Missouri high school under fire for teacher-led prayer sessions from the American Humanist Association

A Missouri school district has vowed to "vigorously defend" itself after a secular organization announced it had filed a lawsuit to prevent alleged teacher-sponsored school prayer sessions in high school classrooms.  
The legal arm of the American Humanist Association filed a complaint filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, claiming that prayer sessions held at Fayette High School violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which says the government may not establish an official religion. 
The lawsuit alleges a math teacher led the weekly Christian devotional prayer sessions for several years in her classrooms after buses arrived in the morning and before classes began. The suit said she would urge students to pray for sick or injured students and joined the students in saying "amen." The school's former principal made an announcement over the public address system to remind students about the meetings.
The teacher violated a school district policy that states school employees "are to be present solely in a nonparticipatory capacity at any student-initiated religious activity held at school and will strictly observe a policy of official neutrality regarding religious activity," the lawsuit says.
The suit also said the teacher told students during her math class that God would punish them if they are not good and prominently displayed the book "God's Game Plan" in her classroom.
The teacher and principal left the district at the end of the 2012-13 year, but the association believes the prayer sessions are continuing this year, said Monica Miller, an attorney for the group. She said it's unclear whether a teacher is participating in them.
"What we are challenging is that the district has established a policy of allowing teachers to pray with students," Miller said, adding that the suit seeks to keep that from happening in the future.
Miller said that a student plaintiff is still attending the school. The student that originally reached out to the group about the prayer sessions recently left the school over concerns the school was promoting a religious environment, KOMU.com reported.
In a statement obtained by the station, the school district declined to comment on the allegations specified in the complaint but said it would "vigorously defend against any claim that the district has taken actions which violate any person's First Amendment rights."
Carl Esbeck, University of Missouri law professor, told ColumbiaTribune.com that an important distinction is whether the prayer sessions took place while the teacher was "on the clock."
"Outside their clock hours, they're private citizens like anybody else," Esbeck said.

What the American Humanist Association is all about.

The conjunction of humanist and Islamic worldviews will threaten to destroy America from within throughout the 21^st century.  Indeed, there is a war of worldviews raging in America, with secular humanism and Islam as co-belligerents on one side and Judeo-Christian America on the other. 
The worldview war
The worldview war is spiritual in origin.  The Bible states in Ephesians 6:12 that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."  Worldviews incorporate theology and therefore reflect spiritual beliefs.  Life in America as we know it is at stake in this war.
A worldview is a comprehensive framework of ideas and beliefs from which an individual interprets his surroundings and circumstances.  It is this view of reality that consequently directs the decisions and actions of the individual, and also of nations.  According to Dr. David Noebel, worldview expert, worldviews are composed of ten different disciplines: theology, politics, economics, philosophy, biology, history, ethics, law, sociology, and psychology.
There are primarily six worldviews contending for the 6.9 billion people on Earth, with Islam, secular humanism, and Christianity chief among them.
The Islamic threat to America has historically been primarily a war of words, as characterized by S.A.A. Maududi in 1939, when he said, "Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam. Islam requires the earth - not just a portion, but the whole planet."  Maududi influenced Sayyid Qutb, the leading theologian of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and '60s and author of Social Justice in Islam.  Qutb had a significant influence on bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
The rise of secular humanism
Secular humanism increasingly supports the Islamists' position in the battle against the Judeo-Christian worldview.  Secular humanists currently dominate the government, education, the media, and the legal institutions in the United States.
Secular humanism may be the fastest-growing worldview in America.  It has also been declared a religion by the U.S. Supreme Court; the American Humanist Association has been given an IRS religious tax exemptionⁱ_.
Why are humanists and Islamists united in their opposition to the Judeo-Christian worldview?

• Humanists and Islamists share the primary goal of removing Christianity from public life so that their worldview can gain power.

• They both seek government solutions to accomplish utopia on earth.  The humanists desire a one-world government that perfects man on earth (via the United Nations, EU, etc.), while Islam seeks a one-world caliphate and a sharia legal system that perfects man on earth.

• Both use each other in attacking the Constitution.  The Muslim uses humanist doctrine (separation of church and state) in attacking the Constitution through judges, etc. to open the door for Sharia, food regulation, sanctioned prayer, and state suppression of Christian expression.  The humanist uses the Islamists to counter Christian "oppression" and attack the Constitution.

