News Revelations

Humanists seek ban on evangelical gift boxes in schools

David Niose outside Tenth Circuit in Denver. Photo courtesy of American Humanist Association

(RNS) Humanists went to federal court in Denver to prevent Colorado schoolchildren from being asked to put together Christmas gift boxes sponsored by an evangelical charity.

The hearing on Wednesday (Nov. 16) was the result of a suit filed by the American Humanist Association, a national organization of humanists, atheists and freethinkers. They are representing three humanist families who say the constitution’s guarantee of the separation of church and state is violated when their suburban Denver school district asks their children to assemble Christmas gift boxes that include the “opportunity . . . to faithfully follow Jesus Christ.”

The boxes are a project of Operation Christmas Child, a branch of Samaritan’s Purse, the charity run by Franklin Graham, an evangelical minister and son of the Rev. Billy Graham. Its mission is “to follow the example of Christ by helping those in need and proclaiming the hope of the Gospel.”

The humanist association alleges the Douglas County School District, located in south suburban Denver, also participated in a Fellowship of Christian Athletes mission trip to Guatemala and Adventures in Missions, an organization that says it “emphasize(s) prayer and relationships in our work amongst the poor.”

“This is not like a soup kitchen where, even if it is run through a church, there is no proselytizing,” said Monica Miller, legal counsel for AHA’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center. “Operation Christmas Child puts religious tracts in the boxes after they are assembled and the school district may not align itself with any religious organization.”

An Operation Christmas Child spokesperson said it does not determine who does or does not participate in its annual gift box program and has collected over 135 million show box gifts to date.

This is not the first time Operation Christmas Child and the American Humanist Association have tussled. In 2013, the humanist group sent “letters of warning” to school districts in Colorado and South Carolina where Operation Christmas Child was invited into public classrooms.

The South Carolina school cut its tied with Operation Christmas Child, but the Colorado school did not. The proceeding in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stems from that initial incident.

Revelations-Series-Banner-770x150

About the author

Kimberly Winston

Kimberly Winston is a freelance religion reporter based in the San Francisco Bay Area.

316 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Public schools do not exist to push your religion — and don’t worry, humanists won’t be “over” in 60 days, either.

  • So please take your unfounded opinion where it’s appreciated

    I see you are totally ignorant about the 14th amendment and incorporation rulings — before then, states could have their own state religions financed by tax money, and Massachusetts did until 1833.

    They can’t do that now.

    What I said was humanist BULLYING would be over.

    Fighting for equal rights isn’t “bullying”, and no, it won’t be over.

  • Obviously you’re clueless that states always had the right to have a state religion knowing all there Constitutions acknowledge the Christian God.

    Nope, not after the 14th amendment and incorporation:
    “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.'”
    — Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

    You see the 10th Amendment protects that INALIENABLE RIGHT.

    The government doesn’t have rights — the government has powers, only citizens have rights.

    You have a right to form a religious school. The government does not.

    BTW you have all the rights all US sovereigns have however you think you can limit others INALIENABLE RIGHTS by misquoting the Constitution

    I haven’t misquoted the constitution.

    And just for your reeducation the 14th amendment doesn’t affect the 1st amendment in any way.

    The supreme court disagrees with you.

  • Please quote exactly where in the 14th amendment where it declares a state is forbidden to have a stare religion because I just read it’s entity and nothing you clam is found there.

    Read up on “Incorporation of the Bill of Rights” — it’s case law by the US supreme court over many rulings. It isn’t literally in the 14th amendment, it comes from the equal protection clause (“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”). The 14th amendment applies first amendment protections against state governments.

    I see you think that the constitution has to spell out everything. It doesn’t. It isn’t a list of laws.

  • So then you can’t show me where what you claim can be found in the 14th amendment as you originally claimed.

    No, I can’t, because you’re too stupid to understand what I said. That’s your problem.

    I was right you couldn’t therefore you lied.

    Nope, I haven’t lied. It’s your stupidity that’s the problem.

    Yes everything that the 14th amendment supports is written in the 14th amendment which is why your so confused by what the SCOTUS did with it.

    Did you read the excerpt from Everson? “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions”

    No state-supported churches.

    You see it’s those like you that allow our Constitution to be misconstrued to benefit the government to usurp “we the Peoples” inalienable rights.

    What are you babbling about now? Public schools can’t be used to push your religion. Public schools ARE the government.

  • So you can’t back up your unfounded claim so it makes me stupid….Bwahahahahahahh.

    No, I have backed up my claim — read Everson and other supreme court opinions. Your stupid objection is that you can’t understand the 14th amendment and are looking for literal text that isn’t there. “Freedom of religion” isn’t in the constitution literally. “Right to a fair trial” isn’t. “Separation of powers” isn’t.

    Because, like I said (and what you can’t understand) is that the constitution isn’t a list of laws.

    BTW you made the claim about churches receiving taxes what I stated is that a state can have a state religion which has nothing to do with taxes that is your lie.

    A state can’t have a state religion, even if it isn’t supported with tax money. And you can’t read, what I wrote was “states could have their own state religions financed by tax money” which is a true statement.

    So to push your face farther into the mud what Church taxes it’s congregation to support their faith?

    Wow, you’re incredibly stupid. Churches can’t levy taxes. States can, and back when they could have state religions, they could support state churches with tax money.

  • Look snowflake your propaganda is not very convincing nor did you back up your claim except by the OPINION handed down by the SCOTUS.

    Wow, all I have are actual supreme court opinions, as opposed to your ignorant opinion. Where’s your law degree from, back of a cereal box?

    Now we both know the SCOTUS OPINION is subject to change

    They haven’t changed it yet, so states can’t have official state religions. Yep, as soon as the supreme court decides to overturn dozens of decisions and allow states to have official state religions, they can have official state religions.

    That hasn’t happened yet, though.

  • Make up your mind which is it the state can have a state religion supported with tax dollars or they can have a state religion and not use tax dollars?

    They could do both back when the constitution was passed; they can’t do either now.

  • No snowflake it’s not my opinion it’s the SCOTUS’s OPINION!

    SCOTUS’ opinion is that states can’t have state religions.

    But I’m glad you a little honest to know the SCOTUS OPINION is subject to change but the Constitution is not!

    What? The constitution can be amended, it currently has 27 amendments. Wow, are you ignorant.

  • What are you babbling about now? Selfish Christians like yourself want public schools to push your religion; I’m only advocating that public schools and other government institutions stay out of religion.

  • And it isn’t looking good for you confused atheists getting it amended any time soon.

    I see you have no comback — the constitution IS subject to change.

    Why do you only want to limit our inalienable rights?

    I don’t. There’s no “right” to have a public school push your religion.

  • But when the islam terrorist religion and traditions are taught in the public schools you’re atheist hypocrites do deaf and silent

    Wrong again. Now all you can do is make up lies about atheists, eh? Shows you have no argument. Look up ACLU of Minnesota v. TiZA, et al. or google for a blog entry by an FFRF attorney, “Answering Fox News: Why doesn’t FFRF ever ‘go after’ Islam or other religions?” (hint: they do)

  • Bill is the perfect example of the “playing chess with a pigeon” story. You can play chess with a pigeon, but they just knock over the pieces, poop all over the board, and claim they won. None of his stuff would ever hold up in court and that’s why reputable lawyers never try his ludicrous arguments in front of a judge. But oh, he sure “knows” his constitution. He always claiming this kind of stuff, and if he were really in court he’d be classed as a vexatious litigant. Always bringing the same bunk stuff, obnoxious, and wasting everyone’s time.

  • Oh and when the Douglas County School District loses, he’ll claim it was “activist judges” or something similar. Mark my words. 😉

  • No not really because it would tale a majority of states to do that and again it’s highly unlikely in your lifetime and unlike you I made no claim I couldn’t back up however you’re still in your bullying mode because you got caught in several lies.

    What are you babbling about now? I haven’t lied about anything.

    There is no law stopping a public school teaching about my religion

    Now you’re moving the goalposts — this article is about putting together gift boxes to push Christianity as true. Public schools can’t do that. It’s legal to teach ABOUT religions.

    So again having a display in a public school or asking the children to participate in making gifts is lawful

    No, it isn’t. That isn’t “teaching”.

  • What part is a lie? You DO want public schools to push your religion, and I’m advocating that the government stay out of religion.

  • You can advocate anything you want however the majority doesn’t share your bigoted opinion.

    I’m advocating that the constitution be followed, which makes what this school is doing unconstitutional.

    The Federal Government is forbidden to interfere with the Christian faith however the state can do as it pleases and that is to support it or not.

    Totally wrong.

  • My original stands on it’s own merit

    Which is completely wrong.

    and you have offered nothing to refute it.

    Only “mere” court opinions.

    Also, learn when to use apostrophes. You aren’t using them correctly.

  • They don’t change the text, but they DO change the law. Compare Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) to West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

    Totally opposite rulings, but the constitution didn’t change at all.

  • Yes I see I exposed another of your lies and you accuse me of moving the goalposts

    Because you did. I’ve never claimed that it’s unlawful to teach ABOUT religion, but you tried to move the goalposts there.

  • The Constitution is being followed

    By following supreme court opinions. Which includes no state religions.

  • Without respect to the argument preceding, which is about the longest I’ve ever seen on RNS between two antagonists, I find the circumstances described in the article as simply mean spirited on the part of the AHA. Apart from any religious tracts or references to Jesus which may appall a few, the benefit of the boxes themselves to children who may not receive any other gifts this holiday season is an important consideration, even to the children who contribute to them as it introduces them to the concept of charity.

  • In Britain we have a similar problem. Apparently Samaritan’s Purse were adding religious materials to boxes after they had left the schools. I’m told that some schools, seeing the procedure as underhand and unacceptable, have switched their charitable efforts to clearly secular alternatives.

    Brian – you need to remember that the intellectual processes that come with a bill compose a bird-brain.
    Bird brains are very lightweight and evolutionarily adapted to enable a simple unquestioning existence without wasting scarce resources on complications such as reasoning and introspection.

  • So, if it is illegal but is something you deem to be nice, it should be allowed. The law only applies when it’s something you don’t like. That seems like a super great system. Good luck with that. I prefer it if people follow the law and get called to task legally when they violate the law. You know, equal treatment and all that. But your idea to ignore lawbreakers who are doing something you think is nice seems good, too. Equal treatment, religious privilege…which should we have?

  • The SCOTUS has no authority over the Constitution bit the Constitution has authority over the SCOTUS

    You have no idea what you’re babbling about. The supreme court is the final authority on what the constitution means.

  • So how could the supreme court possibly reverse itself when the text of the constitution didn’t change?

  • Sorry, you’re the one whose idea of reality doesn’t match supreme court rulings. States can’t have state religions anymore.

  • No it doesn’t because if it were the least bit true you bully atheist wouldn’t be going to court over it.

    Going to court is the OPPOSITE of being a bully. Do you have a problem with having the courts review government actions to make sure they’re following the constitution?

