TRENTON, N.J. (BP)–A New Jersey school district violated the constitutional rights of a second grade student last year when it prevented her from performing the song "Awesome God" at a talent show, a federal district judge ruled Dec. 11.
The girl, known only as "O.T." in the lawsuit, was prevented from singing the popular contemporary Christian song at the Frenchtown (N.J.) Elementary School after-school program when the district attorney and school superintendent said the song’s religious content was inappropriate for the event. Previous talent shows had included students singing songs by Nirvana, Bon Jovi and Stevie Nicks.
Allowing "Awesome God" into the program — known as "Frenchtown Idol" — would have violated the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against government establishment of religion, the attorney asserted. But U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson disagreed, saying the school’s action amounted to viewpoint discrimination and violated the girl’s First Amendment rights.
In this day of euphemisms, maybe instead of using the word God they could say instead my significant wholly other.
36 comments
Let hoodlum say what he wants. He serves at least one very good purpose here: he keeps us alert and vigilant about the presence and activities of people who are against our view. Nothing better to sharpen our minds than to prepare a carefully crafted rebuttal against those arguments of his that do seem sound.
“Viewpoint discrimination?” I don’t see that in the Constitution. What will these activist judges think of next?
Ohh wait, you support this decision (it is correct), thus it is okay for the judge to be activist. Had this been in favor of an atheist, You all be would be whining about persecution.
Christians- Everyone do as they command, while they do as they please.
You all be would be whining about persecution. (My bolding)
I would not. Be careful with those sweeping generalizations. Whether the courts rule in favor or against the Christian is largely irrelevant to me.
How is this judge activist? Is he rewriting law or demanding that law be changed? No, he’s overturning a bad decision. There’s nothing activist about that.
Since when has Jeff been inconsistent in criticizing the government for shutting down Christians?
Stop looking for problems where there are none.
Hoodlum,
Please go back to grade school and learn the very basics of the constitution. Please?? When you find a clasue of the separation of church and state, please alert the media. (Hint..it is right there with the right to privacy…it sucks when the Supreme Court legislates) The 1st Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state church/religion and prohibits the government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It was not designed to knock religion and faith out of the public square. But, for an anarchist who cannot stand the forcing down of any religion down his throat, you certainly have no problem shoving your viewpoint (religion some would daresay) down our throats…which is, “keep your damn religion to yourself!” It is a logical fallacy that you just ‘live and let live’…you don’t. Athiesm is a philsophical and moral copout. It is a bastardization of the scientific method curried by those who basically want to live life any way they please. I say knock yourself out. You don’t want to believe in anything, don’t. Just quit crapping all over those who do believe in something.
Just a little food for thought my friend. If you are right and their is no God, then what have I lost? I am at peace with the world. I’ll be dead anyway; so no chance at regrets. However, dear boy, if I am right and there is a God, a God who has taken the trouble of revealing himself to humanity, you will have lost a lot and will have all eternity to regret it.
FR BP-the right to privacy is in the 9th amendment. 🙂 See, the founding fathers did not feel like listing all of our rights. So they listed the ones they felt were the important ones, and left that catch all regarding the rest.
In fact, it was specifically created for people like you. But, since you clearly failed your civics class, their effort was for naught.
Some food for thought my friend, how do you know you got the right god? What if Allah is the right god? a God who has taken the trouble of revealing himself to humanity, you will have lost a lot and will have all eternity to regret it. 🙂
As for yourself, I could not care what you have lost, I am more concern with the collateral damage of religion: families destroyed after someone comes out of the closet, regulating other people’s lives, and the drainage of resources caused by your silliness.
Seriously, I bet someone could have fed thousands of starving kids and Sally Struthers with the money sent to fight SD’s abortion ban. Real kids, who actually feel real pain. No, let us not worry about unwanted children already in existence, when we can waste time and money manufacturing some more.
Hoodlum,
Am I to take it that you agree with the supression of the girl’s freedom of speech?
