foxnews.com reports that a New Hampshire pastor taught a hunting safety class at work, the Heritage Free Will Baptist Church. At some point he handed out “religious flyers” to attendees. This caught the eye of Wisconsin’s Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group of “perpetually offended atheists, agnostics and free-thinkers based in Wisconsin.”
As atheists and agnostics die just like anyone else and the Constitution requires a separation of church and state, I’m a little annoyed at the term “perpetually offended.” (A good name for a church: Our Lady of the Perpetually Offended.) Anyway . . .
“These proselytizing handouts are supremely insulting to non-Christians, and nonbelievers,” the FFRF complained. “The state of New Hampshire has no business holding workshops of vital importance to hunting safety that berate attendees as ‘sinners.’”
They went on to allege that holding safety classes in a church building “alienates non-Christian members of the public whose religious beliefs are inconsistent with the message being promoted by the church.”
Storm in a tea cup? Or legitimate beef?
(A good name for a church: Our Lady of the Perpetually Offended.)
LOVE it!
Thought that was already a political party?
As a non-believer, I’ll be the first to say that others of my ilk are ridiculously quick to get offended. Don’t want the flyer, don’t take the flyer. Unless the instruction itself involved the calling out of “sinners”, move on with your life.
Whether a training I wanted to attend took place within a church would make no difference to me, as long as religion wasn’t a core part of the course–and if it were, why would I be going? A church is just a building like any other. Separation of church and state is important, but chill out once in a while, FFRF.
The whole point of the separation of church and state was that the state can’t dictate to the church or its members, especially dictating what people must “believe” and where. They’ve got that rather badly turned around these days, of course.
Now almost everyone wants to dictate something or another to almost everyone else. It’s a wonder most folks have the time left to eat and sleep, if you think about it.
I don’t care what anyone does, in church or otherwise, unless they are attempting to do it TO me and mine. Only then does it become my problem.
I don’t necessarily disagree. As I said, I think it’s important for government to remain separate from religion, including not legislating in a way that explicitly favors one over another. But people are increasingly trying to apply that argument in places where it doesn’t apply, such as in this article. This wasn’t a case where the government sponsored a class that it turned into a sermon.
This was a pastor teaching a class in his workplace, where he provided literature consistent with his beliefs in his capacity as a pastor. It doesn’t seem as if he actually said anything that could be considered preaching during the class, and even if he had–so what? The class isn’t government-sponsored or funded. If it were, then there would potentially be an issue, but it wasn’t, so I fail to see the problem.
I’d reiterate, I’m about as far on the “god is fake and/or not worth worshiping” side of things as one can get, but seeing nonbelievers picking fights just for the sake of picking a fight is extremely frustrating. One of the many reasons I don’t use the “atheist” ID is because it implies a whole slew of things about me that aren’t true. In my experience, atheists can be just as [or more] annoyingly pushy about their beliefs as an evangelical of whatever creed. Just believe what you believe and let people live their lives, you know? No one likes a bully, no matter the source.
ADM: “nonbelievers picking fights just for the sake of picking a fight.” you have just defined the FFRF.
Its a nit pick, but the separation of church and state clause was so that the federal government could not create a national religion. IE: Church of England.
These Freedom From Religion Foundation losers are really waging a war on Christianity, in so much as they haven’t said word one about Islam being taught, or worshiped in schools etc.
It’s a nit pick, but there isn’t a “separation of church and state” clause.
The phrase, “a wall of separation between church and state” does not appear in the constitution (or in any other legally binding document, to my knowledge). The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, to the Danbury Baptists. The line was written in the context of the constitution protecting the church from interference by the state, in response to the Danbury Baptists’ expressed concern about such state influence upon the church.
Getting into intent vs. statement is how we get into thorny arguments with anti-gunners about the 2A, no? Regardless of what they may or may not have been intending to do by dividing church from state, the text of Jefferson’s letter on the issue says: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”. Chip is correct here: many people assume separation of church and state is in the Constitution somewhere, but it’s not.
That said, it remains that this separation is important, and enough legal precedent has been set that confirms the consensus agrees. However, the problem comes up when organizations, admittedly mostly nonreligious ones, go looking for places to stick this idea when it doesn’t belong where they’re trying to put it. “Freedom from religion” is something I believe in, but what I *don’t* believe is the idea that if someone is practicing their religion in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with you, why is it your god damn business?