    Again why do you strive to violate only Christians 1st amendment rights

    I’m not striving to violate anyone’s rights — as I’ve told you many times now, having a public school push your religion is NOT a right.

    The fact is just because it’s a government school doesn’t mean 1th Amendment inalienable rights cease at the door posts.

    This means students can practice their religion, and it ALSO means that school officials can’t tell them that they ought to push Christianity by helping create evangelical gift boxes.

  • The so-called “gift boxes” for “helping those in need” is nothing more than a marketing strategy for gaining more religious customers converts – just as missionary programs are. Religion 101 teaches that going after vulnerable people in need is the most effective means of achieving their objectives.

    PS: I do believe that many people working at the ground level in these programs are motivated primarily by “helping those in need,” but that’s not the real reason these programs were originally created by people at the top of an organized religion’s power structure.

  • I’m sorry, but no. There has to be a bright line. Children have a constitutional right not to be proselytized to in any way at school. The charity could arrange it that the children assemble boxes with no religious tracts and they’re added later, but no.

  • Religious people need to be responsible for their own work and faith without trying to recruit schools to help them. There’s nothing biblical about making government part of one’s faith.

  • Humanists AKA skeptics, are a fundamentalist religion seeking court supremacy over another fundamentalist religion. Their misuse of the courts is but a side show of history which, in this case, only jeopardizes further the well-being of the needy.

    We need look no further than the 1897 comments of the New York Sun:

    Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

    Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

    Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence.

    We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

    Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies. You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if you did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

    You tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

    No Santa Claus! Thank God! He lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

  • I see you didn’t understand my comment so you chose to ignore it. Actually, the Bible doesn’t call for the death penalty for homosexuals, no matter how much you want to equate sexual orientation with rape and murder. And yes, I am good with it.

  • Actually, it’s Christians drafting and approving these laws, and Christians ruling on cases calling these laws into question. You certainly are aware of how few atheists are in public office. But, you can lie if that helps you perpetuate your persecution narrative.

  • What is ti with Douglas County, the epicenter of efforts to divert public funds to special interest church-run private schools through vouchers,in defiance of the state constitution and the overwhelming opposition in the 1992 and 1998 referenda. The AHA is to be commended for its timely legal action to halt the county’s meddling in religion. Do Douglas County big shots think that conservative religion is so weak that the taxpayers and public schools have to help them out? — Edd Doerr past president of the AHA and current president of Americans for Religious Liberty)

  • The Levitical verses prescribe the death penalty for anal sex between men. It does not say that gay people should be put to death. In any event, I thought even evangelicals believed that while the Levitical proscriptions of gay sex still apply, the death penalty does not, due to the sacrificial atonement of Jesus.

  • It’s evil to state what the Bible says? This isn’t propaganda, it’s the plain meaning of the text. Whether you want to add to it is a separate question.

  • I haven’t mocked anything. I have told you what the verses actually mean. The abomination identified is anal sex between males.

  • I am all for the Humanists spending their money on lawsuits! We have two great law schools within a 50 mile radius of Denver, so we have lots of hungry lawyers who want to live here in the Mile High City! Humanists don’t seem to want to spend their money on alleviating the pain and poverty here, or on jobs and education for new immigrants, or for homeless families, or to help with unwed pregnant women, They don’t seem to have an inspirational message about their life’s meaning and purpose worth promoting on TV or on social media, etc. They don’t sponsor any of our great athletic teams. And out of jealousy they’re against Christmas boxes for needy children, because they don’t offer anything to those needy children! So Hey, I guess needy lawyers is an OK worthy cause! We don’t want those people idle on the streets, using all our rental bicycles now do we?!

  • Looking up the English word sex is irrelevant to a determination of what the Hebrew text of the Torah means. Speaking of which, why the “of your father the devil” jibe? Because that’s what Jesus called the Jews? Now please tell me what I lied about.

  • I never claimed the Constitution couldn’t be amended did I?

    You wrote “But I’m glad you a little honest to know the SCOTUS OPINION is subject to change but the Constitution is not!”

    The constitution IS subject to change, contrary to what you wrote.

  • Fact is the SCOTUS doesn’t make law nor does their OPINION make law Congress does

    And the supreme court strikes down unconstitutional laws, like attempts to have an official state religion.

  • Please show us where the school or the children is being forced to make gifts for the poor?

    Please show me where I said “forced”. Again, you move the goalposts.

    And sorry, making it voluntary doesn’t work. See e.g. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), or Engel v. Vitale (1962)

  • They don’t. They strike down unconstitutional laws, like when religious fanatics try to create an official state religion.

  • “I couldn’t back up however you’re still in your bullying mode because you got caught in several lies. There is no law stopping a public school teaching about my religion and it is in fact being taught in a few states.”

    That statement of yours is a lie, since I’ve never stated it’s illegal to teach ABOUT religion.

  • How could I hate bird brains? The last outpost of the dinosaurs; they fill a fractious, quarrelsome niche in the environment with all the exuberance of their competitive argumentativeness whilst remaining oblivious to the fact that the world contains knowledge and abilities which far outshine their repetitive twittering.

  • Humanists don’t seem to want to spend their money on alleviating the pain and poverty here

    You’re just another selfish, ignorant Christian supremacist.

  • Why would they? Can you grasp the difference between a government institution like a public school having students with many different religious beliefs pimp for evangelical Christians, vs. people acting as private citizens giving away candy?

  • Well, the schools who honour Hallowe’en are pimping for satan and witchcraft – think about it Brian.

  • The subject of this story is the example. Atheists use government as outreach (with coercion if the outreach fails).

  • I’d have no problem if public schools got rid of all Christmas, Easter AND Halloween celebrations.

    However, courts have usually ruled that these holidays are so watered down that they aren’t religious.

  • An example how? They’re trying to get a public school to follow the law, they aren’t using the government as outreach.

  • Well, if what you say about courts is true, shows they don’t know everything, eh? Blessings to you Brian.

  • Yes they are. This is just one of the cases used by Atheists to promote their religion and downgrade other religions.

  • You didn’t think, period. *I’M* the one who pointed out how they reversed their pledge decision. I’m sure you were totally ignorant of that until I told you.

  • Perhaps you can answer that by telling us how that is done by packing gifts for the poor?

    It isn’t. You can’t follow a conversation.

  • I’m sorry then you’ve been arguing about nonsense all along.

    No, I’ve been quoting actual supreme court opinions, and you’ve been ranting in ignorance.

  • How is packing gifts for the poor creating a state religion?

    It isn’t. I never said it was. Like I said, you can’t follow a conversation.

  • Yes it is subject to change only by “We the Peoples” will not by the federal government. Contrary to your opinion.

    You seem to have missed all the federal government involvement in amending the constitution.

  • You seem to be clueless that if “We the People” don’t vote for the amendment it doesn’t happen.

    The public doesn’t directly vote for an amendment; their representatives (state and federal) do.

    Wow, are you incredibly ignorant, even when it’s in front of your face.

  • So which lie are you standing on now they don’t reverse their opinion or they have reversed their opinions?

    Like I said, you can’t follow a conversation. I’ve pointed out that the supreme court sometimes reverses itself. I’ve never said the opposite.

  • Oh? Where are governments putting atheist sayings on government buildings? Ordering schools to hold atheist classes?

    What many people are doing, including some Christians, is getting government out of religion. To the dominant Christian religion, diminishment of dominance feels frightening. Don’t worry Northern, Christianity still dominates the country, just not quite as much.

  • “You seem to be clueless that if “We the People” don’t vote for the amendment it doesn’t happen.”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

    You think constitutional amendments are voted on directly by the public. Here’s a hint — no.

  • That is your lie.

    Nope. I quoted you exactly.

    Pay special attention to the second paragraph because in order for a state to ratify the amendment the people must vote on it.

    Wrong. The government of each state ratifies the amendment, it isn’t a popular vote.

    You can’t even read what you copy & paste:
    amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths (3/4) of the states to take effect. Article Five gives Congress the option of requiring ratification by state legislatures or by special conventions assembled in the states.

    Neither of those methods are a popular vote.

  • What I said is neither the SCOTUS or Congress has the authority to change it.

    What you wrote was this:
    “But I’m glad you a little honest to know the SCOTUS OPINION is subject to change but the Constitution is not!”

    Right there, you claim the constitution isn’t subject to change.

  • Sorry, you clearly can’t read. “state legislatures” aren’t a popular vote. “special conventions” aren’t a popular vote.

  • Gee it does say the people establish the Constitution

    And it spells out how it’s amended, which is NOT by popular vote.

  • All you can do is copy & paste, but without understanding. Read the part about amending it — notice how it isn’t by a popular vote.

  • No, I’m rather generous with my money and time when it’s getting spent to alleviate the pain and poverty in my community. I would work shoulder to shoulder with you in those endeavors, but the Humanists

    Tonight, my church is assembling some 1500 Thaniksgiving baskets to deliver to the poorest immigrants on the West side of our great Mile High City. If I run into any Humanists, I’ll give them a big hug!

    Who’s ignorant? Haven’t you noticed I speak and write in multiple-syllable words!

  • You can’t quote where it says that, because it doesn’t. So you fall back on your usual childish insults as an attempted red herring.

  • You said SCOTUS could change the 14th amendment

    No, I didn’t. You can’t read.

    I said the supreme court applied the first amendment against state governments via the 14th amendment. You can remain ignorant, or read up on incorporation and the 14th amendment.

  • Get a life, Brian. You’re much too young to go wasting your time making such a magnificent exhibition of your STUPIDITY! I see no one on here is adding to your comments, backing you up! Get a clue, Bro!

  • Go ahead, quote the constitution where it says amendments are passed by popular vote. It doesn’t say that.

  • Ah, the last refuse of a bigot — “get a life”.

    I see it upsets you when you get called on your lies about Humanists. Good.

  • Perhaps you can find a ballot for a popular vote on, say, the 26th amendment? I say it was passed by state legislators, not by a popular vote, so there is no such ballot.

  • Sabelotodo2: Apparently you haven’t noticed that I’ve been upvoting Brian’s comments. I agree with his comments and know that he’s capable of speaking for himself on government/religion separation issues.

  • Even in the absence of any overt religious literature, children may well inquire on their own about the who’s and the why’s of their efforts. I guess I have to disagree with you on the question of the “correctness” of this approach by the AHA. Perhaps I’m dense, and no doubt there are those who will nod there head sagely at that suggestion, but I simply do not see the danger to the children, nor a risk to our republic in this matter, and continue to feel as I always have that the Supreme Court overreached in the Madelyn Murray O’Hair case, and subsequent cases thereafter. Naturally, it is settled law, but it is another example of the overly sensitive and offended few being given the right to bar free expression of spiritual concepts of the most inoffensive kind in our public schools.

