If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Log Cabin Democrat)   Christians are being persecuted in Arkansas again. Religious groups told they cannot preach during lunch at public schools any longer   (thecabin.net) divider line 74
    More: Asinine, Ayn Rand, religious denomination, Freedom From Religion Foundation, New Life Church, middle schools, elementary schools  
•       •       •

3438 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jan 2013 at 6:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-19 04:08:17 PM
12 votes:
Bring in some Pantheistic believers and let the kids decide for themselves.

"Alright kids, would you like to listen to Pastor Mark talk about Jesus or Berzerker Erik talk about channeling the warrior spirit of the gods?"
2013-01-19 04:56:32 PM
7 votes:

SkinnyHead: Under current school visitation policy, friends and family can come visit children at lunch.

By allowing students to receive visitors during their lunch hour, the school has created a limited public forum.  It would violate the 1st and 14th Amendments to deny visitation by a friend, just because it's a friend from church.  And it would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination to deny visits, just because religious matters are discussed during those visits.  That's the way I see it, anyways.


Minor children in a school environment do not enjoy the same level of constitutional protections as adults do.
2013-01-19 04:21:48 PM
7 votes:
It's kinda weird that preachers feel the need to keep in touch with these kids off church hours.
2013-01-19 09:05:50 PM
5 votes:
24.media.tumblr.com
2013-01-19 05:51:53 PM
5 votes:

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Bring in some Pantheistic believers and let the kids decide for themselves.

"Alright kids, would you like to listen to Pastor Mark talk about Jesus or Berzerker Erik talk about channeling the warrior spirit of the gods?"


Indeed. If this was ANY religion besides Christianity being allowed exclusive access to children during the school day people would FLIP THE F*CK OUT.
2013-01-19 05:22:43 PM
5 votes:

SkinnyHead: That's true.  But free speech rights of students can be curtailed only if the speech materially and substantially disrupts the work and discipline of the school.  A private meeting at lunchtime between a student and a friend from church to discuss religious matters does not materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.


Incomplete analysis. There is no speech being exercised by the students in this instance. Further, the issue of the school's power to regulate who can enter the campus during school hours (such as an adult) was not addressed - which is quite broad.
2013-01-19 04:51:52 PM
5 votes:
 I would be PISSED if I found out some God-bothers were harassing my little girl during lunch at school.
2013-01-19 08:15:24 PM
4 votes:
TFA doesn't mention the latest developments:

The public school district has turned over the handling of the issue to the Liberty Foundation, a right wing Christian group.:"Liberty Institute will also be speak for the district on this issue from now on, Murry and Mateer said. Murry referred questions to Liberty Institute when asked how he decided to hire the group."

So Conway Public Schools outsources their policy decision to a right wing religious group.
2013-01-19 08:02:47 PM
4 votes:
Here's an idea: Don't let any "visitors" on campus. Not family, not friends, not friends of Jesus, nobody but students, faculty, administrators and staff.
I don't understand how this "policy" of allowing "visitors" began in the first place. Shouldn't students be learning how to socialize with other kids at that age? Can't they just eat lunch?
2013-01-19 07:54:39 PM
4 votes:

cchris_39: Why is it that being atheist requires you to be a whiny litigious obnoxious asshole?


Because equal and opposite reaction.
2013-01-19 06:01:20 PM
4 votes:
If the school allows invited guests to visit students for lunch, there's no problem with religious representatives visiting students whose parents invited them. However, if those guests try to speak to children other than those by whom they were invited, that's a problem, not even because of religion. Would any parent want any adult not employed by the school to approach their children? What if instead of "Have you heard the good news?" the question is "Do you like gladiator movies?" or "Have you ever seen a grown man naked?"
2013-01-19 04:24:53 PM
4 votes:
If only these children had more guns, they wouldn't need preachers to criticize them.
2013-01-19 09:17:06 PM
3 votes:
SkinnyHead: If I put any more time into it, I'll have to start billing the school district.  I've done enough to accomplish my purpose, which was to dazzle Farkers with my mastery of the law.

i186.photobucket.com
2013-01-19 08:19:34 PM
3 votes:

red5ish: Here's an idea: Don't let any "visitors" on campus. Not family, not friends, not friends of Jesus, nobody but students, faculty, administrators and staff.
I don't understand how this "policy" of allowing "visitors" began in the first place. Shouldn't students be learning how to socialize with other kids at that age? Can't they just eat lunch?


