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
Showing posts with label David Niose. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Niose. Show all posts
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Thursday, May 8, 2014
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."
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
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
Saturday, March 1, 2014
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)