  • But this is precisely not a case of equal treatment, because people with a spiritual perspective are essentially barred from engaging in the give and take of ideas which is an essential part of the educational process. As this is a matter of settled law, though given the past history of the Supreme Court, it seems difficult to believe in the concept, the AHA has every right to bring suit and be confident it will be upheld, but that does not make it a good law. And I hope people and organizations will continue to test this law, and other laws not relating to religion, in order to keep the court system intellectually honest.

  • It IS equal treatment under the law. Spiritual people can do whatever they want as private citizens. But, when they are acting as agents of the government, they have an obligation to remain neutral regarding religion. Whether it’s the mayor, the sheriff, the water commissioner, or the public school teacher, that rule is the same. It is the first amendment.

    Thought experiment: if similar gift boxes for needy children were being put together at a public school, and inside each gift box a pamphlet was placed, and the pamphlet was explaining how there are no gods, and that religion is nothing more than a social construct derived from our instinctual tribalism and a means of ensuring group cooperation to increase survival rates within the population, would you have a problem with the public school’s teachers and students engaging in that activity, and would you think that it was appropriate that people acting as agents of the government, along with the captive audience of children, should be acting in those capacities to destroy anybody’s religious beliefs? Would you be ok with that, or is that something you think the public school should not be allowed to do?

  • Brian needs no backing up, he’s has been doing a sterling job. Added voices are irrelevant.

    In a rational world it is understood that volume does not impinge upon veracity.

    “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.” (Plato)

  • I’m talking about the Leviticus verses, in which the word translated in most English bibles as “abomination” is “toevah” in the Hebrew of the Torah. The Septuagint translated this as “bdelygma,” which Paul did not use in Romans 1. We know that Paul was familiar with The Septuagint of the Leviticus verses because of his use of “arsenokoites” in 1 Corinthians, echoing the LXX phrasing.

  • Yes, and Romans explains what was said in Leviticus. Homosexuality is having sex with someone of the same sex.
    Scripture interprets scripture.

  • Atheists do not have faith, so suggesting they are tying to make government part of their faith makes no sense. It would be like saying, “They don’t have any pudding, but they’re constantly trying to put milk in it.”

  • Au contraire, Atheists have faith in rational thought even though they are not very competent in it. They have faith in science without realizing that the outer limits of quantum mechanics agrees with the religious perspective. The Atheist belief system is well known because they parrot it loudly.

  • They have faith in science without realizing that the outer limits of quantum mechanics agrees with the religious perspective.

    BWAHAHAHAHA!

    Now that’s weapon-grade ignorance.

  • I think that quite often what you have described in your thought experiment is precisely the case, absent the boxes and the pamphlets, but rather by virtue of the philosophical construct which dominates the framing of the educational establishment in this society. I fully understand that to many people what I contend to be the case does not exist, but I think that is a subjective rather than an objective response.

  • Simply that the present environment in our public educational system, and for past decades, is not neutral, either in its intent or practice. That the active policy, with the appearance of passivity, is to discourage, negate, and vilify any expression of spirituality, especially as regards Christianity. School employees as agents of the government in many instances are actively hostile to the free expression of spiritual views by their students, even though those students are not bound by the same legal strictures. There are a number of legal actions that have been brought to bear which affirm this fact, and there are examples of school districts retreating on the question of student initiated religious expression when so confronted.

  • False. It is not passivity, but neutrality, that is sought. Public schools may neither infringe upon the rights of students to voluntarily engage (or not engage) in religious activities or discussions of their own device so long as they do not disrupt the learning environment, nor endorse or unduly appear to endorse or disapprove of any religion, religious belief, or religious disbelief. When schools run over these lines, they are appropriately called to task. Based on the acuteness, duration, and/or pervasiveness of the violation(s), penalties will vary.

    Sometimes people are trying to avoid controversy and allow violations as a result. Sometimes there is a cultural understanding that violates the school’s first amendment obligations. Sometimes there are traditions that, until they are informed, they simply don’t understand are violations.

    Long story short: if you don’t want atheist teachers talking your kids out of religion, or Muslim teachers making the students put on an assembly about Ramadan being super important to God, or Satanists teaching your children to be good people, then you can’t allow Christian teachers or administrators to likewise use their position to attempt to proselytize. And, just like you wouldn’t want teachers stopping your child from praying or talking about their beliefs during their personal time, you cannot disallow or punish the atheist, Muslim, or Satanist for doing the same.

    Equal treatment under the law. If you want something other than that, I’m afraid that is not constitutional.

  • As I have said before quantum mechanics is coming into agreement with religion. That is not co-opting. It is science following its belief system where it leads and not co-opting that belief system to promote an Atheist agenda.

  • As I have said before quantum mechanics is coming into agreement with religion.

    Your bizarre ignorance is hilarious.

  • Your denial is not refutation.

    You’ve presented nothing to refute. “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”

    Learn something about quantum mechanics and then we can talk.

    I know about quantum mechanics; it has nothing to do with religion.

  • Ignorance of what? Your imaginary link between quantum mechanics and religion, which you’ve avoided giving in even the least detail?

    Is that because you have nothing to detail, only your flat assertions that you’re right?

  • I understand and except your explanation, but I don’t agree that my reasoning is false. It is plainly evident from the culture of the educational establishment that the hostility rather than neutrality does exist to an extensive degree. This premise predicated on direct quotes I have read from educators and administrators in some of the cases challenged. We will have to agree to disagree.

  • And, what about all the schools where religious privilege is rampant, to the point of nonbelievers being driven out of their teaching jobs, or atheist students being punished for a child crying because they stated their disbelief to a fellow student, causing that student to cry?

  • Then you shouldn’t object to adding Islamic, Jewish, Zoroaster, Buddhist, Hindu etc tracts to your school offerings as well.

    Right ?

  • First time I’ve come across your comments, as you leave multiple bigoted religious corpses in your wake.

    Delightfully devastating….

  • I’ll bet you’re the kind who hand out candy with pins embedded….

    Off with those little Trick-or Treater’s heads speaketh the embittered Knave of Spades….

  • Christians it seems, never do a good deed without an ulterior motive. Christmas is about charity and giving, not about recruitment numbers.

  • As usual, flouting your mouth but providing no evidence to back it up. This is why atheist numbers are growing, because we look at the facts and the evidence, versus relying on hysteria the way Christians do.

  • It also doesn’t mention anything about setting your neighbor’s house on fire, but that’s illegal, too. No, states cannot recognize a state religion. Of course if anyone suggested one that wasn’t your religion, you would agree. Now you’re going to say America is a Christian nation, which is a lie. The founders were Athiests and Deists which is why we are not a theocracy. Now go read the Constitution and quit parading your ignorance. You’re embarrassing yourself.

  • Aww, look. He read the snowflake thing in some propaganda and thinks he’s a clever parrot. You’re the one who thinks that you just happened to be born in a location where – and to people whom – chose the “right” god. That is the epitome of elitism. Hypocrite.

  • Hey Witless – you couldn’t be more wrong, we atheists have no religious faith and are determined to keep ALL religions out of government and public life in general. Religious are free to practice your religion any way you choose, but you are not free to try and force it on the rest of us.

  • Again Witless,we have NO religion except freedom to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on the rest of us. Be aware the we the non-religious are growing in strength more and more every year…and we vote.

  • Atheism is a fundamentalist religion. Being from Texas you can understand Bible literalism. Atheism takes scripture literally. Atheism has sects, preachers, saints and sages, scripture, creeds and places of worship.

  • While I disagree with those spiritual philosophies, as an advocate of free expression for all, I would not quibble with your suggestion if applied with all neutrality, though I would prefer that each group provided it’s own boxes and literature, as distinct from the others to avoid muddling the message. Further, so far I have not found it to be an inclination of any of those groups to provide such gift boxes. I also find that telling.

  • I can only assume you are referring to private schools, presumably non-sectarian as well as sectarian. Within the context of private Christian schools they are entitled to require that their staff adhere to particular policies regarding statements about faith. The doctrine of separation of Church and State always seems to work to the advantage of the State and to the disadvantage of the Church within government and without. As to children, their actions and reactions cannot be calibrated to the nth degree. Teachers and administrators are employed when not engaged in teaching and other duties to run interference between their students. Children will taunt one another, argue, fight, and cry. Such cannot be wholly eliminated, I would think an educated adult could referee such events, exercising justice, without everything resulting in a lawsuit, or constitutional crises.

  • No, I am referring to public schools, funded by tax dollars, in the United States. That you are unaware of such things demonstrates the bias in your sources of information. I suggest, as a starter, you google the name “Jessica Ahlquist.”

  • Requiring public school children to do work for a religious organization will not (and should not) hold up in court. Make no mistake – if a child declined to participate they would be ostracized in the classroom. If the school (or the court) allows it, then I hope atheists and other non-Christian organization demand the same access and mandatory participation by the children.

    Evangelicals think they should have exclusive access to public schools and be granted special privileges and access to children that no other group gets. And repeatedly they are taken to court and they lose. You’d think they’d learn by now that public schools and the children therein do not belong to just them.

  • Northern_Witness:

    Atheism takes scripture literally.

    Incorrect. It’s a work of fiction, similar to The Iliad or The Lord of The Rings.

    Atheism has sects

    Incorrect. You can’t really subdivide “lacking a belief in a god or gods”. What sects are you imagining are involved here?

  • Atheism does take scripture literally unmindful that it is a mixture of historical fact, cultural norms of the time, with the scriptural messages given necessariy in figurative language such allegory and parable.

    As for the Atheist sects there are approximately two dozen. There are “positive Atheists” and “weak Atheists”, “narrow Atheists” and “broad Atheists”, “mystic Atheists”, “spiritual Atheists”, “Transhumanists”, “Unitarianism”, “indifferent Atheists”, “passive Atheists”, “evangelical Atheists”, “active Atheists”, militant Atheists”, naturalism, materialists, hedonists, utilitarians, negative utilitarians, humanists or secular humanists, posthumanism, and, perhaps the most pathetic variety, scientism.

  • Northern_Witness: Ahahaha!!! You’re a Poe, right? Just admit it if you are.

    Atheism does take scripture literally unmindful that it is a mixture of historical fact, cultural norms of the time, with the scriptural messages given necessariy in figurative language such allegory and parable.

    First, atheism isn’t itself a conscious entity. People who lack a belief in a god or gods many times (but not all) call themselves atheists. Saying “atheism does this” or “atheism does that” sounds like you’re talking about a person named atheism. It would be like me saying Christianity never makes scrambled eggs, only sunny side up or boiled.

    Second, the opinions of atheists regarding the veracity or fictional qualities of any holy book vary from person to person. That is a different informational claim from stating a lack of belief in a god or gods.

    Third, I’m not even addressing the foolishness expressed in your second paragraph regarding what you think are denominations. It’s an amusing assertion, but not the same as religious denominations.

  • Quibble. Quibble,

    Feel free to translate Atheists for Atheism. Atheism and for that matter an Athiest may not be a conscious entity but it does have a belief system or creed.

    “Second, the opinions of atheists regarding the veracity or fictional qualities of any holy book vary from person to person.”

