|

Not even Merry Christmas Charlie Brown safe from atheists

Atheists continue their war on Christmas, Christians or anything religious in the public environment. Now a school in Little Rock was forced to cancel a field trip for students to watch Merry Christmas Charlie Brown in a church.

Excerpt:

The Little Rock School District received a complaint the other day. Was it someone upset over drugs in school? No. How about bullying? Nope. Maybe an outbreak of cheating? Not even close.

In this case, the complaint had to do with the fact that a field trip was scheduled for elementary school students to see a performance of Merry Christmas Charlie Brown at the Agape Church in Little Rock. Some teachers saw the performance, and thought it would be great to organize a field trip for the kids. However, a parent complained that the play violated her religious beliefs. In came the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, and the rest is history.

The ASF takes offense at students being invited to a church for a field trip. The fact that the teachers planned to allow a version of the Christmas classic to be shown to the students only compounded the problem as far as the ASF was concerned.

Apparently, these freethinkers don’t want anyone else to be allowed to think freely. Besides, the field trip was optional – no one had to go, especially the student of the parent that complained!

How do you think the rest of the class feels after being denied the field trip because of one student. Do their feelings count in this battle of control against religious freedom by atheists?

The ASF is in reality denying the other students in class and their parents their free choice to attend the performance, unless they attend without association with the school.

When will the ASF object to Charlie Brown being shown on Public Broadcasting Service – another good reason to remove tax dollars from the PBS, so other programing will not also be cancelled at the whim of these “Freethinkers.”

The school still planned to attend Merry Christmas Charlie Brown, but the church then backed out, cancelling the matinee and instead offering parents a different time to view Charlie Brown with their children.

Excerpt:

What about the majority? Does the fact that 99% of the families have no problem with this trip mean anything? In fact, as the television report stated, NO parent complained directly to the school. But even so, someone complains behind the scenes, atheists get wind of it, and the whole effort is shut down. This is insane.

I’m so tired of these assaults on Christmas, and I’m just as tired of people backing down and giving in. What’s that old saying? If we don’t stand for something, we will fall for anything. America is falling… fast!

Share:

26 Comments

  1. AmazingScott

    Wow, those silly godless atheists, protesting a children’s cartoon from the olden days back when Ted had hair, and completely ignoring the fact that they were hauling a bunch of public school kids off to a church! Nahhh, there’s nothing wrong with that…

    Misleading headline, Ted- have you stooped to pandering for hits now?

    • Ted Biondo

      Why is it that some of you people can never make a comment without a personal attack? Are you afraid of the truth? The atheists are attacking Christianity in everyway possible. No one is forcing them to change their beliefs, however, their goal is to use any method possible to destroy all religions, especially Christianity, and they are using this Separation of Church and State garbage, which isn’t even in the Constitution, but was debated in the Federalists papers written by Thomas Jefferson.

  2. Luke Fredrickson

    How naive to assume that only atheists believe in the separation of church and state!

    Many, many people of faith, myself included, believe that the nation’s founders were quite wise to protect us from moralizing local politicians like Mr. Biondo.

    Trust teachers and administrators to decide what is religiously appropriate for schoolchildren? That sounds like freedom to me! You would think a man who is so, um… “intimately involved” in a failed school district would know better. Or not.

  3. Yeah, school trips to a church probably a no-no. I agree with amazingscoot your headline is intentionally misleading.

    Why could they have just not watched the video in the classroom? It is probably better, cheaper, and avoids this whole incident.

    Also, this whole “attack on Christams” motto is laughable. Chrismas is now 7 weeks long, it is absorbing Thanksgiving and New Years. It will be part of trick-or-treating before we know it.

  4. AmazingScott

    That’s an outright lie Ted. I’m an atheist and I’m not interested in attacking Christianity, I’m taking issue with your lame twisting of the truth in a feeble attempt to generate page views. What, are you Fox News now? Just make it up as you go along? Someone as befuddled or ethically challenged as you shouldn’t be in a responsible position, hopefully that will be corrected soon. You used to be great with tax matters but now you’ve devolved into this confused & sputtering Grandpa Simpson character that no one really listens to anymore…

  5. Ted: Several things:

    1. The separation of church and state is, in fact, in the Constitution. It’s made clear in the First Amendment provision that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Moreover, Thomas Jefferson’s reference to “separation between church and state” (in his letter of 1802 to the Danbury Baptists) has frequently been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1879, for example, the court wrote that Jefferson’s phrase “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.”

