Atheists Force School to Cancel Christmas Toy Drive Because: Religion

A school in South Carolina has been forced to cancel its annual toy collection drive for the charity Operation Christmas Child by atheists who claim that the event is “religious” and therefore should not be allowed.

For the past three years East Point Academy in West Columbia, S.C., has been participating in the toy drive for needy children. But this year the school has had to cancel their participation because an atheist group sent a letter to the school threatening to sue over the false “separation of church and state” issue.

School principal, Renee Mathews, is flabbergasted by the absurd letter saying that the only “religious” part of the toy drive is the word “Christmas” in its title. Otherwise there is not a single mention of religion in anything concerning the event. It’s just a toy drive for needy kids.

“There’s no religious literature tied with it,” Mathews told WTSP News. “There’s no speakers who come. There’s no religious affiliation at all.”

But this isn’t good enough for the atheists. The group the American Humanist Association insists that it is all caught up with religion and must be ended because, they say, it is unconstitutional.

“The letter was very explicit that there would be litigation against us if we did not stop,” said principal Mathews.

Principal Mathews says she never got a single complaint about the toy drive in the three years they’ve participated in the Operation Christmas Child charity.

The atheist group, however, says that the charity is meant to “induce impoverished children to convert to Christianity” and it violates the Constitution for a public school to get involved with the group.

So, what are we seeing here? We are seeing that atheists hate kids, I suppose.

Shortlink:

Posted by on November 22, 2013.
Filed under Big government, Christianity, Christmas, Constitutional Issues, corruption, Culture, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Education, Leftist Tolerance, Liberals, Religion, Religious Liberty.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Lawrence Westlake

    All this nonsense could be solved with the stroke of a pen. A national tort and lawsuit reform law which requires losers to pay winners’ attorneys’ fees. Take a wild guess, however, which political party rabidly is opposed to any such law. Starts with “D” and ends with “s,” and we’re not talking about Druids. Political choices have severe ripple effects.

    • Commander_Chico

      Yes, leave the average person powerless before big wealthy powers.

      • Retired military

        Chico goes with Option A. The oligaphy

      • jim_m

        Tort reform is meant to end abuses. If you have a real case you have nothing to fear from tort reform. Like voter ID the only people who fear reform are the ones who benefit from defrauding the system.

  • GarandFan

    Too bad the School District doesn’t have the balls to tell them “go ahead”. Just exactly WHEN does the District think that case will be heard? It certainly won’t be before December 25th.

  • jim_m

    It’s not that atheists hate children. It’s just that they don’t care who they hurt in their drive to make religious expression illegal. Atheism is a part of the left wing and like all leftists they don’t care who gets hurt as long as they win. Look at how many millions the communist killed. Atheism was there religion. These atheists would do the same if they had the chance.

    • Retired military

      Sorta like Oprah and her admirer Chico.

      • jim_m

        I think that if she felt that she could ‘cleanse’ society and get away with it she would have no problem justifying it to herself. And Chico would agree with and defend her all the way.

        Most leftist ideology is ultimately Utopian and in order to get there they are willing to go to any length since in achieving that end they will have created a perfect society.

  • LiberalNightmare

    I wonder just how likely it is that the athiest’s would win the lawsuit.

    Seems to me like the school is caving pretty easy. A more suspicious person might start to wonder if there is some collusion going on here.

    Schools don’t worry much about lawsuits when it comes down to stepping on first or second amendment rights, why so cautious all of a sudden?

    • jim_m

      The intent isn’t to win the lawsuit but to bleed the school district financially until it has no choice but to give in.

      • LiberalNightmare

        Maybe the intent is to give the school an excuse?

        • jim_m

          Since most people in education (even in SC) are on the political left there probably would not need to be a whole lot of persuasion applied.

    • Commander_Chico

      If Operation Christmas Child is only giving out the toys to kids who pray for Jesus, that’s how they win they lawsuit.

      The school can go to Toys for Tots, run by the Marine Reserve.