    Do you realize that you just agreed that Atheism has sects or denominations. And of course these Atheists sects come complete with a creed as discussed above, plus scripture, prophets, saints, congregations, and evangelization.

    The varieties or sects of Atheism are varieties of fundamentalist religions.

  • Northern_Witness:

    it does have a belief system or creed.

    Lacking a belief in a god or gods is not a system or creed.

    Do you realize that you just agreed that Atheism has sects or denominations.

    No, because there is no related system, structure, hierarchy, or any other baggage. What you’re splitting hairs about are different informational claims that can exist in other beliefs. Again, atheism is the “no” answer to a basic question. Do you believe in a god or gods?

    The varieties or sects of Atheism are varieties of fundamentalist religions.

    I see that you really want to vilify atheists the same way that theists have vilified their religions. Sorry, buddy. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

  • No surprise with the response here in the comments. A good article about another example of Christian privilege comes out (and the article doesn’t even point it out by name), and out come the Christian supremacists to defend the use of everyone’s children to help them proselytize.

  • “Lacking a belief in a god or gods is not a system or creed.”

    It is an affirmation based on belief system or creed.

    “What you’re splitting hairs about are different informational claims that can exist in other beliefs.”

    You have just agreed that Atheism has different sects.

    “I see that you really want to vilify atheists the same way that theists have vilified their religions.”

    Your denying what other Atheists choose to refer to themselves and their belief systems as is the height of vilification. Not only do you not respect other religions you don’t even respect other Atheists.

  • Northern_Witness:

    It is an affirmation based on belief system or creed.

    Really? What belief system? What creed?

    You have just agreed that Atheism has different sects.

    Incorrect. Try reading that again.

    Your denying what other Atheists choose to refer to themselves and their
    belief systems as is the height of vilification. Not only do you not
    respect other religions you don’t even respect other Atheists.

    I gather that you’re inaccurately restating what you think you’ve heard atheists identify as. Before you accuse me of misrepresenting atheists, you should first correct your own misrepresentation of atheists.

    “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

  • “What belief system? What creed?”

    It depends on which Atheist sect you are discussing.

    Here is the Humanist creed:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/templeofthefuture/2013/06/humanism-creed-of-the-21st-century/

    “I gather that you’re inaccurately restating what you think you’ve heard atheists identify as.”

    If an Atheist identifies as a Transhumanist or a Humanist how is it inaccurate to mention that? Do you even bother to think about what you write or do you believe that whatever you say somehow magically will become true? You are embarrassing yourself.

  • Northern_Witness:

    Here is the Humanist creed:

    Humanism isn’t atheism. Again, atheism is addressing one belief claim. There are theists who identify as Humanist as well.

    If an Atheist identifies as a Transhumanist or a Humanist how is it
    inaccurate to mention that?

    If a Baptist identifies as vegan, is that now a Baptist-Vegan denomination? You are attaching things to atheism that aren’t exclusively atheistic and calling them denominations, apparently to justify your skewed understanding.

  • I want to understand you clearly, you are then declaring in your post of two days ago that religious privilege, firing of non-believers, and atheist students being punished for their beliefs, is in fact a standard practice in public school systems of the US? To the degree that such is true, I would think that it is largely localized in a small number of venues and has been addressed by legal action at some level. Further, that it is only a reverse image of the same type of discrimination faced by people of faith in other school systems. In sum, it ain’t a perfect world. However, I will Google “Jessica Ahlquist,” the name seems familiar, but as we are drowning today in names, incidents, and information, it is often difficult to keep track of it all.

  • It is not standard practice, as in, it is not the rule by which all schools are run. But, it is not unheard of. It is common enough that I can cite quite a few more cases for you off the top of my head.

    For example, google “pennsylvania school ten commandments.” Or, “texas high school ten commandments.” Or, “Virginia backpack mailer pagan.” That should keep you busy. Or, check out this recent case from Indiana, where school violations were numerous: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/07/06/an-indiana-student-who-fought-churchstate-violations-at-his-high-school-now-regrets-the-decision/

    The student and family are being punished by the community for having the unmitigated gall to demand that people follow the law. And, it is religious privilege that makes that happen.

    So, yes, it happens. No, it is not a universal rule. Yes, religious privilege can and does infest public schools throughout America. For real. And, there are surely waaaaaaay more that never get reported, due to fear of reprisal.

  • Humanism isn’t Atheism? That would be a surprise to them.

    “You are attaching things to atheism that aren’t exclusively atheistic and calling them denominations”

    Again. People identify themselves as Transhumanist, Humanist, etc. Nothing is being added to their doing so by mentioning it.

    “atheism is addressing one belief claim.”

    What is the basis for that Atheist belief claim?

  • Northern_Witness:

    Humanism isn’t Atheism? That would be a surprise to them.

    Humanism and atheism aren’t sentient creatures capable of being surprised. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Humanism is a structure of ethical principles and theories. They are compatible, but independent concepts.

    Again. People identify themselves as Transhumanist, Humanist, etc. Nothing is being added to their doing so by mentioning it.

    Then they’re inviting you to ask what they mean by that. Hopefully they’ve got a thorough understanding of their self-identification to accurately express to you. I have met people who don’t know how to express their own views and opinions. Not everyone is a wordsmith.

    What is the basis for that Atheist belief claim?

    A lack of extraordinary evidence to validate the extraordinary claim of a deity.

  • So part of the Atheist belief system is a preference for sense data which is limited in range, subject to failure and/or hallucination, and subjective plus a system of comparing and contrasting that sense data.

    Interesting but there must be more to that Atheist belief claim. Elucidate please.

  • Give up, Bill. Your “arguments” have been totally destroyed by Arbustin and Brian throughout this thread, and you are merely a dying old bigot.

  • For the record, many of the largest charities in the world are now atheist or secular. Bing “Gates foundation” as just one huge example. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Edward.

  • So, according to humanists, just because there is a religious statement of faith attached to the gift boxes, the act of children is religious? What next, a play on Jesus Christ will offend them? Or they will cry out if school history books show a cross, or Kaaba or a rosary?

  • Northern_Witness: Oh, what solipsistic rabbit hole are you looking to run down now?

    So part of the Atheist belief system is a preference for sense data which is limited in range, subject to failure and/or hallucination, and subjective plus a system of comparing and contrasting that sense data.

    Every human experience is based on sense data. A theist must use their sight to read a religions holy text or hearing to listen to the holy stories from others. The difference is faith. A point at which there is no evidence to back the textual or auditory stories, but the person chooses to believe unverifiable qualities of the religion anyway.

    An atheist either stops before accepting that claim without evidence, or realizes that they have accepted a claim without evidence and remove themselves from the religion.

  • “Every human experience is based on sense data. ”

    What is your evidence for this assertion?

    Define “unverifiable”.

    You are just superimposing your belief system on religion and then judging it according to that, unmindful that there is much more to religion than what is contained in scripture or related by adepts. Also unmindful that no religion has the limited beliefs that you do.

    It is amusing watching you redefine religion to suit your limited understanding of religion and then arguing against that view of it. It is a bit like watching a dog chase its own tail.

  • Northern_Witness:

    What is your evidence for this assertion?

    Don’t be obtuse. Get to the point, if you have one.

    You are just superimposing your belief system on religion and then
    judging it according to that, unmindful that there is much more to
    religion than what is contained in scripture or related by adepts. Also
    unmindful that no religion has the limited beliefs that you do.

    Incorrect. I was a theist. I did think there was much more to the religion. Then I really considered what I had accepted on trust and faith with no evidence.

    It is amusing watching you redefine religion to suit your limited
    understanding of religion and then arguing against that view of it. It
    is a bit like watching a dog chase its own tail.

    Feel free to correct me if you think my definition is in error. An ad hominem fallacy does nothing to sway my opinion or validate your claims.

  • So you refuse or unable to provide evidence of your claim that every human experience is based on sense data. Noted.

    “Then I really considered what I had accepted on trust and faith with no evidence.”

    Again you are superimposed a sense-based belief system on religion while admitting that you lacked the means to understand the core of your religion.
    Not surprising.

    Not an ad hom but a metaphor. You need to understand figurative language before attempting to discuss religion. And you need to acquire other suprarational means of attaining wisdom.

  • Ah there you are again…..how nice that you care so much of what I say. Thank you for the honour Marge. I see you have made 18 comments so is that saying you are a new personality, or, are you just someone who doesn’t like me and doesn’t have the confidence to attest to it? lol

  • Northern_Witness:

    So you refuse or unable to provide evidence of your claim that every human experience is based on sense data.

    Incorrect. I simply have no interest in your play at Devil’s Advocate. You are perfectly capable of comprehending what I’ve expressed. You’ve shown evidence of having sensory input by responding to these comments.

    Again you are superimposed a sense-based belief system on religion while
    admitting that you lacked the means to understand the core of your
    religion.

    Again, you are superimposing your faith-based belief system on reality while failing to recognize the various fallacies you run afoul of.
    Not surprising.

    Not an ad hom but a metaphor. You need to understand figurative language
    before attempting to discuss religion. And you need to acquire other
    suprarational means of attaining wisdom.

    Apparently you don’t understand that you’ve failed to defend your point. Resorting to assertions, accusations, or attacks leveled at me personally. The definition of a “to the person” fallacy.

  • Your “defences” are getting repetitive which constitutes the additional logical fallacy of argumentum ad nauseam whereby you believe that your repetitions will somehow magically make them true. FYI: It won’t.

    Your life story so far seems to be that you were a religionist (probably literalist Christian and probably from birth). But you lacked the subtlety and intelligence to develop the methods of accessing the core of your religion. You became aware that you were just skimming the surface of your religion and rather than admit your incompetence you left that religion, became an Atheist because Atheism seemed to value the limited skill set you had, and then attacked your former religion and all other religions. All to save face. Your ego and your personal deficits are what’s holding you back. And, no, this is not an ad hom but a statement of fact. See a psychologist. Learn other, more inclusive methods of attaining wisdom. At least take a course in elementary logic and apply it to your own beliefs.

    As it is, engaging your repetitions is pointless, so adieu.

  • Northern_Witness: Interesting. You think I’ve been defending myself? I’ve been killing time, waiting for you to validate any of your assertions and accusations, by correcting inaccuracies in your comments. If the corrections strike you as being repetitive, it’s because you keep repeating the same inaccuracies.

    Your preemptive defense of an ad hominem fallacy doesn’t magically justify your committing a fallacy. Amusing tho (^_^)

    If your apparently fragile ego compels you to reply with more inaccurate assertions and a dearth of evidence or logical justification, you’ll have to wait. I’m catching a flight and probably won’t respond until I get back to work and have more time to kill.

  • LOL is plainly your fallback Sandi when you can’t respond to what you have been challenged with. The record above plainly shows that.

  • Bill, bigot is an accurate term for you given your visible bias above against communities that now have equal rights in our country. Your derogatory term “snowflake” is merely insulting, so please retract your uses of it above.

