School Cancels Christmas Charity

[Cannot think of a name]

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.

The AHA's letter, which was provided for you and everyone else on the first page of the thread, gives all the specific and applicable cases as to why this is illegal. You are free to peruse them at your leisure, but please stop pretending that this is a brand new law people are making up.

[Aeken]

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

The AHA's letter, which was provided for you and everyone else on the first page of the thread, gives all the specific and applicable cases as to why this is illegal. You are free to peruse them at your leisure, but please stop pretending that this is a brand new law people are making up.

Looks like my old school is breaking the law.

[Ifreann]

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.

One could, but it doesn't follow that the school cannot afford a decent lawyer just because 17% of the county is below the poverty, so one would should not.

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.

I would think that having done nothing wrong would be the best possible case one could have when being sued. Besides which, you ignore the possibility of a lawyer offering their services pro bono

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.

That's not the most likely situation at all. It's rather more likely that the school knew they would lose. I would expect they got legal advice to that effect.

---

Find me one US court it has been upheld in.

It hasn't been challenged!!!

So how do you know it would be upheld in any court? Can you even provide a ruling based on similar reasoning?

[Cannot think of a name]

The AHA's letter, which was provided for you and everyone else on the first page of the thread, gives all the specific and applicable cases as to why this is illegal. You are free to peruse them at your leisure, but please stop pretending that this is a brand new law people are making up.

Looks like my old school is breaking the law.

Happens.

[Ifreann]

Looks like my old school is breaking the law.

Happens.

Every time we have a thread on your pledge of allegiance, and it gets pointed out that it is not legal to force people to say it, there are usually a whole bunch of people who are surprised that their schools have been breaking the law. It's getting harder and harder to reject the impression that US schools just do not give a fuck about the law until someone actually sues them.

[Luveria]

Happens.

Every time we have a thread on your pledge of allegiance, and it gets pointed out that it is not legal to force people to say it, there are usually a whole bunch of people who are surprised that their schools have been breaking the law. It's getting harder and harder to reject the impression that US schools just do not give a fuck about the law until someone actually sues them.

Fortunately, the AHA is the sole protector of the constitution when it comes to public education.

[Cannot think of a name]

Happens.

Every time we have a thread on your pledge of allegiance, and it gets pointed out that it is not legal to force people to say it, there are usually a whole bunch of people who are surprised that their schools have been breaking the law. It's getting harder and harder to reject the impression that US schools just do not give a fuck about the law until someone actually sues them.

Man, I had a history teacher straight up tell us that he was going to teach history as informed by his Christian faith. But I was sixteen at the time and didn't know enough to know that I could actually say, "No, bullshit. You gotta go," I just wanted to get through the class and get home, close my door and think about boobies.

[Gallup]

The AHA is overreacting.

[Aeken]

The AHA is overreacting.

Not at all.

[Cannot think of a name]

The AHA is overreacting.

You'd think so, but after 45 seconds on google...

[Gallup]

The AHA is overreacting.

Not at all.

How is a kids charity hurting anyone?

[Timothia]

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.

Then excuse me, when you lit me up with curses I assumed that you were angry. I just want to make sure that this doesn't devolve into a mudslinging contest, that's all. I'm sorry I missed the edit, I checked all three sources you provided.

The first case (Allegheny v. ACLU) is somewhat related, but not quite. In the end, the justices permit the menorah and the creche to remain up. This actually helps my case, thank you.

The second concerns the government paying teachers at religious private schools and does not apply,

The third source, the lemon test, is an excellent reference, but doesn't prove or disprove anything. It describes the process by which the courts will look at situations like this. The courts, according to the lemon test, would be have to look seriously at the potential lawsuit. This doesn't mean that they would rule against the charity.

Finally, I'm not on a cross, I'm being completely serious. Today's culture tolerates almost everything except Christianity. This is intolerance of Christianity. Don't make it out to be anything but.

[Aeken]

Not at all.

How is a kids charity hurting anyone?

It's a religious charity intending to spread its ideals. It's being promoted by a secular institution. That's illegal.

[Gallup]

How is a kids charity hurting anyone?

It's a religious charity intending to spread its ideals. It's being promoted by a secular institution. That's illegal.

What about all the people who will befit from it?

