Christian lawyers fail to invent persecution at public school

[D. Scarlatti]

Remember the Child Evangelism Fellowship, a.k.a. the Good News Club? Several years ago it won a Supreme Court decision allowing it to move its fundamentalist brainwashing operation for 5-12 year olds into public school facilities after hours. More recently its been battling a South Carolina school district over avoiding paying fees for the use of those facilities.

The district's policy allowed free use to school organizations, business/education partnerships, and government agencies. All others had to pay a user fee, which could be waived at the discretion of the district if the activity was deemed to be "in the best interest of the district."

The Good News Club's application was approved, but it was assessed the user fee, just like every other group in its situation, and the Club started complaining immediately.

Within a couple of months the school district was served a lawsuit by Mat Staver and Liberty Counsel, alleging numerous constitutional violations, including equal protection, free speech, free exercise, establishment of religion, and that the district's policy was unconstitutionally vague and acted as a prior restraint on the Christians' speech. In short, the now familiar battlecry of Christian persecution.

Staver claimed that the $48 dollar per use fee resulted in a financial hardship to the Good News Club, and it was prevented from reaching its goal of expanding into every elementary school in the district.

Last week a U.S. District Court found against Staver and the Club on every count, noting in passing that there was "no persuasive evidence that CEF's religious viewpoint, the religious content of CEF's message, or CEF's identity had any bearing on the District's decision to require CEF to pay fees for using its facilities." Child Evangelism Fellowship of South Carolina v. Anderson Sch. Dist. 5, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46298 (D.S.C. 2006).

The court denied Staver's every request including his demands for damages, lawyers' fees, and expenses. This is one attempt by Staver to invent religious persecution where it didn't exist that you probably won't find Staver trumpeting across his website, although he may be ramping up his begging efforts to help defray the costs of this pointless and groundless lawsuit.

[LionsDen]

Was the fee the same as charged for all other clubs? If not...

Was the district court from a liberal activist and likely to be overturned? If so...

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Was the fee the same as charged for all other clubs?

Of course not. The Christian club was charged a premium because it was Christian, naturally.

Was the district court from a liberal activist ...

Let's see, former Army Captain, former AUSA, former legislative assistant to Strom Thurmond, Bush 41 appointee ... yep, liberal activist.

... and likely to be overturned?

Oh, I get it now. Opinions are overruled because they're written by liberal activists, not on the bases of their merits, reasoning, or reliance on existing caselaw.

Feel free to contribute a non-idiotic comment sometime.

[Beth]

Great to hear it. I'm glad the Christian group was not afforded special favors.

[beyelzu]

no doubt, me too. great post scalatti

[LionsDen]

Scar's original post is seriously misleading. So is her reply.

Here are a few missing facts...

Did you know the school district changed its fee policy shortly after the lawsuit was filed? That is because the same policy in other districts had been found unconstitutional.

Did you know the new policy is supposed to charge all non-academic clubs the same fee equally, but that atleast TWO other religious clubs are NOT charged a fee!

That is why I asked Scar the questions. Apparently she wasn't informed on the case.

If the school wants to adopt a religion-neutral policy, that is fair. If the school grants favors, that is a valid matter for appeal.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Scar's original post is seriously misleading. So is her reply.

Here are a few missing facts...

Did you know the school district changed its fee policy shortly after the lawsuit was filed? That is because the same policy in other districts had been found unconstitutional.

Did you know the new policy is supposed to charge all non-academic clubs the same fee equally, but that atleast TWO other religious clubs are NOT charged a fee!

That is why I asked Scar the questions. Apparently she wasn't informed on the case.

If the school wants to adopt a religion-neutral policy, that is fair. If the school grants favors, that is a valid matter for appeal.

I suppose it's too much to ask you back your assertions up with some documentation, citations, or anything like that?

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Scar's original post is seriously misleading. So is her reply.

Here are a few missing facts...

Actually what is missing here -- as usual -- is any source for your "missing facts". Given your past record of misunderstanding and deliberate misrepresentation, I'm sure you'll understand when nobody takes your response seriously.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Scar's original post is seriously misleading. So is her reply.