      I think these lawsuits are mostly unnecessary, but I can understand how an atheist, Jew or even a Catholic could get sick of all the fundamentalist Bible-beating in parts of the South, the constant uninvited intrusion into your life and government. I met a few of these fundies in the military, they are pests. Like a couple of times standing in formation with hundreds of people and the chaplain calling on Jesus in the invocation.

      • Vagabond661

        sure because freedom from religion is in the Constitution. oh wait….maybe that was “of” not “from”.

    • ljcarolyne

      Can you say, Obama!

  • Mark Moore

    You can’t use a toy drive as a cover for proselytizing in a public school.

    • jim_m

      Pehaps youn should have bothered to read the article

      “There’s no religious literature tied with it,” Mathews told WTSP News. “There’s no speakers who come. There’s no religious affiliation at all.”

      No proselytizing was being done. This is just hateful leftists trying to impose a religion of atheism on everyone else. The left can’t stand that anyone should be allowed to think differently from them.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Isnt that exactly what the AHA is using the toy drive for?

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Indeed.

  • Doug Indeap

    Why some would direct their ire at those like the AHA who seek to uphold the Constitution, rather than those flouting it (intentionally or ignorantly) is not apparent. It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. 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 principals administering charity drives in schools), 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.

    • Hawk_TX

      Here is the first amendment for you to read. Based on your comment you have never actually read it.

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      • Doug Indeap

        Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

        • LiberalNightmare

          >>Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances.

          Show me.

          • Doug Indeap

            I did. Note the several aspects of the Constitution mentioned above.

            That the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who mistakenly supposed it was there and, upon learning of their error, reckon they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

          • LiberalNightmare

            For a “bedrock” principle, it seems to take a fairly subjective analysis, along with a strong ignorance of the supporting documents, to find it.

          • Doug Indeap

            Yeah, about as “subjective” as the analysis needed to find the Constitution’s separation of powers and checks and balances–two other fundamental constitutional principles. Those who suppose that they need to “see the words” otherwise it ain’t there will look in vain for these principles as well.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Never mentioned in the Constitution.

          • Doug Indeap

            Yeah . . . like I said . . . see above.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Show your textual evidence from the Constitution as adopted and amended.

          • Doug Indeap

            As for textual evidence, I pointed to five aspects of the original Constitution plus both religion clauses of the First Amendment. Address those—preferably with something other than that facile fool’s errand about show me the words “separation of church and state.” It that’s all you have, save it.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            No, you have given us hand wavium without a single citation of an explicit separation.

          • Doug Indeap

            Hmmm. Since you won’t/can’t discuss what I do say, and simply insist that I instead say something else, I gather further comment can but produce an endless loop of pointless repetition. If you ever want to discuss those aspects of the Constitution I mentioned, just let me know. I trust that you need no citation to find the Constitution; I trust as well that you can find the preamble, no-religious-test clause, and First Amendment; and I trust that if you peruse the rest of the Constitution, you’ll find that it omits all of those other things I said it omits.

        • jim_m

          Sorry big boy. Separation as you understand it is not in the constitution and the man who invented the phrase was in France when he did so and not at the constitutional convention.

          Also, learn how to create paragraphs, your posts are unreadable crap.

          • Doug Indeap

            To the extent that some would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.

            Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution–without the First Amendment–to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed,old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

          • jim_m

            You use words but you do not understand the context. You have shorn these of the context of the time in which they were written. At that time the British crown mandated support of the official religion and historically people had quite literally lost their heads over religion. The founders saw that true freedom of religion came from government not deciding what church would be the official church and forcing people to attend or support that church financially.

            The founders did not believe that government institutions should not allow religious expression to occur within their walls. They understood that religious expression was an integral part of people’s lives. Only the modern leftist believes that it is a prohibition on religious expression.

          • Doug Indeap

            While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

          • Hawk_TX

            Since you seem to have trouble understanding the clear wording of the first amendment here it is again with the definition of respecting included for clarity.

            Congress shall make no law respecting ( about or relating to (something) : with respect to (something) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;……

            This should make it clear even to you that the first amendment bans congress from crafting laws about or relating to religion. There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. The constitution only creates a separation of state from church.

