School Cancels Christmas Charity

[Farnhamia]

'international Christian based organisation'
'no religious affiliation nor speakers'

if there is a need to have a separation between a church and the state, then surely 'operation Christmas child' does not encourage, nor coerce people into religion...

The toy thing is run by these people: http://www.samaritanspurse.org/our-ministry/about-us/

Now, what was that about not encouraging religion?

[Ifreann]

'international Christian based organisation'
'no religious affiliation nor speakers'

if there is a need to have a separation between a church and the state, then surely 'operation Christmas child' does not encourage, nor coerce people into religion...

Operation Christmas Child is expressly and explicitly about spreading the message of Christianity by packaging it with toys.

[Cannot think of a name]

'international Christian based organisation'
'no religious affiliation nor speakers'

if there is a need to have a separation between a church and the state, then surely 'operation Christmas child' does not encourage, nor coerce people into religion...

Giglio, the pastor of Passion City Church in Atlanta and leader of the Passion Conferences for college students, knows that packing shoebox gifts allows his congregation to support pastors and churches overseas who are committed to sharing the Gospel with children in their communities.

Through gift-filled shoeboxes, Operation Christmas Child helps link churches and people in the United States with churches overseas. As the gifts are delivered, boys and girls learn that God loves them so much that He sent another gift – His son, Jesus – as their Savior.

A shoebox “doesn’t just carry love and compassion and a tangible expression of that, but it carries the message of Jesus,” said Giglio, explaining why the children’s ministry at Passion City Church participates in the Samaritan’s Purse project.

The charity itself on its purpose.

[Farnhamia]

'international Christian based organisation'
'no religious affiliation nor speakers'

if there is a need to have a separation between a church and the state, then surely 'operation Christmas child' does not encourage, nor coerce people into religion...

Giglio, the pastor of Passion City Church in Atlanta and leader of the Passion Conferences for college students, knows that packing shoebox gifts allows his congregation to support pastors and churches overseas who are committed to sharing the Gospel with children in their communities.

Through gift-filled shoeboxes, Operation Christmas Child helps link churches and people in the United States with churches overseas. As the gifts are delivered, boys and girls learn that God loves them so much that He sent another gift – His son, Jesus – as their Savior.

A shoebox “doesn’t just carry love and compassion and a tangible expression of that, but it carries the message of Jesus,” said Giglio, explaining why the children’s ministry at Passion City Church participates in the Samaritan’s Purse project.

The charity itself on its purpose.

I'm going to check my laptop to make sure that what I see as English isn't being translated somehow into Bizarro-world Klingonese or something.

[NeoCommunist Nazi Feminists From Hades]

It is a good charity they shouldn't have to find another one. Really, America needs to scrap the separation of church and state with a constitutional amendment.

NO! Oh and did I mention, NO!

The problem isn't the separation of church and state. The problem is idiots who interpret the Constitution. Unfortunately, idiots are endemic and vocal and, short of an idiot kill policy, the problem has no effective solution.

I could go into oh, so many reasons why your idea is a bad one - like the fact that we have enough trouble with religious nut jobs in this country without legitimizing their nutjobness.

I like my freedom of and from religion. And I have hopes that when the nutjobs stop trying to impose their will on the rest of us, we'll find a balance between appropriate religious expression (which, according to my understanding should be humanistic) and people who, personally, don't want religion in their lives (but are perfectly fine with you having it in yours).

[Benuty]

Excellent. Reading this thread gave me another idea for another thread in the future.

Thank you all!

No.

[Cannot think of a name]

The charity itself on its purpose.

I'm going to check my laptop to make sure that what I see as English isn't being translated somehow into Bizarro-world Klingonese or something.

It is a bit encouraging that every time a new non-reader pops up and says the same disproven thing the response has become a bit like 'third base' in the old 'who's on first' routine.

[United Furry Alliance]

Plenty on non religious charities to work with why they chose to or accepted a religious one with the ammendant in place is whoever was in charge at the time's fault.

