I remember how it was -- JR
‘Bully Organization’: FFRF Forces Florida Elementary School to Disband Christian Club
Over the last several years, former President Donald Trump has voiced his disapproval of how people of faith have been treated in America. In late December, he posted a video on his social media platform Truth Social with the caption, “Stopping the Persecution of Christians!”
“Americans of faith are being persecuted like nothing this nation has ever seen before,” he said in the video. “Catholics in particular are being targeted, and evangelicals are surely on the watchlist as well.”
Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist group founded in 1976, has had a history of targeting Christians. Some of FFRF’s past projects include suing a Tennessee elementary school on behalf of The Satanic Temple, suing New Jersey Secretary of State Tahesha Way for forcing public office candidates to swear a religious oath, and ensuring that a Latin cross was taken down at Chino Valley Adult School in California.
While FFRF’s eyes are currently set on demanding that the Birmingham Police Department “end coercive staff prayer,” the group is celebrating another win in its book. An elementary school in rural Florida was forced to disband its Fellowship of Christian Athletes club after being accused of indoctrinating children into religion by FFRF. The FCA chapter included a small group of fifth-grade students.
On March 29, FFRF legal fellow Samantha Lawrence wrote a letter to District Superintendent Dorothy Lee Wetherington-Zamora “regarding a constitutional violation” at Hamilton County Elementary School. The sole elementary school in the small town of Jasper was accused of “alienating” and “excluding” nonreligious families, as well as violating “students’ First Amendment rights by organizing, leading, and promoting a religious club.”
Lawrence defended FFRF’s stance by pointing out that the Equal Access Act allows students to form religious clubs in secondary schools, but not elementary schools. To further her point, she wrote, “Elementary students are too young to truly run a club entirely on their own initiative with no input from school staff or outside adults,” insinuating that “adults are the ones truly behind the club.”
“Hamilton Elementary should strive to be welcoming and inclusive of all students, not just those who subscribe to a particular brand of Christianity,” Lawrence continued. “The District must immediately investigate this matter and ensure that the FCA club at Hamilton Elementary is disbanded.”
Joseph Backholm, senior fellow at Family Research Council, responded to FFRF’s complaints in a comment to The Washington Stand.
“In general, the FFRF is a bully organization that leverages people’s ignorance of their freedoms against them,” he said. “This is far from the first time someone has tried to force a religious organization out of a school, but the First Amendment has, does, and hopefully always will be acknowledged as protecting those rights.”
After receiving the FFRF’s accusations, a local law firm representing the Hamilton County School District responded with a letter relaying their compliance.
“In an effort to avoid any perception that such a gathering on the campus of Hamilton Elementary is being organized, promoted or endorsed by the District or its employees, the club has been dispersed.” The letter also stated that the participating students would be starting sixth grade in a few months and would “be eligible to participate in FCA on the campus of Hamilton County High School.”
Ultimately, the elementary school caved to FFRF’s demands, a decision First Liberty Institute—a nonprofit defending religious freedom—disagrees with.
“Banning students from having a religious club at a school while permitting other, secular clubs is a travesty that teaches children their faith is unwelcome and must be hidden,” First Liberty Institute Deputy General Counsel Justin Butterfield told The Christian Post.
While FFRF exists to lessen religious influence in America, organizations like First Liberty fight to preserve religious freedoms. Its mission heavily contrasts with FFRF’s, as it has set out to defend “religious liberty for all Americans.”
Meanwhile, FFRF has begun celebrating its victory in shutting down the FCA chapter at Hamilton Elementary.
“It is well settled that public schools may not show favoritism towards or coerce belief or participation in religion. It is inappropriate and unconstitutional for an elementary school to organize, lead, or encourage student participation in a religious club like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes,” the press release following the disbandment read. “Thankfully, the district was willing to listen to reason and obey the law.”
While some leaders raise the alarm and organizations fight against religious persecution occurring on American soil, Backholm assures Christians ought not to fear.