[Verdum]

Because they are the only School in the world planning to do a charity and now everything is screwed.
We need to just freak out, OK? Freak out.

[Aeken]

It's a religious charity intending to spread its ideals. It's being promoted by a secular institution. That's illegal.

What about all the people who will befit from it?

How do you know of people will truly benefit from it?

[Ifreann]

Every time we have a thread on your pledge of allegiance, and it gets pointed out that it is not legal to force people to say it, there are usually a whole bunch of people who are surprised that their schools have been breaking the law. It's getting harder and harder to reject the impression that US schools just do not give a fuck about the law until someone actually sues them.

Fortunately, the AHA is the sole protector of the constitution when it comes to public education.

There's also the Atheist Criminal Lies Union, or so I'm told.

---

Every time we have a thread on your pledge of allegiance, and it gets pointed out that it is not legal to force people to say it, there are usually a whole bunch of people who are surprised that their schools have been breaking the law. It's getting harder and harder to reject the impression that US schools just do not give a fuck about the law until someone actually sues them.

Man, I had a history teacher straight up tell us that he was going to teach history as informed by his Christian faith. But I was sixteen at the time and didn't know enough to know that I could actually say, "No, bullshit. You gotta go," I just wanted to get through the class and get home, close my door and think about boobies.

It's hard to defend the constitution when you're distracted by boobies.

---

The AHA is overreacting.

Oh yes, sending a letter is a massive overreaction to literally the most illegal of all possible illegal things.

[The Ben Boys]

As a devout Christian, I have no problem contributing to a secular or non-Christian charity. I myself have contributed to a synagouge-sponsored clothes drive, and despite the sponsor contradicting my beliefs I understand that it's for someone else, not myself, and is not used to further their beliefs.

[Blahbania]

What the school was doing was very much unconstitutional. They should find a nonreligious charity to work with, instead.

In what way is it unconstitutional?

[Ifreann]

It's a religious charity intending to spread its ideals. It's being promoted by a secular institution. That's illegal.

What about all the people who will befit from it?

What about all the people who could benefit from quartering soldiers in people's houses in peace time?

[Timothia]

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.

One could, but it doesn't follow that the school cannot afford a decent lawyer just because 17% of the county is below the poverty, so one would should not.

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.

I would think that having done nothing wrong would be the best possible case one could have when being sued. Besides which, you ignore the possibility of a lawyer offering their services pro bono

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.

That's not the most likely situation at all. It's rather more likely that the school knew they would lose. I would expect they got legal advice to that effect.

---

It hasn't been challenged!!!

So how do you know it would be upheld in any court? Can you even provide a ruling based on similar reasoning?

Your claim that they got legal advice is as baseless as my claim that they did it for financial reasons. We are both speculating, don't at like I'm insane for drawing a different conclusion than you. I just highly doubt that a Bible belt state would give up their Christian charities so easily unless it is because they can't afford it.

I'm sick of reading legal documents today, so I'm not going to keep looking for a case. As far as I know, there have been no rulings on this so far, so you cannot call it unconstitutional until there has been a ruling on a similar case.

[Blahbania]

How is a kids charity hurting anyone?

It's a religious charity intending to spread its ideals. It's being promoted by a secular institution. That's illegal.

In what way is this bad? They aren't forcing people to convert to their beliefs.

[Aeken]

It's a religious charity intending to spread its ideals. It's being promoted by a secular institution. That's illegal.

In what way is this bad? They aren't forcing people to convert to their beliefs.

Secular institutions are not supposed to support religious organizations.

[Ifreann]

As a devout Christian, I have no problem contributing to a secular or non-Christian charity. I myself have contributed to a synagouge-sponsored clothes drive, and despite the sponsor contradicting my beliefs I understand that it's for someone else, not myself, and is not used to further their beliefs.

And while the tales of your life are just riveting, they have no relevance to this situation in which the charity in question is absolutely trying to further their beliefs. The whole thing is an evangelist mission. They're doing this to spread the message of Jesus.

[The Ben Boys]

It's a religious charity intending to spread its ideals. It's being promoted by a secular institution. That's illegal.

In what way is this bad? They aren't forcing people to convert to their beliefs.

And as far as I know, they aren't using it to further or spread their beliefs.