ACLU fundraises $335 mil
A friend sending me an article on the ACLU’s $335 fundraising effort included this thought:
In an Obama administration with a Democrat-controlled Congress, pro-life efforts would likely gravitate to “outside the beltway” activities, i.e., activities at the state level.
Our enemies seem to have anticipated that. They are gearing up, as the article below documents. Are pro-life efforts and plans also gearing up at the state level?
Here is the June 10 ACLU press release:
The ACLU today announced the… largest fundraising campaign on behalf of civil rights and liberties in American history. The $335 million… unprecedented effort [is] to build the organization’s infrastructure by increasing funding to key state affiliates nationwide….
The campaign has already raised more than $258 million… highlighted by 21 contributions of $1 million or more from the ACLU’s staunchest supporters and several of the world’s most noted philanthropists. These include two gifts of $12 million, one from George Soros… and one from the Sandler Foundation. Other leadership contributors include the Leon Levy Foundation, which donated $5 million, and Delaney and her husband, Wayne Jordan, who donated $4 million….
A major goal of the campaign is to substantially increase the ACLU’s presence and effectiveness from coast to coast by significantly increasing the programmatic and institutional capacity of its affiliates, particularly in states where civil liberties violations are most egregious and opportunities for change most promising. These states include Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Montana, Mississippi, Michigan, Missouri, and Tennessee.
Moreover, smaller affiliates located mainly in the South and in the country’s heartland will be bolstered by increased resources that will enable them to hire full-time attorneys, launch new advocacy programs, and expand communications and public education initiatives….
The ACLU has taken its affirmative agenda to the state and local levels by, among other causes… fighting the introduction of “intelligent design” curricula in Pennsylvania… [and] overturning abortion bans in Mississippi….
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Not the ACLU!
I remember the time they kept the Federales from rifling through the private medical records of a hillbilly heroin addict named Rush Limbaugh.
Years ago they kept a terrorist sympathizer and financier named Ollie North from losing his home and going to prison after aiding a rogue group of American Contras – lead by a man named “Reagan” – using illegal means in an attempt to overthrow the peaceful government of Nicaragua.
DAMN THAT ACLU!
Stupid ACLU-
They defend those evil anti-choicers!
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (4/29/2005)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org
DES MOINES — The Iowa Civil Liberties Union today blasted school officials for threatening to punish two teenage girls who wore anti-abortion T-shirts to school. The group also offered to assist the students in their quest to continue wearing the shirts at school.
“These students had their free speech rights violated, and the ICLU stands ready to defend them,” said Ben Stone, Executive Director of the ICLU. “This appears to be a clear case of government abuse of power, and it must be stopped.”
Roosevelt High School students Tamera Chandler, 18, and her sister, Brittany Chandler, 15, this week wore T-shirts displaying a picture of a fetus and the words, “Abortion Kills Kids.” School officials apparently told them to cover up the shirts or face punishment.
The ICLU said that the fact that these girls attend Roosevelt High School is particularly ironic because the school was the site of a famous 1960s lawsuit involving the right of students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. That lawsuit, Tinker v. Des Moines, was also brought by the ICLU.
The 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tinker, which affirmed the right of students to wear the armbands, to this day is invoked to protect the right of students like the Chandlers to express their views, so long as their speech does not “materially and substantially interfere with the learning environment.”
“This case clearly demonstrates the beauty of the First Amendment,” Stone said. “A case brought by the ICLU in the 1960s to defend the rights of anti-war protesters is being used 35 years later to defend the rights of students who oppose abortion. When you defend the rights of one person to speak, you defend the rights of all to speak.”
Other ACLU affiliates across the country are currently involved in similar cases. Earlier this month in Missouri, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a 15-year-old student who was punished for wearing a homemade T-shirt displaying the message, “I Support Gay Rights!” And in Florida, the Broward County School Board agreed last week to amend school rules after the ACLU came to the defense of a student who was punished for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt.
The ICLU, which staunchly defends the reproductive rights of women, also has a long track record of defending the rights of anti-abortion and conservative Christian groups.