[Timothia]

Are you going to give me another court ruling, amendment or law that can prove it's unconstitutional? Because i looked up McCullom v. Board of Education and it doesn't apply. Unless you can show me where it is unconstitutional, I will assume it is legal and fine.

Tell you what, Captain No Effort, why don't you get around to telling me why it doesn't apply. Or in fact why every other reasoning given to you doesn't apply instead of just sitting on your stump going 'nuh uh' and making everyone else come to you. The school knew what they were doing was wrong, that's why they stopped. This is using school resources for the express purpose of promoting a religion. It's a no no.

The school stopped because handling a lawsuit is expensive and not every school can afford it. The burden of proof is not on me to show it is constitutional. Unless you can show me a source, I won't believe you and your point is invalid. I have put forth effort, and I've come up empty on any law than bans religious non-profits from holding charity drives at a public school. It is not implied or said in any piece of legislation I have looked up, so I'm wondering where you are getting the idea from.

I'm not trying to be a jerk to you, sorry if it comes across as such, and I'm most certainly not lazy. I already explained why it didn't apply in an earlier post, but I'll say it again: McCullom vs. Board of Education applied to teachers using class time for "religious instruction". The charity is not using class time, nor is it "religiously instructing" the students. Therefore, it does not apply.

[Dotaria]

The U.S. Military (more so the USMC, but all branches participate) helps out with this charity. Even though it is a Christian organization, the military has MANY personnel that have a different religion than Christianity and yet they still contribute. Why is it so hard (if you can afford it) to be charitable without throwing a fit over it's religious affiliation? Why is it wrong for a religious affiliated charity, that originated in AMERICA, to accept donations (that are OPTIONAL)? I can almost guarantee that if they were to send that letter to my school that it wouldn't get very far.

[Rapidblaze]

'international Christian based organisation'
'no religious affiliation nor speakers'

if there is a need to have a separation between a church and the state, then surely 'operation Christmas child' does not encourage, nor coerce people into religion...

The toy thing is run by these people: http://www.samaritanspurse.org/our-ministry/about-us/

Now, what was that about not encouraging religion?

'international Christian based organisation'
'no religious affiliation nor speakers'

if there is a need to have a separation between a church and the state, then surely 'operation Christmas child' does not encourage, nor coerce people into religion...

Operation Christmas Child is expressly and explicitly about spreading the message of Christianity by packaging it with toys.

'international Christian based organisation'
'no religious affiliation nor speakers'

if there is a need to have a separation between a church and the state, then surely 'operation Christmas child' does not encourage, nor coerce people into religion...

Giglio, the pastor of Passion City Church in Atlanta and leader of the Passion Conferences for college students, knows that packing shoebox gifts allows his congregation to support pastors and churches overseas who are committed to sharing the Gospel with children in their communities.

Through gift-filled shoeboxes, Operation Christmas Child helps link churches and people in the United States with churches overseas. As the gifts are delivered, boys and girls learn that God loves them so much that He sent another gift – His son, Jesus – as their Savior.

A shoebox “doesn’t just carry love and compassion and a tangible expression of that, but it carries the message of Jesus,” said Giglio, explaining why the children’s ministry at Passion City Church participates in the Samaritan’s Purse project.

The charity itself on its purpose.

i understand that they do encourage religion in Churches as its purpose, but in this context, it says that 'there is no religious literature tied in to it at all' within the school.

[Farnhamia]

Tell you what, Captain No Effort, why don't you get around to telling me why it doesn't apply. Or in fact why every other reasoning given to you doesn't apply instead of just sitting on your stump going 'nuh uh' and making everyone else come to you. The school knew what they were doing was wrong, that's why they stopped. This is using school resources for the express purpose of promoting a religion. It's a no no.

The school stopped because handling a lawsuit is expensive and not every school can afford it. The burden of proof is not on me to show it is constitutional. Unless you can show me a source, I won't believe you and your point is invalid. I have put forth effort, and I've come up empty on any law than bans religious non-profits from holding charity drives at a public school. It is not implied or said in any piece of legislation I have looked up, so I'm wondering where you are getting the idea from.