    2. Separation of church and state means that the government should do nothing to either advance or inhibit the cause of religion. That means that government should not expend public funds to promote religion. Nor should government employees — public school teachers or administrators, for example — promote religion in any way. Government should simply keep its nose out of religion. How — or even whether — people worship is none of government’s business.

    3. Thomas Jefferson did NOT write the Federalist Papers. The authors were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. Jefferson was in France serving as U.S. minister when the Federal Papers were written.

    4. Right-wing opponents of church-state separation often are given to misrepresenting the thoughts and words of the Founding Fathers. One prominent such example is the claim that James Madison, who had more involvement than anyone else in writing the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, once said this:

    “We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for
    self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

    Actually, that statement appears nowhere in the writings or recorded utterances of James Madison.

    But Madison did, in fact, say this in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822:

    “Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov’ & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov’ of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

  6. @ Scott: The trip to the church was VOLUNTARY! There were no services being held to “indoctrinate” these children, unlike when school children were taught the “Obama” song. Mmm-mmm-mmm!

  7. One other thing: It’s rather ironic, in retrospect, that the political opponents of Jefferson and Madison in their own time often referred to them as atheists simply because they championed separation of church and state.

    Not much has changed in the past two centuries. Advocates of church-state separation are still called atheists, whether or not they actually are. Never mind that some devout religionists also advocate church-state separation.

  8. Pat seems to forget that the First Amendment provision that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” refers to creating a National religion, such as the Church of England. It does not refer to “sanitizing” all public facilities of ANY religious reference, based on the pathetic whining of a few malcontents.

    BTW, Pat, when should they chisel the Ten Commandments out of the Supreme Court building?
    I also assume that you don’t use U.S. currency, because it says “In God We Trust” on it.

    There is no Constitutional right not to be offended.

  9. Snuss: The Ten Commandments are NOT specifically touted on either the inside or the outside of the Supreme Court building. Read this:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

    Moreover, notions that American law should reflect the Ten Commandments in every way, as some people suggest, are ridiculous. Of course, we do have laws against murder and theft, but there’s no way we’ll ever have laws against blasphemy, or against coveting your neighbor’s wife or goods, or requiring you to keep holy the sabbath or to worship only the god of the Bible or to honor your parents.

  10. Ironically, polls show that atheists and agnostics know more about the Bible and religion than religious people do:

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious

  11. @Snuss,

    It does not matter if it was VOLUNTARY or not. If school funds were being used to pay for it, it is clearly not okay.

    @Ted,

    Athiests are actually the very people who are not afraid of TRUTH. 45% of this country thinks that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. How can you hear that statistic and not laugh?

    You can’t speak of Christianity and truth in the same sentence. The very dictionary definition of faith is “Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof”. No proof. None. Just a blind leap.

    I am sick of the idea that socially it is impolite to attack religion. Religion has no place in our government. Period.

    As for the war on Christmas, I refer you to Jon Stewart:

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-3-2012/the-war-on-christmas–friendly-fire-edition

  12. CJR1: I’m going to disagree with you on your argument that “Religion has no place in our government.”

    It’s the opposite that’s true. Government has no place in religion. But there’s nothing wrong with people bringing their religious sensibilities to government — up to a point. Some people are prompted by religious principles to get involved in politics and government, and that’s all well and good as long as they don’t push for government promotion of religion.

    Religious principles lead some people to favor government policies that promote justice and fairness for all. Religious principles were a major factor in the civil rights movement, for example. The same has been true of anti-poverty campaigns and of the push to abolish capital punishment. The Catholic Church has been especially forthright in opposing the death penalty.

    Some of the parables attributed to Jesus in the New Testament — the story of the Good Samaritan, for example — also teach lessons that are promotive of good government.

    So no, I don’t necessarily want religion kept out of government. I want government kept out of religion. Religion is none of government’s business. That’s the message of the First Amendment. But another message is that people are free to practice their religion as they see fit, as long as they don’t violate the rights of others. The Catholic Church is free to claim that abortion and homosexuality are sinful, but it’s not free to ban abortion or homosexuality for everyone.