It’s a waste of time, money and effort to file a lawsuit over something like this, because it fills precisely zero of the criteria for some kind of infringement on your right not to have the government tell you that you have to believe a certain thing or live in a certain way as prescribed by any given faith system. The letter lays it out: you can’t be required to follow or not follow a given religion by the government, and by association, by things that government money is used for. But it’s things like this that give all atheists a bad name, and until/unless these organizations focus their efforts on situations where it actually matters, no one’s going to take them seriously beyond going “oh, great, it’s those killjoys again, here to demand we never say the word god out loud ever or they’ll get OFFENDED”.
You end up at the right conclusion, but I have to question your premise that “freedom from religion” is something to believe in.
Consider the actual text of the first amendment, in particular, the Establishment clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…
If the Establishment clause can be rightly interpreted as “freedom from religion”, then it can also be rightly interpreted as “freedom from speech” or “freedom from the press”. If that’s the case, then what does it mean?
In terms of religion, it is interpreted to mean that non-believers have a constitutionally protected right not to be exposed to religious practice. Setting aside for a moment that such interpretation is explicitly contrary to the black-letter text of the first amendment (…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…), if one applies that interpretation to the exercise of the freedom of speech, then it would mean that those who disagree with some particular speech have a constitutionally protected right not to be exposed to that speech. (Wash, rinse, and repeat for freedom of the press.)
Within the context of individual liberty, there is no such thing as “freedom from religion” – because the assertion of such a “right” would require infringement upon someone else’s right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs. (Similarly, in the same context, there is no such thing as “freedom from want“, or “freedom from fear“, or “freedom from harm“. The assertion of all such “rights” would necessarily infringe upon the rights of the person being made “free” from such things, as well as the rights of others who would be compelled in their actions to ensure such “rights”.
All of that is well covered by the rights of private property and freedom of association – including the freedom not to associate.
The Establishment Clause was intended to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion that would compete with or even snuff out existing religions. It wasn’t intended as an outright prohibition on any intermingling between government and religion.
You see, some states actually had state religions of their own! States just wanted protection from federal meddling in the meddling in religion that the states were already themselves doing.
Chip: You follow a thread of logic to its conclusion, and while I can see why that’s where you ended up, I think our differences of interpretation can just be chalked up to a failure of terminology to properly communicate nuance.
You’re absolutely correct that a “complete” freedom from religion, i.e. never “having” to see religion being exercised anywhere ever, is itself an infringement on someone else’s rights. And while that may be the extent to which some nonbelievers push the idea of “freedom from religion”, that’s not what I mean by it.
All I mean is that I believe everyone has the right to live a life free from a requirement to exercise or pretend that they exercise any religion, and that requiring such exercise is unacceptable. For example: I don’t care whether you pray in school, whether as a group or singularly, as long as I’m not expected to pray, I’m not penalized for not praying, and I’m allowed to remain silent or say my own alternate prayer or read a book or whatever while the rest of you are doing your thing. You can exercise your religion around me, I don’t care, as long as you’re not forcing me to participate, and I’m not penalized for that refusal.
Really, this just boils back down to some people being completely unable to chill out. Atheists having a collective stroke whenever someone suggests that maybe they’re overreacting automatically makes everyone assume the worst about them, and, honestly, at this point it’s their own fault.
On that point, we’re agreed 100%. Though, I merely look at it as the positive exercise of religious belief, rather than a negative non-practice of a non-belief (if that makes sense). People who believe in the non-existence of a supreme being, and who have developed a philosophical belief structure accordingly, and who then live according to that philosophical belief structure, are engaging in the free exercise of religion. And: more power to them.
FFRF stay out of our business !
I think that if going to a church for a hunting class bothers “non believers”, then simply do not go. Atheists (not all) are very often offended that other people believe in a God, no matter how or where theists choose to demonstrate their belief. Kinda silly when you think of it…if their is no God than what are these atheists afraid of?
Edit: it’s similar reasoning to gun control advocates. They just simply cannot fathom law abiding citizens demonstrating their God given rights. My point is, if someone doesn’t want to own a gun or even like them, fine. The same goes towards those who believe in God or choose not to.