I'm not trying to be a jerk to you, sorry if it comes across as such, and I'm most certainly not lazy. I already explained why it didn't apply in an earlier post, but I'll say it again: McCullom vs. Board of Education applied to teachers using class time for "religious instruction". The charity is not using class time, nor is it "religiously instructing" the students. Therefore, it does not apply.

You don't think Samaritan's Purse would help them with the legal fees? Or maybe provide a few lawyers pro bono?

[Timothia]

The school stopped because handling a lawsuit is expensive and not every school can afford it. The burden of proof is not on me to show it is constitutional. Unless you can show me a source, I won't believe you and your point is invalid. I have put forth effort, and I've come up empty on any law than bans religious non-profits from holding charity drives at a public school. It is not implied or said in any piece of legislation I have looked up, so I'm wondering where you are getting the idea from.

I'm not trying to be a jerk to you, sorry if it comes across as such, and I'm most certainly not lazy. I already explained why it didn't apply in an earlier post, but I'll say it again: McCullom vs. Board of Education applied to teachers using class time for "religious instruction". The charity is not using class time, nor is it "religiously instructing" the students. Therefore, it does not apply.

You don't think Samaritan's Purse would help them with the legal fees? Or maybe provide a few lawyers pro bono?

That's a lot of hassle for a school. They obviously caved because they didn't have the time or resources to fight a legal battle.

[The Emerald Dawn]

The U.S. Military (more so the USMC, but all branches participate) helps out with this charity. Even though it is a Christian organization, the military has MANY personnel that have a different religion than Christianity and yet they still contribute. Why is it so hard (if you can afford it) to be charitable without throwing a fit over it's religious affiliation? Why is it wrong for a religious affiliated charity, that originated in AMERICA, to accept donations (that are OPTIONAL)? I can almost guarantee that if they were to send that letter to my school that it wouldn't get very far.

Probably because the charity is expressly using this to advance religion?

Even the military isn't going to touch that.

[North America Inc]

http://www.wbtw.com/story/24004411/sc-school-forced-to-withdraw-from-christmas-toy-drive

CAYCE, SC -
An elementary school is canceling a Christmas toy drive they have participated in for three years after a threat of legal action this year, WLTX reported.

East Point Academy in Cayce, with 360 students, is a publicly-funded charter school under the South Carolina Public Charter School District.

For the past three years, the school has participated in "Operation Christmas Child," which is affiliated with Samaritan's Purse.

Under the program, kids collect toys, pencils and other small items, pack them into shoe boxes, and donate to needy children.

That has now stopped after the school received a letter last Monday from the American Humanist Association, a national nonprofit organization with over 20,000 members and 125,000 supporters across the country, according to the letter.

The mission of American Humanist Association's legal center, according to the letter, is "to protect one of the most fundamental principles of (American) democracy: the Constitutional mandate requiring separation of church and state."

The letter called the school's involvement in Operation Christmas Child "unconstitutional."

"The letter was very explicit that there would be litigation against us if we did not stop," school East Point Academy's principal, Renee Mathews, told WLTX.

Mathews said that of the two full years the school has participated, before the practice was stopped with the letter, about 100 families participated each year.

The letter came as a shock to her and others at the school because she hasn't had many issues from the local community.

"We have parents that ask questions, but in this case, it's not really a parent. It's an outside group," she said.

The letter claimed it was sent on behalf of a parent at the school.

It points to the fact that Operation Christmas Child is part of "Samaritan's Purse," an international Christian based organization led by Franklin Graham, son of Evangelist Billy Graham.

"There's no religious literature tied with it," Mathews said. "There's no speakers who come. There's no religious affiliation at all."

The school's principal says there are a number of parents who've told her they already prepared boxes. She's encouraging them to donate those items to a charity of their choosing.

