Language Scott, let’s keep it civil. No, i didn’t need to be there with the founders to know what they thought. I just have to read their speeches and correspondence, along with the constitution they helped write.

            Please let us know how you seem to know what they thought? And how it differs from what i related?

        • Cathy McMahan

          according to your religion, if you had been born in a different country your religion would have been different. I respect your right to worship your god, but you don’t have the right to push it on others. I we allow one they would all have to be allowed and you would have a fit.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It is objectivity. America is not worthy if it has no Christianity. Just a Sodom.

          • uninvitedguest

            America…..the greatest country on earth!

        • uninvitedguest

          nope. many gods are worshipped. yours isnt any more real than the others

    • Andy Schnell

      Children and families have plenty of opportunities to worship and take part in religious activities. Schools do not need Christian recruiters. Should we also allow Mormon, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, and Satanist workers to access our children? Schools are for learning, not faith.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        If no morality, there is no learning, and the Christian morality is the only right one and safe to all. The Western schools are too dominated by the monopoly of atheism and sexual immorality. America does not know what is right and wrong because they lost Christianity; that’s why you put religions (attempts for good) and Satanism (evil) together. You are totally lost.

        • MenageriePass

          Your statement of “…the Christian morality is the only right one which make everyone safe.” Is demonstrably FALSE, after all why is there so few school shootings in Japan, for example?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Many suicides. Americans don’t know the outside world.

          • MenageriePass

            “Americans don’t know the outside world.”

            And you don’t see this as a problem?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Christian Americans know the world because they concern about us, but not unbelieving Americans; you don’t care.

          • uninvitedguest

            lol!

        • uninvitedguest

          lies, lies, and more lies

        • DoctorDan118

          Grace, Christian “morality” is the only right one which makes everyone safe? You mean the Christian “morality” that led to the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the slaughtering of the Native Americans, American slavery, segregation, and the oppression of women? You’re not the brightest crayon in the box, are ya???

          • Amos Moses

            crusades …….. RCC …. and they fought the muslims …. and who do we fight now ….. hmmmmm

            Spanish Inquisition ….. again the RCC ………. and it was protestants they were killing ….. hmmmmmmmmmmm

            Witch Trials ……. The trials resulted in the executions of twenty people, fourteen of them women, and all but one by hanging. Five others (including two infant children) died in prison. ……. WOW ….. not good … gotta own it … but hardly on any scale similar ……….

            Slaughter of American Natives ……. guess you get to own part of that ….. and you should be embarrassed ……… are you ……….

            American slavery …… well, sold into slavery by mostly muslims …. still going on today …… so i guess we still need a crusade ….. or is American Sharia courts ok with you ……. and there is nothing in scripture about slavery being a good thing ….. but your American ancestors may have owned more than a few ….. and the first slave owner in this country was a black man ….. and a good one third of slave owners were black …….

            segregation ……. look to the democrats for that mess ……….. but not christians ………

            oppression of women ……….. gee, you seem to be doing a pretty fair job of doing that to Grace this moment …… welcome to the club ….. try not to use that club on yourself ………….

    • Lee Picton

      You are not just stupid, you are delusional as well. It is bullying zealots like you that are driving people away from religion, and that is a good thing. BTW, I am not now, nor have even been, a sinner. You are a religitard, and I have made it my life’s work to denounce creeps like you.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        The Word of God says you are a sinner and you need to repent of your evil unbelief to get saved.

        • Kevin P. Hepp

          Kali never said that!

          • Amos Moses

            and not God ….either …………. so what …

        • MyLovelyNose

          The Bhagavad-Gita doesn’t say that at all.

          • Amos Moses

            and not God ……… so what …

      • Amos Moses

        So if she is bullying you ……. then you must really be a snowflake with no intestinal fortitude ….. and BTW ………. you are the one here bullying her …….

    • FuckTheholyghost

      christians on the internet as as faithful to the word of the bible, as much as the married “virgin” when she sneaked out and got nutted IN by that stranger

    • ElvisKnucklehead

      There is no mention of any religion, at all, in the US Constitution.
      None. Anywhere.
      Also absent are the words “god, jesus, or bible”.
      The COnstitution actually PROHIBITS any religious test to hold office.
      Go be wrong somewhere else.

      • Reason2012

        Freedom of religion is mentioned – and kids / parents have the RIGHT to have their own kids optionally participate in this by signing the permission slip. Their Constitutional rights were violated by denying parents and kids their own desire to participate in this.

        • ElvisKnucklehead

          They DO NOT have the Constitutional right to have the school provide religious indoctrination. Public schools are SECULAR. (Look that up if you don’t know what it means.)
          That’s what their homes and churches are for.
          Also, the phrase “freedom of religion” appears nowhere in the Constitution.

          • Reason2012

            Permission slip. Freedom of religion: First Amendment. Not one person has to do it as the kid has to want to go, and the parent has to allow them to go.

            The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution
            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

            They can’t make it illegal for kids / parents to want their own kids to participate in this, so by saying it’s illegal to do so the Constitution has been violated and they need to sue the school and the state.

          • ElvisKnucklehead

            Nobody made it illegal for parents trouble do anything with their kids.
            What’s illegal, as mandated by the Constitution and the Supreme Court, is PUBLIC schools offering anything dealing directly with any religion except in classes on Social Studies or History.
            The parents lose no rights.
            The students lose no rights.
            No one has the right to have the Secular government endorse their religion.

  • Michael C

    I think that a lot of parents would be upset if their kid’s school was allowing Scientologists in to recruit their children.

    I fail to see how this is any different.

    • Momofthree

      Exactly! Or Islam or Buddhism, or anything else for that matter.

    • amanda dutton

      This is not a recruitment of the students. I can tell you this because I am a parent of one of those students. This was a devotion offered to ANY student that CHOSE to participate. It was offered during their lunch period in away from other students as to not pose a distraction. Parents had to sign a waiver saying they gave permission to said child to participate. IT WAS A VOLUNTARY OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY CHILD TO PARTICIPATE OR NOT PARTICIPATE. It was during the lunch period and was one day a week. If you want to hold a scientology meeting or an Islam meeting, go right on ahead. Funny to me, those groups aren’t meeting but have no problem telling my child they cannot. Get your facts straight before your ignorance flows freely.

      • Michael C

        This is not a recruitment of the students.

        If a school gave a representative of the Church of Scientology access to children to attempt to convert them by inticing them with free pizza and soda, I would call it “recruitment”. I’m sorry you don’t like my terminology but I would apply it evenly.

        IT WAS A VOLUNTARY OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY CHILD TO PARTICIPATE OR NOT PARTICIPATE.

        Ma’am, you’re yelling.

        Did I say something to give you the impression that I wasn’t aware that the children’s participation was voluntary? I fail to see the relevance of this fact.

        If you want to hold a scientology meeting or an Islam meeting, go right on ahead.

        Many parents would disagree with you on this one. There’s also the matter of the school not wanting to have to facilitate every potential weirdo who wants access to school children.

        • amanda dutton

          I am not yelling, simply making my point. The very word RECRUITMENT implies these kids don’t know what they are getting into. SEriously?? Typically when you allow your child or yourself to voluntarily participate in something, you already support it. You do know it is referred to as conversion right? The whole purpose and foundation of Christianity is conversion from a sinful life to that of a life of Christ and living for Him. Whether you (or anyone) agrees with it or not, that is what it is. Don’t participate if you don’t agree. Freedom of speech and assembly works both ways. There is no “Enticing” of anyone. This is a group of kids who regularly go to church and already believe what the preacher or youth leader is telling them. Typically, people that don’t go to church aren’t even involved by choice. How many times do you hear of another “religious” group trying to have a meeting? Not usually. This group targets Christianity and the Bible.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            This group targets Christianity and the Bible.

            No, they target church/state violations, which, since Christians in the US have most of the political power, involved Christianity in nearly every case. However, if you’ll check out the FFRF website, you’ll find a few cases over Judaism (such as an eruv in Miami Beach Park), and even some with Islam (such as Professor Daoud Nassimi).

          • amanda dutton

            That has to be the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. Who honestly believes that christians have the most political power? You have got to be kidding me. Have you lived in a cave since the sixties?

          • zeddicuskotor

            So you’re illiterate.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Who honestly believes that christians have the most political power?

            Who do you think has the most political power? Notice how every president has been, and every member of the supreme court and nearly every member of congress and nearly every state governor is Christian?

            How is that NOT “most of the political power”?

            By the way, notice I gave examples of the FFRF also objecting to non-Christian church/state violations. You’re welcome.

          • james blue

            I have to wonder if you have a very limited definition of “Christian”

          • Pam Delaney

            I wonder more if you have a very broad definition of it.

          • james blue

            Are Catholics Christian?

          • Pam Delaney

            Those who think God’s grace is inefficient to get someone to Heaven and those that act like Christ Jesus lied when He said “it is paid”, are not Christians. Do I think some Catholics are Christians? Yes, some are, in spite of, but not because of Catholicism.

          • Tim Wolfe

            Yes

          • Amos Moses

            The definition of christianity is limited ….. and it is limited by Christ ……..

          • Liberal Elitist

            No, it’s limited by interpretation … always has been.

          • Amos Moses

            No …… sorry ……….

            7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
            7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

          • Liberal Elitist

            A Reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20:

            Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, “Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.” And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals … Now did the Lord say, “First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.”

          • Amos Moses

            well this is a christian site and the topic here is christianity ………. and you made a theological statement about christianity … nothing else ….. try to stay on topic and try to be aware of you surroundings …… if needed … have your head space and timing checked ……. and if you are not a christian then you really have no idea of what being a christian actually entails ……….

          • Frank Dorka

            You know as an atheist we welcome your responses, good or bad. Mostly what we get from Christians at the FFRF, we couldn’t print here. For people that “Love Thy Neighbor” you sure have a sick way of showing it.

          • Amos Moses

            welll …… who said the atheist was our neighbor …….. they have made themselves enemies of the cross … so they are not ….. we are to speak the truth to them ….. and they often hear that as unloving and un-neighborly …… because they have chosen to reject the truth …….

          • Tim Wolfe

            On the contrary, we accept and welcome the truth. The problem is that you aren’t telling the truth. You are spreading lies and mythology. Atheists know the truth.

          • Amos Moses

            No … the problem is you do not know the truth ….. the truth is not a what … it is a who …. and you reject that who ………. A-theists …… are full of their own pride ……. and nothing else ………..

            ” You are spreading lies and mythology. ”

            And is that a scientific statement or a theological statement ……………..

          • wandakate

            A hearty AMEN to that. I had just made a comment about TRUTH! Of course they reject truth. JESUS said they are of their father the devil. Satan is loving it all as well as his demons. Love thy neighbor meaning we are to love the sinner and hate their sins. Atheist are loss, they need a Savior. They think they have it right while they have it all wrong. But it’s the TRUTH that will set them straight.
            When you know the truth, the truth will set you free.

          • Amos Moses

            3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
            3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
            3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
            3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

            God uses the foolishness of men to humble the wise and proud ……..

          • George T

            Two members of the FFRF are under investigation for child sex crimes. I can’t wait to see who they are…

          • Frank Dorka

            I have searched for this accusation to no avail…again! I think this Christian is a liar…again.

          • Cady555

            I’m shocked, shocked, to find lying going on in the establishment. (apologies to Claude Rains)

          • wandakate

            To “love thy neighbor” is to tell them the honest to GOD’s “Truth”. It’s not to sugar coat anything or to add to it, take away from it, water it all down.
            Why are atheist on this site anyway? What’s here that they could possibly care about except to cause an argument or discord?

          • wandakate

            Trolls try to change the subject don’t they Amos Moses?

          • Tim Wolfe

            Yeah, quoting Bible scripture doesn’t earn you any points or make your case.

          • Amos Moses

            it was a theological argument being made ……….. so the answer is theology ………..

          • DoctorDan118

            Jesus Christ, amanda, are you REALLY that dense? You said yourself in the last sentence that you rarely hear of other religious groups holding these meetings, then go on to whine and cry about how only Christians are attacked. Are you SERIOUSLY that stupid?? THAT is WHY they are being stopped, because they are the ONLY ones trying to use our public school system to promote their Bronze Age cult!!!!! Do you see Muslims putting up statues on courthouse lawns? Because I only see Christians doing that. Do you see atheists going into schools and telling kids they will be tortured for all of eternity if they don’t subscribe to a certain value system? I only see Christians doing that. Do you see Hindus going into our legislative branch and trying to pass laws based upon their religion? Yeah, me neither. I ONLY see Christians doing that!!!! And then you have the NERVE to wonder why only Christians are the target of these objections? Because they are the ONLY ones so self-entitled, self-absorbed, and self-righteous enough to think that THEIR beliefs belong in our government!!!!! Keep your Bronze AGe cult of human sacrifice in church!!!!

          • Amos Moses

            i do see muslims setting up sharia courts and government ……. Detroit for instance ….. and the fact of the matter is we all use our worldview to make laws and judge others ….. so yes to most of those questions …….

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Detroit is not an example of sharia courts and government.

          • Paul Simon Hay

            The Constitution forbids Religious Courts. No religion has the right to force others who do not share their beliefs, to live according to the laws of their religion. One person’s religious freedom ends where another person’s begins.

          • Brian_Bray

            Do you see them going into public schools to do it? If so, please cite examples, and please let the FFRF know so they can fight that on our behalf as well.

          • Netizen_James

            No, there are no Sharia courts or governments in Detroit. Where are you getting this complete and utter bull…ony?

          • Jo King

            > i do see muslims setting up sharia courts and government ……. Detroit for instance

            Ah, no. That is completely UNTRUE.

