Atheist Activist Group Wants to Stop Pastor From Offering Lunchtime Bible Study at School

Photo Credit: Jeffrey Stanley

WINTERSVILLE, Ohio — One of the nation’s most conspicuous atheist activist groups is seeking to stop an Ohio pastor from holding a voluntary lunchtime Bible study for students at a local middle school.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) recently sent a letter to the superintendent of the Indian Creek School District to assert that it is unconstitutional for the district to allow Bobbyjon Bauman of the Valley Youth Network to offer the study during school hours at Indian Creek Middle School.

The group further called the pastor’s gospel presentations “predatory conduct.”

“It is unconstitutional for the district to offer religious leaders access to befriend and proselytize students during the school day on school property,” FFRF wrote. “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.”

“When a school allows Church representatives to recruit students for the Church, it has unconstitutionally entangled itself with a religious message—in this case, a Christian message. This practice alienates those non-Christian students, teachers and members of the public whose religious beliefs are inconsistent with the message being endorsed by the school,” it asserted.

The Church-State separation group also contended that the fact that the Bible study is voluntary—that it is only attended by students who are interested—does not alleviate concerns.

“Please note that it makes no difference that students are not required to attend these preaching sessions. Voluntariness does not excuse a constitutional violation,” FFRF wrote. “The district must immediately discontinue allowing Mr. Bauman, or any other preachers, access to students during the school day.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Read the letter in full here.

According to FFRF, the organization had been alerted by a local resident about Bauman’s Bible study, and also reviewed his social media posts, which included a notation on Feb. 23 that 165 students decided to attend that day.

“I shared the gospel with them using Romans 6:23 as the touchstone verse. None of the kids in any of the four Bible study groups even knew what the word ‘gospel’ meant, so I was able to share with them the significance of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Bauman wrote.

“The kids were very responsive to the message and we had 30 of them request Bibles because they didn’t own one, so next week, we will be bringing them Bibles,” he outlined, explaining student interest.

It is not known if the Indian Creek School District plans to respond.

As previously reported, in 1791—just four years after the signing of the U.S. Constitution—Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and vice-president of the Bible Society of Philadelphia, said in expressing his disagreement with deists who were opposed to using the Bible in schools:

“In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament, that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible, for this divine book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and all those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.”

Read his remarks in full here.

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.

Noah Webster’s famous “Blue Back Speller” also referenced Christianity, including God-centered statements in reading lessons such as “The preacher is to preach the gospel,” “Blasphemy is contemptuous treatment of God,” and “We do not like to see our own sins.” Webster, a schoolmaster, is known as the “father of American education” and strongly advocated teaching children the Scriptures. Many of the Founders’ children are stated to have learned to read from the primer.

View sample pages from Webster’s Blue Back Speller here.


Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Sally Edwards

    If the Bible Study’s held away from school property on a lunch break, I take no issue with it at all.

  • Adam Valentine

    I’m sure you’d be fine with this if it was a Satanic reading? An Imam from the local temple? A rabbi?

    • Billy Pilgrim

      How is that in any way relevant?

      • Adam Valentine

        You can’t be serious? Even for a Christian, you’re pretty dumb if you don’t get how it is relevant.

        • Billy Pilgrim

          I am serious, and far from dumb. You are making a negative argument using false comparisons and as such is not relevant to this dialogue.

          • Adam Valentine

            Nope. You’re dumb. Confirmed. My point is completely relevant. The author (and you I am assuming) is completely fine with a pastor (Christian) being allowed to proselytize during school hours. Would the author have the same opinion if the school was allowing representatives or leaders from the other religions I mentioned? If not, why?

            I didn’t think I needed to explain it in such detail. Its a fairly basic question.

      • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

        Everyone has the same religious rights, so if this school allows one religious group, they have to allow all religious groups the same access.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Wow. “Predatory conduct.” As if you needed further proof the Freedom From Religion Foundation is a hate group. These disgusting sickos just likened a pastor conducting a Bible study to pedophilia.

    The school district should take a cue from Nancy Reagan and just say no.

    • Adam Valentine

      You don’t know the definition of predatory. Or much of anything else apparently

      • Billy Pilgrim

        Ad hominem.

        • Adam Valentine

          Probably. But my point stands. You don’t know the definition of predatory if you think it means pedophile. Are “predatory lenders” pedophile lenders?

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Your point is a personal attack and not relevant.

          • Adam Valentine

            Anything that you don’t understand or don’t have an answer to is “not relevant”. Got it

    • Dave Bowles

      Evangelism is the definition of predatory.

      Indoctrinating children into belief systems where certain adults are beyond question is how the Catholic sex abuse problem happened. There is a direct link between indoctrination and abuse, be it physical, mental or emotional.

      • Billy Pilgrim

        What does the Catholic sex abuse scandal have to do with a Bible study on a public school campus?

        And if you’re going to talk about indoctrinating children you’d better be willing to talk about homosexuality, or just shut up.

        • Dave Bowles

          Religion is indoctrination. In many cases it demands respect where it is not earned or deserved. I live in a place where the education law makes it quite clear that religion must be respected. That’s crap. No human being is beyond question, even the pope, and children deserve the right to question anyone in position of authority; particularly the catholic Church given it’s history. That’s what keeps them safe.

          Acknowledgment that there are homosexuals among us and that all human beings have the same legal rights has exactly what to do with indoctrination?

          • BabyDoll

            A relationship with Jesus christ is more real than the nose on your face.

          • Homo Sapien

            A relationship with someone you have never met physically and who has no mass or energy is a relationship that exists only in your head. It’s not real, it’s imaginary.

        • Dave Bowles

          Telling children that they will burn in hell if they don’t follow a particular interpretation of an ancient book is mental and emotional abuse. I know, I experienced it first hand.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            You experienced hell? And you want to go back? Why?

          • Dave Bowles

            Now you’re just incoherent…

          • BabyDoll

            Well cry us all a river, now. And guess what, it still goes. You WILL burn in hell!! It’s very serious. However children get it much better than adults. You could care less about those children. You just want to be smarter than everybody else. Wah Wah Wah

          • Homo Sapien

            You have a vivid imagination…

          • Sally Edwards

            I thought it was only God who decreed who was going to hell.

        • Dave Bowles

          What happened to sister Catherine Cesnik?

          Then there’s the rape and murder of Irene Garza.

          These things, and a long list of similar crimes, would not likely have happened or the guilty parties would have more likely been brought to justice if religion had not been forced on such people when they were children.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            I see that you refuse to move away from the irrelevant. Cesnik and Garza have absolutely nothing to do with a pastor going onto a school property for Bible study.

            I took the liberty to see what you have commented in the past.

            I saw this:

            Rather than pandering to religion, why not eliminate chaplains altogether and provide service members with access to counsellors and doctors with training in mental and emotional health.

            In other words, you think people who believe in God and Jesus are crazy.

            You know, Mark Twain said you should never argue with an idiot. It brings you down to their level, and they will beat you with experience.

            Such as it is arguing with an atheist. Atheists are idiots.

          • Homo Sapien

            Cases such as these are hardly irrelevant. Indoctrinating children into religion as your pastor is advocating is what plants the seeds for these crimes. Children should be taught critical thinking skills and skepticism rather than blind obedience to ancient myths.

            Boy, do you ever have a problem with comprehension. Service members that are seeking help would be better served by people with mental and emotional health training. Not for their religious beliefs but whatever the problem was that caused them to seek help.

            I notice you never continued your point about homosexuals…

          • BabyDoll

            KIDS ARE ALREADY INDOCTRINATED. Where have you been?

        • Sally Edwards

          That crosses a line. No one “indoctrinates” children about homosexuality, but they might teach them about homosexuals existing, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            HAHAHAHALOLOLOL

          • Sally Edwards

            Clearly a formidable intellect.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Clearly better than yours if you continue to buy into a pantload of crap proven wrong many years ago.

    • Blue

      Yes, predatory.

      One definition of Predatory is “seeking to exploit others.” The pastor wants tp spread his religion, with no consideration of the views of the children or their parents. He is using the government to gather up an audience of other people’s kids. By his own words, he ia seeking to change their religious beliefs. His behavior is predatory.

      How would you feel if the principal allowed atheists into to school, behind your back, in an attempt to lead your children away from the religious principles you taught them?

    • james blue

      That’s quite a jump

    • Guzzman

      The Supreme Court in McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) noted that a public school cannot use its compulsory attendance laws to provide churches with students to fill their religious classes. How is recruiting children without parental consent not predatory conduct?:

      “For the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere. Or, as we said in the Everson case, the First Amendment has erected a wall between Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable.”

      “Here not only are the State’s tax-supported public school buildings used for the dissemination of religious doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an invaluable aid in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of the State’s compulsory public school machinery. This is not separation of Church and State.”

      • Billy Pilgrim

        How is recruiting children for indoctrination, without parental consent, not predatory conduct?

        One of the nation’s most conspicuous atheist activist groups is seeking to stop an Ohio pastor from holding a voluntary [emphasis added] lunchtime Bible study for students at a local middle school.

        So…voluntary=compulsory=indoctrination?

        Only in the mind of an idiot-atheist.

        the First Amendment has erected a wall between Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable

        The First Amendment did not do that. It was men in black robes that did that. Which you already know.

        • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

          So…voluntary=compulsory=indoctrination?

          “Compulsory” in McCollum referred to “compulsory public school”, not the religious classes.

          Read McCollum or other school church/state opinions like Engel v. Vitale or Santa Fe v. Doe — “voluntary” doesn’t make it constitutional.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            “Compulsory” in McCollum

            We are not talking about McCollum. We are talking about something Guzzman said.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Which was completely correct — if you read McCollum, those classes weren’t compulsory either; the opinion (and Guzzman) were referring to compulsory school attendance, not compulsory religious classes.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            “Which was completely correct.”

            Thank you for admitting I am correct. Now if you’ll admit atheism is idiocy, you will be on the way to thinking people are not things.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            No, Guzzman was correct. You can’t win arguments with stupid word games.

        • BabyDoll

          But allowing them to know that they should change gender is cool w/o parental consent. LOLOL. So narrow minded, so obtuse!! So close yet so far away from reality.

          • Blue

            No school tells anyone they should change gender. That is absurd.

            Schools do report the fact that some people are trans, and trans people should be treated kindly. They report the fact that some families have two moms or two dads and the children in those families should not be bullied.

        • Blue

          One cannot use public schools – and the government’s authority to compel school attendance – to gather up a group of other people’s kids to preach to and convert.

          Listen to the man’s own words. The kids he was talking to did not have a christian background. He could hold the exact same talks in his church, but there he would not have government providing him with an audience.

          Most christians would be livid, and rightly so, if public schools brought in adults to tell their children there is no God. It is equally wrong when in this situation.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            For one thing, idiot-atheist, I notice you are backing up my argument. For another, they already are teaching kids there’s no God in public schools, which you are perfectly aware of.

          • Sally Edwards

            You can’t call people idiots here.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            According to whom?

          • james blue

            The site owners.

            Read the comment rules, they are directly below the article.

          • Sally Edwards

            Only the moderator, but if you want to continue to test that theory, be my guest.

          • Homo Sapien

            Schools teach science and rational thinking.

            Hard to imagine anyone having a problem with that.

        • Guzzman

          Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. I wrote “The Supreme Court in McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) noted that a public school cannot use its compulsory attendance laws to supply churches with students to fill their religious classes.” “Compulsory” was referring to compulsory school attendance (which most states have); the Court noted it is unconstitutional for public schools “to provide pupils for their [church groups’] religious classes through use of the State’s compulsory public school machinery. This is not separation of Church and State” (McCollum v. Board of Education (1948).

          It is highly inappropriate to recruit and proselytize impressionable school children. The church knows full well that children are vulnerable to social pressure, especially from school officials and religious leaders. And all of this was done under false pretenses, without the knowledge or consent of the parents. For the church group to call this program a student-run bible studies club is a violation of the Equal Access Act because it was not student-initiated or student-run as required by the ECA.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            No, I understood what you meant. My argument stands.

  • Michael C

    I would imagine that the reason for holding a bible study at a public school during school hours is to attempt to reach more kids with the gospel.

    Would this school also allow Mormons, Scientologists, Satanists, Wiccans, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, et al. to try to reach out to and convert as many children as they possibly could?

    Does a public school need to provide religious groups with a platform to gain access to children?

    • Ancient Birds

      Great point. I feel the same way about military recruiters, who duped many of my high school friends into enlisting for something they didn’t understand.

      • Michael C

        I think the difference is that your opposition to military recruiters is based on an ideological rather than a legal stance.

        To me, it makes sense to have job/career recruiters in an educational setting, even if I don’t personally like the job they’re recruiting for. Religious recruiting in public schools is something I oppose even if I approved of the religion.

    • Reason2012

      Please cite your posts rebuking islam being taught in public schools while Christianity is censored. Or pretend it doesn’t not happen or pretend that’s “just” education, which shows people like you are really not lgbt nor atheist, but instead an islamist pretending to be lgbt or atheist to eradicate Christianity one step at a time.

      • Michael C

        Please cite your posts rebuking islam being taught in public schools …

        If this Ohio public school was also allowing an imam to hold prayer and Quran readings in the school during lunch, I would oppose that equally.

        • Reason2012

          There are more and more public schools are teaching isalm to all students. A simple search shows it’s true and others will see that quite clearly. And you never speak out against it, only pretend you would, while you do not as there are many factual cases of it going oni, and instead pretend to be against it, which shows you’re a pro-islam activists pretending to be pro lgbt or pro atheism.

          So thank you for showing everyone else that you do not speak out against it and cannot cite any such posts from you when it’s a fact this is going on and getting worse.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            There are more and more public schools are teaching isalm to all students.

            Name two. You keep insisting they exist. Name two.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            He doesn’t have a cut-and-paste answer ready for that question yet, I’m guessing.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Funny coming from the guy who got caught cutting-and-pasting recent science answers. 🙂 Don’t be so quick to falsely accuse.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I didn’t “get caught”, you accused me of doing that without anything to back it up. I acknowledge when I quote from something.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You didn’t “acknowledge” it until I told you I knew you cut and pasted. You did try to pass it off as your own.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No, you falsely accused me of that, then I later quoted something else and acknowledged it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Don’t misrepresent the facts again. It only makes you look extremely dishonest. You repeatedly cut-and-pasted and only acknowledged the cut-and-paste job when I cited where you got your info from. You also interspersed it with your own words so that it would look like you wrote it. In the world of academia ,that’s called plagiarism.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            when I cited where you got your info from

            You never did that. I looked it up, I saw two times you accused me of that, and you never said where it was you thought I was getting info from. By the way, I will admit to getting info from places, but that’s not what you were accusing me of. Hey, I don’t know everything; who does? I admit I don’t have a college degree….

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, I did. You copied from wiki and other sites.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Then show me what I said that was a “cut-and-paste” and where it was from.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why? Your profile is open. Anyone can search for it and read my comments in response to yours. The point is that you berated someone for assuming he’d do what you already have confessed to.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yeah, they can read your comments to me, and see that you never did and still haven’t backed up your accusations, which I most certainly have not “confessed to.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You just did in your other comment. 🙂 You need to stay away from wiki and atheist sites. Anyone can write anything they want on wiki, and atheist sites are woefully ignorant on science. They’re just full of hate.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If you’re not just making stuff up, you should read what I said a little more carefully.

            Anyone can write anything they want on wiki

            If I get any information from Wikipedia, it’s usually backed up by citations. If anyone disputes something I got from there, I can look it up from whatever the source was. And if it’s a quote I’m taking from a Wikipedia article, well, I’ll cite where the quote came from.

            atheist sites are woefully ignorant on science

            First of all, I don’t know what “atheist sites” you’re talking about. But anyway, it’s the creationist sites that are the ignorant ones. They’re willfully ignorant, in fact. They flat-out admit, on their own sites, that they reject any observations or data that would counter their interpretation of the Bible.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You falsely accused someone of doing what you admit to have done.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            All right now, I guess I must have too much time on my hands or something, but I went and looked at all our recent conversations again. There were three times you accused me of “cut and pasting”. One time I was talking about methods used to measure distances to stars. That was not a cut-and-paste, it was a summary, in my own words, of information I looked up from several sources. I actually was not aware of just how many methods are used. Another time was when I was talking about what exactly the concept of “Mitochondrial Eve” is. Sort of the same situation there, except I did know much of it already. I’ll admit, I got the idea of using the word “matralineally” from an article I read, but it was my own words aside from that. (is using one word considered plagiarism? lol) The other time, I was talking about what theories are and how they are changed, and worked on, and such. I don’t need to plagiarize anything about that, I’ve been over that kind of thing repeatedly, often here on this site, trying to explain it to people who say things like “oh, it’s a just a theory” and so forth.

            Also you’re now claiming you “cited where I got my info from” when you did absolutely nothing of the sort, any of those times. And you call me dishonest?? You made accusations you had and have no backup for, and now consider that I was “caught”?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Now you’re obfuscating. Come now, you admit you cut-and-pasted and then you jump all over someone and insinuate he has to cut-and-paste his info just because you do. Not very honest, is it?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            you admit you cut-and-pasted

            So, now you’re just going to make things up, is that it? You mentioned how anyone can read my comments; well, anyone who does will clearly see I didn’t “admit” that at all.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You just said you cut-and-pasted some parts of your previous posts. Did you forget that?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I did no such thing. Did you imagine that?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Now you’re being duplicitous.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I specifically said, I paraphrased a few lines from something I read. You do realize that’s not “cut-and-pasting”, right?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You did admit to cutting and pasting. Did you edit your post?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I never admitted that at all, and no, I didn’t edit my posts.