In 1990, the Iowa affiliate of the ACLU successfully represented an anti-abortion group in a dispute with Iowa City over an unconstitutional parade ordinance. In 1995, a conservative Christian activist, Elaine Jaquith of Waterloo, had her rights vindicated by the ICLU in a case involving her free speech rights on public access television. Conservative Christians in Clarke County in 1997 won the right to force a county referendum on gambling after the ICLU took up their case.
In addition, the ICLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in 2002 in support of the right of students in Davenport schools to distribute Christian literature, including Bibles, during non-instructional time. The school eventually backed down and allowed the literature to be distributed.
“When the ACLU and ICLU say we defend everyone’s rights, we mean it,” said Stone.
For more information on the ACLU’s work defending religious liberty, go to “”.
If that wasn’t the worst, the ACLU pokes it’s nose into the business of small town government on behalf of another disruptive pro-lifer!
ACLU backs abortion protester cited for graphic poster
By The Associated Press
06.25.02
Printer-friendly page
CLEVELAND
Honestly, Jill, the ACLU is the enemy? Are we talking about the same ACLU that defends constitutional rights for everyone, liberal and conservative alike, including the rights of folks like you to protest and annoy the rest of us with your holier-than-thou attitude and your really large, disgusting and misleading images?
The ACLU is one of few organizations that work continually to prevent this country from becoming a totalitarian state, one where many of our rights would be at the whim of local, state, and federal government. To call it the enemy is to call the Constitution of the United States a worthless piece of paper, and it is an insult to the founding fathers of this country.
You never fail to amaze me with your extreme and ignorant views, Jill, but I guess I should have learned by now.
OHNOEZZZ!! Money to the ACLU?
You mean… the very same organization that protects and fights for your right to wave bloody baby dolls in people’s faces and harass contractors on their property lines?
Yes, the same ACLU that sues schools for prayers at graduation and students wearing prolife tshirts, and hanging The Ten Commandments in a courthouse…yes, that ACLU.
Oh, and the manger scenes…let’s not forget the manger scenes in public places that might “offend.”
Thank God for the ACLU.
Hal,
I don’t think it’s PC to say God and ACLU in the same sentence. I’ll have to check with my lawyer and get back to you.
Carla, that’s what makes it funny.
Seriously, though, I think we should all be able to support the ACLU. Even if you like the Ten Commandments, you should be able to understand why they don’t belong in a public building. Even if you don’t like the Nazi’s, you should be able to understand why they have a right to march. And, even if you don’t like pro-life t-shirts in school, we can all understand why students have the right to wear them.
The ACLU does not like Christians. Most of the time they are very ANTI Christian. And if I wanted to wear a pro life shirt, I’d ask the Thomas More Law Center or Alliance Defend Fund for help for my rights, not an organization that has been known to want to stop a small prayer at a graduation ceremony.
Yes, the same ACLU that sues schools for prayers at graduation and students wearing prolife tshirts, and hanging The Ten Commandments in a courthouse…yes, that ACLU.
Posted by: Carla at June 12, 2008 11:08 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (4/29/2005)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org
DES MOINES — The Iowa Civil Liberties Union today blasted school officials for threatening to punish two teenage girls who wore anti-abortion T-shirts to school. The group also offered to assist the students in their quest to continue wearing the shirts at school.
“These students had their free speech rights violated, and the ICLU stands ready to defend them,” said Ben Stone, Executive Director of the ICLU. “This appears to be a clear case of government abuse of power, and it must be stopped.”
Hal,
That was funny!! :) So what shall we do about The Ten Commandments on The Supreme Court building? hhhhmmmmm
Hal,
That was funny!! :) So what shall we do about The Ten Commandments on The Supreme Court building? hhhhmmmmm
Posted by: Carla at June 12, 2008 11:33 AM
Use them as a reminder of how much progress we have made since that building was constructed.
Gee, Christianity Today – “A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction,” – has a lot of lovely things to say about the ACLU:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/22.64.html
Carla, when has the ACLU ever worked against students wearing right-to-life T-shirts? Link please. On the contrary, the ACLU SUPPORTS students rights to wear right-to-life T-shirts. See Laura’s post immediately above this one.
LizfromNebraska, you are mistaken when you write “The ACLU does not like Christians.” In fact the ACLU is one of the most active organizations SUPPORTING the rights of Christians in the USA. I think you have this silly idea (“The ACLU does not like Christians”) because the ACLU opposes efforts by SOME Christians to force others to worship as they do.