          • Brien

            Unfortunately we see the Mohammedans doing a great deal of the same demands.
            You all do realise that by continuing to demand special privileges for your religion, here Christians, that you keep the door open for the Islamists to do exactly the same; and if you have been paying attention they are demanding a whole hell of a lot more, especially with their Sharia, and we all will have no option but to submit as we still live under the present slanted position of Christian precedence and dominance.
            It is highly suggested that we continue secularising our government and all public facilities, especially our schools.
            Secularisation will give us a solid, sensible and logical platform instead of making it look like some sort of absurd religious crusade.
            They will stomp all over us!!
            By secularising, you put a stop to Islam spreading throughout our society. Islam spreads by changing all the laws and traditions, and by force of its clerics (same as the Salem examples of control and fear)
            You would also have the added benefit of the non-religious stopping our continuing efforts to try to eliminate the absurd and unfair inequalities of religious privileges and special exceptions.
            This will not affect your ‘freedom of religion’.

      • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

        This was a devotion offered to ANY student that CHOSE to participate.

        This is enough to make it illegal for a public school. See the list of legal precidents in the FFRF’s first letter at the link in the story.

    • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

      @ Michael C

      Michael C said: “I think that a lot of parents would be upset if their kid’s school was allowing Scientologists in to recruit their children.

      I fail to see how this is any different.”

      [Emphasis mine.]

      Well, since the content of your post, here, seems to be predicated on the idea that what the parents of the children at the school in question want in this situation should determine what happens in this situation, then I think that, if you wish to be logically consistent here, you should favor letting the parents of the students at this school vote on the matter of allowing this Baptist youth minister to talk to their children during their lunch time, instead of letting U.S. government make a decision on this matter for them.

      And, if you agree, then we would be in agreement here, since I believe that the only way that the U.S. government can stay truly neutral on the matter of how it handles religious matters is to not make any decisions on how to handle religious matters at all, in favor of delegating all decisions on how to handle religious matters to individuals, in individual situation, period.

      • Michael C

        Well, since the content of your post, here, seems to be predicated on the idea that what the parents of the children at the school in question want in this situation should determine what happens in this situation, then I think that, if you wish to be logically consistent here, you should favor letting the parents of the students at this school vote on the matter of allowing this Baptist youth minister to talk to their children during their lunch time, instead of letting U.S. government make a decision on this matter for them.

        Phew! That was one long sentence!

        You’re correct that I didn’t present a legal argument.

        My comment simply addresses the subject from a “do unto others” perspective.

        …that doesn’t mean that there’s not also a valid legal argument to be made.

        • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

          @ Michael C

          Michael C said: “Phew! That was one long sentence!”

          /Lol. Sometimes it just works out that way. 🙂

          – – – – – – – – – –

          Michael C said: “My comment simply addresses the subject from a ‘do unto others’ perspective.”

          Okay. But my arguments above still stand, even from this perspective.

          – – – – – – – – – –

          Michael C said: “You’re correct that I didn’t present a legal argument.

          …that doesn’t mean that there’s not also a valid legal argument to be made.”

          I’m sure that you have got some. But, they would most likely fail, from the start, since they would most likely be predicated on assuming that the U.S. government should take the official position of Secularism and enforce it. After all, Secularism is not a neutral position on religious matters–it is just the opposite extreme from the extreme of the U.S. government establishing an a state religion, of some sort, in some way. And, as such, the U.S. government enforcing Secularism would also be a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

          • Guzzman

            It doesn’t matter whether attendance at a school-sponsored religious event is voluntary or not. The fact that a public school would even offer such an option at all is sufficient to establish that the school is promoting religion. Government entities are mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to remain neutral on matters of religion.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ Guzzman

            Guzzman
            said: “It doesn’t matter whether attendance at a school-sponsored
            religious event is voluntary or not. The fact that a public school would
            even offer such an option at all is sufficient to establish that the
            school is promoting religion. Government entities are mandated
            by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to remain
            neutral on matters of religion.

            [Emphasis and emphasis mine.]

            Key words here: “remain neutral”.

            The U.S. government officially forcing the substance of religion out of U.S. public schools means leaving a vacuum in the U.S. public schools, which will inevitably be filled with the substance of non-religion. After all, the U.S. government has no positive basis by which to keep the substance of religion out of U.S. public schools, except by removing it and positively replacing it with the substance of non-religion, in a positive way. So, forcing the substance of religion out of U.S. public schools is, by its very nature, not a neutral act.

            Having said that, you are hung up on the idea that the U.S. government must take an official position on this matter, in the first place. This assumption is untenable because, if the U.S. government is to take an official position on how religious matters should be handled in the U.S. public square, then it only has two choices: enforce the substance of religion in the U.S. public square (i.e. establish a state religion, of some sort, in some way) or enforce the substance of non-religion in the U.S. public square (i.e. enforce Secularism and what goes with it). And, either way, it is violating the Separation of Church and State, by either favoring or discriminating against religion, in particular.

            In light of this, I am saying that, in order to remain truly neutral on
            this matter, the U.S. government should not make any decisions on how to officially handle religious matters in the U.S. public square, at all, in favor of delegating all decisions on how to handle religious matters to individuals, in individual situations, period.

            And, logically speaking, this is probably the way by which the Founding Fathers handled this issue. It is the only line of reasoning which explains how they were able to do things like allow prayer before sessions of the U.S. Congress, without violating the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

            Hence, what I suggested to Michael C.

          • Guzzman

            You wrote, “…in order to remain truly neutral on this matter, the U.S. government should not make any decisions on how to officially handle religious matters in the U.S. public square, at all, in favor of delegating all decisions on how to handle religious matters to individuals, in individual situations, period.”

            Your premise is flawed. You need to consider the 14th Amendment. In 1868, the 14th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, and it prohibited states from denying people “liberty” without “due process.” Since then, as cases arose, the U.S. Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause) to all levels of government, extending it well beyond the U.S. Federal Government.

            As a result, no government entity at any level can lawfully promote, advance, or endorse religion. Thus, your scheme of “delegating” decisions regarding religion to local government would be unconstitutional. The school figured this out and banned the youth minister from access to students during the school day, on school property.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ Guzzman

            Guzzman said: “Your premise is flawed. You need to consider the 14th Amendment. In 1868, the 14th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, and it prohibited states from denying people ‘liberty’ without ‘due process.’ Since then, as cases arose, the U.S. Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause) to all levels of government, extending it well beyond the U.S. Federal Government.”

            I’m not sure what your point is here. Your point here is so vague that it is meaningless, as stated.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            Guzzman said: “As a result, no government entity at any level can lawfully promote, advance, or endorse religion. Thus, your scheme of ‘delegating’ decisions regarding religion to local government would be unconstitutional.”

            First, I am advocating the U.S. government delegating the said decisions to local communities, not the local government. Big difference.

            Second, when your objection is applied to my idea: Not necessarily. Depends on the situation in question.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            Guzzman said: “The school figured this out and banned the youth minister from access to students during the school day, on school property.”

            Citation needed.

          • Guzzman

            You wrote, “I am advocating the act of the U.S. government delegating the said decisions to local communities, local individuals, etc., depending on the nature of the situation, not the local government. Big difference.”

            But public schools are an arm of local government, and as I said, government entities are subject to the Establishment Clause’s prohibition of governmental endorsement of religion. The Supreme Court has made clear that “the touchstone of the Establishment Clause was ‘the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.’ [McCreary County v. ACLU], 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005). So any government act that violates religious neutrality, such as, oh, I don’t know, giving a Baptist youth minister access to students, would be deemed an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ Guzzman

            Guzzman said: “But public schools are an arm of local government […]”

            Local children and their local parents, who use the local U.S. public schools and arguably make them up, respectively speaking, are not part of the local government.

            We don’t live in a Communist state, where the Party rules and everyone is part of the Party.

          • Guzzman

            Merriam-Webster:
            Public School: a school that gets money from and is controlled by a local government.

            Public schools are government institutions, and as such are subject to the constraints placed upon any government institution to remain neutral on matters of religion. A Baptist youth minister given permission by the school to conduct religious activities with students during school hours on school property violates the religious neutrality requirement. The school acknowledged this mistake and banned the youth minister.

            Constitutional rights are not subject to majority vote or “delegating” to the local community.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ Guzzman

            Guzzman said: “Public schools are government institutions […]”

            And, again:

            EscapetheDarkness said: “Local children and their local parents, who use the local U.S. public schools and arguably make them up, respectively speaking, are not part of the local government.

            We don’t live in a Communist state, where the Party rules and everyone is part of the Party.”

            You can repeat your said, quoted argument until you are blue in the face, so to speak. But, doing so does not change this fact.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            Guzzman said: “Constitutional rights are not subject to majority vote or ‘delegating’ to the local community.”

            This would be a valid objection, if I was suggesting that local communities should vote on what local individuals in the local communities can do, in an individual context (i.e. suggesting that they should vote on if individuals in their local communities can exercise free speech on their own personal property).

            But, I am not suggesting this. I am suggesting that local communities should vote on community-wide issues, where there is only one local public square and, pursuant to this, there can only be one community-wide solution to an issue, in a situation where binary choices, at the very least, must be made. And, in such issues where there may be internal disagreements among the local people on how to address such issues, making decisions by the democratic means of voting, which gives everyone one, equal voice in deciding disagreements, is the only way to go.

          • Guzzman

            You wrote, “…the local community in question should do a community-wide vote, if it has to choose between putting up a Ten Commandments memorial in its public square or doing nothing, and so on.”

            Epic fail of Civics 101. If by “public square” you mean government property, then what you suggest would be blatantly unconstitutional. As I explained multiple times, government at all levels, from Federal all the way down to state and local governments and even public schools, are subject to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits anything resembling a government endorsement of religion.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ Guzzman, Cady555, et. al.

            Guzzman said: “Epic fail of Civics 101. If by ‘public square’ you mean government property, then what you suggest would be blatantly unconstitutional. As I explained multiple times, government entities at all levels, from Federal all the way down to state and local governments and even public schools, are subject to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits anything resembling a government endorsement of religion.”

            And, with this rant, you have gone full circle here, so to speak, and you have demonstrated that you prefer to ignore all of my points here in favor of, once again, insisting that the U.S. government–as Big Brother–should take an official position on how to manage religious matters in the U.S. public square and do so, instead of delegating this task to individuals, in individual contexts, depending on the situation in question.

            This is why your position here, and the position of the other atheists here who are coming out of the woodwork here to support you here, fails. You–as in your side–insist that the U.S. government should be Big Brother who manages such matters, when it does not necessarily need to do so. And, on the basis of this, you keep pushing your false dilemma between favoring religion and favoring Secularism in this matter, in order to justify putting government muscle behind Secularism–the viewpoint which you favor and want to force on our society.

            It is what it is. And the more that you guys attack me with the same talking points that support this said line of thought, the more that you guys prove what I am saying here right.

            So, have at it, guys. You’ll keep proving me right here, long after I have moved onto commenting on other matters on other comment threads. 😀

            Good day, ladies and gentlemen. 🙂

          • Guzzman

            You wrote that I am “insisting that the U.S. government–as Big Brother–should take an official, inevitably biased position on how to manage religious matters in the U.S. public square and do so, instead of delegating this task to individuals, in individual contexts, depending on the situation in question.”

            I said no such thing. I have written repeatedly that government AT ALL LEVELS (not just the U.S. Government), is required by the Constitution to remain neutral on religious matters. That is existing law, and you need to deal with it. The Constitution is secular – deal with it. The Constitution grants no authority to government at any level, from the Federal down to local municipalities, to promote, endorse, advance, support, or otherwise establish religion.

            We are a constitutional republic, and rights guaranteed by the Constitiution are not subject to popular vote or to be put in the hands of a local community as you suggest. One of our fundamental rights is not to have government favor someone else’s religious viewpoint or disfavor our own, and not to infringe on our free exercise of those viewpoints. That’s called not taking sides – government neutrality. Welcome to the United States of America, deal with it.

            This article is about a Baptist youth minister being allowed by an arm of government to proselytize during school hours to students on school property. Hint: such action is not government being neutral. That is blatantly unconstitutional. The school board admitted its mistake and instructed the local minister that he would no longer be allowed to come onto school property and meet with students during lunchtime or anytime during the instructional day. What more is there to discuss?

          • Cady555

            No one is preventing any student from exercising their personal religious beliefs.
            Each student may pray, read the bible, meet with other students, form religious clubs, etc. as long as school lessons are not interfered with. This is a right of every student. Religious clubs must be truly student led, and no non-student can participate on a regular basis. STUDENTS have religious freedom.
            School employees cannot pick one religious view and provide OUTSIDERS special access to students during the school day. OUTSIDERS do not have to right to form and lead student religious clubs. OUTSIDERS do not have to right to use public schools as a convenient location to proselytize. And school employees cannot grant these special privileges to any religious organization.

          • wandakate

            And don’t forget that all churches that are now 501C3 churches are also “controlled” by the government. Their pastors are told what they can’t talk about to their congregations and they are NOT to voice their opinions yea or nay on political matters, yet they will be subjected to losing government funding…

          • Guzzman

            You are correct, according to the IRS website: “Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

            If 501(c)(3) organizations want to participate in political campaigns, they must give up their tax-exempt benefit. However, there is no limitation on ministers or their laity from engaging in personal endorsement of a candidate,

          • 98C3LCMT9Y4

            But they are perfectly FREE to start PAYING TAXES & be as politically involved & manipulative as they wish to be at any time.

            That is hardly “control” when they are free to pay taxes & speak all the politics they wish……but money is much more important to them and always has been,

          • wandakate

            Of course it is and I know that. Satan and money are the gods of this evil world…
            JESUS said we would see “greed”. JESUS also said that the “love” of money was the root of all evil. He said it would be easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it would be for a “rich” person to enter the Kingdom of GOD. He had MORE to say to us about money than any other topic. JESUS Himself wasn’t rich. He said, “the Son of Man has no where to lay His head.”
            Some pastors are “greedy” and have sold their souls to satan.
            I don’t think that most people even know what being a member of a 501C3 church even mean. If some of them did, they might get out of it.