They are afraid of what believers will do for their imaginary friend. Simple minded people aren’t known for their great decision making process.
You must be one of the atheists in the article.
All of Western Civilization tends to disagree with your premise.
All of Western Civilization? You know every single person intimately so you can speak for everyone? I don’t think so.
You can’t speak for me…
They should be more afraid of what non-believers have done in the name of humanism. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. – what’s their total? 100 to 150 million killed?
Exactly. Darwinism and natural selection are some of the fundamentals atheists used to rationalize some of the most atrocious acts of mankind. That was the 20th century. The 21st century is still young.
I will say just to appease some of the sensitives who may be on here, that not all atheists are bad, and not all theists are good. I think that a major problem today is that we have trouble believing that evil exists in all forms, and none are inherently good.
Romans 3:23: For ALL [emphasis mine] have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
I’m not pushing my faith in anyone, just mentioning that we don’t (or shouldn’t) go around thinking too highly of ourselves since we are wicked at heart as well.
I have yet to meet an atheist who could be called a “free thinker.”
My thoughts exactly. Unthinking mindless reaction to anyone mentioning God. This is what happens when stupid people are told they’re right, and encouraged to spout off.
It’s fine with me. Can’t handle JESUS being mentioned? Demons in you going crazy? Don’t go…:)
I’d agree with you if it wasn’t for the fact that successful completion of a Hunter Safety class is required to be able to buy a hunting license in that state. If it’s anything like most states, there are usually more people wanting/needing the training than there are class slots, especially late in the season, so a person can’t be picky about location and just find another one.
No matter where it is held, no matter who is teaching it, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that a mandatory class needed to get a state-issued permit should be held without any religious overtones. I’m mildly religious, but if I’d been in this class, I’d probably have been more than a little miffed. I hope the state looks into this, and if it’s established that one of the reasons the preacher is doing the classes is just so he can have a captive audience for his flyers, then they should pull his instructor credentials. For those folks who aren’t too upset with this, ask yourself if you’d feel the same way if you had to take a flyer from the test examiner that called you a sinner, just to get through your driver’s license test(s)?
And it’s not like the students could speak out against anything in the class, lest they tick-off the instructor and their certificate suddenly “got lost” in the mail. No hunting for you this year!
This is a problem because there aren’t enough hunter safety education classes, so we should stop people from teaching hunter safety? That’s your argument.
Also, you can take the class online. “New Hampshire Launches New Online Hunter Education Course” from the New Hampshire Fish and Game website.
Nobody had to take the class from the guy. They chose to take a class in a church from a pastor.
In many states, there are NEVER enough Hunter Safety classes. I’ve seen parents drive kids hundreds of miles to get to a course.
And you apparently didn’t read the whole write-up of the online course; you cannot be certified with the online course only. From the article:
“After completing the course and passing a final online exam, students receive a Field Day Voucher, which provides access to a live Field Day course. Passing the live Field Day is the last step in certification.” So either way, you have to seek out a meatspace Field Day course to get fully certified, which takes us back to the problem of finding a course with room.
So we should reduce the number of instructors?
Perhaps this is just striking too close to home for you; how do you feel about preventing “bad lawyers” from being disbarred?
You’re making an idiotic point that because there are not enough instructors, people must take the class from this guy. Therefore he should be, not fired because he doesn’t work for the state, but have his credentials taken away by the state for sponsoring these classes and passing out religious flyers.
If by “bad” you mean trying to disbar lawyers who practice their 1A rights by proselytizing to anyone who comes through their door, then I think disbarring them would be unconstitutional.
If you think that anyone licensed by the state to do a thing should not be able to proselytize (or exercise any specific right) while doing that thing, then you are a fascist.
Since fascism is, and always has been, a far-left ideal, it’s really no surprise.
Projection much?
No more than most others, and far less than some, in my experience.
And you? Perfect in all respects, no doubt.
I teach my “Alabama Self-Defense Academy” on state laws at the church I attend. Just rent the room and “Bingo”.
Anyone can teach computer classes, domestic violence survivors, etc., as well.
The church house is a building, a tool. Since I am also the author of “A Time To Kill: The Myth of Christian Pacifism” I find no theological problem with using a “sacred space” to teach folks how to defend their families.