Not only that, I question the overall mental stability of a person who wants to come preach at kids during their school lunch. This seems like an easy one to win from a safety point of view, too, especially given our current skittishness over school safety. As a parent, I don't want my child's school letting potential child predators or unstable people into the school. If a parent wants to bring their kid a lunch she forgot, fine; even sit with her for a few minutes before heading out, fine too. But some preacher or 'friend' who has no real business coming to the school? Sorry, no.
2013-01-19 07:54:13 PM
3 votes:
What kind of person wants to go down to a school to hang around with kids they're not related to during lunch? It's pretty creepy.
2013-01-19 07:13:40 PM
3 votes:
No, they need to be told about "Bob" and the Miracle of $1. If Sister Suzie the Floozie and Sister Mary Squared showed up to tell them about the Saucers of the Sex Goddesses and the Land of Eternal Squirt, why, those kids would get right with Jehovah-1, the Aliens Space Brain Who came again and again to JUSTIFY their sins, praise Dobbs!
Pass that bowl of 'Frop around and take out the Buckets of Pils! We'll have us a good old fashioned down-home DEVIVAL ! YEEE HAWWW!
2013-01-19 07:11:32 PM
3 votes:
This is the creepiest thing I've read in quite some time. Why would they be visiting at school? It's school. And just how much church does somebody need? And what school kid actually would want this? Can anybody visit kids at school then? When I was in school it would be creepy to have people visiting like this. School was for school.
2013-01-19 06:16:22 PM
3 votes:
Who gets "visitors" at school? It's not like you're in a jail, or hospital.
I don't recall anyone ever having someone stop by and say hi when I was in school.
2013-01-19 05:40:16 PM
3 votes:

Solon Isonomia: Incomplete analysis.


Yes, it was a SkinnyHead post.  Now punch yourself for quoting one of the most known trolls and taking it seriously.
2013-01-19 05:35:19 PM
3 votes:

SkinnyHead: A private meeting at lunchtime between a student and a friend from church to discuss religious matters does not materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.


i would agree with this. however, when i was in high school, i remember campus crusade for christ (or whatever) sitting down at our lunch tables uninvited and proselytizing. one guy even told me i was going to hell. now that's bullshiat. of course, this was 1987, so hopefully that sort of god-bullying doesn't still go on in public schools.
2013-01-20 01:36:47 AM
2 votes:

cchris_39: Why is it that being atheist requires you to be a whiny litigious obnoxious asshole?


You know what? I'm a theist. I am a Buddhist, and I really don't want my daughter to be forced to listen to Christian sermons and proselytizing at school. She volunteers for a club? Drive on. She wants to check out someone's church on a Sunday, fine. That's her decision then.

If they were only visiting kids from their own church, then fine. That is an outreach program, and that's acceptable. Heck, checking up on kids at school, and offering support is even commendable. The visits are suspended until the staff could get a better handle on the policy, to make sure that they weren't violating any rules or regs.

The problem lies in the fact, that not everyone attends the same churches, some don't attend any, and some folks aren't even the same faith. The issue boils down to the fact that some folks want to share the good news about their own faith, that they forget, that not everyone is in a rush to change their own. Sort of reminds me of the very well intentioned pastor who asked a fella if he was born again, and was told, "No, I think I got it right the first time."

I suppose the question is: how would these folks feel if Buddhist monks wanted to come in to talk to kids about the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path on a continuing basis, or if Rabbis or Imams wanted to just check in on the kids. Or if a group of pagans wanted to just "rap" about Gaea. What if the Nichiren wanted to just hold informal chats?

Again: from what it sounds like, folks were doing essentially outreach visits to the school to kids from their own church, and so long as their folks were OK with it, I don't see much of a problem, but I can see staff wanting to cover their bases, just in case. Not because Christianity, or even this church are bad people, but because not all parents want their kids being preached to, at school, and the impression might be made that this is what was occurring, even if it wasn't, so suspending the visits until folks could check the policy with the needs and wishes of other parents, maybe not such a bad idea.
2013-01-19 10:56:32 PM
2 votes:

skullkrusher: "The ministers all had parental consent to visit the schoolchildren, Murry said. No parent has complained about the visits either, he said." No parents complained.