Carla, you don’t like the ACLU because it won’t let you force your Christianist views and practices on the rest of us on public property? In that case, it is the Constitution you don’t like, not the ACLU, both of which, incidentally, ensure that you are free to practice your own religion in any way you like, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
If you really want the ten commandments in your courthouse, then perhaps you should try a different country, like one with a state religion. The rest of us are here because our ancestors fled tyranny and state religions, and we don’t intend to let someone like you drag us back to the bad old days.
In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate (4/17/2002)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RICHMOND, VA–A federal judge has struck down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating, in a challenge filed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell and joined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, the group announced today.
“The judge applied well established constitutional principles to reach the conclusion that Virginia’s archaic ban on church incorporation cannot pass constitutional muster,” said Rebecca Glenberg, Legal Director of the ACLU of Virginia.
The ACLU joined the lawsuit as a “friend of the court” last fall, challenging the ban on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise of religion.
Judge Norman K. Moon agreed, and yesterday ordered the State Corporation Commission to grant Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church a corporate charter.
Virginia is the only state in the nation that bans incorporation by religious institutions (other than West Virginia, which was still part of Virginia at the time the provisions were adopted). Virginia churches are governed by trustees appointed by Circuit Court judges. Virginia does not prohibit incorporation by charitable non-profit organizations that are not religious in nature.
Virginia law also places restrictions on the amount of land a church may own. Falwell has challenged these provisions in court as well, and the ACLU hopes to be able to argue in court that Virginia’s land restrictions are also unconstitutional.
“Virginia’s 18th-century lawmakers had good intentions when they decided not to allow churches to incorporate,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. “At that time only the General Assembly had the power to grant corporate status, and the framers of the Constitution did not want a political body deciding which religious institutions would be allowed to incorporate and which ones would not. That would hardly be a good start for the still novel idea of religious freedom.”
“But that was long before the modern concept of incorporation, which is an administrative rather than political process,” added Willis. “The old law, placed in the modern context, discriminates against religious institutions by denying them the same opportunity to incorporate as other similar institutions.”
Yes, the ACLU helped Jerry Falwell – seen below apparently couseling some drunken harlot in the ways of temperence, chastity, and righteousness:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/Fallwell%20and%20Jill%20iii.jpg
Oh, sue me.
Let’s keep it civil, Laura. I suspect you probably intended sarcasm with the drunken harlot thing, but I read it as more of a slam, and an unfounded one at that.
Ray, if Jill isn’t a slut, why did she get pregnant outside of marriage?
Carla, I am waiting for you to show some evidence for your claim that the ACLU worked against high-school students who wanted to wear right-to-life T-shirts. I think that’s a slander.
Those of you who wish to live in countries where God makes the laws should move to Iran. Or Afganistan. Or Saudi Arabia.
Let’s not go there SoMG and Laura. not classy. Take the high road.
To all:
I think the wonderful thing about the ACLU is, when they’re on your side, they’re your BESTEST FRIENDS! They’re SO super awesome! Go liberty! Go America! Go Constitution!! But the very second they support a cause you happen to disagree with, they get smacked with whatever negative label suits you, whether it be “left wing”, “right wing”, etc etc.
The fact is, the reason why they are SO important to us all as individuals, is that they don’t give a ****** what ANYONE says about them, because they know the second that person needs them, they’ll be best buddies. They will never cave to negative publicity or pandering.
Some of the things they defend make me cringe, but thats part of living in a FREE country. There will always be people who use their freedom in ways we don’t all agree with. But then again, there is always someone out there who believes the opposite.
If you have a problem with that, there are PLENTY of countries you could move to where no one has civil liberty at all. You can’t have it both ways.
——————————————————–edited by carder 06/12/08 2:23 pm
Laura, SOMG,
I think “hypocrite” would be a much more accurate and appropriate term.
But that’s just me. =)
I *HATE* the word “slut”.
Let’s keep it civil, Laura. I suspect you probably intended sarcasm with the drunken harlot thing, but I read it as more of a slam, and an unfounded one at that.
Posted by: Ray at June 12, 2008 12:05 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It was supposed to be a funny joke – you know, sarcasm? Irony?
