Dougco Schools Will Defend Right To Continue Religious Fundraisers « CBS Denver

The Douglas County School District is accused of allowing religion into the public schools by supporting religious fundraisers, and now the American Humanist Association is taking the district to court.

The lawsuit comes after the group warned the district to stop. The first warning was to SkyView Academy to stop promoting and supporting fundraisers that are backed by religious groups. The second was along the same lines and the group says nothing has changed, which is why they say they are going to court.

The district is aware of the lawsuit but says it’s 100 percent behind their student-driven fundraisers.

“This school district is out of control in its promotion of Christianity,” David Niose with the American Humanist Association said.

Niose is the group’s attorney and says their complaint focuses primarily on just two events. One is Operation Christmas Child because of its affiliation with the Christian nonprofit group Samaritan’s Purse. Last November the AHA threatened to sue SkyView Academy if they participated. The school at that time decided it would be best to cancel the drive, but made it clear they weren’t giving up.
,,,
The complaint also addresses concerns that Highlands Ranch High School supported fundraising efforts for a Christian mission trip to Guatemala.

Dougco Schools Will Defend Right To Continue Religious Fundraisers « CBS Denver

Former Congressman Barney Frank Explains Why He Waited Until He Left Office to Come Out as an Atheist

"It’s a respectable answer. But saying you’re not religious doesn’t automatically make you anti-anything. It’s not like an accusation of being anti-Semitic would stick to a known defender of civil rights and Secular Jews aren’t exactly a rare breed. If anything, it’s just ignorance, as Frank admits. He didn’t know coming out as an atheist would make such a big difference. Now he does."

Actually I have to disagree with Hemant on this point. Though the Theocratic/Dominionist movement may seem small and localized to a few wing-nuts (Palin, Bachman, Perry, West to name a few), ANY appearance of "anti-Jewishness" is taken as "going against" the Jewish state of Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple.

If one delves into the End-Times bullshit of the Dominionist you will discover that without the Temple being rebuilt, there is no "Second Coming." Their movement is premised on this point, and why they hold Genesis 1:26-28 so literal. They are to gain dominion over the 7 Mountains in order to prepare the way for Christ's return. Anything or anyone that is counter to their plan must be destroyed.

Some (myself included) have surmised that this stance is the impetus of the Reich's anti-science platform. as well as their uber pro-Israel agenda. Dominionists deny Climate Change and instigate unrest  in the Middle East (think of their reaction to President Obama's handling of Syria) because they want the "world to end" so they can all go to heaven.

I believe Frank was aware of this, maybe not consciously, but he is not a stupid man. I for one am glad he stayed the course as his steady hand was needed. Had he revealed his non-belief we would (still) be debating the Frank Scandal.

Former Congressman Barney Frank Explains Why He Waited Until He Left Office to Come Out as an Atheist

UPDATE::Elmira school district: Students can sit during Pledge of Allegiance | Star-Gazette | stargazette.com

“The first I have heard of any allegation such as this was in the letter sent to the district (Tuesday) from The Appignani Humanist Legal Center, indicating that a female sophomore had reported such a claim,” Elmira Superintendent Hillary Austin said in an email Wednesday.

[,,,]
The statement read, in part: “As a general matter, the District is very well aware of each student's right under United States Supreme Court and Second Circuit Court of Appeals precedent to decline participation in the Pledge. The District also welcomes community dialogue on freedom of speech, civic engagement, and the right to be free from political compulsion. ”

[,,,]
Austin said the district does plan to respond to the association.

• The district’s email to staff outlined the following points:
• Students cannot be compelled to salute the flag, recite the pledge, or even stand in silence.
• Students cannot be excluded from the room during the pledge.
• Students must be permitted to sit quietly during the pledge

,,,

• District employees may not retaliate against students who opt out and should appropriately take and refer complaints from students regarding any inappropriate behaviors without taking sides in the debate,,,
• All students may have opinions on the matter and may express those opinions in appropriate settings and at appropriate times,,,

Elmira school district: Students can sit during Pledge of Allegiance | Star-Gazette | stargazette.com

Group Condemns Teacher Who Allegedly Bullied Atheist Student For Opting Out Of Pledge

Another student "not standing" for her rights,,,

The American Humanist Association condemned New York's Elmira City School District on Tuesday for allegedly breaching an atheist student's constitutional right to opt out of reciting the school's daily Pledge of Allegiance.

The Southside High School sophomore, who took issue with the pledge's "under God" clause, sought legal assistance from the secular advocacy group after her high school teacher reportedly threatened her with disciplinary action if she did not rise for the daily oath.