            You know what, though….If you want to keep insisting I said something I didn’t, fine. Like you said yourself, people can read my comments…so, they can clearly see that I didn’t say what you said I did, and that you said you did things you never did, like how you said you “cited where I got my info from” when you never did anything of the sort. That really seems to be a habit with you. So, I’m done with that line of conversation. If you have an actual point about something I said, go ahead and make it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            They can clearly read your posts and mine on the Creationist/evolutionist thread.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Riverheads High School and City Heights Horace Mann Middle School.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Riverheads High School had students copy the shahada in Arabic as an example of Arabic calligraphy — which the students couldn’t read. While that’s inappropriate (and isn’t going to be repeated), it isn’t “teaching Islam” any more than a map of Texas teaches Christianity because of Corpus Christi.

            The only mentions I can find about Islam at Horace Mann Middle School are part of history/social studies, which also has Christianity and Judaism. Some of the usual rightwing websites tried to whip up hysteria, but since this was over three years ago and I can’t find any lawsuits, that isn’t an example, either.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Wrong. According to Islam, that is enough that the students are considered Muslims. Besides, the students did not only write the shahada, they learned to recite it and what it meant.

            As far as Horace Mann Middle School goes, parents protested their children being indoctrinated with Islam. It had nothing to do with “rightwing” or “leftwing” websites. It was parents.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Wrong. According to Islam, that is enough that the students are considered Muslims.

            Yeah, and according to Judaism if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish.
            But it doesn’t really work that way.

            Besides, the students did not only write the shahada, they learned to recite it and what it meant.

            That’s not in the news stories I read — they only found out later what it meant.

            As far as Horace Mann Middle School goes, parents protested their children being indoctrinated with Islam.

            So where are the lawsuits? It’s been three years.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, it DOES work that way. And whether or not students understood what they wrote (and the textbooks did explain what they were writing), Islam counts them as converts and says they have the right to kill those students if they turn away from Islam.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Actually, it DOES work that way

            No, it doesn’t. People get to decide what religion they follow; other people do not get to dictate what their religion “must” be. Why are you siding with Islamic fanatics?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I know how Islam works. You clearly are very naïve about it.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            You are giving in to the Islamic fanatics.

            By the way, who is saying they Muslims now? Anyone? No.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I am telling you what Islamists believe. It has nothing to do with fanaticism. It’s what Islam is. Do you think anyone who learns about the Bible in school is going to say they are Christians?

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            I am telling you what Islamists believe.

            And agreeing with them. It doesn’t work that way in the US.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I don’t agree with them at all, but you don’t get to tell Muslims what they believe. It doesn’t work that way in the U.S.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            I don’t agree with them at all, but you don’t get to tell Muslims what they believe.

            And the point is, they don’t either. But you’re siding with them.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Your comment is illogical. Muslims determine what Islam is. You would be in arms if Christians got up in class, had children recite or write out the sinner’s prayer, get baptized, and have the laying on of hands. That’s the Christian equivalent of what writing the shahada is to Muslims.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Muslims determine what Islam is.

            Not in the US. You’re kowtowing to Muslim extremists.

            You would be in arms if Christians got up in class, had children recite or write out the sinner’s prayer, get baptized, and have the laying on of hands.

            Yes. You don’t seem to even understand what I wrote.

            If a public school had students write out some Latin calligraphy, and they later found out it was part of a Catholic mass, that would also be inappropriate. But it wouldn’t mean the school was “teaching Catholicism” any more than this school was “teaching Islam”. Both would be stopped.

            But you’re too stupid to understand that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I am not okay with Muslims pushing their political ideology on everyone. You, however, are okay with it and fail to understand what it even is.

            You have made a false equivalency argument. Writing out a catholic mass in class doesn’t make one a catholic. Writing out the shahada in class makes one a Muslim, whether or not one understands that that is what he/she has done. It’s what Islam requires.

            Now you’re resorting to ad hominem attacks, which is a sure sign that you’ve lost the argument and are frustrated.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            I am not okay with Muslims pushing their political ideology on everyone.

            You give into them easily enough.

            You, however, are okay with it and fail to understand what it even is.

            I understand that other people don’t get to decide someone else’s religion.

            Writing out the shahada in class makes one a Muslim

            No, it doesn’t. You are again capitulating to Muslim extremists.

            And again, I’ll ask you:
            Who is saying they Muslims now? Anyone? Who?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re the one who is minimizing what Muslims are doing. You are the one giving into them easily enough. And yes, reciting or writing out the shahada is how one converts to Islam. To suggest otherwise is ignorance of Islam.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            You are the one giving into them easily enough.

            How?

            By the way, WHO SAYS THOSE STUDENTS ARE MUSLIMS NOW?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Muslims. The same people you’re capitulating to.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Which Muslims? Oh, your imaginary ones.
            Sorry, like I keep telling you, other people don’t get to tell people what religion they are.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are very ignorant of Islam.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            You still haven’t found anyone who says these students are now Muslims. Only fanatics like yourself and some crazed Muslims believe that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “Some” crazed Muslims? Try all Muslims. So you’re saying that if someone prayed the sinners prayer, got baptized, had the laying on of hands, he/she would not be a Christian?

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            “Some” crazed Muslims? Try all Muslims.

            No. Muslims aren’t monolithic. You can’t claim they ALL say that, any more than you can claim all Christians are against gay sex.

            So you’re saying that if someone prayed the sinners prayer, got baptized, had the laying on of hands, he/she would not be a Christian?

            Does that person call themselves a Christian?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you’re talking to someone who has family members who are Muslim. You are also talking out of your ear. You have no clue what you are discussing. You’re just blathering away because you hate Christians.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Dude, you’re talking to someone who has family members who are Muslim.

            Dude, you’re saying every one of hundreds of millions of Muslims say exactly the same thing.
            That’s beyond idiotic.

            You’re just blathering away because you hate Christians.

            Now you’re just making up lies about me since you can’t push your ridiculous scenario.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You obviously have no self awareness. You are illogically and hysterically screaming about things you know nothing about because your hypocrisy was duly noted. Shame.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            You’re the one saying these kids are somehow “Muslims” now, but you can’t find anyone who actually thinks that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m saying Islam says they are Muslims. You’re okay with Islam being taught, but you’re not okay with Christianity being taught. Hypocrite.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            I’m saying Islam says they are Muslims.

            And Jews say if your mother is Jewish, you’re Jewish.

            But other people don’t get to decide your religion for you.

            You’re okay with Islam being taught, but you’re not okay with Christianity being taught.

            And here you’re simply lying about me. Again.
            I guess you dishonestly ignored this from an earlier comment of mine:
            “I’m against this calligraphy lesson, I’m not acknowledging that these kids are suddenly Muslims (like you are), so what’s the capitulation?”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You really are clueless. You are helping radical Islam along. Watch out. When they’re done with useless idiots they’ll come after you.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            You are helping radical Islam along.

            How? By being against this calligraphy lesson, and refusing to kowtow to any Muslims who might think any kids who did it are now Muslim? You’re the one insisting on that, not me.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You actually said you were okay with the calligraphy lesson.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            No, I didn’t, now you’re just lying:

            “I’m against this calligraphy lesson, I’m not acknowledging that these kids are suddenly Muslims (like you are), so what’s the capitulation?”

            “Riverheads High School had students copy the shahada in Arabic as an example of Arabic calligraphy — which the students couldn’t read. While that’s inappropriate (and isn’t going to be repeated), it isn’t “teaching Islam” any more than a map of Texas teaches Christianity because of Corpus Christi.”

            Copy & paste where I said I was “okay with the calligraphy lesson” — you can’t, because you’re lying.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So now, instead of presenting a logical argument, you’re going all ad hominem? 🙂 Why am I not surprised?

            So suddenly you’re against this calligraphy lesson even though you said initially you were okay with it because it wasn’t for real? By the way, I thought you said Islam wasn’t taught in schools? Now that you acknowledge it is, don’t you owe the OP an apology?

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            So now, instead of presenting a logical argument, you’re going all ad hominem?

            No, you’re deliberately lying about me now.

            So suddenly you’re against this calligraphy lesson even though you said initially you were okay with it because it wasn’t for real?

            Again, you’re lying. Copy & paste something I’ve written that says that.

            You can’t, because you’re lying.

            By the way, I thought you said Islam wasn’t taught in schools?

            It isn’t. Copying writing that students can’t even read isn’t “teaching Islam”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The shahada, which the students were writing, is the essence of Islam.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            And since they couldn’t read it, there’s no “magic”.

            I see you’ve given up on your lie about me “being okay” with this calligraphy lesson, since you can’t quote me writing anything like that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            They were taught what it said. I still maintain what I said about you.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            They were taught what it said.

            Got a cite for that? All the news reports I’ve seen say they didn’t find out until later.

            I still maintain what I said about you.

            Then COPY AND PASTE something I’ve written, liar.
            You can’t, because it’s a lie and we both know that. Now you’re just whining.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why are you name calling? I’ve already made the reference. It’s easily found.

            By the way, this entire conversation happened because you falsely accused a poster of lying about something. I proved you wrong, and now you are haggling over what you admit to be true. Did you ever apologize to the poster you falsely accused?

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            I’ve already made the reference. It’s easily found.

            No, you’ve never copy & pasted anything I’ve written where I said I was “OK” with the calligraphy lesson.

            That much is obvious since you’re now trying the dodge of claiming you did it earlier, and it’s now my responsibility to find it.

            Nope, you’re still a liar. Instead of writing “It’s easily found” or some other lie, just keep copying and pasting what you claim is my statement that I’m OK with that calligraphy lesson.

            You can’t, because you’re lying. Again.

            I proved you wrong

            Nope, that still isn’t “teaching Islam”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So I’ll take it that’s a “no” to the question about you apologizing to the poster you falsely accused? And now you’re off on a tangent falsely accusing me as well. Why are you here if you don’t want to have open, honest discussions?

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            So I’ll take it that’s a “no” to the question about you apologizing to the poster you falsely accused?

            I didn’t falsely accuse him — this school was not teaching Islam.

            And now you’re off on a tangent falsely accusing me as well.

            If you’re going to try and claim that this school was teaching Islam, sure.

            Why are you here if you don’t want to have open, honest discussions?

            Why haven’t you copy & pasted what I’ve written to show that I ever said I was OK with this calligraphy lesson?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You should look up circular reasoning.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Why haven’t you copy & pasted what I’ve written to show that I ever said I was OK with this calligraphy lesson?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Because a.) I’m too busy to play your games, b.) You may have edited it.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            I haven’t edited it; you simply lied earlier.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean your deleted posts? How can I cut and paste from your deleted posts?

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            No liar, I mean I haven’t edited or deleted my posts. You lied about what I wrote, and now you are dishonestly trying to blame me. What a spineless coward you are.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            The one deleting posts is you — I see you can’t bear the embarrassment.

            But now you’re trying to dishonestly blame me — you can’t copy & paste anything I’ve written where I said I was OK with this calligraphy lesson because I never wrote any such thing.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You can deny it now that your posts have gone poof! but you did write it. First you denied such lessons took place and you falsely accused someone of making it up. Then, when proven wrong, you sought to minimize the effects of Islam being taught in schools. Now you once again attempt to deflect by personalizing posts. Must be hard to live in that every changing head of yours.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Sorry, you had my posts deleted, and you never did post anything of mine, because you’re lying.

          • Tristan Fry

            That isn’t how you become a Christian. That is how you become a fundamentalist Christian.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You seem confused about what a Christian is.

          • Tristan Fry

            No, there were Christians far longer than there have been fundamentalists.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re playing word games. Jesus Christ defined Christianity in the Book of John, and that definition hasn’t changed. Just admit you hate Christians.

          • Tristan Fry

            I am a Christian and what I am giving you is simple history.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You did not give any history. You gave what you thought was a sly response. Jesus Christ defined Christianity in the Gospel of John. You don’t get to override Him.

          • Tristan Fry

            Playing teacher’s pet for God does not make you correct. Fundamentalist Christianity with it’s easy believism is counterfeit Christianity and has been around only about 100 years.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I have no idea what you’re rambling on about. The only definition I am discussing is the one Jesus Christ Himself gave. You keep skating around it. Why is that?

          • Tristan Fry

            I don’t skate around it. You just seem to think that only your very small cult applies to that definition and the vast majority of Christians don’t apply. Why is that?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m sorry, what “small cult” would that be? And, why are you veering off topic so much?

          • Tristan Fry

            The only people to refer Catholicism (which is millennia old and has over a billion members) as a cult are cultists themselves. Fundamentalism is a disease. I haven’t gone off topic. Your original definition describes how a fraction of a percentage of people become Christians.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            How many members does Islam have? Does that make it right? How about scientology? Mormonism? Quantity does not equal truth. The catholic cult wasn’t formed until long after the Messiah’s appearing. The early church was Jewish.

          • Tristan Fry

            It isn’t a cult, it’s the tree from which your cult (and every other Christian denomination) branched off. You are essentially a chihuahua nipping at the heels of a brontosaurus. They are larger, older, and more firmly grounded in history. You don’t just lose this one, you are decimated.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Catholicism has nothing at all to do with Christianity. It is the wolf in sheep’s clothing the Bible warned us about. Islam is also a cult.

          • Tristan Fry

            Well, you believe that because you have elected to follow a cult that supports conspiracy theory and revisionist history. A simple look at the Wikipedia entry on Catholicism will enlighten you, failing that, you could try a dictionary which also says Catholics are Christians. Failing that, you could try in “intro to world religions” course, and failing that I suppose you’re not interested in truth.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What cult am I following? That’s a pretty big judgment for you to make about someone you don’t even know. catholicism is the cult the Bible warns against, the wolves in sheep’s clothing who run around in dark robes, forbidding marriage and the eating of meat. They have killed more Christians than just about any other group. That’s history for you. By the way, I have studied world religions at a university level, but thanks for proving that, once again, you are incapable of making intelligent judgments. 🙂

          • Tristan Fry

            I see, and was it Jack Chick University that taught you that the original Christians are not Christians at all? Did it not dawn on you at any point that someone teaching you crap that even the dictionary tells you is wrong isn’t really any kind of enlightened truth? That maybe they were selling you hate-fuelled snake oil? LOL. I’ll stick with established history and the dictionary.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The “original Christians” were the Jewish believers. Don’t you know history?

          • Tristan Fry

            Those were Jews. Don’t you know history? I am talking about the original CHRISTIANS.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The original Christians WERE Jews. Christianity is what Judaism is really all about. Jesus Christ Himself is a Jew.

          • Tristan Fry

            Smoke and mirrors. Catholicism dates back to the first century AD. And whatever you follow branched from it, as did many other denominations.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Are you catholic? That’s the only reason I can see for you arguing against history, reason, and fact.

          • Tristan Fry

            And the dictionary? Let’s not forget the dictionary. It’s cute that
            you try to wrestle history and reason over to your side on this one when you’re in the company of revisionist history crack pots and
            conspiracy theorists.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You must never have taken a history course.

          • Tristan Fry

            I was a history major. How does your foot taste?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Like I said, you must never have taken a history course. If you did, you clearly didn’t fare well. Hopefully, you’ll also take an anger management course one day. You’re positively frothing at the mouth.

          • Tristan Fry

            Anger management because you fight the dictionary because you don’t believe Catholics are Christians? Anger management because you bought revisionist history from a fundamentalist snake oil salesman? Tell me some more about how I’m frothing at the mouth regarding your wrongness.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why don’t you want to answer a simple question?

          • Tristan Fry

            Still playing games?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            other people don’t get to tell people what religion they are.

            Remember, you’re talking to people who have no problem telling other people what religion they aren’t.

          • Tristan Fry

            These are not typical Christians though, they are fundamentalists.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            True enough.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Then start protesting. It’s happening during actual classes, not just lunch hour.

          • Tristan Fry

            That’s unacceptable. For ANY religion. But I am not aware of it happening with the Quran.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It happens all the time, all over North America and Great Britain.

          • Tristan Fry

            Then we should thank groups like the FFRF.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why do you think they don’t go after Muslims who teach Islam in public schools?

          • Tristan Fry

            Why do you think they don’t?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Because they haven’t.

          • Tristan Fry

            From their website, “Why doesn’t the FFRF ever go after Muslims?”

            Pew Research numbers reveal that the U.S. Muslim population is at 1 percent, Jewish at 1.8 percent and Hindu at .7 percent. In contrast, self-identified Christians are at 70.6 percent.

            FFRF accordingly receives very few complaints about Muslim violations. We receive very few complaints about Jewish, Hindu, Wiccan or other minority religious entanglements with government, either. When FFRF receives any bona fide complaint about any Establishment Clause violation, we research it and try to take action, depending on the facts and the legal precedent.