          • Cady555

            The school must protect the religious freedom of ALL students, not just the religious freedom of those students with the preferred religious belief. Every single student has the right to attend public school without being proselytized by one or more religious communities. Every single student. This is why the school cannot permit outside people to proselytize on school property.

          • wandakate

            Correct and I do agree that they need to find another place besides school property to meet.
            If parents really desire a “religious” education for their children or want it included with the curriculum of the day then they need to place their children in a school that is not a public one. The government is “never” going to endorse any religion in a public school.

          • Cady555

            The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution made the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution applicable to all levels of government in the United States. Thus, local governments and public schools cannot give preference to one religious belief. They cannot allow assist religious leaders in advancing their religious goals by giving religious leaders access to a captive audience of public school students.
            Deal with it.

          • George T

            It can be led by students and no laws are broken.

          • Cady555

            Exactly! Led by students, with no regular participation by non students. Bingo. Bingo. Bingo.
            The regular appearance of a non-student youth minister violates the Equal Access Act, a law passed by Christians to ensure the religious freedom of students in public schools.

          • wandakate

            There are “private” schools and many church run schools for that matter. There are many Baptist Churches that have schools that are ran by the church.
            The Mormons have their own schools I do believe and the Adventist also as well as other groups.
            Bottom line is this, If parents aren’t happy with the way the public school system is working, then enroll your child elsewhere.

        • wandakate

          There is always the “freedom” of home study. Groups can meet after school or on the weekend if they so desire and the FFRF group can’t do a darn thing about any of it. They need to keep their noses into the business of Wisconsin. I remember a bumper sticker years ago, Welcome to (name of the state), now go home. We don’t care how you do it wherever you’re from, now that you are here you do it our way was the basic message of this bumper sticker.
          Let’s sweep in our own front yard and not in the yard (or state) or somebody else.
          What happened to the say-so of the parents in this matter? These kids are under 18 and still at home, so meetings of that nature should have been a joint decision between the kids and their parents, and NOT the government run schools.

          • (((dagobarbz)))

            But the article is about a “youth minister” being allowed to proselytize DURING SCHOOL HOURS to students ON SCHOOL PROPERTY.

            The alternatives you mention, valid and would not be challenged by FFRF unless they were promoted by the school.

            ” Groups can meet after school or on the weekend if they so desire and the FFRF group can’t do a darn thing about any of it.”

            Well, golly darn it, the FFRF wouldn’t give a flying damn if they met after school at someone’s house or a donut shop. The damn is given over the use of public property and permission for a preacher to preach during school hours on campus.

            I hate to disappoint you, but the FFRF only will get involved when laws are violated. It doesn’t care what you do in your basement.

      • Amy

        I don’t pay my taxes to support school day religious recruitment. Go to church after school if you must get your daily dose.

        • Chet

          Ah yes, you fail to understand the difference between “religion” where one may need to go to some church to be administered his/her daily dose as opposed to one who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God. Once one repents of his/her sin and comes unto the Lord Jesus Christ of Calvary in faith, believing the gospel or good news, and receives Christ as one’s own personal Lord and Saviour, their lives change. Their then most positively transformed lives effect relationship with Holy God Almighty and it is He who makes the difference as his new creation/believer yields his/her life to the Spirit within.

          “Religion” reaches upward to appease one’s object of faith via supposed good works, some of which, alarmingly, can be seen on the evening news. In Christianity, however, God Almighty reached down to all us sinners in giving his only begotten Son to die for us on Calvary’s barbaric Cross. He, alone, is the solitary source of salvation and forgiveness of all SIN. No good works required nor accepted as salvation and mercy are already afforded wholly in the person of Christ, his voluntary death on the Cross and His resurrection and soon coming again for his own. Hope this clears things up a little…God bless.

          • wandakate

            Believe it or not we are SAVED by grace, however we are judged by our works and will be “rewarded” with glory, and crowns for our “works” in this life. Revelation 22:12. Our faith is made perfect by our “works”. James 2:22. We are justified by our “works” and not just our faith. James 22:24. Our faith without our “works” is dead James 2:17 and 26.
            JESUS only went to die on the cross b/c it was the will of His FATHER. He even prayed in the garden that FATHER GOD would take that “cup” away from Him so that He would NOT have to suffer, but He said, “IF not, then thy will be done”. It was NOT something that He clearly wanted to do on His own.
            Christians are to “WORK” after they are saved, not in order to be saved and salvation is a free gift by the grace of GOD.
            Every Christian that is indwelled with the Holy Spirit should want to “WORK” b/c they are saved! Hope this helps. You have made it sound like we have nothing to do but just get saved and then sit down and do no “works”, but JESUS said, “My FATHER is working, and I too and working”. We are to be “obedient” to the word.
            JESUS said, “Not everyone who says to me LORD, LORD will enter the Kingdom of GOD, but “only” the ones who “do” the will of the FATHER.” We work b/c the Holy Spirit is telling us that there is work to be done. There are many perishing and they need to be reached for the glory of GOD.

          • Chet

            Sorry, you misunderstood my point. That being that Christ has fully paid the price for all us sinner’s on Calvary and we are to receive Him into our hearts in his great mercy and grace, no works required nor accepted. After one’s salvation, however, is an altogether different point. Indeed we are to Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus Ye Soldiers of the Cross. I push this point often as on these sites many seem to try and link God’s free offer of salvation and an eternal relationship with Him via exclusively his Christ to that of “religion” where its adherents must work their way into favor with the object of their faith, whomever and whatever that happens to be. Christianity is all about relationship not “religion” such as can be witnessed very often these days on the evening news along with its awful effects in many, many cases…

          • wandakate

            I understand just fine. I know that we work after we are saved, or at least we’re supposed to. To be obedient and please the LORD we should desire to do whatever we can for the body of CHRIST (our brothers and sisters in Him). It’s a relationship yes. Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses all seem to think they can work their way into GOD’s favor but they can’t do that. I don’t see much of anything religious on television these days. Most of what I come across isn’t worth viewing, mostly trashy. It’s very worldly, not Godly.
            We were told to be IN the world and NOT of the world…

          • Chet

            Agree 100%. One must be very selective regarding TV programming these days. Even when watching something that’s not trashy, darned if an ad for something else won’t come on which indeed is. Like perusing select websites for items of interest that are in no wise out of line, yet, on the screen’s right side, often select poses of, well, are there to capture the eyes of normal men… The Devil never rests…

          • wandakate

            Good that you agree and yes television is more trashy than ever and also the computer ads. Satan came to kill, steal, and destroy souls and he’s busy 24/7 with all the demons to lure us into something that isn’t right for us. Always tempting and destroying souls (people). He knows his time is shorted that it ever has been so he’s busy.
            The devil used to bother me a lot but I have rebuked him in the precious holy name of JESUS and he doesn’t waste his short time with me anymore so PTL for that. If we rebuke him in JESUS name he will flee.

          • (((dagobarbz)))

            So, you want all that and a bag of chips, send your kid to a private religious school.

            But, it’s not about that, is it…you want access to other people’s kids so you can impose your belief system on them.

            Indwelt isn’t even a cromulent word, and the rest of your piece totally underscores why parents don’t want their kids subjected to this kind of horrid nonsense. A public school is off-limits. It’s that simple. Leave those kids alone.

          • Chet

            Perhaps taxpayer’s funds to run public schools should be redirected. Jesus saves is no “horrid nonsense” and if you quizzed the kids that know Him you’d surely change you opine. And whether one likes it or no, or even is aware of such, forces are always accessing the youth, molding and making them after their will in one form or another, and most often, secular humanism…

          • (((dagobarbz)))

            Dud, I have walked among you and been raised among you. And, as one of the sharper knives in the drawer, I saw it for what it is, horrid nonsense that tells kids they’re not good enough. They’re never good enough, because original sin makes sure they start out life with this unnecessary burden of unearned guilt.

            Horrid nonsense is me being polite.
            We don’t want your ‘good news’ that we are reprehensible sinners.
            We do not want you at our doors.
            We do not want you around our kids.
            If Christian parents want their kids indoctrinated, that’s their choice, but when you reach out for other people’s offspring, Katy bar the doors, it’s gonna get ugly.

            HANDS OFF OUR KIDS!

          • Chet

            Message received. But remember, when God’s loving and kind hands are off a person, the Devil’s hands are on. Funny, though, when I was yet lost and in my own SIN I never was concerned about “original” sin and/or what my forefathers did or not. Frankly, I couldn’t have cared less. It wasn’t till the Holy Spirit convicted me, personally, of my own lost estate and my need of the merciful Lord Jesus Christ of Calvary that I finally understood things as they really are and said yes to Jesus…

            And again, no one was/is forced to attend the Holy Bible study, just as no one is forced to do anything else in Christianity. You have a relationship with the true and living God of the universe confused with “religion”, some of which can be seen almost nightly on the news… Thanks for the opportunity to differentiate… And God bless.

          • (((dagobarbz)))

            Look, if you want your kids to have religious instruction, that’s what churches are for.
            Public schools are for education, not religious training. Why can’t you get your head around that?

            Again, you are free to seek religious instruction for your kids. Public schools are not the place for that.

            I don’t believe in your deities or your concept of ‘sin.’ I imagine there are parents who agree and don’t want preachers messing with their children’s heads at a mandatory secular public school.

          • Chet

            Regarding school, I’m sure you are 100% correct. However, on the other hand, whether or not one believes in “the concept of sin”changes nothing as once one snaps-out into eternity God Almighty always has the last say, for it is Him whom we all have to do. Some sooner, some later, but, just as in as in Adam, all men ultimately leave this life and face eternity in one place or the other. …

          • (((dagobarbz)))

            I don’t care about all that superstition. All I care about is keeping you people’s hands off other people’s kids.

          • Chet

            Yours is a decision’ that is surely “choice”… Have a blessed day!

          • (((dagobarbz)))

            A choice parents should make, not religious proselytizers invading public schools.

          • Barbara Carolus

            Nowhere in the constitution does it say you can’t practice your faith or come together with like faith on public property. You misunderstand the constitution. Also, you misread this article. ONLY CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS SIGNED A PERMISSION SLIP CAN ATTEND. Nothing is being forced on anyone.

          • (((dagobarbz)))

            Religion is for church. Schools is for learning. Stop pretending you can’t tell the difference. What I fI came and established an Evolution Club and taught biology in Sunday School?

            It’s JUST like that, so keep it at home.

    • Reason2012

      Permission slips – the parents would then say no. Why is it you ignore the FACT that permission slips were needed for each and every kid who wanted to participate – just shows how dishonest activists typically are with their anti-Christian bigotry.

      • 98C3LCMT9Y4

        Permission slips will never make the UNCONSTITUTIONAL act other than UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

        Why do you want to support unconstitutional acts by that church or that school?

        • Reason2012

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

          Freedom of religious exercise IS constitutional.

          Trying to make it illegal and prohibiting that freedom in any way for individual parents and their kids to participate is what’s ILLEGAL. The school needs to be sued.

          • Cady555

            The Constitution does not stop at the 1st (or 2nd) Amendment. Read the 14th Amendment.
            Students have religious freedom. Students can pray, read the bible, form religious clubs, etc. etc.
            School employees acting on behalf of the government cannot give special or favorable treatment to any religious view. Non students do not have the freedom to use public schools to advance their religious views. The Equal Access Act – written and passed at the insistence of Christians – spells out the religious rights of students. Among the provisions of this law is very clear guidance that non-students cannot regularly sponsor, lead, direct or conduct religious activities in public schools. So unless this youth minister is a student at the school, he needs to stay away unless a student run religious club invites him to speak now and then.

          • Reason2012

            Parts of the Constitution are not nullified by other parts that you imply it is.

            // School employees acting on behalf of the government cannot give special or favorable treatment to any religious view. //

            Where is that in the Constitution?

            And the minister is not a school employee.

            // Non students do not have the freedom to use public schools to advance their religious views. //

            Where is that in the Constitution?

            And it’s an activity that only those who want to attend, where their parents give PERMISSION for their own kid to attend – they WANT their kids to attend.

            // The Equal Access Act – written and passed at the insistence of Christians – spells out the religious rights of students. //

            That’s not the Constitution. You do realize acts cannot violate the Constitution.

            The Constitution makes it quite clear: “No laws can be passed PROHIBITING the free exercise of religion”

            So making it illegal to have free exercise of religion only where those who hate Christianity give their permission is a violation of the Constitution.

            // Among the provisions of this law is very clear guidance that non-students cannot regularly sponsor, lead, direct or conduct religious activities in public schools. //

            Which is shown to be illegal by the Constitution making it clear restricting free exercise of religion (obviously for those who WANT it (permission slip)) is a violation of said Constitution.

            So unless this is a school in a third-world country run by atheists and not America, the school can be sued for violating the Constitutional rights of those who wanted their kids to be part of this.

            Funny how those whose parents would not want their kids to be part of it can trivially keep their kids out, but anti-Christian activists insist on attacking the rights of kids and their parents that DO want their kids to be part of it. The anti-Christian activists hate for Christianity has them attacking the rights of those who DO want such things. Fortunately the Constitution protects their rights and the school can and should be sued.

          • Rookheight

            Sorry, but your personal interpretation of the Constitution carries no weight. That’s not how this works.

            The Supreme Court resolved all the issues above. The separation of church and state is constitutionally guaranteed, the Equal Access Act is constitutional, etc. There’s a good reason no attorneys go for the arguments you’re making.

          • Cady555

            School employees are giving an outsider special access to other people’s kids so that he can promote and advance certain religious views.
            This is illegal.
            Any parent is free to obtain any religious instruction they want for their kids – at home, at church, at Sunday school, at bible camp, at neighborhood gatherings, etc. But they cannot use public schools to get access to other people’s kids.