If no one complains that I'm breaking the law, that doesn't mean I'm not breaking the law. You're smarter than that. Plus you are assuming the school officials are telling the truth. Again, they hired a radical sectarian movement to represent public policy. They have no credibility and should be regarded from this point on as suspicious.
2013-01-19 09:40:48 PM
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: But the school authorities at this particular school did not determine that lunch hour visitation materially and substantially disrupts the work of the school.  That might be a justification if the school decided that visitation by pastors was disruptive.  But they didn't.

If some outside agitation group like FFRF wants to sue the school (assuming they can find a plaintiff), the FFRF will have to prove that the school policy is unconstitutional.  They will have a difficult time doing that, seeing as how the First Amendment prohibits the type of viewpoint discrimination that FFRF is advocating.  And it is not likely that a neutral visitation policy, that allows for religious and non-religious visitors alike, would be seen as endorsing religion.

And you cannot simply assume that the pastors invited to lunch time visitation engage in unwelcome proselytizing.  FFRF will have to prove it.


Well, this is sort of your problem, champ. The admin can decide the sky is pink, but that doesn't  actually make the sky pink. That's why it's called an investigation. A  parent (not FFRF) complained, and thus the Board of Education, at least, has a duty to make sure admin isn't going off on its own.

And even if your policy isn't  meant to endorse something, if it does in practice and you don't correct it, you've just endorsed it.
2013-01-19 08:44:50 PM
2 votes:
media.tumblr.com

Skinnyhead and skulltard in the same thread, time to leave....

/The Arkansas Christians are not going to fark you for "standing up for them".
//Well actually they might if you go to the right rest area bathroom
2013-01-19 08:25:16 PM
2 votes:

HairBolus: TFA doesn't mention the latest developments:

The public school district has turned over the handling of the issue to the Liberty Foundation, a right wing Christian group.:"Liberty Institute will also be speak for the district on this issue from now on, Murry and Mateer said. Murry referred questions to Liberty Institute when asked how he decided to hire the group."

So Conway Public Schools outsources their policy decision to a right wing religious group.


It was probably outside evangelicals who convinced them to write the policy the way it is in the first place. Now that the school is under fire, the administration probably went back and said, "You said we'd be safe brainwashing kids this way, but they've caught us! Help! Help!"
2013-01-19 08:00:34 PM
2 votes:

JohnnyC: Apparently Christianity isn't compelling enough on its own unless Christians can constantly hammer the young and impressionable with their religious views.


Children don't have enough factual information to overcome the religious emotional trauma. They don't understand anything about the universe, and if you install the fear of eternal punishment and admonition, those emotions will rule them for life. They're easy pickings.

Next comes people who have screwed up lives -- the impoverished, victims of disasters, and the self-destructive -- because market demographics says they're emotionally ripe for the picking and susceptible to manipulation. Self-loathing is easy to turn into religion.
2013-01-19 07:57:46 PM
2 votes:

skullkrusher: grimlock1972: Good this type of prayer at school is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

/i have no desire to live in a Christan version of a theocracy.

despite the lack of details of what's happening, you feel comfortable making that declaration huh?


Irrelevant period. Whatever this individual's intentions or motives are it is a privilege that can be exploited too easily. Furthermore once you allow it for one it is very difficult to say no to another. Let us say for the sake of this discussion he is benignly visiting these children, I don't know maybe he just really likes the hot dog cart across the street and just drops in out of sheer boredom. I have nothing against that but like I said once allowed that might encourage others to do the same and how can we be certain of their reasons for visiting. That is of course the best case scenario and as you pointed out we don't have all the facts its just as likely this guy has set up his own little ministry in the lunchroom. This guy is crossing a line and the school board knows it. I know you're a troll and a kinda bad one if you ask me, you come off as too dumb. A true believer would had scored himself some quality talking points from Rush or Beck at least before provoking us libs.
2013-01-19 07:55:33 PM
2 votes:
Apparently Christianity isn't compelling enough on its own unless Christians can constantly hammer the young and impressionable with their religious views.
2013-01-19 07:49:25 PM
2 votes:

cchris_39: Why is it that being atheist requires you to be a whiny litigious obnoxious asshole?


There's certainly no requirement nor is it very common. The better question is, why to religious idiots keep pushing things to the point where they have to be addressed in such a manner?
2013-01-19 07:47:13 PM
2 votes:

cchris_39: Why is it that being atheist requires you to be a whiny litigious obnoxious asshole?


And why are religious folks so insecure that they can't go a week without going to the young people in their church and proselytize, especially in a school setting where all the other children are forced to be in the same room? Go to their house after school, fer fark's sake. If religion was true, you'd only have to teach it once, and it would be self-evident from that point on.

School probably needs to rethink their policy regarding all visitors. Seems their just asking for trouble.
2013-01-19 07:47:09 PM
2 votes:

cchris_39: Why is it that being atheist requires you to be a whiny litigious obnoxious asshole?



Because overbearing pompous Christians feel entitled to their way in everything.
2013-01-19 07:41:58 PM
2 votes:
Why is it that being atheist requires you to be a whiny litigious obnoxious asshole?
2013-01-19 07:24:44 PM
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: Solon Isonomia: Good, you're moving to authority - unfortunately, you're citing only dicta and the authority is factually distinguishable. Milford involved an after-hours program and a religion-specific regulation. In this case, you're dealing with visitors during school hours, thus the "limited public forum" situation does not apply. Further, Milford cites three specific cases where establishment clause was violated because religious activities occurred - two of which were during school sponsored events (football game and graduation) and the other was during school hours (prohibition of evolution being taught in class). If you want to use Milford, you need to explain why constitutional protections of free speech, association, or expression should be expanded and the establishment clause's protection should be decreased in light of Milford and the relevant cases cited by the court.

On the issue of whether lunch hour visitation constitutes a limited public forum, I would cite Prince v. Jacoby, 303 F.3d 1074, 1090-1091 (9th Cir.2002) as a case the recognized a "limited public forum" during school hours for purposes of free speech analysis, within the meaning of Good News Club v. Millford.

Prince v. Jacoby also answers the Establishment Clause concerns (1092-1094.)  "Like the Good News Club, the World Changers seek nothing more than to be treated neutrally and given access to speak about the same topics as other groups. Id. There is no question that requiring that the School District grant religious groups access to the ASB forum would ensure neutrality."  (1092)

Prince v. Jacoby

deals with the Equal Access Act, which covers secondary schools which receive federal money. this is an elementary school. further, the EAA only covers school activities that are not directed by outside parties...in this case, the religious groups are from outside the student body.
2013-01-19 07:20:45 PM
2 votes:
Good this type of prayer at school is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

/i have no desire to live in a Christan version of a theocracy.
2013-01-19 06:24:53 PM
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: I'll try to do better.  I believe that right of free speech covers the discussion between the student and visitor.  The school's power to regulate who can enter the campus during school hours is addressed by the fact that the school has a policy that allows friends and family to visit students who consent to receive them.  Under that policy, pastors have been allowed to visit.


Again, that's an incomplete, if not incorrect, analysis. You're making a freedom of association argument, not a speech argument, by limiting yourself to interaction between the requesting student and pastor. If the student was pronouncing his views (religious or otherwise) to others, then that would be free speech. If the pastor was pronouncing his views (religious or otherwise) to others, then that would be free speech as well. Moreover, the school also has the power to limit visitors in a much more restrictive fashion that you've laid out in a way that does not violate either speech or association rights, not to mention free exercise and establishment.

The only objection to these visits came from FFRF, which is a group that is hostile to religion.  Mere hostility to religion is not a valid reason to prohibit religious speech.  That's considered viewpoint discrimination. Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 US 98 (2001)

Good, you're moving to authority - unfortunately, you're citing only dicta and the authority is factually distinguishable.  Milford involved an after-hours program and a religion-specific regulation. In this case, you're dealing with visitors during school hours, thus the "limited public forum" situation does not apply. Further,  Milford cites three specific cases where establishment clause was violated because religious activities occurred - two of which were during school sponsored events (football game and graduation) and the other was during school hours (prohibition of evolution being taught in class). If you want to use  Milford, you need to explain why constitutional protections of free speech, association, or expression should be expanded and the establishment clause's protection should be decreased in light of  Milford and the relevant cases cited by the court.
2013-01-19 06:17:47 PM
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: We agree on that. If these pastors are doing anything like that, then they're abusing the limited public forum and should be asked to leave.


Their is no reason for them to be there besides proselytizing. That is the stated goal of Christianity--go forth and spread the word.

I'm sure your cool with Muslims coming in just to chat with students.
2013-01-19 05:33:37 PM
2 votes:
Do like in Mesa, AZ. The kids go across the street to the Mormon seminary. It's one of their scheduled class periods; a break where  they can leave campus.

Otherwise I want evolution lectured upon in Sunday school each week.
2013-01-19 05:14:08 PM
2 votes:
Who would want to endure raucous proselytizing and tasteless gruel simultaneously?
2013-01-19 05:02:47 PM
2 votes:
Those poor, poor persecuted Christians.  I just don't know how they make it through their endless days of sadness and misery.
2013-01-21 10:25:21 AM
1 votes:
I dislike loud mouth dickbags no matter what side of aisle their on. I have taught my children long before high school that if you don't live for something you will settle for anything.
2013-01-20 02:46:01 PM
1 votes:

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Bring in some Pantheistic believers and let the kids decide for themselves.

"Alright kids, would you like to listen to Pastor Mark talk about Jesus or Berzerker Erik talk about channeling the warrior spirit of the gods?"


"And tomorrow, Mistress Vavavoom will explain to us what 'Tantric Buddhism' is."
2013-01-20 09:21:47 AM
1 votes:
If you are a religious visitor to the school, and the students other than the one you are visiting know you are a religious visitor, you are doing it wrong. It means you are going beyond your individual counseling of a church member and are starting to proselytize the crowd. Kids are in a captive, government run setting at school and should not be proselytized to by anyone.
2013-01-20 08:52:51 AM
1 votes:

Mayhem_2006: Really? Which account of Jesus' life and death do you claim was written within a generation or two of his life?


Even better, which account of Jesus was not fictional allegory?
2013-01-19 11:52:20 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: nekulor: skullkrusher: PsiChick: skullkrusher: PsiChick: Um...RTFA, it's the parents claiming this is a violation of separation, because they claim the folks are proselytizing. So that's a nice hypothetical, but we aren't discussing that.

"The ministers all had parental consent to visit the schoolchildren, Murry said. No parent has complained about the visits either, he said."

No parents complained.

Hmm, you're right, I re-read and they don't mention how FFRF found out about this. It'd be nice to know more.

/Goddamn 'journalism'...

I think the name of their organization says it all.

Yes, it's an organization dedicated to protecting us from hyper-religious asshats.

sure they are


I'm sure no PARENTS have complained about the visits.

Has anyone asked the kids what they think?
2013-01-19 11:47:30 PM
1 votes:
Matthew 6

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
2013-01-19 11:37:15 PM
1 votes:

Selena Luna: Urbn: Actually, it would be funny if someone went to the school and followed every scripture these preachers tell with the older folk tales/myths that the Christians borrowed from or transformed to create that scripture.

I tried that with a Christian (my sister, who converted to Unitarianism). She tried to get into an argument with me and when I told her that I had sources backing me up, she accused me of never letting her be right. I tried it with one of my friends in high school and they told me I was going to hell. It doesn't seem to work well.


The measure of how much someone wants to tell you about their religious beliefs is usually inversely proportional to how much they will want to hear about yours.
2013-01-19 11:08:11 PM
1 votes:
Should be just parents/guardians and that is all.
2013-01-19 10:53:19 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: if visitor from the mosque were treated differently, you should be outraged and I'd imagine you would be. Of course, this is not a reason that another person should receive poor treatment.


I would hope you would be too. But that skirts the larger issue. Not allowing unrelated adults not associated with the school access to children during lunch period is NOT "poor treatment."  I suspect neither you nor would agree than unrelated adults with secular or political interests belong with those kids at lunchtime. Religious professionals should have to abide by the same rules as secular ones--they are not entitled to preferential treatment merely by being religious. Whether secular or religious, unrelated adults not employed by the school district really have no business in the public schools during school hours. Its an unnecessary security risk.
2013-01-19 10:38:47 PM
1 votes:
Maybe the teachers should show up at the church on Sunday for some impromptu lessons on evolution?
2013-01-19 10:07:49 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Solon Isonomia: SkinnyHead: Under current school visitation policy, friends and family can come visit children at lunch.

By allowing students to receive visitors during their lunch hour, the school has created a limited public forum.  It would violate the 1st and 14th Amendments to deny visitation by a friend, just because it's a friend from church.  And it would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination to deny visits, just because religious matters are discussed during those visits.  That's the way I see it, anyways.

Minor children in a school environment do not enjoy the same level of constitutional protections as adults do.

That's true.  But free speech rights of students can be curtailed only if the speech materially and substantially disrupts the work and discipline of the school.  A private meeting at lunchtime between a student and a friend from church to discuss religious matters does not materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.


Except you forgot one very, very important fact. This is about preaching, not a private meeting between A STUDENT and A PASTOR. This is materially infringing upon the beliefs and rights of other students who may hold other religious beliefs or none.

Not protected. In addition, this is a public and not a private school. Since it receives public funds it is either all or nothing. All religions, including Satanism and Islam, or none.
2013-01-19 09:17:17 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: If he is just visiting with the student he should absofarkinglutely be allowed to do so as long as there is such a visitation policy. To say otherwise belies a much different motivation than constitutional concerns


If I thought for a moment that a visitor from the local mosque to child at the school would be treated the same way, I would agree with you. I am highly skeptical. Hiring a radical sectarian group to 'represent' your policy towards religious access to elementary schools students suggests that Constitutional concerns are a mere facade.
2013-01-19 09:13:45 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Doktor_Zhivago: [media.tumblr.com image 480x552]

Skinnyhead and skulltard in the same thread, time to leave....

/The Arkansas Christians are not going to fark you for "standing up for them".
//Well actually they might if you go to the right rest area bathroom

wow, you sure hightailed it out of the thread last night pretty fast. Not even a word of apology either. You are lowclass and dim. Congrats!


I do sleep sometimes.
And I'm sorry you're a gigantic dipshiat. :'(

Why can't we just have church at church, and school at school? I don't understand. I grew up going to church and my pastor/youth group leaders never wandered into my cafeteria to proselytize people that was what going to church was for. Of course I grew up in the ELCA and they don't think that jesus is coming back riding on a 6 headed dragon to burn teh gheys and jews with searing hellfire so there is that...

Also this

Raharu: Metaluna Mutant: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x399]

THIS.


Also, THIS ^^^
2013-01-19 09:09:01 PM
1 votes:
There's a long history of Christians expecting special treatment from the public schools. This thread springs immediately to mind.
2013-01-19 09:06:38 PM
1 votes:
2013-01-19 08:50:29 PM
1 votes:

Hip_and_Edgy: as for how they did their thing- it was not subtle. They entered after everyone was seated and went to the center tables. Would talk with like, one foot on the bench and standing, somewhat loudly, waving and introducing themselves to everyone.


Yeah, that starts to become a problem even under  Milford's circumstances.
2013-01-19 08:36:10 PM
1 votes:
I graduated from Conway High School in 1992--when I was there, there was none of this horseshiat going on.  WTF has happened in the last 20+ years that has made this militant Christianity become malignant?
2013-01-19 08:28:43 PM
1 votes:
Life in Fartbongo's Fartmerica: I can't indoctrinate children into my cannibalistic death cult on school property during school hours. FREEDOM IS OVER.
2013-01-19 08:25:16 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: I'm not advocating an expansion of constitutional protection.  I am applying existing constitutional doctrine to the facts stated in the article.  The school has created a limited public forum by allowing visitors during lunch hour.  The school cannot deny some visitors and students the opportunity to participate in lunch hour visitation based on viewpoint discrimination.  The burden should be on the school district to articulate a legitimate reason.  FFRF has not suggested a legitimate reason.


Inaccurate summation of the facts as presented and, again, an incomplete analysis. You didn't articulate how the visitation policy (which merely discusses visitation, not events) equates a policy allowing student organizations to utilize school grounds to hold meetings - every legal argument has a logical leap, but you need to fill that gap as much as you can before making said leap. Without the limited public forum being solidly established, the burden is extremely low on the school (and the FFRF has no burden at all).

If I put any more time into it, I'll have to start billing the school district.  I've done enough to accomplish my purpose, which was to dazzle Farkers with my mastery of the law.

I'm not dazzled yet. You're trying to use authority properly, I'll give you that - many of the high school students I teach this stuff to on a volunteer basis don't get that far.
2013-01-19 08:19:16 PM
1 votes:

JohnnyC: Apparently Christianity isn't compelling enough on its own unless Christians can constantly hammer the young and impressionable with their religious views.


The biggest reason they go after the young is that when you are aged 5 through about 11 or so, you are still pretty damn impressionable. Once they get you believing everything they tell you, then they start making sure you believe nothing else.

And a lot of 'Christians' need to get over their persecution complex.
2013-01-19 08:11:38 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: I am applying existing constitutional doctrine to the facts stated in the article.


See, there's the thing. We don't know the facts. We are *told* that they aren't preaching to anyone but their own, but there's that little thing about being open to "questions" from kids who haven't had parents signing permission slips.

I'd bet the way the policy is written and the way it's carried out are going to be two different things, otherwise they wouldn't halt the program for review. Missionaries are slimy little bastards, just one step below marketers and advertisers -- they're likely bringing the "review" to find out which witnesses have seen anything damning.
2013-01-19 08:07:23 PM
1 votes:

red5ish: Here's an idea: Don't let any "visitors" on campus. Not family, not friends, not friends of Jesus, nobody but students, faculty, administrators and staff.
I don't understand how this "policy" of allowing "visitors" began in the first place. Shouldn't students be learning how to socialize with other kids at that age? Can't they just eat lunch?


Sort of like not having prom because you are afraid a same-sex couple might show up. We know how well that worked the last time.
2013-01-19 08:03:23 PM
1 votes:

Solon Isonomia: Darth_Lukecash: GAT_00: Solon Isonomia: Incomplete analysis.

Yes, it was a SkinnyHead post.  Now punch yourself for quoting one of the most known trolls and taking it seriously.

It's not a troll if he believes it.

He's being somewhat Reasonable. Using actual cases.

The problem is that the 1st amendment specifically says the government cannot establish any religion. So no preaching is allowed. However, if the school allows visits then they should limit it to only family or allow it for others.

That's the real trick, isn't it? Schools become limited public forums in certain situations which creates a whole mess of which element of the First Amendment overrides the other elements. Me, I think there's a real discussion in where the visitors are allowed to be. Do you limit them to the lunchroom? The main office? Only when escorted?




Here's the thing: if you have an open forum, it must be open for all. You cannot prevent a student run group just because it's religious. The school cannot demand students join it, but can't stop people from joining it. The key being the students need to run it.

If the school has open visitation that is not limited to family of the student, then they have to allow in everyone. What will happen is that the school will just not allow visitors.
2013-01-19 08:00:01 PM
1 votes:

Virtual Pariah: Seems that this could be solved by opening up the lunch discussions to all religions and non-religious views.

If the school can't agree to do that, then they should not allow it at all.


I agree with the idea in general, however, in practice, in their area, I'm betting that kids who might support other religions, or no religion, would be ridiculed, abused, etc.
2013-01-19 07:46:34 PM
1 votes:

fusillade762: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Bring in some Pantheistic believers and let the kids decide for themselves.

"Alright kids, would you like to listen to Pastor Mark talk about Jesus or Berzerker Erik talk about channeling the warrior spirit of the gods?"

Indeed. If this was ANY religion besides Christianity being allowed exclusive access to children during the school day people would FLIP THE F*CK OUT.



There is a United States Congressman currently flipping his lid about a post-secondary school using a $627 grant to buy some books about Islam. You just can't make this shiat up.
2013-01-19 07:41:06 PM
1 votes:

shamanwest: That's what I Can Haz Cheeseburger is for. :) Honestly, you'd get better conversation from Bevets.


True, but the guy is putting some actual effort in this time and I've had a vain hope for seven years that maybe real discussion can come from others observing the exchange and start said real discussion on the side.
2013-01-19 07:26:02 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: On the issue of whether lunch hour visitation constitutes a limited public forum, I would cite Prince v. Jacoby, 303 F.3d 1074, 1090-1091 (9th Cir.2002) as a case the recognized a "limited public forum" during school hours for purposes of free speech analysis, within the meaning of Good News Club v. Millford.


Better, but bear in mind you're relying on a single court's authority - try to spread out your sources lest someone sandbags you with a standard followed by four other circuits. You're also running into some of the same problems as before - you're citing something that can be distinguished on factual grounds.  Prince involved student led groups and a broad policy by the school to allow access to groups, thus creating a limited public forum. In the school in the article, you have informal visitors in the lunch room without an explicit mention of a similar policy. Citing  Prince is a step in one direction, but you need to articulate what  Prince stands for, how it applies to this particular case, and how supports your argument to expand the constitutional protection.

Prince v. Jacoby also answers the Establishment Clause concerns (1092-1094.)  "Like the Good News Club, the World Changers seek nothing more than to be treated neutrally and given access to speak about the same topics as other groups. Id. There is no question that requiring that the School District grant religious groups access to the ASB forum would ensure neutrality."  (1092)

Again, the quoted text directly references the ASB (Associated Student Body) club policy - the facts at hand in this article do not necessarily discuss such a policy. You need to apply the rule articulated in  Prince to the situation at hand to make your point. Sometimes it's akin to arguing from analogy, but that's a fast way to explain it. You're finding the authority, but you're not using it properly. To use an analogy, you're holding a gun and are throwing it like a rock instead of firing it. The later takes time and skill, but is much more effective and productive.
2013-01-19 07:19:44 PM
1 votes:
Actually, it would be funny if someone went to the school and followed every scripture these preachers tell with the older folk tales/myths that the Christians borrowed from or transformed to create that scripture.
2013-01-19 07:03:11 PM
1 votes:

Spanky_McFarksalot: now now, I'm sure the parents and school would have no problem if muslims came to the school to preach.

right?


Hare Krishnas would be even better.
2013-01-19 06:43:07 PM
1 votes:

BiblioTech: TommyymmoT: Who gets "visitors" at school? It's not like you're in a jail, or hospital.
I don't recall anyone ever having someone stop by and say hi when I was in school.

Parents of our elementary school students are known to stop by to have lunch with their kids on occasion.


Wow, talk about separation anxiety.
They can't make it 6 hours without seeing each other?
I would have hated that, because lunch time was spark one up time, not family reunion time.
2013-01-19 06:27:42 PM
1 votes:

Howie Spankowitz: Wait...WTH am I reading in this thread?  Is Skinnyhead engaging in a reasoned (though admittedly characteristically wrong) legal debate?

I feel dirty.


Like I said, he needs to step up his game if he wants to bring the GED in law out. Trolling or not, occasionally there are valid arguments that can be made by either side and it can be fun to find out what they are.
2013-01-19 06:04:14 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Under current school visitation policy, friends and family can come visit children at lunch.

By allowing students to receive visitors during their lunch hour, the school has created a limited public forum.  It would violate the 1st and 14th Amendments to deny visitation by a friend, just because it's a friend from church.  And it would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination to deny visits, just because religious matters are discussed during those visits.  That's the way I see it, anyways.


Well, it's a good thing you're not Supreme Court Justice SkinnyHead, otherwise your opinion - which is factually incomplete - would mean something.
2013-01-19 05:44:04 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Solon Isonomia: Incomplete analysis.

Yes, it was a SkinnyHead post.  Now punch yourself for quoting one of the most known trolls and taking it seriously.


He wants to play GED in law, I'm game for now. Shiat, I'm not even refuting, I'm just pointing out the holes in the argument. Dude needs to step up his game, plus it might lead to a genuine discussion w/others.
2013-01-19 04:47:56 PM
1 votes:
25.media.tumblr.com
2013-01-19 04:39:52 PM
1 votes:
Under current school visitation policy, friends and family can come visit children at lunch.

By allowing students to receive visitors during their lunch hour, the school has created a limited public forum.  It would violate the 1st and 14th Amendments to deny visitation by a friend, just because it's a friend from church.  And it would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination to deny visits, just because religious matters are discussed during those visits.  That's the way I see it, anyways.
 
Displayed 74 of 74 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report