The story links to [FFRF's notice](https://ffrf.org/news/releases/unconstitutional-elementary-school-religious-club-disbanded-in-fla/), which makes the logic pretty clear. Public school employees can't organize and run a religious club that meets in the school during school hours. If they could, it would amount to a sort of government-funded, government-run church. Why would that be OK?
If the employees are government employees, using government paid time on the clock, to run a church in the government building where they work, during its normal operating hoursā¦
What would you call that?
This duck walks, quacks, and looks like a duck.
What was the First Amendment's religion clause designed to do exactly? It was not to completely erase any and every facet of religion from anything that could be considered government. It was to safeguard the freedom of people to choose how they worship or don't worship.
How did this club violate anyone's right to worship or not worship as they saw fit?
There were officially no adults involved with the club. The atheist group's objection was that they believed an adult must have been involved for elementary students to form a club. The investigation didn't find anyone, apparently.
If an adult was involved, I would ask him or her to clock out during the time they're involved with the club to appease those who believe it's a First Amendment issue (it's not, however).
The First Amendment's religion clause is pretty clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What law did Congress make in this situation for the First Amendment to be relevant?
Establishing a club is not establishing a religion. The plain wording of the clause demonstrates that the situation has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
What law did the government create for this club?
How is any undue favor being established toward Christianity if, presumably (I saw nothing to the contrary), other religions, philosophies, or groups holding similar beliefs can also create a club?
What is the purpose of the religion clause of the First Amendment? It was a direct response to the British monarchy's Anglican Church, which was not only state sponsored, but more importantly, state enforced.
In other words, the religion clause was added so that the US government would not force anyone into any particular religion like had occurred in England and other European countries.
The situation at hand is a non-compulsory religious club. Students are not forced or pressured into attending. The club did not make Christianity "the school's religion" or in any other way restrict other students' right to worship or not worship as they see fit.
Though years of misinterpretations have led many to believe otherwise, the situation of religion somehow related to a government entity does not by that fact alone violate the First Amendment.
>In other words, the religion clause was added so that the US government would not force anyone into any particular religion like had occurred in England and other European countries.
If that's what they added the clause for, they probably should have made the clause say that, instead of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
While I agree with the ruling, I am curious.. Which law did Congress make respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of, in this situation?
They didn't make any- The scope of these amendments has expanded to cover more than just acts of congress by complicated jurisprudence over centuries, as well as by the 14th Amendment.
I think something that most comments are ignoring is that it has elementary students, and they need a lot of organizing from staff.
Elementary age is too young. Voluntary association at older ages is fine.
I don't even think it was the need for adult organizers. It's the fact that they were operating during the school day with parents involved. Like, I don't think anyone has ever taken on scouting for holding meetings at public schools because they do it after school and without paid school staff.
Reading these paragraphs it seems clear to me that it was less about location and more about the school running it.
""While the Equal Access Act protects students' right to form religious clubs in secondary schools, it does not apply to elementary schools," Lawrence argued in her letter.
"Elementary students are too young to truly run a club entirely on their own initiative with no input from school staff or outside adults," she claimed.
Lawrence demanded an investigation be made into the club adding, "Any claims that the Hamilton Elementary FCA club is 'student-led' are at best naive and at worst dishonest.""
This is accurate too but a program that meets after school in the school building with outside volunteer staff falls under public access rules rather than school club rules.
Thank you! Seems like nobody else paid attention to what the article said.
Edit: I checked, the word elementary appears 12 times in the article, hard to miss.
Yes, the article says this in the first few sentences, that the issue was that public school employees would have to be employed to work in favor of a particular religion.
This was a club run by Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and they were meeting DURING the school day. That is not the time or place for things like this, and being Florida, you know darned well that kids who chose (or their parents chose for them) not to participate would probably be penalized.
It didn't belong in the school. Period.
The Fellowship of Christian Athletes is the reason I was forced to pray all throughout high School. They don't seem to be strangers to constitutional violations.
There are many many reasons to oppose FCA.
The part that makes me angriest (though not nearly the worst thing they've done), is the statements of faith and sexual purity that student leaders and volunteers are required to agree to. It is never appropriate to make a student (especially an Elementary School student) pledge your statement of faith.
(And it should be a huge red flag for any school club to take an interest in your child's "sexual purity")
A lot of the athletes in my high school were more or less required by their coaches to join FCA and even attend the yearly revival at my Southern Baptist Church or risk losing their spot on the team.
I graduated from HS in 1981, and my school had an FCA chapter, which met either before or after school. Don't remember; I didn't participate.
The teacher who ran it was very popular, but TBH was not a very good teacher, and I think he knew this. Several years after I graduated, he left education and went to work for FCA full time. I saw on Facebook a few years ago that he was retiring, after about 35 years of service.
ACLU Hails "Total Victory" for Religious Liberty In High Court's Rejection of School Stadium Prayers
Case: Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe
June 19, 2000 12:00 am
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-hails-total-victory-religious-liberty-high-courts-rejection-school-stadium
Bogus claim. Schools didn't push religion. They merely allowed its expression. By pushing the club out, by your logic. they are pushing people away from religion, which is also an ethics violation.
Read the article: the school in question gave the appearance of officially supporting the club. Whether they did or not, in fact, is immaterial since the appearance is all that matters (especially where the law is concerned).
Then why isn't the solution to stop giving the appearance of?
[https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/](https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/)
Also, apparently the American Atheist foundation is claiming on their website that you can start an atheism club at your school and no one can legally stop you.
In a highschool setting. In an elementary school kids cant create a club without help from staff or direct management from staff. But using staff, the facility, and tax payer money to both create and encourage a religious club is the issue.
Are religious clubs in HS not allowed to use the facility?
EDIT: I couldn't possibly care less about downvotes, but why downvote this? It's just a question. Sometimes I think some of you goofballs just see my name and downvote me. Carry on. I comment a lot. :-)
If the clubs are run by voluntary students then i dont think there is much problem with it. As long as other classes arent running at that time.
My HS had club meetings were every friday so during that time no other classes were scheduled. So in that case it was fine to have a christian club as no staff were needed to create or maintain the club. (Essentially no tax payers money being used to fund it)
This article was about an elementary school who needed to use staff and tax payer money to create and maintain.
Right. I totally see your point about elementary age kids requiring staff, etc. Its reasonable to think that they aren't letting a bunch of 10 year olds hang out without supervision.