• Both use each other in a "termite strategy."  Termites destroy a house slowly and then suddenly.  By the time you see them, it may be too late.

The history of Islamists joining efforts with humanists is longstanding.  The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem allied with Hitler's Germany to annihilate the Jews.  The Ayatollah Khomeini aligned with Russia against Christian America shortly after taking power in Iran^iv_.
Islamic and Humanist totalitarianism cause religious persecution.
Estimates of Christians persecuted worldwide have reached 200 million.  Seventy-five percent of worldwide religious persecution is perpetrated against Christians, yet Christianity represents only approximately 30% of the world's population.  According to Open Doors International, the top ten oppressors are Islamic or humanist countries.  North Korea (humanist) is the most religiously oppressive country, followed by the Islamic countries of Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Maldives, Yemen, Iraq, Uzbekistan, and (humanist) Laos.
If Islam is peaceful, what about jihad?
Many Muslims and Humanists will assert that Islam is peaceful and that jihad is only an internal struggle to find peace with God.  A textual analysis of the Bukari Hadith indicates that 97% of jihad references are to physical (combat) jihad, and only 3% to spiritual jihadⁱⁱ.  Further, the Islamic doctrines of taqiyya (deception) and hudna (breaking treaties when circumstances are favorable to Islamic objectives) clearly illustrate a strategy to deceive the ignorant and credulous.
Jihad is a successful strategy.
Muhammad had approximately 150 converts to Islam after ten years of his efforts in Mecca.  However, after journeying to Medina and becoming a physical (combat) jihadist, he acquired 100,000 converts over the next ten yearsⁱⁱⁱ.  Moreover, the first hundred years after Mohammed's death gave rise to the physical jihad of his disciples, who destroyed or converted approximately 3,200 churches via plunder and conquest until Islam was defeated at the Battle of Tours in 732 A.D.
Effects of worldview.
Detroit used to be an all-American city with the highest per capita income in the 1950s.  However, the advance of unions (private and public), growing corruption of secular interests, and significant growth in the Arab-Islamic population have resulted in the collapse of a once-great city.
Great Britain is the best international example of humanist-Islamic cooperation.  Great Britain was the leading empire in the 19^th century, and the British pound was the world's reserve currency.  But Great Britain is now a shadow of its former self.  Will America follow the secular humanist model of Great Britain and experience a similar decline?
Samuel Huntington summarized the problem in his classic tome, titled The Clash of Civilizations, when he said, "Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power."
There are evil, incompetent, and indifferent combatants in this worldview war.  Evil combatants (radical Islamists and secular humanists) do bad things on purpose.  Incompetent combatants (secular Christians) do bad things by accident.  Indifferent combatants (majority of Americans) don't care whether others do good or bad as long as their personal peace and prosperity is not disturbed.  The evil combatants use the incompetent and indifferent to accomplish their goals for society.
What, then, should we do?
Judeo-Christian believers must educate themselves (and others) and engage the culture (schools, churches, synagogues, families, government, and communities) to reverse secular humanism and slow the progress of Islamic cultural and physical jihad in the U.S.  We must focus our efforts on the incompetent and indifferent population within the U.S. if we are to defeat those who are evil combatants.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_worldview_war.html#ixzz2lTYSX1T3
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Kids, parents fight back after humanist group threatens another school over Christmas toy drive

When a national humanist organization threatened to sue SkyView Academy for collecting toys for needy children, students at the Colorado charter school decided to fight back.
Officials at SkyView Academy announced earlier this week that they were dropping its participation in Operation Christmas Child, a ministry of Samaritan’s Purse. The project involves stuffing toys, candy and hygiene items to disadvantaged children around the world.
But the American Humanist Association said the school’s participation in the program violated the U.S. Constitution and sent a letter demanding they cease and desist.

Some critics have tried to compare the humanists to Ebenezer Scrooge – but that’s really unfair. Even Scrooge had a heart.

