|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 6, 2012 4:33:45 GMT -5
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (CBS Charlotte) - A church caught at the center of a controversy regarding a school trip to see their production of “Merry Christmas Charlie Brown” has decided to cancel the show.
The Agape Church in Little Rock, which had initially intended to present the show to school children on Dec. 14, released a statement to KATV regarding their decision, signed by Pastor Happy Caldwell.
“ecause of what this issue has become, as a church, it is not our desire to put hard-working, sacrificial teachers and cast members in harm’s way,” the release stated.
Instead of matinees for school children, a public performance will be offered at the church on Dec. 15.
The trouble reportedly stemmed from an invitation to first and second grade students at Terry Elementary School to see the Christmas production.
“Merry Christmas Charlie Brown” is the stage adaptation of the classic 1965 Peanuts cartoon, “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” The source material includes a retelling of the Nativity story from the Gospel of Luke, which is told by the character Linus in an iconic scene from the movie.
A parent who felt the trip was inappropriate reached out to the ASF to voice her concern with the show’s religious connotations, which reportedly differed from her own, the station learned.
From there, a campaign was launched to cancel the class trip.
“We’re not waging a war,” LeeWood Thomas, a spokesman for the group, told KATV. “We’re basically calling a foul against the separation of church and state.”
The organization took offense to both a planned field trip to a church with religious affiliation, and to a school-sanctioned presentation of religious material, the station additionally reported.
---------
How many times are we going to run into trouble with that phrase “separation of church and state”? Contrary even to the words of the Supreme Court, that is not the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The First Amendment states a government established religion is prohibited and guarantees freedom of of worship….. That is all it says, It says nothing that would suggest that the state should reject everything that has a religious connotation. Yet this “separation of church and state” metaphor is often used to abolish anything religious these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 6, 2012 12:36:59 GMT -5
Residents in a Newhall senior apartment complex are protesting an order from management to remove their beloved Christmas tree from the community room because, they were told, it's a religious symbol
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Dec 6, 2012 14:08:35 GMT -5
Good for them!! A picket line of wheel chairs, walkers, canes and lap robes. I love it!
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 6, 2012 15:51:00 GMT -5
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
A threatened lawsuit had put a halt to what's become a Christmas tradition for members of the Moanalua High School orchestra.
For the past six years, the award-winning group and volunteers from the New Hope Church have raised more than $200,000 for a charity that treats poor people in Africa.
But that all came to a halt on Monday when the Department of Education decided to cancel the concert just four days before the event.
In a letter to the Department of Education, Mitch Kahle, founder of the Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church, took issue with the involvement of New Hope Church, which handles ticket sales and sells those tickets at its services.
"The issue here is an entanglement between a public school and a Christian church," said Kahle.
"And one of the things about the constitution is that it prohibits the involvement of public schools and churches."
(Here we go again. It would be nice if some of these big mouths acutally read the constitution)
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Dec 6, 2012 19:13:33 GMT -5
How many times are we going to run into trouble with that phrase “separation of church and state”? There should be none at all. The real problem, IMAO, is that many people do not understand the court's decisions. Contrary even to the words of the Supreme Court, that is not the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution. True, But there still is a problem and all the courts these days try to fix that problem the best way possible (IMAO). The First Amendment states a government established religion is prohibited and guarantees freedom of of worship….. That is all it says, It says nothing that would suggest that the state should reject everything that has a religious connotation. True again! But here is the problem . . . . There is only one way to make certain all religions are treated equally by our government, so we never get close to having an "established religion". The problem is, that realistically, the only way to be 100% certain all are treated equally is for our government to not support any of them at all in any way. -Don- |
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Dec 6, 2012 19:34:34 GMT -5
Residents in a Newhall senior apartment complex are protesting an order from management to remove their beloved Christmas tree from the community room because, they were told, it's a religious symbol Usually courts decide that stuff such as a xmas tree is NOT a religious symbol, as long as there is nothing about JC or anything that supports the Bible and such. A Xmas tree is just a tree. It can be a symbol for any and all religions equally, or even a symbol for an atheist. There should be no problem with having a Xmas tree. BTW, IMO, freedom of religion works very well. Usually, it's not a religion fighting atheists, but one religion fighting another. This helps prevent any of them from getting too powerful. One of the better examples of such is in year 2000 when the courts stopped the prayers at a school football game, with the help of the ACLU. Seems few realize the plaintiffs in the lawsuit was a Mormon and a Catholic who didn't agree with the "born again" style of prayer used. -Don- |
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 6, 2012 22:14:13 GMT -5
>>There should be none at all. The real problem, IMAO, is that many people do not understand the court's decisions.<<
The problem is the courts have not read the constitution correctly wherein it says
the state will not establish a religion. It says nothing about separation of church and state. Read it yourself. Those who do not believe in God like to use the metaphor “separation of church and state” so that they can twist the meaning. The result often is their attempt to suppress religious practices and symbols. Were they to stick to the actual words of the first amendment they would not have the ability to persecute religions.