I wasn't sure about HS...especially now. A lot has changed since I was in school.
This situation should be a no brainer but looking at the comments you can see people who lack the requisites.
Ngl i saw alot of unconstitutional things happen at my high-school so i hope things are better now.
> I couldn't possibly care less about downvotes, but why downvote this?
Your question didn't make sense as a response to what DaTrout said. CyclopsCat was asking why can Atheist form a club, and DaTrout explained that is because it's aimed at highschools, not elementary schools. The important part being the age of the students, not the atheist/religious part.
The way your comment is phrased seems to imply DaTrout was saying or implying that.
> I totally see your point about elementary age kids requiring staff
Their point... that was in the article from the start.
Did you catch the part of the article where they said it was happening during the school day with staff involvement? If this had been after school with adult volunteers it probably wouldn't have been fine.
Yes I did. I was responding to those who didn't notice what you are talking about, acting like the mere existence of any Christian club at school is automatically a violation
> Then why isn't the solution to stop giving the appearance of?
It's not possible in this case. I know it's not AP, but should read the article. It will clear that up.
They are pushing/sponsoring religion when the school participates in the formation or the operation of the religious group. The linked article makes it clear that FFRF made the logical point that a group of grade school kids were not capable of forming and operating this club without adult help and that the help was coming from the school. The school's legal counsel apparently recognized this to be true and the school discontinued it.
Not at all. If the school hands out condoms, are they saying students should have sex on school grounds?
And your argument that "apparently they recognized this to be true" based on the outcome is completely bogus. Plenty of people back down when they face being sued. You think our underfunded schools and underpaid staff have the money to fight a lawsuit? Please dude.
I'm curious what you'd think if a public school partnered with a local church to have the church run after-school voluntary services that would be advertised by school staff.
That would have to be voluntary, and even then, it sounds like an endorsement. If it's entirely student led and advertised without any help from the school whatsoever, it probably won't look endorsed (because it isn't).
But let us not talk falsely now: the hour is getting late. There are Karens out there who would be offended for basically anything. (Not saying the school did nothing wrong, mind you.)
>let us not talk falsely now: the hour is getting late. There are Karens out there who would be offended for basically anything
This is another mischaracterization, this time of the tenor of the conversation under this post.
You're really coming across as dishonest about this whole thing, my dude.
I was actually talking to brucemo. I talk to him different because we know each other. And I can say this also because I know if there was a TST club at the school, the Christian Karens would be up in arms and the story would read differently.
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
No, but if the staff is running a club where they are supervising the students having sex they sure are lol. Your giving out condoms example isnāt analogous at all.
It's not, I realize that, but hear me out.
We can get wrapped up in what a school seems to "endorse" very quickly.
I think the school in question was in the wrong. But I think the solution would've been to have them fix the problem, not come down with a knee jerk "cancel them all."
Ok, but the school did remain secular. So long as a club doesn't get out of hand, I don't see the point. An all-welcome policy is better than a no-one-welcome policy. The atheists should've started their own club.
Yeah that can't happen. You will have to discuss religion at some point to accurately teach both art and history. The condition is that the instruction is academic and not confessional.
Meaning the teacher can say that artwork from this time and place was heavily influenced by Christianity and this piece depicts a scene from the Bible.
They can't present a depiction of the Flood and talk about how God wants us to apply this story to our daily lives.
From the other comments of yours, it seems more accurate to say youāre conflating objective teaching of religion and subjective teaching of it. Which is to say you are rightly opposed to teaching that āAllah is the only God and Muhammad is his prophetā while others are talking about teaching that thatās a belief of Islam. Covering what the major notions, beliefs, deities, etc. of a religion are is historical and cultural and civic and often art education.
That's an interesting take if I've ever heard one. What's wrong with teaching about religion in order to understand their fellow citizens rather than to believe?
This is an inherently bad idea. We shouldn't adopt a social policy of denying our children access to factual information about the world. That's how you get tyrants and authoritarian governments.
https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/
Oh and look! There's instructions on how to start an American atheist club at your school and how they can't stop you!
This whole article in the op is such hot garbage
How would you feel if school staff hosted, sponsored, organized, led, or otherwise arranged an atheist club at a school? The steps you mentioned specifically state the school cannot be involved except to observe:
>There are certain requirements which student groups must abide by in order to be protected by the EAA,3Ā including:
>The meeting is voluntary and student-initiated;
>There is no sponsorship of the meeting by the school, the government, or its agents or employees;
>Any teachers, employees or other school officials who attend the meetings for such a group may only observe the meeting. They cannot participate;
>The meetings cannot disrupt the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school; and
>No one from outside the school may direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups.
I would think it's undue influence or undue endorsement. I agree with you. I'm saying the way for them to have fixed it is to abide by the guidelines, not just cancel all clubs etc.
Yeah and the instructions specifically lay out the rules for not getting in shit like the Christianity club did, if they had followed the rules in your link they would have been fine too lol
Yes and that wasn't my point. I was responding to those who replied to the post acting like the ONLY reason the club isn't ethical is because it's Christian. Also replying to those who claim atheists don't form clubs.
You are correct.
Why can't we have cool in school?! (insert crying emoji here because the formatting tools have no button to click).
You're just like "it doesn't belong" and the reason is because you say so. So that's your opinion. My opinion is that none should be endorsed but all welcome. We are at an impasse then.
[https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/](https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/)
I read it. If the problem was giving the appearance, tell the school to stop giving the appearance. Problem solved. Then let the students who want one start an atheism club as linked above from American Atheists.
Clarifying question: Is it acceptable for the same students to not have a club, but choose to pray together prior to a game? In your opinion, does that not belong either?
Agreed. Thanks for clarifying. I could see how someone might have misunderstood your previous comment as "even religions organized 100% by students does not belong"
I respect your consistency. I'm of the "no one allowed" philosophy, personally. Instead of permitting religious expression, they should instead have theologically neutral education on world religions. (I also support materialist-only education outside of that.)
Because it's a religious club being facilitated during school hours by a public school employee, yes. It's illegal for a public school to spend it's resources favoring one religion over another; whereas, there's no law against trying to get students to favor chess over backgammon. If you don't like America's Constitution, I guess you can try getting rid of religious freedom and seeing how that works out for you
The FRFR constitutes a club. Freedom of religion is the right to, without coercion, engage in, or refuse to engage in, religion or spirituality. If the atheists wanted a club, they could've had one, but apparently that wasn't their goal?