It was a song, not an attempt to establish a state religion.
No Dean, I stated the decision was correct. You’re as bad as Catholicgauze.
How about the colloateral damage of atheism? Atheism and governments who upheld it have been responsible for more death and human suffering than all religions together. Communism was an atheistic worldview. How many did Stalin kill? or Mao? or Pol Pot? Yeah, atheism is so enlightened.
AS far as this ‘wanted’/’unwanted’ nonsense in validating who gets born and who doesn’t; who decides who is wanted and unwanted? Can your moral imperative be applied evenly across the board? Seems when people started playing this game a lot of other people died, particularly in genocides of all types. wanted/unwanted is arbitrary and always decided by someone other than the person whose life is about to be snuffed.
Your interpretation of 9th amendment leaves a lot to be desired. The fact that I cited the 1st amnedment must mean that I understand that not everything is in the constitution. For heaven’s (or whatever your equivelant is) sake, read a bit more carefully. The 9th Amendment is not a made up rights factory.
Finally, I am assuming since you care so much for the plight of the poor and unwanted that you spend a great deal of time and resources on helping them. If this is so: Good!! I and many other religious types do the same. If not: then that is hypocrisy!! Then that is using specious arguments that do little to prove one’s own narcisssism.
BTW, what Hitler, not a religious man, did to homosexuals make the stigmata associated with coming out of the closet in this country look rather tame, don’t you think? Whilst the Catholic Church teaches thta homosexual activity is morally wrong, we do not teach that one can persecute a homosexual…or anyone else for that matter. Just becuase I love a person does not mean I have to love everything they do.
It’s definitely a victory! Our Constitution calls for freedom of religion. It never called for freedom from religion.
BMP
Awesome God…Yuck. I would have stopped her from singing it just because it is an aweful song. Brings back horrible memories of my grade school music teacher banging on her guitar like a drum trying to get us to sing it.
FR BP, you gotta remember Communism is not atheism. While many Communists are atheists, as shown by the rise of Liberation Theology, not all of them are. See, Marxism, much like Catholicism, is a cafeteria, where people can pick and choose as they see fit. 🙂
Also, Marx, unlike God never called for violence. if you were familar with Communism, you’d know that, and that the violence comes from other sources. Read your Djilas.
Also, unlike Christianity, atheism does not call for violence. See, in the bible, God engages in evil so bad, it makes Stalin look good. Like Noah’s flood, where he drowns babies for the sins of their parents.
As for my interpretation of the 9th amendment, it is basically word for word of the text. You disagree with it because rights like privacy interfere with your religions ability to impose its beliefs on everyone else.
As for the Christian Hitler, where do you think he got the idea to persecute gays? Atheism? No, the bible.
Also, your God commands you to persecute gays. The reason you don’t do it is because society has advanced and is realizing persecuting people because of who they love is silly, thus persecuting gays is no longer tolerable.
Hoodlum,
You posted “Ohh wait, you support this decision (it is correct), thus it is okay for the judge to be activist.”
I do see how the “this is correct” can be your endorsement for the ruling or a statement along the lines of “So if Curt Jester agrees with something THAT’s what makes it correct.”
I appologize for misrepresenting your veiw on this matter.
“Also, your God commands you to persecute gays. The reason you don’t do it is because society has advanced and is realizing persecuting people because of who they love is silly, thus persecuting gays is no longer tolerable.”
There is no point in arguing with someone who simply makes up his own facts as he goes along.
Andy, go read Leviticus 20:13.
You’ll never earn the respect of the Protestants until you start reading your bible 🙂
Hoodlum, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2357-2359. Also that passage in Leviticus is saying that homosexuality is wrong and that homosexuals should be put to death. However there are two points there: 1. Homosexuality is wrong and 2. Homosexuals should be put to death. The first point will always be true and is referred to as doctrine, however the second point is a discipline matter and can change. Jesus in the New Testament prevented the woman caught in adultery to be killed. This, I believe is the example he established for the New Covenant.