            This is not just a question of numbers. Of course, the greater proportion of Christians in the population means there is a higher probability any given malefactor is Christian. But in a democracy, where government is structured so that majority rules on certain issues, it
            is usually the majority that will violate the rights of the minority. In fact, this is precisely why the Bill of Rights exists: to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

            Put another way, atheists, agnostics, freethinkers and minority religions in this country have never had the unwarranted privilege Christians have asserted as members of the majority. Christian persecution is not the problem in America; Christian privilege is.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Ah, so they’re hypocrites.

          • Tristan Fry

            Explain.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            They only go after Christians. Sounds like Nazi Germany. Gotta keep those Jews from getting too much power, right?

          • Tristan Fry

            Did you read their explanation? It sounds entirely reasonable. They number the ratio of Christians to Muslims at something like 70 to 1. So they just don’t encounter it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Then why is Islam being taught in schools while Christianity is not? They are going after Christians because they hate Christ, and not for any other reason.

          • Tristan Fry

            No one hates Christ. There is no reason to hate Christ. There are plenty of reasons to hate some of the things people do in His name, however. Some of the bigotry and homophobia for example which was completely counter to everything Christ taught. Some people are atheists, and understandably don’t want any religions taught in schools, and that’s as much in your own interest as anyone else’s. Also, I’d really like to know where Islam’s being taught in schools.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If you don’t love Christ’s followers, He says You hate Him. Islam is being taught throughout North America and the UK.

          • Tristan Fry

            The people I take issue with aren’t following Christ. They’re just engaging in discrimination and ascribing their religion to it. It has zero bearing on my relationship with Christ itself which isn’t relevant here. Islam is allowed to be taught throughout North America and in the UK, just not in public places, the same as Christianity.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Christianity is not allowed to be taught in the UK or North America. As far as Christians go, the Bible says it’s not your business to judge if they walk like Christians or not, since it’s to God they answer, not you. Stop being so judgmental.

          • Tristan Fry

            You said Christ says you don’t love him if you hate his followers. I pointed out they aren’t following him and you tell me it’s not my business to judge. Well then don’t comment on my relationship with Christ. And yes Christianity is taught in North America. I work in a church and there are two Bible studies per week.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So if you think it’s okay to judge Christians while you claim to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, then you will understand – even expect – me to judge your standing in Christ. (Going with your logic here). If you don’t follow Him, you are none of His. How much you claim to have Bible studies or work in a church doesn’t make you a Christian. The Pharisees tried that and look how that worked out for him.

          • Tristan Fry

            You know precisely nothing about my life, so you’re hardly going to be taken seriously if you judge my faith. I for one appreciate having church and state separated, it’s for the good of everyone and I don’t see Christians being persecuted in this country. In other countries, certainly, but not here.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t think losing one’s business or being told one cannot hold to his/her faith publicly (while other people can), or going to jail for one’s faith is not persecution?

          • Tristan Fry

            Are you referring to the flowers and wedding cake nonsense? Last time I checked it wasn’t illegal to be homosexual. Christians have no business persecuting homosexuals.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Last time I checked, it wasn’t illegal to be Christian. Homosexuals have no business persecuting Christians.

          • Tristan Fry

            It isn’t persecution to order a cake from a Christian and expect they will actually bake it for you as they would anyone else.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So you think YouTube and twitter are persecuting Christians and conservatives when they demonetize their accounts?

          • Tristan Fry

            Can you provide a specific example?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I just did.

          • Tristan Fry

            From what I have read, it sounds like LGBT people are also having their videos demonetized.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            From what you’ve read, you’re wrong.

          • Tristan Fry

            No, in fact I found it by searching your own claim. It’s true. Both Christians and LGBT people are finding themselves demonetized. Now tell me why you asked the question when I was talking about Christians refusing to serve gay people in florist and cake shops.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            False. Christians and conservatives are being held to a different standard than others are. Do you not understand why this is significant when you’re talking about cakes?

          • Tristan Fry

            That isn’t the issue. You are free to deny the sale of cake to homosexuals at your church bake sales, but when you deal with the public you can’t make such judgments. And if you cannot do that then you shouldn’t be selling to the public. If you start to deny service to this person or that person based on your faith where does it end? Going to deny service to adulterers too?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re flipping off onto another topic because you got proven wrong. A private business should be allowed to choose what to serve.

          • Tristan Fry

            You didn’t prove me wrong. And a private business can not discriminate because of religious fervour.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Twitter and YouTube are already discriminating. You proved yourself wrong.

          • Tristan Fry

            Irrelevant to the topic at hand. That was your own non-sequitur, not mine.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re deflecting. Come on, be honest with yourself.

          • Tristan Fry

            I’m all right, Jack. Worry about your own salvation.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I wasn’t talking about your salvation. You were.

          • Tristan Fry

            Well, don’t tell me I’m not being honest with myself when you know nothing about me. We are not supposed to judge as Christians, didn’t you learn that?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, the Bible says that Christians are to judge professing Christians to see if they’re in the faith or not. By the way, re-read your own reply to men when I referenced the judge-not verse to you. 🙂

          • Tristan Fry

            But you aren’t judging righteously. You are judging self-righteously. The yardstick you are using to measure isn’t the Bible, it’s yourself

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You just made another judgement, and a poor one at that.

          • Tristan Fry

            Pointing our your judgement doesn’t mean I’m judging, I’m making an observation, and your behavior is pretty appalling.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You really should read the Book of Romans.

          • Tristan Fry

            Why? I have read it many times.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Read it again.

          • Tristan Fry

            If there is a point you’re trying to make, make it. Don’t talk down to me, please.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I can’t make it any clearer.

          • Tristan Fry

            You say the Book of Romans makes it clear what I’m doing, a vague statement if ever I’ve heard one. I mean, throw me a bone here, you’re a genius after all who went to university at age 14 (but somehow rejects standard dictionary definitions).

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why would you assume I reject standard dictionary definitions?

          • Tristan Fry

            Because in the dictionary, Catholics are defined as Christians, and you openly reject that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Which dictionary?

          • Tristan Fry

            More games?

      • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

        Please cite your posts rebuking islam being taught in public schools

        Please cite the names of some of these schools.

      • TheKingOfRhye

        I’m kinda curious; do you think LGBT people and atheists exist, or are they [b]all[/b] just Muslims out to get Christianity?

  • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

    A public school can’t permit outsiders to come in and conduct religious classes on school grounds during school hours. As the FFRF letter points out, this was ruled unconstitutional in McCollum v. Board of Education 70 years ago.

  • Guzzman

    A public school cannot be used as a mission field for churches looking to proselytize children. This very issue was settled by the Supreme Court in 1948. This is an egregious constitutional violation. The school faces enormous legal liability if it does not immediately take action to correct this illegal activity.

  • Blue

    What do you think of the following? Do you want adults coming into your child’s school to convince them to abandon christianity?

    “I shared the gospel truth that there is no God with them using Romans 6:23 Psalm 137:9 as the touchstone verse. None of the kids in any of the four Bible study groups even knew what the word ‘gospel’ meant, how many times the god of the bible ordered the death of children so I was able to share with them the in significance of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Bauman wrote.

    If you object to that quote as revised, understand that others find it offensive before the edits.

    There are churches on every street corner. Public schools are not the place to proselytize.

  • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

    Myr the Will of God be dome with this Atheist Activist Group. May God’s Will be done for the children they are harming through their hate of God. In Jesus Name.

    • James Flaherty

      There is no Atheist Activist Group.

    • Homo Sapien

      Teaching children to be critical, rational skeptical thinkers keeps them safe.

      Teaching them to accept things just because they are told puts them at risk.

      • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

        May the Will of God be done in Jesus Name. May the Will of God be done for the person behind the username “Homo Sapien” in Jesus Name. The only other thing I will say to you is that you and the ones you hate are in my prayer list.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      James Flaherty is one of Peewee’s incarnations. He just got banned as Sally so he decided to pop up as James. 🙂

  • Blue

    What do you think of the following? Do you want adults coming into your child’s school to convince them to abandon christianity?

    “I shared the gospel teaching of another religion with them using Romans 6:23 a non christian textas the touchstone verse. None of the kids in any of the four Bible study groups even knew what the word ‘gospel’ meant what this religion taught, so I was able to share with them the significance of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the truth of that other religion ” Bauman wrote.

    If you object to that quote as revised, understand that others find it offensive before the edits.

    There are churches on every street corner. Public schools are not the place to proselytize.

    • BabyDoll

      Not sure who you are Mr or Miss Blue, but your pseudo-expertise in analyzing whether or not children should be taught the truth is in gross error. The Bible is the Truth of this whole universe, and just because you may think you are in a majority of people who choose to snub their noses at truth and morality, guess what, the majority of people in this country understand about the resurrection of JESUS, yes. JESUS. We who are older were taught to pray in the public schools along with manners and an understanding an encouragement of respect and morals. You presume much and know little about what life really means by your post.

      • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

        Why should anything think your opinion of the bible is correct?

        • Billy Pilgrim

          Anything?

          What planet are you living on?

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Planet typo.

        • BabyDoll

          I didn’t express an opinion.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            “The Bible is the Truth of this whole universe”

            That’s your opinion; it certainly isn’t a fact.

      • Blue

        You are free to believe that. You are free to teach your children that.

        You are not free to approach my children behind my back or in a place they are required by law to be and attempt to change their religious beliefs.

        I was a christian for decades. I currently have kids in public schools. Your kids have every right to pray and read the bible and talk to peers interested in the conversation. But the school cannot allow outside adults in to promote religion.

        • Billy Pilgrim

          So why aren’t you angry over the teaching of secular humanism, aka atheism?

          • james blue

            When do they do that?

          • Billy Pilgrim

            And once again my point is proven.

          • james blue

            By a question? When do schools teach Atheism? What class states there is no God?

            Atheism begins and ends with the non belief in any deity.

          • Homo Sapien

            The secular part is direct from the constitution.

            What aspects of humanism to object to? Humanism is largely religion with all the violence, supernatural and hatred removed.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Which is a bald-faced lie that anyone can see for themselves by actually reading it.

          • Homo Sapien

            You have no rational arguments?

          • Griffith C

            Schools do not teach atheism. Schools teach science. Schools teach that the earth orbits the sun and earthquakes are caused by movement of tectonic plates. But it is illegal for a teacher to tell students what religious beliefs they should believe.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Bull. Teachers are being told they cannot refer to God in any way. Which is the same as saying there is no God.

          • Sally Edwards

            …what?
            Saying you can’t refer to God is NOT the same as saying “there is no God”! Entirely different statements!

          • Blue

            Show me where this happens.

            It actually would make me angry to learn public school teachers told students to reject religion.

            I protect my rights by protecting yours.

            Your children have a right to attend school without the principal allowing outside adults in at lunchtime to convince your kids to reject christianity. My children have a right to attend school without the principal allowing outside adults in at lunchtime to convince my kids to accept christianity.

            Your children have a right to form a prayer group or a Christian club. Muslim kids have a right to meet at lunch time during Ramadan to pray. My kids have the right to form a secular club. Same rights. Same rules. No leadership by outside adults.

      • Homo Sapien

        A few words about germ theory would have been really useful in this “truth of the universe”!

    • Billy Pilgrim

      The real question is why can’t you come up with a better argument for restricting the constitutional rights of the children who are voluntarily choosing to be part of the Bible study?

      • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

        Removing these classes don’t restrict the constitutional rights of any children; it protects the constitutional rights of all the children.

        • Billy Pilgrim

          You actually believe that hokum?

          Thanks for the laugh. George Orwell would’ve loved you.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            The constitution isn’t “hokum”.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            You are a liar if you are asserting that’s in the Constitution.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Yes, it is. You’re an idiot if you next whine about how it isn’t there word-for-word, because the constitution isn’t a list of laws.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            It IS in the constitution. It isn’t a list of laws.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            HAHAHAHAHA*snort*HAHAHAHAHA

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Yeah, that’ll work in court…these unconstitutional religious classes will end because they were ruled against decades ago.

          • Tim Matter

            It appears, Christians have a problem with the Golden Rule too.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Your comment doesn’t even make sense.

          • Tim Matter

            @Guest- “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
            Do you support equal rights to people of other religions?
            Do you want to deny all religions the right to come to school and try to recruit other people’s kids to their religion, or are you willing to allow every religion the same rights?
            Are you willing to allow an Imam come to school and hold a Koran study at lunchtime and try to recruit your children to Islam?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t know what the verse “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” means. Let’s talk about it since you brought it up.

            Do YOU support equal rights to people of other religions and not just your religion of atheism? If so, why do you want to take away CHRISTIAN rights?

          • Tim Matter

            I think if Christians don’t want public schools to become open recruiting grounds for other religions, they should cease making them recruiting grounds for their own. You know….do unto others…..

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are misusing a Bible verse and doing it duplicitously, too. Atheists are known for that.

          • Tim Matter

            “Do unto others as you would have then do unto you”.
            Explain how I am misusing that concept.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If you really believed in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and you really wanted your beliefs respected, you wouldn’t be trying so hard to take away Christian rights. Spare me your sanctimonious drivel. You know what you’re doing and so does everyone else here, but I wrote what I did in case there are children or those seeking truth, reading here.

          • Tim Matter

            Christians ought to have the same rights as everybody else.
            Do other religions have the right to come into that school and entice students to come to a study of their religious book?
            Do you want equal rights, or do you want Christianity to have special rights?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Then why are you trying so hard to take Christian rights away?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            He wants Christians’ privilege taken away, not Christian’s rights.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Come now, your bias is showing. The Founding Fathers were clear by how they lived (praying publicly, attending Christian schools, etc. etc.) that they had no problem with Christianity being freely preached, taught, and encouraged on public forums.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Public forum”….interesting choice of words, there. I looked that up, by US law, schools are not considered “public forums” for First Amendment purposes. Or, at least not an “unlimited public forum”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Public forums as far as public political events, public sporting events, public schools, etc. etc.

          • Tim Matter

            You don’t deserve more rights than everybody else. Either keep your evangelists out of school, or allow everybody elses in too.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Who is talking about more rights? You are. You want all rights taken away from Christians and all rights given to haters and persecutors. You want it wiped out. Christians can’t bake cakes, can’t work as florists, can’t serve in government, can’t live their faith in the work place or classroom. That’s persecution. Why don’t you ask Muslims to take off their burkas or hijabs, or to stop praying three times a day?

          • Tim Matter

            I couldn’t make it more simple. Either no religion is allowed in, or every religion is allowed in. Anything else isn’t equal.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You want no Christianity allowed in. You’re down with the religion of atheism being taught though.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No such thing as “the religion of atheism.” And if the only argument you have is a court ruling, we’ve been over that one already. Maybe try telling me why you think it is one…

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            We already established that the courts ruled atheism is a religion.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Forget about the court ruling for a second, like I said, we’ve been over that one already. Why – in your own words (since you’re pretty big on that yourself, I guess) – is atheism a religion? What makes it one, according to you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I referred you to the court ruling.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yes, am I aware of that. You’ve referred me to that, several times now. I’m not asking you about the court ruling now, I’m asking you your opinion.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Because, like you even said, we’ve established what the court ruling was. I gave my take on it, what’s yours? I recall you even said atheism “fits the criteria for a religion” or something to that effect…so tell me what you think those are, and I’ll tell you how I think it fits them.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why does my opinion matter? Opinions don’t change facts.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Hm….okay, court rulings are established facts, their word is law, regardless of what your opinion is about them? Interesting that you would say that.

          • Tim Matter

            No god. No prophets. No holy books. No miracles. No afterlife. No answers to prayer.
            That’s a strange example of a religion.
            On the other hand, I think most of that is true of Christianity too.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You must not know what the definition of religion is.

          • Tim Matter

            If I give a definition, you won’t believe me.
            So, what is the definition you are using to judge what is a religion and what isn’t. Don’t invent your own definition.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean a legal definition isn’t enough for you?

          • Tim Matter

            What is the legal definition of religion?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            See the court ruling.

          • Tim Matter

            Court ruling? Whatever definition you are using, post it here so everybody watching will know what you are talking about. Are you afraid to commit a definition of religion?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already did. Don’t you read the posts?

          • Tim Matter

            You did not. You are going to keep on evading the question aren’t you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m sorry, I’m not playing this game with you. If you’re going to be duplicitous after you’ve received an answer, there’s nothing I can do for you.

          • AlexandraDenny

            How about just answering his question, jerky?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Hi Peewee!

          • AlexandraDenny

            Hi Lady Checkmate’s lapdog!

          • Tim Matter

            Yeah. You’re the one playing the game. Don’t answer, then claim you already answered and that you’re not going to repeat yourself.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m sorry if you’re having problems understanding basic English, Tim, but I’ve been as patient and polite as I can be.

          • Tim Matter

            My English is fine. You just don’t want to be nailed down to on what definition of religion you were going by when you said “You want no Christianity allowed in. You’re down with the religion of atheism being taught though.”
            You don’t want to be proved wrong.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean referring to the legal definition of atheism isn’t being specific enough? Come now, away with your duplicity. Do you want to have a sincere discussion or not?