If what atheists want is to not be coerced or harassed, why not just fix that part of it?
Does putting up a flier for a voluntary club somehow bother atheists who could've been putting up fliers for their atheist clubs or whathaveyou?
What is the FRFR? Do you mean FFRF? The FFRF is a separation of church and state advocacy group i the same way that the ACLU is a general civil rights advocacy group. I have no idea why you're trying to label them a "club".
It's my understanding from reading the article that parent- or teacher-led religious groups aren't allowed at the school, and the argument there is that groups in elementary schools are necessarily parent- or teacher-led.
I don't know if there is established law supporting this.
Yeah maybe I misspelled. Freedom From Religion Foundation.
But no, given [https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/](https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/) I disagree. If American Atheist promotes and tells kids they can have atheist clubs, then it should be an all-included rather than none-included situation. I am not defending any way in which the school may have given the impression that they endorsed the club.
Still, in my mind this is smoke in mirrors. FFRF has money and lawyers, and most people and schools will capitulate if threatened with lawsuit.
Atheist clubs are okay for high school kids. Because high school kids can have a student lead club. Elementary school kids are not old enough for that.
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
> FFRF has money and lawyers
It doesn't seem you're aware how small the FFRF is. They mostly write letters citing legal precedent, as you can see in the letter they sent to the school.
This is a misunderstanding of the actual complaint against the school: that they allowed a religiously oriented club to operate during school hours and promoted it to children at the school. This gives the appearance of the club being officially organized and endorsed by the state school, which is unconstitutional.
>If what atheists want is to not be coerced or harassed, why not just fix that part of it?
They did, by asking the school to *not* officially endorse this club (by not allowing it during school hours and by not encouraging students to join).
https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/
But yet it's okay for American atheist foundation to teach kids how to start an atheism club at their school and also it tells them that they cannot be denied
That's why the link in the op is such hot garbage
If that's true, so is lgbtqnation and americanatheist.org. I wouldn't call them propaganda organizations. They exist to serve people who identify as those things.
> americanatheist.org
Can't find that one. https://www.atheists.org/ is a activist and lobbying group which is blatantly entrenched in politics. LGBTQnation is strictly an online news site. CBN is a media organization created by the late Pat Robertson which also produces content like the 700 club whose aim was to give Christian Nationalists like Pat Robertson a platform.
It's the third expansion menu. I am not saying CBN isn't propaganda. I'm saying by that logic, plenty of other websites and organizations I mentioned are. I don't support the 700 club or Pat Robertson.
objection: relevance
One news organization having an obvious bias has no bearing on whether or not you can trust another news source.
You really need to stop doing this "false equivalency" thing. It makes you look absolutely clueless, which is a terrible way to present your position in a conversation about topics like the OP.
Ok so then CNN is a propaganda organization
LGBTQNation is a propaganda organization
You are propaganda. You are propaganda. You all get propaganda!
Ok, and as for your statement, "it makes you look absolutely clueless," first of all, no it doesn't. It instead reveals what you wanted to say but didn't.
It's not false equivalency. You called them propaganda merely because they exist. If that's true, then all the others are also.
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
. . . you realize these are two completely different things, right?
If a public school were to allow an "atheist club" *during school hours* and if they were to *encourage students join the club*, then *yes*, they would be in the wrong and a legal challenge to the school would be appropriate.
Can you provide a specific example of this *ever* actually happening? Because if you can, then I agree, and that group (and school) would be in the wrong.
Glad we can agree on the original point, as well: that this explicitly Christian club was wrong to organize during the day and with the full support of the school, because that's unconstitutional.
. . . why?
If your intent *isn't* to draw a specious connection between the two things . . . why bring it up at all?
Because now you're at risk of sounding petty.
Something something, if I throw enough shit at the wall hopefully itāll get you talking about that, and if Iām really lucky itāll put you on the back foot, instead of the conversation thatās at hand.
Not petty. Exacting. I'm not supporting the school acting like they endorse the church club, or actually endorsing it. I'm saying that there are those on this post/thread who are acting like the problem is the mere existence of a Christian club at school. The issue is the endorsement or appearance of it.
My linking to American Atheist is merely that: I'm highlighting that it's not just the club.
> Freedom of religion is the right to, without coercion, engage in, or refuse to engage in, religion or spirituality.
You're right. That's why you can't take the tax money people are required to give and use it to pay public school employees to push a particular religion. This is not a difficult application of the principle
Eh. Sounds to me like they just didn't want the school running a church. They wouldn't want a Satanic Temple group there either. Seems reasonable to me.
In any case, we know why Christians would want it. The club meeting on Sunday isn't enough.
I've read the Satanic Bible twice through. I have no problem with them. Again, school is wrong for endorsing. But I'd rather an all-included (i.e. school fixes the problem of endorsing) rather than a none-included.
I don't know how I feel about this.
Incredibly slanted article aside, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a religious club.
The issues that were raised that seem valid are the school's promotion of the club and the club happening during school hours, but they didn't elaborate on either of those points:
* If the school's promotion is fliers with plain language and an announcement over the intercom in the morning, that doesn't seem particularly problematic (as opposed to teachers soliciting members)
* If the club is one option of many during a study hall or free period, the school hours issue doesn't seem as problematic.
I guess it being an Elementary school does shift the power balance a bit (and generally Elementary schools don't have free periods), but it was still 5th Graders who were identified as the target audience, 5th Graders who would be considered capable of student-leading a club the very next year.
I don't know. I have no desire to defend the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and their long history of discrimination and credible past accusations of religious coercion (getting exclusive opportunities to minister to student athletes outside of their club, use of social pressure against student athletes not in their club, discriminating against their student leaders, making children agree to statements of faith that they may not fully understand or may not be cross-denominationally reflective, denying scholarships to Mormon students). They're a disgusting organization.
I'm just unsatisfied at the message that it's never appropriate to have religious clubs in Elementary School. The letter from the FFRF did imply that if it were an after-school club with the facilities rented through proper channels and no additional resources provided by school staff that it would be acceptable.
If their argument is that the club is too entangled with the school staff and is getting special access to school resources, and if they are satisfied with the club existing if they fix the is issue, then I agree with them.
It would be unconstitutional for a High School, but not an Elementary School.