East Point Academy says they will continue to take part in other Christmas related programs, such as Toys for Tots.

Personally, I think the AHA went overboard over a school charity that had minor issues for two years. Despite that the Operation Christmas Child is part of a Christian organization, it's not like the school force every family to chip in. And the way AHA talks about the 1st Amendment, I found it ironic that they're pretty much blackmailing a school over a charity organization that's voluntarily.

So NSG members, what's your thought on this incident? Do you think that the school was breaching 1st amendment rights by using a Christian charity group or do you think the American Humanist Association was going overboard by threatening to sue the school over a charity?

All I can say personally because I do not want to argue, is that I kind of feel bad for the kids who probably will not recieve gifts this year.

[Farnhamia]

http://www.wbtw.com/story/24004411/sc-school-forced-to-withdraw-from-christmas-toy-drive

CAYCE, SC -
An elementary school is canceling a Christmas toy drive they have participated in for three years after a threat of legal action this year, WLTX reported.

East Point Academy in Cayce, with 360 students, is a publicly-funded charter school under the South Carolina Public Charter School District.

For the past three years, the school has participated in "Operation Christmas Child," which is affiliated with Samaritan's Purse.

Under the program, kids collect toys, pencils and other small items, pack them into shoe boxes, and donate to needy children.

That has now stopped after the school received a letter last Monday from the American Humanist Association, a national nonprofit organization with over 20,000 members and 125,000 supporters across the country, according to the letter.

The mission of American Humanist Association's legal center, according to the letter, is "to protect one of the most fundamental principles of (American) democracy: the Constitutional mandate requiring separation of church and state."

The letter called the school's involvement in Operation Christmas Child "unconstitutional."

"The letter was very explicit that there would be litigation against us if we did not stop," school East Point Academy's principal, Renee Mathews, told WLTX.

Mathews said that of the two full years the school has participated, before the practice was stopped with the letter, about 100 families participated each year.

The letter came as a shock to her and others at the school because she hasn't had many issues from the local community.

"We have parents that ask questions, but in this case, it's not really a parent. It's an outside group," she said.

The letter claimed it was sent on behalf of a parent at the school.

It points to the fact that Operation Christmas Child is part of "Samaritan's Purse," an international Christian based organization led by Franklin Graham, son of Evangelist Billy Graham.

"There's no religious literature tied with it," Mathews said. "There's no speakers who come. There's no religious affiliation at all."

The school's principal says there are a number of parents who've told her they already prepared boxes. She's encouraging them to donate those items to a charity of their choosing.

East Point Academy says they will continue to take part in other Christmas related programs, such as Toys for Tots.

Personally, I think the AHA went overboard over a school charity that had minor issues for two years. Despite that the Operation Christmas Child is part of a Christian organization, it's not like the school force every family to chip in. And the way AHA talks about the 1st Amendment, I found it ironic that they're pretty much blackmailing a school over a charity organization that's voluntarily.

So NSG members, what's your thought on this incident? Do you think that the school was breaching 1st amendment rights by using a Christian charity group or do you think the American Humanist Association was going overboard by threatening to sue the school over a charity?

All I can say personally because I do not want to argue, is that I kind of feel bad for the kids who probably will not recieve gifts this year.

Don't. This is a very large organization, Samaritan's Purse. They'll be able to send more than enough boxes with toys and gospel messages to make up for this one defeat. And anyway, the people running this in the town are just going to find a different place to collect the toys, which is what they should have done in the first place.

[Cannot think of a name]

Tell you what, Captain No Effort, why don't you get around to telling me why it doesn't apply. Or in fact why every other reasoning given to you doesn't apply instead of just sitting on your stump going 'nuh uh' and making everyone else come to you. The school knew what they were doing was wrong, that's why they stopped. This is using school resources for the express purpose of promoting a religion. It's a no no.