A small charter school in South Carolina received a similar letter last week and complied with the AHA’s demands.
Even though the project at SkyView was student-initiated and student-led, school officials determined they could not afford to pay for a court battle. The school’s board said they were disappointed by the humanists’ threats.
“We know this is a bullying tactic,” parent Kendal Unruh told me in a telephone interview. “We know that they target small schools that don’t have a budget to defend themselves. In lieu of a fist, they use a letter. We don’t have the money to invest in a long, costly legal battle.”
Unruh said it’s not coincidental that the South Carolina charter school received the exact same letter.
“Because they don’t like the message that we convey under our religious liberty, they have to shut us down and that is a tactic of bullying,” she said. “They don’t believe in equal access. They believe in shutting down anybody who doesn’t comply with their view of what society should be – and that is completely godless.”
And while the South Carolina school completely shut down their Operation Christmas Child project, the students at SkyView decided to defy the humanists.
On Wednesday afternoon, hundreds of students and parents and well-wishers staged a grassroots act of defiance. And while they meant to send a message to the humanists – it was really about making sure poor children had toys on Christmas day.
“The young people weren’t concerned about the politics of it,” Unruh told me. “They were asking, ‘what about the kids?’”
Instead of collecting the shoe boxes inside the school – the students just moved their entire operation outside – on a public sidewalk.
Volunteers loaded shoe boxes into trucks and vans, while students held a religious liberty rally – hoisting signs condemning the humanists.
“Humanists hate kids,” read one sign. Another declared, “You won’t steal Christmas from children.”
Unruh said yesterday’s rally was a great life lesson for the young students.
“You stand up to bullies,” she said. “You don’t stand down. You stand up for your belief system.”
Kimberly Saviano, a member of Humanists of Colorado, defended the national organization’s attack on the school.
“The school was promoting it and they were using school resources to get it together,” she told the newspaper. “By promoting it during school time, it gives the air of authority to it, as if the administration endorses the religion.”
But Unruh said Operation Christmas Child was student-organized and student-led – and based on what happened Wednesday – they aren’t going to be scared away by a bunch of non-believers.
“It’s the right thing to do,” she said. “It’s the merciful thing to do, the compassionate thing to do.”
Some critics have tried to compare the humanists to Ebenezer Scrooge – but that’s really unfair. Even Scrooge had a heart.
I’m not sure why the humanists want to take toys away from impoverished children. Maybe they suffered some sort of psychological crisis as young children. Maybe Santa gave them a pair of underwear instead of a Rock-Em, Sock-Em Robot.
In fairness, nobody likes getting Fruit of the Loom on Christmas Day.
But even worse than that, nobody likes a humanist who gets their underwear in a bunch over American school kids trying to make sure poor children have a merry Christmas.
In the words of the Grinch, “pucker up and kiss it,” humanists.

What a Nutbag!

Obama applauds Reid for filibuster overhaul, critics warn move will 'damage' Senate

   President Obama, openly expressing his frustration with Senate Republicans, applauded Majority Leader Harry Reid's success Thursday at invoking the so-called "nuclear option" as Democrats voted to strip the minority party of its primary power to block nominations -- the filibuster. 
Obama, even invoking former President Bush, said it's critical to "change the way that Washington is doing business."
But Republicans and even some Democrats warned that the Senate may have just opened a Pandora's box -- and with little debate, approved a change that could haunt the chamber for years to come.
"This was nothing more than a power grab," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said.
In a rapid-fire set of developments on Thursday, the Senate narrowly approved a rule change that would limit the ability of the minority party to block key presidential appointments. Instead of needing 60 votes to break a filibuster, Democrats will now need only 51.
Speaking Thursday from the White House briefing room, Obama said the change was needed to deal with Republicans' "unprecedented pattern of obstruction." He cited the record of George W. Bush, claiming his predecessor had an easier time getting nominees confirmed.
Obama cited, among other stand-offs, the bid by Republicans to filibuster his nomination of Chuck Hagel, a former GOP senator, for Defense secretary.
"For the sake of future generations, we can't let it become normal," he said.
Republicans, though, argued that while it took Bush an average of 211 days to get a nominee confirmed, it's taken Obama 228 days -- just 17 days more. Judicial nomination statistics show that Obama has a confirmation percentage of 76 percent -- though majority leaders have had to try to break a filibuster far more in the last five years than in recent decades.
Following the vote Thursday, even some Democrats emerged as tough critics of the decision.
While Republicans were furious that their ability to hold up appointments had been scrambled, moderate Democrats were concerned more about how Reid was able to pull off the maneuver.
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., one of three Democrats who opposed the move, said it could "permanently damage" the Senate.
"This institution was designed to protect -- not stamp out -- the voices of the minority," he said.
Reid used what is known in Senate slang as the "nuclear option." To change Senate rules of this kind, it typically takes 67 votes. But Reid used a highly controversial shortcut and did it with just 51 votes.
Retiring Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a prominent and influential moderate, put out a 2,300-word statement explaining in great detail why Reid's action Thursday could cause lasting damage.
"Changing the rules, in violation of the rules, by a simple majority vote is not a one-time action," he warned. "If a Senate majority demonstrates it can make such a change once, there are no rules that bind a majority, and all future majorities will feel free to exercise the same power, not just on judges and executive appointments but on legislation."
Levin argued that the move opened the floodgates for the majority to change important rules on a whim going forward.
"Today, we once again are moving down a destructive path," he said. "Pursuing the nuclear option in this manner removes an important check on majority overreach which is central to our system of government."
Levin made clear that he thinks Republicans were acting irresponsibly by blocking Obama's judicial nominees, and supports getting those nominees an up-or-down vote.
But he said there were other ways for Reid to achieve that, including by forcing GOP foes to stage an old-fashioned filibuster on the floor.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was the other Democrat to oppose the rule change.
The filibuster, for better or worse, has been a defining feature of the Senate for decades. While this makes the Senate one of the slowest-moving legislative bodies in the world, it also prevents legislation and appointments from moving too fast.  
The vote on Thursday vastly reduces the power of the minority to stall nominations and makes it easier for federal judges to get lifetime appointments. The move would not affect Supreme Court nominees.
The late Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., presented a powerful case against changing the rules back in 2010, when he said doing so would "destroy the uniqueness of this institution."
"In the hands of a tyrannical majority and leadership, that kind of emasculation of the cloture rule would mean that minority rights would cease to exist in the U.S. Senate," he said. Bailey Comment: "This is just another step towards Obama Dictatorship".