          • Tim Matter

            Don’t change the subject. The argument was over what is your definition of religion and them we could see if atheism fits that definition, I suspect you know it doesn’t and that is why you aren’t giving a definition.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No it wasn’t. The only person moving the goal post is you. I already gave you a legal definition, and the ruling is that atheism is a religion. That has been the official ruling since 1961. To go further, Ninian Smart , in “Dimensions of the sacred: an anatomy of the world’s beliefs”, published by HarperCollins, London, lists seven criteria commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion. Anthropologists and religion researchers use it in their work. All seven criteria need not be present for a movement or thought system to fall into the religion criteria. Atheism fits six of those criteria. Atheism is a religion.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Christians can’t bake cakes

            You know the problem was with Christians not baking cakes, right? No one was telling any Christians they couldn’t bake cakes; the problem was that they wouldn’t.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean like YouTube refusing to run Christian and conservative vids? Or twitter banning conservative sites? You mean like that?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I was talking about your comment about cakes, not what YouTube and/or Twitter are doing.

            Wait a minute, though….YouTube refuses to run Christian videos? Just now, I entered the words “Christian videos” into YouTube’s search thing. It said “about 73,100,000 results”. Doesn’t look they’re refusing many of them to me. Several of the atheist channels I watch are often doing some sort of rebuttal to some Christian video, too. But anyway, it’s YouTube’s business to decide what videos they show, isn’t it?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You must have missed the recent Christian and conservative vids that just got demonetized.

            So it’s a Christian business’s business to decide what service to provide, isn’t it?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Now, I gotta admit, I don’t know the specifics of what you’re talking about, so maybe there’s something I’m missing…

            So it’s a Christian business’s business to decide what service to provide, isn’t it?

            Yeah, just as long as they’re providing the same service or product to all customers. What you’re talking about with YouTube just isn’t comparable to something like the issue with that bakery. The bakery was refusing to sell their product to a certain kind of customer, but selling it to everyone else. If YouTube doesn’t show some kinds of videos, they’re not showing them to anybody. It’s like if you owned a store, it’s your business to decide what products you’re going to stock on your shelves, right? Like, if you ran a Christian bookstore, I wouldn’t think it was “discrimination” if you didn’t have copies of Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” on hand. Now, if you refused to sell me something that was sold to everyone else, because I’m an atheist, that’s a problem.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Just like Jewish delis don’t provide ham sandwiches, Christian bakers don’t provide same sex wedding cakes.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What’s the difference between a “same sex wedding cake” and any other wedding cake?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Ask the homosexual Nazis who are frothing at the mouth over it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I don’t know of any “homosexual Nazis.” (Godwin’s Law strikes again!)

            I’ll restate what I said before: Yes, a business can decide what products they will sell. What they can’t do is refuse to sell them to people for reasons that are protected by anti-discrimination law. (Sexual orientation is not one of those reasons in every jurisdiction, but it is in some, like Oregon, where that bakery was) A “same-sex wedding cake” is generally no different from any other wedding cake. A Jewish deli is not selling ham to some people and selling ham to others. That’s why that example is not comparable.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You should read up on some WWII history, particularly the Pink Swastika and The Hidden Hitler (book written by an historian). If reading’s not your thing, you might want to watch Hidden Fuhrer, an HBO special based upon The Hidden Hitler book. It’s excellent.

            You seem confused about what homosexual activists have asked Christian bakers to do. You should read up on it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You should read up on some WWII history, particularly the Pink Swastika

            Can’t say I’ve read that, but I have read that historians have found quite a number of inaccuracies in it.

            You seem confused about what homosexual activists have asked Christian bakers to do

            They asked them to bake cakes for them! How dare they!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You need to look at all sources collectively. Hidden Hitler is fantastic. The only ones who protest The Pink Swastika are homosexual activists.

            As far as Christian bakers go, they were asked to bake a homosexual wedding cake, which is akin to asking a Jewish deli to provide a ham sandwich rather than a kosher sandwich. By the way, what service does YouTube and twitter provide?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Even if all Nazis were homosexuals, it doesn’t mean all homosexuals are Nazis. Just simple logic there.

            Did you read what I said about how the bakery situation is different from your “Jewish deli” example? I think the difference is pretty obvious. The couple was not asking the bakery for something they did not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. A “homosexual wedding cake” is the same thing as any other wedding cake.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No one said all Nazis were homosexuals. Did you even read up on what happened in each cake debacle? There’s a difference.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No one said all Nazis were homosexuals.

            OK, fair enough, you didn’t say that. I guess you just meant the ones who actually stood up for their rights, which you apparently call “frothing at the mouth.”

            Did you even read up on what happened in each cake debacle? There’s a difference.

            I’m more familiar with the Oregon case, but I also know of the Colorado one as well. Seems to me they’re fairly similar in some ways. Both bakeries violated their state’s public accommodation laws.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Stood up for their rights? They systematically raped and sodomized little boys and grown men.

            Regarding the bakers, nope. You’re wrong. Read up on it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Ah, I think we’re getting a little mixed up here. Or I am, at least. I read your post that said “No one is saying all Nazis were homosexuals” as saying “no one is saying all homosexuals are Nazis”. That was what I was accusing you of implying in the first place. I was not accusing you of saying all Nazis were homosexuals, that’s why I prefaced that with “even if they all were”.

            I’m saying homosexual people standing up for their rights doesn’t make them Nazis or “frothing at the mouth”, which you seem to think.

            As to the bakers, no, nothing I said was wrong. Colorado and Oregon have laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations due to sexual orientation. That is just a fact. You can say that they shouldn’t have such laws, but that doesn’t change the fact that those laws were in place and were broken.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s not what went down in CO or OR. Christians are being treated the same way Jews were treated at the start of Nazi Germany.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re kidding me now, right??

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Anyway, what I said are the facts of the cases. If you think you know better, tell me, what DID go down, and how is it any different from what I said?

            As for the Nazi comment…..c’mon, that’s ridiculous. Have you heard of the “Nuremberg laws”, enacted in Germany in 1935? Among other things, they forbade Jews from marrying or having sexual relations with Germans. Hmm…forbidding people from marrying and having sex….now, you tell me: Does that sound like something the present-day LGBT people and their supporters would do? Or something some of those on the present-day Religious right would want to do??

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’ve seen the threads on Christian bakers. They’ve been targeted over providing a service they do not provide and unfairly mischaracterized in a concerted effort to persecute them.
            Nazi Germany began their persecution of Jews quite subtly. They harassed business owners, criticized their products, and gradually phased them out. Just like the gaystapo is doing to Christians today.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’ve seen the threads on Christian bakers

            Yes, I’ve seen people in them say basically all the things you’re saying now. I thought most of their arguments were wrong then, just like I think yours are now. You seem to have this attitude that you expect me to just accept what people here say.

            They’ve been targeted over providing a service they do not provide

            They were asked to sell a product they sell to everyone else. The same product they sell to everyone else. I even read when I read up on the Colorado case, the bakers refused to sell the cake without knowing anything about what kind of cake or what decorations of any sort would be on it, so that pretty much does away with any argument that it was a “gay wedding cake”. If a cake for a same-sex wedding was inherently different from a usual wedding cake, you might have some sort of argument there, but it just isn’t.

            They harassed business owners

            Expecting a business to follow state law and not discriminate is not “harassment”. And remember, it was the Oregon bakers who “doxxed” the couple in that case, so who’s doing the harassing?

            I thought of a line the other day that I think sums this kind of thing up and how I feel about it: Intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean like gay activists trying to close down Christian businesses because they hate Christians?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So you’re not even trying to respond to what I actually said now, is that it?

          • Tristan Fry

            Salman Rushdie said, “One of the things that is a classic trope of the religious bigot, is while they’re denying people their rights, they claim that their rights are being denied. While they are persecuting people,
            they claim to be persecuted. While they are behaving colossally
            offensively, they claim to be the offended party.” I live by these words, I first saw them superimposed over a picture of Kim Davis.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Oh the irony!

          • Tristan Fry

            He hit the nail on the head, especially when I listen to you complain about how picked on you are.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I haven’t spoken about being picked on. Projection much?

          • Tristan Fry

            When you talk about Christian Persecution, you put yourself in that group.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Where have I discussed personal persecution?

          • Tristan Fry

            Around the same time you invoked Godwin’s theory.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You still haven’t learned what that means, have you? 🙂 You give yourself away every time you misuse that. Tell Peewee and Sally I said hi. 🙂

          • Tristan Fry

            Who invoked Hitler, you or me? And I have no idea who your imaginary friends are.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Do you not know what Godwin’s Law means? You see the word “Hitler” and your knee jerks violently. You know that when you’re actually discussing Hitler, it’s okay to mention Hitler, don’t you?

          • Tristan Fry

            You brought up Hitler in a grossly exaggerated situation where mentioning Hitler was over the top and ridiculous.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You seem confused about what Godwin’s law is. You should look that up in a dictionary.

          • Tristan Fry

            More games?

      • Blue

        You are incorrect. You need to check your facts.

        Kids in schools are free to hold bible studies. They are free to form christian clubs. They are free to pray singly or in groups.

        Evangelicals wrote and President Reagan signed the Equal Access Act in 1984. This Federal law establishes exactly what you said – kids have the right to hold bible studies. But the group must be led by students not outside adults. And the school cannot promote it or discourage it.

        Provisions of the Equal Access Act include;

        Host school is a secondary school and receives federal financial assistance
        Already have a limited open forum, which means that at least one student-led, non-curriculum club that meets outside of class time
        Attendance is voluntary
        Group is student-initiated
        Group is not disruptive
        Persons of the community that are not part of the school may not “direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend meetings”

        • Billy Pilgrim

          The act of which you speak is obviously unconstitutional. And I doubt it was written by “evangelicals” if you mean Christians.

          • Blue

            ?

            Title VIII of Public Law 98-377 doesn’t exactly leave ’em laughing in the aisles. And its codification as 20 USC 4071 isn’t exactly high comedy. It all reads like rather dry legislative output. But it is the law, and this law was first written to protect christian religious clubs and bible studies, although it also protects muslim prayer groups and Secular Student Alliance clubs.

            Or are you laughing at Ronald Reagan for signing the Equal Access Act into law?

            Religious clubs, prayer gatherings and bible studies are permitted in public schools during non instructional time. School employees may be present in a nonparticipatory capacity. Outside adults may not “direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend.”

            Exactly what is so funny about protecting the religious freedom of public school students?

  • SleepersAwake

    Our founders never intended for the Gospel to be stripped from our schools nor our national institutions. Anyone arguing otherwise is just plain ignorant of our history.

    • Homo Sapien

      Funny. They never wrote a law saying there should be Bible’s in schools but took great pains to make sure the government couldn’t favor one religion over another.

      Hmmmm…

      • Billy Pilgrim

        False. The Constitution clearly says a state religion could not be formed, AND Congress could not keep people from practicing theirs.

        • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

          The Constitution clearly says a state religion could not be formed

          No, it doesn’t refer to a state religion, it refers to an establishment of religion. That’s quite a bit broader.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Which is to create a religion. And you can’t create a religion that already existed 400 years before.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            “No establishment” means a lot more than just that. This is from Everson v. Board of Education:

            The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’

          • Billy Pilgrim

            That’s what a man in a black robe said, not the Constitution. Try again.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            And what do you have to counter it? The amateur “interpretation” by some fat guy in his mom’s basement?

          • Homo Sapien

            Wow! No respect for the overall design of the government, checks and balances, etc. Now I know why they call them the christian Taliban.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            The Judicial Branch has neither the right nor authority to unilaterally change the United States Constitution. With Emerson SCOTUS inserted a phrase in the Constitution that was never there in the first place, and in fact was taken from a letter out of context written by Thomas Jefferson after the Constitution was drafted and ratified. It was pure Animal Farm.

          • Homo Sapien

            If that were true, it’s up to the legislative branch to write a law that is more clear and get it passed or write a constitutional amendment.

            Not just complain like a toddler.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            write a constitutional amendment.

            Which is how you change the Constitution, as per the aforementioned document itself.

          • james blue

            Do you view the constitution as a document to protect freedom and liberty or a document to justify limiting it?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the
            Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
            Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already
            furnished in their short history [attempts where religious bodies had
            already tried to encroach on the government].” – James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820

            But what would he know about the Constitution, he only wrote it….

          • Billy Pilgrim

            And yet Hugo Black did not cite that in Emerson, did he?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yet he cited what Jefferson said, which was just about the same thing.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            No. Jefferson said the exact opposite. Did you actually read the letter to the Danbury Baptists?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            My point was that Black cited Madison to say that there is separation of church and state in the Constitution, despite there not being those exact words in it.

            Madison: “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States…”

            Jefferson: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

            How are those “the exact opposite”?

          • Billy Pilgrim

            To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

            Gentlemen

            The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

            Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, [emphasis mine] that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

            I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

            Th Jefferson
            Jan. 1. 1802.

            Translation: Jefferson was talking about protecting the church from the government. Not government from the church.

            Checkmate.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You don’t separate church from government without separating government from church. If you have a “wall of separation” between two things, they’re both kept apart from the other.

            By the way, that is not to say religious people shouldn’t be government, or that they shouldn’t use their religious beliefs…just that we can’t have a religious organization (church) involved with government (which public schools are considered part of).

            At any rate, it just sounds logical: You want to keep the state out of the church? OK, then wouldn’t keeping the church away from the state only help with that?

            (Capture of the piece giving check)

          • Billy Pilgrim

            If you wish to argue Jefferson’s words to justify oppressing the constitutional rights of Christians, you need to do it with Jefferson. Your argument is both meaningless and worthless to me, as it doesn’t change the fact Jefferson’s words were both taken out of context by Hugo Black and used to make a ruling that was in and of itself unconstitutional.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If you wish to argue Jefferson’s words to justify oppressing the constitutional rights of Christians

            The thing is, what I’m talking about actually protests Christians’ rights as well.

          • Sally Edwards

            “Protests” or “protects”? Thinking this not a safe place for a typo considering the potential response…

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Thanks, edited that now.

          • 313Kriss

            You cannot keep the church out of the government because the government is made up of elected officials, many of which are Christian by faith. Once you are born again from above, your faith becomes an active part of you and in relationship to God.
            Every worships something…………………even atheists.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I know religious people’s beliefs influence them in all kinds of ways. But read the second paragraph of that post again. “Church” in “separation of church and state” is referring to religious organizations, not religious people.

          • 313Kriss

            I know that is your selling point. The original intent was for the ‘state/government’ to not have the power to determine what religion the nation follows. In middle eastern nations the national religion is Islam. In nations where the majority of the people are Christians, other religions are welcomed.

            What do you fear ?

            Only God can convert you……………….not man. If man could actually convert (a spiritual event where God changes your heart) another person, then, nothing would stop the so-called converted person from converting to what they were.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The original intent was for the ‘state/government’ to not have the power to determine what religion the nation follows.

            As I’ve said before, I think keeping religious organizations out of government only can help with that.

            In nations where the majority of the people are Christians, other religions are welcomed.

            History shows that hasn’t always been the case, and one could maybe make the argument that it isn’t now. Sometimes it doesn’t seem that way around here, anyway.

          • 313Kriss

            Early in our nations history, a branch of my family tree arrived in Virginia and lived there until the entire family but 2, were slain by Shawnee Indians. The family members were French Hugenots (reformed). One of the surviving sons married a Shawnee woman. Forgiveness works.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Okay, but I don’t see how that has anything to do with what I was talking about.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “A man in a black robe” whose job it is to interpret the Constitution.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            But not legislate from the bench.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You do know Hugo Black, the “man in a black robe” that was quoted there, based his ruling in that case on things Madison and Jefferson said, right?

          • Homo Sapien

            It’s not legislating, it’s interpreting.

            Something every christian should know we’ll given the thousands of interpretations of the bible.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Creating law from whole cloth is legislating from the bench, legume.

          • Homo Sapien

            So fix it, instead of stomping your feet and crying.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        • Ancient Birds

          Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli: “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

          • Billy Pilgrim

            You are disputing an argument I did not make.

      • Reason2012

        It’s freedom of religion – not freedom from religion.

        • Homo Sapien

          Ok. I’m an ordained pastafarian minister. My belief system is based on science and humanism. That is a stance that is every bit as defendable as any other religion.

          That said, your argument is childish. To quote Neil Peart, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”.

          Are you honestly trying to tell me that we are legally obligated to be religious?

          So much for the land of the free.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            His argument is in the Constitution, legume.

          • Reason2012

            Are you honestly trying to tell everyone else that Christianity must be censored, except where people like you give their permission? This is why we have a Constitution in the first place – to protect freedom of religion from anti-Christian fascists.

            On a school by school basis, if the people that go there do not mind such a thing, then they have the freedom to allow it. If that particular school (the people that go there) do NOT want it there, then they have the freedom to disallow it.

            It’s called democracy, it’s called freedom, it’s called the United States of America, and it woks great.

            But then you have atheists (they’re not humanists as they do not mind sacrificing tens of millions of human beings on the altar of personal convenience and call that “abortion”) who behave like fascists and demand that in every school across the country, it’s their beliefs that rule and it doesn’t matter if the majority at that school do not mind Christianity be offered – the atheist fascists will rage and threaten until only their belief system of “you’re just an animal – a cosmic accident” be taught to the kids, let alone as a lie that it’s a fact instead of another belief system, and that’s not even optional.

            So if they do not want schools on a case by case basis to decide for themselves (by the people that go to that particular school) they do not mind having an elective Christianity lesson there, then the belief system of “you’re an animal – a cosmic accident” needs to be removed as well. But the fact you do not mind that belief system is force-fed on every school exposes the hypocrisy of the fascists pretending to be atheists.