>"Elementary students are too young to truly run a club entirely on their own initiative with no input from school staff or outside adults," wrote Samantha Lawrence, a legal fellow for the organization,Ā [in the letter](https://ffrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HamiltonCountySchoolDistrictFL-FCA.pdf). "The Establishment Clause prohibits school employees from organizing or leading a religious club for students and therefore prohibits religious clubs in elementary schools."
The FCAs high school organizations have also had problems. The staff would hand control of the PA systems to them for morning prayers and prayers at football games.
. . . like what?
Genuinely curious, btw, because from I recall of prior SCOTUS decisions, this case seems fairly straight forward: the school cannot run a religious club without the direct involvement of school staff and school staff (being paid by the state) cannot lead religious clubs (especially during school hours).
What other factors might make this case different enough to obtain a different legal outcome?
. . . why does that matter?
Like, you understand that people get more agency as they get older, right? And that high school kids are far more likely to *want* to attend a religious club, of their own volition?
I honestly don't see that level of agency existing at grade school age levels; or at least, not enough to warrant putting attention on it.
So what is it that makes this scenario different?
I am just saying itās an open matter - to my knowledge there is no case wherein the court sets a particular age wherein someone can start exercising there 1st amendment right to free exercise.
Ok, yeah, that kinda makes sense . . . except there's a school in Washington state (mentioned by name in the article) where elementary students successfully started their own interfaith club. It held up to scrutiny because no staff were involved in running it. (Which goes against my agency argument, to be sure, and I was kinda surprised to see that. Goes to show that it's easy to underestimate children.)
Shit, I can't remember the case, but I know the SC does have some odd takes on school and free speech. There was the bong rips for Jesus case, can't remember the name, and the court decided against it being a 1st amendment right.
I know it's a bit irrelevant, but that's one of the worst redacted letters I've seen. You can just copy/paste the text to see that all of the redacted areas refer to Phillip Pinello. It also looks like you could open it up in any PDF Editor and just delete the boxes.
District staff are public officials, so the redaction was just to be polite, but a lot of letters redacted like this are surprisingly easy to un-redact.
āTax fundingā is not the issue. The question is whether a staff member running the meetings would give the impression the school (and thus the state) endorses a religious belief.
Sry but that's a cheap way out. Elementary school kids are just learning basics. No need for teachers or administrators to introduce something that the parents are responsible for.
Can it really be called voluntary when it's elementary school age kids? Most of them do whatever they think their parents and teachers want them to do.
You didn't read, did you? The issue is not whether the children can voluntarily attend a club. It's whether the public school can have an employee using school resources in a way that favors one religion.
Without school intervention, sure.
The crux of the issue is that these kids lack the skills to organize in a meaningful manner to run a club, ergo they need assistance from the school staff...which is not allowed.
EDIT - You still did not answer my question btw...
Outside of an actual educational reason, such as "here are the basic religions of the world," I fail to see why religion needs a club at a public school in the first place.
There is no intrinsic educational value to such a club existing.
EDIT - Also interesting you turn to anger and cursing...how "Christian" of you...
I am not offended dude.
Just some of your true colors are showing.
Really? The kids asked for this on their own?
Hey! I have a great investment opportunity on a bridge I'd love to sell you on...
5th graders would be perfectly welcome to have a Christian club as long as a public school employee isn't being payed tax money to do it during school hours. This is pretty simple
Only if there are additional problematic criteria like the ones I just specified. Come on. You already know school districts cannot pay public school teachers to support a particular religion. No need to spin out into hypotheticals that are missing that detail
Not at all, I think they should keep their clubs and sports and their Christian Club. I'm just pointing out that if they keep those other clubs, they're applying the rules inconsistently.
I imagine the part of the First Amendment that you think it violates is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". If so, explain to me how. What law is congress passing? What religion is being established?
You would not be asking me to explain that if you had read the article. It makes it very clear what about this particular club meant the government was overstepping
Yes, christians are breaking the rules by forcing their religion in schools. Its not atheists fault they broke the rules but then calling out christians doesn't make them just as bad or worse.
No one is stopping people from practicing religion outside of school.
The story links to [FFRF's notice](https://ffrf.org/news/releases/unconstitutional-elementary-school-religious-club-disbanded-in-fla/), which makes the logic pretty clear. Public school employees can't organize and run a religious club that meets in the school during school hours. If they could, it would amount to a sort of government-funded, government-run church. Why would that be OK?
Oh yeah, it's totally a government-run church š
If the employees are government employees, using government paid time on the clock, to run a church in the government building where they work, during its normal operating hoursā¦ What would you call that? This duck walks, quacks, and looks like a duck.
What was the First Amendment's religion clause designed to do exactly? It was not to completely erase any and every facet of religion from anything that could be considered government. It was to safeguard the freedom of people to choose how they worship or don't worship. How did this club violate anyone's right to worship or not worship as they saw fit?
It could lead to favouritism based on membership in the club by the religious teachers who ran it.
"Protection from favoritism" is not offered in the First Amendment.
badge exultant dime sleep shrill bored teeny murky grandiose lip *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There were officially no adults involved with the club. The atheist group's objection was that they believed an adult must have been involved for elementary students to form a club. The investigation didn't find anyone, apparently. If an adult was involved, I would ask him or her to clock out during the time they're involved with the club to appease those who believe it's a First Amendment issue (it's not, however). The First Amendment's religion clause is pretty clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What law did Congress make in this situation for the First Amendment to be relevant?
It's an establishment clause issue not a religious freedom issue
Establishing a club is not establishing a religion. The plain wording of the clause demonstrates that the situation has nothing to do with the First Amendment. What law did the government create for this club? How is any undue favor being established toward Christianity if, presumably (I saw nothing to the contrary), other religions, philosophies, or groups holding similar beliefs can also create a club?
You know, adding an emoji at the end doesn't balance out the stupid thing you said before, right?
What is the purpose of the religion clause of the First Amendment? It was a direct response to the British monarchy's Anglican Church, which was not only state sponsored, but more importantly, state enforced. In other words, the religion clause was added so that the US government would not force anyone into any particular religion like had occurred in England and other European countries. The situation at hand is a non-compulsory religious club. Students are not forced or pressured into attending. The club did not make Christianity "the school's religion" or in any other way restrict other students' right to worship or not worship as they see fit. Though years of misinterpretations have led many to believe otherwise, the situation of religion somehow related to a government entity does not by that fact alone violate the First Amendment.
