School Cancels Christmas Charity

[The Emerald Dawn]

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

The entire thing is based around how a public school is owned, but barely run by state
you know what
Whatever, if you want children to not receive charity because you can just hardly argue its unconstitutional then enjoy the fact you are stopping help from going to children

Alternately, we can act like adults and use charities that work within the legal framework we all agreed to by being residents of the nation.

I'd bet $20 that the USMC would be glad to help the school.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

The entire thing is based around how a public school is owned, but barely run by state
you know what
Whatever, if you want children to not receive charity because you can just hardly argue its unconstitutional then enjoy the fact you are stopping help from going to children

It's owned by the state, NUFF said.

[Threlizdun]

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

The entire thing is based around how a public school is owned, but barely run by state
you know what
Whatever, if you want children to not receive charity because you can just hardly argue its unconstitutional then enjoy the fact you are stopping help from going to children

There are plenty of secular charities they can sponsor instead of this one. This isn't about stopping charity, but stopping state-sponsorship of a charity with expressed goal of converting children to Christianity.

[Farnhamia]

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

The entire thing is based around how a public school is owned, but barely run by state
you know what
Whatever, if you want children to not receive charity because you can just hardly argue its unconstitutional then enjoy the fact you are stopping help from going to children

No one is stopping the charity from sending toys to kids. They just can't use a public school to do it. We're not saying the charity is unconstitutional, just the school saying it's okay for them to use the school facilities.

[Luveria]

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

The entire thing is based around how a public school is owned, but barely run by state
you know what
Whatever, if you want children to not receive charity because you can just hardly argue its unconstitutional then enjoy the fact you are stopping help from going to children

Come back when you can prove this is about stopping charity. It isn't. It's about stopping public funding of charities with the explicit sole purpose of converting children to a certain religion. The school knew they were in the wrong, which is why they backed down quickly as fuck the moment the AHA confronted them. They could have supported any number of secular charities, but no, they chose to support a religious organization dedicated to converting children, which it says so on their fucking website of all places.

[Ashmoria]

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

The entire thing is based around how a public school is owned, but barely run by state
you know what
Whatever, if you want children to not receive charity because you can just hardly argue its unconstitutional then enjoy the fact you are stopping help from going to children

no one is prevented from contributing to this charity. it just isn't going to be sponsored by a public school any more.

if you look closely at the mission statement farnhamia quoted from their webpage they don't even suggest that schools participate. they talk about churches.

[Risottia]

This.
I don't see why a school funded with taxpayers' money should be favouring one religious group over the other. Or any religious group at all. Or any opinion group at all.

It would be different if they were donating money to a church. The charity is operated by Christians, but the children benefiting from donations are not necessarily.

True. But by this action they support a religiously-defined charity group - which means giving this specific religiously-defined group a propaganda boost over other religiously-defined groups.

[Ifreann]

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

The entire thing is based around how a public school is owned, but barely run by state

If it is owned by the state then it is run by the state. The people running it are employees of the state. Holy fuck this is not difficult.

you know what
Whatever, if you want children to not receive charity because you can just hardly argue its unconstitutional then enjoy the fact you are stopping help from going to children

No one has expressed any problem with charities giving toys to children. We have expressed a problem with a school being used to support the promotion of Christianity, or any religion, because this is in violation of the supreme law of the United States. No one is stopping toys going to children. This charity just has to operate somewhere else.

[Tekania]

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.

My answer to that proposal, as someone who has completed multiple courses in Church History is, no.

[NeoCommunist Nazi Feminists From Hades]

People treat the constitution like the word of God (lol ironic?) but it is not. If a legal document is used to disrupt charitable events and take toys away from little kids on Christmas it should be put through the shredder. I say burn the Constitution and make a new one, since it is obviously a deeply flawed document that has led to more deaths than anything else in American history.

And people treat the Bible like it is God, putting up on a little pedestal and worshipping it just like some brazen idol. It's even more flawed than the Constitution and has led to more violence, death, inequities, oppression and bigotry than anything else in human history. If you want to burn the Constitution, which at least makes an attempt to support equality and freedom, and not burn the Bible which is inherently contradictory and supports infanticide, rape, violence towards women and minorities and the helpless in general then I would suggest that re-examine your priorities. Oh and incidentally, I suspect this constitutes a threadjack. My suggestion is that if you want to discuss this further, you start another thread.

[Tekania]

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

The entire thing is based around how a public school is owned, but barely run by state
you know what
Whatever, if you want children to not receive charity because you can just hardly argue its unconstitutional then enjoy the fact you are stopping help from going to children

There is no problem with children receiving charity, they just need to find a charity which is not a religious mission.

[Hornesia]

There's only one solution: Give to a Jewish charity to even it out.

Yes, I'm joking.

[Luveria]

There's only one solution: Give to a Jewish charity to even it out.

Yes, I'm joking.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Hornesia]

There's only one solution: Give to a Jewish charity to even it out.

Yes, I'm joking.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But 3 rights make a left.

[Neuereland]

Although I don't exactly support the school using a christian charity, its a charity nonetheless. Are athiests really so butthurt as to disrupt a charity giving toys to underprivileged children on a purely voluntary basis? Perhaps the AHA needs a reality check and should realise that not everything has to be a Athiesm vs. Religion battle.

[Mavorpen]

Although I don't exactly support the school using a christian charity, its a charity nonetheless. Are athiests really so butthurt as to disrupt a charity giving toys to underprivileged children on a purely voluntary basis? Perhaps the AHA needs a reality check and should realise that not everything has to be a Athiesm vs. Religion battle.