            Search on public school islam and read all about how more and more public schools are teaching kids all about islam while censoring Christianity. Please cite your posts against that which is far worse than what you complain about here. It exposes the atheists as really pro-islamists using atheism as a way to eradicate Christianity one piece at a time.

          • Homo Sapien

            The supreme Court disagrees with you.

            Taxpayer money is not to be spent proselytizing religion. This protects us the tyranny of the majority. If you want to indoctrinate your children on your own dime, knock yourself out. Why should the minority have the majority religion forced on them.

            Let me guess, you disavow almost the entire field of biology which is based on Darwin’s theory of evolution?

            As for your comments about atheists and fascists. They are moronic in the extreme.

          • Reason2012

            The supreme court and the Constitution of the United States disagrees with you. If a particular school wants the freedom of religion there, they have that right. If they do not, they have that right.

            Secondly no tax money was being spent to pay for it. It’s voluntary.

            It’s fascist for people to demand all beliefs but their own be promoted, which is what atheist activists do. Why does their belief that we’re all worthless animals – cosmic accidents – get factually promoted with our tax money, promoted as fact, force fed to all students? By your own words, the supreme Court disagrees with it – they’re using our tax money to teach kids the mythological belief system that we’re all cosmic accidents – worthless animals.

            So when you get rid of atheists’ beliefs from our schools, that ARE being forced, that ARE being paid for by our tax dollars, then you’ll realize how hypocritical it is to try censoring Christianity under the dishonest guise of “you can’t use our tax money” while you ignore that atheists do just that.

          • Homo Sapien

            No tax money? Is he leading his prayers on the sidewalk off school property?

            What atheist belief are you referring to in our schools?

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            If a particular school wants the freedom of religion there, they have that right.

            Allowing religious classes during classtime isn’t a right — public schools don’t HAVE rights, only people have rights.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If a particular school wants the freedom of religion there, they have that right. If they do not, they have that right

            Are you saying a school can decide to not to have freedom of religion? That makes no sense.

            their belief that we’re all worthless animals

            Hey, we are animals, but that doesn’t mean we’re worthless. (I’d judge that on case by case basis…)

          • SleepersAwake

            Well said…

          • TheKingOfRhye

            On a school by school basis, if the people that go there do not mind
            such a thing, then they have the freedom to allow it. If that
            particular school (the people that go there) do NOT want it there, then
            they have the freedom to disallow it.

            No, it’s not quite that simple, though. If something is determined to be unconstitutional, you can have all the votes you want, but it’s not going to be allowed. Like if some state voted to reinstate bans on same-sex marriage…those were ruled unconstitutional, so that vote would be meaningless.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            No, it’s not quite that simple, though.

            Of course it is.

            Like if some state voted to reinstate bans on same-sex marriage…those were ruled unconstitutional, so that vote would be meaningless.

            Two problems with that, however:

            1) Justice Kennedy took a single word in an amendment about the rights of former slaves and stretched it to cover sexual behavior, something the amendment never mentions.

            2) Two justices refused to recuse themselves in the face of open bias as required by federal law. As their votes had a direct impact on what was not constitutional in the first place, Obergefell is null and void.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I had a feeling that would get a response like this. My reason for bringing up SSM was that bans against it have been ruled unconstitutional. Like it or not, agree with the decision or not, that is a fact. I could have used bans against interracial marriage or something else to make my point just as well. A state could have a vote to ban interracial marriage, but it wouldn’t accomplish anything, because since Loving v. Virginia, such bans have been declared unconstitutional.

            1) Justice Kennedy took a single word in an amendment about the rights
            of former slaves and stretched it to cover sexual behavior, something
            the amendment never mentions

            It’s not just about the rights of former slaves. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
            State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
            jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It only mentions slaves in Section 4, to say “any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave” is invalid. If the 14th Amendment was only about the rights of former slaves, then it wouldn’t have been used to make various rulings throughout the 20th century like it has been.

            And the recusal argument doesn’t work, either. Recusal is common when there’s a financial interest, or a conflict of interest involving a family member or something like that. None of that applied there.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            I had a feeling that would get a response like this.

            Then why did you bring it up, unless you are some kind of masochist wanting to be beaten in the arena of debate? The argument for SSM is nothing more than a red herring to begin with, and a losing one at that, for the reasons I have already given.

            Marriage is a 10th Amendment issue. Period. That ends the discussion right there.

            You seem to think SCOTUS has the right to change or amend the Constitution as they see fit. The Constitution clearly says there’s only one way, and that’s through amendment, not someone sporting a black robe and a God complex. If you wish to actually argue that, bear in mind I do not suffer fools.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Then why did you bring it up

            Partly just to annoy people like you, I gotta admit. But like I said, I could have brought up any other thing that was ruled unconstitutional, even something not involving marriage at all. Let’s say some state voted to segregate schools. Despite that being the will of the people, it would be unconstitutional, because of Brown v. Board of Education. That was my point.

            Marriage is a 10th Amendment issue.

            It’s a 9th and 14th amendment issue.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Wrong.

            This is why I don’t suffer fools: Because they will make ridiculous statements without any knowledge of what they think they are referencing.

            To wit: Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment explicitly says anything not already addressed in the previous 9 amendments (none of which mentions marriage either) are left in the hands of the States.

            We’re done.

          • James Flaherty

            Shut your mouth, Matthew. KingOfRhye isn’t finished talking yet. You’ll be done when he’s said all he has to say on the matter and not before.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            He not only declared the conversation done, he declared himself the winner of the debate….I didn’t even know it was over. Oh, he basically called me a fool, too, so that’s always nice.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
            construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

            If you’re going to say marriage is not a right, well, you’re going against 100+ years of Supreme Court decisions on that one. Guess you’re against the Loving v. Virginia ruling, too?

            Also, there’s other things that are considered fundamental rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution: The right to interstate travel, the right to parent one’s children, the right to privacy, the right of self-defense….are you telling me you’d want states to be able to take those away?

          • James Flaherty

            You’re not beating anyone in the arena of debate. You’re a rude asshole who wants to badger people into silence and/or being banned.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            On a school by school basis, if the people that go there do not mind such a thing, then they have the freedom to allow it.

            Well, no, public schools still have to follow the constitution, even if a majority wants to ignore it.

            By the way, if that’s really your position, you can’t complain about public schools promoting Islam if that’s what the majority wants, right?

          • Leon

            Fine. But don’t pretend that the 1st Amendment only applies to Muslims.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            I never have.

          • Leon

            …and that it does not apply to Christian.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            The first amendment applies to everyone equally, including Muslims and Christians and atheists.

            My reply to Reason2012 was because he keeps insisting there are schools that teach Islam (though he never comes up with one), but since he ALSO says schools can teach Christianity if “the people that go there” want it, he can’t complain about schools that teach Islam if the people that go there want it. But he spouts off both contradictory positions.

          • Richard Donahue

            If the first amendment applies equally to atheist then why are they trying to stop any religion from their equal rights to hold meetings in schools? The atheist can certainly have their meetings as well cant they? What’s the problem?

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            If the first amendment applies equally to atheist then why are they trying to stop any religion from their equal rights to hold meetings in schools?

            They aren’t. Students can meet in schools, but school officials and non-school personnel can’t conduct religious meetings in public schools. This is about the latter, which has been unconstitutional for a long time.

          • Richard Donahue

            Are you sure its exactly as you say?

            Supreme Court Decisions
            The Supreme Court has held that religious worship and discussion are forms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment. Beginning with Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 267(1981) the Supreme Court has consistently held that once the government establishes a forum open generally to use by the public, it assumes an obligation to justify its discriminations and exclusions under applicable constitutional rulings. Under these rulings, the government must grant both religious and non-religious groups access to the forum on equal terms. In other words, the government can exclude religious speech only if (1) the content of that speech is not germane to the purposes of the forum, or (2) the expressive activity violates standard time, place, and manner restrictions on the forum’s use. (see Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 830 (1995)). But the government cannot exclude religious speech simply because of its religious character.
            In one leading case, the Court held that a school board’s policy refusing to allow a church to show a religious film at a public school after school hours when other civic and social organizations could use the facilities favored non-religious over religious viewpoints (Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School, 508 U. S. 385 (1993)). Thus, the court concluded the policy violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech clause. The Court also concluded that the use of school property to show the film did not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, because the film was open to the public and not scheduled during school hours or sponsored by the school.
            In another leading case, the Court held that a public school’s refusal to allow a club to meet in a school after hours because of the club’s religious nature violated the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and religion guarantees (Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001)). The Court concluded that the school’s policies regarding school use by private organizations after hours created a limited public forum. When government creates such a forum by its policies, it is not required to allow people and groups to engage in every type of speech, and it may be justified in reserving its forum for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics. But the restriction must not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint, and must be reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum.
            The Court ruled that the school’s exclusion of a Christian children’s club from meeting after hours at the school based on its religious nature was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. It noted that the school had opened its limited public forum to activities that served a variety of purposes, including events “pertaining to the welfare of the community,” and had interpreted its policy to permit discussions of subjects such as “the development of character and morals from a religious perspective. “But the school excluded the club because its activities, which included learning Bible verses, relating Bible stories to member’s lives, and praying, were the equivalent of religious instruction itself.”

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            They aren’t” then who are they? FFRF are atheist just check out their website and see

            My “they aren’t” was in response to your “why are they trying to stop any religion from their equal rights to hold meetings in schools?”

            The FFRF is not trying to stop any religion from their equal rights to hold meetings in schools — they are only trying to get public schools to follow longstanding court opinions.

            The Supreme Court has held that religious worship and discussion are forms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment.

            And that this does NOT include having people come in during school hours and teach religion.

            McCollum v. Board of Education (1948):
            In 1940, interested members of various Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish faiths formed an association named the Champaign Council on Religious Education. This association obtained permission from the Champaign Board of Education to offer voluntary religious education classes for public school students from grades four to nine. These weekly 30- and 45-minute classes were led by clergy and lay members of the association in public school classrooms during school hours.

            The foregoing facts, without reference to others that appear in the record, show the use of tax supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between the school authorities and the religious council in promoting religious education. The operation of the State’s compulsory education system thus assists and is integrated with the program of religious instruction carried on by separate religious sects.

            For the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere. Or, as we said in the Everson case, the First Amendment has erected a wall between Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable.

            Here not only are the State’s tax-supported public school buildings used for the dissemination of religious doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an invaluable aid in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of the State’s compulsory public school machinery. This is not separation of Church and State.

          • Richard Donahue

            I guess the courts will decide how the first amendment will be interpreted. First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.
            U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas
            The First Amendment, as interpreted and defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, means that the government (and therefore the public school) has no authority to restrict expression because of “its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”2 As the Supreme Court has said:
            It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private license.3
            By limiting governmental interference with freedom of speech, inquiry, and association, the Constitution protects the freedom of expression of all persons, no matter what their calling, including public school teachers. As Justice William O. Douglas once said:
            [T]he counselor, whether priest, parent, or teacher, no matter how small his audience—these too are beneficiaries of freedom of expression.4
            The Supreme Court has stated: “Any inhibition of freedom of thought, and of action upon thought in the case of teachers brings the safeguards of those amendments [First and Fourteenth] vividly into operation.” Teachers need to be “free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.” This is part and parcel of the nation’s deep commitment to “safeguarding academic freedom” in the public schools, or what the Supreme Court has called the “marketplace of ideas.”
            This means that teachers must have the freedom to teach and impart knowledge in the most effective and appropriate manner possible. In this way, the democratic values that undergird the American system of government will thrive and be passed on from generation to generation.
            Just like the clubs this is a voluntary non-school period session so that means whether its school officials or not the gov cannot prohibit their first amendment rights of free speech

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            I guess the courts will decide how the first amendment will be interpreted.

            They decided this arrangement 70 years ago.

            It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

            Teachers do NOT have a first amendment right to teach THEIR religion to other people’s children.

          • Richard Donahue

            I think you need to read it again this is a voluntary after school session so that gives anybody the right to teach what they believe even atheism if they want too.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            I think you need to read it again this is a voluntary after school session

            See that “Lunchtime bible study”? That’s not after school.

            And “voluntary” doesn’t make it constitutional. Pretty much every supreme court case on public schools teaching religion or prayers were “voluntary”, such as McCollum v. Bd of Edu, Engel v. Vitale, Wallace v. Jaffree, Santa Fe v. Doe, etc, yet they were all ruled unconstitutional.

          • Richard Donahue

            Well I don’t know why this is an issue really school officials now meet with students outside the school grounds and train them for student lead meetings and train how to witness to other students. If there is a will there is a way. Do you find this acceptable?

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Sounds legal to me — why were you so determined to defend unconstitutional practices? Shouldn’t public school officials and pastors obey the law?

          • Richard Donahue

            Because I did not know school officials could not participate in the voluntary meetings but if the student asked them to they can.
            Yes they should obey the Law and so should atheist. There was an atheist in my daughters social study class asked the question “why would we need faith? She and another girl said; “there would be no hope” He flunked them both. Why didn’t I sue? Money

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Because I did not know school officials could not participate in the voluntary meetings but if the student asked them to they can.

            No, not if those school officials are on the clock.

            There was an atheist in my daughters social study class asked the question “why would we need faith? She and another girl said; “there would be no hope” He flunked them both. Why didn’t I sue? Money

            I’d say you’re just lying now.

          • Richard Donahue

            Seems like the times are changing read this what I found online.

            In answering questions about their faith while in class, teachers should be both honest and brief, taking care not to turn a question into an opportunity to preach, according to Charles Haynes, a First Amendment expert at the Newseum Institute’s Religious Freedom Center.
            “They can’t use it as an opportunity to proselytize or invite kids to their synagogue or their church,” Haynes said. “But they can just answer the question and then go on and say, ‘But I’m here to teach fairly about various perspectives.’ ”
            Haynes said that many Americans have the mistaken impression that public schools are supposed to be religion-free zones. While the Constitution says that government cannot establish religion, it also says that the government cannot inhibit religious freedom — a provision that allows students, and to a lesser degree, teachers, to express their faith openly in school.
            As agents of the government, teachers cannot inculcate religion at school, so they cannot lead students in prayer during class. But they also are private citizens with rights to free speech — and many interpret that to mean they can pray with students at church on Sunday, for example.
            Sometimes, the lines can begin to blur.
            One Florida teacher, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid spurring a backlash against her or her school, said she sometimes prays with students at the flagpole outside her school and steps away when a bell rings signifying the beginning of the work day.

            “I’ve had some colleagues say to me, your faith is supposed to be a private thing,” she said. But she said she is careful to abide by the law and believes her high school students understand that her faith doesn’t change the way she treats students in class.
            Must Reads newsletter
            5 stories you can’t afford to miss, every Saturday.

            Sign up

            Haynes, the First Amendment scholar, said courts examine whether a teacher’s behavior gives the appearance that the school is endorsing religion, and there’s no clear precedent guiding whether teachers may pray with students at the flagpole right before school.
            But he said that constitutional experts and federal judges generally have agreed that teachers may pray with one another in their free time at school and may also sponsor after-school religious clubs for students, so long as they don’t lead or participate in prayer at school when they are in the company of students.
            The U.S. Department of Education put it this way in guidelines issued in 2003:
            When acting in their official capacities as representatives of the state, teachers, school administrators, and other school employees are prohibited by the Establishment Clause from encouraging or discouraging prayer, and from actively participating in such activity with students. Teachers may, however, take part in religious activities where the overall context makes clear that they are not participating in their official capacities. Before school or during lunch, for example, teachers may meet with other teachers for prayer or Bible study to the same extent that they may engage in other conversation or nonreligious activities.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Seems like the times are changing read this what I found online.

            No, rightwingers have been whining about this for over a decade, but they don’t pan out.

            And what is your copy & paste for? None of that contradicts what I’ve been saying.

          • Richard Donahue

            You said “No, not if those school officials are on the clock.”

            And I answer with this paste that they can. Seems like your running out of things to say.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Uh, no. Your copy & paste contained this:
            When acting in their official capacities as representatives of the state, teachers, school administrators, and other school employees are prohibited by the Establishment Clause from encouraging or discouraging prayer, and from actively participating in such activity with students.

            When they’re on the clock, they can’t pray with students.
            on the clock = “acting in their official capacities”
            and “are prohibited ” … “from actively participating” … “with students”

          • Richard Donahue

            Seems like you missed some of it;

            In ANSWERING QUESTIONS about their faith while in class, teachers should be both honest and brief, taking care not to turn a question into an opportunity to preach, according to Charles Haynes, a First Amendment expert at the Newseum Institute’s Religious Freedom Center

            While the Constitution says that government cannot establish religion, it also says that the government cannot inhibit religious freedom — a provision that allows students, AND TO A LESSER DEGREE, TEACHERS, to express their faith openly in school.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Seems like you missed the part that supported exactly what I wrote:
            “No, not if those school officials are on the clock.”

            They cannot pray with students while they are acting as school employees. Period.

            I’ll guess that this is the first time you’ve quoted Charles Haynes; I’ve read his columns for years, and he knows the first amendment.