  13. shawnnews

    Take out the word “church” and replace it with “mosque.” The teachers are taking the children to mosque to watch Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves or Sinbad. Take out the word “church” again and replace it with “secular society.” The teachers are taking the children to the secular society to see the exhibit on Darwin on the similarities of divinity stories in different cultures.
    I think you would take the position that the government in the form of a school had over-stepped it’s boundaries and was attempting a contrary indoctrination.
    We know from the crazy people who falsely thought Obama’s message to students was campaigning that this is exactly the argument they would make. So we gave to afford the same argument to people who think the government shouldn’t attempt Christian indoctrination.
    http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/sep/14/jim-greer/former-florida-gop-chair-apologizes-obama-educatio/

  14. Pat,

    I don’t deny that religion has been a motivator for many individuals and entities to do good works. Likewise, you cannot say that religion, in politics in this nation and elsewhere, has not committed horrible acts. Your example with civil rights, for example. There were just as many (and likely wayyyy more) preachers on the side of continued segregation for every one on the side of Dr. King. Civil rights succeeded IN SPITE of religion as much as from it.

    I think it is abhorrent and fundamentally wrong for a person to promote or enact government policies based on religious grounds.

    Take George Bush’s veto on stem cells, for example. He denied millions of living, breathing Americans the chance at a better life free of suffering COMPLETELY based on religious tenants. He put the rights/values of some frozen cells (that get destroyed anyway in the vast majority of cases, mind you) over that of quadraplegics, burn victims, Parkinson’s patients, etc. That is not the seperation of church and state. There is no other way on Earth aside from religion you could see a living, breathing, and suffering adult human and a frozen clump of cells as the same from a moral standpoint.

    Religion is itself the suspension of logical thought. The suspension of reason. The policies of the American government cannot be based on such a thing. A law cannot be supported on faith and bolstered by the word (and human interpretation) of a totally unproven omnipotent entity.

    Sadly, it happens all the time and is seen as acceptable. It is not. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln would not have stood for it. Sadly, this huge surge in fundamental evangelical Christianity has made it almost commonplace. The very fact that in many places it is desired that creationism be taught in science classes should be evidence for that.

  15. @ cjr1: Look at the stem cell argument from the other side. To create those stem cells, a unique human DNA must be cultivated, and then killed to harvest the cells. Left to develop normally, that group of cells becomes a real human being, like you or me. So, at what point do you begin to justify picking out “undesirable” people, and “harvest” them for their usable parts?

    BTW, the front of Supreme Court building has a full view of Moses, holding two tablets. Gee, what do those tablets represent?

  16. Snuss,

    Moses is part of the “three great lawmakers” sculptures, and it is at the BACK entrance of the supreme court building. The other two people sculpted with him are Solon (an athenian lawmaker/poet) and Confucius. Here is the artist speaking to their meaning: MacNeil wrote, “Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The ‘Eastern Pediment’ of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East.” But I am glad that you agree that a pagan lawmaker from thousands of years ago has as much meaning as this Moses does in our society today.

    As for the stem cells, those embryos are destroyed in 99.9% of the cases anyway. By your logic, ANY couple that has a baby via IVF is a murderer. They are producing many embryos destined for destruction, just to produce ONE human life.

    Also, if left to develop normally those cells become nothing. They do become a human life if they are implanted in a womens uterus, nurtured and carried for months, and then born as an infant. As an embryo in a tube, they have as much potential to become a unique human life as the cells I scratch off my nose. Both would take the intervention of a scientist/medical team to prouce life.

    the fact is, the only unique DNA that is life are the countless adults stem cells may one day save. Good thing that scientists in other countries will likely be the ones making these lifechanging cures if and when they happen.

  17. cjr1 sez:”They do become a human life if they are implanted in a women’s uterus, nurtured and carried for months, and then born as an infant.”

    So, that is developing normally. And, they are a unique life-form well before birth.

    I find it interesting that Leftist logic determines that schoolchildren being taken to a church (with permission) to see a Christmas pageant is harmful, but taking a child from school to have an abortion WITHOUT notifying the parents is completely acceptable.