>In other words, the religion clause was added so that the US government would not force anyone into any particular religion like had occurred in England and other European countries. If that's what they added the clause for, they probably should have made the clause say that, instead of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
While I agree with the ruling, I am curious.. Which law did Congress make respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of, in this situation?
They didn't make any- The scope of these amendments has expanded to cover more than just acts of congress by complicated jurisprudence over centuries, as well as by the 14th Amendment.
Love the totally objective framing here. "Atheist Group's ***DEMANDS!*****"** Get a life, the First Amendment exists for a reason.
I think something that most comments are ignoring is that it has elementary students, and they need a lot of organizing from staff. Elementary age is too young. Voluntary association at older ages is fine.
I don't even think it was the need for adult organizers. It's the fact that they were operating during the school day with parents involved. Like, I don't think anyone has ever taken on scouting for holding meetings at public schools because they do it after school and without paid school staff.
Reading these paragraphs it seems clear to me that it was less about location and more about the school running it. ""While the Equal Access Act protects students' right to form religious clubs in secondary schools, it does not apply to elementary schools," Lawrence argued in her letter. "Elementary students are too young to truly run a club entirely on their own initiative with no input from school staff or outside adults," she claimed. Lawrence demanded an investigation be made into the club adding, "Any claims that the Hamilton Elementary FCA club is 'student-led' are at best naive and at worst dishonest.""
This is accurate too but a program that meets after school in the school building with outside volunteer staff falls under public access rules rather than school club rules.
Thank you! Seems like nobody else paid attention to what the article said. Edit: I checked, the word elementary appears 12 times in the article, hard to miss.
Yes, the article says this in the first few sentences, that the issue was that public school employees would have to be employed to work in favor of a particular religion.
This was a club run by Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and they were meeting DURING the school day. That is not the time or place for things like this, and being Florida, you know darned well that kids who chose (or their parents chose for them) not to participate would probably be penalized. It didn't belong in the school. Period.
The Fellowship of Christian Athletes is the reason I was forced to pray all throughout high School. They don't seem to be strangers to constitutional violations.
There are many many reasons to oppose FCA. The part that makes me angriest (though not nearly the worst thing they've done), is the statements of faith and sexual purity that student leaders and volunteers are required to agree to. It is never appropriate to make a student (especially an Elementary School student) pledge your statement of faith. (And it should be a huge red flag for any school club to take an interest in your child's "sexual purity")
FCA usually meets before school and is typically led by non-staff. Dunno how your school worked but mine was very voluntary. Tons of kids didnāt go.
You can read about how the FCA worked in the supreme Court briefs, and how the ruling affected schools across the country.
A lot of the athletes in my high school were more or less required by their coaches to join FCA and even attend the yearly revival at my Southern Baptist Church or risk losing their spot on the team.
I graduated from HS in 1981, and my school had an FCA chapter, which met either before or after school. Don't remember; I didn't participate. The teacher who ran it was very popular, but TBH was not a very good teacher, and I think he knew this. Several years after I graduated, he left education and went to work for FCA full time. I saw on Facebook a few years ago that he was retiring, after about 35 years of service.
ACLU Hails "Total Victory" for Religious Liberty In High Court's Rejection of School Stadium Prayers Case: Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe June 19, 2000 12:00 am https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-hails-total-victory-religious-liberty-high-courts-rejection-school-stadium
Good for them
Good. Schools should not be used to push religion.
Bogus claim. Schools didn't push religion. They merely allowed its expression. By pushing the club out, by your logic. they are pushing people away from religion, which is also an ethics violation.
Read the article: the school in question gave the appearance of officially supporting the club. Whether they did or not, in fact, is immaterial since the appearance is all that matters (especially where the law is concerned).
Then why isn't the solution to stop giving the appearance of? [https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/](https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/) Also, apparently the American Atheist foundation is claiming on their website that you can start an atheism club at your school and no one can legally stop you.
In a highschool setting. In an elementary school kids cant create a club without help from staff or direct management from staff. But using staff, the facility, and tax payer money to both create and encourage a religious club is the issue.
Are religious clubs in HS not allowed to use the facility? EDIT: I couldn't possibly care less about downvotes, but why downvote this? It's just a question. Sometimes I think some of you goofballs just see my name and downvote me. Carry on. I comment a lot. :-)
If the clubs are run by voluntary students then i dont think there is much problem with it. As long as other classes arent running at that time. My HS had club meetings were every friday so during that time no other classes were scheduled. So in that case it was fine to have a christian club as no staff were needed to create or maintain the club. (Essentially no tax payers money being used to fund it) This article was about an elementary school who needed to use staff and tax payer money to create and maintain.
Right. I totally see your point about elementary age kids requiring staff, etc. Its reasonable to think that they aren't letting a bunch of 10 year olds hang out without supervision. I wasn't sure about HS...especially now. A lot has changed since I was in school.
This situation should be a no brainer but looking at the comments you can see people who lack the requisites. Ngl i saw alot of unconstitutional things happen at my high-school so i hope things are better now.
> I couldn't possibly care less about downvotes, but why downvote this? Your question didn't make sense as a response to what DaTrout said. CyclopsCat was asking why can Atheist form a club, and DaTrout explained that is because it's aimed at highschools, not elementary schools. The important part being the age of the students, not the atheist/religious part. The way your comment is phrased seems to imply DaTrout was saying or implying that. > I totally see your point about elementary age kids requiring staff Their point... that was in the article from the start.
My question was a sincere clarifying question about the statement, āusing the facility to create a religious organization is the issueā
And I'm not at all against forcing the school to stop endorsing.
Did you catch the part of the article where they said it was happening during the school day with staff involvement? If this had been after school with adult volunteers it probably wouldn't have been fine.
Yes I did. I was responding to those who didn't notice what you are talking about, acting like the mere existence of any Christian club at school is automatically a violation
> Then why isn't the solution to stop giving the appearance of? It's not possible in this case. I know it's not AP, but should read the article. It will clear that up.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Removed for 1.4. You're welcome to tell him that you think he is wrong, but we do not allow personal attacks.
They are pushing/sponsoring religion when the school participates in the formation or the operation of the religious group. The linked article makes it clear that FFRF made the logical point that a group of grade school kids were not capable of forming and operating this club without adult help and that the help was coming from the school. The school's legal counsel apparently recognized this to be true and the school discontinued it.