“The last thing Christians should ever be is afraid,” he said. “There have always been sectarian conflicts in the U.S., but fortunately they have been less serious than in most other parts of the world because respecting the conscience of others has long been an American value. Yes, it’s being threatened by a dogmatic and highly intolerant form of secularism, but relatively speaking we have much to be grateful for.”
Backholm also warned that Christians live “on a spiritual battlefield.” He encouraged those with a faith to stand firm, as “any public testimony to the gospel will illicit some kind of response,” but it is a “reality Christians needs to be comfortable with.”
************************************************
The Most Dangerous People in America: College Professors
American college campuses are permeated with corrupted professors who themselves corrupt students. Without a doubt, college professors are the most dangerous people in America.
They’re not dangerous because they challenge the status quo or encourage their students to think critically. On the contrary, they are dangerous because they encourage impressionable young college students to adhere to the doctrines of the professors they choose without giving them the chance to meaningfully challenge those doctrines.
During the recent pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas protests on elite college campuses, thousands of students put up tents on private property, commandeered university-owned buildings, defaced private property, and chanted disturbing, antisemitic rhetoric. But while we constantly talk about the actions of the students, we fail to recognize that these students aren’t alone but instead are educated and cheered on by their college professors.
At Columbia University, many of the university’s professors joined the protests, donning orange reflective vests and standing alongside students in protest of Israel and—apparently—in support of the students’ right to free speech. Of course, these professors, like their students, are not constitutional scholars, yet they teach their students that what they’re doing is protected.
The First Amendment does not protect the right to vandalize or trespass on private property, which is what these students were doing, or even make terroristic threats or aid a terrorist organization, which arguably many of these students did. The very idea that there were professors aiding the students in their illegal takeover of the university should sound alarm bells.
Even in the face of the professors’ statements and actions, which were to the effect of “we support our students’ right to protest,” no rights were being violated. But you can be absolutely sure the impressionable college students seeing their actions and reading their statements feel more emboldened than ever and as though they were the ones wronged, not the scores of Jewish students who were barred from campus nor the many impoverished students unable to access the now-closed dining halls.
There can be no doubt left now that students who witnessed their professors, people of great authority and respect to them, supporting a protest that resulted in the unprovoked stabbing of a Jewish woman in the eye with a Palestinian flag, chants of “death to America” and “globalize the intifada” (a violent uprising in which more than a thousand Israelis were murdered in the early 2000s), students claiming “we are Hamas,” and a significant number of students donning Hamas militant headbands will think any violence or violent rhetoric on their part is somehow justified.
Look no further than the case of Russell Rickford, an associate history professor at Cornell University, who took a leave of absence after openly stating that the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks were “exhilarating” and “energizing.” He was seen back on campus, protesting in solidarity with the students and speaking in support of the students and Palestine.
Why should a student feel afraid of being suspended—or even expelled—when a professor of the institution who met a similar fate is back on campus voicing his support of Palestine?
One thing any college student—particularly one who challenges authority—will learn is that when that authority (the professor, the administration, or even the student body) is overwhelmingly liberal, questioning dogma is a recipe for failure and being labeled an outcast.
For a college student, a bad grade can make or break their college career, which, to college students, is the most immediately important thing in their life. Giving a college professor the ability to judge a student more harshly because they disagree or even simply question the professors’ beliefs is the perfect recipe for indoctrination.
Let’s be clear, college professors should not be feared; they should be respected when they earn that respect, same as anyone else. The only power they wield is the title they were given by their institution—a title that can be quickly stripped away from them. To college students, these professors are the most academically accomplished people they know, so they follow them mindlessly; that’s why they are dangerous.
Well-educated people are often the least intelligent. They are so confident in their ability to think critically that they have successfully convinced themselves that they can do no wrong. It is only when students have an honest professor who understands their fallibility that they can truly learn
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/09/the-most-dangerous-people-in-america-college-professors/
**************************************************NSW schools: More Leftist censorship
Australia: The battle to gain a place at one of the state’s prized selective schools has for years been hard fought by parents and students who see it as a golden ticket to top HSC results and entry to a prestigious university course.