It’s only a slam when you feature an actual drunken whore:
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/08/12/hilton12807_narrowweb__300x438,0.jpg
Ray, Hal, thank you for the heads up.
Laura, SoMG, we want to keep you on board.
Some courtesy, por favor.
Carder, you’re a level-headed sweety.
OK, yes, you’re right, I don’t really know anything at all about Jill’s sex life. The very thought disgusts me–it makes me feel like Jack Nicholson in THE SHINING when he kisses the female ghost in the bathroom of Room 237 and suddenly catches sight of her back in the mirror and it’s a rotting corpse.
I did not see Laura’s post on the tshirts. A thousand pardons. I was wrong.
I found articles on manger scenes, Ten Commandments and Graduation Prayers, but I can’t seem to get them posted.
Ya know, I do have PB and J sammiches to make, 4 cherubs to get in the pool and a girl that needs a ride to soccer. :)
Recently the ACLU threatened the County of Los Angeles with a lawsuit, alleging that the presence of the cross on the county seal violates the constitutional separation of church and state. This was not an endorsement of religion, but rather a historical symbol of the history there. It was VERY TINY (see here: http://www.markdroberts.com/images/LACountySeal-t.jpg)
The ACLU wanted to remove it. They thought it was an endorsement of Christianity.
LFN, LA County agreed to remove the cross, as I recall.
Personally, I wouldn’t have advise a suit over the small cross on the flag, but I don’t lose my respect for the ACLU over this one position taken by one chapter. In general, I agree with the ACLU almost all of the time, and when we disagree, I’m open to the possibility that they know the first amendment issues better than I do. They are really a vital organization.
Ray:11:42 Carla, you don’t like the ACLU because it won’t let you force your Christianist views and practices on the rest of us on public property? In that case, it is the Constitution you don’t like, not the ACLU, both of which, incidentally, ensure that you are free to practice your own religion in any way you like, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
How is my practice of religion infringing your rights? Is the line into the church parking lot blocking your driveway? (Oh, wait, I hear the ACLU coming!)
Does the cross on the wall of the courthouse or where ever, sear your forehead when you look at it?
The Constitution protects our right TO religion, not FROM religion.
If you really want the ten commandments in your courthouse, then perhaps you should try a different country, like one with a state religion.
How quickly you forget the right to freedom of religion. That’s why the pilgrims came here right?
The rest of us are here because our ancestors fled tyranny and state religions, and we don’t intend to let someone like you drag us back to the bad old days.
For the majority of inhabitants of the U.S. are religious, so why their ancestors came here is irrelevant to them today.
Those who preach tolerance, tend to be the most intolerant people of all unless you believe exactly what they do. Why is it that the majority doesn’t get their way?. Isn’t that what the U.S. is about?
Ah, thanks Janet. I was too tired today to even respond to that. :)
Ya know, I do have PB and J sammiches to make, 4 cherubs to get in the pool and a girl that needs a ride to soccer. :)
Love it, Carla. My wife (a Carla too) is right here, doing the treadmill, and tomorrow we leave for a family get-together at Lake Erie, up by Toledo, OH.
There will be a crillion kids going all over the place….
Ah, thanks Janet. I was too tired today to even respond to that. :)
Posted by: Carla at June 12, 2008 8:54 PM
My pleasure. Now, get some rest.
Doug,
Have an awesome weekend!! Kiss the kids. Kiss your Carla. I have NEVER met another Carla who spells it with a C. Cool.
Janet,
Yes, I am calling it a night. Talk some more tomorrow I am sure!
Janet, you wrote: “The Constitution protects our right TO religion, not FROM religion.”
Actually the Constitution does neither of these things; it prohibits Congress from “…mak[ing a] law concerning the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The “free exercise” of religion is interpreted to include non-religion.
SoMG:10:42: Janet, you wrote: “The Constitution protects our right TO religion, not FROM religion.”
Actually the Constitution does neither of these things; it prohibits Congress from “…mak[ing a] law concerning the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The “free exercise” of religion is interpreted to include non-religion.
That’s a stretch in my book. How can you practice something that doesn’t exist?
What you are implying is freedom FROM religion.