....

Apparently she wasn't informed...

I just like how Scarlatti is such a pretty girl.

[Plant Woman]

Until the den can cough up some evidence, I will assume it's another lie, perpetrated by a confirmed liar.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I suppose it's too much to ask you back your assertions up with some documentation, citations, or anything like that?

No problem! See http://religionclause.blogspot.com/

You have to look for the relevant passages.

After suit was filed against it, the District eliminated the waiver provisions,

This is the change that made the case moot. The only issue on the table seems to be "grandfathering in" of fee waivers for clubs that were free before the school changed its old policy. The lower court ruled that it was okay to let these grandfathered in clubs remain free.

The article names the two religious clubs: Boy Scouts and YMCA. The ACLU in fact sued to ban Boy Scouts from CA schools and lost. Interesting? They are able to meet for free, yet neither is an academic club, and both are religious.

I know Scar meant well by posting this. She had only the info she got from the web. Usually if we look for more, we find two sides.

The Bible says a wise judge hears both sides of a matter before deciding. I need that advice too. Things are not always what they seem.

The real trick is to disagree while remaining agreeable, courteous, and respectful. You did here, Lady. Thanks!

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by pepperspray

I just like how Scarlatti is such a pretty girl.

What! You mean Scar is a ... a ... ?

This can't be happening!

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

No problem! See http://religionclause.blogspot.com/

You have to look for the relevant passages.

You mean like this one?

Free use was permitted for school-related organizations, organizations offering joint programs with the school, and, in the original version of the policy, others where the school found a fee waiver to be in the school's best interest. After suit was filed against it, the District eliminated the waiver provisions, but grandfathered in free usage for groups that had been using school facilities in the past. The court found these to be valid classifications, and rejected CEF's free speech, free exercise, equal protection and establishment clause arguments.

So the school ended the waiver process - i.e., everyone has to pay, but also found a way to keep some groups free of charges forever. And those groups didn't include the little fundie club, which has to go on paying a fee.

I'd say that things are actually worse now for the fundies than before the lawsuit.

This is the change that made the case moot.

On the contrary. The case is not moot. Moreover, your original claim was as follows:


Did you know the school district changed its fee policy shortly after the lawsuit was filed? That is because the same policy in other districts had been found unconstitutional.

There is no evidence that the school changed its policy because it feared any constitutional issues. Why would it? The court had already sided with the school on all the constitutional issues --both before, and after the policy change. Which includes the grandfathered groups.

The article names the two religious clubs: Boy Scouts and YMCA. The ACLU in fact sued to ban Boy Scouts from CA schools and lost. Interesting? They are able to meet for free, yet neither is an academic club, and both are religious.

The Boy Scouts is not a religious organization.

[LadyShea]

Both the Boy Scouts and YMCA offer programs that are not religiously based, and the Y does not proselytize to participants nor require any statement of faith for children to participate. So both offer secular activites.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Sauron

The Boy Scouts is not a religious organization.

No...But it is religiously exclusive. The organization itself has stated that members must attest to a belief in a god. They are, in essense, a theistic exclusionary organization....by their own declaration.

[Ari]

Boy Scout law:
"Reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others."

Although a scout supposably has to respect the beliefs of others, a scout must believe in God,
"Boy Scouts of America believes that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. Accordingly, adult volunteer leaders of Boy Scouts of America obligate themselves to do their duty to God and be reverent as embodied in the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, and the Declaration of Religious Principle. Because of its views concerning the duty to God, Boy Scouts of America believes that an atheist or agnostic is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys. Because of Scouting’s methods and beliefs, Scouting does not accept atheists and agnostics as adult volunteer leaders."
http://www.bsalegal.org/dutytogo-155.htm

According to the Boy Scouts all the atheists here are poor citizens.

They are also homophobic.

[Javaman]

What bothers me the most about the BSA's stance is that they don't care which god you believe in. I ran into the same thing at the FOE lodge. They just want you to believe in a supreme being but they are indifferent about any particular manifestation. I just don't get it.