    Furthermore, your fictional “God’s word” is merely old, error-filled, self-inconsistent writings by relatively ignorant people with far less understanding of the world than we have now. Your entire religion is in decline and in a few decades support for it will be negligible. Christianity and its backward, silly beliefs are nothing more than an embarrassment to modern society, and you are an old man clinging to obsolete fictions and bigoted ways.

  • There is nothing good about your bigotry, Bill. You hold some awful delusions, old man, that the world will not be the less for losing soon.

  • lol…..that may be because I’m fallible, but Christ, who’s word I submit isn’t. Spend some time reading Him, and quit wasting your time with me, but I am honoured that I intrigue you so much that you follow me.

  • Your dead guy on sticks Jesus died and rotted away >2000 years ago and your (non-existent) sky fairy has been unable to bring him back like your fictions claim he would have long ago. So get over your sick Christian fictions already and get with the modern world. Christianity is an embarrassment to our great country, and the less of Christianity we have, the better.

  • Well, Bill, overall, atheists are more intelligent and better educated than Christians in our nation, so if we atheists aren’t intelligent, well, that says even worse things about you. Get over your silly old Christian fables or continue to fade and die deluded in their falsehoods.

  • Sandi, sadly we in the US have had to spend far too much time having your disgusting Christ tales pushed at us. For your part, put aside your one book, that sick bible about your vicious killer of a “god”, and do some reading in modern science. It’s high time you learned about the reality of the world around you.

  • Nice copy and paste Bill, but no, no matter how much you link spew, the truth remains that your religion is merely a silly and disgusting fairy tale about a vicious mass killer of a god. Speaking of debunking myths, how are your mustard trees growing on your flat, round earth, and how are your vestigial organs feeling? While you are at it, explain how your purportedly omnipotent BOMITS was unable to do his supposed saving without “sacrificing” his son.

    Christianity is an embarrassment to humanity, is hurting America, and is just silly man-made myths of primitive people. Get over it already.

  • No, Bill, you can’t get away with equating your failures in public school -level learning with doctoral level qualifications in theoretical physics. We now have strong modern evidence for supermassive black holes from observations of gas cloud speeds, whereas you have no verifiable modern evidence whatsoever for the divinity of Christ or any of the other claims of your religion. You making circular references to your foul bible with all its stories about your mass killer god doesn’t qualify as such evidence. If you disagree, then cite your verifiable modern evidence for the existence of your horrid sky fairy “god” of your bible myths.

    I’ll ignore your latest insults other than to say that your inability to present arguments that aren’t loaded with basic fallacies doesn’t reflect well on you in comparison to those whose intelligence you have denigrated in your recent posts.

  • “Christians are trying to do something have my government via public schools promote their religion. Let’s prevent them!”

    Fixed that for you.

  • So, according to humanists, just because there is a religious statement of faith attached to the gift boxes, the act of children is religious?

    When children attending public schools are used to proselytize Christianity, yes. Would you be OK if the religious statements were promoting Islam, or atheism?

    What next, a play on Jesus Christ will offend them?

    “Offense” is never the issue. Would you be OK with a school play about Muhammad?

  • Your “examples” have nothing to do with the illegality of public school students being used to proselytize Christianity.

  • Your latest personal insult is noted, Bill. Ad hominem attacks seem to be your standard resort when you fail to defend your bigoted viewpoints, as this whole comment thread plainly shows.

    Now, let’s drag you back to the issues that you are trying to dodge, that you brought up:

    We now have strong modern evidence for supermassive black holes from
    observations of gas cloud speeds, whereas you have no verifiable modern
    evidence whatsoever for the divinity of Christ or any of the other
    claims of your religion. You making circular references to your foul
    bible with all its stories about your mass killer god doesn’t qualify as
    such evidence. If you disagree, then cite your verifiable modern
    evidence for the existence of your horrid sky fairy “god” of your bible
    myths.

  • Stop dodging, Bill. Caught you. Back to one of several areas you’ve tried to squirm out of:

    We now have strong modern evidence for supermassive black holes from
    observations of gas cloud speeds, whereas you have no verifiable modern
    evidence whatsoever for the divinity of Christ or any of the other claims of your religion. You making circular references to your foul bible with all its stories about your mass killer god doesn’t qualify as such evidence. If you disagree, then cite your verifiable modern evidence for the existence of your horrid sky fairy “god” of your bible myths.

  • Stop dodging, Bill. Caught you again. Back to one of several areas you’ve tried to squirm out of:

    We now have strong modern evidence for supermassive black holes from
    observations of gas cloud speeds, whereas you have no verifiable modern
    evidence whatsoever for the divinity of Christ or any of the other claims of
    your religion. You making circular references to your foul bible with
    all its stories about your mass killer god doesn’t qualify as such
    evidence. If you disagree, then cite your verifiable modern evidence for the existence of your horrid sky fairy “god” of your bible myths.

  • Sin; you can explain it with science, minimize it with sophistication, swallow it with self, or confess it to your saviour and be clean Kevin DeYoung
    They’ll never understand, my friend.

  • You don’t realize that Christ created you; do you? You were never taught that? I’m sorry for the blessings that you are missing because you reject the One who gives the blessings.

  • You don’t realize that Christ created you; do you?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    You were never taught that?

    No; my parents weren’t superstitious fools.

  • Did those jasus coloring books [instead of real textboolks] make you so ignorant of our Constitution?

  • If I’m a fool, Brian, I’m a fool for Christ, and proud to be so. Who are you being a fool for though?
    Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

  • Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

    Of course not. There’s no good reason to think so, and plenty of reasons to discount it, along with all the other holy books of other religions.

  • On ignorant desperate despicable deplorable sycophant, YOUR “god” gave us NOTHING as it was brave men & women who won our freedom and the FOUNDING FATHERS who drafted our great Constitution who “gave” us the “rights” enumerated in that document. And the blood of all who have served this nation to keep if free are the ones who have ensured that those rights are there for all to enjoy.

    Oh ignorant one, that “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God “ DOES NOT REFER TO YOUR GOD in any way, shape, or form! Perhaps you are the one who should educate yourself on our founding documents as they do not refer to either YOUR “god.”

    YOU have NO right to proselytize to CAPTIVE GROUPS OF SCHOOL CHILDREN or force those innocents to work for your “god” in any way, shape, or manner!

    YOUR “god” did NOTHING to establish this nation, will never DO anything to establish any “right” our citizens have, and is still the “god” of 2,000+ years of slaughter, racism, hatred, and corruption!

  • Bill, it’s rather clear who the “fool” is when one reads the comments above. It isn’t one of your opponents. As for your claims of generous deeds by Christians, actually, many of the largest charitable donors and organizations are now secular or atheist. Google “Gates Foundation” to learn about one of the better known ones -and there are many others.

    To further debunk your “rarely give your time” falsehood, I’ve just spent half of my working time in the past week and part of the weekend as a volunteer helping the poor and needy build and establish their own housing, with nothing asked in return by me and no religious strings attached. What have you done for the poor and needy yourself recently?

    Now, back to one of several areas you’ve tried to squirm out of:

    We now have strong modern evidence for supermassive black holes from
    observations of gas cloud speeds, whereas you have no verifiable modern
    evidence whatsoever for the divinity of Christ or any of the other claims of
    your religion. You making circular references to your foul bible with
    all its stories about your mass killer god doesn’t qualify as such
    evidence. If you disagree, then cite your verifiable modern evidence for the existence of your horrid sky fairy “god” of your bible myths. If you fail to cite such verifiable modern evidence for your specific religious beliefs in your next post and you persist with more dodges, then that will be taken as proof that you have no such evidence. So, no more dodging Bill. Present your evidence or put your silly Christian delusions aside.

  • Bill, your latest nasty reply containing nothing but bigotry and an insult is noted and has been reported.

    Thank you, however, in dodging yet again what you were challenged with, for acknowledging that you cannot present the requested verifiable modern evidence for your beliefs.

  • False equivalences and mere insults there from you as usual in your first line, Bill.

    Now, explain to us how you think diseases propagate, with references from your bible.

  • Just ad hominem attacks from Bill as usual. He cannot defend his viewpoints, because they are indefensible to begin with.

  • Sandi, no, your post plainly contained a common fallacy as noted. As a wise poster here recently noted, your denial is not refutation. You are in fine company with your fallacy-prone colleague Bill.

  • Your simplistic view of how the world works does not match mine, so I can’t answer your loaded question.

  • To be clear: you don’t have a problem with children in a public school, and, necessarily, federal tax dollars (school employees are involved), being used as free labor by a religious institution for the purposes of aiding that institution’s proselytizing efforts?

  • You look that stuff up yet? Or, were you hoping that, if you ignored it long enough, you would be forgotten and not have to acknowledge the reality of what I said, which contradicts your persecution narrative? Look it up, then come back and say what you saw and how it corresponds with what I described. Go on. Get to it. It’s already been a week.

  • I looked up the case of the specific young lady that you cited, and remember her case from the news at the time. I am not in favor of, nor endorse threats or censorship coming from what ever source. My point is that such behavior and actions are not confined to one side or the other, one would have to be a fool to think so.

  • Yes, if the answer will satisfy you, I have no problem with that if the children are willing to do so. Such efforts hardly constitute labor in any rational definition of the term. As to federal tax dollars being used in entirely inappropriate ways…that ship sailed along time ago.

  • Actually, you said that these sorts of things occur from one side in the public schools. When I brought up the other side, which is much more pervasive and pernicious, you thought that I must be referring to private schools, because surely I couldn’t mean that these things happened in public schools. You expressed pretty obvious disbelief that public schools could be environments where religious privilege ran roughshod over everything. Remember that?

    So, no…that is not what you were saying, nor is that what you meant. You can now correct yourself by acknowledging what you actually said, and that what you actually said was incorrect, and what I said was correct. You don’t get to reframe what you said and claim it meant something else. You were quite clear.

  • So, you don’t care if it is illegal, as long as it allows people to do something you like.

    Are children in a legal position to give consent to the school to be used as free labor for an outside organization?

  • Why don’t we just drop it. We are not going to come to any accord on this question. My disengagement does not mean that I surrender, or that you are right in your arguments. It means precisely that I’m done. Leftists tend to bullyrag an issue to death in the hopes that by wearing their opponents out with endless verbiage that somehow constitutes a victory. Nothing could be further from the truth. But if it soothes your ego, despite your total lack of a sense of proportion, I lose. You’re the winner. Now doesn’t that make you feel better?

  • Your recollection is essentially correct with respect to my previous remarks, however, I don’t think you’ve proved your point about religious privilege in public schools. However, I live in an extremely blue state where the effect is the reverse of the trend you describe. I would imagine on a state by state basis, depending to the degree they are “blue” or “red,” one would find extreme positions or policies taken by ideological opponents on both sides. Few if any of us have a corner on objectivity or truth.

  • I like how you turned it into “leftists,” and made a sweeping generalization. Good for you.

    Are children expected to object to what their teachers say to do?