  18. SNuss,

    What percentage of those embryos ever get implanted. 1%? 0.1%? They require the intervention of a scientist, a lot of luck, and a uterus before they have any chance to “develop normally”. The reason they implant 7 embryos is that the survival rate is so low. So what, are they 1/7 of a human life then? The rest get frozen for unknown amounts of time and destroyed. Better to be put to scientific use than discarded for nothing, no?

    Here you go blathering about leftists again. This is just logical. An embryo is not a human life. It is a clump of cells. As for abortions, who said anything about that? I personally would not want my daughter to make such a decision alone, but I can see where a lot of girls would. For example, their parents would force them to keep it, throw them out of the house, send them away from their family and friends, or worse. Again, it is the right of the mother. Simple as that. Also, once again the abortion issue is another place religion is CONSTANTLY trying to stick its head into government affairs. Again, they don’t belong.

  19. JRM_CommonSense

    Just some thoughts:

    Stem cell reseach can be accomplished using the placenta rather than embryos. Would that be wrong.

    Using embryos for stem cell research is apparently wrong because it could grow into a human life if and when it is re-inserted into a human females body. BUT is is alright to crreate the embryo, remove it from the mother and freeze it forever, if it is never used, but that is alright.

  20. Growing embryos for the specific purpose of destroying them, USING GOVERNMENT FUNDING, is the issue. If you do it with private funding, it is still abhorrent, but at least those who object are not being forced to subsidize an activity that violates their beliefs.

  21. Back to the subject, this video explains the “separation of Church and State” far better than I can.

    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=WLW66PNX

  22. SNuss,

    If you truly subscribe to what President Reagan was saying in that video, how can you for one instant speak out against a terrorist? He is living and doing the exact same thing. He thinks he is on Allah’s side, fighting and warding off the infidels. He thinks that all of the answers to all of the problems in the world can be found in between the two covers of the Koran.

    Honestly, I could switch Allah for God in much of that audio and it would sound like the latest taliban clip of the week.

    “It is not enough to depend on our own courage and goodness, we must also seek help from Allah, our father and preserver. We’ll never find every answer, solve every problem, and heal every wound, but we can do a lot if we walk together down that one path that we know provides real hope”

    See that?

    Also yes, it is a violation of the first ammendment for the president of the USA to tell citizens to read the bible. Sorry Reagan, wrong again. But you can’t read this, because you have been broken down into basic molecules and recycled 10 times over by now.

  23. shawnnews

    It’s not unconstitutional for a legislator to tell someone to read the Bible. It’s unconstitutional if they are making a rule, law or doing some other compulsory method. The atheists is this case felt that church attendance was compulsory for children.
    I’m sure if I were to compel some Catholics to attend a Protestant church they would be upset and vice versa. If I were to make someone attend a Buddhist temple they might claim I was compelling them to break the commandment of having no other gods — even though I wasn’t coercing worship, just attendance.
    But yes, a Buddhist, Christian or atheist legislator can suggest people read books.

  24. JRM_CommonSense

    I feel sorry for Charlie Brown. This is the second time in the last 2 weeks that he has been used by the extreme right-wing to prove an extreme right wing point that is based on questionable facts. I talked to him last evening and he is distraught. All of his friend are calling him and asking when he switched political partys. Charlie has been a life long Independent and now he is being welcomed by the Republicans and scorned by the Democrats. It is affecting his income and he has hired a lawyer to stop the “ads” and sue Ted for using him in his posts without getting permission and not paying the proper royalties. Just one more example of taking advantage of the middle class.

    Charlie also wants compensation for pain and suffering because the use of his name and image by the Republican is making him look like a cartoon character to the public that sees it.

    • Ted Biondo

      It was about CHRISTmas, JRM, not just Charlie Brown – but a cute analogy anyway! I’ll sic Snoopy on him if he tries that royalty stuff. I gave him credit by mentioning him by name.

      Also, You are correct about what we made at Sundstrand without a union and the grievances filed at the drop of a hat if nonunion members of the staff tried to speed things up even a little bit – by carrying something from point A to point B.
      I, and I;m sure JRM, was paid on our education and abilitie,s not what the union did. We could have been fired without a moments notice, without the skill set brought to the bargain and maintained throughout my engineering career. Too bad many of the union members believe exactly what the union tells them without verifying it through a second source, and I don’t mean CBS, NBC or ABC and CNBC, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>