Finally, I train armed church security teams as well, always in their respective church houses.
Gregolas,
Better training question: how do you “train” your church to allow armed security teams???
Okay, I’ll admit that was a little bit of a stretch with the word “train”. At any rate, I have gone to the Nth degree with in depth information and arguments akin to your book and the key policy makers in my church do not want anyone armed in church other than the three people who work in law enforcement … who are often not at church of course. Any suggestions how I can get policy makers to embrace non-LEO church members being armed at church?
Find a different church? Seems simple enough to go looking for people of like mind. Do you go with your family? Why would you give your moral and financial support to an outfit that expects/demands you and your family be helpless victims in waiting? That’s nuts.
Dear uncommon_sense:
I confess I don’t know. Despite my offers to put it together, my own leadership has no interest in having a team. Of course, I and several others are armed but no approved, coordinated effort interests them.
“A prophet is without honor only in his own country.” Matt. 13:57. (Sigh)
I’ve long said that I would like to start a church that has a range attached to it. Not only could it offer classes, but any money raised from range use, “bingo”, etc could be used for helping out those in need.
It could certainly be justified from a Biblical standpoint, since even the Christians retain the Old Testament in the Bible.
As I recall there was a lot of fighting going on in the Old Testament and I’d be willing to bet the Jews spent a lot of time practicing with their weapons, not just trusting Jehova to give them victory. Inshalla is not a Jewish or Christian concept.
Although I am not a religious person, I do not consider myself an Atheist, rather I consider myself an Agnostic. I try to keep myself open to all possibilities. If something cannot be proved or disproved one way or the other, I accept that my personal beliefs “could” be wrong. As for the Atheist Snowflakes who have to bitch and moan about anything if it has something to do with organized religion….STFU and mind “your” own business!
Noisy, obnoxious atheists ARE minding their own business.
You don’t think they’re doing all this from their deep-seated beliefs that they are somehow improving society? You can bet they are making money somehow from their media exposure(s). If they were pursuing it only from the goodness of their hearts it would be hard to differentiate it from an actual religious belief, wouldn’t it?
Ugh, Atheists, the most super special snowflakes of all snowflakes, equal parts unmerited arrogance and autism.
If one can’t emotionally handle a flyer you shouldn’t be handling a gun.
You do realize that many of those in attendance would be kids, probably between 12 and 15 years of age?
If you couldn’t be there, you’d be okay with someone handing out a flyer to your kid, stating or implying they’re a sinner?
If I sent my kid to anything sponsored by a Baptist church at a Baptist church, I wouldn’t be surprised they told my kid he/she was going to hell for not being baptized as an “adult.” I’ve met Baptists.
WWJC: What Would Jesus Carry?
(…aaaaannnnnd GO!) 🙂
He couldn’t carry a 45 because that would kill the soul….
Jesus had no need to carry because, in addition to his own supernatural powers, he was backed up by 10,000 angels 🙂
However, when it came to his people, he gave this COMMAND:
Luke 22:35-36 (NIV): Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.
If you doubt that this was really a command for all to travel armed, please read this post in which, IMHO, I prove that it is just that:
http://2ndamendmentclergy.blogspot.com/2017/01/did-jesus-order-his-disciples-to-be.html
I’d like to imagine He would carry a revolver. Probably a J frame. He would be sure to make those five shots last a few thousand.
A cross.
Right on brother! He also was known to carry a whip. One day a rod of iron.
Robert – RE you “separation” Point me to that “requirement”
Can someone please show me in The Constitution where it says separation of church and state? Once The Constitution was ratified and “the several states” wrote their constitutions, some had official state religions. Heck, while Jefferson was president, church services were held in the capital rotunda and he had the Marine Corps band play hymns.
Please, please somebody square this for me.
Right here, just above the 2A so beloved of the folks here.
https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I don’t see where that says “separation of church and state.”
Don’t know how much clearer it could be. It says the state (government) can’t dictate any official religion, or do anything to limit the free exercise of religion. The whole bill of rights was designed to limit or forbid government from controlling these things (such as guns), not grant specific “rights” to either government or individuals… for whatever that’s worth now. It is obviously now a can of worms…
What you just said is not what people mean by “separation of church and state.” The “Establishment Clause” is what prohibits the state from putting its seal of approval on a specific church.
