School Cancels Christmas Charity

[The Emerald Dawn]

So are you saying that the constitution prohibits freedom of expression/religion?

Even if that is not what he's saying, it is exactly what the constitution does.

No, it doesn't.

[Mavorpen]

Which is irrelevant.

A public school forcing atheists to attend a public prayer is illegal, despite the fact it doesn't force anyone to convert.

Wait, where exactly does it say that?

Holy shit what do you people learn in school?

[Regnum Dominae]

So are you saying that the constitution prohibits freedom of expression/religion?

Even if that is not what he's saying, it is exactly what the constitution does.

No, it doesn't not at all.

The Constitution protects freedom of religious expression. It simply doesn't protect the freedom to force your religion on others.

[Cannot think of a name]

If you disagree, you support state enforced atheism and pure bigotry at its finest.

You know, the very principle that religion and government should not mix is a founding principle of the country...you're at odds with a central tenant of the American idea.

And do you know why they did that? Because religions in government had led to government enforced religious persecution. This wasn't an abstract "could in a kind of way," but "This shit is why a bunch of us piled on a boat and traveled to a strange untamed land" way.

Because it's all fine and dandy when it's your religion, but when it's not?

If this were a charity that gave the express interest of spreading the word of Mohammad to the glory of Allah, would we be trying to shrug this off? How about it being the Jehovah Witnesses that get to decide what religious laws are real laws, or use an institution your children are compelled to attend to enforce their values, or the snake handlers? What do we do when the people using the government institutions to compel and promote quibble over which part of the book is super important to them...how long before Mormons or whoever else has to go set up colonies somewhere else because the other religions in government?

This is the part that gets lost. It's not just to protect me from you using the government to compel your religion, it's to protect you and your ability to freely practice as well.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

Wait, where exactly does it say that?

Holy shit what do you people learn in school?

What exactly does a SCOTUS case from the nineteen sixties have to do with the topic at hand?

[Blahbania]

I don't know about you guys, but if I were a hungry kid in Africa I would be pretty down to get some food, even if it meant I had to sit through a little speech or look at a flyer. I would also be pretty bummed if I discover I'm not eating this week because some "pro-human" group said that having a religious charity running a food drive was wrong.

What does this have to do with the topic?

Its that the needy should be able to get help from charity regardless of religious affiliation.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Even if that is not what he's saying, it is exactly what the constitution does.

No, it doesn't not at all.

The Constitution protects freedom of religious expression. It simply doesn't protect the freedom to force your religion on others.

*But what if forcing my religion on others IS my religion*

I'm waiting for it.

I really, really am.

[The Kingdom of Nea Hellas]

I can't believe you guys are going haywire on this school for trying to do something good for a change. It doesn't matter whether it is religious or secular, when aid and charity are being given, denying it on such idiotic abstract concepts is just pathetic.

The charity was not a religious activity in the slightest. Are we going to cut all religious charity groups for attempting to associate themselves or organize events to help people? This gratuitous anti- religious threads are making me really upset, at the sheer level of almost comical hatred and venom the people on this thread contain.

Theres a difference from preventing religious discrimination and theocracies, and censoring out every mention to a religious holiday, and from allowing any religious affiliated group to get off their backsides and help people.

[Mavorpen]

What does this have to do with the topic?

Its that the needy should be able to get help from charity regardless of religious affiliation.

So, nothing?

[The Emerald Dawn]

What does this have to do with the topic?

Its that the needy should be able to get help from charity regardless of religious affiliation.

That's great, champ.

The US Constitution, and rulings of the Supreme Court, disagree.

Thank you for playing, we have some lovely consolation prizes.

[Mavorpen]

Holy shit what do you people learn in school?

What exactly does a SCOTUS case from the nineteen sixties have to do with the topic at hand?

You asked me where it says you can't force an atheist to attend a school prayer.

Don't bitch and moan when I prove you wrong.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I can't believe you guys are going haywire on this school for trying to do something good for a change. It doesn't matter whether it is religious or secular, when aid and charity are being given, denying it on such idiotic abstract concepts is just pathetic.

The charity was not a religious activity in the slightest. Are we going to cut all religious charity groups for attempting to associate themselves or organize events to help people? This gratuitous anti- religious threads are making me really upset, at the sheer level of almost comical hatred and venom the people on this thread contain.

Theres a difference from preventing religious discrimination and theocracies, and censoring out every mention to a religious holiday, and from allowing any religious affiliated group to get off their backsides and help people.

Ahem.

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...

[Benuty]

No, it doesn't not at all.

The Constitution protects freedom of religious expression. It simply doesn't protect the freedom to force your religion on others.

*But what if forcing my religion on others IS my religion*

I'm waiting for it.

I really, really am.

Then you shall find yourself lacking.

[The Emerald Dawn]

*But what if forcing my religion on others IS my religion*

I'm waiting for it.

I really, really am.

Then you shall find yourself lacking.

That would make me happy.

It really would.

But I can see it happening.

[Blahbania]

Even if that is not what he's saying, it is exactly what the constitution does.