Assuming that is true,if someone who desires to practice non-religion causes sues to remove signs of my religion like a nativity they are interfering with my rights. And a putting a nativity up for a month out of each year hardly qualifies as an establishing of a religion by Congress. A nativity has become a secular decoration in today’s society.
This is all silly, semantics, justifying intolerance of one group over the other.
correction @ 11:25: this second paragraph should start with:
Assuming that is true,if someone who desires to practice non-religion …… sues
remove “causes” before the word “sues”.
Putting up a nativity in your church or on your property is your business. But using tax payer funded space or time to put one up in the county courthouse becomes a state endorsement of religion. Which is unconstitutional whether it’s Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, Allah, Yahweh, Loki or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Participate in a state sponsored event, like an art contest, and you can create that same statue of any of the above named divinities and display them in the same courthouse.
It’s a very fine line of discrimination, but a very important one. As this example makes clear, it’s not freedom from religion, but no state sponsorship/endorsement of any particular religion.
While a Christmas Tree and its many incarnations (Yule tree, Hanukah bush, Soltice Tree) may be seen as secular, a Nativity is certainly not – ubiquitous plastic lawn ornaments available at Walmart notwithstanding.
phylo: 11:38:Putting up a nativity in your church or on your property is your business. But using tax payer funded space or time to put one up in the county courthouse becomes a state endorsement of religion. Which is unconstitutional whether it’s Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, Allah,………
Ridiculous. Most of the decorations are inexpensive, simple to put up, and already paid for. How much time and money is wasted in the court system trying to eliminate these things.
It’s a very fine line of discrimination, but a very important one. As this example makes clear, it’s not freedom from religion, but no state sponsorship/endorsement of any particular religion.
Perfect choice of word – “discrimination”.
“Establishment” is not the same as sponsorship/endorsement. Forcing a municipality to neither sponsor nor endorse any religion promotes intolerance of religion. “Non-religion has no outward signs for the religion supporters to object to.. It’s one-sided intolerance, IMO.
If our founding fathers had told immigrants to leave their religion on the gang planks of their ships, most people would have turned around and gone back to the mother-country. We’ve taken intolerance of religion to the extreme in our country.
I don’t care if people practice religion, but I do NOT want to walk into a court room or ANY government building and see crosses, the 10 Commandments, or Bible verses.
This is NOT a theocracy. I personally, feel threatened and uncomfortable in places where there are a lot of religious symbols. And what with Rep. Monique Davis screaming at that poor atheist for expressing his views, I have good reason to feel uncomfortable.
The government is NOT the place to force your religious beliefs on others. You have PLENTY of churches and yards and private businesses to sell and display your symbols. Stay out of the government and its institutions.
Now most especially it is most important to prevent government from mixing with religion.
The muslims are coming. If strict separation of all religious institutions from the state is not restored and maintained, American Christians will have to pay Jizya (special tax on non-muslims).
The fact that US tax dollars are going to openly-religious muslim schools frightens and offends me. Doesn’t it frighten and offend you?
Janet wrote:
Ridiculous. Most of the decorations are inexpensive, simple to put up, and already paid for. How much time and money is wasted in the court system trying to eliminate these things.
Phylosopher responded:
So will you be paying the overtime for the custodial staff to put up the Ramadan or the Hanukah decorations this year?
Janet furhter criticized:
Perfect choice of word – “discrimination”.
Phylosopher resp:
per dictionary.com: the power of making fine distinctions
Janet said:
Establishment” is not the same as sponsorship/endorsement. Forcing a municipality to neither sponsor nor endorse any religion promotes intolerance of religion. “Non-religion has no outward signs for the religion supporters to object to.. It’s one-sided intolerance, IMO.
phylosopher resp:
How does it promote intolerance? No one is seeking to stop any church or mosque from its worship, decorating, landscaping, erecting statues, etc outside the gov’t property. For that matter, it protects said organizations from harassment, from paying taxes, and from many other requirements – medical, military, educational, based on religious objections.
I have no doubt in my mind, all of you will become the ACLU’s best friend when the rapidly growing Muslim communities in this country start applying for permits to build monuments to the Koran and other aspects of the Muslim religion in their neighborhoods, or trying to have a Ramadan feast on state property.
Amanda,
Don’t Muslims do that already in some cities?