At its extreme, people take that phrase, which is not in the Constitution, to mean that churches cannot speak on the government. These people are usually idiots who are probably thinking about one of the requirements for 501(c)(3) organizations to remain tax exempt. I know that is not what you are saying. I don’t think you are an idiot. I generally agree with what you say on TTAG.
Normally, people take the phrase to mean that the government cannot in anyway support a religious organization or idea. This is a nonsense notion. The government must support religious organizations to the same extent they support non-religious ones. The state cannot ban an idea from a government building just because it is a religious one. They couldn’t ban religious art from a museum, for instance. Things get a little grey with ten commandment monuments and creches. In one of the courtrooms I have practiced in, there is a depiction of the ten commandments, but there is also a graphic depiction of roman law. This would be considered a ok under SC precedent because these are two depictions of law that western civilization is founded upon.
it’s referred to as the Establishment Clause of the 1A. govt can’t proselytize. if the preacher was just handing out flyers at a state-mandated hunter safety course, then no harm. but if the preacher failed anyone for not taking the flyer, then the aggrieved would arguably have standing.
To add even more things that will cause atheists heads to explode here are two indisputable facts:
1) Before the post-Civil War passage of the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights only restricted the federal government – not state and local governments. For this reason, many states had their own Bill of Rights. Thus states, before the 14th Amendment, could entangle themselves with a particular religion as much or as little as they pleased.
2) The reason an establishment clause was included in the 1st Amendment was not to prevent government sponsored churches – but to protect them. Yes, you read that correctly. At the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights a majority of states had official, tax supported churches. These states were concerned that the new federal government might preempt their right to do this by establishing a “Church of the United States”. They therefore insisted that a clause specifically prohibiting this be included in the Bill of Rights.
However, as time passed, people began to see state sponsored churches as being wrong because people were forced to support a religion they might very well oppose. States began to “disestablish” their official churches. By 1833, they were all gone.
Finally, it should be noted that the religious provisions of the 1st Amendment were largely patterned after English law – specifically the “Edict of Toleration” which reaffirmed the Church of England as the official church of the UK, but permitted all subjects to practice any Christian religion they wished. The founders wisely expanded the freedom to any and all religions, and, as in the UK, acted to protect the official churches.
I couldn’t care less that they are offended. They can mind their own business. Want to be free from religion? Don’t go to a church. Done.
Why do Wisconsin residents care what a pastor in New Hampshire is doing, anyway? Oh, that’s right: because they are atheists of the militant, totalitarian stripe.
Screw them. I side with liberty.
I completely agree that these people are total whackjobs and a damned nuisance.
I’d like to know what these people from the FFRF are so afraid of. I don’t see any modern Christian or Jewish sect (you can’t count the Westboro Baptists since they have been widely condemned by real Baptists) teaching people to harm thy neighbor or that smoking is good or that you should cheat on your spouse. Whether you believe in a deity or not the basic message is one of good.
These people should be harshly sanctioned for bringing such a frivolous lawsuit. You mean to tell me that a church is a place that promotes faith? The next thing you’ll know there’ll be headlines proclaiming the revelation that water is, indeed, wet.
The Wisconsin atheists etc probably originate their group in Madison or Milwaukee – if so, that’s all I need to know about them. They can “urge” all they want (to get the publicity) and then can take a long walk off a short pier.
As to holding a hunter safety class in a church taught by a minister, I have no objections to that. Churches (especially in rural areas) are usually treated as community centers, since nothing else is available. I don’t particularly like that the minister used the opportunity to distribute religious material, but hey! that’s his job. The material could have been refused. As long as the minister didn’t start a revival, it hardly matters – churches don’t let their space be used without extracting some kind of toll. I’m an agnostic and I’ve been to cultural events at local churches; usually the minister came out and said a prayer and I ignored it. Then the concert/whatever started and all was well. If an attendee is so thin-skinned as to be offended by this kind of stuff, then he/she should go to a class somewhere else. Also, since lefty progressive political candidates sometimes have campaign events at churches, who complains about that?
he handed out flyers? the preacher’s activity does not rise to the level of violating the 1A’s Establishment Clause. don’t take the flyer. it’s minor (arguably ineffective) advocacy, not some egregious proselytizing. if the preacher failed you for not taking the flyer, then i’d be more sympathetic.
