After-School Gospel

"Thanks to a 2001 Supreme Court ruling, the Good News Club is allowed to operate afterschool Bible study classes on tax-supported campuses in order to carry out its self-stated mission of reaching 'unchurched kids' ”

Unless the government is paying these people there is no conflict of interest. If this is part of Bush's Faith-Based-Initiatives deal than I would agree that this is not constitutional.

Just as you have the right to mock Christianity, others have the right to preach it. That is the price one pays for living in a free society with a Bill Of Rights.

I find it interesting that when Andres Serrano received a $15,000 government grant for his "Piss Christ" exhibit depicting crucifix thrown into a vat of urine, those who share your sentiment were deafeningly silent. Evidently crucifixes and government money only part ways when Christianity is portrayed in a positive light. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ)

As an aside: Do you find it a bit ironic that almost every schoolyard shooting has taken place on public school campuses?

Let's take your argument to it's logical extreme: Should all religious activity be banned on tax-supported properties? Do we do away with the Easter Service (and to take a pre-emptive strike, I know Easter is actually rooted in Saturnalian paganism) that takes place at the Sunken Gardens? Do we ban kids from wearing religious t-shirts at public schools? Do we take away welfare from the poor because they might give some of the government $$$ they receive to the church collection plate?

Whether or not evidence can be presented that the Good News Club is receiving taxpayer support (which they shouldn't) what amazes me is the intolerance and fear you show toward the idea of kids being exposed to ideas other than your own. If one has confidence in their ideas, they wouldn't freak out as you have, and appeal to our emotions by bringing up the issue of taxpayer-funded campuses.

I remember a similar sentiment against religion rose up about 95 years ago, but films of it are hard to find, and would be of little use to me because I don't understand Russian.

I'd rather that people get over themselves and learn to live with those who think differently from themselves. Is that being unreasonable?

A hypothetical parallel scenario: You're driving through a tough neighborhood in a city and you're lost, then your car breaks down. It's 10 at night, and suddenly you see six big burly young men walking around the corner and they see you and start walking your way. As they circle in and you fear th worst, you see they are all carrying Bibles and realize the commotion down the street is people leaving a late night church party. As you digest this they politely say "you look like you're in trouble, if you need a place to stay you can hang at the church while the tow truck comes"

Something to think about.

Time for the Muslims and Atheists to set up their own clubs subsidized by our school tax money. Reclaim that.

JA like he said, they have the same legal right, not to mention if enough citizens/kids want it, the forum is there for them too.

According to the CEF Web site, these elementary schools have Good News Clubs that meet on campus. A parent permission slip is required. Adams, Brandon, Canalino, El Camino, Ellwood, Foothill, Hardy, Hollister, Kellogg, Vieja Valley.

Thanks for writing this article, but what about Wyldife in our local junior high? How can atheist parents compete with Christian parents who organize super-fun activities for teens in order to proselytize? There is a tremendous amount of peer pressure for kids to attend these activities. Check out their website (http://sites.younglife.org/sites/LaCo...). I was volunteering at school a few months ago and heard a parent talking it up with kids. Here's what the website tells kids it's about: "Young Life gives you plenty of opportunities to have an amazing time with your friends at club, Campaigners and camp. You will also get to know some pretty cool adults who care about you. With Young Life leaders, you and your friends can enjoy being teenagers and experience what life is all about." But it's really about their God mission: http://sites.younglife.org/sites/LaCo.... This doesn't belong in our schools.

Would the school districts allow a club called, say, "The Smart Kid Club," which served cookies and promised a free IPad to all members, and which preached atheism and denigrated all religions as superstitious nonsense, to use school facilities? I bet not.

SantaNa: It's ironic that you mention homosexuality because something occurred to me tonight as it relates to the topic at hand.

As a heterosexual male, I find the idea of having sex with another man repelling--to put it mildly but unlike Starshine and some of the other "tolerant" folks I don't go into ballistics when confronted with something I find unappealing. If I get hit on by a guy, I politely tell him I'm not interested, don't judge him, and move on. The difference is, I'm secure enough in my being/beliefs that I don't need to be rude and insulting to people.