          • 98C3LCMT9Y4

            It is unconstitutional for anyone to proselytize to a captive audience of students in a public school, “permission slips” does not alter that.

            And the parents were NOT part of that ‘religious instruction” – a non-family member was and they cannot proselytize in a public school as that is unconstitutional.

            Sorry, but your ignorance of the Constiitution is evidence that you really should have paid more attention in class & stop lying about what that document provided: FREEDOM FROM PROSTELYTIZATION IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL!

            The government [in this example a public school] cannot support one religion over another as that “youth chaser’ was attempting to do for his personal religious reasons with his bribes of pizza & soda.

            You are the individual who should be required to actually learn something about religious freedom and who can and cannot use a government entity to force a single religion on children in that government entity.

    • dani

      Reason 2012 can you show me exactly which schools are proselytizing Islam? I am sorry but the religion here that thinks they have the right to push their agenda is Christianity, that it’s somehow ok to brainwash our youth to some ridiculous myth and block science and progress. The fact that you don’t like another religion doing the same thing yet insist on yours doing it just confirmed what I said. You don’t care about the constitution, you want your mind disease spread at any cost. If you want your kid to be Christian that’s on you STAY OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS. I will be waiting on your evidence that Muslim leaders are preaching in schools.

      • Barbara Carolus

        I am a Christian. I would sign the permission slip for my child to attend during lunch break. I would not sign the slip for a Muslim lesson because we are Christian. But I would have no problem if I found out a Muslim lesson was taking place during lunch hour for children whose parents sign a permission slip for them to attend. I’m really not sure what the problem is. The constitution does not say freedom from religion, it says freedom OF religion.

        • dani

          Separation of Church and state is clear. If you want your kids to receive any religious education or counsel send them to the place that offers it. Great that you have no problem but I do and honestly do not want anyone having access to my child to prey on them or brainwash them. It is simple keep it out, Why is that so hard for Christians to understand. IT DOES NOT BELONG IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

    • Barbara Carolus

      Hello!!! Permission slips were sent home. Only children whose parents signed were allowed to attend. Common sense people. No one is being forced to do anything. It’s voluntary to attend. This is blatant discrimination.

      • Michael C

        Hi!!! I’m guessing that the school wouldn’t be willing to open their doors and give Scientologists, Hindus, Satanists, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, and Wiccans access to school children (permission slip or no).

  • james blue

    Generally speaking there should be no non school curriculum visitors on campus. Parents have access to pastors outside school. If you think pastors should be allowed think about that when the Satanic Temple guys decide to do the same thing.

  • Guzzman

    A public school is an arm of government, and government is mandated by the U.S. Constitution to remain neutral on religious matters. School officials have no legal justification for allowing access to its students for purposes of religious proselytizing.

  • Roni Jo Froemming Lester

    Well done FFRF, he has no business in a public school unless he is having lunch as a parent to with his child only. I giggled at the first school book history lessen in the article. Women couldn’t vote, black people were bought and sold yet this group wants schools to be just like their version of the good old days? Bah ha ha.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      I have no idea why they keep quoting that section at the bottom of these articles. It’s not like tradition supersedes Supreme Court rulings.

      • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

        When you don’t have the law or the facts, bang the table.

  • Liberal Elitist

    Once again Freedom From Religion Foundation stands up to the bullies. Well done, FFRF!

    • amanda dutton

      Bullies? How was this bullying? How are we not being bullied by this organization to freely practice assembly and speech as we CHOOSE? It seems that these freedoms are one sided for most people. You want the liberty and freedom to do as you choose but I am not allowed that same liberty? Who’s the bully now?

      • DoctorDan118

        Really, amanda dutton? Does freedom of speech give white supremacists the right to enter schools and preach to children about white power? I didn’t think so. Your so-called “rights” are NOT unlimited. Religious freedom means you have the right to worship on YOUR property, on your OWN time, and using your OWN money. It DOES NOT mean that you get to use government resources (ie, public schools) to promote your own religious agenda, just like white supremacists can’t use the public school system to promote their own racial agenda. Seriously, why is this so hard for your Christian fascists to understand?????

      • zeddicuskotor

        This isn’t freedom of assembly because those students are required to be in school. Which is why pastors need to be kept getting snacked down, since students are a captive audience.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Americans bully when they have no Christian conscience. Americans need Christian education not to bully those who disagree with them. USA needs Christianity to retain truth and human rights and freedom for all.

    • MenageriePass

      Religious education can take place in the home, private schools, churches, informal groups, and plenty of other places.

      Why am I even bothering? Obviously, you are impervious to facts.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        It is unfair that only the atheists and Sodomites play monopoly in US public schools. America has no freedom or fairness apart from Christianity.

        • zeddicuskotor

          Education is the same as Sodomy to you?

          • Amos Moses

            Nope …. but the education system is run by sodomites …………

          • Frank Dorka

            Don’t you mean the churches? It seems to be where most of the stories come from. By the way, find a good news search source and investigate “youth ministers”. Very eye-opening and quite DISGUSTING, if you ask me. Shame!

          • Amos Moses

            Yeah … licking peanut butter out of the youth ministers armpit is not christianity nor is does it have anything to do with christian doctrine ………

          • Frank Dorka

            How would you know?
            P.S. It is not only respectful to capitalize “Christian”, but correct as well. Atheism only need capitalization when it is the first word of the sentence.

          • Amos Moses

            Yeah ……… no ………. i am not here to correct english or have mine corrected ……. and sorry ….. do you have a chapter and verse on that peanut butter thingy ……… cause i have never found it …… there is supposed to be a certain dignity to being in a leadership position in the church ….. cant find the peanut butter bit in Titus or Timothy …… but if you would not mind …… jot it down for me ………..

        • Amos Moses

          Actually … and i sort of hate to say this ….. but christians should not expect satans kingdom to teach christianity or prayer to their children ….. and although having christianity in the school would be preferred ….. not sure i would like the sodomites teaching my child anything …… satan rules the governments of this earth ……. it is his domain ……..

          • Rookheight

            It’s easy to talk yourself into the corner you’re in when you just label everything you don’t agree with as “satan.” That’s all you’re doing.

          • Amos Moses

            Scripture says it is satans world ……….. that you do not want to believe that … your problem … not mine ………..

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes, agreed, but this present America’s hatred against the Good(Christianity) is abnormal in every way, as if sane morality is a crime in the society or something. Must we just watch and be bullied around, fully knowing how our forefathers fought for the establishment of Christianity and freedom in America? So sad.

          • slatyb

            The founders of this country were largely freethinking Deists. They deliberately left God (and Jesus) entirely out of the constitution and formed a secular government. Then for good measure they added the first amendment, which specifically prohibits the establishment of any religion. That clause has been repeatedly interpreted by the courts to bar public schools from allowing officials to lead religious activities during the school day.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            American fathers just did not wish dominion of any single denomination; all Americans were Christian. They only knew the God of the Holy Bible and no other. The Westerners are illiterate savages like the rest if they had no Christianity. De-christianized West is chaotic nudist today because only the Greek porns are their original. You guys need Christianity to stay civilized.

    • MyLovelyNose

      So when did you leave Korea?

    • Pam Delaney

      Sister…you’re wasting your breath. Just remember what Romans 1 said. Just dust yourself off and move on. Hang in there, you are loved!!

      Romans 1
      20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

      21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

      22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

      23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

      24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

      25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

      26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

      27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

      28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

      29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

      30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

      31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

      32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

      • Amos Moses

        “Just dust yourself off and move on.”

        i think that is part of Matthew 10 …. but yeah …….

        • Pam Delaney

          Yeah, I kind of blended that sentence and then forgot to add which scripture was for the “dust yourself off and move on”. Thanks for the correction. Sorry for the confusion!

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Amen. Thank you. I remember the days where Christian-minded and Christian-educated Americans sought fairness over all. It’s for remembrance.

      • Cady555

        Hmmm. Gossiping, unmerciful, proud, stubborn, deceitful, malicious are mixed in there. Ever meet a Christian with those qualities?
        Who was it that spoke of removing the plank from your own eye before worrying about the splinter in someone else’s?

        • Pam Delaney

          Really? Where was I judging anyone? I told her to save her breath as Christ Jesus told the apostles to do when the Gospel was rejected. I have to wonder if you are searching for Christ Jesus if you are perusing comments on a Christian site? Can I help you or point you to someone to learn more about The Good News? <3

          • Cady555

            Thanks. I was a Christian for over 30 years. I’ve read the Bible cover to cover more than once. So thanks, but no thanks. Been there, done that.

            I have no idea whether you judge or gossip or lie or are hateful or lack mercy. I simply know that Christians are fully capable of these very human qualities, yet as a group focus on the behavior of “those other people” while completely ignoring the bad behavior of those in their group. This is normal human behavior. There is lots of preaching on 1:27, yet next to no condemnation of gossip, envy, deceit, and pride which are mentioned in the same breath. I understand this. Almost all human groups build unity by focusing attention on the faults of outsiders while ignoring the same faults of group members. It gets tiresome, but it is very normal.

            I comment at Christian news sites for the same reason that I appreciate thoughtful comments from Christians at atheist blogs I read. I don’t like echo chambers. We all benefit when we realize that there are multiple views. Cheers.

          • Pam Delaney

            Hmmm…ok. I backslid for many years. As you know, being a Christian doesn’t mean being perfect. In fact, we know that we are so bad that we need our savior, Christ Jesus. I hope that you also find your way back to Christ Jesus! God never starts something that isn’t going to be finished. (Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ) Lots of love!

          • Cady555

            For the record, to me, atheism =/= backsliding. Backsliders still believe in the supernatural, but the importance of god in their life waxes and wanes. I am an atheist because over a period of years I came to the conclusion that no supernatural beings exist. This is a conclusion very different from backsliding.
            It seems to me that regardless of religion, good people are good, kind people are kind, and evil people are evil.
            I would love to get into my thoughts more. I think we could have an interesting discussion, but this site discourages forceful statements of non belief and I respect that. This is their site.
            Cheers.

    • tatoo

      Considering how many pervert clergy I have read about, the parents should be grateful to have these guys out of the school.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Most priests and pastors are innocent and the safest people to be around. Regular population is much more dangerous. Secularism corrupts children and makes even children dangerous to each other. The Western civilization has no conscience apart from Christianity. Secularism is mere godlessness and immorality.

        • Cady555

          No. Priests and pastors are not the safest people to be around. This is not due to any inherent difference between religious people and non religious people. Religion does not make anyone better or worse.
          The risk comes because those who want to abuse kids look for jobs where they have access to kids and where their integrity is assumed. Thus, many of those with bad motives seek to become priests and pastors – a job that meets both criteria. Add to this the Christian requirement to “forgive” and overlook bad past behavior and the human tendency to protect members of the “in group,” and priests / preachers become a very high risk group.

      • Cady555

        Yes. I do not permit my kids near Christian preachers or youth pastors without my permission. I would be livid if school employees allowed religious charlatans to use public schools to get to my kids.

  • M S i N Lund

    Good!
    Freedom from religion, is a basic right.
    Its just too bad there is no hell waiting for those who prey on the young.

  • David Ginn

    BRAVO FFRF! This why I’m a paid member, & gift FFRF memberships to others!

  • amanda dutton

    I would rather stand for what is right and be judged by you than to stand with the world and be judged by GOD. Jesus is the only salvation and I and my child have a right to the same privilege and liberties you feel you have the right to. It works both ways. If you don’t believe in GOD and don’t believe in the Bible, WHY DO YOU CARE??? DON’T PARTICIPATE. THAT IS YOUR CHOICE. Leave me to mine.

    • zeddicuskotor

      Which is why religion is kept out of public schools.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Except that you are not a participant in this story. It involves a school, students in that school, and a pastor who comes onto school grounds to preach, which is unconstitutional on the part of the school.

    • DoctorDan118

      REally, does that mean I get to stop paying taxes too? Are you going to tell the IRS that for me? Because MY tax dollars help pay for those schools, and although yours do too, you don’t get to spend MY money promoting YOUR Bronze Age cult? Understand, pumpkin????

      Jesus as the savior is a myth, invented decades after the existence by a regular human being who preached love and acceptance. The stories of the miracles, the resurrection, and most of the gospels were recreated later, and stolen entirely from older pagan myths, nearly all of which had stories of virgin births, announced by a star in the east, with 12 disciples, resurrections, miracles, etc. Maybe instead of whining and crying like an ignorant fool online, you should use the internet to do a little research and realize that (A) your entire religion is a fabrication, and (B) it has ZERO place in our public school system.

      Now run along and pretend to drink the blood and eat the flesh of your human sacrifice, while convincing yourself that you’re not part of a blood cult.

      • amanda dutton

        I will be praying for you. Thank you for giving me something to add to my prayer life. God loves you!

  • Tim White

    Why is the FFRF called “a PROFESSING atheist organization”? I’m curious as to why that term is used.

    • Rookheight

      Presumably the author doesn’t believe anyone could REALLY not believe in the god they believe in.

  • Dmc1184

    nanananana nanananana hey hey hey goodbye

  • Croquet_Player

    You may teach your own children whatever you like in terms of religion, or send them to religious classes like Sunday School. The problem arises when other people try to access children in public schools. Children are required to attend school and have a constitutional right to be free from proselytization from adults while they are there. Their parents also have the right to know their children will not be subjected to doctrines they may not approve of. What is particularly worrying in this case is the “free pizza and soda”. A lot of kids would love to have free pizza and soda for lunch, particularly poor children. And a lot of parents would prefer their child eat the healthy lunch they sent them to school with. There’s something very creepy about trying to lure children with food. Thank you to the Freedom From Religion Foundation for putting religious instruction back in parents’ hands and not permitting strangers to proselytize to children.

