Last week, in my article titled, The War Against Christianity in America – Battleground: DeSoto County, MS, I told you about the efforts of a group of bitter Atheists from Wisconsin, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, to take away prayer from high school football games, in the county in which I live.
Their efforts were for naught. While they did succeed in getting the DeSoto County School Board to ban prayer over the stadium loudspeakers, they did not count on Americans exercising their Freedom of Religion, and reciting the Lord’s Prayer, en masse, from the stands. Nor,were they prepared for the teams’ quarterbacks telling their fellow players to take a knee and leading them in prayer after the game.
This week, these bitter frustrated whiners are at it again.
The DeSoto Times Tribune reports:
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which last week notified the DeSoto School District board that it had received complaints about school prayer, has now turned its attention to the distribution of Gideon Bibles.
FFRF notified the school district on Monday that it has received complaints saying Gideons distribute bibles to DeSoto County students during instructional time of the school day, prompting the organization to ask the school to no longer allow the activity.
The letter asking to stop bible distribution references the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling from Berger v. Rensselaer Central School Corporation.
In the letter, the foundation’s attorney, Stephanie Schmitt, says, “Public schools have a constitutional obligation to remain neutral toward religion.” The letter continues, “In allowing Gideons to distribute bibles to elementary school students, DeSoto County Schools is placing its ‘stamp of approval’ on the religious messages contained in the Bible.”*
The complaint issued to the Freedom From Religion Foundation mentioned two specific schools, Oak Grove Central Elementary and DeSoto Central Elementary schools where the Bible distribution has taken place.
This complaint followed a letter the organization sent to the DeSoto County Schools Superintendent Milton Kuykendall asking him to apologize and to retract a statement he made last week in reference to the organization’s request that the district no long allow pre-game prayers to be led over the public address system.
The letter asking for Kuykendall to retract his statement refers to him saying, “…this organization out of Wisconsin doesn’t really care if we have prayer in our schools. They see an opportunity to try and accuse us of breaking the law and therefore give them a chance to sue our district and win a law suit and take millions of our funds.”
In the same statement, Kuykendall was responding to outraged parents and community members, telling them they cannot ban prayer but cannot allow school officials to pray or the schools’ public address systems to be used to broadcast the prayer. He went on, “As law-abiding citizens, we can not pick and choose the laws we want to obey.”
A representative from the DeSoto County School Board said they do not wish to comment further at this time.
Once more, if you are an average American like me, you’re probably asking yourself, gentle reader:
Who are these idiots?
Well, according to David Horowitz’s discoverthenetoworks.org:
Founded in 1978, the nonprofit, tax-exempt Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) consists of more than 13,000 members and calls itself “the largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics) in the United States.” Its mission is “to promote free thought and to keep state and church separate.”
According to FFRF, religion invariably has been a negative force in human societies. “The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion,” the organization says. “… In modern times, the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women’s right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers [i.e., atheists and agnostics], just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery.”
FFRF promotes its message through a variety of vehicles, including a weekly national radio program; a newspaper titled Freethought Today; a “freethought billboard campaign”; scholarships “for freethinking students”; high-school and college “freethought essay competitions” with cash awards; annual national conventions honoring a “Freethinker of the Year” for state/church activism; and the sale of educational products, bumper-stickers, music CDs, winter solstice greeting cards, and books promoting “freethought.” The Foundation also provides speakers for events and debates on subjects related to religion, and has established a “freethought book collection” at the University of Wisconsin Memorial Library.
The Foundation is led by its co-presidents, Dan Barker and his wife, Annie Laurie Gaylor. Barker was a Christian preacher for 19 years before renouncing his faith in 1984. Gaylor, who earned a journalism degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1980, co-founded FFRC with her mother and the late John Sontarck in 1978. She is author of the books Woe to the Women: The Bible Tells Me So (1981), and Betrayal of Trust: Clergy Abuse of Children (1988). She also edited the 1997 anthology Women Without Superstition: No Gods, No Masters. Today she edits FFRF’s newspaper, Freethought Today, which is published ten times annually. Since October 2007, she and her husband have co-hosted a one-hour weekly radio program called Freethought Radio, which
is[was, thank God] broadcast by Air America Radio.
FFRF Co-President, Annie Laurie Gaylor, issued a press release in 2010, in a simular case, which read:
What we need is a little accountability from the school district. This is irresponsible advice. Public schools may not serve as conduits and facilitators for the Gideons — an aggressive and predatory Christian male missionary society which openly targets fifth-grade students. Children in our public schools are a captive audience. These adult missionaries need to pick on someone their own size and stay out of our public schools.