The University of Colorado

The University of Colorado, which has a reputation for liberal politics, has banned discrimination based on political affiliation -- giving greater protection to students and faculty who speak their minds while on campus.
The policy is believed to be a first for any public college or university, and could help protect campus conservatives who might fear retribution for expressing their views in the classroom, or in written assignments.
While the measure was sponsored by two Republicans, the change was unanimously passed by the entire Board of Regents.
Regent Sue Sharkey, who spent months working on the policy change, points out: "This just wasn't a Republican or conservative initiative. Rather, we as a board came together as Democrats and Republicans to be unified."
Sharkey says it covers students and faculty, "to ensure... we were honoring their First Amendment rights and they could speak out on their political views and not feel they would be discriminated against based on that."
She recounted hearing stories from members of the campus community who told her about feeling diminished or silenced, unable to comfortably express their views.
The regents have also passed a resolution to conduct a campus survey. The study is expected to take the temperature of the campus climate.
Sharkey explains it "will really take a look at discrimination and how pervasive is it. And rather than having just anecdotal stories from students or faculty, we really want to find out how broad this is."
The school is also home to the Ward Churchill scandal.
Churchill is a former professor who was fired after a protracted legal battle. He infamously referred to victims of the 9/11 attacks as "little Eichmanns" – a reference to the Nazi leader.
Attorney David Lane represented him. Asked for reaction to the anti-discrimination policy change, Lane does not mince words: "Well, I wonder where they were when Ward Churchill needed that protection, frankly.
“It's called the First Amendment ... but I fully support the concept that people should not lose their jobs, their government jobs on a government campus, like the University of Colorado, based on their ideas or their speech. I'm all in favor of that,” he said.
Now if someone feels discriminated against for their political views or affiliation, he or she will be able to file a complaint with the office of non-discrimination and have it investigated.