  • Children are being used to pack boxes that delieverd by a Charity Organisation, one of whose statement among many, is spreading the word of Jesus. By which weird logic it means that the act of children is religious?

    The mentality behind that is obvious in your second question. Alas, it is sad that “humanists” are trying to use inter-fighting among religion to spread their ideology of bigotry. I’d rather choose a play on Muhammed (funny, how you used him specifically, and not dozen other religious figures, because you know he is controversial, which shows how dishonest humanists are), than let atheists push their propoganda which is barring children from holding a play about a person just because he was a religious teacher.

    How is that not pushing atheism, and anti-religious bigotry, when you want to ban a play from a public school just because it is religious?

  • The more I look, the more it becomes obvious that ‘humanism’ is nothing but a sham cloak to do all that goes against dominant religion of the region where they setup their organisations.

    HUMANISM be like the meme – I will find you (religion) and I will kill you

  • Public schools don’t exist to promote your favorite religion.

    Alas, it is sad that “humanists” are trying to use inter-fighting among religion to spread their ideology of bigotry.

    What are you babbling about? We’re trying to get a public school to follow the constitution and stay out of religion, because we have the odd idea that PARENTS decide what religions their own children interact with, NOT government employees like public school officials.

    How is that not pushing atheism, and anti-religious bigotry, when you want to ban a play from a public school just because it is religious?

    How is it pushing atheism? It’s making it neutral. The absence of promoting Christianity is not promoting atheism.

    Oh look — public schools aren’t putting on plays promoting atheism, so using your reverse logic, that must constitute promotion of Christianity. Yay! You get your wish!

    Happy now?

  • It depends entirely on the circumstances, in my own case I regularly challenged my teachers over issues I considered unjust, but then I was something of a problem child. I prefer not to put everything in an inelastic box because every circumstance is unique. Certainly general rules and standards should apply, but life is filled with nuance. As to Leftists, it was a quick and ready characterization that I think fits the bill nicely, anyway it works as shorthand. And sweeping generalizations are the common currency of dialogue on this and many other websites. To some degree that’s a function of a world reduced to tweets and sound bites.

  • And, it allows you to dismiss people and their ideas when they disagree with you, rather than considering that your ideas may actually be wrong (which, in this case, they are, according to the Constitution).

  • “Public schools don’t exist to promote your favorite religion.”

    What is up with “my favourite religion”? I did not choose the charity. By that logic, public schools should not promote any other ideology. So, if there is a KKK student, he should be able to sue packing of boxes for a Charity that also donates gift boxes to blacks? And schools cannot tie up with any organisation that promotes the idea of an old earth, right?

    _”We’re trying to get a public school to follow the constitution and stay out of religion,”_

    So quote me exact statute of the Constitution that this is violating, and not your ideological interpretation, because I did not find any.

    _”How is it pushing atheism? It’s making it neutral. The absence of promoting Christianity is not promoting atheism.”_

    No, it is not making it neutral. Atheism is rejection of God, right, so how can school rejecting anything just because God is involved not promotion of atheism? That follows exact from definition,

    _”public schools aren’t putting on plays promoting atheism, so using your
    reverse logic, that must constitute promotion of Christianity. Yay!
    You get your wish!”_

    If they are scrapping plays just because they talk about God, they are promoting atheism. So, sorry.

    If it is hard for to understand, let me try this. If a school rejects all plays saying that Earth is way old, how is that not promoting belief of “Earth is not old” believers aka young Earth creationists.

    Yes, this is passive promotion.

  • What is up with “my favourite religion”? I did not choose the charity.

    Public schools can’t decide to help a religious charity proselytize.

    By that logic, public schools should not promote any other ideology.

    They can’t promote religion. That’s unconstitutional. You can’t equivocate and try to make it apply to absolutely everything.

    So quote me exact statute of the Constitution that this is violating

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

    No, it is not making it neutral. Atheism is rejection of God, right, so how can school rejecting anything just because God is involved not promotion of atheism?

    How is the school promoting atheism? If a math teacher says “2+2=4”, is that promoting atheism because gods are not mentioned?

    If they are scrapping plays just because they talk about God, they are promoting atheism.

    No, they aren’t.

    If a school rejects all plays saying that Earth is way old, how is that not promoting belief of “Earth is not old” believers aka young Earth creationists.

    As far as I can tell, there aren’t any public schools putting on plays that are about, or even mention, that the Earth is “way old”, so, using your logic, they are already promoting young Earth creationism.

  • Again, not. Additionally, I reframe my thinking on a number of issues quite regularly. However, the Supreme Court may have the legal authority to issue a binding opinion on the nation, that does not mean they get it right. In this case I happen to believe along with many other Americans that they got it wrong, and that includes a number of constitutional scholars. I’m done with this subject. You will have no further replies from me on this as it is the case of the immovable object vs. the irresistible force. Pointless to me.

  • Yep. You think the government should be allowed to endorse or condemn various religious beliefs and fund their institutions and employ children as free labor for those institutions, and I don’t. You think the SCOTUS should br secondary to your own desires, and I don’t. You think children are in a position to defy their teachers as well as legally consent to work at the behest of the government in service of a religious institution’s proselytizing efforts, and I don’t. How you think these things enter the same airspace as the constitution is beyond me. You would not have this opinion if you were not the majority religion.

  • “Public schools can’t decide to help a religious charity proselytize.”
    Again, please cite the section and not just assert things.

    “They can’t promote religion. That’s unconstitutional. You can’t equivocate and try to make it apply to absolutely everything.”

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

    Choosing religious charity over another charity is not making any law or statute. All charities still can legally be opted and there is no provision “banning” them from participating in the process or being considered by public or private schools. By banning “religious charities” from participating in the process, you are discriminating against them for exercising their freedom of religion. A statute or law or provision or direction requiring only religious charities to be allowed to be considered for the process would be unconstitutional. Similarly, a statute or law or provision or direction preventing religious charities from being considered for the process would be unconstitutional.

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

    Yes, and choosing a religious charity is not making a law respecting an establishment of religion, like choosing a socialist charity does not mean that Government has made a law respecting socialism.

    _”How is the school promoting atheism? If a math teacher says “2+2=4”, is that promoting atheism because gods are not mentioned?”_

    It is funny how you still cannot even apply a rational mind to this debate or even read what I wrote in my comment. It is funny that what you said has nothing to do with what I said. If you read again and apply a little effort to suppress your hatred and bias, you will see I never said that not saying God a gazillion times is promotion of atheism. I said, “school rejecting anything just because God is involved is promotion of atheism”. 2+2 = 4 is not rejection of God. Banning religious plays to satisfy your bigotry is promotion of atheism.

    _”No, they aren’t.”_

    Yes, they are.

    _”As far as I can tell, there aren’t any public schools putting on plays
    that are about, or even mention, that the Earth is “way old”, so, using
    your logic, they are already promoting young Earth creationism.”_

    It seems that your brain is not aptly good enough to even understand basic English. Not putting plays =/= rejecting plays.

  • Again, please cite the section and not just assert things.

    Again, it’s that first amendment.

    Choosing religious charity over another charity is not making any law or statute.

    Everything a public school does is due to laws authorizing them to do it — they cannot act outside that, and the government can’t authorize them to do things they themselves cannot do.

    Sorry, rejecting unconstitutional promotion of religion isn’t pushing atheism, no matter how much you insist it is.

  • Yet you seem to fail bigly to be able to provide a credible verifable source for those opinions you claim are ‘direct quotes” – perhaps because you merely lie out of reflect?

  • “Again, it’s that first amendment.”

    No, first amendment nowehere says that a public school cannot choose a religious charity over any other charity.

    “Everything a public school does is due to laws authorizing them to do it
    — they cannot act outside that, and the government can’t authorize
    them to do things they themselves cannot do.”

    LOL, there is no law forcing public schools to only choose religious charity organisations. What you want is a law banning religious charity organisations from participating in the process. You are discriminating aganist some charity organisations just because they are exercising their 1st amendment rights.

    “Sorry, rejecting unconstitutional promotion of religion isn’t pushing atheism, no matter how much you insist it is.”

    No, you haven’t shown how it is unconstitutional. In the garb of your crazy interpretation of first amendment, you are trying to discriminate against some organisation over your favored ones. As you are discriminating against religious organisation, yes, you are promoting or wanting government to promote atheism or irreligion.
    You are actually saying that government should pass a law that imposes sanctions upon those organisations that are following their first amendment rights, thus trying to restrict their first amendment rights. Sorry, but your hateful ideology and mental gymnsatics do not “trump” Constitution.

  • No, first amendment nowehere says that a public school cannot choose a religious charity over any other charity.

    Because the constitution isn’t a list of laws. The constitution doesn’t say that states can’t execute people for being Catholics, either. But they can’t.

    there is no law forcing public schools to only choose religious charity organisations.

    Thanks for demonstrating that you can’t even understand English. There’s no law forcing public schools to kill students, either — does that mean it’s legal?

    No, you haven’t shown how it is unconstitutional.

    The courts will.

    You are actually saying that government should pass a law that imposes sanctions upon those organisations that are following their first amendment rights

    Public schools are government institutions, and they don’t HAVE first amendment rights.

  • “Because the constitution isn’t a list of laws.”
    First you said it was because of the first amendment and now you are saying that it is prohibited though there is no such thing in Constitution. So either there is a law which prohibits it which you have not cited, though I asked you or what you are really saying is that anyone can prohibit anything based on his whims without there being any law or Constitutional statute saying so.
    OK, I prohibit the use of letter ‘Y’ henceforth.

    “The constitution doesn’t
    say that states can’t execute people for being Catholics, either. But
    they can’t.”
    You surely don’t know how that works, right? States cannot execute just anyone. They have to pass a law.
    However, sorry. Because we have ‘Right to life’ (in Constitution), to execute someone, govt. has to make a law making the thing which he does a crime punishable by death. It cannot make a law punishing people for being Catholic, because it will be a violation of First Amendment (again, in the Constitution).

    “There’s no law forcing public schools to kill students, either — does that mean it’s legal?”
    Do you even know that there is a thing in US Constitution called ‘Right to life’?

    “The courts will.”
    Wow, so even though there is no statute or law prohibiting it, you think court can still prohibit it (though court is not a legislative body), it cannot prohibit anything, it can only enforce the laws and Constitution. But hey people of America, according to his highness Mr. Brian, you count as nothing. Those few judges can pass any law. America is an aristocracy.
    If these few guys happen to be orthodox Muslims, can they force Sharia law on people?

    “Public schools are government institutions, and they don’t HAVE first amendment rights.”
    LOL, sorry dude, I wasn’t talking about public schools. You are saying that an organisation cannot participate in something if it is a religious organisation. That is discrimination.
    What next, that religious people cannot apply for jobs in government?

  • “the school district may not align itself with any religious organization.”

    Next time, they will say that the school district may not align itself with any religious people and demand firing of all religious employees and kids.
    Setting a precedent for discrimination, atheism is showing its Stalinesque colors.