Per gallup.com, 92 % of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it stands to reason that 8 % do not…and that’s fine, we are still a free country.
However, I fail to see how the dissemination of the Book of Faith that was embraced by our Founding Fathers can, in any way, harm the young, developing minds of today’s schoolchildren.
If fact, in my humble opinion, quite the opposite is true.
Kingsjester's Blog 
Pingback: The War Against Christianity in America – Battleground: DeSoto County, MS, Part 2 (via Kingsjester’s Blog) | My Blog
These idiots will try to take their madness to the limits. Good for the good folks from DeSoto County for standing up for their rights!!!
LikeLike
It’s far, far worse here in Britain. Sadly, I sometimes think that we Christians are fighting a losing battle here (you might want to read my last post for an example of what’s gone wrong in Britain over the last forty years).
LikeLike
Hang in there, my friend. God bless.
LikeLike
wow….true idiots indeed….
LikeLike
Sorry, you have no appreciation of real religious freedom. Public schools and school football games are not tools to spread religious propaganda; public schools need to be neutral.
You yourself noted that FFRF’s complaint was valid, because prayers over the PA system were stopped. People can, of course, pray of their own volition, but that’s what should have been done in the first place, instead of misusing a school sports event to unlawfully promote religion.
You might be interested in this article on WorldNetDaily:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46828
It explains, from a conservative Christian point-of-view, why he is against pre-game prayers.
LikeLike
Answer me this : How was prayer over a loudspeaker in DeSoto County, MS harmful to a group of atheists from Wisconsin? Furthermore, how were the actions of the 50 other high schools which they have sued, harmful to them personally? Also, are you painfully unaware that this country was founded by Christian men who wrote our founding documents based upon a Judeo-Christian belief system?
LikeLike
“How was prayer over a loudspeaker in DeSoto County, MS harmful to a group of atheists from Wisconsin?”
The FFRF was contacted by parents of students in the school who wanted the illegal prayers stopped; they and their children were the ones whose rights were being infringed.
If you want to know why the supreme court ruled 11 years ago against prayers before school football games, see:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-62.ZS.html
LikeLike
1. Were they forced to participate?
2. You do realize that the phrase is Freedom of Religion, don’t you?
3. Are you opposed to the Gideons hiding out Bibles at schools?
LikeLike
“Were they forced to participate?”
No. Was the school promoting religion? Yes. Can public schools promote religion? No.
“You do realize that the phrase is Freedom of Religion, don’t you?”
No, I don’t. I was under the impression that the phrase was “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
“Are you opposed to the Gideons hiding out Bibles at schools?”
At public schools, yes. Would you be opposed to Muslims handing out Korans in the same manner?
LikeLike
Were they promoting religon? No. They were honoring God. The parents and the children, all 8% of them (if that many), per Gallup, who were Atheists, were not forced to participate.
Would I be upset if Muslims tried to hand out the Koran at schools?. Nope. Down here, none of our children would take one, except to show their parents. Muslims are only 1.5 million of the American population. Christian comprise 75%. 92% of Americans believe in God. There’s a reason for that.
By the way, it was not Christians who slaughtered 3,000 innocents on 9/11/01. It was adherents to “the religion of peace”.
I see you’re from Wisconsin. Are you a member of the FFRF?
LikeLike
Of course the school was promoting religion. Did you read the court opinion?
“The Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.”
The Santa Fe case quoted above also pointed out that some students are required to attend these games — the football players, cheerleaders, and school band members, often for class credits. So in essence you have students in a public school who are required to attend prayers to get credit for certain courses. Suppose the administration decided to switch to Muslim prayers? Still OK with that?
I’m not from Wisconsin, I’m from Minnesota, and no, I’m not a member of the FFRF.
LikeLike
People who don’t like themselves much, don’t like much of anything…
LikeLike
Brian Westley:
‘ “The Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.” ‘
At what point did the school compel participation in religion or its exercise?
LikeLike
The supreme court said “coerce,” not compel, and if you bothered to read their opinion, you’d already know.
LikeLike
Dictionary.com:
co·erce [koh-urs]
verb (used with object), -erced, -erc·ing.
1.
to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.
Sounds like they can, for all practical purposes, be used interchangeably.
It seems to me, that based on the facts of the case presented here, the School District did nothing to coerce the students into participating in or exercising religion. Attendance at football games is purely voluntary. If it was a coerced prayer before class, then you might have a case.
As far as SCOTUS is concerned, you act as if they are always right. Believe it or not, they have been wrong before. It is possible that they were wrong here.