            In addition you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights purpose was to limit the federal governments power, not to limit the rights of citizens.

          • Doug Indeap

            It is important to distinguish 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. (Students also are free to exercise and express their religious views–in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities.) 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.

            Nor does the constitutional separation of church and state prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.

          • Retired military

            Unless I am mistaken when Madison was president the US govt bought bibles for public schools.
            It may have been Jefferson but it was definitely one of the 2.

            Quick search on google. (I remember listing more than one reference for a friend a few years back)

            http://www.ctnonline.com/wethepeople.html

            Congress Prints Bibles

            1782 – Congress approves the printing of Bibles for schools.

            http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/quotations-jefferson-memorial
            “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men. We…solemnly publish and declare, that these colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states…And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” – The Declaration of Independence[2]
            (maybe when they said creator and divine providence they were talking about a rock that they worshipped.)

            “Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens…are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion…No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively.”

            “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Establish a law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state and on a general plan.”

          • Doug Indeap

            Many versions of the Congress-Bible story have circulated over the years. Congress did not, as is often repeated (particularly in the blogosphere), order, import, print, publish, or distribute any Bibles. Rather, at a time when the general reputation of local printers was such that they could hardly compete against British printers, Congress simply passed a resolution recommending a Philadelphia printer’s recent edition of the Bible based on its chaplain’s report of the satisfactory “care and accuracy” of his work. Chris Rodda does a good job setting these and other common misconceptions straight in Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right’s Alternate Version of American History (2006) (available free on line at http://www.liarsforjesus.com/)

            Neither Madison nor Jefferson bought bibles for public schools. To the contrary, in addition to vetoing the two bills mentioned above, Madison pocket vetoed a third bill that would have exempted from import duties plates to print Bibles.

          • Hawk_TX

            By attempting to ban religion from the public sphere you in fact are promoting the government recognized religion of atheism. As well as prohibiting the ‘free exercise thereof” of all other religions. Rather than respecting the first amendment you have turned it on its head and established an official government religion.

            In order to actually follow the first amendment the government has to make no law respecting (about or relating) to an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Which is essentially the opposite of your position.

          • Doug Indeap

            First, as noted above, the Constitution’s separation of church and state appears not just in the First Amendment.

            Second, it is important to implement both religion clauses of the First Amendment. To do that, it is critical, as noted above, to distinguish between individual and government speech about religion since the Amendment affords freedom to individuals and constrains the government in this arena.

            It should not be supposed that the government, by remaining separate from and neutral toward religion in keeping with the Constitution, somehow thereby favors atheism over theism. There is a difference between the government (1) remaining neutral in matters of religion and leaving individuals free to choose, exercise, and express their religious views without government intrusion and (2) taking sides in matters of religion and promoting one view (whether theism [in one, any, or all its various forms], atheism, or whatever) to the detriment of others. It is one thing for the government to endorse the idea that god(s) exist or, alternatively, endorse the idea that god(s) do not exist; it is quite another for the government to take no position on the matter and respect the right of each individual to freely decide for himself.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            No, there is no seperation of church and state in the Constitution. Show citations to the contrary.

          • Doug Indeap

            See above.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Everson Vs. Board of Education overturned three previous Supreme Court decisions concerning religion and the state in the United States.

          • Doug Indeap

            1. I’ll bite. Which cases? 2. So?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Vidal Et Al v. Girard’s Executors (43 U.S. 127 (1844))

            Christianity is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public.

            Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?

            Holy Trinity v. United States (143 U.S. 457 (1892))

            There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. This is a Christian nation.

            United States v. Macintosh (283 U.S. 605 (1931))

            We are a Christian people…according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with the reverence the duty of obedience to God.”

          • Doug Indeap

            First, contrary to your assertion, in Everson the Court did not “overturn” any of the decisions you note. Indeed, the Everson Court did not even mention any of those decisions.