  • First you said it was because of the first amendment and now you are saying that it is prohibited though there is no such thing in Constitution. So either there is a law which prohibits it which you have not cited

    There are supreme court opinions which state that the government schools do not have the power to do that. Can you even understand English?

    OK, I prohibit the use of letter ‘Y’ henceforth.

    You can refrain from using the letter Y all you like.

    Notice, that using your “reasoning”, the government could outlaw use of the letter Y, since there is no specific law prohibiting it.

    However, using my reasoning, the government does not have the power to do that, so they cannot. And I can’t point to a law stating they can’t, because my position is based on the grounds that the government lacks the authority to do that. So there’s no “law” to point to.

    Do you even know that there is a thing in US Constitution called ‘Right to life’?

    No, there isn’t. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is from the declaration of independence, which was written before the US existed. The government does have the power to execute people, for one obvious counterexample.

    Wow, so even though there is no statute or law prohibiting it, you think court can still prohibit it (though court is not a legislative body), it cannot prohibit anything, it can only enforce the laws and Constitution

    Of course they can. The courts often tell government agencies that they can’t do something, because those agencies lack the authority to do it. They ARE enforcing the constitution when they tell a public school to stop unlawfully promoting religion.

    LOL, sorry dude, I wasn’t talking about public schools. You are saying that an organisation cannot participate in something if it is a religious organisation.

    Well, I HAVE been talking about public schools, and no, I’m not saying that. You really cannot read English.

  • Why are you blatantly lying? If only you belonged to a religion that said lying was wrong…

  • “Why are you blatantly lying?”

    Make accusation, but do not support it by evidence. Atheists are amazing.

    _” If only you belonged to a religion that said lying was wrong…”_

    Get into someone’s religion and shame him.

    I wonder if atheism really did get power, would it match fundamentalist Islam in its hatred? Maybe, yes:)

  • “There are supreme court opinions which state that the government schools
    do not have the power to do that. Can you even understand English?”

    Citation needed. Assertions do not make evidence.

    “You can refrain from using the letter Y all you like.”

    And you can refrain from sending your kids to that public school.

    “Notice, that using your “reasoning”, the government could outlaw use of the letter Y, since there is no specific law prohibiting it.”

    Yes. By your reasoning courts can discriminate someone though there is no law that allows that discrimination.

    My reasoning allows law making power to a democratically appointed legislative body, your reasoning allows law making power to an aristocracy. It seems you haven’t shrugged off that system till now.

    “No, there isn’t. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is from
    the declaration of independence, which was written before the US
    existed. The government does have the power to execute people, for one
    obvious counterexample.”

    Lying Brian or just ignorant?

    “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.”

    “Of course they can. The courts often tell government agencies that they can’t do something, because those agencies lack the authority to do it.”

    Again, that is still based on law. If a govt. agency is made to only do x, it cannot do y. So are you saying that public schools cannot collude with charity organisations?

    “They ARE enforcing the constitution when they tell a public school to stop unlawfully promoting religion.”

    I know you hate religion, but choosing a religious applicant over a non-religious one is not promoting religion. It may well be because of other reasons.

    “Well, I HAVE been talking about public schools, and no, I’m not saying that. You really cannot read English.”

    I can read English just cannot comprehend stupidity. You are saying that religious organisations cannot participate in charity events organised by public schools.

    America is not anti-religion. Go to France with your agenda. They like to impose your pet view on people and violate human rights.

  • Make accusation, but do not support it by evidence. Atheists are amazing.

    Sorry, you’re blatantly lying. You are making up lies and stating that “Next time, they will say that the school district may not align itself with any religious people and demand firing of all religious employees and kids.”

    That’s clearly a lie.

    Get into someone’s religion and shame him.

    Apparently, you don’t care what your religion says about gossip, like Ephesians 4:29, James 1:26, or Psalm 41:7.

    But you don’t really care to follow your own religion. You prefer to lie about atheists.

  • Citation needed. Assertions do not make evidence.

    Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)

    And you can refrain from sending your kids to that public school.

    Or I can send them, and demand that my public school follow the constitution.

    By your reasoning courts can discriminate someone though there is no law that allows that discrimination.

    Not only do you not understand English, you can’t write it.

    My reasoning allows law making power to a democratically appointed legislative body, your reasoning allows law making power to an aristocracy.

    Nope — my reasoning has the courts interpret the constitution to put limits on governmental power. You prefer governments that can ignore the constitution whenever they want to.

    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;

    Notice it isn’t called a “right”, and that you can, for example, execute someone if you follow due process.

    So are you saying that public schools cannot collude with charity organisations?

    That isn’t the issue — the school is having students proselytize Christianity.

    I know you hate religion, but choosing a religious applicant over a non-religious one is not promoting religion.

    That isn’t the issue. Making proselytizing gift boxes is proselytizing Christianity. Public schools can’t do that.

    You are saying that religious organisations cannot participate in charity events organised by public schools

    You can’t read.

  • _”Sorry, you’re blatantly lying.”_

    How do you know a lie? Do you see the future? I never said that it is a fact but what their juggling and biased interpretation of Constitution is like.
    If you really are saying that religious organisations should be discriminated, I think you are an inch away from saying that religious people should be discriminated as well.

    _”Apparently, you don’t care what your religion says about gossip, like Ephesians 4:29, James 1:26, or Psalm 41:7.”_

    Funny, how atheists want religious people to follow the parts of Bible they like and not what they don’t like.
    I am sure I never lied so God won’t have something against me. But if he exists, he perhaps, won’t act kindly to you because of your hatred towards him.

    _”But you don’t really care to follow your own religion. You prefer to lie about atheists.”_

    I do not become liar because you say so. Sorry.

  • “Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)”

    That is an entirely different matter. Compelling someone to read a Bible is a lot different than giving a religious organisation a chance in charity programme.

    “Or I can send them, and demand that my public school follow the constitution.”

    Of course, it is in Constitution. But you have not showed that. You are bringing totally different cases to support you which seems only be an attempt to use a Court ruling and interpret it in a radical sense to legitimise discrimination.

    “Or I can send them, and demand that my public school follow the constitution.”

    Yeah, I am writing French all this time. Bonjour, asta-la-vista.

    “Nope — my reasoning has the courts interpret the constitution to put
    limits on governmental power. You prefer governments that can ignore
    the constitution whenever they want to.”

    Courts can and do interpret Constitution but cannot put their own biases in. Interpretation does not mean adding what is not there.

    “You prefer governments that can ignore the constitution whenever they want to.”

    I never said that. You are lying.

    “Notice it isn’t called a “right”, and that you can, for example, execute someone if you follow due process.”

    Yes and I am aware of that. I actually said that they can if they pass a law criminalising some action worthy of eath penalty.
    You simply overlooked that or are just lying.

    And yes, Right to life never meant no capital punishment. There are countries which have Right to life written in Constitution but give death penalty.

    “That isn’t the issue. Making proselytizing gift boxes is proselytizing Christianity. Public schools can’t do that.”

    Nowhere, in this article it is suggested that schools are making proseltyzing gift boxes. Schools are making gift boxes, and the charity organisation is distributing those is religious.

    “You can’t read.”

    Or you just cannot reply and evading the issue.

  • Hey, if you can make up lies about atheists without any basis, I’ll just call you a liar on the same basis.

    If you really are saying that religious organisations should be discriminated, I think you are an inch away from saying that religious people should be discriminated as well.

    At least you now admit you’re making up lies.

    Funny, how atheists want religious people to follow the parts of Bible they like and not what they don’t like.

    I don’t want them to bring back slavery or execute people for adultery or being gay, no.

  • Compelling someone to read a Bible

    Teachers read it, not students, and the students could opt out, just like here. Still unconstitutional.

    Of course, it is in Constitution. But you have not showed that.

    You have it backwards — you have to show that schools can do it. They can only do what’s authorized.

    Courts can and do interpret Constitution but cannot put their own biases in. Interpretation does not mean adding what is not there.

    They aren’t.

    Yes and I am aware of that. I actually said that they can if they pass a law criminalising some action worthy of eath penalty.

    It isn’t a “right” — you aren’t using the correct terms.

    Nowhere, in this article it is suggested that schools are making proseltyzing gift boxes.

    “Operation Christmas Child puts religious tracts in the boxes after they are assembled and the school district may not align itself with any religious organization.”

    You can’t read.

  • “Hey, if you can make up lies about atheists without any basis, I’ll just call you a liar on the same basis”

    I gave you the basis. But you are denying that.

    “At least you now admit you’re making up lies.”

    You ain’t fooling anybody, friend.

    “I don’t want them to bring back slavery or execute people for adultery or being gay, no.”

    It is all “wants” for you. LOL

  • “Your “basis” is your imagination.”

    Why atheists classify eberything that goes against their views an imagination?

  • No, you ARE lying, because you are stating your opinion of future events as if they are facts. They aren’t.

  • Preventing religious people from having same rights as non-religious people. You want Stalin’s Russia, Brian?

  • What rights are those? Are non-religious people able to have schoolchildren pack boxes that are used to advocate that people leave religion or something? Spell out what you mean.

  • Lol, still do not understand Brian? Nowhere, children who are packing the boxes are being denied practice of their religion. There is no prostelysing. The only thing happening here is that the organisation is religious so has a religious statement in its statement of faith. By saying that the school should withdraw contract from the organisation because it is religious, is religious discrimination.

  • Nowhere, children who are packing the boxes are being denied practice of their religion.

    No, they aren’t. That isn’t a right.

    There is no prostelysing.

    When evangelicals pack them with propaganda, yes it is.

    By saying that the school should withdraw contract from the organisation because it is religious, is religious discrimination.

    That’s not the objection — the objection is to creating gift boxes used to proselytize.

  • _”When evangelicals pack them with propaganda, yes it is.”_

    So I can ban any organisation from such, whose mission statement appears propoganda to me?

  • You can stop public schools from aiding organizations to push their religious views, if that’s what you mean.

  • _”You can stop public schools from aiding organizations to push their religious views, if that’s what you mean.”_

    There is no such law because there is no limit to what you say. Where do you set limit, Brian? “Aiding” is a dubious word.
    The public school here is not aiding the organisation to spread religion but helping them spread goods to needy children.

  • There is no such law because there is no limit to what you say.

    Of course there is. Public schools can’t help a church push their religion.

    The public school here is not aiding the organisation to spread religion but helping them spread goods to needy children.

    Along with their religious proselytizing. Remove that, and there’s no problem.

  • _”Of course there is. Public schools can’t help a church push their religion.”_
    Just because you think it is doing so, does not mean it is doing so. I wonder next time, you will say that hiring Christians is promoting religion.

    _”Along with their religious proselytizing. Remove that, and there’s no problem.”_
    I don’t think you know definition of proselytizing.

    I think atheists are trying to compete with SJW’s in a race to ban the messages that offend them:)

  • I don’t think you know definition of proselytizing.