How low can it go? ObamaCare poll numbers drop -- again

President Obama is struggling to stop the steady slide in public support for his health care law, as yet another poll shows public approval of the law -- and his job performance -- hitting a new low.
The survey from CBS News depicts a startling drop in support for the Affordable Care Act. Approval dropped to 31 percent, down 12 points since October.
According to the poll, the president's approval rating also slipped to 37 percent, from 46 percent just last month.
Both figures represent the lowest of Obama's presidency in CBS polling.
While Republicans are united in their opposition to the health care law, the latest numbers reflect new skepticism among Democrats and independents.
Obama has been facing criticism from his own party for both the failures of HealthCare.gov as well as cancellation notices that have gone out to those on the individual market whose policies did not make the cut under ObamaCare's new standards. The president last week gave insurance companies a one-year extension, allowing them to re-offer those out-of-compliance plans.
But it's unclear how many insurance commissioners and companies will consent, given the difficulties of making the sudden switch after years of planning. The president plans to meet with insurance commissioners on Wednesday afternoon.
The CBS News poll followed a Washington Post-ABC poll that showed Obama's job approval rating at a meager 42 percent -- and his disapproval rating at 55 percent, the worst of his five years in office.
That figure matches the disapproval rating he received in a recent Fox News poll.
Among women, who were some of the president's core supporters during the 2012 campaign, the president is also losing traction. The Washington Post-ABC poll showed just 44 percent of women approve of the job he's doing, while 52 percent disapprove.
Amid the downturn in the numbers, Obama has tried to rally his base -- and his base has tried to rally for him. An email from MoveOn.org went out on Wednesday warning the ObamaCare problems have triggered a "Washington feeding frenzy."
"President Obama is doing all he can to save Obamacare, but he can't do it alone. He needs us to join him and fight back," the email said, appealing for money.
Speaking Wednesday at the Wall Street Journal CEO Council meeting in Washington, Obama noted that nobody in Washington is doing particularly well in the polls right now. Congress is more unpopular than the president, according to most polls.
But Obama stressed that the administration must fix the health care website, and acknowledged some concern over signing up enough people to make the new marketplaces work.
"It's something that we have to pay attention to," Obama said.
The CBS poll of 1,010 adults was conducted Nov. 15-18, and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points. Bailey Comment: " Wow! And believe it or not most of these polls come from the far left media "!

Air Force drops 'So Help Me God' from oaths

The Air Force Academy has admitted they removed the phrase “so help me God” from three oaths in the 2012 edition of their official cadet handbook, Fox News has learned.
The revelation came after more than two dozen members of Congress sent a letter to Academy Supt. Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson demanding that she explain why the phrase was removed.
The lawmakers contend the 2012 edition of the Contrails Cadet Handbook excludes the phrase ‘so help me God’ in the Cadet’s Oath of allegiance, the Oath of Office for Officers and the Oath of Enlistment.

Air Force Academy spokesman Maj. Brus Vidal told me the omission was a simple mistake.

“The Constitution does not require that this phrase be scrubbed from the oath,” read the letter drafted by Rep. Jim Bridenstein (R-Okla.) and signed by 28 lawmakers. “The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion’ however, the inclusion of the phrase ‘so help me God’ in an oath of service does not rise to this level.”
Bridenstein said “editing the oath for all Academy students is extreme and unnecessary, and does a disservice to the countless individuals who wish to include the phrase as a solemn reminder that they are pledging their fidelity to God and country.”
Air Force Academy spokesman Maj. Brus Vidal told me the omission was a simple mistake.
“It was an editorial oversight,” he said. “We learned within the last few weeks there was a problem.”
Vidal said there was no reasoning behind the omission and there was no forethought.
“Whoever was doing the editing didn’t catch it,” he said.
He said next year’s edition of the Contrails Cadet Handbook will be revised and will include the phrase “so help me God.”
Last month, the Air Force Academy was embroiled in another controversy involving “so help me God” after they decided to make it an optional part of the Honor Oath. The revision was made following a complained from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
The lawmakers directed Johnson to provide information on why changes were made to the Honor Oath and why a poster bearing the words “so help me God” was removed from the Academy.
MRFF President Mikey Weinstein had filed a complaint about the poster. Approximately 68 minutes after he complained, Johnson ordered the art work removed. That decision did not set well with lawmakers.
“We ask that you restore the poster bearing the oath in full to its original location as an honorable reflection of the oath of service,” the lawmakers wrote.
After the Honor Oath was revised, Johnson released a statement affirming the right of Airmen to “freely practice and exercise their religious preference – or not.”
“Here at the Academy, we work to build a culture of dignity and respect,” she stated.
Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said he’s received calls from concerned parents of cadets – lamenting the change in the oaths.
“This phrase is a deeply-rooted American tradition – begun by George Washington as the first president of the United States and now stated by many who take an oath of service to our country,” Crews said. “The removal of this phrase is a disservice to the countless men and women who wish to include this phrase as a solemn reminder that they are pledging their fidelity to God and their country.”
And while Crews said he respects the right of cadets not to say the word ‘so help me God’, he pointed out the law requires that the words remain part of the oath.
If that’s the case – why were they removed and who gave the order?
Let’s hope these lawmakers can root out the anti-religious forces that have infiltrated the Air Force Academy. It’s high time someone put a stop to the religious cleansing of the Armed Forces.