    • Nidalap

      Seems I recall from the article that permission was obtained from the parents first. That means that the instruction was taken from the parents hands and forcibly placed in the dubious hands of the FFRF…

      • Croquet_Player

        It certainly did NOT mean instruction was given to the FFRF. They are in no way attempting to proselytize anything at all to children in schools. These were coercive measures, used by a particular sect, to lure and attract children with free food, during school hours. Parents sign a lot of permission slips with barely a glance, and it doesn’t matter if they did. It was obviously entirely unconstitutional, and rightly overturned.

      • Rookheight

        Nonsense. The youth pastor was baiting kids with pizza and soda, just telling them they had to get their parents to sign a form before they could get it. The law rightly guarantees that parents don’t have to worry about this kind of crap when they send their kids to a public school.

        • Nidalap

          And the parents GAVE permission. I also note that it’s not the PARENTS who are filing these complaints.
          Nice of these groups to make a choice for others when they won’t make that choice themselves.
          Just their right to choose…FOR you…

          • Brian_Bray

            Parents giving or not giving permission is not the issue. It’s unconstitutional, has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, and has legal precedent in many, many court cases. That should be enough for any organization that respects the laws of the land, but for some reason Christian proselytizers see themselves as above the law.

            Of course kids are going to want pizza and soda. Of course they’re going to ask their parents if they can go, and of course Christian parents or parents not caring one way or the other are going to say yes. That doesn’t change the fact that the constitution forbids it.

          • George T

            Students can lead the meeting and not an adult and no laws are violated.

          • Brian_Bray

            Is that what’s happening?

          • Cady555

            Nope. An outside adult is coordinating and leading the religious activity in a public school. This is illegal.

          • Nidalap

            Simply put, if the framers of our Constitution had intended for it to be implemented in this way, they would have done so from the outset.
            They did not. That’s why you have to go about changing everything now…

          • Brian_Bray

            They did intend for it to be implemented this way, and they did so from the outset. It’s been allowed to be corrupted over time.

          • Nidalap

            Well, you’ve got the “..corrupted over time.” part right anyway, though it’s the opposite of what you claim…

          • Brian_Bray

            Well let’s apply your logic then: if the framers of the constitution had intended for America to be a Christian nation, they would have said so in no uncertain terms from the outset. They did not.

            What has been corrupted over time is the surreptitious injection of Christianity into all aspects of American life. “In God We Trust” wasn’t adopted as the nation’s motto until 1956, for example. Before that it was the very secular E pluribus unum (one out of many).

          • Nidalap

            “…surreptitious injection of Christianity into all aspects of American life.”

            Please, it was there from the very start. It’s why we have phrases like “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” in our founding documents…

          • Cady555

            1. The Declaration of Independence was a press release, designed to raise money from France. While it is beautifully written, it is not a legal document and has no force of law.
            2. The “Creator” alluded to in the DoI was the deist concept of god, not the Christian-specific diety. Saying “…endowed by their Creator” is akin to saying “…endowed by Mother Nature.” The point is not that any specific diety exists, the point is that the human rights are not subject to the whims of those in power.

          • Brian_Bray

            Appeasement.

      • Reason2012

        Correct – the parents must give permission. FFRF hates Christianity and is pro-perversion, so they have no problem with everyone’s kids instead being FORCED to endure pro-homosexual, pro-transgender indoctrination instead.

        • Cady555

          The FFRF does not hate Christianity. Facts are your friends.
          The FFRF does not oppose religious activity by private organizations or individuals on private property. There are no protests at any of the thousands of churches found in every city in the nation. There are no protests at religious conventions or religious gatherings. There are no protests at the thousands of religious bookstores selling thousands of religious products. The FFRF only objects when someone violates the Constitution of the United States of America by using government property, government authority and/or government money to promote religion.
          Churches can even rent park facilities and ampitheaters using normal rental terms for occasional church services and gatherings. However, churches cannot get special treatment from the government, and school employees cannot promote religion on public school property.

          • Reason2012

            // The FFRF does not oppose religious activity by private organizations or individuals on private property. //

            The Constitution protects free exercise of religion. It’s not “free exercise” if they can only do so where people who hate Christianity give their permission.

            And given that ONLY kids who WANT to participate, and whose parents also WANT their own kids to participate shows they hate those who want to participate having the freedom to participate.

            Please show where FFRF protests the murderous, hateful ideology of islam that caused 50 LGBT to be slaughtered here in America by yet another person doing what it says. Please cite FFRF’s claims rebuking them, or making threats that this ideology is to be silenced in schools where ISLAM is being taught (google islam public schools).

            That they ignore islam being taught in public schools to EVERYONE with no permission required, while going after those parents who want just their own kids to participate in a lunch activity proves they HATE Christianity and not about freedom from religion, but freedom from Christianity while pro islam / sharia law. So really they’re anti-America, pro-islam.

          • Cady555

            Reason 2012 said “The Constitution protects free exercise of religion. It’s not “free exercise” if they can only do so where people who hate Christianity give their permission.”

            What? Nobody has to give you permission to exercise your religion. You simply have to exercise your religion on your own time and dime. Neither you nor anyone else is permitted to use government authority, property or money to advance your personal religious views.

            You can exercise your religion. Kids can exercise their religion by prayer, bible reading, forming clubs, etc. But you CANNOT go to a public school where you are not a student and proselytize to the kids gathered together by government authority.

            If you want to proselytize to other people’s kids, you simply have to spend your own money to gather them up and host them at a non-taxpayer funded location.

  • Bruce swingline

    I have a better way to explain it all to the xristians. It will make perfect sense, at least to us non-xristians it will. Here goes, I may ramble on but will try to make it so you can follow my reasoning….

    They (xristians) say it isn’t proselytizing the kids if they volunteer to join in. Ok, let me put it this way, If Jena Haze, Peter North (I had to look up their names. I don’t know any porn stars names), came to the “middle school” and started preaching about the enjoyment of sex and having sex with many partners, to the “middle school” children, everyone would have a meltdown. How dare some porn stars come into a “middle school” and explain the enjoyments of sex?!? Now what if some of those kids ONLY volunteered to join in their sex acts? Oh, no we can’t have that! You would call it rape of the minor, their brains are not able to handle the complexity of what their bodies are telling them. They need to be older. It is shameful. The list goes on and on as to why “middle school” children should NEVER be told, or shown, what sex is.

    Now take all that I have said and replace it with a religious person. It boils down to the same thing! If you think their brains can’t handle sex, they sure can’t handle religion!

    Oh, and no, I am not for children having sex. I am for religion to go extinct. Bit it was the best way to get it through those dumb-ass religious fanatics.

  • Nedd Kareiva

    I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the FFRF is doing this on behalf of themselves and using the smokescreen of some “unidentified individual” to push their agenda. The public has a right to know who these “unidentified offended” complainants are. I fully get it that would-be litigants in these highly unpopular cases MAY need protection of some sort but the public must have some kind of identifier as proof of the actual existence and intent of these suers and not done in the name of a phantom plaintiff (which I daresay exists here).

    • Croquet_Player

      The courts investigate to determine if the complainant is legitimate. In communities where being a member of a minority faith (or no faith) can present genuine hardships to themselves and/or their children, they keep the identities private.

      • Nedd Kareiva

        I have no issue with that if that is indeed the case (a proper court determination). My gut is that this is more of a personal thing with the FFRF than anything else. Even the ACLU tends not to go this far. It occurs on occasion with them but with the FFRF it is so frequent that it raises eyebrows as to whether there is a real individual involved in almost every case. That was why I raised the issue. You can have certain identifying factors about the individual without full disclosure to protect that person. Thanks for your point.

        • Croquet_Player

          The courts investigate complainants in every case. I’m afraid you’ll have to take their word for it, unless you’re a fan of the real threat of local vigilantism. The FFRF takes on cases like this around the nation to protect the constitutional rights of individuals. That is their stated purpose. There’s no reason to suspect a “personal” motivation in this location, or any location.

        • Rookheight

          FFRF only has one office, in Wisconsin. They have 24,000 members nationwide, and many more supporters. How could they possibly discover violations like this, along with a copy of the permission slip that was attached to the letter, if they didn’t have a local complainant? Not to mention that sending “spies” from Wisconsin to all the country’s public schools is not exactly feasible…

          • Nedd Kareiva

            I have heard numbers in the 18,000 range but whatever. To answer your question, I wish I kept an article I read earlier this year that addressed that point. I can’t recall where it was (my best offhand guess says either the Denver Post or a news source in Tennessee) but it was revealed in this particular source that founders Dan Barker & Annie Gaylor peruse the Internet and papers for religious stories where some alleged questionable “violation of separation of church & state occurred” and then send legally threatening letters to school districts about the schools’ alleged violations in the name of some unnamed complainant. It raised the question of whether a real plaintiff existed.

            I believe it was last year (possibly 2014) where the FFRF sued a Pennsylvania town for some Christmas “violation” and a judge dismissed the case for lack of standing and no verifiable complaint. It occurred with the ACLU in Kansas a few years ago in response to a suit where there was public pressure to reveal who it was about someone offended by something (think it was one of those cases about “In God We Trust” on a coin). The state ACLU pulled back and dropped the case because there was allegedly no actual plaintiff.

            I know some of this stuff from a website I used to run, plus I personally know a handful of attorneys with law firms who take on these cases with the ACLU & more so, the FFRF. They can back me up on what I say. If you doubt me, just Google one of those firms and e-mail them details about unidentifiable plaintiffs. They will tell you it occurs.

          • Rookheight

            When you say your attorney friends “take on these cases with the ACLU & more so, the FFRF,” do you mean that they are those organizations’ local counsel, or that they represent the government in opposing them? If it’s the latter, I don’t think what they have to say about their opposing counsel’s clients is very trustworthy. If it’s the former, let me know which firms and I will indeed email them.

            I’m certainly curious about the 2014/15 case you mentioned where the judge dismissed the case because there was “no verifiable plaintiff.” I can very much understand a plaintiff getting cold feet after a protective order is denied, meaning they would have to break anonymimity to proceed, and of course that would kill a case. Plaintiffs in Establishment Clause cases often get almost literally run out of town. But it’s an extraordinary claim that any attorney who knows anything about standing (and FFRF has seven of them) would actually file a lawsuit with no local plaintiff. It just doesn’t make any sense.

            As for the allegation that FFRF’s co-presidents crawl the internet looking for violations, is there any reason to think that’s more than utter speculation? Random nonsense gets made up about FFRF all the time because people see them as a threat to their Christian-privileged lifestyle. I just find it very hard to believe—both FFRF and the ACLU have more than enough work to do without scouring distant news sources and pretending they have a local complainant.

            Don’t get me wrong, I understand your concern—it makes sense to be suspicious when there’s always an “anonymous complainant”—but it just doesn’t seem to add up.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            The Alliance Defense Fund (now Alliance Defending Freedom) is one of those firms and they should be able to address (and back up) my points.

            I know it may seem to be “extraordinary”, as you put it, and admittedly it is. But keep in mind that lawyers often (both on the left and yes, the right) do have friends on the court in certain judges who will “bend the law” to give the party (parties) what they want. It can be sleazy and it often it. Unfortunately, there’s really no foolproof way to ever insure a totally unbiased case.

            Yeah, I wish I could recall the details of that particular case. I think some of it would come back to me if I knew which city it was. It was a small town, that I do recall, and that I believe an appeals court upheld the lower court’s dismissal. I can’t seem to remember more than that. I read so much that sometimes details in certain cases slip thru the cracks of my mind. This appears to be one of them.

          • Rookheight

            From what I’ve seen, the Orwellian-named ADF only represents Christian clients who have had their privilege challenged (there’s probably a few who were legitimately wronged, I’m sure, but not that I’ve ever seen). I’m pretty sure they are also among those who repeat the lie that FFRF loses most of its cases, claiming victory after, for instance, FFRF gets everything they asked for in a settlement, including fees and costs, and thus withdraws their case (apologies if I’m confusing them with Liberty Institute, Liberty Counsel, etc., but I don’t think I am). They couldn’t be much less aligned with FFRF’s mission, and they’ve certainly never been on the same side of a case as FFRF. So I’d recommend taking whatever your friend at ADF has to say about FFRF with a big gulp of salt.

            But if there’s anything more than raw speculation, I’m all ears. I’m with you in being skeptical of lawyer/judge coziness, but I have no reason to think FFRF is more guilty of that than their opponents. And since their opponents are government officials local to where the case is being litigated, I think the latter is far more likely.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Well, since you refer to the ADF as Orwellian, I see that it’s going to be difficult to maintain a neutrally based conversation. But then again, I maintain that Dan Barker & Annie Gaylor, the two nutcase heads at the FFRF, have a personal vendetta against Christianity so there’s my shot against them. Bad enough they go after schools like the ACLU. But unlike the ACLU (which I actually have a modicum of respect for), they demand privately run hotels and motels remove Bibles from hotel & motel rooms and threaten litigation against private bizzes (particularly restaurants) who might offer a slight discount to customers for bringing in a church bulletin. Plus they show their public hostility toward Christianity by its perpetual display of hateful billboards and other artifacts. The FFRF makes the ACLU look like choir boys. As to their cases, they get their share of wins and losses but a good many of their wins comes from a letter and no court action. And way too many of their cases come from unnamed plaintiffs so based on all that, I have my doubts about them. Thanks for the dialog, have a good day.

          • slatyb

            Those hotels are not privately run. They are owned by public institutions, usually public colleges and universities.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            So Motel 6, Super 8, Holiday Inns, Hiltons, etc. are run by governments, huh? I’ll make a note of it.

          • Cady555

            Facts are your friends. They have never demanded that private hotels remove all bibles.
            Hotels operated by the government – like at colleges – are expected to be religiously neutral. And the FFRF will sue to ensure the Constitution is respected.