As someone who grew up in a Muslim city, no they do not. In fact, it’s funny how much the state restricts what Muslims do. All the Muslims lived on one half – and they could celebrate at community centers and so forth, but they could not put up their symbols in county buildings, or phrases from the Koran… they were all shoved off to one half of the city and the white people lived on the other half.
The most liberty they got in the public sphere was that the school system allowed for 2 days off for Ramadan. Of course, they had to, since those students wouldn’t have shown up and our school would have been counted as closed for the day anyway. (If a certain amount of students don’t show up, it’s automatically not a school day. Who knows what it actually is.)
For the most part, they kept their religious symbolism in their homes, their mosques, and in their privately owned businesses, where it belongs.
Thanks Edyt. I learn something new everyday.
Do you feel the ACLU goes a little overboard with the Christmas thing? The songs, manger scenes, the colors red and green in schools?
Yes. I can find the links cause I looked them all up yesterday but they wouldn’t post.
Carla, if the ACLU did in fact try to keep the colors and and green out of school at Christmas time, then perhaps they’ve gone a bit too far. Still, there is no reason for any of that stuff to be in public schools anyway. And as Barry Goldwater famously said:
Extremism in the Defense of Liberty Is No Vice
Carla,
Personally, I don’t care about Christmas decorations. If kids want to celebrate Christmas in school, decorate with red and green and whatever, then they can go ahead. I do think it has the effect to isolate students of different religions, though, so I’m not surprised by the animosity toward it. But I don’t take it personally myself.
A solution might be to also decorate the school with other religious beliefs, like Kwanzaa, or Hanukkah, or even Ramadan, if it happens to fall around November/December.* That way students get to have a multicultural holiday celebration. Educational and fun.
*Ramadan is actually a month-long celebration, but since Muslims go by lunar months, it’s at a different time every year. This year it’s during September, but a few years ago it fell around Christmastime.
Ok. Just wondering.
I am grateful to live in a community that is quite conservative. It’s called Christmas. We celebrate Christmas with trees in school and Silent Night and Away in a Manger sung at the school concerts. Well, until one person is “offended” I guess. :)
My daughter brought her Bible to school and read it to her class. With teacher’s permission of course. My children do not “check their faith” at the school door and I do not believe other children should either.
Carla,
A person cannot be asked to “check their faith” anywhere. Their faith will always remain with them, wherever they are.
The purpose of prohibiting religious symbolism in public buildings is that it is always exclusive to certain people, whether that’s atheists, Muslims, Hindus, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster….
It’s not offensive, it’s just exclusive. And in government, I don’t think any of the people should be excluded. That’s what religious symbolism has a tendency to do.
It’s implied Edyt. The hostility towards people of Christian faith grows. I see it on this site everyday.
I taught middle school. There was always a Bible on my desk, I prayed during my lunch hour and set up a Bible Study after school with fellow teachers. I was asked quite a few times WHY I would do such things, the Superintendent came and talked to me about it. I knew what my rights were in the workplace when it came to my faith and my children know theirs as well.
When my daughter was in first grade she told a little friend that she loved God. The friend told her she couldn’t say God in school. Um. Yes. She. Can.
I do enjoy chatting with you Edyt. You are another smart girly with a lot to share. I have learned a lot from you and I appreciate it when you are honest about how you see things.
Carla:1:48: When my daughter was in first grade she told a little friend that she loved God. The friend told her she couldn’t say God in school. Um. Yes. She. Can.
Yes she can! Good for her. Your story reminds me of one when my daughter was little. She was in kindergarten, and we were talking about her day at (Catholic) school. She said, “Mom, they REALLY love God there!”. It made my day.
Oh, that’s awesome, Janet!!! :)
Carla: 6:48: I thought so too!!! :)
Carla 1:48: It’s implied Edyt. The hostility towards people of Christian faith grows. I see it on this site everyday.
I taught middle school. There was always a Bible on my desk, I prayed during my lunch hour and set up a Bible Study after school with fellow teachers. I was asked quite a few times WHY I would do such things, the Superintendent came and talked to me about it. I knew what my rights were in the workplace when it came to my faith and my children know theirs as well.
Can I ask you what state you were teaching in at the time? I didn’t know that was allowed in the public schools. Good to hear!