No, it doesn't not at all.

The Constitution protects freedom of religious expression. It simply doesn't protect the freedom to force your religion on others.

How is a public school helping a religious charity,that helps needy children, forcing your religion on others.

[The Emerald Dawn]

No, it doesn't not at all.

The Constitution protects freedom of religious expression. It simply doesn't protect the freedom to force your religion on others.

How is a public school helping a religious charity,that helps needy children, forcing your religion on others.

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...

[Fascist Russian Empire]

What exactly does a SCOTUS case from the nineteen sixties have to do with the topic at hand?

You asked me where it says you can't force an atheist to attend a school prayer.

Don't bitch and moan when I prove you wrong.

Oh. I thought you were referring to something in the source/article. My mistake.

Still, how exactly is relatively subtle religious literature akin to forcing people to attend public prayer? The latter directly forces people to participate in religious activity; the former might promote religious activities but doesn't force people to participate in them.

[The Flood]

If religion is not freely permitted to all people in all places in all situations, the government is suppressing it and this should be illegal. Public schools should be allowed to be religious, the government should be allowed to fund religious institutions, religious symbols should be allowed on public property. If you disagree, you support state enforced atheism and pure bigotry at its finest.

Talk to me when you make quit making strawman's, and get a dictionary and learn what the word SECULARISM means, then maybe Ill listen. Because you clearly don't know, what the fuck you are talking about. The only thing you seem to be capable of doing, is throwing around the word ''bigot'' to anyone who disagrees with you.

Secularism = a state where the government is not run by religious authority. I know exactly what it means, and exactly how it has been bastardized. Secularism IS NOT a system in which the government bans all practice of religion outside of private institutions. Banning religion from any location is a disgusting violation of human rights and freedom of religion.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Talk to me when you make quit making strawman's, and get a dictionary and learn what the word SECULARISM means, then maybe Ill listen. Because you clearly don't know, what the fuck you are talking about. The only thing you seem to be capable of doing, is throwing around the word ''bigot'' to anyone who disagrees with you.

Secularism = a state where the government is not run by religious authority. I know exactly what it means, and exactly how it has been bastardized. Secularism IS NOT a system in which the government bans all practice of religion outside of private institutions. Banning religion from any location is a disgusting violation of human rights and freedom of religion.

[Citation Needed]

[Mavorpen]

Oh. I thought you were referring to something in the source/article. My mistake.

Still, how exactly is relatively subtle religious literature akin to forcing people to attend public prayer? The latter directly forces people to participate in religious activity; the former might promote religious activities but doesn't force people to participate in them.

That's irrelevant.

It's also illegal to have school sponsored Bible readings or prayers, even if you don't force students to attend them.

[The Flood]

Even if that is not what he's saying, it is exactly what the constitution does.

No, it doesn't.

You're right, it doesn't. But that's exactly how it is being abused and misconstrued by people like you, and the humanist league.

[Blahbania]

Its that the needy should be able to get help from charity regardless of religious affiliation.

That's great, champ.

The US Constitution, and rulings of the Supreme Court, disagree.

Thank you for playing, we have some lovely consolation prizes.

*Takes prizes*

Anyway, are you saying that the US Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings say that you can't give to charities, that help poor children, because they have religious affiliation?

[The Emerald Dawn]

No, it doesn't.

You're right, it doesn't. But that's exactly how it is being abused and misconstrued by people like you, and the humanist league.

No, it isn't.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Talk to me when you make quit making strawman's, and get a dictionary and learn what the word SECULARISM means, then maybe Ill listen. Because you clearly don't know, what the fuck you are talking about. The only thing you seem to be capable of doing, is throwing around the word ''bigot'' to anyone who disagrees with you.

Secularism = a state where the government is not run by religious authority. I know exactly what it means, and exactly how it has been bastardized. Secularism IS NOT a system in which the government bans all practice of religion outside of private institutions. Banning religion from any location is a disgusting violation of human rights and freedom of religion.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secularism
1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

So you don't know what Secularism means, got it. Also, your earlier dishonesty of Strawmens and ad hominems towards me, simply shows that you have no arguments.

[Luepola]

Absolutely retarded. Although my Christian faith would obviously cause me to be biased towards the opinion that I do hold, I still think it's stupid that people are throwing a fit over the school supporting a charity that has religious affiliations. It's not like they're carrying out mini-crusades in government schools or something; no one is being forced or even encouraged to convert to Christianity.

That's a lie. The goal of the organization in charge of the charity event has the express goal of converting children.

Yes. That's the organization's goal. It is not, however, the school's goal, based on the interview with the principal of the school. The school is only in it for 'helping people', and they probably don't care one bit about the Christian part.

Also, I think it's noteworthy that this is being challenged by the American Humanist Association, whose own goal is to advance their beliefs (and let's be honest for a second: Who isn't going to try to do that?). They're threatening legal action because they want to kick out the slightest religious influence and make sure they are the primary influence there, and are accomplishing this by stressing 'separation of church and state' in a way it was not originally intended.