            Regarding private hotels, the directors of the FFRF are like any other customer. They can ask that bibles be removed from rooms they stay in just like Baptists can ask that alcohol be removed from the mini bar and Mormons can ask that coffee be removed from the room. They can suggest that many customers are put off by finding bibles in rooms. But the FFRF has never considered suing a private hotel for placing bibles in the room because that is a customer service issue, not a legal issue.

            As for “hateful” billboards, they usually say some version of “atheists exist” and are normally vandalized by loving Christians within days, if they are allowed to put them up in the first place.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Go read the letter at the FFRF to the American Hotel & Lodging Association and then come back and talk to me (I can’t post the link here as CNN doesn’t permit them.). Using the word “discriminate” in a letter is a veiled threat of legal action, even if it cannot actually do so.

            Keep trying your arguments. I’ve heard them all.

          • Cady555

            Thanks.

            I located and read the November 24, 2015 letter from FFRF to the American Hotel and Lodging Association.

            There is no threat of legal action whatsoever in this letter, veiled or otherwise. When the FFRF writes a letter from a legal standpoint, they include extensive case law to support their request. No such references are included in this letter. None.

            The only use of the word “discriminate” was in a quote from one hotel chain that has removed bibles from guest rooms. Specifically:

            “Please join the growing number of other inclusive hotels — which include boutique hotels, Soho Grand Hotel, New York’s Mercer Hotel, Kimpton Hotels — that have stopped serving as a conduit for Protestant missionaries. Travelodge Hotels (UK) laudably removed bibles from more than 500 hotels last August “in order not to discriminate against any religion.””

            The entire tone of the letter was one of a customer communicating a preference to a vendor so that the vendor can better meet customer needs. Note the following excerpts from the letter.

            “On behalf of the 23,000 members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, we’re writing to urge you to offer bible-free rooms, just as establishments now offer smoke-free rooms.”

            “The hotel industry’s “blessing” of the Protestant text over all others thus may alienate not only nonreligious guests and non-Christians of other faiths, but even Catholics, as exemplified by the controversy that hit Pittsburgh hotels in September when the pope visited.”

            “It’s simply bad business to promote divisive religious teachings to a diverse clientele.”

            “Many of your guests are freethinkers — atheists, agnostics, skeptics or Nones — who are offended to be charged high fees only to be proselytized in the privacy of their own bedrooms, to be told, for instance, that they are “fools” who can do no good (Psalm 14:1). The nonreligious find it inhospitable for the hospitality industry to promote a book calling for killing nonbelievers, apostates, gays, ‘stubborn sons,’ and women who transgress biblical double standards.”

            and

            “Those who must read the bible every day will surely take precautions to travel with their own copies. The rest of us deserve a break from mindless evangelizing when we are on vacation.”
            If you haven’t, I suggest you read the actual letter sent by FFRF in its entirety. I found several religious websites that mischaracterized both the content and the tone of the letter. There isn’t even a threat of boycott, which is a tactic commonly used by Christians to extract compliance (e.g. Target). The FFRF has every right to communicate preferences to vendors.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            I read the letter in its entirety and stand by what I said. But if that’s insufficient to convince you (which I see is impossible), perhaps you should look up the cases (including one last year) which they threatened pizzerias and other eateries (none they patronized) for giving discounts to patrons who bring in church bulletins. Make no mistake, the FFRF has a vengeful vendetta against anything remotely linked to Christianity.

          • Cady555

            The FFRF objects when a company discriminates by providing one set of prices for religious people and different prices nor non-religious. I expect you would likewise object if every customer wearing cross shaped jewelry were charged an extra 10%. That would likewise be illegal. A place of business cannot charge different prices based on the religion of the customer.
            The pizzeria would be fine if they gave the discount to anyone with either a church bulletin or a family picture. Just provide a way that anyone can get the discount without reference to religion. It is actually simple if the business cares about its customers.
            But again, in those cases, if the FFRF claims a law has been violated, they provide case law. They did not do that in the Hotel letter, because this was merely a letter from a customer expressing a preference.
            I also personally would prefer that no bibles be placed in Hotel rooms. My son would be disappointed, though. He read the first few chapters of Genesis during our last stay. He couldn’t stop laughing. He couldn’t believe people actually took it seriously.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            The FFRF is virulently hostile to Christianity and displays its hostility quite well. The FFRF does not defend Christians and you won’t find one case that it does. The ACLU admittedly does on occasion and unlike the FFRF, does not publicly mock Christianity with its obnoxious billboards and public statements. Thanks for writing, Cody, sorry to hear that your son thinks the Bible is a joke. Unfortunately, both for you and him, you both are dead wrong (thinking it’s a fairy tale).

          • Cady555

            The Alliance Defending Freedom takes cases where they can include the case in a fundraising letter and raise lots of money screaming “Christians are being attacked. Ack! Send us money. Now”. They usually lose their cases, and raise even more money based on the claim the “evil atheists” won again. Meanwhile, the party to the case is stuck with paying the judgment and legal fees of the winning party while ADF laughs all the way to the bank.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            You’re saying that ADF usually loses their cases, then you say ADF laughs all the way to the bank, meaning they win. Well, which is it? Doesn’t matter. You’re wrong about them and I have authority to speak because about a decade ago, they came to my defense in a school matter in a Chicago school that my autistic son attended at the time. The matter was amicably resolved without going to court and without tax dollars being used one way or the other. Last I checked, nothing was ever said in a fundraising matter because it was a private matter involving my son’s autism. And a few years ago, the respected Rutherford Institute came to my son’s aid because of a mandatory requirement his high school had to attend an auditorium event on drug use. The issue was also settled without ever having to go to court as the school had violated its own policies on public notice. Again, no tax dollars were used.

            So I have more knowledge and experience on these matters and am likely far more well versed to address them than you do. They do admittedly go to court in a number of cases but that’s no different than their counterparts in FFRF or the ACLU. Thanks for writing.

          • Cady555

            They send out fund raising appeals to gullible Christians. That is their source of money.
            Actually winning or losing cases makes no difference, as they can spin either in the next fund raising letter.
            I’m aware of them as it comes to the “Christian is being persecuted by being expected to follow the same rules as everyone else” cases. I’m actually glad if they also take cases that involve actual needs.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            So what it the source for your claims, Cody?

    • M S i N Lund

      Yes, the sinister plan to rid mankind of a bronze age death cult that spreads ignorance and might destroy us all.
      How DARE they!!!

      Whats next?
      The extermination of innocent deadly virus and bacteria diseases?
      Surely God in his infinite wisdom. but them here on earth for a reason.
      This all sounds like something Hitler would do, if you ask me.

      Protest by coughing in someones face, TODAY!

    • Prototype Atheist

      There’s good reason why secularists stay anonymous is situations like this, because people like you love to shun them and treat them terribly for simply asking for the law to be upheld.

      So Christlike.

      • Nedd Kareiva

        Mmmm – what law?

        • 98C3LCMT9Y4

          The Constitution.

        • Prototype Atheist

          The First Amendment. Separation of church and state. Public schools are government institutions, and as such, are not allowed to have any religious instruction taking place during normal school hours (unless it’s in the sense of a social studies class where students are simply learning about what different cultures believe). Public schools can rent out spaces to churches, or even allow students to have religious clubs after school hours. However, having people proselytize during school hours is a no-no.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Kindly cite for me where in the Constitution “separation of church & state” exists; also, that part of the 1st Amendment “prohibit the free exercise thereof” (religion) – how does that fit in with your agenda?

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            My only agenda is protecting the secular nature of our government from any religious influence (and yes, this includes from atheism).

            The phrase “separation of church and state” originates from a letter that Thomas Jefferson penned, in which he was describing the intent behind the Establishment Clause. I can certainly direct you to dozens, if not hundreds, of court cases where judges have interpreted the First Amendment exactly as I have described it. Public schools are not allowed to preach or otherwise teach religion as subject material during normal school hours. This includes during lunch or recess, and includes third parties using the school to access students during school hours. Students are free to pray, read holy text, or discuss religion amongst themselves freely, provided it doesn’t interrupt normal school activities.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            “My only agenda is protecting the secular nature of our government from
            any religious influence (and yes, this includes from atheism).”

            Is that so? Well, perhaps you should read (or reread, as the case may be) the Declaration of Independence where the Founders wrote the terms “Creator, Divine Providence, Nature’s God & Supreme Being of the Universe”. The Framers certainly didn’t foresee or wish upon America an atheist government, much as you nutty atheists crave it.

            Indeed, it was President John Adams who said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

            Thanks for playing.

    • 98C3LCMT9Y4

      So you can tar & feather them?

      • Nedd Kareiva

        Good idea, thanks for the suggestion.

        • 98C3LCMT9Y4

          Thanks for proving that christians have indeed spent the last 2,000+ years being despicable examples of a failed experiment that really should be flushed into the nearest sewer.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            You’re quite welcome. Now before I go, answer this one question. How many homeless shelters, women’s shelters, hospitals, orphanages and other organizations of charity and good will have you atheists built and run across the globe? Let’s see, um, um, um, still trying to think of one. On our end, we can start with the Salvation Army, Samaritan’s Purse, Catholic Charities and literally millions of churches.

            While you’re still trying to come up with a legitimate example, may I suggest you check into your local mental health center for treatment. It might do you some good.

          • 98C3LCMT9Y4

            And why do you feel the need to lie about another individual?

            And why do you believe that christians’ 2,000+ documented years of slaughter is not evidence that they are, indeed, a religion in name only that has murdered & raped & pillaged around the globe during that time frame and have not limited their despicable acts in any way, shape, or form? They have been responsible for the deaths of not only other religions but also of fellow christians. What animals kill those who worship the same ‘god’ they do?

            Your history is there for all to see and for all to find despicable and sickening because it was done in the name of what you call your ‘god.’ An entity that you lie about and claim has not been the cause of those deaths. History calls you a hypocrit and a liar and every lie you post underscores your failure to ever even attempt to not bear false witness. You glory in denigrating & defaming others all the while you want to be thought other than what you demonstrate over & over you really are: liars & hypocrits.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            You didn’t answer my question so I won’t answer yours but I think you made a mistake in your first full paragraph. I think you meant Islam, the so-called religion of peace which has killed for 14+ centuries in the name of Allah. So we’ll forgive you for your error here.

            As to the rest of your points, I think you need to make that appointment to your local mental health specialist. He or she needs to give you your meds to calm you down. Anger management classes might also not be a bad idea as you are one bitter individual.

          • 98C3LCMT9Y4

            Nope, 2,000+ years of hatred & death & destruction by christians. You really have no idea what your religion has done & continues to do in the name of that religion.

            Islam is a johnny come lately religion and has yet to destroy as many humans as ‘christianity’ has destroyed and continues to destroy.

            Ignorance of church history, world history, history in general – underscore why you really should stop lying about others & take a long hard look at yourself & your so called religion. You really could start with actually understanding & following those commandments that you seem to have a really hard time following.

            Your constant lies are really not a very smart way to claim that ‘christians’ are “good’ as the lies are so much more accurate in their portrayal of what filth you really are.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            As a degreed Bible school grad of over 30 years ago with a very good working knowledge of church history, be careful how you want to tread with your largely baseless claims. Perhaps you can cite some examples for me (aside from the Salem Witch Trials or the Crusades, the latter of which had a very good degree of validity since it was fighting against Islamic terrorists). Those examples you might cite should be within the last 50-100 years. Try as you may, I can cite you literally dozens, if not hundreds or more, of those Islamic related. Good luck; also, don’t forget to pick up your meds refill and do make your appt. with the mental health expert. You are one bitter individual.

          • 98C3LCMT9Y4

            “Degreed?” “Bible school?” Amusing and so not credible.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            LOL, have a good one – and don’t forget the meds!

          • Cady555

            Recently, there was a man in Oklahoma who worked at a printing company. For years, the company printed material for a local children’s home for free. This year, for whatever reason, the company chose to charge the children’s home. The man felt bad about this, and decided to donate $100 to the children’s home to help them out. The donation form included a space to identify whether the donation was in the name of an organization. Since the man was a founder of a local atheist community, he placed that organization’s name on the standard line of the form.

            The children’s home said “We are Baptist. We refuse your atheist money.” and sent him back the money.

            The man decided to raise $1000 from atheists for the children’s home. In the end, he raised over $26,000 on Go Fund Me in just a few days. The money came mostly from atheists, but also from a lot of Christians who thought helping kids was more important than sticking it to atheists. The Children’s Home still refused to accept money from atheists. He tried to give it to a church so that the church could give it to the children’s home. They still refused since it came from atheists. $26,000.

            Christian love – dissing atheists is more important than helping kids.

            Google Murrow Indian Children’s Home and Muskogee Atheist Community.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Nothing wrong at all with that act of charity; now when you can name me a few atheist hospitals and atheist shelters and stuff, come back a calling.

          • Cady555

            Yeah, like that pro life Catholic Hospital that turned away a woman who was bleeding from a miscarriage because they are so pro life they will let a woman die.

            We could do with a lot less Christian hospitals.

            I give to Doctors without Borders and similar secular charities that don’t subject people to religious tests before providing medical care or food.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            So all religious hospitals are bad because of one bad apple (which, to the best of my understanding, there was more to it than what the media reported). Got it, Cody. Just make sure the next time you’re ill and need admission to one that you research the backgrounds of the facility and its doctors and nurses beforehand. We certainly will treat anyone who comes our way but we’re not going to be that excited about doing so to someone of your ilk, given your hostility towards the Judeo-Christian faith.

        • Guzzman

          A plaintiff in a civil court case has every right to maintain anonymity if there is a significant risk of retaliation or harm, as assessed by the court. Your “run ’em out of town” reaction is precisely why courts have to protect the identities of complainants, because religious extremists are known to threaten people who are doing nothing more than standing up for their constitutional rights.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            An occasional anonymous plaintiff is one thing. A phantom plaintiff, which I strongly suspect is the case here, is quite another.