According to an AHA press release Tuesday, she was also told by the teacher "in front of her classmates that not standing for the Pledge 'is disrespectful to America and to military personnel.'"

The latest allegation is not an isolated incident at Southside, however, the AHA claimed.

"Pledge exercise at Southside High goes beyond just the classroom mentioned above. We have been informed that teachers -- and even an administrator -- in your school have inappropriately pressured students to participate in the Pledge exercise," Tuesday's letter stated. "For example, students have been told that nonparticipation is disrespectful and unpatriotic, that nonparticipation would itself be disruptive, and that participation is expected because nonparticipation would encourage others to opt out."

Group Condemns Teacher Who Allegedly Bullied Atheist Student For Opting Out Of Pledge

Supreme Court's prayer ruling: Does it allow Satanists' invocations, too? - Yahoo News

I am still digesting the ruling of the court and the numerous outside opinions (200+ articles and counting). I "understand" the ruling - the role of "ceremonial prayer - I do not agree with it. All "prayer" needs to be eliminated from public governmental functions. But it opens another issue within itself, that of public monuments on governmental properties, are they the "same" issue or different?

That being said,,,

The article didn't quite answer the question posed, but raised some interesting concerns: "In trying both to forbid official censorship and to maintain the secular ideal of public neutrality, the court has invited a competitive free-for-all, enabling groups to offer tit-for-tat expressions of deeply held but deeply opposed beliefs, some analysts say."

__

Now that the US Supreme Court has ruled that sectarian content is permissible within America’s longstanding tradition of public invocations and official prayer, other Americans, including Satanists and secular humanists, are hoping to use the ruling to make a case for their own public prayers at the start of official government gatherings.
Related Stories

One outcome of Monday’s ruling is to raise the stakes in the nation’s ongoing culture war over the place of religion in modern public life, opening a proverbial Pandora’s box when it comes to the proper theological parameters for official religious expression, many legal observers say.

[,,,]
But scholars note that Monday’s ruling reveals an ongoing tension between the secular ideals of tolerance and neutrality in the public sphere and the hard-edged religious beliefs of certain faiths. Instead of fostering tolerance, they say, it may have added fuel to the flames of a culture war that continues to rage.

“Particularly in light of the still-hazy standards for judging the appropriateness of prayer at legislative sessions, as well as the Supreme Court's insistence that the prayer does not need to be non-sectarian, it seems quite likely that secularists, members of fringe religious groups, and perhaps even Satanists will begin clamoring for the microphone,” e-mails B. Jessie Hill, professor and dean at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland.

Indeed, after Monday’s ruling, the American Humanist Association announced it would launch a program to provide resources for local secularists seeking to join the legislative prayer practice in their communities. (Glen Beck's The Blaze had this to say concerning the AHA program.)

[,,,]
Still, Monday’s decision contains a subtle but significant contradiction, legal scholars say. On one hand, the Supreme Court clearly stated that government officials may not censor the content of official religious expressions of a civic community. (If I remember my case law this is referring to the 1983 Marsh v. Chambers ruling A case that ruled that ceremonial prayer to open the legislative sessions was constitutional. But the trouble with prayer, since none can deem beforehand what prayer is acceptable, you have no control over what the prayer giver will say.)

“The First Amendment is not a majority rule, and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech,” wrote Justice Kennedy. “Once it invites prayer into the public sphere, government must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfettered by what an administrator or judge considers to be nonsectarian.”

On the other hand, just after saying the government could not censor the conscience of a prayer-giver, Kennedy seemed to go on to do just that, offering specific theological parameters for official government-permitted prayers, many legal observers note. He warned that certain kinds of invocations, especially those that “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion,” might run afoul of the Constitution.
__
It is interesting to note the contrasting opinions between David Niose, legal director at the American Humanist Association and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. They are almost reversed of what you would think them to be.

Supreme Court's prayer ruling: Does it allow Satanists' invocations, too? - Yahoo News

Federal Judge Stops Lake Elsinore Religious War Memorial

A federal judge has ruled that a planned religious war memorial by the city of Lake Elsinore, CA at the city-owned baseball stadium can’t be built because it “violates both the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause and California’s Establishment and No Preference Clauses.” The planned monument depicts a soldier kneeling in prayer before a Christian cross.

The suit was filed by the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center in May 2013. A preliminary injunction against the city was issued by US District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson in July 2013 and stopped activity until the final ruling was handed down. Among other things, the judge ruled that the planned monument lacks a secular purpose and has the unconstitutional effect of endorsing religion over non-religion.