LikeLike
Like I pointed out earlier, some students ARE compelled to be at the football games. The state can’t compel people to attend prayers.
Why are you against religious freedom anyway?
LikeLike
Are they compelled or coerced?
If you are talking about athletes/cheerleaders/band members being coerced to be at the game, if they don’t like the prayer, they do NOT have to be a part of the band/team/cheerleading squad. Participation in this event is purely voluntary for all participants.
I’m not against religious freedom. Unlike you, I don’t get off by going around and suing people for or whining that people have chosen to express a religious viewpoint that I, as an agnostic, disagree with. In fact, it appears that you are the one who is against religious freedom, since you are getting all upset over something as myopic and inconsequential as a prayer at a high school football game.
LikeLike
Yes, they are coerced.
“I’m not against religious freedom. Unlike you, I don’t get off by going around and suing people for or whining that people have chosen to express a religious viewpoint that I, as an agnostic, disagree with. In fact, it appears that you are the one who is against religious freedom, since you are getting all upset over something as myopic and inconsequential as a prayer at a high school football game.”
If it’s “inconsequential”, nobody would object to removing it either.
And no, I’m not against religious freedom. An important part of religious freedom is preventing government officials from imposing their religion on other people.
LikeLike
No one is coerced into playing football, being a cheerleader, being a coach, being a public address announcer, working in a concession stand or playing in a marching band…
LikeLike
Brian,
I do not see where this alleged coercion is occurring. Would you please be so kind as to point it out to me?
If you are for religious freedom, then certainly you don’t mind time being set aside before the game/class for individuals to pray/worship AS THEY CHOOSE? Nor would you mind it if attendees at said football game prayed on their own, with no instruction/prompting/whatever from school officials?
LikeLike
“I do not see where this alleged coercion is occurring.”
Well, I do, and so does the supreme court.
“If you are for religious freedom, then certainly you don’t mind time being set aside before the game/class for individuals to pray/worship AS THEY CHOOSE? Nor would you mind it if attendees at said football game prayed on their own, with no instruction/prompting/whatever from school officials?”
Hey, anybody can pray before, during, and after a football game. The illegal part here is when the school administrators decide to broadcast a prayer over the PA system as an official part of the game.
Do individuals of various beliefs get their prayers broadcast? No, only the one decided by the school admins.
Do individuals get to choose “none of the above”? No, a prayer is broadcast even for those who don’t want it.
Also, did you notice that Kingsjester titled this blog entry as part of a “war against Christianity,” even though NON-Christians never HAD the opportunity to have their prayers broadcast over the PA system? It’s just one more example of Christianity now being treated like all other religions; what people are complaining about is a level playing field.
LikeLike
“Well, I do, and so does the supreme court.”
Please, point out the coercion to me, or stop making this claim.
“Do individuals of various beliefs get their prayers broadcast? No, only the one decided by the school admins.
Do individuals get to choose “none of the above”? No, a prayer is broadcast even for those who don’t want it.”
Again, if they don’t like it, they don’t have to go. There is no coercion. I’m an agnostic, and I have no problem with this.
“Also, did you notice that Kingsjester titled this blog entry as part of a “war against Christianity,””
Really??? I thought it was about Hasidic Jews.
“It’s just one more example of Christianity now being treated like all other religions; what people are complaining about is a level playing field.”
Yeah, I suppose that people complain about Monks teaching courses on Buddhism in Public Universities as much as they complain about Priests teaching courses on Catholicism in Public Universities? I suppose the ACLU sues to get stars of davids removed as much as they sue to get crosses removed? Level playing field? Hardly! How about the court ruling that christian faith-based student orgs now have to accept atheists as members?
LikeLike
““Well, I do, and so does the supreme court.”
Please, point out the coercion to me, or stop making this claim.”
I have. And if you’ll bother to read the supreme court opinion, you’ll see that they actually call it coercion, so it’s a fact that the supreme court recognized it as such, not just a claim. I don’t really care if you can’t see it.
“Again, if they don’t like it, they don’t have to go.”
Except for the students who DO have to go, like the football players.
“Yeah, I suppose that people complain about Monks teaching courses on Buddhism in Public Universities as much as they complain about Priests teaching courses on Catholicism in Public Universities?”
The degree of public criticism isn’t at stake, it’s how the government treats them.
“I suppose the ACLU sues to get stars of davids removed as much as they sue to get crosses removed?”
Yes, they do. You’ll notice the cross cases are about crosses erected on government land; find a star of david in a similar situation and the ACLU would handle it in the same manner.
“Level playing field? Hardly!”
Hardly?