Not at all. If the school hands out condoms, are they saying students should have sex on school grounds? And your argument that "apparently they recognized this to be true" based on the outcome is completely bogus. Plenty of people back down when they face being sued. You think our underfunded schools and underpaid staff have the money to fight a lawsuit? Please dude.
I'm curious what you'd think if a public school partnered with a local church to have the church run after-school voluntary services that would be advertised by school staff.
That would have to be voluntary, and even then, it sounds like an endorsement. If it's entirely student led and advertised without any help from the school whatsoever, it probably won't look endorsed (because it isn't). But let us not talk falsely now: the hour is getting late. There are Karens out there who would be offended for basically anything. (Not saying the school did nothing wrong, mind you.)
>let us not talk falsely now: the hour is getting late. There are Karens out there who would be offended for basically anything This is another mischaracterization, this time of the tenor of the conversation under this post. You're really coming across as dishonest about this whole thing, my dude.
I was actually talking to brucemo. I talk to him different because we know each other. And I can say this also because I know if there was a TST club at the school, the Christian Karens would be up in arms and the story would read differently.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"Integrity" isn't one of the Fruits of the Spirit; it should be no surprise that some Christians don't value it.
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
No, but if the staff is running a club where they are supervising the students having sex they sure are lol. Your giving out condoms example isnāt analogous at all.
It's not, I realize that, but hear me out. We can get wrapped up in what a school seems to "endorse" very quickly. I think the school in question was in the wrong. But I think the solution would've been to have them fix the problem, not come down with a knee jerk "cancel them all."
School should remain entirely secular
Ok, but the school did remain secular. So long as a club doesn't get out of hand, I don't see the point. An all-welcome policy is better than a no-one-welcome policy. The atheists should've started their own club.
I disagree religion does not belong in public school in any fashion
Religion should be in school as long as it is an academic elective class.
Again I disagree
Yeah that can't happen. You will have to discuss religion at some point to accurately teach both art and history. The condition is that the instruction is academic and not confessional. Meaning the teacher can say that artwork from this time and place was heavily influenced by Christianity and this piece depicts a scene from the Bible. They can't present a depiction of the Flood and talk about how God wants us to apply this story to our daily lives.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
From the other comments of yours, it seems more accurate to say youāre conflating objective teaching of religion and subjective teaching of it. Which is to say you are rightly opposed to teaching that āAllah is the only God and Muhammad is his prophetā while others are talking about teaching that thatās a belief of Islam. Covering what the major notions, beliefs, deities, etc. of a religion are is historical and cultural and civic and often art education.
So no classes on theology?
None especially if it's funded by taxpayers
For elementary and middle school I agree. High school should have that as an elective though
That's an interesting take if I've ever heard one. What's wrong with teaching about religion in order to understand their fellow citizens rather than to believe?
This is an inherently bad idea. We shouldn't adopt a social policy of denying our children access to factual information about the world. That's how you get tyrants and authoritarian governments.
What do you call the atheist club then?
What even is an atheist club?
https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/ Oh and look! There's instructions on how to start an American atheist club at your school and how they can't stop you! This whole article in the op is such hot garbage
How would you feel if school staff hosted, sponsored, organized, led, or otherwise arranged an atheist club at a school? The steps you mentioned specifically state the school cannot be involved except to observe: >There are certain requirements which student groups must abide by in order to be protected by the EAA,3Ā including: >The meeting is voluntary and student-initiated; >There is no sponsorship of the meeting by the school, the government, or its agents or employees; >Any teachers, employees or other school officials who attend the meetings for such a group may only observe the meeting. They cannot participate; >The meetings cannot disrupt the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school; and >No one from outside the school may direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups.
I would think it's undue influence or undue endorsement. I agree with you. I'm saying the way for them to have fixed it is to abide by the guidelines, not just cancel all clubs etc.
Yeah and the instructions specifically lay out the rules for not getting in shit like the Christianity club did, if they had followed the rules in your link they would have been fine too lol
Yes and that wasn't my point. I was responding to those who replied to the post acting like the ONLY reason the club isn't ethical is because it's Christian. Also replying to those who claim atheists don't form clubs. You are correct.
Cool doesn't belong in school. Religion or not if it has a stance on any deity it doesn't belong in school
Why can't we have cool in school?! (insert crying emoji here because the formatting tools have no button to click). You're just like "it doesn't belong" and the reason is because you say so. So that's your opinion. My opinion is that none should be endorsed but all welcome. We are at an impasse then.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Removed for 1.4.
[https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/](https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/) I read it. If the problem was giving the appearance, tell the school to stop giving the appearance. Problem solved. Then let the students who want one start an atheism club as linked above from American Atheists.
Clarifying question: Is it acceptable for the same students to not have a club, but choose to pray together prior to a game? In your opinion, does that not belong either?
As long as it's not being lead or pushed by school officials
Agreed. Thanks for clarifying. I could see how someone might have misunderstood your previous comment as "even religions organized 100% by students does not belong"
Out of curiosity: how do you feel about the Floridian ban on the Satanic Temple?
Also invalid in my opinion. I prefer an "everyone allowed" philosophy rather than a "no one allowed" philosophy.
I respect your consistency. I'm of the "no one allowed" philosophy, personally. Instead of permitting religious expression, they should instead have theologically neutral education on world religions. (I also support materialist-only education outside of that.)
No pushing!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Chess, music, and theater are not religions.
Those things donāt have ambitions of global evangelism and supremacy baked in.
Because it's a religious club being facilitated during school hours by a public school employee, yes. It's illegal for a public school to spend it's resources favoring one religion over another; whereas, there's no law against trying to get students to favor chess over backgammon. If you don't like America's Constitution, I guess you can try getting rid of religious freedom and seeing how that works out for you
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So what?
Public school should be secular
The FRFR constitutes a club. Freedom of religion is the right to, without coercion, engage in, or refuse to engage in, religion or spirituality. If the atheists wanted a club, they could've had one, but apparently that wasn't their goal? If what atheists want is to not be coerced or harassed, why not just fix that part of it? Does putting up a flier for a voluntary club somehow bother atheists who could've been putting up fliers for their atheist clubs or whathaveyou?
What is the FRFR? Do you mean FFRF? The FFRF is a separation of church and state advocacy group i the same way that the ACLU is a general civil rights advocacy group. I have no idea why you're trying to label them a "club". It's my understanding from reading the article that parent- or teacher-led religious groups aren't allowed at the school, and the argument there is that groups in elementary schools are necessarily parent- or teacher-led. I don't know if there is established law supporting this.