A good example between doctrine and discipline is the priesthood. Woman, for example, can never be ordained to the priesthood–that is doctrine. Men in the Latin Rite are required to be unmarried (except in rare occasions) to be ordained—that is discipline, and therefore that “rule” can change. If Pope Benedict wanted to, tomorrow every single seminarian could get married before becoming ordained, however whatever the Pope did, woman could not become priests because that is a matter of doctrine. The same is true of Homosexuality. Homosexuality is sinful and will be no matter what. However, how we treat those people has changed due to what God has instructed us. I hope that helped. God Bless!
“Awesome God” sucks. However, of course the kid should be able to perform it if she so chooses.
As to the whole sidetrack into gays and whatever – why let yourselves get sucked into the whirlwind of convoluted logic and faulty sylogism that is the Hoody?
He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he doesn’t want to know it, so ignore him.
Good work everyone: Keep Hoodlum busy here, so that he cannot do much collateral damage somewhere else.
A) Hitler would have hardly called himself Christian.
B) The NewTestament hardly encourages violence (turn the other cheek); you’re awful selective about what you quote. Christ came to redeem all mankind…those who accept Him. Even…gasp…homosexuals.
C) You’re understanding of Marxism leaves much to be desired. Who was it that said religion was an opiate for the masses? Hmmmm?
d) I notice no response to the abritrary ‘wanted/unwanted’ nonsense from your earlier post. Just an oversight I’m sure.
I know say we shouldn’t mess with you; that it is a waste of time. However, given that in the late 80’s and early 90’s when I was in my 20’s, I was roughly a lot like you. I wasn’t an atheist (couldn’t get past ex nihilo logically), I was still pro-life, but I thought organized religion wasa joke and that whatever set creation in order was largely unconcearned about that creation. I was a good liberatian in most things. All of which gave me license to be a chain-smoking, hard-drinking, party-hardy, money/status worshipping, narcissitic womanizer. Long story short; I started to realize that most of the intellectual premises I had built that life on where intellectually dishonest, self-centered, and ultimately destructive. I have used your arguments before, so I know what vacuous crap they can be. That little light started a domino effect that leads me to where I am now. And I’ll tell you what Hoodlum, I am at a lot more peace now than I ever was back in those days. I’m not be condescending, just telling you the truth.
Today is Day 3 of the Novena for Hoodlum BTW.
PBXVI, yeah, but that is not what the bible says and if the bible is the word of God, shouldn’t he be the one changing it?
FR BP, Check out the book of Revelation. Also, using the selective quouting defense only highlights the contradictory nature of the bible, as if it was written by man:)
You still haven’t gotten past “ex nihilo” you just shifted the “ex nihilo ” from the natural world to your imaginary friend who appears ex nihilo
C) Yes Marx said that. However, being an atheist is not a requirement to believe in Communism. Atheism was Marx’s personal belief.
I ignored your unwanted remark because its stupidity and appeal to emotionally is such that it would make Baby Jesus cry. The simple fact is this- Women who have abortions do not want their kids. Forcing them to have them produces unwanted children. Unwanted children have miserable lives either working poorly paid occupations, or they are abused, or they end in jail. Trying to bring up the genocide issue is just a lame attempt to paint me as morally deficient.
As for your hard-drinking and smoking days, if you feel those activities are morally wrong, so be it, it is a personal decision. As for you using your lack of formal belief to blame those behaviors, that is your opinion. I engage in none of that behavior despite being an atheist. Thus the issue lies with you 🙂
Look, if you need an imaginary friend to keep you in line, so be it, but some us are morally capable beings without the threat of punishment.
Besides, I’ve seen people use to the bible to justify drinking after all, if drinking was evil, why would Jesus bring the keg at Cana?