The school stopped because handling a lawsuit is expensive and not every school can afford it. The burden of proof is not on me to show it is constitutional. Unless you can show me a source, I won't believe you and your point is invalid. I have put forth effort, and I've come up empty on any law than bans religious non-profits from holding charity drives at a public school. It is not implied or said in any piece of legislation I have looked up, so I'm wondering where you are getting the idea from.

I'm not trying to be a jerk to you, sorry if it comes across as such, and I'm most certainly not lazy. I already explained why it didn't apply in an earlier post, but I'll say it again: McCullom vs. Board of Education applied to teachers using class time for "religious instruction". The charity is not using class time, nor is it "religiously instructing" the students. Therefore, it does not apply.

You're creating a bullshit standard. You want me to find a specific case where they specifically said that schools could specifically not use specific...etc...

That's not exactly how law works. The totality of the rulings on the first amendment speak to this, so fucking take your pick.

Because this particular instance hasn't been challenged in court doesn't make it de facto legal. That's just not how shit works.

EDIT: It occurs to me that I actually provided (well, through AHA) these court cases on page one-
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html

1. Under Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. at 403 U. S. 612, a "practice which touches upon religion, if it is to be permissible under the Establishment Clause," must not, inter alia, "advance [or] inhibit religion in its principal or primary effect." Although, in refining the definition of governmental action that unconstitutionally "advances" religion, the Court's subsequent decisions have variously spoken in terms of "endorsement," "favoritism," "preference," or "promotion," the essential principle remains the same: the Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from "making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. at 465 U. S. 687 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). Pp. 492 U. S. 589-594.

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v. ... _Education
also also, the lemon test.

[Cannot think of a name]

You don't think Samaritan's Purse would help them with the legal fees? Or maybe provide a few lawyers pro bono?

That's a lot of hassle for a school. They obviously caved because they didn't have the time or resources to fight a legal battle.

...and didn't have a leg to stand on.

[Benuty]

I am starting to think Czech's position makes more sense...

[Timothia]

The school stopped because handling a lawsuit is expensive and not every school can afford it. The burden of proof is not on me to show it is constitutional. Unless you can show me a source, I won't believe you and your point is invalid. I have put forth effort, and I've come up empty on any law than bans religious non-profits from holding charity drives at a public school. It is not implied or said in any piece of legislation I have looked up, so I'm wondering where you are getting the idea from.

I'm not trying to be a jerk to you, sorry if it comes across as such, and I'm most certainly not lazy. I already explained why it didn't apply in an earlier post, but I'll say it again: McCullom vs. Board of Education applied to teachers using class time for "religious instruction". The charity is not using class time, nor is it "religiously instructing" the students. Therefore, it does not apply.

You're creating a bullshit standard. You want me to find a specific case where they specifically said that schools could specifically not use specific...etc...

That's not exactly how law works. The totality of the rulings on the first amendment speak to this, so fucking take your pick.

Because this particular instance hasn't been challenged in court doesn't make it de facto legal. That's just not how shit works.

Dang, calm down! Seriously! No need to get all worked up, you're on the internet. Remember that. I'm not out to get you, I'm trying to discuss things calmly.

I'm just tired of everyone whining 'it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional" when they really have no clue what the Constitution says. What it boils down to is you having no base from which you could legally stop the school from allowing religious charities into schools as long as it doesn't conflict with the children's education. This would be upheld in any just court. I know how the law works just as well as you do, so don't go and parade around like you have a law degree. This does not fly in the face of separation of church and state. This mocks freedom of religion.

That said, as Samaritans Purse, I would use churches as collection centers rather than schools because of the intolerant society we live in today.

[Ifreann]

The U.S. Military (more so the USMC, but all branches participate) helps out with this charity.

No it doesn't. If it did that would be illegal.

Even though it is a Christian organization, the military has MANY personnel that have a different religion than Christianity and yet they still contribute.

On their own time, maybe. Not as part of their military duties.

Why is it so hard (if you can afford it) to be charitable without throwing a fit over it's religious affiliation? Why is it wrong for a religious affiliated charity, that originated in AMERICA, to accept donations (that are OPTIONAL)?