Federal Judge Stops Lake Elsinore Religious War Memorial

Lawsuit Demands Removal of 40-Foot Christian Cross from Government Property

Interesting. Based on its "current" location I'm curious as to how this will be determined,,,

A federal lawsuit filed today is demanding removal of a 40-foot Christian cross on government property in a Washington, DC, suburb. The suit, filed on behalf of three plaintiffs by the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center, alleges that the massive structure, which sits on a roadway median in Bladensburg, Maryland, violates the separation of church and state principle of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A letter sent by the Appignani Humanist Legal Center to the commission **in 2012** asking that the constitutional violation be corrected resulted in no action.

[,,,]
The cross, which has been lit at night since 1965, rests on a large rectangular platform that contains a small plaque with the names of those from Prince George’s County, Maryland who died in World War I. The modest plaque is dominated by the cross and is regularly blocked by bushes. There are no crosswalks connecting the location to the surrounding high-traffic roads and the island has no walkways, aspects that contribute to making the structure easily viewed as a state-endorsed symbol of support for Christianity. The property is owned by the Maryland-National Park and Planning Commission, a government agency.

Lawsuit Demands Removal of 40-Foot Christian Cross from Government Property

Why do they lie?

This is just one of those things that is super fascinating about the Christian right, which is that they have this deep-to-the-core disrespect for the truth that manifests in telling really obvious fairy tales and fantasies. The pleasure derived from demonizing abortion providers or Planned Parenthood [you can also insert atheist, humanist, or any individual/group not agreed with] outstrips any concerns about the immorality of lying about people, but it also outstrips any concerns about people realizing you’re a sleazy, no-good liar. Robertston and Calhoun [and Starnes] don’t worry about being caught in flagrant lies, because their own people will never hold them accountable for it,,,

I think the problem is that because they’ve convinced themselves they’re the only moral people left in the country, they, perversely, feel entitled to do any immoral thing they want without consequence. “Morality” is a tribal identity issue, in other words, and not a result of your actual behavior. They’re convinced they’re good and pro-choicers [insert group individual of choice] are bad, and so that means that everything they do is good and everything we do is bad, even if they’re lying and we’re telling the truth. (The Christian Right’s Ease With Lies And Dishonesty | The Raw Story)

Oh, how true this observation/opinion is.  I have lost count of the numerous faux outrages, based on lies, I have posted about.  Yet it still continues as the following (headlines) will demonstrate,,,

First reported by Charisma News with the headline Atheists Work to Block Charity From Feeding Starving Kids:

Students at the School of Engineering and Arts recently visited Calvary Lutheran Church to participate in a volunteer program sponsored by Feed My Starving Children, a nonprofit organization run by Christians that seeks to eliminate world hunger for children. As part of the program, students prepared prepacked meals that would be sent to malnourished children across the globe and did not engage in any religious activities.

[,,,]
“It’s shameful for groups like the American Humanist Association to attack charity groups that provide impoverished children with help they wouldn’t otherwise receive,” says senior legal counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “We hope that our letter will help Robbinsdale Area Schools understand that they can continue to allow students to participate with Feed My Starving Children and other worthy humanitarian service programs for the benefit of the needy.”

The next day, the master of hyperbole, Todd Starnes states once again claims of anti-Christian persecution, American Humanist Association demands students stop feeding starving kids:

The humanists got their britches in a bunch after the family of a student at the School of Engineering and Arts objected to the project being held at Calvary Lutheran Church.

[,,,]
The humanists took special offense to biblical terminology used to describe the mission to feed starving children.

[,,,]
How the atheists must have trembled at the sight of the cross as they tried to avert their eyes lest they soil themselves and spontaneously combust.

What I find so telling and why the highlighted statement above is spot on, Starnes continues:

I called Latisha Gray, the spokesperson for the school district – a very nice lady who seemed rather perplexed by the controversy and said they don’t believe they violated the U.S. Constitution.

“We believe that this activity was a service learning activity,” she told me. “There was absolutely no evangelizing or religious activity in the event.”

In other words, she is a nice Christian lady, who has no personal understanding of the First Amendment and what legal ramifications it entails.  Her misguided thinking concerning this issue,

the project was held during school hours as part of a community service project.  [AND] It’s the second year the school has partnered with “Feed My Starving Children.”

is fed by the "we believe" faction that holds to "their interpretation of the law is the only correct interpretation," and the atheists are bad, therefore wrong.

What is so infuriating is the blatant mis-characterization of what is at issue.  Spinning a possible SOCAS violation as, atheists trying to block the charity itself is dishonest and unnecessary.

The first point that Starnes et al choose to ignore in this case, "Christian" exceptionalism.