As another aside, there is a couple I know who I absolutely think the world of; he's an Atheist, she's Catholic, I'm Protestant, we all know how the others feel, and we all get along just fine.

No matter what anybody wants or thinks, there will always be people around you who don't share your beliefs so it's much easier for all involved to realize this.

The Founding Fathers--while in some or perhaps most cases mindblowingly hypocritical in their failure to apply their princples of freedom to all races and both genders, understood the need for religious pluralism. They themselves ran the theological gamut so to say "the Founding Fathers were Atheists/Deists/Christians/Worshipped The Divine Frisbee is not germaine to the point that they understood that in order to have a cohesive society we all had to learn how to get along.

A couple of asides: I have no problem if Muslims or Atheists want to meet after school; but then again, our Constitution guarantees that and I'm secured enough in my own faith that it doesn't bother me.

The second point is that in a recent National Geographic the point of how the Bible has influenced the English was the headline story. (Perhaps that inspired your comment)

@billclausen
Your 'six burly men' scenario was put to the late Christopher Hitchens.

Q: If you were in a strange city one evening and saw a few men coming toward you, would you feel more or less safe knowing they just came from a prayer meeting?

Hitchens: “Just to stay within the letter ‘B,’ I have actually had that experience in Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem, and Baghdad. In each case I can say absolutely, and can give my reasons, why I would feel immediately threatened if I thought that the group of men approaching me in the dusk were coming from a religious observance.”

I'd be bothered less if this were high school. The courts make a distinction between elementary and high school, and hold elementary schools to a higher standard for no proselytizing activity. Gideons can donate bibles to high schools e.g., but not elementary schools. Although other religions hasn't been tested in court to my knowledge, I assume the school policy would have to be open to all religions. A school in Buncombe County NC changed their policy about accepting religious books rather than accept donated Pagan books.

I think the fact that it's on school property, albeit 'after' school is bothersome. There must be plenty of non-school spaces they could rent for Christian kids to have their Christian activities. But they're not doing this for kids who are already Christian. They're trying to convert the rest of the kids.

Rich: Your scenario in which you quote Hitchens is irrelevant because we're not talking about those places, but rather the U.S.

"Gideons can donate bibles to high schools e.g., but not elementary schools."

Why not? Has a law been passed?

"I'd be bothered less if this were high school. The courts make a distinction between elementary and high school, and hold elementary schools to a higher standard for no proselytizing activity."

Is there a constitutional basis for there being a difference between the elementary and high school, or just someone's emotions coming into play?

Should any sex education be taught in the schools? Should any mention of sex even be made? Many people find that offensive as well and feel it doesn't belong in the schools but we know perfectly well that the real issue here is not about constitutional legality but about people who want only *their* point of view espoused but not the views of someone else.

Let me provide a little more detail to billclausen's pleasing tale of The Six Burly Men.

It turns out the fellow with the broken down car was kind of 'burly' himself; trim, well-muscled, and no stranger to protecting himself. As was his longtime partner, Chad. And they wore sharp, figure-hugging clothes to highlight their frequent gym visits and active life-style. In fact, they had just left the dance club.

The Six Burly men, full of youth and power and conviction, were fired up after a rousing sermon at Church of Jesus Christ Christian. (It covered some important aspects of Identity, and the early teachings of Westley Swift.)

Their closely-shaved heads, tight black T-shirts, dark jeans, and Doc Martens was their uniform; their jostling and jokes and horseplay revealing the closeness that comes from a common purpose and hard-won experience of defending their values in an America taking a turn for the worse.

Standing before the two elegantly-dressed, obviously lost travelers, the leader of the Six Burly Men had a thin smile as he asked, very politely, "you look like you're in trouble, if you need a place to stay you can hang at the church while the tow truck comes?"