Because a public school is supporting Christian evangelism, and that's unconstitutional.

I can almost guarantee that if they were to send that letter to my school that it wouldn't get very far.

Perhaps not. But then they send the lawyers, and your school would go to court, and your school would lose.

---

You don't think Samaritan's Purse would help them with the legal fees? Or maybe provide a few lawyers pro bono?

That's a lot of hassle for a school. They obviously caved because they didn't have the time or resources to fight a legal battle.

There's nothing obvious about that. Do you actually know anything about this school's financial situation? Have you researched the costs of fighting this lawsuit?

[Ifreann]

I'm just tired of everyone whining 'it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional" when they really have no clue what the Constitution says. What it boils down to is you having no base from which you could legally stop the school from allowing religious charities into schools as long as it doesn't conflict with the children's education. This would be upheld in any just court.

Find me one US court it has been upheld in.

[Timothia]

That's a lot of hassle for a school. They obviously caved because they didn't have the time or resources to fight a legal battle.

There's nothing obvious about that. Do you actually know anything about this school's financial situation? Have you researched the costs of fighting this lawsuit?

So what's your point? I'll research the economics then...

Oh guess what! 17% of the county is below the poverty line, including 20% of the people below age 18! (source)

It is very clear that the region is not the most economically blessed, so one could assume that the schools wouldn't want to get involved in a lengthy lawsuit. It doesn't take a lawyer to know that lawsuits are expensive and it's easier to just resolve the issue on your own unless you have a really good case. The school most likely gave in because they were afraid that the long, expensive, controversial lawsuit would be a distraction to their students. They acted in the best interest of the school.

[Timothia]

I'm just tired of everyone whining 'it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional" when they really have no clue what the Constitution says. What it boils down to is you having no base from which you could legally stop the school from allowing religious charities into schools as long as it doesn't conflict with the children's education. This would be upheld in any just court.

Find me one US court it has been upheld in.

It hasn't been challenged!!! Provide me a source where it has been challenged, then, because I can't find one.

[Cannot think of a name]

You're creating a bullshit standard. You want me to find a specific case where they specifically said that schools could specifically not use specific...etc...

That's not exactly how law works. The totality of the rulings on the first amendment speak to this, so fucking take your pick.

Because this particular instance hasn't been challenged in court doesn't make it de facto legal. That's just not how shit works.

Dang, calm down! Seriously! No need to get all worked up, you're on the internet. Remember that. I'm not out to get you, I'm trying to discuss things calmly.

Do not presume to guess my mood.

I'm just tired of everyone whining 'it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional" when they really have no clue what the Constitution says.

Pots and kettles?

What it boils down to is you having no base from which you could legally stop the school from allowing religious charities into schools as long as it doesn't conflict with the children's education. This would be upheld in any just court. I know how the law works just as well as you do, so don't go and parade around like you have a law degree. This does not fly in the face of separation of church and state. This mocks freedom of religion.

While you were scolding me for my moods, you missed the edit, which is understandable, so here it is for you again...though I remind that these sources were actually available to you from page one of the thread with all the other things I linked...so, you know...
-
EDIT: It occurs to me that I actually provided (well, through AHA) these court cases on page one-
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html

1. Under Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. at 403 U. S. 612, a "practice which touches upon religion, if it is to be permissible under the Establishment Clause," must not, inter alia, "advance [or] inhibit religion in its principal or primary effect." Although, in refining the definition of governmental action that unconstitutionally "advances" religion, the Court's subsequent decisions have variously spoken in terms of "endorsement," "favoritism," "preference," or "promotion," the essential principle remains the same: the Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from "making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. at 465 U. S. 687 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). Pp. 492 U. S. 589-594.

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v. ... _Education
also also, the lemon test.

That said, as Samaritans Purse, I would use churches as collection centers rather than schools because of the intolerant society we live in today.

Nothing to do with intolerance. Come down off that cross.