Come on, guys, Hoodlum is right. In fact:
Jesus (who according to the Christian tall tale is God) never said that parts of the Old Testament were to be interpreted differently (the Sabbath and unclean food stories don’t count, trust me, since selective quoting is allowed when Hoodlum does it)
Marxism is not really the set of philosophical convictions of Karl Mark, just what Hoodlum thinks it is, so why include atheism in it?
Unwanted children do lead miserable lives. I am not sure where else I read that, but I am sure it is true, since Hoodlum states it.
And Hoodlum is a very moral person, since he/she consistently abides by his/her moral rules. What those rules are is none of our business, but are to be respected by everyone.
What is unclear about that?
At least you made me smile, hoodlum.
If your arguments were any more philosophically, psychologically, logically, and sociologically inept you would being presenting them on Jerry Springer.
You’re wrong…sorry…you are. But on some level, I think you already know that…which is why you are subconciously drawn to religious oriented blogs like this. Classic pyschology 🙂 Because if you were really secure in your beliefs it would never enter your pysche to be here.
oh, Hoodlum, atheism IS a part of Marxism in that the state takes the place of God. Political Philosophy 101.
And your retort to the unwanted/wanted argument: my argument was anything but emotional based: straight logic my friend. It is your argument that is based in emotion. AS one of us has done much post-abortion counseling (and it ain’t you), there is a slight possibility I have a wee bit more experience and reference point than you.
The point about genocide wasn’t to slur you, but to say your argument cannot be applied evenly or logically without horrible consequences. When the vialbility of life is left to the decision of another person and not to the person themselves, injustice becomes a consequence. WE all become ‘unwanted’ by others. I am guessing the ‘unwanted’ part accounts for the homocides, genocides, and suicides in this world. I just happen to think that life means a bit more than should be allotted to 3rd parties to decide who lives and who dies.
Ah Miss Jean; you put us all to shame. The rest of us kvetch and argue and you get down to what really matters – prayer and true love for your brother even if he is an unbeliever.
God bless you.
FR BP using Jeff Miller’s conversion story logic, the fact Christians like you constant read their bibles, go to mass, are forbidden to hang out with the atheists, and hang out on blogs like this shows that their beliefs are insecure, and they need constant reenforcement.
Uh, hoodlum, we’re not forbidden from hanging out with athiest…or with anyone else for that matter.
second, speaking with like-minded individuals, or blogging, is hardly a sign of insecurity. HIghly illogical argument there.
and you’ve none absolutely nothing to disprove anyhting that has been said in any kind of a logical manner.
I do think Missjean is right, though. There is a great story about St. Ambrose speaking with St. Monica about her perplexing over the lack of conversion of her son, who became one of the great theologians in Christian history: St. Augustine. Ambrose told her…count me in on the novena!
whoops! the quote got nixed! the quote is: Your need to speak more to God about Augustine and less of of God to Augustine.
Missjean, is there anything you need me to do for this Novena?
FR BP:
“You are not the same as those who do not believe. So do not join yourselves to them. Good and bad do not belong together. Light and darkness cannot share together” (2 Corinthians 6:14).
Seems St. Paul says your wrong, but lets ask Jesus for the proper interpretation. If he’s a loving god, he’ll response because the immortal souls are at risk.
My use of Jeff’s argument is “illogical” but you fail to question him … hmmm…
I do not see a problem with Jeff’s conversion story (I did have to read it though).
I read the full passage in II Cor. I guess you’re right. However it is worth saying that in the thousands of hours I have spent in college and graduate level courses in a ‘conservative’ seminary; in the thousands of homilies I have heard from the Pope to my own pastors; to the thousands of homilies I have given in 10 years as a priest…not once have I spoken or heard spoken a belief that we are not to associate with non-Catholics. It also is left out of the Catechism as well. Then again St. Paul tacitly approves slavery and says women should be quiet and have no authority over men. Obviously we do not approve of slavery anymore and I come froma diocese where 2 of the last 3 chancellors have been women. Maybe, just maybe, the Holy Spirit (I know, I know, ..another imaginary friend) does guide us to greater understanding of the prescription of Christ that we love our neighbor as ourselves.