The 'Bibles in Schools' is from a West Virginia Federal case: Peck vs. Upshur County Board of Education (I was going to post a link but the Independent isn't letting me. You'll have to use your search engine of choice)

"In elementary schools, the concerns animating the coercion principle are at their strongest because of the impressionability of young elementary-age children"

As for your 6 men being American Christians, I'm not sure Jessica Ahlquist would be so relieved.

My heebie-jeebies run to a reaction of revulsion and reprehensibility. I am with you, Starshine.

Mr. Clausen is either wearing a white collar or a reason-inhibiting one. Since both are interchangeable, I suggest he take his blatant proselytizing elsewhere and knock off the thumping. And his ludicrous "asides".

Seriously, these insufferable jeezlers have no business being in our schools "mining for souls." When one looks across the history of the past 2,000 years, what one "institution" reigns supreme has being the relentless and successful mongers of fear and intolerance? Religion, of course.

Such insufferability continues to play out from the minds and fingers of the mentally timid and logically challenged. Ergo the likes of Mr. Clausen. His failed efforts at constitutionally-cloaked cleverity only serve to highlight what an intolerant fear-wracked man he truly is. In other words, the usual terminally inculcated dogmaton.

Produce this "god" of yours, let your magic zombie come back to reclaim his throne, or please believe whatever you wish to believe in silence, among youselves, and leave the rest of us out of it. A happier atheist you will not find, proud to be so, beholden to no imaginary superbeing whatsoever and, as long as your "mission statement" dictates that you sign-up as many weak-minded suckers into your delusions, dedicated to actively preventing the disease that is you and your religions to continue unabated unto the detriment and dumbocity of our kind.

Aman.

What is interesting is how the above comments have nothing to do with the point I raised about freedom and living in a pluralistic society. When challenged, one can address the points raised, or change the subject and quote Jessica Alquist or anyone else who is too insecure in their beliefs to allow others to share theirs.

That 1st Amendment thing really has some of you worked up doesn't it?

Ok billclausen, I will take the bate. This issue here is the establishment clause. Government operated institutions are not to be used to promote any particular religious belief. What that means to me is that if one religion is represented on school property, all of them must be, including atheism (an impractical proposition). Of course the King James Version of the Bible is a classic in English Literature and should be read by everybody who wishes to truly master the English language in its written form. But this has nothing to do with proselytizing to children. The stated goal of these zealots is to get to children before they are 12 years old. That is sick, sick, sick. If your religion is so great, you should be able to convince unchurched adults of its truth. But no, you have to go after kids in public schools and trick them with superstition and cookies. The U.S. Constitution was framed to expressly forebid this kind of coercion in our public institutions. Years ago when they came after my younger daughter, she laughed in their faces and mocked them with cruel jokes. I was so proud of her but had to remonstrate her to be tolerant and polite to those who thought differently than she did. But not all children are so confident in themselves and many are suceptible to magical thinking. It just isn't fair to take advantage of them.

What's interesting is that a direct response to a point is taken by the author of the original point as a change of subject. Maybe we should have stayed on the subject in the first place? How do we tell if it's your right to have your after school prayerathon, or my kid's right to not be preyed on? I wish I had a better answer than "I know it when I see it", but this one sure stinks.

Here is the Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

That was written to ensure that one religion would not be preferred over another. I fail to see how the issue at hand violates this clause. (Is the school saying no other religions are allowed?)

"What that means to me is that if one religion is represented on school property, all of them must be, including atheism "

These groups are voluntary. (Unless I've been lied to and been led down the wrong track on this matter) As such, any group, religion, Atheists or whatever have the right to meet after school. As such, this conforms to both the Establishment and Prohibition clauses.

So far what I'm seeing with Draxor, Starshine and some others is that because they are offended by an idea, they want it outlawed. This intolerance to ideas other than one's own is what gives me the "Shiver-me-creepies,"

We all know Ghandi was not a Christian, but do you think he's be so freaked out by this?

As for Draxor, your comments have reduced themselves to personal insults. (And you can spare the "I'm not insulting you, I'm just telling it like it is cliche) If you think religion alone is the problem, talk to people (Such as Hank) who have lived under Communist regimes. You can also consider the Hutu/Tutsi power struggles in Rwanda which was defined among ruling class vs. oppressed class. And think of the Reign of Terror in France in the late 18th century.