          • Richard Donahue

            I didn’t say anything about praying I said answering questions about their beliefs. You are twisting what I have said and pasted.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            It looks like we have been arguing about two different things.

            When you wrote Well I don’t know why this is an issue really school officials now meet with students outside the school grounds and train them for student lead meetings and train how to witness to other students. If there is a will there is a way. Do you find this acceptable?

            My response was Sounds legal to me — why were you so determined to defend unconstitutional practices? Shouldn’t public school officials and pastors obey the law?

            That’s why I keep adding that caveat that it isn’t legal when school officials are on the clock. When they aren’t, they can do what they want — including teaching Islam as true, of course.

          • Richard Donahue

            Seems like you missed it again
            In ANSWERING QUESTIONS about their faith while in class, teachers should be both honest and brief, taking care not to turn a question into an opportunity to preach, according to Charles Haynes, a First Amendment expert at the Newseum Institute’s Religious Freedom Center
            While the Constitution says that government cannot establish religion, it also says that the government cannot inhibit religious freedom — a provision that allows students, AND TO A LESSER DEGREE, TEACHERS, to express their faith openly in school.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            You originally claimed Because I did not know school officials could not participate in the voluntary meetings but if the student asked them to they can.

            No, they still can’t participate, even if asked.

          • Richard Donahue

            Right, but what I don’t understand is why FFFRF or ACLU don’t stop the teaching of Islam, homosexuality, anti-religious teaching in schools?

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            WHERE?

            Name an ACTUAL SCHOOL doing this and they WILL.

            The MN ACLU sued Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy over this, won, and the school went bankrupt.
            But people like you keep frothing at the mouth and saying it’s happening all over, but you NEVER come up with any real examples.

            So at this point you’re just spreading lies.

          • Richard Donahue

            LOL! atheism only attacks Christianity not Islam/homosexuality/anti-religious groups and atheism does not help religious groups laws suits even if they are asked too.
            I didn’t say it was all over and who is “people like me? If I was a spreading lies then how did you found one charter school doing it? So its true.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            LOL! atheism only attacks Christianity not Islam/homosexuality/anti-religious groups and atheism does not help religious groups laws suits even if they are asked too.

            Stop lying. If only you belonged to a religion that said lying was wrong…

            If I was a spreading lies then how did you found one charter school doing it?

            Now you can’t read — that’s an ongoing lawsuit, it hasn’t been shown to be true, and from what I’ve seen, it’s another false report.

          • Richard Donahue

            How do you know if its a false report if it hasn’t been settled?

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            From newspaper accounts with more details.

          • Richard Donahue

            That’s just public opinion not a court settlement.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Newspaper reports aren’t public opinion, they have things like official responses from school officials.

          • Richard Donahue

            Let me look at what they said what do I place in my browser? If you cant tell me then your lying.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Let me look at what they said what do I place in my browser? If you cant tell me then your lying.

            I can’t even understand what you’re trying to say here.

          • Richard Donahue

            You said; this was a false report on teaching Islam in a school

            Then I said; How do you know this is false if its not settled by the court?

            Then you said; you got from the Newspaper

            Then I said; That’s just public opinion not settled by the court

            Then you said; Newspaper reports aren’t public opinion, they have things like official responses from school officials”

            Then I said; “Let me look at what they said tell me what I need to put in my browser so I can read what the school officials said about it?”

            But it still doesn’t matter if its not settled by the court then your claim of what you heard a Newspaper say is just hearsay nothing more at this point. My advice is don’t make claims you cant prove out of court.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Of course, for a real court hearing they’d bring in the school officials who were quoted. And going by that, this was not teaching Islam in school.

            By the way, why would anyone WANT to do that? Do you really think that a public school, where the majority of teachers and principals are typically Christian, would suddenly decide to teach Islam??

            Really, did you ever think how absurd that sounds? What would motivate them to do that?

          • Richard Donahue

            I’m still waiting to read the Newspaper article were is it?

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Links get moderated; here’s the official denial:
            School board attorney Matthew J. Giacobbe said the board had no comment on the pending litigation “other than to state that it denies the allegations contained in the complaint and will vigorously defend the district, its Board of Education and staff from the allegations contained therein. …

            Searching for that will also find it.

          • Richard Donahue

            It was on fox news that the Dept. of Education was Asked to Remove Islam Materials From Public Schools

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            It was on fox news that the Dept. of Education was Asked to Remove Islam Materials From Public Schools

            What schools? Who asked? What happened?
            Your answer is so vague as to be useless.

          • Richard Donahue

            I don’t know how my reply got here but I was answering your question “what schools was teaching Islam” This has been going on for many years you should be able to find plenty news articles online. No one has been able to deny this fact. Even homosexuality has been taught in schools as well. Just place in your browser “Is public schools teaching Islam or homosexuality? and wah-la there you have it.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            I don’t know how my reply got here but I was answering your question “what schools was teaching Islam”

            And your answer was wrong.

            This has been going on for many years you should be able to find plenty news articles online.

            Like the Miami Herald, which said the claim was false.

            And, suspiciously, no lawsuits.

          • Richard Donahue

            Place in your browser “Law suits against teaching Islam in public schools” See what you get and let me know what you see.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            No, that only produces lots of rightwing false allegations.
            List an actual school teaching Islam, or a lawsuit about it. I only know of one, and it’s pretty dubious. But there are plenty of people like yourself insisting that it’s happening all over, yet no actual schools are named. It’s an echo chamber.

          • Richard Donahue

            So you investigate only your left wing association and nothing more. Got it.

            Since you don’t like looking it up here is a few headlines.

            Thomas More Law Center filed the lawsuit on behalf of John and Melissa Wood. They accuse La Plata High School in Maryland of subjecting their teenage daughter to Islamic indoctrination and propaganda. And when Mr. Wood complained – the school banned him from campus

            A lawsuit has been filed against social-studies teacher Christine Jakowski and others in the Chatham School District in New Jersey for teaching public school students that Islam is “the true faith.”

            Six parents filed a lawsuit against a California school district over its anti-Islamophobia campaign, stating that the policy violated the U.S. Constitution because it favored one religion.

            TEXAS and TENNESSEE join parents around America who are outraged that their children are being taught history with an Islamo-centric focus, with the study of Islam taking up major portions of school textbooks, while the other religions are hardly mentioned. What most people don’t realize is that approx. 80% of these history/social studies books are fully funded by the Saudis and provided free of charge to the schools

            A case brought by parents and children challenging a California school district for its practice of teaching 12-year-old students to “become Muslims” will be heard in U.S. appeals court today.

            As WND reported, the lawsuit was filed by the Thomas More Law Center against the Byron Union School District and various school officials to stop the “Islam simulation” materials and methods used in the Excelsior Elementary School in Byron, Calif.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            So you investigate only your left wing association and nothing more. Got it.

            What are you babbling about now?

            Thomas More Law Center filed the lawsuit on behalf of John and Melissa Wood. They accuse La Plata High School in Maryland of subjecting their teenage daughter to Islamic indoctrination and propaganda.

            Yep, that’s the one I knew about, and the father was banned for threats.

            And all your examples are, so far, allegations.

            What most people don’t realize is that approx. 80% of these history/social studies books are fully funded by the Saudis and provided free of charge to the schools

            Got a cite for that?

          • Richard Donahue

            You just asked for law suits not judgments you said there was no name of any school and a named them. If you knew then why did you call me a liar? I have already told you what to do and you refused look online like I did but we both know that will not support your left wing agenda.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            You just asked for law suits not judgments you said there was no name of any school and a named them

            Only after you kept trying to fob it off on me.

            Yes, you have a few unsettled lawsuits now.

            If you knew then why did you call me a liar?

            I only knew about the first one, which I said I did.

          • Richard Donahue

            You poor thing I have the right to fob don’t I?

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Sure, and I have the right to tell you to do your own work.

          • Griffith C

            Schools do not have freedom of religion, because the government does not have freedom of religion.

            The Bill of Rights protects individual freedom by placing limits on government power. No branch of government can promote religion SO THAT the freedom of each individual is protected. Every student gets to decide what religion to believe without any interference by those acting with government authority.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Schools do not have freedom of religion, because the government does not have freedom of religion.

            Nor do they have freedom from it.

            No branch of government can promote religion SO THAT the freedom of each individual is protected.

            Funny how my copy of the Constitution doesn’t say that. Mine says the government cannot create its own religion nor keep people from practicing theirs.

          • Leon

            That’s only goes for atheist dictatorships. In America. the freedoms of the Constitution applies to everyone.

          • Griffith C

            Yes. The Constitution applies to everyone. Read it. It places limits on government in order to protect individual freedom.

            Your religious freedom is protected BECAUSE nobody can use government authority to tell you or your children which deity to pray to. The constitutional limit on government power protects you.

          • Leon Redmond

            True, and nor can it forbid me from obeying God, and living by His commandments.

          • Griffith C

            Nobody is preventing you from obeying God.

            But I don’t recall a commandment: “Thou shalt use government authority to gather up other people’s kids and preach to them without their parents knowledge or permission.”

            Your freedom of religion does not include the right to interfere with another person’s freedom of religion.

          • Richard Donahue

            Who is saying other kids rights are being violated in a voluntary religious meeting? Where is said this was a secret meeting held without parents knowledge? What commandment says we cannot preach or not have the freedom to kids/adults anywhere? Where is it a law that says your freedom of religion cannot be interfered with? Is it against the law to offend someone whether they are religious or not? Show me.

          • Richard Donahue

            Correction; The government as a whole does not promote religion but an individual in the government can support his or her religion in their position. If a student wishes to have a meeting for their particular religion they have that right to do so only if they don’t do it during while school is in cession. Government authority is based on the government for the people and by the people so the people can find amendments to allow religious activity on government property.

          • Richard Donahue

            Who said the school is promoting religion in a voluntary after school session by teachers or parents? The schools “must not prohibit the exercise of religion” if they do they are breaking their first amendment rights. They must allow religious or non-religious groups the use after school voluntary programs or that would be discriminating against religion.
            If a student ask the teacher to tell them what they believe in class the teacher can legally give that student their beliefs whether its atheism, Islam, or Christianity. To deny the teachers right is breaking their first amendment rights to do so.

          • ppp777

            There is no freedom in atheism , you owe that to your biblical past .

          • Homo Sapien

            There is a great deal of freedom in concluding the supernatural is not real. Afterlife matters not. Love as much in this life as you can, it’s all you get.

            No boogie man watching every second. No heaven, hell, etc.

            I owe my understanding of the universe and appreciation of everything in it to rational thinking, science and the evolved human traits of empathy and compassion.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            What you say here reminds me of a conversation between Kirk Lazarus and Tugg Speedman.

            Only I am Kirk and you are Tugg.

          • Homo Sapien

            More imaginary nonsense…

          • Billy Pilgrim

            So you resemble that remark then? How un-thoughtful of you.

          • ppp777

            You are only proving how deluded and dangerous you people really are .

          • Homo Sapien

            Outside of your religious beliefs what do you believe in that is supernatural?

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Can’t dispute his comments so you try for a subject change. Nice.

          • Homo Sapien

            He said I’m deluded and dangerous without any justification other than his supernatural beliefs. I’m pursuing that line of inquiry.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Actually I see no reason to believe his assessment of you is not correct, besides you being undeniably and embarrassingly stupid, as atheists are.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I just have to upvote anyone who quotes a Rush song.

          • Homo Sapien

            Keep yourself alive. I’m Doin Alright.

        • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

          It’s freedom of religion – not freedom from religion.

          Neither exact phrase is in the constitution, but both concepts are.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          I don’t see how you can have the first thing without the second.

        • Samwise

          Do you have freedom of religion if every day the principal of your children’s school instructs them to bow their head and recite a prayer to the Virgin Mary? What if your children are the only evangelicals in their class and are punished for non participation? What has happened to your freedom of religion?

          Your freedom of religion includes being free of government employees using government authority to tell you which deity to pray to.

          • Reason2012

            If the particular school my children are at mostly decided they want such a thing, then yes. If the particular school my children are at mostly decided they didn’t, then yes. And it would happen in a voluntary activity, not forced on everyone in every class.

            So trying to turn it into forced coercion in every class when it’s voluntary on a school by school basis is not honest.

            Not to mention the religion of atheism, that we’re all just worthless animals and cosmic accidents IS forced upon all our kids in every school, and we’re forced to pay for it. But this doesn’t bother you, which shows your claim at being against forcing belief systems on everyone else – you’re just against it being a different belief.

            And search public school islam – in more and more schools islam IS forced on all the students while Christianity is censored, and supposed “athiest” or “lgbt” activists don’t do a thing about it, which shows this is all really an anti-Christian agenda by islamists to eradicate Christianity one piece at a time here in America.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            the religion of atheism, that we’re all just worthless animals and cosmic accidents

            You know, I went to public schools where nothing about any theistic religion was mentioned, pretty much…beyond a few things like history classes and such. I guess by your definitions, that would constitute being instructed in “the religion of atheism”, right? Funny though, I don’t remember any teachers telling me that I was worthless or an accident. I guess they must have all been “atheist heretics” or something.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            If the particular school my children are at mostly decided they want such a thing, then yes.

            US courts have ruled they can’t. So there’s that.

          • Reason2012

            Wouldn’t be the first time courts were wrong – activists judges have been rearing their heads more and more, trying to push their anti-Christian agendas.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            Too bad for you, then.

            By the way, what are some schools that teach Islam? You keep saying they exist, but you never come up with the names of any schools.

          • Samwise

            Individual freedom is exactly that. Individual. Individual freedom is not subject to a majority vote.

            If your child were the only christian in their school, they would still have a right to pray and read their bible. Nobody would get to vote on whether your child has religious freedom.

            And nobody gets to vote in whether my child has religious freedom either.

            There are limits placed on the actions of adults acting with government authority to ensure that the rights of students are protected.

            Your children could hold a bible study with other students regardless of whether any other students like the idea. Their right is not subject to majority vote.

            And my child’s right to attend school without adults telling them to pray is also not subject to a vote.

          • Samwise

            I have searched public school islam. There are cases where Muslim students are allowed to pray – this is the same right christian students have.

            There are times when information about Islam is taught in social studies classes. Similar information is presented about Christianity, Buddhism and other religions.

            I cannot find any case where school employees bring in a Muslim imam to encourage students to become muslims. Ever. If you have an example, present it.

      • Susan Perelka

        One of the first books that our government allowed in our public schools was called the McGuffrey Reader. Go and research it. You can actually read it yourself online today. Go and look at the sentences they used to teach the alphabet. Start with the letter “A”. Read the stories in the book for teaching reading and reading comprehension, what themes did it teach? I think reading the actual books used in our schools then will testify to what our government then allowed.

        • Homo Sapien

          They were likely telling them at that time to burn witches. Should we still teach them that?

    • Ancient Birds

      They also never intended for nuclear weapons to be invented… never intended for massive credit card breaches to occur… and never intended to allow a reality television star to be elected President by a bunch of Bible bangers. The founders were intelligent enough to know that playing favorites with one religion or another was doomed to fail.

      • Billy Pilgrim

        So credit card breaches and nuclear weapons are comparable to having the Bible in a public school.

        You idiot-atheists are good for a laugh.

        • Sally Edwards

          Look, you can’t call people “idiot-atheists” here. You just can’t. Can you not make your point without name calling?

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Sure. And I will when the atheists stop coming in here with their room temperature IQs insulting Christians, Jesus and God.

          • Sally Edwards

            They aren’t.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            You need to stop. Right now. I am sick of the lies.

          • Sally Edwards

            No one is lying to you, you simply need to stop calling names if you want to take part in the discussions here.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Eat a bag of Brown-25, you lying hypocrite.

          • Sally Edwards

            So you want to get banned? All right, I’ll see if I can help you with that.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Are you a moderator?

          • Sally Edwards

            No, just someone who knows how to follow rules.

          • Homo Sapien

            Got any advice on how an atheist can steer clear of the no blasphemy rule?

          • Billy Pilgrim

            You think it isn’t blasphemy because there’s no one to blaspheme. Which shows contempt for those who do and stupidity for believing it in the first place.

          • Homo Sapien

            Blasphemy laws and rules exist because religion is so easy to criticize and the childish people in charge don’t like that.

            Science, law and democracy thrive because they invite criticism.

            This will ultimately be one of the main reasons for the significanct decline of religion. Educated, rational, critical thinkers overwhelmingly reject echo chambers like this.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Blasphemy laws and rules exist because religion is so easy to criticize and the childish people in charge don’t like that.

            I can assure you blasphemy laws transcend whatever arrogant little pipsqueaks like you wish to believe. Don’t think you can do that without consequence.

          • Homo Sapien

            I’ve been hearing those idle threats for decades. No consequences yet.

            I know your gonna do the whole judgment day bit now. Save your breath. I don’t share your superstitions.

          • Sally Edwards

            I’m never really clear on what that is!

          • Homo Sapien

            Oxford: “The action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.”

            I actually live where there is a blasphemy law still on the books.

            Last time it was used was when a priest objected to “Life of Brian”. Got laughed out of court.

          • Sally Edwards

            Yeah but around here or on crazy lady Checkmate’s channel I’m never sure what THEY consider blasphemy. She once banned someone for blasphemy for calling God an “it” rather than He.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Yeah but around here or on crazy lady Checkmate’s channel

            Lying. Hypocrite.