If brains were gunpowder, the FFRF folks couldn’t blow their noses.
Surprised someone else didn’t say it first, but…..
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!
How stupid. It’s like walking into a bar and complaining when the bartender asks you what you want to drink.
I do have one question. Did the pastor give a good class?
Then take your hunting class from someone else. Sheesh.
Want your traffic ticket dismissed, but can’t stand the jokes down at the comedy club defensive driving class? Then take it somewhere else, or take it online. There are other options to these things.
People perpetually offended is a thing, but so are people perpetually demanding to be comforted, too. There is a crapload of stuff out there in the world that annoys me, from pop-up ads to reckless drivers and a whole lot more. Avoid it where you can, mitigate it where you can’t, cope when you must. It’s called being an adult.
At best, you have the right to pursue happiness. You aren’t guaranteed to attain it. We’re all living in a society together and not every single last slight, irritation, grievance, or injury receives or deserves redress in this world. So suck it up, buttercup.
Bunch of BS. The Pastor was not acting as an agent of the state, he was simply providing a class that would meet state requirements to obtain a hunting license.
I just told a couple of kids the other day who were looking at some other kids computer screen then proceeded to come up to me and complain that they didn’t like what was on that kids computer screen “Don’t look at it if you don;t like it.”
The looks on their faces, as if it never once occurred to them that minding their own business or simply walking away was even an option, left me nauseous and a little horrified for what is to come.
I imagine they will grow to join the ranks of perpetually offended.
Perhaps some legal eagle can tell me the name of this case…
I seem to recall studying a case in college involving a school district, which I believe was in Wisconsin, loaning/renting their busses to a Catholic School to take kids home at the end of the day. There was a lawsuit (picture Willem Dafoe from Boondocks Saints) over this alleging that it was a violation of the separation of Church & State. That lawsuit failed when courts set the standard as “unnecessary entanglement” which they said the district had not reached.
I’d suspect this would be basically the same.
They keep changing the standard on the “Establishment Clause” so much that one must focus on it to keep up. It doesn’t come up in my practice. Excessive entanglement is from the Lemon v. Kurtzman:
1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
2. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
3. The statute must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)
Entanglement Factors:
1. Character and purpose of institution benefited.
2. Nature of aid the state provides.
3. Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.
The other side of the establishment argument is that if you offer something to one group, you can’t not offer it to another because of the second group’s religious exercise without violating “the free exercise thereof” part. That’s what the Supreme Court just held in the Missouri playground case.
Thanks. I haven’t made a habit of studying cases or closely watching decisions since I was in school.
Since I’m not a lawyer and not being forced to study such things I generally don’t have the time to get that deep into it. Especially when I’m analyzing polling for funzies in my spare time.
I’m an agnostic that leans toward atheism, but I’m not one to get all bent out of shape if I’m attending a community event in a church and said church tries to market itself to me. Nothing comes free. If a church offers its space free of monetary charge, I can’t fault them for piggy backing a little PR onto the event.
I’m not religious, but I understand why some people are and I have no problem with anyone expressing their beliefs in a non-violent manner even if I personally think it’s all a steaming load. Now, I don’t really want the beliefs of any religion written into the laws of the state, but that’s a totally different thing that what went on here.
I’m a grown adult so I’m perfectly capable of smiling politely and later tossing out the flyer.
I think what’s happening across the board is this: Anger and outrage are addictive in that they trigger a dopamine hit in the brain. So, we have a lot of people out there now who wake in the morning looking for a reason to be all offended and pissed off, so they go looking for their rage fix any way they can get it. I personally don’t get it. There are way more fun things to be addicted to, but different strokes, etc.
Can’t think of the comic’s name but there is a guy I saw do a bit about flyers a few years back. Punch line was, “here, you throw this away for me.”
Yeah, if some random person on the street hands an adult something, that definitely applies.
But when you’re a kid in a classroom environment, you’d have to read it first, to find out what it was.
A kid shouldn’t have to ask “Excuse me, pastor, will any of this Sinner info be on the final Hunter Safety test?”
This minister could not agree more with your comments. Check out my post – we both make some of the same points.
