Protesters pass out flyers at Christian event in Winston-Salem

[hue]

Source: Winston-Salem Journal

The gap between protesters and participants in a religious program for children could be measured in yards, but the gulf between them was obviously wider than that Saturday morning at the Dixie Classic Fairgrounds.

The protesters carried signs that accused the Child Evangelism Fellowship of using threats and fear to teach children about Christianity.
Flyers passed out on the sidewalk accused the CEF’s Good News Clubs of teaching children that they deserve to die and go to hell.

The people running the Children’s Good News Spectacular on Saturday in the Education Building at the fairgrounds said that’s not how they teach kids about God.

“Their reason for saying this is because it sounds terrible,” said Bob Fowler, one of the event organizers, speaking about the protesters. “They think we are browbeating children.”....
Varlamov said that club lessons teach children violent stories, such as accounts of the “genocide” of the Amalekites or the mauling of disrespectful children by bears in the Old Testament. Protesters say that abundant references on the Internet and videos on YouTube demonstrate that the message of the Good News Clubs is “dark.”

To that, Fowler maintains that the critics are taking materials from teaching manuals out of context.


Read more: http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/article_fcf272f8-8905-11e2-beb2-0019bb30f31a.html

[They_Live]

1. It's time to start taxing churches.

Now.

[bluedeer71]

26. Abolutely! Tax the churches!

I agree. I used to attend an "evangelical" church. On a Sunday morning many years ago, the pastor told us that we should vote for Bush the First rather than Clinton because it was what good Christians would do. I haven't been back in church since. I have no evidence of it, but I believe that this is going on everywhere, if not explicitly, then implicitly. Churches should be taxed.

[backscatter712]

2. Good News Clubs are psychologically abusive, Dominionist cult-brainwashing machines.

See my thread in the Religion Forum to get my full take on them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=71865

Their teachings and methods are despicable - they tell children that they are evil, selfish, and horrible people, tell them they must drink the Jesus-Aid to avoid burning in Hell, and they demand ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE. As mentioned in the article, they use the story of Israel and Saul getting the smackdown from God because they didn't slaughter ALL of the Amalekites. Their curriculum neglects the more benign teachings of Christianity, such as the Golden Rule.

Good News Clubs are fucking evil. They have no place in public school property.

Here's a good documentary on Good News Clubs.

Here's a shorter, more PowerPointy video on the clubs and their teachings.

Also see http://www.thegoodnewsclub.com/ for more information.

[LeftInTX]

5. My gosh they're in public schools

No one has sued?

[backscatter712]

6. They did. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Good News Clubs in 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Club_v._Milford_Central_School

[LeftInTX]

9. Forget that....bye-bye seperation of church & state

[elleng]

12. About the holding:

'Under New York law, public schools may adopt regulations under which they open their facilities to public use during non-school hours. In 1992, Milford Central School adopted regulations under this law, allowing district residents to use the school for "instruction in any branch of education, learning, or the arts," and making the school available for "social, civic, and recreational meetings and entertainment events, and other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community, provided that such uses shall be nonexclusive and shall be opened to the general public."

When the government establishes a "limited public forum," it is not required to permit any and all speech within that forum. It may "reserve its forum for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics". However, the government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of its viewpoint, and any restriction it imposes must be reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum.
The Court saw no distinction between the viewpoint discrimination in this case and the viewpoint discrimination in two of its earlier cases: Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993), and Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995). In Lamb's Chapel, the Court held that a school district violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause when it excluded a private group from presenting films at the school solely on the basis of the religious perspective of the films on family values. And in Rosenberger, the Court held that a university's refusal to fund a student publication because of that publication's religious perspective violated the Free Speech Clause. Milford's exclusion is indistinguishable from the exclusions at issue in Lamb's Chapel and Rosenberger, and so the Court did not need to decide "whether it is unreasonable in light of the purposes served by the forum."

Scalia's concurring view

Justice Scalia concurred in the Court's opinion, but wrote separately to express his own views. He did not believe that the Club's activities were coercive at all. "As to endorsement, I have previously written that religious expression cannot violate the Establishment Clause where it (1) is purely private and (2) occurs in a traditional or designated public forum, publicly announced and open to all on equal terms. The same is true of private speech that occurs in a limited public forum, publicly announced, whose boundaries are not drawn in favor of religious groups but instead permit a cross-section of uses." Milford could not justify excluding the Club simply because its speech was religious in nature, and so Scalia did not worry whether the discrimination was content-based or viewpoint-based. In any event, Scalia stressed that Milford was engaging in viewpoint discrimination.

[edit]Breyer's concurring view

Justice Breyer disputed the majority's assumption that the perception of the children was irrelevant. Even in Lamb's Chapel, the Court had relied in part on the perception of the children in determining whether there had been an Establishment Clause violation. "The critical Establishment Clause question here may well prove to be whether a child, participating in the Good News Club's activities, could reasonably perceive the endorsement of religion" on the part of the school. Breyer pointed out that the Court's decision merely overturned a grant of summary judgment in favor of Milford, and denying summary judgment to one party was not the same as granting it to the other party. Denials of summary judgment simply mean that there are "genuine issues of material fact" that require a trial. The extent of the coercion perceived by the children was, in Breyer's view, one such issue.

[edit]Dissenting opinions

For Justice Stevens, speech that embodied a religious purpose fell into three categories. One category included speech that approached a particular topic from a religious perspective. Another category included speech that "amounts to worship, or its equivalent." Between these two categories, Stevens posited a third category—religious proselytizing. This case, then, involved a government entity attempting to open its facilities to allow the first category of religious speech on its property but not the other two categories.