But education analysts say recent changes to stop publishing cut-off scores have backfired and are now breeding the “worst of behaviour” by tutoring companies who are preying on the information vacuum to spruik their services.
A record 18,544 students competed on Thursday for about 4200 spots in the NSW public system’s high-achieving selective high schools for next year’s entry. Despite population increases, the number of places in selective schools has not grown.
Australian Tutoring Association president Mohan Dhall said entry requirements for a test to gain entry to a NSW public school should be clear and transparent to parents and students. He said the secrecy meant tutoring companies were filling the subsequent information vacuum with their own league tables and exploiting parent anxiety to spruik their services.
“If you’re not disclosing scores, you don’t know what you’re reaching for. The children have to try harder because of the uncertainty. They’re breeding the worst of behaviour,” Dhall said.
“It is a public test in a public system and there should be public disclosure of test scores and accountability around it. The citizens of NSW should be able to make informed decisions, and you can’t do that in the absence of information.”
A department spokesman said the decision to stop publishing minimum entrances scores for schools came after wellbeing and privacy concerns were raised by students and parents. Under the changes, parents were also not told specific marks but rather broad “performance bands” – a general ballpark of how their child performed in the test. It coincided with the introduction of the equity model, which reserved 20 per cent of selective school seats for students from disadvantaged groups.
Irum Shaheen said she wanted her 10-year-old son Adilimran Shaheen to sit the selective test but did not want to place undue pressure on him.CREDIT: RHETT WYMAN
In response to the move, tutoring companies simply triangulated performance bands and offers made to individual students to create their own league tables, albeit without precise scores.
Despite previously publishing annual lists of minimum scores required for entry to each school on its website, the NSW Department of Education refused to release the scores following a freedom of information request made by the Herald, saying the cut-off scores requested did not exist.
Carlingford West Public father Rav Singh, whose 11-year-old son Veyaan sat the test, said he wanted clear information about which schools were the hardest to get into. Parents must preference three schools, and he will put Veyaan down for Baulkham Hills High, Normanhurst Boys and Sydney Boys High School.
North Sydney Boys High tops HSC for first time
“It is a better idea to publish the marks so you know where your kid stands,” he said.
The Ponds School parent Irum Shaheen said she did not want to put undue pressure on her son, Adilimran, 10, to get into selective school, but said test scores would give her a clear indication of what was achievable.
“To be very honest, I think it should be published so that it really gives us an idea of what is going on,” she said.
James Ruse Agricultural High School has historically been the most difficult school to gain entry to, but that may change this year after it lost its position at the top of HSC league tables to North Sydney Boys.
Revealed: Sydney’s most overcrowded primary and high schools
The former principal of North Sydney Boys, Robyn Hughes, predicted the test performance required to gain entry to her former school would increase this year after it successfully dethroned Ruse ending its 27-year-reign as the state’s top school.
“North Sydney Boys cut-offs will probably go up, reflecting the demand from parents. They will be seriously thinking about North Sydney Boys in contrast to James Ruse,” she said.
She said the move to no longer releasing cut-off scores might go some way to reduce the competition among parents – who would also utilise the scores to gain entry to private school.
As principal, she was aware that some parents showed their child’s selective school placement offer and performance scores to private schools in a bid to gain a scholarship.
“Parents know the offer can be a passport to getting into private schools,” she said.
A Department of Education spokesman said factors that contribute to an offer being made, including the number and performance of the children who apply, change each year.
“There are no minimum entry scores or “cut-off” scores for selective high schools,” he said.
“Parents should be cautious of relying on information from coaching colleges as it is often inaccurate and not representative of the full range of students who apply for placement in selective high schools across the state.”
******************************************************
My other blogs: Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
******************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment