The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Of Public Schools: Sexual Beastiality – In; Kids For Christ – Out!

Here is another reason why parents ought to immediately remove their children from public school and either enroll them in private school or home school them.  (As if teaching political correctness, multiculturalism, an anti-American worldview, a distorted history of America and a very graphic, sexually explicit Sex Ed. course was not reason enough.)

The Owasso School District in Oklahoma is being sued for not allowing one of its student groups, Kids For Christ, to promote its after school activities.  The position of the school district is that the “Church-State” separation is being conflicted; that because this is a religious group, it cannot advertise to the rest of the student body when and where it will meet after school in the same way other, non-religious groups can.   In other words, if the group was “Kids for Gay Rights” or “Kids for Abortion Rights” the school district would have left them alone.  According to the district, (which has its facts wrong when it comes to the law) whether the kids announce a meeting over the school’s PA system, or provide students with leaflets that have written information pertaining to their meeting, constitutes a “violation” of the so called “separation of church and state”.

Ladies and gentlemen – there is nothing in our Constitution that prohibits religion in public schools.  That is an ACLU lie.  What is prohibited is public schools, which are government institutions, from promoting one form of religion over another on their own, independent of community input.  Public schools belong to the communities in which they reside.  As such, the people in these communities do have the right to make their voices heard.  And communities do have a right, if it is in fact a majority of that community, to incorporate religion within their own public schools, whether that means opening the class day with a prayer, displaying the Ten Commandments on a wall, and forming after school religious study clubs – and informing the student body of those meetings.

These kids have just as much right to have a religious after school program for themselves as kids would have a right to meet for drama, arts, sports or anything else.  Religion does not take a back seat, does not need to take a back seat, because the ACLU says so.  Law groups like the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which is the law firm representing these children in their suit against the district, are making certain the Owasso School District and the ACLU knows that.

Even the delinquents over at the Daily Kos need to be reminded of that.  They will mock Christianity, because they know their heads won’t be cut off for doing so.  In their dismal attempt at “gotcha” journalism, they use Islam, and a Muslim after school group as a bases to show what supposed hypocrites Christians are.  Their attempt fails because, aside from a small number of extreme and radical Christians, the vast majority of the Christian community would not object to a Muslim group meeting after school.

Are “Kids for Christ” meeting after school for nefarious and sinister purposes?  Are they meeting to plot the overthrow of America, to blow up a building, to discuss the assassination of a political or religious leader?  Or – are they just meeting after school to study the Bible and worship?  If that is all they are doing, that may make some uncomfortable, but there is nothing unconstitutional about it.  And if that is all a Muslim group is doing, worshiping, that is neither unconstitutional nor ought it to make anyone uncomfortable.

The ACLU will of course beg to differ.  They too have their facts concerning the law wrong.

When communities all across America begin to take a stand for their schools, for their children who attend these schools, and demand that their schools represent them, reflect them and not the ACLU, not the lies of the ACLU and other anti-religion (Christianity) organizations; when communities begin to demand their schools teach their children according to their wishes and desires, and not those of the ACLU, or any other liberally bent group with an ulterior motive to indoctrinate our children with falsities, inaccuracies, lies about America and our history, lies about morality, etc.; when communities effectively take back their schools from people and organizations that would seek to intentionally harm their children, and all children, with liberal propaganda – we will then see a transformation occur within the public school system itself that will create a real atmosphere for learning.

However – so long as the ACLU is allowed to win its legal fights, because of community apathy and arrogant judges who continually disregard law and our Constitution; so long as the liberal agenda remains inculcated and entrenched within our public schools, fastened to our children’s education by erroneous laws intentionally distorted by devious people – the decline of American education will continue, and not only will our children suffer all the more for it, we as a society will suffer as well.

The children are our future, and they always will be.  If we continue to allow their education to be intentionally screwed up and infected with a liberal, anti-America agenda, they will grow up to believe that way.

And once a majority of our youth have grown up into adulthood to believe what lies about America liberalism teaches, and that the ACLU fights in court to remain stapled to public education, the value system of our founding fathers, the morality and ethics they incorporated into the creation of this country; the same strict attention to that morality and ethics that has successfully taught generations of Americans, in public schools, the correct history of our country, the meaning of freedom, liberty, justice, etc.; that same morality and ethics which is the reason, directly, for America today being the greatest nation on Earth and why everyone in the world is so envious of us – once we lose that, we lose America.  And that is the real driving force of, and behind, liberalism.

The removal of religion from public schools, and forbidding religious groups like “Kids for Christ”, is but one of the ways liberals have found works in aiding to subvert and convert our children.  (The addition of political correctness, multiculturalism, a distorted history of America as the bad guy, etc., all work to cement that liberal imprint on our children’s minds.)

We who love America need to be motivated – to find the courage – to stop them.

Or is it already too late?

Single Post Navigation

7 thoughts on “Of Public Schools: Sexual Beastiality – In; Kids For Christ – Out!

  1. dougindeap on said:

    Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. They later buttressed this separation with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

    James Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

    The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. (Not having reviewed the circumstances of the Owasso School District case, I won’t venture an opinion that.) Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

    Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx

  2. Agreed. Except, and though I am secular (because one is either religious or one is secular) while government is constrained by our Constitution from implementing religion into public venues, it is the people themselves – who, because they are independent of government, not constrained to or bound by government rules, and don’t have the same Constitutional limitations as government representatives do, can vote (as a majority) to elect to have religion inside the public buildings, including schools.

    As secularists, we ought not fear the religious. Rather we ought to fear, and continue to fight, those, religious or not, who seek to undermine and dismantle our freedoms. That a majority of people in a community would support the placement of say the the Ten Commandments in their schools, which their property taxes are funding, is not a threat to the separation of church and state. Nor is a cross upon a water tower, or after school religious study programs – as long as it is the will of the people who, remember are not of the government or government representatives directly making those decisions.

    That is true Democracy. That is the American way.

  3. dougindeap on said:

    I agree–fear of the religious has nothing to do with it, nor does any desire or effort to limit anyone’s exercise of their religion.

    It is important to distinguish between the “public square” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

    In this respect, the idea that a vote of the majority would somehow make the government’s promotion of religion okay is mistaken. The Constitution constrains government from doing that whether 51% or 99% favor it. If majority vote sufficed to set aside a constitutional limit on government, it wouldn’t be much of a limit.

    With respect to symbols and such, generally, if a monument is displayed “by” a government on its land, then that likely will be regarded as “government speech” to be assessed for compliance with the establishment clause. If a monument is displayed by a private person or group on government land, it may well be regarded as “individual speech” to be evaluated under the free exercise clause. In the latter case, the government, of course, cannot discriminate against particular religions and thus generally must allow other persons or groups equal opportunity to express their religious views on the government land. In sorting this out, much depends on the details of each case.

  4. Government promotion of religion is never okay. The people’s promotion of religion is what is at issue. If a majority of government officials in a community want to promote putting the Ten Commandments in a public school – that is wrong, and that is unconstitutional. However, if a majority of private citizens in that same community want to see the Ten Commandments placed in their public school that is not unconstitutional. It may very well offend some – but virtue of it being the majority of private citizens, that needs to be honored. We cannot allow ourselves to live in a society where the minority has more influence than the majority, or where even one person can file a lawsuit against an entire town. There are already Constitutional protections for the minority – and those protections were passed, as dictated by the Constitution, by the majority.

  5. dougindeap on said:

    I think we agree on much, but differ perhaps in how to distinguish government and individual actions.

    Since our representative governments (federal, state, and local) presumably express the will of the people in their actions, I’m not sure why you would make a distinction between their actions by ordinary decision-making means (e.g., vote of the city council) or other means involving taking a poll of citizens in the community (e.g., vote of the city council after a poll or referendum). It’s still an action of the government. The Constitution doesn’t say the government cannot do this or that (e.g., establish a religion, curtail someone’s free speech, or discriminate against a race)–unless a majority votes otherwise, then it’s okay.

    The constitutionality of displays of symbols and such (e.g., the 10 Commandments) depends on context and details, e.g., whether it is the government or individuals doing the displaying and whether displays by others also are allowed. The law on this, which the Wake Forest paper summarizes nicely, may actually suit your views.

  6. I understand what you are saying. The point I am making is that, in America, we have a unique set up where the people, private citizens, can directly impact law. In other words, through the process of referendums people, private citizens, have the same power as governments, public representatives, do. We the people can literally pass a law government can’t, or doesn’t want passed; and we can overturn a law that government has passed but which we the people don’t approve. Through the referendum process, in which a certain number of signatures need to be acquired first before it can even be put on the ballot, we the people have the Constitutional right to govern, providing a majority of citizens vote in favor of the law that is on the ballot. With regards to religion, even when governments are “expressing the will of the people in their actions” they still cannot, Constitutionally, enact a law that mandates the Ten Commandments be placed in public schools.

    The “distinction” I make between private citizens and government representatives is simple – private citizens can put on a referendum a law that allows for the placement of the Ten Commandments within their public school. And if enough private citizens vote in favor of the referendum – a majority – then it passes. Our Constitution only says government (federal, state, local) cannot establish religion, favor one religion over another, etc. As of now, it is silent as to what private citizens can do in that regard, therefore it is not unconstitutional for private citizens to pass or revoke laws pertaining to religion.

  7. dougindeap on said:

    I understand and agree with your point about private citizens; they are individuals and their actions as individuals should not be regarded as government action and thus constrained by the First Amendment establishment clause.

    I disagree with your idea about initiatives though. In that case, each citizen is of course acting as an individual when exercising his or her right to vote. When the citizenry as a whole, though, passes a law by initiative, that is government action. Governments make laws, not individuals. It just happens that in the case of an initiative, the citizenry acts directly in the place of the legislature and enacts a law. In that instance, the form of government more resembles a democracy than a republic, but it is every bit as much a government. The citizenry in that instance is subject to the Constitution every bit as much as the legislature. Otherwise, the citizenry could override the Constitution and thus effectively amend it by mere majority vote, rather than by the more elaborate process prescribed in the Constitution.

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 73 other followers