It's like those folks that want 'Christianity' as the official religion of the USA. They really can't be thinking much past that because the chances of any one person's flavor being the state one is very small if it ever came to pass.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

No...But it is religiously exclusive. The organization itself has stated that members must attest to a belief in a god. They are, in essense, a theistic exclusionary organization....by their own declaration.

Yes, but there's a wide latitude to believe in pretty much anything, and there isn't any proselytization. Not perfect, but certainly a hell of a lot better than, oh, say, the US Air Force Academy.

My current gym is a little neighborhood YMCA - and there's no religion in it at all. They have posters on the wall that say things like "One can never be truly happy without understanding the language of gratitude - what are YOU truly grateful for?" And other posters that say "Respect" or "Courage", etc. It could be a Rotarian club based on the available evidence.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Javaman

What bothers me the most about the BSA's stance is that they don't care which god you believe in. I ran into the same thing at the FOE lodge. They just want you to believe in a supreme being but they are indifferent about any particular manifestation. I just don't get it.

It's like those folks that want 'Christianity' as the official religion of the USA. They really can't be thinking much past that because the chances of any one person's flavor being the state one is very small if it ever came to pass.

That's because they're only showing the first stage of the plan. This is two-step procedure: first, get religion back into the government. Next, legally define "religion" as "christianity only".

It's the same thing as the fundies who want creationism back in schools: first, they get creationism accepted on the same level as science. Once that is accomplished, make sure that only the christian version of creationism is taught.

The Abrahamic religions all approach this as a zero-sum game: they must proselytize and make converts, and anyone who believes in any other god(s) represents a "loss" for them.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by Sauron

You mean like this one?

Free use was permitted for school-related organizations, organizations offering joint programs with the school, and, in the original version of the policy, others where the school found a fee waiver to be in the school's best interest. After suit was filed against it, the District eliminated the waiver provisions, but grandfathered in free usage for groups that had been using school facilities in the past. The court found these to be valid classifications, and rejected CEF's free speech, free exercise, equal protection and establishment clause arguments.

Yes, I mean like that one, only I suggest you think about what you read!
The article is clear that certain clubs were shown favoritism over other clubs. That is what exposed the school to the original lawsuit... a fact you overlooked.

You have to answer the question: What was unconstitutional with the original policy that made the school abandone it? The answer is that it had already been held unconstitutional in another federal district.

So the school ended the waiver process - i.e., everyone has to pay, but also found a way to keep some groups free of charges forever. And those groups didn't include the little fundie club, which has to go on paying a fee.

And the 'way' the school found is to change its original policy. And to grandfather in the original beneficiaries and victims of anti-faith discrimination and viewpoint discrimination. That is why the school is still in trouble and on its way to losing upon appeal.

I'd say that things are actually worse now for the fundies than before the lawsuit.

HeHe Yes, YOU would say something about fundies when none are involved! I bet you don't even know the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelical!

On the contrary. The case is not moot.

Yes, it did. Here is why. The policy that was the subject of the initial suit was abandoned. So the school could only be sued on the basis of the new one.

Moreover, your original claim was as follows:


Did you know the school district changed its fee policy shortly after the lawsuit was filed? That is because the same policy in other districts had been found unconstitutional.

There is no evidence that the school changed its policy because it feared any constitutional issues. Why would it? The court had already sided with the school on all the constitutional issues --both before, and after the policy change. Which includes the grandfathered groups.

You are wrong. Another federal court had ruled against an identical policy in CA I believe. That left the school vulnerable. It was only AFTER the school in this case changed its policy, that the court ruled in its favor. Learn to read or get someone to read for you!

The Boy Scouts is not a religious organization.

You are mistaken. The ACLU in CA argued unsuccessfully to argue that the Boy Scouts was a secular group... a public accomodation, and the court rejected their claims. The Boy Scouts requires its leaders to acknowledge the existence of God, publishes its own religious materials, requires scouts to pledge 'reverence' and holds religious worship services at camps. That is why the ACLU lost. The Boy Scouts is very much a religious organization, and in this case it is one that is given fee-free status while CEF is not. The school board is not allowed to make a content-based discrimination in fee structure.