The bottom line is some of you are so insecure about your beliefs that you're hiding behind the children to justify your bigotry. You don't like your ideas being challenged--that's what it is.

As far has who is bigoted, or fearful, I'm the one here who isn't calling for censorship but opposing it, which is more than I can say for some of you.

By the way Draxor, I've noticed some of your comments have been censored lately. Is this because you are an irrational person who makes unreasonable comments, or because the censorship of which I speak and warn against is being practiced by a journalistic entity which shares your viewpoint? A bit ironic isn't it? Also, I've noticed you've tended on occasion to pronounce people guilty who are accused of crimes in these blogs, whereas I have argued that people should withhold judgment until the facts are presented.

Who is being "mentally timid and logically challenged" here?

It's worthwhile reading Ms. Stewart's book. What this organization is doing is evil.

As for Bill Clausen and his Gish Gallup of intellectually dishonest codswollow and counterfactual scenarios, one could just as well imagine the burly gentlemen being escapees from a maximum security prison who kindly help you fix your tire and then head off, leaving you with some milk and cookies.

"As such, any group, religion, Atheists or whatever have the right to meet after school. "

This is not a group meeting after school. What this is, is a highly organized and well-funded organization preying on children and doing great damage to them and to their communities through every trick in the book, especially the use of the schoolroom, which these young children have been taught -- by their parents and all the other adults -- is a place of authority and education. It's little different from Hitler Youth, which was also technically legal and would have had Bill Clausen or someone just like him defending it.

"quote Jessica Alquist or anyone else who is too insecure in their beliefs to allow others to share theirs"

Jessica Alquist is a hero who has been demonized by human garbage.

P.S. No one quoted Jessica Alquist; there was a reference to how she has been set upon by Christian thugs and scum.

"Should any sex education be taught in the schools? Should any mention of sex even be made? Many people find that offensive as well and feel it doesn't belong in the schools but we know perfectly well that the real issue here is not about constitutional legality but about people who want only *their* point of view espoused but not the views of someone else."

There's nothing in the Constitution about the establishment or free exercise of sex.

What we know perfectly well that the issue is not about "espousing" views but about preying upon and indoctrinating impressionable children with particular religious views (and hate -- these children are taught to bully other children, especially Jews, telling them they are going to hell), particularly through the use of taxpaper-funded schools, and without the express permission of these childrens' parents. The "Good News Club" is evil and is doing evil work, and so is anyone who rationalizes and justifies it.

JayB: You're proving my point all to well. The Nazi reference was long coming.

I suggest he take his blatant proselytizing elsewhere and knock off the thumping. And his ludicrous "asides".-Draxor-

I only used three "asides" Draxor, I think five or six might be unreasonable, but NOT three. Asid...now I'm getting into hot water.

Clearly the "Good News Club" is not going away any time soon. I think the only way to tame this frightening beast is to fight fire with fire. I'm talking start our own "Great News Club" with a message of acceptance and tolerance and blast is through the public school system. Have a club meeting at every school that the "Good News Club" has got their dirty paws on. Trump their balloons and lollipops with bounce houses, movies and cotton candy makers. Hey kids, "we like fun stuff too...and guess what, we'll even let you think for yourself at our club". Let's call these arrogant monsters out before they're at every public school in Santa Barbara...and once we're warmed up, we'll take it National!!!

Hawkeye, are you trying to offend/shock me? If you are, than this will backfire because your right to start the Great News Club is a right that I've been defending all along.

Like most "Christian"-involved online interchanges, it seems that the *real* problem is that the intensity of the Faith.

I understand billclausens defense of his religion/spirituality, but in defending Christianity, it appears that he is co-opted into defending Extremist Christianity. Unfortunately, it's another Argument--and I mean the capital 'A'--whether one can distinguish the two, especially from the 'inside'. [Note: I'm not making a specific attack on the religion, nor billclausen, but I do think it's nigh-impossible to know whether one truly shares beliefs with another, when a label is easily self-applied.]