          • Sally Edwards

            I’m not attacking you. I’m telling you to obey the rules and stop the name-calling. It doesn’t matter who owns the website, you have to follow their rules. I HAVE seen people get banned from here.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            I’m not attacking you.

            So you want to get banned? All right, I’ll see if I can help you with that.

            Yeah. Uh-huh.

          • Sally Edwards

            Brown-25.
            Yeah. Uh-huh.

          • ppp777

            That is what they are , God hating idiots .

          • Sally Edwards

            If you don’t think there is a God, you don’t hate God.

          • ppp777

            They spend a hell of a lot time something they profess don’t exist , in truth there is no such thing as an atheist .

          • Sally Edwards

            I’ll take their word for it, not yours.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Which says everything about you right there.

          • Sally Edwards

            Yes it does. It says that I believe someone is an atheist when they say they are. I don’t think I know better than someone I have never met.

      • SleepersAwake

        I highly recommend that you take the time and read some of the original proclamations of Congress calling on the citizens to set a certain day aside and pray to God for forgiveness and for His continued support in the endeavor against England. The God they were reaching out to was the God of the Bible. The establishment of a religion (state) was in reference to whether one should embrace Episcopalian, Catholic, Lutheran, etc. They certainly did not intend for God’s removal from our day to day operations, government or otherwise.

        • Ancient Birds

          I highly recommend that you take the time to read the Jefferson Bible, and see what our most enlightened Founding Father really thought about the Bible as most people know it.

          Jefferson: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

          Take out the metaphysical Bravo Sierra from the Bible – such as the above reference to virgin birth – and there’s nothing left.

          “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…” – from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams, June 10, 1797

    • 313Kriss

      If it was brought back, we might not need gun control.

    • Richard Donahue

      That might be true but if you allow Christianity into the schools you must allow Satanism, paganism, Wica, and atheism also to be taught into our schools. The FFRF said the pastor was alienating other non-Christians but I didn’t see their proof of this?

      • SleepersAwake

        No I don’t and the founders wouldn’t have either. The good people of this country, circa 19th century, wouldn’t have either. Consider this, had the FFRF tried this garbage say 1820’s, most would not have seen the next sunrise. I firmly believe that. The problem is this, Christians have bought the idea of live and let live. Evil people have crept into government, at all levels, and they now control most of our schools.

        Consider this, the Bible was the main book used in early America for teaching. Finally, John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

        That religion is Christianity. The sycophant Obama can make whatever claims he likes, he does the work of Satan, but the fact is we were founded on Christian principles.

        • Richard Donahue

          I’m sorry you are not living in Heaven were Jesus rules you must allow all to have the same rights or none at all. You cant expect any unbeliever to accept your religion unless you respect their rights to believe and practice theirs. I’m not saying live and let live you must conduct your beliefs with respect those who don’t want it. The school is not the first priority to teach our kids about Christ it is the parents first and foremost job to do it. We can promote student lead voluntary bible study classes before and after school. What the parents and teacher do is they prepare the students how to do bible study and witness during these school times so they don’t get in trouble with violating the constitution. A teacher can pray with the kids at the poles but when the bell rings the teacher must withdraw. If there is a will there is a way don’t you see?

          • SleepersAwake

            Read our history.

          • Richard Donahue

            History has changed for the worst read your Bible it tells you that’s it is inevitable. If you think you can go back to the way it was 200 years ago I am wasting my time with you

  • Ancient Birds

    If it was an Islamic mullah offering readings of the Quran during lunch break, parents in Wisconsin would be showing up at the school with guns.

    That’s why we have separation of church and state – to avoid ANY form of institutionalized favoritism among religions. And that extends to separation of religion and the taxpayer-funded public schools in this district. I support the lawsuit.

  • Reason2012

    Search on public school islam and see how islam is being taught to all students in more and more public schools while Christianity is censored, all while these “atheists” or “lgbt” do not care, proving they’re really islamist activists pretending to be atheists to eradicate Christianity one piece at a time. Watch how they’ll even post here pretending it doesn’t happen, or defending it as merely “education”.

    • Billy Pilgrim

      The fascinating thing is how the idiot-atheists swear up one side and down the other that doesn’t happen, and then once given evidence disregard it. This is the same, exact thing they do when it comes to the existence of God.

      If they refuse to be honest in not one, but two different areas, why are they being given credence on anything else?

      • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

        Which schools? “Reason2012” keeps asserting they exist, but every time someone asks him for a specific school doing it, he refuses to name any. Do you have any? There’s one case I know of that’s under litigation, so that one isn’t an example since there’s been no ruling yet.

      • Reason2012

        Correct. A simple search brings up more and more cases and it happens more often, while the pro-islam deceivers pretending to be atheists/lgbt will pretend it doesn’t happen. It’s more effective to let them say it doesn’t happen, while those who want the truth will search on it and see that it most certain does, and hence those who claim there are no cases are shown to be deceivers.

        • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

          A simple search brings up more and more cases and it happens more often

          So NAME SOME.

    • james blue

      Teaching about religions such as Islam has the identical rules for teaching about Christianity

      FFRF goes after preaching Islam in schools the same as they go after preaching Christianity.

      • Billy Pilgrim

        ROTFLMBO

        • james blue

          You may be claiming you are speaking in tongues there, but I think that’s just gobbledygook.

          Your posting style seems familiar, I suspect you might be a returning rebrand of someone who has been banned or just an alternate identity of someone else. If so welcome back and please try to stay within the rules.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            You may be claiming you are speaking in tongues there, but I think that’s just gobbledygook.

            And you are being intellectually dishonest. You know exactly what it means, as does anyone over the age of five.

          • james blue

            Well I am over the age of five, My youngest grandchild is twice that age So i speak and write actual words, not gobbledygook.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            That’s the best you can do then. No disputing what I actually said.

          • james blue

            Apparently you missed it.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            No. I am laughing at you because you proved my point:

            The fascinating thing is how the idiot-atheists swear up one side and down the other that doesn’t happen, and then once given evidence disregard it. This is the same, exact thing they do when it comes to the existence of God.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            Are you still gloating and bragging about what YOU and your fellow Anti Christian group did to him??
            What YOU and your group of hateful people did was wrong. You people are something else. Coming to a Christian site with your hate for Christians. And then when you cause him to be banned you and the others gloat and brag about it.What you and they are doing to him and other Christians is wrong. My heart aches at what you all are doing. Even though you really do not believe. There is one thing I will say. You and they will reap what you all are sowing. In the end it will backfire on you and the ones you are following. I will keep praying for all the protection of the Christians you all hate so much.
            This is my final post to you and to any of your Anti- Christian group you are a part of. On this site and any other Christian site. If you make a reply to me I will not read it. I am completely disgusted in you and ones you are following. Coming to Christian sites just to hurt others and then gloating and bragging about it. The day is coming that God will stop you and the ones you are following. It will be in His timing not mine.Although I Pray it will be soon. And I pray God will protect all the Christians you and the ones you are following seems to hate so much. Even if it seems you all are winning it will only be for a season. God will win this battle.

          • james blue

            Do you know who he is?

            i did nothing to anyone and who is this “all you” group I am part of?

            if someone was banned that was their own fault. I suspect you came close after you kept making false accusations about me as you are doing now.

            Pretty sure in the past I suggested you block me if you don’t like my comments.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            She shouldn’t have to. You came to a Christian website. Not the other way around. I, for one, have grown beyond sick and tired over the fact atheists are basically running amok in the comments here.

            The problem with blocking someone is we cannot see the posts of the blocked, but they can still see our posts and still comment on them. So blocking them is pointless.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            I, for one, have grown beyond sick and tired over the fact atheists are basically running amok in the comments here.

            Generally, that only happens when a site like this one blames atheists for, somehow, violating the rights of Christians when all they’re doing is demanding equal treatment, or that longstanding constitutional rulings be followed.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Generally, that only happens when a site like this one blames atheists for, somehow, violating the rights of Christians when all they’re doing is demanding equal treatment

            A member of the FFRF was actually offended by the presence of a cross as a roadside memorial, planted there by the family of a loved one who died at that spot. The FFRF proceeded to harass the family until they removed it. This is a statement of actual, undeniable fact. Where were the demands for equal treatment?

            or that longstanding constitutional rulings be followed.

            Unless the “religion” involved is Islam. The FFRF is notorious in its absolute silence regarding known, as in media covered, instances of Islam being taught to children, among other things. There are at least two actions of litigation pending as the result of this.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            This is a statement of actual, undeniable fact.

            I’d like a cite for the “harassment”. They objected to the government permitting it.

            But in any case, that doesn’t have anything to do with comments on websites.

            or that longstanding constitutional rulings be followed.

            Unless the “religion” involved is Islam.

            No, the FFRF objects to Islam too. See their faq about it on their website: “Why doesn’t FFRF ever go after Muslims?”

          • Billy Pilgrim

            They objected to the government permitting it.

            False. A female member of the FFRF literally said she was offended by it.

            No, the FFRF objects to Islam too. See their faq about it on their website: “Why doesn’t FFRF ever go after Muslims?”

            Been there, done that. Saw the one alleged instance. Doesn’t explain their silence when other instances are reported by Fox News, for example. Translation: They are lying. They also have never implied an imam is a “predator,” like they did that pastor.

            Translation: They are an anti-Christian hate group. Period. End of story, end of discussion.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            False. A female member of the FFRF literally said she was offended by it.

            So what? That isn’t harassment, and doesn’t have anything to do with comments on the web.

            Doesn’t explain their silence when other instances are reported by Fox News

            So why isn’t anyone else filing lawsuits? There are plenty of rightwing organizations, why aren’t they suing?

            It’s because these aren’t actual violations.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            So what?

            So we are done here. Your defense of an openly anti-Christian hate group tells me you are no longer worth my time and energy.

            And if you think you can somehow spin this into a victory for you, you are crazy as well as stupid. Bigotry is not a virtue, boy. Now get lost.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            So you have no recourse.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Saw the one alleged instance.

            I looked at the FFRF’s website; they actually list four incidents where they protested actions by Muslims. (and even one by Buddhists, for what it’s worth)

            I’ll just quote the FFRF themselves on the matter, because I think they bring up some very good points:

            FFRF in fact does take issue with the government promoting or favoring any religion, of course including Islam. Groups seeking to uphold the Constitution may appear to “target” Christians only because we “target” the violators. As the majority, Christians are simply more likely to violate the Constitution.

            Pew Research numbers reveal that the U.S. Muslim population is at 1 percent, Jewish at 1.8 percent and Hindu at .7 percent. In contrast, self-identified Christians are at 70.6 percent.

            FFRF accordingly receives very few complaints about Muslim
            violations. We receive very few complaints about Jewish, Hindu, Wiccan or other minority religious entanglements with government, either. When FFRF receives any bona fide complaint about any Establishment Clause violation, we research it and try to take action, depending on the facts and the legal precedent.

            This is not just a question of numbers. Of course, the greater
            proportion of Christians in the population means there is a higher
            probability any given malefactor is Christian. But in a democracy, where government is structured so that majority rules on certain issues, it is usually the majority that will violate the rights of the minority. In fact, this is precisely why the Bill of Rights exists: to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

            Put another way, atheists, agnostics, freethinkers and minority
            religions in this country have never had the unwarranted privilege
            Christians have asserted as members of the majority. Christian
            persecution is not the problem in America; Christian privilege is.

          • James Flaherty

            The discussion ends when your opponent says it is. You aren’t the boss, Matthew Timothy Mason.

          • james blue

            Except for the times the FFRF goes after Islam in schools, you are right, they are notoriously absolutely silent.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Which is, according to their own website, only once. And even that is alleged.

          • james blue

            Try again.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            I would rather believe what I can see with my own eyes than the words of an alleged saved person.

            You can claim Jesus as your saviour all day long. But if you wish to dispute or ignore the Bible, you are not a Christian. I’d argue you are not even saved.

          • james blue

            Well thankfully your opinion of me isn’t important. The path to my salvation isn’t through you.

          • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

            And how many lawsuits are there by other organizations about teaching Islam in public schools? If it’s so common, where are the lawsuits by other organizations? As I mentioned before, I’m only familiar with one that is still ongoing. There’s one other (ACLU v. TiZA) that the ACLU won, so the FFRF wasn’t involved.

            But you can’t complain about the FFRF not going after Islamic violations unless there are some that are actually happening. So what are some cases the FFRF is ignoring? And why are all the rightwing organizations also ignoring them and not filing lawsuits?

          • Samwise

            The FFRF objected to a municipality letting christian symbols remain on public land even though their own regulations said memorials needed to be removed and the municipality removed memorials that did not contain a cross.

            The FFRF does not oppose religious symbols on private property.

            Name one school or government body that propmoted Islam as true.

          • james blue

            I didn’t say she has to, I suggested she did seeing as they upset her so.

            You won’t see their replies, that’s the point.

            BTW I accept Christ as my savior.

    • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

      Search on public school islam and see how islam is being taught to all students in more and more public schools

      You keep claiming such schools exist, but you never come up with any specific schools doing it.

  • awareoftruth

    I have several friends who were once antiChrist. I also know a few individuals who co-pastor/lead one of the largest and fastest growing churches in the country, but they were once atheist. It’s amazing what happens when someone FINALLY hears the truth about the Bible. Although, never atheist, even Billy Graham went through a valley of doubt. My point: Religion and lies will not prevail. Don’t argue with the devil, instead pray for the lost. After all, the Gospel is the teaching of love (not religion).

    • Sally Edwards

      “…FINALLY hears the truth about the Bible”

      Most atheists I know are ex-Christians who knew the Bible very well. I don’t know where this idea comes from that people open the Bible and get magically transformed.

      • TheKingOfRhye

        Yeah, I think that mainly happens in the Chick-tract universe.

      • Billy Pilgrim

        Most atheists I know are ex-Christians who knew the Bible very well.

        I’d bet they were lying.

        I don’t know where this idea comes from that people open the Bible and get magically transformed.

        That’s because you avoid testimonies. One such story is on the big screen right now: I Can Only Imagine tells about how the father of MercyMe’s Bart Millard turned from a monster to a saint through the power of Jesus Christ.

        • Sally Edwards

          “I’d bet they were lying”

          Wouldn’t it be simpler to, oh, I don’t know, TALK to them first?

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Oh, I don’t know. I have found those who claim to be former Christians were never really Christians in the first place. I happen to know someone who became essentially an atheist because she was mad at God for taking her parents away with cancer.

          • Homo Sapien

            No true Scotsman. The shallowness of your argument and intellect bared for all to see.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Been over this, legume. Try to keep up.

          • Sally Edwards

            No True Scotsman, eh? If they say they are Christian, or were, I take them at their word. I’ve seen far too many imbecilic comments like “well you pray to Mary so you aten’t Christian” or “you baptize infants so you aten’t Christian”. Lots of True Christians out there to the exclusion of other Christians based on ignorance and hate.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            No True Scotsman, eh?

            Christianity does not have an open definition.

            Sorry about your strawman.

          • Sally Edwards

            Strawman’s all yours. It isn’t enough for people to be Christian. They have to be Christian your way.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Christianity is defined by the Bible, specifically the New Testament. Don’t like it? Don’t care.

          • Sally Edwards

            Which every denomination would agree with you about. Problem is you disagree with each other. The problem persists.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            they have to be christians CHRISTS way ….. and there MUST be evidence ….. and in the absence of evidence ….. they convict themselves ……..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

            not “NTS” ….. but “never wasses” ……. you cant be “no true” to that which you were not part of from the beginning …………

          • Sally Edwards

            They think they’re obeying the rules of how to be a Christian just fine. Who is the one who gets to tell them they’re wrong? You? You can’t agree on anything.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            They do not agree with scripture … and so they left …. so what …………..

          • Sally Edwards

            They don’t agree with your interpretation of scripture. But they think they follow it just fine. Exactly the same as you in other words.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …… has nothing to do with “my interpretation” …… has to do with THEIR not holding to scripture ………. and leaving the faith ……… has to do with the church policing the church as our right …….. and declaring heretics as heretics …………

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so a group like say Right Wing Watch can make obsevations about christians and christianity …… but christians are not allowed to police themselves ….. the FALLACY of the NTS fallacy ……..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            but to be fair ….. that they were never christians at all …… is the kindest position to put them in …….

          • Samwise

            Atheists have come to the conclusion that supernatural deities do not exist. Very few people get mad at something they think is imaginary. How many people describe themselves as mad at Darth Vader or the Easter Bunny? That’s non-sensical.

            There are christians who get disappointed at God but continue to believe that a supernatural deity may exist. They may move away from Christianity for a time. They may feel anger. And they may come back to Christianity. But people who continue to believe that a deity exists are not atheists.

            Ignoring Christianity and distancing oneself from Christianity are totally different from concluding that there is no god.

            When I became a Christian it was sudden and emotional. I realized I was an atheist at the end of a slow, gradual and unemotional process. No anger. I just felt a little silly.

          • Susan Perelka

            I don’t understand why athiest’s are so against the supernatural. Isn’t super natural defined as something outside of what we naturally observe. So, isn’t the Big Bang theory, that something came out of nothing, in essence a supernatural thing. We don’t observe in the natural something coming out of nothing. Just something to ponder. Seems to me they really do believe in supernatural. It’s just that they don’t want to hear what God has to say.