"Gray said the school is aware that a parent had complained about the event,,,The AHA said the parent also complained about the event last year."  So the school, knowing there was a previous issue with this project, chose to ignore it, "it is even more egregious that, after the parental complaint was made last year, you did nothing to remedy the problem, but instead suggested that the parent was misguided for complaining."  What Starnes leaves off, "We therefore seek immediate assurance that activities such as those complained of herein will cease immediately and not be continued in the future."  So the nice Christian lady, Latisha Gray who "seemed rather perplexed by the controversy" is full of shit.  She knows exactly what the problem is and so does Starnes.

A second point, trivializing the obvious

Further down in his diatribe, Starnes gives us this statement, "AHA said they don’t have a problem feeding hungry children. They just have a problem doing it inside a “theologically-charged environment.”  And concludes with, "This is a new low even for humanists. It takes a special kind of godless thuggery to take food out of the mouths of starving children."

Dude, I should say dudes as Jeremy Tedesco (ADF) alludes to this as well, I think you missed the point.  The AHA is NOT trying to stop the charity from feeding children, they are trying to prevent religious indoctrination of young impressionable children

1]  As we all know, charities such as Feed My Children (why is it MY Children?) depend on volunteers.  These kids were NOT volunteers, this was part of a school requirement for community service.  Hence why it was deemed a field trip and performed during school hours.

2]  Just the fact that this field trip occurred at a church implicitly supports a connection between church and state.  Church implies religion, specifically, Christianity.  I know of no 6,7 or 8 year old that would be able to separate the connection. 

3]  The goal of Christianity, proselytization (the Great Commission).  "The website of the church in question (the Calvary Lutheran Church) describes its mission as “to lead people into a growing relationship with Jesus Christ."

4]  The mission of the charity in question, "We believe God answers the prayers of His people and ask you to join us in praying.”

So yes Mr. Starnes it was a "theologically-charged environment" to insinuate otherwise is disingenuous.  For me to think that proselytizing to a "captive" audience was not the main focus of such organizations, I would have to ignore this and this:

Brannon, 25, said they decided to hand out care packages to the homeless after being told they could not volunteer at the Spartanburg Soup Kitchen.

"I told them we wouldn't wear our T-shirts. We wouldn't tell anyone who we are with. We just want to help out," Brannon said. "And they told us that we were not allowed."

According to the Soup Kitchen's website, the organization is dependent upon volunteers, having more than 600 community volunteers with a mission to serve the hungry in Spartanburg.

Lou Landrum, executive director of the Soup Kitchen, told the Herald-Journal she would resign from her job before she let atheists volunteer and be a "disservice to this community."

"This is a ministry to serve God" she said. "We stand on the principles of God. Do they (atheists) think that our guests are so ignorant that they don't know what an atheist is? Why are they targeting us? They don't give any money. I wouldn't want their money."

And,

The bad news is that we aren’t likely to have a volunteer event. The reason is unfortunate: Kansas City Rescue Mission has decided to use the meals they deliver as a chance to proselytize to its recipients by inserting religious literature into the meals. They informed us that we “would not be a good fit” (emphasis theirs) for volunteering with them, and declined to respond to any further inquiries. We can only speculate at their motivation behind this,,,

So why do they lie?  I have no clue.  The author of the original article couldn't answer it succinctly either:  "With the religious right, however, the tendency to put fantasy in front of fact is the dominant cultural imperative. Conspiracy theories about Planned Parenthood are the norm. Entire laws are being passed based on the lie that legal abortion is dangerous. For other interest groups, being a bunch of dishonest hacks is a legitimate obstacle, and understandably so! It’s interesting how much the Christian right is an exception.

But do you see the pattern, the formula and how well it works [insert ACA, gay marriage, atheist, humanist, or any individual/group not agreed with.]

RDFRS: Naval Academy Refuses Use of Chapel for Non-Christian Weddings

This make no freaking sense!! Why would a humanist want to do a secular wedding in a "church?" I'm confused!! I understand that it is a publicly owned building but,,,what am I missing here??  It's a fucking church,,,

The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center sent a letter sent yesterday to United States Naval Academy Superintendent Vice Adm. Michael H. Miller and Senior Chaplain Commander Michael Gore asking the decision be reversed and confirm that it is not the policy of the Naval Academy “to forbid non-Christians from using the Chapel for their wedding ceremonies.”

“This discriminatory policy is unconstitutional,” the letter states. “The Naval Academy cannot deny use of its publicly owned facilities on the basis of the religious views of those wishing to do so.”

RDFRS: Naval Academy Refuses Use of Chapel for Non-Christian Weddings