According to the Supreme Court a school may favor academic clubs, but if it allows non-academic clubs, it must treat them all equally. That is why this is going to be overturned; similar cases have been tried and won by religious free speech and libertarian groups numerous times.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Both the Boy Scouts and YMCA offer programs that are not religiously based, and the Y does not proselytize to participants nor require any statement of faith for children to participate. So both offer secular activites.

This would be an unconstitutional distinction based upon 'content' of club speech.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

No problem! See http://religionclause.blogspot.com/

You have to look for the relevant passages.

You mean like this one?

Free use was permitted for school-related organizations, organizations offering joint programs with the school, and, in the original version of the policy, others where the school found a fee waiver to be in the school's best interest. After suit was filed against it, the District eliminated the waiver provisions, but grandfathered in free usage for groups that had been using school facilities in the past. The court found these to be valid classifications, and rejected CEF's free speech, free exercise, equal protection and establishment clause arguments.

Yes, I mean like that one, only I suggest you think about what you read!

I do more thinking by 730am, than you do all day along, LionsDen / alphamale. Which is kind of a neat trick, since I don't wake up until 800am.

The article is clear that certain clubs were shown favoritism over other clubs. That is what exposed the school to the original lawsuit... a fact you overlooked.

Probably because it is incorrect. The text in blue (i.e., the grandfathering of certain clubs) was not what exposed the school to the lawsuit. The lawsuit came about because a group of fundie clowns thought they had a case. The court told them twice, in no uncertain terms, that they did not.

Anyone can be *exposed* to a lawsuit. That's only measures the willingness of some random group of idiots to file a claim. It says nothing about the legal soundness of the target of said lawsuit.

You have to answer the question: What was unconstitutional with the original policy that made the school abandone it?

Since the original policy was not unconstitutional, I don't have to answer any such question. On the other hand, you DO have to demonstrate that the reason for the school switching policies had to do with questions of constitutionality.

Predictably, you haven't done that part yet.

The answer is that it had already been held unconstitutional in another federal district.

1. You have provided zero such evidence.

2. You will then need to provide evidence that this particular school in SC had any such ideas in its collective head, when it changed the policy. Happy hunting.

So the school ended the waiver process - i.e., everyone has to pay, but also found a way to keep some groups free of charges forever. And those groups didn't include the little fundie club, which has to go on paying a fee.

And the 'way' the school found is to change its original policy.

Incorrect. The court decision made it clear that even if they had not changed their policy at all, they were still legally in the right. And the court went further: it also told them that their grandfathering policy (i.e., the new policy) was also legally sound.

I don't know why they changed their policy. But the court's decision basically says that they didn't have to. Before the change, as well as after, the school was always in the right and was never in violation of any constitutional boundaries.

And to grandfather in the original beneficiaries and victims of anti-faith discrimination and viewpoint discrimination. That is why the school is still in trouble and on its way to losing upon appeal.

1. There was no anti-faith discrimination, hence there cannot be any such victims. The court made it clear that the little fundie bigot club did not have a valid legal case, and the school was justified in charging some groups a fee, while not charging others.

2. You have provided zero evidence of any such appeal being filed, or that the school has anything to fear.

I'd say that things are actually worse now for the fundies than before the lawsuit.

HeHe Yes, YOU would say something about fundies when none are involved! I bet you don't even know the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelical!

1. There are fundies involved - the Child Evangelism Fellowship is a fundie organization;
2. I do know the difference.

This is the change that made the case moot.

On the contrary. The case is not moot.

Yes, it did. Here is why. The policy that was the subject of the initial suit was abandoned. So the school could only be sued on the basis of the new one.

The case is not moot, and your babble doesn't change that fact.

Why would they fear a legal challenge to a school policy that had already been tested in court and been found constitutional? That fact alone would make the existing policy harder to challenge than any new policy would be. If the school was really interested in avoiding lawsuits, they should have kept their original policy because the hurdle to challenges was higher.

Bottom line: the school was sued on their original policy and WON. That sets the legal precedent. The court further blessed their NEW policy. In both cases, school WINS, and brainwashing little fundie clubs LOSE. Oh, and glory-seeking phony legal team (i.e., Matt Staver) also loses.