I showed you how non-Christians DON’T get the opportunity to get THEIR prayers read over the PA system, and your response was that they didn’t have to go.
Now CHRISTIANS are in the same boat, since NOBODY gets their prayers read over the PA system, and you can’t see that NOW it’s a level playing field.
“How about the court ruling that christian faith-based student orgs now have to accept atheists as members?”
The case you’re referring to (Christian Legal Society v. Martinez) said that any student group that wanted to be a recognized student organization had to admit all students regardless of their status or beliefs.
This means that a Christian student group that wants to be a recognized student organization would have to admit atheist students, AND that an atheist student group that wants to be a recognized student organization would have to admit Christian students. And both would have to admit Muslim, Jewish, etc students. And that either group could forgo recognition and NOT have to admit all students.
Yes, that IS a level playing field. The Christian group is being treated the SAME as other groups.
LikeLike
John Adams (American 2nd US President (1797-1801), 1735-1826)
LikeLike
Adams also passed the Sedition Act. Did you have a point?
LikeLike
What part of Adams’ statement did you not understand?
LikeLike
“Except for the students who DO have to go, like the football players.”
No one is compelling them to be on the team. If their objection to the prayer is that strong, they can quit the team. Participation in extracurricular activities is purely voluntary.
“The case you’re referring to (Christian Legal Society v. Martinez) said that any student group that wanted to be a recognized student organization had to admit all students regardless of their status or beliefs.”
The court erred in this decision. The decision completely ignores the fact that the group has a right to decide who can and cannot be a member of their organization, and that there were other students organizations that were registered with Hastings law school that were similarly discriminatory in their membership requirements (See Alito’s dissent for specific details and examples). Sounds to me like Hastings was just discriminating against the Christian group.
Also, doesn’t having atheists in a christian group (and to be fair, vice versa) subvert the purpose of the group? What about the groups right to freedom of association, or to peacefully assemble?
“Adams also passed the Sedition Act.”
Not to split hairs, but it was actually congress that passed the Sedition Act.
LikeLike
““Except for the students who DO have to go, like the football players.”
No one is compelling them to be on the team.”
You can’t predicate taking athletics in a public school to being required to be subject to prayers. What has to go are the prayers, not the students.
“there were other students organizations that were registered with Hastings law school that were similarly discriminatory in their membership requirements”
The proper remedy is to have the requirements applied to all student groups.
“Also, doesn’t having atheists in a christian group (and to be fair, vice versa) subvert the purpose of the group?”
Possibly, but you were trying to use it as an example of Christians being treated differently.
“What about the groups right to freedom of association, or to peacefully assemble?”
They still have that as I said; they just can’t be a recognized student organization.
By the way, do you agree that, now, Christian groups are being treated the same vis-a-vis broadcasting prayers over the PA system?
LikeLike
The part that’s supposedly relevant.
LikeLike
What part of the documented fact (by Gallup) that 92% of Americans believe in God upsets you? Why shouldn’t the 75% of Americans who are Christians be free to exercise their freedom of religion? So, your “free-thinkers” have eliminated prayer over the loudspeaker in DeSoto County. That did not eliminate prayer at HS Football Games, which was the true reason for the threats. Do, what now? What is it that so scares you about Christian Americans?
LikeLike
“What part of the documented fact (by Gallup) that 92% of Americans believe in God upsets you?”
It doesn’t. Why are you making such a weird assumption?
” Why shouldn’t the 75% of Americans who are Christians be free to exercise their freedom of religion?”
They ARE. Freedom of religion does not include broadcasting prayers over the PA system before a public school football game.
“So, your “free-thinkers” have eliminated prayer over the loudspeaker in DeSoto County.”
Just getting government officials to obey their own laws. Do you have something against that?
“That did not eliminate prayer at HS Football Games, which was the true reason for the threats.”
No, the true reason is exactly what was stated: stopping official school prayers over the PA system.
“Do, what now?”
Nothing else needs to be done. Notice that prayers over the PA system have been stopped.
“What is it that so scares you about Christian Americans?”
People like yourself who seem to think Christians have more rights that non-Christians.
LikeLike
According to FFRF,
Some noble group.
No, kid. I don’t want Christians to have more rights than others. Just the same rights as others. The Christians that founded this country intended it that way.
LikeLike
“No, kid. I don’t want Christians to have more rights than others. Just the same rights as others. The Christians that founded this country intended it that way.”
So what’s your problem with stopping prayers over the PA system in this case?
Do Jews get to broadcast prayers over the PA system? No.
Do Muslims get to broadcast prayers over the PA system? No.