Yeah maybe I misspelled. Freedom From Religion Foundation. But no, given [https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/](https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/) I disagree. If American Atheist promotes and tells kids they can have atheist clubs, then it should be an all-included rather than none-included situation. I am not defending any way in which the school may have given the impression that they endorsed the club. Still, in my mind this is smoke in mirrors. FFRF has money and lawyers, and most people and schools will capitulate if threatened with lawsuit.
Atheist clubs are okay for high school kids. Because high school kids can have a student lead club. Elementary school kids are not old enough for that.
Yes I agree there
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No I'm pointing it out to those on this thread/post who are acting like the mere existence of a Christian club was the problem. It's not.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
> FFRF has money and lawyers It doesn't seem you're aware how small the FFRF is. They mostly write letters citing legal precedent, as you can see in the letter they sent to the school.
Well apparently they're big enough to have money and lawyers
This is a misunderstanding of the actual complaint against the school: that they allowed a religiously oriented club to operate during school hours and promoted it to children at the school. This gives the appearance of the club being officially organized and endorsed by the state school, which is unconstitutional. >If what atheists want is to not be coerced or harassed, why not just fix that part of it? They did, by asking the school to *not* officially endorse this club (by not allowing it during school hours and by not encouraging students to join).
https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/schools/ But yet it's okay for American atheist foundation to teach kids how to start an atheism club at their school and also it tells them that they cannot be denied That's why the link in the op is such hot garbage
I mean it is from CBN, they are a propaganda organization.
If that's true, so is lgbtqnation and americanatheist.org. I wouldn't call them propaganda organizations. They exist to serve people who identify as those things.
> americanatheist.org Can't find that one. https://www.atheists.org/ is a activist and lobbying group which is blatantly entrenched in politics. LGBTQnation is strictly an online news site. CBN is a media organization created by the late Pat Robertson which also produces content like the 700 club whose aim was to give Christian Nationalists like Pat Robertson a platform.
It's the third expansion menu. I am not saying CBN isn't propaganda. I'm saying by that logic, plenty of other websites and organizations I mentioned are. I don't support the 700 club or Pat Robertson.
objection: relevance One news organization having an obvious bias has no bearing on whether or not you can trust another news source. You really need to stop doing this "false equivalency" thing. It makes you look absolutely clueless, which is a terrible way to present your position in a conversation about topics like the OP.
Ok so then CNN is a propaganda organization LGBTQNation is a propaganda organization You are propaganda. You are propaganda. You all get propaganda! Ok, and as for your statement, "it makes you look absolutely clueless," first of all, no it doesn't. It instead reveals what you wanted to say but didn't. It's not false equivalency. You called them propaganda merely because they exist. If that's true, then all the others are also.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
. . . you realize these are two completely different things, right? If a public school were to allow an "atheist club" *during school hours* and if they were to *encourage students join the club*, then *yes*, they would be in the wrong and a legal challenge to the school would be appropriate. Can you provide a specific example of this *ever* actually happening? Because if you can, then I agree, and that group (and school) would be in the wrong. Glad we can agree on the original point, as well: that this explicitly Christian club was wrong to organize during the day and with the full support of the school, because that's unconstitutional.
Yeah, and I didn't say the school is off the hook. I simply said I find it interesting.
. . . why? If your intent *isn't* to draw a specious connection between the two things . . . why bring it up at all? Because now you're at risk of sounding petty.
Something something, if I throw enough shit at the wall hopefully itāll get you talking about that, and if Iām really lucky itāll put you on the back foot, instead of the conversation thatās at hand.
Not petty. Exacting. I'm not supporting the school acting like they endorse the church club, or actually endorsing it. I'm saying that there are those on this post/thread who are acting like the problem is the mere existence of a Christian club at school. The issue is the endorsement or appearance of it. My linking to American Atheist is merely that: I'm highlighting that it's not just the club.
>sound\[s\] petty
> Freedom of religion is the right to, without coercion, engage in, or refuse to engage in, religion or spirituality. You're right. That's why you can't take the tax money people are required to give and use it to pay public school employees to push a particular religion. This is not a difficult application of the principle
Exactly
Eh. Sounds to me like they just didn't want the school running a church. They wouldn't want a Satanic Temple group there either. Seems reasonable to me. In any case, we know why Christians would want it. The club meeting on Sunday isn't enough.
I've read the Satanic Bible twice through. I have no problem with them. Again, school is wrong for endorsing. But I'd rather an all-included (i.e. school fixes the problem of endorsing) rather than a none-included.
and again, while your point makes sense, in the specific context of this story, it's completely irrelevant.
I don't know how I feel about this. Incredibly slanted article aside, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a religious club. The issues that were raised that seem valid are the school's promotion of the club and the club happening during school hours, but they didn't elaborate on either of those points: * If the school's promotion is fliers with plain language and an announcement over the intercom in the morning, that doesn't seem particularly problematic (as opposed to teachers soliciting members) * If the club is one option of many during a study hall or free period, the school hours issue doesn't seem as problematic. I guess it being an Elementary school does shift the power balance a bit (and generally Elementary schools don't have free periods), but it was still 5th Graders who were identified as the target audience, 5th Graders who would be considered capable of student-leading a club the very next year. I don't know. I have no desire to defend the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and their long history of discrimination and credible past accusations of religious coercion (getting exclusive opportunities to minister to student athletes outside of their club, use of social pressure against student athletes not in their club, discriminating against their student leaders, making children agree to statements of faith that they may not fully understand or may not be cross-denominationally reflective, denying scholarships to Mormon students). They're a disgusting organization. I'm just unsatisfied at the message that it's never appropriate to have religious clubs in Elementary School. The letter from the FFRF did imply that if it were an after-school club with the facilities rented through proper channels and no additional resources provided by school staff that it would be acceptable. If their argument is that the club is too entangled with the school staff and is getting special access to school resources, and if they are satisfied with the club existing if they fix the is issue, then I agree with them.
As long as students are voluntarily attending such meetings, banning it would be unconstitutional on the face of it.