Moreover, your original claim was as follows:


Did you know the school district changed its fee policy shortly after the lawsuit was filed? [b]That is because the same policy in other districts had been found unconstitutional.

There is no evidence that the school changed its policy because it feared any constitutional issues. Why would it? The court had already sided with the school on all the constitutional issues --both before, and after the policy change. Which includes the grandfathered groups.

You are wrong. Another federal court had ruled against an identical policy in CA I believe. That left the school vulnerable.

1. "I believe" doesn't cut it. You have provided zero such evidence of any school in CA. Given your deliberate twisting of sources and predictably bad understanding of legal matters, I'm sure you'll forgive us if we dont' just take your word on this.

2. The court case in this situation was in South Carolina, so it's unlikely they gave a rip about any (alleged) case in CA. They aren't in the same state or even the same judicial circuit.

3. Your claim is that the reason the school changed its policy was because it feared challenges based upon the constitutionality of its policy. To prove that, you need to show evidence that speaks to the intent and motive behind such a change. You've utterly failed to offer any evidence at all so far, much less evidence that meets this bar.

It was only AFTER the school in this case changed its policy, that the court ruled in its favor. Learn to read or get someone to read for you!

Incorrect. The court ruled on the ORIGINAL policy, as well as the changed one. That's only natural, since the original policy was the basis of the trumped up complaint from Staver and the fundie bigot club.

The Boy Scouts is not a religious organization.

You are mistaken.

No, I'm not.

The ACLU in CA argued unsuccessfully to argue that the Boy Scouts was a secular group... a public accomodation, and the court rejected their claims.

Incorrect on all points.

The Boy Scouts requires its leaders to acknowledge the existence of God,

No, it does not.

According to the Supreme Court a school may favor academic clubs, but if it allows non-academic clubs, it must treat them all equally.

Uh, not if the clubs have different requirements. There is a ceteris paribus element here that you are either (a) unaware of or (b) deliberately ignoring.

[Annie]

Originally Posted by Javaman

They just want you to believe in a supreme being but they are indifferent about any particular manifestation.
I just don't get it.
It's like those folks that want 'Christianity' as the official religion of the USA. They really can't be thinking much past that because the chances of any one person's flavor being the state one is very small if it ever came to pass.

Originally Posted by Sauron

That's because they're only showing the first stage of the plan. This is two-step procedure: first, get religion back into the government. Next, legally define "religion" as "christianity only".

question: Who was responsible for religion, as 'One nation united under God', leaving the US-government?

Annie

[The Lone Ranger]

The phrase "One nation under God" was not part of the original Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1892. The original Pledge, written by Francis Bellamy (a Baptist minister) read: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." There was no mention of God.

*The "to" was added in October of 1892.

Reportedly, Bellamy considered placing the word "equality" in the Pledge, but knew that it would offend those who did not consider women or African-Americans to be "equal," so he dropped it.


In 1923, the National Flag Conference changed the words "my flag" to "the flag of the United States." In 1924, they changed it to "the flag of the United States of America." Bellamy protested the changes, but was ignored.


The Pledge of Allegiance was not officially sanctioned by Congress until June of 1942. At that time, it contained no references to God.


The phrase "under God" was added in 1954, after intensive lobbying by the Knights of Columbus and at the suggestion of a Presbyterian minister named George M. Docherty. This was during the McCarthy era, and it is widely believed that the change was intended specifically to distinguish the U.S. from the "Godless Communists" of the Soviet Union.

Cheers,

Michael

[Annie]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The phrase "One nation under God" was not part of the original Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1892. The original Pledge, written by Francis Bellamy (a Baptist minister) read: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." There was no mention of God.

*The "to" was added in October of 1892.

The phrase "under God" was added in 1954, after intensive lobbying by the Knights of Columbus and at the suggestion of a Presbyterian minister named George M. Docherty. This was during the McCarthy era, and it is widely believed that the change was intended specifically to distinguish the U.S. from the "Godless Communists" of the Soviet Union.

Cheers,

Michael

Thank you! for writing the sequence of those events, Michael.

Annie