Do Hindus get to broadcast prayers over the PA system? No.
Do atheists get to broadcast statements over the PA system? No.
Do Christians get to broadcast prayers over the PA system?
The answer used to be “Yes” — a privilege not granted to the other groups listed above — but now it’s “No” — just like everyone else.
LikeLike
“You can’t predicate taking athletics in a public school to being required to be subject to prayers. What has to go are the prayers, not the students.”
As long as the prayer is non-denominational, there is no problem. I do not know if it the prayer over the loudspeaker was explicitly denominational one way or the other.
At any rate, it appears that FRFF is without standing in this case. They should go get a life and sue the office of faith based initiatives. Oh wait. They did that already. How did that work out for them?
“Possibly, but you were trying to use it as an example of Christians being treated differently.”
If you actually read the facts of the case, you’d know that they were being treated differently by the administration. Hastings permitted other groups whose membership requirements were based on racial background/religious/political beliefs to become fully recognized organizations. The only logical conclusion to be drawn from all that is that the administration at Hastings did, in fact, discriminate against the CLS, based on the group’s beliefs. The correct remedy is full recognition of the org, a big apology, and a lot of $$$ to cover legal fees.
“They still have that as I said; they just can’t be a recognized student organization.”
But the other orgs that had discriminatory membership policies still can be (and were) recognized? How is that not discrimination on behalf of Hastings? In addition, the lack of recognition inhibits their ability to meet and promote their cause, whatever it may be.
LikeLike
““You can’t predicate taking athletics in a public school to being required to be subject to prayers. What has to go are the prayers, not the students.”
As long as the prayer is non-denominational, there is no problem.”
The supreme court disagrees with you. Too bad.
“At any rate, it appears that FRFF is without standing in this case.”
What case? There’s no “case,” the school officials agreed to stop broadcasting prayers over the PA system.
And, by the way, the FFRF was initially contacted by parents with children in the school, and they certainly would’ve had standing if a court case had been necessary.
“But the other orgs that had discriminatory membership policies still can be (and were) recognized? How is that not discrimination on behalf of Hastings?”
You’re complaining about selective enforcement; the court case wasn’t about that, it claimed that the rules, even if applied evenly, were unconstitutional.
LikeLike
“The supreme court disagrees with you. Too bad.”
I understand what the Court says. The Court isn’t always right. If the Court says that I have a constitutionally protected right to own a fully automatic AK-47, you’d agree with its opinion there as well and say that the court was right, even if you are a gun control advocate? Or would you disagree with its opinion? I’m just trying to figure out what your thoughts on jurisprudence are with this question.
“You’re complaining about selective enforcement; the court case wasn’t about that, it claimed that the rules, even if applied evenly, were unconstitutional.”
I understand what the Court said, and it was wrong. It obviously was about selective enforcement. How is it that the La Raza group, which had race-based membership requirements, which were explicitly outlined in its bylaws, which had to be approved by the administration, get approved but the Christian group, which has a similar requirement, doesn’t?
LikeLike
““The supreme court disagrees with you. Too bad.”
I understand what the Court says. The Court isn’t always right.”
Well, that means you’re just whining now.
“It obviously was about selective enforcement.”
No, it wasn’t. Really. The court only addresses issues put before it. This is a quote directly from the supreme court opinion:
“Neither lower court addressed CLS’s argument that Hastings se- lectively enforces its all-comers policy. This Court is not the proper forum to air the issue in the first instance. On remand, the Ninth Circuit may consider this argument if, and to the extent, it is pre- served.”
LikeLike
“Well, that means you’re just whining now.”
So a dissenting opinion is a bunch of whining? I thought you liberals loved dissent, and thought it was patriotic.
LikeLike
“So a dissenting opinion is a bunch of whining?”
The way you’re doing it, yes. You make statements like “As long as the prayer is non-denominational, there is no problem,” which directly contradicts supreme court rulings. There clearly IS a problem according to the courts; ignoring reality and pretending your statement is accurate is just whining. A dissenting opinion would at least acknowledge what the courts have actually ruled and deal with THAT instead of playing pretend.
LikeLike
I have one question what are they so scared of? If they are do not believe in God why should they care if those of us “Non-Free-Thinkers” or mindless followers pray??
LikeLike
I just have one more thing to say. God is always listeming. No matter how hard groups like this try they will never take prayer out of school. As long as there are Chrisitan students there will be prayer. In Matthew 18:20 Jesus states “For where two or three are gather together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” Whether it is school “sanctioned” or not God will be there.
LikeLike
It is important to distinguish between the “public square” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
LikeLiked by 1 person