          • Homo Sapien

            The primary issue is that for many atheists and many people trained in science, good evidence needs to exists to substantiate the existence of anything. Without a strict filter to determine what is valid evidence, essentially anything could be considered real. Hence the proliferation of human religions.

            The only way to conclude the bible is true is with faith. There is no testable evidence to prove it one way or another. The arguments for the truth of the bible are almost identical for other holy books. They can’t all be true.

            We don’t know that something came out of nothing. What preceded the Big Bang is completely untestable with current science. We may figure that out one day, we might not. To ascribe anything to a supernatural cause simply because we have no other answer is not rational particularly since we know so many things that previously were explained by the bible have different causes discovered by science.

            Our understanding of nature, as revealed by science has a fantastic track record of showing that there are logical explanations for a great many things. Many mysteries remain but not once has science concluded that “God did it”. There is always a more concrete, natural explanation.

          • Susan Perelka

            I disagree. I think the bible does give proof that God is real. It is called PROPHECY. Most people are not aware that the Old Testament has many detailed prophecies about future rising and falling of nations. Such as, the Babylonians, Medo/Persians, Greeks, and Roman Empires. Also, the history of the nation of Israel. We have thousands of ANCIENT Old Testament texts to prove these things were written way before they occured. And past history shows that the details in these prophecies did actually happen, exactly as it was written. Who else has done this? No one. Hundreds of prophecies fulfilled 100% over thousands of years. I think that concludes the bible is true. So, then is it possible that the rest of it could also be true? Something to ponder.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Hundreds of prophecies fulfilled 100% over thousands of years. I think that concludes the bible is true.

            You’re acting like you’re expect the person you were talking to concede your point. I wouldn’t be too quick to do that, many people dispute the claims of Biblical prophecy.

          • Susan Perelka

            Well, the readers have now heard both sides of our argument and can ponder it for themselves and I would encourage them to research it themselves, not just listen to someones opinion. They may even come to a different conclusion. That is what freedom is about.

          • james blue

            So, isn’t the Big Bang theory, that something came out of nothing

            Actually the “big bang’ theory doesn’t say that. it says the universe began as an incredibly hot, dense point in space and makes no claim about prior to that point.

            “something from nothing” is the invention of religious folks who don’t agree with the big bang theory.

          • 313Kriss

            I think it was Hawkins – the genius who just died without faith in God – who had come to the conclusion the everything began at the same time. I hope he learned that from God before he died.

          • Griffith C

            Hawking

          • Samwise

            Thanks. This is a good question.

            I define supernatural as being outside the laws of physics. The fact that humans do not know about something or understand its cause does not make it supernatural.

            Throughout much of human history, humans ascribed supernatural causes to such things as lightning, earthquakes and disease. But these things are not supernatural. These have always had natural causes. In the last century or two, humans have begun to understand these natural causes.

            To me, the supernatural is outside the laws of physics. Not just “we humans haven’t figured it out yet” but “this phenomena cannot explained by natural processes.” And while hundreds of supernatural explanations have been replaced by natural explanations (eg Apollo does not pull the sun across the sky with his chariot), no natural explanation has even been replaced by a supernatural one.

          • 313Kriss

            Friend, no one is born a ‘believer’. That is an individual event tailored to each of us, where we are, for a time in which God the Father decides to bring us to His Son.

          • Samwise

            I agree. No one is born believing in any deity.

          • james blue

            Being mad at God, doesn’t make one an atheist. One actually has to not believe any deity exists.

          • 313Kriss

            Yet, I have noticed a perverse anger coming from atheists when ever God is mentioned. If he does not exist, by their logic, why do they get angry ?

          • james blue

            They are not angry with God, they are angry with people who try to force their faith on them. Seeing as you seem angry with them one might think you’d have a little empathetic understanding.

          • 313Kriss

            Actually James, there are far more people who do believe in God than not. From my experience of not growing up in a Christian home, and coming to faith (a God ordained event) in my fifties and then seeing a change in my outlook, thinking, and being directed by God to attend a class at my church where I discovered there was a name for my behavior – co-dependence – and that was caused by emotional child abuse. I carried deep pain for decades but through this program and walking with God, I came to a place where I was able to forgive those who hurt me. When I did so, I still had the memories, but, the pain and hurt were entirely gone.
            I do understand you because I was once you. Now, I know that there is another way to live and be fruitful and I can forgive others willingly. My desire is truly for everyone to know God – it is like discovering something wonderful that could save lives by giving it to others rather than hiding it.

            It was never my intent to make you angry. Anger is your shield of protection………..but God is my shield of love.

            Here are some things I learned: faith is a gift from God not man;
            no one can be converted by man – conversion is God’s work and it is called redemption.

          • james blue

            Not sure what any of that has to do with what I wrote.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m an atheist and I hear and read mentions of God all the time. It doesn’t make me angry at all. Like you said yourself, why get angry at something I don’t believe in? I’m an atheist, not a misotheist. I might get angry at things some people do in their god’s name, but that’s a different thing entirely.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “This is why some find the Bible to be positive and uplifting and others are turned off by its negative or judgmental message. Depends on who’s the filter.”

            sure ………… and scripture did exactly as it was intended ….. and it is not intended for everyone ……….. but to be fair ….. that they were never christians at all …… is the kindest position to put them in …….

          • Sally Edwards

            I’ve been through the No True Scotsman fallacy with you before, I’m not getting into it again. You don’t get to determine who’s Christian.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and guess what ….. YOU dont get to determine who IS …………

          • Sally Edwards

            Taking people at their word has served me just fine.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and men are liars … and so have no word …… and they misunderstand by their desire …… and hold idols and idolatry …. and that is not christianity ….. so not one ….. so they leave …. so what ………..

          • Sally Edwards

            They have nothing to prove to you. They’re Christians, and you can’t do much about it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. if they do not act as christians then they are not christians ….. and no amount of protest from you or them will change it ………….

        • Homo Sapien

          “I’d bet they were lying”

          I’ll bet you say that about anyone that says things you disagree with.

          Got any evidence to back up your assertion they are lying? Is everyone in the Clergy Project lying too?

          This is where science kicks religions ass. We need proof. With religion you are told you just have to take someones word for it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “This is where science kicks religions ass. ”

            LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ………… all true science comes from God …… but that was a good joke ….. thnx …………

          • Billy Pilgrim

            Flagged for profanity.

        • Samwise

          I was a christian for years. I believed very strongly. Over time, I realized that the claims of christianity did not line up with reality. I turned to the bible, read it carefully, and realized it was silly.

          • Billy Pilgrim

            And I don’t believe you.

            Nice try, though.

          • Samwise

            Too bad. I was 12 when I accepted Christ. I can still tell you the exact day.

            When I was about 46 or 47, I came to realize I no longer believed in the deity as described by the Bible. A few months later, I realized I did not believe in any supernatural deity. There is no precise date, because the process was gradual.

            I was a Christian. I am now an atheist.

            This is who I am. Calling me a liar changes nothing.

          • Susan Perelka

            What about the prophecies in the book of Daniel, that in advance, predicted the rise and fall of Empires (Babylon, Medo/persia, Greeks, Romans, and even the nation of Israel, etc…) in very specific details? They came true 100%, hundreds of them, over thousands of years. Did you look at those things carefully? It’s very extraordinary when you do carefully study it. Just something to ponder.

          • Samwise

            The prophecies of Daniel would be convincing except for one teensy weensy detail. Biblical scholars have confirmed it was written 167 to 164 BCE. It is inaccurate on the details of events that happened during the Babylon captivity, completely accurate on the supposed prophecies up through about 164 BCE, and wrong about all events after 164 BCE, including the timing and location of the death of Antiochus IV.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        every person you just mentioned were transformed ……. scripture does one of two things as the truth …. it either attracts or it repels …… there is no middle ground ….. it is an ultimatum …….. and it does Gods will perfectly …… and if it repelled you ….. then it did exactly what it was intended to do …………

    • Susan Perelka

      The bible instructs us to give an answer for the hope that is in us. However, we need to be careful to also pay attention to the way we give the answer, “with gentleness”. We shouldn’t not respond to them, but respond to them with “patience and gentleness”, ‘while we still tell them God’s truth. If they are just looking for an argument (please DO NOT insult them with name calling), then let your peace return to you, shake the dust off of your feet, and move on and tell the message elsewhere, until you find someone willing to hear or at least willing to hear you out. Discernment is needed in each individual situation. We need to DISCERN who we are dealing with and follow biblical instructions on how to deal with that particular person. The book of Proverbs alone gives much insight into this. Jesus himself shows us different ways he handled different situations and people. The whole bible shows us this(Old and New Testament). As christian’s, we need to make sure we are learning the whole council of God, and using it in the appropriate way.

      • awareoftruth

        Well said. Our struggle is not against each other, but against darkness. God loves everyone. Thank you!

    • 313Kriss

      Religion is just the work of man who tries to put the teaching of the Bible into some form that man can follow. I am thinking of prayers to God, baptism, joining the church. Communion Supper. Jesus is the head of the Church and I do not think he would be honored if any of the above was done in a disorderly manner.
      Doubt is what humans do because they are human. Proverbs 3:5-6 “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways, acknowledge the LORD and He will make your path straight”. This has been my road map when ever doubts set in.

  • P M

    “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” Psalm 14:1

    • Samwise

      What does that have to do with promoting one religious belief in public schools?

    • Blue

      And a wise man says it out loud.☺

      • Billy Pilgrim

        Denying God isn’t wisdom, boy. It’s the gateway to damnation.

    • Nick Halflinger

      “but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire”. Matthew 5:22

  • Susan Perelka

    Abba Father, We hold to the promise in Your Word that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against Your church”. We believe that there are still some who will want to hear the good news, which You are offering them through Jesus Christ. For those who refuse this message, let our peace return to us, let us shake off the dust of our feet towards them, and let us go to another place to preach to others about Your gift of Grace. LORD, for those who are trying to stop others from hearing, come to our aid and give us an opportunity to tell them of the gift You offer to all who will repent and believe. Thank you LORD for Your help. Give us boldness and confidence to proclaim Your truth in love. Protect us from the evil one as our Lord Jesus prayed for us before His arrest. Let Your will be done. I ask this petition of You, in Jesus Name. AMEN

  • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

    Father, in Jesus Name I seek You to intervene on behalf of the Christians on this site who are being harassed by Anti Christian Trolls. Please Protect the Christians from the hate these Trolls have for them.In Jesus Name please stop these trolls.

    • Tim Matter

      It didn’t work.

      • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

        Why be so rude to me?? It shows a lot about you and your hate for Christians .As for my prayer time will tell. God works in His timing to ours. By the way I already have on my prayer list and also all the Christians you hate. I pray God will protect them from you and your hate.

        • Samwise

          Some people here are politely disagreeing with the idea that school teachers can tell students which deity to pray to. For this, they were accused of being hateful, anti christian and trolls.

          Who is being rude?

          Disagreement is not trolling. Expecting the rights of all students to be respected equally is not anti anything or hate.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            Hmm another one. Yawn. I already have some of your sock puppets on my prayer list as you already know. I guess it won’t hurt to add one more username to my prayer list. The more the better 🙂
            AS a reminder God knows the hate you and your followers have for Christians. You can deny it all you want. Remember God knows why you are here on this Christian site. He know your true motives
            . And God will in the end…………………………………..

          • Tristan Fry

            Respectfully, I am reading no rudeness here, merely disagreement.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            To each his own. Including yours…. 🙂

          • Tristan Fry

            I see.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            But more important is that God sees…:)

          • Tristan Fry

            No, I mean I think I understand the kind of person I’m dealing with.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            And God know the kind of person you are 🙂 He knows what you are trying to do 🙂
            Salome.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Just flag, sister. I’m sure Christian News doesn’t want these swear words and other vulgarities on their site.

      • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

        Agreed. Just very frustrating that there are so many trolls on this site. Although some may be the same person just different username.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Yeah, peewee made another recent appearance under a few names. 🙂

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            If I could get $100.00 for each account he has I could shopping for new clothes and get something nice to eat 🙂 If only…

          • AlexandraDenny

            There is no Peewee, silly woman. Lady Checkmate is a delusional old bat.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            Calling me a silly woman. I guess there are times I can be silly. In my everyday I do make people laugh. I do like making people smile. People who know me always seems happy when I am around them…

            Now what you just said about Lady Checkmate was very unkind. That shows me you have much hate within you to be so unkind. There is one person I know of who is like you.

            Even though I have you already on my prayer list under some of your sock puppets, I will go ahead and add this username on my prayer list.Today I have been fasting so I’ll add you to prayers in this fasting.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            Father God, I see Your Will for the person behind the username, AlexandraDenny. In Jesus Name Amen.

          • AlexandraDenny

            Anyone crazy enough to believe the Peewee story belongs in a mental institution. Hundreds of socks logging off every couple minutes? Come on.

          • AlexandraDenny

            The Peewee story is what Checkmate uses to deflect from the fact that lots of people hate her guts. Hundreds of socks logging off every couple minutes? Come on.

            Also, look at the list of people who thumbed you up. A total rogue’s gallery
            of the most radical fundamentalist Christian trolls and game players.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            It is very sad the way you hate Christians. I will defiantly be praying for the ones you hate that God will protect them from you and from your follower.

            Life is so short to spend your time hating Christians like you do.Coming to Christian site to find people you can harass is sad. One day you will reap the hate you are sowing and I find that to be sad.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            Father God, You know the truth about “AlexandraDenny”. Again I seek Your Will for this person. In Jesus Name Amen.

          • AlexandraDenny

            Way to completely ignore your own behavior. And the behavior of your friends.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            I can see you are into trying to control others and you do your best to silence Christians. I still find you and your hate to be sad. But it is your choice not mine. All I can do and will do is pray for the ones you and your followers hate.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            Father God, You know the Christians AlexandraDennis and those who follow this person hates. I seek Your protection upon the Christians being hated. And I seek Your Will for the person behind this username. In Jesus Name Amen

          • Amen.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            AlexandraDenny, I’m sorry one more thing. You say I’m ignoring my own behavior?? I guess my being against “what” you and your followers are doing against LC and other Christians bothers you? My being against your hate for them bothers you?? And my praying bothers you?. My behavior? My behavior is compassion for the people you hate. Remember it is not what you say to me. It is the abuse you are doing against the ones you hate.

            You are displaying a behavior of childish hate and bitterness. But in the end, that will be between you and God.

          • AlexandraDenny

            LOL!!! “Peewee”!
            I guess we know who’s been drinking the Lady Checkmate Kool Aid!

      • TheKingOfRhye

        Looking around the thread here, I don’t see any swear words or vulgarities. I think any comments with those get deleted fairly quickly.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          That’s probably why you didn’t see any by the time you looked. 🙂

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yeah, I kinda said that. I congratulate you on your command of the painfully obvious.

  • 313Kriss

    Reading the Bible and praying were things we did years ago when I went to public school. You know what ? Teachers were respected and no children were shot.

    • LynnRH

      Absolutely! People were brought up being taught manners, kindness, respect for themselves and others, integrity.

      • 313Kriss

        We also learned morality and ethics. That is what is missing in a society today that says ‘anything goes’. Our society is reaping what it has sown – guns killing students, bomb killing people in Austin, Texas. All because children are not taught right from wrong.

        • LynnRH

          I agree

    • Samwise

      1. Students can and do still pray in schools. But they get to pray to their own deity and use their own version of the bible, not their teachers’.

      2. Teacher led prayer and bible study led to bullying and ostracism of children who were not part of the majority faith, including Jewish and Catholic children. Read some first hand accounts of what some of these children endured and buy some compassion.

      3. Google “school shootings before 1960”. There were plenty of school shootings. The fact that people have realized teachers should not tell students which deity to pray to has not made a difference. The increased body count per incident is due to increased fire power.

      4. Google Philadelphia Bible Riots. Over 20 Americans died in 1844 over teachers leading children in protestant versus Catholic prayers.

      Evangelical christians would be outraged if a teacher instructed their children to pray to the Virgin Mary. They are only fine with school prayer when they are in the majority. They seemingly have no problem violating Jesus’ command to treat others as they would like to be treated.

    • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

      By the time I got into school somethings had already been taken out of school. But I still saw a lot of declining while I was in school.

  • I agree with the FFRF. Non-Christian children no doubt must feel peer pressure to join the preacher’s proselytizing sessions. But parents have a right to teach their children whatever they wish, whether it be Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, or ethical atheism.

    Would Christians have a problem with a Muslim holding such events in public schools? You bet! They would go into high Earth orbit and use the same argument I just made.

    However, Christianity should have a place in public school—in a world religions course or comparative religions class course where the basic teachings of all living religions are taught in an unbiased, non-proselytizing manner. Our young children need a lot of understanding about other cultures. It would go far in reducing our religious animosities and xenophobia born of social ignorance.

  • Phil

    Seems this atheist group is the predatory organization. If it is being offered free, @ lunch time, no arm no foul. We will see if the school administration has any backbone. If not, they need to be replaced & the school board should be able to do this fairly quickly. I would assume the school board would know about this.

    • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

      If it is being offered free, @ lunch time, no arm no foul.

      No, it’s unconstitutional, and has been for 70 years.