Yes, how dare we atheists uphold the law.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Although I don't exactly support the school using a christian charity, its a charity nonetheless. Are athiests really so butthurt as to disrupt a charity giving toys to underprivileged children on a purely voluntary basis? Perhaps the AHA needs a reality check and should realise that not everything has to be a Athiesm vs. Religion battle.

A violation of the law is a violation of the law. Since it would be the US government violating the law, yes, it makes sense that someone would call them out on it.

[Neuereland]

Although I don't exactly support the school using a christian charity, its a charity nonetheless. Are athiests really so butthurt as to disrupt a charity giving toys to underprivileged children on a purely voluntary basis? Perhaps the AHA needs a reality check and should realise that not everything has to be a Athiesm vs. Religion battle.

A violation of the law is a violation of the law. Since it would be the US government violating the law, yes, it makes sense that someone would call them out on it.

But is it truly a violation of the law? Its on a purely voluntary basis, its not like they're incorporating the charity into the school or something so technically it is separate from the state.

[The Emerald Dawn]

A violation of the law is a violation of the law. Since it would be the US government violating the law, yes, it makes sense that someone would call them out on it.

But is it truly a violation of the law? Its on a purely voluntary basis, its not like they're incorporating the charity into the school or something so technically it is separate from the state.

Yeah, it's truly a violation of the law to use government resources to proselytize.

[Des-Bal]

[quote="Neuereland";p="17517241"
But is it truly a violation of the law? Its on a purely voluntary basis, its not like they're incorporating the charity into the school or something so technically it is separate from the state.[/quote]

As far as the endorsement test goes? No it really isn't.

[Neuereland]

But is it truly a violation of the law? Its on a purely voluntary basis, its not like they're incorporating the charity into the school or something so technically it is separate from the state.

Yeah, it's truly a violation of the law to use government resources to proselytize.

Yes but the government isn't funding this christian organization. All its doing is encouraging people to donate to a certain charity. The charity doesn't get anything out of it, it's just trying to help people.

[Blahbania]

The entire thing is based around how a public school is owned, but barely run by state
you know what
Whatever, if you want children to not receive charity because you can just hardly argue its unconstitutional then enjoy the fact you are stopping help from going to children

Alternately, we can act like adults and use charities that work within the legal framework we all agreed to by being residents of the nation.

I'd bet $20 that the USMC would be glad to help the school.

How did we agree to it? We were born into it.

[Mavorpen]

Yeah, it's truly a violation of the law to use government resources to proselytize.

Yes but the government isn't funding this christian organization. All its doing is encouraging people to donate to a certain charity. The charity doesn't get anything out of it, it's just trying to help people.

Wrong.

So...I usually use the three page rule, but I'm severely fucking bored tonight. Obviously, I'm not going to just buy the whole "Haha, fuck you, church" motivation presented, so I thought I'd look into what AHA objects to specifically. Here, from the actual letter sent:

As you should know, Samaritan’s Purse is a self-proclaimed “evangelical Christian organization providing spiritual and physical aid to hurting people around the world. . .with the purpose of sharing God’s love through His Son, Jesus Christ.” Its mission is “to follow the example of Christ by helping those in need and proclaiming the hope of the Gospel” and motto is “HELPING IN JESUS’ NAME.”

This, of course, is on the front page of the organizations website:

Since 1993, more than 100 million boys and girls in over 130 countries have experienced God’s love through the power of simple shoebox gifts from Operation Christmas Child. Samaritan’s Purse works with local churches and ministry partners to deliver the gifts and share the life-changing Good News of Jesus Christ.

"Helping in Jesus' Name" is across the top just under the title.

The letter continues-

The evangelical booklet delivered with the toys includes a conversion pledge for the child
to sign. As its founder has admitted, Operation Christmas Child “is about introducing children and their families to God’s greatest gift-His Son, Jesus Christ” and that “evangelism is the focus”of the program. He has boasted that the program has converted “tens of thousands of children and their families,”citing an example where “one shoebox prepared the way for nearly two dozen people to come to faith in Jesus Christ.” The shoebox giftsare used to “ support pastors and churches overseas who are committed to sharing the Gospel with children in the communities.”

Here is a report about the booklet in the shoe boxes.
Apparently, this was raised as a concern originally in the UK-

Yet many of the scheme's supporters, who include thousands of schools, are unaware that the organisation behind it is a US-based, evangelical and missionary Christian charity led by a controversial fundamentalist. Parents and teachers are not told that the boxes are in many cases sent overseas with religious literature.

It's important to note that this goal is stated on their website:

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.

So, it's not a conspiracy theory that this church is using the shoeboxes to evangelize, it's right there on their very own website.

Now, that's a very different story. Not the one we were just fed, that they were innocently sending these shoeboxes that didn't have anything to do with their evangelical efforts, but instead they are sending these shoe boxes with the express intent to evangelize. And they're using the efforts of children in a federally funded school, the literal establishment of a religion in this case, really.

I think that the AHA has a point. There are secular ways for them to promote community assistance in the school and Operation Christmas Child does not seem the best fit.

EDIT: Forgot the link to the original letter EDIT2:Forgot the organizations link in the first example as well...

[Blahbania]

But is it truly a violation of the law? Its on a purely voluntary basis, its not like they're incorporating the charity into the school or something so technically it is separate from the state.

Yeah, it's truly a violation of the law to use government resources to proselytize.

How is this charity using government resources? The government isn't giving the charity money.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Alternately, we can act like adults and use charities that work within the legal framework we all agreed to by being residents of the nation.

I'd bet $20 that the USMC would be glad to help the school.

How did we agree to it? We were born into it.

Once you reach majority, i.e. adult, you can leave if you want.

Otherwise you agree to live here, and abide by the legal framework.

Do you even law?