FR BP and Hoodlum:
Where in the passage from Corinthians does it say that we are not to interact with non-Christians? It says that we are not to “join” them, which is quite different.
Also, FR BP, with all due respect, but I object to your suggested take on slavery and women. St Paul does not say that slavery is OK, but only that those who have slaves must treat them as brothers. Hence his point is that slavery is a social construct that we must ignore. The fact that he does not invite us to fight it, does not imply that we should embrace it.
As for women, the instruction is to be subject to their husbands within marriage, not to be kept away from positions of authority. So your point about chancellors is not relevant.
But I agree with the poster who says that Hoodlum is challenging us to think better about certain aspects of our Faith. So, once again, thanks Hoodlum!
“There is no point in arguing with someone who simply makes up his own facts as he goes along.”
[Andy]
“Atheism and governments who upheld it have been responsible for more death and human suffering than all religions together. “
[FR BP]
While you certainly make some good points, especially about the Holy Ghost guiding us to a better understanding of the scripture (and perhaps to pull our heads out of our butts over the actually small issue of gay marriage), your assertion about atheism and governments being the biggest killers in history is not true. Governments that were allied with religions are indeed the largest killers in history. I don’t mean to troll around here (I would not consider myself an atheist), but I thought someone had to point that out.
Ah Roberto,
2 things:
A) St. Paul ‘tacitly’ approved in that he didn’t forbid it. He saw it, as anyone would have in 1st century Roman Empire, as a part of the landscape. He does plead the cause of an escaped slave, Onesimus, in the letter to the Colossians.
B) He most certainly does forbid a woman to exercise authority over a man…or even teach one for that matter in I Timothy 2: 11-15.
C) What does St. Paul mean by not being bound (literally, from the greek, unequally yoked) with unbelievers? Is he forbiddening marriage between the two? It does not seem so. It is a troublesome passage. But as Christ called us to go baptize the nations, I am sure he knew that would mean intermingling with non-believers.
BTW: (Going back to my last post) if we were not to interact with non-Christians, how could we possibly fulfill the great commission to evangelize all nations?
Ron:
you make a very interesting point, but I have two questions:
1) What are the sources for your claim (or FR BP, for that matter)? It seems to me that counting how many people have been killed by different governments over the centuries is a pretty difficult enterprise.
2) There is no doubt that people have been killed both in the name of religion and of atheism, so could it be that killing (for power, usually) is a human characteristic (that we Christians associate with our fallen nature) and has nothing to do with the visible excuse for the killing?
As you can guess, I find these kind of comparison pretty cliche, but pretty superficial.
FR BP,
it looks like we were writing at the same time. You are correct about the Timothy reference. In fact I think I used the word “authority” where I should have used “responsibility”. Of course there is also the possibility that women should not be chancellors (I am not proposing it, just bringing it up for consideration), since Paul so advices. But I agree that it is a great source of food for thought.
As for “join” I don’t think it means strictly marriage, but close association. That is, we are not to associate in their activities that are contrary to a Christian life. So, for instance, I cooperate with my atheist colleagues at work, but I express my disagreement on certain moral issues. So, I interact, but do not join.
As for slavery, I repeat my position that not explicitly forbidding something does not imply permitting it. There is the possibility of considering it as a reality that does not interfere with the ultimate goal. Despite our proud claims, our society still implements slavery, although in different forms and without calling it that way (ever thought that today’s life style demands that are slaves to Microsoft? Are you the slave of your Bishop, since you must obey his decisions?). What Paul is telling us is whatever our mutual position in society, we must treat others under our authority as brothers.
Thank you for the discussion!
I can’t believe I’m in a situation where I’m inclined to defend the song “Awesome God” ! 😛