When I was about 10 years old, back before the whole world lost its mind, I took my first hunter safety course at an, wait for it, elementary school. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth today if a bunch of kids were shown how to safely handle a rifle, on school grounds, in the 5th grade.
This is why I say the Atheist is part of the problem. Where does it say in the US Constitution that you can’t conduct speech or an activity in your OWN church???? Where does it say only government approved speech is allowed????
The homosexual is also part of the problem. Ya, that’s right I said it.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/08/03/houston-pastors-hit-back-against-mayor-with-lawsuit-alleging-their-religious-freedoms-were-trampled/
“As TheBlaze previously reported, the battle over the equal rights ordinance heated up after revelations last fall that the city had subpoenaed church sermons, among other documentation, from five local faith leaders. Officials requested that these preachers deliver communications that focused on homosexuality or the contentious equal rights ordinance, which these individuals have fervently opposed.”
YOUR PAPERS!! YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE!!!!
“Opponents of the equal rights ordinance were elated by the court’s ruling, with Parker — the first openly gay mayor of a major U.S. city — expressing her “disappointment” with the decision and noting that she believes that the state’s high court is “in error.”
I know white homosexuals and atheists are proud to say they support the free speech of the KKK to march in black neighborhoods while carrying guns. They just don’t support blacks carrying guns.
Its none your your business what goes on in a church. But I know you are sooooo very interested in what goes on behind closed doors. And I’m not talking about the Log Cabin Republicans. I’m talking about the Nazi/communist Homosexual and atheist who are really just socialists who have gay sex, and use that as a shield to attack first amendment civil rights.
You don’t get to use your minority status to take away civil rights.
OK, as both a retired minister and a huge 2nd Amendment advocate, here are my thoughts:
1) No one should be compelled by the state to attend or not attend a church function. However, as long as it was clear that this was a church sponsored event, people could then choose either to attend or not attend.
2) Nothing whatsoever prevents the atheists from conducting their own class. Or Jews, or Catholics or Muslims. Instead of trying to restrict the religious and free speech rights of others, the answer is for them to exercise those same rights.
3) Thank God, there is no constitutional right to not be offended. If this was the case, free speech would be dead.
4) Just because this class is required of hunters that does not mean that it must be conducted in a “religion free zone”. This principle, if applied, would result in a massive loss of religious freedom. States have educational requirements for many licensed professions (Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, etc). Does this mean that they must stop providing a religious education to students preparing for these professions? Would it then be illegal to require chapel attendance and basic Bible courses? Again, the answer here is not the restriction of religious freedom – in fact, that would be a solution is search of a problem. Students can and do chose these schools because they want a Christian educational experience – and those that do not want that experience may chose from the vast array of secular schools.
The two most threatened rights in America are firearms rights and religious freedom. We should protect both.
I’m an Agnostic, and I think the FFRF is a bunch of deranged loons.
“the Constitution requires a separation of church and state”
It requires no such thing. That sentence isn’t found anywhere in that great document, and what’s actually there is a prohibition of the STATE making laws regarding the CHURCH. At least that crew of crybaby atheists in Wisconsin are telling it like it is to call themselves “freedom FROM religion,” because that’s how all of them are interpreting the 1st Amendment these days, despite it being the opposite.
Your ability to be offended at any little thing does not trump people exercising their religion, see :Ammendment 1. And re-evaluate your life choices, they seem deficient.
When I went thru my hunting class here in Ohio, we met at Cabela’s one night for one of the classes. Cabela’s, as part of the class, not only presented examples of the types of firearms and hunting accessories they sell, they also gave us some swag and Cabela’s coupons. I even used one of them to when I purchased my Remington 870.
Should I have been offended over that, and get a court order over that as well?
I wouldn’t worry to much about these ass clowns. They just lost a protest moment in my hometown to an Eagle scout. They complained about our welcome to town sign because it was sponsored by the local churches, so the town sold a plot of land to the Scout so the sign would be on private property.
What’s the big effin deal here? I took my hunter safety class in the basement of Sacred Heart Catholic Church in ultra-liberal Boulder, CO in 1982.
If the pastor doing his job offends you, find another class.
The wall between church and state needs to have a way to see through it in case someone throws over any 60-pound bags of … something.
Comments are closed.