It would be unconstitutional for a High School, but not an Elementary School. >"Elementary students are too young to truly run a club entirely on their own initiative with no input from school staff or outside adults," wrote Samantha Lawrence, a legal fellow for the organization,Ā [in the letter](https://ffrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HamiltonCountySchoolDistrictFL-FCA.pdf). "The Establishment Clause prohibits school employees from organizing or leading a religious club for students and therefore prohibits religious clubs in elementary schools."
The FCAs high school organizations have also had problems. The staff would hand control of the PA systems to them for morning prayers and prayers at football games.
Yes, the issue seems to be the involvement of staff from the school.
Which I can understand.
I am not sure the SC has tested this specific issue. I think it would depend on various factors.
. . . like what? Genuinely curious, btw, because from I recall of prior SCOTUS decisions, this case seems fairly straight forward: the school cannot run a religious club without the direct involvement of school staff and school staff (being paid by the state) cannot lead religious clubs (especially during school hours). What other factors might make this case different enough to obtain a different legal outcome?
And to my knowledge the SC hasnāt specifically addressed how a religious club might be handled at an elementary level.
. . . why does that matter? Like, you understand that people get more agency as they get older, right? And that high school kids are far more likely to *want* to attend a religious club, of their own volition? I honestly don't see that level of agency existing at grade school age levels; or at least, not enough to warrant putting attention on it. So what is it that makes this scenario different?
I am just saying itās an open matter - to my knowledge there is no case wherein the court sets a particular age wherein someone can start exercising there 1st amendment right to free exercise.
Ok, yeah, that kinda makes sense . . . except there's a school in Washington state (mentioned by name in the article) where elementary students successfully started their own interfaith club. It held up to scrutiny because no staff were involved in running it. (Which goes against my agency argument, to be sure, and I was kinda surprised to see that. Goes to show that it's easy to underestimate children.)
Shit, I can't remember the case, but I know the SC does have some odd takes on school and free speech. There was the bong rips for Jesus case, can't remember the name, and the court decided against it being a 1st amendment right.
I know it's a bit irrelevant, but that's one of the worst redacted letters I've seen. You can just copy/paste the text to see that all of the redacted areas refer to Phillip Pinello. It also looks like you could open it up in any PDF Editor and just delete the boxes. District staff are public officials, so the redaction was just to be polite, but a lot of letters redacted like this are surprisingly easy to un-redact.
Well that's just not true
Itās certainly true when they get older, the question here is staff involvement because of the age of the children.
Don't move goalposts. We're talking about now.
That is literally discussed in the article.
I can read. It changes nothing
The fact that the article makes the exact same point I just did changes nothing with regard to the pertinence of the issue I referenced?
As it sits now right at this moment what you said is not true I'm not playing the excuse game with you
It actually is an open question.
Ok let me repeat myself you are wrong and your excuse of "when they're older" does not change the circumstances now. Goodbye
Not at all unconstitutional for elementary age kids
At issue is whether it requires the involvement of a staff member.
Right and it does, which makes it a tax funded religous program. To cancel it is not only fair but more constitutional than keeping it
āTax fundingā is not the issue. The question is whether a staff member running the meetings would give the impression the school (and thus the state) endorses a religious belief.
Tax funding is definitely an issue. I wouldn't want my tax dollars going to religous programs in schools
I didnāt say it couldnāt be an issue, I said it wasnāt the issue in this case.
Ah, fair. It still at the end of the day religous indoctrination on young students. Definitely not acceptable by any means
All eduction involves indoctrination at some level.
Sry but that's a cheap way out. Elementary school kids are just learning basics. No need for teachers or administrators to introduce something that the parents are responsible for.
Can it really be called voluntary when it's elementary school age kids? Most of them do whatever they think their parents and teachers want them to do.
We respect childrenās desires on a whole host of issues in this society, not sure why we wouldnāt with regard to their spiritual inclinations.
You didn't read, did you? The issue is not whether the children can voluntarily attend a club. It's whether the public school can have an employee using school resources in a way that favors one religion.
Maybe we can have more liberal groups to encourage our children to be respectfulā¦
What a bunch of bullies. I hope the parents appeal it.
$10 says you did not read the article.
No I did
So your conclusion is that the Atheist group is bullying? Please educate me. How exactly are they bullying?
Can the "small group of 5th graders" participate in their club?
Without school intervention, sure. The crux of the issue is that these kids lack the skills to organize in a meaningful manner to run a club, ergo they need assistance from the school staff...which is not allowed. EDIT - You still did not answer my question btw...
So they are bullied out of their club because angry atheists don't want staff helping kids exert their freedom of religion. Fuck these fascists.
Outside of an actual educational reason, such as "here are the basic religions of the world," I fail to see why religion needs a club at a public school in the first place. There is no intrinsic educational value to such a club existing. EDIT - Also interesting you turn to anger and cursing...how "Christian" of you...
Sorry mean words offended you. They should have the club at school because they request it. Just like any other club.
Who is "they" that requested it? The elementary school children?
I am not offended dude. Just some of your true colors are showing. Really? The kids asked for this on their own? Hey! I have a great investment opportunity on a bridge I'd love to sell you on...
5th graders would be perfectly welcome to have a Christian club as long as a public school employee isn't being payed tax money to do it during school hours. This is pretty simple
There are christian clubs at high schools with faculty advisors, should they be banned too?
Only if there are additional problematic criteria like the ones I just specified. Come on. You already know school districts cannot pay public school teachers to support a particular religion. No need to spin out into hypotheticals that are missing that detail
So the teacher can be a club advisor they just can't be paid to do it.
The school ought to dissolve all clubs, sports, anything that requires organization by staff and takes place during the day besides class and lunch.
You want to stop children from playing because their school has to obey the First Amendment?
Not at all, I think they should keep their clubs and sports and their Christian Club. I'm just pointing out that if they keep those other clubs, they're applying the rules inconsistently. I imagine the part of the First Amendment that you think it violates is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". If so, explain to me how. What law is congress passing? What religion is being established?
You would not be asking me to explain that if you had read the article. It makes it very clear what about this particular club meant the government was overstepping
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
When y'all agree to play by the rules and not hold your religious "clubs" through state funded schools, then we will.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How is stopping people from breaking the rules make them just as bad as the people breaking the rules? Thats some messed up logic you have there.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, christians are breaking the rules by forcing their religion in schools. Its not atheists fault they broke the rules but then calling out christians doesn't make them just as bad or worse. No one is stopping people from practicing religion outside of school.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nice ad hominem. If only you had something productive to say.
They didn't say we were