From the other side, it is often that those who are Atheist, or pretty much anti-religious, will attack Christianity, based on the actions of specific groups. In this case, it seems that the Good News Club is taken as extremist, and so is taken to represent Christianity as a whole--if not ALL of religion(s).

Another concern, is that it is normal, that part of "bringing sheep into the fold" is verily mandated by most, if not all, religions. In fact, I find this to be a natural trait among humans--the sharing of said beliefs, especially in an attempt to change someone. That being said (typed), it is rare that one can share such things, and *not* want others to join in. Again, the problem is intensity--being a good Christian role-model and "sharing the love" is one thing, telling someone that they're going to Hell because they don't live in lock-step with whatever beliefs are on the table is another. [Again, not a specific attack on Christianity--that's just the religion at hand. The thought also applies to any other group, Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists, etc.]

Sidenote: The comparison of religious beliefs and homosexuality is highly, 'apples and oranges'. Gay people don't try to convert one to homosexuality. . .unless they're drunk and horny. That is a joke. (Seriously, religion is a choice, while homosexuality is a 'condition'--and I use that word as a simple descriptor, so please don't over-read into it.)

Starshine beats everyone over the head week after week, month after month with her "we need to be more tolerant" columns. Kinda ironic.

Scooters' comment sums up how I---as a formerly self-hating "Useful Idiot" brainwashed Leftie--feel.

For years we've had it shoved down our throats about how we need to be "tolerant" and Starshine and Draxor proved their lack of tolerance in this blog. The other buzzword of the intolerant left is "diversity".

These people have no room in their parochial world for anybody else's point of view and when such diverse views are presented, they simply ridicule or shout down the person/s and hide behind their twisted version of the Constitution. It's one thing to say "Here is why I think religion is a fabrication of mankind", but another to resort to the name-calling we see in these blogs--often by people who lack the courage to sign their own names.

The Founding Fathers figured out that the only way to have a cohesive society was to recognize past failures at creating an idealogical monolith and learning from this, to accept the fact that there will always be people of differing opinions.

As for the issue of saying to someone "you're going to hell", the flip-side of this is that Christianity argues that you don't have to go to hell, hence the term "good news". Of course the liberal churches whose pastors make $$$ preaching don't wish to discuss this all the while they talk about Jesus being crucified. For those pastors I ask "*why* was Jesus crucified?"

Having said all this, the establishment of this discussion is--as Scooter points out--is a person who is representitive of a way of thinking which prides itself on tolerance yet shows intolerance in its transparent form when it comes to any differing life view and tries to justify this view by invoking--however indirectly--the idea that there is a constitution issue here when in fact there is not.

I respectfully and sincerly say to Starshine, Draxor, and other like-minded people that if you hate Christianity so much nothing is stopping you from packing your bags and moving to any of a number of countries where this religion isn't tolerated. (Iran is set to execute a Christian pastor for his beliefs) But if it's religion altogether that so offends you than there is still North Korea where Juche (absolute obedience to State) is the ideology.

Another suggestion is that you can simply chill out and relax and realize that life will go a lot easier for you if you accept the fact that there will always be others who don't think like you, and be thankful you live in a country where your right to publish such an article is guaranteed by the same Rule-Of-Law that guarentees the freedom of religion you find so upsetting.

Imagine the horror! Children being taught the underlying fundamentals of Western jurisprudence in a safe atmosphere of community and "greater love". Starshine focuses on "Hell" and so on... but the outcome of all this is kids communing together under a banner of hope, love, respect, self-control and joint activities for a short time after school. And where is the tolerance lefties like Starshine espouse constantly? Apparently there is only tolerance for people that think like her.

"My favorite product in the CEF Web store is a tool called the Gospel Flipper-Flapper:"

One of the members of our pod of dolphins came up with that phrase. We like to flap our fins.

We also flap our fins.

I meant "flippers".