    Sure I do. “They are representing three humanist families who say the constitution’s guarantee of the separation of church and state is violated when their suburban Denver school district asks their children to assemble Christmas gift boxes that include the “opportunity . . . to faithfully follow Jesus Christ.””

    That’s proselytizing.

  • +Brian Westley
    proselytizing – convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.

    It seems humanists are liars.

  • It seems you are a liar in two ways:

    First, this clearly IS proselytizing. Here are just a few examples from their FAQ:
    “Our mission is to provide local partners around the world with shoeboxes filled with small toys, hygiene items, and school supplies as a means of reaching out to children in their own communities with the Good News of Jesus Christ. ”

    After receiving shoebox gifts, many boys and girls are invited to enroll in The Greatest Journey, our 12-lesson discipleship program. Through the program, our local ministry partners are able to establish long-term, caring relationships with children and families by sharing the love of Jesus Christ.

    …we do seek to share the Gospel wherever we go, which can be challenging at times. In some regions, we are not permitted to distribute literature…

    This is from the AHA lawsuit:
    They are also given ‘The Greatest Gift,’ a booklet in the local language filled with scriptures, colorful pictures, and a simple presentation of the Gospel.

    Second, it’s completely dishonest to call ALL humanists liars, even if some are. I won’t call ALL Christians liars even if you are.

  • You claim unconstitutionality but cannot point the actual clause. It seems that this is whole – I don’t like it so censor it – issue.

  • You claim unconstitutionality but cannot point the actual clause.

    The “no establishment” clause of the first amendment.

    It seems that this is whole – I don’t like it so censor it – issue.

    No, it’s to prevent public schools from pushing religion.

  • “The “no establishment” clause of the first amendment.”
    Where does it say anything about restricting specific types of gift boxes.

    “No, it’s to prevent public schools from pushing religion.”
    How they are pushing religion? They are offering no monetary help to them.

    What is next. Not hiring people who prostelyse?

  • Where does it say anything about restricting specific types of gift boxes.

    It doesn’t. It isn’t a list of laws. Take a civics course.

    How they are pushing religion? They are offering no monetary help to them.

    Now you’re just being dishonest. The schools are helping with free labor.

  • “It doesn’t. It isn’t a list of laws. Take a civics course”
    So, it is just your opinion that it does. Right? Which means I was right. It is censorship.

    “Now you’re just being dishonest. The schools are helping with free labor.”
    If that is free labour, that is wrong regardless of any religious message.

    So, you agree all types of such activities, whether religious or secular, should be banned? Because it is child labour, right?

  • So, it is just your opinion that it does. Right?

    That and legal precedent.

    Which means I was right. It is censorship.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, nobody is being “censored”.

    If that is free labour, that is wrong regardless of any religious message.

    No, public schools can have students benefit charities.

    So, you agree all types of such activities, whether religious or secular, should be banned? Because it is child labour, right?

    Wrong.

  • “That and legal precedent.”
    Unconstitutional Legal Precedent. Wow, which precedent is that?

    “BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, nobody is being “censored”.”
    Yes, they are. You don’t agree with the message. I have my own list of what I disagree with. I think you support me in this censorship play.

    “No, public schools can have students benefit charities.”
    So, you think schools can force children to labour for a cause they don’t agree with?

    “Wrong.”
    It seems that you are only against labour that according to you, benefits religion. Any other forced labour is fine.

  • Unconstitutional Legal Precedent.

    That phrase makes no sense.

    Wow, which precedent is that?

    Rulings like Engle or Everson.

    Yes, they are. You don’t agree with the message.

    Not having a public school push a religious message isn’t “censorship”. Samaritan’s Purse is still free to publish their message using their own resources.

    So, you think schools can force children to labour for a cause they don’t agree with?

    Nope. Learn to read.

    It seems that you are only against labour that according to you, benefits religion. Any other forced labour is fine.

    Wrong again.

  • Mere assertions with no arguments.

    Sorry. You have to put up with messages you don’t like. I do too. Do not be like a tyrant.

  • Mere assertions with no arguments.

    I’ve cited supreme court decisions. You have nothing.

    You have to put up with messages you don’t like. I do too.

    I don’t have to put up with public schools helping an organization push Christianity. That’s unconstitutional.

    Do not be like a tyrant.

    I’m the one who wants public schools to be neutral on religion; you want your religion promoted.

  • “I’ve cited supreme court decisions. You have nothing.”
    That are irrelevant.

    “I don’t have to put up with public schools helping an organization push Christianity. That’s unconstitutional.”
    Again, point out where in Constitution it says that.

    “I’m the one who wants public schools to be neutral on religion; you want your religion promoted.”
    You want censorship of views that you do not hold. That is tyranny.

    Neutral people do not censor. They let different ideas compete.

  • That are irrelevant.

    Nope, they are about the first amendment and government institutions like public schools.

    Again, point out where in Constitution it says that.

    I’ve told you. The no establishment clause.

    You want censorship of views that you do not hold. That is tyranny.

    No, SP can publish their religious material, they just can’t have the government help them.

  • “Nope, they are about the first amendment and government institutions like public schools.”
    Assertion without evidence. Huh!

    “I’ve told you. The no establishment clause.”
    Does not apply here.

    “No, SP can publish their religious material, they just can’t have the government help them.”
    Government isn’t helping them. They are not getting any money etc. for it.

  • Assertion without evidence.

    No, Engle and Everson really IS about the first amendment and government institutions like public schools.

    Does not apply here.

    “Assertion without evidence.”

    Government isn’t helping them. They are not getting any money etc. for it.

    If that’s true, what are you complaining about? If public schools AREN’T having students pack SP gift boxes, that’s what the AHA is objecting to.

    But you aren’t even honest enough to admit that having students pack SP boxes IS helping them.

  • “No, Engle and Everson really IS about the first amendment and government institutions like public schools.”
    It does not make this illegal.

    “”Assertion without evidence.””
    I thought it was your burden of proof.

    “But you aren’t even honest enough to admit that having students pack SP boxes IS helping them.”
    I can but you refused to admit that it is still labour when it is not “promoting religion”.

    If you think it is labour, then you must be against any packing. How is this not slavery?

  • It does not make this illegal.

    “Assertion without evidence.”

    I thought it was your burden of proof.

    I’ve provided evidence, you haven’t.

    I can but you refused to admit that it is still labour when it is not “promoting religion”.

    It’s helping a church push religion. Public schools can’t do that.

    If you think it is labour, then you must be against any packing. How is this not slavery?

    How IS it slavery?

  • Citing cases and not telling it how it applies here, is not giving evidence.

    I can also cite cases.

    Helen V Keller

    “It’s helping a church push religion. Public schools can’t do that.”

    Hiring a religious person and giving him salary by which he buys Bibles to distribute, how is that not illegal. It is pushing religion acc to your standard.

    “How IS it slavery?”
    Forced labour?

  • Citing cases and not telling it how it applies here, is not giving evidence.

    I’m not going to spoon-feed you. Read them yourself.

    I can also cite cases.

    Then do so.

    Hiring a religious person and giving him salary by which he buys Bibles to distribute, how is that not illegal.

    Red herring. Shows you have no argument.

    Forced labour?

    What forced labor?

  • I cited a case.
    Helen v Keller.

    “Red herring. Shows you have no argument.”
    No, I am just telling you that your argument is this dumb.

    “What forced labor?”
    Packing boxes. You said that it was labour.

    At least be consistent with yourself;)

  • I cited a case.
    Helen v Keller.

    What year?

    No, I am just telling you that your argument is this dumb.

    My argument is straightforward.

    Packing boxes.

    They weren’t “forced”.

    You said that it was labour.

    It IS labor.

  • “What year?”
    Why is it important?

    “My argument is straightforward.”
    Yes, it is about censorship.

    “They weren’t “forced”.”
    So, you can’t blame public schools. Children choose to pack boxes themselves right?

    “It IS labor.”
    Is it forced? If not, then it is not against Constitution, as children were merely practicing free exercise of religion.

  • “What year?”
    Why is it important?

    So I can look up your fake “cite”.

    Yes, it is about censorship.

    Nope, SP is free to publish their propaganda.

    So, you can’t blame public schools. Children choose to pack boxes themselves right?

    Not as part of a public school project, no.

    Is it forced?

    You’re the one babbling about “forced”, not me.

    If not, then it is not against Constitution, as children were merely practicing free exercise of religion.

    They can do it on their own, not as a project supported by their public school.

  • “So I can look up your fake “cite”.”
    How do you know it is fake when you haven’t looked it up?

    “Nope, SP is free to publish their propaganda.”
    No, you are trying that they can’t.

    “Not as part of a public school project, no.”
    Sorry, they can.

    “They can do it on their own, not as a project supported by their public school.”
    So, you are saying that you will stop them from freely exercising their religion?

    Sorry, public schools can’t force them to do that.

  • How do you know it is fake when you haven’t looked it up?

    There IS no such case.

    No, you are trying that they can’t.

    Now you’re just lying.

    Sorry, they can.

    “Assertion without evidence.”

    So, you are saying that you will stop them from freely exercising their religion?

    No. You can’t read.

    Sorry, public schools can’t force them to do that.

    Do WHAT? What are you babbling about now?

  • “There IS no such case.”
    How do you know that?

    “Now you’re just lying.”
    False Accusation

    “”Assertion without evidence.””
    It is your burden to prove that they can’t do a thing. You are preventing others from doing what they want, not me.

    “No. You can’t read.”
    I can.

    “Do WHAT? What are you babbling about now?”
    Sorry, children can choose to pack whatever material they like. If you don’t like it, you don’t pack it.

    You won’t tell me what should I pack and what I shouldn’t.

  • How do you know that?

    Findlaw doesn’t have it. Justia doesn’t have it.

    False Accusation

    No, you’re lying when you write “No, you are trying that they can’t.”

    I’ve repeatedly stated SP can publish whatever they like using their own resources.

    Sorry, children can choose to pack whatever material they like.

    Yes, they can.

    Public schools cannot choose to help an organization push religion, though.

    You won’t tell me what should I pack and what I shouldn’t.

    I’m not.

    But now you’ve shot yourself in the foot. This public school is clearly telling children they “should pack a SP gift box”. You object to telling people what they should pack, right?

  • “Findlaw doesn’t have it. Justia doesn’t have it.”
    Work harder.

    “I’ve repeatedly stated SP can publish whatever they like using their own resources.”
    All the contents of boxes are owned by SP.

    “Public schools cannot choose to help an organization push religion, though.”
    They are not providing money. So no help here.

    “But now you’ve shot yourself in the foot. This public school is clearly telling children they “should pack a SP gift box”. You object to telling people what they should pack, right?”
    Make up your mind, whether it is forced or not.

  • Work harder.

    Fake cite. You can’t even lie well.

    All the contents of boxes are owned by SP.

    Just don’t have children pack them as part of a public school project.

    They are not providing money.

    Nobody said they were.

    Make up your mind, whether it is forced or not.

    You’re the one lying about “forced”, not me. I’ve never said it was forced.

ADVERTISEMENTs