            BTW, what constitutional rights were violated?

          • Guzzman

            FFRF responds to complaints from local residents. The issue as to whether a complainant has standing to sue is different from the issue of whether government has violated the Constitution.

            Your use of the term “phantom plaintiff” is questionable. That term is typically used to refer to a complainant who was initially given standing by the court, but then was later discovered, based on some legal technicality, not to have standing to sue.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            “FFRF responds to complaints from local residents.”

            Care to provide proof or are you just taking FFRF at their word?

            “there is a constitutional guarantee that government will remain neutral on religious matters.”

            Reread the 1st Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof”. The 1st Amendment does NOT require public officials to check their constitutional rights at the door. The Constitution has no provision that prevents someone being offended because of someone’s religious animosity.

            Nice try.

          • Cady555

            One should take a class in Constitutional law lest one appear ignorant.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Right, Cody. So when are you enrolling and where?

          • Guzzman

            FFRF’s goal is to uphold the U.S. Constitution and preserve the separation of government and religion. They receive thousands of complaints every year and yet only have a small group of attorneys to respond to all of those complaints. What they typically do is respond on behalf of the complainant, who is usually someone directly impacted by the constitutional violation (almost always a local citizen). FFRF sends an educational letter to the government entity involved. If no corrective action is taken, then as a last resort, FFRF will seek complainants with legal standing and file a lawsuit.

            A complainant does not necessarily qualify as a plaintiff with standing to sue. Last year, parents complained about a 10 Commandments display in front of their daughter’s public high school. But then the daughter transferred to another school, so the complainants lost standing to sue. The vast majority of cases are resolved out of court, particularly when the violators review the case law and also realize that litigation expenses can be staggering.

            As to your last point, it is well-established case law that when government employees are acting in an official capacity, they in effect are the government, and must remain neutral on religious matters – neither favoring nor disfavoring any religious viewpoint. The Supreme Court has made clear that “the touchstone of the Establishment Clause was ‘the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.’ [McCreary County v. ACLU], 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005).

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Ah, but if you want to cite McCreary, I can cite Van Orden so it works both ways. The First Amendment Center wrote a very good piece on both so you might want to take a look at that.

          • Guzzman

            Not sure what the relevance of Van Orden is to your argument against government being constrained by the Establishment Clause not to promote religion.

            You deceptively pointed to the only Supreme Court case that upheld the display of the Ten Commandments, but failed to mention why the display was upheld in that one case. In Van Orden v. Perry, the Court considered a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas capitol grounds permissible only because the display was ONE OF SEVENTEEN monuments and 21 historical markers on the broad plaza. In the the majority of cases considering government posting of the Ten Commandments, the Court has prohibited stand-alone religious displays based on the long held constitutional principle that the government may not take any action that endorses a specific religious belief.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            No, it’s not deceptive – read what Justice Breyer said about both cases. In the end, you’re essentially arguing whether peaches or plums taste better and I’m not going to get into the nitpickiness of your points. You’re not going to change my mind on my views and I see I’m not going to change yours so these matters are moot. Rather than continually arguing back and forth with me (which will be unsuccessful for you), perhaps you should do something more productive with your time.

          • Guzzman

            In Van Orden, Justice Breyer said exactly what I already stated: “The monument sits in a large park containing 17 monuments and 21 historical markers, all designed to illustrate the ‘ideals’ of those who settled in Texas and of those who have lived there since that time. Tex. H. Con. Res. 38, 77th Leg. (2001); see Appendix B, infra. The setting does not readily lend itself to meditation or any other religious activity. But it does provide a context of history and moral ideals.”

            Breyer said what I said, because of the context and setting of the monument (not stand-alone, but merely one of dozens of displays on the state capitol grounds), the monument served a predominantly secular purpose.

            With the present case of a Baptist youth minister being given exclusive access to public school students, I have to ask how that parallels with Van Orden? Perhaps if the school had allowed an open forum where all religious viewpoints were given access, Van Orden might have some relevance. But the school didn’t do that. If my interpretation of the law is mistaken, then you have to explain why the school board decided to comply with FFRF’s request and instructed the local minister that he would no longer be allowed to come onto school property and meet with students during the lunchtime or anytime during the instructional day.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            You brought up McCreary and I brought up Van Orden to counter McCreary. You brought up the 10 Commandments issue first so perhaps you should answer your own question. Thus I really don’t have to explain anything. After all, you’re not willing to surrender your affection and love for atheism and the FFRF so there’s no need for me to uselessly attempt to persuade you.

          • Guzzman

            It was a simple question. If you are right, then why did the school board decide to comply with FFRF’s request and instruct the local minister that he would no longer be allowed to come onto school property and meet with students during the lunchtime or anytime during the instructional day?

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Well, you didn’t address an earlier question as to providing proof that (“FFRF responds to complaints from local residents.”Care to provide proof or are you just taking FFRF at their word?”) so why should I answer yours? It’s not going to change your atheistic thinking and your fond affection for the FFRF so why waste my time further? I could do so but I have more important things to do (like selling on eBay as I am doing right now).

            Your goal is to trip me up and give yourself a pat on the back that you think you got the upper hand on me. Sorry, it doesn’t and won’t work that way. Have a nice evening.

          • Cady555

            Yes, and it goes beyond threats of rape and murder. The family pet of one family was killed when they stood up to Christian privilege. Another family had their house burned down by loving Christians. There is good reason for remaining anonymous.

        • Reason2012

          The perversion activists wanted to know every person who voted for proposition 8 in CA so they could go after them – now they try to pretend Christians are the ones that do it.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Ain’t it the truth? Thanks for the support – and exposing those intellectual fraudsters.

  • Jay Thompson

    Before I take the bait, is this a hoax?

  • Nicholas Andrade

    Harvard University, the first university founded in America, possessed the motto “Truth for Christ and the Church.” Established in 1636. I’m no historian but i think this may have been before our constitution. Nice try though.

  • WallsK

    oh, good!

  • Jenny Tull

    Kind of like the New Testament give aways they had back in the 60’s. No other religious organization was allowed to hand out their holy book.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Welcome over here 🙂 I didn’t know you ventured away from Uexpress.

      • Jenny Tull

        I’ve been looking for other venues to hold forth.

    • Cady555

      Back in the 60s? The Gideons are still at it. They are still trying to use public schools to pass out their religious text to other people’s kids.

      • Jenny Tull

        Really? I am surprised they don’t just give them a website or a thumbdrive – much cheaper.

  • Prototype Atheist

    He’s no longer “able to reach students”? Nonsense. He can “reach them” in an after-school club, or, you know, in church, where he belongs. What if an atheist was “reaching students” in the same manner at a public school? Yeah, surely Christians wouldn’t be complaining about that…

  • Cady555

    What is wrong with people?

    Haven’t they ever heard of the Equal Access Act? Christians fought for this law. President Reagan signed this law. It has been law since 1984. Why is this a problem.

    This law is simple and clear – students can participate in extra curricular religious clubs with a few simple conditions that christians wrote into the law, including 1. students must run the club and 2. outsiders cannot regularly attend, participate or lead the club.

    The FFRF merely expects the school to obey the law Christians wrote and demanded. Those godless heathens, how dare they?

  • Reason2012

    So when activists go into school and expose everyone else’s 5 year old kids to images and ideas of homosexuality, that’s fine, it’s mandatory, paretns are not told, and those who find out are told “shut up – it’s legal now”.

    When kids have an option to meet with a person to talk about God during their lunch break, offer free lunch, and permission slips are given to those who want that option, and parents sign saying they’re completely fine with it for their own kid, the pro-perversion, anti-Christian, anti-Constitution activists go into high gear and continue to attack your rights, making sure perversion and lewdness is all your kids have the “right” to be exposed to.

    Get active, people – your Constitutional rights are being violated under the guise of supposed Constitution violations, and your kids are being instead targeted by these lewd, perverse, anti-God pro-perversion predators.

    • M S i N Lund

      Homosexuality:
      Real, exists, common in nature, perfectly healthy and safe for those who enjoy it.

      Religon:
      Mental disease that makes people obey invisible imaginary friends in the sky and kill those who dares question the insanity.

      Yeah… keep one of those things the fuck away from kids!

      • Amos Moses

        Gee ……… keep a kid away from Christ ….. you will get a homosexual ……

        are you married ……….

        • M S i N Lund

          Go …..uck

          your self …..!

          • Amos Moses

            Hmmmmmmmmm …… and did you take all day to come up with that little aphorism …… you must be an intellectual giant ……….. i eat giants for breakfast ………

          • M S i N Lund

            What goes woosh?

      • Reason2012

        Using your logic:
        Bestiality:
        Real, exists, common in nature as well, perfectly healthy and safe for those who enjoy it.

        Keep that away from our kids along with homosexuality and other perverse abuses of the human body.

      • Reason2012

        Constitution protects our freedom of religion. Constitution says nothing about protecting perverse sexual behaviors that people are into and teaching that to kids instead.

        Parents have to sign a permission slip to allow their kids who also wanted it to attend. So you can keep your kids away from it and instead into perverse behaviors that “is common” in the animal world instead.

    • 98C3LCMT9Y4

      So got to court & pay your lawyers a lot of money to find out that, yes, it was and is and will remain unconstitutional to proselytize in a public school.

      Perhaps losing personally a few dozen times might increase your knowledge [and put a really big dent in your wallet] of what our Constitution rights are: that the document does not your religion to infect our children at a public school.

    • Prototype Atheist

      Gay people exist, your imaginary sky wizard does not. If you want to teach children that they’ll burn and suffer for ever and ever if they don’t believe one ancient cult’s myths, well, that’s pretty perverted and lewd. Especially since said myths include lots of rape and incest and genocide and slavery and a guy being nailed to a piece of wood.

      Please educate yourself on Constitutional law, and while you’re at it, on Canaanite polytheism and how it gave rise to the Judeo-Christian religions.

      • Reason2012

        // Gay people exist //
        Of course people who perform homosexual behavior exist. But they prove it’s not genetic as more and more of them continue to turn away from it permanently on their on, which is the point.

        // your imaginary sky wizard does not. If you want to teach children that they’ll burn and suffer for ever and ever if they don’t believe one ancient cult’s myths, //
        No, people end up in hell for a lifetime of breaking God’s laws AND refusing to be forgiven for it.

        // well, that’s pretty perverted and lewd. //
        God offers forgiveness to every person that sincerely wants it. And whether we want that forgiveness or not, God gives each person exactly what they want.

        // Especially since said myths include lots of rape and incest and genocide and slavery and a guy being nailed to a piece of wood. //
        Sin is not in the Bible to condone it, but to show the consequences of it.

        It should concern people that things anyone would leave OUT of a book meant to fool others is NOT left out of the Bible. One more reason we’ll be without excuse trying to pretend the Bible is false.

        Activists want nothing less than to get at everyone else’s kids and grandkids, proving how it has nothing to do with “equality” or “justice” but perversion indoctrination instead.

        • Prototype Atheist

          “Performing homosexual behavior” is not the determining factor in a person’s sexuality. For example, I am a completely heterosexual male. I could, if I desired, choose to engage in sexual relations with another man. This would not make me a homosexual, as I am not naturally attracted to other men. The inherent attraction to a specific sex is what determines your sexuality. Likewise, a person could go their entire life without having sex at all, and would still have a sexual orientation. It is not the act of sex which determines this. It is the natural wiring of a person’s brain as it relates to what is sexually attractive to them. In addition, it’s highly unlikely that homosexuality is genetic. It may have a genetic component in some cases, but it’s far more likely that it’s epigenetic or environmental/developmental (i.e. the hormones and other factors which influence sexuality during fetal development).

          Again, your god, the Christian god, the god known as “Yahweh” to the Hebrews, does not exist, and is irreconcilable with reality. Yahweh was a Canaanite war god in their polytheistic belief system, alongside other gods like Baal and Asherah. The Hebrews adopted Yahweh as their primary deity (“You shall have no OTHER gods BEFORE me”; “WE have made man in OUR likeness”), and eventually their only god, in order to inspire and justify their conquests against competing tribes. This is why the Old Testament is full of rape, genocide, and slavery committed against other Canaanite tribes who were still worshipping other gods besides just Yahweh.

          If your god did exist, and “offered forgiveness to whoever wants it”, then your god presides over a miscarriage of justice. For example, a serial killer could simply ask for forgiveness and spend eternity in heaven, while an atheist who lives a good life and does many good deeds to help his fellow humans would be sent to suffer for eternity.

          “Sin” is an invented disease used to sell you an invented cure. “Sin” once included things like eating shellfish or picking up sticks on Saturday. Besides, the things I’m talking about are not things that Yahweh worshippers did in the Bible, they are things that your god did HIMSELF, or directed his “prophets” to do on his behalf.

          Your replies thusfar sadly indicate that you have been indoctrinated with this hateful mythology, and will rebuff any attempts at reason.

  • Amos Moses

    Shocked Andy Stanley Learns New Testament Part Of Bible
    September 1, 2016

  • George T

    Religious groups have plenty of ways to minister inside of schools. Just play it smart and you’ll be okay.

  • Nikki Rouse

    It’s ridiculous to try to make the point that the “Founder’s children” learned to read from a religious primer. Perhaps some did, and some didn’t. The fact is, they didn’t attend public schools. The first public school wasn’t established until 1821.
    Harvard is also a private, not public college, and was founded with that intent. Private schools and religious schools can do as they please when teaching the children that attend. But public schools must remain neutral when it comes to religion, because they are supported by our tax dollars.
    I realize that Christian News is going to be biased, but they should at least attempt to be correct.