[graegoyle]

21. I do not like this:

Tax-supported facilities used by tax-exempt entities.

[elleng]

13. Not really.

Using the facilities, not teaching students in the schools as such. See above.

[Phillip McCleod]

15. do you really think k-6 graders are emotionally and intellectually equipped

to discern the difference between 'school authority' and 'church authority' when faculty sponsors are involved, when they occur right after school, intentionally and misleadingly misrepresented as a school activity? maybe as a kid you would've. maybe i would've. but we're two in 1000.

that's why the SCROTUS was wrong in 2001 and why they're still wrong today. it was a bad decision, like most of their decisions since right-leaning racist christophilic zealots like scalia and roberts and ruled the roost.

[elleng]

25. They were not being taught this in the school,

the school grounds/building was being used as a public meeting place.

To answer your question, of course not, most youngsters are not able to distinguish the 2.

[davidpdx]

8. I went to a Good News Club

When I was in the 1st or 2nd grade. I don't remember much about it, but I could probably still point out the house where it was because it was around the corner from the school (which became a Oregon National Guard base and then ironically was opened as a school again) that I went to.

[SamKnause]

20. Religion

Thanks for posting the videos.

Have you seen 'Jesus Camp' ?

[backscatter712]

23. Yes I have.

Good News Clubs are essentially Jesus Camp for an hour a day every day at public schools.

[Ian David]

3. Not really good news, is it?

However, THIS is good news...

[KoKo]

4. So sad that these folks feel this is what will be good for America

or their Children.

A large part is the fault of the MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANS...who saw this coming and did NOTHING to counteract it.

So now we have a new Religious Revolution going on while Wall Street and Bankers suck our bones dry.

Always the diffusion...the distraction...of the Innocents.

[Phillip McCleod]

16. yep the mainstream including liberal christians act as willing apologists

and call their more progressive minded counterparts 'bigots' when we point it out.

too bad we have that pesky 1st amendment. they could just *force* us to sit down and stfu again like the bad old days of about five years ago.

[AmBlue]

7. I complained about signs in our car circle...

...advertising the "Good News Club" meetings and was told they were allowed to rent meeting rooms at our school like any other organization (like Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts). My issue was mostly with them advertising to our kids. The kids are a captive audience and it creates situations where kids might feel pressure to attend. I was very clear with my kids about who they were and why it wasn't such "good news.". And it still grated on my nerves every time I drove past their signs. I felt it was out of line.

[Phillip McCleod]

17. fight fire with fire. first amendment with first amendment.

if the SCROTUS says they can meet in your school, then surely they also agree you can complain constantly and loudly about it and make the good news club's life a living hell?

[penndragon69]

10. And these freaks are accusing

the protestors of taking things out of context?
I guess it's ok to take the BIBLE out of context when it
meets THEIR own political agenda.

HYPOCRITES!

[Phillip McCleod]

18. what the club's apologists say in its' defense is irrelevant to the act of protest.

bystanders make up their own minds. i think most americans would be outraged to learn what this group is really up to.

[longship]

11. A poisonous organization.

Hitchens was correct. Religion poisons everything. The Good News Club has its claws in public school children.

I am disgusted by this.

May they all rot in Hell. Not that I believe in such a thing -- but since they apparently do, it seems to be an appropriate final destination for these utterly horrible people who would inflict their Hellfire on young children.

Damn them!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

14. Bravo to the protesters! More Please!!!!!!

I don't think I've ever heard of us sane people actually getting out there and protesting the christofascists, aside from counterprotesters against the sick Westboro "Baptist" people.



"Good News"....what a lie. How perfectly CONservative repukian. War is peace, hate is love, fear is safety, lies are truth...........Hoo boy, so much sickness.......

[Phillip McCleod]

19. we need more and more and more and more and more and more

and more and more and more and more and more and more (this is all being hand-typed btw.. no cut n paste) and more and more and more and more and more and more..

protests..

against..
this
bullshit.

[Kolesar]

24. Miss Carolyn, What does it mean to "make love"???

Sex, Lust, and — Gasp! — Masturbation

Good News Club’s curriculum states that “[o]ur young people need to be taught God’s standard for sexual purity” and includes lessons on the the topic of sexual immorality. For example, Lesson 3 of David’s Reign: Trials and Triumphs recalls David’s affair with Bathsheba. The lesson’s caution to its elementary school age audience is salacious: “Some Christian boys and girls even break God’s rules about keeping their bodies pure. They plan ways to be alone with their boyfriends or girlfriends so that they can make love even though they’re not married.”

In the most prurient Good News Club Bible story of all—for 5-12 year olds!—Lesson 3 of Joseph luridly describes how Joseph repeatedly resisted and ultimately fled—without his robe!—when Potipher’s wife attempted to seduce him. Teachers engage the children in questions and discussion on sexual temptation: “There are many kinds of temptations you face each day. Some, like Joseph's, are sexual temptations. Perhaps you're tempted to look at magazines or videos that have dirty pictures in them. Maybe you're tempted to look at Internet sites that show people without clothes on.... God made your body in a wonderful way so that one day you can enjoy being married. Until then God wants you to keep yourself pure.” The lesson also apparently alludes to self-pleasuring—that nearly irresistible sin of the flesh so weighted with shame that CEF dares not say it outright—in cautioning children not to “do wrong things with your body.” Lynda Pongracz, Joseph, Lesson 3, pp.26-27 (2008)

http://www.goodnewsclubs.info/pawns.htm

The theology is grounded in sexual hangups. I recall that I was introduced to the concept of marital infidelity when I learned the the Ten Commandments. "Yes, boy, thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife is like thou shall not covet thy neighbor's goods.