            Second, while you perhaps meant to argue only that Everson is somehow inconsistent with those earlier decisions, even that is not so. The Everson Court did not mention them presumably because they had no bearing whatsoever on the issue it decided.

            In Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, the Court had no occasion even to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Rather, the Court merely decided a question of Pennsylvania law concerning charitable trusts and held that a trust establishing a school from which ecclesiastics were precluded from providing instruction was not contrary to that state’s common law and public policy. The passage you quoted was merely the Court’s summary of the state’s law as determined by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

            With respect to Holy Trinity v. United States, again the Court was not called upon to interpret the U.S. Constitution. You point to Justice Brewer’s statement that “[t]his is a Christian nation,” and seem to assume that the Court “ruled” to that effect. The Court held that a statute restricting importation of any alien under contract to perform labor or service did not preclude a church from contracting with an alien to come to this country and serve as its pastor. The Court based this holding on its finding that Congress intended simply to stay the influx of cheap, unskilled labor and did not intend to address circumstances such as the church’s contract with an alien pastor. It supported this finding,
            in dictum (i.e., a statement not essential to its holding), with the further thought that as this is a Christian nation, Congress would not have intended to restrict the church in this situation.

            Brewer later clarified that he meant simply to observe that the nation’s people are largely Christian and not that the nation’s government or laws are somehow Christian: “But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.” D. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (1905) 12.

            To much the same effect is the statement in United States v. Macintosh that “[w]e are a Christian people.” Again you seemingly mistake that for a ruling (it is not) and omit the context. In that case, an alien sought to become a citizen, but refused to take the oath of allegiance, except with the qualification that he would not assist in the defense of the country by force of arms unless he believed it to be morally justified. The Court uttered the observation you quote and then pivoted:
            “But, also, we are a nation with the duty to survive; a nation whose Constitution contemplates war as well as peace; whose government must go forward upon the assumption, and safely can proceed upon no other, that unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land, as well those made for war as those made for peace, are not inconsistent with the will of God.” The Court denied his application.

            None of these cases had any bearing on the issue in Everson, and thus the Court had no occasion to mention, let alone overturn, them.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          No, it’s not. The very concept was first mentioned by President Jefferson in a letter to a church. It didn’t become a “legal standard” until 1948.

          • Doug Indeap

            Incorrect. See above.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            You still have not demonstrated an explicit statement in the Constitution (as amended) which explicitly requires a separation between church and state.

          • Doug Indeap

            As noted above, this facile fool’s errand (i.e., show me the magic words) is . . . well, facile. Picture someone unfamiliar with the Constitution who, having heard talk of the separation of church and state, simply supposed without any research or even much thought that those very words appeared in the Constitution, and then upon later learning of his error, fancied that he had single-handedly solved a constitutional mystery that had eluded judges, lawyers, and scholars for years. You can understand, I trust, how those familiar with the Constitution can only smile at the “brilliance” of this discovery. As noted above, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name this constitutional principle is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) commonly used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      EntrenchedInPropaganda

      Already discussed at length and with citations (you should try it some time) here:

      On the “Separation of Church and State”

  • Mark H. Harris

    Keep the program running and tell the AHA to bring it on . . .

    . . . The Constitution of the United States DOES NOT provide for the separation of Church and State.

    The Constitution of the United States specifically forbids CONGRESS from establishing a State Church, and it specifically forbids the State from interfering with religious practice. Litigation?? Bring it on…

    Allow the litigation process to come / then turn the whole thing over to Jay Sukelow and the American Center for Law and Justice!

    Its time to tell the AHA, the ACLU, and others, we are not going to take their atheist bullying any longer.

    Cheers

  • Vagabond661

    Is this a step on that slippery slope to prevent churches or other religious institutions from doing ANY fund raising?

    • jim_m

      A slippery slope implies someplace you don’t want to go. The left absolutely want to go there.

  • Vagabond661
    • jim_m

      They always have been.

  • ljcarolyne

    These atheist can just go to He!@# where they are headed anyway. Evil pricks that hate kids or anyone that goes against their devilish lifestyle, huh?