  • michael louwe

    Did Jesus Christ preach in public/govt schools n colleges.?
    Did JC preach to the Gentiles.?
    .
    No, JC only preached to His fellow Jews in the synagogues n Holy Temple of Jerusalem, who were chosen people specially prepared by God to receive His gospel message or good news.
    …….Yet many of the chosen Jews rejected Jesus as their Christ/Messiah/Savior n His gospel message bc they greedily n selfishly desired for a Christ/Messiah who would defeat the Roman occupiers n hand them back their kingdom of earth/Israel/Judah = they rejected JC’s kingdom of heaven. So, after the crucifixion of JC, thru the Jewish Christian apostles n disciples, the gospel message was opened to invited Gentiles who were sincere, law-abiding, pious/religious n interested.

    Students in public/govt schools n colleges r hardly a people prepared by God to receive His Old n New Testament messages.
    ……. Anyway, Christian ministers n youth counselors can go elsewhere to do reach-outs, eg streets n side-walks, shopping malls, Pokemon stops, etc.

  • DB

    We choose our battles. But let’s not think that being denied access to a public school somehow ruins our outreach efforts. It just means we get more creative.

    • 98C3LCMT9Y4

      And hopefully more legal. It is always less expensive if you don’t have to hire lawyers to tell you that it is unconstitutional to do what you have always done unconstitutionally in the past.

    • Prototype Atheist

      More creative than teaching kids that one Bronze Age Middle Eastern tribe’s myths are an accurate history of the universe?

      • DB

        In spite of your trolling, I will only mention that critics have had 2,000 years to produce the body of Jesus without success. If you are able to do that, I’ll gladly and quickly abandon my “myth.” But since you won’t be able to do the only thing that could discredit our faith, you have a resurrection to personally deal with. Reject it you may, but be advised that God is willing to grant you what you desire.

        • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

          First, I’m not “trolling”. I have better things to do with my life than make incendiary comments on the Internet for the sole purpose of getting people angry. It’s too bad that simply stating facts is often construed by theists as “trolling”.

          Demanding that I “produce the body of Jesus” to disprove your myth is logically fallacious — you’re shifting the burden of proof. Your claim is just as absurd as if I were to demand that you present me the bodies of Bigfoot or extraterrestrials to prove that they didn’t teleport into space.

          Your “faith” discredits itself. “Faith”, by definition, is a belief without evidence, and you can literally claim that anything is true because you have “faith”.

          So, I tell you what; sell me your house today with zero money down. Just have faith that I will pay you for it on the future. Or do you only use “faith” as an excuse when it comes to believing in Canaanite war gods and their human avatars?

  • Reason2012

    Constitution of the United States of America
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religion]; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

    Freedom of religious exercise IS a Constitutionally protected right.

    Trying to make it illegal and prohibiting that free exercise in any way for individual parents and their kids who want to participate is what’s ILLEGAL. The school needs to be sued. And suing them is the only way to stop those that continue to violate the Constitution and the Constitutional rights of Americans.

    • Croquet_Player

      Children at school have the constitutional right to pray, alone or in groups, (as long as they don’t disrupt class) bring religious texts like bibles to school, tell other children about their religion, and so forth. They also have a right not to be proselytized to in school by adults, and schools may not promote a particular religion. There are volumes of case law on this topic, there is a clear separation of church and state, and while schools frequently run afoul of the law, the Freedom From Religion Foundation protects the constitutional right of children not to be proselytized to at school.

      • Reason2012

        // They also have a right not to be proselytized to in school by adults, //
        Hence the permission slip: if kids wanted to be in that activity and then parents gave their permission to be in that activity, only THEN did they become part of this activity. So your dishonest implication that all kids are being proselytized only shows how dishonest anti-Christian activists typically are in attacking everyone else’s rights.

        // and schools may not promote a particular religion. //
        Schools cannot forbid religious activities that the kids and kids parents want – that would be a violation of the Constitution and hence this school can and should be sued.

        // there is a clear separation of church and state //
        There is no such thing as “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. That phrase came from the time a Pastor wrote a letter to Jefferson expressing his fears that Jefferson would in some way restrict religious freedoms. In response to these fears, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter back to indicate that he would in no way restrict the freedom of religious expression because he saw a wall of separation between church and state.

        So actually the phrase means the exact opposite of what a few claim it means: it re-iterates the First Amendment, that government shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

        First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; So they cannot claim it’s in any way illegal for parents who WANT their kids to be in such an activity cannot be in such an activity.

        Congress/government cannot make a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

        Kids at a school can decide to, for example, be in a lunch activity where they get pizza and hear God’s Word, and no one can force them not to.

        Kids at a school can decide NOT to be in a lunch activity where they get pizza and hear God’s Word, and no one can force them to.

        That WAS the case, until anti-Christian activists demanded that those who wanted to be there be legally denied the ability to be at such an activity.

        In a Christian nation, the populace will be personally choosing such activities often. Those who do not want to be involved do not have to be: they just don’t take a permission slip and do not bring it home.

        That’s liberty.
        That’s freedom.
        That’s the Constitution many died to create.
        That’s the United States of America.

        And since lawsuits are the only language the left seems to understand, it seems those who are victimized by this anti-Christian bigotry need to start suing.

        Meanwhile google public school islam: more and more public schools: EVERYONE is being forced to be subject to islam indoctrination. And anti-Christian activists do nothing about it, which shows it’s really not about freedom from religion but instead just anti-Christian bigotry.

        • Croquet_Player

          The courts have repeatedly rejected attempts by religious activists, of any faith, to illegally access children in schools. The courts have also upheld the rights of children and parents to set up LEGAL after-school religious clubs. This case was about an illegal activity, and it was rightly rejected. Please don’t pretend it was anything else. Set up all the religious activities you like, but do it legally.

    • Prototype Atheist

      Wrong. Nobody is prohibiting students from exercising their religious freedom. They are free to pray, read holy texts, or discuss religion amongst themselves if they wish while at school. The problem arises when taxpayer-paid teachers or administrators, or third parties are allowed to preach during normal school hours. That’s unconstitutional, and any judge with half a brain will tell you that.

      • Reason2012

        // Nobody is prohibiting students from exercising their religious freedom. //
        False. Telling them “you have freedom only when and where we say you do” is doing just that.
        People do not lose their public rights when they work for the public. It’s only when working for PRIVATE companies that such rights do not always apply.

        • Prototype Atheist

          No, it isn’t false. Religious freedom doesn’t mean you get to do anything you want, whenever you want, simply because you can claim “it’s my religion”. You can’t have religious leaders teaching religion in public schools during normal school hours, you can’t refuse to serve gay people or black people because you claim it’s your religious freedom to do so, you can’t pass legislation based upon your holy book, etc. We are a secular country, and your freedom to practice your religion ends where the civil rights of others begin.

          Nobody is losing their rights. Public employees represent the government, and must accept as part of their employment that they are not allowed to proselytize, preach, or otherwise promote their religious beliefs WHILE WORKING. They are more than free to do so when they are off the clock and it is their own free time.

          You’re trying so desperately to justify this, but clearly you’re demonstrating that you not only lack rationality and knowledge when it comes to ancient myths, but also as it relates to Constitutional law.

  • dani

    I find it deeply disturbing to allow any religious leader into public school in an effort to recruit children. I assume that the writer and Christian news would be beyond disturbed if the church of Satan, Wicca priestess, scientology, Islamic leaders were there with words from their beliefs. And to compare using the bible in schools American colonies is hardly an excuse for blatant disregard for the constitution. Harvard is a university, a private university for Adults, so take that out of the equation as well. Don’t worry atheists will continue to keep Christianity safe for you by making sure the laws you try to break don’t bite you in the butt in the grand scheme of things.

    • Reason2012

      // I find it deeply disturbing to allow any religious leader into public school in an effort to recruit children. //

      And yet islam is being forced upon all children in some public schools (search on public school islam) and activists like you do nothing and show no concern. So activists’ claim about having a problem with “any” religion doing so is factually false.

      Keep going after the optional, need permission slip Christian cases while ignoring how islam is mandatory indoctrination in some schools with no way to opt out – it shows everyone else how anti-Christian pro-islam FFRF truly is, hiding behind the lie at “caring” about the kids or the Constitution.

  • archaeologist

    atheists just can’t mind their own business and need to force their ways upon others

    • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

      We don’t “mind our own business” when the constitution is violated by the government, because that’s EVERY American’s business.

    • Reason2012

      And they continue to ignore how islam is being forced on everyone in some schools. So much for their claim to be concerned that the Constitution is being violated. It shows these activists are anti-Christian pro-islam. Search on public school islam and notice how this is being forced on kids in some schools and these same activists, FFRF, do NOTHING.

      • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

        You still haven’t provided any real examples of Islam being forced on anyone in a public school. What’s the name of a school where this happened?

    • Prototype Atheist

      You’ve got it exactly backwards. See, this Christian pastor can’t mind his own business, and is instead forcing his belief in ancient mythology onto public school students at an inappropriate time.

      But I’m sure you’d be totally cool if it were a Muslim or atheist or anyone but a Christian coming into a public school to preach…

  • Chet

    This youth pastor was not guilty of “using the school for a recruiting grounds for his church”. Anyone who has a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ of Calvary, Son of the true and living God, promotes Christ, period, not his church or identified denomination or as some so describe, “religion”. Christianity is no “religion” as it is soley based on one’s relationship with he Lord. Tons of difference here, as evidences of “religion” are on the evening news almost daily…

    Further, why are school boards so afraid of this FFRF entity? The worst they can do is threaten, bark and howl via intimidation, paper tigers that they are. Should they take the school district to court, first off, the school district has a 50/50 chance of winning the suit. And if the school should lose, well, close the place down and turn the students out into the streets as they simply cannot afford the settlement. In no time at all, the federal and state governments will step-in and order the schools reopened. Someone, somewhere must needs dare to be a Daniel and take these forces of darkness on and let God Almighty handle the fight and deal with the outcome. Jesus never fails!

    People, stop buckling at the knees in the face of liberal atheistic adversity, only then to drop and consistently roll over. The God you serve can handle the matter, so, give Him the opportunity to do so in His own good measure… Stand back and give Him space and Glory….

    • Reason2012

      Amen! They only back off to avoid the hassle, time and money. The typically non-Christian or weak Christian administrations of schools have little reason to spend all the time, money and inconvenience to rebuke these anti-Christian activists – so much easier to just give in.

    • Guzzman

      The Baptist youth minister was not guilty of violating the Constitution. School officials were the offending party. Public schools are an arm of government, and school officials permitted the minister to proselytize during school hours to students on school property. Hint: such an action violates the constitutional mandate of government neutrality towards religion.

      The school board admitted its mistake and instructed the local minister that he would no longer be allowed to come onto school property and meet with students during lunchtime or anytime during the instructional day.

      • Chet

        We have a differing view of what constituting a state approved religion is. And just wait til Islam has the opportunity to do so and see just who dares take a stand and say, no… Further, jails are “an arm of government” as well, thus, take note how Islam is rapidly growing in said state entities… And then see if there’s any movement to stop the train…

        • Guzzman

          You seem to think the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment only ever referred to a government constraint on establishing an official state religion. The Founders had a much broader mandate in mind when creating the U.S. Constitution. They sought to separate religion from government, not merely prohibit government from setting up its own official religion.

          The scope of the Establishment Clause is quite broad and prohibits governmental endorsement of any religion. Hint: that would include Islam. Islam cannot become a “state approved religion” as you fear, as long as we all support James Madison’s principle of maintaining “separation between Religion & Govt” (Detached Memoranda, 1820).

          As for prison inmates converting to Islam, I fail to see how that relates to an unconstitutional governmental endorsement of religion, given that inmates are not representatives, employees, or agents of the government.

          • Chet

            Keep your eyes on the only current official state sanctioned religion via the First Confused Church of Mother Earth Worshipping Fools… Growing by leaps and clouds, I mean Sunshine… Surprised you’re not concerned over Islams’ rise in popularity if not promotion…

          • Guzzman

            As long as we defend “the separation between Religion & Govt” intended by the founders, there is nothing Islam or any other religion can do to threaten religious freedom in the United States. Religion, without the force of law behind it, must stand on its own merits.

            “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
            Thomas Jefferson — in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

          • Chet

            “Religion” must have the support of government to stand as it cannot stand on its own. Christianity stands alone on Christ the Solid Rock and none other… Further, Christianity is all about one’s relationship with Holy God Almighty via his only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ of Calvary. There is a world and eternity of difference…

    • Croquet_Player

      This term 50/50… I don’t think you know what it means. Trials are not a coin toss.

      • Guzzman

        Exactly. The odds against the school district were substantial. FFRF pointed to a voluminous case law that prohibits public schools from actively or even passively allowing proselytizing of school students by outside religious groups during school hours, on school property. School officials assessed the legal risks and took FFRF’s advice and informed the minister he would no longer be allowed to come onto school property and meet with students during lunchtime or anytime during the instructional day.

      • Chet

        However sliced there’s a 50/50 chance either way.

        • Croquet_Player

          No there isn’t, and you need to do a little reading on probability and statistics.

  • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

    The fact is that neither the school nor the community would have allowed a Muslim imam khatib (or a practitioner of any other religion) to do the same as the Christian paster. That is the main reason for the Establishment Clause. A government entity is not allowed, under the constitution, to show preference for one religion over other religions nor discriminate against people having no religion.

    Our founders were well aware of the problems and unrest–often bloody–when a government promotes one religion over others. That is why Jefferson wrote A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, which became a part of the Virginia Constitution and the document from which the Establishment Clause was crafted. The three paragraphs of the Jefferson bill can be read by googling the name of the bill and “Founders Online.” It lays out the logic and intent of the Establishment Clause.

  • AmericanMuse

    The school did the right thing. No to proselytization!

  • ZappaSaid88

    Any religious preacher type who wants to be let into public schools should have to agree to have an atheist have access to their Sunday school students.