The courts have gone out of their way to bar anything that has a religious connotation.
>>There is only one way to make certain all religions are treated equally by our government, so we never get close to having an "established religion".
The problem is, that realistically, the only way to be 100% certain all are treated equally is for our government to not support any of them at all in any way.<<
Correct, the government does not have to or should not support any one religion, but on the other hand it should not hinder them either.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 6, 2012 22:28:40 GMT -5
:B: Residents in a Newhall senior apartment complex are protesting an order from management to remove their beloved Christmas tree from the community room because, they were told, it's a religious symbol
D: Usually courts decide that stuff such as a xmas tree is NOT a religious symbol, as long as there is nothing about JC or anything that supports the Bible and such.
The “Christmas Tree” is an old pagan German tradition. It only becomes religious when somebody hangs an angel on the top or something similar.
But even if these religious symbols are hanging from the tree, where do the atheists get the right to deny the use of the tree?
D: One of the better examples of such is in year 2000 when the courts stopped the prayers at a school football game, with the help of the ACLU. Seems few realize the plaintiffs in the lawsuit was a Mormon and a Catholic who didn't agree with the "born again" style of prayer used.
B: You have a point there.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Dec 7, 2012 7:11:36 GMT -5
The problem is the courts have not read the constitution correctly wherein it says the state will not establish a religion. It says nothing about separation of church and state. Read it yourself. Those who do not believe in God like to use the metaphor “separation of church and state” so that they can twist the meaning. The result often is their attempt to suppress religious practices and symbols. Were they to stick to the actual words of the first amendment they would not have the ability to persecute religions. [/color] Nonsense. And the way it is interpreted probably protects the religious a lot more than it does the atheists. The government could prefer another religion over yours, or at least appear that way to you, so be sure of what you want.
The term "separation of Church and State" comes from here:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law `respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
- President Thomas Jefferson, 1802 letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut"The courts have gone out of their way to bar anything that has a religious connotation. [/color] That, IMO, is the very best way for our government to deal with religion.Correct, the government does not have to or should not support any one religion, but on the other hand it should not hinder them either. [/color] IMAO, the best way to do that is exactly what they are doing. Make 100% certain government has nothing to do with any religion in any way.
-Don- |
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Dec 7, 2012 7:37:14 GMT -5
The “Christmas Tree” is an old pagan German tradition. It only becomes religious when somebody hangs an angel on the top or something similar. But even if these religious symbols are hanging from the tree, where do the atheists get the right to deny the use of the tree? [/color] Are you sure it is atheists, and not Muslims, or even Jehovah Witnesses or some other religion that doesn't like Xmas trees? As anti-religious (and anti-silly superstitions of any type) as I am, I would never complain about a XMAS tree anywhere, not even if our government put it up using a few pennies of my tax money.
-Don-
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 7, 2012 11:36:58 GMT -5
D: I have read it many times. But I listen to what it means, not what it says,
You seem to be saying it means what I say it means not what it says. Are you related to Nancy Peloci?
D: Nonsense. And the way it is interpreted probably protects the religious a lot more than it does the atheists.
Case history shows just the opposite.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 7, 2012 22:08:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Dec 8, 2012 3:31:39 GMT -5
You seem to be saying it means what I say it means not what it says. Case history shows just the opposite.
-Don- |
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Dec 8, 2012 3:41:19 GMT -5
Case in point about what?
Anyway, it seems the judge's original order was clear enough and I agree with it. And my decision isn't based on what anybody is saying about anything. Hopefully the judge's isn't either.
-Don- [/center]
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 8, 2012 3:50:10 GMT -5
D: I have read it many times. But I listen to what it means, not what it says,
D: No, it means whatever the SCOTUS says it means, which I usually agree with anyway.
Are we changing our tune here somewhat, Don?
|
|
